Special Faculty Meeting Minutes
College of Forest Resources
Anderson Hall Room 22
Monday, February 12, 2007, 10:30 a.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 10:35 a.m. by Gordon Bradley, College of Forest Resources Faculty
Chair.
ATTENDANCE
PRESENT
Bradley, Gordon
Briggs, David
Bura, Renata
Eastin, Ivan
Edmonds, Robert
Ettl, Gregory
Halpern, Charles
Harrison, Robert
Hodgson, Kevin
Kim, Soo-Hyung
Lippke, Bruce
Manuwal, David
Moskal, Monika
Paun, Dorothy
Perez-Garcia, John
Ryan, Clare
Schreuder, Gerard
Sprugel, Douglas
Vogt, Kristiina
Vogt, Dan
West, Stephen
ABSENT
Agee, James
Allan, G. Graham
Bakker, Jonathan
Bare, Bruce
Bolton, Susan
Brown, Sally
Doty, Sharon
Ewing, Kern
Ford, E. David
Franklin, Jerry
Fridley, James
Gara, Robert
Glawe, Dean
Greulich, Frank
Gustafson, Richard
Hanley, Donald
Hinckley, Thomas
Johnson, Jay
Lee, Robert
Mabberley, David
Marzluff, John
McKean, William
Peterson, David
Reichard, Sarah
Schiess, Peter
Strand, Stuart
Torgersen, Christian
Turnblom, Eric
Wott, John
Zabowski, Darlene
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE
Davis, Amanda
Smith, Nevada
Jon Diemer
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. Gordon reminded everyone that the Distinguished Alumni Series Panel would take place on Thursday
February 15, 2007 at 3:30 in the Forest Club Room. The panel participants are Robert Michael Pyle,
Michelle Connor, and Daniel J. Hinkley.
2. Faculty are reminded to participate in the National Resources Council Survey. The deadline for
participation is February 22, 2007.
3. Ivan Eastin said an offer had been made to one of the Economics faculty candidates. The candidate
wanted to think about the offer and was to get back to the Dean by Friday, February 16th. When this
candidate confirms, the other final candidates will be informed, then all applicants will be notified.
D:\626080490.doc
College of Forest Resources
Special Faculty Meeting Minutes
February 12, 2007
Page 2
PRESENTATIONS
No presentations were scheduled.
FACULTY ACTIONS
See faculty action taken at the end of the Discussion below.
DISCUSSION
David Briggs, chair of the Promotion, Merit, and Tenure (PMT) Committee continued the presentation on
the PMT process. Dr. Briggs began where we left off last week using the hand-out that described the recent
past processes used in the College to evaluate promotion, merit, and tenure data.
The Merit processes from 2004-05 were actually put into place when the faculty merged. The 2004 process
was slightly revised for use in 2005. At that time each individual category to be used to evaluate faculty
was debated and approved by the faculty.
Database summary:
• Sources
– Information from existing UW & CFR databases
– Information provided by individual faculty
• Latest 3 calendar years used for merit
• Information in the database is sent to individual faculty for review
• Database updated according to returns
• Information from the database is summarized for use by PMT Committee in making merit
recommendations
Faculty Database Categories:
I. Teaching
A. Course Teaching
B. Graduate student committees
C. Undergraduate research/thesis
D. Teaching Awards
E. Other, e.g. training through workshops, CIDR, etc.
II. Research
A. Grants
B. Publications
III. Service
A. Presentations
B. Committees
C. Miscellaneous Service, e.g. Faculty Senate, invited Professional reviews, consulting, administration
Summary of Merit Evaluation Procedure: 2004-05
1. Database info provided for verification to each faculty member
2. Database updated with changes
3. Database information summarized into spreadsheet categories approved by faculty vote
4. Scores calculated for teaching, research & service and combined into an overall score with
methods approved by faculty vote
5. Overall scores used to make no merit, merit, and high merit assignments with method approved
by faculty vote
6. PMT uses other portfolio information to make adjustments on case-by-case basis
D:\626080490.doc
College of Forest Resources
Special Faculty Meeting Minutes
February 12, 2007
Page 3
7. Recommendations reported to faculty for approval/change discussion.
8. Vote on revised recommendations sent to Faculty Chair
Calculation of the merit score is done separately for tenure-track faculty and for WOT and research faculty..
