Faculty Senate Minutes - 4/21/2005
Missouri Western State College
Faculty Senate Minutes
April 21, 2005
SU 220
Current Senators Present: President Andrews, Vice President Hegeman, Secretary Ottinger, Senators Caldwell, Gregory, Heider, Holian, Hunt, Nandan, Noynaert, Tapia, Tushaus, Voelkel, and Williams.
Current Senators Absent: Past President Greiert, Senator Haney
Newly Elected Senators Present: Phil Mullins
Ex-Officio Members Present: President Scanlon, Vice President Arnold
Ex-Officio Members Absent: none
Guests Present: Mike Cadden (Chair of Promotion and Tenure Committee), Mark Mabe, and Evelyn Brooks (Peer Evaluation Committee)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call to Order: President Larry Andrews called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m.
Approval of April 7th Minutes: (Heider/Nandan)
Date of minutes needed to be changed from "March 24, 2005" to "April 7, 2005"
Minutes were approved as amended by unanimous voice vote.
Approval of Agenda: (Hunt/Williams)
Report from Ad Hoc Advising Hours Committee was postponed.
Agenda was approved by unanimous voice vote.
Report from College President:
§ Missouri State Senate Appropriations Committee has approved a 5% core cut for the higher education budget. Senate is expected to follow suit. House has approved a flat budget, so final budget will be decided in a conference meeting. This will mean about a $1,000,000 drop in MWSU's budget.
§ MOSERS expenses have increased by 2%. Additional increases are expected in future years.
Report from Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs:
Introduced Courtney Striker, Dean of Students from Montana State University and consultant for Noel Levitz.
Discussion with Courtney Striker: Visit part of the second phase of a two-phase consultation.
Phase 1: Recruitment
Phase 2: Retention
Dr. Striker will visit campus 4 more times over the next year to discuss student engagement across campus. First visits will define engagement and success. Then discuss what we already do and how we can tweak it to enhance engagement. Faculty involvement critical to this process.
Report from Senate President:
Executive Committee has met twice since the last meeting. Topics have included:
§ Budget issues
§ Peer Review
§ 2005-2006 Committee Assignments
CGAC met on Tuesday. Returned CS/CIS terminal degree issue to CSMP department and VPASA to discuss ramifications of change in terminal degree.
Discussion with Mark Mabe: See Appendix A for handout.
Report from Promotion and Tenure Committee: See Minutes Appendix B for written report. Committee Chair Mike Cadden presented the report.
(Heider/Caldwell) Motion to accept the report.
Report from Ad Hoc Peer Review Committee: See Minutes Appendix C for policy guide revision. Committee Chair Phil Mullins presented the report.
Report on Senate Committee Assignments for 2005-2006 Academic Year: See Minutes Appendix D.
Only 49 faculty members responded to committee service questionnaire.
Tim Holian requested not to serve as Liaison to Curriculum Committee again.
(Gregory/Nandan) Motion to accept committee assignments.
Question was raised on when (and if) previous liaison's should pass off reports and other documents to the incoming liaisons. No policy is in place to discuss committee records. This is an issue the incoming senate might want to investigate.
Old Business:
SR-20-05 (Nandan/Gregory) The Missouri Western State College Faculty Senate recommends a 4% across the board salary increase for all full-time faculty members.
Senators Nandan and Gregory withdrew their motion and offered the following substitute motion:
The Missouri Western State College Faculty Senate recommends a CPI-based salary increase for all full-time faculty members contingent upon the fiscal situation in the 2005-2006 academic year.
Motion passed by voice vote.
SR-21-05 (Hegeman/Haney) Missouri Western State College should purchase a one-year subscription for a plagiarism-detection software program.
Motion passed by voice vote.
SR-22-05 (Hegeman/Haney) That the current parking regulations be amended to allow all faculty who are full-time employees of Missouri Western State University the option of purchasing reserved parking permits.
Motion passed by voice vote.
New Business:
SB-23-05 (Heider/Nandan) The Faculty Senate accept the proposed Policy Guide revisions implementing an up-or-out tenure system drafted by the Peer Review Committee in response to SR 14-05.
Adjournment: (Heider/Gregory)
Senate adjourned at 5:21 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Michael B. Ottinger, PhD
Senate Secretary.
MINUTES APPENDIX A
MODEM ACCESS
UTILIZATION/COST STUDY & RECOMMENDATION
April 21, 2005
The ITS staff analyzed the MWSC modem pool utilization during the period of January 3, 2005 through February 13, 2005. There were 66 unique users during that time frame of which 35 were faculty. Among the 35 faculty members, 17 accessed the modem pool in excess of 1000 minutes, 9 accessed the modem pool less than 1000 minutes but greater than 500 minutes and 9 accessed the modem pool less than 500 minutes. In total, the 66 users used the modems a total of 184,118 minutes out of a possible 1,391,040 minutes of total availability which equates to 13% utilization of the 23 modems. The total number of • sessions was 3644 and the average session length in minutes was 50.5.
The 23 modems are accessible through a PRI data line that provides 23 modem connections and 1 signaling connection to communicate with the carrier (SBC). The contract that we have utilized for the past several years has now expired. The previous annual rate was $7,243 and the new annual rate is $8,503 resulting in an increase of $1,260 per year.
MWSU currently obtains Internet connectivity through the Missouri Education and Research Consortium (MERC) and we pay annual dues. Our respective dues for the past several years have been approximately $10,500 (w/an exception being made this year due to a MERC budget surplus that was available on a one-time basis). MERC received information yesterday based upon the Senate budget hearings that the MOREnet (umbrella consortium that also includes public libraries and public K-12 school districts) would be cut by $4.35M next year. We anticipate that our dues may double to approximately $21,000.
Additionally, the Internet connectivity service from a remote location is generally viewed as a utility regarding home access and is readily available from other locations outside the home such as hotels, businesses, and other institutions.
The resulting outcome of low utilization, increased costs, budget cuts, availability of Internet access from commercial providers for home use, and the availability of Internet connectivity when in remote locations other than home is that the Technology Management Team voted unanimously to discontinue modem access to the Internet on June 30, 2005.
MINUTES APPENDIX B
To: Larry Andrews, President of the MWSC Faculty Senate
From: Mike Cadden, Chair of the MWSC Faculty Senate Promotion and Tenure Committee
Re: Year-end Report Date: 4/21/05
The committee met three times during the fall semester, not counting the workshop meeting of 9/2/04:
Fall/tenure committee included the following members:
Dr. DanTrifan LAS
Ms. Denise Bartles PS
Dr. Mike Cadden LAS (Chair)
Mr. Robin Findlay LAS
Ms. Alicia Sindt PS
Dr. Jane Frick LAS
Dr. Evelyn Brooks PS
Dr. Deborah Bogle PS
Senate liaison: Dr. John Tapia
Friday. 10/22/04. 4PM
Present: Bartles, Bogle, Cadden, Findlay, Frick, Sindt, Trifan.
Absent: Brooks
Guest: Dr. Arnold
Dr. Arnold visited the committee, as stipulated by the Policy Guide, "to discuss the philosophy of promotion and tenure as well as the criteria to be used in identifying deserving faculty." He verified that his office checks on the eligibility of candidates. He thanked the committee for its help in two workshops to help potential tenure and promotion candidates prepare packets; he expressed the desire to make the workshop an annual, if not semi—annual event.
The committee then discussed procedures and policies for the coming cycle. The senate had issued no charges to the committee beyond its usual charge of to "make a continuing study of promotion and tenure policy and make recommendations to the Faculty Senate for improvement of MWSC P&T policy."
The committee was briefed on the work and role of the Peer Review Committee.
The committee discussed the role of community service in the assessment of tenure. Opinions ranged from observations that community service was not to be considered unless relevant to the person's position at the college to observations that all faculty are de facto representatives of the college and that all community work is to be considered. It was the committee's observation that in either case community service alone wouldn't be enough to warrant tenure, and that it was clearly the last consideration after teaching, professional development, and service to the department and institution.
Wednesday. 11/10/04. 3 PM
Present: Bartles, Brooks, Bogle, Cadden, Findlay, Frick, Sindt, Trifan.
