MINUTES OF THE FACULTY HANDBOOK REVISION
COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 8, 2006 – 12:00 noon – 1:30 p.m, Mason Hall, room D1
Present: Lorraine Brown, Professor of English,
College of Humanities and Social Sciences and President of the AAUP Chapter of
George Mason University; Rick Coffinberger, Associate Professor of Business and
Legal Studies, School of Management, Chair;
Martin Ford, Senior Associate
Dean, College of Education and Human Development; Marilyn Mobley, Associate
Provost for Education Programs and Associate Professor of English; Suzanne
Slayden, Associate Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, College of
Science.
Absent: Kevin Avruch, Associate Director and
Professor of Conflict Resolution and Anthropology, Institute for Conflict
Analysis and Resolution; Dave Harr, Senior Associate Dean, School of
Management; David Rossell, Associate Provost for Personnel and Budget, ex-officio.
Key: Yellow highlighted text to be removed; Red
Text to be added.
2.6.1 Annual Review of
Faculty – 2006 Proposed Revision Text (December 1, 2006 FHC
Minutes)
Faculty are evaluated annually by local unit
administrators and/or committees of peers who report to the collegiate deans or
the Provost. The criteria for the annual faculty review are the same as those
listed in Section 2.4 Criteria for Evaluation of
Faculty: Teaching, Scholarship, Professional Service, and University Service
except that the evaluation is based upon the contributions of the preceding
academic year and, where applicable, the summer. The results of and rationale for the evaluation are given to the
faculty member in writing; faculty members must be afforded the opportunity to
discuss the results of the evaluation. Faculty are evaluated on qualitative the quality of overall performance and in the context
of their goals and assignments. Local unit administrators may average
performances for years in which merit raises have been variable.
Discussion: 2.6.1 Annual Review of Faculty continued:
·
Correction of error in 12/1/06 Minutes replace “qualitative” with “the quality of” as in 1994 Handbook text.
·
Need to include rationale as specific to teaching,
service, etc. May be used to illustrate
administrator’s concern about faculty member’s performance. Need to account for perspective – as a
way of asking evaluator to give sense to faculty member of where they are.
·
Practices vary too much, even if you do include
rationale.
·
Expectation of “norm,” to share “range” information -
SOM has published median and ranges for teaching, research, etc. – benchmarks
·
Some faculty provide grading ranges after exams, others
do not, preferring to focus on individual progress. Does not matter what others are doing. To share with individual faculty member
privately if requests more information.
Unique situations – do not see how Handbook can reflect
this.
·
Equity and merit two different things. Various issues involved; merit raises not a Handbook
issue.
·
Add “and rationale for”
after “The results of”
·
Combine sentences and invert order of revised third and
penultimate sentence.
2.6.1 Annual Review of
Faculty – with proposed
revisions discussed December 8, 2006:
Faculty are evaluated annually by local unit
administrators and/or committees of peers who report to the collegiate deans or
the Provost. The criteria for the annual faculty review are the same as those
listed in Section 2.4 Criteria for Evaluation of
Faculty: Teaching, Scholarship, Professional Service, and University Service
except that the evaluation is based upon the contributions of the preceding
academic year and, where applicable, the summer. Faculty are evaluated on the
quality of overall performance and in the context of their goals and assignments.
The results of and rationale for the evaluation
are given to the faculty member in writing; faculty members must be afforded
the opportunity to discuss the results of the evaluation. Local unit
administrators may average performances for years in which merit raises have
been variable.
Dicussion: 2.6.2
Faculty Evaluation of Administrators ( proposed revision text from
December 1, 2006 FHC Minutes): Academic
administrators serve at the pleasure of the President. In reviewing their
performance, the President should refer to the annual faculty evaluation of
administrators, conducted under the joint auspices of the Faculty Senate and
the University's Office of Institutional Planning and Research. The purposes of
this annual evaluation are (i) to provide information regularly to the
President and the Board of Visitors about the strengths and weaknesses of
administrators as perceived by the faculty; (ii) to provide, over an extended
period of time, a record of faculty opinion of regarding the
performance of administrators; and (iii) to provide individual administrators
with specific suggestions
for improving faculty morale and the operations of the University feedback about their performance.. Faculty are expected to participate in the
evaluation of academic administrators.
·
To remove (iii)?
Need to include because otherwise does not say anything about feedback
going to deans/provost/(president). If
someone has high ratings, do suggestions for improved performance apply? We do
not know whether president or provost uses the information.
·
Replace “specific suggestions for improving faculty morale and the operations of
the University” with “feedback about their performance.”
2.6.2 Faculty
Evaluation of Administrators (revised text 12/8/06): Academic administrators serve at the
pleasure of the President. In reviewing their performance, the President should
refer to the annual faculty evaluation of administrators, conducted under the
joint auspices of the Faculty Senate and the University's Office of Institutional
Planning and Research. The purposes of this annual evaluation are (i) to
provide information regularly to the President and the Board of Visitors about
the strengths and weaknesses of administrators as perceived by the faculty;
(ii) to provide, over an extended period of time, a record of faculty opinion
regarding the performance of administrators; and (iii) to provide individual
administrators with feedback about their performance. Faculty are expected to participate in
the evaluation of academic administrators.
Meeting Schedule: Our next meeting will take place Friday, January 12th from 12:00 noon – 1:30 p.m. in Mason Hall, room D5. The committee decided to cancel the meeting scheduled Friday, January 19th as several members are unable to attend. In review of results of the spring term availability poll, it was decided to schedule meetings on Wednesday mornings from 8:30 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. except during spring break and when the BOV meets; for any members unable to attend, we will make every effort to include their suggestions and feedback in a timely way. Sections 2.3. and 2.4 will be discussed at the January 12th meeting.
