Faculty Senate Minutes
11/28/00

 

Present: P. Hajela, B. Parson, K. Anderson, C. Breneman, B. Peterson, L. Kammerer, L. Caporael

S. Anderson-Gold, G. Belfort, S. Derby, M. Embrechts, J. Erickson, J. Mitchell, A. Dyson, R. Leifer,


 

Absent: M. Hanna, R. Gutmann, K. Craig, P. Boyce, G. Korenowski, K. Fortun, P. Quinn,


 

Guests:S. Sanderson, G. Gabriele, P. Azriel


 

P. Hajela:I'd like to call the meeting to order.Before we begin could we approve the minutes if October 10th, 28th and Nov 7?Minutes approved unanimously


 

S. Derby:The copy that is being passed around doesn't include all the addendums, as they are too large.If anyone would like them please contact Sue Miller and she will e-mail them.


 

First item on the agenda is the study of the senate review of administrators.B. Parson has formed a small committee to look into this issue.


 

R. Parson:A committee of B. Parson, S. Anderson-Gold, and C. Breneman was formed to review this process (see attached)


 

I understand that we are reviewing the deans every five years and some chairs every four years.In the past the Faculty Senate basically carried out the surveys.I would like to propose, that the faculty senate overview the process.There would be specific committees consisting of general faculty reporting to the senate on the evaluations.The committees could be made up from the faculty senate or from the general faculty.
 


 

R. Parson:We would recommend that the initiative would come from the senate. So that it would have some history that would continue.


 

P. Hajela:Do you propose that this be an elected committee, from the schools (like the other standing committees).


 

R. Parsons:I think we have in mind that each year we would appoint a committee whether it's from the senate or chosen from the faculty at large.This would be an ad hoc committee, rather then a formal elected committee.


 
 

G. Belfort:I agree that four years could make a difference to a dept.If someone is doing well it makes no difference if you do it frequently, if someone is doing poorly it is excellent to do it more frequently.

I believe all new hires understand this evaluation will be taking place.I believe this should be open and everybody has to know especially if you hire new chairmen, they should know before what the ground rules are.I think four years is too long for a chairman I would recommend three years or even less.

R. Parson:This is the all I could dig up on what the council used to do.


 

K. Anderson:Do you think four years is too long even through it's written that it can be brought around soon with a majority of the dept?


 

S. Derby:I would like to see it done every year, so it's not a case of getting a majority to confront your chairman.Faculty has a review every year.If it's a one-page form, and you read and think about it will probably take you five minutes to complete.If I were chairman I would like to get the feedback every year, even if it was good.


 

R. Parson.I suspect in the past it was not as often because it was a lot of work to complete. But now with online systems I think it would be more feasibility to do it more often.


 

G. Belfort:The point that K. Anderson made is a good point, but to get a conflict situation up is not often easy to do, even if it's necessary to do. I think every year may be too much, and set a lot of pressure.I think it should be done more frequently than four but less frequently the every year.


 

R. Parson:I would hope that most of the information would be along the lines of constructive criticism, rather then complaining all the time. It should give people a sense of how they're being perceived, so if there is a misunderstanding there may be a chance to correct it.


 

B. Peterson:I would like to clarify on the evaluation of the deans.The memo you have referred to from B. Pipes I have interpreted and the president has interpreted as being the policy for evaluation of deans.It was sent as a formal memo to the president's cabinet from the president in March 1995.Process involves the establishment of a committee.The policy states you would form an ad hoc committee to conduct a review and that committee is charged with the responsibility of gathering information from all sources they deem appropriate.Then prepare a report that is submitted to the provost and president.(this is the way the policy reads).It is appointed by the president upon consultation with the provost and then the effort should include a study of the statement of goals and objectives of the school, interviews with deans, assistant/associate deans, dept chairs, with representative of the faculty/ student/ staff or anyone they may deem important.On your slides you stated we have no formal process for faculty evaluation.This is incorrect as this committee is the formal process for evaluating the deans.

