Notes from AP Meeting, 10/18

 

Phased Retirement:  It?s probably best to start with what the President and others said at the end of the discussion, viz., that we need to do more research on the matter, and that we should not feel rushed into a decision.  A decision about what?  There are two issues, which may but need not be separated.  The first is what to do about allowing those who are on phased retirement get access their TIAA-CREF funds while on that phased retirement (and while the College is still contributing to it).  One suggestion was that those wishing to go such a route would have shorter possible fixed terms (say, 3 years) than those who do not get access until the end of their term (say, 5 years), the reason being, as I understand it (and please note:  I may misunderstand it!), that there is a financial disadvantage to the College in allowing those on phased retirement to draw on their CREF money at the that very time they are ?phasing?.  

 

The second issue is the maximum years one can be on phased retirement (currently it is 7).  The competing concerns expressed at the meeting are pedagogical, economic, and practical.  For example, a faculty member on phased retirement can continue to contribute as a mentor to younger faculty, including her replacement.  On the other hand, it could be harder for a department to justify a tenure-track replacement for a faculty member who is going to take 7 years of phased retirement.  On the economic side, if the opportunity to take phased retirement encourages a faculty member to retire from full-time teaching earlier than they might have otherwise, they do not take the years of full-time salary (at a Full Professor rank) than they otherwise might have (saving the College money).  Yet the salary of the faculty on phased retirement is not part of the salary pool; if the maximum was lowered from 7 to 5 or even 3 years, that money ?saved? could be used for new faculty positions.  (My apologies for not doing justice to the specifics of the economic issues?my understanding of economic matters is simply very poor, so if others can correct or supplement what I?ve said, please do so).  A practical consideration is finding office space if there are, say, a dozen (or more) faculty taking all 7 years.  

 

While there were these and other considerations, both pro and con, for shortening the period of phased retirement, one matter which received wide support was lengthening the notice-time a faculty member on phased retirement has to tell the administration that they will (or will not) be electing to retire prior to their agreed-upon fixed term.  It is currently 30 days; 6 months was suggested as reasonable.

 

The Provost introduced an early draft of a set of guidelines for off-campus courses and programs run during summer (and potentially winter) breaks.

 

The following ideas were put forth on the subject of faculty searches (a discussion item at the last Faculty Meeting):  rather than imposing a limit on the number of department members on a committee, say instead that departments are permitted, should they as a department choose, to reduce the number to 4;  representation (in terms of rank, but there could be other considerations) is essential (the Provost still appoints the committee, and so could work to ensure such diversity).  It was also felt by many (all?) that one-year visiting professors would not be part of searches, and that only full-time faculty members serve (from the department, anyway; we did not discuss whether the committee members from outside the department/area had to be full-time; I am personally aware of an occasion in which a non-full-time teaching faculty member outside a department served on that department?s committee).  There was discussion as to whether a retiring faculty member who is being replaced should be a voting member of the committee; the consensus was that only continuing department members would (normally?) serve. 

 

Sexual Harassment Policy:  there was consideration of conducting a workshop every few years, but the question of whether such a workshop would be mandatory or optional was left open.

 

Odyssey Professorships:  we discussed specifics of eligibility; when the proposal comes for a vote, it will say that tenured and tenure-track, full-time faculty are eligible to apply.

 

Distinguished Professorships:  there was discussion as to whether a distinguished professor would need to submit a proposal for how professional development funds were to be used prior to the award, or whether she would report on how the funds were used, after the fact.

 

Student issues:  Will Green reported that the Student Senate is currently discussing shirttails, parking needs in the future, guest policies for big events (Ghost Roast, Elf Roast, etc.), and the possibility of a smoking ban.

 

There was, finally, a report on the most recent faculty forum on shared governance.  Issues receiving attention/discussion at that forum, which focused on improving faculty meetings, were:  limiting announcements at faculty meetings; reports from committee chairs (or, in the case in which there was not agreement among committee members, a minority/majority report) be given prior to discussion so as to head off needless repetition; establishing an electronic venue for faculty discussion (bulletin board, chat room, or the like); and the need to ask the faculty whether they would like a study of faculty senate options, with the idea that such a study and its presentation would precede 

a faculty vote on the topic.  (The idea is that if there is virtually NO interest in considering going to a faculty senate model, there?s no sense researching it.)

 

Elected members of AP are Ian King, Fred Ablondi, Bruce Haggard, Alison Shutt, Kim Maslin-Wicks, and John Toth.  Feel free to contact any of us with questions, concerns, or items which you would like addressed at a future AP meeting.

 

