IFC 12/5/06 Minutes
Approved
Faculty Council Minutes (“IFC”): December
5, 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 3:34pm.
Agenda Item II: Adoption of the Order of Business for the Day.
The order of business for the
day was adopted.
Agenda Item III: [ACTION ITEM] Memorial Resolution for Godfrey
"Goff" Tunnicliff, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
The IFC stood for a moment of
silence to recognize their colleague, unanimously adopting the resolution.
Agenda Item IV: [ACTION ITEM] Memorial Resolution for Rebecca Sue
Wappner, Professor of Pediatrics.
Hearing no objections, the
IFC November 21, 2006 minutes stood as written and were entered into record.
These
minutes are available to view online at http://www.iupui.edu/~fcouncil/minutes/fc061121html.htm
Agenda Item VI: [INFORMATION ITEM] Presentation of Slates for Election
to the Board of Review Pool and the Faculty Grievance Advisory Panel (“FGAP”):
Jacqueline Blackwell (Chair – Nominating, jblackwe@iupui.edu).
Blackwell read the slate of
nominees for [the January 9, 2007] election to the Faculty Grievance Advisory
Panel and Board of Review pool. The
slate is as follows:
At the January 9, 2007 Faculty Council meeting, you will be asked to vote
for up to two full professors and one associate professor* from the list of
candidates below. Official ballots will be distributed at the meeting. The two
full professors and one associate professor receiving the most votes* will
serve a two year term (2/1/07 - 1/31/09), joining these four individuals who
will continue serving until 1/31/08: Hasan
Akay (E&T – Tenured Professor), Susanmarie
Harrington (
*Two full professors and one associate professor will be elected so as to satisfy the requisite percentage of full professors on the FGAP, as dictated by the Bylaws of the IUPUI Faculty Council.
Name Unit/Sub-Unit Academic Rank/Additional Titles
|
Carol Gardner |
|
Tenured Professor |
|
John McKivigan |
|
Tenured Professor |
|
Michael Pritz |
Medicine: Neurosurgery |
Tenured Professor |
|
Edward Srour |
Medicine: Hem/Onc |
Tenured Professor |
|
|
|
|
|
Jill Murrell |
Medicine: Pathology/Lab Sci |
Tenured Associate
Professor |
|
C. Subah Packer |
Medicine: Cellular & Integrative Physiology |
Tenured Associate
Professor |
|
Chandru P. Sundaram |
Medicine: Urology |
Tenured Associate
Professor |
Also at the January 9, 2007 Faculty Council meeting, you will be asked to vote for up to ten of the fifteen candidates listed below. Official ballots will be distributed at the meeting. The ten individuals receiving the most votes will serve a two year term (2/1/07 - 1/31/09), joining these ten individuals who will continue serving until 1/31/08: Simon Atkinson (Medicine - Tenured Associate Professor), Sarah Baker (Medicine - Tenured Associate Professor), Ed Berbari (E&T - Tenured Professor), Nancy Eckerman (Medicine - Tenured Librarian), May Jafari (University Library - Tenured Associate Librarian), Kathy E. Johnson (Science: Psychology - Tenured Associate Professor), Anna McDaniel (Nursing - Tenured Associate Professor), Jeffrey Platt (Dentistry - Tenured Associate Professor), Reed Smith (Business - Tenured Associate Professor), L. Jack Windsor (Dentistry - Tenured Associate Professor).
