Minutes_1_17

Meeting Minutes + Appendices of January 17, 2006
Minutes taken by Valerie Hardcastle
32 Pamplin Hall

Senators in attendance: Anderson, Arditti, Balci, Berry, Breitschmid, Brumberger, Carrig, Collier, Denton, Easterling, Ehrich, Ericksson, Evans, Eyre, Grene, Grisso, Hagen, Hardcastle, Harris, Kadlec, Kilkelly, Larson, Lener, Mann, McMillan, McQuain, Mihalik, Nelson, Nickols-Richardson, Odendaal, O’Keefe, Pearson, Pease, Pfeiffer, Pleasant, Redican, Rinehart, Schreiber, Singles, Standley, Stephens, Teulon, Vansberger, Viehland, Wood, Zahm, and Zajac.

1. Susanna called the meeting called to order at 7:05.

2. Agenda was approved.

3. December minutes approved.

4. Discussion of sabbatical leave document from ad hoc senate committee (see Appendices I and II below).

a. There are problems with research leave; there is no money for hire behinds. This is especially problematic in departments with heavy teaching loads. We need a way to cover instructional needs. We want to implement leaves across the university in uniform manner. In comparison to other top 30, we do not use leave program to the degree they do at all. We need to encourage more to participate in the program. It is a way to keep skills up-to-date or to change research directions. It is important for us to remain competitive. Significant concern was raised in surveys. We need to invest in laboratory capacities more to remain competitive. An additional problem: some don’t get raises when away on sabbatical.

b. Senate approved the report. The Senate officers will discuss it with the Provost at their next meeting.

a. Annual evaluations.

i. Report from Kerry: There are problems with consistency and whether correct procedures are followed that end up with reconciliation committee. We want to tighten upthe procedures. Report on survey taken last week: 62% of Senators surveyed said that only the department chair reviews their FARs; 79% meet with their department head to discuss review; 74% receive a letter from their chair; in 44% of the cases, the letter indicates range of dollar or percentage salary increases in the department. Suggestions for improvement received thus far: changing time frame between submission of FAR and meeting with chair; make raises truly merit based; more transparency in the process; clearer standards; more consistency.

ii. Discussion from the Senate floor: Department heads needs to be helped in writing letters. There was disagreement regarding whether letters should be included in dossier for P&T. Perhaps they should be a part of the supplemental material or available for college committee to request. We need to separate merit raise letter from annual evaluations. Perhaps there be a committee review at least every 3 or 5 years as a corrective force, instead of the proposed yearly cycle. Others think a committee evaluation every year is imperative. Perhaps we need to be evaluated over past three years of work, since raise pool is so volatile. We need to elect the faculty personnel committees because some are appointed. Suggestions for 2.8.2 need to go to different section in faculty handbook, one regarding P&T processes, not definitions.

b. Reconciliation committee revisions.

i. Report from Kerry and Ken: The goal is to clarify which issues fall under purview of committee. Special note that procedural violations are included in P&T procedural violations. Some in administration don’t like this suggestion, but reconciliation just looks at procedures, not at merit. We need to clarify that if Faculty Review Committee has the issue, then Reconciliation is no longer involved.

ii. The Senate approved new language for reconciliation committee. (See Appendix III below.)

6. Higher Education Advocacy Day. Report from Susan: Members of the Faculty Senate met with delegates Shuler and Nutter on 5 January. In general, the meetings were positive. Higher Education Advocacy Day on 12 Januaray was sponsored with AAUP and Faculty Senate of VA. There were good meetings with the delegates in Richmond. Delegate Nutter has introduced a bill for studying faculty competitiveness across peer institutions.

7. Meeting adjourned at 8:53.

Appendix I: Report of the 2006 Senate ad hoc Committee on “Sabbaticals”

The committee set out to study the strengths and weaknesses of the Study-Research Leave (SRL) and Research Assignment Leave (RAL) policies at VT, and to make recommendations for improving or replacing these policies.

