February 18, 2011 – SAUA650, Noon to 1PM

Officers in attendance: T. Policano, J. Naud, J. Aumer, C. Monikowski
In addition – approximately 9 RIT faculty members (tenured and non-tenure-track)

CALL TO ORDER           

President Policano reported that the Provost is interested in having a meeting with Lecturers, to hear reasonable concerns; one representative from each college would be optimal. This AAUP chapter needs to finalize details. Provost already has the talking points that everyone else got (via email) but we need to review before meeting. Names of folks to participate?

News from recent Academic Senate meeting:

  • New policy 6.0.4, promotion to Professor passed. The major issue on the floor was whether to have an institute-wide committee to review portfolios after review from each college’s Dean. This was voted down, but there was a motion to add language to allow Provost to organize an Ad Hoc Promotion Review Committee if he needs/wants help (feedback from those across the Institute). Most problems – historically – seem to be local/personal so this Ad Hoc committee is good. For this AY, Provost is using an Ad Hoc committee for the tenure/associate promotions process; he has asked for review of 4 cases. AS members are pleased he has asked for this input.
    • Q – will AS have any input on whom Provost selects for this Committee? Perhaps AS can suggest a “pool” from whom Provost can select so AS can be involved in some pre-screening? PP reported that nothing has been put writing yet; this can be discussed.
  • Voting faculty at RIT are “tenure-track and non-tenure track”. This does not include faculty who are “outside” of a college (approximately 12 who are affiliated with Centers and have neither representation nor vote. We should not “invent” a solution (e.g. have an independent cohort); the better solution is to have everyone associated with a College. There will be one representative for every 30 faculty (or fraction thereof) within each College, with a minimum of 2. The new Institute/College of Health Sciences Technology, for example, will have 2 representatives. (As an aside, the administration of that new entity is not clear; it is assumed that the structure will follow that of NTID – Director/Dean in one position rather than two). There will be issues to address, but the draft is ready for dissemination.
    • Q – will contingent faculty who are part-time have a vote? PP indicated that AS has not yet voted on this.
    • Q – many professional organizations support this type of voting and representation, for example the Modern Language Association; PP said this info is helpful and will be shared with senators of AS.


Report on Provost’s meeting with Chairs, February 2, 2011 – President Policano invited to attend as a “resource” and because PP invited Provost to attend this chapter’s meeting for non-tenured faculty on January 21, 2011.

  • Chairs perspective on inclusion and equality and collegiality: “not the Chairs alone” who are not embracing Lecturers as equals; tends to be some tenured faculty who carry this attitude and Chairs are not sure how to address this.
  • Echoes the 2006 article in Academe (see our chapter’s website, under documents, for this article, “Class issues outside the classroom”.
  • Moving forward…Provost is appreciative that the non-tenure-track faculty are talking amongst themselves, hopefully across colleges.

What else at Provost’s meeting with Chairs?

  • 50-25-25: PP has been concerned about how we will manage the numbers, from a tenure-track perspective; policy was originally presented to AS (came from this AAUP chapter, in collaboration with Ian Gatley, former Dean of Science). We don’t want to erode the numbers of tenure-track positions and we (RIT) needs a policy/guidelines to balance the number of all positions but nothing has been done.
  • Since that time, we have a new Provost and a new President who talk about “50-25-25”
    •  President Policano asked if that is supposed to be  head count? Provost said it is “credit hours taught”. What does that mean? This is connected to unclear definitions of “workload”.
      • For 100 credit hours we have 7 tenure-track faculty, 2 Lecturers, and 4 Adjuncts. At this recent meeting with Chairs, Provost said this is a philosophy that we may not be able to achieve!
      • This chapter and RIT faculty need to echo those numbers so they become the norm – a good goal but how will this happen, financially, with basic GenEd courses? This is an expectation, rather than a hard-and-fast rule.



Talking Points for upcoming meeting with Provost
Info on our website
President Policano received input – we need to include “availability of FEAD $$ for Lecturers”. In passing, President Policano mentioned this to Provost, having $$ for “professional development” for non-tenured faculty; this seems to be a concept he is comfortable with. Finances for “scholarship” doesn’t seem to be a good choice of words.

Teaching award – has support of AS, can we implement that for next year? Provost said he’s looking for someone to support that.  (see talking points from Alex)

Lecturers and research – Self-funded research positions: this is an ongoing issue. If it is possible for tenure-track faculty to secure grant $$ to support research, pause their tenure clock, suspend their teaching responsibilities during this time…this should be rewarded and allowed. If this does not happen for tenure-track faculty, then for sure Lecturers will not be supported if they seek grant $$. Some Chairs are amenable to working with Lecturers re annual Plan of Work (POW) to create a long-range plan, but this is needs to be available to all.

Hiring Lecturers into tenure-track positions – this is an ongoing issue. Provost (and many others) continue to say “Lecturers are hired differently” so we need to continue the dialogue! We are not asking for an automatic hire but rather the opportunity to fairly compete for positions, rather than simply getting a “courtesy interview”.

Goal – to have monthly meetings for contingent faculty, every 2nd Friday @ 1PM, beginning March 2011.

See document, “talkingpointJAN2011” for additional topics, to be used for upcoming meeting with Provost.

This meeting with Provost needs to be organized ASAP. The AS will address E.6 before the end of this AY and we do NOT want to wait until summer. This is a “big business” issue for the Provost. Anyone interested in participating should inform PP.


President Policano adjourned the meeting @ 1:22PM

Next meeting Friday March 18, 2011
Noon – 1PM
SAU A640/650

respectfully submitted CMonokowski, 1/30/11, revised___