MINUTES Faculty of the College of Forest Resources 20 April 2004

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
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.
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.
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
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
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
· 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
· 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
· 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
· 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
(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
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
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.