Author: aadam02

Deans and Council Discuss Changes in Academic Medicine

aadam02 Leave a comment

 

In January, the Council welcomed a panel of the three deans of the schools in the health sciences at Emory—Chris Larsen from the School of Medicine, Linda McCauley from the School of Nursing, and James Curran from the School of Public Health—to discuss challenges in their fields in the face of cataclysmic change in healthcare in the U.S. Dean Larsen addressed the imperatives of patient safety, quality of care, and value, as well as rising threats to traditional revenue streams for academic healthcare. Dean McCauley discussed the impending shortage of nursing faculty, opportunities for the nursing school in the anticipated growth of employment of RN’s, and changes coming to nursing school programs and faculty as nursing education grows more competitive. Dean Curran talked about the rapid growth of public health schools in the U.S. in the past few decades and growth in the ranks of full-tuition master’s students to subsidize doctoral programs, as well as increasing challenges as federal research dollars dwindle. As talented investigators lose funding, he said, faculty retention will become a challenge.

 

Understanding Who Constitutes “the Faculty”

aadam02 Leave a comment

 

In a January meeting discussion led by three council members, each representing concerns from faculty in the health sciences, the Council deliberated the evolving meaning of “tenure” and “nontenure” faculty positions across the university. As the numbers of clinical track faculty in the health sciences rise, for example, how are those non-tenure-track faculty supported, and what influence do they have on traditional domains of faculty governance, such as curriculum? Also discussed was the National Institutes of Health’s intention to move away from funding structures that support faculty salaries through research dollars, leaving many faculty in “soft money” positions in the health sciences to wonder about future salary funding sources.

 

Council Considers Conflict of Interest

aadam02 Leave a comment

In November the Faculty Council reviewed the conflict of interest policies outlined in the Emory Faculty Handbook, which is now under the authority of the Council. Brenda Seiton, Assistant Vice President for Research Administration, spoke on the work of the Conflict of Interest Office. Seiton said that most of the policies in the handbook are administered through the Office of the Provost and the deans’ offices. She also noted that all Emory faculty engaged in research must complete an annual electronic certification in conflict of interest. Faculty not engaged in research should check with their deans’ offices on what is required. The eCOI system, she said, “captures information about financial interests and external activities,” from consulting activities and investments to externally funded research. Her office is responsible for policies for investigators holding financial interest in research and institutional financial interest in human subject research. She put the question to members as to whether guidelines for scholarship needed to be adjusted to respond more effectively to the needs of humanities and social sciences faculty. The Council approved a motion to form an ad hoc committee to review the policies currently in the handbook and present recommendations by the end of this academic year.

 

SGA Proposes Revision to Student Judicial Processes

aadam02 Leave a comment

Two Student Government Association leaders, President Raj Patel and James Crowe, an associate justice of the Constitutional Council, presented to the Faculty Council their proposal to realign student judicial processes. They explained that the honor councils in Emory College and other divisions hear cases of academic misconduct, and that those processes provide recommendations to academic deans, though in most divisions the dean is not bound by the recommendations. The Constitutional Council, on the other hand, hears “questions of the constitutionality and equity of any university action which affects the rights of any student or group thereof,” according to the Emory Student Constitution. In the proposed realignment, the Constitutional Council would review cases when division-based appeals are exhausted and only to consider whether “student rights or university policy” have been violated. The students were invited to return to the Faculty Council in the spring semester to discuss processes at other institutions and questions of evidence and implementation.

 

Conflict of Commitment Policy Also Reviewed

aadam02 Leave a comment

Council past chair Gray Crouse led a discussion on the conflict of commitment policies as currently drawn in the Emory Faculty Handbook. These policies address teaching, research, and service beyond a faculty member’s school at Emory, as well as private consulting and use of university resources. “One of the issues is that as the policy currently reads, if, for example, a faculty member is invited to give a lecture at Emory or another institution, even for no compensation, that faculty member must get prior permission from the dean,” Crouse said. “This policy does not make distinctions between levels of teaching or levels of service.” The discussion concluded with the determination that the Executive Committee would work on a draft revision of the policy and present it in the next Faculty Council meeting.

