2008-2009 FACULTY SENATE
The second regular meeting of the
2008-2009
Please note change in
meeting location.
FULL AGENDA
I. Call
to Order
II. Approval
of Minutes
(A
link to an electronic report will be forthcoming.)
III. Special Order of the Day
A.
Roll
Call
C.
Steve
Ballard, Chancellor
D.
Phyllis
Horns, Interim Vice Chancellor for Health Sciences
E.
Janice
Tovey, Chair of the Faculty
F. Judi
Bailey, Senior Executive Director of Enrollment Management
Strategic
Enrollment Management Task Force Project Status Update
G. Terry Holland, Director of Athletics
H. David
Dosser, Chair
University Athletics Committee’s Academic Integrity Subcommittee
I. Mark Sprague,
Faculty Assembly Delegate
Written
report on the September
19, 2008, Faculty Assembly Meeting.
J. Question Period
Representatives from ECU Dowdy
Student Stores will be available for questions
on their Response
Regarding Textbooks and Half-Priced
Textbooks.
Representatives
from ECU Admissions will be available for questions on their
Report
on the 2008 Freshman Class and Home Schooled Admissions.
IV. Unfinished Business
Request for Authorization to
Establish PhD
Program in Curriculum and Instruction
in the
V.
Report of Committees
A. Academic Standards Committee, Linda Wolfe
Requests
from the Administrative Service Learning Committee (attachment 1).
B. Educational Policies and Planning
Committee, Sandra Warren
1.
2. Request for Authorization to Establish New
Distance Education Degree Program for
a MAEd
in Family and Consumer Sciences Education in the Department of Child
Development
and Family Relations
3. Notification
of Intent to Plan (Distance Education) BSBA
in Management in the
4. Notification
of Intent to Plan (Distance Education) BSBA
in Management Information
Systems in the
C. Faculty Governance Committee, Puri
1. Guidelines
for Preparing a Cumulative Evaluation (attachment 3).
2. Proposed
Revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual,
Appendix B. Policy for the Cumulative Review of Permanently Tenured
Faculty of ECU (attachment 4).
3. Report
on the Proposed Review of Administrators (attachment 5).
D. Faculty Grievance Committee, Matt Mahar
Overview of 2007-2008
Committee Activities (attachment 6).
V. New Business
October 7, 2008
Attachment 1
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE REPORT
Requests from the
Administrative Service Learning Committee
The Academic Standards Committee
approved and is forwarding to the
Service
Learning Criteria
A
service learning course should meet the following criteria or guidelines:
1)
Integrate the service with course content. The service component
should support the academic focus of the course.
2)
Involve students in service that meets community needs. The
3)
Provide structured opportunities for reflection such as writing
assignments, discussions, presentations, or journals.
4)
Provide a clear explanation (in the syllabus) of both academic and
service expectations and how the performance in the course will be graded.
5)
Clarify that while service is an integral part of the course
academic credit is for demonstrated learning.
“SL” Designation
The purpose of the “SL” designation,
to be included in the University Undergraduate Catalog for all courses approved
by the Administrative Service Learning Committee, is to ensure that students
are advised that extra time is required of the “SL” course and not sign up for
more than one if they feel they do not have the time to invest in more than one
“SL” course per semester.
SL Designation Form
SERVICE LEARNING
COURSE SUBMISSION FORM
Check one: ____ New Course ____ Renewal
College,
Department or Program(s) ____________________________________________
Course
Number ________________ Section # ___________ Credit Hours ____________
Course
Title _______________________________________________________________
Will all
sections of this course have service learning?
Yes ___ No ___
Instructor
_______________________________ Email _____________________________
Semester(s)
Offered ________________________________________________________
Anticipated
Enrollment ______________
Please include the following
information and documentation when submitting a proposed course:
Faculty Signature ___________________________________ Date
______
SERVICE LEARNING COURSE
SUBMISSION PROCESS
Faculty
members interested in obtaining a service learning designation for their
courses are invited to submit a service learning course proposal form and
syllabus for review by the University Service Learning Advisory Committee. Courses approved for the “SL” designation
will be listed as such in the catalog.
Why
get a SL Designation?
1)
Many students consider service learning a transformative way to learn and grow while
others may want the credits to satisfy requirements proposed for the Leadership
and Service certificate or portfolio, or the honors program. Students find that this documentation also
helps when they seek employment and/or apply to graduate school. The SL
designation will be recorded on student transcripts.
