CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, STANISLAUS
PERIODIC EVALUATION OF TENURED FACULTY UNIT EMPLOYEES
POST TENURE REVIEW POLICY
(February 7, 2003)
red strikeouts and insertions indicate changes by HR manager Don Bowers,
the purple are changes by the Provost,
the green are the Provost's comments,
the blue are Speaker Thompson's comments,
the orange are CFA Steve Filling's comments,
the brown are CFA Tenure Track Rep. John Sarraille's comments.
Policies and Procedures for the periodic evaluation of tenured faculty unit employees who are not subject to a performance review for promotion (cf. MOU 15.18c)
1.0 Introduction
"For the purpose of maintaining and improving a tenured faculty unit employee's effectiveness, tenured faculty unit employees shall be subject to periodic performance evaluations at intervals of no greater than five (5) years. Such periodic reviews shall be conducted by a peer review committee of the department or equivalent unit, and the appropriate administrator. For those with teaching responsibilities, consideration shall include student evaluations of teaching performance." (MOU 15:29)
(PROVOST
Dauwalder Note: Check the presence of this This presents the exact wording in the MOU. If it's Being there word for word, it seems as if
it would be okay here. The presence of the additional language is not critical
to approval of the policy, but it does appear to help clarify overall.)
Speaker Thompson: The addition emphasizes specific process and persons involved in the process in an introductory section that, without the comment, focuses on a goal.
TT-REP Sarraille: The text above that HR has proposed to add is correctly quoted from the contract. I don't see any need to add it here. Perhaps we should simply include section 15 of the contract as an appendix to this document and thereby settle all the arguments concerning what pieces of the contract should be included.
The principles guiding post-tenure review (PTR) are these:
1.1 It is an academic peer review process.
1.2 Consistent with the MOU and AAUP guidelines, it must be conducted according to standards that protect academic freedom and the quality of education.
1.3
Consistent with the MOU and AAUP guidelines, it must not be used as grounds for undertaken
for the purpose of dismissal or other disciplinary sanctions.
(PROVOST Dauwalder Note: This language is from the AAUP statement on post-tenure review--page 51. The other statement seems too limiting in a case where--with the type of support identified in the AAUP documentation--the university would choose to move ahead with what would be an appropriate dismissal. In this type of case, the results of reviews of tenure faculty might appropriately be used in the decision; however, that's not the purpose.)
Speaker Thompson: What does the MOU say? Also, it may not be too limiting if the same information gleaned in results of reviews of tenured could be gotten through different and disciplinary processes. That would be more cumbersome which is a different thing from limited. Looking at it from another perspective, this makes me wonder if we need to include a true limitation that other documents besides the PTR report, Dept Committee report, Dean report, and rebuttals cannot enter into the process. E.g. as written, would we allow past RPT evaluations enter into this process as a context from which departments or deans constitute "reasons" for saying the faculty member has poor performance?
CFA PREZ FILLING: For the purpose of maintaining and improving a tenured faculty unit employee's effectiveness....
TT-REP Sarraille: CFA PREZ Filling makes a good point above that the MOU says the purpose is "maintaining and improving a tenured faculty unit employee's effectiveness." Moreover, the AAUP statement (http://www.aaup.org/statements/Redbook/rbpostn.htm) that the Provost quotes from also says: "The principles guiding this document are these: Post-tenure review ought to be aimed not at accountability, but at faculty development. Post-tenure review must be developed and carried out by faculty. Post-tenure review must not be a reevaluation of tenure, nor may it be used to shift the burden of proof from an institution's administration (to show cause for dismissal) to the individual faculty member (to show cause why he or she should be retained). Post-tenure review must be conducted according to standards that protect academic freedom and the quality of education." The CSU Dominguez Hills statement here: (http://www.csudh.edu/FacultyAffairs/Document/Handbook97/SECTDR4.htm#53) says of the purpose of post tenure evaluation: "The purpose of the evaluation is twofold: to improve instructional performance and to assist faculty in their teaching careers. The process, as herein delineated, shall not be used in a punitive way, nor shall it in any way jeopardize academic freedom or tenure." I think if we agree to change the wording, we should try to incorporate the thinking of the foregoing two statements, rather than just accept the wording suggested by the Provost.
1.4 It must be flexible enough to acknowledge different expectations in different disciplines and changing expectations at different stages of a faculty unit member's career.
1.5 It should engender collaborative dialogue, discussion, and feedback.
1.6 Deliberations and recommendations must be confidential, except that the affected faculty unit employee, department chair, appropriate administrator, the President, and the department peer review committee members shall have access to written recommendations. (cf. MOU 15.10, 15.11)
(PROVOST Dauwalder Note: This addition appears to be appropriate. Check the MOU to see if it appears in the contract language. Not all chairs will be part of the peer review committees. It's appropriate for the department chair to have access.)
