THE MINUTES OF THE MARSHALL UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE MEETING HELD
ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2001, AT 4:00 P.M. IN THE ALUMNI LOUNGE OF

THE MEMORIAL STUDENT CENTER

 

Due to numerous reschedulings, no attendance was taken. 

Faculty Senate President Sottile called the meeting to order at approximately 4:05 p.m. 

Dr. Sottile requested a moment of silence to remember those suffering due to the recent tragedy. 

Dr. Sottile introduced the officers of the Senate; Parliamentarian, Dallas Brozik; Parthenon reporter, Mark Farrell; and upon his arrival, the Student Government Association President, Jasper Black. Dr. Sottile then requested the Senators to introduce themselves. 

Parliamentarian Brozik reviewed the “Procedural Notes from the Parliamentarian.” 

1.                  APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 

There was a quorum. Minutes of the May 10, 2001 meeting were approved as read. 

2.                  ANNOUNCEMENTS: 

A.           Thank you to Dr. Angel for providing the funding for the purchase of a new photocopier for the Faculty Senate office.

B.           The President has disapproved recommendation SR-00-01-(39) 80 (FPC)—Recommends that beginning with the 2001-2002 year, Biomedical Sciences Faculty salaries as a percentage of the salaries paid at peer institutions shall be brought in line with the corresponding figure for Marshall University faculty as a whole. President Angel wrote, “At this time inadequate information exists to determine the financial ramifications of this proposal.”

C.           The President has approved recommendations SR-00-01-(43) 84 (CC)—Course change for the College of Science; SR-00-01-(44) 85 (SCWC)—revision of Section 6.F in the Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities and approve the establishment of a process for addressing Residence Hall rules as violations of the Student Housing Contract, rather than as violations of the Code; and SR-00-01-(45) 86 (EC)—that faculty continue to support the confidentiality of faculty evaluations.

D.           Solicit a volunteer to be the Faculty Senate Liaison for the Curriculum Committee—Larry Stickler; for the Legislative Affairs Committee—Dan Hollis; and for the Physical Facilities & Planning Committee—Rebecca Appleton.

E.            Dr. Sottile discussed his notes (see Attachment 1) and a handout (available in the Faculty Senate office) from the second meeting of WV state faculty senate presidents with Chancellor Mullen held on Thursday, September 20th at WVU.

F.            Dr. Sottile discussed the issue regarding public perception of the faculty workload. The Executive Committee suggested that various university departments be utilized to develop a marketing plan, and if necessary, seek outside assistance to implement.

G.           Dr. Sottile discussed having an additional voice on the local governing board.

H.           Dr. Sottile discussed the guidelines for merit and the information sheet about Dr. Arreola (see Attachment 2).

I.              Dr. Sottile discussed the formation of three ad hoc committees: Ethics, Academic Freedom, and Constitutional. Bill Flannery volunteered for the Ethics Committee.

J.             As per a motion by the Executive Committee, the Faculty Personnel Committee has been directed to develop a policy or guidelines to follow in the event the Faculty Senate becomes involved in a departmental vote of confidence/no-confidence. 

K.          The General Faculty meeting will be held Thursday, October 4th beginning at 2:00 p.m. in the Playhouse of the Joan C. Edwards Fine & Performing Arts Center. All faculty are urged to attend.

L.          Dr. Sottile discussed having an ACF/HEPC alternate knowledgeable of the university system. Chuck Bailey was selected. 

3.                  ACF REPORT:

Dr. Ben Miller stated that Dr. Sottile had covered most of the information during his announcements. However, he wanted to speak about the need for faculty to become more organized and to perhaps develop some form of informational materials detailing legislative and other issues which could be presented to the MU Board of Governors. 

He related that most colleges and universities in the state system have one faculty member to act as representative for the ACF and BOG. In fact, a few colleges’ Faculty Senate president holds all three positions. At his request, this issue has been discussed by the Executive Committee who determined it best we have separate representatives, with alternates where possible. 

He urged faculty to attend the MU BOG meetings in hopes that issues could be heard beyond the single voice/vote faculty now have. 

4.                  BOARD OF GOVERNOR’S REPORT: 

Dr. Marshall Onofrio reviewed how the board has shifted from being an advisory group to one that actually provides governance to the university. He also stated how his presence on the board has gone from that of faculty elected to governor appointment with a term of two years. 

The Board members have elected an executive committee; formed two standing committees—academic and financial; established a meeting schedule; received extensive education about their responsibilities; and have given directives to the various senior vice presidents on campus to provide them with descriptions of their areas of responsibilities. 

The Boards most recent action was approving a contact extension for Dr. Angel. 

5.                  COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: 

There were none. 

6.                  STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS:

There were none scheduled.
 

