JOURNAL OF THE FACULTY SENATE
The University of Oklahoma (Norman campus)
Regular session - December 8, 1997 - 3:30 p.m. - Jacobson Faculty Hall 102
office: Jacobson Faculty Hall 206 phone: 325-6789 FAX: 325-6782
e-mail: email@example.com web site: http://www.ou.edu/admin/facsen/
The Faculty Senate was called to order by Professor Connie Dillon, Chair.
PRESENT: Badhwar, Benson, Butler, Dillon, Durica, Edwards, Egle, Eliason, Engel, Fung, Gabert, Greene, Gronlund, Gupta, Harper, Hillyer, Hobbs, Holmes, Joyce, Konopak, Laird, Livesey, Murphy, Norwood, Okediji, Pailes, Palmer, Patten, Patterson, Rasmussen, Ratliff, Schwarzkopf, Shaughnessy, St.John, Stoltenberg, Thulasiraman, Wahl, Warner, Watts
Provost's office representative: Mergler
PSA representatives: Elder, Pyle
ABSENT: Albert, Beasley, Blank, Elisens, Emery, Friedrich, Gilje, Lancaster, Reynolds, Robertson, Scherman, Sipes, VanGundy, Vieux
Intellectual property task force 2
Task force to study status of recruitment and retention of women and minorities 2
Spring 1998 schedule of Faculty Senate meetings 2
Senate Chair's Report:
Campus Planning Council survey 2
Meeting with HSC Faculty Senate 2
Post-tenure review 2
Election, councils/committees/boards 3
Post-tenure review 3
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
The Senate Journal for the regular session of November 10, 1997, was approved.
The Faculty Senate Executive Committee formed a task force on intellectual property to study recommendations from Legal Counsel for modifications in the patent and copyright policies. Prof. Pat Weaver-Meyers (University Libraries) will serve as chair. The task force has been asked to present a recommendation to the Faculty Senate during the spring semester.
The Faculty Senate approved a recommendation to eliminate the Equal Opportunity Committee and replace it with a joint Presidential/Faculty Senate Task Force to study the status of the recruitment and retention of women and minority faculty and the compliance of the recruitment and retention procedures with the Equal Opportunity Policy of the University (5/97 Senate Journal, page 5). The task force will be chaired by Prof. Reinaldo Elugardo (Philosophy) and will give a report to the Faculty Senate during the spring semester.
The regular meetings of the Faculty Senate for Spring 1998 will be held at 3:30 p.m. in Jacobson 102 on the following Mondays: January 12, February 9, March 16, April 13, and May 4.
SENATE CHAIR'S REPORT, by Prof. Connie Dillon
Post-Tenure Review (PTR): I am aware that the rewards for Faculty Senate service are numerous. The university recognizes outstanding Faculty Senate service as I am sure you can see from the many prestigious awards and honors that are extended to us. I know our committees A in particular consider this important service at evaluation time. And certainly our chairs cut us slack when urgent senate business takes its toll, not to mention the esteem in which we are held by our colleagues. I bring up this tongue and cheek perspective of the rewards of senate service because I know there are really few rewards to this job beyond knowing for yourself you are doing a good job. So for the record, I wish to recognize this body for the time, effort and diligence you have given this task, particularly with respect to your work on PTR. You have studied this issue, you have taken input from your constituencies and placed their concerns on the table. I believe the faculty is fully informed of the issues surrounding PTR because of you and I believe that, because of you, the faculty feel their concerns have been heard. And finally, I believe that, because of you, the debate has been responsible, responsive, and focused on the central issues. I commend you for your service, and it has been a pleasure leading you through this.
The Senate approved the Committee on Committees' nomination of Curtis McKnight (Mathematics) to replace Loren Hill (Zoology) on the Academic Programs Council, 1995-98 term.
