Faculty Senate Minutes October 4, 2018

Thursday, October 4, 2018, 3:30 pm
Faculty Reception Room

Present: J. Alstete, M. Bard, A. Bishop, D. Brophy, G. DeFeis, D. DeFino (Secretary), M. Draeger, A. Howerton-Fox, M. Hughes, L. Ivanov, R. Jantzen, J. Kaalund, A. Kelso, E. Mariola, C. Martins, T. Moretti (Chair), M. Nadel, H. Park, C. Tsai, M. Veyvoda
Excused: O. Shachar

T. Moretti called the meeting to order at 3:34

Announcements

T. Moretti welcomed the three newly-elected senators, M. Bard, T. Kelso and R. Jantzen

Provost’s Visit

D. Wheeler offered the following report on the compensation review

Phase One, which began three years ago, included a comparative review of other institutions conducted by the Mercer Group, the adjustment of some faculty and staff salaries to bring them up to the 25th percentile, and the drafting of a compensation philosophy.
Phase Two, the planning phase, will begin in earnest this AY. D. Wheeler requested that the Senate name three faculty to serve on a working group, which will include three members of HR&C, along with representatives from SAC and the Provost’s Office, to develop an implementation plan. The working group’s recommendations would be expected by December.

Several senators raised questions:

D. Brophy asked whether merit pay would be part of this process. D. Wheeler responded that it would.
D. DeFino asked whether compensation considerations would be driven entirely by existing resources, or whether the administration would be looking into new revenue streams. D. Wheeler responded that all options would be considered.
M. Hughes noted the lack of transparency in Phase One of the process, especially where salary adjustments were concerned. D. Wheeler said that, while he could not speak to past practice, his request for faculty representatives speaks to his commitment to transparency in this phase.

IRB Chair Visit

Griffith addressed faculty questions and concerns raised at the recent full faculty meeting concerning the operations of IRB. He reported the following:

IRB’s rules and procedures are currently undergoing modification, due to new mandated review regulations and digital accessibility issues. There may also be significant structural changes to IRB, in order to accommodate the significant workload of the chair and committee. While these changes are still in the discussion stage, they are expected to be implemented within the AY.
For the current fiscal year to date, the number of research applications that have been submitted to IRB is 340% of the volume for the same time period in 2017.
IRB experienced a 50% turnover in committee membership over the summer, and is busy training the new members, while navigating applications being submitted.
IRB has two open spots for full-time faculty to serve, and welcomes faculty from all disciplines to volunteer, regardless of experience with IRB or related research. Appointed faculty must complete and maintain CITI Program training in a timely manner, and must be willing to keep up with the pace of work. In the past, faculty have been removed for failure to keep up with the workload, or to obtain and maintain their CITI Program certification.
IRB encourages faculty to submit their research applications as soon as possible. Applications are normally processed in the order that they are submitted. The IRB's email address is IRB@iona.edu, which should also to be used to request the most recent versions of the IRB forms and for submissions of research applications.
Faculty are reminded to carefully review their students' applications to the IRB for completeness and accuracy, as this will often reduce the amount of time that an application takes to move through the review and approval processes.

Several senators responded:

L. Ivanov recommended that the Senate be more deliberate in identifying disciplinary diversity when appointing faculty to IRB
M. Veyvoda applauded the idea of structural changes, to improve efficiency and make the workload of IRB members more manageable. She noted that junior faculty in particular are impacted by IRB delays, as their ability to do research has a direct impact on tenure. She further recommended that training sessions and model applications be offered to help with the application process.
D. DeFino suggested that the College earmark some of its existing research award money for faculty to develop such training and supporting materials

Committee Appointments

The Senate voted to approve the following standing committee appointments:

Committee on Budget: A. Alabbad
Hynes Curriculum Committee: T. Ruggio
Committee on Enrollment Management: A. Aggarwal
Core Curriculum Committee: M. Malenbaum

The Senate voted to approve the following faculty representatives to serve of Strategic Planning committees:

Academic Excellence: S. Lee; K. Spanjol (a third member from BUS will be sought)
Student Success: J. Gerometta; A. Howerton-Fox
Talent: A. Eodice; I. Stabell (a third member from BUS will be sought)

The Senate appointed the following faculty to serve on a Study Abroad Working Group formed by the Provost:

C. Carlson (A&S)
N. Cosby (A&S)
E. Moscato (BUS)

Old Business
none
New Business
T. Moretti moved that the Senate recommend the following to the Provost and Director of Core:

The Director of the Hynes Institute serve as ex officio member of the Core Curriculum Committee.

The motion carried, with one nay and one abstention.

T. Moretti adjourned the meeting at 5:43. The next meeting of the Senate will be held on 11/1.