Minutes from the FCP meeting with Dr.

White held Thursday, October 22, 2015, 3:00-5:00PM

Present: Julie Furj-Kuhn, Mike Lopez, Beth Porter, Melissa Faulkner, Chuck Dolph, Jeff Haymond (via
Facetime), and Thomas White

--Meeting was opened in prayer by Melissa Faulkner.

--The FCP expressed gratitude for the monetary gift of appreciation.

--The FCP expressed support for the creation of the new Director of Intercultural Leadership position
and noted Greg Dyson is doing excellent work trying to bring more diversity to campus.

--The FCP told Dr. White many faculty have noted a number of good speakers and chapel messages this
semester. In particular, the faculty appreciated the message discussing the topic of depression, as well
as hearing from Chip Ingram and Alistair Begg. Dr. White would like faculty to comment on specific
speakers they enjoy so those speakers can be invited back.

--The FCP asked to what extent faculty and student social media posts are monitored.

Dr. White reads official Cedarville social media posts from various clubs and organizations. He
enjoys very much reading about the exciting things happening on campus. And he needs to be
informed about what is going on.

Dr. White responded that he does not have the desire or the means to “monitor” others’ social
media posts, but he is active on social media. He does not send requests to “friend” requests on
Facebook, but he does accept them. He does follow institutionally related Twitter accounts and
has appreciated the Tweets he has seen. He does not follow anyone for the purpose of
monitoring. That is the only way faculty/staff/student posts come across his news feed.

Dr. White wants an atmosphere of trust. He knows people might make an occasional mistake on
social media. For the most part, people’s social media spaces are their own, but it is public, so be
wise. When questionable posts come to the administration’s attention, it is because a colleague,
student, or other constituent has reported it.

--The FCP asked if faculty emails are ever reviewed. If so, what is the procedure? And, what is the
purpose?

Dr. White assured the FCP that, to his knowledge, faculty emails are never reviewed for
exploratory purposes. Occasionally, after an issue has already been brought to the
administration’s attention through other means, it is necessary to review the involved
student or faculty member’s email for investigative purposes. Examples might include
accusations of academic dishonesty or marital infidelity wherein there is reason to
believe the matter was discussed through email.
--The FCP asked if the current administration shares the historic position of CU when it comes to the
integration of scripture with other academic disciplines. Chapel examples are continually drawn from
the “hard” sciences. Can we also learn from the “softer” sciences like psychology, philosophy, literature,
etc.?

Dr. White states that, yes, we can: This semester in chapel he has pointed to poetry,
painting, sculpture, music, and writing. This has been purposeful to teach students the
importance of general revelation.
To Dr. White, biblical integration means we view all the content of our disciplines
through our biblical lens.

--Along those same lines, what are the expectations or frameworks from the new Director of Integration
in regards to integration papers?

Dr. White states faculty should follow 3.6.3 from the faculty handbook.
Dr. White believes we need to sit down and articulate the specifics such as page number, font
size, etc.
Dr. White would like faculty to be specific about what happens when they look at their
disciplines through a biblical lens. Talk about what things are 1) excluded 2) included 3)
redeemable

--Many faculty have reported to the FCP that they feel it is a conflict of interest to have one director
oversee both residence life and counseling services. Could this be an issue with the HLC?

Dr. White says this is not a problem with the HLC because the director is not counseling
students. She may “mentor” students who simply want someone to talk to, but she does
not counsel students.
Dr. White states the three licensed counselors who do counsel students are strictly
bound to confidentiality. Therefore, they do not report to or discuss with the director
about the specific content of counseling sessions.

--Follow up from FCP: an unlicensed person supervising licensed counselors does not seem effective or
ethical, as confidentiality cannot be ensured. The Boards of Counselors, Social Workers, and Marriage
and Family Therapists would probably have a problem with our current structure. There could be
questions of liability in the future.

Dr. White says the HLC and the Board of Regents were questioned when the restructure
occurred and assured us we are fine.

--The FCP reported to Dr. White that some faculty have asked if he or Theresa Clark could make a broad
announcement regarding the process for faculty and Title IX issues. More specifically, what steps need
to be taken if a faculty member has experienced a Title IX issue? What should a faculty member do if his
or her ethical or legal violation is not taken seriously? Should they then report it to the HLC? US Civil
Rights Division?

