Purdue University Northwest > Faculty Senate > News > Uncategorized > Faculty Senate Minutes, December 8, 2023

Faculty Senate Minutes, December 8, 2023

March 25, 2024

Faculty Senate Agenda, December 8, 2023

10:00 AM-12:00 PM: Hammond – Alumni Hall

Minutes

Voting Members Present:
Gokarna Aryal, Geoffrey Barrow, Scott Bates, Shreya Bhandari, Karen Bishop Morris , Frank Colucci, Karen Covington, Janet Davis, Mary Didelot, Joan Dorman, Rob Hallock, Wei He, Shontrai Irving , Meden Isaac-Lam, Tae-Hoon Kim, Dave Kozel, Roger Kraft, Bob Kramer, Yun Liu , Meghan McGonigal-Kenney, Robert Merkovsky, David Nalbone, Sheila Rezak, Pam Saylor, Diane Spoljoric, Pitparnee Stompor, George Stefanek, Kathy Tobin, Kelly Vaughan, Donna Whitten, Sam Zinaich, Cheng Zhang

Voting Members Absent:
Ali Alavizadeh, Lee Artz, , Masoud Fathizadeh, Laurie Parpart, Michelle Spaulding, Wubeshet Woldemariam

Non-Voting Members Present:
Tony Elmendorf, Alan McCafferty

Others Present:
Mike Biel, Sue Bremer, Gisele Casanova, Joy Colwell, Meghan Cook, Anne Gregory, Emily Hixon, Chris Holford, Michael Lynn, Greg Schultz, Becky Stankowski, Diana Underwood-Gregg, Jose Castro-Urioste, Jen Williams, Tim Winders, Amanda Zelechoski

 

  1. Determination of quorum.
    • Quorum Determined at 10:02 AM
  2. Call to order.
    • Meeting called to order at 10:02 AM
  3. Approval of the agenda.
    • Motion for approval by Rob Merkovsky
    • Seconded by Rob Hallock
    • Motion to amend agenda so that reports come before Action items.
    • Motion to amend approved by voice vote.
    • Amended agenda approved by voice vote.
  4. Approval of the minutes from November 10, 2023
    • Motion for approval by R. Merkovsky
    • Seconded by D. Spoljoric
    • Approved by voice vote
  5. Remarks by the Senate Chair
    • The Chair provided an expense update stating that Senate funds in the amount of $1,500 would go toward compensation for external consultant services in relation to the IBBM. Additionally, $7,000 was allocated to overloads, compensating D. Kozel and R. Hallock as Chairs of the Educational Policy and Faculty Affairs Committees. The Chair said this will be the bulk of Senate expenses for the remainder of the year.
    • Met with VC Steve Turner, who presented an outline of the operating budget for the upcoming year. Again, we are projected to have a slight surplus.
    • Tom Roach has been elected Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, which will be engaging in ongoing discussions about their initiatives.
    • The Chancellor Search Committee had its final meeting with the Board of Trustees.
    • The Senate still needs an At-Large and Academic Program Review Committee members.
    • The Chair emphasized the need for transparency and accountability. He quoted a candidate of the Search Committee.
    • It has been one year tomorrow since the December commencement. Some bad and some good have transpired since. The Chair pointed out the Chancellor’s lack of participation in Senate meetings since then.
  6. Remarks by the Chancellor
    • The Chancellor was not in attendance.
  7. Remarks by the Provost/VCAA
    • The Provost thanked the faculty overall for another exciting and productive semester.
    • Sabbatical Applications for 2024-2025: Sabbatical applications are due on February 2, 2023, in SuccessFactors. An informational meeting will be held on January 12, 2023, to discuss the applications.
    • Chancellor’s Teaching Incentive Program (TIP): Faculty will receive an email about the TIP program, with the Intent to Apply email due on February 5, 2023. Applications will be due in the Interfolio system on February 29, 2023.
    • Mental Health First Aid Certification Program: A certification program for mental health first aid will be launched for faculty, staff, and advisors in the spring.
    • Athletics Updates: The Provost highlighted the success of Purdue Northwest’s athletic teams, including men’s soccer, indoor track and field, and basketball.
