MINUTES

 

FACULTY EVALUATION & COMPENSATION

REVIEW AD HOC COMMITTEE

 

November 10, 2006, 12:30 p.m. 236 Jenkins Hall

 

MEMBERS PRESENT: Chuck Bailey, Rick McCormick, Tom Hankins, Larry Schmitz, Loukia Dixon, Wendell Dobbs, Marty Laubach, James Burton, Larry Stickler, Christina Murphy, David Hatfield

 

MEMBERS ABSENT: Blaker Bolling, Wendy Moorhead

 

EX-OFFICIO, NON-VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT: Janet Dooley, Michael McGuffey

 

EX-OFFICIO, NON-VOTING MEMBERS ABSENT: Sarah Denman

 

GUESTS: Francis Hensley (Representing the Provost)

 

The meeting was convened at 12:30 p.m. by James Burton, Chair.

 

With the absences of the regular secretary, Dr. Dixon (COHP) volunteered to temporarily serve in that capacity. 

 

1.                  APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

 

The minutes of the October 24, 2006  meeting were approved with edits. 

 

OLD BUSINESS:

 

Recommendation 01: The Chair asked the committee to review the recommendation approved during the previous meeting in order that additional language be included to clarify information. He also stated that passage of the recommendation was important to avoid problems with the upcoming cycle of evaluations that will begin at the conclusion of the current semester. The recommendation with the additional language was passed and reads as follows.

 

The Faculty Evaluation and Compensation Review Ad Hoc Committee recommends that faculty members receive a copy of their final Overall Composite Rating (OCR) calculated score with corresponding signatures (faculty member, chair, and dean) by the date the document is forwarded to the office of the Provost. Should any changes in the faculty member’s OCR calculated score occur beyond that time period at any subsequent review levels, written documentation will be returned to the faculty member within 10 business days after the change. No change in any faculty members OCR calculated score may occur after the final day of the Spring semester of the academic year in which the document was completed. 

 

2.                  NEW BUSINESS:

 

The committee began the review of the current evaluation policy [SR-04-05-(12) 69 FECAHC].

·        The chair requested that language describing the current committee and its contributions be included in the “Introduction” section of the document. The approved language is as follows:

 

The Faculty Evaluation and Compensation Review Ad Hoc Committee was created and assigned the task of reviewing the faculty evaluation policy developed by the institution to guide the evaluation and compensation process for faculty members. The committee received its charge and began work in February of 2006.

 

·        During the discussion of the language about the committee for inclusion in the introduction section, Dr. Schmitz inquired as to the comparison of the language with the committee’s charge. The chair provided the charge to the committee members to show a connection between the two. 

·        Dr. Hatfield (COLA) discussed the idea of including a Rationale Statement along with Goals and Objectives for the policy. He stated that such policies from other institutions often include the aforementioned components. It was suggested that a subcommittee be formed to investigate the creation of (1) a Rationale Statement for the Marshall University Policy and (2) corresponding goals and objectives for the policy. Dr. Hatfield agreed to lead in the creation of theses components.

·        Dr. McCormick (CITE) requested that the committee review the “Introduction” section periodically so that changes made within the document could be mirrored within that section.

·        In “The Evaluation Process” section, Drs. Laubach (COLA) and Hatfield (COLA) discussed the idea that there should be a connection between the planning page and a recommendation of resources for the individual faculty member. A subcommittee of Drs. Hatfield (COLA), Laubach (COLA), and Burton (COEHS) will work on construction of language that would be included in the policy to achieve the goal of connecting planning pages with appropriate resources.

·        Dr. Dooley (SOJMC) expressed the idea that the evaluation process begins with the planning page.

·        Dean Murphy (COLA) and Dr. Dobbs (COFA) discussed the benefits and drawbacks of planning pages for faculty members.

·        Dean Murphy provided the following recommendation to the committee. [The recommendation was not approved, but the recommendation was included in the minutes for this committee.]

 

A college may request an exception to the requirement of a Planning Page in the annual merit evaluation process upon a vote of two‑thirds of the college’s full-time, tenured and tenure‑track faculty and with approval of the dean and chief academic officer.

 

·        Dr. Laubach (COLA) suggested that the committee explore the idea of severing the connection between the planning page and the Overall Composite Rating (OCR) for the faculty members.

·        Dr. Bailey (SOJMC) requested that the committee avoid creation of a recommendation that would be similar to the existing “Flexible Workload Policy”.

 

            The next meeting was set for Friday, December 1, 2006 at 12:00 p.m. in 236 Jenkins Hall.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 1:35 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted:

 

 

Loukia Dixon, Temporary Recording Secretary