Senate Finance Committee, January 31, 2011

The Senate Finance Committee met on January 31. Kent Kay reported on the university's financial results to date. The enrollment decline continues, and enrollment for Winter is behind both plan for this year and actual results from last year. Spring enrollment is about 11 percent behind where we were at this time last year for Spring quarter.

The budget planning process will work from actual numbers for this year; expenses need to be managed to match this year's actual income, which is still a moving target.

The administration is committed to an open process for the budget. SFC reps will be invited into the budget process during March and April.

University Leadership Council, January 25, 2011

NLU President Dr. Nivine Megahed reported that enrollment continues a downward trend of ten percent. The budget situation underscores the importance of developing a focused strategic plan which eliminates things that do not serve that focus. The strategic plan will be directed to three areas: student experience, financial strength, and academic excellence.

ULC heard reports on 2 AQIP projects. Steve DiBenedetto and David SanFilippo, co-chairs, reported on the project to improve retention, success, and satisfaction. Their report recommends simplification of processes, training of faculty and staff so they can help students navigate NLU, early identification of “at risk” students, creation of a concierge service environment, and more.

Co-chair Holly Battaglia (faculty co-chair Anne Sullivan ) reported on the project to simplify the publication and communication of NLU policies, as well as to identify processes and timelines for the regular review of those policies. About 150 policies (and counting) were collected from throughout the university. Some of these policies are duplicative, competing, ambiguous, or outdated. The report recommends creation of an Online Policy Library, which indicates the owner of the policy, when it is up for review, and where else that policy is published. Both groups are finalizing their reports, which will be submitted to ULC, the president, and the NLU community.

Dr. Megahed announced that the strategic planning process will be co-chaired by Chris Davis, Vice Provost of Institutional Effectiveness, Tim Collins, Chair of Faculty Senate, and Joselyn Zivin, Vice President of Marketing. Since ULC will be focusing on the Strategic Plan, Dr. Chris Davis will act as the presidentially-appointed co-chair of ULC. Joselyn indicated that three teams would be formed, each representing one of the three areas of the plan: student experience, financial strength, and academic excellence. The members of these teams will represent a cross-section of the NLU community and be appointed by the President.

This report is condensed from the ULC Highlights distributed to the community earlier.

Meetings January 24-28

These meetings are scheduled for this week:

University Leadership Council: Tuesday, January 25, 10 AM to noon, Chicago Campus Board Room,888-338-6900, meeting ID 227240.

Senate will be meeting with administrators on Monday and Tuesday to finalize the P&T proposed draft.

Busy, Busy, Busy

I just heard that at least one NCE department has a meeting on February 11 that they cannot change. I am working to figure out a better date. I will keep everyone informed.

Promotion and Tenure Policy Update

At Senate's meeting on Wednesday, Senators agreed to postpone the Special Meeting for one week, to February 11, 2011, in order to finalize the draft of the proposed Promotion and Tenure Policy for your review.

The reason for the change is to allow your Senators more time. First, the Task Force, which did an excellent job, left a few areas for Senate to complete. In addition, Senate needed time to meet with the Task Force chair to get some clarifications of their thinking in areas where Senators had questions. Of course we shared the draft with Administration to get their input, and received a number of comments and suggestions. We expect to receive more as other administrators respond next week.

In order to incorporate all good suggestions, make needed clarifications, and come to closure with Administration, we need more time. We do not anticipate any problems or issues. Our work with Administration has been cordial and productive, and many of the suggestions we have received are in the faculty's and the institution's best interest. Dealing with all of these matters takes time. We want to present a policy that aligns the interests of the faculty and the institution. Therefore, we need the extra week.

