Faculty Affairs Committee Meeting
Minutes
Present: Nashwan Younis, Margit Codispoti, Craig Hill, Hedayeh Samavati,
Carl
Drummond, Charles Champion
Excused: Max
Montesino, Susan Hannah
Meeting Called to Order:
1. Approval of
the Minutes of
2. Associate Faculty Teaching Award: The Committee
was informed that funding for this award will be provided by Chancellor Wartell.
3. Professor
Hickey’s Letter
The
letter submitted to the Committee by Professor Marilyn Hickey regarding
professors submitting an Annual Faculty Review (AFR) was discussed. While
The
Committee was concerned with the ability of Chairs and Deans to make fair merit
decisions without the AFR. Professor Younis will send an e-mail to Professor Hickey regarding
the Committee discussion of this issue.
4. Salary for
Summer Teaching
Professor
Hill presented concerns regarding salary reductions for Summer
courses, which were discussed at the Arts & Sciences Faculty Assembly. Salary reductions for faculty would be tied
to course offerings with an enrollment of 5-10.
The VCAA has reduced graduate course minimum enrollments to 8. Undergraduate classes with 5-10 enrolled may
be offered if a salary reduction can be negotiated with the faculty
member. Salary reductions would not
apply if course enrollment would decrease after the regular enrollment
period. If enrollment increases, there
may be an option to increase salary.
Professor Drummond will check with the VCAA for clarification and
verification.
Arts
& Sciences would like each School to do the accounting for Summer courses.
Summer school budgets are controlled by the Deans. Units which exceed enrollment expectations
may petition for increased future section offerings and salaries. Schools should set minimum standards for
enrollment and enrollment numbers should be averaged for all sections offered, not
judged on a per-section count.
5. ETCS
Promotion and Tenure Committee Procedures
The
Committee discussed the Engineering and Computer Sciences Promotion and Tenure
Committee Procedures. The Dean may serve
as an ex-officio non-voting member of the committee, although he/she may not
Chair the committee. The committee Chair
will be elected by the committee members.
Candidates
may withdraw cases at any time after the case has been submitted.
The
Faculty Affairs Committee approved the document submitted for forwarding to the
Senate for approval, with the stipulation that the last sentence under B-4 be
removed.
6. Ombudscommittee
An Ombudscommittee was approved by the Senate 97-28 in
1998. This committee ceased to exist in Spring 2000. The
Faculty Affairs Committee reviewed the information provided by Professor Hill
regarding the Arts & Sciences Ombudscommittee and
will draft a new Ombudscommittee resolution for
submission to the Senate.
7. Draft of
Exit Interview Process
Margit Codispoti submitted the Arts & Sciences exit interview
questionnaire as an example and also provided suggestions for implementing the
process. This would include a request to
the VCAA to provide an annual report to the Senate, which will identify actions
taken by the university to address concerns and recommendations identified by
the exit interview process.
Margit Codispoti will draft a resolution to the Senate, which will
include a charge to the Faculty Affairs Committee to review and revise the
document on an annual basis.
8. External
Review for Promotion and Tenure Cases
This
item was moved to the first item on the agenda for the next meeting.
9. Next Meeting
The
next meeting is scheduled for
Meeting
Adjourned:
Respectfully
Submitted: Charles A. Champion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faculty Affairs Committee Meeting
January 20, 2006
12:00 p. m. ET 206
Present: Nash Younis, Charles Champion, Margit Codispoti, Craig Hill, Max Montesino, Hedayeh Samavati
The minutes were approved as distributed.
The letter soliciting nominations was reviewed and approved. It will be sent out next week. There was concern expressed about the low number of nominees last year. We will ask Jeanette Clausen for history of number of nominees over past few years. Suggestion was made to have an email reminder go out a couple of weeks before the application due date.
There was discussion about the practice of soliciting money from full time faculty for the $500 award that is given. It was felt that faculty get asked to contribute to so many things and couldn’t the administration come up with $500 each year. The university has money to give bonuses. Maybe the $500 could come from there. Nash Younis said he would bring this matter up when the faculty leaders meet with the Chancellor.
A response was received from the ETCS. The Assembly has voted against establishing a procedure for conducting exit interviews and voted against joining the smaller units to conduct exit interviews.
The FAC members discussed the Exit interview process and the history of the project for the members who are new to the committee this year. One concern raised by ETCS was that there is “little point in collecting data if it is not acted upon.” We decided that as FAC implements the Exit interview, we will build assessment and accountability into the process. Findings and recommendations from the interviews should be reported to the Senate and then a report back from the administration on what steps are taken as a result to improve identified problem areas. Margit and Charlie will draft a document for the FAC to work with to implement a campus Exit interview.
