Faculty Senate Minutes | March 25, 2020

COVID-19 University Update (Kersh, Milam); Medical Update (Clinch); Follow-Up on Hate Mail / Malicious Email Protocol (Knudson); Recommendation for Standing Committee on Centers and Institutes (Knudson); Update on Discussion Regarding Benefits (Knudson); Discussion of Ombudsperson Possibility (Knudson); Nominations for 2020–2021 Senate Officers (Knudson); Update on University Priorities Committee (Phillips)

Wake Forest University Faculty Senate Minutes

Wednesday, March 25, 2020

Minutes prepared by Sophie Leruth and Senate Secretary Erica Still; submitted by Erica Still.

Note: To facilitate open discussion, the identity of most Senators making comments or questions is not recorded. Such comments as recorded here are generally not verbatim. The identity of comments from Senate Officers and Senate Ad Hoc and Standing Committee Chairs are given, as is the identity of persons commenting in their official administrative capacity (e.g. EVP, Provost and College Dean.)

In Attendance: Jane Albrecht, Steve Boyd, Simone Caron, Stew Carter, Michael Cartwright, Arjun Chatterjee, Anna Cianci, Tracey Coan, Christine Coughlin, Gail Curtis, Michele Gillespie*, Natalie Holzwarth, Hugh Howards, Charles Iacovou*, Ana Iltis, Mark Jensen, Carrie Johnston, Steve Kelley, Ralph Kennedy, Rogan Kersh*, Mark Knudson, Mary Beth Locke, Hof Milam*, Ananda Mitra, Wilson Parker*, Matthew Phillips, Tim Pyatt*, Jimmy Ruiz, Wayne Silver, Michelle Steward, Erica Still, Barry Trachtenberg

(*) denotes non-voting members

26 voting members in attendance, a quorum

I. President Mark Knudson: Call to Order

• Given the circumstances related to COVID-19, this meeting is taking place via the Zoom virtual platform.
• Matthew Phillips: brief overview of Zoom meeting features, namely the “raise hand” function and the use of the chat option
• Discussion: timing of meeting notice and agenda distribution
  • Questions raised by a Senator:
    • Do we have a quorum?
    • Does this meeting need to be ratified, since it was not called as written in the bylaws?
  • Points of discussion that followed:
    • Yes, a quorum is present.
    • This meeting is a regular meeting, having been on the schedule distributed in August 2019.
    • The practice has been to send the agenda a week or several days before a regular meeting.
    • The practice may differ from the bylaws, so there needs to be a discussion of whether to amend the bylaws or change the practice.
    • Currently, the bylaws do not require that the agenda be sent two weeks in advance.
    • Having the meeting agenda two days in advance does not allow sufficient time to consider the issues and gather information.
    • There was recognition that this was an issue for future discussion. However, given the unusual circumstances of the moment, it seems better to move forward with the meeting agenda.
  • Agreement to move forward according to the agenda.

II. Knudson: Approval of Minutes

• Motion to approve the minutes for the Feb 2020 meeting made, seconded, and approved.

III. COVID-19 Updates

• Knudson:
  • A shelter in place order will be in effect Friday March 27 – April 16; nonessential businesses are being closed but food and healthcare will remain accessible. As of this time, there have been 500 cases and 2 deaths in the state, with 17 COVID-19 cases in Forsyth County
• Provost Kersh:
  • With two exceptions, all students and faculty members that were abroad are back (there is one graduate student still in Ecuador – safe and in contact every day. Ecuador has banned all flights in and out. One faculty colleague in Tanzania who is still working to get home.)
  • Of the approximately 900 petitions by undergrads to remain on campus, about half were granted to students who could not travel home for various reasons. Those students continue to be well-cared for.
  • The switch to remote instruction and learning has gone reasonably well. IS has provided hotspots for students and faculty who may not have access to reliable internet service.
  • Communication regarding the rest of the semester, Commencement, and Summer Sessions will be sent soon, as decisions about these issues will be made this week [March 23-25].
    • Senator’s question: How are the mental health needs of students on campus being met? And how are maintenance workers’ fears being addressed?
      • Response (Kersh): Counseling center has contacted every single student that is on campus, and Campus Life staff are supporting students as best they can. Ongoing virtual outreach is the best we can do.
      • Response (Milam): Most custodial staff is employed by the Budd Group; will look into why employees had to clean in Tribble, because it sounds like there might have been some miscommunication there
• Hof Milam:
  • Currently processing payroll for WFU employees, and we need to catch up on contract workers’ situations.
    • Budd Group: employees are still working full time; demand in general is high enough that even if Wake isn’t requiring as many employees they are being deployed elsewhere
    • Follett, at the bookstore: temporary staff has been laid off, though their health benefits are continuing
    • Aramark: problems continue for these workers; already facing a smaller paycheck because of spring break; in conversations with Aramark about these concerns
    • Graylyn: employees here are not contract workers; lost $600,000 due to cancellations
    • Overall, we are concerned about all of these employees and are working with their best interests in mind. While the University cannot guarantee how these companies will respond, it is using its influence as best it can on employees’ behalf.

IV. Knudson: Follow up on Hate Mail/Malicious Email Protocol

• Is there a mechanism in place for making suggestions for revisions to the protocol that was published in February in advance of Founder’s Day Convocation?
  • Kersh: Yes, this is a living document that can be revised. An appendix, perhaps along the lines of Elon’s statement that addresses the matter in a more personal way, could be vetted by legal and quickly put online.
• Knudson: Senators should send any suggestions for revisions to the Executive Committee for discussion at their next meeting.