The Special Faculty Association Meeting will take place on Friday, February 11 at noon. You will receive the draft policy one week from today, January 28. That gives faculty two weeks to review the policy before the meeting. The meeting will originate in Chicago, and there will be rooms with teleconference units for faculty to gather in Wheeling, Lisle, North Shore, and Tampa. Meeting Powerpoints will be broadcast via Centra, and faculty can view them on their laptops. (Powerpoints will be projected in Chicago only.) Faculty can also teleconference (via NLU Meeting Place) from any phone and view Powerpoints from any location with Internet connectivity. (We will not use Centra's voice capability because of previous bad experiences.) Senators will be present in each room in Lisle, Wheeling, North Shore, and Tampa.

We will consider feedback from the meeting to make adjustments to the policy. We hope to pass the final draft at our next Senate meeting on February 16, in time to be approved at the next Board of Trustees meeting, which is in March.

Summary of Important Dates
January 28 Faculty Receive Draft Proposed Policy
February 11 Special Faculty Association Meeting
February 16 Senate meeting
March BOT Meeting

Before the Special Meeting, faculty have two weeks to read the policy, ask their Senators questions, provide input to their Senators, and make suggestions. Faculty can continue to provide input up to the February 16 Senate meeting, and may attend the Senate meeting that day as well. If we need more time, we will try to carve it out. The reason we need to present the policy at the March Board meeting is because we want to have the new policy in place for faculty who are up for tenure and/or promotions in 2011-2012, though those faculty may elect to proceed under the old policy. If we wait until the June BOT meeting it will be too late because the cycle in the old policy will have started already.

Of course, faculty has already had numerous opportunities to contribute thoughts and ideas to the development of the policy. In fact, the initial impetus to examine the policy came from an NCE faculty member. Before creating the Task Force, Senate held several meetings, including some Special Meetings, and heard from many faculty, including many past and present members of college and institutional committees. The Task Force itself was comprised entirely of faculty from all three colleges and the library. From November 2009 to December 2010, the Task Force met extensively with other faculty from throughout the institution, including past P & T committee members (institutional and college), faculty on the tenure track, and faculty who had experiences to recount from their reviews. Faculty also had opportunities to provide input to the task force at several faculty meetings, including the NLU Faculty Association meeting on September 2, 2010 and two NCE and CAS faculty meetings. In its deliberations, Senate has met with representatives from the Task Force and from IPTC. This has provided very broad input from all over the faculty over an extended period of time.

Your Senators are working very hard on this policy draft. We look forward to working with you to finalize this important policy.

"What's Taking So Long?"

Several faculty members have asked me this question about the forthcoming draft of the proposed Promotion and Tenure policy. Faculty, particularly ones on the tenure track, are anxious to see the new policy. Everyone is confident that the Task Force did a great job, especially given the caliber of the individuals on the task force. I have included their names in a separate thank-you post.

So "What's taking so long?"

First, a couple of reminders. For faculty up for promotion and/or tenure next year, the policy draft allows them to go forward under the old or the new guidelines. The policy draft also contains a transition plan for faculty coming up for tenure and/or promotion in subsequent years. This will ensure that the transition is fair.

The Task Force left a few areas for Senate to complete. There were also a few items that came up that the Task Force felt were beyond their charge. Senate needs to address these areas. Moreover, the policy needs to be finalized in collaboration with administration. Both faculty and administrators have contributions to make the policy. The Task Force considered written input from administration, and also met with administrators. Nevertheless, this is the first time administrators have seen the draft. Senate needs time to meet with administrators to discuss their comments in a collaborative process.

All administration's ideas have been positive and helpful, and many are very pro-faculty. For example, administration has helped up improve the family-friendly provisions we want to include so faculty with important life events (a birth, an illness) and need to take a leave will still be able to move ahead with their tenure applications.

Your Senators are working very hard to finalize the policy so that the draft that reaches you is complete, accurate, and appropriate.

Here are the meetings Senate has held since the policy draft reached us from the Task Force.

December 15 Senate discussed the draft at its regular meeting. Senators agreed to read the draft over break and meet right after break to decide how to move forward. (The draft was received too close to the meeting date to have a substansive discussion at that meeting.)

