skip to main content Indiana State University University Faculty Senate Committee # 1 Approved October 11, 2007. Indiana State University Faculty Senate 2007-08 Present: Candy Barton, Wil Downs, Bob English, Rocco Gennaro, Arthur Halpern, Jeff Harper, Betsy Hine, Susan Hoffman, Harriet Hudson, Richard Kjonaas, Larry Kunes, Rich Schneirov, Linda Sperry, Absent: Brian Ceh, Dale Ann O’Neal Meeting was called to order by convener Linda Sperry at 3:30. Agenda: 1. Election of officers: The following were elected as officers of this year’s Faculty Affairs Committee: Chair: Linda Sperry V. Chair: Rich Schneirov Secretary: Betsy Hine 2. Chair announced that there will be a member on sabbatical in the spring. 3. Meeting times will be announced. 4. Charges (15) were distributed and examined. Chair will send last year’s annual report to this year’s committee and any documents for charges 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 13 . Chair will set up a shared file for committee work 5. Background Checks for Faculty Process: Guests Candy Barton and Will Downs, Asst. V.P. for Human Resource and Harriet Hudson (last year’s FAC chair) were present to speak to this issue. Last year the Board of Trustees did approve the concept of background checks for Support Staff, EAP, and student workers. At the time one of the trustees suggested working out procedures for faculty. Harriet Hudson distributed draft policy/procedures for new faculty hires. Last year when FAC met with V.P. Gregg Floyd we discussed that the faculty part of the hiring procedures was not workable so then Chair Hudson worked over the summer with Dean Sauer and Chair Olsen to fit the procedures to faculty hires and that resulted in the draft that she distributed. Much discussion followed. There was concern that response to the self-disclosure would be subjective. Why is this being done? Answer: Not doing this could cause ISU to lose some educational opportunities such as bringing school groups on campus, going out into clinics, etc. Candy Barton distributed a copy of a list of other universities who were studied when discussing this issue. The electronic application that is now being used asks the various self disclosure questions. Would search committees see this in the search process? Answer: Only during the search process for the semi-finalist candidates. At that point HR would ask permission to run a background check (takes 2-3 days). The hope is that this wouldn’t delay the search process if there has been no conviction. There would be training for chairs and deans, etc., on this procedure so that they will be prepared prior to searches. There was concern about confidentiality. Background checks that turn up convictions information would be known by chair and dean only, attempting to keep this confidential. Since committees keep search information confidential, why couldn’t this information be shared with the whole search committee? HR feels that this information should be kept more confidential than any other information gathered by the search committee. Who needs to know this information? There was concern that non-relevant information will be opened up to non-arbitrary decisions within the academic dept/community. There are implications for current faculty who apply for positions, external (consistent w/ new hires?) and internal (Appropriate V.P. determines whether position requires a check?). Also, will there be comparable procedures for contract faculty? Who’s bearing the costs? Candy Barton answered that HR has budgeted for this, the range for checks currently being about $30-$54. HR is currently using a vendor (HireRight) to do the checking for the personnel that have been and are currently being checked. If a candidate is removed from the search due to a check how would the reason be relayed to the search committee without betraying confidentiality? Who does need to know? University Counsel? The process as distributed works out some of these things. FAC should consider the distributed documents and be prepared to discuss at the next meeting. Some concerns are why this now? Are there public expectations for the Academy to maintain a level of safety in the academic environment; Is there an assumption that if you were convicted on something that one would repeat or is there a higher risk that the actions would be repeated? ; Is there a risk for eliminating certain groups of people from consideration due to such a policy?; Could we find out which agencies require background checks by disciplines?, e.g, nursing, education? Could the administration provide such a list? Does HR have such lists?; When does this infringe on civil liberties? There are also implications of cost down the road. There is also concern that the process would indeed slow down the search. What are the possible liability issues? List of universities passed around did not include any of the research one institutions. Can we find out about IU and PU at least? FAC will be meeting again in 2 weeks and discussion can continue. We will try to get this same room again. For the information of the committee, following, from the minutes of April 19, 2007 is the discussion on this issue from the last meeting of the committee last year. Background check document: It was moved and seconded to accept the proposal for background checks document. (TS/BH) Discussion followed. VP Greg Floyd discussed the background check issue and how it came about related to hiring, university liability and potential public ramifications of not having such a policy. The policy would be for new employees only and not for existing employees. The application form asks if there have ever been any felony convictions. The information goes back for 7 years but the form does not ask for specific felony convictions. The private sector has already begun to do this and that is spilling into university areas already such as nursing, IT, offices where money/credit cards are handled, etc. This policy doesn’t replace judgment, i.e., it wouldn’t necessarily prohibit hiring. The form also asks about other things like DUIs. After that a background check would be done based on what is revealed on the application form. At that point if the background check turns up any things other than what was stated on the application there could be a problem with falsifying an application. We are a faculty affairs committee so our concern has to be about faculty only. Many other schools do not do such checks on faculty. Who is the employment/hiring manager? Could it be a department chair or chair of a search committee? Answer was it would be someone in HR. This is a key definition on this issue. Decision making on hiring, promotion, etc., for faculty needs to happen more in Academic Affairs rather than in HR. VP Floyd agrees that the decision maker in the area of hiring faculty the Provost. A general 3-person panel as described in the proposal doesn’t seem to be appropriate for faculty. It seems that with faculty there should be a panel which would include appropriate faculty from the College/Library. How far does this go? What about Trustees? It would include any new hire in the administration. In the section dealing with students, does there need to be a comparable panel with student representation? Same could be true of any area representation on the panel related to the position being filled. The perspective on this issue is one that is protecting and making safe the environment/community. There is no provision for ongoing checks. Again, this is only for new hires. What about confidentiality? Felonies are a matter of public record and there is opportunity for disclosure of them on the application. This is not intended to create a way to bar people from employment. There needs to be consistency in the terminology and defining such things as employment manager, panel etc. and there needs to be some clearer description of how confidentiality will be maintained. There are 2 issues: concept and process. The process outlined does not work for faculty. Do we agree with the concept? Floyd said that input from this committee has been helpful and that he would like to have some representation from FAC to create a new document/policy. Tom Sawyer moved the following expansion to the above motion, i.e., to recommend that we accept the concept for running criminal background checks on new faculty hires but that a subcommittee be formed to address the procedural issues for faculty hires and that subcommittee would include members of the faculty. 2nd by BH. Passed (5-1-0) As a point of information, the previously distributed AAUP comments were read by Harriet Hudson: “as a general policy …: invasive…” and is therefore at odds with the above recommendation. Gregg Floyd said he wanted to take the proposal to the Trustees at the June 12 meeting. Harriet Hudson said that nothing concerning faculty should go to the Trustees then since FAC's motion will not have been acted on by the Executive Committee or Senate and appropriate procedures will not have been developed yet. VP Floyd said that the proposal that goes forward will not include faculty in any way. Meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 5:15. Respectfully submitted, Betsy Hine, Secretary Last modified: September 11, 2008 Copyright © 2007 by Indiana State University.