Absent: None
The committee discussed and voted on tenure for six candidates. All were recommended for tenure.
Wednesday. 12/1/04. 3 PM
Present: Bartles, Brooks, Bogle, Cadden, Findlay, Frick, Sindt, Trifan.
Absent: None
The committee discussed and voted on tenure for five candidates. All were recommended for tenure.
The committee met 4 times during the spring semester
Spring/promotion committee included the following members:
Dr. Dan Trifan LAS
Ms. Denise Bartles PS
Dr. Mike Cadden LAS (Chair)
Mr. RobinFindlay LAS
Ms. Alicia Sindt PS
Dr. Jane Frick LAS
Mr. R. J. Dick PS (Replacement for Dr. Brooks)
Dr. Deborah Bogle PS
Senate liaison: Dr. John Tapia
Between the work of fall (tenure) and spring (promotion), I meet with Senate President Andrews and
Senate VP Hegeman at President Andrews' request to discuss the resignation of a member from the
P&Tcommittee. The question was whether this person was eligible to be considered for promotion
since she had served on the committee in the fall of the same academic year. We discussed the
implications for this based on the Senate By-Laws and the Policy Guide; it was ultimately decided that
while leaving the committee mid-year is not desirable, leaving early cannot disqualify one from
consideration for promotion.
We also discussed whether or not it is appropriate for the committee to include suggestions for packet revision on candidates' tenure reports. The committee had decided to include such suggestions for candidates who would likely resubmit packets in the next semester for promotion. There had been objections raised by some candidates. No clear resolution was reached.
Thursday. 2/10/05. 3:30PM
Present: Bartles, Bogle, Cadden, Dick, Findlay, Frick, Sindt, Trifan.
Absent: None
The committee discussed promotion measures (in contrast to tenure) as described in the Policy Guide. We also discussed and responded to the Peer Review Committee report to the Senate (12/04). I sent Phil Mullins, chair of the PR committee, our responses, which opened up further discussion.
Thursday. 3/10/05. 3:30 PM
Present: Bartles, Bogle, Cadden, Dick, Findlay, Frick, Trifan.
Absent: Sindt
The committee reviewed the applications of seven promotion candidates. All seven were recommended for promotion from the rank of Assistant to Associate Professor.
Because one member from Professional Studies was unable to attend due to illness, and in order to ensure that there be an equal vote count from the two schools, I, as chair and a member of LAS, abstained from voting. There turned out to be total unanimity on the votes in this session.
Thursday. 3/24/05. 3:30PM
Present: Bartles, Bogle, Cadden, Dick, Findlay, Frick, Sindt, Trifan
Absent: None
The committee began the meeting by discussing the distinctions between performance for promotion to
Associate and Full Professor, respectively. The committee reviewed the applications of six promotion
candidates. All six were recommended for promotion: two from the rank of Assistant to Associate
Professor, four from the rank of Associate to Full Professor.
Thursday. 4/14/05. 3:30 PM
Present: Bartles, Bogle, Cadden, Dick, Findlay, Frick, Sindt, Trifan.
Absent: None
The committee discussed the final Peer Review report and made its own suggestions for Policy Guide
revisions. What follows is a list of suggestions to be considered as the senate revises the PG section on
Faculty Evaluation.
—Increase the committee to eleven members with the chair voting only to break a tie. If it remains vital to have an equal number of voting members from each school, the chair would need to come from the "majority party." (Senate By—laws)
—Assign the P&T committee a permanent time and day as is done currently with the senate and curriculum committee. It is very difficult to arrange meetings, and if we increase the size of the committee to eleven, it will be nearly impossible to arrange them.
—Make it clear that all members need to be present in order for a vote to take place, not simply that there be an equal amount voting from each school. We discussed the possibilities of having alternate members (as in a jury) or simply requiring a quorum of voting members, but we ultimately concluded that 100% attendance for voting is necessary for fairness. If we have a set time and day for meetings, rescheduling in the case of committee member illness should be relatively easy to do.
—Direct the chair of P&T to submit a report both to the candidates as well as the VP for Academic and Student Affairs. For some reason this leg of the process is different than the others. Chairs, Deans, and the VP all give their reports both to the candidate as well as have the report put in the packet for review by the next person or group. We suggest that it be formally spelled out that the P&T chair has to send a report to both the candidate and the VP.
—We notice that professional service has migrated from professional development to service in the latest draft from the PR committee. We think that the candidate should be allowed to make the case for an activity's definition. Some "service" requires professional expertise and application (clinical work or journal editing, for example) while others (introducing panelists at a conference, for instance) are purely service.
—Rethink the timetable to give this committee more than three weeks (not counting spring break) to arrange two or more meetings to vote on candidates, especially if the committee is to review packets in more than one context simultaneously (promotion and tenure). Instead of a 1/15 initial deadline for candidates to submit to the department, make the deadline 10/15 or earlier to give review more time at each level.
—Remove the time stipulation often minutes for a candidate appeal and simply allow a candidate to meet with the subcommittee on one occasion. Either party could conclude the meeting at any time.
—The PG should clearly describe what is required and what is optional to be included in a packet for either tenure or promotion to any rank. What is common to all faculty at MWSU (contract w/ contingencies, vita, letter, job descriptions, course syllabi and assignments, course grades and sizes, faculty evaluation forms, official and original copies of student evaluation information) should be required in the packet. Have a list of possible areas of evidence as well, but make it clear what is required to be included and what may be included. Our committee recommends that all candidates for tenure and promotion must include the most recent six years of student evaluation responses.
—We should avoid the redundancy and potential contradiction of describing the packet in both the tenure and promotion sections. The PG should describe the distinctions between tenure and promotion, but the packets themselves shouldn't vary; the context in which they are viewed should be different, rather.
-No one area of evaluation (professional development, teaching, service) should be privileged over any other in either tenure or promotion. Competence, improvement, and/or distinction (depending on rank level) in any one area should be valued, but we shouldn't require one area to be of primary consideration.
-There should be required departmental evaluation at the committee level preceding the evaluation of the chair. We strongly agree with this.
-Do we want the option of offering early promotion at any level to candidates that we wish to reward and keep here at MWSU? We thought that this option should be kept open.
-Candidates who engage in paid, professional leave should not have their candidacy held back a year. This would keep the candidate for tenure on track to be reviewed for both tenure and promotion at the same time. We think paid, professional leave should be distinguished from unpaid leave of absence. Professional leave is awarded based on merit; its award should not simultaneously penalize its recipient.
MINUTES APPENDIX C
VII. FACULTY EVALUATION PROCEDURES
The evaluation of a faculty member is a continuous process that involves the accumulation of relevant data and information that permits intelligent judgments concerning a faculty member's performance. Evaluation procedures are used in the annual review, in the tenure review, in promotion reviews, and in special reviews such as those for Regents Distinguished Professor awards and grants for professional leave and sabbatical. At the heart of an effective evaluation system lies the requirement that a faculty member diligently seek self-improvement and that evaluators responsibly interpret results and carefully support comments and recommendations
A. AREAS OF FACULTY EVALUATION
Faculty performance is evaluated in three areas: teaching, service, and scholarship/creative activity. The discussion below provides a general orientation to institutional expectations for performance in each area.
1. Teaching
The primary responsibility of a faculty member at Western
involves effective teaching and student interaction through classroom activities, campus involvement, and advising.
In order concisely to describe classroom responsibilities in annual evaluations, tenure and promotion packages and other award competitions, a template such as the following should be used to display data.