PROPOSED POST-TENURE REVIEW POLICY
For background information, please see 11/97 Faculty Senate Journal, page 2. Prof. Egle moved to accept the Post-Tenure Review task force report as amended last month and with any amendments approved at this meeting. See Appendix I for the amendments proposed at this meeting.
Prof. Patterson submitted an amendment for Prof. Friedrich adding the following sentence to the last paragraph of section 3.X.7.1 after ... "failure to attain the goals of the plan": "Resources to support implementation of professional development plans will be provided by the Provost and the Dean of the College." Prof. Laird proposed a friendly amendment to add "Sufficient" at the beginning of the new sentence. Prof. Patterson agreed to that amendment. Prof. Durica said it is unclear what specific resources the provost and college would provide. Prof. Patterson said her interpretation is whatever it takes, financial or other assistance. Prof. Dillon noted that item (d) of section 3.X.7.2 states that the professional development plan should include "Resources that will be made available to the faculty member to assist with completion of the plan." She said she assumed the proposed language was compatible with that statement. Prof. Susan Vehik (Anthropology), a member of the task force, said the task force expected that the resources would be negotiated with the dean and provost in the process of working out the plan. Prof. Holmes added that it means the department will not have to pay for it. Prof. Durica said the language could be interpreted that the provost and dean would provide funding for the faculty member to seek outside funding. Prof. Egle said that would depend on the negotiated plan. This would clarify a source. Prof. Benson said he assumed that part of the motivation was an attempt to protect the department and faculty. But including the language could have the opposite effect if the provost and dean did not want to make sufficient funds available. They could send it back to the department and faculty for re-negotiation. If the plan called for a leave and funding was not provided, would that mean the plan could not be implemented? Prof. Laird said by adopting the amendment, it would mean the university had no grounds to abrogate tenure if sufficient funding was not provided. Prof. Holmes observed that the amendment made sense because otherwise there would be a conflict of interest between the department and faculty member. A plan could be altered to fit the funding available in a department. Prof. Wahl said he liked the idea that the burden is on the administration to help the faculty member. Prof. Benson noted that he was sympathetic with the motivation for the amendment. However, since the plan has to be approved by the dean and provost, this could give them an excuse not to approve the plan. Prof. Okediji asked whether revising the language to "provost and/or college" would resolve the problem. Prof. Patten contended that "sufficient" was up to interpretation. Prof. Okediji explained that the faculty and the administration should be working in good faith. Tightening the language would not prevent ambiguity. "Sufficient" gives the faculty and administration the opportunity to work together to come up with a plan that is feasible. Sections 3.X.7.1 and 3.X.7.2 force both parties to develop a plan that is funded and meets some standard. The amendment as revised was approved on a voice vote.
Prof. Patterson submitted an amendment for Prof. Friedrich adding a new section 3.X.9--Review of Post-Tenure Review Policy and Procedures: "The above Post-Tenure Review Policy will be reviewed at the end of five years and, if continued, will be evaluated every five years thereafter with respect to its effectiveness in supporting faculty development and redressing problems of faculty performance, the time and cost of the effort required, and the degree to which in practice it has been effectively cordoned off from disciplinary procedures and sanctions." Prof. Laird asked who would review the policy. Prof. Patterson answered that anyone could review it. Prof. Dillon said the procedure is that the Faculty Senate could initiate a review or the administration could ask the Faculty Senate to review the policy. Prof. Wahl proposed a friendly amendment to change the language to "...be reviewed by the Faculty Senate..." Prof. Holmes pointed out that the Faculty Senate could review this any time, as could the administration. The Faculty Senate does not need a mandate. Prof. Patterson suggested a friendly amendment to change the wording to "... be reviewed at
the end of least every five years..." Prof. Wahl said the reason he was interested in specifying a review that would involve the faculty is the degree of trust. Prof. Holmes suggested "...be jointly reviewed by the Faculty Senate and administration at the end of least every five years..." Professors Wahl and Patterson accepted that friendly amendment. The revised amendment was approved on a voice vote.
