Running Head: Field Observation: Faculty Senate Meeting

A Field Observation in Higher Education:

Faculty Senate Meeting
Naronda Wright
Georgia Southern University
EDLD 7431
July 10, 2015

Running Head: Field Observation: Faculty Senate Meeting

Field Observation: Faculty Senate Meeting

Georgia Southern University (GSU) Faculty Senate conducts meetings approximately 9
times per year and it is comprised of GSU faculty from each department on campus. Senate
members are asked in the agenda for the meeting to read the reports, motions and discussions
prior to the meeting and print any documents they deem necessary to bring with them to the
meeting as copies are not provided at the meeting. The meeting is typically held on campus in
the Russell Union however this particular meeting was held in Nessmith-Lane Assembly Hall.
The structure of the meeting is along the lines of an open forum where updates are given for each
college and the faculty ask questions or respond and was moderated by the Senate Secretary, Ms.
Pat Humphrey. The meeting began with the call to approve the agenda and approval of meeting
minutes from the April 2015 meeting, both of which were approved. This meeting was very
interesting and when I began to search for a meeting I was skeptical about attending but found it
to be very interesting and gained an insight as to how decisions that affect faculty are met with
acceptance, rebuttal and hesitance.
Librarians Report
Reports from the different departments began with the Librarians report which was
presented by Jessica Minihan, Senate Librarian. This report is comprised of the Undergraduate,
Graduate, Faculty Athletics, General Education and Core Curriculum Committee meeting
reports. There was conversation on the confusion of whether the Undergraduate Committee
Report from September 2014 was approved or not and indeed it had been. The Undergraduate
Committee report was for the months of March and April and was presented by Cheryl Aasheim,
Senate member from the College of Engineering and Information Technology. She shared that

Running Head: Field Observation: Faculty Senate Meeting

during the meetings they had course revisions, deleted courses, programs revised, a new program
created and discussed that they are in the process of conducting program reviews.
Graduate Committee Report
The Graduate Committee report was presented by Rebecca Zeigler as a stand in for Bob
Fernekes. This report shared that the Deans update included comments on the site visit from the
accrediting body SACSCOC, program reviews submitted for two graduate programs. New
business included curriculum items from the College of Education, College of Engineering and
Information Technology, and the College of Science and Mathematics, all of which were
approved. The accreditation process is one that institutions must go through and is designed to
ensure the institutions are providing a high level of education. Accreditation is much like the
process of moving, requiring a highly organized effort and a review of all items in house
(Schloss & Craig, 2013).
Faculty Athletics
The Faculty Athletics Representative was at the meeting but left prior to reporting,
however the Senate Moderator, Pat Humphrey reported that the GPAs for some of the studentathletes were worth noting. The womens volleyball team had a 3.62 collective GPA, mens
tennis was 3.58 and basketball and football were both close to a 3.0 GPA for Spring 2015. This
made me feel that the Athletics department is focused on the student-athletes excelling in the
classroom and in their respective sports. The intent of intercollegiate athletics is to provide and
extracurricular developmental outlet for college students to enrich their learning experience and
campus life on the whole (Schloss & Craig, 2013). I was encouraged to hear this during the

Running Head: Field Observation: Faculty Senate Meeting

meeting and feel that education should always be the focus when dealing with the students we
serve daily.
General Education and Core Curriculum Committee
There was no report from the General Education and Core Curriculum Committee.
Presidents Report
Dr. Keel began his report by reminding everyone that Governor Deal was on campus and
signed the FY16 budget into law while here. That budget included a recommendation of $33.6
million for a new academic classroom building which was the last step in the approval process
for the project. At this point there is the process of planning, designing and selecting the
construction management & architectural firms to construct the building. The new building will
be used to replace approximately four older buildings on campus that were originally designed to
be temporary spaces. Dr. Keel explained that there is a process and it could take up to 9 months
to a year for planning, design and about another year to 18 months for construction. There was
also discussion of how the Governor also signed into law a recurring $1 million to be added to
Advanced Manufacturing which will aid in jumpstarting the new Manufacturing Engineering
degree being offered here on campus.
Also, discussed was the Faculty Senate to make a recommendation, to the President,
regarding the Faculty Athletic Representative. Some of the members there wanted to know the
length of time served by the current representative and they were told by the Senate Moderator
that he had served one term of 6 years and is currently in a second term. The President ended that
conversation letting them know that if they decided to replace the current representative that