V. Knudson: Recommendation for Standing Committee on Centers and Institutes

• After meeting with Stew Carter and consulting with Sarah Raynor (who chaired the ad hoc committee that brought this recommendation forward a year and a half ago), the Executive Committee determined that significant change to the administration and oversight of Centers and Institutes has been made. Therefore, the issue is being presented as resolved.
• Comment from Senator: Would like to see a report of the changes that have been made.
  • Response (Knudson): If there is sufficient interest this information can be brought back to the next Senate meeting. Otherwise, Mark would be happy to meet individually with the concerned senator. Since few senators expressed a need for further information, Mark and the senator will arrange to meet separately.
• Question from Senator: What is the status of the AAUP request for an audit of resolutions passed by the Senate?
  • Response (Knudson): That audit is in progress; information is being gathered from the Provost’s Office. It is an important project and should be done annually. The audit will consider the resolutions that have been passed by the Senate with regard to the actions and timeliness with which the administration has responded to them.

VI. Knudson: Update on Discussion Regarding Benefits

• Given the demands of the moment, the scheduled presentation by Dr. Lord was canceled. He has been asked to provide a brief document about the current health care landscape that might have an impact on benefits, if possible

VII. Knudson: Discussion of Ombudsperson Possibility

• Knudson reminded Senators of the materials sent out with the January 2020 minutes and recapped the role of the ombudsperson, i.e. a person in a position to provide information and support for those facing difficult workplace situations, environments, and/or relationships
• The Executive Committee discussed the prospect with the Provost in its last meeting, and he was in support of the committee’s plans.
• Plan from the Executive Committee: That the Senate pass a resolution calling for the creation of an Ombudsperson Program, to be filled by two ombudspersons, one of whom will be internal to Wake Forest and one of whom will be external to Wake Forest.
• Discussion: The following points were covered
  • An ombudsperson would be in a very important position: how will the two people be chosen? Who will decide on that process?
  • Several models have been used in other institutions. They include an option in which the faculty nominate and vote for an internal person; another option is to have the administration put forward a set of nominations and the faculty votes. It is less clear how an external person would be selected.
  • An emeritus faculty member may be a good option for the internal position.
  • The medical school currently has an internal person only, and that system seems to be working well as of now. While it had a somewhat slow start, more people are beginning to use its services.
  • Concern was raised that the process not undermine the importance of individual conflict resolution.
  • Ombudsperson training is especially important for addressing that concern, because it emphasizes the need for that level of conflict resolution; a key contribution is that it does so while attempting to overcome or mitigate some of the power differentials that can be present.
• Motion brought forward by a Senator: That Wake Forest University hire two ombudspersons, one internal to the institution and one external to it. Motion seconded.
• Discussion continued to address the following points:
  • Does the motion need to be amended to include a statement about the selection process?
  • The suggestion was made to pass the motion as is and to make the selection process a separate, fuller discussion.
  • A suggestion was made to amend the motion to include the following statement: “to be selected by a broad group of stakeholders”
  • It is important to consult with the staff on this issue, as the ombudsperson would be available to them as well. The Senate would be certain to work with the Staff Advisory Council.
• Motion was amended: “That Wake Forest University begin development of an Ombudsperson Program that includes two positions, one person internal to the institution and one external to it, to be selected by a broad group of stakeholders.”
• Vote: motion passes – 21 in favor, 1 opposed [5 abstentions]

VIII. Knudson: Nominations for Senate Officers

• The slate of officers was presented to the Senate from the Executive Committee for approval and the floor was opened for additional nominations.
• Discussion covered the following points:
  • The bylaws call for a nominating committee; was there one for this slate?
  • The Executive Committee served as the nominating committee, as has been the practice for several years.
  • It was noted that it is important to have the nominations approved now so that body has time to consider its options. Nominations can also be accepted between now and April.
  • A Senator expressed the need for a review of the bylaws on this issue, indicating that the Senate would do better to follow the process as outlined.
  • It was noted that simply relying on self-nominations is not a good practice; some people would be willing to serve if only they were asked.
• Floor opened for nominations between now and April; members invited to make nominations now and/or to send them to President Knudson before the next meeting
• Nomination from the floor: Barry Trachtenberg for Vice President
• Discussion covered the following points:
  • A Senator asserted that officers should be tenured
  • The comment was made that the practice has been to rotate the presidency among the different schools. Restricting officers to the tenured faculty would preclude most of the medical school faculty from serving in those roles. Likewise, library faculty, by virtue of their own choice, are not tenured.
  • The idea that tenure is necessary for officers so that they are structurally protected and therefore free to disagree with the administration without fear of repercussions was presented.
  • The point that the bylaws do not require tenure for officers was made, as was the point that they do not include the specific requirement that the presidency goes through the rotation of the schools (though it does acknowledge that the apportioning of officers should be representative of the various schools).
  • Several senators expressed concern about or rejection of the idea that officers must be tenured, suggesting that non-tenured permanent faculty are equally capable of opposing the administration should they see fit.
  • The question was raised about the nominating process, suggesting that the issue of tenure for officers does not need to be resolved in order to move forward with the nominations.
  • Acknowledgement was given to the reality that the Senate would not want to nominate someone in their final year of their term or eligibility to serve; similar logistical issues should also be considered.
• Barry Trachtenberg accepted the nomination.
• The nominations were accepted by the Senate, with the understanding that further nominations could be submitted to President Knudson and/or the Executive Committee.
• The Senate Ad Hoc Committee on the Bylaws was asked to take up these questions as it continues its work.

IX: Matthew Phillips: Update on meeting of University Priorities Committee

• COVID 19 has created many academic continuity issues, as well as financial ones such as the concern for contract workers.
• The committee is on standby and prepared to provide feedback and consultation as needed.

X. Adjournment

• Motion to adjourn was made, seconded, and passed.