College of Liberal Arts NTTF Advisory Committee

Meeting Minutes
April 22, 2022

Present were: Margaret Miller (chair), Jonathan Carlyon, Ellie Light, Kyla Masciarelli, Courtenay Biser-Suarez, Debbie Swann, James Roller, Tom Conway, Steve Shulman, Aunterria Bollinger, Pam Duncan, and Sadie Kinney-McGrath.

1. The minutes from the March 25 and April 8 meetings were approved.

2. Professor track/Titles: This topic had been identified previously by members of the committee as something to be addressed this year, so was added to the agenda. Ellie started us off by showing us the language on Instructor vs. Professor tracks in the College code; the typical effort distributions for each; and the numbers of each in the College. The ensuing discussion included the following issues:

  • The “Instructor” title seems pejorative and could be a disadvantage in the job market; perhaps “Teaching Professor” would be better. The different title tracks seem capricious and arbitrary. Departments vary in terms of how they are handled.
  • Should “Professor” title be reserved for those who have Ph.D.s and/or are doing research? Steve said there are many Professors at CSU who aren’t doing research.
  • Now that we NTTF have a service component in our effort distribution—ostensibly to integrate us more fully into the work of the University—“Professor” seems more appropriate regardless of Ph.D. status.
  • Students don’t know the difference, call us all “Professor” anyway.
  • Would having NTTF designated as “Professor” ultimately erode tenure by erasing that line between them and TT, thus motivating the University to hire more NTTF to reduce costs? Pam: Since the University can do that anyway, what difference does a change in title make? Jonathan explained that our status as an R1 research university mandates a certain proportion of TT to NTT within the faculty.

3. Summer teaching opportunities for CCAF/Intellectual property rights: Some department codes call for giving priority to TT faculty when assigning summer classes, and this had been brought up as a concern earlier in the year. Debbie shared her experience designing an online course and having it assigned to a new TT rather than to her. Concerns:

  • Short notice: Debbie learned of this loss of summer income only very recently.
  • Intellectual property rights: Pam brought up this issue in relation to Debbie’s experience, saying she had designed several online courses and insisted on getting first right of refusal to teach them so that they would not be arbitrarily assigned to others. Jonathan said that, when someone is paid to design a course, it belongs to both the designer and the University.

4. Service: Skipped due to time constraints, nothing new to report.

5. Other business: Ellie told us she has a meeting scheduled with Sue James during finals week to discuss implementation of the NTTF and CCAF Task Force recommendations and find out what progress has been made on them. Pam requested that the recommendations be put on the agenda for the next meeting, which will be the last one of the year and will be attended by newly elected committee members. She suggested drafting a letter from the committee for Ellie to bring to her meeting in an effort to nudge accountability. Ellie suggested that such a letter be put in very broad terms, giving Sue James the opportunity to explain what specific steps are already being taken. Tom pointed out that code audits and workload audits are under way per the recommendations. Ellie said the budget model is being discussed by the administration.

Respectfully submitted by Pam Duncan