Chair Bicknell called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. on Tuesday, April 16, 2002, in Nelson Hall East, Room 201 (Goodwin Forum).

Members Present: Adams, Bicknell, Burroughs, Fulgham, Goodman, Jenkins, Klein, Little, MacConnie, Martin, McFarland, Mortazavi, Novotney, Oliver, Paselk, Paynton, Sheppard, Snyder, Stokes, Thompson, Varkey, Wang

Members Absent: Bockover, Braggs, Hennessy, Mayer, McCrone, Sanford, Thobaben, Travis, F. Wilson, Yarnall

Proxies: Mortazavi for Kenyon; MacConnie for Meiggs; Little for Smith

Guests: Steve Butler, Student Affairs; Ron Fritzsche, Faculty Personnel Services; Carolyn Mueller, President's Office; Richard Vrem, Undergraduate Studies

1. Approval of Minutes

It was moved and seconded (Klein/Varkey) to approve the submitted minutes of April 02, 2002. Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED.

2. Announcements and Communications

Chair Bicknell announced that a second call regarding committee vacancies has been distributed; all senators were encouraged to consider committee service. Those interested may inform Chair Bicknell or Greta of their intention.

Chair Bicknell reminded senators that April 30 probably would be the final meeting of the senate this academic year. At the April 30 meeting, new senators will be seated, followed by the election of new officers and a reception hosted by President McCrone. The Senate Executive Committee is still seeking nominations for the senate officers: chair, vice chair and chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee, and secretary and chair of the Educational Policies Committee. Anyone interested in running for an office should let Chair Bicknell or Greta know.

Senator McFarland announced that Thursday, April 18, EOP will be hosting an honors award ceremony in Goodwin Forum from 2 to 4 p.m.

The Fourth Annual Disability Resource Center Recognition Awards ceremony will be held Thursday, April 25, from 1-3 p.m. in Goodwin Forum.

3. Committee and State Senate Reports

Statewide Senate - Senator Snyder announced that during the committee meetings of April 8 - 10 held in Sacramento, the main topic was the budget. The Academic Affairs Committee met during this time and is reviewing specific legislation on a new English language competency standard for the CSU, the UC and the community colleges. The Committee also is reviewing the issue of consultation on enrollment management standards, and is asking that faculty senates and the general faculty be consulted on setting enrollment targets and developing methods for meeting such targets.

Senate Finance - There is no revised MSF resolution in today's packet; the Committee members have decided that they would like to send a transmittal letter from Senator Little and Chair Bicknell to President-designate Richmond including materials related to best budget practices, the concerns of the Senate Finance Committee and the MSF dilemma. The budget committee for OAA will be working on the budget next week; no URPBC meetings have occurred.

Faculty Affairs - There is a first reading of the Post-Tenure Review Policy on the agenda today.

Educational Policies - A resolution on the final evaluation policy is on the agenda today, and the Committee is working on resolutions that relate to general education.

OAA - The budget committee will begin its work soon, and work on the budget of Athletics is close to completion. Regarding enrollment, 6842 was the FTES in fall last year; it is hoped that Humboldt will be closer to or surpass the 7000 FTE mark. The established goal is 7144, but it appears unlikely that this goal will be reached. There should be a 1 to 2 percent growth, and this growth is accounted for primarily in new first-year students, some growth in new transfer students and a slight rise in graduate students. Graduation is the primary reason for a decline in the number of continuing students.

UCC - During its last two meetings the Committee has taken the following actions:

Approved the Program Suspension and Program Discontinuation guidelines (subsequently approved by the Senate).

Heard the year-end report from the Information Competency subcommittee regarding its efforts to respond on behalf of the UCC to the Librarian's request that information competency be introduced into the curriculum at Humboldt.

Approved the Institutions Program Review document prepared by subcommittee.

Approved and passed to the Senate a proposal from AHSS regarding Learning Outcomes and Assessment for General Education Areas C and D.

Heard and is still discussing the year-end report from the Distance Learning subcommittee attempting to respond to the Senate's charge to the UCC to provide "oversight and review of educational quality in distance education programs."

Approved two DCG courses, FR 300 (African Storytelling) and AIE 435 (Counseling Issues), bringing the total to three. There are eight more courses that have been submitted for DCG certification and are still in the approval process.

4. Resolution on Final Evaluation Week Policy (#18-01/02-EP)

Senator MacConnie provided background on the resolution stating that the Educational Policies Committee reviewed the June 1986 policy and the Fall 2001 provisional policy and combined the two policies into one new policy.

It was moved and seconded (MacConnie/Varkey) to place the resolution on the floor.