January 5 At a Special Senate meeting, Senators decided to appoint a subcommittee to add missing parts to the draft, clarify it, and ensure it was organized. Representatives from IPTC and the Task Force chair were invited to this meeting.

January 6, 7, 10 Senate subcommittee, meeting with representatives from IPTC and the Task Force chair, reviewed the policy, added some clarifications, and ensured it was organized.

January 10 and 11 Senate Chair updated the draft based on previous meetings.

January 11 Senate Chair met with Interim Provost. A meeting was scheduled to go over the draft in detail.

January 12 Three hour meeting with the interim provost to go over the draft.

January 17 Provost provides written input for review and discussion with Senate (input was not formally accepted by Senate).

January 19 Senate decides to postpone the Faculty Association meeting to allow time to reconcile administration's comments.

January 20 Senate subcommittee reviews administrative input.

January 24 Meeting with Senate subcommittee and Interim Provost to reconcile administrative input.

The revised draft will go to faculty and administrators on January 27, which allows 15 days for review prior to the February 11 Special Faculty Association Meeting. That allows plenty of time for thought and consideration of the policy, especially given the ample faculty input in the development of the policy. Senate's goal is to approve a final draft at its meeting on February 16.

Thank You!

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Senate Promotion and Tenure Task Force for their hard work since December 2009. During this time, they met regularly prepared two reports, and created a draft proposed policy for consideration by Senate and faculty. Here are members of the Task Force:

Bruce Boyer, English and Philosophy Department, CAS

Sherri Bressman, Elementary Education, NCE

Mark Burnette, University Library

Scipio Colin, Adult and Continuing Education, CAS

Paula Jordan, Field Programs, CMB

Judy Kent, Language Studies, CAS

Claudia Miller, Health Studies, CAS

Rene Roy, Fine Arts, CAS

Todd Price Education Foundations & Inquiry NCE, Chair, 2009-2010

Susan McMahon, Reading & Language, NCE, Chair 2010

I tend to leave off names in lists like these, so I apologize in advance if I omitted a name. Please let me know and I will add it.

Moving Forward with the Promotion and Tenure Policy

Faculty are very eager to find out details about the forthcoming draft of a proposed new promotion and tenure policy. Today at Senate we created a plan for sharing it with everyone and moving forward.

Right now, the policy draft needs a bit more attention before it is ready for everyone to see. Senators want to ensure that the policy reflects faculty input we have received over the months the policy has been in development. So we are adding a week to the schedule.

A Senate subcommittee will meet tomorrow, January 2o, to revise the draft submitted by the task force. Senate also feels it needs to go over the draft with administration before the draft is shared with faculty. We plan to have meetings with Administration the first part of next week. By Thursday, January 27, we plan to have a draft that is complete and ready for distribution. For this reason, we need to postpone the Special Faculty Association Meeting a week to February 11.

We will use feedback from that meeting to make adjustments to the policy. We hope to pass the final draft at our next Senate meeting on February 16.

Faculty will be able to review the policy beginning on January 27. Faculty can provide input to their Senators, ask them question, and attend the meeting on February 11. Faculty can continue to provide input up to the February 16 Senate meeting, and may attend the Senate meeting that day.

Of course, faculty has already had numerous times to contribute thoughts and ideas The Task Force was comprised entirely of faculty. The Task Force met extensively with faculty from throughout the institution, including past P & T committee members (institutional and college), faculty on the tenure track, and faculty who had experiences to recount from their reviews. The policy was also discussed at the Faculty Association meeting on September 2, and many departments elected to send in written commentary that day or after their meetings. The policy was discussed in two NCE and CAS faculty meetings, too.

Senate is confident that the Task Force created a strong document which only needed to be finalized. Senate is working very hard to ensure that the document that goes to faculty will reflect their input and the needs of the faculty and institution.

