Background to the Charge

1. This Committee is concerned with questions of basic academic and research policy on an institutional level, including teaching loads, research procedures, academic requirements, classroom instruction, and all matters that pertain to classroom and laboratory activities.
2. This Committee shall also consider any academic matter or proposed program brought before the Senate that deals with relationships between the Colleges or involves more than one College.

Committee Charge

With the foregoing as the overarching charge.

1. The APC shall review written as well as customary workload policies and practices for full time faculty (T/TT, non TT, and interdisciplinary) at every college/school across the university. The APC shall provide a document that summarizes these policies and practices by November 2016.
2. The APC shall propose a tool to aid every college/school as they revisit their workload policy. The APC shall propose a model report card mirroring such tool in order to help the administration evaluate units in terms of adoption and compliance of workload policies.
3. The APC shall collaborate with the Ad hoc Faculty Handbook Committee on sections on workload policies, including integrating the details of the proposed tool and the report card into the Faculty Handbook.
4. The APC shall examine the efficiency of the current mechanism for new program approvals, considering the average time it has taken for new programs to be approved in the last five years, and make suggestions to streamline the process.
5. Other priorities, to be determined by the Senate Agenda Committee, may be charged as they arise.

Background to the Charge

1. The Committee will maintain regular communications with University-wide planning committees;
2. The Committee shall undertake questions concerning enrollment management policy, admission goals and standards, and policy regarding recruitment and retention of students; and
3. The Committee shall prepare annual recommendations concerning improvements in admission standards, recruitment practices, enrollment management practices, and related areas.

Committee Charge

The SAC liaison shall work with the committee chair to identify a time line for one interim report. Final report(s), including appropriate recommendations, shall be submitted to the Senate Agenda Committee by the end of March 2016. SAC would like to take this opportunity to remind all Senate Committees that section 5.f. of the Senate Bylaws states that “The Faculty Senate, through its authorized committees of representatives, shall receive information that it needs for its studies from the staff offices of the University.”

1. In collaboration with Enrollment Management and Student Affairs (EMSA), this Committee shall review patterns of freshman enrollments over the last five years in the colleges/schools across the university in comparison with match universities;
2. The committee shall investigate the impact that admission policies and practices have had on undergraduate and graduate students (national and international) yield at each college/school across the university; and
3. The committee shall solicit information to understand factors and implications of policies and financial aid which contribute to freshman admissions and yield in STEM and non-STEM fields and the implications of that balance for the mission of the university and the composition of NU’s undergraduates.
4. Other priorities, to be determined by the Senate Agenda Committee, may be charged as they arise.

Background to the Charge

This Committee is concerned with the rights and status of faculty personnel, including standards of tenure, promotion, and advancement for University faculty; and questions of professional development, academic freedom, and economic welfare.

Committee Charge

The Senate Agenda Committee respectfully requests the 2015-2016 Faculty Development Committee to address the following charge:

1. The Committee shall review current tenure and tenure-on-entry practices that are outside the tenure process as defined by the Faculty Handbook. This specifically relates to the identification of outside referees, but generally may include other non-official practices;
2. The Committee shall review the results from ADVANCE and evaluate its effectiveness in promoting diversity within the University faculty;
3. Other priorities, to be determined by the Senate Agenda Committee, may be charged as they arise.

The SAC liaison shall work with the committee chair to identify a time line for one interim report. Final report(s), including appropriate recommendations, shall be submitted to the Senate Agenda Committee by the end of March 2016. SAC would like to take this opportunity to remind all Senate Committees that section 5.f. of the Senate Bylaws states that “The Faculty Senate, through its authorized committees of representatives, shall receive information that it needs for its studies from the staff offices of the University.”

Background to the Charge

According to the Faculty Senate Bylaws, the Financial Affairs Committee is a standing committee of the Faculty Senate charged with two general functions:

1. This Committee is concerned with all questions related to financial affairs of the University, including institutional surveys, reviews and recommendations on budgeting, and financial policies of the University.
2. This Committee shall prepare annual recommendations for the improvement of faculty salaries and fringe benefits.

Committee Charge

Accordingly, the Senate Agenda Committee respectfully requests that the 2016-2017 Financial Affairs Committee prepare a report on the following charge:

1. Based on current information and any other analyses that it may wish to undertake, the Committee is asked to make recommendations on appropriate merit and market adjustment increases for FY 2017. The Committee should present its recommendations electronically on these matters to the Faculty Senate Agenda Committee by 17 November 2015 for presentation to the Senate on 9 December.
2. The Committee shall review the existing benefit and compensation structure, analyze any changes proposed by the administration, including cost-sharing practices for medical, dental and life insurance, and propose possible changes, and determine the impact of proposed changes on faculty and staff; and
3. The Committee shall investigate the possibility of changing the default for pension plans and subsidizing T-Passes.