The committee examined “sabbatical policies” at top 30 universities as well as VT peer institutions. Anecdotal evidence on experiences with the current VT leave policy was also discussed. Following are the ideas and proposals that have come out of the committee deliberations.

Basis of Faculty Leave Programs:

The purpose of Study-Research Leave and Research Assignment Leave is to ensure that faculty members are able to engage in intensive study to become more effective scholars and to enhance their contributions to the university over their careers.

Study-Research Leave and Research Assignment Leave are granted for the purpose of enhancing scholarly activities related to academic programs within the field of expertise of the faculty member or for the purpose of assisting the faculty member in transitioning to a new expertise within the current academic program.

A periodic leave program is considered by the large majority of Virginia Tech peer institutions and the large majority of top 30 institutions to be an essential component of faculty scholarly growth for all successful faculty.

The selection procedure for Study-Research Leave and Research Assignment Leave should not be a competition for the granting of such leave to a select few, but should be a control to assure that faculty applicants will obtain adequate scholarly benefit from the leave.

Granting faculty leave requires advanced planning to allow unit leaders (primarily department heads and department chairs) to organize and find temporary faculty to fill behind those granted leave.

Evaluation of Current Programs:

Strengths
1. The two tier (SRL and RAL) system in principle appears to serve well the varying needs and conditions of the diverse faculty at VT.
2. The two tier system is comparable, as a system; to “sabbatical programs” at the majority of top 30 and peer institutions.
3. In general, the SRL program functions well in part because salary savings are passed back to the department to fund replacements for faculty on leave. [The committee is not aware of SRL requests which advanced beyond the departmental level and were not successful, although a survey on this issue was not conducted.]

Weaknesses
1. The current SRL and RAL programs are underutilized by the VT faculty as compared to top 30 and VT peer institutions.
2. There is no organized system of university funding provided to departments to cover the cost of temporary faculty to cover the responsibilities of those on RAL.
3. Availability of faculty leave is not consistent across the departments of the university. This appears to be related to financial constraints and reduced number of faculty available to cover growing teaching needs and in some cases lack of qualified adjunct replacement faculty. In some departments, primary responsibility for dealing with academic constraints is placed on the faculty member requesting leave.
4. There is no stated provision in the present policy to inform faculty whose leave requests have been denied either of the reasons for the denial or of recommendations to strengthen a subsequent request.

Recommended Changes:

1. That unit leaders encourage faculty to consider Study-Research Leave and Research Assignment Leave as an important component in maintaining and enhancing their scholarship or transitioning to a new expertise within the current academic program.
2. That the provost formulate a plan to fund the temporary replacement of faculty on Research Assignment Leave.
3. That leave be granted to all faculty with proposals deemed to provide adequate scholarly benefit from the leave.
4. That leave which is denied at any level in the selection procedure will result in a letter of justification to the faculty member, with recommendations to enhance a subsequent application.
5. That the responsibility to replace the teaching, research and/or service missions of the faculty member on leave, as necessary for the department to continue the level of its commitments during the leave period, will rest primarily with the department administrator, and not with the individual faculty member.

Committee Members: Ron Pearson (chair), Leon Geyer, Bill Greenberg, Joel Nachlas, and Shelly Nickols-Richardson

Appendix II: Standard Practice Guide to Study-Research Leave and Research Assignment Leave

Purpose: To ensure that faculty members are able to engage in intensive study to become more effective scholars and to enhance their contributions to the University. Study-Research Leave and Research Assignment Leave are granted for the purpose of enhancing scholarly activities related to academic programs within the field of expertise of the faculty member or to assist the faculty member in transitioning to a new expertise within the current academic program.

Eligibility: Tenured faculty members, or faculty members on continued appointment, with the rank of assistant professor or higher, holding full-time faculty appointments and having accrued a minimum of six years service, are eligible to request Study-Research Leave or Research Assignment Leave. Following such leave, an additional six years service is necessary before a faculty member may be considered for another Research Assignment Leave or Study-Research Leave. However, after completion of any Study-Research Leave a faculty member may request a single semester of Study-Research Leave following three years of full-time service. If Study-Research Leave is taken as a sequence of semesters over several years, intervening periods of full-time appointment at Virginia Tech will accrue toward the six years service.