WHEREAS, The last approved Policy Regarding Final Examinations is dated 6/23/86; and

WHEREAS, A "Provisional" Finals Week policy was distributed to faculty in Fall 2000; and

WHEREAS, Each document contains good and reasonable information; and

WHEREAS, It is helpful to review and update such policies; therefore, be it

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommend that the attached revised Policy Regarding Final Evaluations Week be approved, be distributed to the faculty, and be included in the Schedule of Classes.

Discussion included the following comments:

Through friendly amendment, the reference to take home examinations in number 4 was revised to read, " . . . provided the required submission date and time falls within no earlier than the designated final evaluation time slot . . . ."

Minor language changes were made including deleting the word any from number 7 and adding the word to in the opening sentence.

The language calling for students to make arrangements in advance with the instructor if they find it impossible to participate at the scheduled time for a final exam serves two purposes. It protects faculty members from having students approach them at the last minute with such a request by requiring advance notice, and it provides students with the information that if necessary, there is a way for them to not take an exam at the scheduled time.

Voting on the resolution occurred and MOTION PASSED WITH 3 ABSTENTIONS. The revised policy is attached to these minutes.

5. First Reading: Resolution on Post-Tenure Review Policy

Senator Paynton provided background on the policy, stating that the Committee is looking for feedback and input on the policy. There are several different post-tenure review policies on campus, and the Faculty Affairs Committee attempted to develop a campus wide policy to help dispel any perception that there are different post-tenure review standards on campus. The Committee reviewed the different policies and the CBA and developed one policy that accomplishes the same goal as the previous policies. Much discussion has occurred regarding the provision of resources so that faculty who are under review are able to achieve their professional goals. Continued discussion along these lines would occur once the policy is accepted. At that same time information regarding the budget situation would be factored in to make a determination regarding the availability of release time, equipment, travel and other types of resources.

Discussion comments included the following:

The Committee changed the language in number 3 so that the second sentence reads, "The Humboldt Post-Tenure Review Policy shall be made available to each tenured faculty unit employee due for review, and those conducting the evaluation, at this time."

Some suggestions given to Senator Paynton included a reordering of numbers 7 through 11, and the criteria should be delineated so that colleges and the library will not need to have their own policy.

Through friendly amendment, the word summary was deleted in number 9.

Through friendly amendment, number 8 was revised to read, " . . . will meet with the faculty member to go over the review and write a letter summarizing the review meeting between the faculty member and the administrator."

Based on the contract language, it would be more helpful if the administrator would write an independent summary report, not one summarizing the conversation.

The Committee changed the language in the first sentence in number 3 to read, " . . . employees will be notified of the upcoming review by the Office of Academic Affairs their dean.

In number 4.2, the Committee has added language so that it reads, " . . . comments by students from at least two courses . . . ."

The language from Appendix J indicating that in the year preceding the report, all courses may be used for evaluation will be added. [If a department is going to review a faculty member, it would seem that all of the student evaluations in the individual's personnel file would be reviewed.]

Concern was expressed about the absence of "carrots and/or sticks" in the policy. There have been times when a department was wanting a stronger post-tenure review process in place to deal with specific situations. It is unfortunate that the language expressing the hope that people could be helped to get reinvigorated found in the initial draft has been removed. Positive rewards of some kind are needed.

The language in numbers 8 and 9 referring to an administrator's report will be brought in line with each other.

The faculty member will review and sign a copy of the report at each level of evaluation.

The post-tenure review process should have more weight to it; there should be a way to remove any faculty who are not teaching as well as expected.

Throughout the process, each reviewing committee and individual ought to be making specific recommendations and not just writing reports.

The sentiment of the Faculty Affairs Committee is that before either rewarding or punitive measures are developed, a campus wide policy is needed. After such a policy is developed, then next year the Committee could work on the idea of rewards and/or sanctions. The Committee believes there are more good teachers than bad teachers so writing a policy with the focus on the negative may not be in the best interest of the university. Offering positive recognition comments for work well done or offering some incentives for improving one's teaching will go further than disciplinary action.

The Faculty Affairs Committee believes it would be helpful to learn how many people go through a post-tenure review per year and what kind of money and resources could be allocated to this process so that a policy can be developed.

Concern was expressed regarding the comments about going after bad teachers during this process. The post-tenure review process needs to be evaluative, it needs to be included in the personnel file and it needs to be used appropriately so that people are encouraged to do a better job and strive for excellence in their teaching. [If rewards and sanctions are included, then the requirements for the faculty need to be clearly identified as well as any consequences of the peer review.] [Such clarification would be found in the new policy after Faculty Affairs Committee adds the detailed information.] [Overall the faculty are excellent teachers; any sanctions needed probably would not need to be severe.]

