University Senate

Memorandum

Date:                    November 27, 2006

To:                       The Academic Community

From:                   Jennifer Ballengee, Secretary

Subject:              November 20, 2006—Meeting of the University Senate

An additional meeting of the University Senate was held on Monday, November 20, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. in Rooms 314-315 of the University Union.

• CALL TO ORDER: 

Prof. Sullivan called the meeting to order at 4 p.m.

• ROLL CALL

Absent were Senators Brennan, Leshnoff, Roberge, Rosecky, Tabak, Wengert, Diéguez, and Moore, and President Caret, Vice Pres. Moriarty, Vice Pres. Sheehan, Vice Pres. Rubin, and Vice Pres. Clements.

The Senate immediately returned to its discussion of the Provost’s comments on the proposed revisions to Chapter 3 of the Faculty Handbook.

The Senate began with item:

Section XVIII-C (3)(a) [p.19]

• Change the paragraph to read, “The following classifications shall be used to describe the faculty member’s accomplishments:  Standard, Above Standard, and Faculty Excellence.”

Senator Castillo asked if there is any grade for “sub-standard.”  The Provost answered that if a faculty member were sub-standard, they would receive none of these. 

Prof. Vatz indicated the reason the Senate voted to oppose four levels of merit is because of sociological destructiveness, the prohibitive aspect of such delineations for large departments, and the problem that some of the criteria for the levels is imminently destructive.

Provost Brennan suggested that the levels he indicated in his comments are related to levels of merit funding.  Particularly in recognizing the third level of evaluation, the purpose is to underscore those excellent faculty members and recognize their excellence.  He noted that he values student evaluations of faculty; students tend to be generous in their evaluation of faculty.  At the present time, he added, we don’t have a way to evaluate truly outstanding faculty, during particular years of productivity.

Prof. Siegel noted that merit money is variable; we never know if we’ll get it or not.  Yet decisions for merit have to be made before we know if there will be money.  If your great year of productivity was when no money was available, she remarked, you would just be at a loss.  The whole distribution of merit really needs to be reconsidered, she urged. 

Provost Brennan expressed puzzlement: on the one hand, he felt that she was suggesting that in some years, we shouldn’t evaluate each other because we don’t know if there will be any money attached to it.  But he countered that faculty should always evaluate each other.  In addition, he suggested that he thought the university faculty had indicated there was a need to work into the handbook a structured and systematic way of evaluating awards.

Prof. Vatz argued that the multiple benchmarks add the possibility of invalidity to such merit deliberations.  Prof. Webster noted that Prof. Siegel was addressing the practicality of such evaluations, and addressing the fact that merit is a “crap-shoot” in that it’s unclear how much money will be available to divide up among faculty members.  It’s unclear that merit is the best, most effective way for faculty to evaluate each other. 

Prof. Pitcher noted that the College of Education still doesn’t have a workload document. 

Prof. Zimmerman suggested a compromise.  Prof. Sullivan noted that we are mandated to have a merit system by USM, whether or not there’s money.

Prof. Siegel noted problems with the wording, too.  “Meeting fully the expectations in the annual review” is ambiguous.  Prof. Siegel asked that we reserve voting on the question of merit until we receive a report from the Compensation Committee. The problem is the number of levels, and the standards are fuzzy.  Prof. Sullivan noted that his department wants more levels of distinction.

Prof. Debye noted discomfort with the requirements for the standards of Faculty Excellence; some departments have very high standards, some don’t.  Student evaluations scores can’t be delineated to such an extent, because certain courses and small courses can affect evaluation numbers in a way that is non-representative.

Prof. Zimmerman noted that the PTRM committee doesn’t want our comments. They feel the Provost’s comments should have been sent directly to them. The PTRM committee feels there should be 4 levels of merit, and the Senate voted them down.

Prof. Vatz moved that the Senate should move to retain the three levels of merit.

The motion passed 12-2-2

Prof. Zimmerman made a motion to consider recognizing faculty excellence over a larger than one year time frame.

Prof. Siegel moved that we give that responsibility to the Compensation committee.

The Senate passed that motion, 13-0-3

Section XVIII-C (4)(b)     [p.20]

• Delete as it is not the responsibility of the Provost to be responsible for faculty requirements.

There was some discussion, but there were no substantial issues with this point.

Section XVIII-C (5)(a)(6)  [p.22]

• Change sentence to read, “The Department Chairperson shall prepare an independent evaluation of the faculty member and include it in the faculty member’s evaluation portfolio by the 1st Friday in October.”

Section XVIII-C (7)(b)     [p.25]

• The language is unclear; need clarification.

The Senate agreed the language needed editing.

Section XVIII-C (8)(a)     [p.26]

• Change Board of Trustees to Board of Regents.

Section XVIII-C (8)(d)     [p.26]

• Add second sentence, “Copies must be maintained in the dean’s office as needed for future reference.”

Section XIX-A (1)          [p.27]

• In the first sentence, second line, change “six academic colleges” to “six degree-granting colleges”.

Prof. Siegel suggested deleting the number “six.”

Section XX-C (3)          [p.33]

• Delete both paragraphs.

Seeing no further discussion, Prof. Sullivan closed this issue.  Prof. Siegel recommended that we get the whole thing retyped and put everything in that we’ve agreed on.  Prof. Siegel then recommended that we not take the finished document back to the PTRM committee, but rather submit our finished version to the President and Provost.  Prof. Sullivan agreed, noting that the PTRM Committee is a subcommittee of the Senate. 

Prof. Sullivan suggested that in the next two weeks, any Senate member could submit a motion on any particular part of the document. The Senate can vote to approve the document at the December meeting, if they choose to do so..

The Provost clarified that the Provost’s office would incorporate these decisions into a clean copy of chapter 3, allow the PTRM committee to make further comments, and then end discussion of the document.