SOS Steering Committee Minutes

 

May 6, 2005

 

Present:  Voting Members:  Steve Randall (Biol), David Malik (Chem), Mihran Tucertan (CSCI), Owen Burkinshaw (Math), Marvin Kemple (Phys), Jane R Williams (Psy); Non-Voting Ex-Officio Members:  Phil Fastenau (Sec.); Pam Crowell, Andy Gavrin, Jeff X Watt (Assoc Deans); Kim Nguyen (Asst. Dean); Guest: None.

 

Phil Fastenau chaired the meeting in Andy Barth’s absence.  Jane Williams took the minutes.

 

PF call the meeting to order at 10:08.

 

I.                    PF presented the agenda, which was adopted.

 

II.                 PF presented the minutes from the previous meeting for approval. Two changes were made from the original minutes. The amended minutes were approved.

 

III.               Feedback on P&T Discussion at Faculty Assembly

 

DM described the kind of feedback at the faculty assembly. Has put in tentative language to the document to reflect the feedback he has received. First issue was around the make-up of the P&T committee (# and % of fulls). PC asked about what the vote will be on, DM said that the vote would be on the full document, not each individual change.  OB noted that the current structure goes against what Math has traditionally done. Math votes certain faculty on the committee, but then some are appointed to fit the need that year.  DM suggested that if faculty endorsed the appointment, it would fit the language. DM noted the requirement that it be an elected committee is to protect the faculty from a single chair decision. AG suggested that math may want to make slight changes in their procedure to fit the P&T language. OB suggested we change the last line of the paragraph to allow for chair’s appointing an individual. Final decision was to try to leave it primarily as a faculty determined committee, where the chair could appoint an additional member that will be approved by the primary committee. 

 

DM raised next issue. Language Change - The Dean should also consider his/her appointments using faculty who have membership on the Primary Committee. This would increase the amount of information members on the Unit Committee might have. This is a consideration for the Dean, not a mandate.

 

Last issue, 3rd year review (DM). There is no vote on 3rd reviews. Rather than a vote, feedback will be given in a report to the candidates department. The vote is on the feedback report, not an individual’s reappointment. PC recommended some small changes to the language.

 

These last two changes were accepted.

 

OB raised an issue about lecturers. He thinks we need to change the language to reflect that an individual can get internal or external letters. Internal letters could be from other departments or units on campus. This is a cosmetic change.

 

Another component is “primary” areas vs. “secondary” areas for lecturers. JRW commented on issues raised at the faculty assembly, AG noted that the Trustees intended for lecturers to aid departments in the areas of teaching and service. Need to reflect on the goals related to the hiring of the lecturers. Need to put language in about the type of research that is acceptable, that research should be in support of the academic/educational/teaching mission of the department. OB suggested that teaching and service be noted first in the document and research second. Need to stress teaching as it’s the primary goal of the positions. Research shouldn’t be part of the promotion decision.

 

SR thinks that we should provide more opportunities for faculty input. DM received no other feedback following the faculty assembly.  Committee members are encouraged to inquire about concerns/feedback from their home departments and bring them to DM.

 

Hold off on a mail ballot until Mid-August or even September. DM wondered what we should tell individuals going up for promotion/tenure in the Fall. SR didn’t think that the changes in the document would alter anything that candidates are doing to prepare.  PF will send out an email to faculty requesting additional feedback for DM by next Tuesday, May 11th, 2005.

 

IV.              Announcements

 

PF shared two news items documenting the effects of the Dean’s efforts to increase visibility for IUPUI in the community.  The first was a press release announcing that the SOS Forensic Science program will be playing a role in State Police labs and testing.  The second was a Lilly memo announcing that Dean Cowen would be meeting with the local chapter of the Association for Women in Science later this month.

 

As further documentation of this increased visibility, JXW noted that Insight Indiana on NPR reported on a story about Women in Science.

 

V.                 No New Business.

 

VI.              Status of Administrative Reviews (The Assistant & Associate Deans left at this time.)

 

All of the administrative reviews have been completed.

 

The committee discussed the format of the report of Assistant Dean Nguyen’s review to the faculty.  Changes were suggested to the written feedback and adjustments made to the document. The document will be finalized by Jane Williams and distributed to the faculty by PF.

 

SR proposed that in future the Dean’s and/or Chairs be given the opportunity to provide a review of their year’s work. This could be distributed to faculty with the blank evaluation form.

 

SR suggested that the process be electronic. Talked about past problems in the Steering Committee with this issue. Could have let the second reviewer compile the information so they will not recognize handwriting. Could give the option of paper or electronic.

 

It was asked whether the SC should have an official comment on the administrative evaluations.  It was decided that any concerns or recommendations might be conveyed most appropriately via a conversation with the Dean rather than by public statements.

 

VII.            Fastenau adjourned the meeting at 11:55.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

J. Williams, 05/06/05

Approved by the SOS SC on 09/02/05.