    • GPA and Retention Rate for Athletes: The cumulative GPA for all athletes was 3.19, and the retention rate among athletes was 97%. 31 athletes maintained a GPA of 4.0 or higher.
    • Feedback on AI Use in the Classroom: The Purdue system is seeking feedback on policies related to the use of artificial intelligence in the classroom. Faculty members are encouraged to provide feedback through the provided link in Purdue Today.
    • Faculty Annual Review (FAR) Documents: The Provost mentioned that all colleges would accept FAR documents uploaded as Word document attachments. However, faculty members are encouraged to complete their FAR in the Interfolio system, with support available for questions and data input. It was clarified that a Word document can be uploaded as an attachment anywhere in the system. Input can also be copied and pasted into any of the fields in the system.
  8. Unfinished Business:
    • None
  9. New Business:
  1. Reports from Senate Standing Committee Chairs
    • Curriculum (Lee Artz)
      1. Artz was not in attendance. J. Dorman said there were no updates. It was clarified the next due date is Jan 5.
    • Ed Policy (Dave Kozel)
      1. Kozel said Ed Policy will be discussing first-year advising and credit for military experience.
    • Faculty Affairs (Rob Hallock)
      1. Hallock presented the results of a faculty and staff survey conducted this semester, highlighting that it was sent to all faculty and staff members. The survey garnered 255 responses, which R. Hallock summarized in the subsequent slides. Emphasizing the survey’s anonymity, R. Hallock noted that no IP addresses were collected through Qualtrics, allowing for the possibility of multiple responses from the same individual. Despite this limitation, R. Hallock stated that the benefits of the survey’s design outweighed its drawbacks.
      2. Hallock pointed out a significant change in the demographics of the respondents compared to the 2012 survey. The majority of current responses came from faculty members, unlike the previous survey, which had a more balanced representation. This shift was attributed to the change in distribution method; while Institutional Research sent out the 2012 survey, this iteration was disseminated through the Faculty Senate, resulting in a higher response rate from faculty members. Specifically, nearly 120 tenured and tenure-track faculty, about 20 limited-term lecturers (LTLs), and fewer responses from service and clerical staff, with the latter two groups’ responses being combined for analytical purposes.
      3. The survey consisted of 18 questions. The average response to the questions was 2.5006 on a scale of 1 to 4, indicating a midpoint between dissatisfied and satisfied.
      4. Hallock identified two areas of strength based on the highest-rated survey questions: the perception of a safe working environment and satisfaction with non-salary benefits. In contrast, questions about monetary and non-monetary recognition practices received predominantly negative responses, signaling areas needing attention.
      5. Hallock further elaborated on the variance in responses across different job titles, noting that tenured and tenure-track faculty generally responded with lower ratings than other respondent categories. A more detailed analysis revealed significant differences in responses based on years of service, particularly among faculty with over 21 years of service, who showed lower satisfaction compared to their newer counterparts.
      6. Hallock concluded by informing the attendees that the detailed responses to the 18 questions, categorized by job title and years of service, would be covered in the following slides and offered to distribute the slides after the meeting for further examination.
      7. Gregory inquired about the end values for each category. In response, R. Hallock clarified that the data presented were for the entire survey, but the focus at that moment was on tenured and tenure-track faculty. He mentioned that this category’s total number of responses was approximately 101. Despite this specific focus, He emphasized that the pattern of responses was consistent across the survey.
      8. Hallock then compared the current data with the 2012 survey results, noting that the 2012 survey included 13 or 14 questions, some of which were identical to the current survey. R. Hallock regretted the inability to perform a statistical analysis due to the lack of raw data from 2012, but observed that the average response for each question in the current survey was slightly lower than in 2012, suggesting a trend of decreased satisfaction.
      9. The Vice Chair remarked that the 2012 survey was conducted prior to the unification of the campuses, focusing only on the Calumet campus. The Chair confirmed that both the 2008 and 2012 data pertained to Calumet. R. Hallock acknowledged this as an important point and thanked the Chair for the clarification.
