Members Attending: A. Barth (Geology), D. Malik (Chemistry), J. Kuczkowski (Dean’s Office), J. Luke (Mathematical Sciences), K. Nguyen (Dean’s Office), D. Rao (Physics), D. Crowell (Biology), K. Wilson (Dean’s Office), K. Johnson (Secretary), R.Allen (Chair)
1. Budget update
D. Stocum indicated that we should have some gains in student credit hours.However,
the associated costs of the 14 active searches will eat up these gains (SOS
will need to need to come up with 1/3 – 600K of these start up costs which
are estimated at over $2M). Vice Chancellor Bob Martin has announced that assessments
(dollar amounts) will be held constant for the next decade. This is an extremely
positive development.
2. Unit representatives to faculty council
We currently are 2 unit representatives short for the IUPUI faculty council.
There will be a third position open this spring. In the future, the nominations
and awards committee will take charge of recruiting nominees for these positions.
At this time,
the committee concurred that the three people who expressed willingness to serve
should fill these positions. Kathy Licht and Roger Ware will immediately fill
the positions that are vacant, with Andy Barth filling the position that will
be vacant at the end of the spring 04 semester.
3. Proposed changes to bylaws concerning lecturer participation in committees
R. Allen circulated a handout highlighting proposed changes to the SOS bylaws
regarding lecturer participation in committee service. R. Allen proposed that
each committee be voted on separately. The proposed changes will be circulated
among SOS faculty (tenure track faculty and lecturers) for review/comments.
4. Further discussion of proposed changes to bylaws concerning administrative
reviews.
Discussion continued on timing of the administrative reviews. The following
feedback from departmental meetings was shared: Psychology: Feedback from the
psychology department (sent by P. Fastenau) was circulated. Faculty endorse
3/2/3/2 cycle and prefer that there be a brief annual review (similar to Student
Satisfaction survey) with one page of objective questions (5-point scale) and
one set of open-ended questions. There was a preference for an initial review
being conducted 12-18 months after new administrators are hired. Faculty endorse
having only departmental representatives on the committee that oversees the
review. Faculty endorse an evaluation process that includes both quantitative
and qualitative items, and oppose the lecturer vs. nonlecturer distinction.
Psychology faculty would agree to the postponement of the reviews this year
to accommodate
revision of the bylaws.
Biology: Faculty were supportive of 3/2/3/2 cycle, but wanted “quick”
quantitative evaluation every year for all chairs and deans. They requested
that an archive of these reviews be retained. There also was a preference for
including a qualitative
component and standardizing the process. They preferred to have the decisions
about the review process be made only by department representatives on the steering
committee. Regarding lecturer participation: people thought that lecturers should
be
included, and that there should be a single evaluation form. The biology faculty
suggested including a “not applicable” (n/a) option to all items
so that respondents could defer from commenting on particular (irrelevant) issues.
The biology faculty
were willing to forego evaluations this year in order to revise the bylaws.
Physics: Faculty prefer to retain the current system of 2-year evaluations,
using a primarily quantitative measure (with option for including additional
written comments)
Mathematical Sciences: The timing of the reviews was not discussed. Mathematics
recommended using one consistent term to refer to items involving a numerical
rating scale (either quantitative or numerical), rather than using both terms
interchangeably.
Informal discussions with faculty suggest a strong preference for separating
the responses of lecturers from those of tenure track faculty (e.g., using separate
forms or color-coding the same form to indicate the role of the respondent).
The faculty would not endorse a “self-identification” (e.g., checkbox)
item aimed at differentiating respondent roles, because such a system could
not prevent respondents from falsely indicating membership in a particular group.
Chemistry: These issues haven’t been discussed because the most recently-scheduled
faculty meeting was cancelled. Faculty generally express a preference for consistency
from year to year in the format used for the review. Some faculty also have
expressed a preference for an external constituency (e.g., public opinion lab)
to conduct the reviews.
Geology: These issues haven’t been discussed because the most recently-scheduled
faculty meeting was cancelled. Informal conversations with faculty suggest that
there are no objections to the 3/2/3/2 schedule. Faculty generally think that
lecturers should be fully involved in the process.
Computer Science: no representative present
Much discussion ensued concerning how to strike a compromise among these different viewpoints. A staggered approach was deemed most viable: Step 1) revise bylaws regarding a) the timing of the cycle, b) the kinds of items used, and c) the retention of past review data in an archive; Step 2) continue to discuss the more contentious issues pertaining to involvement of the lecturers in the review process, with the goal of a later revision to the bylaws concerning this issue. A subcommittee involving Jon Luke (math) and Phil Fastenau (Psychology) will work on drafting revised bylaws pertaining to the involvement of lecturers in the review process.
Respectfully submitted,
K. Johnson 12/5/03