Celebrating a Milestone

I recently found out that I was elected to the Board of Directors of TESOL. This is a real honor for me, and I hope that my service on the board is a good reflection on our ESL/Bilingual Program, NCE, and NLU. Thanks to all of your for your words of congratulations!

Key Meetings, January 18-21, 2011

Wednesday: Faculty Senate meets at 11:00 AM CST on Chicago Campus. Teleconferencing is available at (888) 338-6900 Meeting ID 199099. Please place your phone on mute after you join the meeting.

The primary topic of this meeting will be the Promotion and Tenure Policy draft. Senate will also hear reports from the President, the Interim Provost, and the Vice President for Finance and Operations. The Vice-Provost for Institutional Effectiveness will give a brief report on Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction survey.

What Is Shared Governance?

Discussion about the tuition waiver policy today at FWCC revolved in part around a topic that has been receiving increasing attention at NLU--Shared Governance. This discussion raises a number of interesting issues around this topic.

First, from a faculty perspective, the tuition waiver affects two areas of concern to Senate and its committees: faculty welfare/compensation and academics. Obviously, the tuition waiver is a benefit that has made a positive difference in many faculty member's lives. Moreover, the waivers are an academic issue since the waiver attracts and retains adjuncts. Though only 20 people take advantage of this benefit, many of those are our best adjuncts, and those graduates accrue over the years, so that now there are many in the adjunct ranks with doctoral degrees from us.

Of course, we need to consider whether we need this many of our own graduates, but that is a separate question. Putting aside that issue, it's clear that our tuition-paying graduate students benefit from the faculty in their classes. More importantly, the solution of cutting waivers does nothing to address causes of some programs having very few tuition paying students in their cohorts. This policy does nothing to address the need to ensure that all of our programs are vibrant and attractive to students and enroll sufficient numbers of tuition-paying students. We have great programs but they are not enrolling enough tuition paying students, which is a problem that is not being addressed right now.

At the FWCC meeting, administrators raised the issue of fairness. They questioned whether only faculty should give advice in matters such as this. This argument is a non-starter for me because it calls into question the very notion of shared governance we are trying to develop, rather than working in a shared governance way. It seems like all employee groups should have an advisory voice if we are really going to have shared governance.

Nevertheless, this position did not stop administrators from making a contradictory argument that an employee group should not be allowed power over its pay or benefits. If this were the case, then there would be no basis for having a Faculty Welfare and Compensation Committee in the board-approved Constitution. If we have such a committee, what is its role? It seems that at times the committee represents faculty interests, but it also needs to stand for the good of the institution from a faculty or an academic perspective. The institution needs to have pay and benefits that attract the faculty we need and are compatible with the institution's academic mission. Faculty have a role in offering advice on these matters. We need to remember to be motivated for the good of the institution, that is, stewardship, and not self-interest, in addressing these issues.

Though faculty and administrators have strong emotions about this issue, it's good that at least some of the debate is over the notion of shared governance. Shared governance is a common goal, and a notion we can co-construct with all stakeholders at NLU, not only in University Leadership Council, but in all areas. Faculty complain about administrators' actions, but we, too, probably need to act differently. During these discussions, it has been pointed to me that the development of the Promotion and Tenure policy has not modeled shared governance. In retrospect, I cannot disagree, and I have started to work to ensure that we have a collaborative process from now on. That being said, we were more open to administration in this process than adminstration was in the tuition waivers. We involved administrators from the start, had them provide written input, and they met with the task force on several occasions. That being said, the Academic Planning Task Force, which was formed about a year after the P&T Task Force, IS a an example of shared governance and a model for us going forward. So we are making progress, and every stakeholder needs to hold itself and one another accountable.

I hope that we can continue to frame our challenges at least partially in terms of shared govenance, and work toward a shared understanding of how we can work together more effectively. No one can happy about what happened to the tuition wavers, for in the best possible world we would not have to cancel then. No one became an administrator because that's how they wanted to spend their time. But we can use our discussion to continue to figure out how to construct shared governance here at NLU.