      10. Hallock then explored whether long-serving faculty members in 2012 were as dissatisfied as they are today, finding that the level of dissatisfaction was not as pronounced back then. R. Hallock highlighted this as a trend, especially among faculty with over 16 years of service, although no formal statistical analysis could be conducted for lack of raw data.
      11. Pausing for questions, R. Hallock encouraged attendees to reach out via email for further queries. R. Hallock then introduced the next set of questions from a non-validated survey on Mind Tools. The survey aimed to gauge burnout among faculty members, and the results showed a wide range of responses, with a mean score indicating a moderate risk of burnout.
      12. Hallock noted significant differences in burnout scores by job classification, with limited-term lecturers showing lower scores. However, he stated that there was no correlation between job dissatisfaction and burnout scores among tenured and tenure-track faculty.
      13. Hallock briefly discussed the open-ended responses, which were predominantly negative, with some mentioning concerns about Westville. He assured that the Faculty Affairs Committee would thoroughly review all 97 comments.
      14. Concluding the presentation, R. Hallock urged the audience not to overlook PNW’s strengths despite the highlighted weaknesses. R. Hallock raised concerns about the growing dissatisfaction among long-serving faculty members and the uncertain trajectory of newer faculty members’ satisfaction levels. R. Hallock ended by expressing optimism and the importance of addressing these issues collectively.
      15. Hallock thanked everyone for their attention and invited any final questions.
      16. Kozel raised concerns about the apparent risk of burnout among faculty, as indicated by the survey results. He highlighted that the high risk range might be indicative of excessive workloads. D. Kozel also speculated on the potential reluctance of newer faculty or those with less tenure (specifically mentioning the zero to five-year group and limited-term staff) to express their true feelings in the survey, despite its anonymity. He suggested that less established faculty might fear job security implications, contrasting this with more seasoned faculty like himself who might feel more comfortable voicing concerns.
      17. In response to D. Kozel’s observations, R. Hallock acknowledged that a greater proportion of comments indeed came from longer-serving faculty, likely for the reasons D. Kozel mentioned. R. Hallock also pointed out a key aspect of the survey data: the distribution of scores followed a normal, bell-shaped curve. This distribution, R. Hallock noted, was reassuring, as it was not positively skewed, which would have indicated more serious concerns. He emphasized that this pattern was observed even though the survey was unvalidated, suggesting a broad range of experiences among the faculty.
      18. The Vice Chair said newer faculty results could reflect comparisons to their place of employment before PNW.
      19. The Chair concurred with the points raised, emphasizing the significance of the survey as a snapshot, albeit with parts that were not validated. He acknowledged R. Hallock’s effective highlighting of these issues. The Chair noted that the survey questions were similar to those previously used at Purdue Calumet, providing a valuable, albeit initial, baseline for future comparisons.
      20. The Chair pointed out that significant changes have occurred over the past 11 years, especially at the Calumet campus, and highlighted the lack of representation from Purdue North Central during that time. The Chair expressed a forward-looking perspective, stating that continuing this survey in the future will establish a new baseline and allow for tracking changes over time.
      21. Further, the Chair suggested that the method of survey distribution could be a topic for discussion with the new chancellor. He agreed with R. Hallock’s observation regarding the low response rate from staff, attributing it to the distribution method. As the Chair of the Faculty Senate, he noted his limited capacity to communicate only with faculty, not staff. Although the heads of staff governance groups were asked to distribute the survey, there might have been less engagement or concerns about the protection of respondents, affecting both distribution and response rates.
      22. The Chair proposed that returning the responsibility of the survey to Institutional Research, as done previously, could be beneficial. He anticipated that this transition would require negotiations with the new chancellor and agreement from the administration.
      23. Merkovsky raised a pertinent question about the satisfaction trends among long-serving employees across different professions. He speculated whether there was a general trend of increasing dissatisfaction or satisfaction over time in any job and wondered if there was accessible data to support either case.
      24. In response, R. Hallock clarified the findings from the survey analysis. He mentioned that the overall analysis did not indicate a significant difference in satisfaction based on the length of service across all job positions. However, he noted an exception in the case of tenure and tenure-track faculty, where long-serving faculty members displayed a decrease in satisfaction, unlike employees in other positions. R. Hallock also acknowledged the lack of data to determine if this trend would be consistent in other institutions.
