Senate Faculty Affairs Committee

Minutes: April 9, 2003

 

Members present:     L. Beineke, E. Blakemore, M. Codispoti, S. Hannah S. Hartman, N. Younis

 

Member absent:        D. Oberstar

 

1.         We discussed Brown Document (P&T Dossier format guidelines, OAA 99-1) changes as a result of issues discussed at February 19, March 5, March 19 and March 26.  VCAA Hannah will convene an ad hoc committee to help develop modifications to the document.  E. Blakemore and N. Younis agreed to be members of the committee.  VCAA Hannah will ask others (J. Clausen & A.M. LeBlanc) to join it.

 

2.         We voted on recommended changes to SD 88-13 regarding the language regarding recusing oneself from voting on cases where a member of the Campus P&T Subcommittee shares credit for work done by a candidate for promotion and/or tenure.  A resolution will be forwarded to the Senate for consideration at its first meeting next Fall.

 

3.         We had a brief discussion of sabbatical policy.  VCAA Hannah will bring this issue to FAC next Fall.

 

This was our final meeting of the 2002-03 academic year. 

 

Submitted by,

Elaine Blakemore

Chair

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Senate Faculty Affairs Committee

Minutes: March 26, 2003

 

Members present:     L. Beineke, E. Blakemore, M. Codispoti, D. Oberstar, S. Hannah S. Hartman, N. Younis

 

1.         We passed the School of Education P&T policies, and will send them to the Senate for action.

 

2.         We voted to send the OAA document on Continuing Lecturers to the Senate for information only.

 

3.         We passed changes to SD 88-13, regarding minority reports and candidate’s response, and will send them to the Senate for action.

 

4.         We discussed service of department chairs on the campus committee, and decided to take no action on the matter.

 

5.         We discussed wording in SD 88-13 regarding recusing oneself when one has shared significant collaboration with a candidate, and will continue the discussion of this topic at our next meeting on April 9.

 

6.         We discussed counting activities in multiple areas (teaching, research, service) in the P&T dossier.  We will continue discussion of several brown-sheet issues at our next meeting.

                                                                                               

 

 

 

Next meeting at 11 a.m., Weds., 4/9 in Neff 355.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senate Faculty Affairs Committee

Minutes: March 19, 2003

 

Members present:     L. Beineke, E. Blakemore, M. Codispoti S. Hartman, N. Younis

Members absent:       S. Hannah, D. Oberstar

 

1.         The Library pulled their P&T procedures document.

 

2.         We considered a resolution to send the OAA document on Continuing Lecturers to the Senate.  The Chair will bring a resolution on which to vote to our next meeting.

 

3.         We discussed the SOE P&T policy document.  We postponed the vote until all are present at our next meeting.

 

4.         We discussed changes to SD88-13, minority report and candidates’s, response.  The Chair will work on new wording, which we will consider at our next meeting.

 

5.         We discussed several P&T issues

•                                      Chairs’ service above the department level when there are cases from that department (continued until the next meeting).

•                                      Recusing oneself when one has been a coauthor with a candidate (continued until the next meeting)

•                                      Dossier length: we agreed that the Brown document (P&T Dossier format guidelines, OAA 99-1) should state that a desired dossier length is no longer than 25 pages, and that an absolute maximum should be 30 pages, with normal font and margins specified (e.g., Times 12 pt font, with 1-inch margins)

•                                      Quoting from reviewers’ and students’ comments: we agreed that a maximum page length was an effective way to handle this issue

•                                      Having an area of excellence: this is required by Purdue and IU and cannot be eliminated.

•                                      Speaking to each area of excellence: this should be specified in the Brown document.

•                                      Grace period for cases “not quite ready”:  This is an OAA issue, and should be specified in the Brown document.  We thought a two to three years at the VCAA’s discretion.

•                                      Counting activities in multiple areas (teaching, research, service) in the P&T dossier (double dipping).  This seems to be a particular issue for pedagogical research “counting” in both research and teaching.  This discussion was continued until our next meeting.

 

Next meeting at 11 a.m., Weds., 3/26 in Neff 355.