Speaker Thompson: Let's see: include nothing unnecessary. The department chair is distinguished from the administration; maybe the faculty, sans specific direction from the MOU, should have a stronger voice in determining what's appropriate.
CFA PREZ FILLING: 15.10 etc. refer to periodic evaluation. My feeling is that ending after confidential would be fine.
TT-REP Sarraille: Section 10.2 of the MOU states: "The term "appropriate administrator" as used in this Article shall mean the individual who has been designated by the President to act pursuant to the procedures set forth in this Article." If we change "appropriate administrator" to "appropriate administrators" then the text above will mirror sections 15.10 and 15.11 of the MOU exactly, and there is no need to add "department chair." However, I am also inclined to agree with CFA Prez Filling. We don't need to quote the MOU religiously here. As has been said elsewhere the entirety of section 15 should be included as an appendix or by reference.
In a university setting, it is desirable and necessary to foster the self-determination
of each academic department and equivalent unit. A
department unit is usually the only body on a campus qualified to evaluate the
performance of its members. In addition, the The total amount of work required to perform
post-tenure review (PTR) is significant and so the work must be divided among
many groups and individuals. Therefore, PTR will be decentralized to the
individual departments and colleges, as outlined in the paragraphs below.
(PROVOST
Dauwalder Note: The words "and necessary" don't appear to be necessary. I'm
okay with leaving the wording if it is critical to approval. In the second
sentence that is deleted, the issue appears to be the word "only." Consider
the following wording: "A department unit is usually normally the body on a campus most qualified
to evaluate . . . .")
Speaker Thompson: I don't see an explanation for the first comment, which is needed because I think it is necessary to foster self determination.
CFA PREZ FILLING: "and necessary" should stay. I would go along with "normally" in the second sentence rather than deleting it entirely.
TT-REP Sarraille: The CSU Dominguez Hills policy says: "The initial and fundamental judgment on the quality of instructional performance shall be the responsibility of the department ... " I believe the original statement is correct: Managers outside the department are very seldom qualified to evaluate the performance of faculty. Usually they do not understand the discipline well enough. Even if they do, they may not know enough about the particular circumstances of members of that discipline in that particular department. Unless faculty believe the statement is false, they should not agree to changing it. What harm is done by allowing the statement to remain? What is the compelling reason for deciding against the wording approved by the faculty? Doesn't the use of the word "usually" allow enough "wiggle room"?
Every report recommendation
resulting from the review shall contain coherent rationales for all findings
and conclusions. This requirement includes,
but is not limited to, the reports of the departmental post-tenure review
committee, the
department chair, and the dean. A
faculty unit employee who undergoes review will have the opportunity and option
to respond orally and in writing to every such report, and to place a copy of any of the all rebuttal statements and written
responses into his or her personnel action file within
seven (7) days following receipt of the recommendations. (PAF) (cf. MOU
15.5, 15.8)
(PROVOST
Dauwalder Note: The word "report" is okay; the word "recommendation"
appears more accurate. However, we should check the specific contract language
for some guidance here. The two words do carry a difference in implication.
It appears to depend on whether a decision is or is not being made here. After reviewing the MOU, I'm okay
with the word "report."
The addition of the word "requirement" following the word "this" strengthens
the statement and hopefully reduces misunderstanding. If the department chair
is included in 1.6, then it should also be added here, too. The recommended
changes in the last sentence appear to make the process clearer. The use of
the word "rebuttal" does present a bit harsher concept, but it is accurate and employs the language used in the
MOU. The use of
the word "all" with the statements is more accurate and appropriate than the
use of "any."
Speaker Thompson: Retain report. Yes, this makes more important the question of whether the chair should be specifically included or may be included as a member of the committee. The change from "any" to "all" is a substantive change rather than one merely of clarification. If someone is stressed and busy, 7 days can be a compressed time for response--how about 14 days?
CFA PREZ FILLING: MOU uses "report" when referring to ptr. Also, why enumerate the various reports? According to 15.29, "A tenured faculty unit employee shall be provided a copy of the peer committee report of his/her periodic evaluation." I think it clear that the MOU envisions ONLY a peer review committee report, NOT an agglutination of reports from various parties. Again, 15.5 et. al refer to promotion/tenure not to ptr. I think the employee has the right to decline to place rebuttal statements in the paf, so disagree with the change from any to all. The 7 day time period is from rpt language -- we don't have to hold to that as the MOU is silent on ptr timing.
