Category: University Governance

Gray Book Feedback, Ombuds Office Endorsed

aadam02

Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Claire Sterk offered an update and clarification on the proposed revisions to the “Gray Book,” the statement of principles governing faculty relationships with the university, a document “owned by the Board of Trustees,” as she explained. Council members shared feedback gathered from their respective constituen- cies, which will be shared with the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees. Provost Lewis promised to return to the Council to “offer an accounting” of the Board of Trustees’ further deliberations.

The Council also voted unanimously to endorse the recommendations of the ad hoc committee on faculty grievance policies and procedures. The committee recommended an ombuds office to help resolve conflicts that do not involve illegality. It would “provide a listening ear for faculty . . . and also serve as a resource to train university personnel in conflict resolution and about university venues for resolution of various sorts of faculty workplace problems.” The endorsement has been presented to the president and provost for further consideration.

 

New Conflict of Interest in Research Policy

aadam02

Assistant Vice President for Research Administration Brenda Seiton spoke to the Council on new federal regulations that will directly affect Emory faculty members receiving Public Health Service research dollars. The newly revised conflict of interest regulations go into effect in 2012 and affect awards issued after August 24, 2012. In essence, investigators must now report significant financial interests related to their institutional responsibilities. “Before, it was left to the investigators to determine whether a financial interest was related to their research project,” Seiton explained. “So what they have done is said, let’s take that out of the investigator’s hands and put it into the hands of the institution.” The new regulations lower the threshold of review to a total of $5,000 in income and equity, require the reporting of travel directly reimbursed to an individual and not funded by a US academic institution or the government, require the public disclosure of all conflicts of interest, and mandate training in conflict of interest policies for all faculty receiving external support. For details, visit coi.emory.edu.

 

Employee Benefits Examined

aadam02

Following an inquiry last fall about policies governing early withdrawal of funds from a retirement account, the Faculty Council heard a report from Vice President for Human Re- sources Peter Barnes at its March 20 meeting. Barnes said that Emory’s policy, which allows pre-retirement cash withdrawal only from employee contributions for employees who have reached 59 1⁄2 years of age, is consistent with “the purpose of the retirement plan,” which “isn’t intended as a future cash supplement” for current employees. Barnes also discussed a change to the medical benefits policy for dependents of employees who die while employed at Emory. Currently, if an employee who dies has at least 10 years of service and is at least 55 years old, the spouse, partner, or dependents may continue to participate in the medical plan at the active employee rate. For all others, spouses, partners, and dependents may con- tinue under COBRA. “The change we recommended to the cabinet, which was approved, was for Emory to subsidize the COBRA benefit for a surviving spouse, partner, or any dependent children for six months for all regular employees,” Barnes said.

Gray Book Undergoing Updates

aadam02

Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Claire Sterk spoke with the Council about the process of updating the “Gray Book,” the statement of principles governing faculty relationships with the university. “Except for some minor revisions, we have not substantially revised our Gray Book since 1998,” Sterk said, noting that most of the proposed changes would bring the book into alignment with current practice. “Moving forward the Gray Book will also become a ‘living’ or virtual document,” she added. Aside from minor editorial updates, the proposed changes aim to

  • clarify questions of how limited faculty appointments are made,
  • simplify the plethora of titles currently used around the university for non-ten- ure track faculty, and
  • clarify the meanings of “retirement” and the “emeritus” title.

Sterk requested a Council endorsement of the proposed changes, after which they would be reviewed by the Council of Deans, President’s Cabinet, and Board of Trustees. The Council will consider an endorsement in April.

 

Grievance Policy Committee: Ombuds Office

aadam02

An ad hoc committee formed in 2010 to examine faculty grievance policies and procedures around the university recommended that Emory create an Ombuds Office to “provide a listening ear for faculty, provide a venue for effots to resolve . . . workplace conflicts, and also serve as a resource to train university personnel in conflict resolution and about university venues for resolution of various sorts of faculty workplace problems,” according to the committee’s report. Emory currently has structures to address serious problems around promotion and tenure, claims of illegal discrimination and other illegality, and research misconduct. But committee chair Bill Buzbee called Emory “completely an outlier” among peer institutions for the absence of a structure to address other conflicts, most of which arise in hierarchical relationships, so that they might be prevented or alleviated before they escalate. President Wagner asked that he and Provost Lewis be permitted to return to the Council to respond to the recommendations at a subsequent meeting.

