COMMITTEE: Faculty Governance Committee *
MEETING DATE: October 25, 2006
PERSON PRESIDING: Puri Martinez, Chair
REGULAR MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: John Cope, Mary Gilliland,
Mark Jones, Edson Justiniano, Bob Morrison
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Kristen Bonatz, Lisa Sutton, Mark Taggart,
Paul Zigas
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: Lori Lee, Alan White, Phyllis Horns
ACTIONS OF MEETING
Agenda Item: 1.
Approval of Minutes from 10/11/06
Discussion: The minutes had not been distributed.
Action Taken: Minutes will be distributed and considered
for approval at the next meeting.
Agenda Item: 2.
Report on the Workshop for Directors and Chairs
Chair Puri Martinez reported that many
questions were raised about Part XII and about Cumulative Reports. Henry Peele gave examples of models of
cumulative reports.
Discussion:
Puri showed documentation of the practice
at Chapel Hill requiring that the letter to the next level should include the
vote of the full professors. Discussion
followed stating that such is not the current practice at ECU, the Chair writes
the letter with no count of the vote. On
the other hand, for some of the group it is important to have vote stated in
the letter. It is important for the
candidate, as well as those up the line.
It was pointed out that Roberts Rules doesn’t explicitly state whether
the vote should be passed beyond “the body”. The reading of Roberts Rules
depends on how “the body” is defined.
Concerns about confidentiality were raised as well as concerns about
having the vote used against a professor.
It was pointed out that in small units it would be clear how professors
had voted.
The writing of cumulative evaluations is a
concern. Because of the transition most candidates have chosen to use the
former policy. However, it is important
to have guidelines since people will be using it next year. The question of the Board of Trustees (BOT)
form was raised. The question of mention
of the visa aspect has been researched.
Action Taken: We will send the Chapel Hill document to the
body and the BOT form to the subcommittee.
Agenda Item: 3.
Faculty Evaluation of Administrators
We need to decide soon whether to change
from the current practice or use the IDEA survey as it was presented by Michael
Poteat at the meeting October 11, 2006.
Discussion: Michael Poteat stated that we would not be
able to change or tailor the IDEA Survey.
Matters which are important to us are found in our survey which are not
found in the IDEA document, for instance, there is no comment on shared
governance. Although some of us are
familiar with the use of IDEA for chairs, the IDEA survey for chairs has not
been reviewed in the context of this the need for this decision. The present deans instrument is an ECU
instrument, not an IDEA instrument.
Shared governance is a very important consideration in evaluating the
effectiveness of deans and above.
Willingness to defend academic freedom and specific addressing of how
effectively administrators with others are also important factors. Recognition of excellence as well as
identification of areas of need for improvement are important and Question#21
in IDEA only touches any of these tangentially.
There have been criticisms of our own
survey, it has been said that it is not completed because it is perceived that
nothing is done with it. Some discussion
of avoidance of identification followed.
If we determined to continue an in-house
document it was mentioned that we do have the resources to do so but obtaining
validation would take longer. IDEA’s
questions about personal characteristics: lethargic or vigorous,
institution-minded vs. self-centered are not that helpful. Confidentiality
remains an issue.
The deans in attendance were asked to
comment and reported that they had not looked at the instruments but believed
that they should be evaluated on what they do.
It was mentioned that the instrument is reviewed, even if it is not the
best instrument. It tends to correspond
to other factors used in evaluation.
Some (three) deans are concerned about low rating areas. It is used as an appraisal tool as well as
feedback tool. If it doesn’t match
realistic behaviors it won’t be helpful.
The low response rate skews results to some extent. Some do not respond because they do not have
contact. It was noted that the IDEA
Survey is practically useless in some units.
ACTION:
A Motion by Mark Taggart was seconded by Mary Gilliland: Recommend
continuing use of in-house documents until revisions can be made according to the
recommendations of the Faculty Governance Committee on ECU Policy on Review of
Administrative Officers. The motion
passed unanimously.
Agenda Item: 4.
Subcommittee work
Discussion: The group discussed the current status of
subcommittee work.
Action Taken: Place this topic on future agenda.
Agenda Item: 5. Any
other business (A.O.B.) The following was addressed first to acknowledge the
presence of the guests who were granted speaking privileges.
Deans Alan White and Phyllis Horns
expressed their desire to participate in matters handled by the Faculty
Governance Committee which impacted their functioning as deans. They stated that the changes to Appendix C
and D as well as Attachments XII and XIII were a surprise at the end of the
spring semester and they prefer not to have such surprises and are strongly
committed to shared governance.
Although administration representatives
are ex officio members of the committee they have different perspective than
deans. The posting of the minutes of the
committee on the web was not appreciated timely to be of value in the matter
this spring. Likewise the feedback from
the open forums was not as available as it might have been to be helpful.
DISCUSSION: Input from as many sources as possible is an
important part of shared governance. On
the other hand, including deans could represent a change in the charge of the
committee which should be done through the Committee on Committees.
ACTION TAKEN: Further consideration of this matter will
continue. One or the other of the deans
propose to continue to attend the meeting which is open. They would prefer being given speaking
privileges whenever either or both attend.
Agenda Item: 5. Any
other business (A.O.B.) Brief discussion
was held regarding one of Michael Poteat’s four “small questions”, ie, can
fixed term faculty participate in the evaluation of administrators in the 2nd
year of employment? We believe the
answer is “yes”. In order to make it
clear to all the faculty we should have a resolution.
ACTION TAKEN: Bob Morrison made a motion seconded by Mary
Gilliland. Faculty members can participate
in the evaluation of administrators in the 2nd year of the faculty
members’ employment. The motion was
passed unanimously with a quorum still present.
ADJOURNMENT at 4:43
NEXT MEETING: Wednesday, November 18, 2006
ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: Subcommittee work, small questions.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Gilliland
Acting Secretary