Faculty Policies Minutes – October 23, 2006
Attending: Carol Rychly, Charles Jackson, Rick Pukis, Robert Reeves, Mike Searles, Jim Benedict, Tom Colbert, Donna Hobbs, Pam Jackson, Sam Myers, Cathy Tugmon (chair), and Debbie van Tuyll (secretary). VPAA Sam Sullivan visited
1. Tugmon began the meeting by reporting on her recent meeting with with VPAA Sullivan regarding Faculty Research and Faculty Development funding and the new emphasis on using those funds as matching moneys for grants. According to Sullivan, this new initiative is the result of the UGa System chancellor’s push for universities to find funding sources beyond the state. The indirect/overhead costs some grants bring in is perceived as one of those funding sources. Sullivan said he does not envision ASU becoming a research university, but he also said he has advised the FRFD committee that they should be deliberative in their allocation of research funding (about $35,000 annually). The committee’s practice in recent years appears to have been to give some level of funding to everyone who applied, regardless of the nature of their request. He has advised committee members that funding for travel to conferences should be a lower priority when compared to providing for research that might generate the potential to apply for other grants in the future. Funding to present papers at conferences should be considered a middle ground. He sees this change as expanding funding for research at ASU. He clarified that when he used the term research he was not referring solely to bench type research but that it could include areas specific to the various disciplines or what we do on the campus, i.e. teaching, advising, etc. . He added that, because professional development is a requirement of the Faculty Role Model, ASU has an obligation to assist faculty in meeting that requirement but that it is up to individual faculty members to decide what sort of faculty development they will do.
Committee members indicated that the faculty see this change as a mandate to acquire grants without the support provided to faculty at research universities. Further, they indicated the emphasis on retention and improved advising contradicts this push to acquire outside research funding. Sullivan indicated that the nature of university work is changing and the university and its faculty will be required in the future to generate more of the funding for their work. He did invite FPC to discuss the limits of what faculty should be asked to do.
Further, Tugmon reported, and Sullivan confirmed, that he is supportive of revising the charge and constitution of the Faculty Research and Faculty Development committee so that allocations can be made sooner than December for summer research and travel. The committee agreed to begin working on a proposal to accomplish this.
Searles suggested inviting Helen Hendee, director of development, and President Bloodworth to a meeting to discuss the kinds of money they need to be seeking to fund faculty research and travel. Colbert encouraged committee members to accept Sullivan’s invitation to discuss faculty workload.
2. Minutes of the October 16 meeting were approved.
3. Rychly presented a proposal to change the format of the Post Tenure Review committees to compensate for the splitting of the Fine Arts and Language, Literature and Communication's departments. The proposal was approved unanimously and will be sent on to University Council.
4. The rest of the agenda was held over for next week.
5. Charles Jackson will bring goodies next week.
Debbie van Tuyll