Background to the Charge

The UUCC is the University Undergraduate Curriculum Committee.

The UUCC shall be composed of one full-time faculty member from each college (chosen annually by each college’s curriculum committee), the Associate Dean in charge of undergraduate programs from each respective college, one faculty-member-at-large from the full-time faculty (appointed by the Senate Agenda Committee), one representative from the Student Government Association, and non-voting members from the Registrar’s Office and the Library. The Chair of the UUCC shall be the Provost, or their designee. The Chair will vote only in the event of a tie.

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 inter-college disputes arising from matters concerning courses or programs offered or proposed.”

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. As combined UG majors are a goal of the university and concerns have been raised regarding adequacy of advising for students in combined majors, the committee shall:
   1. Solicit feedback from faculty, staff and students related to combined major advising.
   2. Evaluate attrition numbers of academic advisors in each college.
   3. Provide recommendations related to infrastructure with respect to advisor: student ratios and methods/processes for student advising.
2. Given concerns raised regarding the university’s undergraduate student admissions process related to enrollment disparities across colleges and potential program closures, the committee shall explore the impact on over-and under-enrolled programs with respect to:
   1. Number and type of programs with enrollment changes over the past 5 years.
   2. Resource re-allocation to programs based on enrollment changes.
   3. Number and type of programs closed.

Provide recommendations on best practice policies for university admissions.

3. Identify current university infrastructure related to the marketing of programs (majors, minors, concentrations, graduate certificates, etc.) and assess any impact on student enrollments across the university system.

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

1. To support the increasing number of students with combined majors and aid the university in achieving the outcomes of the new academic plan, this committee will:
   1. Survey faculty on any training they believe is necessary to support students with combined majors from a programmatic perspective.
   2. Identify faculty development opportunities and/or training based on survey responses.

2. The Faculty Senate continues to hear significant concerns from faculty related to perceived inadequate communication (i.e. timeliness and transparency) from multiple levels of NU administration. Faculty have relayed that this perceived communication inadequacy results in faculty disenfranchisement, challenges in morale and faculty value, and concerns related to faculty governance erosion related to suboptimal faculty in put into the operations of the university.

In collaboration with the Provost’s office, the Inclusion and Development Committee and the Faculty Handbook Revision Committee, the FDC shall identify communication strategy best practices (i.e. methods, technology platforms, frequency etc.) to create a more inclusive, engaged and informed university community.

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

1. Considering increases in the cost of living, on or before December 1, 2022, the committee shall:
   1. Examine the total faculty compensation.
   2. Review match-mate institution data and compare salary raises.
   3. Make recommendations for 2023 merit raises for full time faculty.
   4. Identify alternative compensation strategies, to fill the cost-of-living gap, in the absence of direct financial increase (e.g., pay out vacation time or roll over vacation time, exemplary employee compensation (e.g., referral for a job well done).
2. According to the One Faculty model, the Faculty Handbook, and AY2020-21 Resolution #30, NTT faculty should be provided salary information for equity requests. Given the complexity of this process, and despite the good faith effort and improvements to this process on the part of university administration, the Committee, in collaboration with the FTNTTF committee and University Decision Support, shall:
   1. Survey faculty to collect data related to faculty satisfaction with current equity process.
   2. Examine NTT faculty titles and provide recommendations for broad based categories to provide salary data in aggregate form to maximize the number of faculty that may benefit from the current equity process.
   3. Identify how other universities provide salary data to their faculty for the purposes of equity review.
3. Examine the fiduciary obligations and fund selection process of the employee retirement plan and provide feedback to address issues that may be evident from the examination.

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 with 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

1. Complete AEOC process for identified administrators for ’22-’23 academic year.
2. Evaluate current AEOC process and provide recommendations for improvements.

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 Faculty Senate has received numerous faculty concerns related to perceived lack of information/communication related to technology infrastructure updates in the classroom/remote teaching and in research platforms. The committee should work with Information Technology Services (ITS) (Cole Camplese), Center for Advancement of Teaching, Learning and Research (CATLR) (Michael Sweet) and Academic Technology Services (ATS) (Lindsey Sudbury) to identify best practices for targeted and coordinated communication strategies, specifically:
   1. Evaluating available ITS, CATLR and ATS websites.
   2. Identify specific areas where faculty can go to find relevant information and design an easy to use interface/infographic.
2. As the university continues to re-evaluate plans for remote and hybrid work, the committee shall:
   1. Identify current processes of work/office space allocation ad technology infrastructure needs and upgrades (i.e. computers, software) across all college.
   2. Recommend best practices and considerations to apply across all colleges and campuses to ensure equity across all faculty positions.

