Eastern Michigan University

Resolutions

02/03/2016

Resolution 20160203

Whereas the Eastern Michigan University Board of Regents, at the behest of the Governor’s office, entered into an Interlocal Agreement with the School District for the City of Detroit creating the Educational Achievement Authority (EAA) in June of 2011, and

 

Whereas the Eastern Michigan University Board of Regents passed a resolution on December 5, 2014 explicating their intent to provide notice of withdrawal from the EAA agreement in December 2015 unless substantial progress was made in four areas: 1) a stronger partnership between Eastern Michigan University and the Educational Achievement Authority; 2) demonstrated student achievement and progress in EAA schools; 3) fiscal accountability; and 4) complete transparency of all activity, including prompt and appropriate responses to requests made under the Freedom of Information Act, and

 

Whereas, the Faculty Senate provided a detailed report to the Eastern Michigan University Board of Regents a week before the Board’s December 8, 2015 meeting documenting the failure of the EAA to make any progress in the four areas outlined by the Board’s December 2014 resolution, and recommending immediate withdrawal from the agreement, and

 

Whereas, the Eastern Michigan University Board of Regents at its December 8, 2015 meeting, despite the Faculty Senate report and impassioned calls for immediate withdrawal from Eastern Michigan University’s faculty, students, and alumni as well as community members from Washtenaw County and the City of Detroit, failed to take any action on the EAA agreement, and

 

Whereas, the decisions and actions of Board members on December 8, 2015 violated the following provisions of the Board of Regents’ Code of Ethics signed annually by each member:

 

Preamble

“We will consider the interests of all of its constituents in decision making, including students, administration, faculty, staff and other stakeholders.” By repeatedly ignoring the voices of students, staff, faculty, a sitting University President, alumni, and community members, the Board has failed in its responsibility to consider the interests of all of its constituents in decision-making.

 

Article 1, Paragraph 1 (Public Trust)

“Regents are expected to carry out their governance responsibilities in an honest, ethical and diligent manner.” This provision was violated when the Board did not follow through with its actions outlined in the December 2014 memorandum stating it would send notice of a withdrawal unless substantial progress was made by the EAA in four areas. When the Board was notified of the EAA’s failure in all four areas it changed the EAA discussion from an action to a non-action item on its agenda and would not discuss the agreement with the public on December 8, 2015.

 

Article 1, Paragraph 2 (Welfare of Eastern Michigan University)

“In carrying out their duties, however, Regents must keep the welfare of the entire University paramount over any parochial interests. Regents should refrain from actions and involvements that might prove embarrassing to the institution.” The Interlocal Agreement that established the EAA was formed at the behest of the Governor’s office, and the Board of Regents did not consult with EMU faculty experts during or after the process. The agreement has generated a great deal of negative and embarrassing articles in the popular press and in the scholarly literature; the agreement also has had a negative impact on EMU students. The Board’s adherence to the agreement in the face of opposition from all sides within and outside of the University demonstrates that the Board has failed in its responsibility to keep the welfare of the entire University paramount over any parochial interests.

 

Article 1, Paragraph 3 (Duty of Care).

“Consistent with their responsibilities as members of the Governing Board, Regents will discharge their duties, including any duties as a member of a committee, in good faith, with the care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would exercise under similar circumstances, in a manner the Regent reasonably believes is in the best interest of the University, and with the level of decorum appropriate to the office of Regent.” An ordinarily prudent person, in the face of multiple voices detailing the negative impact of the Interlocal Agreement—including a sitting University President—would NOT have made the decision that the Board did at its December 8, 2015 meeting. The Board has failed to follow the care an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances and thus failed to serve the best interests of the University.

 

Article 1, Paragraph 5 (Due Diligence).

“Each Regent shall undertake with due diligence a critical analysis of the risks and benefits of any matter coming before the Board for action. Regents shall promote a culture of constructive debate about major information necessary to carry out the Regents’ duty of care to act in the best interest of the University.” As noted above, the Board entered into the agreement without consulting faculty experts on the subject. Subsequently, the Board, on December 8, 2015, failed to consider the analysis presented by the Faculty Senate and the perspectives of many in attendance when it decided to not take action on the EAA agreement; the Board’s lack of response on the issue was antithetical to promoting a culture of constructive debate. The Board of Regents has thus failed in its obligation to undertake with due diligence a critical analysis of the risks and benefits of the Interlocal Agreement.

 

Now, therefore, be it

 

Resolved that the Faculty Senate, given the Board’s gross violation of its own code of ethics, and failure to be a faithful steward of our University, has no choice but to vote no confidence in the Eastern Michigan University Board of Regents because of its failure to be a faithful steward of our University.

 
06/17/2015

Resolution 20150617

The Faculty Senate reaffirms our disappointment with University administrators’ decision to put the old EMU stereotypical Hurons logo on the marching band uniforms, twenty-five years after the University wisely dropped the offensive logo. We recommend, once again, that this be removed from band uniforms immediately.

The stereotypical image of this logo is emblematic of mid-20th century American racist ideas and has no place in our University today.

As long as the Administration declines to remove the logo, Eastern Michigan University will continue to be subject to needless criticism, ridicule, and further protests and negative publicity.

 

04/01/2015

Resolution 20150401

"The Faculty Senate expresses to the Board of Regents our hope that the search committee for a new President will include full faculty representation and input, as is the usual practice. Thus, the search should be carried out during the regular academic year."

 
11/19/2014

Resolution 20141119

To the Eastern Michigan University Board of Regents:

As a Faculty Senate, we strongly express our continuing concern with the contractual relationship between EMU and the EAA and, in light of ample and documented concerns, open and public forums, and in consideration of previous resolutions, the Faculty Senate now unequivocally states that EMU should withdraw from the EAA agreement immediately.

 

04/03/2013

Resolution 20130403: Faculty Senate Executive Board Resolution on the Huron Logo [Faculty Senate Executive Board]

Whereas Eastern Michigan University has chosen to include the “Huron” logo on its marching- band uniforms, and

Whereas, national and local news articles have reported that the logo has been revived as an official mascot of the university, and

Whereas, that ethnocentric image is incongruent with the mission of Eastern Michigan University, the Faculty Senate hereby requests that the President of the University

  1. affirm Eastern Michigan University’s early and courageous decision to remove racist iconography such as the Huron mascot from athletic uniforms in 1988, reminding the university community of the current policy prohibiting the display of that image as an official mascot of the institution;

  2. commit to better manage use of the Huron logo. Recognizing that legal use of the logo is now governed by the Eastern Michigan University Alumni Association and not by the university itself, Eastern Michigan University should refrain from all further use of the logo on official university materials, including event and scholarship announcements, websites, publications, or promotional merchandise, as well as any other items bearing the official insignia of the university or endorsed by the institution in any formal or legal capacity;

  3. an exception will be the displaying of the logo in historical presentations, created under the guidance of university archivist with expertise in this field, and including educational information about the inappropriate use of racist iconography;

  4. commit to teaching the ways in which logos such as this have been used in historically inappropriate ways,;

  5. send a public update concerning the ways in which Eastern Michigan University is addressing this issue and using it to prepare leaders for a diverse and democratic society;

  6. identify communities, groups, and individuals on Eastern Michigan University’s campus who are working on diversity initiatives and who can provide input to the administration to promote communication about the climate for diversity on campus.

