Faculty Evaluation Task Force
NOTES
November 11, 2011 – CN301 – 1:00-2:30 pm
Attending: Mary Ann Watson, Christine O’Dell, Kamran Sahami, Kathleen Luttenegger, George
Donovan, Bethany Fleck, Katie Sauer, Ann Murphy, Madison Holloway, Eric Ball, Jane Broida
I.
Timeline for Evaluation Process

Last week the committee discussed finding more time for each of the committees to review
portfolios. Discussion was held on whether all committees needed more time. With Digital
Measures people can review dossiers immediately. The Board makes its decisions in April.
With fewer people being reviewed and less problems with Digital Measures, do we need
more time? Discussions on current departmental guidelines and where to find them.
o

II.
III.
It was the consensus of the committee to leave the timeline as it is
Digital Measures works well for those people who are trained on the program. Ann
Murphy will give Vicki training information. It was suggested that chairs need to be given
more information. After the portfolio leaves the Department Chair level, anyone could start
their review of the portfolio.
Department Guidelines – Post Tenure Review

The committee discussed if departments can have more than one set of guidelines. There
has been a problem in the department committees because post tenure review hasn’t been
clarified. There was discussion on merit after tenure; performance could be incentivized.
The college is currently working on multi-year incentives for faculty.

The committee discussed post tenure review. The institution would have to find an
equitable solution. The faculty needs to be aware that there will be a balancing between
departments. Post tenure guidelines can be separate; it is up to the department. There needs
to be a check for balance. Multi-year review would allow flexibility choosing paths,
opportunities that are available in certain years, gives greater control over career path.
Handbook Section V

The committee reviewed the documents that Vicki sent that merged the two chapters into
one chapter with various review levels. The changes were reviewed. There were significant
changes in section A. with a potential name change. The changes included explaining
tenure track versus tenure and promotion. Section C lists the definitions, basically a
reformatting from what the Board approved.

Defining service was discussed. Service standardization was discussed at an earlier
meeting, but was there a conclusion? It was suggested that quantifying service for different
types of meetings could standardize service across the institution. The committee discussed
department culture and how service is handled within the departments.

Guidelines should be reviewed annually, but only changed when deemed necessary. It
could be added that departments can have separate guidelines for post tenure review.
Faculty Evaluation Task Force

The committee revised the section on roles and responsibilities. Special cases and
extenuating circumstances was left out of the document; Vicki will add it back in. The
faculty discussed where the section for administrators with faculty tenure should be placed.
o
IV.
Page 2 of 2
It was the consensus of the committee to leave it where it is.
Next Meeting
The committee was encouraged to think about the changes and the discussion will begin
next week on page 17.
Next meeting November 18, 2011, 1:00 p.m., CN 301
Adjourned 2:30 p.m.
November 11, 2011