Background to the Charge

The Committee will 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. Follow up on previous recommendations related to the creation of research charter agreements for all shared resources, including shared space and shared equipment.
2. Following the committee’s recommendation from 2020-2021 report, the committee shall meet quarterly with NU-RES and HSRP (Office of Human Subject Research Protection) staff to:
   1. Exchange operational information and system/platform updates.
   2. Facilitate faculty/research staff members’ understanding of the University’s progress.
   3. Review KPIs and progress towards goals.
3. Survey researchers, departments and colleges to investigate the feasibility and fiscal soundness of shared research stockrooms to allow internal distribution of bulk items.

Background to the Charge

This Committee consists of full-time faculty members from across the University who collectively utilize the range of Library/Information Collaboration resources and services. In addition, the Dean of the University Libraries/Vice Provost for Information Collaboration shall serve as an ex officio member. To facilitate continuity of policies and responsiveness to faculty needs with respect to information resources, delivery, and utilization across the University, the Committee shall establish continuing liaison with the Senate’s Standing Academic Policy, Information Technology Policy, and Research Policy Oversight Committees.

Committee Charge

1. Identify best practices for the library to:
   1. Connect with global campus library services, especially Mills college.
   2. Communicate the role of librarians in supporting new and existing faculty.
2. Identify opportunities for the university community to support and amplify messaging related to ongoing library renovations

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

1. Solicit survey feedback from faculty regarding the One Faculty model (AY 2018-19 Senate Resolution #14 and AY 2020-21 Resolution #28), including faculty perceptions of:
   1. Overall effectiveness of the One Faculty model
   2. Teaching assignments
   3. Workload distribution (i.e. Teaching, Research/Scholarly Activities, Service)
   4. Leadership opportunities
   5. Faculty development funds
   6. Other areas the committee deems appropriate to explore
2. According to the One Faculty model, the Faculty Handbook, and AY 2020-21 Resolution #30, NTT faculty should be provided salary information for equity requests. Given the complexity of this process, and despite the good faith effort and improvements to this process on the part of university administration, the Committee, in collaboration with the FAC and University Decision Support, shall:
   1. Survey faculty to collect data related to faculty satisfaction with current equity process
   2. Examine NTT faculty titles and provide recommendations for broad based categories to provide salary data in aggregate form to maximize the number of faculty that may benefit from the current equity process
   3. Identify how other match mate universities provide salary data to their faculty for the purposes of equity review

Background to the Charge

1. The Committee shall be concerned with questions of basic academic and research policy on an institutional level. Items to be dealt with should concern teaching loads, research procedures, academic requirements, classroom instruction, and all matters that pertain to classroom and laboratory activities.
2. The 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

1. In collaboration with the Provost and Chancellor’s offices, survey faculty about on-ground in-person, remote online, and hybrid approaches to learning, as well synchronicity of courses. Provide recommendations based on survey data.
   1. Specific areas to obtain feedback (in addition to others identified by the committee):
      1. Faculty perceptions of quality of their teaching and student learning
      2. Logistical considerations of teaching technology and any impact on faculty teaching time and/or quality
      3. Any changes to teaching and assessment strategies and student performance faculty need to make based on type of course (i.e. in person, online, hybrid, etc.)
2. In collaboration with the Provost’s office and the FTNTTF Committee, review faculty equity across the institution for the following:Teaching workload:
   1. Limits on number of courses (max or min)
   2. Compensation procedures related to faculty paid by credit hour (known to occur in at least DMSB, CPS)
   3. Distribution of faculty workspace: breakdown of shared versus individual office space and any procedures utilized to determine distribution of office space
3. Conduct a survey of jointly appointed faculty across the university to explore and provide recommendations on perceptions of:
   1. Clarity in distribution of workload percentages
   2. Clarity with merit and equity compensation processes
   3. Communication processes between unit administrators and jointly appointed faculty
   4. Unit leader adherence to approved merit/equity and workload policies
4. Review NU academic plan, identify aspects of the plan that apply to the work of this committee, and provide recommendations for possible future committee charges.

