The April 2019 Meeting

Wednesday, April 17, 3:30-5:00pm
Schwartz Auditorium, Rockefeller Hall

Leave comments below in case you did not get a chance to speak or if you think a particular topic needs further discussion.


Call-to-Order  [2 mins]

Sam Nelson (Speaker)

Announcements [13 min]

Charles Van Loan (Dean of Faculty)

Sense of the Senate Votes [10 mins]


Policy 6.4 Procedures [15  mins]

Mary Opperman (Vice President, Human Resources)
John Siliciano (Deputy Provost)
Draft for Stakeholder Review

Social Science Review [30 mins]

Melissa Ferguson (Professor, Psychology)
Chris Wildeman (Professor, Policy Analysis and Management)
Mike Kotlikoff (Provost)
John Siliciano (Deputy Provost)
President/Provost Letter to the Faculty

Discussion and Resolution Voting [15 min]

Consent Items
Authorizing the title Research Professor in Arts& Sciences [text, slides]
On Nonacademic Staff Teaching Courses  [text, slides]

Good and Welfare [5 min]

3 thoughts on “The April 2019 Meeting

  1. Question: Does the “Resolution on Titleholder Requirements for Those Who Teach Courses for Credit” apply to Summer session courses? We have non-academic Ph.D.’s teaching non-graduate classes that provide credit. Is this disallowed?

  2. The Draft Policy 6.4 Procedures for Employees (dated 3.21.19) is much improved in creating a process specifically designed to consider academic freedom issues, with participation by the Senate Academic Freedom and Professional Status Committee. The draft Policy 6.4 is also much improved by providing due process through information sharing in the investigation process and an extensive hearing process.

    I hope the Faculty Senate and others involved in this policy-making will discuss the points raised in the following comments. There are, of course, other issues for discussion, but I would like to highlight two issues here:

    1. I believe that the hearing panel for faculty should consist of faculty only, to provide for peer review in a hearing that could result in serious employment repercussions, including dismissal. (see p. 34 of the draft) The process for appointing faculty on the hearing panel and for appointing the Chair of the hearing panel should be determined through faculty governance processes, not by the university administration. The Faculty Senate should determine the appointment process that will be used, for example, appointments/selection of hearing panels and panel chairs from a pool of faculty elected by the faculty. See, Similarly, the staff hearing panels could consist only of staff to provide for peer review in serious employment matters.

    2. There are problems with the proposed deadline for the parties submitting “mitigation/impact” statements (p. 37 of the draft) by the start of a hearing. It seems far more logical and fair to give the parties the opportunity to submit such statements after the hearing decision has been issued. Such a statement is relevant to sanctions, if those are called for, depending on the hearing outcome.

    Risa Lieberwitz
    ILR School
    Faculty Senator

  3. Returning to the Sense of the Senate resolution #2 regarding applicants attesting to having written their essays: I agree that we should have such a statement, however to support the proposed resolution I would need to add that this does not preclude an applicant seeking and getting critical advice about their essay., and that substantive advice that is followed needs to be acknowledged.
    Carl Franck, Faculty Senator from Physics

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.