The reasons behind tenured teachers going bad needs to be explored. If the RTP process is working, then supposedly bad teachers are weeded out during the evaluation period. Perhaps the faculty development coordinator could become involved in exploring opportunities for restimulating the teaching process for faculty who have been teaching for a number of years.

There is no uniformity in this process and the proposed policy would provide that uniformity; yet there is room for some flexibility among the departments. [The past decision to not have uniformity was made because some areas may have different requirements and allowances should be made for such differences.]

Goals ought to be established to satisfy any legal requirements before any procedures are determined. Only if faculty truly want a system involving rewards and sanctions, should such a process be developed. There has been no evidence of faculty having the will to get rid of the ones who are not doing their job. There are not many bad faculty so having a policy that taints the whole group is not desirable.

Student comments indicate that they resent the "old and tired" faculty members who have become stagnant in their teaching.

Perhaps a closer alignment with Appendix J regarding comments on the performance of a tenured faculty employee would be helpful.

Perhaps faculty members should be asked to propose a plan either for improving their teaching or a solution for any problem areas they are experiencing. [The policies in place, as well as this new one, allow the freedom for both the review committee and the dean to propose such a plan for improvement. If it is obvious to reviewers that a faculty member is not doing a very good job, such reviewers should take steps to assist the faculty member in taking steps to improve.] [Perhaps the deans' actions need to be examined; are they doing everything they can during this process?]

It would be helpful to include reasonable goals and expectations.

During deliberations, members of the Faculty Affairs Committee envisioned the faculty member offering to the Peer Review Committee and his/her dean a statement of goals for the next five years and a request for resources to achieve such goals. The successful attainment of such goals could be deliberated during subsequent reviews.

Many students believe it would be futile to express comments because a professor is tenured and there is a fear of retaliation from such a professor. It is good to see students included in the post-tenure review process and it would be a good idea to have some measure in place to ensure that students' voices are heard. [Sections 4.2 and 4.3 include two methods for student feedback; what can be frustrating to the faculty member is when students don't show up to participate during scheduled discussion times. Students also may meet with a department chair or a college dean to discuss any issues they may have with a faculty member.]

Chair Bicknell suggested a straw vote be taken on several questions to determine the level of agreement among the senators. The questions included:

1. Are you generally in favor of having a unified post-tenure review policy, one that will be used by all units?
2. Would you like to see a statement of goals of post-tenure review incorporated at the beginning of the policy?
3. Would you like to see some kind of individual faculty development plans incorporated into the policy?
4. Would you like to see some kind of carrots (rewards) in the policy?
5. Would you like to see some kind of sticks (sanctions) in the policy?
6. Are you supportive of the idea of taking a two-step approach so that you approve a policy such as the one under discussion now and then the Faculty Affairs Committee will develop the details needed to strengthen the policy once it is in place?

Anecdotal information indicates that post-tenure review is seen as a useless exercise; it is common for faculty to not receive any form of feedback. Some meaning needs to be added, such as goals or desired accomplishments or a mechanism for self-measurement, and this will be helpful to the majority of faculty who are good teachers. It is believed that nothing will be done to those who are not doing a good job of teaching.

A straw vote was taken on the questions posed by Chair Bicknell.

1) Are you generally in favor of having a unified post-tenure policy, one that will be used by all units?

A straw vote showed that all were in favor of a unified post-tenure policy.

Discussion:

The reason for the unification of this policy is because there is a perception that the evaluation criteria among the units are different, people are not being evaluated the same and it is not a fair process. The Faculty Affairs Committee found that while the language is somewhat different among the policies, they all have to follow the same guidelines. The review process among the units will not be identical, but all of the units will have the same document to refer to which lists the evaluation criteria that is to be used. [The goal is to develop a consistent process with some degree of variability in the criteria relative to the uniqueness of a particular unit.]

2) Would you like to see a statement of goals of post-tenure review incorporated at the beginning of the policy?

A straw vote showed the majority were in favor with two opposed.

Discussion:

The idea of a goals statement is already contained in Section 15.29 of the CBA.

The purpose of this straw vote is to determine if there should be a preamble statement added to the Post-Tenure Review Policy that contains such language as, Consistent with 15.29 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement the goals of this Post-Tenure Review Policy are to . . . .

Senators voted regarding the addition of such a statement to the policy and the vote showed the majority were in favor, with two opposed and 1 abstention.