There was discussion about what university business is public information and how to get information. Concerns are raised among the faculty about many issues and often the information needed to follow through on a problem is lacking. Some concerns are not matters for a personal grievance but there seems to be no mechanism on campus to resolve the problems. There was suggestion that we look into forming an Ombudsman Committee to provide a place to deal with some faculty concerns. Discussion on this idea will continue to next months agenda.
Next Month’s agenda items:
Ombudsman
Draft of Exit Interview Process
External Review for P&T cases
Next meeting was tentatively set
for Feb. 17 at
Recorded by Margit Codispoti
Faculty
Affairs Committee Meeting
November
11, 2005
1:30 p.m.
ET 206
Present: Nash
Younis, Charles Champion, Margit
Codispoti, Susan Hannah, Craig Hill, Hedayeh Samavati.
Excused: Max
Montesino
1. Approval
of the minutes of October 21, 2005
The minutes
were approved as distributed.
2. Old
Business
Deadlines
for Annual Reports
The Committee
examined the document entitled “ANNUAL FACULTY PRODUCTIVITY REPORTS.” This document indicates the results of a
survey conducted and compiled by OAA, dated September 2005. The results indicate that some departments
ask for productivity reports as early as November. In addition, a variation in the due date for
submission of productivity reports is observed across campus.
The Committee
discussed whether there should be consistency in terms of submission deadlines
and format for the productivity reports across the campus. Dr. Hannah suggested that the faculty might
want to consider a standard format for the productivity report for the
University. It is worth pursuing if a
standard format/template can be created for the productivity reports that
everyone can use. A subcommittee of the
Faculty Affairs Committee in cooperation with the VCAA will examine this issue
in the Spring 2006.
Nash Younis made the following motion, seconded by C. Hill:
The
productivity reports should be due to the department chairs after the first of
the year, but no later than the first week of February. The motion passed unanimously.
3. New
Business
Upward
Feedback Evaluations for 2004 - 2005
The Committee
reviewed the memo indicating the results of Upward Feedback Evaluations for
2004-2005. The results show the number
of forms returned for each administrator from 2002 through 2005. One comment was that it is useful if the
summary results indicate percentage returned (number returned relative to
total).
Senate
Document SD 97-23
Nash opened
the discussion by posing this question:
“What is the correct interpretation of the Senate Document SD
97-23?” Nash suggested that it might be
appropriate for the FAC to receive and examine the results of the Upward
Feedback questionnaires and then issue recommendations. Pros and cons of this idea were
discussed. One suggestion was to collect
data regarding the faculty’s perceptions of the “usefulness” of the data
collected through Upward Feedback forms.
The Committee decided to come back to this issue at a later date.
Proposal for IPFW Sabbatical Policy
The draft copy
of (November 3, 2005) The Proposal for a Uniform IPFW Sabbatical Policy
prepared by the Office of VCAA was introduced, discussed and unanimously
approved.
4. Next
Meeting
The Committee
agreed to meet again on December 2/05 at 1:30 p.m. Among the new agenda items for the next
meeting: discussion of “External Review Letters” solicited for the promotion
and tenure process.
The
meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted: Hedayeh Samavati
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Faculty Affairs Committee
Meeting
October 7, 2005
1:30 p.m. ET 206
Present: Charles Champion, Margit Codispoti, Susan Hannah, Craig Hill, Max Montesino, Hedayeh Samavati, Nash Younis
1. Approval of the minutes of September 9, 2005
The minutes were approved as
distributed.
2. Old Business
Exit Interview
Most schools elected to have
exit interviews conducted by a campus‑wide committee. It was therefore decided that such a campus
committee should be established.
3. Questions regarding library funds allocations
The following questions were
sent via e‑mail to the committee:
1. When and how did the Library decide to skim off the top of
each dept’s library allocation to use that money for a second round of Special
Needs Grants? I was told that this is what happened and why our allocation for
books was reduced by about $200.
2. Do we need so many special needs grants?
3. Any why isn’t other money allocated to that instead of using
dept. allocations?
The committee voted to refer the
questions to the Library Subcommittee, because they made the decision to
reserve a certain amount of money to build in‑depth holdings in specific
areas. M. Codispoti addressed the issues
briefly. Information is published on the
Library website about the second round of allocations. Nov. 1 is the deadline for requests. Allocation to specific areas is based on an
involved formula taking into account such factors as credit hours and books
published in a given area; allocation varies from year to year. The Library receives a lot of requests for
increasing holdings in specific areas, which is the reason for the decision to
increase the money for this purpose.
