Background to the Charge

The UUCC is the University Undergraduate Curriculum Committee. It is composed of members across all colleges of the University including CPS and a representative of the undergraduate student body. It also includes representation from the registrar’s office and the library. The UUCC is charged by the Faculty Senate to “consider and make recommendations to the Senate concerning any proposals for undergraduate curriculum changes.” The UUCC is “the Senate’s designee in considering interdepartmental and intercollege disputes arising from matters concerning courses or programs offered or proposed.”

Committee Charge

UUCC-Bylaws

Background to the Charge

The Graduate Council is a sub-committee of the Faculty Senate established to formulate, review, and recommend for adoption general academic policies and regulations for the creation and governance of graduate programs at Northeastern University.

Committee Charge

Graduate Council Bylaws

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

1. The EAPC shall continue to monitor the policies and practices of Enrollment Management and Student Affairs (EMSA) and investigate the impact they have on undergraduate and graduate admissions at each college/school.
2. In Fall 2016, the EAPC shall lead the discussion in the Faculty Senate of the strategies and processes that shape the undergraduate student cohort.
3. The EAPC shall seek all pertinent information to lead such discussion, including asking EMSA for a report on the design, implementation and outcomes of the enrollment plans.
4. The EAPC shall work with EMSA and the different colleges which have experienced substantial declines in fall freshman enrollments (or other admissions cycles if appropriate) to ensure that a satisfactory plan of action is in place to address such declines.
5. 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 2016-2017 Faculty Development Committee to address the following charge:

1. The FDC shall analyze practices across the colleges and make recommendations regarding how rewards for good teaching can be enhanced. The FDC shall review the 2013-14 Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) Faculty Survey findings, focusing on the component of the report that relates to the perception that faculty are not rewarded for being good teachers. The report indicated that less than 13% of respondents at NU had the view that good teaching was rewarded compared to the wider private university average of 24%.
2. The FDC shall review summer compensation practices across the colleges/schools and shall propose recommendations for improving current policies and practices applicable to each college/school. In collaboration with the Ad hoc Faculty Handbook Committee, the FDC shall propose a resolution to be included in the Faculty Handbook to address any discrepancy between the policy and its practice.
3. The FDC shall collaborate with Senior Vice Provost Ambrose for the purpose of recommending the most appropriate procedures and items to use in the evaluation of the NUPath course goals. In making these recommendations, the FDC shall consider the implications of this evaluation for the tenure and promotion.
4. Other priorities, to be determined by the Senate Agenda Committee, may be charged as they arise.

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. The FAC shall examine the appropriateness of the current choice of university-wide match-mate institutions used for university-wide faculty salary recommendations. These match-mates consist of the Colonial Group of Colleges along with Carnegie-Mellon University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and Rice University. The salary data is provided by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and includes only university-wide mean salaries.   Factors to be considered by FAC include the cost-of-living in different areas and how to correct for it, the quality of the institutions, and any other issues which affect average salaries.
2. The FAC is requested to examine the unit-specific match-mates. The process by which these sets of match-mates are chosen from the University Professional Association (CUPA) list of institutions should be examined.  In addition, FAC shall use the current sets of CUPA match-mates to construct appropriate university-wide average and median salaries based upon the CUPA unit data.
3. The FAC shall examine the total faculty compensation, given the yearly increases in the cost of benefits (especially health insurance), in comparison to salary raises.
4. Based upon the findings in charges #1-3, FAC is requested to make recommendations for merit raises for full time faculty at the University.
5. The FAC shall report on the status of the 2015-2016 FAC resolutions #4 and #5, which were passed by the Senate on April 20, 2016.
6. The FAC shall collaborate with the Provost’s Office to gather information of the trends of University parking fees over the last 5-8 years.