In terms of the timing, you state you rotate through, I think you should figure out an appropriate time after they start in the position, just rotating through chairs and deans doesn't make much sense, because there is turn over.You may want to say that in two years from the time they take over (or four etc.) I think the question you must decide is what are you trying to accomplish with this review process.Are you trying to provide information to the president & provost or are you trying to provide information to the dean and department chair or are you trying to form a mechanism for faculty input?


 

R. Parson:I think what we are trying to do is to provide a mechanism for the faculty to communicate with their chairs.


 

B. Peterson:I don't want to leave you with the impression that the deans get evaluated every five years and that's it.This formal process I have described outlined in the Pipes memo, is the formal process, which kicks in every five years.The provost and president evaluate each of the deans annually, and their deans evaluate each of the dept chairs annually.It's a question of what is the formal process by which that happens.This formal process for dean's only kicks-in every five years.


 

R. Leifer:Think about industry where there is a 360° evaluation process, where ever year you're getting feedback on a performance of a leader on whatever level from the superior, from the subordinate and from the peers.That's done on annual bases.The comment that was made about things is changing to have four years go by without getting a formal 360° evaluation.It is a burden but if we are going to be competitive in the market place we can't allow four years to go by.


 

R. Parsons:I think one issue we must consider first is do we want to get into this business.Do we think it is important to get into the business of evaluation process?


 

L. Caporael: What we really need is a more formal process, have a really outstanding web based survey mechanism, which can be used on an annual basis to get feedback that would help in your evaluation of deans.


 

S. Anderson-Gold:I think it is important for the faculty senate to be involved in some manner, but it's just not all that clear yet in what manner.The kind of process that R. Parson just described some people may feel it could become very selective, even though some people have the charge to go out there and get that information, again it could at times be perceived as something that is occurring in a fairly narrow way.I think the faculty senate faculty has the responsibility of taken the initiative to gather up the information very broadly (they would be attempting to get every faculty member to give input) then if it doesn't achieve its purposes certainly the faculty should be critical of the senate.My interest in this is from interacting with some faculty.They would like to see more faculty involvement in the process of evaluating.If we go with yes we are going to do some evaluation but they are going to be completed by 5-6 people who are appointed by the president (herself) and given a charge to do their best.That's not going to generate the kind of broad base sense of legitimacy to the process.I think the faculty needs to be involved actively for reasons that pertain to the faculty position.


 

P. Hajela:I think what motivated this whole process was that the faculty was some how trying to get faculty feedback into the chairs so that could provide corrective actions at an early stage if something is not functioning. This way they could hear directly from the faculty.That was the ideas that launched this whole search into a mechanism.I think it's for us to decide on how far we want to go with this process.


 

G. Belfort:I personally think itís a win- win situation for everyone, for the university, administration and the faculty.I think it is important for the faculty senate to do this process; I for one support this process.I've had many faculty tell me they want to participate but how do we do this?


 

R. Parsons:I believe, you as the faculty senate are saying you would like a yearly process for evaluating or giving input for evaluating their deans or chairs.


 

P. Hajela:My suggestion is that this information can be used by any committee that the provost or president appoints in it's own evaluation.


 

G. Belfort: I do believe that we have to be very careful about how this is done.As there will be information that cannot just be spread around to everyone.


 

B. PetersonYou may wish to separate your discussion between deans and chairs, as they are two very different things.One way to get started on this might be to establish a committee and meet with the five deans or a couple of the deans.What you really like to do is to have this be a meaningful and useful exercise.Having some input from the deans on what might be valuable to them in terms of their evaluation of the chairs, practically if you want to make this an annual process.I don't believe they anticipate doing a formal review on an annual basis.I would suggest you have a committee of the faculty senate meet with the deans to try to figure what would be useful from their perspective.I do think this is something you need to move forward with great care and great thought and you be well serve to move (I'm not trying to discourage you) but to think very carefully about what you are going to do, what the instrument you are going to use, what information you are trying gathering and what's the objective you are trying to accomplish.