2)
Faculty members who are familiar with service learning serve as a peer review
committee for service learning course submissions. The committee reviews proposals and syllabi
to ensure they meet the five criteria listed below, and also offers suggestions
and constructive input as needed to make the service-learning experience a
positive one for all involved.
3)
The SL designation helps ECU collect information, report, and recognize the
important contributions that our faculty make to the community.
Support
for Faculty Who Incorporate Service Learning:
1)
The Volunteer and
2) Orientation sessions for your students at the
beginning of each semester to introduce your students to service learning and
to answer their questions about community partners, logistics, and safety.
3)
Free liability insurance for your students. This insurance provides liability
insurance if students damage people or property while performing service at the
agency. The policy also provides limited coverage for motor-vehicle accidents
and personal injury. Students must complete a registration form to be eligible
for insurance coverage.
4)
The Volunteer and
5)
Assessment opportunities for the service learning component of your course by
the Volunteer and
How
to Apply for a SL Designation: Submit the SL Course Proposal Form with your
syllabus to the University Service Learning Committee by the appropriate
deadline (listed below). The form should be sent to: Linner Griffin, Associate
Vice Chancellor for Academic Programs.
The committee will review your proposal/syllabus/assignments to make
sure they meet the criteria listed below. The criteria have been adapted from
the national standards that have been established by Campus Compact.
What is Service Learning? ECU’s Definition
Service
learning is a method of instruction that has the benefit of meeting academic
course objectives and helping students develop a sense of engagement and social
responsibility. All volunteer hours and service hours are not service
learning. Service learning courses
should meet the following broad guidelines:
1)
service learning is structured within a course and has a formal,
academic curriculum that is rooted in the discipline in which the course is
being offered;
2)
the course contains a set of organized community-based
learning activities through which
students directly serve a constituency as a means to address an identified
community need;
3)
the course provides structured opportunities for students to
formally connect their service activities to the course curriculum and to
broader social issues through reflective methods.
THE
FIVE CRITERIA FOR A SERVICE LEARNING COURSE
A
service learning course should meet the following criteria or guidelines:
1) Integrate the service with course
content. The service component should support the academic focus of the course.
2) Involve students in service that meets
community needs. The
3) Provide structured opportunities for
reflection such as writing assignments, discussions,
presentations, or journals.
4) Provide a clear explanation (in the
syllabus) of both academic and service expectations and
how the performance in the course will be graded.
5) Clarify that while service is an
integral part of the course academic credit is for demonstrated
learning.
SERVICE
LEARNING INTENDED OUTCOMES
While
each course will have learning objectives, through the service experience
students will gain one or all of the following:
1)
Awareness of community & social issues
2)
Respect for people and diversity in all its forms
3)
Greater self leadership which includes understanding critical
issues and different perspectives, developing empathy, developing critical
thinking, and personal development
It is recommended that
service learning courses be assessed at the end of the semester using the
service learning survey forms provided, compiled and reported by the Volunteer
and
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
October 7, 2008
Attachment 2
EDUCATIONAL POLICIES AND PLANNING
When Library Science was administratively relocated to the
The
Because of
the current and inherent
Given these
conditions, during the 2007-2008 academic year members of the LSIT Department
met regularly to discuss options for aligning the program to meet the
accrediting body’s standards. As a body,
the faculty members in the department proposed to make the Library Science program
a separate department within the
Subsequently,
the Instructional Technology program coordinator, IT faculty members, plus the
interim dean and assistant dean met with Department chairs and faculty members
representing each of the following
These meetings
and discussions were conducted during the period of November 27, 2007
through February 13, 2008.
From these discussions and meetings, the IT faculty unanimously agreed
to seek merger into the Department of Mathematics and Sciences Education. Subsequently, the chair of the MSED
department scheduled several meetings of the faculty in the department
including the faculty members from the IT program areas. At those meetings the faculties jointly agreed
that the inclusion of the Instructional Technology program into the Department
of Math and Science Education could strengthen each of the three program areas:
Math Education, Science Education, and Instructional Technology. With the added need to develop quality Math
and Science teachers in
On March 5, 2008, the faculties met
to officially propose merging the IT faculty members and programs, courses, and
proportion of the budgets and resources that support the IT program with the
Department of Mathematics and Science Education. It is from these discussions that a formal
meeting of the two faculties was held on March 24, 2008. Prior to that meeting; an official proposal
to merge the programs into a single department (Mathematics Education Science
Education, and Instructional Technology programs) was jointly developed by the
faculties on March 8, 2008, discussed and disseminated according to the
provisions of Appendix L of the Faculty Manual (March 14, 2008), and on March
24, 2008, a secret ballot was conducted on the proposal. At that time, the tenured Instructional
Technology program area faculty and the tenured Math and Science Education
faculty voted unanimously to include the Instructional Technology program
within the current Department of Math and Science Education.
