Gail
Hudson, representing the Faculty Evaluation Committee, made recommendations
regarding the faculty evaluation procedures.
1) (Under Section A, the end of part 1)
If a
faculty member elects to waive her/his right to participate in the
scheduled Faculty Observation and/or the Discipline Report
procedures due to her/his intention to retire during the
current school year
she/he may do so with the following provisions: The faculty member
signs a statement indicating the waiving of rights to the
Faculty
Evaluation procedures.
(A form for this waiver will be made a
available by the FEC.)
An Observation Report
and/or a
Discipline Report will not be written for the person to be
included in the faculty member's Performance Record
File. If
the faculty member who waived these rights continues
employment at NCSSM, then the faculty member will enter the
contract renewal process, including the evaluation
procedures, as
if she/he were in the first year of a one or a two year contract.
Vote: in favor of revision 30, opposed 0, abstain 0
2) (Under Section B, part 1)
1)The FEC shall be composed of, at minimum, three members of
the
faculty of NCSSM. If
the number of faculty members to be
observed during the tenure of the FEC's term exceeds six, then
the FEC shall be enlarged to maintain a 2:1 ratio of evaluatees to
evaluators. If the
number of faculty members to be recommended
during the
tenure of the FEC's term exceeds six, then the FEC
shall
be enlarged to maintain a 2:1 ratio of evaluatees
to evaluators.
Discussion:
Some faculty voiced concern that this would make this
committee too large and that this would be to the detriment of other
committees. Others suggested it might be
useful to put a cap on the size of the committee so that it would not exceed a
certain agreed upon number. Some voiced
the opinion that three was a more reasonable number of people to evaluate,
while others made the point that there is a great deal of work involved in
writing good letters and emphasized that this should be viewed as one of the
most important committees if we want good quality letters that acknowledge a
lot of material and information. In
addition, many meetings are involved for each evaluatee. If there is an odd number, the Chair of the
committee could take on one evaluatee.
Faculty voted with the addition that if the committee
had one extra person to be evaluated over the even number of 2 for each person,
the extra would be assigned to one person chosen on the committee instead of
adding another person to the committee.
Vote: yes 26, no 1, abstaining 3
3) (Section C) APPOINTMENT OF THE FACULTY EVALUATION
COMMITTEE
1)Faculty Council officers will appoint eligible faculty
members to
serve a one-year term on the
FEC. This appointment will be
done so that every attempt will be made to allow each
faculty
member to eventually serve on the FEC. Ideally, no faculty
member in any Department will serve again on the FEC until
FEC membership has rotated through the
entire Department and
each eligible member in the Department has served. (The
FEC
appointments will be based on the faculty's volunteer sign-up
of
committee preferences, if possible.)
Clarifications were made that this would alleviate the
problem of people being interrupted in a 2-year term on another committee if
they were elected. This system would
mean that faculty would rotate every 9-10 years on the committee, giving everyone
a chance to serve. Everyone can do the
job and should have an opportunity to serve.
Vote: yes 25, no 2, abstaining 2
Faculty discussed how to make this plan equitable across
departments since some departments don’t have as many people to go through. Putting PA, Distance
Learning/Library/Art/Music into a third group would make the rotation more
fair. Faculty agreed, however, that it
would be more appropriate to trust the officers appointing people to the
committee to keep track and not allow people in any particular discipline to
serve more than others.
Announcements:
Faculty and others recommended that Mini-Term next year
be moved from January to March. This was
approved by the Leadership Council.
Discussions following mini-term also showed that people were in favor of
a March mini-term lasting 8 not 10 days.
Vote: Faculty in favor of a mini-term in March next year
lasting 8 days – yes 29, no 1, abstaining 1
Faculty strongly requested that one of the days saved
would be scheduled as a recovery day for instructors after mini-term and before
beginning regular classes again.
Minutes from the April 4, 2000 meeting were
approved.
8:00 Rule
Victor Pace attended the meeting to provide information
from the focus groups that were asked to talk about the pros and cons of the
8:00 rule this year. The mini-term was
not favored by any of the 5 groups (faculty, staff, students, alums, sli’s??) The rule as
implemented was an expansion of a proposal made by APC last year that club
meetings not be held after 8:00. Some
respondents commented that the rule was misunderstood this year. A summary report of the focus groups findings
was sent as an e-mail to faculty.