MINUTES OF THE FACULTY EVALUATION AND COMPENSATION

AD HOC COMMITTEE

MEETING DATE:  MARCH 14, 2003

ORDER OF BUSINESS:

1.      A question was raised about the use of numbers as the final product of the evaluation.  The committee as a whole moved to use the Arreola model.  This was seconded and a discussion followed.  The motion passed.

2.      Discussion arose with the sub-committee for student rating.  The topic was – to use or not use – Arreola’s system.

a.       Agreed to use the ranked rating only for tenure and promotion.  Comments would not be used for these purposes.

b.      A discussion then followed about the questions that would lead to five general categories from which students would be asked four or five questions per category.

3.      The faculty workload sub-committee suggested that no less than 30% of the total evaluation consist of teaching activities. 

4.      A discussion followed about faculty administrative roles.  Agreed that this would probably be less than 30%.  If more than 30%, the faculty member should be rated separately as an administrator.  Currently this category is found in University service.  Some faculty members who do a lot of administrative work are currently not being evaluated under that work category.  Usually any administrative work is not spelled-out in the faculty contracts.  Some forms for evaluation are currently being developed within the Center for Teaching Excellence.  It was agreed to let this group continue to develop such documents for use, perhaps, throughout the entire University. 

5.      A discussion followed about the difference between workload and evaluation load.  It was agreed to finish the definitions portion of the work before the weighting of various sections took place, even though this was backwards from Arreola’s model.

6.      A discussion then followed about some minor language changes under Administrative role.  The changes were made and agreed upon.

NEXT MEETING:  APRIL 4, 2003 @ 1:00 PM.

John A. Singley, Committee Secretary