Name Unit/Sub-Unit Academic Rank/Additional
Titles
|
Ghalib Alkhatib |
Medicine: Microbiology/Immunology |
Tenured Associate Professor |
|
Terry Baumer |
SPEA |
Tenured Associate Professor |
|
David J. Bodenhamer |
|
Tenured Professor |
|
John Fetterman |
Science: Psychology |
Tenured Professor |
|
|
Dentistry |
Tenured Professor |
|
Charles Goodlett |
Science: Psychology |
Tenured Professor |
|
Dean Hawley |
Medicine |
Tenured Professor |
|
Richard E. Humphrey |
Law |
Tenured Associate Librarian |
|
Richard D. Jackson |
Dentistry |
Tenured Professor |
|
Bob Jamison |
Business |
Tenured Professor |
|
Susan Perkins |
Medicine |
Tenured Associate Professor |
|
Bill Schneider |
|
Tenured Professor |
|
Brian Vargus |
|
Tenured Professor |
|
Chi-Wah (Rudy) Yung |
Medicine |
Tenured Associate Professor |
|
Jeff X. Watt |
Science: Math |
Tenured Professor |
At meeting time, nominating
ballots for the Spring 2007 election of At-Large Representatives to the IFC had
been electronically distributed to all voting faculty at IUPUI. Nominating ballots are due back on or before
January 14th.
Agenda Item VII Updates/Remarks
from the Chancellor: Charles Bantz (
Chancellor Bantz reported
the following:
·
He will soon be convening groups to
review the following issues: the
reallocation process for student fees; planning for a campus multi-cultural
center; developing the job description for a campus diversity officer; and
searching for a campus diversity officer.
·
The Chancellor
also reported that Dean/Vice President
Brater has been traveling across
·
IUPUI recently
received recognition at two events: one honoring contributors to the success of
the INShape Indiana initiative and
the other celebrating IUPUI being named to the first
President’s Higher Education Community
Service Honor Roll.
Agenda Item VIII: Updates/Remarks from the
IFC President: Bart Ng.
Ng reported the following:
·
Ng then asked for
faculty input on an open letter to IU’s
next President, which will provide an opportunity to express IUPUI’s
unique position in the university, goals, expectations of leadership, etc.
A number of faculty noted the need to cite [in this letter] “the inherent
conflict of interest created by the Board’s decision to ask the President to serve, also, as the
CEO of IUB.”
Ng would
like to have a draft of the letter ready for IFC review in January. Ng, again, asked that faculty forward feedback to the Faculty Council
Officer at molmarti@iupui.edu
or directly to Ng at bng@math.iupui.edu.
·
Ng reminded IFC members that IFC meetings will begin at 3:00pm beginning
January 9, 2007.
·
Ng reported that the IFC Executive Committee continues its conversation
with Chancellor Bantz about the faculty Board of Review process (the role of
the board, the administration, etc.). He
will update the IFC at future meetings.
·
See also Agenda Item XI.
Agenda Item IX: Question / Answer Period.
No discussion.
Agenda Item X: [FIRST
De Tienne read the revised policy which has been
substantially rewritten following its original reading at the November 7, 2006
IFC meeting. The policy was returned to
the IFC Faculty Affairs Committee—consulted by the original proposal author
Associate Dean of Faculties Sharon Hamilton—for review and revision following
the November 7th meeting and is now being treated as an IFC policy
(as opposed to one originated by the administration and simply endorsed by the
IFC).
The policy (as read on 12/5/06) reads as follows:
“Policy on Three-Year Formative Review
of Non-Tenured Tenure-Track Faculty and
Librarians
IUPUI faculty and librarians (hereinafter referred to collectively as “the faculty” or “the faculty member(s)”) represent one of our campus’s most valuable resources. The University makes a substantial long-term investment in its faculty. Our non-tenured tenure-track faculty’s professional success must be among the highest priorities for all campus administrative officers.
While IUPUI has in place an annual review policy mandating that all faculty members be provided with a yearly written evaluation of their work in the areas of teaching, research, and service (or, in the case of librarians, the equivalent areas of performance, professional development, and service), these annual reviews are frequently conducted by the department chair or the school dean alone, without the participation of a peer review committee.
The Policy
To ensure that all non-tenured tenure-track faculty members benefit from helpful and meaningful assessments of their progress toward promotion and tenure near the mid-point of their probationary period, a Three-Year Formative Review [hereinafter referred to as the “Review”] shall be conducted on all such faculty members during the spring semester of the third year of their appointments in accordance with the following guidelines.