The FAC recommended that the
rationale for the reserved funds be publicized to remind faculty of its
purpose. N. Younis
will send this to the Library Subcommittee.
4. Questions regarding the use of classrooms for instruction
The following questions were
sent via e‑mail to the committee:
1. "... I would like to know why the classrooms in the
Engineering buildings have not been completed with a
installation of stationary computers for instructors?"
2. "What are the brown cases for in the back of the rooms
if the equipment they were intended to house is not permanently installed in
the rooms?"
3. "How many rooms do we have for instruction on campus?
Most of the classrooms in Kettler have been
cannibalized for various services [the only ones left are vanity lecture halls
and fixed space labs]. The same has happened in Neff to a large extent."
"I ask the question because
I was approached by two instructors this semester being asked to move my class
the room assigned to me to another class. One of the requests was based on
issues of pedagogy the second was due to a physical injury. Faculty should not
have to beg other faculty to switch rooms. I think a discussion of classroom
availability is in order."
Answers to the above questions:
"Note John Fitzgerald's
answers to your questions, forwarded to me by Dr. Voland. LRC has primary responsibility for classroom workstation
and projector provision for instructional, and most
other purposes. We work with LRC to establish workstation configurations,
provide network drops in the room, etc."
Bob
"The wooden cabinets in the
back of the ET classrooms were part of a Purdue design standard for classrooms
dating back to the 1980s. The cabinets were intended to hold a couple slide
projectors and some lighting controls. The cabinets are of no use for current
instructional technology, such as LCD projectors and PCs.
Classrooms with installed
workstations are added as funding is approved. ITPC approved funding for 7
additional classroom installations this year, and LRC funded 2 more classrooms,
bringing the total to 33 classrooms with installed technology, (of the 80+ general
classrooms across campus). More classrooms will be equipped with permanent
workstations as funds are made available."
John L Fitzgerald
Director,
Vice Chancellor Hannah noted
that 30‑40% of classrooms have projectors and dedicated computers. The goal is to obtain projectors and
computers for 2/3 of classrooms. EPC is
developing principles for classroom use, considering such strategies as making
noon on Mondays available for scheduling classes. Continuing Education is investing in
technology and making software purchases.
CELT has formed a committee to address issues related to the need for
technology.
5. Department visits by prospective students
The following questions were
sent via e‑mail to the committee:
1. "When was the decision made to hold dept. visits so
many times during the year for, I guess, new students? We were sent a general
notice that dept. visits would occur on many days during both semesters and at
a specific time. I do not recall being consulted about this in any meeting of
the faculty. There are 9 dates in the Fall term and 14
in the spring term. The dept. visit time is 11 and it may be very difficult to
cover that time if a dept. such as mine has a small faculty."
2. "At any rate, who decides these things and why isn't
there some notice or at least input to the decision before the times and dates
are mandated? Of course, my dept. will do it's best to accommodate students,
but I am concerned that we are just told instead of offering when we could best
serve the student(s)..."
The committee decided to send
the questions to Carol Isaacs in Admissions.
6. Issues presented by Vice Chancellor Hannah to be
considered
a. The call for applicants for the position of Associate Vice
Chancellor for Faculty Affairs
b. Corrected school responses to her quick survey on annual
faculty productivity reports
c. The announcement on the Management of Study Abroad programs
d. A summary of the bases for bonus nominations for Fall 2005
Items b and c are issues for
future discussion, but were not discussed at this meeting. The documents relevant to items b through d
are attached to the minutes.
7. Examples of Documenting and Evaluating Faculty Research,
Scholarship, and Creative Endeavor
S. Hannah explained that the
project was started because of feedback from the Ombudscommittee
that some faculty do not know what to expect as they
work toward tenure and promotion. Some
departments do not have specific criteria established in their policies, such
that the draft document is intended to provide a resource for departments in
developing their policies. This is not
intended as a formal policy document.
The committee considered
statements from the History Department, the Psychology Department, and Elaine
Blakemore expressing concerns about Examples Draft 1.8 document. Suggestions for modifications were proposed
by committee members. However, the
committee did not cover the entire document, and this task will continue at the
next meeting.
8. Scheduling the next two meetings
The meetings were scheduled for
Friday, October 21 at 3 p.m. and November 11 at 1:30 p.m.
