Due to many questions were handled in questioning and responding, the order of the extended times are extended from 10 minutes to 18 minutes.
Responses to questions are posted on the Faculty Association website and included in a future agenda package. Q1: To FA President Pyati or Designee.
Why does the administration employ an expensive outside attorney to negotiate with the union, when the union/faculty do not similarly employ an attorney to represent us and negotiate on their own? We have many in-house lawyers, including John Delaney, and all of our in-house lawyers recently received very large raises because they threatened to walk out en masse, in a state where faculty do not have the right to strike. Couldn't the fees that Leonard Carson charges each year be put instead toward a faculty/staff raise?Q2: To FA President Pyati or Designee.
How long does the administration have to answer a question from the Faculty Association?
Answer from Radha Pyati from the floor. There is no official deadline for submitting responses to questions. Responses are typically received 2-4 weeks after the meeting at which the questions were read. Sometimes it takes a little time for answers to be posted on the FA website. At present the only person with unanswered questions is me, the FA President, for which I am truly sorry. I am attempting to clear all my questions now. Q3: From John Hatle:
I write to comment on the November 2016 draft of the Course Banking Policy. In particular, I would like to understand the motivation behind the first part of the last Exemption.
"Any independent study that has students paid as research assistants on the topic
associated with the DIS..."
I have a federal grant that has dual goals of doing good science and exposing young students to real research. (Page from NIH AREA solicitation: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/area/area.htm
). This exemption in the banking policy would not allow me (and others in a similar situation) to earn credits for mentoring two students on one project, with one student paid off the grant (a reward for longevity on the project) and another earning DIS credits. Training students is a major goal of the grant program, and a record of successful mentoring is vital to renewed funding. To me, prohibiting faculty to bank credit in this situation penalizes those who have been successful at attaining grants to support scholarship. And the university is still collecting tuition and fees from the DIS student.
Response from the Floor by Provost Earle Traynham
The provision referred to in this question has been eliminated. Q4: For Vice President Stone:
The level of risk tolerance that UNF's General Counsel's office routinely functions at is much lower than at our sister universities or even R1 universities. This seemingly absolute intolerance for any risk whatsoever may protect UNF, but it results in research progress being seriously hampered as months go by waiting for a contract for acquisition of necessary material to be finalized. Why can we not come up to the level of risk tolerated by universities whose faculty's research is not imperiled by abnormally long wait times?
The question will be forwarded to Vice President Stone for a response.
Q5: For Vice President Shuman.
Is it true that if for instance lightning were to fry a piece of scientific equipment, used either for research or teaching purposes, that the university does not possess insurance, maintenance agreements, or have a fund for repairing or replacing that item of equipment? Does not having such a backup plan mean that one's research, and maybe even one's career, could potentially be brought to a halt by such a loss?
Vice President Shuman will respond in writing.
Q6: For Associate Vice President Kantner.
The sluggish pace at which ORSP's Research Integrity division and the IRB process research protocols existed with former director Dr. Ebong and continues to this day. This has become for many of us a serious hindrance to advancing our research agendas. When should we expect a real change in the speed at which IRB completes this work, and how do you plan to clear the backlog of review requests in an expeditious manner?
The question will be forwarded to Vice President Kantner for a response.
Q7: To FA President Pyati or Designee.
Faculty who have sought to un-do entry into the Drop program have found this impossible. If President Delaney or, for instance, Dean Chally, were try to un-do their entry into the Drop program, would the university have any financial responsibility or provide any financial reimbursement of any kind?Q8: For Provost Traynham.
Each year faculty members are asked to provide evaluations of the Provost and their respective deans, but not their department chair. Why is this? One would think that an annual assessment of chairs would be at least as important as that of the other administrators, as they are responsible for the day-to-day functioning of units that most directly interact with faculty and students. Also many chairs are first-time administrators and so can benefit particularly from feedback on their performance. As it now stands, chairs, it seems, are subject to faculty evaluations only when they are eligible for term renewal. Yet this occurs long after such feedback might be useful. And for chairs who elect not to stand for an additional term, this type of feedback seems not to have use at all. Why then are chairs not subject to the type of annual faculty evaluation that their supervisors undergo (and that their faculty also undergo): And why would the University not want to conduct such evaluations when it regularly surveys faculty on a whole range of other matters that are arguably far less relevant to its core academic mission?
Provost Traynham will respond in writing.
Q9: Question from the Floor by Mary Borg:
The podium computer in Building 15, Room 1206, has been reported to Information Technology Services on Monday. Why has the computer still not been fixed?