Faculty Council Meeting of Tuesday, 5 February 2002
President: Joe Liles; Vice-president: John Woodmansee; Secretary: Floyd Bullard
Minutes
Announcements
Peggy Craft announced that women's volleyball needed another woman faculty member.
Julie Graves announced that a week from today all NCSSM students would be taking the AMC 12 math contest. She requested volunteers to proctor the test and she circulated a sign-up sheet. All were reassured that they would be completely done by 11:30.
Joe announced that one of the "Big Picture" recommendations was to have a block of time on ALT days when students could be required to attend class-related activities. Joan Barber is going to try to make a block of time in which no activities are scheduled, but Steve Warshaw says that mandatory activities violates the principles of ALT day. Joe then asked whether we were interested in having such an unscheduled block of time. A brief discussion ensued. More than one teacher expressed interest in meeting informally with students during such a time block, though they did not plan to have a formal activity. Joe also asked whether we should have a sign-up sheet for activities. Faculty generally seemed in favor of a sign-up sheet, though there was not much discussion. Final general agreement: A block of everyone-free time and a sign-up sheet for academic student activities is "worth a try". It was also remarked that planning such activities would be greatly facilitated by knowing well in advance when such a block of time would be.
Agenda Item 1: Faculty contracts
John Woodmansee said that Carol O'Dell would share some information about our contracts.
Via overhead transparencies (included as an appendix to these minutes) Carol shared the definitions of "term contract" and "tenure contract". Similarities and differences between these were shared as well. In particular, non-renewal under our current term contracts may be made for (this is in writing in faculty hiring) "anything other than the following: ... [fill in blank here]."
A third option we have is "performance-based contracts". The document produced by the faculty in 1994 (included as an appendix to these minutes), proposed a joint committee of faculty and administration (but which was rejected by the Board of Trustees at that time) was shared via overhead transparency and hardcopy handouts. (The document is 15 pages long, and no electronic copies exist as of this writing. The appendix to these minutes, if it is really there, is the result of scanning the document electronically.)
John called attention to page 9 of the document (section 4A), "Procedures concerning non-reappointment".
John would like us (soon, but not today) to vote by ballot on which of the three types of contracts we would prefer. The Governance Task Force would like to make a recommendation to Jerry about UNC constituency that includes a recommendation about type of contracts.
Is there a drawback to performance contracts compared with our current contracts? Response: Someone performing at a minimally acceptable level (is alive, breathes, comes to class) would be harder to get rid of than under our current system. There would have to be documentation in the performance record over a period of time, including negative statements (that we currently don't write).
At the end of a two-year probationary contract (when you would not be under a performance contract) would we be reluctant to move people to a performance contract? Response: The exact terms don't have to be two years of probation. It could be more or less.
Currently, we have no illusions (and never have) that our faculty evaluations carry any weight in the renewed contract decision. That's just smoke. A performance-based contract system would have to be a different thing entirely.
Question: Are we considering tenure and performance, or tenure, performance, and a hybrid? John Woodmansee: We're considering tenure or performance. But to me, they seem to be different principally in semantics. And some people react very negatively to the word "tenure". Even though you would only have a single contract under a tenure system, your job protection appears to me to be the same.
I think although people outside the institution would think about "tenure" negatively, I don't think any of us would. I don't think any faculty would say, "Okay, I'm up for tenure review in 5 years, so I'll go to sleep until then." Response: I think it's the Board of Trustees who would be against the word "tenure".
It seems to me to be the difference between an active system of contracts and a passive system of contracts. A performance-based contract is active and moving, while a tenure system is passive. I've been at my share of parties with people in tenure systems where people who have tenure are passive in their job. I would really like a performance-based contract system.
Woodmansee: even if our [tenure] system were wonderful, there would be external opposition to it and resentfulness due to the perception that tenured people [don't work hard].
