MINUTES
Faculty of the College of Forest Resources
2 March 2004
22 Anderson
10:30 AM
PRESENT: Allan, Bolton, Bradley, Brown, Brubaker, Doty, Eastin, Ewing, Greulich, Gustafson,
Halpern, Harrison, Hinckley, Johnson, Manuwal, Marzluff, Northey, Paun, Perez-Garcia, Ryan,
Schiess, Schreuder, Sprugel, Turnblom, VogtD, Wagar, West, Zabowski
EXCUSED: Briggs, Edmonds, Hodgson, Lippke, Peterson, Strand
ABSENT: Bare, Chalker-Scott, Ford, Franklin, Fridley, Gara, Lee, McKean, Raedeke, Reichard,
VogtK, Wolf, Wott
ANNOUNCEMENTS
· If graduate students hold a seminar next year, please consider attending, even if only for a few
presentations (your own students will appreciate it).
· Minutes of the previous meetings will be distributed by email and a vote will be held at the next
meeting.
PROMOTION, MERIT AND TENURE COMMITTEE REPORT
Marzluff reported for absent committee chair Briggs (other members of the committee are
Ewing, Ryan, Harrison, Peterson, Wott). Items presented for faculty approval are timetables for
merit and promotion processes and a list of criteria to be collected for merit consideration. The
method of use of material collected under these criteria has not yet been determined by the
committee.
Timetables
Proposed timetables for both merit and promotion processes have been circulated (see attached).
Some discussion relating to format rather than scheduling included:
· How will quality control work in the first iteration for merit? The committee will consider this
point further.
· The Faculty Handbook must be checked for any bar to participation of junior faculty in
promotion discussions. If allowed to attend, may junior faculty participate in discussion? Junior
faculty may not vote.
· The committee should identify outside referees for promotion cases and confirm their
commitment in June to review materials in August-September.
Motion: To accept promotions timeline (Allan), seconded (Manuwal).
Bolton questioned the need for what seemed early (August 1) submission of documentation for
nonmandatory promotions. Staff responded that reviews requested later in autumn are often
delayed or declined; late summer or early autumn requests are much more likely to produce
timely responses.
Faculty approved the motion by vote of 26 approving, 0 opposing, 1 abstaining.
Motion: To accept merit timeline (Allan), Seconded (Schreuder)
Committee proposes that faculty vote on its recommendations by ranks. If there is disagreement
as to the recommendation on a particular member, faculty may amend the motion. Committee
recommendations have been changed, though this is rare. To a question on the accessibility of
merit materials for examination by those not on the PMT committee, the chair responded that
these are public records and may be examined. Electronic forms can be made available to faculty
who want them.
Faculty approved the motion by vote of 25 approving, 0 opposing, 2 abstaining.
Criteria
The committee has added items to the existing annual report/M&E merit format to emphasize
participation in core and required courses and large classes. Publication types have been defined
in more detail. Faculty comments included:
· Student evaluations: Perez-Garcia recalled that the Faculty Senate had eliminated the use of
student course evaluations in faculty merit and promotion decisions. Later research revealed that
the Faculty Senate Council on Instructional Quality had produced a list of principles which they
recommended to guide the use of student evaluations (attached).
· TA support: It was suggested that courses with assigned TAs should be noted. In the past, the
use of a TA caused the faculty member’s SCH count to be adjusted. Such a “penalty” effect
could be a disincentive to teaching large classes. Different duties, levels of responsibility and
difficulty assigned to TAs make identifying a value of the use of a TA problematic. Mentoring
TAs and structuring activities to be lead by them can increase faculty workload. Greulich
recommended that the data be recorded whether used or not. The committee emphasizes that no
decisions have been made as to how data gathered under the criteria will be applied.
· Science citations. Science Citations may not be an accurate reflection for all disciplines in CFR
but do reflect the writer’s influence. Other citation indices exist for some disciplines (i.e., Social
Science Citations). To avoid the variation in results caused by different methods of searching, the
committee suggested staff perform the searches. Carol Green’s expertise should be consulted. If
a faculty member’s discipline is not reflected in Science Citations, s/he may so note in the
personal statement. This measure is hard on junior faculty because of the time it takes a) for
findings to be published and b) for influence to reach others who must then publish results based
on it. On the other hand, it is possible to find flaws any individual measure; the point is to find a
balanced approach through many measures.
· Application of research: evidence of solving real world problems should be provided.
· Patents: Information should be included with research
· Grants: Report grants in place or received during the three year review period. Data is derived
from information from CFR Grants and Contracts. Faculty have the opportunity to review and
correct.
· Personal statement margin and font requirements: One page limit, Century 10 (no fewer than 15
characters/inch), 1 inch margins.
· Peer evaluations: Peer evaluations are conducted but not frequently enough to be used in annual
merit evaluations. Such use might undermine frank review. The primary use of these reviews is
the improvement of teaching.
· Awards: Add category of professional awards (teaching and research awards are already listed).
· Public service: Careful definition required. Susceptible to padding. Best judged by committee.
Chair and EFC should remember that there must be some accountability in teaching. There must
be some way to push improvement. CFR faculty are often nominated for outstanding teaching
awards but their competitiveness is undermined by the lack of an internal teaching recognition.
Chair announced that such an award was already in the works. Faculty code items will be
checked and a vote held on this item at next faculty meeting. If there are further issues, email to
committee chair Dave Briggs (dbriggs@u).
Brubaker requested that the committee, in its next step of deciding how information is to be
evaluated, give careful consideration of expectations specific for different ranks and for research
faculty. Examination of the USFS peer reviewed system was recommended.
Adjourned 11:30