IFC 11/7/06 Minutes
Approved 11/21/06
Faculty Council Minutes (“IFC”): November
7, 2006
Wynne Courtroom of Inlow Hall:
3:30 – 5:30 pm
Original
agenda follows adjournment as attachment.
Agenda Item I: Call to Order: Rosalie Vermette (IUPUI
Faculty Vice-President, 4.0064).
Vermette called the meeting
to order at 3:30pm.
Agenda Item II: Adoption of the Order of Business for the Day.
The order of business for the
day was adopted.
Hearing no objections, the
IFC October 3, 2006 minutes stood as written and were entered into record.
These
minutes are available to view online at http://www.iupui.edu/~fcouncil/minutes/fc061003html.htm
Agenda Item IV: Updates/Remarks from the Chancellor: Charles Bantz (
Chancellor Bantz could not
attend the meeting but will update the IFC at future meetings.
Agenda Item V: Updates/Remarks from the
IFC President: Bart Ng.
Ng reported the following:
Agenda Item VI: Question / Answer Period.
No discussion.
Agenda Item VII: [FOURTH
Atkinson gave the fourth reading of the revised
Intellectual Property Policy (the draft
read is available to view at http://www.indiana.edu/~ufc/docs/AY07/circulars/U5-2007.doc). Atkinson first explained the motivations for
revision: to make a clear and
readable policy for the creators of intellectual property; to review the
revenue distribution scheme to make it more favorable to creators; and to
address online course materials as intellectual property. He then explained a rewrite done over the
summer to address the issue of software, which the revised policy would treat
the same as other copyrightable materials except in the case of patentable
features.
A
few questions were raised about the draft linked above prior to the IFC
meeting, so University Counsel is currently making further revisions. The intent of the policy (as linked above) is
unlikely to change). Atkinson will share
the newest draft as soon as it is available with an eye towards IFC action on
November 21st.
Agenda Item VIII: [FIRST
Faculty
Affairs Committee Member Jennifer Hehman (for
Chair Andre De Tienne) gave a
first reading of the proposed three-year review policy (below).
“PROPOSED POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR THREE-YEAR REVIEWS
October 31, 2006
Background
Three-year reviews were first instituted at IUPUI in the early 1990s. These comprehensive and cumulative reviews are conducted at the school level. Their primary purpose is to provide a frank and formative assessment of each tenure-track faculty member’s progress toward promotion and tenure near the mid-point of the probationary period of their academic career. They are intended to be constructive in nature, with concrete suggestions on how to progress successfully toward promotion and tenure.
In 2006, for the first time, schools were asked to forward the three-year reviews to the Academic Affairs office, where they received an additional reading. Responses were written to the dean of each school on the comprehensiveness, frankness, and potential helpfulness of the review. To clarify and formalize this procedure, after consultation with the Deans and the Executive Committee of the IUPUI Faculty Council, the following policy has been formulated:
Policy
During the spring semester of their third year at
IUPUI, all tenure-track faculty members will undergo a comprehensive review at
the school level of their cumulative progress toward promotion and tenure. This
review will be forwarded to the Office of the Dean of the Faculties on or
before the final day of spring-semester classes.
Implementation Procedures
In order to be as informative and helpful as possible to faculty, three-year reviews should include the following:
1. an explicit statement that it is a three-year review which evaluates cumulative progress in all three areas (teaching or performance, research, and service) in relation to the department’s norms (for example, how do the candidate’s teaching evaluation scores relate to departmental norms on some key questions? how does the candidate’s publication or performance record relate to the department’s expectations for quality and quantity? what are the department’s expectations for service for tenure-track faculty?);
2. a clear evaluative statement of progress toward promotion and tenure;
3. concrete suggestions for the candidate to progress successfully
4. if and when applicable, recommendations concerning course load, performance, number of course preparations per semester, or changes in research or service expectations in order to facilitate the faculty member’s progress toward promotion and tenure
5. a current vita.
Since the primary purpose of the three-year review is to provide a frank evaluation of the faculty member’s progress toward promotion and tenure, and to make appropriate recommendations for successful progress, the primary audience for the three-year review is the faculty member. However, a secondary purpose of the reviews is to help deans and chairs have a clear sense of the cumulative progress of their tenure-track faculty, so that they may consider any recommended supports or changes in curricular assignments or service expectations in order to help these faculty members be as successful as possible. Therefore, the committee writing the reviews will need to keep all three audiences in mind: the faculty member (primarily), the chair, and the dean.
