Members Present: R. Allen (Chair), J. Kuczkowski (Dean’s Office), J. Luke (Mathematical Sciences), B. Muhoberac (Chemistry), D. Rao (Physics), K. Nguyen (Dean’s Office), D. Stocum (Dean’s Office), K. Wilson (Dean’s Office), G. Rosenberg (Geology), D. Crowell (Biology), J. Williams (Psychology), K. Johnson (Secretary)
1. Administrative Reviews
The primary item on the agenda for this month is the administrative reviews
of Deans and Department Chairs and how/whether Bylaws should be revised in order
to accommodate changes planned for the review process. R. Allen disseminated
materials from John Hazer (Psychology) that provide background on performance
review. These materials were previously distributed to 2002-2003 Steering Representatives
in Spring, 2003. The consensus from the faculty seems to be that a) Lecturers
should participate in administrative reviews, and b) there should be numerical
component to the evaluation and it should be administered (at least in some
short form) annually or biennially to evaluate chairs. R. Allen asked whether
the agreed-upon method should be stipulated in the bylaws to permit continuity
from year to year (reducing need every two years to reinvent the
instrument) and to permit the evaluation of performance over time through a
standardized measure. J. Luke raised concerns regarding the implications of
providing such rigid constraints for the review process in the Bylaws. D. Crowell
drew an analogy to student satisfaction ratings and suggested that such ratings
are primarily an index of faculty satisfaction with the administrator.
D. Stocum pointed out that there are many constituencies associated with administrators
(particularly deans) and that faculty feedback reflects only one dimension of
individuals’ performance. He advocated relying on 5-year administrative
reviews for Deans in order to reduce the amount of time wasted on the process
and the destructiveness that the outcomes of the process can cause. D. Rao suggested
that if a numerical rating scale is adopted, it should be clearly stipulated
that nonresponses will be coded as “3” or some average/neutral rating
of performance dimensions. This will help to prevent negative bias among the
individuals who do take the time to respond. Much discussion ensued concerning
the relative merits and problems associated with both numerical and more qualitative
reviews, and suggestions of mechanisms for improving communication about issues
that should be addressed through the review process. R. Allen suggested sending
materials out with the review that address what the feedback was during the
last administrative cycle, and how that feedback has been used to improve performance.
It was also agreed that Steering Committee representatives should promote/advocate
faculty input in Dean’s external review. There was agreement that all
NEW administrators in the Dean’s office be reviewed after 3 years. B.
Muhoberac indicated that Chemistry faculty would like to use a numerical review
+ qualitative feedback (hybrid) model, and suggested that the POLIS center be
used to coordinate the reviews, and that these should be done on a 2.5 year
cycle (embedded within the 5-year-cycle). R. Allen asked for feedback on the
following issues:
A. Should Deans be evaluated more frequently than on a 5-year cycle? (e.g.,
every 3 years/2 years)
Psych – yes
Biology – yes
Geology – yes
Physics – yes
Chemistry – yes
Math – yes
Computer Science – (not present)
Conclusion: Instrument will be written and the format will be decided by the
Steering Committee (SC Representatives will also provide oral feedback to administrators
to the degree possible). The instrument will have a hybrid (qualitative + quantitative)
structure, and the committee agreed that it should be administered 3 years after
each 5-year review (i.e., at years 3, [5], 8, [10], 13, [15], etc.).
B . Should Associate Deans be reviewed in the same way?
Consensus: Yes (years 3, 5, 8, 10, etc.)
C . Department Chairs:
Numerical evaluations each year.
Otherwise same review cycle/process as Associate Deans.
R. Allen pointed out that the next step is to begin to craft the amendments
to the Bylaws that will be presented to the faculty (for voting) in the spring
semester. How can Lecturers have input in the process while still protecting
their anonymity (it is clear that they may have unique perspectives that need
to be understood in relation to the context of their roles).
2. D. Stocum: Budgetary Matters:
We have a surplus of $600K due to increased enrollments (over 1M$, including
salary savings). Suggestions as to how to use this:
A . Missing out on science education money because we lack faculty to organize
and prepare such proposals. D. Stocum suggested hiring a Grants Coordinator
to put together proposals for science education. This person also could help
Debbie
Allard with budget preparation. This person would NOT write individual grants,
but could coordinate the preparation of grants in science education. Would cost
$60-65K (salary and benefits).
B . Many faculty are organizing local conferences. D. Stocum argued that this
is a good practice, as it brings people to campus. (allocate 20K$ to help with
this process)
C . We are not going to use an external search form to hire for the Dean position.
This money will be diverted into Public Relations for the School of Science
(the group that publicized the Kelly School of Business is being considered
for this
role: $30K)
D . Can provide matching funds for grants. (50K$)
E . Life Sciences is hugely popular in terms of research demands and student
enrollment. Take few hundred thousand and hire more faculty in the department
of Biology (2 faculty members, plus startups). Two others have been allocated
to Biomedical Engineering, and one other position has been allocated to direct
Forensic Science.
6. Governor will likely pull back some funding, so we need to hold some cash
in reserve.The Steering Committee was asked to consider other things that could
be done with this money.
K. Wilson indicated that Mark Brenner is reformulating the Grants-in-Aid of
research program (using RIF funds) and introducing larger award amounts (10-25K,
rather than 3K). OPD will be involved in administering these grants.
J. Luke suggested revisiting whether particular faculty lines could be filled that have been held vacant during the last several years. Discussion ensued concerning difficulties with this in terms of the financial risks associated with funding lines (in comparison to investing in seed grants).
K. Wilson suggesting paying graduate students to write proposals for external
fellowships (as Purdue University, West Lafayette has done).
Surplus Funds Issue: Please review the minutes from the June, 2003 meeting (where this issue was last discussed) and think about whether this list should be modified/expanded.
Submitted, 10/10/03
Kathy Johnson, Secretary