|
Faculty Association |
|
March 1, 2007 |
|
|
QUESTIONS FORWARDED PENDING RESPONSES |
| |
QUESTIONER: |
DATE ASKED: |
FORWARDED TO: |
Anonymous |
January 11, 2007 |
Shari Shuman
Vice President for
Administration and Finance |
QUESTION SYNOPSIS – I.
Why must new faculty go to each and every classroom on campus within a five day period to get access to classrooms? Alternatively, they can wait in line at the locksmith for an hour each semester to get access to classrooms in which they teach. It is my understanding that this can be remedied by the locksmith department updating the information stored in the locks and that this has not been done for 4 semesters. When faculty time is being consumed by TLOs, GLOs, attendance requirements, activity reporting, etc.. on top of the standard service, research and teaching expected, it certainly seems silly that they have to take 5-6 hours to physically activate their keys in every classroom door on campus during the five busiest days of the semester.
Shuman responded at January Faculty Association Meeting:
They have expanded the locksmith hours and changed personnel. She will look into it. There was further discussion on security related issues.
|
| |
QUESTION SYNOPSIS – II.
"If a candidate has be recommended by you [the Provost] for P&T, can junior faculty now use that dossier as the standard by which they will be judged, even if that candidate may have received negative recommendations at another level? Do your decisions set the bar [for P&T]?
Is it true that the degree of difficulty of replacing a candidate is factored into your P&T decisions?"
Response received on February 27, 2007
QUESTION SYNOPSIS – III.
The following text from Chp 10.5 of the Faculty Handbook describes faculty membership on the Institutional Review Board: "The Institutional Review Board for the protection of Human Subjects will be comprised of faculty and staff members or persons who because of particular skill are asked to serve on the Committee. Nomination for membership on the committee may be submitted through the IRB chair to the Vice President of Academic Affairs or they may be submitted by deans of Colleges. Members will be appointed by the vice president for one, two, or three year terms. A member may be re-appointed, but may not serve more than three consecutive years." How then is it that at least 1 member of the current committee has served far more consecutive years than what is allowed? Who is overseeing or ensuring that adequate faculty rotation occurs to protect against the tainting of this important process from subjective bias and personal vendettas? Ultimate power ultimately corrupts, while transparent membership processes will allow for greater confidence in this committee.
|
|
 |
WRITTEN RESPONSES
QUESTIONER: |
DATE ASKED: |
WRITTEN RESPONSE: |
Anonymous |
December 7, 2006 |
|
QUESTION SYNOPSIS – I.
What is Nat Glover’s title, is he part - or fulltime, where is he housed, who is paying his salary, and what is his salary?
QUESTION SYNOPSIS – II.
What is rationale for charging the same fee for those who audit a course?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|