TO:                 The Faculty Senate and Voting Faculty


FROM:           Ross Geoghegan, Chair




DATE:            September 18, 2003



            The first Faculty Senate meeting of the 2003-2004 academic year will be held on Tuesday, September 23, at 11:45 a.m. in UU-133.


The agenda is:


 1) Approval of minutes of May 13, 2003 meeting (attached)


 2) Announcements/Questions


 3) New Business


a) Faculty Senate Executive Committee (FSEC) resolution in response to Provost Mary Ann Swain’s directive (attached) regarding faculty productivity:  The Faculty Senate commends Provost Swain for her wish to address the awkward problem caused by the small proportion of the faculty who are, or appear to be, under-productive.  We are aware of past attempts to codify faculty workload numerically in terms of points, and we believe that the present approach is a more sensitive attempt to analyze the problem department by department and school by school.


Provost Swain asks departments and undepartmentalized schools to establish written criteria by which she and others in the Administration can judge whether an individual is under-productive.  The establishing of such written criteria will be a difficult and much debated process, requiring many hours of faculty time and debate.  Moreover, even leaving aside the possible divisiveness of this process, each department's solution should be examined by the campus chapter of UUP to make sure that inadvertently departments are not proposing criteria and solutions to the problem, which violate the UUP contract, and past understandings with UUP reached on this campus. 


It is the sense of the Faculty Senate that a simpler and more effective approach to this problem is already available without creating a new process.   The Provost and Deans receive Annual Faculty Reports on the basis of which an initial list can easily be compiled of faculty who appear to be under-productive.  Further discussion of each case with the appropriate Dean and Department Chair can reduce this initial list to a list of those who do appear (in the combined opinions of the Provost, Dean and Chair) to be under-productive.  From there the problem can be taken up on an individual basis with those faculty members and their departments.  We believe that as long as all parties work within the terms of the UUP contract as well as the unwritten but generally accepted norms of universities, most of the problems can be settled in a satisfactory way without unduly wasting the time of the vast majority of faculty who are productive.


b) Faculty Senate Executive Committee (FSEC) resolution in response to Board of Trustees adoption of system-wide value-added assessment (attached):  The Faculty Senate finds the resolution of the Board of Trustees unacceptable. 

Please note - at this meeting this resolution was amended to read: The Faculty Senate supports campus based assessment as it is currently undertaken at Binghamton University, but finds the June resolution of the Board of Trustees unacceptable.