Faculty Senate Minutes

February 8, 2006

 

Call to order: Cindy called the meeting to order at 2:35 p.m. in the Alumni Room

 

Officers attending: Cindy Beckett, President; Nick Reeder, Vice President; Linda Pastore, Secretary

 

Senators attending:  Jennifer Barr, Tom Singer, Charles C. Williams, James Brooks, Mark Echtner, Art Ross, Moez Ben-Azzouz

 

Senators not attenting: Marsha Wamsley, Derek Allen, Mohamed Ali, James Houdeshell, Amanda Romero

 

Others attending: Laurel Mayer, Dona Fletcher

 

1.  Approval of Minutes

The minutes from January 25, 2006 were approved with minor edits.

 

2.  Officer’s Report

N/A

 

3.  Committee Reports

Nick presented a report from the Personnel Committee (see attached document).

This discussion prompted the following recommendations that were approved by Senate to be forwarded to Interim VPI, Frank DePalma.

 

RcW06-01

Statement of Recommendation: That the Timing and Action Calendar for future years be adjusted by moving dates for the following actions earlier as indicated:

·        Move to Monday of the fourth week of Fall quarter: “Faculty/Administrative Performance Review interviews begin (to include all faculty, department chairpersons, and counselors—except for first-year faculty).”

·        Move to Monday of the eighth week of Fall quarter: “Faculty Performance Reviews and Interim Performance Reviews (except for first-year faculty) to division deans.”

·        Move to Monday of the tenth week of Fall quarter: “Faculty Performance Reviews and Interim Performance Reviews (except for first-year faculty) to Vice President for Instruction.”

 

Brief statement of rationale for Recommendation:  In 2005, FPRs were not due to the VPI’s office until after Fall quarter had ended, and so there was no practical way for the Personnel Committee to be convened to review disputed FPRs before they were due to the President’s office, as required by Section 2.6.1 of the Faculty Handbook.

 

RcW06-02

Statement of Recommendation: That the Vice President for Instruction reactivate the committee on Faculty/Administrative Performance Reviews and charge them with vigorously pursuing their previously identified goals.

 

Brief statement of rationale for Recommendation:  The Faculty Senate’s Personnel Committee has raised several concerns regarding existing procedures relating to Faculty/Administrative Performance Reviews.  However, Faculty Senate is reluctant to pursue changes to the existing procedures, knowing that a committee has previously been charged with the task of recommending sweeping changes to the entire FAPR process.

 

4.  Special Orders

N/A

 

5.  Unfinished Business

Office Hours Policy Recommendation (RcF05-01)  

Cindy stated that the recommendation was sent forward to the Instructional Council for the first reading.  Each member of the Instructional Council will go back to the groups he/she represents for discussion.  At the next Instructional Council meeting there will be a second reading of the recommendation and voting will take place.

 

Academic Calendar

Cindy stated that the 06-07 Academic Calendar is not yet completed.

 

Retrenchment Committee

Senators were charged with going back to their faculty to request volunteers for committee membership.  Each Academic Division will be represented by two faculty members.

 

Winter Assembly

March 8th was set as the date for the Winter Faculty Assembly.  This date will replace the previously scheduled Senate Meeting.

 

 

6.  New Business

 

RcW06-03

Statement of Recommendation: That the College make available to all faculty the report recently issued by Dr. Terry Moran documenting the findings of his study.

 

Brief statement of rationale for Recommendation:  In conducting his study, Dr. Moran solicited faculty input on the functioning of the College’s Instructional Division. As members of the Instructional Division, faculty have an interest in knowing the results of this important study.

 

 

Executive Vice President Search Status

Applications have been received and the Search Committee will begin screening the applications February 15.  The position will hopefully be filled by the end of the academic year.

 

Vice President for Instruction Search

This position will be posted at the end of the month.  Tom Lasley, from the University of Dayton, will be conducting focus groups to collect faculty and staff’s thoughts about the desired qualifications for the VPI position.

 

Adjournment: Meeting adjourned at 3:58.

 

Submitted by Linda Pastore

Approved by Senate: February 22, 2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report of Personnel Committee to Faculty Senate

February 8, 2006

 

The Personnel Committee met on January 23, 2006 to review a faculty member’s Faculty Performance Review (FPR).  The faculty member had requested this review by checking the appropriate box on his FPR form when he was evaluated in November, 2005.  Unfortunately, by the time the Vice President for Instruction (VPI) became aware of this fact and notified Faculty Senate’s President, the December break had started, and the Personnel Committee could not be convened to conduct a review in a timely fashion.  (According to the Faculty Handbook’s Section 2.6.1, such review should have taken place before the FPR was submitted to the College’s President in mid-December.) 

 

The Faculty Handbook’s Section 2.6.1 stipulates that the committee’s responsibility in such cases is solely to determine whether procedural guidelines have been followed and whether the Timing and Action Calendar has been met.  In the present case, the committee found several respects in which the procedural guidelines had not been followed and the Timing and Action Calendar had not been met.  The committee has submitted its findings in writing to the VPI.

 

In the course of the committee’s review, committee members raised several concerns: 

  1. When Sinclair’s academic calendar was adjusted to have Fall quarter end earlier, the Timing and Action Calendar should also have been adjusted to move forward some of the dates relating to the FPR process.  This adjustment appears not to have been made.  As a result, FPRs were not due to the VPI’s office until after Fall quarter had ended, and so there was no practical way for the Personnel Committee to be convened to review FPRs before they were due to the President’s office.  The committee recommends that the Timing and Action Calendar for future years be adjusted by moving dates for the following actions earlier by at least one week:

·        Faculty/Administrative Performance Review interviews begin (to include all faculty, department chairpersons, and counselors—except for first-year faculty)

·        Faculty Performance Reviews and Interim Performance Reviews (except for first-year faculty) to division deans

·        Faculty Performance Reviews and Interim Performance Reviews (except for first-year faculty) to Vice President for Instruction

 

  1. It’s unclear what consequences follow from a finding by the Personnel Committee that procedural guidelines were not followed or that the Timing and Action Calendar was not met.  The Faculty Handbook does not specify what actions are to result from such a finding, other than to say that the committee’s comments are to be attached to the FPR and sent along with it as the FPR makes its way through higher levels of approval.  The committee recommends that Section 2.6.1 of the Faculty Handbook be amended to specify concrete consequences of a finding by the Personnel Committee that procedural guidelines have not been followed or that the Timing and Action Calendar has not been met.

 

  1. The FPR form contains boxes that the faculty member, the dean, and the VPI are asked to check in order to indicate their agreement or disagreement.  However, in cases where some of the evaluator’s comments are of a critical nature and the faculty member has responded by adding rebuttal comments, it’s not clear what is meant by “agreement” or “disagreement.”  In such a case, if the dean and the VPI check the “Agree” box, are they agreeing with the evaluator’s comments, or with the faculty member’s comments, or with both, or with something else entirely?  Furthermore, in cases where a dispute clearly exists between the evaluator and the faculty member, it should be incumbent on the dean and/or VPI to make some attempt to adjudicate this dispute and to add written comments reflecting the outcome of such an attempt at adjudication.  In the present case, the dean and VPI checked the “Agree” boxes, but did not add any comments.  The committee recommends eliminating the “Agree” and “Disagree” boxes from the FPR form, since their meaning is ambiguous.  The committee further recommends that the FPR guidelines be amended to specify that in cases of disagreement between the evaluator and the faculty member, the dean shall investigate and shall add written comments detailing the results of his/her investigation.