The reading by the Dean of the Faculties and the Associate Dean of the Faculties is to provide a campus-level response to the reviews conducted by the school-level promotion and tenure committee. A response to the reviews from each school will be sent to each faculty member as well as to the chair of the promotion and tenure committee of each school, with a copy to the dean, who will forward copies to the appropriate chairs.
It is important to note that the three-year reviews are
not to be confused with or substituted for the annual reviews in the third year that are
conducted within a department by the chair. While the annual reviews provide a
department-level layer of support and evaluation, the more comprehensive review
in the third year is intended to provide a school-level and campus-level layer
of support for our tenure-track faculty colleagues, ensuring that they receive
a fair, frank, and helpful evaluation to assist their progress toward tenure
and promotion.”
Hehman announced a minor
revision: the addition of the word
“performance” to each mention of “teaching;” performance—as opposed to
teaching—is one of the three components for which librarians go up for
promotion and tenure (“P&T”). She
and policy author Associate Dean of the Faculties Sharon Hamilton then accepted
suggestions for clarification and revision from Richard Meiss and Rick Ward.
IFC members then offered
feedback and raised questions:
Q: Who will serve on the three-year review
committee?
A: Except
in the case of librarians (whose P&T structure is unique), the school-level
P&T
committee will conduct the review.
Q: Will the timing of this policy’s processes
be effective? What if reappointment or
non-
reappointment
is already underway?
A: The
feedback from the IFC Executive Committee was that the three-year review should
be
divorced
from the reappointment process, i.e. that this review should not be used to
make P&T or appointment decisions.
Q: If the intent of this policy is to ensure
that all Deans follow procedures, why are the school
P&T committees made the primary
contact between the faculty member and the Dean of Faculties Office? Shouldn’t the Deans remain primarily
accountable?
A: This was proposed to address concerns
about the reviews being used by Deans in making
certain decisions.
Q: Is this policy necessary?
A: The
policy seeks not to create but to codify current practice to ensure fairness
and adequate P&T mentorship.
Hamilton, Faculty Grievance Advisory Panel Chair Giles Hoyt, IFC
President Bart Ng, and other IFC members cited recent grievances arising from
the surprising circumvention, ignorance, or misuse of P&T procedures and
mentorship. This is, Hoyt noted, an
important preventive measure. Subah
Packer applauded the idea of the policy because of reasons listed above, but also
suggested formal follow-up to the three-year review, scrutiny of cases in which
a positive three-year review is accompanied by an incongruently negative annual
review in the third year. In response to
related comments, Packer suggested that faculty use the discussion surrounding
this policy as an opportunity to consider whether or not we are in a
grant-getting equals tenure-granting climate, so to speak.
Referring to situations in
the past in which three-year reviews were misused by an administrator, Jim
Baldwin and Henry Karlson cautioned the policy authors and the IFC to be wary
of whether or not this policy could devolve into a mini-tenure process.
In closing, Bill Schneider
asked that this policy be put forward for action as an IFC policy as opposed to
an administrative policy up for IFC endorsement. Others agreed. Vermette asked the FAC to work with
Agenda Item IX: Unfinished Business?
No
discussion.
Agenda Item X: New Business?
Vice Chancellor for Student Life and Diversity Karen Whitney discussed
the recent protest staged by the IUPUI Black Student Union (“BSU”) in response
to inequity on campus (as students, community members, and customers). She applauded the BSU for raising such
important issues and urged the IFC to use this as a “teachable moment” and a
time at which students, faculty, and staff of color should be engaged so that
IUPUI can openly discuss and address institutional racism. Aside from inviting the BSU into its
conversations—she congratulated the Faculty and Staff Councils for doing
so—Whitney suggested that the Black Faculty & Staff Council be engaged by
both groups as well. The success of all
IUPUI students is the campus’ priority and these issues must be addressed. Whitney’s comments were echoed by Rick Ward,
Vice President Vermette, and others.
Although the BSU’s leadership was unable to attend the IFC meeting,
further invitations will be offered.