TT-REP Sarraille: What we loosely refer to as post tenure review is termed a periodic evaluation in the MOU. A periodic evaluation is not a performance review, as that concept is defined in the contract. However, the unmodified noun evaluation may mean either a periodic evaluation or a performance review. Where 15.5 and 15.8 of the MOU refer to evaluation they apply, in general, to PTR. I think that what 15.5 and 15.8 say about review refers to performance review and hence does not apply to PTR. I think it's very tough to interpret some of those provisions with respect to PTR!
Section 15.19 does provide for the possibility that the department chair could make a separate report. Section 3.5.2 of this PTR policy document we are word-smithing states: "The dean shall draft a written summary report of the dean's findings." Therefore we could allow the change adding mention of the department chair's report.
I recommend retention of the wording "place a copy of any of the written responses" because, as CFA PREZ Filling said, it conveys the idea that the faculty member may choose to place some of his/her rebuttals in the file while choosing not to place all of them there.
I agree that we can provide 14 days instead of 7.
If we are destined to change this document in any substantive way, one thing that has to be "on the table" is the question of the role, if any, of the Dean. Only the appropriate administrator is specifically mentioned in the MOU, and it seems clear from the definition in the MOU of that term, as well as from precedent, that in the case of PTR policy the appropriate administrator could be the department chair (or unit head in the case of, say, librarians or counselors.) To check precedence, see the Dominguez Hills PTR policy: (http://www.csudh.edu/FacultyAffairs/Document/Handbook97/SECTDR4.htm#53). If we decide to make changes to this policy, we should consider the possibility of removing the provision for a separate report from the Dean. Presumably that would mean removing mention of the Dean from the section above and replacing with Department Head.
The post-tenure review process will in no way abrogate the rights of a faculty unit employee for procedural protection regarding the terms and conditions of employment.
2.0 Eligibility and Review Intervals
2.1 Faculty unit employees not being considered for promotion are subject to review
every five years following the awarding of tenure (cf. MOU 15.18 and MOU
15.29).
CFA PREZ FILLING: What about associates? Is there a 5 year application for full assumption?
TT-REP Sarraille: I think 2.1 is basically correct, although it uses the term review in a way that does not correspond to the MOU's definition of performance review. In fact in 2.1, the term review is used to refer to a periodic evaluation. I believe a tenured associate professor would be required to go through the PTR process on her/his five-year anniversary unless s/he were subject to a performance review for promotion at that time.
2.2 Tenured faculty unit employees on sabbatical or leave of absence during the scheduled year of review shall undergo post-tenure review upon return to campus through the regular cycle.
(PROVOST Dauwalder Note: This change appears to be more accurate. The post-tenure review won't be conducted immediately upon return, but during the next appropriate cycle. Item 2.2 is okay without the change, but it appears to be clearer with the statement.)
Speaker Thompson: "during the next regular cycle."
TT-REP Sarraille: I agree with Speaker Thompson.
2.3 Tenured faculty unit employees who are participating in the Faculty Early Retirement Program (FERP) shall maintain their five-year review cycle.
TT-REP Sarraille: Yes, perhaps this is a bit much. I guess we could look into whether an exception could be made for those who have FERP'ed.
3.0 Procedures
3.1 Each academic
department and equivalent unit shall may elaborate
upon the
criteria and procedures it wishes to use to evaluate its members. The
departmental elaborations shall be in addition to the requirements put forth in this
policy.
(PROVOST Dauwalder Note: The word "shall" appears okay to me. The recommended change to "may" is probably based on the lack of a specific requirement in the contract language for the departments to produce elaborations; however, requiring it within our own policy appears to ensure that all faculty involved in the process know the standards on which the decisions will be made.)
CFA PREZ : I agree with shall -- it's CSUStan policy.
TT-REP Sarraille: I agree with the change of "resolution" to "policy" and "shall" to "may," but see below.
Each department shall make and save a written record of its elaborations, give a
copy to each of its members, and give a copy to the office of the appropriate dean
and Academic Resources.
(PROVOST Dauwalder Note: It would probably be better to add "provost" instead of "Academic Resources." Perhaps "department chairs" should also be added.)
TT-REP Sarraille: How about: "Each department shall make and save a written statement declaring whether it has elaborated upon this policy, and if so, describing the elaborations. The department shall give a copy of the statement to each of its members, to the Department head, and to the Provost or the appropriate designee of the President." I think the Provost's office can handle routing copies of the document to other offices that need to have it.