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MINUTES

 

FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

 

3-5-03

 

 

Members present:  L. Beineke, E. Blakemore, M. Codispoti, S. Hannah, S. Hartman, D. Oberstar, N. Younis

 

-Promotion and tenure criteria documents from Civil and Architectural Engineering Technology and Electrical and Computer Engineering Technology were discussed.  It was decided that Margit Codispoti and Susan Hannah would provide feedback to ETCS on those documents.

 

-The committee took one last look at the updated summary from the HERI survey on faculty satisfaction that was carried out last year.

 

-The committee discussed the promotion and tenure document of the School of Education.  A question was raised about the composition of the department committee and Elaine Blakemore, chair, was to communicate that concern to the school.

 

-The issue of minority reports in the promotion and tenure process was taken up again by the committee.  It was decided that FAC would forward a resolution to the Senate amending SD 88-13 adding the following wording after the first sentence of 2.2 in SD 88-13:  "When the vote is not unanimous, a written statement of the majority and minority opinions must each be included."

 

Meeting adjourned:  12:00 noon

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Senate Faculty Affairs Committee

Minutes: February 19, 2003

 

Members present:     L. Beineke, E. Blakemore, M. Codispoti S. Hannah, S. Hartman, D. Oberstar

Members absent:       N. Younis

Guests:                       A. LeBlanc, C. Pomalaza-Raez, S. Davis, K. Stevenson, M. Nusbaumer

 

1.       The committee discussed issues arising from this year’s promotion and tenure process with members of the Campus Promotion and Tenure Subcommittee (LeBlanc, Pomalaza-Raez, Davis, &Stevenson) and IU Speaker Nusbaumer.  Issues raised were:

 

·       Dossier length:  Some (or most) of the excessive length comes from repeating quotes from external reviewers and student comments that are available elsewhere, or from repetition of items under more than one area (e.g., duplicating the same material under teaching and research).  We discussed instituting a page limit of 25-30 pages, although that might differ for cases for associate professor versus for professor.  Perhaps in cases for professor the courses and student evaluations in the dossier itself could be limited to the past five years.

 

 

·       The requirement to indicate an area of excellence: The dilemma faced by the committee is whether they believe a case might merit promotion in an area not checked by the candidate or mentioned as excellent in their statement.  IU and Purdue require that a candidate demonstrate excellence in at least one area, however committees have sometimes (they did this year), but perhaps not always or consistently, voted on a basis different than that checked by the candidate when they believed that excellence was demonstrated in that area, but not the candidate’s specified area.  Should there be guidelines for all committees to follow in this regard?

 

·       Combined teaching/research cases: If candidates check more than one area of excellence, they should speak to both areas in their statement and provide appropriate support in the dossier.  We discussed if there could or ought to be a combined excellence such that the areas, when examined together, might support excellence if neither alone do.

 

·       Grace period for cases that are not quite ready: When a case for promotion (especially for professor, but essentially for any non-penultimate-year case) is just shy of meeting appropriate standards for promotion, can material be reused within some time frame.  This especially applies to letters from outside reviewers.  We discussed the possibility of a two to three year grace period.

 

·       Encouraging departments to develop meaningful criteria, and to appropriately guide faculty: We discussed better feedback from the committee (such as they are now doing), and workshops for chairs.

 

·       Minority reports: No clear procedure exists for the provision of minority reports in the case of non-unanimous votes. [This needs to be an action item for FAC.]

 

·       Candidate’s opportunity to respond to letters from administrators and committees: Should candidates be made aware that they have the right to include written responses to each decision level, and to have such remarks forwarded to the next level?

 

·       Revision of the “brown document”: Many of the above issues could be handled through the guidelines developed and provided by the VCAA’s office.   One possibility might be slightly different versions for promotion to professor versus other cases.  VCAA Hannah will bring the Brown document to us for further discussion.

 

2.         Two departments in ECTS have modified their P&T documents, and they were distributed for discussion at a future meeting.

 

3.         We added another meeting to our schedule for March 19.  Our meetings for the rest of the semester are: March 5, 19, 26, and April 9 at 11 a.m. in Neff 355.