 
02/20/2013

Resolution 20130220

Huron Logo [Abby Coykendall] 2/8/2013

Faculty Senate Resolution on the Huron Logo:

In light of the September 11, 2012 press release stating that Eastern Michigan University has included the so-­‐‑called “Huron” logo on its marching-­‐‑band uniforms, the national and local news articles reporting that the logo has been revived as an official mascot of the university, and the continuance of that logo on the marching-­‐‑band uniforms despite the disrespect which that ethnocentric image shows for the Native American community, the Faculty Senate hereby requests that the President issue a public statement in which she:

  1. Announces the immediate removal of the Huron logo from all Eastern Michigan University materials, including band or athletic uniforms, event and scholarship announcements, websites, publications, or promotional merchandise, as well as any other items bearing the official insignia of the university or endorsed by the institution in any formal capacity;

  2. Offers an apology to the Native American community and to the university community as a whole for the offense caused by the incorporation of the logo on the uniforms, taking responsibility for the apparent permission which that usage gave for the subsequent dissemination of the logo on university materials (e.g., the Presidential Scholarship and Distinguished Professor Awards announcements);

  3. Affirms Eastern Michigan University’s early and courageous decision to remove racist iconography such as the Huron mascot from athletic uniforms in 1988, reminding the university community of the current policy prohibiting the display of that image as an official mascot of the institution;

  4. States unequivocally that the Huron logo, which conjures an idealized yet stereotypical vision of a Native American tribe only erroneously called “Huron,” is no longer—and will never be again—sanctioned by Eastern Michigan University;

  5. Explains that the Huron designation can not only be misleading when it comes to history, but derogatory to other people, and thus in conflict with the core mission of the university to foster leaders for a diverse and democratic society;

  6. Announces in the Executive Council, and, in turn, within every division and subdivision of the university (from Communications to Athletics, to Academic and Student Affairs), that displaying the Huron mascot is prohibited on university-­‐‑owned publications or property because contributing to a hostile working environment for students, faculty, and staff;

  7. Sends corrections to news reports suggesting that the Huron mascot has been formally revived for Eastern Michigan University (e.g. ESPN, Chronicle of Higher Education, Ann Arbor News, Detroit Free Press, etc.);

  8. Reinstitutes the University Diversity Committee to whom the President and the Director of Diversity and Affirmative Action can report about diversity initiatives, and from whom the administration can receive input from students, faculty, and staff about the climate for diversity on campus.

 

10/17/2012

Resolution 20121017.1

Resolution on Proposed Changes to BA/BS Requirements

The Senate supports the proposal from the Provost’s office regarding differentiation of Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science degrees with the understanding that the 60-hour requirement for the BS be reduced to 45. We suggest that the Provost’s office refrain from applying the term “default” to any degree.

 

10/03/2012

Resolution 20121003.1

Resolution on the Participation of EMU in the Educational Achievement Authority Interlocal Agreement, first reading
Proposed agenda item for discussion purposes, then action at a later date:

"Proposed Resolution to Request that the Board of Regents Withdraw from the Education Achievement Authority Interlocal Agreement and a Faculty Senate Vote of No Confidence in that Agreement:

Whereas, the Board of Regents acted to make the University a party to the Interlocal Agreement creating the Education Achievement Authority (EAA) in the Spring of 2011 without consultation or input from faculty; and, whereas the administration of the EAA has failed to actively engage the faculty as a resource in the development of the organization, and over more than a year period of time has not developed a meaningful role for the University, as evidenced, among other instances, in the engagement of contracted out-of-state private service providers in the area of special education compliance/program development audit and related services;and, whereas a significant party to the said agreement, the City of Detroit Public Schools, has recently acted to withdraw from the agreement, in assertion of the academic authority of the Board of Education of the City of Detroit Public Schools,

Therefore, the Faculty Senate, as the representative body of the University faculty hereby approves the following action:

1) That the Faculty Senate has no-confidence in the continued participation of the University in said agreement; and,

2) That the President of the Faculty Senate submit a formal, written request, on behalf of the University faculty, to the President of the University and members of the Board of Regents, requesting immediate withdrawal from the Interlocal Agreement creating the EAA.

Resolution 20121003.2
Resolution on the Timing of Some Committee Appointments, first reading

In order to more effectively solicit input from college councils (and library) it shall be the Senate’s policy to call, in early March, for nominations for committee positions that are known to becoming open in the Fall, and to call, in early November, for nominations for committee positions that are known to becoming open in the Winter. For all other vacancies the Senate shall advertise those vacancies at least one week before the Senate appoints to those vacancies.

For any vacancies, the President of the Faculty Senate shall e-mail the chairs of the college committees and the library faculty steering committee to help identify nominees.

 

9/19/2012

Resolutions

Resolution 20120919.1

Resolution on Contract Negotiations

Be it resolved that the Faculty Senate, representing the voice of the faculty of Eastern Michigan University, thanks the Bargaining Council, the AAUP and administration negotiating teams, President Sue Martin and Provost Kim Schatzel for their impressive achievement in negotiating the new contract in such a timely fashion.

Resolution 20120919.2


Resolution on the Timing of Some Committee Appointments, first reading

The Faculty Senate will change its calendar so that the College Councils can nominate faculty for those university committees that specify membership by college. Such nominations will be viewed favorably by the Senate and the Senate President will send a separate announcement to the College Council Chairs announcing that nominations are due to the Senate.

05/16/2012

Resolutions

Resolution 20120516

Resolution on the Appointment of High-Level Academic Administrators

Whereas the provost announced at the April 4, 2012 Faculty Senate meeting that the two interim associate provost appointments would be made permanent and

Whereas in response to the provost’s earlier request for input from the Senate on this matter the Senate had made clear that it strongly felt there should be a search committee, including faculty representation, involved in the selection of these permanent appointments and

Whereas the Faculty Council passed a resolution on October 15, 2008 saying, in part, “The Faculty Council strongly objects to the practice of appointing interim administrators without an appropriate internal search. We suggest that a search committee be appointed, that the position be posted internally, and that candidates be screened according to the published criteria for the position”, therefore

Be it resolved that the Senate expresses disappointment with the provost’s decision and urges that in the future whenever a permanent high-level academic position is to be filled that every effort be made to use a search committee including faculty members, that the position criteria be posted, and that candidates be screened according to the published criteria.

04/04/2012

Resolutions

Resolution 20120404.1

First Consideration to Internal Candidates for Administrative Positions:

For all administrative positions within the academic division, internal candidates shall be given first consideration before external candidates are invited.

Discussion

As a newly appointed Provost coming from UM-Dearborn, Dr. Schatzel is wise to desire that her associate appointments not be chosen from external candidates or strangers to EMU. An internal candidate would be invaluable in providing her with continued institutional memory and informed insights into EMU issues and concerns.

Our ranks for the top leadership positions seem to be continually filled with external candidates. Promotion from within has been sparse, and does not seem to be our default mode. This implies a belief that an exceptional leader can only be recruited from non-EMU candidates and that they will better guide us than internal candidates.

Our last two presidents, both external hires, had short, disappointing tenures. The previous provost was also an external hire and did not fare any better. Obviously a national search is no guarantee of a successful hire.

Most would agree that our current provost is highly qualified, and has succeeded so far. Her career advanced quickly after joining UM-Dearborn as a tenure track faculty. Our previous provost also enjoyed remarkable career advances within UM- Flint. Their success stories would be highly unlikely had they joined EMU at the entry level. It is not a reflection of their qualifications, but our own inability to recognize outstanding internal candidates and promote from within. Those two campuses recognized that qualified internal candidates do not have to go to different institutions in order to advance their careers.

Our current president and provost are both from UM-Dearborn. Most of our high- level appointments have come not from a national pool, but instead from regional neighbors like Grand Valley, UM-Flint, and UM-Dearborn. Are we to concede, then, that these institutions better create top leadership than does EMU?

If we continue to recruit from outside, to the exclusion of internal candidates, we will weaken Eastern in two ways:

  • One: Stunting the growth of leadership from within. The best places to work for are usually the ones that afford opportunities for career advances to their most qualified employees. The best leaders are the ones who foster the growth of their own replacements—and are not threatened by it. Eastern’s future success rests not just in the career advancement of our students, but also in that of our faculty.

  • Two: EMU will be unable to contribute top leadership to the larger world of academia. Because we are not providing ample opportunity for internal candidates to gain leadership experience, we will forever remain a debtor in the economy of leadership, not a provider.

Advocates for a national search over internal candidates have meritorious arguments as well. Let us consider two:

  • One: internal candidates perpetuate the existing culture (or politics). This centers on the negative aspects of EMU culture and dismisses the positive. Why might better argue that those who are vested in our community can propagate a sense of pride, history, and tradition. Discounting internal candidates because thy might perpetuate the negative aspects of Eastern’s culture is akin to throwing out the baby with the bath water.

  • Two: Eastern benefits from bringing in outside talent. This is a good argument, but must be made within a context. We are a regional university and so our focus should be to excel in serving southeast Michigan. To do this our leaders should have vested interests and commitments to this area. A pool of 700+ tenured or tenure seeking faculty members, many of whom are also nationally recognized, and who call this region home, is where the talent search should begin.

Resolution 20120404.2

Department Heads to Be Filled Internally Where Possible

Department Head (DH) positions are to be filled primarily with internal candidates. Only if an internal search fails should an external search be authorized.

