ࡱ> VXU GGbjbj 4\hh9? , , ooooo8<&hM&O&O&O&O&O&O&(*6O&ouuuO&ood&777u^ooM&7uM&77$h%0 F %9&z&0&%*j* %%*o%H7 YO&O&7&uuuu*, 5: Personnel Committee Report Faculty Senate, Written Report, Verbal Report, Action Item - 02/20/09 Members Present: Diane Elmore, Janie Moore, Lucina Lewis, Joyce Shaw, Pat Collins, Meachell LaSalle (Chair) Meeting held on 02/11/09 The personnel committee met to discuss the two documents that were submitted as alternatives to the current procedure of the personnel committee in the tenure process. Both are attached. Document A gives too much responsibility to the personnel committee, when said responsibility should be with the tenure committee and the VPAA. Document B describes a restructure of the tenure process as a whole, with changes to the personnel committees role imbedded throughout the document. Currently the tenure process, from hire date to application and beyond at GBC is similar to Document B. Personnel committee has NO PLANS to CHANGE THE ENTIRE TENURE PROCESS. We are offering both documents for review, discussion, and possible action. As a committee we are more in agreement with Document B, as far as the role of the personnel committees involvement in the tenure process. We, as a committee, think that our role (with regard to tenure) is to ensure that facultys rights are represented and protected. The committee exists to facilitate and support both the process and faculty. Please see attached. Document A The Role of the Personnel Committee in the Tenure Process The central role of the committee is to assure that proper processes, policies, and procedures are followed at all times, making for a smooth transition from tenure candidate to tenured faculty. In line with this, we have the following duties: 1. The Personnel Committee will make sure that a tenure committee is formed in a timely manner for each new faculty member. 2. The Personnel Committee will obtain a report from each tenure committee every semester. This is simply a duplicate of the report given to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. 3. From the reports, the Personnel Committee will determine whether or not each tenure committee has been meeting, has been observing the tenure candidate, and has been providing feedback for improvement. If a tenure committee has not been performing its duties, the Personnel Committee may (by majority vote) make a report (so stating) to the VPAA, who shall consider this in his/her evaluation of those faculty members. 4. Wherever questions, issues, or concerns arise, the Personnel Committee advises the tenure committees regarding proper procedure. 5. During a candidates final year, the Personnel Committee would assure that the appropriate paperwork is submitted on time for consideration. 6. Issues that might interfere with or hinder tenure should be caught early in the process, so that good mentoring would occur. If a faculty member resists mentoring, it is not the responsibility of the Personnel Committee to involve itself unless the faculty member, tenure committee, or department requests a hearing. In addition, the Personnel Committee may involve itself in areas of potential dispute, such as the following: A. If a candidates department (or departments) is/are not properly represented on a tenure committee, the Personnel Committee may recommend to the tenure committee (and possibly the VPAA) that members be switched and/or added to that tenure committee. B. If the members of a candidates tenure committee disagree with one another regarding the candidates progress toward tenure, the Personnel Committee may serve to mediate or may bring the matter to the VPAAs attention. Attachment A Page 1 of 2 C. If a candidates tenure committee disagrees with his/her department regarding the candidates progress toward tenure, the Personnel Committee may serve to mediate or may bring the matter to the VPAAs attention. D. If a candidates department and tenure committee agree with one another, but a high-ranking administrator disagrees as to the suitability of a candidate for tenure, the Personnel Committee would examine the dispute and provide a written opinion to the President for consideration. E. If all of the above things have been done well, and if obstacles have been overcome early, then the candidates department and tenure committee will agree with the VPAA regarding the suitability of that candidate for tenure. F. At the end of the tenure process, the content of the Personnel Committee in granting tenure equates to the consent of the Senate, since the Committee brings the candidate before Senate for approval, and since the Personnel Committee is privy to more information than the Senate at large will ever have. G. The Personnel Committee must