Following
those votes, the proposal to establish the Library Science program as a
department within the
Timeline of
events - Below you will find a timeline of events that led to these two
actions.
|
June 20,
2007 |
Initial
discussion with Interim Dean Swope about the need for the Library Science
program being an autonomous |
|
July 3,
2007 |
Meeting with
Interim Dean Swope, Lynne Davis, Larry White and Al Jones |
|
August
23, 2007 |
Meeting
with Interim Dean Swope, Larry White and Al Jones |
|
August
28, 2007 |
Meeting
with Interim Dean Swope, Larry White and Tricia Anderson |
|
September
7, 2007 |
Meeting
with LSIT faculty to discuss the need for the Library
Science program being an autonomous |
|
September
14, 2007 |
Library
Science program retreat |
|
October
12, 2007 |
Instructional
Technology program retreat |
|
October
22, 2007 |
Meeting
with LSIT faculty to continue discussion |
|
November 2, 2007 |
Meeting
with LSIT faculty to discuss official restructuring
initiative |
|
November 6, 2007 |
LSIT tenured faculty members unanimously voted to approve the recent
LSIT restructuring initiative |
|
November 27, 2007 - December 11, 2007 |
Meeting with four COE department chairs |
|
January 18, 2008 |
Meeting with C&I Leadership team meeting |
|
January 24, 2008 |
Instructional Technology program area faculty discuss next steps |
|
February
11, 2008 |
Meeting
with COAD faculty |
|
February
12, 2008 |
Meeting
with BITE faculty |
|
February
13, 2008 |
Meeting
with MSED faculty |
|
February
19, 2008 |
Instructional Technology program area faculty discuss next steps |
|
February
22, 2008 |
Meeting
with Ron Preston, Sandra Warren and Interim Dean Swope |
|
March 5,
2008 |
Meeting
with MSED faculty to discuss official proposal |
|
March 24, 2008 |
MSED and IT tenured faculty members unanimously voted to approve
the inclusion of the Instructional Technology program into the current MSED
department |
|
April 17-22, 2008 |
|
October 7, 2008
Attachment 3
FACULTY GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE REPORT
Guidelines for Preparing a Cumulative Evaluation
(Required by the ECU Faculty Manual, Part
XII. Personnel Action Dossier)
For
Promotion and Tenure Recommendations
In
accordance with provisions contained in Part XII(B)(2) of the ECU Faculty Manual, the Personnel Action
Dossier (“PAD”) of a candidate for tenure will include, “One [C]umulative [E]valuation in narrative form
of the candidate's teaching, research, service, and any other relevant duties,
prepared by the unit Tenure Committee. A
draft of this [C]umulative [E]valuation, to be completed after the candidate turns in the PAD,
should be available for discussion by the entire Tenure committee before the
vote. (
In accordance with the provisions contained in Part
XII(B)(3) of the ECU Faculty Manual,
the PAD of a candidate for promotion will similarly include, “One [C]umulative
[E]valuation in narrative form of the candidate's teaching, research, service,
and any other relevant duties, prepared by the unit Promotion Committee. A draft of this [C]umulative [E]valuation, to
be completed after the candidate turns in the PAD, should be available for
discussion by the entire Promotion committee before the vote. (
These
guidelines, with some examples noted below, are intended as a tool to assist
unit committees and unit administrators in preparing Cumulative
Evaluations. These are guidelines only;
the Cumulative Evaluations prepared by the Tenure/Promotion Committees and the
unit administrator must be consistent with criteria and provisions stated in
the approved Unit Code and consistent with the assigned responsibilities of the
candidate.
Similar to
the annual progress toward tenure letters, the Cumulative Evaluation should be
objective, summarizing the candidate’s strengths and weaknesses in teaching,
research/creative activity, service, and patient care and related clinical
activity (if appropriate).