 

4.         Next meeting’s agenda will include:

 

·       Library P&T procedures

·       UCLA HERI report (revision from VCAA Hannah)

·       Minority Reports in P&T

·       Brown document

 

5.         Further agenda items for the year include:

·       Brown document, continued

·       ECTS P&T documents

·       Return to Continuing lecturer document and send on to Senate (needs to be done by March 26 meeting)

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Senate Faculty Affairs Committee

Minutes: January 22, 2002

 

Members present:   L. Beineke, E. Blakemore, M. Codispoti S. Hannah, S. Hartman, D. Oberstar, N. Younis

 

1.       The Committee discussed a date for a combined meeting with members of the Campus P&T committee.  We decided on February 19 at 11 in Neff 355.

 

2.       We discussed the OAA document on continuing lecturers, which is now under review by chairs and deans.  Once their input has been received, the document will return to us, and we will vote to submit it to the Senate for information.

 

3.       We discussed the UCLA HERI survey, with special focus on the issues that seem especially relevant to faculty environment.  Susan Hannah provided a summary document for discussion.  We will return to this issue at our meeting on March 5 (since we are meeting on P&T on Feb. 19).

 

4.       Also on the agenda on March 5 is the issue of sabbaticals.

 

Submitted by,

Elaine Blakemore

 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Senate Faculty Affairs Committee

Minutes December 2, 2002

 

Members present:     L. Beineke, E. Blakemore, M. Codispoti S. Hannah, S. Hartman, D. Oberstar, N. Younis

 

1.         The Committee discussed the Library P&T criteria and procedures.  The committee asked M. Codispoti to bring to the Library’s attention that the procedure document is not consistent with SD 88-13, requiring that the majority of those making P&T decisions be at or above the rank of the candidate seeking promotion or tenure.  We suggested that the Library consider adding language to indicate that the majority of the primary committee be tenured.  The final documents will come to the committee for vote at our next meeting.

 

2.         We continued our discussion of Continuing Lecturers.  The final document about the roles of continuing lecturers on campus will be circulated for information only at the Senate meeting in January, and to the Chairs and Deans shortly after that.

 

3.         We briefly discussed the role of clinical faculty as chairs, as requested by Speaker Nusbaumer.  E. Blakemore will communicate with him about our discussion.

 

4.         Our next meeting will be scheduled in January.

 

Submitted by,

Elaine Blakemore

 

 

 

Senate Faculty Affairs Committee

Minutes November 18, 2002

 

 

Members present:     L. Beineke, E. Blakemore, S. Hannah, S. Hartman, D. Oberstar, N. Younis

Member absent:        M. Codispoti

 

·       We briefly discussed the Upward Feedback results sent to the committee by J. Dahl

·       We discussed the system-wide SPEA P&T document and E. Blakemore agreed to inform Jane Grant that this is not a document that the FAC or the Senate would approve.

·       In response to a question submitted by the Chemistry Department, the FAC agreed that promotion to the rank of Senior Instructor is limited to instructors who have previously been tenured, as indicated by the language in SD88-25.  E. Blakemore will inform Ron Friedman.

·       We continued our discussion on Continuing Lecturers.

·       Our next meeting is at 3 p.m. in Neff 355 on Monday, Dec. 2

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Senate Faculty Affairs Committee

Minutes November 4, 2002

 

Members present:   L. Beineke, E. Blakemore, M. Codispoti S. Hannah, S. Hartman, D. Oberstar, N. Younis

 

1.       The Committee discussed the Academic Affairs Draft 6 of the document entitled: Defining, Documenting, and Evaluating Teaching.  Numerous suggestions were made which will be incorporated into Draft 7. VCAA Hannah will ask Deans to invite input from this year’s School Promotion and Tenure Committees.  She will inform the Deans that members of the Faculty Affairs Committee will be available to meet with the School P&T Committees should they wish us to.  Input from School P&T committees will be incorporated into the document.  Once that happens the document will be available from OAA as an attachment to the guidelines for P&T cases.

 

2.       The Committee discussed the Library P&T procedures.  It is clear that the Library is a School/Division for the purposes of P&T.  We discussed the membership of school P&T committees and determined that several schools routinely have had untenured faculty serving on school P&T committees.