Applicability
This policy applies to all non-tenured tenure-track faculty members at IUPUI, with the exceptions noted immediately below. The term “third year” refers to the third full academic year of the non-tenured tenure-track faculty member’s appointment. However, faculty members who enter with one year of credit toward tenure are in their “third year” during their second full academic year of appointment, and those who enter with two years of credit are in their “third year” during their first full academic year of appointment. Those who enter either with tenure or with more than two years of credit toward tenure are exempt from the Review.
Procedures
In schools or units where faculty-approved policies or guidelines for conducting the Review already exist, those policies or guidelines should be followed.
In schools or units where such policies or guidelines have not yet been formulated or approved by the faculty, the Review shall in the interim be conducted in adherence with the following general considerations.
The chief purpose of the Review
is to provide non-tenured tenure-track faculty members with feedback from the
school or unit level review committees regarding their cumulative progress
toward promotion and tenure. Hence,
other than the department chair or school dean, involvement by the department’s
Primary Committee (where applicable) and/or the school’s Unit Committee (where
applicable) in the Review is
essential.
1. The order of review and deliberation involving the department chair or school dean and the Primary and Unit Committees should generally follow the sequence and procedure used by each school in handling ordinary tenure and promotion cases.
2. The faculty member being reviewed should submit only a candidate’s statement together with an up-to-date vita. The statement (not to exceed 5 pages) should be similar in organization to the statement the faculty member would expect to write at the time of making a case for promotion and tenure. In particular, it should clearly state the anticipated area(s) of excellence or the intention to request consideration on the basis of a balanced case.
3. The department chair or school dean and the Primary and Unit Committees (where applicable) must each provide the faculty member with a written assessment that includes evaluation of progress toward promotion and tenure, using normal and appropriate metrics that will eventually be employed in a tenure decision. If the chair, the dean, or the Committees identify any problems, their assessment must include specific suggestions for remedy aimed at helping the faculty member and the faculty member’s department or unit in their efforts to rectify the problems.
Documentation and Reporting
A copy of each review report, whether by the Committees, the chair, or the dean shall be communicated to the faculty member under review within three days of the time it is completed.
To ensure that the Review is properly conducted for all applicable non-tenured tenure-track faculty members, the dean of each school shall be responsible for submitting copies of the chair’s or the dean’s and the Committees’ reports on all non-tenured tenure-track faculty members who have been reviewed to the Office of the Dean of the Faculties by May 31 each year.
Limitation on the Use of the Review
The thrust of the Review shall be to help the non-tenured tenure-track faculty member to succeed. The Review and its findings shall not be used by the department chair or the school dean, or the Office of the Dean of the Faculties, as the basis for a tenure decision, a pre-tenure decision, a reappointment or non-reappointment decision, or any personnel action of like kind.”
Faculty Affairs Committee Member C. Subah Packer--on
behalf of herself, Richard Meiss, and Weiming Yu--also provided proposed
amendments to the proposed policy. Their
proposed amendments—which will be up for discussion and action alongside the
proposed policy above at the January 9, 2007 IFC meeting—read as follows:
“Policy on Three-Year Formative Review
of Non-Tenured Tenure-Track Faculty and
Librarians
Questions for Discussion in Blue Font in Comment Boxes and Highlighted Suggested Revisions in the Text are Submitted by C Subah Packer, Weiming Yu and Richard Meiss, November 27, 2006
IUPUI faculty and librarians (hereinafter referred to collectively as “the faculty” or “the faculty member(s)”) represent one of our campus’s most valuable resources. The University makes a substantial long-term investment in its faculty. Our non-tenured tenure-track faculty’s professional success must be among the highest priorities for all campus administrative officers.
While IUPUI has in place an annual review policy mandating that all faculty members be provided with a yearly written evaluation of their work in the areas of teaching, research, and service (or, in the case of librarians, the equivalent areas of performance, professional development, and service), these annual reviews are frequently conducted by the department chair or the school dean alone, without the participation of a peer review committee.
The Policy
To ensure that all non-tenured tenure-track faculty members benefit from helpful and meaningful assessments of their progress toward promotion and tenure near the mid-point of their probationary period, a Third-Year Formative Review [hereinafter referred to as the “Review”] shall be conducted on all such faculty members during the spring semester of the third year of their appointments in accordance with the following guidelines.