"Evaluation criteria and procedures shall be made available to the faculty unit
employee, evaluation committee, and to the academic administrators prior to the
commencement of the evaluation process." (MOU 15.3) The department shall
give notice to all parties to the evaluation of a faculty unit employee as to the
nature of all the evaluation criteria and procedures to be used at least four weeks
in advance of the due date of the employee's report to the post-tenure review
committee. (cf. MOU 15.3)
(PROVOST Dauwalder Note: Although the paragraph seems to be okay without the additional language, including the additional sentence in contract language would seem to make the process clearer for all participants in the process.)
TT-REP Sarraille: What HR has added above is a quote from the MOU. This passage of the MOU applies generally to "evaluation" which includes PTR (a form of "periodic evaluation") and RPT review (termed "performance review" in the MOU). Savini and I used it as a guideline here. We think the four weeks advance notice is necessary so the reviewee knows what to prepare for. If the intent of the added passage is to serve as a replacement for what is immediately below it, then I would say that this should not be accepted. If the statement is really being suggested purely as an addition, then I'd say it's redundant.
Pertaining to one particular
evaluation of one particular faculty unit employee, there shall be no changes
made to any of the criteria or procedures after the notice described has been
given. "Once the evaluation process has
begun, there shall be no changes in criteria and procedures used to evaluate
the faculty unit employee during the evaluation process." (cf. MOU 15.3)
(PROVOST Dauwalder Note: Not making the suggested change is okay; however, the revision apparently carries exact language from the MOU. It seems as if the exact language might be better than a restated version.)
CFA PREZ :
I think it is a good idea to have something like this in place, although it is
unclear to me when "the evaluation process" begins -- is it upon employment,
upon last promotion, ?? I think this is extremely relevant as a majority of
the dept committee can rewrite elaborations to deliberately 'endanger' a
faculty member.
TT-REP Sarraille: The substitution proposed here seems to me to be a simple re-phrasing unless the intent is to allow a change of the criteria right up to the moment the "process" starts. That would not strike me as fair. I think my original wording is more clear. The language HR proposes to strike out assures that faculty member four weeks time. The new language does not appear to do so. It is not consistent with the provision of four weeks made in the section above.
About the point made by CFA Prez Filling: There may be a weakness that we can fix, but how? It helps that the current policy statement directs the department to forward its elaborations to the Provost, that the policy admonishes the department to provide "fair and evenhanded treatment" (just below), and that section 3.5.1 of the policy statement directs the Dean to "verify that the peer review has been conducted according to the requirements of the contract and college-wide standards, ... [and] to verify that the peer review has been fair and evenhanded."
Departments may modify their elaborations as needed
annually provided they disseminate the revised
rules and give proper notice in the manner described above. Departments,
however, shall be vigilant with regard to providing fair and evenhanded
treatment to all their members.
(PROVOST Dauwalder Note: "Annually" appears okay if "annually" isn't prescribed somehow. We should confirm in the MOU.)
CFA PREZ : See above. I think the more MOU-acceptable statement would be that faculty members must agree to revisions before being held to them, my preference would be to state, individually and collectively.
TT-REP Sarraille: I doubt that there is any prescription about elaborations in the MOU. I don't see why we have to limit departments to changing elaborations annually. It may be convenient for the administration, but inconvenient for departments. Maybe we can find language in the PTR policies of other CSU's which will help us direct the process by which departments choose. However, we have to be careful about being overly prescriptive -- we are trying to encourage the self-determination of departments.
3.2
The tenured faculty unit employee under review shall compose his/her PTR
Report, which is defined as the Working Personnel
Action File (15.8). For those with teaching responsibilities, the report
shall include student evaluations of teaching performance (cf. MOU 15.29). The
report shall include a current vita, review areas of
responsibilities (teaching, scholarly activities, service) and shall
also conform respond
to any the
department elaborations.
(PROVOST Dauwalder Note: Article 15.8 defines the "Working Personnel Action File as the file used in faculty evaluation processes in the CSU. It's best to be specific and avoid misinterpretation. Item 3.2 appears better with the change; it should lead to greater consistency in the type of information reported and matches more clearly the contract-defined responsibilities of faculty. The wording "review areas of responsibilities allows the faculty member to describe more specifically the set of responsibilities he or she has actually performed during the period being reviewed. The word "conform" doesn't appear to be the best word for this situation. "Respond" or "address" might be better.)
Speaker Thompson: Need to look closely at this. Also, the red inclusion seems to be grounded in equating PTR with RPT; this was a specific question raised before. Also, the idea of consistency needs to be questioned.
CFA PREZ Filling: 15.8 refers primarily to rpt. The MOU is silent on content other than to stipulate student evaluations for those assigned teaching responsibilities. I see no need to elaborate here.