COURSE NAMETYPE (Major, GS) NUMBER OF STUDENTS GRADE DISTRIBUTION Ovrall Effctivnss & STD + mean & STD
ENG 108--GS 15 5A’s; 5B’s; 3C’s’ 1D; 1 F, 4 W 2.0--.832.3--.78
Evidence of teaching effectiveness includes, but is not limited to
· Presentation of subject matter in a carefully organized, clear, logical, and competent manner in class presentations, syllabi, teaching resource guides, web materials, posted notes, and other teaching materials
· Deployment of creative, challenging, and competent student learning evaluation measures such as examinations, quizzes, writing assignments, and other assignments appropriate for the subject matter
· Appropriate rigor in the assignment of student grades for specific assignments and courses
· Demonstrating satisfactory teaching performance in numerical and written student evaluation results
· Purposeful reflection and professional development activities in relation to the success of the teaching experiences and as a means to continued improvement of teaching
· Instructional innovation and development including, but not limited to, new courses or components of courses or special pedagogical practices or special tutorial/individualized work
· Performance of duties allied to instruction such as curriculum development, advising, and/or skill in coping with special student problems
· Peer evaluations from colleagues
· Participation in programs that promote intellectual growth and instructional development in the discipline
· Sponsorship of learning opportunities beyond the classroom, but relevant to the discipline such as organizing a film program, a class trip, a campus event, or some similar co-curricular opportunity
· Participation in campus initiatives related to teaching such as learning communities and honors programs
· Meeting requirements established by the department and institution
· Maintaining respect for students
· Academic advising (including number of advisees) and mentoring activities such as sponsorship of independent student work
2. Service
The faculty role in higher education includes professional service as one of three areas of faculty responsibility and opportunity. Consistent with the mission and values of Western, through professional service a faculty member contributes knowledge, skills, and expertise to activities designed to benefit students, the institution, the discipline/profession, and the community.
a. Students
Service to students may include activities that go beyond the usual teaching expectations of a faculty member. Evidence of service to students include, but is not limited to
· Serving as a faculty advisor to a student organization
· Providing guidance for a student project not associated with the faculty member’s assigned workload
· Providing an out-of-class seminar to students on academic and student affairs topics
b. Institution
Faculty members’ service to individual departments and the university assists the institution in developing and maintaining activities that ensure and enhance the mission of the institution. Evidence of institutional service include, but is not limited to
· Providing leadership for a committee or an academic unit
· Serving as an elected member of Faculty Senate or as an active member of a Faculty Senate, institutional or departmental committee.
· Writing a committee report
· Representing the institution on a community project or in a partnership project
c. Discipline/Profession
Service to the academic discipline or profession involves
faculty activities that focus on disciplinary goals or on enhancing the work of professional organizations. Evidence of service to the discipline or profession include, but is not limited to
· Participating in accreditation activities
· Editing a professional journal or serving as a peer reviewer or juror
· Organizing a professional conference or a conference panel or event
· Serving as an elected officer of a professional society
· Active participation in the work of a professional association
d. Community
As one of the values included in the Western mission, service includes activities that contribute to the public good. Faculty members serve communities through their expertise as educators, scholars, fine or performing artists, administrators, or practitioners. Service not related to the faculty member’s discipline or profession is valued and may be documented; however, this type of service alone would not be considered sufficient. Evidence of community service include, but is not limited to
· Giving public presentations or performances
· Participating in economic or community development activities
· Serving as a board member for a community non-profit organization
· Serving as a consultant or evaluating programs, policies or personnel for agencies
· Written or video work published in non-academic media outlets
3. Scholarship/Creative Activity
Activities fulfilling faculty responsibility for scholarship include not only scientific research and humanistic scholarship but also creative expression in the arts. Faculty must be engaged in on-going scholarship/creative activity in order to be current and competent in their areas of instruction. Active participation in the ongoing conversation of scholarly/professional communities is expected of all faculty at the postsecondary level.
a. Criteria
The following criteria, although not exhaustive, help to delineate an activity as scholarly/creative (Diamond, 2002)
· The activity or work requires a high level of discipline-related expertise.
· The activity or work is conducted in a scholarly manner with clear goals, adequate preparation, and appropriate methodology.
· The activity or work and its results are appropriately and effectively documented and disseminated. (This reporting should include a reflective critique that addresses the significance of the work, the process that was used, and what was learned).
· The activity or work has significance beyond the individual context. (It breaks new ground or is innovative and can be replicated or elaborated).
· The activity or work, both process and product or result, is reviewed and judged to be meritorious and significant by a panel of one’s peers. This element is necessary for all forms of scholarly and creative activity.
b. Classification
Using the classification of scholarly/creative activity provided by Ernest Boyer (1990), there are four types of scholarship/creative activity.
1. Scholarship of Discovery includes basic research or creative expression. Examples include
· A published article, monograph, or book that advances understanding (Such artifacts have been reviewed by peers in the publication process)
· Original research presented in an academic paper or other academic venue (Such artifacts have been judged by peers in the review process as worthy of public discussion)
· Artifacts such as poems, paintings, theatrical productions (or other works of original expression) that have been reviewed in a jury process
· A successful grant application for basic research/scholarly/creative activity
2. Scholarship of Integration includes scholarly work that reviews and/or integrates prior research. Examples include
· A published article or textbook or a juried presentation that summarizes or synthesizes earlier scholarly work and/or crosses disciplinary boundaries. (Such artifacts have been reviewed by peers in the publication process)
· A published book or software review or a review article. (Such artifacts have been invited/ authorized by or selected by peers for publication)
· Presentations selected for a scholarly/professional meeting, which present a critique, or frame a position (paper) in a scholarly/professional debate,
· Published bibliographies
· Artifacts that are published or presented that provide critical analysis of scholarly projects, artistic exhibits or performances, or museum exhibits
· Successful grant applications for projects that integrate already existing scholarly resources
3. Scholarship of Application includes scholarly work that applies current knowledge and innovations to important practices. Examples include
· Publications or juried presentations that focus on applications or practical problems in the field
· Activities to acquire or maintain certification for disciplinary specialties (process should be described)
· Consulting (peer reviewed)
· Successful grant applications for projects that focus on application problems
4. Scholarship of Teaching includes scholarship that focuses on the nature and improvement of teaching. Examples include
· Publications or juried presentations that focus on issues of pedagogy or any aspect of the instructional mission of the institution
· Written studies or reviews (that include a peer review element), which focus on assessment
· Successful grant applications for projects that focus on practical problems linked to any dimension of instruction
References
Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the
Professoriate. Princeton: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Diamond, R.M. (2002). Defining scholarship for the twenty-first
century. In Scholarship in the Postmodern Era: New Venues, New Values, New Visions. Zahorski, K.J. (ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
B. THE EVALUATION FILE
An evaluation file for each faculty member will be kept in the office of the department chairperson. Access to this file is guaranteed only to the individual faculty member and to those responsible for making annual, tenure, promotion, and/or special reviews unless the individual faculty member gives prior written approval. In addition to maintaining files and discharging other assigned responsibilities in the evaluation process, department chairpersons are responsible for making faculty members aware, through department meetings and bulletins, of each individual's responsibility in connection with self-evaluation.
1. Evaluation Materials To Be Included in the Permanent File
a. Job Descriptions
Job Descriptions are prepared jointly and signed by the individual faculty member and the department chairperson at the beginning of each academic year. Job descriptions may vary among academic departments as well as among faculty within a department.
b. Annual Summaries of Teaching
Updated annual summaries of regular teaching assignments and other specific assigned responsibilities should be included. The template above (VII. A. 1) provides an example of a concise way teaching data can be presented.
c. Student Evaluations of Faculty
o A common institutional evaluation instrument and procedures for its administration are to be used for student evaluation of faculty throughout the campus. The student evaluation provides for an assessment of teaching effectiveness and for written comments assessing strengths and areas of concern.
o The results of the student evaluations are provided to the faculty member as information for self-improvement and to the department chairperson as part of the information used in the total faculty evaluation process. For these reasons, student evaluation of faculty will take place in every class.
o Raw, non-summarized results of student evaluations conducted in each class taught by the faculty member are given to the faculty member. Summary data are also provided to the faculty member; a copy is placed in the evaluation file of the faculty member.
o Departments are not limited to the institutional evaluation form but may develop additional instruments, with the approval of the dean, to enhance the evaluation process.
o In evaluating teaching for the purpose of annual, tenure and promotion reviews, the data obtained from student evaluations should not be used as the only criterion.
Additional Materials: Data from student evaluations should be
used and interpreted in conjunction with data from other sources.
The following is a partial list of other data for evaluation. The chairperson, in concert with his or her department, shall determine which of these or other supplementary data will be used. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, nor is the use of any particular item obligatory. This list is not in any order of importance or preference.