Discussion:

There are at least four arguments for promoting internal candidates to the DH level:

  • One: DH positions are the entry level administrative positions. This is the first step into the administrative ranks. Without this experience, the remainder of the administrative ladder remains inaccessible and we do not create a rich pool of internal candidates for higher level appointments.

  • Two: The two most important missions of the university are executed at the departmental level: learning and scholarship. Faculty members are the ones primarily responsible for these. Consequently none are better qualified for leading those missions than the faculty who are already vested with an indefinite tenure in their departments.

  • Three: If DHs are hired from outside, they are usually appointed at the full professor rank with tenure. However, soon after the appointment, they may step down to assume faculty status. That has happened many times at Eastern. We are then stuck with an expensive faculty position that might have been filled with a different candidate had we been hiring a faculty member rather than an administrator.

  • Four: Promoting from within and filling the vacancy with a new tenure track position provides the best of both the worlds. We oxygenate our faculty talent pool with the latest graduates and in the area of specialization that we most need. Entry level candidates offer high productivity as they work through the tenure and promotion process. As an institution focused on teaching, this offers the best bang for our buck, and, in the process, we create a new academic leader amongst us.

Resolution 20120404.3

Against Changing the University Committee Appointment Process

The College of Arts and Sciences’ College Advisory Council has introduced a proposal to the AAUP Bargaining Council to change the way faculty members are appointed to some university committees. The current Contract language is, “[the] Faculty Senate shall have the right to select or appoint Faculty representatives on all university-wide committees, commissions, councils, or task forces.” The CAC proposal would change this to, “when representation from a particular College is required, the appropriate College Council shall select or appoint the representative.” (For the rest of this letter the term “college” will refer to the five colleges as well as the library.)

The Senate respects and appreciates the work of the college councils. Many Senate members have previously served on college councils, and council resolutions often serve as the basis for Senate resolutions and actions. But the CAC proposal would constitute a significant change to the faculty governance and input system and so should be considered carefully, especially when this change is being evaluated in the context of contract negotiations. Below, we outline reasons why we do not support the proposal at this time.

Currently the Faculty Senate appoints all faculty members to university committees except the EPEO Advisory Committee. The administration is free to invite other faculty members to participate on committees, but only those appointed by the Senate constitute input according to the EMU-AAUP Contract. The number of faculty members on each committee varies and is defined by that committee’s charter or charge. Some have only one faculty member, while others have six or more. For most of the committees having six or more faculty members, the Senate negotiated with the administration to obtain such a high level of faculty participation by arguing that such numbers would allow the Senate to provide broader perspectives by reserving one slot for each of the colleges. It has not been the intent of the Senate that committee appointees advocate for or represent a particular college. Faculty members are expected to advocate on behalf of all faculty. The purpose of having members from different colleges on a committee is rather to provide a more fully informed faculty voice.

The proposal’s primary argument in favor of having the college councils appoint committee members is that the existing system is “undemocratic” in that the full Senate membership may vote on whom to appoint to a position reserved for a particular college. Thus, for example, senators from all the colleges may decide on which of two candidates to name from the College of Business to a committee.

Every representative system can be said to be “undemocratic” to some extent. Each is an approximation of a direct democracy (i.e. every person gets one vote). Our local, state, or federal representatives often do not vote the way we would. Famously, a U.S. senator from North Dakota (pop. 683,932) has just as strong a vote as does a senator from California (pop. 37,691,912). Here at Eastern, on the CAS’s College Advisory Council, the English Department (52 tenure-track faculty) has the same number of representatives (1) as does the Department of African American Studies (4 tenure-track faculty). We accept something less than direct democracy because there are advantages to the representative form, and the direct form may be unwieldy or untenable.

The question, then, is whether the benefits of having the college councils name representatives to university committees outweighs the additional costs of distributing that responsibility among six colleges, rather than keeping it centralized at the University Faculty Senate.

Here are some of the costs:

First and foremost, this will lessen the perceived power of the Senate in the eyes of the administration. The Faculty Senate has worked for more than thirty years to strengthen the faculty’s position vis-à-vis the administration. Over and over again the administration has claimed that they received “input” from committees because they included faculty members who were not named by the Senate. Many of these situations have resulted in grievances filed through the AAUP.

After many years it finally seems that the administration has learned (though continued vigilance is necessary!) The Senate president regularly receives requests for the creation of committees and for appointments to committees from all levels of the administration. In the eyes of the administration the Senate is a crucial partner in the workings of the university. If we make the change suggested by the proposal, the various branches of the administration will now have to look to six different administrative bodies when managing committees. In their eyes this can only lessen the importance of the Senate and decrease its voice in our discussions with the administration. We will be speaking with a divided, rather than a united voice.

Second, the responsibility of determining which committee positions are open, and of advertising and making assignments to those positions is currently centralized in the Senate. The Senate currently appoints members to more than twenty committees. This results in a significant amount of work (many hours) that would now be duplicated across every college. The university already struggles with inefficiencies. The proposed change would move us in the wrong direction.

Third, adopting this change as part of contract negotiations puts the faculty at a disadvantage. The proposed change will increase the burden on the administration. When naming members to a committee, the administration will have to contact six college councils, instead of one Senate. The timeliness of appointments will be constrained by six meeting schedules. This will inevitably lead to more miscommunications, and possible grievances. This proposal is being brought up at the Bargaining Council. If we put this item on the table, the administration will see the potential new governance structure as being more work for them. They will want a quid pro quo. Are we willing to give ground somewhere else to see this change made to the Contract?

Lastly, what problem is addressed by the proposal? Is there a perceived weakness with the committee structure that this proposal would redress? All other proposals in the Bargaining Council are aiming to strengthen the position of the faculty or faculty benefits. This proposal seems to do neither.

If we are to change the way committee appointments are made, it would be better to make that change through the Senate’s by-laws, rather than through the cumbersome mechanics of the faculty contract. If departments are unhappy with the committee appointment process, their senators should bring this matter for discussion to the Senate. We suggest that as soon as is feasible the Senate conduct a survey of the entire faculty as a first step toward holding a deeper discussion as to ways to improve the shared governance structure.

In the meanwhile, if the college councils want to have a stronger voice in appointments to committees, please consider that they are welcome to nominate candidates for any committee position. Such an endorsement would significantly improve a candidate’s election prospects within the Senate.

In closing, it is not right to characterize Senate appointments as “undemocratic”. The Senate members always strive to act in the best interest of the whole faculty, and this includes, by definition, the faculty of all colleges. Devolving the committee appointment process to the college councils would materially weaken the Senate’s power in the eyes of the administration. It would yield a more complicated, less efficient appointment process with a higher potential for grievances. Lastly, asking for this change at the bargaining table will quite possibly require that we make a corresponding concession in another area.

03/21/2012

Resolutions
Resolution 20120321: Opposing the CAC’s Request to Name Members to University Committees
Faculty Senate Executive Board

Whereas the College Advisory Council of the College of Arts and Science has introduced a proposal to the AAUP Bargaining Council to change the way faculty are appointed to some university committees. The proposal asks that whenever a representative to a university committee is to be appointed to a position reserved for a particular college that the faculty council of the respective college make that appointment rather than the Senate. (The term “college” will refer to the five colleges as well as the library for the rest of this resolution.)

Whereas for more than thirty years the Faculty Council/Senate has been contractually mandated to appoint faculty members to all university committees unless otherwise expressly noted by the Contract, and

Whereas at several times during those years the administration has claimed that they received “input” from committees because they included faculty members, though those members were not named by the Senate, resulting in grievances filed through the AAUP, and

Whereas the need for such grievances now rarely arise because the Senate president regularly receives requests for the creation of committees and for appointments to committees from all levels of the administration, and

Whereas on some committees positions are reserved for faculty from particular colleges not so the appointees can “represent” their college, but rather to ensure a breadth of experience and knowledge on those committees, and

Whereas allowing the college councils to approve university committee members rather than the Senate would have several deleterious effects including:

  • A weakened Senate: Lessening the power of the Senate by weakening the strength and value of the Senate in the eyes of the administration.

  • An increased number of grievances: The administration would then need to contact six different representative bodies to obtain committee appointments, greatly increasing the probability of miscommunication leading to possible grievances.

  • A less informed appointment process: Senate members are better acquainted than their college council colleagues with the workings of university committees because they regularly receive reports from them. This familiarity informs the Senate’s votes as to which committee candidates would best serve on behalf of the faculty on the committees. The proposed change would yield a less informed appointment process.

