AttachmentC
ProfessionalStandardsCommittee
End‐of‐Academic‐YearReport
9May2011
Prologue―InconformitywithFacultyBylaws(ArticleV,§5,C:“Nolaterthanthefirstweek
ofeachMay,thechairofeachstandingcommittee,inconsultationwiththecommittee
membership,shalldevelopanddelivertotheFacultySenateawrittenreportsummarizing
committeeactions,concerns,andsuggestionsforthecommittee'smembershiptoconsider
duringthenextacademicyear.”),thechairoftheProfessionalStandardsCommitteehas
developedinconsultationwithhiscommitteeandwilldeliverinpersonthefollowing
report.
Composition—TheProfessionalStandardsCommittee(hereinafter,PSC)forAcademic
Year2010‐11includedDeanKristineBartanen,WilliamH.Beardsley,GeoffreyBlock,Alva
W.Butcher,JulieNelsonChristoph,WilliamHaltom,AndrewF.Rex,MichaelZ.Spivey,and
LisaFortlouisWood.ProfessorWoodwasonleaveduringSpringSemester.Haltomwas
electedchairfortheacademicyear.Unlikeacademicyear2009‐2010,thePSCdividedinto
twofour‐personsubcommitteesfordetailedworkbeforedecisionswereratifiedbythe
entirecommittee.
ChargesandDispositions―TheFacultySenateinits27September2010meeting
approvedfivechargestothePSC.
SenateCharge
1.ThePSCshouldclarifytheprocesstobe
followedwhenanevalueemakesinformal
andformalchallengestotheevaluation
conductedbyadepartment,program,or
school(CodeChapterIV,Section4b.(4)).
CommitteeDisposition
Chargeexecuted.
PleaseseePSCminutesfor7April2011.
2.ThePSCshouldreviewthepolicyon
ThePSCawaitsthedraftofthepolicy.
BackgroundChecksofFaculty,beingdrafted
PSCsuggestschargebere‐issuedfor2011‐
bytheHumanResourcesDepartment.
2012academicyear.
3.ThePSCshouldreviewthe“Research
MisconductPolicy”documentandsuggest
changestoexistingdocumentsasneededto
achieveconsistencyamongthevarious
responseprocessesinthecaseofresearch
misconduct.
ThePSCawaitsdocument.
PSCsuggestschargebere‐issuedfor2011‐
2012academicyear.
4.ThePSCshouldimprovethedescription
intheFacultyCodeofthegrievanceprocess
whenitoccurswithinafacultyevaluation
[ChapterIII,Section4f(1,2)],andofthe
hearingboardprocess[ChapterIII,Section
6].
Chargeexecuted.
5.Clarifythefollowingmattersinfuture
editionsof“thebuffdocument”:
Chargelargelyexecuted.
a. In team-taught courses in which a
faculty member only teaches a
small segment of the course, should
Instructor Evaluation Forms be
administered at the conclusion of
the faculty member’s participation
in the course rather than waiting
until after the 10th week?
b. When an evaluation committee is
formed, in accord with the Faculty
Code, for a joint appointment,
interdisciplinary appointment, or an
evaluation in a very small
department, we urge colleagues to
be particularly vigilant about
ensuring an on-going pattern of
class visits in order to ensure a full
basis from what to make an
assessment.
PleaseseePSCminutesfor18November
2010.
ThePSCformulatedchangesto“thebuff
document”thatwouldclarifyeachmatter.
ThePSCansweredintheaffirmativethe
questioninCharge5a.ThePSCrestated
Charge5bandsuggestedwherethat
languagemightbeinsertedinto“thebuff
document.”
