Faculty Council Minutes 18 November 2005

Those present: Dr. Joan Coffin, Dr. Trent Snider, Mr. Howard Fedrick, Dr. Charles Brooks, Dr. Claire Gilmore, Dr. Marc Marchese, Dr. Jayne Klenner-Moore, Dr. Dave Baggett, Dr. James Dolhon, and Chair Dr. Fred Sauls

The meeting was called to order at 2:05 PM.

1. The chair noted the words of Fr. O’Hara in a letter dated 15 November “revision of the CORE will not lead to termination of any contracts of full-time faculty.” Clarification whether this extends to non-tenured people as well will be sought.

2. Major coordinator’s position. There is some talk that there will be more department consolidations in the future such as CIS+CS and Chemistry+Physics, as well as those in the Business School .  An assistant to the chair is proposed who would help run a second program by handling things such as open house events, advising etc. (see below) 

                                                               i.      The wording in sentence one should read programs as well as majors.

                                                             ii.      It was argued that “this was rather unnecessary, just adding one more layer of bureaucracy” This is a management issue.

                                                            iii.      There are people within departments with multiple majors who do a lot of extra work, such as advising in the major, working with secondary education and honors issues etc. We should officially recognize this effort.

                                                           iv.      This must be balanced against “isn’t this service?”   When the work is beyond the normal service expectations is a judgment to be made in individual cases.

                                                             v.      We need to look at what is coming down the road and at how a chair is compensated. The question then arises is how is this person (major coordinator) compensated? Stipend? Course reduction? Overload?

                                                           vi.      It was agreed that this position should be requested by the chair; it should be allowed, but not required.

                                                          vii.      It was voted (with one dissent) that A&P review this with the plan to incorporate it into the Handbook.

3. The next issue reviewed was Faculty development.  Procedures and policies have grown ad hoc over the years.  We need to step back and see where there are gaps and lack of consistency and coordination.  Draft 1.0 (see further below) is a beginning to that process.
1. There is a sense that we are not doing this and that we need to be clear on each point mentioned in this draft.
2. A & P will continue to work on this draft.

4. MSB requirements for scholarship:

Why do we need the Faculty Handbook to recognize MSB scholarship as being different than other faculty? Points on this issue:

                                                               i.      What are the legal ramifications of putting this in the Handbook?

                                                             ii.      What do market supplements have to do with the requirement?

                                                            iii.      What are the minimum expectations?

                                                           iv.      Letter of hire from Fr. Ryan should read meets the requirements, not as present exceeds the requirements.

                                                             v.      Claire was further charged with taking this issue to her division with some issues which are:

1.      What are the standards are and how are they approved? Look for specific wording in contract and letter.

2.      Confirm if the 5-5-2 is a requirement and does it need to be exceeded (see iv above).

3.      Should there be requirements or aspirations?

4.      Is this specifically for MSB faculty?

5.      Currently no more than 2 preps are allowed to allow faculty to perform the required research.

6.      Report to Council.

5. Marc gave a report from the A & P committee:

“At our last meeting we worked to complete the Chairpersons evaluation and are looking forward to having this completed by our next meeting.” – admirably complete yet concise.

6. Trent gave a report on C&T (less concise ergo less admirable):
1. A questionnaire was sent out to the project leaders with four questions requiring response by the end of the semester.

                                                               i.      What areas are the strengths of this CORE project?

                                                             ii.      What improvements are needed (list by project)?

                                                            iii.      What are the strengths of the rest of the CORE?

                                                           iv.      What are the areas of the rest of the CORE that need improvement?

2. Project team is referred to a 15 page document (should they deign to read it)
3. The only thing that they have to do is look at the bulleted list, but they are encouraged to read the entire 15 page document.
4. Next time we meet Trent will have a template of what will have been said by the project teams.
5. C & T’s next meeting is 9 December and all faculty are welcome to attend.

7. The last item on the agenda sent the proposed form for the chair’s evaluation of faculty from Dr. Holodick (see way below) A & P to ask the following questions: 1. Is this the right stuff? 2. What do we need to do? 3. Do we need different forms for tenure and pre-tenure?

