MINUTES Faculty of the College of Forest Resources 20 April 2004 PRESENT: Allan, Bradley, Brown, Brubaker, Doty, Eastin, Edmonds, Ewing, Greulich, Gustafson, Lippke, Manuwal, Marzluff, McKean, Paun, Perez-Garcia, Raedeke, Reichard, Ryan, Schiess, Schreuder, Strand, Vogt D, Vogt K, West EXCUSED: Bolton, Briggs, Fridley, Hinckley, Hodgson, Northey, Peterson, Sprugel, Zabowski ABSENT: Bare, Franklin, Gara, Halpern, Harrison, Johnson, Lee, Turnblom, Wagar, Wolf, Wott ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair mentioned that he is greatly impressed with WI04 teaching evaluations, which included many scores in the high fours. Undergraduate pathways - pathways are under construction by groups that had not yet completed them; these drafts will soon be ready for discussion by full faculty for feedback. These documents will be distilled to one page, including a synopsis of the emphasis area and a course list for use in student counseling. Several groups have included recommendations for the ESRM major as a whole which will be examined by the Curriculum Committee under West. POLICY ON COURTESY APPOINTMENTS/RENEWALS Chair had circulated a draft policy and sample “warning” letter (copies attached). Motion to accept policy as written (Greulich), second (Marzluff) Greulich questioned the need for a new CV from each affiliate each year; he felt that the faculty sponsor’s statement should be enough. Brown suggested collecting CVs every three years and corresponding by email. Motion to strike first paragraph, beginning “To renew…” (Greulich), no second. McKean expressed a desire to see a clear statement of intent from affiliates. Vote on motion to accept policy as written passed by vote of 24 in favor, 0 opposed, 1 abstaining of 44 eligible. MERIT PROCESS Marzluff reported for the committee. Merit data is in process of being compiled and corrected. Given time limitations, the committee will consider data related to teaching loads, and research as shown in measures of graduate student committees chaired or served on, research funding, and publications this year, and service, which will be assessed directly from CVs. In future other data will be added, such as Science Citations, a quantitative assessment of service, etc. An analysis of the existing data will be provided to the committee (see draft form, attached). The committee plans to weight certain scores: · SCH will be reported up to three times in order to reward effort that supports the programs goals: as raw data, again if the SCH were in required courses, and again if from courses that were team taught. · Total graduate students: sum of the number chaired and graduated, the number chaired, and 50% of the number of other committees on which the faculty member served, since chairing is felt to involve more time and commitment. · Research funding will be reported as either individual or programmatic support; the individual is expected to excel in one category or the other, not necessarily both. · In the future the committee plans to: possibly split competitive/non-competitive research funding, weight non-refereed publications at 50%, and consider comparative scoring for service activities. Numeric scores for starred items will be totaled for each category. Each member of the committee will individually rate each faculty member on each metric. Discrepancies will be resolved in group discussion to produce a quality rating of 1 (extraordinary) to 5 (poor) for each category. The category total score will then be multiplied by the percent effort for that category from the most recent work plan and then by the committee’s quality rating for a final rating score. Faculty comment: · How is gift funding to be handled? A: at present it is part of individual research funding. · Why is graduate committee membership under research rather than teaching? A: It was felt (by Briggs, Harrison and Marzluff most verbally) that most graduate relations are related to research. On some committees members offer little in the way of support or direction. Several faculty asserted that members often have a more specific role in research direction than the chair. Graduate committee membership is often the sole teaching contribution of research faculty; they could be hurt by this. The committee might consider rating the types of faculty separately on this issue. One possible measure would be whether the faculty member published with the student; if not, one would be mentoring rather than guiding research. A distinction is made between the MS and the MFR, a non-thesis, non-research degree that might become more important in future; the committee should consider how to account for these students. It is easier to keep this item in research for now; scores for those contributing teaching-wise can be adjusted using the effort allocation. · Ryan suggested a category for undergraduate research, as being different from advising. · Faculty need a list of descriptors, definitions and examples of all items in this system. · Does “required classes” mean only required by CFR or required by others as well. A: for now, it means required only by CFR; so as to emphasize core activities. Concern was expressed that so few CFR courses are required by other majors; these links should be developed and such effort rewarded. · Concern was expressed that administrators are rewarded twice for their efforts, once by administrative supplement and again by a percentage merit increase on the total. (Note: Administrative supplements are temporary budget allocations, separate from base salary. They are not directly affected by merit decisions.) · Weighting of student evaluations by size of class was recommended, on the stated assumption that large class evaluation scores are always lower than small class scores. The committee will re-examine next year. · Chair complained that ranking by one grand total score was not very satisfying to him. He requested ranking by each category separately and then reaching some decision as to overall merit. · Chair also strongly encouraged the committee to define the condition of/criteria for NO MERIT. A: the committee has discussed this at length, for instance proposing high merit as having at least one top score in each