  • Less cross-college interaction: When the Senate is discussing candidates for committee positions it is very often the case that senators from departments or colleges other than the candidates’ will speak on behalf of the candidates. Senators may have served on a committee with a candidate, or have developed a program or co-taught a course with them. This knowledge is particularly valuable in placing someone on a university level committee where the candidate will have to represent all faculty, not just those of their college. This cross-college knowledge would be lost if appointments were made by the college councils.

  • Duplication of effort: The responsibility of determining which committee positions are open, and of advertising and making assignments to those positions is currently centralized in the Senate. This results in a significant amount of work (many hours) that would now be duplicated across every college.

Whereas the CAC proposal presupposes two misconceptions as its basis:

  1. 1)  It assumes that committee members act to support or advocate for their own college over the needs of other colleges. Our experience has been that in every case the faculty representatives have been primarily interested in advocating for the whole faculty and our students and not for the interests of their own colleges. The benefit of multi-college membership on a committee is the diversity of viewpoints rather than somehow ensuring that resources are divided equitably among the colleges.

  2. 2)  It assumes that senators, when making appointments to positions reserved for colleges other than their own are not working for what is best for those other colleges. On the contrary, in all votes senators aim to choose the candidate they think will best represent the whole faculty, in the context of that candidate’s background.

Therefore be it resolved that the Faculty Senate calls upon the AAUP Bargaining Council not to adopt the CAC proposal. Moreover the Senate strongly encourages the college councils to nominate candidates for any committee position keeping in mind that such an endorsement would significantly improve a candidate’s election prospects within the Senate.

 

03/07/2012

Resolution 20120307


AAUP Representation at Senate Meetings
Faculty Senate Executive Board

In order to improve communication between the Faculty Senate and the Bargaining unit, be it resolved that the Faculty Senate express a standing invitation to the AAUP executive committee to appoint a representative to attend and participate at Senate meetings. This representative will not have voting rights unless he or she is also an elected Senate representative.

Graduate Council Representation at Senate Meetings

Matt Evett

Whereas the president of the Graduate Council has long attended in an informal capacity in Senate meetings and
Whereas the Senate wishes to formalize this arrangement as a way to ensure continued good communication between the Faculty Senate and the Graduate Council, therefore

Be it resolved that the Faculty Senate express a standing invitation to the Graduate Council to appoint a representative to attend and participate at Senate meetings. This representative will not have voting rights unless he or she is also an elected Senate representative.

 
02/15/2012

Resolution 20120215: A Resolution Supporting Classroom Technology

From the Faculty Senate Executive Board

The Faculty Senate accepts the EEFC December 2011 Classroom Technology Proposal as a crucial step in supporting and enhancing educational delivery at Eastern Michigan University and recommends its implementation, with reliable equipment, as a high priority.

The Faculty Senate further recommends that the EEFC consider in more detail: 1) maintaining adequate technical support for existing equipment. 2) providing campus-wide tech support for evening and weekend classes, at least at start of each semester. 3) maintenance, reliability and user-friendliness of current equipment. 4) supplying in-class reference materials describing the use of equipment and "Help" contact information. 5) adding lecture capture as an additional enhancement for classroom equipment.

 

12/07/2011

Resolutions 20111207

A Resolution to Advance Benefits Equity at Eastern Michigan University

Suzanne Gray and the Executive Board

Whereas Michigan House Bills 4770 and 4771, which seek to prohibit any state public employer, including universities, from offering medical or fringe benefits to unmarried individuals who reside in the same household, and to limit the right to collectively bargain for these benefits, are currently awaiting a vote by the full Senate < http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2011-HB-4770>, and
Whereas Eastern Michigan University has led nationally in creating a positive campus climate for all of its employees and students, which include those who self- identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) students, faculty and staff:

  • EMU was “named one of the top gay friendly universities in the nation by the 2011 Campus Pride Climate Index.” <http://www.emich.edu/univcomm/releases/press_release.php?id=131315 8920>

  • EMU was ranked 18th in the country, leading the state of Michigan, on Newsweek’s list of gay friendly colleges and universities in 2011. <http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/features/college- rankings/2011/gay-friendly.html>

  • EMU established the Center for the Study of Equality and Human Rights in 2010 through the generous gift of alumnus and former Regent Timothy Dyer. The Center’s mission is the advancement and promotion of research on equality and human rights, with a primary focus on eliminating homophobia in society. <http://www.emich.edu/univcomm/releases/press_release.php?id=128750 0302>

and

Whereas across the nation, universities and corporations deem offering equitable benefits to all employees as critical to recruiting and retaining talented faculty, professionals and staff, and
Whereas the current EMU Additional Eligible Adults (AEA) benefits policy is in purposeful compliance with current state law, in that it does not grant benefits based on domestic partnership, yet offers equitable benefits to all employees, regardless of marital status, and

Whereas Michigan universities are autonomously governed bodies that make decisions based on the best interests of their institutions’ constituents.
Therefore be it resolved that:
Eastern Michigan University continues to offer and support full and equal benefits for Additional Eligible Adults.

We urge President Martin, the Regents, and the Office of Government and Community Relations to publicly support the continuation of these benefits and to strongly advocate with both the Michigan Senate and Governor Snyder for the University’s ability to autonomously offer competitive AEA benefits to attract and retain a diverse and vibrant faculty and staff that is treated with respect and equity.

11/16/2011

Resolution 20111116.1: Regarding checking for student graduation from pre- requisites

Whereas it is common for students to register for a course in an upcoming semester while taking one of its prerequisites in the current semester and

Whereas it has sometimes happened that such students fail the prerequisite course yet because they are already registered for the upcoming course they go on to attempt that course, and many of these students subsequently fair poorly in that course and

Whereas this current policy does a disservice to our students, allowing them to participate in courses where they are at a distinct disadvantage to those students who have successfully completed the prerequisites. Therefore,

Be it resolved that the Faculty Senate requests that the Provost’s Office and the Office of Records and Registration implement a procedure to recheck course prerequisites after grades are posted at the end of each semester. If a student does not pass a course that is a pre-requisite for a course a student is registered for in the upcoming semester, the student’s registration for that course should be cancelled prior to the start of classes. The student should be notified as quickly as possible to afford them sufficient time to register for a different course.

We request that this policy be implemented as soon as feasible, and that the Provost’s Office report back to the Faculty Senate on this implementation before March, 2012.

Resolution 20111116.2 Support of the CAS’s CAC’s call for changes to the naming of bachelors degrees

Whereas the College Advisory Council (CAC) of the College of Arts and Sciences passed a resolution on October 30, 2011, calling for the Provost’s Office to adopt a policy allowing each program/department to determine the naming of its bachelors degrees (for example, “Bachelor of Arts” or “Bachelor of Science”) and

Whereas the Faculty Senate unanimously passed a resolution on February 17, 2010, supporting an earlier resolution by the CAC, stating that “Each academic program should determine the degree type that is appropriate for its graduates (B.A., B.S., etc.). Remove one year of college credit in a foreign language as the distinction between the B.A. and the B.S.” and

Whereas in a memo on May 5, 2011 Provost Jack Kay suggested three different frameworks for determining the naming of bachelor’s degrees and

Whereas at the Senate meeting of September 7, 2011 the Provost’s office requested that the Faculty Senate and the CAC consider formal written criteria to determine whether a BA or BS should be awarded and

Whereas the CAC has surveyed many of Eastern’s peer institution and determined that most of them do not require a written criteria but instead rely on their individual departments to determine the name of their bachelors’ degrees, and

Whereas the CAC’s resolution calls for the use of the usual, contractual, faculty input process to vet any changes to the names of program degrees, therefore

Be it resolved that the Faculty Senate supports the CAC’s response of October 30, 2011 and asks that the Provost’s Office move to implement this policy change as soon as possible, and report back to the Senate on this implementation no later than March, 2012.

The central paragraphs in the CAC’s resolution are:

We suggest, rather, that the criterion for each degree should be the program of study.

The unifying experience for our students should be at the level of bachelors degree (i.e., all students who earn a bachelors degree from EMU must...), not at the level of Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science. We have requirements in place for the bachelors degree: university graduation requirements (including General Education). The “... of Arts” and “... of Sciences” should be appropriate to the program of study.

Proposals for each program’s degree type should be subject to the standard input process: proposed by programs/departments and reviewed by all of the college councils.

