FACULTY GOVERNANCE | Back to King's College | Back to Faculty Governance | Back to Minutes List
Minutes
King’s College Faculty Meeting
March 28, 2008
Faculty Council Chair Greg Bassham called the meeting to order at 2:07 p.m.
1. Invocation: Tony Grasso opened with prayer.
2. Committee updates:
a. C & T
i. Brian Pavlac summarized the progress of C&T. He detailed how the progress can be accessed on the Web. He was then open to questions.
ii. Questions and answers:
1. Question: There are many Core 270 courses; can a student take more than one?
2. Answer: This appearance may be due to course-naming problems. There are only two such courses. A second one would only count as additional credits.
a. It was also mentioned that environmental science is offered in two parts.
iii. Greg expressed appreciation for C&T’s work.
b. A & P
i. Dan Ghezzi summarized A&P’s progress. It is still dealing with discipline-specific standards for scholarship. They will be adding clarity to some submissions.
1. Publication: If a department does not expect publication, they are asked to explain why.
2. Departments are also expected to articulate “full professor” promotion standards.
3. Everything will be published as an appendix to the Faculty Handbook or as a supplement.
4. A&P surveyed the students regarding the new ETS course evaluations (which have more questions). A faculty evaluation will be sent out. Please respond quickly so we can compile results.
ii. Queries and Replies
1. Objection: The National mean expressed in the survey comparison is 13 years old and is not discipline-specific.
2. Reply: It is 100,000 students and many colleges are held against this standard. But it is agreed that this part of the data is not that useful, but other data is useful.
3. Objection: A longer survey is a bad idea because students already just “check down one row.” A longer one will make that more likely.
a. It was observed that this happens with shorter forms too.
b. It was replied that “checking down one row” does give us some information about the professor, but not much.
iii. Tony Grasso observed
1. Developing our own forms might encourage participation.
2. We are now working on getting evaluation forms back sooner and also working on making sure that we aren’t all giving them as the same time.
c. Assessment Committee
i. Marc Marchese reported on the assessment committee which is asking each department to provide two central assessment pieces of information: (1) key goals for the major, and (2) a measurement approach for each key goal. The committee is expecting responses for each major by the end of April. Assessment committee members are willing to assist departments in completing this task as well.
d. Service Learning
i. Bill Bolan reported on the service learning committee whose general job has been to integrate service learning into the curriculum. A federal grant, to the tune of about $100,000, seems to have been approved. He detailed four different kinds of grants that can be applied for and granted once the funding comes through.
1. Departmental Civic Engagement Program: Whatever changes or courses are added, they are to be permanent.
2. Service learning course development: To create new, or modify existing, courses that involve service learning.
3. Student service leadership program: Students can apply for this and can be paid to help faculty with other funded service learning endeavors.
4. Faculty community-based research: Faculty can be paid to research and present and publish in the area of service.
ii. He also mentioned that:
1. There is a lot of support for faculty who decide to do this. There is money for faculty training and a shuttle bus.
2. It is not limited to undergraduates.
3. There can be summer service learning courses.
3. Diocesan Teacher's Union
a. Pat Sullivan talked about efforts to gain recognition for the Catholic teachers union in the Scranton diocese. Pat proposed a resolution of solidarity with the teachers be adopted by the faculty. He argued that it is a moral, theological and practical matter; they have a right to form a union and we should also support them because they send us students.
i. The Resolution reads: We, the faculty of King’s College, express by this resolution our solidarity with the Diocesan teachers in their efforts to gain recognition of their bargaining unit from the Bishop and the Diocese of Scranton. We also support the rights of any other employees of the Scranton Diocese to organize themselves as they see fit.
b. Discussion:
i. A motion was proposed that discussion be limited to 10 minutes. It passed.
ii. Those against Fr. Sullivan’s motion suggested:
1. We, as faculty, should not be in the business of doing this; it will put the school in an awkward position.
2. Usually, other groups who express such resolutions are unions themselves, and we are not.
3. Accepting the resolution by majority vote will force some to be associated with a resolution that they do not agree with. A petition would be better.
4. Voting now would leave out those not in attendance.
iii. Those in favor of the motion suggested:
1. It is an embarrassment that Scranton University beat us to the punch on this.
2. We have the right of freedom of speech to do this is, and we should because we should support educators.
iv. After this discussion a motion was suggested to do a secret ballot among all faculty.
1. Discussion ensued.
2. The 10 minutes expired.
3. The motion carried by a fairly substantial margin.
v. Then there was a motion to circulate a petition that one could sign or refuse to sign, in lieu of the secret ballot, and thus to amend the resolution to say: “We, the undersigned faculty of King’s College….”
1. It was pointed out that to do this is not secret.
2. It was argued that the purpose of the secret ballot was not to make it secret, but to accommodate those who are missing.
3. The motion failed by a slim margin.
vi. Someone wondered what would happen, to us, if the Catholic Church eventually denied their right to unionize but we had supported them.
1. It was suggested that wasn’t relevant.
vii. Fr. Grasso elaborated on the history of the issue.
4. Senior Faculty Review/Classroom Observation Policy discussion
a. Greg summarized the results of the discussion; it is not a “gotcha” effort by the Board or administration. It is formative. He said that Dr. Holodick drafted a formal evaluation policy and that money would be offered to facilitate development. Classroom observations would be utilized: the Dean and the department chair (and a third senior faculty member if the reviewee wants) would observe. The review committee would look at their reports along with recent course evaluations.
b. There are three rankings the faculty member might receive:
i. “Positive” (no major problems apparent)
1. Modest bonuses will be given to professors found to be “excellent” in two or more performance categories.
ii. “Positive with suggestions” (some major problems apparent, but these appear to be easily remediable).
iii. “Negative” (very severe problems evident (e.g., not staying current, ending class early constantly, regularly demeaning students, etc.).
1. Such a ruling can be appealed.
2. Due process is provided, and multiple layers of protection are built into the process. Only if a faculty member receives a negative evaluation at five separate stages could sanctions be imposed.
c. Objections and discussion:
i. We shouldn’t just evaluate teaching but look at other things.
ii. A concern is that it might fail because we have so much to do.
iii. Aren’t we worried that, if the professor knows an evaluation is coming, they will do better that day, but that day only?
1. Reply to iii: : At least you would know that the professor was capable of performing quality teaching.
2. Reply: There could be surprise visits.
3. Reply: We should revise the process so it’s not based on just two or three classroom visits.
a. Dr. Holodick: No revision is needed because, as it stands, it is not going to be just based on that.
iv. Would this also be a merit review? If so, it would streamline things.
v. You need to be aware of when it’s going to happen to you.
vi. If you are a department head, other senior faculty will be appointed to your evaluation committee.
vii. The money you get for a rating of “excellent” is yours to do with as you please so long as it is consistent with the development plan.
viii. We might want to take steps now to ensure that “rating inflation” doesn’t happen.
ix. Could tenured faculty be dismissed after this process?
1. Greg: I would not expect that. Tenure revocation is very rare in senior faculty review processes. Only in cases of gross incompetence or professional misconduct does it become an issue.
2. There is no need to use the “revoke tenure” language in the document; that is covered by other policies.
x. There should be more specifics regarding what will be judged and what the expectations are—some examples.
xi. What about scholarship and service; shouldn’t those be judged as well?
1. Greg: The only formal evaluation is on teaching, but the other stuff will be reflected in the approval process for the development plan.
5. At 3:30, a motion was made, seconded, and carried to adjourn.
Respectfully submitted,
Kyle Johnson