Teaching
Provide an
evaluation in the form of a narrative summary of the candidate’s strengths and
weaknesses in teaching. Determine how
the candidate has either maintained or improved the quality of
instruction. Areas to consider may include:
A statement
of the unit’s expectations for teaching as contained in the Unit Code, as well
as a description of how the candidate has met, failed to meet, or exceeded
these expectations, including supporting examples;
A
discussion of the quality of the candidate’s contributions in teaching, using
approved methods of evaluating teaching performance;
An
evaluation of the candidate’s teaching contributions relative to the unit’s
needs;
A
description of noteworthy accomplishments of students for whom the candidate
has been advisor;
A
discussion of the candidate’s involvement in curriculum development, including role
in the design and implementation of new or revised courses, development of new
teaching methods or materials, creation of new academic programs.
Research/Creative
Activity
Provide an
evaluation in the form of a narrative summary of the candidate’s strengths and
weaknesses in research and creative activity.
Areas to consider may include:
A statement
of the unit’s expectations for research as contained in the Unit Code, as well
as a description of how the candidate has met, failed to meet, or exceeded
these expectations, including supporting examples;
An
evaluation of the candidate’s contributions in research and creative activity
relative to the unit’s needs, including a discussion of the
research/scholarship career thrust, strategy and emphases of the candidate;
A statement
evaluating the current national and international standing of the candidate in
the discipline.
Service
Provide an
evaluation in the form of a narrative summary of the candidate’s strengths and
weaknesses in service. Areas to consider may include:
A statement
of the unit’s expectations for service as contained in the Unit Code, as well
as a description of how the candidate has met, failed to meet, or exceeded
these expectations, including supporting examples;
An
evaluation of the candidate’s contributions in service relative to the unit’s
needs, including significance and external recognition of the candidate’s
service activities and assumption of leadership roles.
Patient
Care and Related Clinical Activity (as appropriate)
Provide an
evaluation in the form of a narrative summary of the candidate’s strengths and
weaknesses in patient care and related clinical activity. Areas to consider may include:
A statement
of the unit’s expectations for patient care and clinical activity as contained
in the Unit Code, as well as a description of how the candidate has met,
failed to meet, or exceeded these expectations, including supporting
examples;
An
evaluation of the candidate’s contributions in patient care and clinical
activity relative to the unit’s needs, including significance and impact of
clinical services not otherwise available in the region.
Procedures
for Cumulative Evaluations
After the
candidate’s PAD is provided to the Unit Committee (Tenure or Promotion, as
appropriate), one draft Cumulative Evaluation will be prepared by the
Committee. The Tenure/Promotion
Committee may designate one or more of its members to prepare the draft for
consideration by the entire Committee’s membership. All materials pertaining to the pending
personnel action must be available for inspection at least five business days
prior to the Committee meeting. The
appropriate Committee (Tenure or Promotion) will discuss all materials
presented, decide on the final contents of the Cumulative Evaluation, conduct
the required secret ballot vote, and compile the results of the vote.
The
Tenure/Promotion Committee shall forward the candidate’s complete PAD,
Committee’s recommendation, and its Cumulative Evaluation to the unit
administrator. The Committee will also
forward a copy of its recommendation and its Cumulative Evaluation to the
candidate, with a statement that the candidate has four working days from the
date of the letter to include a response to the Committee’s Cumulative Evaluation. If the candidate disagrees with the contents
of the Cumulative Evaluation, it is the responsibility of the candidate to make
this disagreement known in writing, addressed to the Chair of the
Tenure/Promotion Committee (as appropriate), for inclusion in the candidate’s
personnel file and the PAD. Copies of
this written response will be provided by the candidate’s to the unit
administrator to be placed in the candidate’s personnel file.
After
receiving the candidate’s PAD, the Committee’s recommendation and Cumulative
Evaluation, and, if appropriate, the candidate’s written response, the unit
administrator will write his/her own Cumulative Evaluation. The unit
administrator will forward the complete PAD, his/her own Cumulative Evaluation
and his/her recommendation to the next administrative level.
The unit
administrator will also forward a copy of his/her Cumulative Evaluation and
his/her recommendation to the candidate, with a statement that the candidate
has four working days from the date of the letter to include a written response
to the unit administrator’s Cumulative Evaluation. The unit administrator will also send a copy
of his/her recommendation and Cumulative Evaluation to the Tenure/Promotion
Committee. If the candidate disagrees
with the contents of the unit administrator’s Cumulative Evaluation, it
is the responsibility of the candidate to make this disagreement known in
writing addressed to the next-level administrator, with a copy to the
appropriate Committee and the unit administrator. Copies of this written response will be
placed in the candidate’s personnel file by the unit administrator.
