DEO CABINET MEETING April 17, 1997 3:30 to 5:00 pm
Present: Judy Brun, Michael Chaplin, Duane Enger, Lowell, Greimann, Sue Haug, George Kraus, James Werbel, Bill Woodman
...
3. Three members of the Committee to Review ISU Promotion and Tenure Criteria and Procedures were present (Olivia Madison (chair), Camilla Benbow, Anton Netusil) to discuss a draft of the proposed revisions to the Procedures. Some notes on that discussion follow.
POST TENURE REVIEW
Post tenure review is necessary. The faculty need something to
deal with unproductive faculty. Such a review is also necessary
to protect tenure because, otherwise, change may be forced upon
us by pressures from outside the university. A shorter time
period for action on negative reviews might be appropriate. The
"Two strikes and you are out" is not a correct
interpretation. Some action could be initiated after the second
negative review, one option is dismissal. Faculty are very
concerned about this issue. These reviews will be conducted by
peers. The objective is to improve performance.
SCHOLARSHIP
The definition of scholarship is a great improvement. The
statement that departments can have higher standards has always
been a part of the document. It allows departmental definition of
standards, such as for library faculty.
INDIVIDUAL JOB DESCRIPTIONS
Each faculty member should understand their expectations.
Expectations should be made very clear when faculty are hired,
such as in the job advertisement. Maybe the individual job
descriptions could be updates of the advertised job descriptions.
This recommendation will allow more flexibility and more diverse
roles and it will be less prescriptive. (One person noted that
DEO's who are associate professors may have a difficult time
negotiating job descriptions with a professor.)
OTHER
Why not peer reviews at the university level? Two reasons were
given: (1) it adds another hoop to jump through to the process
and makes it more complex and (2) it has been rejected twice
previously at ISU.
Some universities apparently allow faculty to go up for promotion in their seventh year. This may conflict with AAUP guidelines which requires notification in the sixth year.
THE PROCESS
Should all faculty vote or just the Senate? Some faculty are
suspicious of how fast this is moving. They want to know why we
should change. Some see it as a way of getting a foot in the door
to do away with tenure altogether. It should be viewed as a way
of protecting tenure.
Members of the Cabinet suggested that the Post Tenure review be more clearly described in writing, maybe put out a list of Most Often Asked Questions. The Cabinet suggested that the Committee attend each college Cabinet meeting and as many faculty meetings as possible. They should start with a statement reaffirming tenure. They should emphasize that post-tenure is a review by their peers. Cast the recommendations in a more positive light--all the emphasis seems to be on the post-tenure review. Take plenty of time. It may take all next academic year.
...