If a faculty member feels his or her rights have been violated he or she should
immediately report it to Theresa Clark, a chair, dean, or General Reno. If the violation is
violent, call law enforcement first.
 The administration will seek opportunities for continued education. Faculty should know
what is a Title IX issue versus what is a Human Resources issue and what are not issues.
Trust runs both ways. Faculty should give the administration an opportunity to address
and rectify the situation before reporting to the HLC or other governing agency.

--The faculty would like a clear update on whether or not there are current plans for Cedarville to leave
the CCCU. If there is, how might this effect tuition remission, study abroad programs, national advocacy
for Christian colleges/universities, etc.? If we leave, who will we align with? Will discussion or input be
solicited from faculty in regards to a possible alignment?

Dr. White states there are no current plans to leave the CCCU, but the situation is fluid.
If the CCCU moves to include institutions that allow same-sex marriage to affiliate
status, we will leave. He does not anticipate our membership in the CCCU continuing
much longer and points out that we have been in the conservative minority of that
group and it has probably not been a good fit for a long time. He points to many CCCU
member schools affirmation of evolution as an example.
The reasons we may need to break away are threefold:
o Theological integrity
o Legal liability
o Clear, consistent communication of who we are
Yes, things like tuition remission and study abroad will be affected if we leave the CCCU;
we will have to look for other options. We can still participate in Best Semester, but we
will not be guaranteed seats.
There is currently no new group, nor one on the immediate horizon, to realign with.
Faculty input in this and all matters is always welcome.

--The FCP reported some faculty have expressed that shared governance is important. What is
administration’s thoughts on a faculty senate for better faculty representation?

Dr. White reports there are no present or future plans to form a faculty senate. We have
many venues for shared governance: Tenure and Promotion Committee, FCP, FAAC, and
ALG, just to name a few.

--Follow up from FCP: We may need a common definition of what shared governance is.

Dr. White reports the HLC has a good definition of shared governance and Cedarville
does a good job of meeting those requirements.
The FCP met with Dr. White in Founders Hall on Wednesday, December 2, at 4:00PM.

Minutes:

A list of questions was sent to the FCP. Dr. White, would you be open to addressing
questions in a Town Hall meeting sponsored by the FCP? This could be a good way to
build trust and provide transparency between faculty and administration. Dr. White
would be glad to hold a town hall, but the FCP does not need to sponsor such events. He
will work toward scheduling two for next semester, if the FCP could help with
determining the best time to offer these, that would be a helpful perspective.
FCP committee would like to sponsor a Brown Bag luncheon to introduce our committee
to faculty. This could be a good way for faculty to get to know their faculty
representatives better. Feel free to proceed, and this may be a good way to gather input
from the faculty. Dr. White would like feedback on the following: 1) How is our new
automated advising system for students working from the faculty’s perspective? 2) He
also would like to know more about faculty scholarship in their given disciplines. As he
understands it, each department and school was asked to develop a list of acceptable
scholarship achievements that would suffice for tenure and promotion considerations.
To his knowledge this process was never completed. Could the FCP find out how that is
coming in each school/department and bring Dr. White suggestions for how it looks
across the board, i.e., even or uneven relative expectations given the differences in
disciplines.
Some faculty asked for clarity on the role of Director of Integration. In the previous FCP
minutes, some faculty were surprised to see criteria for integration (excluded, included,
and redeemable). These criteria also showed up on the strategic planning survey. Could
you speak to the process of creating these three criteria? This is a work in progress.
Clarity will be forthcoming as the Vice President for Academics has been and will
continue to work with the Academic Leadership Group, the Center for Biblical
Integration, and the committee responsible for recommending tenure and promotions.
He has received good, constructive feedback already.
Dr. White asked Dr. Mach to include those questions in the survey so that he
could gauge faculty perspective on this issue, and he is pleased that the majority of our
faculty feel comfortable with expressing a biblical worldview and interacting with their
given disciplines. That input is helpful and part of the process. No need for alarm as
these questions were part of an ongoing process and an opportunity for broad input
based on a desire to include everyone into the decision making process where possible.
In regards to keeping faculty informed and educated about faith integration, what are
your thoughts on the FCP sponsoring a forum on Integration across disciplines? Past
Integration of Faith Faculty Award recipients could be called upon to present at this

1
forum. Dr. White has already asked the Vice President for Academics, who is working
with the Center for Biblical Integration, and the Academic Leadership Group on biblical
integration to take the lead on this. At the moment, anyone desiring to have specific
input should work through his or her Dean or Chair.
Some faculty are concerned about possible differences between their understanding of
shared governance and the trustees, given the different language between faculty and
trustees in last year’s documents.

