At the October Faculty Council meeting, the University Research Committee Chairs provided an overview of the 2015 awards and highlighted changes for the 2016 cycle, first thanking the 60+ faculty volunteers, who read and assessed proposals for their commitment to the peer review process. The Chairs also encouraged Faculty Council members to submit nominations for the 2016 Albert E. Levy Scientific Research Awards. The URC awards continue to be short-term, non-renewable grants, capped at the amount specified in each category, available on a competitive basis. Any fees and expenses must fall within that total dollar amount and must be spent within the year of the award. The committee chairs detailed two policy changes for this year’s funding cycle: 1) URC applicants may now request funds for student assistance (including graduate students and post-docs), in addition to allowable expenses related directly to the research project submitted; and 2) Interdisciplinary applications with unique potential impact may now present justification for an award in excess of the $40,000 limit, while indicating if the proposed research project can be completed without additional funds.
Category: University Governance
Provost’s Remarks on Emory’s Values
Provost Claire Sterk urged further discussion about the role of Emory faculty in promotion and tenure. “What should Emory’s practice be, what should Emory’s culture be?” she said. “This is a very important conversation and one that I actually think is perfect for the Faculty Council as a governance body to explore.” Sterk added that she and President Wagner have been in conversation with Emory deans to “to really think about Emory’s values and how those translate into what Emory stands for.” She anticipates additional discussion with the Council about “faculty quality and student quality and the student experience.” She stated: “I personally feel that at times we separate the two too much. But the reality is if we really want to have an identity as an institution, we need to start putting those two together.”
Visit from Chair of Board of Trustees John Morgan
John Morgan, chair of the Emory Board of Trustees, described what drew him to Emory as a student and, more recently, in service to the university as a trustee and benefactor during the Oct. 21 meeting of the Faculty Council. An Emory alumnus and business executive, Morgan (67OX, 69B) was elected board chair in November 2013, succeeding Ben F. Johnson III, who had served as chair since 2000. Morgan’s goals include enhancing communication within the Emory community, strategies that support the efficient use of resources, and building the university’s endowment. Among the trustees, he hopes to nurture a culture of trust, dedication, commitment, and personal responsibility. “The trustees’ purpose is really to support and to build the conditions right for the faculty to be able to advance learning and to teach, and for our students to have the environment they need to learn and thrive,” Morgan says.
Faculty Council examines governance
Faculty governance will be a central theme that will guide the work of the Emory Faculty Council during the 2014-2015 academic year, according to Council Chair Kathryn Yount. The prospect of increased faculty governance advanced with the Faculty Council voting at its Sept. 16 meeting to approve a task force to help define the criteria. The vote followed a presentation by Justin Remais, associate professor of environmental health at the Rollins School of Public Health, who outlined the recent history of shared governance at Emory and suggested that the council create a structure for more specific study and action. The discussion that followed among the council members examined whether Emory’s existing governing bodies are sufficient, where faculty voices might help fill gaps, how university governing bodies should be structured, and the future of faculty governance at Emory.
Council Chair Reflects on Year’s Work
Outgoing Faculty Council chair Deb Houry took several minutes of the final meeting of 2013-14 to review the Council’s work throughout the year. Among the highlights:
- In early fall, the Council conducted a faculty governance survey based on the AAUP “Indicators of Sound Governance” instrument.
- The Faculty Handbook was thoroughly reviewed and revised with an approval vote from the Council in September.
- In January, following a review of the conflict of commitment policy outlined in the Emory Faculty Handbook, the Council voted to revise the policy.
- The Council also reviewed and approved an update to its own bylaws, as well as accepting a proposal from the School of Nursing to change their representation to the Council to allow any member of the faculty (and not only a tenured faculty member) serve as a representative.