· Course syllabi and examinations
· Course grade distribution
· Classroom visitations
· Student enrollment in faculty member's course(s) as a result of the exercise of elective options
· Peer evaluation
· Student performances on course-relevant examinations other than those constructed by the faculty member alone (e.g., departmentally constructed exams over subject area, nationally standardized exams)
· Long-term follow up of students' subsequent use of course-relevant knowledge
· Faculty member's self-evaluation
Administrative Procedure for Student Evaluation of
Faculty
· The form shall be administered during the last two regular class weeks of the semester but not during the final examination period. If a course meets for only part of the semester the evaluation should take place during the last two regular class weeks of the course but not during the final examination period.
· The results of the evaluation will be computer tabulated.
· The department chairperson in consultation with the faculty member will determine the procedure for selecting the individual (other than a student) who will administer the evaluation. The evaluation will be administered by someone other than the instructor. It is anticipated that administration of the evaluation will take ten to twenty minutes in order to accommodate written comments.
· Classroom instructions to be read by administrator are as follows:
"Student evaluation of instructors is used for improvement of teaching and for annual, tenure, and promotion reviews. It is therefore important that you answer fairly and honestly. Written comments are particularly helpful to your instructor. Your instructor will not see your evaluation until course grades are determined. Your signature on the form is optional. Please use a #2 pencil for your response on the survey questions."
· Upon completion by the students, the evaluation sheets for the class shall be placed in an envelope, which has the instructor's name, course title, and course line number printed on it. The person administering the evaluation shall seal the envelope and return it to the department administrative assistant. The Information Technology Department shall likewise return the evaluations in sealed envelopes to the department.
· The evaluation envelopes will be retained in the department until all departmental evaluations are complete. A request form (obtained from the Information Technology Department) must be completed and submitted with the evaluations. A "basic analysis" for each class, for each faculty member, and for each department will be provided by the Information Technology Department.
· The evaluation envelopes and request forms must be delivered to the Information Technology Department by the first day of finals. All processed evaluation materials will be sealed in an envelope and held in the Information Technology Department until the day after semester grades are due in the Records Office. On that date or after, each department must send a representative to the Information Technology Department to obtain and sign for the evaluation materials; they will not be mailed.
· The original student evaluations and an analysis will be returned to the department chairperson for administrative use and in order to discuss the information with the faculty for self-improvement and evaluation purposes.
· The chairperson will retain the computer analysis in the faculty member's evaluation file. The faculty member will be provided the original student evaluations and a copy of the computer analysis.
· It is the faculty member's responsibility to produce the student evaluations when needed for annual, tenure, and promotion reviews.
d. Annual Self-evaluation
Each faculty member should submit an annual self-evaluation using the Self Evaluation Form no later than January 22.
Self-evaluations should document the three areas of faculty performance, teaching, service, and scholarship/creative activity (see VII A. “Areas of Faculty Evaluation”).
e. Annual Chairperson/Dean Evaluation
Annual evaluations by the department chairperson (or, in the case of a department chairperson, the appropriate school dean) are to be completed by February 15 of each academic year.
This evaluation is based on performance in teaching, service, and scholarship/creative activity (see VII A. “Areas of Faculty Evaluation”).
The annual evaluation cycle is to be completed by the first Friday of April of each academic year. That is, a copy of the Faculty Annual Evaluation Form (see discussion below), which includes the chairperson’s evaluation, goes from the chairperson to the dean and Vice President of Academic and Student Affairs and will be returned to the faculty member through administrative channels by the first Friday in April. A copy also is placed in the evaluation file.
C. FACULTY ANNUAL EVALUATION SUMMARY
Each faculty member will be formally evaluated annually utilizing the Faculty Annual Evaluation Form. The evaluation period will encompass the full calendar year. The form will serve as the faculty member's written evaluation and will be utilized as the basis for the annual review interview.
· The chairperson will complete the Faculty Annual Evaluation
Form, sign it, and discuss the evaluation with the
faculty member early in the spring semester.
· Each faculty member will read, sign, and receive a copy of
his or her summary form during the meeting with the chairperson.
· The faculty member has the right to attach a statement to the
form if he or she so desires, before it is forwarded to the
appropriate dean.
· Normally, the chairperson submits the Faculty Annual Evaluation Form and faculty member’s Self-Evaluation Form to the school dean by February 15. However, each faculty member will have the opportunity to discuss the chairperson's recommendation, sign, and offer any written rebuttals before the Faculty Annual Evaluation Form is submitted to the dean.
· The dean will normally submit the review/evaluation package
to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs by February 25.
· The Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs will complete the Faculty Annual Evaluation Form by the first Friday in April, and a copy will be returned to the faculty member through administrative channels.
· The Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs will also submit the review/evaluation recommendations to the President who will make recommendations to the Board of Regents for final disposition.
· When the President's recommendation differs from the
recommendation of the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs, the faculty member will be notified.
· If the faculty member believes there are grounds for a grievance, procedures in the Policy Guide should be followed.
Evaluation Code on the Faculty Annual Evaluation Form
The S, M, U evaluation code is defined as follows:
S - performance satisfactory
M - performance marginal, need for significant improvement
U - performance unacceptable
It is expected that the "S" evaluation will be utilized with the great majority of faculty members across campus. It indicates performance, which ranges from acceptable to superior.
The "M" evaluation denotes marginal performance and indicates the need for significant improvement. Such an evaluation shall be explained by the Department Chairperson on the Faculty Annual Evaluation Form.
The "U" evaluation indicates that the faculty member is performing in a poor and unacceptable manner. This evaluation shall be explained on the Faculty Annual Evaluation Form.
When the "M" or "U" evaluation is considered serious enough to jeopardize future employment, the Early Warning Provision (below) will be initiated.
D. EARLY WARNING PROVISION FOR FACULTY
The purpose of the following provision is to make sure that a faculty member with serious shortcomings is made aware of them so that the opportunity for improvement is available.
Faculty members who have been employed full-time at Missouri Western State College for more than two years shall not fail to receive a reappointment recommendation by the administration because of an unsatisfactory evaluation in teaching, service or scholarship/creative activity unless they have been advised of their shortcomings. The formal early warning shall be issued by the department chairperson, or, in the case of chairperson, by the appropriate dean, in writing on the FACULTY REAPPOINTMENT FORM and incorporated within the formal evaluation process.
A faculty member placed on early warning must demonstrate at the next annual evaluation to the satisfaction of the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs, in consultation with the department chair and dean, that the shortcomings have been remedied and are not likely to reoccur. Failing to do so will result in the termination of a non-tenured faculty member effective at the end of that spring semester, or in the case of a tenured faculty member, will result in a terminal contract for the following academic year.
E. TENURE
1. General Tenure Philosophy
Tenure, as a status in higher education, is a means to protect the independent inquiry and the openness of academic discourse of faculty as teacher-scholars. Tenure also provides stability to the professoriate as a vocation.
Integral with this freedom of inquiry and openness of discourse are a set of interdependent professional responsibilities and competencies, including fidelity and integrity with professional standards and ethical codes of conduct; relevance and context of subject matter in teaching; habitual scholarly engagement with one’s field; and collegial decorum in the free exchange of ideas in debate and other forums. In sum, “the freedom to pursue ideas, to raise inconvenient questions, to create an agenda of inquiry that builds on one’s imagination and curiosity must be maintained as essential to the work of professoriate…the quid pro quo for this autonomy is accountability” (Rice, 1996, p. 27).
Faculty accountability is determined by systematic evaluation of their teaching, service, and scholarship/creative activity.
Faculty evaluation, whether annual or periodic (i.e., event specific related to tenure, promotion, awards, etc.), should begin with self-evaluation and include multiple levels of peer review. This peer review (i.e., departmental, institutional, community, by scholarly/creative peers outside the institution) will be audited by academic administrators to assess the reliability of its results and to minimize any role “faculty rivalries, jealousies and prejudices sometimes play” in peer review (Byrne, 1997, p.12).
The primacy of professional peer review in faculty evaluation and the professional assessment of academic administrators are essential to ensuring the vitality of the status of tenure and academic freedom.
A formal tenure review is designed to determine, principally through peer review and administrative professional assessment, which tenure-track, probationary faculty have earned tenure status through excellence in their teaching, service, and scholarship/creative activity.