FCP members have met with President White on two occasions to explain some of the
recent history of the call for shared governance, faculty fears, and why some faculty are
so concerned about shared governance. President White said that he does not plan to
do anything more with shared governance because it is his understanding that current
Handbook policy satisfies the HLC requirements. He believes that further discussion of
the issue could create distrust and be divisive.

Some faculty inquired about university letterhead stationery without the CU motto to
use when they are recommending students to grad schools and programs that are
hostile toward Christianity. This would be a question for the appropriate Dean or Chair
and for General Reno as the Vice President for Academics (Interim) to discuss with ALG
for equitable handling across all areas. Following the chain of command adds value,
knowledge of specific budget resources, potential solutions to problems, and following
chain of command demonstrates respect to the people assigned those responsibilities.
It would be an overstep of authority for Dr. White to weigh in on this before others in
the chain of command have had the appropriate opportunity to do so.

Some faculty still had questions about the CCCU and our possible departure. It was
stated that “CU belongs to other organizations that do not share our beliefs such as:
Honor’s Society’s, NCAA, OIC”. What are your thoughts on this? Those institutions are
not “Christian” institutions, so they do not pose the same theological compromise or
legal liability. We plan to continue membership in those and other organizations
because we must continue to engage culture and not retreat from culture wherever we
can do so without compromise.
Some faculty inquired about getting hand rails for internal chapel steps. Dr. White will
pass the request along to our Vice President for Business for his consideration.
Some faculty inquired about the chalk on the buildings. Could this lead to more
permanent graffiti? The chalk on the buildings was not authorized, but Dr. White doubts
the people who did it are likely to pull out spray paint next. He suspects they would
have done spray paint first if they had malicious intentions. The chalk said, “you are
loved.” That’s not the typical attitude reflected in harmful graffiti. Dr. White thinks we

2
should all pause to thank God that our students want to write, “you are loved” and not
something else for their faculty members. He can imagine more than a few schools that
deal with choice words for faculty members and extreme disrespect among students.
And we should recognize that winter is looming, which means very few students will be
outside for the length of time a project of that nature would take. He wouldn’t give
much thought to this one.
Some faculty inquired about a plan for more women being promoted to chair and
administrator positions. Most members of the faculty believe this is necessary for a
healthy, diverse work environment. We hire the best person for the position. Dr. White
believes we have an excellent group of men and women serving in chair/Dean and
administrator positions that serve God and Cedarville well. He has the utmost
confidence in our current leaders’ ability to create a healthy work environment.
In our previous meeting, we were assured that CU is not at risk with the lack of
separation between student counseling and student life. But many faculty are still
expressing concern and pointing to a federal lawsuit filed against The University of
Oregon, student life director, director of counseling, and VP of student life for sharing
confidential student information without the student’s written consent. Can we be
certain practices are currently in place to prohibit confidentiality issues in our own
counseling center? Dr. White is aware of the January 2015 lawsuit filed by a student
against Oregon University and the $800,000 settlement as well as two other lawsuits
filed in that case. The University of Oregon’s case is too complicated for elaborate
discussion here. As stated in our last meeting, we have the appropriate safeguards in
place. Dr. White thanks the FCP for making sure he is aware of the University of Oregon
Case, and he wants us to know that he watches the Chronicle of Higher Education and
other higher education news outlets closely.
Some faculty feel the cost of study abroad has simply become prohibitive. For example,
study abroad in England this summer is now in excess of $8,000. What can/will the
university do to help combat this? Scholarships? Dr. White will have someone look into
this more, but currently there are no plans to subsidize one program at the expense of
others.