(Once this
document has been approved by the Chancellor, it will remain electronically
linked to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part
XII. Personnel Action Dossier document located on the Faculty Senate website.)
October 7, 2008
Attachment 4
FACULTY GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE REPORT
Proposed Revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix B. Policy for the
Cumulative Review of Permanently Tenured Faculty of ECU
(All additions are noted in bold print and deletions in strikethrough.)
APPENDIX B
POLICY FOR PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF
TENURED FACULTY
OF
POLICY FOR THE CUMULATIVE REVIEW OF
PERMANENTLY TENURED FACULTY OF
EAST
CONTENTS
I. Preamble
II. Description
of Policy
A. Timing
B. Performance Standards for the Review
C. Cumulative Performance Review Committee (CRC) (PRC)
D. Review Process
E. Rewards
F.E. Reconsideration
G.F. Faculty Development Plan
H.G. Subsequent Evaluation
III. Form
A and B
POLICY FOR PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF
TENURED FACULTY
OF
Policy for
The Cumulative Review of Permanently Tenured Faculty
Of
I. Preamble
On May 16, 1997,
the Board of Governors mandated the review of performance of tenured faculty in
the
On March 10, 2008, the UNC Board of
Governors revised its Guidelines
on Performance Review of Tenured Faculty (The UNC Policy Manual: 400.3.3.1(G)). On October 15,
2008, this ECU performance review policy was revised accordingly.
Cumulative Performance Review of Permanently
Tenured Faculty meets the revised
guidelines of the the Code The Code of the University. This
policy does not create a process for the reevaluation or revalidation of
tenured status. The basic standard for
appraisal and evaluation is whether the faculty member under review discharges
conscientiously and with professional competence the duties associated with his
or her position. Furthermore, the policy
is created with the widespread presumption of competence on the part of each
tenured faculty member. The performance review for a faculty member
must reflect the nature of the individual’s field or work and must conform to
fair and reasonable expectations as recognized by faculty peers in each
department and discipline. The review
must be conducted in a manner free of arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory
elements and must follow these agreed-upon procedures.
II. Description of Policy
[Please refer to interpretation #I98-10
located in the Index of ECU Faculty Manual Interpretations at
http://www.ecu.edu/fsonline/interpretations.htm.]
A. Timing
At
five-year intervals, beginning with academic year 1998-1999, each permanently
tenured faculty member shall have a review of all aspects of his or her
professional performance during the review interval. A review leading to promotion in rank
qualifies as a cumulative review. A
faculty member granted permanent tenure shall be reviewed within five years of
the granting of tenure. Probationary-term
faculty members are excluded because other review mechanisms exist to evaluate
their performance. Unit* administrators,
deans, and administrators at the division or university level shall be excluded
from this policy. After returning to
full-time teaching/research responsibilities, administrators shall be evaluated
in their fifth year and following five-year intervals.
Each
academic unit’s tenure committee shall decide whether all of its tenured
faculty will be reviewed in the same year or whether its tenured faculty will
be reviewed according to a serial plan.
Those units choosing a serial plan shall also determine the method of
serialization.
B. Performance Standards for the Review
For the
cumulative review of performance for the five-year period, the unit’s Tenure
Committee shall draft review current standards of “exemplary,” “satisfactory,” and
“deficient” performance and revise as necessary. ,taking into account These standards will comply with the
provisions of Appendix C, Section I, C and D of the ECU Faculty Manual,
the unit’s code provisions, and the primacy of teaching/advising within the UNC
system institutions. These standards
should be consistent with changing goals of the unit and the university, while
also considering varying expectations at the time of the granting of permanent
tenure for individual faculty members
and should address the faculty member’s teaching, research, service and other
duties, including contributions to the departmental college/school and
university goals, contributions to the academic programs in which the faculty
member teaches and any other professional activities bearing on the faculty
member’s performance of his or her duties during the period under review.
The Tenure
Committee shall submit the proposed standards to the unit administrator for
concurrence or nonconcurrence. At that
point, two possible actions may occur.
(1) If the unit administrator concurs, he or she shall forward the
standards to the next higher administrator.
If the next higher administrator does not agree with the standards
developed by the Tenure Committee and concurred with by the unit administrator,
every effort (including discussion and negotiation) shall be made to resolve
the disagreement. If the effort fails,
the matter shall be referred to the next higher administrator who may accept
the standards or return them for revision.