The full text of the CAC resolution is appended here:

To: Rhonda Longworth, Associate Provost
From: Jill Dieterle, College of Arts and Sciences Advisory Council
Cc: Tom Venner, CAS Dean; Matt Evett, Faculty Senate President
Provost Kay’s memo of 5/5/2011 suggests three different frameworks for awarding Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science degrees. Below is the response from CAC.

Framework (1) suggests that the B.S remain the default; Framework (2) suggests that the B.A. become the default. But to make either degree a “default” is to denigrate the default degree, suggesting that it is lesser than the other degree. This is not the case; the B.A. is the preferred degree for the arts and humanities, whereas the B.S. is the preferred degree for the sciences. We therefore do not endorse either of these frameworks.

Framework (3) suggests that EMU institute different criteria for the B.S. and the B.A., and then programs must meet the criteria for their graduates to qualify for the degree in question.

We suggest, rather, that the criterion for each degree should be the program of study.

The unifying experience for our students should be at the level of bachelors degree (i.e., all students who earn a bachelors degree from EMU must...), not at the level of Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science. We have requirements in place for the bachelors degree: university graduation requirements (including General Education). The “... of Arts” and “... of Sciences” should be appropriate to the program of study.

Proposals for each program’s degree type should be subject to the standard input process: proposed by programs/departments and reviewed by all of the college councils.

Provost Kay’s memo suggests that it is the norm that there be some criteria distinguishing the B.A. from the B.S. However, our research does not support this conclusion. We surveyed all of the Michigan Publics, all of the MAC schools, and all of the EMU identified peer institutions (38 schools). While some of the schools do have specific criteria for the two degrees, they are not consistent about what those criteria are. Furthermore and most importantly, 23 of the 38 institutions make the degree type dependent on the program of study.

A Resolution to Advance Benefits Equity at Eastern Michigan University

Whereas Michigan House Bills 4770 and 4771, which seek to prohibit any state public employer, including universities, from offering medical or fringe benefits to unmarried individuals who reside in the same household, and to limit the right to collectively bargain for these benefits, are currently awaiting a vote by the full Senate < http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2011-HB-4770>, and

Whereas Eastern Michigan University has led nationally in creating a positive campus climate for all of its employees and students, which include those who self- identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) students, faculty and staff:

  • EMU was “named one of the top gay friendly universities in the nation by the 2011 Campus Pride Climate Index.” <http://www.emich.edu/univcomm/releases/press_release.php?id=1313158920>

  • EMU was ranked 18th in the country, leading the state of Michigan, on Newsweek’s list of gay friendly colleges and universities in 2011. <http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/features/college-rankings/2011/gay- friendly.html>

  • EMU established the Center for the Study of Equality and Human Rights in 2010 through the generous gift of alumnus and former Regent Timothy Dyer. The Center’s mission is the advancement and promotion of research on equality and human rights, with a primary focus on eliminating homophobia in society. <http://www.emich.edu/univcomm/releases/press_release.php?id=1287500302>

and

Whereas across the nation, universities and corporations deem offering equitable benefits to all employees as critical to recruiting and retaining talented faculty, professionals and staff, and

Whereas the current EMU Additional Eligible Adults (AEA) benefits policy is in purposeful compliance with current state law, in that it does not grant benefits based on domestic partnership, yet offers equitable benefits to all employees, regardless of marital status, and

Whereas Michigan universities are autonomously governed bodies that make decisions based on the best interests of their institutions’ constituents.

Therefore be it resolved that:

Eastern Michigan University continues to offer and support full and equal benefits for Additional Eligible Adults.

We urge President Martin, the Regents, and the Office of Government and Community Relations to publicly support the continuation of these benefits and to strongly advocate with both the Michigan Senate and Governor Snyder for the University’s ability to autonomously offer competitive AEA benefits to attract and retain a diverse and vibrant faculty and staff that is treated with respect and equity.

 

10/05/2011

 

Resolution 20111005.1

A Resolution Establishing a Process for Allocating the Senate’s Faculty Offices at the Halle Library
From Senate Executive Board

Whereas The Faculty Senate has long exercised control over the use of six offices at the Halle Library and
Whereas The Dean of the Library, Tara Fulton, has requested clarification of how these offices are to be allocated to faculty, therefore

Be it resolved that the Faculty Senate determines that the following policy shall be used to allocate these offices:

One office shall be available on a daily, first-come-first-serve basis to any EMU faculty member, including emeriti. This office shall also be used to store applications for Distinguished Faculty Awards during the time each year when they are being reviewed.

The other five offices shall be allocated to faculty on a semester basis. Faculty wanting to use these offices during a semester should submit applications to the office of the Dean of the Library at least two weeks prior to the start of each semester (Spring/Summer to be considered a single semester for this purpose). The applications should state how the faculty member intends to use the office, the average number of hours the office will be used per week and on which days of the week (if known), and a clear rationale as to the benefit the faculty member expects to gain through use of a Halle office.

The Faculty Senate’s Institutional Issues Committee shall combine with the six members appointed by the Senate to the Library Advisory Committee (hereafter, “the Committee”) to review all applications at least one week before the start of each semester and select from among the applicants those who will be allowed to use the offices. The Committee shall consider appointing multiple faculty to each office, if the applicants’ usage patterns allow it (for example, if three faculty members have expressed a desire for a room on different days of the week.) All other things being equal, preference shall be given to new applicants over those reapplying.

If there are unallocated offices during a semester, they shall be available on a daily, first-come-first-serve basis to any EMU faculty member, including emeriti.

At the start of each semester, the Committee, in writing, shall inform all applicants, the President of the Faculty Senate and the Dean of the Library as to the allocation of the rooms.

One month before each semester the Dean of the Library will e-mail or otherwise advertise the availability of the Faculty Senate rooms to all faculty.

Resolution 20111005.2

A Resolution Supporting Continued Funding for Faculty Improvement

From Senate Executive Board

Whereas it is imperative that faculty continue to develop new and improved methods of teaching given:

  1. the rapidly evolving nature of our disciplines, pedagogical advances and techniques, as well as the fluctuating marketplace demands for an ever- changing college educated demographic, and,

  2. that these actions are vital to the University’s response to these marketplace demands, as well as its reputation as an institution of quality and opportunity, and,

  3. that professional growth is an integral part of the evaluation of our instructional faculty, as well as contributing to the student perception of the quality of their education, and [contributes to the quality of student education]

Whereas the Faculty Development Center

  1. In 2010-11 provided 70 workshops, meetings and training sessions for over

746 faculty and

  1. In 2010-11 provided walk-in service to approximately 2100 faculty-days

(210 unique individuals) and

Whereas travel to academic conferences is critical to broadening and deepening our knowledge, maintaining currency with disciplines and pedagogy, [and facilitating interagency collaborations] [UBC: whereas major cuts have been made in F2012...]

Therefore be it resolved that:

  1. Support for faculty development be continued in the form of the Faculty Development Center (including a full-time director),

  2. Support for the use of new technology in the classrooms be encouraged by the restoration and funding of the eFellows Program,

  3. Support for the professional growth of our faculty be enabled by an increase in departmental funding for travel to academic and professional organization meetings (e.g., the annual meeting of each faculty member’s discipline).

04/06/2011

Resolution 20110406.1: Faculty Senate Resolution Regarding University Budget Cuts

The Governor has proposed a 15%, or larger, cut in state appropriations to Eastern Michigan University. In addressing the budget challenges entailed in these proposed cuts, the Faculty Senate strongly supports the following resolution adopted by the University Budget Council on February 8, 2011:

The UBC recommends that all EMU spending decisions, including any budgetary reductions, be made so that student services and academic offerings are supported to the fullest extent possible.

In support of the UBC recommendation, the Faculty Senate strongly believes that a combination of cuts in spending and revenue enhancements can be made totaling around $11 million without negatively impacting student services or academic quality. While hardships will inevitably result, those hardships should not be allowed to harm the core academic mission of educating students. The future of the University depends upon making the right strategic choices now.