Key Meetings, January 10-14, 2011

These meetings take place this week:

Monday

Faculty Welfare and Compensation, 1-3. Teleconference. Contact Michelle Mangan Turner or Linda Gibbons for more information

Wednesday

NCE Faculty Meeting, 9:30 AM to noon, Wheeling. Contact Sy Karlin for teleconference information.

CAS Faculty Meeting, Contact CAS chair for more information.

Thursday and Friday

Incoming provost Christine Quinn will be on the Chicago Campus for meetings. She starts full-time in February.

NCE Adjunct Breakfast

This key annual event took place on this morning. It was a great opportunity to meet our adjuncts, both the ones in my program and across the institution. This year, I met a supervising teacher from the secondary education program. I really enjoyed meeting him because I got a much better understanding of all the valuable contributions these seasoned professionals make to our programs and to the professional preparation of the teachers we certify.

The wisdom and experience of these supervisors, and the value they add to the preparation of teachers, is one of the ways that colleges of education provide an excellent preparation for teachers, which is often lacking in alt cert programs. As we continue to engage with the challenges colleges of education face, we need to focus on the added value our programs provide. Outstanding supervision of rigorous clinical experiences is just one way NCE does a great job of preparing teachers.

I also got to meet two of our program's newest adjuncts. My role is to schedule them for courses once they are approved by our program coordinator. It's so great that we have two new enthusiastic and well-prepared professionals to join the nearly 40 adjuncts in our program.

NLU's adjuncts are a very valuable human resource for the institution, and this breakfast is just one way that we honor their service, provide professional development, and share with them the vision for college.

Presentations by President Megahed and Dean Hilsabeck provided everyone with a shared vision for the university and the college. NLU and NCE have a lot to do in order to find their way toward becoming "the college of education (or university) of the future," to paraphrase Dr. Hilsabeck. I am really encouraged that, again, the President of NLU and the Dean of NCE, have involved all faculty--adjunct and full time--in creating a shared vision for the future.

I want to express my special thanks to Ruth Ravid for her work with adjuncts and the adjunct council. She has been organizing this breakfast for as long as I have been working here, and I always find it valuable.

Faculty Responsibilities

As I continue to engage with administration on faculty concerns about tuition wavers, I realize that the tasks delegated to faculty by the Board of Trustees are our responsibilities. The BOT has given us large responsibilities for curriculum, and advisory ones over finance, compensation, and benefits. The reason is because our perspectives are vital for ensuring that the academic mission of the university is fulfilled. No one has the right to contravene the BOT's instructions.

This being said, everyone (all of us) need to work together to ensure we are carrying out our responsibilities appropriately and as swiftly as necessary.

To be fair, I believe that in order to work together appropriately, faculty and administration both must make changes to the ways we work together. Shared governance is a learning experience.

Thanks to all faculty who have written to the listserv in support of shared governance and collaboration.

Ways Faculty Governance Contributes

Several faculty members have written to me since we received the announcements of changes to the severance and tuition waver policies. Since then, I have spoke with several administrators about the changes and the reasons for them, as well as reasons for the haste.

Both of these matters (tuition waivers and severance pay) are related to faculty's advisory role, and clearly faculty and some administrators felt surprised by these announcements. I am concerned in several ways.

First, our governance system is intended to provide advice about budget, pay, benefits, and so on. In this sense, the faculty committee (in this case, FWCC) can indicate ways that the policies are not beneficial to the faculty or the entire institution. Even though only about 20 people take advantage of the doctoral tuition wavers, those individuals are important to the overall academic enterprise. The doctoral candidates who teach in my program are among our most reliable adjuncts, and the tuition waver is an important part of the reason they choose NLU.

Tuition wavers are also more than a compensation issue--they are an academic matter since they affect the academic enterprise. In that sense, they are related to the area we are responsible for directly.

