SOS Steering Committee Minutes
March 4, 2005
Present:
Voting Members: Carl Cowen
(Dean), Andy Barth (PRES & GEOL), David Malik (CHEM),
Barth called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.
I. Barth presented the agenda, which was adopted.
II. Fastenau presented the minutes from previous meeting for approval. Make change to previous minutes: Gavrin would initiate a series of discussions in the Tech Committee to work specifically on rewriting the Bylaws. Minutes were approved with these changes.
III. Andy Barth stated that we needed to agree on the final content of the chair review document and then decide on implementation procedures. Williams presented changes to the chair reviews and the document was distributed for final review. Discussion started about lecturers participating in the review process. Crowell reminded us that the bylaws state that lecturers will not participate. We will not identify faculty rank as a demographic variable in the responses, a discussion was had about whether it should happen on the Dean review, it was decided to leave them off entirely. Malik had a concern that we need to get feedback from the lecturers. Dean Cowen wants to not stop with lecturers, and wants to survey staff and others that have interaction with the chair and other administrators. Discussion was had about the how if we can include lecturer perceptions given the status of the bylaws. Everyone agrees that we would like to include others, but need to identify a means to make that happen. Kemple asked whether individual departments could determine for themselves whether they would include lecturers in the process. Discussion about how to handle departments that have only a few lecturers. Dean Cowen suggested that maybe we can’t fix the issue right now, but it’s a job for the future and we should let staff and lecturer know that we are working on the issue. Reps should go to the department and talk with lecturers and staff about the issue and get their opinions and feedback about the process. Watt discussed the issue that they have turnover in the lecturer position, so do we need to identify a how long they should be here before they participate in a review process. Malik raised the issue of whether they should be reviewing Deans. Committee is asked to seek feedback from their home departments about lecturer/staff feedback processes and return to the next meeting. Barth brought back the issue of how to implement the process. We will need to change the document for the Dean review. Decided we should do that at the end of the meeting, after the Dean’s have been allowed to leave.
IV. Barth introduced changing bylaws re: committees. Gavrin stated that the Teaching and Learning has not met so no changes are suggested. This committee’s title may be changed to the Assessment committee that would become a standing committee. The technology meeting met and discussed chairpersonship. It was decided the Gavrin would be chair and would vote, unresolved was whether to change bylaws to make this practice okay in the future. Two ambiguities in the bylaws that should be resolved according to Gavrin; administrative committees will always have a Dean’s designee but there is no guidance on voting status or the chairpersonship of the committee. For faculty committees, the process is different, there is a prescription for chairpersonship determination and how/whether a Dean should have a designee, but is not clear whether they can be a voting member. Malik reminded the group that last year, the SC suggested that individual committees could decide their structure. Gavrin recommends, given his reading of the bylaws, that administrative committees should have the Dean and chair of the committee and allow the Dean’s designee a vote (academic appeals and technology). Barth requested a vote to encourage Gavrin to call an academic appeals meeting to discuss their wishes, unanimous vote. Nguyen noted that some faculty felt that past experience on the Academic Affairs committee felt like the Dean instructed the decisions.
V. New Business: Malik as chair of faculty affairs raised the issue that our committee is supposed to have an annual budgetary affairs committee met, which is the steering committee in the SOS. Wondered if Dean Cowen knew this was a stated requirement in the bylaws. How can we make sure we function better as budgetary advisors to the Dean. Crowell stated that this is a perfect time to raise it with the Dean, as the new budget is being formed. It was decided the Barth should communicate this to the Dean and it will be an item on the next agenda. Crowell asked if the committee would be willing to have an adhoc meeting where meet at a time where we can give input to the Dean on budget. The committee agreed and Barth will communicate this to the Dean.
VI.
Watt, for Dean Cowen, announced that Dean Cowen talked
with Dean White in the
VII. P&T guideline changes were re-introduced by Malik. Initial charges were to include senior lecturers in the document, senior scientists, and process to better implement 3rd year review. Major flaw is that Plater suggests we should follow the University guidelines, but the SOS hasn’t typically done this. Somewhere down the line we should address this issue. Changes include constitution of departmental P&T committee and tightened up language about who crafts tenure letters. Malik asked us to read the document and give input. The ad hoc committee strongly feels that the faculty should vote on this document. Barth asked the committee to review the document at the next meeting and suggest changes. Final document will be presented to the Dean. Discussion held about the importance of this document, and when and how should a vote be determined. A discussion ensued about whether individuals going up for tenure in a given year are under the guidelines for the contemporary expectations, not necessarily what set of guidelines and expectations were in place when the faculty member was hired into rank. Gavrin didn’t think Dean Cowen’s position was that this should be so. Malik’s view was that the overriding committee perspective was that the criterion is a changing target, regardless of what the Dean’s perspective is. Malik clarified that this vote would be in the form of a paper ballot, we desire to get this document out to faculty as quickly as possible.
VIII. Deans dismissed at 11:40.
IX. Discussed and worked on revision of chair document so it is appropriate for Assistant Dean review. Ask Rosemarie to distribute and collect the forms. SC members should choose another faculty member to aid in the feedback distribution to chair. Chairs should never see individual review forms. Set April 1st as the deadline. Williams will put chair names on review forms. Malik - Barth, Kemple - Malik, Williams - Randall, Burkinshaw - Williams, Tuceryan - Burkinshaw, Randall- Kemple.
X. Made changes to chair review form. Added some items and changed wording to better reflect a Dean position. Also added an NA column. Williams will make modifications and distribute for review.
Meeting was adjourned at 12:15 a.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
J. Williams, March 4, 2005.
Minutes were approved by the SOS SC on 04/01/05.