Should we have another forum to report progress? Consensus that we do not wish to take away time from completing the task; perhaps to send an announcement at the beginning of the spring term, inviting faculty to review minutes on website. The Provost has been regularly informed of the committee’s progress by Marilyn and David Rossell. We may also copy the Rector and BOV members on the spring term announcement so that they may also read minutes published on-line..
2.3 Recruitment and Appointment of Faculty –
the following revisions suggested by Martin Ford and Dave Harr - deletions highlighted in yellow; revised/new text appears in Red.
2.3.1 Policies on Recruitment and Appointment of
Faculty
The Board of Visitors has full authority over faculty
personnel matters, including the responsibility to approve faculty
appointments. To carry out this function effectively, the Board selects a
President, who appoints other academic officers. Academic administrators share
responsibility with the faculty for ensuring that appropriate qualitative standards are
fostered; that equity and due process are the rule; that judgments in the
selection, retention, and promotion of faculty are in the best long-term
interests of the University; and that affirmative action, equal opportunity,
and fair employment practices are followed (see Appendix A).
Initial review and evaluation of qualifications are carried
out by peers in the local academic unit to which the candidate is to be
appointed. Faculty recommendations for appointment are forwarded to the dean or
director of the academic unit in which the appointment is to be made. If
concurring with the faculty recommendations, the dean or director will forward
them to the Provost and
the President.
·
Removal of
President at the end; with exception of high magnitude hires, President would
not be involved in routine appointments.
Requests for new faculty appointments to allocated
positions normally originate with the local unit administrator, acting upon the
recommendation of the unit's faculty. In particular, the administrator seeks
the assistance of the faculty in defining the requirements of the position to
be filled and the qualifications to be sought in the appointee. Authorization
from the appropriate dean and the Provost is necessary before a search is
initiated to fill a vacancy or a new position. In
unusual cases a waiver of the search process may be requested by the local unit
administrator.
The local academic unit establishes, usually by election, a faculty committee possibly a committee of the
whole to advise and assist the local unit administrator in carrying out
a search. After receiving appropriate training from the
Office of Equity and Diversity Services, these committees handle correspondence; review
the dossiers of applicants and review applicant
credentials and make recommendations concerning them; establish the schedule and make other
arrangements for the on-campus interview of finalists; and perform other
search-related duties as necessary regarding
potential finalists for the position. .
All full-time faculty of the local academic unit will have should be
provided with an opportunity to meet with the finalists and offer input to the selection process.. The unit's faculty search committee then evaluates the finalists and formulates a
recommendation. The local unit administrator transmits the faculty
recommendation, together with her or his own, to the collegiate dean or to the
Provost. A copy of the
local unit administrator's recommendation is furnished to the unit's faculty.
Faculty appointments to any local academic unit require the concurrence of that
unit's faculty.
Before extending an offer of appointment, the local unit
administrator or the chair
of the faculty search committee must secure affirmative action clearance and the
concurrence of the relevant Dean or Director, and the Provost, and the Office of Equity and Diversity Services. All
written offers of appointment at rank above assistant
professor must include the statement "conditional upon approval by the
President of the University and upon election by the University's Board of
Visitors." Offers of employment in any rank must include the statement
"Contingent upon availability of funding for the position" and must
be made and accepted in writing. must include
the elements specified in the appropriate offer letter template located on the
Mason Office of the Provost website.
Tenured and probationary tenure-track faculty
receive initial letters of appointment specifying terms
of employment and seeking the faculty member’s consent to be governed by the
administrative policies and regulations of the University (currently in force
and as amended in the future) ; Acceptance in writing of these
letters constitutes a contract between the University and individual faculty
members. Letters of initial appointment to probationary tenure-track faculty
also indicate the expiration date of terms of appointment. Tenured and probationary faculty
also receive annual letters indicating salary.
·
Concern
that waiver of the search process seems to happen more often than “unusual
cases”.
·
Insistence
that still far more common for a search to be conducted; unusual in a
statistical sense.
·
Substitute “rare” for “unusual” at end of 1st paragraph.
·
A committee
member will share research on policies at other universities regarding waived
searches. Perhaps to insert a new
paragraph about this. Concern that
providing language could be very difficult, many variations – some empirical
cases would not fit. Process should be
specific, above board, and transparent.
·
Equity
Office reminds Deans and Directors not to waive searches except in very unusual
cases.
·
Issue of
faculty brought in with tenure; if LAU administrator wants to make a direct
hire, must have concurrence of the unit’s faculty.
·
After some
discussion, suggestion made that Deans/Directors in their role as hiring
officers provide data on direct hires every 6 months as a way to ensure checks and balances. To see if pattern
(without hiring search) is emerging; important role of Equity and Diversity
Services, which by law, has a certain independence.
·
As a member
of the faculty, why does LAU administrator write a separate letter? Usually not a separate letter – LAU
administrator has a place to sign on the form.
LAU administrator may not be part of search committee. Any individual
faculty member may write to the Dean.
Department recommendation made after search committee recommendation
made. In units without departments, LAU
administrator is the Dean.
·
Although
many variations exist, administrative assistants often handle details for
search committees. Most correspondence
handled by email.
Respectfully
submitted,
Meg
Caniano
Clerk,
Faculty Senate