Applicability
This policy applies to all non-tenured tenure-track faculty members at IUPUI, with the exceptions noted immediately below. The term “third year” refers to the third full academic year of the non-tenured tenure-track faculty member’s appointment. However, faculty members who enter with one year of credit toward tenure are in their “third year” during their second full academic year of appointment, and those who enter with two years of credit are in their “third year” during their first full academic year of appointment. Those who enter either with tenure or with more than two years of credit toward tenure are exempt from the Review.
Procedures
In schools or units where faculty-approved policies or guidelines for conducting the Review already exist, those policies or guidelines should be followed.
In schools or units where such policies or guidelines have not yet been formulated or approved by the faculty, the Review shall in the interim be conducted in adherence with the following general considerations.
4. The chief purpose of the Review is to provide non-tenured tenure-track faculty members with feedback from the school or unit level review committees regarding their cumulative progress toward promotion and tenure. Hence, other than the department chair or school dean, involvement by the department’s Primary Committee (where applicable) and/or the school’s Unit Committee (where applicable) in the Review is essential. A thorough and comprehensive review of the faculty member’s efforts must be performed. [SP1]A fair and balanced evaluation of the candidate’s entire effort even if this involves activity/productivity that lie outside of the norms of the primary unit must be afforded. In addition to progress in teaching/performance, research/creative activity and service, exceptional activities that might constitute a “balanced case” and/or exceptional service must be considered. Finally, reviewers must address whether or not the standard set by the decision-making administrator is actually realistic with regard to the set of financial and administrative rules and policies imposed on all faculty members of the department or the decision-making unit. Specifically, reviewers must make an assessment as to whether the expectations communicated to the candidate at the time of hiring and at annual reviews can realistically be achieved and, therefore, consider exceptions in case they are not.
A secondary purpose of the Review is to help deans and chairs have a clear sense of the
cumulative progress of their tenure-track faculty, so that they will consider
any recommended supports or changes in local financial and administrative rules
and policies as well as in curricular assignments or service expectations in
order to help these faculty members be as successful as possible. This three-year
review must serve the purposes of a bilateral review; a process that is
mutually beneficial for the faculty under review as well as the primary
policy-making units and the broader University Community to ensure better
faculty performance by assuring that the support needed is being afforded to
the faculty. Achieving optimal faculty
performance and having an optimal environment in which each faculty member is
able to pursue the three missions of the University as well as having every
opportunity to thrive in his/her declared area of excellence goes hand-in-hand.
Therefore, the Committees writing the reviews will need to keep all three
audiences in mind: the faculty member, the chair, and the dean.
5. The order of review and deliberation involving the department chair or school dean and the Primary and Unit Committees should generally follow the sequence and procedure used by each school in handling ordinary tenure and promotion cases.
6. The faculty member being reviewed should submit only a candidate’s statement together with an up-to-date vita. The statement (not to exceed 5 pages) [SP2]should be similar in organization to the statement the faculty member would expect to write at the time of making a case for promotion and tenure. In particular, it should clearly state the anticipated area(s) of excellence or the intention to request consideration on the basis of a balanced case.
7. The department chair or school dean and the Primary and Unit Committees (where applicable) must each provide the faculty member with a written assessment that includes evaluation of progress toward promotion and tenure, using normal and appropriate metrics that will eventually be employed in a tenure decision.[SP3] If the chair, the dean, or the Committees identify any problems, their assessment must include specific suggestions for remedy aimed at helping the faculty member and the faculty member’s department or unit in their efforts to rectify the problems.
Documentation and Reporting
A copy of each review report, whether by the Committees, the chair, or the dean shall be communicated to the faculty member under review within three days of the time it is completed.