7.                  REQUESTS TO SPEAK TO THE SENATE:

Senator David Chaffin expressed concern with the attendance policy as stated in the constitution. He requested President Sottile to discuss with the executive committee the possibility of charging the Constitution Ad Hoc Committee to review this policy in hope of their recommending a change. At present there is no differentiation between excused or unexcused absences. 

Senator Clayton Brooks related an incident about a colleague who was assigned to teach an 11:00 a.m. Tuesday/Thursday class in a room that was unacceptable and her discovery that no other rooms were available. He questioned if there is a plan to provide more classrooms in light that the university’s long-range plan is to continue increasing enrollment. Mr. Brooks requested President Sottile to find out how many classrooms will be available once the BioMedical Center is built. 

Senator Bill Flannery presented a question regarding teaching loads given the strategic plan to gain research prominence—should teaching loads be reduced or adjusted to meet this goal? Discussion ensued as to which standing committee this issue should be sent. It was decided that President Sottile will present this to the executive committee for their decision. 

8.                  AGENDA REQUESTS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS:

There were none.

THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT APPROXIMATELY 5:00 P.M.

 
ATTACHMENT 1: DISCUSSION WITH CHANCELLOR
 

Discussed impact of decreased economic support in country (USA). This will impact the state of WV and you will see a scale down in service items. 

Discussed how to maintain civility on college campuses. The state (WV) will apply a liberal leave policy to people in the military. 

WV is in the minority when it comes to budget cuts or freezes. 

College campuses will move to an environment where budget is related to enrollment. Budget for institutions will also be affected by an institution’s expenditures. Will also re-visit peer institutions. Peer process will be related to the number of programs and similarities between each of the institutions. Peer selection process will be open to faculty input and review.

Chancellor asked all institutions to provide “institutional requests” (want list) which will be channeled through the policy board. The policy board will rank order the system-wide requests.
 

Chancellor is appalled by the physical conditions of the campuses. The conditions of the campuses are interfering with instruction.

A tuition/fee policy will be established some time soon. Possible options:
Tuition is a percent of cost.
Deal with what is in place.
Define price per credit for every institution.

According to Bruce Flack, tenure is established in the four-year colleges and will not be challenged.

65% of faculty are 50 years old and over. It is important to get young faculty.

Due to the gray machine bill/language, an increase in salary could not occur until October 1, 2001. If funds are available next year, increases will occur beginning of the fiscal year.

How merit pay is distributed is “up” to each campus. In five years (not written in stone) the merit approach for pay increases will be substantially based on how much work a person accomplishes. Pay increases will not all be based on merit.

Faculty need to understand that “their” local governing board will approve/reject salary plans.

An outside team will analyze all assessment programs on all campuses.

Please have faculty review draft policy (hand-out) and provide feedback to Chancellor.



ATTACHMENT 2: Developing a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation System
 

Raoul A. Arreola
The University of Tennessee-Memphis
raoularreola@aol.com
 

ISBN1-882982-32-0
Anker Publishing Co.
 

Suggested Steps to Developing a Faculty Evaluation System

            Step 1: Determining the Faculty Role Model
           
Step 2: Determining Faculty Role Model Parameter Values
           
Step 3: Defining Roles in the Faculty Role Model
           
Step 4: Determining Role Component Weights
           
Step 5: Determining Appropriate Sources of Information
           
Step 6: Determining information source weights
           
Step 7: Determining how information should be gathered
           
Step 8: Completing the System/Selecting or designing forms, protocols and rating scale

About the Author

Raoul A. Arreola received his Ph.D. in educational psychology from Arizona State University in 1969, specializing in educational research and measurement. He has taught in the areas of statistics, educational psychology, personnel evaluation, and educational leadership, and has held a number of faculty and administrative positions involving planning, assessment, faculty evaluation, and faculty development. These positions include Director of the Office of Evaluation Services, Associate Director of the Learning Systems Institute, and Associate Professor of Educational Research and Measurement at Florida State University; Director of the Center for Instructional Services and Research and Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Memphis; and Professor and Chair of the Department of Education, Assistant Dean for Assessment and Planning, and Director of Educational Technology at the University of Tennessee, Memphis. Dr. Arreola is currently Professor and Director of Institutional Research at the University of Tennessee, Memphis. 

Dr. Arreola has worked and published in the field of faculty evaluation and development for 30 years and has served as a consultant nationally and internationally to over 200 colleges and universities in designing and operating faculty evaluation and development programs. He has also served as a consultant to the US Department of Labor and the Florida House of Representatives on designing and evaluating professional and occupational licensing examination procedures. He is president of his own consulting firm, the Center for Educational Development and Evaluation (CEDA), that annually conducts national workshops on faculty evaluation and assessing student learning. These workshops have been attended by thousands of faculty and administrators from more than 400 colleges and universities. Raoul Arreola is married to Dr. Mona J. Arreola, Administrative Director of the Hematology and Oncology Department of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. They have four grown children and three grandchildren (so far).