Background to the Charge

1. This Committee oversees and receives for review evaluations of the Provost, academic deans and Unit chairpersons. These evaluations are conducted on a regular schedule, typically every three years. The timetable for such evaluations shall be maintained by the Office of the Provost and shall be provided annually to the Committee. Evaluations are performed in accordance to rules and procedures passed by the Faculty Senate on December 2, 2009 and approved by the Provost on December 11, 2009.
2. This Committee appoints the faculty members who serve on the administrator evaluation teams, develops and provides evaluation guidelines, materials, and regulations for the teams, sets evaluation schedules and deadlines for the reports, reviews the outcomes, and submits the reports to the Senate Agenda Committee for final review and appropriate distribution.
3. Based on its reviews, the Committee may also make recommendations to the Senate Agenda Committee, to the Provost, or to appropriate Vice Presidents on changes in procedures and/or evaluation instruments as deemed necessary.

Committee Charge

The Administrator Evaluation Oversight Committee (AEOC) is assigned several functions, which include the following:

1. The Administrator Evaluation Oversight Committee (AEOC) will oversee and staff administrator review committees for the purpose of evaluating of chairs, program heads, deans and the Provost in a manner consistent with the procedures delineated in the Administrator Evaluation Process. At the discretion of the Senate Agenda Committee, the AEOC may also coordinate the evaluation of non-academic units; and
2. The AEOC will review the reports from the administrator review teams, analyze the results for institutional patterns, and provide a report with recommendations to the Senate Agenda Committee, to the Provost or Provost’s designee, to the appropriate vice president, or, when appropriate, to the President.
3. Other priorities, to be determined by the Senate Agenda Committee, may be charged as they arise.

SAC would like to take this opportunity to remind all Senate Committees that section 5.f. of the Senate Bylaws states that “The Faculty Senate, through its authorized committees of representatives, shall receive information that it needs for its studies from the staff offices of the University.”

Background to the Charge

The Committee shall be concerned with policy issues involving libraries’ strategic planning, infrastructures and resource adequacy, collections development and maintenance, program and service development, and other matters of concern to the faculty as the institution strives to achieve and retain status as a top teaching and research university. This Committee shall also act as a forum for discussion on matters related to the Libraries and may act as an advocate for the University Libraries.

Committee Charge

The Committee shall work with appropriate Library personnel and prepare a report that addresses issues identified by the Dean of University Libraries. Minimally, the SAC respectfully requests that the Committee address the following:

1. ibrary space planning, particularly of the upper floors, and the impact that this will have on print collections;
2. Management and curation of research data (short- and long-term);
3. Library budget and resources policies; and
4. Explore/propose more effective lines of communications between librarians and faculty.
5. Other priorities, to be determined by the Senate Agenda Committee, may be charged as they arise.

The SAC liaison shall work with the committee chair to identify a time line for one interim report. Final report(s), including appropriate recommendations, shall be submitted to the Senate Agenda Committee by the end of March 2016. SAC would like to take this opportunity to remind all Senate Committees that section 5.f. of the Senate Bylaws states that “The Faculty Senate, through its authorized committees of representatives, shall receive information that it needs for its studies from the staff offices of the University.”

Background to the Charge

The Committee shall be concerned with all questions relating to the development, maintenance, security, and availability of information systems and infrastructures;The Committee will periodically review information systems priorities, policies, resources, and operations and, based on these reviews, make recommendations concerning activities that may improve operations or enhance the seamless flow of data and information to the communities that depend on it;The Committee will also make recommendations to the Senate Agenda Committee, the administrative head of Information Systems, or to others in the administration (as appropriate) on matters concerning operations, resources, or policies.

Committee Charge

1. The Committee shall review the adequacy of technology available in classrooms, as well as course management software (i.e., Blackboard) in comparison to other state-of-the-are software (such as open edX); and
2.  In collaboration with RPOC, the Committee shall investigate common IT resources that will support faculty research, such as REDCap and other shared databases and tools, as well as develop policies for research IT, such as how human subjects’ data should be stored and protected.
3. Other priorities, to be determined by the Senate Agenda Committee, may be charged as they arise.

Background to the Charge

This Committee was established to review and assess the direction and implementation of the University’s research mission, advocate for its needs, review periodically and make recommendations on its research resources, infrastructures, and policies, serve as a research “ombuds-body” to address structural impediments and faculty complaints, and work with the Provost, the Senior Vice President for Administration & Finance, the Senior Vice President for Institutional Advancement, and the President to insure the best possible environment for research and scholarship.

Committee Charge

The Committee is respectfully requested to:

1. Review ORAF post-award processes to identify how they can be made more efficient to better serve faculty and their funders. In particular, workflow management systems, and other systems, that improve efficiency and increase faculty visibility into ORAF shall be considered;
2. Review mechanisms for aligning ORAF and faculty interests so that they are more collaborative and less adversarial, such as implementing a faculty feedback system that is linked to ORAF performance appraisals;
3. In collaboration with ITPC, investigate common IT resources that will support faculty research, such as REDCap and other shared databases and tools, as well as develop policies for research IT, such as how human subjects’ data should be stored and protected; and
4. Investigate barriers to interdisciplinary research and make recommendations for addressing them, such as allowing Banner accounts to be visible by co-PIs in different departments.
5. Other priorities, to be determined by the Senate Agenda Committee, may be charged as they arise.