Plans Available:

1. Study-Research Leave: Leave is not to exceed one academic year (for faculty member on academic year appointment) or 12 months (for faculty member on calendar year appointment), or a sequence of semester leave periods not exceeding these limits in total. The faculty member will receive from the University financial support for partial salary (not to exceed one-half salary) and full employee benefits for that period. Recipients of a Study-Research Leave may receive additional compensation from other approved sources up to a total equal to their annual salary from the University. They may also obtain additional funds from external sources to cover expenses for travel, research, staff assistance, and the purchase of relevant equipment and materials. Engagement in consulting activities shall be consonant with existing University policy.

2. Research Assignment Leave: Leave is not to exceed one semester, and the faculty member will receive full salary and full employee benefits for that period. Recipients will take on no responsibilities for additional outside income except as provided in compliance with the University’s consulting policy. However, they may obtain additional funds from external sources to cover expenses for travel, research, staff assistance, and the purchase of relevant equipment and materials.

Application: Applicants must submit one copy of a letter of intent (application) to the department by November 1 of the year preceding the proposed leave. The letter of intent must include: (a) description of the proposed research or other scholarly project, the location of that activity and the relevance of the proposed activity in contributing to the faculty member’s own scholarly development and the academic mission of the University; (b) current vita (3 page maximum).

Review of Application: Each application must be reviewed by the appropriate Department Head, Chair, or Unit Leader. By November 15, the Department Head, Chair, or Unit Leader must send the application along with an approval letter to the appropriate Dean who will forward approved materials to the Provost by December 15. If the application is denied by the Department Head, Chair, or Unit Leader, a justification letter must be provided to the faculty member by November 15.

Conditions:

1. Temporary replacement faculty for faculty members on leave will be financed through a plan developed by the Provost.

2. The faculty member must return to full-time service with the university for a minimum of at least one academic year at the end of the approved leave. If less than this required period of service is met, repayment is required of the pro rata portion of the compensation provided by the University during the leave period. The faculty member, before undertaking the leave, must sign a “Memorandum of Agreement” to this effect. A letter summarizing the accomplishments of the faculty member while on study-research leave must be submitted to the Provost within 60 days of return to full-time status.

Responsibilities in Request for Leave:

1. Faculty Member: At the time of your annual faculty evaluation prior to eligibility for a leave application, discuss the role of Study-Research Leave or Research Assignment Leave in enhancing your scholarly activities with your Department Head, Chair, or Unit Leader, communicate with possible locations for leave and determine the feasibility of what you want to accomplish. Submit application to Department Head, Chair, or Unit Leader by November 1 of the year preceding the proposed leave.

2. Department Head, Chair, or Unit Leader: Encourage faculty to consider Study-Research Leave and Research Assignment Leave as an important component in maintaining and enhancing their scholarship. Review requests for eligibility. Prepare letter of acceptance or denial; submit to Dean by November 15 (approve) or to faculty member by November 15 (denial).

3. Dean: Review request for eligibility. Submit approval to Provost by December 15.

4. Provost: Review request, communicate with the President, Dean, and faculty member.

5. Faculty Member: Complete personnel forms. Sign “Memorandum of Agreement”.

Responsibilities in Return from Leave:

1. Faculty Member: Submit a letter summarizing accomplishments to the Provost within 60 days of return to full-time status.

2. Provost: Acknowledge receipt of report and forward copies to Dean and Department Head, Chair, or Unit Leader. Submit annual report to the Commission on Faculty Affairs regarding the number of Study-Research Leaves and Research Assignment Leaves granted by each college.