(2) When the unit administrator and Tenure Committee disagree, every
effort (including discussion and negotiation) shall be made to resolve the disagreement
within the unit. If the effort fails,
the matter shall be referred to the next higher administrator who may accept
the standards or return them for revision.
In either case, any amendment to these standards must be approved by a
vote of at least 2/3 of the Tenure Committee and follow the same process for
initially proposed standards.
C. Cumulative
Performance Review Committee (CPRC)
The Tenure Committee will elect a minimum of three faculty
members and one alternate from the permanently tenured voting faculty (ECU
Faculty Manual, Appendix L, Section A. Voting Faculty Member) not holding
administrative status to serve on the Cumulative Performance Review Committee.
The alternate shall serve when a member is unable to serve. Members on the Cumulative Performance Review Committee shall
serve for one academic year.
When a unit is unable to elect three permanently tenured
voting faculty members not holding administrative status, the next higher
administrator above the unit level shall appoint permanently tenured voting
faculty not holding administrative status from other units to increase the
committee’s membership to three members and one alternate. These appointments to the committee must be
from one list of candidates selected by a vote of the permanently tenured and
probationary-term faculty of the unit.
The list forwarded to the next higher administrator by the appropriate
faculty will contain at least twice the number of faculty members required to
complete the membership of the committee.
Before voting on the list to be forwarded to the next higher
administrator, the voting faculty will ascertain that faculty members nominated
to have their names placed on the list are willing and able to serve in this
important capacity. The list of faculty
names recommended to the next higher administrator may not be returned for
revision.
D. Review Process
Cumulative Performance
Review of Permanently Tenured Faculty shall cover all aspects of the faculty
member’s professional performance. and be based on the faculty member’s most
recent annual reports and most recent annual performance evaluations (ECU
Faculty Manual, Appendix C, Section III. Evaluations) for the cumulative
review period. The review will be
informed by the faculty member’s annual reports and annual evaluations (ECU
Faculty Manual, Appendix C, Section III. Evaluations), but primarily shall
be based on a comprehensive assessment of the faculty member’s teaching,
research, service and other duties, including contributions to the departmental
college/school and university goals, contributions to the academic programs in
which the faculty member teaches and any other professional activities bearing
on the faculty member’s performance of his or her duties during the period
under review. The review shall take into
account the faculty member’s contribution for the period to the mission of the
unit, the school or college, and the university. Permanently tenured full-time faculty members
who have received University approved leaves of absence shall not have such
leave time counted as part of the cumulative performance review period.
Should a
subsequent academic unit administrator disagree with the annual reviews and
annual reports of an individual faculty member composed before the term of
office of the incumbent administrator, the administrator shall not dismiss,
alter, or argue against the body and conclusions of the earlier annual reviews
and reports.
The initial review shall be conducted by
the unit administrator who, using the attached Form A or Form B,
shall prepare a performance review
report which shall consist of a
narrative evaluation of the overall performance of the candidate that takes
into account the relative weights assigned to each duty during each of the
years being reviewed and the amount of reassigned time from teaching to the
performance of other duties for each year under review. This evaluation shall
conclude with an overall ranking that categorizes each faculty member’s performance
as exemplary, satisfactory, or deficient.
The evaluative
report, together with the faculty member’s annual reports and annual
performance evaluations for the period
under review, a copy of the faculty member’s current curriculum vita, and any other
material the faculty member wishes to provide to the review committee in
support of his/her professional performance over the review period, shall be
forwarded to reviewed by the Cumulative Performance Review
Committee. Any additional supporting material provided by
the faculty member to the Performance Review Committee shall become part of the
permanent personnel file. For each faculty member, the Cumulative Performance Review Committee shall
either agree or disagree with the findings of the unit administrator.
When the
unit administrator and the Cumulative Performance Review Committee agree, the Performance Review Committee shall report this agreement on the Form A. The unit
administrator shall provide a copy of the report the
results of the cumulative review in writing to the faculty member and to
the next higher administrator, and place a copy of the report in the faculty member’s personnel file.
When the
unit administrator and Cumulative Performance
Review Committee disagree, every effort (including discussion and negotiation) will
shall be made to resolve the
disagreement within the unit. If the
effort to resolve the disagreement fails, the Performance Review Committee shall
prepare its own report. The unit
administrator shall provide copies of both reports to the faculty member and the
matter will be referred to the next higher administrator, who for final decision after
reviewing both reports and the faculty member’s supporting materials, shall make
the final decision, which shall be reported in writing to the faculty
member. A copy of the final decision
shall be placed in the faculty member’s personnel file and provided to both the
Performance Review Committee and the unit administrator.