ANNUAL FACULTY PRODUCTIVITY
REPORTS
Survey by School/Division
Compiled by OAA
September 2005
|
School |
Name? |
Standard Template? |
Due (to Dept) Date? |
Copies Kept? |
Dean’s role? |
|
Arts
and Sciences |
Annual
Activities Report |
yes, by
dept |
set by
dept (Nov 1, Dec 1, Jan 1 are common) |
in
department |
receives
compilation in dept annual reports |
|
Business
and Mmgt Sciences |
Annual
Productivity Reports |
Yes |
early
February |
in
department |
receives
compilation in dept reports |
|
Education |
Annual
Report (submitted in a binder with supporting docs) |
No |
2nd Friday in February |
returned to faculty member |
reads
during reappt & merit process |
|
ETCS/OLS |
Annual
Faculty Reports (AFRs) |
Yes |
early‑February |
in the
School |
reads
during reappt & merit process |
|
Health
Sciences |
Annual
Faculty Report (AFR) |
Yes |
February |
in department |
receives
composite from dept chair |
|
Library |
Annual
Review Form |
Yes |
January
1 |
Library
(copy to IU) |
reads during reappt
& merit process |
|
PEA |
Faculty
Summary Report |
Yes |
3rd week in January |
in
Division (copy to IUB) |
reads
during reappt & merit process |
|
VPA |
Productivity
Report |
Yes |
January
31 |
in
department & in School |
reads
during reappt & merit process |
10/6/05
September 26, 2005
To: Deans, Directors, and Department Chairs
From: Susan B. Hannah, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
Subject: Management of Overseas Study Activities
Happily, more and more IPFW
faculty are coming forward with ideas for overseas
study activities. To assure the
integrity of study abroad programs, we are to the point that we need to develop
university‑wide quality control policies that standardize our overseas
academic programs, regularize the process of granting students credit for
overseas study, provide fair compensation and professional support for faculty,
and ensure the highest standards of safety and security for all participants.
To this end, we have begun
discussions with faculty and staff who have been involved with study abroad
programs in the past with the goal of developing a standard approval and
management process. We hope to have a
plan in place by the end of the year under the aegis of the new Office of
International Programs.
In the meantime, however, faculty are making plans for study abroad for summer
2006. The Office of Academic Affairs
has therefore developed an interim approval and management process in
collaboration with the Indiana University Office of Overseas Study to be
effective immediately. The process
outlined below requires that proposals are screened first on this campus, and
then submitted to the IU Office of Overseas Study for approval. Proposal format and deadlines are spelled out
at http://www.ipfw.edu/dcs/credit/overseas.shtml.
Note that the IU Office already
manages study abroad programs for all of the IU regional campuses and is happy
to include us in a process already in place.
Note also that IUPUI includes an on‑campus screening step similar
to that we intend at IPFW.
1. All proposals for academic study abroad programs at
IPFW must be submitted to the Office of Credit Programs in Continuing
Studies. Proposals will be screened
first on this campus by a committee composed of Nancy Virtue, IPFW Study Abroad
Coordinator; Leslie Raymer, Director of Credit
Programs in CS; and two IPFW faculty members with experience in study abroad
programming. Qualified proposals will
then be forwarded to the IU Office of International Affairs for final approval.
2. Faculty considering developing an overseas study proposal are encouraged to consult with staff at the IU Office of
Overseas Study early in the process. Although proposals are reviewed as they
are received throughout the year, advance planning is essential.
3. Faculty must work with Leslie Raymer
here at as they construct a budget and marketing plan to include in a
proposal. No promotion or recruitment of
students should precede approval in order to assure correct and complete
information.
Please direct inquiries and
proposals to Leslie Raymer in Continuing Studies (481‑6016).
BONUS AWARDS FOR FACULTY
Categorized by Strategic Plan
Goal
Fall 2005
Academic Programs
• Leadership/significant contribution to accreditation success
• Effective program recruitment
• Innovative, community‑based learning/service project
• Modernization of introductory labs/external funds
• New degree/certificate program development/revision (at
implementation)
Learning
Environment
• Student support/orientation project
• Significant program activities on campus
Accomplishment
• Grants/contracts more than $100,000 (less if highly competitive)
• State/national professional leadership
• Significant (unfunded) awards
Community
• New community partnership
• Summer camp program for children
• Regional outreach activities
Operations
• Senate officers
Faculty Affairs Committee Meeting
September 9, 2005
1:30 p.m. ET 206
Present: Margit Codispoti, Craig Hill, Hedayeh Samavati, Nash Younis
Guest:
Jeanette Clausen
Handouts:
Draft letter of the Nominations for Bonus Opportunity
Draft of Examples for Documenting and Evaluating Faculty Rese arch, Scholarship, and Creative Endeavor
SD 91-20 (Extension of the Probationary Period for Justifiable Cause)
1. Electing the Chair
Nash Younis was elected to be the chair of the committee.
