Boston College Faculty Committees

University governance at Boston College does not include a faculty senate. Instead, in theory, the faculty works through various elected and appointive standing committees. The newest and most prominent of these is the Provost’s Advisory Council. The BCAAUP encourages all standing committees to publish up-to-date minutes of their deliberations. This practice insures widespread dissemination of faculty-related information as well as transparency across the university. At present, most committees post their minutes through the Office of the Provost. These are filed among “Reports and Documents”. One item of interest is the overlap among committees – this is especially true of the University Council on Teaching, the UCDC and the various EPCs. The first among these (UCT) appears to be superseding the EPCs and the UCDC, owing to Council’s inclusion of all schools and other entities (such as the Connor Family Learning Center). The origins of a very interesting and thoughtful white paper on AP Credit is a case in point.

Faculty Forum. One other faculty event is the so-called faculty forum. This is a public session meeting once each semester at which all faculty are encouraged to be present. Minutes of the discussions are not kept and the discussion is an informal Q&A. At recent meetings, BCAAUP members of the faculty continue to raise important issues in a public meeting with the provost. The next faculty forum has not yet been announced.

The various committees are listed below. The date following each committee is a link to the latest minutes published by that committee. If the committee has a web link, the committee name is also hotlinked. Where possible we have included the schedule of meetings for the current AY.  Consult the faculty committees page on the university website for the official listing of and description of these committees).

Provost’s Advisory Council: Summaries of meetings on October 27 and September 22 of fall semester, 2011.  Next meeting, Wednesday, April 18, 2012 at 4 p.m.

Faculty Grievance Committee. Procedures newly adopted for grievances.

Faculty Compensation Committee (elective, tenured faculty)March, 2010 Report
July, 2011 Report

Academic Technology Advisory Board (appointed by the Provost): Year 2010-11

Faculty Technology Coordinators (appointed by chairs) – tenured and non-tenured full-time faculty):

Scheduled meetings:  Tuesday, April 17, 2012 at 5 p.m.  and  Tuesday, May 8, 2012 at 5 p.m.

University Council on Teaching (appointed by the Provost on the advice of school deans): May 20, 2010 The reports are stored in the provost’s office documents repository, but a description of the council sits in the faculty handbook. The most recent product of this council, a lengthy memo on peer evaluation of teaching is circulating as both a March 2011 and April, 2011 draft document.

Educational Policy Committee(s) (by school). According to the Faculty Handbook an Educational Policy Committee is established for each school. Arts and Sciences now has a complete set of minutes going back to 2001. None of the other schools EPCs seem to post minutes, proceedings or papers. Membership of the EPCs can be gleaned from the Faculty Elections Information provided from the FMRC.

Arts and Sciences EPC April 7, 2011 The most recent meeting took place Thursday, Sept. 22, 2011 at 4 p.m. The next scheduled meeting is October 20, 2011.

University Core Development Committee (elective, full-time tenured and non-tenured faculty) – May 20, 2010


Academe: Magazine of the AAUP

AAUP’s magazine is published on a bi-monthly basis and contains higher education news, opinion pieces, official Association business, book reviews, feature articles, and the AAUP’s annual survey of faculty compensation.


AAUP Bulletin

AAUP’s Bulletin collects in one place the reports, policy statements, and official AAUP business materials of an academic year and is published once a year in the July-August issue of Academe.

Faculty Grievance Committee Minutes April 30, 2012

Faculty Grievance Committee

1: 15 PM, April 30, 2012, Merkert 212


In attendance: Joe Tecce, Michael Clarke, Lynn Johnson, Robin Wood, Pamela Grace, Ray Maddoff


  1. Prof. Clarke reported on his discussion with the Provost on 4/24/12 about the FGC’s recommendation regarding salary equity grievance brought by three senior faculty in a professional school.


  1. The minutes for the following dates were discussed and approved as noted:
    1. April 13, 2011, approved following deletion of appendix.
    2. January 19, 2012, approved
    3. February 14, 2012, approved


  1. The following additions were made to the FGC’s standard procedures:
    1. If there is no response after 30 days following the delivery of an FGC recommendation, the FGC chair will write a letter requesting a response as to the status of the action on the recommendation.
    2. The FGC will send out its annual report to the faculty in May of 2012.
    3. Digital copies of the minutes, procedures and annual reports of the FGC will be passed on between chairs.


  1. The FGC will request that the Provost’s Office post the minutes and annual report of the FGC on the University’s website.  Should that not be possible, the FGC will request that these be posted by the BC chapter of the AAUP.


