President Norm Baldwin began the meeting with information concerning the release of student evaluations. Norm met with Law Professor Harry Hopkins. According to Professor Hopkins, the faculty has legitimate reasons to resist posting evaluations because student evaluations are sensitive information exempt from being release. Although not taking a position on the release of student evaluations, Glen Powell, Chief Legal Counsel for the Alabama system, indicated that Professor Hopkin’s position was a legitimate position. President Sorensen has stated that he will not impose the release of student evaluations. The students have no resources to pursue a legal solution to this problem while the faculty would have the legal expertise of University attorneys thus presenting an ethical dilemma. After several meetings, a compromise has not been reached. The students maintain that they have a right to this information. They could set up their own web page. The point was made in one of the meetings that the students could walk into the classroom with preconceived ideas of that instructor and it would be detrimental to their learning. The motivation behind the request for evaluations could possibly have come from a student that complained that time in class was taken up with the instructor’s personal issues and was impairing their education. The results of a student poll were 95-98% felt their professors did a very good job. It was felt that student evaluations of the newer faculty members would be a problem. Also, evaluations by students with a poor attendance record would not be accurate. The faculty was polled with the results that the faculty does not want evaluations to be posted. The President and the Provost want the Faculty Senate to be open and honest with the students and would like for a compromise to be reached. It was suggested that each department decide if they want to post evaluations. It could also be voluntary; however, if faculty decided not to participate, there could be pressure on faculty to release evaluations because otherwise it would perhaps reflect poor teaching or some other reason not to divulge their evaluations. A motion was made that a report be written to the Provost and the SGA stating: "It is the consensus and position of the Steering Committee in review of the poll and another meeting of the Academic Affairs Committee that the faculty do not wish to have evaluations released." Discussion concerning the personal opinion of the Steering Committee and their representation of their constituents resulted in some feeling that they should represent those that elected them. The motion passed with two abstentions.

The ad hoc committee on Revision of Intellectual Property Rights drafted their revision of Appendix H (attached) and this was given to the Council of Deans. The Council of Deans added numbers five and six under "(B.) Exceptions". The phrase "(5) When University faculty or employees author non-institutional works, normally no royalty or other consideration shall be paid to the faculty member or employee when that non-institutional work is used for instruction at the University" was interpreted to mean that the University would not pay royalties or other considerations. The committee could not think of any circumstance where the University would pay royalties, so they questioned the intent and meaning of this statement. The committee asked Ron Rogers to explain and the example was given of a faculty member selling an entire distance learning degree program to another institution. They tried to address that situation and eliminate ambiguous language. The committee then addressed the second part of number five, "Non-institutional works shall not be sold, leased, rented or otherwise used by the faculty member or employee in a manner that competes in a substantial way with the for-credit offerings of the University unless that transaction has received the prior approval of the Office for Academic Affairs". The term "institutional work" means a work prepared at the direction of the University for the use of the University in conducting its own affairs such as a handbook or press release or a work that could not reasonably be attributed to a single author or group of authors because it is the result of contributions or revisions by numerous faculty members, employees, or students of the University. It was felt that point numbers five and six place restrictions on an individual’s work. The committee suggested that number five be modified to read "Selling, renting or leasing video or online courses requires the prior approval of the Office for Academic Affairs, consistent with the supplemental compensation policy in Chapter Three, Part VII of the Handbook." This narrows the scope to videos and online courses. Further discussion included the points of the use of labs and other University resources to develop your program, what are the rights of the University and the individual pertaining to the use of that program. It was suggested to eliminate number six which reads,"When non-institutional work is courseware, electronic or otherwise, or computer software, the faculty member or employee shall have the right to take and use the work upon departure from the University, subject to a perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free license for the University to make, use, edit, reproduce, and distribute copies of and to prepare derivative works from the work for use by the University in teaching, scholarship, and research." The committee feels "courseware" should be defined and that Point number six suggests that the University could edit an internet course as they see fit, and continue to offer it indefinitely. The issue of authorship is raised. If a faculty member developed a course and the University edits it, would the faculty member’s name remain on the course? The faculty member would have no control over the content. Could a faculty member develop a course and no changes be made but it is then presented as someone else’s course. This would be plagiarism. Where are the boundaries of courseware, electronic or otherwise – does this include your files, reading lists, course notes, etc. There seems to be a conflict of University and faculty interests. The comparison was made to actors not being paid re-run royalties for their work in films and television. A concern of the University is to sustain the course in the unexpected absence of a professor and it is perceived that the University sees this as a way to make money. The critical point of this issue is the ownership of intellectual properties. Point number seven added by the ad hoc committee addresses copyrightable work of potential commercial value. The Steering Committee passed the proposal that these revisions be presented to the Faculty Senate at the next meeting.

A committee member representing the Resolution of proposing the privatization of the Greek system was not present. The Steering Committee recommended that this be referred back to the committee.

President’s Report – (Norm Baldwin) A letter was received from Dr. Sorensen and Dr. Barrett expressing their appreciation for the resolution passed commending the President and Provost on a job well done.

The Faculty Senate has been working quietly on the Greek Desegregation issue. Dr. Sybil Todd has been invited along with anyone else she would like to bring to the December Faculty Senate Steering Committee meeting. The SGA was very respectful of the Greek Desegregation resolution passed by the Faculty Senate and they passed one of their own.

Officers of the Faculty Senate have been invited to the next Faculty and Staff Benefits meeting to show continued Faculty Senate Steering Committee support of domestic partner benefits. The resolution supporting these benefits passed last year by the Faculty Senate Steering Committee was reaffirmed by a vote of the Steering Committee and the Steering Committee supported having Norm, Steve Miller and Jerry Rosiek attend the Benefits meeting.

The question was asked if the survey of the general faculty concerning the posting of student evaluations should be reported to the faculty. The consensus of the Committee was to report the findings.

The progress of the Evaluation of Deans and Chairs resolution was discussed.

Senate Operations – (Steve Miller & Harry Price) Dexter Gordon has asked Mark Nelson to attend the meetings in his place for an indefinite time. William Chaplin was contacted concerning his absences. He is on sabbatical in New York. He was asked to contact an alternate to attend in his place but a response was not received. It was decided to contact the dean to appoint someone.

Legislative Agenda Committee – (Margaret Garner) The HEP Executive Board issued a statement following the Legislative Breakfast Meeting supporting state leaders and the avoidance of proration. The members of ACUFP have been notified of the constitutional reform seminars. We will have the responsibility of setting up for those meetings on our campus. Dean John Dolly will conduct an open forum for Task Force Three on November 27 with a mandatory, one-issue focused meeting of the Faculty Senate.

The issue of Fall Break will be affected by the fact that Tuscaloosa city and county schools do not coordinate their fall breaks at the same time. It was requested that the committee come back with suggestions concerning the timing, how other institutions do this, and logistics of a fall break. Several problems exist with extra time off for staff, economic burden for the University, beginning classes earlier, and other obstacles.

Meeting adjourned 5:25 PM

It is the policy of The University of Alabama to encourage the creation of copyrightable works by its faculty and employees. Such works are an important contribution to the University's pedagogical, scholarly, and public service missions.

DRAFT