We propose that the University meet the projected $11 million budget shortfall through the following actions:

  1. Decreasing total spending on Administrative-Professional costs by $3 million, through a combination of eliminated positions or reduced salaries to bring EMU closer in line with the ratio of administrative to faculty compensation at our peer institutions.
  2. Cease General Fund subsidies of the Eagle Crest conference center and golf course (an Auxiliary Fund), saving around $600,000.
  3. Cut the general fund subsidy to the Athletics Department by $3 million. The EMU general fund supports a larger percentage of Athletics spending than any other member of the MAC conference. EMU also has the lowest ticket sales of any member of the MAC conference indicating little community support for these activities. Thus, the burden of such large subsidies cannot be justified.
  4. Eliminate $1 million in General Fund subsidies of the Convocation Center which primarily services activities of the athletic department.
  5. Additional savings of $3.5 million across all university divisions should be made without cutting the core activities of the University, which entail academic offerings and students’ educations.

Recommended savings: $ 3.0 million in administrative expenses $ 0.6 million in Eagle Crest subsidy

$ 3.0 million in General Fund Athletics subsidies

subsidies

enhancements

$ 1.0 million in General Fund Convocation Center

$ 3.5 million in other reductions and revenue Total: $11.1 million

Background information for item 1:

$60.00

$50.00

$40.00

$30.00

$20.00

$10.00

$0.00

EMU Administrative & Professional Compensation FY 2009-10 $58.80 Actual and Projected using A/P $ to Faculty $ Ratio at Comparables

EMU$*ratio $48.76

$0.00

$10.04

Difference

$45.01

$13.79

EMU Ratio = .6504

CMU Ratio =.5394

GVS Ratio=.4979

Source: Michigan House & Senate Fiscal Agencies, "Public University Summary Data," 2 -1-2011, p. 39.

For every dollar EMU spends on faculty compensation (all instructional staff), $0.65 is spent on administrative and professional compensation. Comparable figures are $0.54 at CMU and $0.50 at GVS (Grand Valley State). Both CMU and GVS are of similar size and offer similar degrees to those offered by EMU. Total AP compensation at EMU was $58.8 million in fiscal 2009-10 and faculty compensation was $90.4 million. Keeping faculty compensation at $90.4 million, if EMU spent $0.5394 on AP for each $1.0 spent on faculty as does CMU, AP compensation at EMU would be $48.76 million for a saving of $10.04 million. The savings using the ratio of 0.4979 from GVS is $13.79 million.

Million $

Resolution 20110406.2

Resolution Concerning “Program Review”

The provost has undertaken a process of reviewing programs for potential elimination or merger. To that effect, the provost sent an e-mail to all faculty on 3/25/2011 under the subject line of "Request to Review Programs". This e-mail included a list of programs to be reviewed for "the purpose of considering phase out, consolidation, or growth." On 3/30/2011, Susan Moeller, on behalf of the AAUP, sent a letter to Provost Kay requesting that he provide the information and criteria used to form that list. The Faculty Senate hereby requests that the provost provides the same information to the Faculty Senate, including a description of the process used to generate the list in the 3/25/2011 e-mail, including data, selection criteria, and pertinent remarks forwarded by college deans.

The Faculty Senate stresses the need for adequate time for due deliberation in this process, starting with faculty input at the department level and working up through the college faculty advisory councils and the Faculty Senate as stated in the EMU/AAUP Master Agreement.

Resolution of Support for the Graduate Council’s Action to Increase the Minimum GPA Needed for Admission to Graduate Programs

The Faculty Senate supports the Graduate Council’s recent action to increase the requirements for unconditional admission to a graduate program as stipulated in their resolution:

RESOLUTION: Each graduate program establishes its own admission requirements, including a minimum GPA. Students that do not meet minimum requirements may be admitted with conditions and may be eligible for graduate financial aid; see specific program requirements. The Graduate School is urged to set a minimum cumulative undergraduate grade point average of 2.7 on a 4.0 scale, or 3.00 in the last half of the undergraduate program for admissions.

Resolution Concerning the Potential Effect on Academic Affairs of Cost-Cutting Measures by Other Divisions
The recent move to eliminate the van program by Physical Plant will have a significant, negative, and costly impact upon several academic departments within Academic Affairs. The Faculty Senate urges EMU’s administration to ensure that all divisions sufficiently consider the possible impact of any budget cuts they might make on the academic environment at Eastern. The potential for any such adverse effects should be communicated to the provost’s office so that appropriate input may be gathered from affected colleges and departments.

 

03/16/2011

Resolution 20110316

Proposed Resolution Regarding Grading Policy:

From Marti Bombyk on behalf of the Executive Board

January 18 2011
Faculty Senate Resolution

Whereas there are repeated concerns expressed by faculty regarding certain grading policies, be it resolved that

  1. EMU change its policy of requiring hard copy submission of a complete Incomplete grade within one year of its occurrence. The faculty want to be able to handle this electronically.
  2. Grade changes caused by a clerical error or the student’s advocacy for why the grade should be different should not require the signature of the department head/ director and college dean if the change occurs within the first month of the subsequent semester.
  3. The letter grade that represents failing a course should be changed from E to F.
  4. A faculty member shall be appointed to the committee of the Records and Registration office that sets grading policy.

 

02/16/2011

Resolution 20110216

Proposed Resolution Regarding Grading Policy:

From Marti Bombyk on behalf of the Executive Board

January 18 2011
Faculty Senate Resolution

Whereas there are repeated concerns expressed by faculty regarding certain grading policies, be it resolved that

  1. EMU change its policy of requiring hard copy submission of a complete Incomplete grade within one year of its occurrence. The faculty want to be able to handle this electronically.
  2. Grade changes caused by a clerical error or the student’s advocacy for why the grade should be different should not require the signature of the department head/ director and college dean if the change occurs within the first month of the subsequent semester.
  3. The letter grade that represents failing a course should be changed from E to F.
  4. A faculty member shall be appointed to the committee of the Records and Registration office that sets grading policy.
01/19/2011

Resolution 20110119.1

A Resolution Supporting Graduate Council’s approval of “PTE Academic” for graduate admission
From the Faculty Senate Executive Board

The Faculty Senate supports the Graduate Council’s approval of the use of the Pearson Test of English Academic (PTE Academic) for graduate admission with a minimum overall score of 58. The Senate understands that starting in Fall11 or Winter12 admissions will thereby be possible using TOEFL, IELTS, MELAB or PTE.

Resolution 20110119.2

A Resolution Regarding Calendars for Academic Semesters

From the Faculty Senate Executive Board

Eastern Michigan University’s theme and primary mission is “Education First”. Students receive their university education primarily through regularly scheduled classes.

Eastern Michigan University lists its fall and winter academic terms as being 15 week semesters.

The winter 2011 academic term falls short of a 15 week semester by all except the most liberal interpretation. The following are the scheduled meeting times for the most commonly scheduled 3 credit hour time slots:
M/W meeting 2 times per week: 25 classes + final = 12.5 weeks plus final.

T/R meeting 2 times per week: 26 classes + final = 13 weeks plus final. M meeting 1 time per week: 12 classes + final = 12 weeks plus final. T/W/R meeting 1 time per week: 13 classes + final = 13 weeks plus final.

Thus, the winter 2011 semester falls short of the ideal semester of 14 weeks of class plus a final exam period by between one and two weeks, depending on class meeting time.

To avoid similar shortfalls in the future, be it hereby resolved that:
1) The University Calendar Committee should immediately review previously approved future calendars to see if similar problems have been built into upcoming semesters. If possible corrective actions should be sought where shortfalls occur.
2) The University Calendar Committee needs to resume the tradition of having proposed calendars reviewed by Faculty Senate (previously Faculty Council) before their submission to the Board of Regents for approval. This practice has not been followed for the past few years.
3) The Faculty Senate requests a report back from the University Calendar Committee by no later than March 2011.

E-Grade and F-Grade

On April 15, 2009, the Faculty Council passed the following resolution:

Proposal to Change the E-Grade to an F-Grade

Given the use of the E by Eastern and the fact that an F frequently indicates a failing grade, Donna Bobcean [sic] from Registration presented a proposal at the last meeting to change the E grade to an F grade. The proposal passed (19-0-1).

The university still seems to be issuing E grades, so a status report appears to be in order.

Faculty Senate Resolution

Whereas there are repeated concerns expressed by faculty regarding certain grading policies, be it resolved that

  1. EMU change its policy of requiring hard copy submission of a complete Incomplete grade within one year of its occurrence. The faculty want to be able to handle this electronically.
  2. Grade changes caused by a clerical error or the student’s advocacy for why the grade should be different should not require the signature of the department head/ director and college dean if the change occurs within the first month of the subsequent semester.
  1. The letter grade that represents failing a course should be changed from E to F.
  2. A faculty member shall be appointed to the committee of the Records and

Registration office that sets grading submission procedures.

