Work of the Faculty Leadership Team

An Overview

Our Charge

Serving to recommend process

Serving to set up a strategic plan

Methods of Communication with Department

Detailed minutes Timely posting of minuteshttp://www.kennesaw.edu/english/faculty/FLT/

Periodic meetings with faculty Expectations of these meetings Dedicated meeting time to discuss

faculty feedback that week.

Our Process

Discussion Guidelines to encourage productive deliberation:

Openness To other points of view To outcomes To all representatives

Guidelines continued. . . .

Listening Focus on each speaker rather than

prepare your response No interruptions

Fairness Speak briefly Everyone participates

Guidelines continued. . . .

Respect Disagree without being disagreeable No personal attacks

Commitment Prepare for each session Attend each session Begin and end on time Get up to speed if absent from a session

FACULTY RANKING OF ISSUES IDENTIFIES FROM FOCUS GROUPS AS

IMPORTANT TO FACULTY

1. Strategic Planning (including a shared mission and vision for the department) [23]

2. Workload [21]3. Need to Establish Shared Values (e.g.

programs, direction of the department, professional relationships, etc.) [17]

4. Clarification of Faculty Roles and Ranks [12]

continued. . . .

5. Unprofessional Behavior [11]6. Departmental Governance [10]7. Clarification of Performance

Expectations for Faculty [9]8. Developing Skills to Deal with Change

More Effectively [8]9. Low Morale [8]

Shared ValuesWe recommend the following values:

Academic freedom and professional ethics, with AAUP’s being the most widely accepted statement in the academy

Commitment to diversity in programs, curricula, faculty, staff, and students

Devotion to English Studies and a pluralistic approach to English Studies

Shared Values continued. . . .

Commitment to academic excellence, in teaching and scholarship at the graduate and undergraduate levels

Contributing service to the university and the extended community

Commitment to professional growth and development

Commitment to interdisciplinarity

Shared Values continued. . . .

Commitment to the use of technology in pedagogy and research

Equitable treatment of faculty, staff, and students

Shared governance Commitment to a climate of open and

civil discourse Commitment to students’ skills in

reading and writing and critical thinking

Shared Values continued. . . .

Commitment to preparing students for citizenship in larger worlds

Commitment to development of a cadre of professional English teachers and writers

Commitment to fostering an intellectual community

Shared Governance

We thus proposed a Program Advisory Council that will be a synergistic model of collaboration and counsel among faculty and administration to strengthen:

Department communication and morale Faculty voice in counsel to the

Department Chair Our programs for the students they

serve.

Program Advisory Council

We recommended that the Program Advisory Council consist of integrated English faculty representatives, whom the Department Chair will appoint in consultation with the Dean and program-relevant faculty. Also, we voted that the Assistant Department Chair will serve on the Council, but in a nonvoting capacity.

The Program Advisory Council will consist of: Director of Composition Coordinators of English Education

Graduate Undergraduate

Director of MAPW Program Coordinators of BA in English Program

Upper-level Writing Literature, Language, Theory, and Film

Coordinator of Assessment Assistant Department Chair (ex officio)

Council Principles

We recommend that the Program Advisory Council work for the entire department, not merely any one program. We also recommended that it operate as a formal structure wherein all department members can participate in decision-making and interact with administration. We see the Council as a process—a system whereby we can conduct business—that the department, not the FLT, must implement.

Specific Action Items

Office assignments Departmental university elections Process planning for shared governance

Recommendations for Office Choice Priorities

Faculty members cannot choose offices that other faculty members choose to stay in.

We must find out those faculty members who want to move, in addition to those faculty members who must move (e.g., the two faculty members with offices in International Services, the twelve faculty members with offices in the Library, etc.) into the new annex.

Recommendations for Office Choice Priorities continued. . . . We must identify any disability-related,

administrative, and programmatic needs, in this order, that will govern office assignment.

Rank and seniority within rank will determine who receives first choice of offices after disability-related, administrative, and programmatic needs are met. A lottery will determine who receives first choice among faculty of equal rank and seniority.

Timelines for Process Planning

We clumped faculty issues together in light of our shared values, setting timelines for their consideration:Discuss shared governance on March 5 and March 19 vis-à-vis:

1. The ongoing Program Advisory Council2. Search, tenure and promotion, curriculum

review, and other committees3. Hiring practices

Timelines for Process Planning continued. . . .

Clarify faculty roles, ranks, expectations, and situational contexts on March 28, April 2, and April 16 vis-à-vis:

1. College and university norms2. Departmental, programmatic, and

individual contexts3. Recruitment, support, and retention of

faculty4. Workload equity, consistency, and

transparency