 

C. Breneman: From my perspective there are two processes we are talking about here:

the formal process for evaluating (like a promotion but a promotion to stay in place)

This kind of process creates a high overhead, which you do not want to impose on faulty yearly.However, I like the idea of having regular faculty input into some formalized way.So that people are made aware both the person being evaluated and the person above them.One thing I know we do want to avoid is having faculty evaluate the chairs, and the chairs evaluating the deans..


 

R. Parson:Do we want to propose setting up an ad hoc committee to develop a process to bring back to the senate?


 

P. Hajela:What we need to do is to define this process (R. Parson you have done a good job of getting initial information together.) and then bring it before the senate for review.We need to pay close attention to whether we want this to be a committee that is elected by the faculty on a yearly basis or two years or something the senate decides.Personally I not in favor of the senate appointing a sub set of its membership here.I would like to see the committee be drawn at large from the faculty.

We will leave this at this point and R. Parson if you would look into and develop a designate process that we can consider in a Spring senate meeting.


 

Second item of the agenda:C. Breneman presentation of Performance Plan: (see attached)


 

P Hajela: Thank You.I think you have a good set of points you have identified.Could you write this up into a report, which we could circulate, to the senate membership?We will officially accept this and also make suggestion son how we need to continue so that we can future input from the faculty into this process.


 

Third item of the agenda:Discussion with CIO John Kolb (see attached)

·General idea of Performance Planning within CIS

·Issues with services of some certain CIS Units


 

P. Hajela:The concern has been with the academic support services in regard to media support.The system tends to be not cast in a role where it is supportive of the academic mission of the institute; rather it is set up like a business.The relationship of the customer services that is available at the point of reference is not one that should exist on a university campus.


 

S. Derby:I think the current way charging for use of the equipment if it is not a formal class but it still is RPI related people want a charge number.(I'm not talking about taking it home and use it for personal use) things that are on campus that are legitimate you can't use it without paying for it.Between that and that the majority of our overhead projector are of poor quality. I think most of our equipment should be recycled.


 

J. Kolb:S. Derby to response to your comment, there are issues about how much resources we are putting into recycle management (overhead projectors, the new projectors) one of the things I think we have achieved in the last few years is getting money to renovate some classroom. What we still are not doing well is figuring out how to average this over time so that in four years we revisit things like rooms and upgrade their technology or replace the overhead projector. Why you see charges for other things besides classrooms is the wear and tear on the equipment, and the need to replace equipment we need to generate resources.


 

S. Derby:A student has PhD. Defense and has to lie and say itís a class.This makes no sense.


 

J. Kolb:I agree it makes no sense.We need to figure out a way to do this without lying.I can tell you there are a number of people who do go there to get equipment for personal use.We are trying to figure out a way to designate between truly academic functions and those that are not.


 

L. Caporael:My comment is on how much they charge for a piece of equipment if we do not give them a certain amount of time before the function.They charge a $15.00 fee charge


 

J. Kolb:that is something I was not aware of until just recently and the director in charge of this is out of town.But as soon as their return I will be having a meeting on this matter.


 

S. Derby:On email service I know we have many delays on getting email out of the campus and receiving.During the day I may send something to someone on roadrunner and he'll send it back and I won't get it back until 7:00 pm at night.


 

J. Kolb:That's not a server problem that is the line; it's the network connection.My own understanding of these things its the delays are in the servers along the way.I don't know if its delays on are server here but I don't think it more then a few minutes.


 

L. Caporeal:If I have problems with my lap top and every time I try to get through to the VCC help desk I can't and I end up having to wait in line at lunch time trying to get something done so I can't be doing something else.I think it would be helpful if they had faculty help a desk/line.


 

P. Azreil:Any of the faculty whom has a laptop through the faculty mobile computing program has T. Mahoney phone number and she will come to your office and help you. If you call the help desk and they cannot help you they are to transfer to someone whom can.If this doesn't happen please call.

Meeting adjourned 4:00 p.m.