 

12/01/2010

Resolution 20101201.1

A Resolution Concerning Promotion Materials

From Chris Mayda

The Faculty Senate recognizes the value of the efficient use of time and energy by faculty and the sustainable use of materials. Some faculty seeking tenure or promotion have provided boxes of supporting information, using thousands of pieces of paper when a single DVD can include all the necessary information, and in a far more organized format. The Senate suggests that departments consider, wherever possible, the use of digital media in the presentation of supporting materials for promotion and tenure applications. If anything within the promotion package is questioned, the faculty member can deliver the originals or paper facsimiles as requested.

Resolution 20101201.2

A Resolution Concerning the Classroom Technology Committee

From Faculty Senate Executive Board

The Faculty Senate recognizes and appreciates the hard work of the Classroom Technology Committee in identifying, vetting, and selecting instructional technology to be including in EMU’s classrooms. The Senate, however, is troubled that it was not asked to appoint faculty to the committee. The work of the committee is clearly of great importance to the faculty in all our colleges, and faculty input should be sought. The Senate understands that the Classroom Technology Committee will now report to the Educational Environment & Facilities Committee, which does have Faculty Senate appointees, and this change is welcomed.

Resolution 20101201.3

A Resolution Recognizing the Service of Robert Neely

From Faculty Senate Executive Board

The Faculty Senate recognizes and appreciates the twenty-six years of faithful service Robert Neely has given to Eastern Michigan University. Bob has served Eastern in many capacities, including as a teacher, researcher, department head, Associate Dean, Associate Provost, Interim Provost, and Associate Vice President of Research. The Faculty Senate wishes him continued success in his future work as Provost at Texas Women’s University.

 

10/06/2010

Resolution 20101006

“The
Faculty
Senate
supports
the
creation
of
the
Academic
Affairs
Steering
Planning
 Committee,
as
mentioned
by
Provost
Kay
at
the
Faculty
Senate
meeting
of
9‐15‐10.
 The
committee
would
consist
of
13
members,
7
appointed
by
the
Faculty
Senate,
1
 by
the
Graduate
Council,
and
the
other
5
by
the
provost.

The
Senate
appointees
 should
consist
of
2
from
CAS,
and
1
from
each
other
college
and
the
library.
The
 committee
should
provide
the
Faculty
Senate
with
a
written
formal
charter
within
2
 months
of
its
first
meeting.
The
charter
should
clearly
indicate
the
relationship
 between
the
Committee
and
the
Faculty
Senate.”

05/19/2010

Resolution 20100519

  1. The Provost’s office is running a search for a new head of the Honors College. The faculty members who comprise the Honors College Advisory Committee—appointed by the Faculty Senate—are serving on the search committee. Unfortunately, the timing of the creation of the search committee precluded the Senate’s right to name members to that committee. The Senate recognizes the work being done by the Honors College Advisory Committee, but because the Honors College is a university-wide institution, to qualify as official faculty representation, the members of the search committee should have been appointed by the Senate directly. The Senate calls upon the Provost to ensure that future searches work within the timeframe of the Senate’s processes. The resolution passed 18 5
03/17/2010

Resolution 20100317.1: Resolution/Motion to Express Our Sympathy to Dean Polite’s Family.

The Faculty Senate extends our deepest sympathy to the family of Dean Vernon Polite. We are deeply grateful for his many years of faithful service to EMU. The motion passed unanimously.

Resolution 20100317.2: Resolution/Motion Thanking Provost Jack Kay

The Faculty Senate applauds the Provost’s balanced and creative approach to budgetary planning for Academic Affairs as reflected in his February 24 e-mail to Faculty and Administrators in Academic Affairs. In particular we appreciate the focus on the centrality of Academic Affairs in the University’s Budgetary planning. The motion passed unanimously.

 

Resolution 20100317.3: Resolution/Motion to Support Dr. Mahmud Rahman’s Work and to Promote Clear Communication on Budgetary Matters

Recognizing how vital the University’s budget making decisions, choices, and processes are to the well-being of the EMU faculty and our University,

And knowing that as the rest of this academic year unfolds, many budget- focused discussions will be held around the campus and that budgetary decisions will need to be made,

And in the belief that regular and timely communications to the faculty about budgetary matters should be provided,

The Faculty Senate hereby asks Dr. Mahmud Rahman, Professor of Finance, Vice President of the Faculty Senate, and a Faculty Senate representative to the University Budget Committee, to provide regular factual updates on budgetary issues by e-mail to all faculty. The motion passed unanimously.

02/17/2010

Resolution 20100217: Resolution from the Parking Committee – Faculty Senate Executive Board

The Faculty Senate applauds the Parking Committee’s efforts in the placement of computerized signage that indicates the number of available parking spaces along Oakwood Street. The Senate supports the implementation of a tiered pricing system for student parking [whereby students who use parking lots which are farther away pay less]. Furthermore, the Senate suggests that the Parking Committee consider the implementation of a cross-campus shuttle (golf carts, etc.) between the North lot, the tower, and central campus. The Senate also recommends that the Parking Committee expand its purview to include all transportation related issues. The motion passed unanimously.

12/02/2009

Resolution 20091202: Policy Regarding Scheduling of Evening Classes

It is problematic to have all classes start at 5:30, because (a) students who work cannot necessarily get to class at this time, (b) there are not enough classrooms on the main campus, and (c) asking for many exceptions to rules is bad policy. As a result the following resolution was passed with one abstention (22-0-1). The Faculty Senate respectfully requests that the Provost issue amended scheduling guidelines that add additional acceptable starting times for 3-hour evening classes.”

11/18/2009

Resolution 20091118: Policies and Procedures Regarding Appointments by the University Senate

Faculty on 100% administrative release are not eligible to serve as University Faculty Senate appointees to committees, councils, taskforces, boards, etc.

02/18/2009

Resolution 20090218.1: Graduate School Resolutions on the Graduate School

Graduate Council views the Graduate School as a vital part in the operations of our graduate programs at Eastern Michigan University. A centralized location for the services of graduate education is necessary if our university is to continue its academic mission of excellence in teaching, basic and applied research, and creative and artistic expression to graduate faculty and students. The Graduate School administers many operations essential to the development of graduate education, including financial assistance, admission standards, coordination and assistance to graduate coordinators, review of theses and dissertations, human subject review, and academic programming for events such as the Graduate Research Fair. In recent years, Graduate School resources at the university have been significantly reduced. The Council thinks it prudent not to permit more reductions, but if funds become available to increase resources toward Graduate School operations.

Resolution 20090218.2: Graduate School Resolutions on the Research

Graduate Council also supports any effort to increase the visibility of our excellent scholarly activity through marketing to enhance its presence in such places as the Web site and in University Publications. Highlighting our activities will expose potential students to our mission of excellence in teaching, basic, and applied research, and creative and artistic expression. Graduate Council views scholarly activity as a vital part of the university’s activities. The Council enthusiastically supports efforts through the Provost’s Office, the Office of Research Development, and the Faculty Development Center that enhances the research environment at Eastern Michigan University. The Council supports the AQIP proposal to create a mentoring system to support early career faculty which will lead to increased scholarly activities in the form of presentations, papers, and grants. This proposal is essential for our faculty during this time to develop projects that will lead to increased funding and exciting projects in addition to increasing the visibility of our programs to our prospective students.

02/04/2009

Resolution 20090204: Faculty Council Resolution on Closing the University to Save Energy

Although closing the University on the Friday before classes began saved money, the administration should seriously consider the disruption the closing caused for students and faculty trying to prepare for Winter Term 2009. If future changes in scheduling are being contemplated, they should be undertaken judiciously, and more time should be provided for a smooth beginning for any term so affected. The motion passed 22-0-2.

01/21/2009

Resolution 20090121: Resolution on the Athletic Budget as Compared to the Academic Budget

Faculty Council recognizes the commitment of Eastern Michigan University to athletic success, but it urges the University administration to recognize that the University’s first priority is to educate students. Because the University is under financial pressure at present and has only limited resources, the first priority should be to support the academic mission of the University. For example, although games have been added to the football schedule to compensate for the financial pressure caused by hiring a new football coach, that money could also have been used to lessen the huge financial demand that athletics already places on the General Fund and ultimately on the students and tax payers of Michigan (24-0-3).