The Board of Regents grants tenure to faculty whose excellence has been demonstrated. Although some faculty may be hired with tenure or credit toward tenure (identified on the contract), most faculty are awarded tenure only after a tenure review in the sixth year of service. The elements of the tenure review process are specified below.
Tenure, as granted by the Board of Regents at Missouri Western State University, is designed to protect academic freedom and to insure due process for the termination of a teaching contract. Tenure, as recognized by MWSU, is not designed to protect an incompetent instructor.
Tenure assures the tenured faculty member automatic reappointment with the following conditions and exceptions.
· Tenured faculty are subject to the Early Warning Provision (VII. D).
· The services of a faculty member may be terminated immediately for gross immorality or disloyalty to the government of the United States, admitted or proved.
· A tenured person denied reappointment shall have the right to a hearing before the Grievance Committee if requested in writing to the chairperson of that committee within thirty (30) days after notification of such refusal. (See Appendix H, Grievance Procedure for Faculty).
References:
Byrne, J. B (1997). Academic freedom without tenure? New Pathways Working Paper, no. 5. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
Rice, R. E. (1996) Making a place for the New American Scholar. New Pathways Working Paper, no. 1. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
2. The Tenure Process
Faculty members hired on a tenure-track position commencing after July 1, 2005 are required to have a tenure review in the sixth year. That tenure review coincides with a promotion review. If a candidate is recommended for tenure but is not promoted, he or she is not barred from re-applying for promotion.
In cases in which faculty are hired with tenure or are given credit toward tenure, either tenured status or the timeframe for a tenure review should appear on the initial contract.
Normally, a non-tenured faculty member is not granted sabbatical leave but if he or she is in a special circumstance, this period will not be counted toward the specified time before a tenure review. Time spent on an official leave of absence without pay will not be included in the total probationary time accumulated. A faculty member on a half-time contract is eligible to become a tenure candidate during the twelfth probationary year.
If the faculty member is not granted tenure in the tenure review, he or she will receive a one-year terminal contract in the following year.
After July 1, 2005, MWSU faculty members who are not in their first contract and who do not presently have tenure (hereafter referred to as incumbent faculty), must determine the year for a tenure review. The tenure review shall be no more than six years from the contract year in which an up-or-out tenure system becomes institutional policy. The tenure review shall not be before the incumbent has been at the institution five years.
The date for a tenure review should be communicated to the office of the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs by March 15, 2006. It is recommended that incumbent faculty set the date for the tenure review after seeking input from the departmental chairperson (with advice from colleagues) and the dean. Incumbent faculty who elect to have a tenure review in academic year 05-06 must notify their chairperson, dean and the office of the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs by the end of the third week of the Fall 2005 term.
If no date is set by March 15, 2006 for tenure review, the faculty member will receive a terminal year contract for the following year.
The faculty member, department chairperson, dean, and the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs must approve any change in the tenure review date.
Candidates for tenure must have a mid-term review in the third year (of a six year probationary period) that mirrors the tenure application process up to the level of school dean. The chairperson is primarily responsible for initiating this review.
Annual evaluation interviews by the department chairperson of those on tenure track should also address issues related to work toward tenure. The mid-term review should document a prospective tenure candidate’s strengths as well as areas in which additional work should be focused in subsequent years. This documentation should appear either on the annual evaluation form or as an attachment to that form.
Academic departments must have a review committee that provides a recommendation to the departmental chairperson on tenure and promotion decisions. The departmental chairperson provides his or her review to the dean but must include the recommendation from the departmental committee. The departmental chairperson is responsible for appointing the departmental committee. It is recommended that the committee be small (3) and that membership include as many colleagues in the same discipline as possible. The departmental committee should also be involved in the mid-term review process to assure that mid-term review and tenure/promotion processes are aligned.
Incumbent faculty must have a mid-term tenure review if the tenure review date is three or more years after the institution adopts an up-or-out system. Incumbent faculty who opt for a tenure review in less than three years can request a mid-term review. The chart below illustrates the recommended time frame for the mid-term review for incumbent faculty.
Tenure Review in Years Mid-term Review in Years
6 3
5 2
4 2
3 1
Incumbent faculty members who set a tenure review date prior to the six year limit (after the institution adopts an up-or-out policy) but who do not receive tenure, receive a terminal one year contract following the review year.
External Peer Review Material: The department chairperson and the candidate must confer and agree upon at least one and no more than three scholars/artists outside the institution from whom input on a candidate’s scholarly/creative work can be solicited for the tenure review. Candidates are expected to provide the chairperson a brief disclosure statement identifying any knowledge they have of proposed external peer reviewers. Candidates may submit scholarly/creative materials that already reflect external peer review in addition to this special request for input on professional development materials. At least one external reviewer will be asked for a confidential review (authorized by the candidate and focusing on representative materials the candidate selects) provided in a letter sent directly to the departmental chairperson and available to others involved in tenure decisions. Confidential peer reviews are added to the tenure package by the chairperson and removed by the VPASA before materials are returned.
Additional review letters (if any) appraising teaching, service, and scholarship/creative activity can also be solicited by the candidate; these too should be sent directly to the department chairperson. The quality of the peer evaluation of scholarship/creative activity and not the number of such evaluations is what is important in the decision-making process. All peer review materials received by the department chairperson should become part of the package examined by the departmental review committee and others in the chain of review. A standardized instruction sheet for outside review letters is included in the Policy Guide.
Other Peer Review Materials: Candidates for tenure and promotion are encouraged to provide supporting peer review material that evaluates teaching, service, and scholarship/creative activity in their application package. Many academic departments have a variety of ways to provide peer input. Such material should be included in the package and identified as peer review material.
The tenure candidate must authorize release of materials in his or her permanent faculty file for use by appropriate committee members. It should be understood that the confidentiality of such file is to be protected and its contents to be used solely for the purpose of making tenure recommendations.
3. The Tenure Package and Areas Evaluated
Candidates for tenure prepare tenure/promotion packages that are reviewed first in the department (by the departmental committee and the chairperson) and subsequently by the dean, the Promotion and Tenure Committee and the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs. The review process begins in the fall semester of the sixth contract year or at the year designated on the contract for incumbent faculty and those hired with credit toward tenure. Those involved in review of material, including the Promotion and Tenure Committee, provide two separate recommendations, one for tenure and the other for promotion.
The candidate for tenure is to be reviewed according to the categories of teaching, service, and scholarship/creative activity. Degree status is not a tenure criterion, unless contractually stipulated.
Note: For Academic Year 2005-2006, candidates for tenure are encouraged, but are not required to include the external peer review and the department committee review in their tenure package. These candidates have the option of completing a mid-term review prior to the submission of their tenure application.
Note: During the tenure cycle, if the university is officially closed on the date materials or responses are due, those items may be submitted on the next official university business day.
4. Tenure Packet Organization
The primary tenure packet is limited to one three-ring notebook not to exceed two inches in thickness. Items should not have to be removed from the packet to be read. A second notebook should be submitted containing ALL student evaluations received during the rating period, or for the most recent six years. The tenure candidate should meet with the departmental chairperson early in the fall term to set up a plan for an external review of selected artifacts and to set a date for turning over all the materials collected for the tenure package to the departmental committee. The tenure candidate shall include in the package the following materials listed below. A table of contents and appropriate tabs for the package are recommended:
A. Comprehensive narrative statement making a case for tenure. This
statement should be no more than 10 single-spaced pages.
B. Curriculum Vitae
C. Annual Summaries of Teaching
D. Annual Faculty Self Evaluations
E. Annual Chairperson Evaluations
F. Peer recommendations/assessments of teaching ,service, and
scholarship/creative activity (excluding the confidential external peer review that is added to the package by the chairperson).