Running Head: Field Observation: Faculty Senate Meeting

there was about a nine-month interim transition period. President encouraged the Faculty Senate
to bring their recommendation, and nomination, to him at the first Faculty Senate meeting.
One Faculty senate member asked if the History department would have an opportunity
to look at how the pending classroom building would be designed. Provost Bartels responded to
this and stated that those who are currently housed in the old buildings will not automatically go
into the new classroom building but input would come from faculty and deans.
SACSCOC
There are six accrediting bodies and they are all similar in the accreditation process yet
have some differences. One of the most obvious differences among the reaffirmation processes
of the six regional accrediting agencies is SACSs requirement of a Quality Enhancement Plan
(QEP). Required of all institutions seeking reaffirmation since 2004, the QEP is intended to
engage the entire campus in continuous improvement that enhances student learning (Schloss &
Craig, 2013). Provost Bartels shared that the final initial report had been received from the
visiting site team. The report addressed two recommendations, one with program assessments
and the other was the Quality Enhancement Program (QEP). There were close to 20 programs
identified as not providing evidence that the assessment date was being used to generate changes
needed to the programs. She shared that the institution would have a response to the
recommendations to present in September and felt as though things are being done and this will
pose no problems for GSU.
Senate Executive Committee (SEC) Report
Senate Executive Chair, Pat Humphrey reported that the SEC has been quiet lately and
had actually not had a meeting prior to Faculty Senate Meeting. No agenda items were submitted

Running Head: Field Observation: Faculty Senate Meeting

by anyone except Mr. Rob Whitaker. She stated that the University System of Georgia (USG)
Faculty Council had some chatter regarding the salaries of some of the system Presidents at was
is looked at as stellar institutions and she is not sure what the outcome of that would be but she
would love to see some recognition of some stellar faculty when it comes to salary increases.
No single budget process or principle must be embraced by those concerned about the overall
financing of the school as well as those operating at the lowest level (Schloss & Craig, 2013). I
feel that budgeting and financing should be ties to performance and that those excelling should
be compensated but must take into account the overall budgeting and operation of the institution.
Land Acquisition Master Plan Report
Robert Whitaker reported on the land that the University acquired that is across the bypass from campus. There are 208 acres of land that now belongs to GSU that is for future growth
and expansion in the next 20 to 30 years. The facilities department is seeking input, thoughts,
feedback and ideas from faculty and staff on potential uses for the land and will utilize a survey
that will go out through GSU news. Discussions on this led to whether enrollment played in to
the decision on purchasing the land and the response was that enrollment did not factor into the
plan for the land. The potential for the land ranges from classrooms, housing, to a larger field
house since currently we are outgrowing Hanner Fieldhouse. This topic brought me back to a
topic in our text for committees and the roles they play on a campus. Allocation of space and
facilities on postsecondary campuses is a function of balancing needs across various
constituencies, and is a process that is becoming increasingly complex as colleges and
universities evolve and the demand for available space grows (Schloss & Craig, 2013). I find
that GSU is forward thinking in this process but could potentially need to utilize that space much
sooner than 20 to 30 years from now.

Running Head: Field Observation: Faculty Senate Meeting

Outside Letters for Tenure and Promotion

This topic was the most heavily debated topic of the meeting and had lots of rebuttal from
faculty members. The motion on the topic was read by Dr. Jim Harris and he gave a summary of
what the motion actually was. It is basically an amendment to the Faculty Handbook that would
require any faculty up from promotion or tenure to provide the names and contact information of
at least three qualified individuals not directly involved in the faculty members work who can
objectively review the faculty members portfolio. This would give the department chair or chair
of the Promotion/Tenure committee two individuals to solicit letters addressing the quality of
work performed and the candidates readiness for promotion and/or tenure. This is a practice
already in place in at least four colleges on campus yet faculty present and not present had lots of
grievances about the practice. Faculty presented arguments of how can someone outside of the
institution evaluate their performance and make recommendations, some felt as if there arent
enough people that may be experienced in their field to select from to provide this reference to
the department chairs. Other concerns where:
What if a reviewer declined your request?
What if the reviewer doesnt complete the review by the deadline?
What exactly are the reviewers to review? Scholarship only?
It was pointed out to those with arguments that the memorandum clearly states that the portfolio
of the faculty is what is being reviewed by the outside person. The arguments and rebuttals went
on for quite some time and ended in the moderator calling for a vote which passed in favor of the
amendment, 15-13.
Conclusion

Running Head: Field Observation: Faculty Senate Meeting

This was a great assignment and I am glad I chose the Faculty Senate meeting to attend
because it gave me greater insight to the governance of faculty on campus. The meeting was not
heavily attended due to the time of the year it was held and faculty being out due to their
contracts so there was a question regarding the meeting date but it will have to be something
brought up in the next meeting to vote on changing that date. I enjoyed being placed into a
position that took me outside of my element yet it was a great learning experience, as was this
class.

Running Head: Field Observation: Faculty Senate Meeting

References
Schloss, P.J. & Cragg, K. M. (2013). Organization and administration in higher education.
New York:Routledge