Minutes of the Meeting of the Faculty
March 11, 2010
PSF 22/09-10

 

 

 

 

The UW-Parkside Faculty met on Thursday, March 11, 2010 in Molinaro Hall room D132.

  

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 3:35 p.m. by Chancellor Ford.  Faculty members attending were Dirk Baldwin, Rob Barber, Theresa Castor, Alice Chang, Laura Gellott, Kate Gillogly, Dave Higgs, Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz, Peggy James, Shi Hae Kim, James Kinchen, Lisa Kornetsky, Traci Lee, Penny Lyter, Matt Makarios, Michael Manion, William Miller, Roby Rajan, Dave Rogers, Carmel Ruffolo, Mary Kay Schleiter, Suzanne Swiderski, Susan Takata, Scott Thomson, Adrienne Viramontes, John Ward, Gary Wood and Dean Yohnk.  Others attending the meeting included Bill Blanchard, Damian Evans, Catherine Jameson, Kim Kelley, Lenny Klaver, Laura Mason, Shannon McGuire, Steve McLaughlin, John Mielke, DeAnn Possehl, Jim Robinson, Denis Rome and Bill Streeter.

Approval of Minutes

The minutes of the meeting of October 22, 2009 were approved on a voice vote.     

 

Announcements

Chancellor Ford thanked the Faculty for the recent Faculty Senate endorsement of the strategic plan’s six strategic directions and said she looks forward to implementing the plan.  She intends to award mini-grants beginning in fall 2011 for projects that will help achieve the goals of the plan.  A communication team will be providing the campus community with updates on strategic plan implementation.

The new Provost, Terry Brown will begin on March 22.

The Chancellor introduced Director of Marketing Communications John Mielke and

Interim Director of Enrollment Management DeAnn Possehl who gave a presentation on the work and four goals of the Integrated Marketing Team (IMT).  The IMT was appointed by Interim Chancellor Lane Earns and charged with gathering data to assist the enrollment management and strategic planning processes.  The four goals are, build brand identity, manage student enrollment, communicate graduation goals and increase donations to the university. 

Professor Ward asked why we do not do a better job promoting our athletic teams to the local community.  D. Possehl said that enrollment management will address this issue.

Professor Kinchen asked how the IMT goals address the diversity of our student population.  D. Possehl said that our diversity is one of the things that makes us distinctive.  We need to promote what students gain from being in a diverse setting, and not just report diversity numbers.  The Chancellor added that the administration is studying how to acquire “Minority Serving Institution” status for UW-Parkside.

New Business

A motion was on the floor to move to a committee of the whole to discuss matters of general interest according to UWPF 1.04(3). 

The motion passed on a voice vote.  University Committee Chair Peggy James led the discussion.

1.  Coordination of the various campus planning groups and efforts such as strategic planning, enrollment management, the integrated marketing team, and the Committee on Academic Planning.

Professor James introduced this topic, noting that there had been some concern about clarifying the roles of the various planning groups on campus and how their work would affect potential reorganization of the College of Arts and Sciences and the search for a new Dean of the College.  Professor Gellott added that the work of these groups is also intertwined with our reaccreditation efforts.

Chancellor Ford said that she sees the strategic plan as the umbrella under which all of the various planning groups operate.  She has asked these groups, including the IMT, the transfer task force and the Committee on Academic Planning (CAP) to align their planning efforts with the strategic plan.

Professor Barber, CAP Chair, said that the committee had developed an academic plan prior to the creation of the strategic plan, and was now working to align the two.  He said the academic plan will need to be revised as the strategic plan changes over time, and that we should be collecting baseline data on things such as recruiting in order to measure future progress.

Professor Ruffolo said that the IMT has collected a great deal of data that could be used as baselines for future assessment.

Professor Yohnk said that position authorization requests also need to be aligned with the academic plan.

Professor Higgs asked about the process for appointing an Interim Dean.  The Chancellor said that she would be meeting with the University Committee later in the day to discuss this, and that an appointment would be made soon after the arrival of the new Provost.

  

2.  Evidentiary requirements for tenure and promotion.

Professor James introduced this topic, saying that there had been a request from several faculty members to discuss the evidentiary requirements for promotion to the rank of Professor, and whether they should be as involved and elaborate as those for tenure.  The Personnel Review Committee (PRC) posts checklists of materials that must be submitted by candidates for tenure and candidates for promotion to the rank of Professor.  Although there are two separate checklists, they ask for the same materials from both groups.

Professor Gellott suggested that there need not be one set of criteria for all candidates for Professor and that each faculty member might be able to submit his or her own case as he or she sees fit, highlighting a particular area of significant accomplishment.  A nomination process has also been suggested.

Professor Rajan said that the criteria for promotion to Professor are part of the UW-Parkside faculty policies and procedures and are not set by the PRC.  The PRC can, however, modify the checklist of items it asks candidates to submit.

Professor Leeds-Hurwitz said that the list is useful because it ensures consistency among materials submitted by different candidates.

Professor James asked if the materials required from full Professor candidates should be the same as those required from tenure candidates; i.e., do the two have to use identical checklists.

Professor Kornetsky said that the evidence required from full Professor candidates should be very different from tenure candidates and that we should look into what our peer institutions require.

Professor Gellott said she understands the value of using a checklist, but some of the items asked for on the checklist are objectionable and second guess the judgment of the executive committee.

Professor Kinchen said that the PRC has issued a call for input on how the process and the checklist might be modified, and will meet later in the semester to consider modifications.

Professor Rajan asked for specific examples of what people find objectionable in the full Professor checklist.

Professor Lyter said that some of the items seem trivial.

Professor Gellott that she is concerned about more than the checklist, that there should be a broader discussion of the promotion from Associate Professor to Professor and how faculty should be evaluated for that promotion.  She also said that there should be clear procedures for how to evaluate newly hired faculty who have tenure at another institution, and for newly hired administrators who wish to also have a tenured faculty

appointment.

Professor Kinchen said the PRC is aware of the issue of how to deal with newly hired administrators and knows it needs to be addressed.

Professor Yohnk said that other models for evaluating candidates for promotion to Professor and other ways of collecting evidence should be examined.  UW Eau Claire, for example, allows candidates to submit all of their materials electronically.

Professor Rajan said the checklist is objective and fair. 

Professor Gellott said she does not like checklist method for full Professor candidates.  There should be a more flexible mechanism that allows candidates to make a tailored presentation of their contributions to the institution over the years.

Professor Ruffolo suggested that we examine what is done at other campuses.

Professor Schleiter said that the evaluation does not have to be based on a quantitative scoring system.  PRC members can use their professional judgment. 

Professor Lyter said that the PRC members do use their professional judgment to evaluate candidates.

Professor Kornetsky asked if full Professor candidates should be required to submit their last five years worth of teaching evaluations and all written comments.

Professor Gellott said it was unnecessary for the department chair to confirm the terminal degree of candidates because we do this when we hire.

The discussion ended and the faculty rose from the committee of the whole.

The PRC will meet at a later date to consider the day’s discussion.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.

Submitted by,

Gary M. Wood

Secretary of the Faculty