MINUTES OF THE FACULTY
HANDBOOK REVISION COMMITTEE
JUNE 6, 2007; Mason Hall D-5, 12:00 - 1:30 p.m.
Present: Rick
Coffinberger, Associate Professor of Business and Legal Studies, School of
Management, Chair; Martin Ford, Senior Associate Dean, College of
Education and Human Development; Marilyn Mobley, Associate Provost for
Educational Programs and Associate Professor of English; Suzanne Slayden,
Associate Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, College of Science.
Absent: Kevin Avruch, Associate Director and Professor of
Conflict Resolution, Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution; Lorraine
Brown, Professor of English, College of Humanities and Social Sciences; Dave
Harr, Senior Associate Dean, School of Management; David Rossell, Associate
Provost for Personnel and Budget, ex-officio.
Suggested changes to the
draft minutes April 25th will be incorporated prior to posting.
2.9.1 Appeal Procedures: It was agreed
that the Faculty Senate chair should be informed about results of appeals;
there is a need for both sides (administrators and faculty) to be
informed. Statistics are compiled and
reported to the BOV of the number and outcomes of appeals and
reconsiderations. The availability of
this data may provide encouragement to untenured faculty that the process
exists and is working. Given a good
local level review, would not expect many appeals to be successful, although there
may be a few; overall there are not many examples. Concern also expressed that appeal process
may go on so long that faculty member may obtain other employment; a loss to
the university. Faculty should also be
in regular communication with appeal board.
Delays may occur when prospective board member declines to serve.
DISCUSSION: 2.4 Criteria for Evaluation of Faculty BOV discussion “high competence” vs. “competence”. Are we comfortable with terms such as
“genuine excellence”? Concern expressed
there may be opposition to changes in this
terminology. Words may have been
carefully chosen to maintain standards and flexibility. Should we change words, need to maintain
fidelity to concept. Should concepts change, a huge grand-fathering effort necessary. “Genuine Excellence” as a very high standard, as well as guarding
against fraudulence. Consensus or beyond a reasonable doubt? Demonstrable excellence
clear, not at the margins. A
faculty member who gives a lot of As may receive high
(student) evaluations; this may be misleading.
Another example involves publishing of a number of articles over a year
- they may not appear in strong journals; may be repetitive; may not have been
subjected to peer review; although this is not to say articles are not good
scholarship. Need to convey idea to get
below the surface of data, to discern underlying meaning of data; qualifying
vs. quantifying. There are many
indicators; complicated (to judge) genuine excellence. High competence not as extreme - may mean
“mediocre” without some modifier. To
review language at other large public research institutions such as Penn State,
Univ. of Michigan, University of Minnesota, and University of Maryland. It was decided not to look at current peer
list as not necessarily inspirational. Efforts underway to have a different peer list – working with
SCHEV.
DISCUSSION: Relationship of Annual Evaluation to
Promotion and Tenure Reviews: Does
annual evaluation specifically address whether tenure-track faculty members are
making reasonable progress toward promotion and tenure? In sixth year, despite receiving
satisfactory annual evaluations, may not be sufficient for promotion and
tenure. Annual evaluations serve different and related functions. To add statement “Annual evaluations for
faculty on tenure-track will include a statement on progress (toward)
tenure.”? Counterpoint: inability to do an in-depth teaching
evaluation given number of faculty - some things will have more weight than
they might have in promotion and tenure.
The faculty member may be only person with particular area expertise at
the university. Committee may not be
aware that work is not considered highly outside the university. People are afraid to say things which may
legally bite them.
In final analysis before going to BOV, Provost
attempts to do a holistic assessment, taking into account dean and departmental
recommendations. Also required to report
to BOV how many faculty attain “genuine excellence” by teaching or
research. General measurement probe
dichotomizing people; should be a continuum.
Need for other language to address person as a whole; instead of “two
different job” language. Need for concept
transcending research, teaching, service.
Alternative to have a continuum in lieu of present
three categories. Categories have
been hardened, less and less recognition someone may be in boundary area. Superficial indicators - better to say
quantify, qualify? To manipulate at
college level how you define excellence and competence; hope that each academic
unit is academically consistent. To change into tripartite evaluation? Would be more complex, although favors for
measurement perspective. Departments
need to provide more detailed range of expectations early on to help people.
Not to codify, more of a mentoring process.
Impact of many different disciplines, dynamics. . Not
recommending any change in the end, but to look at issues. Also suggest (LAU)
administrators receive training from legal affairs.
When he first arrived here,
the Provost questioned why so many tenured associate professors were not
progressing to full professor. An
implicit message - should post-tenure review comment on it? Unknown what the base rate is at other
universities. As a very young university, routinely hired
faculty with limited research capacity, a different situation today. Some full professors jealously guard against
inclusion of many more faculty in their ranks. Some faculty may not aspire to do this anyway
- may choose to focus on other things; work involved not worth the pay bump
($1,500 raise). This does not mean there is a problem, might be worth exploring
for research.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Caniano
Clerk, Faculty Senate