keep all personnel issues confidential. NOTE: I do not believe that the Committee needs to retain copies of a tenure candidates portfolio. The portfolios are new to GBC; storing paperwork was never a role of the Personnel Committee before. Further, their content will likely differ from department to department and from candidate to candidate. It would be unreasonable to expect a committee with changing membership to be able to properly and consistently examine them over time. Attachment A Page 2 of 2 Document B The Tenure Process at another college with recommendations for GBC Objectives The tenure granting practices and the role of the Personnel Committee in the tenure process are currently under discussion. I volunteered some information to Meachell about my experiences from a previous tenure track position at another college (lets abbreviate it with the letter C to make this document shorter). This document will explain the tenure procedures at C. I will then give a set of suggestions for how the tenure process at GBC can be overhauled to incorporate some of the positive aspects of the process at my previous workplace. The tenure process at C The tenure process at C, a mainly four-year college with an enrollment of 9,000FTE, is multi-step and takes six years. The applicant is reviewed often and at many levels. The review process is very transparent, public, and highly rigid. The first 2 years After each of the first two years the tenure track faculty writes a self-review and is reviewed by the department chair and then by the dean of the college (similar position to our VPAA). The faculty-generated self-review contains supporting documentation such as student evaluations, publications, syllabi, and memos from committee chairs as evidence that the faculty member participated in committee assignments, courses, etc. The department chair reviews this information and comments on each area of the workload. For example, if the workload contains teaching, service to the university, service to the college, service to the department, and research, the review would look like this: Jane has taught 12 CR of courses as assigned. She has received an average of 4.1 in student evaluations and her teaching observations were satisfactory. Jane is making satisfactory progress towards tenure in the workload area of teaching. Attachment B Page 1of 5 Jane has served on the Art Appreciation committee as chair (a university-wide committee), the college of arts and science curriculum committee, and has assumed many assigned departmental duties such as re-writing out lower-division syllabi to include accreditation-approved outcomes. She has been an asset to the department and of great assistance to the chair. Jane is making satisfactory progress towards tenure in the workload area of service. Jane has applied for two grants this first year of the tenure process. She has one publication submitted for review to the Journal of Lithography. Jane is making satisfactory progress towards tenure in the workload area of research. Summary: Jane is making satisfactory progress towards tenure in all areas of her workload. The review from the Dean follows the same format. Note: Tenure is graded pass/fail. Therefore, to completely remove any ambiguity as to what is required for tenure, all reviews may only contain one the following two summary statements: Jane is making satisfactory progress towards tenure or Jane is not currently making satisfactory progress towards tenure. With the following explanation---. The president of the university or any other people reading reviews later in the process have no ability to make an arbitrary decision based on the balance of satisfactory vs. outstanding marks on your reviews. You either obviously pass or you obviously fail. If you make satisfactory progress in all areas of your workload, you pass. If you make less than satisfactory progress in any area than you may be dismissed you fail. Additionally, the grade of satisfactory progress must be well defined by college/department committees made of tenured faculty. This is the most difficult and contentious part of the entire process. After the 3rd year After the 3rd year the chair and dean review the faculty member. An additional review is done by a committee. The format for all the reviews is the same. The tenure file this year contains all of your work and all of your past reviews from the previous three years from the dean and chair. Again, you either get satisfactory progress or not. After the 4th year The review process this year is identical to the first two years. After the 5th and 6th years The faculty member may stand for tenure after the 5th year and must stand for tenure after the 6th year. The process is the same