Prof. Fung noted that the revision he proposed in section 3.X.4(b)--self-appraisal--was not approved at the last meeting. He said he hoped the following change in language would be more acceptable: "
A written statement prepared by the faculty member will constitute a central element of the post-tenure review dossier. This statement Each academic unit has the option of waiving the self-appraisal for faculty members whose five-year overall ratings are 3.01 or higher. The self-appraisal is intended to serve two purposes:..." Prof. Palmer suggested that "are" be changed to "average" 3.01 or higher. Prof. Norwood remarked that 3.0 is supposed to be good performance. This would degrade people who score those numbers and would start inflating grades even more. He urged the senate to address problems in the evaluation system first. He said we have already lost a lot of academic freedom. The College of Arts and Sciences committee that reviewed the evaluation system still has not received a response from the administration. Prof. Hobbs said she agreed we have a flawed evaluation system. The College of Arts and Sciences is undertaking an effort to improve the evaluation system. If the first sentence of 3.X.4(b) was eliminated, the written statement would not be stated anywhere in the document. Prof. Fung answered that he took that sentence out because it said the statement was a central element, which would not be consistent with waiving the statement. Prof. Hillyer said she was worried that this was one of the few places where the faculty member was doing the most important thing in the process. It is an opportunity for the individual to lay out his/her own case and explain the situation s/he is in. There could be cases in which a department or administration could say the professor has weak evaluations. The person being evaluated has a central role in presenting the materials. Prof. Palmer reminded the group that a self-evaluation would be redundant in some departments. Prof. Fung proposed, "..constitute a central element part of the post-tenure review dossier." Prof. Palmer asked who would have the option to waive the statement. Prof. Fung said it would be the unit, that is department head, but the faculty member could write a statement if s/he wanted. Prof. Okediji said she was concerned about removing "central element." The self-appraisal is the heart of the review and protects the faculty. It may in the best interest of junior faculty to write a self-appraisal. Something should be included to make it clear that faculty could still write a statement. Also some language should emphasize the importance of the statement for the protection of the faculty. She suggested that the sentence could be revised to read, "...written self-appraisal..." Even if a self-appraisal is part of a department's annual evaluation process, Post-Tenure Review means there is more at stake. She proposed adding at the beginning of the new sentence, "Although faculty members are encouraged to do this, each academic unit..." Prof. Holmes remarked that Post-Tenure Review would not affect junior faculty. Moreover, this is a mechanism for people who are doing excellent work to get out from doing some paperwork. These people are not in need of protection. Prof. St. John asked what would happen if a person refused to write a self-evaluation. Prof. Okediji commented that you cannot be un-promoted, but if after five years, someone says you are not doing a good job, you have to defend your tenure. Prof. Stoltenberg remarked that if Post-Tenure Review is a good idea, then we should not introduce another level of evaluation. We have tried to avoid cross-department comparisons, and we should not move in that direction with this policy. A 3.01 in one department may be different than a 3.01 in another department. This would encourage grade inflation in departments. Prof. Patten pointed out that the policy is a tool for departments to look at where to re-direct resources. If the good people are taken out of the loop, then they are not participating in the planning. A unit needs to know what all faculty plan to do in the next five years. Prof. Wahl said most faculty are selfless and useful. He would like faculty development to be the central issue here. Faculty will not prepare a statement if it is not required. Prof. Engel commented that some departments have frequent, detailed self-appraisal due to federal funding requirements. The revised amendment failed 22 to 6.
