Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:42:21 -0400
To: fapc@list.gcsu.edu
From: Craig Turner <craig.turner@gcsu.edu>
Subject: FAPC: Update Faculty Awards criteria

Greetings 2010-2011 FAPC members,

The 2009-10 Faculty Affairs Policy Committee (FAPC) brought to completion a review of the Faculty Awards language in the GCSU Academic Affairs Handbook that emerged as a concern at the 1 Feb 2008 FAPC meeting.  At its 5 March 2010 meeting, the committee endorsed a final draft of the proposed revisions. Dr. Lee Digiovanni, 2009-10 FAPC Chair, forwarded this final draft to Provost Jordan as FAPC exercised its advisory role to the academic administration.   A copy of this document is accessible from the 5 Mar 2010 FAPC agenda http://info.gcsu.edu/intranet/univ_senate/SCs2009-2010/FAPC/FAPC_Agenda_03-05-10.htm

Earlier today, I received an update from Provost Jordan, which I am forwarding to you as an information item.  In addition, I have added this update to the 5 Nov 2010 FAPC agenda as an information item.

Provost Jordan extended her appreciation to all members of the 2009-10 FAPC for their thoughtful review of the GCSU Academic Affairs Handbook language on Faculty Awards.

-Craig
 

From: Sandra Jordan <sandra.jordan@gcsu.edu>
To: Craig Turner <craig.turner@gcsu.edu>
CC: Ken McGill <ken.mcgill@gcsu.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 12:30:30 -0400
Subject: Faculty awards criteria (revised FAPC document)

Dr. Turner, as promised, I am sending the final version of the Faculty Awards Criteria that were reviewed by FAPC over the course of last year at the original request of Dr. Gormley. FAPC sent a list of recommended modifications and changes to me last spring.   
I sent the proposed FAPC changes to the committee who makes the awards decisions and ask them to review the recommendations. As a result, that committee tweaked the language just a little for the sake of clarity. I asked them to make every effort to stay within the FAPC guidelines and language as much as possible and I believe that they complied with that request. The changes were, in most cases, only cosmetic. For example, in the case of the awards that result in BOR nominations, the FAPC language referred interested parties to the BOR guidelines and due dates. Of course, if we used the BOR dates for our local process, we'd actually miss the BOR deadlines. Thus, the dates were modified to allow us time to involve the appropriate committee in the recommendation process.

The Awards Committee made more significant changes to the FAPC recommendations in the area of the Faculty Scholarship Award. The committee thought the guidelines and categories were too cumbersome. Since there was such a difference in approach between FAPC and the Awards Committee, I also consulted with the faculty research grant committee. They agreed with the Awards committee and they recommended trimming the guidelines and categories. Beyond that change, the FAPC recommendations in the Scholarship Area were unchanged.

Please share my thanks for their recommendations with FAPC. We have posted the latest version in the online Faculty Handbook which concludes the process.

Best,
Sandra Jordan

FAPC_FacAwards_AArevisions.doc