Title
4.3 B Faculty Senate Minutes, Special Meeting, November 9, 2007
Subject(s)
Faculty
Governance
Description
Highlights:
-Guests present: Provost Padilla, Vice Provost Schwarze, Associate Provost Cartwright
-The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Provost Padilla's plan for a new faculty evaluation system.
-current faculty evaluation system is too laborious
-Faculty will have the deciding input into whether the new system should be adopted.
-Tenured faculty within a department have a right to review their probationary candidates.
-The main changes from the current system:
1. Promotion to associate professor and tenure would be combined into one evaluation.
2. Candidates would be evaluated in years 2, 4 and 6 rather than years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
3. Peer groups would change their name to "department review group" and would consist of the chair, 3-5
tenured members of the department and one outside
member chosen from a list provided by the candidate.
4. The faculty review committee would consist of elected tenured members only (2 from each division).
5. The faculty review committee and dean would switch positions in the order so
that the order would be: department review group, faculty review committee,
dean, provost, president. The dean and provost would consult with each other, but would provide separate statements.
-Senators had no overriding objections, but there was discussion on details.
1. Senators felt that the deans should make a separate statement from the provost.
2. Senators felt that the outside member should be chosen from a candidate's list of choices.
3. Senators asked if the candidate would be allowed to respond to each level
4. There were clarifications about how the DRC would be chosen, but no major objections to changing peer groups to department review groups.
5. There was discussion about the FRC's placement before the dean in the evaluation process.
-Discussion continued after the provost and his team left.
-Guests present: Provost Padilla, Vice Provost Schwarze, Associate Provost Cartwright
-The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Provost Padilla's plan for a new faculty evaluation system.
-current faculty evaluation system is too laborious
-Faculty will have the deciding input into whether the new system should be adopted.
-Tenured faculty within a department have a right to review their probationary candidates.
-The main changes from the current system:
1. Promotion to associate professor and tenure would be combined into one evaluation.
2. Candidates would be evaluated in years 2, 4 and 6 rather than years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
3. Peer groups would change their name to "department review group" and would consist of the chair, 3-5
tenured members of the department and one outside
member chosen from a list provided by the candidate.
4. The faculty review committee would consist of elected tenured members only (2 from each division).
5. The faculty review committee and dean would switch positions in the order so
that the order would be: department review group, faculty review committee,
dean, provost, president. The dean and provost would consult with each other, but would provide separate statements.
-Senators had no overriding objections, but there was discussion on details.
1. Senators felt that the deans should make a separate statement from the provost.
2. Senators felt that the outside member should be chosen from a candidate's list of choices.
3. Senators asked if the candidate would be allowed to respond to each level
4. There were clarifications about how the DRC would be chosen, but no major objections to changing peer groups to department review groups.
5. There was discussion about the FRC's placement before the dean in the evaluation process.
-Discussion continued after the provost and his team left.
1 attachment
Available online only.
Date
November 9, 2007
Creator(s)
Lambert, Lynn
Faculty Senate Secretary
Faculty Senate Secretary
Call Number
4.3 B
Statement of Rights
Christopher Newport University, All Rights Reserved
Original Format
PDF file
Document Viewer
Click below to view a document.