|
SENATE AGENDA October 16, 2001 3:30pm—Ferguson Forum Role Call and Quorum Check (Keith Woodbury) Approval/Corrections to the Minutes for September 18 (Keith Woodbury) Action Items Resolution Proposing a System of Faculty Feedback for Deans and Chairs Resolution Commending the President and Provost for Their Leadership President’s Report (Norm Baldwin) An October 30th Senate Meeting to discuss the Strategic Planning Initiative Discussion of Preliminary Survey Results on the Posting of Student Evaluations Civility in the Senate Volunteers to judge the Homecoming Parade or Homecoming Lawn Decorations Vice President’s Report (Steve Miller) Secretary’s Report (Keith Woodbury) Reports from Senate Committees Student Affairs (Dexter Gordon and Alvin Winters) Resolution proposing the privatization of the Greek System Financial Affairs (Terry Royed and Keith Woodbury) Intellectual Property Rights proposal Health insurance for graduate students Academic Affairs (Don Desmet and Beth Macauley) Proposal that student pictures accommodate class rosters Posting of student evaluations on the web Inconsistent tenure and promotion standards between departments and colleges Faculty Life (Jerry Rosiek ) Maternity leave policy for the Faculty Handbook Employment statement that includes gender and sexual orientation Hiring and retention of minority faculty (Knight case) Emeritus College Planning and Operations (Bill Keel and John Mason) Final Exams: Tuesday due date for final exam grades; Saturday finals when Test Services are closed; Move Saturday finals up a week. Fall break ACHE data presentation (instructional/non-instructional split; TA data) Environmental Audit—should we do one? Research and Service (Bing Blewitt) Library fines and book replacement policy for faculty Senate Operations (Steve Miller and Harry Price) Ombudsman language for the Bylaws Implementation of "Shared Governance Document" principles Clarification of Senate Eligibility and Senate Reapportionment (before next election) Mediation Document Reports from University Standing and Other Committees Legislative Agenda Committee Report New Business Old Business Announcements On Tuesday, October 30th at 3:30 in the Ferguson Forum, we will convene a special meeting of the Faculty Senate to address the Strategic Planning Initiative document.
A Proposed System of Faculty Feedback For Deans and Chairs (Developed by the Ad Hoc Committee on the Evaluation of Deans and Department Chairs) Whereas this proposal was drafted with input from five University’s experts in performance evaluation. And all of these experts agree that annual systematic feedback for deans and chairs is a better approach than our current system of evaluating deans and chairs, and Whereas annual systematic feedback reduces the bias in the unsystematic feedback that most deans and chairs currently receive, and Whereas annual feedback helps deans and chairs determine what to start doing, what to stop doing, and what to continue doing. In other words, it helps improve performance, and Whereas evaluating deans and chairs once every five years does not provide frequent enough feedback to ensure a timely response to faculty concerns and a positive evaluation by faculty, and Whereas three hundred and sixty degree feedback and evaluation is the preferred practice in contemporary public and private organizations. That is, securing feedback from the top, bottom, and equivalent levels in organizations is a contemporary "best practice" of management. And whereas, a system of faculty feedback for administrators at UA is an essential element in a system of 360 degree feedback, and Whereas allowing faculty to provide feedback to chairs and deans, who they have usually known for years, is only fair because we allow teenagers to evaluate faculty based on a one-semester exposure to a professor. In other words, failing to allow faculty to provide annual feedback to deans and chairs, while requiring faculty to allow students to evaluate their classes, is a demoralizing inconsistency that is far too top-down management for an institution whose primary service provider typically holds a Ph.D., and Whereas the system of annual performance evaluation that was proposed by the Faculty Senate in October of 2000 was rejected by the Council of Deans and the Provost because it was perceived to be threatening and an undue administrative burden, and Whereas the proposed system of faculty feedback is nonthreatening to deans and chairs because it is for private use. One’s superior will not see the feedback, and Whereas a system of faculty feedback for deans and chairs would not be an administrative burden. It would add roughly 1 percent to the 150,000 student evaluations that are already circulated each year and, if administered on-line, would be even less an administrative burden. Therefore be it resolved that the Faculty Senate proposes the following system of faculty feedback for deans and department chairs: A PROPOSAL FOR A System of Faculty Feedback for Deans and Chairs The consensus of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Evaluation of Deans and Department Chairs is to propose a system of faculty feedback for the purpose of professional development, or to help deans and chairs improve their performance. This system will not be used as a system of performance evaluation for the purpose of determining retention or salary raises. As such, deans or chairs will have exclusive rights to their faculty feedback. We propose that a base, or core, feedback instruments be developed by the experts serving on the Ad Hoc Committee. This includes experts in public sector performance evaluation, private sector performance evaluation, continuous quality improvement, and psychometrics. These experts will develop instruments with the input and insights of the Provost, deans, chairs, and faculty. To tailor the instruments to the unique nature of different dean and chair positions, deans and chairs will be invited and encouraged to make additions and modifications to the base instruments. The consensus of our committee is that the system of faculty feedback should be administered