Members Present: P. Fastenau (Psychology), D. Rao (Physics), D. Crowell (Biology), J. Luke (Mathematics), J. Kuczkowski (Dean’s Office), A. Barth (Geology), D. Malik (Chemistry), R. Allen (Chair), K. Johnson (Secretary)
1. Budget update: Discussion of expenses associated with hiring of new Dean
and what the financial implications will be for SOS. D. Malik indicated that
state appropriations will likely be flat for the next several years.
2. Proposed changes to bylaws: R. Allen distributed draft of proposed bylaws changes in advance of the meeting to facilitate discussion. The draft of changes included the following points:
Administrative Review Process:
- Reviews will consist of both a quantitative evaluation and a qualitative
evaluation.
- The Dean will be reviewed 3 years after initial hire and three years after
each campus-level 5-year review. The Steering Committee will actively promote
faculty involvement in campus-level reviews of the Dean.
- Assistant and Associate Deans will be reviewed in the same years as the Dean’s
(internal and campus-level) reviews, but no sooner than 2 years after initial
hire. In the event that this exception would result in a period longer than
three years without review, the Steering Committee may schedule an interim review
for an Assistant or Associate Dean.
- Department Chairs will be reviewed on the same cycle as the Deans’ reviews,
but no sooner than 2 years after initial hire. In the event that this exception
would result in a period longer than three years without full review, the Steering
Committee may schedule an interim review for a Departmental Chair. Additionally,
the numerical component of the review will be annually in the case of Departmental
Chairs, but no sooner than one year after initial hire.
- Review instruments will be formulated, and may be modified, by the Steering
Committee. However, an attempt should be made to minimize changes in order to
allow comparisons of faculty responses over time.
Discussion on these points ensued. Several departments (math, psychology) have not yet met to discuss proposed changes.
There are two options regarding timing:
(1) review every 2 years [disadvantage: more work, and in some cases, there
will be 3 years of review – depending on timing of 5-year dean review).
(2) Three/Two year cycle [disadvantage: steering committee must keep track of
when these must be done; advantage: reduces work for steering committee and
avoids problem of consecutive annual reviews]
Regarding Process: R. Allen suggested building a revision of the review process
into Bylaws.
1. At the beginning of the review process, a meeting of a subgroup of steering
committee (including department representatives and SC chair) will be convened
to determine the instrument used in each review cycle.
2. It must contain both a quantitative and a qualitative component.
Please discuss these issues with your colleagues and we will discuss faculty input on 12/5/03.
Lecturer participation in administrative reviews:
Proposed language: Lecturers will participate in administrative reviews. In departments in which lecturers comprise __% of faculty and where there are __ lecturers, evaluation documents will be clearly marked to indicate whether the respondent is a member of the tenure-track or non-tenure-track faculty in order to allow analysis of differential opinions of tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty.
D. Malik suggested simply having people self-identify their primary role (teaching vs. research) when participating in the review process, rather than indicating whether they are a lecturer or a tenure-track faculty member. This possible solution will be discussed by SC members with department faculty.
Participation of lecturers in committees: [note: this change is based on responses to last year’s faculty survey]
We will seek a faculty vote on lecturer participation in the following four
committees:
- Nominations and Awards
- Academic Appeals
- Technology
- Library
3. Next round of administrative reviews:
There was unanimous consensus that the next review should be conducted in Spring 2005, and that we should work this spring on refining the review process. The new Dean would not be reviewed at this time, as s/he will only have been in position for 9 months. This makes the most sense, given that the review cycle itself is being voted upon. Should departments wish to review their chairs in the spring, the Steering Committee members would be available to serve as “external members” of review teams.
Please also discuss with your faculty what the appropriate time interval should be for NEW administrators. Should new chairs/deans be reviewed after 2 years? 3 years?
R. Allen suggested that we review the Bylaws of other schools on campus in order to find out about other successful models of faculty governance. This would be an ideal time to build in other changes to the Bylaws that would be helpful.
4. Update: Proposed changes to P&T guidelines:
David Malik updated the SC on discussions related to possible changes in the P&T guidelines.
5. SOS Faculty Council representatives:
The SOS is currently lacking two unit representatives to the IUPUI Faculty Council. The SC felt that it was the role of the Nominations and Awards Committee to identify individuals to fill these vacancies. R Allen will follow up with the chair of that committee.
6. Other business:
The Dean search committee was discussed, and members expressed concern that there were people unable to attend meetings who were not sending alternates. Ruth suggested speaking with departmental representatives and making sure that the faculty have a strong voice.