TT-REP Sarraille: This is a major revision. The contract does not require this. Several extant CSU PTR policies do not require turning in any besides student evaluations of teaching. The faculty is entitled to keep the flexibility allowed by the contract. If the department wishes other materials to be submitted they can require that as part of their elaborations. I strongly advise against making any change to the original section 3.2. The suggestion to add "which is defined as the Working Personnel Action File (15.8)," as CFA Prez Filling suggests, tends to confuse PTR with RPT. Why pull wording from the contract into this particular place in the policy statement? The AAUP statement is very clear on making a distinction between the RPT and PTR processes. The intent of section 3.2 is simply to tell the faculty member what s/he is responsible to give to the peer review committee.
Note that HR
did not append a reference to a section of the contract to this revision: "The report shall include a
current vita, review areas of responsibilities (teaching, scholarly activities,
service) and shall also conform respond to any the department elaborations." There is no provision of the contract that makes such
a requirement. I think it is appropriate to leave the decision about whether
to require vita, information about scholarly activities and so on up to the
individual departments. I believe it is unwise for the faculty to agree to
terms not required by the contract, especially if they receive nothing in
return. If faculty agree to such things then the legal interpretation of the
contract may come to be colored by it and faculty may be held to the agreement
later as if it were a part of the contract even if they wish to make a change.
3.3 The faculty unit employee shall submit the post-tenure review report to the departmental post-tenure peer review committee. (cf. MOU 15.29).
3.3.1 The
department's post-tenure peer review committee shall be chosen in accordance
with the department elaborations procedures.
Only tenured full-time faculty unit employees shall be eligible for membership
in the committee. (cf. MOU 15.2) If the department head
chair makes a separate report
on the review recommendation, s/he may not participate as a member
of the committee. (cf. MOU 15.19)
(PROVOST Dauwalder Note: The word "procedure" seems more accurate because it's a process. The word "chair"appears more accurate, but "head" is okay. We don't have anyone carrying the title of "head," do we? The word "recommendation" ties back to an earlier comment and should be consistent with whatever is determined in relation to the issue earlier in the document.)
Speaker Thompson: The original language here does seem to signal that the chair plays or may play a role in the reporting and commenting process.
CFA PREZ : Pursuant to 15.30 the only report mentioned is the peer review committee's. If the dept chair is "the appropriate administrator" then their summary report may be included. I'm uncomfortable with the accumulation of "appropriate administrators" here -- it seems we're expanding this process beyond the MOU specifications.
TT-REP Sarraille: My take on
this is that section 15.19 provides for the possibility of a separate report by
the department chair. I don't know if it is meant to give the chair an
individual prerogative, or if it merely means that the department as a whole is
entitled to decide if the chair will do a separate report as a part of the PTR
process. Maybe we can get some help getting an answer to this. We can look at
existing policies and we can ask the CFA contract experts.
I am concerned that we make it clear that the department has the right to select the "procedure" so this wording would be OK with me: "The department shall choose its post-tenure peer review committee in accordance with its internal policies and procedures. Only tenured ... "
I'm concerned about head vs chair because of librarians and counselors and whatnot. Let's figure that out.
I want to retain "report on the review." Recommendation sounds like the outcome of a performance review for retention or promotion, and that's not what PTR is about.
3.4
The departmental post-tenure peer review committee shall review the
faculty unit employee's PTR Report, and draft a PTR
committee report according to the criteria and procedures in this document and
also in accordance with an assessment report
based upon the committee's evaluation of the materials submitted by the faculty
member, peer and student evaluations, research/scholarly activities, service,
and the department elaborations. The committee's report shall contain
coherent rationales for all findings and conclusions. (cf. MOU 15.20) If the
employee has teaching responsibilities, the report shall consider the student
evaluations of teaching performance submitted by the employee. (cf. MOU 15.29) A
tenured faculty unit employee who is participating in the Faculty Early
Retirement Program (FERP) shall be evaluated only in the area of teaching
unless s/he also chooses to be reviewed in one or more of the other areas
specified in the department elaborations.
( PROVOST Dauwalder Note: For the first suggested change, the original language is okay; the recommended change appears to be more specific. Here again, the decision to use the term "report" should be consistent with what's decided elsewhere in the document. The use of the word "performance" requires that all evaluations that have been conducted be included in the consideration. The language as it appears here requires only the particular evaluations of teaching that the faculty member being evaluated wishes to include)[MT1]
Speaker Thompson: I don't know what the original language was here. Maybe on the latter part. I don't see why the word performance carries the explicit message attributed to it.
CFA PREZ : This whole section is redundant. Just leave it out. I really don't agree with David' interpretation of "performance" as a globally encompassing term.
