October 21, 2014 Academic Council Meeting Minutes

The dean called the meeting to order at 10:33. 

1. Approval of Minutes of October 7, 2014

Dr. Sam Abrash moved approval of the minutes of October 7, 2014.  Dr. Geoff Goddu seconded. With no further discussion, the minutes were approved by voice vote. 

2.  Update on the University Faculty Senate proposal—Dr. Jennifer Erkulwater

The first order of business was an update on the University Faculty Senate proposal.  Dr. Jennifer Erkulwater reminded the members of the revision proposal, meeting, and voting schedule.  Members of Academic Council discussed whether the scheduled meeting times should be changed to accommodate science or arts faculty whose lab or production schedules conflict.  Dr. Erkulwater said she would relay the concerns to the Subcommittee.  She urged members to participate in the process of developing, discussing, and voting on the Senate proposal.  She also asked their help in urging all A & S faculty members to participate.

3. Possible Three-Year Review of Tenured Faculty—Dr. Kathleen Skerrett 

The dean noted that SACS’ will accept “periodic review” of faculty performance to be practiced as a three-year review. The dean has discussed this possibility with the new provost.  In order to do this, there needs to be substantial work on rubrics of merit that are appropriate for a three-year review across divisions.  We would also need a logistical plan for transitioning faculty members to three-year review.  A member asked how a three-year review would align with Tenure & Promotion standards for promotion.  Are annual reviews required or preferred for individuals who plan to submit evidence for promotion review?  The dean answered that T&P reviews the portfolio of evidence and evaluates each candidate for promotion in light of the standards set out in the Faculty Handbook.  Department chairs may advise faculty members to have annual reviews in the years prior to an anticipated promotion review.  A member asked if this was required.  The dean observed that she does not see that requirement in the Guideline for Merit Reviews.

•••••• At 10:49 all but the department chairs and associate deans were recused ••••••

4.  Small Group discussion regarding the calibration of merit scores across divisions. These discussions are anticipated by the Guideline for Merit Reviews.  The department chairs decided to break up into cross-disciplinary groups to discuss calibration of merit scores for teaching and service across disciplines. The definition of excellence was much discussed, particularly as it relates to the language in the Faculty Handbook.  The chairs noticed different philosophical approaches to the “exceptional” category.  The chairs also noted different approaches to the “good” category.  

Several chairs noted that the small group discussions were helpful.  They expressed interest in more opportunities for department chairs to meet in conversation. 

The meeting adjourned at 11:48. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Matt Oglesby