The SAC liaison shall work with the committee chair to identify a time line for one interim report. Final report(s), including appropriate recommendations, shall be submitted to the Senate Agenda Committee by the end of March 2016. SAC would like to take this opportunity to remind all Senate Committees that section 5.f. of the Senate Bylaws states that “The Faculty Senate, through its authorized committees of representatives, shall receive information that it needs for its studies from the staff offices of the University.”

Background to the Charge

According to Faculty Senate legislation for Standing Committees, the Full-time Non-tenure-track Faculty is to be charged with reviewing and making recommendations on matters affecting this population of the Northeastern University community.

Committee Charge

• The Senate Agenda Committee respectfully requests that the Committee provide a report that:
  1. reviews all NU college governance documents, the NU Faculty Handbook and similar documents from a small sample of universities to:
     1. identify by college/school and university all sections of those documents in which FT non-T/TT faculty are identified, mentioned or covered
     2. identify by college/school and university what types of protections for FT non-T/TT faculty exist in those documents, including but not restricted to the following:
        1. discipline policies,
        2. grievance procedures,
        3. length of contracts,
        4. promotion procedures, and
        5. policies prohibiting retaliation for governance activities
  2. Identifies by college/school and university the various levels/activities in which FT non-T/TT faculty are authorized to participate in governance;
  3. Reviews other relevant documents, including the AAUP (2013) report on “contingent faculty” and the 2014-15 report from the NU Faculty Senate Committee for Full-time Non Tenure Track Faculty.
• Additionally, the SAC requests that the Committee, in collaboration with the Faculty Senate’s Ad Hoc Faculty Handbook Committee, propose model language options for inclusion in various college governance documents and the NU Faculty Handbook that:
  1. provides appropriate and meaningful levels of protection for FT non-T/TT faculty in general as well as specifically related to participating in college/school and university level governance, and;
  2. addresses the aforementioned specific procedural and policy issues.
• Other priorities, to be determined by the Senate Agenda Committee, may be charged as they arise.

The SAC liaison shall work with the committee chair to identify a time line for one interim report. Final report(s), including appropriate recommendations, shall be submitted to the Senate Agenda Committee by the end of March 2016. SAC would like to take this opportunity to remind all Senate Committees that section 5.f. of the Senate Bylaws states that “The Faculty Senate, through its authorized committees of representatives, shall receive information that it needs for its studies from the staff offices of the University.”

Committee Charge

1. The Senate Agenda Committee respectfully requests that the Senate Ad hoc Committee examine Northeastern University’s results on the Higher Education Research Institute’s (HERI) Faculty Survey for the purpose of identifying key strengths and concerns pertaining to the faculty’s perceptions of the university. Toward this end, the Committee shall summarize results both longitudinally and with respect to an appropriate peer group of universities. Particular attention will be devoted to faculty’s role in university decision making, which had been identified as a concern in a 2012 Senate report.
2. Other priorities, to be determined by the Senate Agenda Committee, may be charged as they arise

The Senate Agenda Committee respectfully requests a written report on the Committee’s findings with recommendations and possible resolutions no later than February 12, 2015.

SAC would like to take this opportunity to remind all Senate Committees that section 5.f. of the Senate Bylaws states that “The Faculty Senate, through its authorized committees of representatives, shall receive information that it needs for its studies from the staff offices of the University.”

Background to the Charge

This task force will propose a framework for PhD education to guide future investment and growth in this endeavor at Northeastern University.

We wish to develop the Northeastern University model(s) of PhD education that will make our doctoral programs as distinctive and competitive as are our undergraduate and professional master’s programs today. Individual faculty and departmental culture is still critical in PhD education. Nothing from this discussion will dictate how faculty must execute PhD education. We must preserve academic freedom. Ultimately, we seek a set of shared values as a guideline for how the University should invest in PhD education for the greatest impact and excellence.

The PhD programs at Northeastern should build upon the university’s distinctive strengths and the strengths of our academic units. These include, but are not limited to, experiential education, translational research, and global perspective.

The Academic Plan

Committee Charge

Please develop a short white paper on framing the PhD program of the future, consistent with NU ideals. Examine existing PhD programs at Northeastern and aspirant institutions for innovative ideas. Suggest how the university develops and strengthens excellent PhD programs. Propose possible funding models for disciplinary and interdisciplinary PhD programs, including novel models (without going into detailed budgets). We list some initial ideas to consider, but hope you generate many others:

1. Best in class faculty in focused areas
2. Inter/multi-disciplinary focus
3. Team-based dissertation approaches
4. Concentrate on current strengths
5. Opportunities for new PhD programs
6. Opportunities for training programs that are unique/innovative
7. Compare/contrast with aspirant institutions, nationally and internationally
8. Consider post-docs as part of this process