as the process after the 3rd year, except that there is an additional committee that needs to review you. If you are recommended for tenure, your application goes to the university president and the board of regents. Attachment B Page 2 of 5 During this final tenure review the language in the review for each part of the workload changes to something to this effect: Jane has attained the level of accomplishment in this workload area that is needed to attain tenure or Jane has not attained the level of accomplishment in this workload area that is needed to attain tenure. The language in the recommendation at the bottom of each review reads: Jane has attained the level of accomplishment in all workload areas that is needed to attain tenure. I recommend Jane for tenure or Jane has not attained the level of progress in all workload areas that is needed to attain tenure. I do not recommend Jane for tenure. With the following explanation--- This cannot be interpreted any other way but pass/fail. Each level writes a review in this format. Transparency and accountability All tenure track faculty must read and acknowledge that they have read each of their reviews at each and every level of review. All reviews accumulate in the tenure file for everyone, including the committees, to see. This has two very important effects: The process is transparent, open, exceedingly clear, and unambiguous to the committees and to the faculty member. Nothing outside the file (good or bad) can be used for or against you when you are reviewed at higher levels. Nothing outside of agreed upon guidelines may be used in the review. If someone has a problem with the way you are doing your job they need to get a black mark into your file. If they succeed, this black mark will be public and you will have ample opportunity to meet the criticism. Or, you can watch the black marks accumulate and start looking for another job. There is a clear paper trail for the process that can allow you to file a grievance or a lawsuit and win if you are denied tenure without cause. If every review level recommends tenure and the president or regents deny you then they have some explaining to do. How can this be adapted to GBCs process? GBC could have a multi-level process for recommendation and yearly review, just like C has. The following review levels could be used: (this is an outline) Tenure committee (every semester) Department chair (every year) VPAA (every year) Personnel Committee (at time of application for tenure) GBC President (at time of application for tenure) Information that needs to be in the tenure file and the files that are reviewed on a semester/yearly basis: more than we have now. In my opinion as much as possible. The only information that may be considered in the reviews in the stuff in the file. Attachment B Page 3 of 5 All levels of review will follow a rigid format using something resembling pass/fail grading with significant substantiation using agreed upon guidelines for what is passing and what isnt. All levels of review will reveal openly, in writing, their recommendations/findings to the faculty member and all other levels of the review process. Information in the tenure file folder will be cited as evidence for everything written. After 3 years at GBC, at the time most of us apply for tenure, a compilation of 6 reviews from your committee, 3 reviews from your chair, and 3 reviews from the VPAA should make the decision easy for the President. Evidence should be overwhelming either way, at least theoretically. Borderline/difficult cases are inevitable these will truly be up to the President. Any level of review can recommend a no, but your tenure application goes forward even if you get a no. Only the President can actually take in all the recommendations and decide for a no. The clarity of this process spread over several years should make the application for tenure either a slow motion, 3-year train wreck you are obviously going to get flattened by a pile of negative reviews. Or, hopefully, the train will carry you to tenure at GBC with a smile on your face. Caveats One person in the process simply hates me. (A point of view that could be expressed by a tenure track faculty member.) This person could start the negative review bandwagon rolling. Counterarguments: There is time to meet critique and make adjustments to how you work. You will see your file and have time and place to rebut the critique. There are many more levels that consist of several people. At the end the President will have to weigh one negative person against reviews from many people and committees. This may dilute one negative voice. A single negative person must get the negative critique in writing with substantiation. You will