Following the meeting, Vice Chancellor Whitney sent the following
e-mail:
“Dear IUPUI Family,
Last
week, I conducted two town hall meetings to share the current diversity mission
and goals and to seek input from students, faculty and staff. While many issues
of importance were raised, representatives of the Black Student Union provided
testimony reflecting their dissatisfaction with the campus climate,
communication between students and campus leadership, the number of faculty and
administrators of color, inequities in the distribution of student fees, and a
plea for cultural competency training for all university employees. Following
the heartfelt and thoughtful testimony, the Black Student Union submitted a
proposal articulating their concerns and expectations for change. I accepted
the document and issued a response over the weekend.
The dialogue
with the campus community is in its infancy and much remains to be
accomplished. IUPUI remains committed to building a world class urban
institution where exchanges of ideas are valued and all who work, learn, or
visit the campus are treated with respect and with dignity. In the months to
come, we will continue to gather information and feedback from the campus and
the community to build an effective diversity plan. Conversations will continue
on campus and in the community to learn more about our opportunities and our
weaknesses. Everyone is encouraged to participate in this important effort. To
assist communication, a website has been developed to highlight the planning
process and providing opportunities for comment. An electronic newsletter will
begin by the first of December to keep any and all campus partners involved.
Specific
inquiries about the planning process can be directed to me, Diversity Officer
(274-8990) whitney@iupui.edu and if you become aware
of acts of disrespect or discrimination, please report them immediately to the
Affirmative Action Officer Lillian Charleston (274-2306) lcharles@iupui.edu
Since the students asked for a response by 8am Monday, many many emails went out from Thursday to Sunday to colleagues throughout the campus in order to develop an honest response to the students. As such many were involved but many were either unable to respond or were not able to be included. In order to honor the students’ timeline we worked through the weekend and did the best we could to indicate faculty and staff who would convene groups of faculty, students and staff to address a particular item within a specific time frame. If in looking over the response specific faculty, staff, and students come to mind that you think should be involved please let me know right away and we will include them in the efforts.
All documents
regarding our efforts to plan and improve have been posted to the Diversity
website:
Diversity
Planning & Improvement Site: http://www.iupui.edu/diversity/planning/
Any other comments that would assist in our diversity planning and improvement efforts are appreciated.”
Agenda Item XI: Adjournment.
Vice President Vermette
adjourned the meeting at 5:31pm.
Minutes prepared by Faculty Council Coordinator, Molly
Martin
UN 403 / 274-2215 / Fax: 274-2970 / fcouncil@iupui.edu / http://www.iupui.edu/~fcouncil
[Attachment for IFC 11-7-06 Minutes]
ATTACHMENTS
NOT CONTAINED IN THESE MINUTES
Wynne Courtroom of Inlow Hall (IH 100) / Tuesday November 7, 2006
- 3:30-5:30 pm
A G E N D A (IFC:
November 7, 2006)
I.
Welcome and Call to Order: Rosalie
Vermette (IUPUI Faculty Vice-President, 4.0064, rvermett@iupui.edu).
II.
Adoption of Agenda as the Order of Business for the Day.
III.
(2 minutes) [ACTION ITEM] IFC 10/3/06 and 10/17/06 Minutes (distributed
electronically): Up for Approval.
IV.
(15 minutes) Updates/Remarks from the Chancellor:
Charles Bantz (
V.
(15 minutes) Updates/Remarks from the IFC
President: Bart Ng (IUPUI
Faculty President & UFC Co-Secretary, 4.8185, bng@math.iupui.edu).
A. Called
IFC Meeting November 21st, 3;30-5:30pm, UL Auditorium. TOPIC: IU’s Next President.
VI.
(10 minutes) Question / Answer Period.
VII.
(5 minutes) Call for any FC or UFC
Standing Committee reports.
VIII. (10 minutes) [ACTION ITEM] Revised Intellectual
Property Policy: Simon Atkinson
(Chair – Research Affairs Committee, 8.0435, satkinso@iupui.edu).
IX.
(15 minutes) [FIRST
X.
Unfinished Business?
XI.
New Business?
XII.
Adjournment.
Next Faculty Council Meeting: Tuesday December 5, 2006, 3:30-5:30pm, Wynne
Courtroom of Inlow Hall (IH 100)
Please
visit the Faculty Council website at http://www.iupui.edu/~fcouncil
for agenda, updates & more.
Agenda prepared by Faculty Council Coordinator
Molly Martin: UN 403 / 274-2215 / Fax: 274-2970 / fcouncil@iupui.edu / http://www.iupui.edu/~fcouncil