G. Evidence of quality of teaching (see VII. A).
H. Evidence of quality of service (see VII. A).
I. Evidence of quality of scholarship/creative activity (see VII. A)
5. Tenure Procedures
Routing and Review of Materials
Department Committee and Chairperson
By December 1, the departmental committee will submit its tenure recommendation and rationale for this recommendation to the departmental chairperson. The tenure package also must be sent forward to the department chair by this date and the departmental committee must provide the candidate with a copy of the tenure recommendation and rationale. The candidate may respond to the committee recommendation in written form by 4:30 p.m. of the third working day after December 1; copies of the response should be sent to the chairperson for inclusion in the candidate's tenure package. By January 7, the department chairperson, will submit his or her tenure recommendation and the rationale for this recommendation to the dean along with the candidate's tenure package. Also by January 7, the chairperson will provide the candidate with a copy of the tenure recommendation and rationale. The candidate may respond to the chairperson's recommendation in written form by 4:30 p.m. of the third working day after January 7 and copies of the response should be sent to the chairperson and to the dean for inclusion in the candidate's tenure package.
Review and Recommendation: Dean
By February 1, the dean will review the tenure package submitted by the chairperson and will make a recommendation on tenure, with rationale, to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs along with the candidate's tenure package. A copy of the recommendation and rationale will be sent to the Promotion/Tenure Committee. The dean will notify the candidate of the recommendation and rationale at the same time the recommendation is sent to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs. If the candidate wishes to rebut the dean's recommendation, he or she must do so in writing to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs within three working days (from receipt of the letter) for inclusion in the candidate's tenure package and to allow a copy to be sent to the dean.
Review and Recommendation: Tenure Committee
The Faculty Promotion/Tenure Committee will, after February 3, have access to all tenure materials submitted to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs. Using these materials, the Faculty Promotion/Tenure Committee will review the recommendations of the department chairperson and the dean along with any responses submitted by the candidate. By April 4, the Promotion/Tenure Committee's recommendation and rationale, attached to the tenure materials, will be submitted to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs. The recommendation will consist of a yes or no vote by the committee, accompanied by a list of strengths and weaknesses of the candidate and the rationale. A copy of the recommendation and rationale will be available to the candidate in the Office of the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs after I p.m. on April 4. It is the candidate's responsibility to obtain this copy. If the committee vote is negative, the candidate will have three working days (from receipt of the letter) to respond to the committee's recommendation. The response will be submitted in writing to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs for inclusion in the tenure candidate's package, with a copy being sent to the Promotion/Tenure Committee.
The Promotion/Tenure Committee shall base its tenure recommendation on the quality of teaching, service and scholarship/creative activity. See the discussion above (VII. A ) which provides a general orientation to institutional expectations for performance in each area.
The candidate has the option of appearing before the subcommittee reviewing his or her packet to discuss materials documented in the application packet. Applicants will not have the option of appearing before the entire Promotion/Tenure Committee. No new materials may be introduced. To exercise this option, the candidate must notify the Promotion/Tenure Committee chairperson in writing by March 1. The Promotion/Tenure Committee chairperson will contact the subcommittee members who must arrange to meet with the candidate prior to any full committee discussion and/or voting on this candidate.
Review and Recommendation: Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs. By May 5, the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs will review all tenure recommendations with rationale and materials and make recommendations with rationale to the President. The Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs will provide a copy of the tenure recommendation with rationale to the candidate at the time the recommendation is submitted to the President. The candidate will have three working days to respond to the Vice President's recommendation. The response will be submitted in writing to the President for inclusion in the tenure candidate's package, with a copy being sent to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs.
President's Recommendation and Board's Approval
The President will make a recommendation for action by the Board of Regents. The minutes of the Board of Regents shall include the name of the faculty members placed on tenure.
SUMMARY OF TENURE TIMETABLE
From To Date
Candidate Department Committee Fall Term
Department Committee Chairperson 12/1
Chairperson Dean 1/7
Dean VPASA 2/1
VPASA Committee 2/3
Committee VPASA 4/4
VPASA President 5/5
President Board of Regents
F. FACULTY PROMOTION
Promotion is for the purpose of recognizing excellence in the areas of teaching, service, and scholarship/creative activity. Experiences, time in rank and preparation minima are not sufficient justification for promotion. Promotion is not automatic, nor will it be regulated by a quota system. Promotions will be contingent upon availability of funds.
1. PROMOTION ELIGIBILITY AND PERFORMANCE GUIDELINES
a. Promotion from Instructor to Assistant Professor
Requirements for promotion consideration
A minimum of three years of full-time university teaching at Missouri Western State University will be required for promotion to this rank.** Application for promotion can be made during the second semester of the third year of service at the rank of instructor. A terminal degree in the field of appointment, ordinarily the doctorate, is required (see Terminal Degrees). However, a faculty member with the rank of instructor will be promoted to the rank of assistant professor immediately upon verification of the doctorate (the academic contract salary of the faculty member will be adjusted to reflect the new rank beginning the month following the verification from the faculty member’s university/college documenting completion of all requirements for the doctorate. The educational advancement salary increase will be determined prior to promotion adjustment monies).
Performance levels required for promotion to Assistant
Professor
The instructor seeking promotion to assistant professor must be able to document strong teaching effectiveness. Each candidate’s teaching effectiveness will be compared with that of other MWSU faculty members. Support for institutional and departmental goals on the part of the candidate is expected; documentation of service to students, the institution, discipline/profession and/or the community is necessary. Some evidence of growth in scholarship/creative activity is required. The faculty member must show active leadership in service or a strong commitment to growth in scholarship/creative activity through progress toward a terminal degree or comparable goals.
b. Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate
Professor
Requirements for promotion consideration
A minimum of six years of full-time university teaching experience at the rank of assistant professor** at MWSU is required for promotion to this rank. * Application for promotion to Associate Professor normally occurs in the sixth year of service at the same time that application for tenure is made. The tenure package doubles as a promotion package, although judgments about tenure and promotion remain separate judgments at each level. For promotion consideration, the candidate must
· Have the appropriate terminal degree in which the faculty
member holds the appointment, or
· Have at least the MA+30 educational level status with four
additional years of full-time university experience at the
rank of assistant professor at MWSU, or
· Have eight additional years of full-time university experience at the rank of assistant professor at MWSU, or
· Have made exceptional contributions to the university or the profession. Exceptional performance must be documented in detail by the candidate and addressed and evaluated by the chair and dean.
*Faculty employed by MWSU before July 1, 2005, are eligible to apply for Associate in the fifth contract year providing that they have also applied for tenure in the same cycle. Faculty employed by MWSU before July 1, 2005 who already have tenure but have not been promoted to the rank of Associate can apply for promotion at any time. Faculty hired with credit toward tenure are eligible to apply for promotion to Associate in the year in which they have a tenure review.
Performance levels required for promotion to Associate Professor
The assistant professor seeking promotion to associate professor must be able to document a consistently strong teaching effectiveness. Each candidate’s teaching will be compared with that of other MWSU faculty members. Active, constructive service in departmental, institutional, and community is expected. The candidate must demonstrate that he or she has kept current with advances in areas of expertise and teaching duties and that significant growth in scholarship/creative activity has continued.
c. Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor
Requirements for promotion consideration
A minimum of five years of full-time experience at the rank of associate professor at MWSU is required for promotion to this rank.** Application for promotion can be made during the second semester of the fifth year of service at the rank of associate professor. The appropriate terminal degree in the discipline in which the faculty member holds the appointment is normally required for promotion to the rank of professor. However, the faculty member who does not have the appropriate terminal degree but who has consistently demonstrated outstanding teaching, and who has made exceptional contributions in service to both the institution and discipline/profession, and community, may request consideration for promotion to the rank of professor based upon these contributions. Exceptional performance in teaching, service, and scholarship/creative activity must be documented in detail by the candidate and addressed and evaluated by the chair and dean. The terminal degree must not be a limiting factor for the candidate being considered on the basis of exceptional performance.
**Neither sabbatical leave nor leave of absence without pay constitutes full-time taching experience. Two years of half-time college teaching experience will be considered as one year of full-time teaching experience.
Performance levels required for promotion to Professor
The associate professor seeking promotion to professor must be able to document quality performance in the areas of teaching, service, and scholarship/creative activity. The faculty member’s performance in one area might be outstanding and compensate for a solid but not outstanding performance in another area. Teaching must be superior when compared with other MWSU faculty. A high-quality participation in departmental service is required on a regular basis. Evidence of active leadership in departmental and institutional service is expected. In the area of scholarship/creative activity, the faculty member seeking promotion to professor must document consistent growth. Significant professional service to the student, institution, discipline/profession and community must be documented.
