Peter Sherman STAT/AEEM
shirmanp@iastate.edu
Before you vote on the proposed P&T document you should ponder a few items:
1. The document received extensive debate within the Faculty Senate (FS). In particular, a motion to remove the first half of the document was voted down, with the FS president being required to cast the tie-breaking vote. A second motion to delay a vote until a second committee could thoroughly address the multitude of faculty concerns related to the proposed document was voted down by a vote of 31/30.2. The closeness of these votes reflects the strong ambivalence within the FS concerning the document in its current form. Therefore, even though the FS approved the document you have received, it should be clear that this approval is tenuous at best. In fact, it may be speculated that some, if not many of the FS approved it only so as to permit the general faculty to decide for themselves as to whether they want the document in its current state. In this event, the FS approval should NOT be misconstrued as an endorsement, as much as a decision to defer to the faculty
3. Given the tenuous support of the FS, which spent much time and energy on this matter, it is incumbent on you to review the document in a very thorough and critical manner. It is also STRONGLY suggested that you contact your senator (as well as others, if you have the time) to gain a better understanding of the issues which caused the FS to vote as described above.
4. As I was the senator who made the second defeated motion, I feel responsible for providing you with the motion, as well as the rationale for it. This is included below the next point.
5. In closing, I would like to note that I strongly support a revised P&T document which will accomplish both objectives of the proposed document; namely (i) having periodic reviews which are of a pro- developmental nature, and integrated with the designated directions of departments, colleges, and ISU, as a whole, and (ii) demanding greater accountability of all faculty. I believe that the document in its present form, combined with the FS feedback, offers an ideal opportunity to arrive at a document which will have widespread support, as opposed to one which currently has very marginal support. I am so convinced of this that during the discussion on my motion I agreed to even go so far as to chair a second committee. (If you knew me as many in the FS who "oohed" at my offer, you would realize that this is not a particularly desirable endeavor for me, personally.) This document is so very critical to the future of ISU faculty and students, alike, that it warrants the greatest consideration and strongest support possible. If this requires an extension on the order of 6-12 months to arrive at, I believe that this delay on a vote will be well worth the wait. Hence, a "no" vote cast now does not necessarily mean that you disagree entirely with all parts of the document. Rather, it can reflect your preference that we spend additional time to get it into a form that will best serve ISU.
===========================================================
A Motion to the Faculty Senate from Peter Sherman (LAS STAT)
To postpone a vote by the FS on the entire P&T document pending the completion of a revised document by a second FS-appointed faculty committee, whose charge is to clarify all major aspect of the current draft, and introduce appropriate policies and procedeures related to the same.
Motivation: The current document is vague and incomplete. By voting on it now there is a significant risk that either it will be rejected (in which case a less palatable document may be imposed), or that it will be accepted, and not offer the full benefit of its intent.
Examples:
(p.2) The developmental nature of the review is not well linked to the standard of responsibility. These are two separate issues.
(p.2) While developmental in nature, there is no clear tie to faculty goals, not only in and of themselves, but in relation to department, college and university goals. For senior faculty in particular, development should be cast in terms of long term goals, as opposed to evaluation of conscientiousness and competency (the latter are more appropriately related to evaluation in relation to penalties such as dismissal).
(p.2) In evaluating faculty there is no mention of accomplishments in relation to long term goals. Furthermore, there is no stated link to annual reviews. For appropriate development these two types of reviews should be clearly linked.
(p.2) The review process allows for mutual creation of a development plan if one or more of the faculty, review committee or DEO perceive the need. The existence of this need is hence ill-defined, since it allows for two of three to deny its existence, while none the less existing.
(p.3) The ill-defined and vague issue of need poses many potential complications in teh mandated response, since the faculty member and DEO will construct a plan. Moreover, this joint endeavor can itself lead to further complications in the event that the DEO leaves or disagrees with one or more of the faculty/review committee.
(p.4) The policies and procedures permit not only wide variability across departments and colleges, but also allow for variabiltiy within a department, since DEOs and committees change. There should be clearly defined university wide elements which minimize allowance for interpreting policies.
(p.4) DEO evaluations should be carried out on a specifric periodic basis. University wide elements should be specified, such as achievements related to stated long term goals, in relation to department, college and university goals. Another element should relate to the role of the DEO as the link between the annual and long term periodic review processes.
A significant weakness of the present document is its lack of procedures and consequences at all levels. This vagueness is also currently exemplified in the procedues for dismissal in the faculty handbook. While general criteria and procedures for dismissal are given, the document is, in my opinion, lacking in relation to specific procedures. Furthermore, and more importantly in relation to the current proposed document, there are NO well-defined procedures which would lead to consideration of dismissal. For example, should a faculty be given a reasonable number of "warnings" prior to formulation of a dismissal procedure. This problem should also be addressed by the new committee. Another vague aspect of the current document is in relation to positional responsibilities. To retain the stature of a top tier university the expectaions in scholarship and teaching must be very clearly separated from activities that, while expected of faculty, do not pass for these higher expecations.