 

We further tabled discussion of the Library P&T procedure changes until the meeting on December 2.  Margit Codispoti will provide the committee members with a document with the changes in strikeout and bold text, so we know what changes actually have been made in the procedure document.

 

3.       We continued our discussion of Continuing Lecturers, and will continue the discussion at our next meeting at 3 p.m., on Monday, November 18 in Neff 355.  Also on that agenda will be a discussion of faculty satisfaction issues reflected in the UCLA HERI study.

 

Submitted by,

Elaine Blakemore

 

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Senate Faculty Affairs Committee

Minutes October 7, 2002

 

Members present:     L. Beineke, E. Blakemore, S. Hannah, S. Hartman, D. Oberstar, N. Younis

Members absent:       M. Codispoti

 

1.         The committee discussed the proposed library P&T procedures document as submitted by K. Balthaser.  Concern was expressed about untenured librarians serving on the primary committee.  Discussion was tabled until the next meeting.  E. Blakemore will contact K. Balthaser.

 

2.         The committee briefly discussed the ROTC proposal, but VCAA Hannah informed us that it was under consideration by Senate EPC.

 

3.         The committee discussed last year’s faculty increment process.  In the large majority of cases names were sent to the Deans by Chairs, and to the VCAA by Deans.

 

4.         There was a lengthy discussion of Continuing Lecturers (CL).  We decided that there are two separate issues:  “Do they have voting faculty status?” and “What is their role and function?”  We concluded that voting status should follow from the answer to the second question.  VCAA Hannah shared several documents about the history of CLs, and much information about titles in both the IU and PU systems.

 

There are currently 25 CLs on the IPFW campus (22.45 FTE).  Many (15) were conversions from long time associate faculty positions, the original reason for having this position.  However others have been hired to meet particular department pedagogical needs, or when searches have failed to supply a viable tenure-track candidate.

 

We discussed the following issues: Should there be a limit to the number of CLs (e.g., no more than 10% of the full time faculty)?  In principle, should tenure-track positions ever be converted to CL positions?  How should CLs be evaluated (on teaching, service and professional development)?  When should or do reappointments take place?  Is there an annual evaluation process for CLs?  VCAA Hannah will bring a draft set of recommendations regarding CLs to our next meeting.

 

5.         At our next meeting we have the following items for discussion:

·                   Library P&T procedures, continued

·                   Continuing lecturers, continued

·                   Teaching and P&T

·                   UCLA HERI study

 

6.         We added two meetings, October 28 and November 18, to the already scheduled meetings of November 4 and December 2.  All meetings are at 3 p.m. in Neff 355.

 

Submitted by,

Elaine Blakemore

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Senate Faculty Affairs Committee

Minutes September 9, 2002

Members present: L. Beineke, E. Blakemore, M. Codispoti, S. Hannah, S. Hartman, D. Oberstar

1.         Elaine Blakemore was elected chair (well, volunteered).

2          Nash Younis was chosen to replace Nancy Cothern. (He subsequently agreed to serve when contacted by E. Blakemore following the meeting.)

3.         We discussed the left-over business from last year regarding changes to SD 88-13 concerning the Faculty Affairs Committee's examination of new or revised P&T procedure documents. E. Blakemore will follow up and prepare a document for the next agenda of the Senate.

4.         We discussed the study of IPFW faculty and staff by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA. For the next meeting we are to

  • •read it thoroughly and identify five or six things that you would like to discuss about it for further study or examination.

5.         We discussed continuing lecturers. For the next meeting Susan Hannah will bring to us for discussion:

  • •Information about types of continuing lecturers, and the number of people in one type versus another
  • •Information about their faculty status (voting rights, etc.)
  • •Information about senior lecturer status and criteria for obtaining it. We discussed this last year, but are uncertain as to its final determination.

6.         We briefly discussed that we will soon see the draft document regarding documenting teaching excellence for P&T. That document will come to us probably by the next meeting.

7.         We set the meetings for the semester. They will be at 3 p.m. on the first Mondays of the month: October 7, November 4, & December 2. All meetings are in Neff 355.

Submitted by,

Elaine Blakemore