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

1. This Committee shall be concerned with all questions relating to the development, maintenance, security, and availability of information systems and infrastructures.
2. The Committee periodically reviews information systems priorities, policies, resources, and operations and, based on these reviews, makes recommendations concerning activities that may improve operations or enhance the seamless flow of data and information to the communities that depend on it.
3. The Committee also makes 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 ITPC shall review the adequacy of technology available in the classrooms and survey new technologies to make the classroom experiencemore engaging and interactive.
2. The ITPC shall review alternatives to the Blackboard course management system.  ITPC should meet with the NU ITS group working on this topic and consider their recommendations, and shall provide independent recommendations that address student and faculty needs and usability requirements.
3. The ITPC shall work with NU ITS to identify support options for non-imaged research computers.
4. The ITPC shall work with NU ITS to identify options for easy-to-use centralized backups, server storage, and web site design and hosting services, for use by both imaged and non-imaged research computers.
5. The ITPC shall report on the implementation of the approved 2016-2017 ITPC resolutions.
6. 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

1. The RPOC shall review ORAF post-award processes to identify how they can be made 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. RPOC shall meet with the administration team working on this to review their recommendations, and shall provide its independent recommendations.
2. In collaboration with ITPC, RPOC 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. The RPOC shall investigate possible barriers to interdisciplinary research and make recommendations for addressing them with particular attention given to RCM practices.  The RPOC shall propose recommendations to overcome any barriers identified.
4. 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

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 FT NTTFC shall follow up on the status of the approval and implementation of the Committee’s 2015-2016 Senate resolutions.
• The FT NTTFC shall propose a process for electing FT NTT faculty to the Faculty Senate, contingent upon successful completion of charge #1.
• The FT NTTFC shall review current opportunities for FT NTT faculty participation in governance activities at each level (whether unit, department, school, or college) and, if it does not already exist, recommend a process for ensuring FT NTT faculty participation in governance.
• 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.”

Committee Charge

Whereas the Report on the 2013-2014 Higher Education Research Institute’s (HERI) Faculty Survey findings indicated that Northeastern Faculty had lower ratings on 13 of 14 items pertaining to job satisfaction, professional satisfaction, and work climate than a comparison group of faculty at private universities,

The Senate Agenda Committee respectfully requests that the Senate Ad hoc HERI Committee:

1. Identify specific areas of concern pertaining to job satisfaction, professional satisfaction, and work climate
2. Identify probably causes of these areas of concern;
3. Identify barriers to improving these areas;
4. Make recommendations for improving these areas.
5. The Senate Agenda Committee further requests that, in accomplishing this task, the Senate Ad Hoc HERI Committee convene a series of University-wide meetings during the 2016-2017 academic year for the faculty and administration to discuss issues highlighted in the Report of the 2013-2014 findings.
6. Other priorities, to be determined by the SAC, may be charged as they arise.
7. 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 Ad hoc Faculty Handbook Review Committee shall review the handbook language about faculty merit, raise and compensations policies and procedures and shall propose, where appropriate, recommendations with model language for inclusion in the Handbook by November 2016.  In carrying out this charge, the Committee shall consider the approved Faculty Senate resolutions on merit from 2008, and consult with the Faculty Senate’s Financial Affairs Committee.
2. The Ad hoc Faculty Handbook Review Committee shall review the Handbook for internal inconsistencies, inconsistencies with other University documents, and for language or content that may  need updating with special attention to the titles used to describe full-time, non-tenure track faculty members.  Where changes to the Handbook are warranted, the Committee shall propose a resolution with model language for inclusion in the Handbook.
3. When other Senate committees are working on charges related to possible changes in the Faculty Handbook, this Committee shall collaborate for the purpose of proposing model language for inclusion in the Faculty Handbook.
4. This Committee shall consider the recommendations of the 2015-2016 Faculty Senate Hearing Committee in revising aspects of the module on Dismissal Proceedings.
5. Other priorities, to be determined by the Senate Agenda Committee, may be charged as they arise.
6. 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.”