Academic Policies Committee Minutes

Transcription

1 I. Meeting called to order at 3:30 II. II. Members present: Phil Sample, Jerry Bowen, Diana Clayton, MaryRose Hart, Vadym Kyrylov, Katarzyna Roberts III. The committee reviewed and approved a new Policy on Endowed Chairs (see attached). The only changes made in the policy as presented to us by Dr. Beck were: a. Page one, Section B 2 nd paragraph: changed A budget recommendation should be submitted. To A budget recommendation will be submitted.: b. Page 2, Section D. 5 th paragraph : changed and at least one member from another school. To and at least one member from another academic school. To clarify that it does not mean another university. c. Page 2, Section D, 5 th paragraph: changed. from one of the other Schools. To from one of the other schools. IV. The Faculty Senate requested that the committee look at a policy for evaluating the deans. An example from another school had been furnished. The committee looked at the example and decided that it had serious flaws. It was decided to send the form to the faculty in our departments and ask for suggestion on improving the policy, the form, and the questions on the form. We will discuss the suggestions at our next meeting on November the 17 th. V. The committee revisited the Textbook Selection policy from the new manual as some holes had been discovered in it at the last meeting of the Academic Council. The committee revised the policy, approved it and agreed to send it up to the Faculty Senate and then the Academic Council. (See Attached) VI. The committee discussed a suggestion from the Academic Council to move the current University Curriculum Committee down to the three schools. After debating several pros and cons, the committee decided to take the issue back to our faculty and look at it again in the future. VII. The Academic Council had questioned the fact that the Post Tenure Review Policy showed up in two places in the revised (and current) manual and The committee looked at the manual and decided that it was correctly placed in both places. The first section is the general description of the policy, while the second is the actual process. No change is needed. VIII. Meeting adjourned. The next meeting will be Wednesday, 17 November 2010, in Room 124 of Baird Hall.

2 I. Meeting called to order at 3:35 II. Members present: Phil Sample, Diana Clayton, Katarzyna Roberts, Vadym Kyrylov III. The committee continued their discussion of the proposed Dean Evaluation policy and form. It was found that there was an overwhelming lack of feedback from the faculty to the committees request for suggestions on the policy and form. Therefore, the committee decided that they would revise the policy and the form based on the official job description for academic deans (copy attached). The committee members were to study the job description and come up with suggested questions for the evaluation form and a proposed policy and process for the evaluation. IV. It was agreed to ask for a meeting with Dr. Beck to discuss the job description from his point of view. His availability would determine the next meeting. V. Meeting adjourned at 4:20.

3 I. Meeting called to order at 3:40. II. Members present: Diana Clayton, Karen Smith, Kasia Roberts, MaryRose Hart, Vadym Kyrylov, Phil Sample, Dr. Beck. III. The purpose of the meeting with Dr. Beck was to discuss the Job Description for deans, as it might be applied to an evaluation form for deans. Dr. Beck informed the committee that three other institutions in the state had dean evaluations, but most did not. IV. The committee discussed the present Faculty Evaluation System and some of the faculty complaints about it. Dr. Beck informed the committee that the Idea Center (which provides our current faculty evaluation forms) also had one for administrators. He agreed to get the committee a copy of that form for evaluation. It was mentioned that it might be possible to add some questions to the form to fit it to our institution. In the committee s next meeting (to be held the Wednesday following receipt of the form), the committee will evaluate the form, discuss adding questions, and make a recommendation to the Faculty Senate. V. Meeting adjourned at 4:40.

