UAC and RSG Integration Committee Members

Jack Campbell, Kendall Faculty Senator

Orinna Clark, UGC Science Dept Chair and current Faculty Senate Chair

Suzette Fromm-Reed, CPBS Faculty Senator

Shaunti Knauth, RSG Chair and Provost Office

Derek Salinas-Lazarski, UAC Chair and Provost Office

Karin Steinbrueck, Senate Secretary and UGC Senator

Eddie Phillips, Provost Office

Phase 1: Assessment & Discovery 

• Map current structures, membership, and deliverables of UAC and RSG.
• Identify overlaps with existing Senate committees.
• Gather input from committee chairs, Provost’s Office, and Senate leadership.
• Deliverable: Current-state summary and 2–3 integration models.

Phase 2: Determine Structural Design Recommendations and Implications

• Establish as new Senate standing committees.
• Integrate as subcommittees under existing Senate committees.
• Hybrid model with direct Senate reporting.
• Maintain existing structure with closer accountability and integration with Faculty Senate

Phase 3: Governance Integration and Consideration    

• Consult Faculty Association and administration for feedback on recommendations.
• Update committee purpose statements, charters, and engagement expectations, as needed.
• Prepare for Faculty Association vote and, if needed, constitutional amendment under Article VII

NLU is exploring whether two long-standing university groups — the Research Support Group (RSG) and the University Assessment Council (UAC) — should become standing committees of the Faculty Senate. This would formalize their work within shared governance. Because Senate committees are established in the Faculty Association Constitution, this change would require a constitutional amendment.

Faculty engagement in both thought leadership and assessment has grown significantly in recent years. Integrating these groups into the Senate could strengthen faculty voice, increase transparency, and ensure alignment between faculty priorities and institutional goals. This is being explored now as part of ongoing efforts to strengthen shared governance structures.

Currently, no standing Senate committee holds jurisdiction over institutional assessment or thought leadership. Bringing these areas into the Senate could broaden faculty participation, create clearer governance pathways, and ensure sustained faculty leadership in areas central to teaching and research.

That is an important consideration. The goal is not to expand the overall scope of Senate service, but to thoughtfully integrate work that is already occurring. As part of this discussion, we are actively seeking feedback about workload, representation, and committee scope to avoid overburdening faculty.

UAC provides guidance and thought leadership on institutional assessment of student learning. Its work focuses on improving assessment processes, supporting data-informed decision-making, promoting continuous improvement, and offering professional development. The council includes representatives from across the university, including faculty, staff, and adjuncts.

No. Institutional assessment analyzes aggregate student learning data at the program, college, or university level. It is focused on continuous improvement and program health, not individual performance evaluation.

Assessment and curriculum are closely connected. Because faculty design curriculum and student learning outcomes, deeper faculty governance oversight of institutional assessment could strengthen alignment between teaching, curriculum, and institutional improvement processes. Many institutions place assessment leadership within faculty governance structures.

RSG was launched in 2014 to support and grow scholarship at NLU. It has developed and implemented the Seed Grant program, contributed to clarifying scholarly expectations (including revisions to FP104), authored the NLU Statement of Scholarship, and created faculty development initiatives such as research seminars and symposia.

The work of RSG—supporting scholarship, shaping policy related to thought leadership, and strengthening faculty development—aligns directly with the Faculty Association’s constitutional role in facilitating teaching and research. Integrating RSG into the Senate could increase faculty ownership, visibility, and shared governance in shaping scholarly priorities.

No. This is an exploratory conversation. Because integration would require a constitutional amendment, it is essential that faculty provide input before any formal proposal is advanced.

If faculty feedback indicates support for integration, a formal proposal would be developed outlining committee charges, membership structure, and workload implications. That proposal would follow the constitutional amendment process outlined in the Faculty Association Constitution.

Faculty are invited to review the summaries provided and complete the brief survey linked below. Your perspective will help determine whether and how this proposal moves forward.

Or use this Suvey Link