In the case of the tuition wavers, the administration used a bludgeon to fix a small problem. Their overall concern is not the total cost of the 20 wavers (which is small), but the belief that a couple of doctoral cohorts are primarily students on tuition wavers. This problem could be addressed through better marketing of those programs or other targeted solutions, NOT eliminating 20 grad students per year.

Even though this is a small number when compared to the total university headcount who are eligible for wavers (staff, adjuncts, and faculty are all eligible), this number is huge when you consider that grad students are rare and precious. These grad students add tremendous value to the grad programs and to NLU student experience (through the classes they teach).

To quote one faculty member, "Often these are the people who are still in the “field” but who are also steeped in current theory and research in their doctoral programs. Many of our “practitioner adjuncts” don’t have as much opportunity to critically reflect on practice. So I think this will result in us losing some of our best adjuncts and perhaps some of our best doctoral students."

In addition, those students are among the ones who will build our reputation by taking jobs at other institutions when they leave. Seeding academe with our graduates is a great way to show the world the caliber of our students, our research, and our programs. Every grad department in the US works this way.

The severance package was the product of intense work of faculty and administration, and faculty feel a stake in it. It was developed collaboratively, so should be modified in the same way.

Even if we only provide advice, our advice can provide creative and imaginative solutions that avoid unintended consequences. Our advisory role is both a right and a responsibility. Indeed, the governance system has added considerable value to the calendar project, the Grace Period proposal, and many other initiatives of our president's as she works to turn this institution around.

I have also heard that our committee structure is not agile enough. That puzzles me because Senate was very responsive to the Grace Period proposal and every other proposal we received. FWCC has responded to administrative requests for input within a week when asked. I have never accepted this type of reason from students or employees who are late for work or class. If the traffic is heavy, leave earlier. If you can't leave earlier, then ask us to be more agile.

Even if administration insists that these measures are necessary after hearing our reasoning, faculty can at least hear administration's reasoning and not feel surprised when the measures are announced. Now the administration is backpedaling with upset people rather than asking for our understanding upfront. Everyone here has been working very hard to improve trust here, which is a necessary part of getting NLU through this budget crunch with improved systems. Surprising us with these revisions sets back the progress we have made and makes collaboration harder.

I have already expressed my concerns to several key administrators, and plan on talking with the president soon to express my thoughts and the concerns of the faculty. Faculty are worried about the future and eager to work with the administration to solve our problems, and our structures and committees are faculty's means of participating constructively. Going around us in this way does not build the environment we need to move forward together.

Promotion and Tenure Policy

Senate is working very hard to move this policy forward. We want to have a completed policy in force before May 1, which is when the cycle in the current policy kicks in. This means we need to have a completed policy approved by the Board of Trustees at its March 10, meeting.

Right now, Senate is reviewing the policy draft prepared by the Senate Task Force. Senate will discuss the policy at its January 19, 2011 meeting, and then forward the draft to faculty for review. Faculty will be able to discuss the policy at a special Faculty Meeting to be held (projected) on February 4, 2011. (A meeting notice will be sent later this week to make this meeting time official.)

Senate's Task Force worked very hard to create an outstanding policy that reflects faculty's input and builds the kind of faculty NLU needs for its next 125 years. Thanks go to the entire membership of that task force.

Senate Highlights, December Meeting

Faculty Senate met on December 15, 2011.

The President and Provost reported on a number of initiatives to move the institution forward. President Nivine Megahed reported that the Enrollment group is working very hard to increase enrollment for Winter. They are using improved metrics and data reporting to assess and manage their work. While enrollment is behind last year, they are experiencing some traction in undergraduate enrollment. The 125th Celebration/Campagign for National Recognition are moving forward and have 100 percent support from the Board of Trustees, as well as support from important donors. Alumni Relations is working very hard to rebuild relations with alumni. They hope that improved relationships will lead to increased giving. Marketing is working on the new Marketing campaign, and is also revamping the way undergraduate programs are marketed.

