Faculty Senate Meeting
Minutes
October 8, 2001
Members Attending: Sanjam Ahulwalia, David Arnall, Roger Bacon, Cindy
Beckett, Virginia Blankenship, David Bruner, David Camacho, Charles Connell,
Mary Dereshiwsky, Tom DeStefano, Jack Dustman, Marcus Ford, Paul Ferlazzo,
Kitty Gehring, John Haeger, Walter Hopkins, Max Jerrell, Chris Johnson, David
Kitterman, Chunhye Kim Lee, Gina Long, Dave McKell, Larry Mohrweis, Michael
Ort, Lon Owen, Nita Paden, Brian Painter, Nancy Paxton, Barbara Perry, Jon
Reyhner, Blase Scarnati, Karen Sealander, Cathy Small, Roy St. Laurent, Eric
Tucker, Karen Underhill, and Robert Yowell.
Members Excused: Dayle Hardy-Short, Pat Hays, Ed Hood, Richard Howey, Pablo
Parysow, Guy Senese, Mary Ann Steger, and Sandra Stone.
Members Absent: Owen Cargol, Michael Johnson, and Skip Little.
Guests: Sara Aleman and Paula Travis - CSAC rep.
Comments from the Chair:
There were two major issues discussed at the last ABOR meeting: 1)
investigation of athletics in higher education including salaries of coaches and
whether or not student athletes are really students. Bob Yowell noted that NAU
is the exception in that our students have good GPAs and the coaches’ salaries
are in line with comparable positions. 2) Governor Hull discussed the budget.
The Senate voted unanimously for Max Jerrell to replace Karen Sealander on the
Senate Executive Committee.
Michel Ort has agreed to be on the Honors Council. A motion was made to
sanction his appointment to the council. It was unanimously approved.
The minutes from the last Senate meeting were approved without corrections.
Senate Liaison Committee:
The FSEC suggests that this committee be formed as a means for the Senate to
officially meet with the Provost and President Cargol on issues of importance to
the Senate. This would be a small group and it would provide an opportunity for
faculty and the President and Provost to discuss issues. Bob Yowell noted that
both the President and the Provost have agreed to meet with such a group.
Roger Bacon made a motion to create the committee with not more than five
members. Cathy Small added that the committee wouldn't make policy, but
would articulate issues coming from the councils and then inform councils of
issues coming from administrators. Michael Ort suggested that the chairs of the
councils be on the committee. Roy St. Laurent added that these people would be
helping to make decisions, and not merely be a conduit.
The motion was amended to create a committee of 6 members, 4 of which
would be council chairs with the remaining two to be decided by the Senate
Executive Committee. The motion was approved.
Student Evaluation of Faculty:
Bob Yowell began the discussion by reminding the Senate that this issue is an
outgrowth from the Climate Survey last year, as well as from the grade inflation
survey conducted by the Academic Standards Council. The Executive Committee
discussed this at the August meeting and agreed to move forward on it. At the
most recent full faculty meeting, a suggestion was made to place a moratorium
on student evaluations for two years. The Executive Committee discussed this
and we know the following: 1) We know that we must be evaluated by students,
we want to be evaluated by students; 2) We also know that there are faculty in
progress for tenure, promotion, etc, and they need the input to monitor their
progress; 3) We also know that the numerical portion of the student evaluations
is not psychometrically valid. It has been suggested that just the numerical
portion of the evaluations could be suspended for a time. We have worked with
the Interim Director of the Office of Faculty Development, Sara Alemon, who is
willing to work with the Senate in an attempt to improve faculty evaluations.
Provost Haeger is willing to bring in experts to help us and give us suggestions.
Bob Yowell asked for some type of motion that could be discussed with faculty
between now and the next meeting to try to come up with a solution. He
recommended that we not just send it to committees, but rather raise the
discussion level among the faculty. Administrators seem to be in favor of the
faculty making a recommendation about how these evaluations should be done.
Jack Dustman mentioned that the College of Business had purchased the Kansas
State instrument many years ago, but that it was determined later that faculty
could do just as good a job without purchasing an instrument. Max Jerrell said
that he thought the Kansas State instrument was better. Discussion followed
including statements that some colleges are satisfied with the current evaluative
process; that the people who know whether or not we are good teachers don't
really evaluate us; one instrument may not work for every department and
college; which classes "count" for the evaluative process; and that it is really just
the numerical portion of the evaluation that presents the problem.
Nita Paden suggested that we allow the Academic Standards Council organize
information and make some suggestions for discussion.
Virginia Blankenship asked a question about what information moves forward as
part of the evaluative process. Provost Haeger said that everything comes
forward. The idea that only a small portion of the evaluation comes forward is
inaccurate. The evaluation is done by colleagues of the faculty not
administrators. He likes the idea of some level of uniformity across campus. He
also likes the idea of using some instrument developed by experts, whether or
not it is Kansas State.
There was some discussion of whether or not the questions across campus can
be standardized. There may be enough differences across campus that suggest
that some customization of questions makes sense. Departments have developed
materials used in the evaluation process that has created wide variance in ways
the information from student evaluations is used. Gender and minority status
must also be considered.
Marcus Ford made a motion that a single instrument be developed to be used
across campus with no numerical portion and largely written comments. The
motion was seconded. Discussion included concern that a single instrument may
not be appropriate for every department and college. Barbara Perry said that she
thought that was a bit premature and that while hopefully we would eventually
get to that point, we need to have some discussion first. Nita Paden mentioned
that ABOR policy states that procedures and instruments to be used for
evaluation of faculty should be developed at the college and department level
and approved by administrators. Cathy Small also felt that we need to invite the
University to engage in discussion before we try to move any further. Dave
McKell wants something more concrete to give to the faculty to really give the
faculty something specific to discuss. David Camacho stated that teaching
evaluations put the burden of responsibility on the faculty's shoulders. We have a
context that suggests that we have to deal with the product of our K-12 system.
We need to consider the social context rather than just talk about evaluations
per se. We don't talk about our admissions standards and how that affects the
evaluative process, for example. Roger Bacon and Paul Ferlazzo expressed
concern about the kind of information that can be gleaned from a written
statement. It is difficult to find meaning in a written statement from a student.
A motion was made and seconded to table the motion until Senators have a
chance to talk to the faculty. The motion was approved 30 to 5. Senators
agreed that we would try to determine what the next step should be. Chuck
Connell suggested that we take the questions from the survey (see handout) and
let the faculty respond. We need to clarify what exactly it is what the faculty
want.
Budget:
President Cargol was unable to come to discuss the budget, but Provost Haeger
handed out a draft of proposed budget cuts for discussion (see handout). NAU
offered suggestions for the 4% reduction. 1.5 million was from elimination of the
Signal Peak building. Keep in mind that the reduction in budget from Signal Peak
is a one-time reduction. If the 4% reduction becomes permanent, we will have
to come up with that 1.5 again. The other moneys identified were in very broad
categories, e.g. no increases in wages for merit or change in position. In the
case of Dean searches, we will leave the ads out there until we get a fix on the
budget. They are working with the Deans and Chairs to determine where cuts
can be made. When the Provost puts out the "numbers", negotiations will begin
and changes may be made. We are modeling a 4% cut, a 6%, and an 8% cut.
The Governor is creating a scenario where she can get into protected parts of
the budget that is under legislative control (e.g. Prop 301 money). If that
happens, there will be less impact on the Universities.
The Provost also said that Dean Picket reviewed the Constitution and provided
comments to President Cargol. Next week, the Provost will ask the President
where we stand.
Motion to adjourn.