Meeting Minutes for the Non-Tenured Track Faculty
January 14, 2010
Present: Jane Eggleston (presiding), Michael Ping, Jerry Hinnefield, Susan Cook, Anne Mangnan Park,
Roxanne Wolfram, Yvonne Larrier, Kwado Okrah, John McIntosh (Guest)
Absent: Brandon Rickey (Excused)
Item
1. Appointment of
secretary
2. Appointment of Co-Chair
3. Historical overview
4. Explanation of academic
freedom
5. Process of non tenure
track faculty
6. Issues regarding the “up
and out” policy
Discussion
Action
Roxanne Wolfram volunteered
Jane Eggleston asked if there
should be a new committee
chair. There was discussion that
there should be a co-chair with
tenure with Jane.
John McIntosh gave an historical
overview of the lecture to senior
lecture process and policy for
the IU campuses. Questions
arose about the vote and
discussion that took place
regarding the policy at IU and on
our IUSB campus.
John McIntosh and Jerry
Hinnefield discussed the
meaning of academic freedom
with tenure and non tenure
track faculty
1. A question was asked if
there are separate PTR
committees (one with
tenure track faculty, the
other with lecturers) to
determine promotions
for each.
2. What is the ratio of
tenure track to non
tenure track faculty and
how many of each on
the IUSB campus?
1. What resources are
available to assist
lecturers in reaching
senior lecturer (financial,
educational and time)?
2. What happens at the
The committee voted Jerry
Hinnefield as the co-chair with
Jane Eggleston.
John McIntosh will look into the
minutes from the IU decision
regarding the policy.
N/A
1. John McIntosh to look
into this.
2. John McIntosh to look
into.
1. The committee will work
with UCET and identify
the educational
resources required to
assist with the
development of lecturer
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
end of the 5 year
contract? Do lecturers
need to resubmit
another dossier?
What does excellence in
teaching mean? We may
lose individual teachers
who are good, but have
a difficult time
demonstrating
excellence.
Academic freedom is not
allowed with the lecturer
to senior lecturer
process because there is
only a 5 year contract
granted.
How much time will be
given to phase in to this
proposal. One to two
years is not enough time
to accomplish all that is
needed. The committee
felt a minimum of 3-4
years.
Should this issue be
discussed at the next
Senate meeting with all
full-time faculty and get
input?
What does the word
“shall” mean?
Many lecturers are
against the proposal.
to senior lecturer. John
McIntosh stated there
are financial resources
for all faculty for
development, which
includes an “Excellence
in Teaching” conference
in Indianapolis
specifically designed for
lecturers and adjunct.
2. John McIntosh will look
into what the policy says
at the end of 5 years and
ask other campuses.
3. Committee to discuss
further.
4. No resolution.
5. We will determine next
meeting.
6. Yes. Our committee is
already on the schedule
for the next Senate
meeting on January 28,
and we will have an
open discussion about
the up or out proposal
and pros and cons.
7. At this point Applegate
has made the
interpretation. We will
discuss further at next
meeting.
8. Education will be
important so others will
see the benefit to all.
7. Next meeting
Jane Eggleson will Doodle us all
for the best date. We will meet
before the next Senate meeting.
Agenda for next meeting:
1. Do we want to change
the policy or enhance
the transition from
lecturer to senior
lecturer? This includes
encouraging a 3-4 year
completion time for
dossier and working with
UCET on faculty
development.