Proposed changes to the Faculty Rules and Regulations by the administration were presented to faculty last Friday, March 13. 

Summaries of the changes, along with the process for reviewing, discussing, and approving or denying the recommendations, were sent out to faculty members from Faculty Senate President Gordon Swain, who declined to comment on the proposed changes. 

The changes came as a result of months of work by the Teaching Load and Tenure System Workgroup.

“The objective has been to evaluateeach of those rules and regulations for their appropriateness for the future of the university,” Crothers said.

The proposed changes focused on six areas of the Faculty Rules and Regulations, including teaching assignments, mission and core values, benefits, tenure and promotion and faculty ethics.

Teaching assignments and class sizes would become subject to approval by the provost as well as the dean, with the provost being a new addition. 

Faculty would not be assigned more than four three-credit preps, with the goal being three three-hour preps.

Language referring to the university’s core values would be added to statements about supporting the mission, and non-support of the mission and core values must be documented and damage shown if it is to be made an issue in regards to promotion and tenure. 

Undermining the core values would also be added to the list of items that should be avoided as a manner of showing dissent.

Tuition benefits would be extended to married children that are claimed as dependents, and annual contracts would specify benefits for faculty members.

The proposed changes also establish the goal, to be achieved through attrition and hiring, for departments should include at least half tenure-track faculty, and at least a quarter non-tenure-track faculty members. The 15 percent cap on professional instructors and clinical professor positions would also be removed. Tenure-track faculty who were denied tenure would be permitted to apply for non-tenure-track faculty positions.

“There is value in a tenure process,” Crothers said, “but we can’t let the institution get to the point where its 100 percent tenured faculty.”

These proposed changes would also detail the definition and process for declaring financial exigency. A substantial decrease in program/department enrollment over three or more years would become grounds for considering faculty reductions. Consulting with the deans and chairs would become part of the process for determining which faculty to reduce, but this does not change the joint faculty/administration committee that determines whether reductions are warranted. 

The proposed recommendations would also add a clause that reads, “Faculty shall avoid romantic or sexual relationships with students.” 

According to the document sent out to faculty, many of these changes had wide support in the workgroup, while some were argued extensively. The changes have been sent to the Professional Standards and Responsibilities Committee to recommended faculty senate response.

Crothers will explain his motivation for the recommended changes to Faculty Senate on Friday. Their response will take the form of legislation voted on during the April 24^th Faculty Senate meeting. They can approve the recommendations, modify them or recommend they not be made at all. However, the final say over the content of the rules and regulations rest with the Board of Trustees.