May 7, 2003
I. The meeting was called to order by Business Officer Ely Driver at 3 p.m.
II. Approval of Minutes Ely Driver
III. Officer Reports
Communications Officer Rick Bower No report
TBR Representative Dave Vinson
Dave will be sending an e-mail about the next meeting and requested that faculty send any items for agenda before finals.
Long-Term Care: Open enrollment until June 15.
TBR & athletics:
Issues have been raised by Sub-Councils about disproportions in the cuts for academics versus athletics--how can schools justify continued funding at the same levels for athletics while demanding massive cuts from academics? Why are athletic programs, particularly those with low participation, not being cut back as severely as academic programs?
Secretary Cata Folks No report
President Elect Kathy Byrd
Next year's F.C.:
All department and at-large reps are now in place and will be posted on the F.C. website.
High Performance Teaching and Faculty Forum will be combined.
Meeting schedule for next academic year:
Will be posted to F.C. website. Volunteer(s) needed to produce meetings schedule bookmark.
Kathy expressed her thanks to Lisa Bogaty for all her time and hard work over the last two years and asked for F. C. 's support in the two years ahead.
President Lisa Bogaty
Revised Hours: ERC: See sheet. Testing Center hours will stay the same.
General Education Courses: Learning Council provided a list of courses approved for the new General Education Core. Copies are available from Lisa and from department heads.
Faculty Council Goal Outcome
In response to the Mercer study, a raise has been given to twenty faculty and staff whose salaries did not meet the minimum for their level at the time of the study; total spent: $42, 800.
Steering Committee recommends that the Self-Evaluation of faculty be amended as follows: The ratings of Excellent, Good, Needs Improvement and Unsatisfactory be replaced with the ratings of Satisfactory, Needs Improvement, Unsatisfactory. This change would take effect for the evaluation year ending 31 December 2003.
Issues raised in extensive discussion of the motion included the following:
· This motion was a response to pressure being put on some department heads for giving "too many" ratings of "excellent" in Self-Evaluations. The issue has been remanded to committee, which has asked department heads to begin deliberations to address the criteria needed to qualify for each rating level.
· Faculty also complained about ratings, so this motion is not just a concern of department heads.
· The proposed categories are too negative.
· The proposed categories resemble the system we rejected several years ago in favor of the current ratings.
· The current categories were established by means of a long process involving much committee work and an extensive input and approval process open to all faculty and administration.
· Criteria for each level of rating are guidelines and should not be interpreted as the only possible criteria, since it would be impossible to list all criteria for every discipline.
· The main problem is that there have been big differences between departmental ratings, with some department head granting a much large percentage of "excellent" ratings than others.
· A mechanism already exists to show where you fit the criteria if you are dissatisfied with the current rating system.
· Pressure put on department heads to modify their ratings has taken up a great deal of their time during spring semester.
· Department heads may need training in how to be consistent in their ratings--has this been done or considered for the future?
· What started out as "guidelines" have now become inflexible rules.
· Conditions have changed since the criteria were established; for example, we are no longer developing new courses, yet that is a requirement for an "excellent" rating.
· No incentive is given for serving on committees when an "excellent" rating can only be given for serving as committee chair.
· Current system is better than "Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory" system which preceded it.
· There is more dissatisfaction with how to use the current evaluation system than with the rankings themselves, so what about having a Fall In-Service session on implementation?
· Problem is one of definition--terminology is fuzzy.
· The current instrument is being used in a way that was never intended.
· The military uses "above," "at," & "below."
· Implementation is the problem, not instrument
After extensive discussion, a vote was taken on Motion 1.
Motion 1 failed.
After further discussion of the evaluation system, the following motion was proposed:
That we, Faculty Council, department heads, and Dr. Bruns meet at In Service or Faculty Council meeting next fall to discuss the evaluation instrument and implementation of it.
Motion 2 carried.
IV. Standing Committee Reports
Adjunct Faculty Sellers, Feezell
Rasey Feezell reported that he is looking for an adjunct to serve as rep for next year.
Promo/Tenure Jean Jackson/Toni McDaniel No report
High Performance Teaching Elaine Oswald No report
Faculty Forum Paul Baxter No report
Faculty After Hours Anita Maddox No report
V. Unfinished Business No unfinished business.
Vl. New Business No new business.
Drawing Winners: Karen Cornell, Marilyn Palatinus, Dorothy Donaldson, and Brenda Ammons.
VIII. The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.