Committee Charge

1. In collaboration with the Provost’s office, who has data on faculty awards given over the past 5 years, survey colleges, provost’s office, and chancellor’s office to:
   1. Evaluate women and BIPOC representation in faculty honorific awards over the past 5 years
   2. Recommend best practices to maximize DEI considerations in awardees
   3. Develop recommendations for a reporting system for university awards.

2. In collaboration with the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (ODEI), develop a process by which faculty and staff policies can be reviewed to ensure diversity, equity and inclusion language is considered/included.

3. In collaboration with the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (ODEI), recommend a communication strategy for the Diversity Dashboard and access to data related to DEI activities to increase visibility of these resources to the university community.

4.Review NU academic plan, identify which aspects of the plan apply to the work of this committee, and provide recommendations for possible future committee charges.

Committee Charge

1. Make a recommendation to NEU as a global campus for a specific plan to increase ratings across a range of ranks
2. Develop metrics for the global university to measure impact and track progress, with reference to the strategic plan created by the previous committee
3. Developing a plan for a visible and coordinated group of key players, and stakeholders across different groups (students, staff, faculty, community partners, etc.)

Committee Charge

1. Whereas the faculty senate has received faculty concerns regarding current policies and procedures regarding global education, particularly with dialogues of civilizations, the Committee shall:
   1. Review available existing Global Experience Office faculty and student data from the past 3 years
   2. Survey faculty related to their experiences concerning global education policies and procedures, global learning goals, curriculum, planning and strategy etc.
   3. Provide recommendations to maintain and strength the global learning experience for the Northeastern community
2. In collaboration with Global Experience Office and based upon the committee’s work this year, identify future global education topics for faculty senate consideration:
   1. Identify key stakeholders, departments, committees, etc. that should be involved in the future

3. In collaboration with the Global Experience Office and the Faculty Handbook Committee, review the global experience office handbook for faculty, and, if necessary, recommend any additions to the university faculty handbook related to global education.

Committee Charge

1. Review the Handbook for internal inconsistencies, inconsistencies with other University documents, and for language or content that may need updating. Where changes to the Handbook are warranted, the Committee shall propose a resolution with model language for inclusion in the Handbook. Specific areas for review (in addition to any other areas the committee identifies):
   1. Compensation module: merit review process: identify any recommendations to improve transparency and accountability
   2. Follow up on IP/Copyright module and policy and its potential removal from the faculty handbook
   3. Changes necessary to any aspect of the Handbook given the global presence of the university and faculty across multiple campuses.
2. Review the past resolution related to the FTNTTF non-renewal and provide recommended updates to the faculty handbook: BE IT RESOLVED that the Northeastern University Faculty Handbook be updated to include guiding principles for FTNTTF in case of contract non-renewal or contact terminations including:
   1. Transparency of decision-making on the non renewal. In alignment with AAUP guidelines, FTNTTF receive documentation with the rationale for non-renewal/non-reappointment decision for any reason, whether it is related to cause or not;
   2. In alignment with AAUP guidelines, that faculty have the right to appeal the decision within 90 days;
   3. Utmost good faith effort will be made to reassign the FTNTTF whose non-re-appointment is not due to cause to another position at the University
3. Review Faculty Senate Bylaws section 3.c.1.a: composition: elections: general regulations and make recommendations regarding eligibility of faculty with administrative duties/titles to serve as senators
4. Faculty across the colleges report different communication and reporting mechanisms for merit processes and salary increases. In collaboration with the Provost’s office, the committee shall evaluate department/unit and college compliance with:
   1. Faculty Handbook compensation module, section 2: process for determining merit, specifically: “The criteria and procedures for merit evaluation must be established and approved by the full-time faculty of the academic unit prior to the merit evaluation period; must be consistent with the workload policy and other merit criteria (e.g., tenure and/or promotion guidelines); and must be approved by the college dean and provost.”
   2. Faculty Handbook compensation module, section 3: communication of merit evaluations.
5. Recommend a standing policy/procedure for ongoing faculty handbook review