      25. The Vice Chair expressed gratitude for R. Hallock’s work on the survey and inquired about the future steps, particularly what Faculty Affairs is considering as their next actions. R. Hallock thanked the Vice Chair and outlined the upcoming plans. He first acknowledged the efforts of the Faculty Affairs Committee, emphasizing their role in reviewing the open-ended responses and addressing issues within their capacity. R. Hallock proposed conducting the survey biennially, noting the extensive nature of the results, which amounted to 160 pages in the SPSS analysis. He suggested that the frequency of every two years would be manageable, given the depth of the data.
      26. Hallock further indicated that a key focus for the next phase would be to explore why long-serving faculty members appear more dissatisfied compared to their newer counterparts. He mentioned the possibility of addressing this issue in the following year as a part of their ongoing efforts.
      27. Buggs raised a point about the potential influence of job security on the willingness of tenured and tenure-track faculty to provide negative feedback in the survey. He also highlighted the direct impact of faculty dissatisfaction and burnout on classroom performance and student interactions. J. Buggs queried whether it would be feasible for Student Government to review the open-ended question results. R. Hallock responded affirmatively to sharing the survey results, indicating that the decision would ultimately be discussed by the committee. The Chair then contributed to the discussion, clarifying the categorization of tenured and tenure-track faculty in the survey. He explained that tenure typically occurs around the sixth year, meaning that several categories might predominantly comprise tenured faculty, particularly those in the 6 to 10-year range. However, he noted that it was primarily the group with over 21 years of service that exhibited notable dissatisfaction. The Chair acknowledged the lack of specific data distinguishing tenured from non-tenured long-serving faculty, suggesting that factors other than tenure might be influencing the observed trends. He affirmed J. Bugg’s query as a good question, though pointed out the limitations in the available data to directly address it.
      28. Kozel expressed understanding for the concerns of faculty in the zero to five-year range facing tenure review. However, he pointed out that fears of speaking up in committees and other university settings are not limited to this group. He observed that even those in line for full professorship might hesitate to voice opinions, fearing repercussions during their evaluation process. He emphasized that this should not be an issue, but acknowledged its reality, especially for those who have not yet achieved full professorship status.
      29. Kozel then shifted focus to the broader issue of burnout. He shared personal experiences and observations within his department, noting the prevalence of working evenings and weekends, leading to a significant imbalance between work and personal life. He highlighted that this issue was evident across the board, from the newest faculty members to those with over 21 years of service. D. Kozel suggested a temporary relief period post-tenure before the cycle of stress begins anew. He concluded by stressing the importance of addressing the risk of burnout, as evidenced by the survey results where most responses fell into the higher risk categories. He urged that this issue, affecting a broad spectrum of faculty, needs to be a key focus.
      30. The Chair expanded on D. K’s points, drawing on historical data and analysis from Purdue Calumet for the years 2008 and 2012. He shared a past finding indicating that faculty members who had been with the institution for approximately 11 to 20 years were the least satisfied. This observation led him to speculate that the current dissatisfaction might be part of a continuing trend.
      31. The Chair recalled preparing a report for the provost at that time, highlighting this as a potential issue. While the focus of the report was not directly on burnout, it did emphasize the consequences of faculty departures, such as the significant costs involved in hiring new faculty and the ensuing disruption to curricula and programs.
      32. Emphasizing the importance of this issue, the Chair proposed discussing it with the provost in their next meeting. He and the Vice Chair plan to use the insights gained from the current survey to explore potential solutions and strategies to address faculty dissatisfaction and prevent the loss of valuable faculty members due to these concerns.
    • Gen Ed & Assessment (Ali Alavizadeh)
      1. Alavizadeh was not in attendance. G. Stefanek said the committee reviewed and approved two courses, COM 114000, and ET 10000.
      2. Committee will review 5 documents today.
      3. Subcommittees are formed, most of which have elected Chairmen.
    • Nominations, Elections, & Awards (Meden Isaac-Lam)
      1. Isaac-Lam said Nominations, Elections, & Awards has filled members of the Faculty Awards Selection Committee and recently invited nominations for faculty, students, and staff awards.