Council Discusses Governance Survey

aadam02 Leave a comment

The Faculty Council spent the first hour of its October 22, 2013, meeting in a faculty-only session to review and discuss the results of the faculty governance survey conducted in early fall. Of the approximately 3,000 surveys sent, 1,084 faculty responded. Half of the respondents were in non-tenure track positions, more than half were male, and more than half were in the School of Medicine. More than three quarters reported their race as “white.” In the closed session, Council chair Deb Houry says, the group discussed “the lack of visibility of University Senate and Faculty Council work, which we could interpret as a call for members to report more to colleagues and to improve school-specific communications.” Also discussed, she added, was the role of these governance bodies: “What needs to be dealt with at an individual unit level, and what rises to the university-wide level? And what are the mechanisms for those larger discussions?”

Additional reports from survey results are available in the below post.

 

Additional Reports from Faculty Survey on Governance

aadam02 Leave a comment
Question: Faculty members view participation in shared university governance (e.g., University Senate, Faculty Council, President's Advisory Council) as a worthwhile faculty responsibility.

 

 

 

 

 

Question: My school fosters shared governance by maintaining reasonable workloads, supporting faculty development of governance skills, and rewarding participation in governance work.
Question: Faculty members view participation in shared governance (e.g., school-wide curriculum committee; tenure and promotion committee) in my school as a worthwhile faculty responsibility.
Question: Relationships between the faculty and university-level academic administrators (e.g., President, Provost, Vice Provost), are cooperative.
Question: Faculty members can express dissenting views on governance without reprisal.
Question: Faculty members can express dissenting views on school issues and governance without reprisal.
Question: Faculty committees in my school largely determine standards and criteria for retention, promotion, and tenure.
Question: The faculty sets agendas, chooses representatives and leadership, and establishes procedures for committees that oversee those areas in which the faculty has primacy within the school.
Question: The dean uses established mechanisms to ensure a faculty voice in matters of shared concern, consulting either the faculty as a whole or representatives who have been selected or approved by the faculty.
Question: The faculty has a strong influence on the selection of academic administrators (e.g., deans, associate deans) in my school.
Question: In general, how satisfied are you with the faculty role in shared governance in your school?

Provost Response: Defining Faculty Governance

aadam02 Leave a comment

Emory Provost Claire Sterk joined the October Faculty Council meeting after the faculty-only session to further discuss and respond to the results of the faculty governance survey. “If we can reach a shared understanding of what we mean by faculty governance, I believe we would be in a much better place to have constructive conversations moving forward,” she said. “By ‘shared’ I don’t mean that everyone must agree to every word but rather that we agree on the principles at the university level and within each academic unit. In five different conversations, I might hear five different meanings of the term. The issues raised are always important. But what we should consider is, are the issues tied to faculty governance or to something else?”


 

Welcome from the Chair

aadam02 Leave a comment

Welcome to the new academic year! The Faculty Council began 2013-14 by receiving 1084 responses to an online governance survey—modified from an Association of American University Professors survey—circulated to all faculty in early fall. To me, this 33 percent response rate indicates the growing interest in shared governance on our campus. We will be reporting on the results next month. Beginning with that momentum, I hope this year for the Faculty Council will be characterized by open communication, transparency, and trust between the council and the general faculty. In that spirit, we have made some recent changes to the council website, facultycouncil.emory.edu, where you can now find minutes for the past year’s meetings (use your Emory ID/password to login to the pages). Please also use the “Join the Conversation” links throughout this publication to comment on the articles through the Council Concerns blog. We welcome your input, feedback, and ideas. Please do contact me at dhoury [at] emory [dot] edu.

 

Faculty Handbook Reviewed, Revised, Approved

aadam02 Leave a comment

After a summer-long review undertaken by the Faculty Policies Committee of the Faculty Council, the council voted at its September meeting to approve the revised Faculty Handbook with the caveat that the document is to be reviewed and re-approved annually.

Through the revisions, two-thirds of the content of the handbook were removed. “The committee thought the document should be targeted to faculty as specifically as possible,” explained council chair Debra Houry. “We cut information that is not faculty-specific and that can easily be found from other sources.”  The committee also separated the Gray Book, the statement of principles governing faculty relationships with the university, from the Faculty Handbook. “The Gray Book is under the authority of the Board of Trustees,” Houry said, “and therefore the Faculty Council does not edit it.” The revised 65-page Faculty Handbook will now go through review processes with the Council of Deans and the President’s Cabinet. The final version of the handbook will be posted at this link.