Appendix III: New Language for Reconciliation Committee, 2006-2007

The Committee on Reconciliation is composed of eight tenured faculty members eligible for membership in the Faculty Senate. Faculty appointed to administrative positions with responsibility for recommending promotions, salary adjustments, and distribution of teaching, research, and extension assignments are ineligible for membership. The functions of this committee are~~: (1)~~ to offer advice and counsel to faculty members who seek it. ; and (2) to consider private matters of privilege, academic freedom, and tenure submitted to it by members of the faculty or administration and to attempt to resolve such questions as those of academic freedom and tenure. Examples of issues that fall under the purview of the Committee on Reconciliation are:

1. intimidation and/or reprisals,
2. discriminatory actions,
3. error in application of policy,
4. excessive or inappropriate teaching load/work load assignments,
5. unreasonable or inappropriate salary adjustments or salary levels,
6. matters of privilege, academic freedom and tenure,
7. procedural violations including tenure and promotion procedural processes,
8. unsatisfactory performance evaluations, and
9. other issues of faculty-administration dispute or conflict.

Faculty members submit requests for reconciliation concurrently to the provost’s office and chair of the Committee on Reconciliation. Cooperation and candor from all members of the university community are prerequisite to the successful functioning of the Committee on Reconciliation in investigating serious and delicate cases. Confidential information concerning personnel and academic issues may be shared with the committee; it keeps no written records and treats all matters with utmost sensitivity.

Reconcilitation Committee: Joyce Arditti, Human Development; Ken Eriksson (co-chair), Geosciences; Robert Grisso, Biological Systems Engineering; Roger Harris, Horticulture; Ron Pearson, Dairy Science; Fabrice Teulon (co-chair), Foreign Languages and Literatures; and Bruce Vogelaar, Physics.

The Committee on Reconciliation is composed of eight tenured faculty members eligible for membership in the Faculty Senate. Faculty appointed to administrative positions with responsibility for recommending promotions, salary adjustments, and distribution of teaching, research, and extension assignments are ineligible for membership. The functions of this committee are~~: (1)~~ to offer advice and counsel to faculty members who seek it. ; and (2) to consider private matters of privilege, academic freedom, and tenure submitted to it by members of the faculty or administration and to attempt to resolve such questions as those of academic freedom and tenure. Examples of issues that fall under the purview of the Committee on Reconciliation are:

1. intimidation and/or reprisals,
2. discriminatory actions,
3. error in application of policy,
4. excessive or inappropriate teaching load/work load assignments,
5. unreasonable or inappropriate salary adjustments or salary levels,
6. matters of privilege, academic freedom and tenure,
7. procedural violations including tenure and promotion procedural processes,
8. unsatisfactory performance evaluations, and
9. other issues of faculty-administration dispute or conflict.

Commission on Faculty Affairs
Resolution 2006-xx
Committee on Reconciliation
Approved by CFA:
First Reading, University Council:
Approved, University Council:
Effective:

Whereas, previous guidelines concerning issues that fall under the purview of the Reconciliation Committee were incomplete.
Whereas, peer consultation is necessary and appropriate.
Whereas, additional issues concerning intimidation, procedural violations and unsatisfactory performance evaluations have arisen.
Whereas, many issues can and should be resolved informally.
Therefore, be it resolved that section 2.13.1 be amended to include additional issues for reconciliation and improved procedures for the Reconciliation Committee.

2.13.1 Valid Issues for Grievance

For this process, a grievance is defined as a complaint by a faculty member alleging a violation, misinterpretation, or incorrect application of policy, procedure, or practice of the university directly affecting the grievant. Some examples of valid issues for filing a grievance are: reprisals, discriminatory actions, error in application of policy, excessive or inappropriate teaching load/work load assignments, and unreasonable or inappropriate salary adjustments or salary levels.

Faculty members submit requests for reconciliation concurrently to the provost’s office and the chair of the Committee on Reconciliation. The subject of a grievance will normally not be considered by the Faculty Review Committee while it is simultaneously under review by another committee or panel of the university.

Faculty Senate, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
Website updated on 3/02/06. Please contact Suzie Karlin with questions or comments about this website.