be able to file a grievance or even be able to sue them in court if they severely misbehave. Since everything is in writing they will be careful. I do not want this much of my job performance information to be made public to so many people. (A point of view that could be expressed by a tenure track faculty member.) It may be illegal to release the review from the VPAA (it is a personnel record???) Counterarguments: An open process is fairer than a closed process. How is a recommendation that means anything supposed to come from your tenure committee or the personnel committee if they do not have all available information? Committees may disagree with the VPAA in the tenure track facultys favor. But, in order for the disagreement to mean anything, they must know the content of the VPAAs criticism. Attachment B Page 4 of 5 Guidelines for what is satisfactory progress towards tenure or what is the expected level of accomplishment needed for tenure in each area of the workload will be difficult to develop. They may not be the same for all faculty members. Counterarguments: I fully agree. We need them anyway. Tenure is granted when you are satisfactory not excellent, outstanding, extraordinary etc. I think we will be able to agree on satisfactory. All cases including borderline or unexpected situations are decided by committees that can interpret the guidelines just in case they are not fully applicable. They just have to put down a reason why they think that deviation from the guidelines or interpretation is justified. All cases including borderline or unexpected situations are decided by the President who can interpret the guidelines just in case they are not fully applicable. They just have to put down a reason why they think that deviation from the guidelines or interpretation is justified. Attachment B Page 5 of 5     HUY]t: ; < U ] a : E F G R \ ] )KepE#F### & &&&&&''''g(((())ܼܼܦܼܦܦh]bh0J h0J5 h0J h]bhh>RhB* CJ$aJ$phhhsVh5 h5hy}hB*CJ aJ phhhnh!#hMhM5hMh *yh)=h"e8ab 7 8 < = _ ` 0 1 F G H I J K L M N  dgd"e $da$gdN O P Q R ]  i1/)*6A$a$gdgd$a$gdgdABCDEFGHIJKYep!"##gd`gdgdgdgdgd$a$gd#####w%`&&&**.,A,,,---- ..C1c1b24 & Fgdgdgdgd`gd$a$gdgd)**-*.*1*******9,;,,,,,,,,-:-<--./ /?0B000q2|2~222445555578R8n;o;<$<0<1<]==޺޺޲ޣޛޣގޭއޭ hn6h hJ*h h0Jhph>*hg2h5\ h>*hg2h>*h wh>*hh>*hhhH*h]bhH*hh wh0J5>* h0J>*h wh0J>*54556666787788888991<U=]=%>j>>?s@A & Fgdgd$a$gd & Fgdgdgd & Fgd=s@@@AA C'C(CDG2G3G9G:G*h hj<<h h>*hAAXB C CC'C(C%D4DIDDEGGG G G G G GGGGGGgd & Fgdgd$a$gdgd & FgdGGGGGGGGGGGGGG-G9G;GG?GAGBGDGEGFGGG dgd$a$gdgd21h:pn/ =!"#$% j 666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~ OJPJQJ_HmH nH sH tH J`J "eNormal dCJ_HaJmH sH tH h@h  Heading 1$$@&'5B*CJOJPJQJ\^JaJph6_h@h  Heading 2$$@&'5B*CJOJPJQJ\^JaJphODA`D Default Paragraph FontRiR 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k ( 0No List \\ Heading 1 Char'5B*CJOJPJQJ\^JaJph6_\\ Heading 2 Char'5B*CJOJPJQJ\^JaJphOT@T  List Paragraph ^m$OJPJQJ^JF@F Quote6B*OJPJQJ]^JphT1T  Quote Char'6B*CJOJPJQJ]^JaJph*W@A* `Strong5\n>@n Title d,&dPOm$)@B*CJ4KHOJPJQJ^JaJ4ph6]VaV  Title Char)@B*CJ4KHOJPJQJ^JaJ4ph6]4r4 0Header  H$66 0 Header CharCJaJ4 4 0Footer  H$66 0 Footer CharCJaJH`H  No SpacingCJ_HaJmH sH tH PK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi};~@(Hu* Dנz/0ǰ $ X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!-Rk.sԻ..a濭?PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6w toc'vuر-MniP@I}úama[إ4:lЯGRX^6؊>$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3ڗP 1Pm \\9Mؓ2aD];Yt\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] G? \ )=GG$)+N A#4AGGG%&'(*,-8@0(  B S  ?"H?H??*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags stockticker 2?3?9?9?;?;????A?B?D?E?H?KX' J % &///6080E05589 ;;?,?-?8?9?9?;?;????A?B?D?E?H?3333333333333???8?9?9?;?;????A?B?D?E?H?p;B{ (KNR`B:aP-v^`>*o(.^`.pL^p`L.@ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PL^P`L.^`o(.^`.pL^p`L.@ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PL^P`L.^`o(.^`.pL^p`L.@ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PL^P`L.^`o(.^`.pL^p`L.@ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PL^P`L.^`o(.^`.pL^p`L.@ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PL^P`L.B{ N(Kp;`B:a                                             G  n!#)="e *yfr M69?;?@G?h@UnknownG* Times New Roman5Symbol3. * Arial7.{ @Calibri7K@CambriaA BCambria Math"1hڋFfF o 5 ro 5 r!0??2QHX $P"e2!xxGBCGBC      Oh+'0x  ( 4 @ LX`hpGBC Normal.dotmGBC3Microsoft Office Word@d@/@W@ܖo 5՜.+,0 hp  Ĵýr ?  Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-.0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDFGHIJKLNOPQRSTWRoot Entry FVY1Table/ +WordDocument4\SummaryInformation(EDocumentSummaryInformation8MCompObjy  F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q