TT-REP Sarraille: The original language is:
"The departmental post-tenure peer review committee shall review the faculty unit employee's PTR Report, and draft a PTR committee report according to the criteria and procedures in this document and also in accordance with the department elaborations. The committee's report shall contain coherent rationales for all findings and conclusions. (cf. MOU 15.20) If the employee has teaching responsibilities, the report shall consider the student evaluations of teaching submitted by the employee. (cf. MOU 15.29) A tenured faculty unit employee who is participating in the Faculty Early Retirement Program (FERP) shall be evaluated only in the area of teaching unless s/he also chooses to be reviewed in one or more of the other areas specified in the department elaborations."
The first change proposed in this section puts it in accordance with the change proposed to section 3.2. This is a major change that I strongly advise against. My reasons will be found at the end of section 3.2. The second proposed change above seems unnecessary. It is spelled out below what evaluations are to be submitted.
3.4.1 All
faculty unit employees under review shall have an opportunity to work with the
departmental peer
review committee in a collaborative effort (cf.
MOU 15.30). The tenured faculty unit employee shall be provided a
copy of the peer review committee's summary
report (cf. MOU 15.30). Before it is finalized s/he shall have an opportunity
to review it and to provide an oral and/or
written response within seven (7) days following receipt
of the recommendation. (cf. MOU 15.5, 15.8)
(PROVOST Dauwalder Note:
The first revision appears more accurate, but it's presence is not critical. We
need to check 15.30 of the MOU to confirm why the reference was to be removed.
Article 15.30 states that the faculty member
receives a copy of the peer review committee's report and they discuss
strengths and weaknesses. Although we certainly hope and intend for it to be a
collaborative discussion, it's not specifically referenced in 15.30, so that--I
assume--must be the reason the reference to 15.30 was lined through. Removal of the word "summary" does not appear to be necessary also seems to be appropriate.
We're Although
I expect that we are not
looking for the committees simply to summarize the activities for the person
being evaluated,
the term "summary report" is used in the MOU and would appear to be appropriate
here.. The
insertion of the timeline appears to be helpful. Its absence here requires the
reader to look multiple places for the information. The use of
"recommendation" versus "report" needs to be consistent with other uses.)
Speaker Thompson: The commentary doesn't address the question: is there a reason it should not be a collaborative process? It's interesting here that the assumption statement is opposite that the MOU appears to denote. There's a lot of interpretation going on here.
CFA PREZ FILLING: Removing "summary" opens this up for multiple reports -- I vehemently disagree with removing it. There is no need to echo timeline here. I think it clear the intent of the MOU is a collaborative process involving faculty member, peer review committee and appropriate administrator [note the lack of an "s" on the final word].
TT-REP Sarraille: There's no need to change anything.
3.5 The post-tenure peer
review committee chair and the dean shall meet with the tenured faculty unit
employee for a collaborative discussion of the PTR
report to discuss his or her strengths and
weaknesses along with suggestions, if any, for his or her improvement. (cf.
MOU 15.30).
(PROVOST Dauwalder Note: The original language is okay, but the revision appears to be more specific and directive, which will hopefully generate more consistent types of messages for all faculty being evaluated.)
Speaker Thompson: Good that the original language is OK. I don't at all agree, however, that we want a specific set of messages being delivered to faculty.
CFA PREZ FILLING: I don't give a damn about "consistent types of messages" -- that seems adminspeak for something I don't care for.
TT-REP Sarraille: There's no need to change anything.
This is another case where
HR is insisting on deleting language approved by the faculty and substituting
the language of the contract. The language HR wants to delete does not
contradict the contract. There is no need to delete it. I think it would be OK
to include all of section 15 of the contract at the beginning or end of this
document if HR wants to. I don't see any reason to agree to HR "seasoning"
passages of the senate document at will.
3.5.1 The dean shall consider the written report of the review committee and
the written response(s), if any, of the faculty unit employee. The primary responsibilities of the dean shall be firstly to verify that the peer review has been
conducted according to the requirements of the contract and college-wide
standards, secondly to verify that the peer review
has been fair and evenhanded, and lastly, in the case of a review of a faculty
unit member with teaching responsibilities, to determine that an evaluation of
teaching has been performed by the peer review committee.
(PROVOST Dauwalder Note: The dean has more responsibility here than simply verifying process. The "determining fair and even-handed treatment" task might be revised and rewritten another way. It may be better to require that the evaluation be based on established criteria.)
Speaker Thompson: This is the
major point of difference I see. The administrative assumption of the deans'
responsibilities is just stated, not rationalized and explained. The
assumption, I guess, rests on the backing of RPT construed as past
practice--which it is not for PTR. This point continues (and grows worse) in
the next section.