  1. Professor Clarke indicated that he would be away beginning in July on a research sabbatical prior to retirement, so that a new chair would be needed.  Professor Ray Madoff was elected FGC chair beginning on July 1, 2012.


  1. A request for consideration of a grievance regarding the conversion of a full-time adjunct position to a tenure track position, thereby terminating a full-time adjunct faculty member, was discussed in some depth as to its impact on academic freedom at the university.  The FGC concluded that, while its members would have preferred to consider the grievance, the University Statutes did not provide for the FGC to consider grievances from adjunct or contingent faculty.


  1. The FGC noted both the lack of a grievance procedure for contingent faculty, and the increasing number of contingent part- and full-time faculty, which includes many who are senior in terms of their years of service at BC.  The unanimous consensus of the FGC was that the University should adopt a grievance procedure for part- and full-time (adjunct or contingent) faculty.


The meeting adjourned at 2:48 pm.


Respectfully submitted,


Michael J Clarke, 5/1/12

Minutes approved by e-mail, 5/15/12

Faculty Grievance Committee Minutes February 12, 2012

Faculty Grievance Committee

Meeting, 3:00 PM, February 14, 2012, Merkert 212

In attendance: Joe Tecce, Michael Clarke, Lynn Johnson, Kalpana Seshadri, Ray Maddoff


The meeting convened at 3:05 pm.


Pursuant to the FGC’s conflict of interest guidelines of 1/19/11, the FGC considered a request by a grievant to include a member of the FGC, who was also a member of the grievant’s department, in the committee to hear the grievance.  The vote was 5-0 to decline the request.


The FGC interviewed several grievants from one of the professional schools sequentially concerning a common compensation issue.  The committee will correspond with the administrator involved, who declined to be interviewed by the committee.


The meeting adjourned at 4:45 pm.


Respectfully submitted,



Michael J Clarke




Faculty Grievance Committee Minutes January 19, 2012

Faculty Grievance Committee

Meeting, 3:00 PM, January 19, 2012, Merkert 212

In attendance: Joe Tecce, Michael Clarke, Robin Wood, Kalpana Seshadri, Ray Maddoff


The meeting convened at 3:05 pm.


New members (Professors Kalpana Seshadri and Ray Maddoff) were introduced.


The minutes Minutes of 4-13-11 Meeting were discussed.  As several points in the minutes needed clarification, the minutes will be reviewed with Lynn Johnson and Bill Keane before approval.


The internet posting of minutes will be discussed at the next FGC meeting.


There was a discussion as to whether legal consultation would be desirable before posting the minutes, which would only include procedural matters rather than the substance of any grievance.


Guidelines concerning possible conflicts of interests (COI) regarding the FGC were discussed.  The following appended COI Guidelines were unanimously approved.


It was also unanimously decided that the FGC will submit an annual report to the faculty in January of each year.  The annual report should include: current FGC procedures, a compendium of the number and general nature of grievances filed in the previous year, and their status (declined, pending or the generic recommendation and whether the action of the appropriate administrative official was in accord with the recommendation).  Appeals following a recommendation should also be noted.


A grievance submitted to the chair on December 12, 2011, was unanimously accepted for review and a procedure for interviewing the grievants and the concerned administrator at our next meeting was agreed upon.




Respectfully submitted,



Michael J Clarke





Faculty Grievance Committee Conflict of Interest Guidelines


A conflict of interest exists in any situation in which a faculty member has an outside interest that might affect, or appear to affect, his or her judgment in carrying out University responsibilities. Specifically:


  1. Faculty Grievance Committee (FGC) members with a financial interest in a grievance shall be recused.
  2. FGC members who are participants in a grievance before the committee shall be recused from considering that grievance.
  3. FGC members, who are also members of the same department, as a grievant will normally be recused.  However, the FGC may consider a grievant’s request that an FGC member of the grievant’s department hear the grievance.
  4. The FGC may consider a request for recusal of a member from a grievant.  At the time the grievance is submitted to the FGC, the grievant may also submit the names of any members of the FGC, whom the faculty member wishes to challenge for bias, prejudice or personal interest in the proceedings, and the specific grounds for any such challenge.  The FGC Chair shall determine the sufficiency of the challenges. 
If the Chair is challenged, the Committee shall elect a member not so challenged to act in the Chair’s place in determining the sufficiency of the challenge.  If the Chair finds the challenge sufficient, the Chair shall appoint an appropriate member from the same School or College, or if that is impossible, another member to replace the challenged member.