Faculty Evaluation and Compensation Ad Hoc Committee meeting

Minutes for March 5, 2004

Present:  Kay Wildman, Jerry Jones, James Sottile, Michael McGuffey, Sandra Marra, Elaine Baker, Michael Cornfeld, Janet Dooley, Shirley Lumpkin, Sarah Denman, Barbara O’Byrne

Minutes for February 13, 2004 were accepted with corrections.

Janet Dooley reported on the meeting with the Deans, citing four concerns:

 

1.  The FECC had presumed a negotiation about percentage of faculty role models between faculty member, Chair, and Dean. What is the procedure if faculty member, Chair and Dean do not agree?

a. The Committee decided that the faculty member would first negotiate with the Chair, then appeal to the Dean, and then appeal to the Provost. A notice of the disagreement would go in the faculty file and then the percentages would or would not be amended in the middle of the year.

2.   In the matter of determining maximum and minimum role model weights, if the Faculty and Dean are not in agreement in a College, then a discussion and resolution needs to ensue. If resolution is still impossible, then a discussion between Faculty and Dean needs to be held, mediated by the Provost.

3.  The Deans were concerned that 2.51 is too low for merit. The FECC decided to stick with recommendation, since 2.51 is solid professional work.

4.  The Deans’ concerns about promotion and tenure decisions based on the OCR was set aside, with the suggestions that OCRs could be averaged over the years along with other criteria or patterns of OCRs could be considered. 

The Committee turned to discussion of merit distribution.  The following points were discussed:

 1.  The distribution of merit monies was discussed again. Should merit be distributed at the University level or the College level. Some members recommended College, some University. Jim Sottile recommended that Janet take the issue of merit distribution to the Faculty Senate for their input and/or recommendation. General agreement to do so.

2.   Elaine Baker raised the issue of this committee’s philosophical stand regarding merit. After some discussion it was agreed that given the requirement for merit, the system we’re proposing attempts to share merit monies as widely as possible.

3.   Some general discussion for phase-in of merit with 10% increase annually over a 5-year period. 

Agenda for next meeting is:

1.  Need for formal recommendation on merit distribution and phase in of merit.

2.  Student Rating forms test results discussion

Next meeting will be March 26 in the John Spotts Room, MSC, at 1:00 p.m.