The scores for teaching, research, and service are averaged. Weighting these categories was eliminated by
unanimous faculty vote on March 5, 2003. The final scores are used to assign recommendations with
respect to No Merit, Merit, High Merit. The assignment procedure approved in 2005 assigned the top 10%
as High Merit and the next 85% as Merit. No Merit is assigned only when all of the following are
simultaneously present:
 Sustained underachievement
 Ranked in the bottom 5% overall
 Ranked in the bottom 25% in all categories
If a faculty member is ranked No Merit two years in a row the Faculty Code states that a formal review is
required.
This is a quantitative procedure into which subjective judgments are injected. For the two years this process
was followed it was not controversial.
In 2006 the original database was assumed lost, and the database being developed by John Shipman was not
ready. At this time the PMT Committee developed a different process which the faculty voted on and
approved. In this process each faculty was canvassed for information via tables. The quantified data was
examined by the Committee members and each Committee member ranked all faculty independent of the
other Committee members. The Committee then got together to establish a consensus ranking.
Summary of Merit Evaluation Procedure: 2006
1. Prior databases unavailable & new one under development was incomplete
2. Each provided last 3 years information along with a scholarship statement
3. PMT Committee developed the following table for evaluating 5 categories (faculty approval vote
in 2006)
 Scholarship Statement
 Teaching
 Research
 Public & Professional Service
 Administrative & Academic Service
4. Each PMT committee member gave each individual a no merit, merit, or high merit rating for
performance measures within these categories
5. Each PMT committee member then produced a final rating for each of the 5 categories and then a
then a final combined rating.
6. PMT committee met to develop consensus recommendations
7. Recommendations reported to faculty for approval/change discussion.
8. Vote on revised recommendations sent to Faculty Chair
What do we want to do in 2007? The PMT Committee would like a clear sense of direction. The floor was
opened to discussion and comment. The faculty wondered if it would be a good idea to assign weight to
chairing a graduate student supervisory committee. It is hard to quantify what the weight would be, is it 2-1
or 10-1? It is understood by all that chairing a committee can carry more weight than simply serving on a
committee, but faculty also recognize that sometimes a student will call upon a member of their committee
more than the chair, so this weighting might not be valid. As far as graduate student weighting is
concerned, would financing a student carry as much weight as chairing the student’s committee? Perhaps it
D:\626080490.doc
College of Forest Resources
Special Faculty Meeting Minutes
February 12, 2007
Page 4
would be good to add the element of financing to the graduate student category. Dr. Briggs said that it was
discussed a few years ago to add the element of financial support to the graduate student category, but it was
decided that it would be difficult to track.
One faculty stated the opinion that this process ought to have metrics with no subjective elements. A
responder suggested if we just wanted to have a quantitative measurement, then the PMT Committee could
be done away with, all data would be entered into the database, and we’d just use the database person to
determine merit decisions. Another faculty stated he wants the six people elected from our ranks to look at
the data to weigh it. Dr. Briggs stated that during the two years the more quantitative system was used
(2004-05) there were no arguments. In 2006 the ranking and determination were more subjective and there
was a big fight. It was stated that the PMT Committee is still needed—to at least answer questions. The
PMT Committee could question if data didn’t seem correct or if information wasn’t provided.
Dr. Briggs said the 2006 strategy was adopted for one year only, until the data was found and a database
person was hired. He also addressed a few more questions: although people didn’t like z-scores, using
other paradigms came up with the same ratings. The merit decisions are a zero-sum game. About 10% of
the faculty were rated High Merit last year, but the cash difference between High Merit and Merit was the
difference between 2.6% and 2%. There are two issues: one is the rating of the quality of work, the other is
whether or not we can get paid for it. A question was raised about how the new faculty will be rated since
they won’t have three years of data to be taken under consideration. The number of quarters one has been
here during the 3 years is used to adjust for leave of absence, newly hired faculty, etc. to ensure ranking is
equitable. If some component of the merit categories is not part of an individual’s work as stated in the work
plan, then that component is flagged as “not applicable” and is not used.
Faculty expressed confidence in the 2004-05 quantitative system and would appreciate the opportunity to
refine it for use in 2007.


Kristiina Vogt moved and Bruce Lippke seconded to adopt the PMT procedure that was used in 2005.
A call for vote was distributed electronically to assure voting majority.
The Faculty voted to adopt the PMT procedure that was used in 2005. The components of this
procedure will be reviewed at a future faculty meeting to vote on any modifications that may be
needed. The results of the vote were 25 approve, 4 oppose, and 7 abstain.
UPCOMING EVENTS
1. Next regular Faculty Meeting: Monday, February 26, 2007, 10:30 to 11:30 a.m. in Anderson
Room 22
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 a.m.
D:\626080490.doc