In addition, the promotion candidate must authorize release of his or her permanent faculty file in the office of the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs for use by appropriate committee members, it being understood that the confidentiality of such file is to be protected and its contents to be used solely for the purpose of making promotion recommendations.
2. PROMOTION PACKAGE
The candidate for promotion is to be reviewed according to the areas of teaching, service, and scholarship/creative activity. Promotion candidates should careful study the discussion of VII. A. Areas of Faculty Evaluation in which the institution’s general expectations for teaching, service and scholarship/creative activity are outlined (See also above E. TENURE 4. Tenure Package Organization and Areas Evaluated).
Preparation of Promotion Package
a. The information should be well organized with a table of contents.
b. Where possible, qualitative and quantitative comparisons should be made which will demonstrate the candidate’s performance in relation to other departmental and MWSU faculty.
c. Data presented should be analyzed and explained.
d. The candidate should show how the documentation included in the promotion package is relevant to the candidate’s teaching, service, and scholarship/creative activity.
e. All information the candidate considers relevant for promotion evaluation must be in the promotion package.
f. It is the candidate’s responsibility to show he or she is qualified to be promoted.
g. Promotion materials must be confined to one three-ring notebook NOT to exceed two inches in thickness. All materials must be easily available without having to remove them from the notebook. A second notebook may be submitted containing ALL student evaluations received during the rating period, or for the most recent five years.
h. Annual faculty self-evaluation forms, faculty annual evaluation summary forms, and chairperson annual evaluation forms must be included for each year of evaluation period.
Areas Evaluated
These lists are not meant to be exhaustive nor is the use of any particular item obligatory. These lists are not in any order of importance or preference. Careful study of the discussion of VII. A. Areas of Faculty Evaluation is recommended. In this section, the institution’s general expectations for teaching, service and scholarship/creative activity are outlined.
a. Teaching (See VII. A. 1. Teaching)
Appropriate qualitative evidence may include:
o Course organization (e.g., samples of syllabi, objectives, assignments, tests, lecture notes, student evaluations, etc.)
o Course demands (e.g., objectives, tests, peer evaluations, chairperson evaluations, syllabi, etc.)
o Pedagogical innovation (e.g., peer evaluation,
curriculum proposals, scholarship/creative activity
application to classroom, chairperson evaluations,
etc.)
o Student-instructor interaction ( e.g., written student
comments, advising, tutoring, peer evaluation,
chairperson evaluations, etc.)
o Brief overall self-assessment of teaching role(s).
Appropriate quantitative evidence may include
o Interpretation of student evaluation data
o Course taught
o Number of students
o Grade distribution
The template above (VIII. A) shows how this data can be concisely presented.
b. Service (See VII. A. 2. Service)
o Participation in student, institution, discipline/profession and community activities
o Examples include showing initiative in departmental development, and peer evaluation of contributions to the department.
c. Scholarship/Creative Activity (See VII. A. 3. Scholarship/Creative Activity)
o Additional formal education *
o Attendance at workshops*
o Travel**
o Publications***
o Research activities and grants***
o Membership and degree of participation in professional organizations
o Presentation of papers and other speaking engagements related to the faculty member’s professional expertise
* Neither sabbatical leave nor leave of absence without pay constitutes full-time teaching experience. Two years of half-time university teaching experience will be considered as on year of full-time teaching experience.
** Faculty members must show how this experience has increased their potential worth to the university within their present positions.
*** Peer evaluation data (including such things as comments by reviewers) for publications or other research activity or grant-related projects should be provided to document the value and quality of the candidate’s work.
C. PROMOTION PROCEDURE
1. Initiation of Procedure
Promotion recommendations originate in the department. As specified in the discussion of tenure (VII. E) both a departmental review committee (appointed or the chairperson) and the chairperson produce an evaluation in a tenure review Material prepared for a tenure review serves also as a promotion package for the rank of Associate Professor. Both the departmental committee and the chairperson provide a promotion recommendation as well as a tenure recommendation.
Promotion to the rank of Assistant Professor and Professor utilizes the same basic procedure outlined for the tenure review/Associate Professor promotion. That is, a candidate’s package is reviewed first by a departmental committee and then by the chairperson. Each produces a promotion recommendation.
Note: For Academic Year 2005-2006, a recommendation from a departmental committee is recommended but not required.
2. Preparation and Routing of Materials: Candidate and Chairperson
In the fall semester, the candidate for promotion presents the promotion package to the chairperson by a date agreeable to the chairperson, the departmental committee and the candidate. The departmental committee will provide a copy of the committee evaluation/recommendation and the supporting rationale to the faculty candidate by December 1, the final date by which to give the recommendation to the chairperson. Any negative recommendation must be delivered to the faculty candidate’s office or mailbox by this date. The candidate has three working days to respond to the departmental committee. Such response will be submitted in written form to the chairperson by 4:30 p.m. no later than the third working day after December 1. At the candidate’s request, this written response will become a permanent part of the promotion package.
By December 1, the departmental chairperson must receive the candidate’s promotion package. It is important for the candidate to document as thoroughly as possible the quality of performance in each of the three areas of evaluation. The chairperson has the responsibility of evaluating the evidence presented by the faculty member as well as any other material available, placing these materials into a department perspective, and making evaluative judgments in the three areas. By January 7, the chairperson will submit his or her promotion recommendations and the rationale for these recommendations to the dean. The chairperson will provide a copy of the recommendation and the supporting rationale to the faculty candidate at the time the recommendation is submitted to the dean. Any negative recommendation must be delivered to the faculty candidate’s office or mailbox by January 7. The candidate has three working days to respond to the chairperson’s recommendation. Such response will be submitted in written form to the dean by 4:30 p.m. of the third working day after January 7. At the candidate’s request, this written response will become a permanent part of the promotion package.
3. Review and Recommendation: Dean
By February 1, the dean will review the materials submitted by the chairperson along with any response by the candidate and will make a recommendation on promotion, with rationale, to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs along with the candidate’s promotion package. A copy of the recommendation and rationale will be sent to the Promotion/Tenure Committee. The dean will provide a copy of the recommendation and supporting rationale to the candidate at the same time the recommendation is submitted to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs. Any negative recommendation must be delivered to the faculty candidate’s office or mailbox by February 1. If the candidate wishes to rebut the dean’s recommendation, he or she must do so in writing to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs within three working days. A copy will be sent to the dean and will become, at the candidate’s request, a permanent part of the promotion package.
4. Review and Recommendation: Promotion Committee
The Faculty Promotion/Tenure Committee will, after February 3, have access to all promotion materials submitted to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs. Using these materials, the Faculty Promotion/Tenure committee will review the recommendations of the department chairperson and the dean along with any responses submitted by the candidate. By April 4, the Promotion/Tenure Committee’s recommendation with supporting rationale, attached to the promotion materials, will be submitted to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs. The recommendation will consist of a yes or no vote by the committee, accompanied by a list of strengths and weaknesses of the candidate and the rationale. A copy of the recommendation and rationale will be available to the candidate in the Office of the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs after 1 p.m. on April 4. It is the candidate’s responsibility to obtain this copy. If the committee vote is negative, the candidate will have three working days to respond to the committee’s recommendation. The response will be submitted in writing to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs and will become, at the candidate’s request, a permanent part of the promotion package.
The candidate has the option of appearing before the subcommittee reviewing his or her packet to briefly discuss materials documented in the application packet. Applications will not have the option of appearing before the entire Promotion/Tenure Committee. No new materials may be introduced. To exercise this option, the candidate must notify the Promotion/Tenure Committee chairperson in writing by February 3. The Promotion/Tenure Committee chairperson will contact the subcommittee members who must arrange to meet with the candidate prior to any full committee discussion and/or voting on this candidate.
The Promotion/Tenure Committee shall base its promotion
recommendation on the following criteria:
● Quality of Teaching is one primary criterion for awarding a candidate promotion. Generally, a candidate for promotion may not have received an evaluation lower than "S" in Quality of Teaching on the Faculty Annual Evaluation Form during the most recent three years of probationary period.
