On Wednesday, March 25 the Faculty Senate convened its first annual retreat at the Wickcliffe House. Sponsored by Ray Greenberg, M.D., provost and vice-president for academic affairs and organized by Henry Martin, Ph.D., more than 30 senators and former senators attended.

In his introductory remarks Don Wiest, Pharm.D., chairman of the Faculty Senate set the tone for the retreat. He hoped the senate and more importantly the whole faculty would become more unified with one another across all colleges and units of this university. He emphasized that the faculty needs to share and participate in the decision processes of the university; shared governance.

In colleges and universities where such a connection exists between the faculty and administration, common understandings can be reached about the direction of change. All colleges and units need to have recognition and a voice in this process.

“Higher education in South Carolina is in a state of reform. The Faculty Senate can provide a critical role in helping make decisions if we can work together as a unit,” Weist said.

The senate has been successful on the Salary Policy and Post-Tenure Review Policy. There are a number of issues the senate can have a strong voice in formulating the policies which effect the faculty and the university.

At this point the assembled senators divided into five groups of six or more to consider the issues and questions in the sidebar. After discussing these issues for more than two hours, all the senators met as one unit. Spokespersons for each group presented their thoughts on these issues. The responses will be collated and distributed to the appropriate senate committee by the newly hired administrative assistant to the Faculty Senate, Patrick Cassano.

Issues, questions discussed during retreat

• Proposals for the nature and content of faculty evaluations of department chairs: What kind of questions are the most important to ask? How often should evaluations be carried out? How will the evaluation data be used to improve departmental progress? How will faculty receive feedback about the evaluation results? How will individual faculty be assured of confidentiality? What other issues should be addressed related to chair evaluations?
• Proposals concerning a mechanism for altering the term of faculty contracts (i.e.- from 12 month to 9 month): How much warning must be given before any change can take place? What mechanisms should be in place for a mutually agreed upon change of term? Under what conditions could a unilateral change be allowed? What safeguards should be in place to ensure comparable faculty are treated equitably? What other issues should be addressed related to change of term?
• Proposals for effective administration of the annual faculty evaluations: What mechanisms should be used to ensure timeliness and uniformity of the process for all faculty? How will faculty be assured of having effective input into the process? How will opportunities for faculty growth and development result from the evaluation process? What mechanisms should be in place to assure equity of evaluations across administrative units? What other issues should be addressed related to annual faculty evaluations?
• Proposals to consider providing independent legal counsel or advice to the senate: What purposes would it serve? Under what conditions would it be used? How would it be paid for and managed? What controls would be needed to prevent a purely adversarial interaction between the senate and other parts of the university? What other issues should be addressed related to senate legal counsel?
• Proposals for a university-wide standardization of colleges: How should members be appointed and who should appoint them? What should the composition of each committee be? What should be the duration of terms? Should there be separate committees for promotion and for tenure? What by-laws/charge should they have? What other issues should be addressed related to APT committees?