Prof. Patten proposed the following amendments. Add at the end of Section 3.X.5--Expectations--paragraph 2, of the policy: "These criteria will be reviewed by the unit for approval every five years." Revise section 18.104.22.168, paragraph 3, second sentence of the Faculty Handbook to read: "These criteria
may be changed for promotion in that unit from time to time with the shall be reviewed by the unit every five years for approval of the dean and the Senior Vice President and Provost." The intent is to protect faculty so that there is a five-year horizon where s/he can count on fixed rules and will not experience any capricious events that undermine goals. Committees A can change and lose continuity. Prof. Hillyer said her department revised its criteria two years ago, and she would hate to do that every five years. Changes can be proposed by the administration at any level. Prof. Egle noted that the whole department does not come up for review in one year; they're staggered, so no matter when criteria are changed, some people will be affected. Prof. Murphy suggested a grandfather clause like what is done for tenure. There was some discussion about having criteria fixed throughout the five years. Prof. St. John suggested re-wording the sentence to read, "These criteria cannot be reviewed more often than five years..." Prof. Livesey noted that Committee A would have to have the criteria in effect when the faculty member started that five-year cycle. The longer the criteria stay in place, the more outdated they become, but there is a consistency. Prof. Schwarzkopf commented that goals and organization of departments change. The point at which you put the bar is never defined. In Business, what it takes to get a 3.0 in research has changed. Prof. Patten contended that for us to trust this document, we have to trust the evaluation process. Faculty goals may not be consistent with the unit two years from now. We should give our colleagues as much protection as possible. The amendment failed 11 to 9.
Prof. Norwood said he had not heard of a single faculty member in favor of this policy. Last time, he asked the Senate leadership to identify members of the state legislature who had raised this issue. He asked what kinds of attempts had been made to explain to the legislature how stringent the tenure process is. This policy will not make much difference except to make more work for Committee A. We already have problems with grade inflation, racism and sexism. He said he would be more comfortable discussing this after making changes in the evaluation system. Prof. Dillon said the senate had discussed that last time. She said she would like the Faculty Senate to address Prof. Livesey's amendment, which was tabled last month, and then discuss whether to approve Post-Tenure Review. Prof. Livesey's amendment was to add the heading, "Annual Review," after the first sentence of Section 3.11.1 of the Faculty Handbook and re-number the language afterward 22.214.171.124. A new section 126.96.36.199 called Post-Tenure Review would be substituted for the task force document. Prof. Okediji explained that a yes vote would replace the task force recommendation with Prof. Livesey's version in the Faculty Handbook and the task force recommendation as amended would be separate administrative procedures. A no vote would mean the senate would then vote on the amended task force recommendation. Prof. Livesey pointed out that a change in the document over last month's version was to add in the final paragraph that the Faculty Senate would have to approve any changes in procedures. Prof. Harper said he liked the idea but wanted to study it some more. Prof. Hobbs asked how the details of the procedures would be communicated to the faculty. Prof. Dillon said Prof. Livesey's version would go in the Faculty Handbook. Prof. Holmes said he would want to defend his tenure against policies that are published and available to all. It is important for the language the senate carefully worked out to be included in the Faculty Handbook. He suggested that Prof. Livesey's version be made a preamble. Prof. Livesey explained that specific procedures for tenure, promotion, and annual evaluation are not part of the Faculty Handbook. Prof. Hobbs remarked that something this important that could lead to abrogation of tenure should be in the Faculty Handbook. Prof. Livesey commented that one of the initial motivations was consistency. The task force recommendation makes reference to annual evaluations that are no where in the Faculty Handbook. He said he did not want a policy that would harm the faculty. Prof. Okediji suggested that certain portions of the task force recommendation be included in the handbook. It is probably better to have some issues like burden of proof in the Faculty Handbook than in administrative procedures. Prof. Benson asked whether the procedures for tenure/promotion that are outside the handbook have to be reviewed by the Faculty Senate. Prof. Dillon said she knew of no such requirement. Prof. Benson said, in the interest of consistency, we should add that procedures for tenure/promotion must be approved by the Faculty Senate. Prof. Patten asked what Prof. Livesey was trying to accomplish. Prof. Livesey said it was a matter of consistency and that you do not build a more general on a more specific. Prof. Patten said this