      2. Isaac-Lam addressed two ongoing challenges: appointing a senator-at-large for a three year term, and filling the vacancy for a Faculty Senate representative on the Annual Peer Review (APR) Committee, which reports to Becky Stankowski. M. Isaac-Lam noted her role as the chair of the APR Committee and extended a request for volunteers. M. Isaac-Lam emphasized that serving on the APR Committee is not only a valuable contribution to the university but also a learning opportunity.
      3. Isaac-Lam reiterated the urgent need to fill two key positions: the Faculty Senate representative for the APR Committee and the senator-at-large. She encouraged interested members to volunteer, highlighting the importance and benefits of these roles.
      4. Shontrai Irving posed a question regarding the eligibility criteria for faculty award nominations in scholarship, teaching, or engagement. Specifically, he inquired about the timeframe within which a past winner is eligible to be nominated again for the same award. The Provost responded to S. Irving’s query, clarifying that the window for re-nomination of past winners for a faculty award is five years.
    • Student Affairs (Michelle Spaulding)
      1. Spaulding was not in attendance. R. Merkovsky highlighted the ongoing Student of the Month competition with about five nominations under review. He encouraged everyone to nominate students, colleagues, or themselves. There is no deadline for submissions. The Chair suggested sharing information about the award with the student newspaper. The Provost requested to be informed about the selection to facilitate an official commendation from his office. He noted that only one commendation has been sent so far, aligning with the previous report of a single award issued to date.
      2. SAC is also working to populate the Academic Integrity Committee.
      3. During the Student Affairs report, Bob Kramer shared an email from President Chiang announcing Chris Holford as the next PNW Chancellor.
    • West Lafayette Report (Lee Artz)
      1. Lee Artz was not in attendance. No report was provided.
  1. IFC Report (Geoffrey Barrow)
    • Barrow said IFC does not regularly meet in December. He said he received a request from PUWL for a document provided by Secretary A. McCafferty.
  2. SGA Report (David Bolton)
    • Bolton began by congratulating SGA’s recent achievements and quickly summarized the semester’s work. Highlighting the semester’s achievements, he mentioned efforts to increase Student Government visibility and the participation in an American Student Government Association Conference, which provided insights into making the government more dynamic.
    • A new initiative led by Senator J. Harvey was introduced, focusing on motivational quotes for student wellbeing, shared via social media. D. Bolton also announced upcoming elections for a new president, as his final semester approaches.
    • In terms of events, he reflected on the success of a recent pajama dance with activities like pillow fights. DB expressed enthusiasm for future plans, including more events, and conveyed his satisfaction with the current team’s performance, looking forward to the upcoming spring semester.
  3. For Action:
    • FSD 23-05 Resolution to no longer use Interfolio for annual faculty reviews
      1. The Vice Chair proposed a friendly amendment requesting a revision to the last sentence.
        1. She suggested revising the final sentence, which currently ends with “… simpler, more time efficient method.” The amendment would add the phrase “… beginning ’23-’24 faculty annual review.” to clarify the timeframe of implementation.
        2. Amendment accepted.
      2. The Vice Chair clarified that this resolution is only meant for FAR, not P&T.
      3. Motioned for approval by D. Kozel
      4. Seconded by R. Hallock
      5. Approved as amended by voice vote.
    • FSD 23-06 CHESS Proposed Reorganization
      1. The Chair referenced a discussion from the previous month’s meeting and noted a recent meeting involving CHESS Dean A. Gregory, the Provost, the Vice Chair, and D. Kozel from the Education Policy Committee. He passed the floor to CHESS Dean A. Gregory.
      2. Gregory clarified that the proposed changes in CHESS were not intended to bypass the Faculty Senate’s recommendation process. The goal, she explained, was to improve efficiencies to help address faculty burnout issues highlighted in an earlier report. The reorganization plan involves moving from two associate deans and five department chairs to three associate deans. This change aims to reallocate resources towards faculty, providing release time and adjusted workloads.
      3. Gregory mentioned her recent meetings with the CHESS Council and Budget Committee to discuss the proposal, noting plans to pilot the changes in the spring of 2025. She acknowledged potential miscommunications in the process and committed to improving transparency through shared Google Drive files and better email communication. A. Gregory also considered renaming town hall meetings to better reflect their purpose and to clear any misconceptions.