annually to all faculty. However, to reduce the administrative burden of processing enormous volumes of written comments for the dean of Arts and Sciences (A&S), a random sample of A&S faculty should be surveyed or all A&S faculty should be surveyed and a random sample of their written comments word processed. We further propose that feedback instruments be administered in one of two ways: (1) on-line or (2) according to the administrative mechanisms currently used to administer over 150,000 annual student evaluation instruments. We feel that a pilot study should determine which mechanism yields the highest response rate. A pilot study should also be administered in order to determine the questions that will ultimately be used in the base instruments (i.e., questions that provide deans and chairs the most meaningful information). Finally, our committee recommends that faculty feedback surveys should be administered in the spring or, to reduce administrative burden and overloading faculty with surveys, should be administered in the fall and spring (e.g., deans in fall, chairs in spring). However, we also feel that the issue of when to administer a faculty feedback survey should not stand in the way of acceptance of the feedback system. Hence, we propose that the deans and chairs can decide when during the year that they would like to have their faculty feedback surveys administered. COMPARISON OF THE REJECTED AND NEW PROPOSAL FOR A SYSTEM OF FACULTY FEEDBACK FOR DEANS AND CHAIRS
SIZE OF FACULTY BY COLLEGE (for the purpose of documenting administrative burden in only the College of A&S)
*Not represented in the Faculty Senate. Whereas U.S. News and World report recently recognized The University of Alabama as being one of the top 50 universities in the United States, and Whereas the funded research at The University of Alabama has climbed to over $71.5 million and more than doubled over a three-year period, and Whereas the number of per-faculty scholarly publications from 1995 to 2000 has almost tripled the number of per-faculty publications from 1988 to 1992, and Whereas the citations of faculty publications have increased from 7.9 per faculty member from 1988 to 1992 to 32.5 per faculty member from 1995 to 2000, and Whereas The University of Alabama has been able to attract over 300 National Merit, Achievement, and Hispanic Scholars, and Whereas The University of Alabama is enrolling record numbers of African-Americans, leads the nation in SREB Minority Doctoral Fellows, and ranks 32nd in the nation in total number of doctoral degrees awarded to African-Americans, and Whereas The University of Alabama has been repeatedly recognized by numerous publications as being one of the best buys and values in higher education, and Whereas numerous programs, schools, and departments at the University of Alabama have elevated themselves to national prominence in recent years. Therefore be it resolved that the Faculty Senate commends President Andrew A. Sorensen, Provost Nancy L. Barrett, and their executive teams for their leadership, stewardship, hard work, facilitation, persistence, vision, and inspiration that has been so critical to the unprecedented achievements of The University of Alabama during their tenures in office. Be it further resolved that the Faculty Senate expresses its sincere appreciation to President Sorensen and Provost Barrett for their accessibility, receptivity, and sensitivity to the Faculty Senate. The Faculty Senate also expresses its sincere appreciation for President Sorensen making faculty salaries his number one priority throughout his tenure as University President. PRIVATIZATION OF THE GREEK SYSTEM: STUDENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES Emails: 09/19/01 Email to Nancy Barrett requesting insights into the ramifications of the issues. Response: Suggested I contact Vice President Todd and Wright. Email to Andrew Sorensen requesting insights into the ramifications of the issues. Response: None Email to Sybil Todd requesting insights into the ramifications of the issues. Response: Shared request with colleagues 09/20/01 Email to Tom Strong requesting the following and his response: Number of Greek System Houses – 35 privately owned (on UA grounds) and 5 University owned (1 traditional greek and 4 black houses. Number of students housed in Greek System Houses – 910. Number of students in the Greek System: 3,045. Total number of students: 15,311 09/24/01 Student Affairs Committee (Susan Vrbsky and Al Winters) conference with Tom Strong, Rick Funk, Todd Borst, and Stacy Jones Points emphasized: Removal of Greek Housing from University oversight would generate a substantial change in the residential life opportunities at the University. The current housing pattern - 910 in Greek Housing, 3,800 in residence halls, and 600 in apartments Removal of the Greek Housing from University oversight would create potential student health problems. University Office of Environmental Health and Safety oversees: A. fire alarm connection to the fire department fire inspections food service inspections 09/25/01 Email to Rick Funk requesting SUG School data on University Relationship with the Greek systems (See table below). Response is pending. Rick indicated the schools are not responding in a timely manner. He is attempting to have the data before the next Faculty Senate Meeting. (projected date of completion – 10/10/01) 09/26/01 Email to Virginia Johnson requesting an appraised current market value of the Greek owned houses. Gina’s response: The only house appraised by the University was the Pi Phi sorority house that was razed for the stadium expansion several years ago. The appraisal was $975,000. The appraisal cost of $1,500 per house prohibit appraisals of additional houses at this time. Gina’s opinion was that all of the sorority houses were in the same shape and have equivalent value. The value of fraternity houses was somewhat less due to lack of upkeep. Approximation of the Current Value of Greek Housing: Sorority Houses $ 975,000 x 15 = $ 14,625,000 Fraternity Houses 0.60 x $975,000 x 15 = 8,775,000 Total $ 23,400,000 |