CFA PREZ FILLING: Per
15.30, the dean [if that is the appropriate administrator] meets with committee
chair and faculty member to discuss strengths and weaknesses and suggestions,
if any, for improvement. Lets not turn this into something else.
TT-REP Sarraille: There's no need to change anything. I see no basis to the claim that the dean has more responsibility. Note that the Provost did not cite the contract to back up this assertion. Looking at PTR policies at other CSU's we can find examples where the dean has similar role to what is stipulated in this document. For example, see "The Role of School Deans in the Evaluation of Tenured Faculty" here: (http://www.csudh.edu/FacultyAffairs/Document/Handbook97/SECTDR4.htm#53).
3.5.2 The dean shall make an independent review of each
candidate (cf. MOU 15.29), provide written comments for each criteria, and
draft a written summary report of the dean's
findings (cf. MOU 15.31). The report shall not make findings on departmental
peer-review issues or on other issues that require academic or
discipline-specific expertise. The dean's report shall contain
coherent rationales for all findings and conclusions. (cf. MOU 15.20) Except for rare and compelling reasons, the dean's summary
report shall reflect the views of the peer review committee as expressed in the
committee's report.
(PROVOST Dauwalder Note:
Let's check Checking
15.29 to confirm
the consistency of that passage with the recommended change didn't result in my finding this
specific language, though this does describe the efforts of the dean as the
"appropriate administrator," which is identified in 15.29. The revision appears to describe
more accurately what the dean's role is in relation to this process. The changes
in purple are my suggestions--here again, it's not just a summar, and it won't necessarily address
only findings as is already indicated in the sentence that follows. The full
sentence that is recommended for deletion appears to be too limiting. I'm not
quite clear of the meaning of the phrase "departmental peer review issues." I
recognize the basis on which the last sentence was placed in this provision; perhaps
there' however,
it doesn't seem appropriate to limit the results of the review. Periodic
review of the departmental elaborations by the department and the dean within
the context of the MOU and the missions of the university, college, and
department should result in consistency among the reports and recommendations
of the department peer review committees, department chairs, and deans.
Speaker Thompson: Again, I see no particular reason why consistency of reporting has to be an important goal of this process. Why is it inappropriate to limit the review? I certainly don't want the review of elaborations put into the hands of the deans--that's directly contrary to recognizing the importance of peer purview. I find these suggestions unacceptable.
CFA PREZ FILLING: I don't know where this comes from, 15.29 sure as hell doesn't stipulate this. I do not agree that it "accurately describes" the dean's role. The dean's role is to discuss with committee chair and faculty member the strengths, weaknesses and suggestions for improvement, if any, from the committee report. Leave this entire section out.
TT-REP Sarraille: This proposed change seems rather ominous to me. It suggests that it's "OK" for deans to make judgments in areas where they lack knowledge and/or adequate expertise. Also, and not less important, despite the reference to MOU 15.29 the contract does not state that the dean shall make an independent review.
The claim that the dean must be in the role of the appropriate administrator is very questionable. As I have brought up previously there are many CSU PTR policies that give deans no role in at all. Speaker Thompson is right in saying that this claim of the role of the dean amounts to dictating elaborations to departments. The contract gives the faculty the latitude to make these decisions.
As I said above it would be "unwise for the faculty to agree to terms not required by the contract, especially if they receive nothing in return. If faculty agree to such things then the legal interpretation of the contract may come to be colored by it and faculty may be held to the agreement later as if it were a part of the contract even if they wish to make a change."
3.5.3 The faculty unit employee shall have the opportunity to read and
make oral and written responses to the dean's report before
the dean's report is within seven (7) days
following receipt of the recommendation and prior to its being entered
into the employee's personnel action file (PAF) (cf. MOU 15.5, 15.8).
(PROVOST Dauwalder Note: Okay without the change, though it appears clearer with the change.)
Speaker Thompson: How about 14 days?
CFA PREZ FILLING: Again, the timing is from rpt language. I see no reason to stipulate "after receipt".
TT-REP Sarraille: I agree -- 14 days.
3.6 A copy of the peer review committee's summary report and the dean's summary report shall be placed in the tenured faculty unit employee's personnel action file (PAF) (cf. MOU 15.31).
CFA PREZ FILLING: Peer review committee report [not summary] and the dean's summary report.
TT-REP Sarraille: I can
go along with that -- I guess I'd like to discuss the rationale.
3.6.1 The faculty unit employee may choose to add his or her written response
to any of the review reports placed in the PAF (cf. MOU 15.5, 15.8).