11/19/2008

Resolution 20081119

Whereas the Faculty Council passed a resolution on October 15 of this year objecting to the practice of appointing interim administrators without an appropriate internal search:

Be it resolved that the Faculty Council expresses its deep regret that Provost Loppnow decided to hire an interim Assistant Vice President for Academic Human Resources with no announcement the position was open, nor appropriate faculty input.

The Faculty Council calls upon Provost Loppnow to reopen the search and immediately to hold an internal search to fill this position.

10/15/2008

Resolution 20081015

Faculty Council strongly objects to the practice of appointing interim administrators without an appropriate internal search. We suggest that a search committee be appointed, that the position be posted internally, and that candidates be screened according to the published criteria for the position.

12/05/2007

Resolution 20071205

Resolution on EMU Going “Green.”

The following resolution was presented for vote at the next University Faculty Council meeting (on January 9, 2008). Representatives are requested to forward the resolution to the people whom they represent and get feedback from them.

“Because sustainability is critical to ensuring the health of our nation and planet, many American colleges and universities have demonstrated leadership by becoming models of energy efficiency and environmental stewardship.

Be it therefore resolved that the EMU Faculty Council will appoint a three person committee to investigate, evaluate, and report on EMU’s present commitment to sustainability and to make recommendations for future sustainability initiatives at EMU. The committee will report its findings by the beginning of the Winter 2009 academic term.”

04/18/2007

Resolution 20070418

WHEREAS: E-mail communication between faculty and students is critical to the educational process, and
WHEREAS: This communication is often hampered by the current disk quota for faculty,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: The University Faculty Council urges that the administration immediately allocates sufficient resources to increase the e- mail quota to a minimum of 2 gigabytes for each faculty member. The resolution was proposed by Matt Evett and unanimously approved.

04/04/2007

Resolution 20070404.1: Resolution Concerning the Fact-Finder’s Report

The following resolution was approved unanimously (30-0-0).

The lack of a current faculty contract jeopardizes the success of Eastern Michigan University. Entering into a binding faculty contract without any further delay is critical to the health and healing of the institution.

Therefore: The University Faculty Council strongly urges and expects that the EMU- AAUP, the administration and the Board of Regents will accept the fact-finder’s report in its entirety and immediately enter into a binding agreement between the EMU-AAUP and the administration of Eastern Michigan University.

Resolution 20070404.2: Resolution from the Teacher Education Department

The meeting moved into executive session, and after the executive session, the following resolution was approved (22-2-3).
WHEREAS: The tragic death of a student was a significant event at Eastern Michigan University, and

WHEREAS: The statements issued by the administration of Eastern Michigan University throughout the initial period of the investigation into her death have caused confusion and the perception that the administration of the University did not fully inform the public;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: The University Faculty Council calls upon the Board of Regents to act on the result of the Department of Education investigation. If procedures have failed us, those procedures must be revised. If individuals within the University have failed in the responsibilities entrusted to them, those individuals must be dealt with severely.

11/15/2006

Resolution 20061115

The University Faculty Council fully supports the EMU- AAUP in its representation of faculty in the current negotiations with the administration of Eastern Michigan University to obtain a fair and equitable labor agreement. The lack of progress toward reaching a resolution of the outstanding issues is unacceptable. Faculty need and deserve to have a new binding Master Agreement with Eastern Michigan University’s administration. Therefore, the UFC strongly urges all parties to work in good faith and to use all available methods to reach an agreement as soon as possible.

The resolution passed unanimously with minimal discussion. Daryl Barton will distribute it to the Regents, Provost (who was present throughout this meeting), Deans, Department Heads, and post it on the website.

During the discussion on joint governance it became clear that there are mediators who specialize in higher education. Perhaps this is a route to explore.

11/01/2006

Resolution 20061101.1

Daryl Barton was unanimously appointed to speak for the University Faculty Council at the Public Affairs session of the next meeting of the Board of Regents on the afternoon of November 14.

Resolution 20061101.1

A resolution to be presented to the Board of Regents was proposed and seconded. Discussion included the following.

    • Some individual faculty members have been contacted to see whether they would be willing to get together with some of the members of the Board of Regents. This strategy is an attempt to divide and conquer the faculty, and such meetings are inappropriate. This strategy should be kept in mind as a context in deciding on the resolution to be presented to the Board of Regents.
    • The public dispute between the regents and the faculty would have been avoided if there had been Shared Governance.
    • Some departments thought the resolution was not strong enough, whereas others thought it was too strong.
    • Some faculty are hoping that dialogue between faculty and regents is possible, and that this should be the goal of our actions; whereas others believe that discussion is not likely, and we should be planning alternate actions.
  • Some representatives indicated that the failed negotiations were the immediate instigation for the resolution. However, there is a systemic problem with the Board of Regents in their failure to support EMU’s central academic mission, and this systemic problem needs to be addressed independently of the outcome of the negotiations.
  • The public disrespect of the Board of Regents for the faculty hurts the public image of the university and has very negative consequences for the university in its ability to attract students and funding from Lansing.
  • A great deal of money is being used for purposes other than the central mission of EMU. This includes the College Place plan and the money to be donated to the Athletic Department.
  • Specific suggestions need to be added to the resolution.
  • Perhaps there should be a series of resolutions during different meetings of the University Faculty Council dealing with different topics, such as the limited voice of Academic Affairs at the Strategic Operating Council, the at-will service of administrators which makes them hesitant to speak up, support for the union as the bargaining agent for the faculty, etc. Faculty members are urged to think about resolutions which would be appropriate and meaningful.

The resolution as originally proposed was defeated (9-17-4). A motion was made to modify the distributed resolution to include an emphasis on Shared Governance and a list of issues that need to be addressed was approved (22-5- 2). A committee of David Clifford, Ross Nord and Daryl Barton will redraft the resolution to reflect the intent of the motion.

04/27/2006

Resolution 20060427: Resolution of the Eastern Michigan University Faculty Council

Whereas : There is a strong and rich history of Faculty participation at Eastern Michigan University in all matters pertaining to the university. The Faculty Council existed as the Faculty Senate prior to the introduction of the AAUP on campus. Faculty Council has been included in every EMU-AAUP Master Agreement since 1978. The University Faculty Council has been specifically recognized and granted authority as the representative voice of faculty. In 1992, the membership of the Faculty Council was expanded to include a representative from each academic department/program on campus. Shortly thereafter, new by-laws were approved by the Faculty Council and incorporated into the EMU-AAUP Master Agreement. The Faculty Council President, the Provost and VP of Academic Affairs, and the EMU-AAUP President all signed the Faculty Council By-laws recognizing the by-laws as the instrument of shared governance.

Whereas : The University Faculty Council By-laws are based in part on the Joint Statement on the Government of Colleges and Universities. The text of this statement is available on the national website of AAUP. In accordance with the Joint Statement, the by-laws of the Eastern Michigan University Faculty Council list three broad areas of joint responsibility: determining General Education Policy, Internal Operations, and External Relations. Under Internal Operations, the by-laws specifically list “(f.) participate in the selection of academic officers at the level of Dean and above and (g.) advise the appropriate authority on retention of the above mentioned officers.”

Whereas : The recent decision to change the status of the Provost and VP of Academic Affairs from interim to permanent was done without providing any opportunity for formal faculty input in the discussion. This action disregarded the established representative voice of the Eastern Michigan University faculty and is at odds with the principles of shared governance. It has been repeatedly stated that faculty are the first and foremost representatives of the university. As the representative voice of faculty, the Faculty Council should have been invited to engage in dialogue concerning the appointment of their number one representative in the administration.

Therefore be it resolved:

  1. The University Faculty Council affirms the process for faculty input laid out in the

University Faculty Council By-laws, and therefore does not accept the process by which this decision was made.

  1. The University Faculty Council views this process as an unintended exception and does not accept it as a precedent. This was affirmed by President Fallon in his presentation to the University Faculty Council.
  2. We accept President Fallon’s offers:

o To sign the University Faculty Council’s By-laws as a reaffirmation of the University Faculty Council’s role, and to distribute them to the SOC;
o To make a statement to the campus community affirming a shared process for decision making; and
o To continue having conversations with the University Faculty Council about the role of shared governance on the EMU campus.

A Second Resolution of the Eastern Michigan University Faculty Council

We commend and respect Don Loppnow’s long service to EMU and look forward to working constructively with him according to the principles of shared governance.

 
Make a Gift
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • youtube
  • linked in
  • Blog EMU