SOS Steering Committee Minutes
April 1, 2005
Present:
Voting Members: Andy Barth
(PRES & GEOL), Steve Randall (BIOL), David Malik (CHEM),
Barth called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m.
I. Barth presented the agenda, which was adopted.
II. PF presented the minutes from the
previous meeting for approval. They were
approved without revision; there were no dissenting votes.
III. Status of Administrative Reviews
Williams discovered yesterday that only 20 review forms had been turned into the Dean’s office and sent an email encouraging response. Crowell stated that more were already arriving. Randall reported that several faculty did not receive the review forms. This raises concerns about an up-to-date list of faculty and also how the forms were distributed. Williams said that they were hand-delivered in the last review. It is believed that they were hand-delivered again this review. Williams also said that Rosemary confirmed the list of faculty with each department before printing the labels for the envelopes.
Randall suggested that we extend the deadline. Burkinshaw also asked that the Chair of SC send out another email to all faculty, especially if extending the deadline. Wednesday 4/6 was proposed as a deadline to quote to faculty, but analyses would not begin until several days later to allow for mail time. Barth will send an email to all faculty.
IV. Barth send a letter to lecturers and staff explaining that currently they are excluded from the process but that we are interested in their input. He asked for their input regarding how they would like to be included in the review process. He has received some feedback, but it has been limited. Barth will send a letter addressed to the President of the Staff Council as a means to encourage further input.
V. Student Code of Conduct
Randall said that Bob Yost (Executive Committee) wanted feedback from the SC regarding revision to the Code for IUPUI, specifically with regard to the appeals process. Under the current Code, if a complaint is not resolved between the student and faculty member, it goes to SOS Assoc. Dean Gavrin; if not resolved by him, then it goes to the SOS Appeals Committee; if not resolved by SOS committee, then it goes to the University committee.
Two revisions are being contemplated. (1) There is currently no time line imposed on the process. The Executive Committee would like to shorten the timeline for a more expeditious resolution. They proposed that each step be allowed a 14-day period, so that the entire deliberation would not last more than 6 weeks. Gavrin said that often the delays in the process are imposed by students who do not provide requested information in timely fashion. The dilemma is to balance the need for an expeditious hearing (before too many weeks go by in the class) against preserving fairness through a multilevel review process. In addition, short time lines require use of expensive courier services to send out official correspondences and to document that the student received such notices. Dean Plater would like to remove the university-level committee step. (2) The Appeals Committee would like for the process to end with the SOS (no University Committee). That is, if a complaint is not resolved between the student and faculty member, it goes to Gavrin; if not resolved by him, then it goes to SOS Appeals Committee. This would be the end of the process unless the student wishes to contest on procedural grounds. An appeal could then be made to the Dean of Academics (William Plater), who would review the process and determine whether there were procedural issues to be considered. When a resolution is achieved, the Dean of Students (John Jones) would be apprised of the outcome and carry out the sanctions (e.g., dismissing the student).
SOS Steering Committee agreed that
treating the SOS Committee decision as final is fine.
If misconduct involves a minor, it gets turned over to SPAN.
VI. Promotion & Tenure Guidelines
Williams sent it to Psychology P&T Committee; they had no feedback. Randall had comments on typographical errors. Randall also raised questions about the terms “satisfactory, substantial, distinguished” (terms used in IUB documents pertaining to Balanced Case), which differ from the terms used in the PWL documents. There appears to be some inconsistency in the application of these terms (especially, vis-à-vis the “Balanced Case” for tenure). Malik said that because PWL does not have a Balanced Case option in their guidelines, they would probably expect that at least one primary area meets the guidelines of PWL. Randall said that as long as “Balanced Case” is mentioned in our document (p. 6 of 11/04 revision), then it should be an option for IUPUI faculty. If it is not an option, it should be removed from the document. Malik clarified that the document defines what the Balanced Case is (which appears in IUB documents) and then emphasizes that because PWL will not consider the Balanced Case scenario IUPUI SOS faculty cannot consider that option.
Burkinshaw raised a concern about external letters, saying that the candidate must obtain “external” letters which allows some room for interpretation with regard to including faculty from other campuses on faculty with intercampus programs (e.g., Informatics is system-wide; the Education program on IUPUI’s campus is an extension of the IU program). Malik said that for Lecturers the letters are clearly defined (internal, on IUPUI campus; external, off IUPUI campus). Randall recommended that, if letters from IUPUI will be scrutinized, then indicate that in the guidelines so that it is clear what is expected. Malik suggested the language “outside the IUPUI community” to satisfy both Burkinshaw and Randall’s concerns. Another issue was raised with regard to someone on campus who has never met the candidate but who knows and can evaluate the candidate’s work at a national level (e.g., the editor of a journal or president of a national organization who happens to be on campus). The consensus of the group was that allowing some latitude seemed appropriate. SC approved the document with amendments. Malik will forward the revised document to Dean Cowen for review and then will distribute it to the faculty. Barth will put it on the agenda for the Spring Faculty Assembly, which has yet to be scheduled.
VII. Scheduling of the Spring FA was discussed. Barth will ask Rosemarie to find a room for a 90-minute slot during the last week of April. Friday afternoon, Wednesday mid-day, or Tuesday were recommended days from the SC. Agenda items were solicited: Dean’s report, vote on P&T Guidelines, and reports from SOS committee chairs.
VIII. Technology & Teaching/Learning item was tabled until next meeting.
IX. Administrative Reviews – SAR (The Assistant & Associate Deans left at this time.)
The departmental subcommittees will review and aggregate the data and prepare a report to the Chair. Barth and Williams will review and aggregate the data on Nguyen. The SC department representative will obtain the reviews from Rosemarie. Williams will ask Rosemarie to record the number of responses before handing the forms back to the SC department representative.
X. Next meeting will be 05/06/05 at 10:00 a.m. in the Psychology Conference Room (LD 124). Barth will not be in town in May, so the Secretary (Fastenau) will chair the meeting.
Meeting was adjourned at 12:20 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
P. Fastenau, 04/01/05
Minutes were approved by the SOS SC on 05/06/05.