      4. The Chair said the Senate’s current discussion does not extend to proposed structural changes in CHESS, as there are none at this time. The focus, instead, is on other aspects, particularly the communication process related to these changes, which is central to the resolution under consideration. The Chair also acknowledged the presence of Dan Wilbur, Chair of CHESS Council, and invited him to speak on these issues, offering him the microphone for his input.
      5. CHESS Faculty Council Chair D. Wilbur shared insights into the ongoing restructuring process within CHESS. Currently in his third year of tenure, he witnessed the initial working groups propose restructuring models. He described the process as transparent, highlighting regular meetings with the dean, where she addresses queries.
      6. Wilbur emphasized that the restructuring is still a work in progress without a finalized structure. He expressed surprise at the heightened interest in CHESS restructuring, noting that nothing concrete has been implemented yet. From his experience in the Senate and understanding of the Constitution and bylaws, he acknowledged the advisory role of the Faculty Senate, while also recognizing its limitations in dictating specific actions.
      7. Referencing past practices, D. Wilbur mentioned that policy concerns are typically communicated through chairs of relevant committees, such as Ed Policy. He affirmed the CHESS Faculty Council’s readiness to collaborate with the Senate if needed, but as of now, he reported no significant dissent from the Council’s perspective. He also questioned the necessity of an advisory resolution at this stage but remained open to persuasion and further questions.
      8. The Vice Chair referenced D. Kozel’s intention to engage with various stakeholders regarding the restructuring in CHESS. She reassured that D. Kozel, as Chair of Ed Policy, would make the necessary outreach.
      9. Kozel raised concerns about the timeline and process of the ongoing searches for associate deans within CHESS. A. Gregory clarified that there are three associate dean searches, two internal and one reconfigured from a vacant position. The search committees are active, with interviews planned for the spring and decisions expected by spring break.
      10. Further, D. Kozel inquired about changes to faculty workload, specifically regarding department heads transitioning from 12-month to 10-month positions and an increase in teaching responsibilities. A. Gregory corrected that department chairs in CHESS are already on 10-month appointments and are identified as program coordinators or program chairs in the faculty handbook. A. Gregory admitted uncertainty about the exact handbook details, acknowledging a need to review the document for specifics.
      11. Kozel questioned A. Gregory about the recent changes in the roles of department chairs, suggesting that their duties now align more with those of coordinators. A. Gregory confirmed that while the designation was ‘program coordinators’ in the handbook, they were still operating as department chairs due to the absence of associate deans. She clarified that the official transition to ‘program coordinators’ would occur in AY 24-25.
      12. Kozel argued that this shift constituted a change in structure, but A. Gregory differentiated it as a change in management structure, not in the organizational structure. She emphasized that there were no eliminations of departments or shifts in tenure homes.
      13. The Chair interjected, seeking clarification on the specific responsibilities altered for program coordinators. A. Gregory explained that supervisory capabilities would be reduced, focusing coordinators on curriculum, student learning experience, course scheduling, and faculty engagement in teaching and learning activities.
      14. The Parliamentarian pointed out that the Senate’s advisory role extends to revisions in academic administrative structure and policies affecting faculty welfare and academic promotion. He suggested that the proposed reorganization in CHESS might fall within this advisory purview.
      15. The Chair expressed confusion about the budget savings in CHESS, citing discrepancies in figures. A. Gregory explained the savings come from reduced administrative stipends and salaries, plus instructional cost savings due to increased teaching loads, reducing the need for adjunct faculty.
      16. The Chair expressed confusion about the budget savings in CHESS, citing discrepancies in figures. A. Gregory explained that the savings come from reduced administrative stipends and salaries and instructional cost savings due to increased teaching loads, reducing the need for adjunct faculty.
      17. Kozel questioned the change in roles from department chairs to coordinators and A. Gregory clarified that while the roles had changed, the college’s organizational structure had not. The Chair sought further details on the responsibilities shifted to coordinators, to which A. Gregory responded they would focus more on teaching, learning, and curriculum.