2. Old Business: Faculty Exit Interview
The Library and the Division of Public and Environmental Affairs decided to participate in the exit interview procedure with other departments/units. The School of Engineering, Technology, and Computer Science is willing to consider establishing a policy for doing an exit interview. No responses have been received yet from other schools/units.
3. Issues for Future Discussion
The FAC members would like to discuss:
senate document SD 97-23 (Upward Feedback: Review of Administrators)
Public information documents
4. Task Force
Jeanette asked for a representative from the Faculty Affairs Committee to serve on the
Task Force on Summer Compensation. The main issue is classes with less than ten
students. Prof. Samavati is willing to serve if Professors Champion and Montesino do not
serve.
5.
Bonus
Discussion and suggestions were made to the attached draft documents. The main
suggestion was deans would widely solicit nominations from the school.
6. VCAA List
The following will be discussed in future meetings:
Examples for Documenting and Evaluating Faculty Research, Scholarship, and Creative Endeavor
Senate
Merit increment process
Faculty recognition
Report of the Higher Education Research Institute
The
next meeting will be on Friday, October 7 at 1:30.
D R A F T # 3, September 7, 2005
To: AOC
From: Susan Hannah, VCAA
Subj:
Nominations for Bonus
Deans and directors are invited to nominate individuals (or groups of individuals) for one-time bonus awards intended to recognize extraordinary contributions to the strategic plan goals of the university. The award will recognize leadership or significant contribution to an important department, school, or campus project or initiative completed during fiscal year 2004-05.
Eligibility: Regularly appointed clerical/service, administrative, and faculty. Awards may go to individuals or to every individual on a team.
Amount of award: Awards are anticipated to be at three award levels, depending upon the scope and impact of the project and the contribution of the individual.
Nomination process: Deans will submit names of faculty, administrators, and clerical/service staff to the VCAA by September 26, 2005, following the attached format. Each nomination should be typewritten and no more than one page in length. Awards are to be conferred on November 30, 2005.
Purpose: In general, the intent is to recognize leadership of and success with projects or initiatives that go beyond the employee’s ongoing responsibilities and that advance the goals of the IPFW strategic plan. The project or initiative should have been completed during the past year, not as part of an ongoing program or initiative.
Criteria: In preparing nominations, deans/directors should consider the following criteria:
In what sense has the individual or team gone “above and beyond” their ongoing responsibilities?
What is extraordinary about the accomplishment?
How does the initiative or project advance one or more of the IPFW Strategic Plan goals?
What is the evidence for effective leadership?
What is the scope, outcome or impact, and how is it documented?
Examples: The following are examples of activities that were completed in 2003-04 and rewarded in fall 2004. The examples are not intended to be prescriptive, but simply to indicate some of the kinds of contributions that have been and could be rewarded through the bonus program.
Criterion: Leader or team
member of successful one-time major effort or high-stakes effort
building design or redesign/renovation
opening of new
facility (student housing,
implementation of new advising effort (CAPP, e-mentoring)
design of mastodon statue
exceptional contributions to high-stakes assignment
led successful (re-)accreditation review
led/oversaw NCAA certification
Criterion: Leadership to implement a new initiative, degree program, or service on behalf of student recruitment and/or retention
FYE launch
new degree program proposal approved
led transition from WebCT to WebCT/Vista
creation of new outreach programs (Math/Science, ETCS, and VPA camps)
development of course/curriculum for alternative delivery
Criterion: Leader or team member of an effort that significantly advanced or expanded an existing program/initiative
IIFE team (Library)
LRC theft prevention team
reorganization of Science Fair procedures
significant revision of departmental or school advising system
significant improvement of departmental or school record-keeping
major redesign/improvement of department or program web site
Criterion: New projects/initiatives with community partners
BHFS Institute
SBMS Business Forum
Cole entrepreneurship
Criterion: Exceptional accomplishment reflecting disciplinary expertise
authored a successful grant proposal for $100,000 or more
named as editor of a leading or flagship journal
exceptional teaching accomplishment
national award for research or teaching
Criterion: Exceptional service to the university, community, or profession
accomplishments as Senate leaders
organize successful public teach-in, exhibit, performance, or other event
digitize perishable materials (e.g., slides, archival materials) to preserve them
The bonus is separate from the annual merit increment, i.e., it does not change an individual’s base salary or affect the annual merit increment. Depending on scope, outcome, and impact, the recommendation may be at one of three levels, as indicated on the attached nomination form.