Interim Provost Kathy Walsh reported that there will be a different role for faculty in regard to student recruitment. There will be less involvement by faculty so that faculty can use their energy elsewhere. Results from the Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction survey will be shared with Senate at its January meeting.

Vice-President for Finance and Operations Kent Kay reported that that revenue through the first five months of the fiscal year is less than budgeted and less than last year at this time. NLU has continued to hold the line on expenses, which are less that budgeted. Nevertheless, NLU continues to anticipate net losses for both the first six months and the rest of the year. Budget heads are already working to create a budget for next year that reflects lower tuition and fee revenue as NLU continues to work to recover from the enrollment decline we have experienced since Summer 2010. (Information on faculty's involvement in building next year's budget is in the report from the Faculty Welfare and Compensation Committee later in this report.)

Senate elected Dr. Gerry Becker (CAS) to University Leadership Council to fill a vacancy created by a resignation from the Council.

The Senate Task Force on Academic Planning presented an interim report. So far, the Task Force has reviewed and re-affirmed constitutional charges to Senate Academic Planning Committee and Senate Curriculum Committees, identified processes in support of these charges, and developed a proposed subcommittee structure for SCC (a Program Review Subcommittee, a Curriculum Review Subcommittee, and an Assessment Subcommittee). SAPC will focus on creation of new programs, with a strong emphasis on creating a collaborative strategy for developing new programs that are mission-driven, outstanding academically, and in sync with student needs and workplace demands. The Task Force's final report is due in January 2011. Remaining tasks to be completed in January include finalization of the process design and creating an integrated academic planning manual.

Senate heard a report from the Faculty Welfare and Compensation Committee. The Committee is working to gather input from faculty about next year's budget, including ways the university can reduce expenses. All university cost centers have submitted ideas to cut 10% from their costs. All cost centers are required to cut their spending except for Marketing and Enrollment as the President views these being necessary to maintain and build enrollment.

Senate received a report and a draft of the new Promotion and Tenure Policy from the the Senate Promotion and Tenure Task Force. Senate will meet in a special executive session on January 5, 2011 to discuss the draft. At this meeting, Senators will discuss plans for moving forward with the draft. Senate has committed to faculty that a new policy will be in force by May 1, 2011. Senate has also committed to ensuring that there is a fair and equitable transition plan for faculty who are currently on the tenure track or prospective candidates for promotion. Members of the Institutional Promotion and Tenure Committee and the Chair of the Task Force have been invited to attend this meeting as guests of the Senate.

At this meeting, Senate will also discuss plans for sharing the draft with faculty and obtaining input from faculty and all stakeholders.

Senate's next regular meeting will take place on January 19, 2011 at 11:00 AM on the Chicago Campus. Senate will meet in executive session at 9:30 AM primarily to organize the agenda of the 11 AM meeting.

These meeting highlights are provided to inform faculty. They do not replace the minutes. The approved minutes of the November meeting were forwarded to all faculty by email.

Key Meetings, January 3-7, 2011

This week, Senate will meet in executive session to discuss the recently submitted draft of the Promotion and Tenure Policy created by the Senate Promotion and Tenure Task Force. The meeting will take place on January 5, 2011 at 1:30 PM. Members of the Institutional Promotion and Tenure Committee and the Chair of the Task Force have been invited to attend as guests of the Senate.

At this meeting, Senators will discuss plans for moving forward with the draft. Senate has committed to faculty that a new policy will be in force by May 1, 2011. Senate has also committed to ensuring that there is a fair and equitable transition plan for faculty who are currently on the tenure track or prospective candidates for promotion.

At this meeting, Senate will also discuss plans for sharing the draft with faculty and obtaining input from all stakeholders.

Senate's next meeting will be on January 19, 2011 at 11:00 AM on the Chicago campus.