● Quality of Service to the department, institution, and community is the second criterion for awarding promotion
● Quality of Scholarship/Creative Activity, which is closely associated with quality of teaching, is the final criteria for awarding promotion
5. Review and Recommendation: Vice President for Academic
and Student Affairs.
By May 5, the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs will review all promotion recommendations and any candidate’s responses and make recommendations with rationale to the President. Should the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs and the Promotion/Tenure Committee fail to agree on a promotion recommendation, the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs will attempt to resolve the disagreement before making a recommendation to the President. The Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs will provide a copy of the promotion recommendation with supporting rationale to the candidate at the time the recommendation is submitted to the President. Any negative recommendation must be delivered to the candidate’s office or mailbox by May 5. The candidate has three working days to respond to the Vice President's recommendation. The response will be submitted in writing to the President.
NOTE: During the promotion cycle, if the university is officially closed on the date materials or responses are due, those items may be submitted on the next official university business day.
6. President's Recommendation and Board's Approval
The President’s recommendation will be placed before the Board of Regents for final disposition. Promotion granted by the Board will be effective with the next year’s contract and will include the following salary adjustments, which shall be in effect through AY2005-2006 (at which they shall be reviewed), for full-time faculty members:
Assistant Professor $2,000
Associate Professor $3,500
Professor $5,000
Annual Faculty Evaluation Form
Faculty Member_________________________________Department_________________
The chairperson’s evaluation narrative should be attached to this page. The evaluation code below is defined as follows (refer to the Policy Guide for additional detail):
S --performance satisfactory
M--performance marginal, need for significant improvement
U—performance unsatisfactory
Circle One
I. Overall Quality of Teaching S M U
a. met requirements established by the department an institution
b. demonstrated satisfactory teaching performance
c. set reasonable standards
d. maintained respect for students
e. fulfilled responsibilities as an advisor
f. handled co-curricular assignments (if applicable)
Comments:
II. Overall Quality of Service S M U
a. carried out non-teaching assignments in the department
b. exerted a positive effort to reach department goals
c. served on faculty and institutional projects
d. involved in community projects; local use of scholarly/professional skills
Comments:
III. Overall Quality of Scholarship/Creative Activity S M U
a. further education or participation in professional meetings
b. appropriate travel
c. papers presented and/or publications/ creative artifacts
d. other research or grant-related work
e. disciplinary/professional organizational work
Comments:
_______________________ ____________________________
Chairperson’s Signature/ Date Faculty Member’s Signature/ Date
Annual Contract Recommendation Form
(to be completed by the chairperson)
Check as many as are appropriate:
Faculty Status:
Tenured faculty member _____
Tenure track faculty member (<2 years contract)_____
Tenure track faculty member (>2 year, but <6 years contract)_____
Non-tenure track faculty member_____
Contract Type:
Tenured faculty member in good standing (automatically reappointed)_____
Tenured faculty member under Early Warning _____
Continuing, probationary (i.e., tenure track), in good standing____
Continuing, probationary (i.e., tenure track),, under Early Warning____
Terminal contract_____
One-year contract_____
Pending, currently under tenure review______
Other (as specified below)_____
______________________________
Faculty Member’s Signature /Date
______________________________
Chairpersons Signature /Date
Comments:
__________________________
Dean’s Signature/Date
Comments:
______________________________
VPASA’s Signature/Date
MINUTES APPENDIX D
Faculty Senate Committee Assignments, AY 2005-06
(Last updated by Cindy Heider: April 18, 2005)
Academic Regulations and Standards (2+2+1)
Stephanie Corder PS NURS 2nd year of service
Brandon Neal PS HPER 2nd year of service
Dan Trifan LAS HPG 1st year of service
Mary Jo Gay PS NUR 1st year of service
Jerry Anderson LAS MUS 1st year of service
Ex-Officio: Registrar, Director of the Center for Academic Support, one counselor
Liaison: Bonnie Gregory
Curriculum (5+5+4) 3-year term expires:
Kaye Adkins LAS EFLJ 5/06
Brian Cronk (replaces Kelly Henry) LAS PSY 5/06
Shauna Hiley LAS CHEM 5/06
Ramona Moeck PS CJLS 5/06
Deny Staggs LAS CST 5/06
Patricia Donaher LAS EFLJ 5/07
Melissa Daggett LAS BIO 5/07
Bryan Lee PS BUS 5/07
George Yang PS ET 5/07
Roger Voelkel(replaces Shiva Nandan)PS NUR 5/07
Nancy Edwards PS EDU 5/08
Martha Ellison LAS GSSW 5/08
Jianping Su LAS CSMP 5/08
Jitendra Tewari PS BUS 5/08
Ex-Officio: Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs
Liaisons: Shiva Nandan
Evaluation (2+2+1)
Cynthia Jeney LAS EFLJ 1st year of service
Mike Ducey LAS CHEM 1st year of service
Mei Zhang LAS CST 1st year of service
Mike Smith PS EDU 1st year of service
Carolyn Brose PS NURS 2nd year of service
Liaison: Randye Williams
* Indicates the chairperson of the committee
Fringe Benefits (2+2+1)
Jim Bargar LAS PSY 1st year of service
Matrese Benkofske PS BUS 1st year of service
Geo Sipp LAS ART 1st year of service
Cosette Hardwick LAS BIO 2nd year of service
Earl Haynes PS EDU 1st year of service
Liaison: Kathleen Andrews
General Studies - 2005 (4+4+1)
Mark Mikkelsen LAS HPG 1st year of service
Ken Lee LAS CSMP 1st year of service
Susie Hennessey LAS EFLJ 3rd year of service
Teddi Deka LAS PSY 1st year of service
David Steiniche LAS GSWS 1st year of service
Cindy Heider PS EDU 3rd year of service
Greg Kriewitz* PS HPER 2nd year of service
Marsha Dolan PS NURS 1st year of service
Mark Johnson (replaces Gene Bonham)PS ET 1st year of service
Ex-Officio: Vice President of Academic and Student Affairs, Dean of LAS School, Dean of PS School
Liaison: Alicia DeGregorio
Grievance (5+5+2) 4-year term expires:
Nader Vargha LAS ECON 8/06
RJ Dick PS BUS 8/06
Earl Haynes PS ED 8/06
Brian Cronk LAS PSY 8/07
Frank Thomas LAS MUS 8/07
Kip Wilson PS CJLS 8/07
Reza Hamzaee LAS ECON 8/08
Jim Estes LAS ART 8/08
Dale Krueger PS BUS 8/08
Larry Andrews PS CJLS 8/09
Betty Sawin LAS EFLJ 8/09
Pat McClear LAS HPG 8/09
Liaison: Cary Chevalier
Professional Leave (2+2+1)
Bob Bergland LAS EFLJ 1st year of service
Ben Caldwell LAS CHEM 1st year of service
Joanne Katz PS CJLS 1st year of service
Don Vestal LAS CSMP 1st year of service
Lou Fowler PS BUS 2nd year of service
Liaison: Karen Fulton
Promotion/Tenure (4+4) 3-year term expires:
Jill Miller PS CJLS 5/06 (replaces Mike Cadden)
Robin Findlay LAS CST 5/06
Alicia Sindt PS NURS 5/06
Jane Frick LAS EFLJ 5/07
RJ Dick PS BUS 5/07
Deborah Bogle PS EDU 5/07
Ali Kamali LAS GSWS 5/08
Stacia Bensyl LAS EFLJ 5/08
Liaison: Monica Nandan
Salary (2+2+1)
Jimm MacGregor LAS HPG 1st year of service
Steve Klassen LAS CSMP 1st year of service
Nannette Wolford PS HPER 2nd year of service
Konrad Gunderson PS BUS 1st year of service
Dale Krueger PS BUS 1st year of service
Liaison: Marilyn Hunt
Scholarship (2+2+1) 3-year term expires:
Frederica Nix PS CJLS 5/06
Deborah Freedman LAS MUS 5/07
Yona Rasis PS ET 5/07
Jon Euchner LAS GSWS 5/08
David McMahan LAS CST 5/08
Non-faculty member: Director of Financial Aid
Liaison: Dave Tushaus
|
