Minutes of the October 11, 2000 Faculty Senate Meeting




King, Babcock, Allison, Rogers




Senators (Elected):

Graham, Redfern, Warnock, Wolf, Brady, Cochran, Freund, Holyfield, James, Kennedy, Lieber, MacRae, Neuse, Peven, Ricker, Schroeder, Denny, Lyle, Neighbors, Dennis, Hall, Killenbeck, Bailey, Cordes, Curington, Gay, Hanlin, Dale Johnson, Kral, Norwood, Roland, Springer




Senators (Admin.):











Senators (Elected):

Wall, Don Johnson, Oliver, Gupta, Knowles, W. Lee, McKinnon, White, Farley, Nutter, Caldwell, R. Lee, Musick




Senators (Admin.):

White, Scifres, Shannon, Woods, Williams, Dutton, Stegman, Loewer, Geren, Moberly, Henderson Allen



John King called the meeting to order at 3:33 PM.




It was moved and seconded to approve the agenda with an amendment that the announcements will be given at the beginning of the meeting. motion passes




It was moved and seconded to approve the minutes of 9/13/00 motion passes




Old Business




Appointment, Promotion & Tenure Committee Tabled Report - Paul Cronan presented several changes to the APT process that were delineated in the document that is posted on the Faculty Senate web sites at: http://www.uark.edu/depts/facsen/AgendaMinutes.htm.  It was stated that the APT committee is still meeting with Provost Smith and that it is hoped that a final draft of this document will be in place by the November FS meeting.  Also members of the Faculty Senate have made some editorial suggestions and these would be considered for the final document.  Some suggestions from the Dean of Walton College have been incorporated.  These will be pointed out at this meeting.  As a point of note there is a Board of Trustees policy 405.1 that covers all UofA campuses including the Faculty Senate policy.  Current editorial changes include changing the "Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs" to "Provost".  There is also reference to a "Unit Committee".  The "Unit" should elect this unit committee.  It was the intent of the committee that the procedures for APT be uniform throughout the colleges and schools of the university. 


Board Policy suggested changes that were discussed in this meeting are bolded in the APT document.  Those that resulted in discussion during the FS meeting are as follows:

IV.A.3: changed from budgeted to granted.

IV.A.11.  A substantive change is noted stating that a candidate may not be reconsidered during the 7th year.  Discussion of this point was that this was not currently evenly offered throughout the university.  Also this statement would completely halt any consideration during the 7th year.  It was the intent of the APT committee that either everyone has a chance to do this or nobody shall have the chance.  It should be applied evenly.

IV.B.  The change in statement in this section was due to the fact that tenure is appointed in a unit.  Also the statement "or with another group" should either be deleted or changed to "by another group".  The intent of the committee was to open this up to the faculty in order to be perfectly fair - essentially a check and balance of the procedure.

V. The assignment workload refers to % teaching, % research, and % committee workload assignments.  Concern regarding that these numbers may change during the year was expressed depending on enrollment changes, OCDA, etc.  The intent of this document is that this would be taken into account during the year.  This statement came as a suggestion from Dean Williams.  The timing for this takes into consideration that once annual evaluations are given, the workload assignments should be given.

UofA Fayetteville, Campus Policy:

II. The statement that the annual review should be related to the annual faculty workload assignment was placed in the document because some units are not currently doing this.

II.B.2 Suggestions from Dean Williams with respect to the dates were noted.

II.B.3 "for promotion purposes" was added.  Discussion that this section is for annual review and not for promotion and that these words should be deleted.

II.B.6. "Hereafter referred to as the unit committee" can be deleted but was included to be consistent.

III.B.2 and 6. Dates are being consistent were reviewed for persons up for promotion and tenure.

III.B.8.  The statement that no new material can be submitted was discussed.  The intent is that even if the chair has a letter/document that s/he would like included this cannot be done without the knowledge of the candidate. 

III.B.8.c - The annual workload assignments should be included.  This is consistent with the board policy V discussed above.

III.B.8.g - A substantive change is that a minimum of 3 letters must be included but that a minimum of six reviews must be solicited.  It was the intent that all letters received be included.  However the intent of doubling the number of solicited reviews was only to ensure that there would be 3 reviews in a candidate's package.  Also the choice of reviewers to be included should come from the candidate (2), the chairperson (2) and jointly between the chairperson and the candidate (2).   Concerning the statement "at peer institutions", Provost Smith stated that there is value to having candidates reviewed by persons at peer institutions.  However, this would not preclude persons in outstanding departments or units at other universities, government positions, etc that are leaders in their field. 

Concern regarding that these letters should speak to the scholarship of the person and not whether the outside reviewers should have a voice with respect to whether the candidate should get promoted and tenured at the UofA was voiced.  The latter would essentially be letting someone outside of the UofA decide on whom the UofA should tenure.

III.B.9.  Provost Smith stated that votes and comments from the units could be valuable in evaluating a candidate. 

It was stated that in the Fulbright College a candidate could make an appeal of a chair's recommendation before it goes to the dean.  The time frame listed here would make that impossible.  Paul Cronan stated that this was overlooked.  Also the unit committee at the department level can be the tenured faculty for promotion with tenure consideration.

III.B.11. Some concern regarding the timing of the November 15 date is noted.  The rational for this statement is that if the chair decides to inform the candidate on Nov. 15 then this would not give enough time for the candidate to appeal.

III.B.12.  Discussion that all of the material that is considered for promotion must come from the candidate.  This precludes the chair from including anything else in the package.  Paul Cronan stated that this was the intent of the committee and that this is consistent with III.B.8.


A suggestion to change the dates to number of days with the key date being when the document is due to the chancellor from the provost.


III.B.21. Provost Smith stated that this is very restrictive and perhaps not to the benefit of the candidate.  The concern stated by the Faculty Senate members that the packet should be judged and without respect to other influences.  It was noted that last year the chancellor met with the deans but also that one dean also met with a group. 


It was moved and seconded to table the document until the November meeting.  motion passes.

John King thanked Paul Cronan and the CAPT members for their substantual effort on this document.



New Business










Page Mackey from the Make a Difference campaign requested that increased involvement for Habitat for Humanity was requested.  If interested contact J. Page Mackey at mackey@uark.edu.

Nominations for the Faculty Senates' Campus Council representatives should be sent to John King ASAP.




Moved and seconded to adjourn at 5:05 - motion passes.



John King, Chair;

Neil Allison, Secretary.

Minutes approved: 11/8/00