Faculty Governance Committee Meeting

September 10, 2008

142 Rawl Annex

Members attending: Dr. Horns, Dr. Bailey, Dr. Sheerer, Dr. Walter, Dr. Tovey, Dr. Martinez (chair), Dr. Justiniano, Dr. Gilliland, Dr. Gabbard, Dr. Rigsby, Dr. Mageean.

Others: L. Lee, L. Ingalls, H. Murphy.

The meeting was called to order at 3:03 PM.

1.      Review of Administrator Evaluation document; chancellor’s revisions: the faculty chair will meet with the chancellor to discuss his response to the implementation document generated by the committee. Dr. Rigsby observed that the procedures in the revised document are ill defined. It is a one-size-fits-all document, which does not work. There is a need to respect the diversity of rolls being evaluated while preserving a commitment to shared governance. The revised document needs more specificity.

2.      Cumulative evaluation reports – revised document: Dr. Rigsby suggested an editorial revision under teaching: “has met, filed to meet, or exceeded expectations under each category.”   Dr. Sheerer and Dr. Mageean suggested revisions to address engagement. Dr. Martinez noted that when we make those definitions clear, we can add them. It was suggested that we remove growth in service and add something about leadership. Dr. Rigsby raised a question about the scope of engagement and a confusion of engagement with service. The question was raised, where to draw the line between engagement and service? Dr. Mageean noted that there is a specific definition of the scholarship of engagement, which will apply to promotion and tenure, etc. Dr. Rigsby noted that how we do this must fit Appendix C. A question was raised about giving four working days for a candidate to respond to the cumulative evaluation. Does it say “four days” in “C?” Dr. Bailey raised the issue of “if its not in the PAD, can the evaluation committee discuss it?” There was a long discussion of this issue. There is a narrow, literal, interpretation of “in the PAD,” vs. what UNC policy allows to be considered. The university attorneys are assuming the narrow interpretation when asked by Personnel and Tenure committee chairs. The UNC policy allows for consideration of professional conduct (collegiality, academic citizenship). It was observed that some people could benefit from anger management training. It was noted that if we could define “professional conduct” this would create something that can be used. Dr. Rigsby noted that revisions left out what Dr. Martinez had put in, “detailed description of candidate’s research,” . . . we need to put this back in under “may include.” Dr. Rigsby moved: “In the third paragraph in R&CR where it reads “an evaluation . . . needs” . . . insert: “including a discussion of the research/scholarship career thrust, strategy and emphasis of the candidate.” The motion carried. Dr Martinez moved that in the second paragraph on teaching eliminate all that is there and under “a discussion of the candidate’s . . .” just use “approved methods of evaluating teaching performance.” The motion passed. A motion to approve the revised document on cumulative evaluation reports passed.

3.      Revisions to our post-tenure review document (Appendix B) – called for by the UNC-GA which is due to Senate in October. A sub-committee (Dr. Bailey, Dr. Gabbard and Dr. Rigsby) will bring a draft to the next Governance meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 PM.