      18. Buggs, representing students, inquired about the impact of these changes on students. A. Gregory anticipated positive effects, with a focus on enhancing the instructional program and student learning experience.
      19. The Provost clarified that any major structural changes would require a university-wide process, including Board of Trustees approval, but the Dean has the authority to establish the college’s management structure. He said the Parliamentarian is correct that the faculty has an advisory role in these procedures.
      20. Kozel observed several iterations in the proposed model and questioned future faculty input. A. Gregory stated no immediate survey plans but emphasized scheduled meetings within the colleges for discussions.
      21. The Chair challenged A. Gregory’s characterization of a previous faculty feedback process as a straw poll, not a survey, due to its open-ended comments section. A. Gregory acknowledged she would address the feedback in upcoming cultural work within the college.
      22. Kraft raised concerns about determining the will of the faculty equitably and fairly in future decisions, emphasizing the need for clarity in that process.
      23. Vaughan emphasized the importance of clear policies and procedures, expressing uncertainty about delineating roles between the Senate and the CHESS Council in advising decisions. Referring to conversations with faculty members from the School of Education and Counseling, she highlighted concerns about the transparency of the decision-making process and the extent of faculty-led involvement. K. Vaughan underlined the significance of clarifying the source of ideas and how input, particularly the 30 comments from the survey, is being considered before proceeding with any actions. While respecting D. Wilbur’s mention of the CHESS Council as a potential forum for addressing these issues, K. Vaughan voiced concerns raised by faculty about the process’s transparency.
      24. The Chair thanked K. Vaughan for the input and acknowledged the complexities in delineating roles between two organizations, such as the Senate and the CHESS Council, especially when both have interests in a particular matter. He noted that while the Senate does play a role in matters affecting faculty, the changes occurring within CHESS imply that the CHESS Council would likely have the primary and more influential role in reviewing and advising on these changes. The Chair then opened the floor for further questions or comments regarding the resolution.
      25. Hallock reported that the Psychology Department unanimously voted against the resolution concerning CHESS restructuring, and inquired if other departments had also voted.
      26. Vaughan said that while they couldn’t hold a formal vote due to timing, SoEC gathered informal feedback via email. The responses included both support and questions about the resolution, resembling more of a straw poll.
      27. Kozel shared feedback from the Behavioral Science Department, highlighting concerns about the timing and nature of the restructuring. Questions were raised about cost savings, the role of department chairs, and lack of clarity in communication. There was a suggestion for more comprehensive communication to address these concerns.
      28. The Chair then summarized the resolution, emphasizing three key requests: a detailed explanation of administrative cost calculations, consideration of alternative models if desired by CHESS faculty and staff, and a new survey with a breakdown of results by job classification. The Chair noted the Dean’s indication of a possible new survey and asked for any further questions or comments before moving to approve the resolution.
      29. Motioned for approval by D. Kozel
      30. Seconded by R. Merkovsky
      31. Approved by voice vote.
  1. Discussion Items:
    • None
  2. Open discussion (as time permits).
    • Pam Saylor shared about the DEIJB Committee and read from FSD 21-14 DEIJB Proposal voted by FAC February 2022
      1. Saylor, representing the DEIJB (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Justice, and Belonging) Committee, provided an update on the committee’s formation and objectives, as outlined in Faculty Senate Document 21-14. The committee’s purpose is to promote anti-racism, equity, and inclusion at PNW by reviewing practices and proposing inclusive procedures. She highlighted the committee’s recent formation and its commitment to addressing feelings of isolation and racial battle fatigue among faculty and staff of color. They mentioned the committee’s plans to strategize, support faculty and staff, research ways to address systemic racism, and repair relationships with external organizations.
      2. The Chair acknowledged the DEIJB Committee’s work and mentioned the Senate’s plan to invite various individuals and organizations to present to the Senate in upcoming months. He stated that representatives from the Dean of Students, the library, DEIJB Committee, and the Director of Hispanic Serving Initiatives would be providing updates on their respective activities and involvement opportunities.
    • The Provost clarified that TIP timeline is 5 years.
  3. Adjournment
    • Meeting adjourned at 11:47AM