Clerk’s Committee Meeting
Friday, September 9, 2016 11:30 a.m.
Attending were Alfonso Abad Mancheno, Dave Dobson, Beth Rushing, Kathryn Shields, Don Smith, and Eva Lawrence (minute taker). Absent were Sherry Giles, Gwen Gosney Erickson, and Jeffrey Ray.
- Minutes from 9/2 were approved with minor revisions.
- Position requests
There are many departments who plan to submit position requests (list here). Dave will get clarity from the President about how Clerk’s should make their recommendations. We expect that Clerk’s will identify departments in groups of priority. Clerk’s plans to submit recommendations to the President by 10/5/16.
Alfonso, Sherry, and Eva will not attend the Clerk’s Committee meetings on September 23rd and the 30th because their departments are submitting position requests. Dave has asked nominating committee to find substitutions from humanities, business and policy studies, and social sciences.
Some concerns with the data from Institutional Research (IR) were discussed. The FTE from IR does not take into consideration course releases or tenured or tenure-track faculty who are not full-time. Average course size includes independent studies and internships and may in some cases underestimate course loads. To address potential limitations of the IR data, departments submitting requests will be encouraged to provide their own data on their FTEs and course loads.
- Compensation committee replacement:
A member of the compensation committee, Hiroko Hirakawa, is on sabbatical this fall. Members of Clerk’s committee discussed whether or not we need a replacement for one semester. Dave will follow up with the committee.
- Revisions and Additions to the Promotion and Tenure Process
Service: The committee discussed service outside the college. Consensus was reached that faculty members can make a case when they believe such service is relevant and should be be considered in the review process.
The service criterion document was edited in the meeting, and the attending committee members approved this document to go forward to faculty to allow for additional suggestions regarding language.
Preparation for FAC and others involved in the review process: The committee agreed that any process for training for substitute members of FAC did not need to be explicitly stated in the handbook. The committee also agreed that in addition to members of FAC, other faculty members involved in the review process and two members from the faculty development committee should attend training to reduce bias and calibrate standards for evaluation.
This addition to the handbook was edited in the meeting, and the attending committee members present approved the document to go forward to faculty to allow for additional suggestions regarding language.
Promotion: The document was edited in the meeting to specify the requirements for the rank of Associate Professor and Full Professor. Attending members approved the promotion criteria, as edited in the meeting, to go forward to faculty. This document will be discussed at the faculty forum on 9/14/16.
Pre-tenure annual developmental reviews: The committee discussed the pros and cons of separating these reviews from the FAC reviews versus linking them. The committee also discussed who would serve on developmental review committees.
The committee did not come to consensus, and will bring these issues to the faculty forum next Wed. 9/14/16.
- The committee closed at 1pm. Some members continued an informal discussion of the promotion and tenure review process.