Dear Colleagues,
Thank you for our discussion at the A&S Faculty Meeting last week. I appreciate the diversity of opinion among you, and I hope that every faculty meeting will foster open exchange and argument. In the course of argument, I learn a lot. I also have learned from the comments that many of you have sent to me in the past week. Thank you for the time that you have taken to explain your views and to make suggestions. Here are some revisions that I will make as a result:
Ad Hoc Annual Performance Review Committee:
As a result of hearing your objections and recommendations, I will amend the charge to the Ad Hoc Annual Performance Review Committee to omit reference to individuals’ files. The purpose of the Ad Hoc Committee is to discuss criteria and evidence that chairs have used for discriminating among merit assignments. However, the possibility that chairs might use individual cases as examples in these discussion seems to both confuse the task and to foment controversy around it. Therefore, while I personally believe that our ethics of confidentiality and collegiality should protect any individual faculty members from negative exposure, it seems to me that, in this transition semester, confusion and controversy weigh against my insistence. Therefore, I will remove the reference to individual examples in the charge to the Committee, meanwhile retaining obligations of confidentiality around the chairs’ divisional discussions. In addition, some of you mentioned that department chairs may want the option of meeting with the dean to discussion their evaluations of colleagues. My hope is that the divisional discussions will clarify any issues that you bring forward in such discussions, but I am certainly willing to talk with individual chairs.
We will hold the electronic election on Monday morning. You will receive an email directing you to the site where your ballot will appear. Please elect one of the chairs in your quadripartite division who has indicated to a grateful new dean that he or she is not unwilling to serve on the Ad Hoc committee. The revised charge to the Ad Hoc Committee is now included in the School's list of committees.
Merit Categories
A number of people have sent thoughtful responses to my suggestion of three categories for merit: Exceptional Achievement, Professional Excellence, and Areas of Concern. In particular, many of you have argued a four-point scale has been most effective for chairs in making meaningful discriminations among colleagues. Since the standard of excellence continues after the tenure review, we need a rubric to identify annual performance that does not rise to that standard. Further, many of you noted that Areas of Concern is a rubric that can be relevant even in cases where individuals have exceptional achievements to their credit. You have suggested that an annual performance review is most meaningful when it results in concrete recommendations for enhancing professional achievement in any area of concern. As a result of these arguments and recommendations, I will bring the matter back to Academic Council for further discussion with the chairs when we meet on October 4. I will communicate with all of you the results of that discussion and the amendments I make in response.
I look forward to faculty meetings with you. Please let me know if there is business you would like us to address in future meetings.
Kathleen
Thank you for our discussion at the A&S Faculty Meeting last week. I appreciate the diversity of opinion among you, and I hope that every faculty meeting will foster open exchange and argument. In the course of argument, I learn a lot. I also have learned from the comments that many of you have sent to me in the past week. Thank you for the time that you have taken to explain your views and to make suggestions. Here are some revisions that I will make as a result:
Ad Hoc Annual Performance Review Committee:
As a result of hearing your objections and recommendations, I will amend the charge to the Ad Hoc Annual Performance Review Committee to omit reference to individuals’ files. The purpose of the Ad Hoc Committee is to discuss criteria and evidence that chairs have used for discriminating among merit assignments. However, the possibility that chairs might use individual cases as examples in these discussion seems to both confuse the task and to foment controversy around it. Therefore, while I personally believe that our ethics of confidentiality and collegiality should protect any individual faculty members from negative exposure, it seems to me that, in this transition semester, confusion and controversy weigh against my insistence. Therefore, I will remove the reference to individual examples in the charge to the Committee, meanwhile retaining obligations of confidentiality around the chairs’ divisional discussions. In addition, some of you mentioned that department chairs may want the option of meeting with the dean to discussion their evaluations of colleagues. My hope is that the divisional discussions will clarify any issues that you bring forward in such discussions, but I am certainly willing to talk with individual chairs.
We will hold the electronic election on Monday morning. You will receive an email directing you to the site where your ballot will appear. Please elect one of the chairs in your quadripartite division who has indicated to a grateful new dean that he or she is not unwilling to serve on the Ad Hoc committee. The revised charge to the Ad Hoc Committee is now included in the School's list of committees.
Merit Categories
A number of people have sent thoughtful responses to my suggestion of three categories for merit: Exceptional Achievement, Professional Excellence, and Areas of Concern. In particular, many of you have argued a four-point scale has been most effective for chairs in making meaningful discriminations among colleagues. Since the standard of excellence continues after the tenure review, we need a rubric to identify annual performance that does not rise to that standard. Further, many of you noted that Areas of Concern is a rubric that can be relevant even in cases where individuals have exceptional achievements to their credit. You have suggested that an annual performance review is most meaningful when it results in concrete recommendations for enhancing professional achievement in any area of concern. As a result of these arguments and recommendations, I will bring the matter back to Academic Council for further discussion with the chairs when we meet on October 4. I will communicate with all of you the results of that discussion and the amendments I make in response.
I look forward to faculty meetings with you. Please let me know if there is business you would like us to address in future meetings.
Kathleen
No comments:
Post a Comment