Fort Lewis College Faculty Senate MinutesJanuary 11, 2018

 Blake David  X

Burke Brian  X

Clay Paul  X

Cardona Nancy  X

Davis Ginny  X

Dichio Michael  X

Dorman Elizabeth  X

Dorr Betty  X

Fenster Steven  

Frazer Lee  

Fry Michael  

Fullmer Shawn  

Gore Rick  X

Gulliford Andrew  X

Juergensmeyer Erik  X

Knight-Maloney Melissa  

Lienert Carl  

Meyer Felicia  

Mouzakis Katie  X

Oliver Astrid  X

Smith Ryan  X

Sommerville Les  x

Valdez Michael  X

Wenburg Jillian  X

Wendland Amy x

Guests:Aimee MorrisLorien Chambers SchuldtKetherine JetterRuth Alminas

Laura ScullJon HarveyKris GreerSarah Roberts Cady

1) Announcementsa) BoT meeting on Feb 16, 2018, at this meeting the BoT will r will not authorize a RIF.

i) Notification to 1st year probationary faculty by Feb 28, 2018ii) Notification to all other probationary faculty by Mar 15, 2018iii) Budget committee members have been asked to sign NDAs, but have not yet signed 

the NDAs.

2) Consent itemsa) None  

3) Action items and reportsa) Discussion of changing the charge to the Governing Body of the Regular and Term

Faculty creating an Advisory Committee

i) If the revised charge is approved by Senate, each member would then be compelled to sign an NDA, thereby ceasing all direct communication form committee members. All updates would be provided by the administration

ii) Per Barbara Morris: Section 19B includes two opportunities for faculty senate to participate in a RIF. Senate may request a program review to be completed within 60 days. However, the review is not guaranteed. If there is to be a RIF, Senate may dialog with the President on what programs of individuals might be cut.(1) All recommendations and decisions to cut are by their very nature personnel

matters.(2) Department chairs are involved in providing input into the decisions affecting

Academic Affairs.iii) Per Justin McBrayer: the local chapter of the AAUP ought not sign a confidentiality

agreement. There are 4 reasons faculty should not sign a confidentiality agreement.(1) AAUP at the national level suggests that it limits the ability of committee

members from conversing with affected faculty.(2) A confidentiality agreement can limit the ability of a committee member to

represent faculty form across campus.(3) Valdez and Blake ought to be able to hold candid conversations with BoT or other

relevant parties.(4) The compressed time frame combined with a confidentiality agreement limit the

ability of FLC to engage is shared governance(5) There is a distinction between personnel and budget decisions.

iv) Questions/comments(1) What happens is we do not adopt the new charge?

(a) Adopt the NDA, and lock down communication until cuts are made or(b) Do not sign the NDA and not participate in any form.

(2) If adopted the same set of 9 people would continue in an advisory capacity, rather than the entire fac senate

(3) The handbook does not include language re: section 19 that speaks to confidentiality agreements or NDAs

(4) Why are the proposed cuts personnel matters rather than budget or programmatic matters?(a) When we talk about reductions to programs or budgets, it necessarily impacts

individuals(5) What role do Sunshine laws play in this situation?

(a) Per the AG, program cuts are personnel matters(6) Barbara is willing to connect the AG with faculty to answer detailed questions

regarding the need for confidentiality.(7) Would it be possible to have specific guidance about what could or could not be

discussed with relevant parties such as BoT members?(8) All cuts result in personnel matters.(9) Are David and Michael looking for advice regarding should they sign an NDA for

their role on the budget committee? Will they be removed from the budget committee, if they do not sign?

(10) Article II of the handbook, stipulates that senate has an advisory rather than a decision making role. Does the faculty really want to have a decision making role in RIFS?

v) Motion to approve and secondedvi) Motion to table, seconded

(1) Abstained 3(2) Against 3(3) For 8, Tabled

b) Adjourned

 

 

 

FLC Chapter of the AAUP Recommendation on Confidentiality

January 8, 2018

BackgroundThe budget reductions for the 2018-19 year will be determined by the FLC board of trustees. That body will receive a recommendation from the president, who in turn will receive a recommendation from the budget committee. Finally, a budget taskforce of the faculty senate has been created to advise both the budget committee and the president. Despite the fact that the board’s ultimate decision is public, the FLC administration has drafted a plan to require signed confidentiality agreements as preconditions for faculty participation in these committees.

RecommendationThe FLC chapter of the AAUP recommends that the administration not force faculty to sign a confidentiality agreement as a precondition in sharing governance on budget matters.

RationaleNational AAUP standards are clear that “except in personnel matters, imposing a precondition of confidentiality on faculty representatives serving on institutional governance bodies is incompatible with AAUP-supported governance standards and that those who would seek to impose various degrees of confidentiality in decision-making processes should be required to justify their position,” (p. 1, “Confidentiality and Faculty Representation in Academic Governance” https://www.aaup.org/file/confidentiality-and-governance.pdf )

The AAUP sorts committee decisions into two categories: personnel matters and non-personnel matters. Examples of the former include appointments, tenure, promotion, grievances, and internal grants. In these cases, faculty members are exercising their own professional judgment on matters that apply to a particular person, and so the need to protect that person’s privacy is important. Confidentiality agreements are appropriate in these cases.

Non-personnel matters include all other issues that are not about a particular person. Examples of these include matters of curriculum, budget, and strategic planning. Decisions about these matters affect not just a particular person but the faculty as a whole, and so “the faculty members on the body should consult periodically with the colleagues whom they represent by keeping them informed of the body’s discussions and by soliciting their views regarding the matters under consideration” (p. 2). Note that the decisions to close an academic

program, reduce faculty lines in a program, offer a voluntary separation incentive, etc. are NOT personnel matters.

In particular, the AAUP flags two areas in which confidentiality agreements should not be required: budgets and long-range planning. Re the former, “imposing a blanket requirement of confidentiality on committees that advise the administration on budgetary matters is inconsistent with this basic AAUP-recommended governance standard,” (p. 2). And regarding long-range planning, “faculty members who participate in such projects under the constraints of complete confidentiality would represent the faculty only in the minimal sense of serving as the agents of the faculty, in many cases undermining the type of joint decision making that characterizes the best of shared academic governance. In any event, some level of consultation should be expected,” (p. 3).

In short, “imposing complete confidentiality as a prerequisite for participation in governance bodies reduces the extent to which the views of the broader faculty will be brought to bear on the issues at hand and thus frustrates one of the chief purposes of shared academic governance,” (p. 4). Indeed, such confidentiality ensures an asymmetry of power since the administrators on these committees are not proxies and not required to keep information confidential from those to whom they report whereas faculty are proxies unable to communicate with the constituents they represent.