3
 Faculty Committee to the President
Meeting Notes, 21 Apr 2016

The FCP thanked Dr. White for the Town Halls this semester. Dr. White suggested we stick with about
two per semester to see how that information flow works. We can always tweak in the future.

The FCP thanked Dr. White for the handling of the transition to our retirement planning. While there are
some administrative difficulties, it seems like an improvement to the prior plan. The recent history of the
matching retirement funds was discussed, with FCP members noting the prior up to 3% match was
positively viewed by the faculty. Dr. White said he would continue to look for ways to do that, but the
tough budgetary environment makes that difficult.

Concealed carry. The FCP asked “Are there currently other people on campus who carry a gun other than
campus safety? What measures, other than background checks, are being utilized to secure that those
carrying guns are emotionally and mentally stable?” Only Campus Safety personnel that have been
licensed through the State of Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission (OPOTC) have been authorized to
carry on campus during the course of their duty. Campus Safety personnel are required to go through an
initial State Required certification program and then re-certify on an annual basis through a OPOTC
approved and licensed facility such as the Great Oaks Police Academy in Sharonville Ohio or the
Vandalia, Ohio training academy. Each year a background check submittal form has to be completed for
the Attorney Generals Office for their review at the time of re-certification. Some of the questions on this
form include Mental Health questions and criminal record questions. In addition, they have quarterly
training exercises with a licensed OPOTC trainer who meets with the department and runs them through
scenario training with air-soft or inert handguns.
They also have live fire tactical training at the local police range twice annually. Each of the officers in
the department are also required to shoot their firearms at a gun range to maintain their proficiency skills
and submit their targets for evaluation every two to three months.

Faculty mentoring: FCP members raised concerns over an email about mentoring students on
campus. What is the vetting process to decide if a student is mentored or counseled? Dr. White replied
that it comes from student self-selection (student can request a mentor) and helps manage the wait
list. Allows one week or so wait for access to counseling. Faculty don't have to serve as a mentor. The
public email was intended to garner those that want to mentor; no one has to. Further, if they feel they are
in too deep once they begin with a student, the faculty member can pass the student over to the regular
counseling process.

FCP raised the issue of students parking in faculty slots. Dr. White wants to balance student
responsibilities with avoiding excessive tickets, and took the FCP concern under advisement.

There was follow up discussion from our lasting meeting on changes to the by-laws (2013 addition of
2.7.8 to bylaws, inserted into 2.7.7; was 2.7.1 procedure implemented?). Dr. White said he is still looking
into the issue and will try to bring an answer back in the fall. There seem to be many layers to the onion
and some involve personnel no longer at CU, so it may take a bit more time to sort out. In the discussion,
Dr. White was encouraged by the FCP to consider this as a great way to define the process going forward,
such that faculty confidence can increase. Dr. White reiterated his commitment to have a process that
everyone understands.

The FCP raised some issues from recent faculty brown bag, with discussion following. First was lack of
clarity on the new position of the AVPA selection process, and how that lack of clarity played into a
perception by some that shared governance could be improved. Dr. White noted that the precedent for
 Faculty Committee to the President
Meeting Notes, 21 Apr 2016

that position goes back until at least the early 90s, and that earlier decisions did not involve the
faculty. Since the position is not in chain of command for the faculty, but rather an attempt to balance
workload requirements within the VPA office, this should be an administrative decision. Second was a
discussion on the creation of a new load model of summer pay, independent study, practicum, and out of
class teaching. While tuition has risen steadily over the years, compensation has not been raised. Dr.
White responded that we continue to benchmark our salaries across other universities and we are
consistent with others. Improvement in this area is also exacerbated by declining enrollments in summer
school. Dr. White is aware of the concern and took it under advisement. A third issue is the possible
creation of a “faculty square” to discuss common concerns. While Dr. White is open to potential
proposals in this area, he would expect it to be more a place where faculty can have fellowship and
discuss issues of all types; a place for constructive dialogue. Finally, a question of possible age limits on
administrators or trustees was in place. Dr. White noted that there is an age limit for trustees (75) but it is
possible to extend service as an emeritus status afterward. There is no age limit for administrators.
 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