|
FACULTY SENATE AGENDA March 19, 2002 3:30pm—Ferguson Forum Role Call and Quorum Check (Keith Woodbury) Approval/Corrections to the Minutes for February 19 (Keith Woodbury) Action Items Nomination and election of new officers Resolution Creating a System of Faculty Feedback for Effective University Leadership (15 minutes, see below) Resolution Creating an Ombudsperson (10 minutes, see below) Resolution Proposing Salary Enhancement (5 minutes, see below) Timing of Spring Break 2003. Is it too late? (5 minutes) When do we want to Sponsor another Constitutional Reform Seminar—this Spring, next Fall? (5 minutes) President’s Report (Norm Baldwin) Information from the President and Provost Information from the Registrar, Roger Thompson Vice President’s Report (Steve Miller) Secretary’s Report (Keith Woodbury) Reports from Senate Committees (5 minutes each) Financial Affairs (Terry Royed and Keith Woodbury) Intellectual Property Rights Joint Committee update Health insurance for graduate students Faculty Life (Wythe Holt and Jerry Rosiek ) Maternity leave policy for the Faculty Handbook Picketing staff members Diversity concerns of the English Department Academic Affairs (Don Desmet and Beth Macauley) NCAA investigation concerns (is there a denial of endemic problems?) Inconsistent tenure and promotion standards between departments and colleges Planning and Operations (Bill Keel and John Mason) ACHE data presentation (instructional/non-instructional split; TA data) Environmental Audit—should we do one? Research and Service (Bing Blewitt) Senate Operations (Steve Miller and Harry Price) Grievance Document Shared Governance: Interaction with the President’s Executive Staff; Dean’s representation (non-voting) on Steering Committee and Senate representation (non-voting) on Council of Deans; Graduate Student Association representation (i.e., non-voting, floor privileges) on the Faculty Senate; Implementation of "Shared Governance Document" principles Student Affairs (Alvin Winters) Reports from University Standing and Other Committees Legislative Agenda Committee (Margaret Garner) New Business Old Business Announcements Our next Steering Committee meeting with the Provost is March 4 at 3:00 in her conference room The Senate won the Tax Reform Banner Signature contest! A Proposed System of Faculty Feedback For effective University leadership
Whereas the University’s experts in personnel administration agree that continuing the development of a system of faculty feedback for University leaders, initially limited to deans and department chairs, is consistent with principles of shared governance and is sound contemporary management, and Whereas research demonstrates that superiors do not receive systematic and objective feedback when subordinates are unprotected, and Whereas the proposal that follows helps leaders improve performance, reduces the bias in the unsystematic feedback that leaders currently receive, and provides more timely and less flawed feedback than our system of performance evaluation that occurs only once every five years, and Whereas advocating for the faculty through overseeing a system of faculty feedback is an essential and appropriate role of the Faculty Senate when avenues for enhancing communication between the faculty and administration are rejected and limited, and Whereas a system of faculty feedback will allow leaders to achieve a higher level of performance and responsiveness to faculty, thus allowing for a more productive and satisfied faculty, Therefore be it resolved that the Faculty Senate proposes the following system of faculty feedback for effective University leadership: A Proposal for A System of Faculty Feedback for Effective University Leadership Faculty Senate Sponsored Feedback System. We propose that the Faculty Senate oversee a system of faculty feedback. Feedback System Administered by a University-wide Committee Accountable to the Faculty Senate. To reduce demands on Senate members, who are often already overburdened, we propose that a committee comprised of faculty outside the Senate administer the survey and disseminate the results. Accountable to the Senate, this committee would be funded by the Senate and would use Senate resources (e.g., Linda Knowles, Senate office supplies). This committee would operate much like the Senate’s Legislative Agenda Committee or the Ad Hoc SPI committee. Composition and Charge of a Faculty Leadership Review Committee. We recommend that the committee that administers the feedback survey be called the Faculty Leadership Review Committee. Such a name will reduce the sense that we are restricting our focus to only giving feedback to deans and chairs. We recommend that this committee normally be comprised of ten faculty members elected by the Faculty Senate. These ten shall include a liaison from the Faculty Senate. We further recommend that normally at least one of the ten members have expertise in survey research. The non-Senate members shall serve three-year terms with one third of the members completing a term every year (i.e., one-third of the committee shall turn over every year). This committee shall administer the feedback instruments, disseminate the results, recommend modifications to the instruments as needed, and nominate qualified faculty to serve as the Committee’s new members. To help ensure successful implementation of the new system of feedback and a successful transition of responsibility to the Faculty Leadership Review Committee, members of the Ad Hoc Committee will serve as initial members of the Faculty Leadership Review Committee. To create the cycle of one-third membership turnover each year, initial members of the Faculty Leadership Review Committee will serve terms of one, two, or three years. Frequency of Feedback. To ensure that the feedback system accomplishes the desired results, we propose that feedback instruments be administered no less than once every two years. A more precise frequency of administering instruments would be determined through what is learned in the process of developing and administering the initial instruments. Feedback on Leaders and on the College and Department as a whole. To enhance the amount of useful information for University leaders and to reduce the perception that the Senate is targeting leaders in an adversarial manner, we propose that leadership feedback be a part of an instrument providing feedback on the operation of colleges and departments as a whole.