OtherBusiness—ThePSCalso
1. reviewedandapprovedalettersenttodepartmentchairsthatoutlinedprocedures
foradministeringuniversityInstructorEvaluationformswithanamendment
regardinguseofalternative“FormA”byfacultynotrequiredbyupcoming
evaluationstousetheuniversity’sofficialform;
2. reviewedchangestotheFacultyRecruitmentGuidelinesinlightoftheonline
EmploymentApplicantTrackingSystem;
3. reviewedaninquiryfromafacultymemberregardingparticipationfromafarin
departmentaldeliberationsforfacultyevaluations;
4. counseledtheDeanregardingparticipationviaSkypeindepartmentaldeliberations
inevaluatingfacultyandregardingproceduresforwritingaletterandvotingor
makingarecommendationinadepartmentevaluationwhileonleave;
5. determinedPSCinternalpolicyfordealingwithdepartmentalguidelinesfor
evaluation,promotion,andtenure:
6.
7.
8.
9.
a. thePSCisentitledbutnotobligatedtoreviewtheentiresetofguidelines,as
opposedmerelytoreviewingchangessincethelastsetofguidelineswas
approved,
b. departmentguidelinesshouldberegularlyreviewedbythePSC(albeitthat
thePSCremainedunsureabouttheappropriatewaytoimplementsucha
shift),
c. thePSCreiteratesthatitsresponsibilityistoevaluatedepartmental
guidelinesratherthantoadjudgehowwelldepartmentsareactually
adheringtotheirguidelines,whichisthejoboftheFacultyAdvancement
Committee,
d. thePSCdoesconsidercontentofdepartmentalguidelinesinitsreviews,but
thePSCconcerneditselfprimarilywithclarityintheguidelines,and
e. thePSCrecognizesthattheindividualdepartmentsarebestableto
determineappropriateevaluationstandardsintheirrespectivedisciplinesor
fields;
approvedstatementofstandardsandproceduresforfacultyevaluationofPhysics
andPoliticsandGovernmentdepartments;
consultedwithEnglishdepartmentregardingstatementofstandardsand
proceduresforfacultyevaluation;
declared,inaninformalinterpretationoftheFacultyCodeandofpractice,that
newlyapproveddepartmentalcriteriaforevaluation,tenure,andpromotiontake
effectinatthebeginningofthenextacademicyear;
expresseditsopinionthattheCodeissufficientlyclearregardingethicalorother
grievancesthatariseormayberaisedduringevaluationoffaculty,but
recommendedthatthefollowingsentencebeappendedtothedescriptionof
departmentalevaluationprocessesin“thebuffdocument:”
AsindicatedintheFacultyCode,ChapterIII,Section4,the
evaluationprocessisdesignedtoprovideasubstantialbody
ofcredibleevidenceinwritingasthebasisforafairand
impartialreview.Moreover,“theevaluationprocessshouldbe
fairandensurethatadequateconsiderationisgiventhe
facultymemberinvolved.Fairnessandadequate
considerationshallbeachievedconsistentwiththecriteria
andproceduresoutlinedinChapterIII,Sections2‐4.”Note
thatChapterIII,Section4frequiresthatif,duringan
evaluation,aquestionorconcernregardingethicalbehavioris
raised,thefacultymembershallinitiateagrievanceprocess.
10. proposedthat“thebuffdocument”(p.15,item6;p.19,item7e;andp.19,item8d)
bemodifiedtocorrespondtothelanguageoftheFacultyCodeonp.197/e;
11. answeredquestionspertainingtoformalandinformalappealsoffaculty
evaluations,highlightingespeciallythataformalappealmaybefiledonlyincaseof
anallegedCodeviolation,butaninformalappealhasnosuchrestriction(tobe
addedto“thebuffdocument”)andsuggestingtwoadditionalreminders(seePSC
minutesfor4‐7‐11,addendum);
12. readChapter1oftheFacultyCodetopermitdepartments,programs,andschoolsto
stateexpectationsregardingtenure‐linefacultydifferentfromexpectationsofnon‐
tenure‐linefacultybutnottopermitdepartments,programs,orschoolstowithhold
fromnon‐tenure‐linefacultyroles,rights,andresponsibilitiesthatareavailablefor
tenure‐linefaculty;and
Consultedwiththedeanregardingstreamlinedevaluations.