would give the unit more discretion. Prof. Livesey said he was not certain that was the case because there would still be procedures. Prof. Stoltenberg clarified that this would be a brief summary of the policy; the procedures would be laid out in a separate document and would be subject to change only by Faculty Senate. The task force document makes reference to annual evaluations that are not now in the Faculty Handbook. Prof. Wahl said he understood the desire for consistency, but in a matter as important as this, the goal should be to disseminate real facts in order to build trust. When asked for clarification, Prof. Dillon reiterated that this would substitute more general language for the task force recommendation in the Faculty Handbook and make the amended task force recommendation procedures. Prof. Norwood said he still wanted to know names of state legislators who had raised this issue. Prof. Dillon responded that the Koger Commission appointed by the Governor had recommended the elimination of tenure, Regent Halverstadt would like to see Post-Tenure Review adopted, and Regents' Chair Bentley thinks the five-year plan is a good plan. It is up to this body to make a judgment whether we need a Post-Tenure Review. Prof. Benson noted that this policy was a recommendation of the task force, not the Senate Executive Committee. Prof. Norwood said, considering the near unanimous opposition from faculty with whom he has discussed this policy, he did not think Post-Tenure Review would have that big an impact except to create busy work. If the Faculty Senate is going to pass this, he would like to know the motivation. He had heard only vague statements about one legislator and one regent and seen occasional articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education. It is irresponsible of the Senate Executive Committee not to present a full discussion of the legislative situation and what the regents are thinking and let the legislature know how strict our process is. He called for a general faculty vote. Prof. Dillon reminded the senate that this originated a year ago when the deans' council and Faculty Senate Executive Committee met on the issue of tenure and created a task force. Prof. Butler inquired whether the task force started with any prior notions of what should be in the recommendation. Prof. Vehik explained that the task force looked at different models from universities around the country and tried to build a model that was formative rather than punitive, yet match what was being done around the country. Prof. Laird observed that some of the amendments had very close votes. She said she was concerned about voting on a document that had been amended in that fashion and speeding through a matter of this importance. She said she would like to see this go to a vote of the general faculty. Prof. Wahl added that if the general faculty bought off on the policy, it would have more credibility. Prof. Livesey's motion failed on a voice vote.
Prof. Murphy stated her concern that people might come up for Post-Tenure Review the year after being promoted. She moved that the first sentence of section 3.X.2.2--Normal Review--be amended to read: "Each faculty member shall undergo post-tenure review in the fifth year after the year in which the faculty member is awarded tenure or promotion, whichever is later, and every fifth year thereafter." The motion was approved on a voice vote.
Prof. Wahl claimed that there is more to being accountable to the public than getting that bad apple. The motivation should be to develop faculty. Prof. Engel said his concern was that legislators might be willing to micromanage and propose an alternative way of doing business.
Prof. Laird said she would like to have the full document as amended distributed to all faculty and have a general faculty vote. She also would like more time for further conferral with colleagues. Her motion to table the document was approved on a voice vote. Prof. Laird moved that the amended document be distributed to the entire faculty for a general faculty vote. She clarified that the vote could be either by mail or a meeting. Prof. Schwarzkopf proposed that the question of a general faculty vote be considered at the next meeting since any future amendments would then have to be voted on by the general faculty. Prof. Laird accepted his friendly amendment. Prof. Patten pointed out that faculty have had several months to develop a position. Senators should know the opinions of their fellow faculty. The motion to distribute the amended document to the general faculty was approved on a voice vote. [Note: The amended document was mailed to the general faculty December 11.]
The meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m. The next regular session of the Senate will be held at 3:30p.m. on Monday, January 12, 1998, in Jacobson Faculty Hall 102.
Trent Gabert, Secretary
Sonya Fallgatter, Administrative Coordinator
12/97 (Appendix I)
Amendments that failed:
Revise Section 3.X.4(b)--Self Appraisal--to read: "A written statement prepared by the faculty member will constitute
a central element part of the post-tenure review dossier. This statement Each academic unit has the option of waiving the self-appraisal for faculty members whose five-year overall ratings average 3.01 or higher. The self-appraisal is intended to serve two purposes:..."