To ensure that the Review is properly conducted for all applicable non-tenured tenure-track faculty members, the dean of each school shall be responsible for submitting copies of the chair’s or the dean’s and the Committees’ reports on all non-tenured tenure-track faculty members who have been reviewed to the Office of the Dean of the Faculties by May 31 each year.[SP4]
Since the purpose of the Review is to provide constructive and supportive feedback to the tenure track faculty member and to provide decision-making unit administrators with concrete 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, follow-up will be performed by the Dean of Faculties Office in cases where problems have been identified to ensure that such recommendations are addressed in a timely fashion (8 weeks?).[SP5]
Limitation on the Use of the Review
The thrust of the Review shall be to help the non-tenured tenure-track faculty member to succeed. The Review shall not be used as a tool against the candidate but, rather, shall be used as a reference point at the time for P&T in order to evaluate the progress at the end of the probationary period. The Review and its findings shall not be used by the department chair or the school dean, or the Office of the Dean of the Faculties, as the basis for a tenure decision, a pre-tenure decision, a reappointment or non-reappointment decision, or any personnel action of like kind.[SP6]”
Discussion followed in which concerns were raised
about the timeline of the review and whether or not it would coincide with
school timelines. De Tienne pointed out
that the policy asks that “in schools or
units where faculty-approved policies or guidelines for conducting the review already
exist, those policies or guidelines should be followed.” IFC members requested the clarification of
some of terminology in the policy; semantic suggestions will be incorporated, as
appropriate, into the policy prior to IFC action.
Agenda Item XI: [DISCUSSION ITEM] Executive Committee Recommendations
on Proposals re: the Reorganization of the Division of Labor Studies: Bart Ng.
Ng reported that the IFC
Executive Committee (“IFCEC”) has drafted a report on the proposed reorganization of the Division of
Labor Studies [in preparation to the IFC’s January discussion and February action/recommendations]: http://www.iupui.edu/~fcouncil/DLS/IFCEC_rec_12-06.pdf).
Ng asked IFC members to read
the report to inform their re-reading and consideration of the administration’s
and DLS faculty’s respective proposals. These and other DLS
documents are available online at http://www.iupui.edu/~fcouncil/DLS/DLS.htm. Ng thanked the
IFC for reading thoughtfully and carefully. He also asked faculty to forward feedback or questions to the IFCEC by
way of the Faculty Council Office at molmarti@iupui.edu.
Agenda Item XII: [DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEM] Journalism-SLA Merger: Dean
Robert White (
Following an explanation of
the circumstances motivating a proposed merger (a high number of Indianapolis majors per a relatively small number of
faculty, perceived lack of engagement with the IU School of Journalism at
Indianapolis on the part of the Dean of the IU School of Journalism [based at
IUB], etc.), Deans White and Brown explained that both schools are
enthusiastic about a merger. While some
concerns have been raised on the IUB campus about such a merger, the Council
determined that said concerns should be addressed only following the IFC’s
registration of their opinion on the matter.
The IFC then unanimously
approved the merger of the IU School of Journalism at
Agenda Item XIII: Unfinished Business?
No
discussion.
Agenda Item XIV: New Business?
No
discussion.
Agenda Item XV: Adjournment.
Vice President Vermette
adjourned the meeting at 5:32pm.
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 12-5-06 Minutes]
ATTACHMENTS
NOT CONTAINED IN ELECTRONIC 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)
|
Wynne
Courtroom (Inlow Hall Room 100) /
Tuesday December 5, 2006 - 3:30-5:30 pm A G E N
D A (IFC: December 5, 2006) |
|||
|
I.
|
(> 1
minute) |
Welcome and Call to Order. |
Rosalie
Vermette (IUPUI Faculty
Vice-President, 4.0064, rvermett@iupui.edu).
|
|
II.
|
(> 1
minute) |
Adoption of the Agenda as
the Order of Business for the Day. |
Rosalie Vermette |
|
III.
|
(1 minute) |
[ACTION ITEM] Memorial
Resolution for Godfrey
"Goff" Tunnicliff, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular
Biology (see reverse side of agenda). |
Rosalie Vermette |
|
IV.
|
(1 minute) |
[ACTION ITEM] Memorial
Resolution for Rebecca Sue Wappner,
Professor of Pediatrics (see p. 4 of agenda packet). |
Rosalie Vermette |
|
V.
