Fall 2017 SPF General Meeting Minutes/Notes


  • Introductions / Welcome
  • Daniel Johnson to present on recent faculty senate action regarding SPF senate representation in the proposed revision to the Academic Articles
  • Mike Desch and Mark McKenna – Committee for the Decennial Review of the Academic Articles
  • Reports from committee representatives
  • Mentoring program & Reviews and promotion

Meeting started at 9am

Introductions/Welcome/Recognition (Connie Mick elected to a two-year term on the Faculty Advisory Council of Indiana Campus Compact (ICC)

  1. Introduced Mike Desch- Committee for the Decennial Review of the Academic Articles

Tenured and Tenure track 901, SPF 340 (30%), Research 79, Library 61, (Total 1,381)

What we’ve heard:

  • Advantages:

–SPF is “traditional” category at Notre Dame.

–It’s a “flexible” category:

  • Administratively convenient.

–Provides many, but not all, non-TT/T regular faculty with a collective identity.

  • Disadvantages:

–It’s “one-size-fits-all:”

  • E.g., terminal degrees.

–“Special” isn’t always flattering.

–No analogue at other universities.

–What it means as a faculty category is not always clear.

–Not clear how the current category will help us meet the future faculty requirements of the modern university?

One possible solution:More precise faculty categories (*current)
Tenure/Tenure track*, Library*, Research*, Teaching faculty, Advising faculty, Professor of the Practice, Clinical faculty* (almost exclusively Law school)

job description would better reflect what a faculty member actually does (evaluation should better and fairer)
Will bring ND in line with what other universities do
this matters for non-TT/T regular faculty in terms of dealing with peers or
seeking positions elsewhere
Defining faculty categories by function seems like the structure that will serve the university now and in the future
These changes would not impede non-TT/T faculty organization or representation.

  1. Discussion/Comments:
    Public relations issues – parents/alumni understanding
    Recognition of contributions (teaching awards, etc)
    Current titles? Hold or change?
    opt into multiple categories?  not everyone is strictly teaching (some teach, advise, research)
    Contract lengths: Resistance at department level ? At deans office (science) is encouraged to lengthen contracts
  2. Dan Johnson – faculty senate proposalRepresentation:

    Cons : too busy, it will be dumped on me

    Pros: want to represent, would like to serve

    SPFs are underrepresented. Tuesday, senate passed a resolution for integration of changes to review of academic articles.

    • include associate and full SPFs from departments with significant proportion of SPFs
    • Increase number of seats at large from 3 to 5
    • Add a seat for FYS
    • Maybe have an appeal system if SPF feel like they are getting dumped service on?

Discussion/Comments/Suggestions: do not protect us?, make it proportional and open it wide?


Notes from SPF executive committee review of academic articles Fall 2017:

  • Name: professional faculty? Name is too broad and unrecognizable from outside of the university. Would like to explore with our members and make sure that titles accurately reflect our roles within the faculty structure here SPF and in the academy. Defining ourselves well – is it too broad?
  • Do not conflate title with categories – perhaps use “professional faculty” as a category but stick to using “Clinical, teaching, of the practice” as titles.
  • Page 14: renewal – increase 6 months to 8 months notice of termination from year 2 to 6. It will allow candidates to search for a job, as they don’t qualify for the terminal year yet. Reduces uncertainty, candidates applying would be more likely to accept the offers.
  • 2 year initial contract? – peer institutions? Northwestern – initial contract is 2 years, as there is no basis for evaluation yet in the first year. Then, renewal is for 4 years. SPF positions are permanent positions, not like visiting or adjunct positions, so yearly contracts should not be necessary. Perhaps 2, 2, 2 for the initial 6 years? since 2 & 4 are unlikely as T&R get 3&3.
  • CAP – no spf representation only T&R. For spf promotion reviews, spf’s should be part of the committee (not for T&R) – A&L has a college policy
  • Promotion – basis of promotion are not part of job description. Sabbatical – no/minimal support given for growth in our field
  • Remove terminal degree from language specifying promotion to full – Precedent exists in romance
  • Full packet on renewal – not parallel to T&R – upon request for associate and full?
  • No representation for Dean selection, Lack of proportional representation at Senate/Academic council
  • There are at least 2 departments that are 100% spf which creates issues with Faculty Senate where, under current rules, you are not supposed to be elected from a department to be a representative
  • Committee representation:
  • Academic council – proportional – is it?
  • University committee on internationalization – only T&R page 35
  • University committee on admission, scholarship, financial aid- only T&R or 2 elected are any?  page 36
  • Faculty board on athletics – only T&R page 36
  • Provost’s advisory committee – T&R only full, page 38
  • Academic and faculty affairs committee of the board of trustees – T&R only, page39
  • There is concern that SPFs/DUS/advising faculty will not be sufficiently represented or able to be represented on Core Curriculum committees at the University level. This seems especially important right now as we implement the new core curriculum.