Campuswide Faculty Grievance & Hearing Processes Considered
James Hughes, chair of the Faculty Hearing Committee, reported on his review of grievance processes across the university, from school-based processes and policies to the purview of the Office of Equal Opportunity Programs. While a 2012 committee recommended the appointment of a university ombudsperson to mediate grievances that “fall through the cracks,” Hughes concluded that the mechanisms on campus relating specifically to termination, suspension, or transfer of employment are “fairly robust.” The problem, he added, is the challenge of locating this information: “We haven’t done a good job of letting folks know about school-level grievance policies,” as well as existing resources to manage minor conflicts. The Faculty Council website offers a list of appointment, tenure, and promotion appeals and other grievance mechanisms at the school level, though the list may not be complete.
College Considers New Governance Structure
At its March 18 meeting, the Faculty Council heard a report on two committees addressing faculty governance currently in the college. In the wake of the restructuring of several departments and programs announced in fall 2012, the College formed one committee to review the processes leading to those decisions (Process Review Committee) and a second to review faculty governance structures in the college (Shared Governance Committee). “There were three basic findings” in the report of the first committee, Kristin Wendland said: “One is that the bylaws in the college are unclear and don’t have specific guidelines about how to change or reorganize departments and programs. The second was that the deans did not violate any of the college bylaws in their decisions to reduce the departments and reallocate funds. The third was that there were problems in communication between the college administration and the affected departments.” This committee recommended a reexamination of the college bylaws, a strengthened appeals process, improved communications, and an updated vision of the liberal arts mission. Two key recommendations that came out of the Shared Governance Committee, according to Wendland: “To change the bylaws to provide for a representative college senate, and to endorse a clear set of guidelines for the ongoing evaluations of programs and departments.”
University Research Committee Considers Changes
In February, the co-chairs of the University Research Committee (URC), Frank Wong (Public Health) and Elizabeth Pastan (Art History), spoke to the Council to solicit its input. A standing committee of the Faculty Council, the URC awards small research grants to Emory faculty. In collaboration with the Center for Faculty Development and Excellence, the URC is considering changes to improve its tracking of research output, encourage and fund high-risk/high-reward research, update its policies and procedures, and pursue new directions in interdisciplinary research. The URC currently has five subcommittees: 1) Biological & Health Sciences; 2) Humanities; 3) Social Sciences; 4) Math & Natural Sciences; and 5) Visual & Performing Arts. A sixth “Interdisciplinary” category was created three years ago but not formally constituted as a subcommittee. “This is the part we really wanted to bring to the Faculty Council today,” Wong said. “Exactly what do we mean by ‘interdisciplinary?’” He suggested formalizing this committee as a standing committee and said the critical issue was how to conceptualize interdisciplinarity without downplaying or underplaying certain disciplines. Pastan added that currently interdisciplinary applications were defined through self-identification by the applicants.
Provost Reports on Budget Process, Reaccreditation
Provost Claire Sterk addressed the Council in February on several major processes currently underway in the life of the university. The annual “budget season” recently began, she said, offering “an insider’s perspective on challenges and how people are looking toward solutions. More and more, we hear about ways to collaborate that were not part of the rhetoric in the past. It’s shifting the way people are approaching identity in their schools and the budget consequences.” Sterk also spoke at length about the SACSCOC reaccreditation visit on March 17-19, 2014, and the extraordinary amount of preparation and effort behind the process (for example, Emory’s QEP, “The Nature of Evidence”). “I think everybody would agree that it’s important for us to do assessment,” she said. “We just want to do it in ways that fit the institution.”
Conflict of Commitment Policy Revised
Following a review of the conflict of commitment policy outlined in the Emory Faculty Handbook, now under the authority of the Faculty Council, the Council voted at its January 21 meeting to revise the policy. The revision is intended to more accurately reflect both current practices and a philosophical shift toward a greater spirit of engagement of faculty in activities on a local, national, and global scale. For example, the earlier version stated that a faculty member must get prior permission from the dean to deliver a lecture at another school within Emory, even when no compensation was involved. The revised policy distinguishes among levels and types of external professional activity with requirements adjusted accordingly. The policy’s guiding principle now states, in part, “The specific responsibilities and professional activities that constitute an appropriate and primary commitment will differ across schools, but they should be based on a general understanding between the faculty member, department chair (if applicable), and dean.” Some individual schools have more detailed private consulting policies; faculty should consult their schools’ policies and websites for more details. To review the full revised policy, click here.