|
(> 1
minute) |
[ACTION ITEM]
Approval of IFC 11/21/06 Minutes (distributed
electronically). |
Rosalie Vermette |
|
VI.
|
(1 minute) |
[INFORMATION ITEM] Presentation of Slates for Election to the Board of Review Pool and
the Faculty Grievance Advisory Panel (“FGAP”) (see white hand-out). |
Jacqueline
Blackwell (Chair – Nominating, jblackwe@iupui.edu).
|
|
VII.
|
(15 minutes) |
Updates/Remarks from the Chancellor. |
Charles
Bantz (
|
|
VIII.
|
(15 minutes) |
Updates/Remarks
from the IFC President. A.
Starting in
January 2007, IFC meetings start at 3:00pm. B.
Updated Report
on Faculty Board of Review Activity for 2005-06. |
Bart Ng (IUPUI Faculty President & UFC Co-Secretary, 4.8185, bng@math.iupui.edu). |
|
IX.
|
(10 minutes) |
Question / Answer Period. |
Rosalie Vermette |
|
X.
|
(> 1
minute) |
Call for any FC or UFC
Standing Committee reports. |
Rosalie Vermette |
|
XI.
|
(10 minutes) |
[FIRST |
Andre De Tienne (Chair – Faculty Affairs Committee, 4.2033, adetienn@iupui.edu).
|
|
XII.
|
(30 minutes) |
[DISCUSSION ITEM] Executive Committee Recommendations on Proposals re: the
Reorganization of the Division of Labor Studies (see blue hand-out). |
Bart Ng |
|
XIII.
|
(30 minutes) |
[DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEM] Journalism-SLA Merger. |
Jim Brown, Sharon Hamilton, Bob White |
|
XIV.
|
(> 1
minute) |
Unfinished Business? |
Rosalie Vermette |
|
XV.
|
(5 minutes) |
New Business? |
Rosalie Vermette |
|
XVI.
|
(> 1
minute) |
Adjournment. |
Rosalie Vermette |
|
Next
Faculty Council Meeting: Tuesday
January 9, 2007, 3:00-5:00pm, 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 |
|||
[SP1]Of concern in the current economically stressful environment
is that a grant-getting/tenure-getting climate must be avoided; more
importantly, a no grant/no tenure scenario must be avoided. In other words, a
candidate’s performance in areas other than in success at acquiring grants must
not be under-evaluated as other efforts/works/activities may be equally important
or more important for the University.
[SP2]While this brief statement and a CV reduce the burden of
labor for reviewers at the 3-Year mark, young faculty members would benefit
from composing a more complete dossier using the IUPUI format at this pre-tenure
review stage. Extensive reviews of all materials supplied need not be performed
unless a problem with the content of the CV and/or 5-page statement is
perceived.
[SP3]Should a copy of the Primary Unit’s P&T Standards that
are required to be supplied to the candidate also be supplied to all reviewers
at this stage?
[SP4]If all the reports need to be submitted to the Office of the
Dean of the Faculties by May 31, the dossier and the reviews must be done
prior to that date, it is not likely that this is a review of the "third
full academic year."
[SP5]Timing of follow-up? Who should be held responsible for implementing the
recommendations (i.e. Sch Dean or Dept Chair or Both)? Should the Faculty
Member be interviewed for assessment of outcome of the 3-Year review?
[SP6]But what
happens in cases where the 3-Year Review and the Annual Review in the 3rd
Year are in conflict?
Also,
since the 3-Year Review goes through the usual hierarchy of layering (i.e. Dept
P&T, Dept Chair, Sch P&T, Sch Dean), then one must assume that the
Annual Review is incorporated into the 3-Year Review. So, is it really
necessary to conduct the Annual Review in the 3rd Year or is this
redundant in this particular year?
Finally,
if annual reviews should be predictive of P&T reviews, then how could a 3-Year
Review not also be predictive? Indeed, if a candidate has an excellent 3-Year
Review and is then found unworthy of P&T in the 5th year, one
must question what has gone wrong in the 1.5-2.0 year interim.