category and nothing below mid-level in any category; however, this did not account for the weighting schemes. If the faculty member did not excel in any category, it was generally agreed, that equated to no merit. Faculty are encouraged to email committee members with suggestions for criteria. · One faculty member wanted to improve the “correlation between the recommendation and the actual salary increase” due to discrepancies in base salaries. A: This is a salary compression issue that needs university-wide resolution. · Manuwal noted it is helpful to the chair if the committee summarizes its findings for each faculty member. Motion to accept criteria as proposed (Bradley), seconded (Lippke), passed 24 approved, 0 opposed, 1 abstaining. Meeting adjourned 11:30 Criteria for Evaluating Affiliate/Adjunct Faculty Appointments Each year, we are required to evaluate our courtesy faculty appointments, including affiliate, adjunct and post-doctoral appointments. Affiliate appointments should be awarded judiciously and not be used as favors or rewards for our friends and professional colleagues. Below are the official descriptions of the ranks of affiliate and adjunct appointments: 1. Appointment with an affiliate rank requires qualifications comparable to those required for appointment to the corresponding rank. It recognizes the professional contribution of an individual whose principal employment responsibilities lie outside the colleges or schools of the University. Affiliate appointments are annual; the question of their renewal shall be considered each year by the faculty of the department (or undepartmentalized college or school) in which they are held. (Faculty Handbook Section 24-34B 5) 2. An adjunct appointment is made only to a faculty member (including one in a research professorial rank) already holding a primary appointment in another department. This title recognizes the contributions of a member of the faculty to a secondary department. Adjunct appointments do not confer governance or voting privileges or eligibility for tenure in the secondary department. These appointments are annual; the question of their renewal shall be considered each year by the faculty of the secondary department. (Faculty Handbook Section 2434B 6) Here is a list of examples of how active affiliate and adjunct faculty members contribute to the College: · Actual classroom/field trip contributions to courses · Providing advice to students involved in undergraduate senior project/capstone/thesis courses · Serving on graduate student committees · Facilitating research funding or access to research facilities and lands · Contributing to manuscript preparation · Co-authoring public presentations at scientific meetings or other suitable venues · Continuing to be productive in research and publishing · An affiliate or adjunct faculty member might also make contributions by cooperating with CFR faculty in the service area. This could be in professional society work, or in some kind of public service area. We recognize that a particular individual might not meet our expectations during a given year, but would on average over a 3-5 year period. We hope this helps you envision your role as an affiliate or adjunct faculty member. Name A. Teaching B. Research C. Service Raw SCHs Required SCHs Team SCHs TOTAL SCHs* Student Eval* Grad Student Chair Graduated Grad Student Chair Other Grad Student Comms (x0.50) Total Graduate Students* Individual Research Funding* Programmatic Research Funding(a) Referred Pubs Other Pubs (x0.50) Total Pubs* Undergrad Advising Acad Comm Cont. Ed Public & Prof Admin Total Serv* (a) for funding, faculty need to excel in one or the other category, not necessarily both Scoring per starred (*) cell: 1= extraordinary; 3= average; 5=poor Merit Recommendations: We are working on this, it will be an assessment of a weighted average (weights are % workload values agreed upon by faculty and chair) of the total score. Renewals of Affiliate and Adjunct Appointments Colleagues: We need to develop procedures for appointments and renewals of affiliate and adjunct faculty. The criteria for making affiliate and adjunct appointments are attached. I propose we use a combination of what was used in the two Divisions. Affiliates Renewals: To renew an affiliate faculty member we will request an updated CV and a statement of involvement with CFR students, programs, and faculty. In addition, we will request their plans for the coming year. The CFR faculty member sponsoring the affiliate faculty member must also write a statement on the involvement of the affiliate with the College and why their appointment should continue. Faculty will then vote by email on whether to reappoint the affiliate member. Faculty will be able to vote yes or no or indicate that they wish to discuss this reappointment at a faculty meeting. If faculty indicate they want to discuss this appointment, the vote will take place at the meeting. Adjunct Renewals: We have many fewer adjuncts and they are typically more active. For these appointments I propose the following reappointment procedure: The CFR faculty member sponsoring the adjunct faculty member must write a statement on the involvement of the adjunct with the College and why their appointment should continue. Faculty will then vote by email on whether to reappoint the adjunct member. Faculty will be able to vote yes or no or indicate that they wish to discuss this reappointment at a faculty meeting. If faculty indicate they want to discuss this appointment, the vote will take place at the meeting. Affilliate and adjunct faculty will then be informed of the outcome of the renewal vote. Those affiliate or adjunct whose appointments are in jeopardy will be sent at letter indicating their involvement with the College needs to be more substantial if their appointment is to continue. A sample letter is attached. New appointments For new appointments a CV and three letters of recommendation must be provided. The record of the candidate will be compared against the criteria and standards for affiliate and adjunct faculty to determine whether the appointment should be made and at what rank. Voting of new appointments will de done at a faculty meeting.