1) Call to Order

     The meeting was called to order by Dennis Rome, Chair, at 3:35 P.M.  Also attending were members Chris Evans, Stu Hansen, Peggy James, and Frances Kavenik.  Greg Mayer was excused.  Evelyn Zepp was present as Secretary of the Faculty.  Dean Cress was a guest. 

2) Minutes:

    The Minutes of the Meeting of December 4, 2007 were not available.  The Minutes of the Meeting of January 29, 2008 were approved 5-0-0.

  

3) Announcements

     There were no announcements. 

4) Unfinished Business:

a) Administrator evaluations

Prof. James gave a preliminary report on the results.  She will continue working on these and the administrators will be invited one by one to meet with the U.C. on the results.  After this, the results will be taken to the Senate. 

Members voted 5-0-0 to suspend the agenda in order to accommodate Dean Cress. 

5) New Business:

a) Dean Cress—merit and the evaluation of adjuncts

Two e-mails from Dean Cress were included in the discussion.

Dean Cress noted that there are some departments who do not wish to evaluate Associate Lecturers.  However, there are a few people who are not good teachers, and who can do a great deal of damage in the classroom.

                   It was noted that some departments hire an adjunct on an emergency basis, and that an evaluation in that case would not be useful, since the person would be gone.

However, in cases where someone is hired year in and year out and there have been complaints, it would be appropriate to have an evaluation process.  A document from the Dean’s office would state that if someone has worked X number of semesters, the department would submit an evaluation document on that person before the person could be renewed.

                   A more general discussion on departmental evaluation processes ensued.  Dean Cress was concerned with evaluative criteria that rested more on quantity that quality.  He was particularly concerned that Executive Committees should have read a person’s research when that person is receiving a Progress Toward Tenure document or is coming up for 4) Unfinished Business:

b) Request Personnel documents from Departments and do overview of procedures, in conjunction with PRC.  The Committee gave approval to the Secretary of the Faculty to request departmental personnel documents so that it, and PRC could carry out a general review of departmental procedures, something that PRC and the U.C. had discussed doing in past years.

Dean Cress left the meeting at 4:20 P.M. and the agenda was resumed. 

4) Unfinished Business:

b) Chapter Seven review committee

The Chair suggested postponing the work of this committee so that the U.C. could direct its energies toward preparing a report for the incoming Chancellor.  (See new business.)

c) System Documents on Sick Leave

Prof. Rome gave an update at the Feb. 5th Senate meeting.  There will be two new forms: a new “yellow form” And the “40-hour” workweek form that our own HR will keep on file.  Neither of these is out yet.

d) First Friday

The next First Friday, March 7th, will be sponsored by the Departments of Political Science and Law and Criminal Justice.

e) Chancellor Search and Screen Committee

Prof. Evans has been appointed Chair of the Committee.  She reported that the meeting to charge the committee is Friday at 10:00.  The Committee will be assisted by a “head-hunter” organization.  The timeline for the process is tight. 

5) New Business:

c) Interim Associate Provost DeVinny request: Five or six names for the Search Committee for the Faculty Director for the First Year Experience.

Members suggested were Seif Da’Na, Michael Seredycz, Michael Gurtman, Verb Kolb, and Adrienne Viramontes.

              d) Shared Governance Principles and Guidelines document

              This is a document about the relationship between System Administration and the Faculty Representatives.  Discussion was postponed until the next meeting.

              e) Document for incoming Chancellor

              The Chancellor has appointed a committee to produce a strategic planning document to give to the incoming Chancellor.  It would be appropriate for the U.C. to produce a document, which would be overlapping vs. a separate document, to give the faculty perspective.  This would be delivered to the incoming Chancellor after the contract is signed.  Prof. Rome will be talking to the Chancellor next Tuesday.

              f) Senate: Madison agreement—incoming Freshmen

              The committee members agreed that they need to see an official document.

              g) Senate: Charge to CAP (PARs?)

              The committee members agreed that discussion at the Senate would be appropriate and that they need take no action.

              h) Disability Accommodation

              It is clear that “one size does not fit all.”  Persons with questions should talk to Renee Kirby.

              i) Merit determination for “extra-departmental” appointments (Sec. Fac, Director of Gen. Ed., etc.)

                   It is clear that action (evaluation/merit) on these kinds of positions must come from at least the Dean level, if not the Vice-Chancellor’s.  University-wide service is often not only ignored, but considered a negative (impact on Department’s offerings, etc.). 

  

6) Miscellaneous Business

There will need to be a year replacement (sabbatical) for Prof. Hansen.

7) Adjournment

     The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 P.M. 

Submitted by Evelyn Zepp, Secretary of the Faculty