, the matter
will be referred to the next higher administrator for final decision.
E. Rewards
The first priority of
the revised UNC Guidelines on Performance Review of Tenured Faculty is that
faculty whose cumulative review reflects exemplary performance shall be
recognized and rewarded. A faculty
member whose review reflects exemplary performance may be recognized in ways
including, but not limited to, nomination for awards, merit salary increases,
research leaves, and/or revisions of work load.
F.E. Reconsideration
A faculty
member whose review process determines a deficient performance level shall have
the opportunity to respond within 20 calendar days. The faculty member may request that the unit
administrator and Cumulative Performance
Review Committee reconsider the evaluation based on additional substantive
information provided by the faculty member.
In reconsidering the evaluation, the unit administrator and Cumulative
Performance Review Committee shall have the opportunity to nullify, modify, or
reconfirm the original evaluation (or
evaluations, in the case of disagreement between the committee and the unit
administrator). The response of the faculty member to the report of deficient
performance and the decision of the committee and the unit administrator shall
be reported to the next higher administrator.
When the committee and the unit
administrator disagree on the appropriate action after a reconsideration
initiated by the faculty member under review, If, upon reconsideration, the unit
administrator and Cumulative Review Committee disagree, every effort (including discussion
and negotiation) shall be made to resolve the disagreement within the
unit. If the effort fails, the matter
conflicting responses to the
reconsideration appeal by the faculty member under review shall be referred to the next higher administrator
for final decision.
The unit
administrator shall report the decision in writing to the faculty member and
place a copy of the report in the faculty member’s personnel file. The final decision of a higher administrator shall be reported in
writing to the faculty member and a copy of the final decision shall be placed
in the faculty member’s personnel file and provided to both the Performance
Review Committee and the unit administrator.
G.F. Faculty
Development Plan
A faculty
member whose cumulative review reflects deficient performance shall negotiate a
formal development plan with the Cumulative Performance Review Committee and the unit administrator. The development plan must identify specific
strengths and deficiencies and also define specific goals or outcomes that
would help the faculty member overcome the identified deficiencies. It should also outline activities, set
guidelines, indicate approved criteria by which the faculty member could
monitor his or her progress, and identify the source of any institutional
commitments, if required. The
development plan shall set reasonable time limits, not to exceed three academic
years from the implementation of the plan.
The plan shall represent a commitment by the faculty member, the Cumulative Performance Review Committee, and the
unit administrator to improve the faculty member’s performance and provide
adequate resources to support the plan.
The plan shall be consistent with the faculty member’s academic freedom
(as defined by the ECU Faculty Manual, Part III), shall be self-directed
by the faculty member, and shall be sufficiently flexible to allow for
subsequent amendment, if necessary. Such
amendment will follow the same process as the development of the original
plan. If the unit administrator, Cumulative
Performance Review Committee, and
faculty member cannot agree on a formal development plan, each party’s draft of
a plan will be forwarded to the next higher administrator, who will make the
final decision. The faculty member’s
development progress shall be reviewed
in a meeting that occurs at least semiannually by the Cumulative Performance Review Committee and the
unit administrator, who shall provide a written evaluation of progress to the
faculty member.
H.G. Subsequent
Evaluation
If the
faculty member’s cumulative performance level is satisfactory within the
designated period of time, the unit administrator shall report the results of
the cumulative review in writing to the faculty member and place a copy of the
written evaluation in the faculty member’s personnel file. The faculty member will undergo another
cumulative review at the beginning of the next cumulative review interval. If the faculty member’s cumulative
performance level remains deficient after the designated period, the unit
administrator may recommend that serious sanctions be imposed as governed by
Appendix D, Section VI, “Due Process Before Discharge or Imposition of Serious
Sanction,” of the ECU Faculty Manual and Chapter VI of the The Code of the Board of Governors
of the University of North Carolina.
*With respect to personnel matters relating to Cumulative
Performance Review, academic units
are defined as departments described in the codes of operation of professional
schools, the departments in the College of Arts and Sciences, professional
schools without departments, Academic Library Services, Health Sciences
Library, and any other units in which faculty appointments are made. In the
III. Form A: Report on Performance Review of Tenured Faculty A and B
Approved:
15 April
1998
Amended:
Interpretation
made to Section II. (10-8-98)
Cumulative
Review of Permanently Tenured Faculty
East
Form A
Faculty member: _____________________ School/department:
_____________________
Date: __________________
______________________________________________________________________________
I. Summary
of Annual Evaluations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
II. Cumulative
Review Evaluation: _______ Exemplary
_______
Satisfactory
_______
Deficient*
*A
“deficient” evaluation must be accompanied by a written justification for this
finding.