4 I. Meeting called to order at 3:37. II. Members present: Kasia Roberts, MaryRose Hart, Vadym Kyrylov, Jerry Bowen, Phil Sample, Guest: Dr. Elwell. III. Dr. Elwell presented the Dean s proposals for Evaluation, Tenure and Promotion at RSU. A copy of the written proposals is attached. IV. The first recommendation was that there should be an annual performance review for each tenure-track faculty member. The review would be held by a committee comprised of the tenured faculty in the facultymember s department. The committee agreed in principle with the suggestion and will take it up as a part of the revision of the tenure and promotion policy. V. The second recommendation of the Deans was that the Tenure Committee commit their evaluation to writing and notify the candidate for tenure in writing of that decision. The committee will then send their written evaluation, their vote, and their recommendation to grant or deny tenure up the chain to the Department Head. Again, the committee agreed in principle with the recommendation and will include it in the rewrite of the policy. VI. The third recommendation of the Deans was that the Academic Council be added as a step in the promotion process. The committee respectfully disagreed with this recommendation. VII. Dr. Elwell also requested that the committee reduce the amount of items required in the tenure and promotion portfolios and that we be very specific in what is to be in them. There should be specific benchmarks for promotion and tenure. The committee agreed with this suggestion and will incorporate it into the new policy. VIII. The committee reviewed and approved the Evaluation tool of the Idea Center for administrators. It was decided that it would work for the Deans. It will be forwarded to the Faculty Senate for their decision and action. IX. By , the chair of the committee announced that the major project of the committee for this year will be a comprehensive re-write of the tenure and promotion policies in the manual. X. The meeting was adjourned at 5:10. XI. The next meeting will be Wednesday, the 2 nd of February, 2011, at 3:30 in BH124.

5 I. Meeting called to order at 3:30. II. Members present: Kasia Roberts, Vadym Kyrylov, Jerry Bowen, Phil Sample. III. The committee discussed the rating and evaluation criteria in the current manual. It was suggested the two areas be combined, perhaps in the form of a graph. It was determined that a benchmark was necessary on the criteria, and that the international level was not acceptable. The faculty evaluation system currently used (IDEA) was discussed specifically with regard to effective classroom teaching. It was also agreed that a system of peer review is necessary. IV. Meeting adjourned at 4:40. V. Next meeting will be after Spring Break Wednesday, 23 March 2011 in BH124 at 3:30.

6 I. Meeting called to order at 3:30. II. Members present: Kasia Roberts, Jerry Bowen, MaryRose Hart, Phil Sample III. The chair gave a report to the committee about the changes in the Office Hour Policy which the Academic Council had made, and informed them that Dr. Beck would like to meet with them at the next meeting on the 30 th. The members were asked to discuss the policy with their faculty. IV. The committee briefly discussed the cover forms for the promotion and tenure packets which Dr. Beck had asked them to look at. It was mentioned that the phrase, noteworthy achievement, on the Promotion Application did not appear in the policy manual and should, therefore, be brought in line with the manual. The committee will continue their review of the forms at the next meeting. V. The next meeting will be Wednesday, March 30 th, 2011, at 3:30 in BH124. VI. Meeting adjourned at 4:40.

7 I. Meeting called to order at 3:35. II. Members present: Kasia Roberts, Jerry Bowen, Mary Rose Hart, Karen Smith, Diana Clayton, Phil Sample. Guest: Dr. Beck. III. Dr. Beck discussed the changes to the Office Hour Policy that the Academic Council had made. There was concern that too many contact hours would be lost (3000 per year for all of the faculty). The committee agreed to take the changes under advisement and discuss the issue with the Faculty Senate before either asking for a conference committee to work out the differences between what the committee had approved and what the Academic Council had recommended or approving the change from 8 office hours to 10 office hours. IV. Dr. Beck also asked that the committee eliminate Chapter One in the current manual, which contains information that is available in other locations and is not applicable to academic policies. The committee agreed to strike all of the following sections: 1.1 History of Rogers State University... page Governance... page Accreditation... page Institutional Memberships... page Mission to include and page Facilities... page 5 The committee decided to include a brief statement as section 1.0 Introduction to the effect that the above information can be located on the RSU website. In that way, it would not be necessary to re-number the rest of the manual. V. Meeting adjourned at 4:45.