Add at the end of Section 3.X.5--Expectations: "These criteria will be reviewed by the unit for approval every five years." Revise section 188.8.131.52, paragraph 3, second sentence of the Faculty Handbook to read: "These criteria
may be changed for promotion in that unit from time to time with the shall be reviewed by the unit every five years for approval of the dean and the Senior Vice President and Provost."
Modify the Faculty Handbook in a more general way and make the specifics a separate procedures document.
3.11 Faculty Evaluation, Advancement in Salary, and Promotion Rank
3.11.1 Faculty evaluation
Faculty evaluation is a continuous process, both prior to and following the granting of tenure.
184.108.40.206 Annual Review. An annual review of each faculty member's performance is the responsibility of the academic deans and the specific academic units. A systematic procedure for accomplishing such evaluations shall be developed in each academic unit with the participation and approval of the dean and the Senior Vice President and Provost. The criteria for evaluation shall be carefully and clearly stated. Although the criteria stated in Section 3.7.4 are basic to an on-going faculty evaluation system, specific faculty assignments and the specific mission of the unit may modify the relative weight given to any one area of professional activity. (For student evaluation of instruction, see Section 3.30.)
220.127.116.11 Post-Tenure Review. In addition to the annual review of each faculty member's performance, for tenured faculty there will be periodic evaluations of performance and development over longer periods. This periodic supplementary evaluation will be called post-tenure review in keeping with usage now widespread in American higher education, notwithstanding the potential for erroneous inference that tenured faculty are not otherwise subject to regular evaluation through annual review.
A comprehensive, peer-based evaluation of all tenured faculty will occur at least every five years for the purpose of guiding career development and, when judged necessary, improving faculty performance. Post-tenure review is mandatory for all tenured faculty reviewed under Section 18.104.22.168, unless they have signed an agreement to retire within two years following the year of the scheduled review or have entered into a formal phased retirement agreement with the university. The post-tenure review shall include:
a. a self-appraisal by the faculty member being reviewed,
b. the annual evaluations and mini-vitae for the previous five years,
c. the faculty member's current complete curriculum vitae,
d. reports of sabbatical or other leaves that have occurred during the period under review, and
e. a copy of the previous post-tenure evaluation, if any.
The Faculty Senate, in cooperation with the Senior Vice President and Provost, shall develop written procedures for post-tenure review of faculty. Such procedures shall be consistent with the AAUP's Standards for Good Practice in Post-Tenure Review and shall not be modified except with the approval of both the Faculty Senate and the Senior Vice President and Provost. Post-tenure review shall not be a reevaluation of a faculty member's tenure status, nor shall it be a means to effect programmatic change. The procedure shall be consistent with the University's policies on academic freedom and responsibility (Section 3.2 of the Faculty Handbook and on faculty evaluation (Section 3.11.1 of the >Faculty Handbook). Post-tenure review must be based on the criteria for annual review approved by the faculty member's unit(s).
Amendments that were approved (these and the amendments approved at last month's meeting are incorporated in the document mailed to the general faculty December 11):
Revise the last sentence of 3.X.2.2--Normal Review--to read: "Each faculty member shall undergo post-tenure review in the fifth year after the year in which the faculty member is awarded tenure or promotion, whichever is later, and every fifth year thereafter."
Add before the last sentence of section 3.X.7.1--Process: "Sufficient resources to support implementation of professional development plans will be provided by the Provost and the Dean of the College."
Add a new section 3.X.9--Review of Post-Tenure Review Policy and Procedures: "The above Post-Tenure Review Policy will be jointly reviewed by the Faculty Senate and administration at least every five years and, if continued, will be evaluated every five years thereafter with respect to its effectiveness in supporting faculty development and redressing problems of faculty performance, the time and cost of the effort required, and the degree to which in practice it has been effectively cordoned off from disciplinary procedures and sanctions."