Discussion:

Will the preamble include reference to community service and service to the profession and activities that are not covered in Section 15.29 or will people only be reviewed on teaching effectiveness? [Reference is made to a faculty unit employee's effectiveness, not teaching effectiveness.] [Section 4.1 refers to Appendix J, including the entire gamut of accomplishments expected.] [The straw vote was for the preamble to refer to 15.29; the straw vote was not about the preamble referring to 4.1.] [The last sentence of 15.29 is inclusive of all areas of evaluation.]

3) Would you like to see some kind of individual faculty development plans or five-year goals incorporated into the policy?

The straw vote showed approval with two abstentions.

4) Given that the sentiment of the Faculty Affairs Committee is to get a unified Post-Tenure Review Policy in place and then review it next year and develop it further by adding language about rewards and/or sanctions, there are two questions to consider. The first question is would you like to see some kind of carrots (rewards) incorporated into the policy? The second question is are you generally in favor of having rewards incorporated now with this iteration of the policy or is it wiser to wait until a second iteration is available?

A straw vote taken on the first question regarding the inclusion of a reward structure in the policy showed that the majority were opposed with five abstentions.

Discussion:

Perhaps budget implications need to be considered if possible rewards are connected to resources. A pat on the back is a form of reward. [Since there is no way to have such rewards in place permanently, there would be inconsistencies during flush times versus during lean times.] [After a post-tenure review, approximately nine months passed before a faculty member received a letter from the associate dean addressing her review. The letter told the faculty member that she was valued and appreciated in very specific terms. That letter meant far more to the faculty member than any money or equipment could have.] [The sense of being valued for one's contributions and the offer of some redirection when needed are important to everyone.]

Faculty contracted to get paid for their work and the paycheck is the reward for doing a job to the best of one's ability. Inept teachers still get their pay so punitive measures are needed.

Faculty should police themselves and should talk with one another if they see signs that a faculty member is not doing a good job.

While faculty are getting paid to do their job, there also is resentment when junior faculty, who are working toward tenure, are required to use their own funds for travel to attend conferences and present papers. Part of the incentive for faculty to develop a goals statement is to include such ideas as making it easier to travel so that faculty may develop another aspect of their teaching, or to advance their career or to be better prepared in the classroom. [The university should provide travel money and equipment to all faculty--new faculty, tenured faculty and faculty up for post-tenure review.]

Financial types of rewards are divisive just as the FMIs were divisive; a pat on the back is a good idea.

Faculty are not teaching just for the money. An affirmation is an important reward; a reprimand is an adequate sanction.

5) Would you like to see some kind of sticks ( meaningful sanctions) included in the policy?

The straw vote showed the majority were in favor, with five opposed and two abstentions.

Discussion:

The practice of making this process onerous for the majority of teachers who are good teachers because there is a chance that a few people are not doing their job is not a good idea, and this is an attack against the tenure system. [This is not an attack on the tenure system. Faculty are protected by the CBA and no administrator can arbitrarily fire someone without documentation. This review could be an opportunity for a faculty member to get assistance and support so as to move back toward excellence.] [Tenure is not a protection against incompetence.] [What is under discussion is developing a plan of assistance for declining performance.]

Once a more uniform process is in place, then a portion that speaks to the developmental plan for the next five years could be developed. This plan may be sufficient right now--try the process first, see how it works and if it improves the situation, and then discuss the details.

Meaningful sanctions could include a lack of recognition, a negative written critique of a faculty member's performance, or asking for more frequent reviews until there is improvement--and this is provided for by the CBA. [Meaningful could carry legal implications.] [If a sanction to be imposed is a required annual review, but the employee does not change, then what is the point? The whole system would have to be changed.] [Serious transgressions may be addressed through the CBA, which carries language regarding reprimands, suspension and demotion if warranted.]

Perhaps constructive criticism is a better term to use.

It would be a better use of time and energy to work with the faculty members who are responsive to constructive criticism and want to realize their full potential than trying to force someone to change.

Since the policy calls for the peer review committee and the appropriate administrator to write an evaluative letter citing the faculty member's strengths and/or weaknesses, then this letter is the reward or the constructive criticism and it is already built into the process. While requiring someone to undergo this process every year could be considered a punishment, is this the purpose of the process?

There appears to be a lot of support for the idea of the faculty developmental plans and not much support for rewards and sanctions.

Given the changes that have been suggested today, would the senators be in favor of this document with the changes incorporated?

Since this is not an emergency item, Faculty Affairs should be asked to bring this issue back to the senate in early fall.

It was moved and seconded (Fulgham/Goodman) to adjourn.

Meeting adjourned 5:55 p.m.