David Kline said that faculty with teaching appointments are eligible to vote on the constitution under review this year. The university's relationship with the trustees is working well. His policy is to be open with the board. The trustees are eager to work, and he advises them on the university's priorities.

David said the kind of university we want cannot be had without auxiliary support. UNF currently profits from food concessions and the bookstore, as well as from contracts and grants and gifts at institutional level. The university needs gifts for individual faculty to support their work, which is a UNF priority.
On October 4, David will talk about the future of UNF.

Steve Shapiro asked whether David had a comment on the amendment to the constitution.

David said the state Board of Regents played a role in the efficient operations of the university systems statewide. The new Board of Education should do the same, and he challenged the Board to do so.

Bill Slaughter said, "This proposed bylaws revision is one of the most unlikely proposals to come before this body. Now we face a vote on a major change in the promotion and tenure process at UNF. At present, we, as faculty, have an elected committee that works at a level above the Deans in the P&T process. The Deans do not see dossiers from candidates in other colleges, as members of the elected faculty committee do. So they lack the comparative advantage that the University P&T Committee has in understanding the grounds on which the committee makes its recommendations is concerned. I put a high premium on that comparative advantage and will not vote to give it up, which is what the proposed Bylaws revision is asking us to do." Bill continued, "Judgment is never 'pure,' but the closer to home the judgment (for or against promotion and/or tenure) is made (in the college, in the department, on the hall, next door) the more likely it is to be contaminated by other issues, both personal and political. The 'contamination' can work either for the candidate or against the candidate. The most common form it takes is what I would call the "pass it on up" phenomenon. Quote: 'I don't want to risk falling out of line or favor myself, so I'll vote yes and pass the candidate and his or her dossier on up.' Unquote. If you want faculty not to participate in the process beyond the local level, then vote for the proposed bylaws revision. If you want faculty to participate and have a say all the way up beyond the level of the Deans, then vote against the proposed bylaws revision." Bill added, "If we do defeat the proposed bylaws revision today then we ought to rededicate ourselves in the colleges to electing faculty members to the University P&T Committee who will not see their role as advocates of their college's candidates but as representatives of the entire university faculty bound by the ethics of their profession. Advocacy has no place on the University P&T Committee. The supposition is made that scholarship which is discipline based can not be read intelligibly, let alone intelligently, by colleagues who are out of discipline. In my experience, that is simply not so. In all but a very few cases the Provost, to whom the committee makes its recommendations, is out of discipline too. The presentation of the professional self is an art that we can all challenge ourselves to practice at a higher level. The inability to explain ourselves is endemic to the profession. We need, in the name of equitable standards across the colleges, a University P&T Committee that is truly participatory and functions at the highest level (above the Deans)-a committee that is active not reactive. We still need what we already have.

Royal Van Horn said promotion is awarded by a diverse group of faculty from across campus, and that a faculty member's work should be examined by a wide body, and the current process keeps standards consistent.
Pat Plumblee asked whether the bylaws will include additional legislation to establish college committees if the proposal passes, and ha asked whether each group would work independently. Judy Solano said extensive policy in the faculty handbook directs the promotion and tenure process, and it will be amended if the proposal passes. The result is that the process may be left to colleges, or Faculty Association may prescribe it. New policies will be effective next academic year. Betty Furdell said promotion and tenure has had small groups in departments requesting candidacy and the university committee is large. Steve Shapiro said the university promotion and tenure committee has worked well, but UNF is growing. A college committee could serve the same functions. David Courtwright spoke in favor of the proposal, saying we are too large. Each year more promotions will be processed, and a single committee cannot decide fairly. The current committee concentrates on questionable dossiers. Tom Pekarek said feedback from the university committee was valuable in his promotion process. Dale Clifford spoke against the proposal. We are not yet too large for the university committee to handle. Colleges are small enough that they will have small committees sending little advice to the provost. We should know what will replace the current system before stopping it. Paul Mason moved to call the question. The motion carried, and the question was called. Steve Shapiro moved that the vote take place by secret ballot. The voice was too close to call. Terry Bowen called for a division of the house. The motion passed, and secret ballot was used. Terry said a yes vote is a vote in favor of the proposal.
Votes were: no 51, yes 28. The motion failed.

Respectfully submitted,

Catherine Cavanaugh, Secretary