Governance structures vary around campus

aadam02

During the February meeting, Council chair Erica Brownfield presented an overview of the workings and structures of faculty governance by school across the Emory campus, based on her review of each school’s documentation. Brownfield focused on the relationship between faculty governance in the individual schools and the central structures such as the Faculty Council and University Senate.

Overall, she concluded, Emory faculty play a signficant role in governance throughout the university. The specific roles of these gov- ernance bodies, however, vary widely and are at times unclear—for example, whether the structures are authoritative or advisory, and whether their members are appointed or elected. Brownfield also noted that with the exception of Emory College, which has cross-representation between its governance committee and the Faculty Council, individu- al schools do not have a defined relationship to the university-level governance bodies.

 

Changes coming to COI rules

aadam02

At its January 17 meeting, the Faculty Council heard a report from David Wynes, Vice President for Research Administration, on major changes forthcoming from the government to conflict of interest rules governing individual faculty receiving federal research funding. The new regulations will take effect with grants awarded in August 2012. Among the changes:

  • The threshold for review of interest in outside activity is now $5,000 in combined income and equity;
  • All outside activities related to professional appointment (not just research) must be reported;
  • All travel directly reimbursed to an individual and not funded by an institution of higher education or the government must be reported within 30 days to the institution;
  • The institution is required to either post on a website the names of all individual faculty with a financial conflict of interest or alternatively to provide the information to anyone who requests it within five days;
  • Every faculty member who receives external support must undergo an initial and ongo- ing training every four years in conflict of interest policies.

 

Focus on Class and Labor

aadam02

At its November 15 meeting, the Faculty Council heard a report from the ongoing Com- mittee on Class and Labor. Committee chair Nadine Kaslow (psychiatry) offered an overview of the group’s work. “There are going to be multiple versions of this commit- tee,” Kaslow explained, referring to this first of a three- or four-phase conversation, later phases of which will examine academic labor. She then outlined the five main points of the committee’s charge in this phase: 1) examine whether class and the status it affords is a significant factor that influences relationships at Emory; 2) knowing the basic contours of the non-academic labor force and the attendant labor market; 3) gather data on promo- tion, advancement, and self-improvement within the non-academic labor force; 4) factually identify structural impediments to employment and career advancement; and 5) under- stand the role of contracting on campus. The Council then divided into smaller groups for a “focus group” discussion with committee members as part of their data gathering work.

Provost: Libraries Undergoing Five-Year Review

aadam02

At the November meeting, University Provost Earl Lewis outlined the external review process taking place in the university libraries in 2011-12. Noting that all schools and units undergo such reviews periodically, Lewis said that this review will focus on the main Woodruff Library and the Health Sciences library.

The review process will include both an internal self-study and a visit from a team of external reviewers, which will involve librar- ians from other institutions. The process also provides an opportunity for confidential letters to be submitted to him that will be read only by himself and by President James Wagner as part of the review.

A final report will be written by the team of external reviewers. The unit head will then be given an opportunity to respond to that report.

 

Questions raised about retirement fund rules

aadam02

During the November meeting, the Faculty Council heard from Sidney Stein, chair of the University Senate’s Fringe Benefits Committee, and Ken Walker, both of the School of Medicine, about concerns over rules governing the rates at which an employee may withdraw mandatory contributions and University-contributed funds early from a retire- ment account. (Current rules state that a “pre-retirement cash withdrawal” is available to employees who have reached 59 1⁄2 years of age. This is available on employee contribu- tions only.) Stein and Walker argued that more funds, especially for faculty (for whom retirement is not mandatory) who are well beyond the age of 59 1⁄2 , should be accessible for pre-retirement withdrawal. “We have, I think, a university interest in people having money kept available to them for retirement, versus the interest of an individual who is interested in having access to that money,” Stein said. At a meeting later in the year, the Faculty Council will hear from a Human Resources representative, who will clarify the university’s position as the Council considers the request and the issue.