Instruments Developed by the Ad Hoc Committee Experts. We propose that the experts serving on the Ad Hoc Committee develop the core, or base, feedback instruments. This includes experts in public sector performance evaluation, private sector performance evaluation, and psychometrics. To allow for differences in job responsibilities, leaders will be allowed to add questions to the core instruments. However, before any instruments are administered to the faculty, the Faculty Senate shall approve them. Recommended changes in instruments occurring over time shall also be approved by the Faculty Senate. Administered On-line. Because the Senate does not have the administrative network to administer a hard copy of a survey and because a mail-out survey would be costly, we recommend that the instruments be administered on-line. Dissemination of Results. For feedback to have maximum effectiveness, we propose that: 1. Except for one’s first round of feedback, feedback should be shared with the individual leaders and their immediate supervisor. That is, we recommend re-instituting the accountability that did not exist in the previously proposed system of private feedback. To allow leaders a forewarning of problems and the opportunity to address/correct problems without the stigmatizing judgments of their supervisors, feedback should not be shared with supervisors during one’s first experience with the feedback system. Feedback on individual leaders should not be shared with the general faculty. Faculty should be given access to the aggregate data on leaders (e.g., the aggregate statistics on deans and chairs). Data from the research process used to develop the feedback instruments should be made accessible to the faculty. Reconsideration of the Five-year Review. So that leaders do not experience excessive evaluation, the Faculty Senate shall evaluate whether the University should continue with the University-wide system of evaluating deans and chairs every five-years. This evaluation shall take place after leaders experience two complete cycles of the Senate’s new feedback system. In the event that the Senate’s system of feedback is effective and that the five-year review does not add to the quality of this feedback system, the Senate shall recommend discontinuing the five-year review of deans and chairs.
March 19, 2002 A proposal for the selection of ombudspersons for the University of Alabama, and a description of their responsibilities: 1) Ombudspersons shall be elected by the faculty in conjunction with Faculty Senate elections every year. 2) There shall be three ombudspersons. 3) The term of office for an ombudsperson shall be three years. 4) Terms shall not run concurrently so that one new ombudsperson shall be elected every year as each finishes his or her tenure. 5) Candidates shall be as representative of the entire faculty as possible; therefore one ombudsperson shall come from Arts and Sciences, one from Business or
Engineering, 6) If willing candidates can be identified, the total of three ombudspersons shall always include at least one female and one male ombudsperson. If no male or female candidate is available in a given year; or, if no candidate is available from one of the academic units identified above, those who are available shall be nominated and the election held as scheduled. Gender of candidates or academic unit of their appointment then, shall become a first consideration in the next election. 7) Candidates shall have the following qualifications: a) tenure b) rank of associate or full professor c) at least ten years of service as full-time faculty members with teaching and research responsibilities 8) Candidates shall not be: a) current members of the Faculty Senate b) current members of the Mediation Committee c) current or former administrators, except former Department Chairpersons 9) Any faculty member shall be free to seek the advice and help of any ombudsperson, regardless of the academic unit of either of their appointments, and may seek the help of more than one ombudsperson at any given time. 10) The three ombudspersons shall function as a nominating committee by identifying candidates for election each year. Every effort shall be made to nominate multiple candidates and to rotate representation through the various departments and colleges over a period of time. 11) An initial election shall identify three ombudspersons for one,
two, and three years circulated announcement and identify candidates for their representatives. The assignment of one-, two-, or three-year terms, in this initial
election, shall be 12) Ombudspersons shall not succeed themselves but may be nominated for a another term after an interim period of three years or more. In the first election, the candidate who is elected for one year only may be eligible for nomination in a second election leading to a full three-year term after an interim period of one or more years. The candidate who is elected for a term of two years may be eligible for nomination in a second election leading to a full three-year term after an interim period of two years. 13) The names of all ombudspersons shall be filed in the Office of Academic Affairs. 14) The names of all ombudspersons shall be posted prominently on the University web-site, on the Faculty Senate web-site, and in other conspicuous places. 15) In the event that an ombudsperson is unable to fulfill his or her
term of office, the 16) Ombudspersons are expected to provide the following services: Respect the confidentiality of all exchanges with faculty who seek their help; Make themselves easily accessible; Listen carefully to complaints and problems; Help identify and evaluate options and strategies for solving problems; Open channels of communication; Help mediate resolutions to problems; Identify, clarify, and help interpret University policies and procedures; Refer faculty to appropriate campus resources; 16 cont.—ombudsperson services When fulfilling the preceding primary roles reveals policies or
procedures that seem Ombudspersons are not expected to provide the following services: Legal advice or legal representation; Intervention in a mediation or grievance; (Of course, ombudspersons may participate in a mediation or grievance if properly invited. This statement is included to point out the fact that ombudspersons do not have the authority to intervene in an ongoing mediation or grievance procedure by their own volition.) Address non-University related problems or complaints. Ombudspersons may elect to provide the following additional assistance: Advocate for a faculty member whose complaint, in their informed judgment, is meritorious and deserving of support. This advocacy may include assistance in forming oral or written arguments by the faculty member, or the provision of additional oral or signed written statements by the ombudsperson supporting a faculty member’s appeal for mediation or redress of a grievance. While fulfilling their normal responsibilities to the fullest, ombudspersons may decline to advocate for a faculty member, but must never advocate against a faculty member. To do so, would compromise the confidentiality and trust essential to the effectiveness of such a relationship. Resolution Calling for Higher Faculty Salaries Financial Affairs Committee March 5, 2002 Whereas, average salaries for all professorial ranks lag at least 6% below the national average, and Whereas, average salaries for all professorial ranks lag at least 10% below the SUG average, and Whereas, average salaries for all professorial ranks have barely kept pace with inflation since 1998, Therefore, be it resolved that the Faculty Senate at the University of Alabama implores President Sorensen and his administration and the Board of Trustees to continue to do everything within their power to enhance faculty salaries in the upcoming year and succeeding years until UA salaries meet or exceed the SUG average.
Faculty Salaries at The University of Alabama Compared to 1998 Salaries Adjusted Annually for Inflation
Faculty Salaries at The University of Alabama: comparison with SUG and National Averages – Academic Year 2000-2001
|
