Faculty Governance
Meeting, October 11, 2006
In Attendance:
(Regular Members) Cope, Gilliland, Jones,
(Ex-Officio Members) Poteat, Mageean, Smith, Sutton, and Taggart
Routine business was temporally suspended in order to allow Dr. Mike Poteat (Director of Institutional Effectiveness) to make his presentation to the committee.
Dr. Poteat (MP) indicated that he had one large question and four smaller matters to bring to the committee’s attention.
I. Should we continue to use the current forms in the assessment of
administrators above the level of unit head or adopt the IDEA survey (as used with chairs) for deans and other administrators? MP favored the adoption of the IDEA format across all administrative levels. This could be done at a cost of approximately $ 6,000-$7,000 per year. MP indicated that a decision to switch from our own “home-grown” survey tools would need to be made relatively quickly if we were to adopt the IDEA for use in the spring 2007 term. The IDEA is already in use for unit chairs.
Dr. Martinez (PM) asked if items on the IDEA could be customized to our individual needs. MP responded that customized items were only possible if we were to tailor make our own instrument or to go with another vendor that specialized in customized surveys. The IDEA was only available “as is”.
PM asked about the weighting of individual items on the IDEA. MP responded that weights on the IDEA were derived from the importance variable indicated by the respondent. A differential weighting of items is only possible with the current in-house surveys.
PM asked if the IDEA was widely used at other institutions. MP responded that it was the biggest seller in the country.
PM asked if the current SOIS was customized. MP indicated that it had been created by a faculty task-force and approved by the faculty senate.
The committee then entered into a general discussion. Dr Mageean asked what tended to happen with the various surveys. MP and others indicated that in general, the reports were circulated to the next highest administrative level, but that the process was not universal. For example, Interim administrators, and those serving in their first year were typically not evaluated. The Vice Chancellor for Research has not been evaluated before this year [although this has subsequently been changed]. Dr Taggart (MT) asked about the major differences between the IDEA and the local in-house surveys. MP responded that the response rate would go up with the use of the IDEA instrument because it was (probably) perceived as a more confidential process by the faculty. Also, the IDEA covers more dimensions than the in-house protocols.
It was noted by several committee members and MP that the survey process has (in the past) been subject to a general sense of paranoia concerning anonymity for the respondents and that there was a wide-spread belief that “nothing was ever done with the information”.
Dr. Poteat then asked the committee four additional questions relevant to administrative evaluation in general (aimed at formally locking down long-term issues that that have only been addressed informally).
II. Should fixed-term faculty (FTF) be allowed to participate? Based on discussions with Bob Morrison (past chair), the current practice is to allow FTF to participate as long as they are in their second year of employment. [MP is looking for a formal ruling from the committee.]
III. Should administrators be surveyed in the second year of service of a standard appointment regardless of the status of the appointment? The current practice has been not to survey administrators unless they are in the second year of a regular appointment (i.e., interim administrators are not surveyed and time served as interim does not count toward the two years of service).
IV. What should be the policy for evaluating administrators who have been on leave and have returned to their previous position (role)?
V. Should the survey be extended to cover Center Directors and other administrators not currently covered?
The committee thanked Dr. Poteat for his time and indicated that each of his questions would be considered as soon as possible.
Minutes from the meeting September 27, 2006 were unanimously approved.
PM then reviewed the work done last year concerning administrative evaluation:
1. Discussed and reviewed options associated with using IDEA universally v. designing and evaluating a custom “in-house” set of evaluation instruments.
2. Considered issues related to quadrennial administrative evaluation (as required in Appendix L). MT indicated that it would probably make sense to consider both these issues simultaneously as they were closely correlated. Pending changes to the Faculty Governance Report, 3-18-02 (approved by Chancellor Muse) were discussed from last year, in regards to integrating and standardizing procedures for the quadrennial vote (unit head) and evaluation, and the provision of annual evaluations.
The second item on the agenda involved preliminary discussion of the Report from the Fixed Term Faculty Task Force. If the recommendations are followed it will require changes to Appendices C, D, L, and Part #5 of the Faculty Manual.
PM recommended the creation of three sub-committees to cover the Appendices C, D, and L respectively. The following sub-committee assignments were made.
Appendix C: Martinez & Morrison
Appendix D: Taggart & Jones
Appendix L: Cope and Gilliland
PM noted that much of this work will hinge on work presented in the Report of the Ad-hoc Committee on Voting Rights for Non-tenured Faculty, October 12, 2005.
The committee was adjourned at 4:28pm, 10-11-2006.
Submitted by John G. Cope, Interim Secretary.