______________________________________________________________________________
Submitted by: ____________________________________ __________________
Unit
Administrator Date
Cumulative Review Committee Response: _______
Agree
_______
Disagree
_____________________________________ _________________
Committee Chair Date
Cumulative
Performance Review of
Permanently Tenured Faculty
Faculty member:
_____________________ School/department:
_____________________
Date: __________________
______________________________________________________________________________
I. Summary of Annual Narrative
Evaluations of most recent 5 years of faculty performance:
II. Cumulative Summary
Performance Review Evaluation: _______
Exemplary
_______
Satisfactory
_______
Deficient*
*A
“deficient” evaluation must be accompanied by a written justification for this
finding.
______________________________________________________________________________
Submitted by: ____________________________________ __________________
Unit
Administrator Date
Cumulative Performance
Review Committee Response: _______ Agree ______Disagree
_____________________________________ _________________
Committee Chair
October 7, 2008
Attachment 5
FACULTY GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE REPORT
Report on the Proposed Review of Administrators
On February
19, 2008 in a Joint Statement (Joint
Statement) Chancellor Steve Ballard and then Faculty Chair Mark Taggart
shared with the faculty their intention to implement the following practices
regarding the evaluation of senior academic officers:
a.
Substantial work has already been done by the Leadership Development
Task Force composed of faculty representatives and top administrators. The work
of the Task Force will be henceforth be conducted by the Governance Committee.
We are committed to bringing that work to closure before the beginning of the
2008-2009 academic year.
b. We will
develop a policy on evaluation of senior academic officers that will be
consistent with Board of Trustees policies, principles of shared governance,
and nationally recognized best practices by the end of the current academic
year, and will be implemented by the beginning of the 2008-2009 academic year.
Following
the joint statement, the Faculty Governance Committee worked on the
aforementioned policy, and on April 28 approved a Proposed Policy on Five-Year
Review of Academic Administrative Officers which was consistent with the Board
of Trustees’ policies (Appointment
and Review of Administrative Officers at ECU), principles of shared governance (Standards of Shared Governance), and nationally recognized best practices (http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/comm/rep/FacultyEvaluationof+Admins.htm).
This
policy was sent forward to Chancellor Ballard for his review and comments on
June 4, 2008 (Proposed
Policy on Five-Year Review of Academic Administrative Officers). As
indicated on the memo attached to the proposed policy, the committee “stand
ready to address any concerns that [the Chancellor] may have prior to
presentation of the policy to the
On
August 27, 2008, Chancellor Ballard forwarded to the Faculty Governance
Committee proposed revisions to the policy drafted by the committee (Proposed
Revisions to the Policy on Five-Year Review of Academic Administrative Officers).
On
September 10, 2008 the Faculty Governance committee decided that it was
appropriate and necessary for the committee to inform the
On
September 24, 2008,
October 7, 2008
Attachment 6
FACULTY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE REPORT
Overview of 2007-2008 Committee Activities
Number of Grievants in Grievance
Process for Academic Year 2007-2008
(April 31, 2007 through May 1, 2008)
|
Step |
Less than One Month |
One-Two Months |
Two-Three Months |
More than Three Months |
|
One |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Number of Grievances Filed (Completed Step One) by:
Fixed
Term Faculty 0 Probationary Faculty
0 Tenured Faculty 3
|
Step |
Less than One Month |
One-Two Months |
Two-Three Months |
More than Three Months |
|
Two |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Three |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Four |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Scheduled
for Hearing - 0
Hearings
Completed - 0
In Report
Stages - 0
Reports
Issued - 0
Reports
Issued in Favor of:
Grievant - 0
Respondent - 0
Both Grievant and Respondent - 0
Number
Appealed to Chancellor - 0
Reports Issued by Chancellor - 0
Number at
Faculty Governance - 0
Reports at
Rewrite or Reissued by Faculty Governance Committee - 0
Number
Successful at Mediation - 0
Number
Successful at Chancellor Review -1
Number
Terminated by Grievant - 2
Number
Terminated by Committee - 0