Agenda
Faculty Senate
November 20, 2002

Engineering Hall, Room 209
3:30 p.m.


I. Call to Order: Dennis Brewer, Chair

II. Approval of Agenda

III. Approval of Minutes: October 16, 2002

http://www.uark.edu/depts/facsen/facsen2002to2003/fsminutes101602.html

IV. Reports

A. Provost's Report

V. Old Business

A. APT Committee Recommendation (part #3 from April meeting)

From April 17, 2002 Minutes:

Part 3) Other non-APT-specified groups/bodies/ committees or individuals. The addition of this section dictates that the Chancellor, Provost, and Deans are expected to make their decisions on promotion and tenure based on the provided candidate’s packet. During Q&A Provost Smith inquired whether a Provost could consult with a Dean of the candidate’s college. Phil Taylor stated that this would, in his opinion, be within the guidelines of the APT document, but that it would not be appropriate to send out a candidate’s packet to all of the Deans of several colleges.

It was mentioned that in the past, some committees not specified in the APT document were formed inappropriately thus resulting in this section being added to the document.

Phil Taylor stated that this provision would not preclude Deans, Provost, etc. to receive generic information, i.e. whether a journal was indeed nationally recognized as stated in a packet, etc. But it would not be appropriate to get specific information regarding a specific journal article of a person under review.

Provost Smith stated that since his term here, the files of candidates have not been shared. However, this provision would tie his hands with respect to meeting with a dean and a chair who had opposing opinions. Phil Taylor then stated that the APT committee requested cooperation in drafting this document from the Provost’s office. Since nothing was forthcoming, this document was then brought back to the Faculty Senate. It was stated that procedural guidelines were drafted but the Provost’s office was advised by UA counsel that this might open up liability issues.

It was moved and seconded to table this third section of the motion. It was moved and seconded to amend this motion that the report on the third section will be brought back to the Faculty Senate in September 2002.

Amended motion passes
Motion to table passes by a vote of 16 to 8.

APT Committee recommendations can be found at: http://www.uark.edu/depts/facsen/AgendaMinutes/2001-2002/2002Apr/APT%20CommitteeTenure.pdf

VI. New Business

A. Consent Agenda

1. Approved by the Graduate Council: Program name change proposal: Masters of Science in Biological and Agricultural Engineering to Biological Engineering - http://www.uark.edu/depts/facsen/facsen2002to2003/1bengms112002.pdf (approved on 10/17/02)

2. Approved by the Graduate Council: Program change in required electives proposal: Masters of Transportation and Logistics Management - http://www.uark.edu/depts/facsen/facsen2002to2003/2TLOGMT112002.pdf (approved on 10/17/02)

3. Approved by the Graduate Council: Policy proposal: Graduate Student Dismissal Policy - http://www.uark.edu/depts/facsen/facsen2002to2003/3gradstddismis112002.pdf (approved on 10/17/02)

4. Approved by the Graduate Council: Policy proposal: Master’s Thesis Defense - http://www.uark.edu/depts/facsen/facsen2002to2003/4MAThesisDefense112002.pdf (approved on 10/17/02)

5. Approved by the University Course and Programs Committee: Program addition of an off-campus site: Bachelor of Science of Education in Vocational Education, Human Resource Development Concentration (approved on 10/25/02)

6. Approved by the University Course and Programs Committee: Course listing and copy of curriculum change forms for October - http://www.uark.edu/depts/facsen/facsen2002to2003/6UG courselist112002.pdf (approved on 10/25/02)

B. Committee on Appointment, Promotion & Tenure – Deborah Thomas

1. Recommended to the Faculty Senate as approved by the University Committee on Appointment, Promotion & Tenure, October 28, 2002:

Change in "Evaluative Criteria, Procedures and General Standards for Initial Appointment, Successive Appointments, Annual and Post-Tenure Review, Promotion and Tenure (as revised August 20, 2001)

Revision to Paragraph III. B. 8. g. A minimum of three letters from impartial (e.g. who lack a familial relationship with the candidate, who lack a former student/teacher relationship with the candidate, and who lack any apparent or actual conflict of interest) outsider reviewers (persons who possess appropriate expertise to assess the candidate’s professional accomplishments) at peer institutions will be included. During the outside reviewer selection process, outside reviewers suggested by the candidate will be considered. At the onset of the outside reviewer selection process, the candidate shall receive a written invitation to provide a written list of three to six potential reviewers with a brief rationale for each nominee. The list of potential reviewers provided by the candidate shall become part of the tenure and promotion packet. The candidate shall receive (a) written notification of the final list of invited reviewers and (b) a written invitation to comment on the selected reviewers, including comments on the qualifications of selected reviewers. Before the tenure and/or promotion packet advances beyond the level at which the outsider letters are solicited, the candidate’s written commentary, if any, shall become part of the official application packet for tenure and/or promotion. All review responses should be included in the packet as well as a short vita from the outside reviewers. These responses should be based on the evaluator’s knowledge of the complete record of the candidate, including a description of responsibilities with a breakdown of teaching, research and service assignments during the period.

2. Recommended to the Faculty Senate as approved by the University Committee on Appointment, Promotion & Tenure, October 28, 2002:

Change in "Evaluative Criteria, Procedures and General Standards for Initial Appointment, Successive Appointments, Annual and Post-Tenure Review, Promotion and Tenure (as revised August 20, 2001)

Additional Paragraph III. B. 23. At each level of review, the faculty member shall be advised of the reasons that contributed to the decision. The procedures described above are the complete and regular procedures. It is anticipated that they will be followed. However, if any decision maker or reviewing body chooses to supplement these procedures with the application of a special standard or a supplementary procedure or consultation beyond the application file, the person or group shall document such a supplementation with a written description in the tenure and promotion file. Prior to the file advancing beyond the level at which the supplementation occurred, the candidate shall be notified in writing of the supplementation to the prescribed procedures approved by the Board of Trustees and provided the opportunity of responding in writing. The candidate’s response shall become part of the official tenure and promotion packet.

VII. Announcements

Faculty Holiday Reception, Thursday, December 12

VIII. Executive Session – Committee of the Whole.

Consideration of Honorary Degrees - Committee Recommendations - Gary Ferrier

IX. Adjourn