SOS Steering Committee Minutes

 

March 3, 2006

 

Present:  Voting Members:  Andy Barth (PRES), Steve Randall (BIOL), Mihran Tuceryan (CSCI), Kathy Licht (GEOL), Marvin Kemple (PHYS), Jane R. Williams (PSY); Non-Voting Ex-Officio Members:  Phil Fastenau (Sec.); Pam Crowell, Andy Gavrin, Jeff X. Watt (Assoc. Deans).  Guests:  None.  Regrets:  Carl Cowen (Dean), Stephanie Sen (CHEM), Ray Chin (MATH).

 

AB called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.

 

I.          Barth presented the agenda, which was adopted.

 

II.         Fastenau presented the minutes from February 10.  They were approved without revision; there were no dissenting votes.

 

III.        Administrative Reviews

 

             Williams reported that 30% have responded to Dr. Nguyen’s evaluation, and 40% have responded thus far to chair evaluations.  Jane presented a sample of the summary report format that is generated by the SurveyMonkey software.  Everyone was comfortable with the report format and agreed to use this rather than generate a separate report of our own. 

 

             Fastenau commented that we should send out results to faculty so that they know that their feedback was heard and valued.  He asked whether we would send out the results and how the results would be reported.  There was discussion regarding whether to include the comments at all and in what form (verbatim or summary).  It was agreed that including comments would help faculty to know that their responses were valued.  It was proposed that each summary include a generic statement clarifying that the chair received verbatim comments (e.g., “Verbatim responses were provided directly to the chair.”), followed by a summary that categorizes and enumerates the responses by topic (e.g., “In summary, 4 people expressed concerns about budget management, and 1 person described personality conflicts.”).  To protect anonymity, SR suggested that a rep from another department write the summary to help reassure faculty from the department that only the chair saw the verbatim remarks. 

 

             Williams will send each report to a department rep with a deadline for generating the summary.  These will then be forwarded to Fastenau to distribute to administrators and departments.

 

             Feedback on the process has been very positive (quick, clear, and easy).

 

IV.        Administrative Reviews by Staff and Non-Tenure-Track Faculty (NTTF)

 

             Barth distributed a draft of a revised version of the quantitative review, tailored to staff.  The challenge is to design a process that obtains department-specific data without compromising confidentiality.  Barth met several times with Staff Council throughout the SOS last year; they indicated that they would not respond if the data would be identified by department because there are too few staff to be anonymous.  Watt suggested that we put the onus on the Staff Council to create their own process.  Barth said that they already indicated that they want participation but want data aggregated across departments.  Gavrin suggested that staff might be more willing to have their data reported by department after they get accustomed to the process; he proposed an item on the survey stating, “I would be willing to identify my department affiliation next year” to gauge receptiveness to changing this in future years.  Williams will set up the survey on SurveyMonkey and send to the Staff Council Exec. Committee for review/feedback.

 

             Next the SC discussed the process for NTTFs.  They do not have an organized council, so there is no committee from whom we can solicit feedback on the process.  Williams suggested taking the same approach as with the staff—pilot a survey form and examine data in aggregate form.  Barth suggested not even sharing the data with administrators this year, but rather to identify this as a pilot.  Williams suggested adding an item asking if they want the data to be shared with the administrators.  Gavrin recommended that we clearly state that we will not report individual comments and we will not even provide the summary of data unless we have a minimum of, say, 20 responses.  We could also include a comment box by which the respondents can provide feedback to us about the process.  Barth will contact some NTTFs in each department and ask them to review the survey and to provide input/feedback on the process.

 

V.         Department Promotion & Tenure (P&T) Recommendations

 

             Barth had sent out a draft of 3 recommendations for reps to discuss with their departments.  In essence, the recommendations were:

 

A.   P&T guidelines in departments are considered beneficial but should not be required.

 

B.   Any written guidelines should be reviewed by the SOS Unit Committee annually.

 

C.   Any written guidelines in the department should be developed with input from the entire faculty of that department and should be reviewed by the department on a regular basis so that they remain current. 

 

Williams said that faculty in Psychology did not understand Rec. B; there was concern because they have some very well-developed guidelines and are not sure that they are comfortable with possible revision of guidelines by the SOS Unit Committee.  Randall and Barth stated that they heard similar feedback.  There was consensus that departments should have guidelines.  As stated, Rec. B does not give the Unit Committee any authority to require changes; it merely provides for periodic review.  Crowell argued that this is a good protective measure to make sure that department policies do not fall short. 

 

There was discussion about whether the university policy requires such documents or review of the same.  Licht mentioned that the School guidelines are not widely circulated or readily available.  Crowell proposed distributing these documents in the annual SOS new faculty orientation workshop, and Gavrin suggested that they be posted to the SOS web site and each department’s web site.

Regarding Rec. C, emphasis on all faculty being involved in developing/revising guidelines met with some resistance.  Crowell stated that other institutions involve all faculty in the process but clearly state that the guidelines will be drafted/approved by only tenured faculty (or by Full Professors for guidelines for promotion to that level).

 

Randall proposed adding to Rec. A that the SOS guidelines will be the default written guidelines in the absence of specific departmental guidelines.  Crowell also proposed adding a statement requiring that the guidelines be handed to all new tenure-track faculty.

 

VI.       Dean’s Office Announcements

 

             Gavrin provided updated locations of Dean’s Office staff who were relocated for LD 222 construction.  Most went to LD 165 and will return to LD 222 after construction is completed.  Federwisch moved to LD 003; after construction is completed, he will move permanently into LD 165, where he will have not only office space but also bench space for repairing computers.  Nguyen moved permanently to Waterway.  Julie Mills is the new joint advisor between SOS and UC; she is in SL 316 and will relocate to LD 222 when construction is completed.  Crowell reported that the bid came in much cheaper and Life Sciences will pick up part of the tab; in all, it may cost only about 1/3 of the projected cost.

 

Gavrin reported that SOS dominated the Top 100 (27%; next closest, 11%).  The Top 10 has not been announced yet.

 

Gavrin reported that the Commitment to Excellence (CTE) process is near completion.  One last proposal will be completed today.  SOS will have 5 of the top 10 with high probability of funding.  The amount of the grants exceeds $1 million; these include multiple faculty and staff lines and scholarship monies.

 

Crowell reported that Dean Brater offered us space in the Medical Sciences Building, which would be ideal for some Chemistry research labs (whose collaborators in Biochemistry would be in close proximity).  There is also a chance that this space can be subsidized by other units on campus.

 

VII.      Announcements

 

Kemple reported that a few days ago someone stole books from a faculty member while he was in a different part of his office.  Theft appears to be getting worse.  Faculty are encouraged to keep their doors locked when they are not in their offices.

 

Next meeting April 7th in LD 124.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 a.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

P. Fastenau, March 3, 2006.

Minutes were approved by the SOS SC on April 7, 2006.