4.0 Criteria for Evaluation
4.1 The periodic evaluation of tenured faculty employees will review areas of
assigned responsbilites, which will generally include teaching effectiveness,
research/scholarly creative activities, and university/community service. In his or
her PTR report working
personnel action file to the departmental post-tenure peer
review committee, the faculty unit member will furnish the items required by the
review criteria and the departmental elaborations.
(PROVOST Dauwalder Note: This change protects faculty for whom not all elements of his or her performance are included in departmental elaborations. The additional change employs the terminology used in the MOU)
Speaker Thompson: I don't see the change to PAF as accurate the report goes in the PAF but is not the PAF. I don't think change protects faculty but brings a greater range of their work under scrutiny. I would prefer that the original be kept in all cases except the final one.
CFA PREZ FILLING: Change does not seem to me to protect faculty. I agree with your response.
TT-REP Sarraille: The
original wording was: "In his or her PTR report to the departmental post-tenure
peer review committee, the faculty unit member will furnish the items required
by the departmental elaborations." Retain the original wording verbatim. See
the discussion under section 3.2.
4.2 If the faculty unit employee has teaching
responsibilities, the faculty unit
employee's PTR report shall include student evaluations of teaching performance
for
the preceding five years. For years that the
employee taught full time, t There
must
be a minimum of the two mandated IDEA
course evaluations per academic
year (MOU 15.14) (or in lieu of that, in case the University
requirement shall
change,
there must be the required number of the required evaluation instrument).
(PROVOST Dauwalder Note: This may be okay without the suggested change, though the change seems to present it clearer.)
Speaker Thompson: Good, stet.
TT-REP Sarraille: What about faculty that don't teach two courses in a year?
5.0 PTR Calendar: Spring Semester
Mid February: The department chair will Notify
notify the following persons of the as to
what criteria and procedures that will
be used for the review: the tenured faculty unit member to be reviewed, the
members of the department post-tenure peer review committee, the dean, other
persons charged with placing reports in the member's PAF in connection with the
evaluation.
(PROVOST Dauwalder Note: The change identifies who does the notifying Specifying that the notice comes from the chair instead of the department clarifies the process)
Mid April March: Submission of tenured
faculty unit employee's post-tenure review report to departmental post-tenure
peer review committee.
(PROVOST Dauwalder
Note: March allows time for departments to review.)
TT-REP Sarraille: I have no strong objection to this. However it must be kept in mind that the reviewee should have no less than four weeks advance notice of what the criteria and procedures are. Also others should have a chance to scrutinize the time table looking for possible problems with it.
Mid April: Departmental post-tenure peer review committee's review of faculty
member's post-tenure review report. Consultation with faculty member under
review and with departmental colleagues. Collaborative effort between faculty
member and peer review committee on the latter's summary report.
Mid April: Submission of departmental PTR summary report to faculty member.
End April: Submission of faculty member's written response, if any, to
departmental post-tenure peer review committee.
End April: Submission of departmental post-tenure peer review committee's
summary report and faculty member's written response, if any, to dean.
End April-mid May: Collaborative meetings between
faculty members under review, peer review committee chairs, and deans.
CFA PREZ FILLING: These
meetings are stipulated in the MOU. Why were they removed? If this is a
collaborative process, why limit communication?
TT-REP Sarraille: I'd like to know what Provost/HR objects to here.
Mid Early May: submission of dean's
summary report to faculty member.
End Mid May:
Submission of faculty member's written response, if any, to dean.
(PROVOST
Dauwalder Note: Changes allow for required feedback to be performed.)
TT-REP Sarraille: ??
End May: Placement of peer committee's and dean's summary reports in personnel
action file (PAF). also, at faculty member's option, placement of his/her
written responses, if any, in the PAF.
Speaker Thompson: Need to build in an additional week for faculty member to respond.
TT-REP Sarraille: This could have the effect of rushing a reviewee who has barely had time to assimilate the dean's report and the outcome of the meetings.
6.0 Implementation:
Because in many departments there is a "backlog" of faculty members
eligible for post-tenure review, it will be impossible to review all candidates
during the program's early years and still maintain the integrity of the PTR
peer review program. Therefore, each department will be expected to apportion
the reviews so that it can catch up within a maximum of five years. The first
tenured faculty members to undergo PTR shall be those who have been in rank the
longest.
Each year the Office of Academic and Human Resources shall issue the PTR
calendar by September 1. Upon receipt of the calendar, each department shall
submit to said office the names of those faculty members who are to be reviewed
during the spring term of the current academic year.
This resolution will be sent to President Hughes ten days after distribution
of minutes