Minutes From

FCP Meeting with Dr. White

February 15, 2017
The FCP met with Dr. White on February 15, 2017. M. Lopez was not able to attend due to a health
issue and will be resigning from the committee.

The first item of discussion focused on the recent tenure decisions and the apparent disparity between
the faculty reviews in the process and those of the administration. The particular concern expressed
was the failure of some candidates to achieve tenure who came to the administration with
recommendations for tenure from their faculty, department and/or school. The discussion that
resulted from this item was quite lengthy and open within the limits of what could be shared without
entering into the realm of personnel confidentiality.

Dr. White noted that the requirements for receiving tenure are listed in the Faculty Handbook and that
all of the requirements are important and are being enforced. He stated that tenure is important to our
institution for protecting who we are and how we do what we do, and that (as stated in the Faculty
Handbook), tenure is a privilege not a right. He further stated that there are no hidden agendas behind
tenure decisions, the decisions are based on the guidance and procedures of the handbook.

The discussion also included confusion over the integration paper and whether the university had a
position on integration. Dr. White stated that the administration does not hold to any one preferred
view on integration other than wanting robust scriptural integration with each academic discipline.
He further stated that there are no immediate plans to adopt a preferred position but that he felt it
healthy to have discussions and to continue to think about the matter. As to the specific matter of
interpretation and/or evaluation of integration papers, Dr. White suggested that such discussions
should be brought up to the VPA through the chairs and/or deans. He concluded by stating that as the
tenure review process continues through this academic year there will be information coming down
through the process to provide better guidance though he did not specify when or how this will occur.

With regard to the tenure process and integration paper, the FCP encouraged more transparency to
address what many faculty feel is an apparent faculty/administration disconnect. For maximal faculty
effectiveness, both in hiring and within and through the process of tenure, we made a plea for more
clarity to better guide candidate selection, to remove unnecessary anxiety among the faculty and to
encourage a more formative process.

The FCP then relayed to the president some concerns regarding some statements that he had made
during his update to the faculty and staff last semester during an afternoon meeting. The concern was
that some of the statements could be misinterpreted and potentially damage the relationships that
some schools/departments have with outside organizations or accreditors. Dr. White graciously
received our concerns and stated that he was trying to remain light and in the context of what he
perceived to be a family discussion made some remarks in jest that he would not make in other more
public contexts.

The FCP then brought back up for discussion the new language that now appears in our faculty
contracts. The FCP wanted to request a town hall meeting to allow those with concerns over the
language to be able to receive answers from the administration prior to the issuing of contracts.
Unfortunately the contracts were released the day before our meeting with the president. In lieu of a
meeting, Dr. White agreed to disseminate a document which shows the linkages between all of the
wording of the paragraph of the contract in question to other existing C.U. documents. This linkage
chart will be sent to the chairs and deans for further distribution to their faculty. He reminded us that
there are no new requirements in the new contract language; it was worded as it is to bring together
all of the existing requirements which are scattered through many documents into one concise
statement as recommended by legal counsel for bolstering our defense of our religious freedom. He
encouraged the faculty to review the chart and if questions remain work through the chairs and deans
for further clarification. (Follow-up note: Since our meeting Dr. White has distributed this chart.)

The FCP then drew attention to how the university had participated in an outside survey to help with
assessment of the institution. The FCP requested that the university again use a survey tool for
assessment and recommended one put out by The Best Christian Workplace Institute. Dr. White
thanked us for our recommendation and stated that he would take it under consideration and do some
research on the suggestion.

Dr. White then asked the FCP for input regarding concealed carry on campus. He stated that as they
have been researching the issue they received input from the university’s insurer in which they
suggested an alternate option to the three that Dr. White had listed in his survey of the faculty and
staff. He was very sensitive to burdening the faculty with another survey and asked us for our
thoughts on the matter. The recommendation of the FCP to Dr. White was that he should do another
survey and include this fourth option to keep the faculty in the loop on the issue. He thanked us for
our input and agreed stating that he would be working with IT to get a survey put together. (Follow-
up note: Following our meeting Dr. White launched the survey discussed.)

Respectfully Submitted,
Lyle Anderson
Greg Couser
Chuck Dolph
Beth Porter
Sam SanGregory