Discussion of Provost's suggested
faculty evaluation schedule.
This item was considered out of order, before the president's report.
Discussion was split into five topics: the switch to tenure-track
faculty being evaluated in years 2-4-6 and not every year, the order of
consideration (new suggested order: DRC, FRC, Dean, Provost), peer group
selection process, the makeup of the FRC, and the merging of
tenure and promotion into one. The Provost answered questions about
each of these.
The faculty evaluation
schedule change will be discussed on Jan 25 again. The faculty
senate will vote
The Provost left at 4:30.
The agenda proceeded to the president's report when discussion was complete.
All other agenda items were considered in order.
Switch to 2-4-6:
- Question: When a new faculty member performs extremely poorly, that
faculty member would be here for three years. How should that be handled?
Answer: An extremely ineffective faculty member should be handled as an
exception, with the administration using a different process rather than the
normal evaluation process.
- Question: Will this change what candidates
submit? Answer: The dossier, and what it should contain, is being examined by the Senate
Faculty Evaluation Subcommittee chaired by Bob Hasbrouck. Changes to the dossier
are not part of this proposal.
- Question: Many faculty are concerned about not having enough feedback
and formative evaluation before tenure: Answer: The
annual Eval-AR, (to be implemented) faculty mentor program,
and chair feedback should provide ample feedback when implemented appropriately.
Possibly, former FRC/DRC members
could be available to junior faculty to demystify the process.
Order of groups evaluating candidate:
- Question: This year, because of the FRC's increasing workload, the FRC focused on
all promotion and tenure reviews and all areas where the peer group and Dean disagreed.
If the Dean reviews candidates after the FRC, then the FRC will need to scrutinize
every dossier which will increase their workload considerably. How will
that be handled? Answer: The FRC should look at all reviews.
There does not need to be a massive process of what a professor is because
the Eval-4 has established that; the FRC instead should focus on
whether a faculty member is doing enough in the three areas:
teaching, research and service.
To accommodate the extra work load, the size of the FRC may need to increase,
or there may need to be incentives for serving on the FRC (e.g.,
service on the FRC might be an automatic "outstanding" in Service on the Eval-AR).
- Question: Maybe the Provost and Dean should be combined?
That would be consistent with the Provost's original version.
One advantage of combining the Dean and Provost would be that the FRC
could have more time.
If there is a Dean separate from the Provost, the candidate must be given
respond to each level up to the Provost which would take even more time.
Another advantage of combining the Dean/Provost statement is that the FRC statement
would then go directly to the Provost. Answer: The FRC will need 6 weeks,
and the candidate must have time to respond to every level up to the Provost.
The goal is to be efficient and effective.
Letters to candidates go out at end of January now.
We need to decide when faculty need their letters, then work back from there to determine
how much time each part of the process should have.
- Comment: The Dean and Provost make formative statements
which are extremely helpful for candidate coming up for tenure. Having
statements from both is important.
- Comment: The
Dean should have a separate review before the FRC. Moving the Dean to
issue a single statement with the Provost would
diminish the impact of the Dean.
FRC selection process:
Currently, the FRC is 1/2 appointed, 1/2 elected.
The new plan will have 8 elected members from the different academic areas,
and 1 at large faculty member appointed by the Provost (to
add another perspective, and to create a balanced and fair environment).
In the attached document, all members of the FRC would be elected.
This change was adopted by the Provost based on faculty suggestions.
- Question: How would the chair of the FRC be determined (by appointment
or election)? Answer: The document does not specify how.
Peer Group Selection process:
- Question: Could untenured faculty observe? Answer: no. Untenured faculty will
no longer be part of the faculty evaluation process regardless of whether this
plan is adopted. The Provost that untenured faculty evaluating
untenured faculty is a
conflict of interest, He also feels
that these committees are conducting serious business, and that is it not appropriate
to have untenured faculty "trying out" the process at the expense of a candidacy.
- Question: How will departments with not enough tenured faculty be handled?
Tenured people from associated departments would be brought in.
The candidate would submit
a list. The chair of the department will still be on DRC.
- Question: When will this start? Answer: It would start
Fall 2008 with no grandfather clause.
- Question: Will it still be possible to have minority reports?
Answer: The output of the
DRC should be a statement, but not individual signatures.
The process should allow, but not
require a minority report.
There are times when a reviewer
disagrees with whether a
candidate has met the appropriate
standards; the reviewer should not have to
write a report just because the reviewer disagrees with the majority decision.
a candidate choose their dept committee members? Answer:
That will be up to departments. Tenured department
members should be able to disqualify themselves without any reason.
- Question: Should probationary faculty serve on hiring committees? Answer: yes.
of tenure and promotion
process: There was a feeling that there was support this change.