I was speaking with a Board of Trustees member recently and I commented that if we're considering being in the University system, then we need to seriously consider the University structure: tenure. We seem to want to be part of the UNC system without really being part. Also, let's think for a moment not about the institution, but about the workers: us. Earlier it was commented that our current faculty evaluation procedure has no part in the contract-renewal system. That's wrong. Evaluation needs to be meaningful.
John Woodmansee: Would you be satisfied with a ballot that said, "Choose one".
O'Dell: I'd like to throw out an option: I'd like to say to the faculty, "Given that we [the Governance task force] is going to make a recommendation to the Executive Director that includes our contract system, do we want to (1) comply with the University system [and have tenure] or (2) request an exemption from that? That would simplify things.
Woodmansee: I'd like to have the other two options. If we don't want tenure, the question immediately comes up: what do we want?
Q: Would this be our only exemption if we requested it? Woodmansee: No, we are requesting several exemptions, including our salary scale, our admissions mandate and criteria, etc.
I think Carol's suggestion is a good one in this respect: If we vote between three things, and we get, say: current system 40%, tenure 30%, performance-based contracts 30%. The 60% opposed to our current system outnumbers the 40% in favor of it, even though the vote with the highest count is the current system. It would be better to say: Tenure: Yes/No. And then, as a follow-up: If no, then what?
Can we say, "waive tenure, but only if we get a performance-based contract system"?
Carol: Since we seem to think two of these are equivalent...
Response: No, we don't. In this discussion, there have been at least two people who think they are equivalent and at least two who think they are different.
In order to vote at all, I feel a need to know the details of the three (or at least the two new) proposals. Tenure and performance-based systems encompass much variation.
The document written in 1994 could become our detailed proposal for a performance-based contract system.
Will our recommendation be that of the Governance Task Force? Woodmansee: No. A ballot will help the faculty on the governance task force represent you [the faculty].
Our ballot should say: Q1: Do you want something different from our current system? Q2: If so, then what?
Agenda Item 2: Proposed Change to our Judicial System
Joe introduced this proposed change as a "streamlining of the judicial system". Joan Barber and Tom Trocano shared via an overhead transparency (included at the end of these minutes) the proposed new judicial process.
Tom said that the added step would shorten the process. (There was friendly laughter.) Tom explained that the extra step of an initial administrative hearing with a decision and possible punishment meted could terminate the entire process (hence shortening it and maintaining confidentiality). Only if the student appealed would her or she then have to go to a hearing board.
Q: Could a student appeal on all three possible appeal grounds or must he decide? Response: He could appeal on all three grounds, but the hearing board would consider the appeals separately.
Q: Could the first appeal include new evidence? Response: Yes.
Q: What if new prosecutorial evidence is found after the first step? Response: We haven't addressed that in writing, but it is worth considering, to be sure we could introduce that evidence.
I have a problem with the initial step involving only Tom or Warren. Students will appeal based on "who they got". The decisions may be, or be perceived to be, too harsh or too lenient from any single person. When a group considers a case, that is less likely to happen.
I would like to see the sanctions remain, as they often are now, part of a learning experience for students.
I have sat in a number of Level 2 hearings held by Warren, and I am pleased by the intimacy of the hearings and Warren's ability to turn a very negative situation into a positive situation, via caring interactions with students and sanctions that are a learning experience for the students.
I'm worried about step 1 being based only on paper reports rather than on face-to-face conversations. If you don't write a persuasive enough essay, your charge may not be heard.
Tom: That isn't intended. The intent is that the administrator will have prepared for the hearing by gathering information, including possibly personal conversations. Since that isn't clear here, we need to correct that. The faculty may not be present during the hearing itself, but part of the gathering of information by the administrator can include--indeed, likely will include--faculty conversations.
I'd feel better if the box [in the document] included a bulleted item that allowed the administrator, at his or her discretion, to call witnesses during the hearing.
Is there a way for the adults to appeal a non-guilty verdict? "You're just wrong, wrong, wrong."
The meeting adjourned at 5:12PM.