With no further business to attend to at this time,

Meeting was adjourned at 15:20

Minutes respectfully submitted

Jayne Klenner-Moore, Ph.D.

DRAFT 1.0  Coherent Faculty Development 

            The task:  establish and carry out a coherent set of policies and procedures to (1) aid faculty in their professional development and prevent problems from arising; (2) evaluate faculty to assure that they remain current and effective, and to catch problems while they are small enough to remedy, and (3) identify and deal with “problem” faculty.

            Recognition:  we have some parts of this in place.  We need to make them coherent and fill the gaps.

Policies: where we are

                    Where we need to work

0.  develop clear, explicit criteria

                        MSB criteria statement clarification, incorporation into Handbook

1. establish faculty ownership of faculty evaluation

develop:         

a.  faculty willingness to make hard judgments, hold one another to high standards (conflict with “community” and a tendency to put unpleasantness off on the administration & see them as the “bad guys”)

b.  willingness of administration to defer to faculty judgments

c.  willingness of administration to act on negative judgments        

2.  for junior (pre-tenure) faculty

procedures:

            annual reviews

            better mentoring

            tenure clock stoppage

            careful T/P decisions

            revision of quotas

resources:

            summer research grants

            faculty development $

3. for senior faculty

“normal” procedures = preventive maintenance

            annual evaluation by chair

                        actually implement in Arts & Sciences; look at forms used

            senior faculty review

                        mandatory?

                        complete the revision in progress

                                    clarify goals (evaluative / formative balance)

                                    distinguish newly promoted associates from more senior

                                    procedural details

                                    accountability for resource use

resources:

            differential workload

            sabbatical

            summer research grants

            faculty development $

            “merit pay”= salary adjustments for those locked in rank

            transition program

“exceptional” procedures

                        figure out how to identify and deal with “problem” faculty

Why is this position needed?

This position would be used only when a department has multiple majors. The department chairperson who is not specialized in certain majors within his/her department needs assistance from a faculty member credentialed in the major regarding certain responsibilities.

What are the responsibilities of the major coordinator?

The major coordinator, in conjunction with the department chairperson, would be responsible for:

• Leading ( or at least assisting) the search for qualified part-time and/or adjunct faculty for courses in the major
• Collecting assessment data for the major
• Representing the major at college functions (e.g., visitation days, program for undecided students)
• Responding to inquiries from prospective students and their parents regarding this major
• Responding to inquiries from other employees regarding the major (e.g., registrar’s office, center for life long learning, center for experiential learning)
• Handling questions from the media regarding topics pertinent to the major
• Assisting the department chairperson in scheduling of courses pertinent to the major
• Leading the search committee in hiring new faculty who will be primarily teaching in this major
• Reviewing the curriculum for the major and making the requisite changes to the college catalog for the major

What compensation would the major coordinator receive?

This position would NOT be entitled to a course reduction.  The major coordinator would receive a stipend of $1500 per semester.

CHAIRMAN’S FORM FOR FACULTY EVALUATION

Faculty Member:

Date: 

How has this faculty member contributed to the intellectual activity, planning, operation, and advancement of your department?

Please use the following scale to rate this faculty member’s teaching and professional effectiveness:

Excellent 6; Very good 5; Good 4; Fair 3; Poor 2; Very Poor 1; N.A.

                    has creative approach to teaching

                    well organized and efficient

                    knowledgeable in areas of teaching duties

                    gives high priority to teaching

                    meets class regularly

                    insists on high standards of classroom scholarship

                    fair in evaluation of students

                    overall quality in teaching performance

          shows interest in students

                    demonstrates tact and respect for students

                    well regarded by students

                    available for consultation with students

                    keeps abreast of literature and research in field

                    displays high level of professional ethics

                    engages in creative work on research

Have you discussed this evaluation and classroom visit reports with this faculty member?

Do you agree with the faculty member’s assessment of his accomplishments of the past year?

What is the faculty member’s major strength?

What recommendations do you have for this faculty member?

Do you support the continued employment of this probationary faculty member?

Chairman’s signature

Date: