Guests: Allen Colebank, Erica Harvey, Anne Patterson, Dan Bradley, Chris Lavorata

S. Bond moved to accept the minutes. Kelley seconded. The minutes were read and approved.

ANNNOUNCEMENTS:

Report from Student Government – A Veterans’ Day Commemoration will be held on Friday, November 11. On Thursday there will be a rock wall activity in the Falcon Center to promote the Veterans’ Day activity. Student Government will sell AIDS wrist bands and December 1 will be a day of silence ending with a candlelight vigil at 7 p.m. to promote HIV/AIDS awareness Scanlon asked members to fill out the summer pay survey in Vista Forum. Kelley discussed possible PEIA rate increases and encouraged members to attend the PEIA public hearings.

OLD BUSINESS

Kelley moved to open discussion on the draft policy on annual evaluations. Poland seconded. Peter Lach sent an e-mail to read as part of the discussion. His concerns included comparing the numeric values of different schools and departments. His message suggested “patterns” should be considered rather than scores. Poland noted that the discussion on the VISTA Senate Forum has prompted him to rethink his view on the policy. He said that according to Dr. Arreola’s suggestions, the numbers from the annual evaluations are not intended to be used for promotion and tenure. He noted that too many unanswered questions remained to warrant approval of the policy. S. Bond suggested that we wait and discuss these questions with Dr. Arreola who will be coming to campus soon. Riesen noted that his understanding of the policy is that the numbers will supplement the portfolio and that the policy will be revised over time. White questioned how we would be charged to compare the numbers when we know there are many differences among academic units’ evaluation tool. Scanlon said that we need to collect the data in order to be able to see the patterns. Jones suggested that we need a stable tool in order to collect the data.

Kelley asked, “Wouldn’t it follow that we should have stable data before we make the data part of the promotion and tenure process?” Meighen added, “Aren’t the numbers optional this year?” Riesen noted that we need the numbers to make the changes.

M. Bond questioned the legality of changing the system in the middle of the year, and suggested that we seriously consider the consequences of using “unstable” data as a foundation. Wilson noted that in order to validate the instrument, we need data. He suggested that we don’t need to have a finished product. Rather, we need to continue to refine the instrument as part of a process. He went on to say that the question is how much weight we put on the data. Kelley asked if these figures were those used for the raise. Bradley responded, “Yes.” Kelley noted, “I would hate for my promotion to be based on “unstable” data.” Patterson commented that the data could not be a substitution for the process, but a piece of the process. She noted these instruments were designed by faculty and the personnel committee will look at the entire portfolio. Hansen distributed a handout and stated that he was not in favor of passing the policy. He commented that the policy was “a stick to try to cause things to happen” rather than a faculty development tool. E. Harvey commented that the MPT Ad Hoc committee’s work is finished and suggested that the Senate consider some important pieces in the document such as stopping the tenure clock.

A vote was taken by secret ballot. Yes indicated a vote for the policy as written. There were 6 “yes” votes and 16 “no” votes. The motion failed.

M. Bond moved to pass the Business 05-06-02 curriculum proposal for second reading. Cable seconded. Motion carried.

Patterson asked what the defeat of the policy will mean for the CAFE committee. She noted that Dr. Arreola is coming to campus next week and we need to be clear about what we need to ask him to do. M. Bond suggested the CAFE committee should continue and create information for Arreola to comment on. Shields suggested we still need to consider how the evaluation process works across campus and we still need to question how we can use this information for promotion and tenure decisions. Riesen reminded the membership that the merit policy is only for a year. Scanlon asked, “How can we give someone raises year after year and then deny them tenure?” Riesen noted that the CAFE committee should continue its work. The discussion ended due to time constraints.

Riesen asked for volunteers for the Community Service Committee. Hansen volunteered.

NEW BUSINESS

M. Bond moved Kelley seconded to approve for first reading the following curriculum proposals.

Riesen noted that the Senate needs a Policy Review committee. That committee will review policies that are coming from the Board of Governors. Kelley asked if the legislative action committee could do this. Baur noted Senate voted to create this committee. Hansen asked if the entire Senate could be part of the committee. Riesen noted the time restraints on these policies. Bradley suggested devoting one senate meeting for policy discussion. The time period for policy review could be extended. He commented that SB 603 ensures that we will be seeing more policies. E. Harvey noted it was the intent of the Faculty Welfare Committee for people to have the opportunity to serve the institution rather than turn the responsibility over to a large group which might not read them. Riesen said we need a small group that is dedicated to reading the policies and make recommendations to the senate.

Meeting adjourned at 1:44 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Francene Kirk
Faculty Senate Secretary