1. Special Meeting

2. Faculty Senate Special Meeting Agenda
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Room 143 Black Box Theatre, Castleman Hall; 12:00 PM
I. Call to Order and Roll Call
II. 10 Step Process for Search of Dean and Vice Provost of CEC T. Schuman (20 mins)
III. Proposed Amendment to the Post Tenure Review Bylaws (CRR 310) T. Schuman (60 mins)
IFC Task Force White Paper
CRR 310 Redline Copy
IV. Election of a faculty ad hoc committee for administrative engagement T. Schuman (15 mins)
V. Adjourn

3. Dean search process

4. B

5. Election of a faculty ad hoc committee for administrative engagement

6. Original group that met with Dr. Middleton in February
Whereas the University of Missouri System has requested that the Faculty Senate president and six other faculty meet with President-designate Choi, and Whereas a group of faculty met with President Middleton in Spring, and Whereas the Faculty Recruitment & Retention Council has current knowledge of the COACHE survey, and Whereas each group has extensive experience with the various surveys and campus administration and include diverse views, Therefore RP&A moves that faculty Senate select either the group of faculty that met with Dr. Middleton in February, or the group of faculty comprised of FRRC members:
Original group that met with Dr. Middleton in February
Dick Brow, Administrator
Kris Swenson, CASB, ETC (chair)
Barbara Hale, CASB, Physics
Bill Fahrenholtz, CEC, MSE
Jim Drallmeier, CEC, MAE (chair)
Sahra Sedigh, CEC, ECE
(Mike Bruening is on sabbatical and will not participate)
Group comprised of FRRC members
Mariesa Crow, Administrator
Merilee Krueger, CASB, Psych
Bih-Ru Lea, CASB, BIT
Doug Bristow, CEC, MAE
Joel Burken, CEC, CArE (chair)
Sahra Sedigh, CEC, ECE

7. CRR 310: Post tenure review (PTR)

8. Intercampus Faculty Council (IFC)
Post Tenure Review Policy with CRR revision
Initiated partly in response to MO legislature criticisms
Integrate workload, annual review, PTR, and waiver, policies
Tom Schuman is the campus IFC representative for PTR review
Proposed CRR changes are posted for comments
IFC seeking comment on proposed CRR changes
Redline and IFC informational white paper posted
Seek approval of System Faculty Senates (at our November or January meeting)

9. White Paper Recommendations
Every academic department should have a “Workload Standard” and “Performance Standards for Annual Evaluations” for tenured faculty.
They should be clearly articulated, approved by the Dean and Provost/Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and stored in the latter’s office.
They should be evaluated during the 5-year program reviews of departments.
Tenured faculty should be evaluated annually by the department Performance Standards and their workload allocation assessed.
Faculty whose research productivity does not reach the minimum Performance Standard should take on a greater teaching and/or service load.
Rigorous annual reviews should culminate in a rigorous 5-year post-tenure review.
The UM System and the Four Campuses should foster continuing improvement by providing institutional support for faculty whose teaching is unsatisfactory or marginal, and by providing merit raises for faculty whose 5-year post-tenure reviews are outstanding.
Faculty are also responsible for overseeing the review process.
They should know what reviews they should undergo so that their performance is properly documented.
They should express any concerns about the review process to administrators.

10. CRR Redline Shows Changes and Reasoning
Integration of existing CRRs
Procedures for Review of Faculty Performance
Regular Faculty Workload Policy
Program Assessment and Audit
Fundamental Principles: Academic Freedom and Tenure

11. The UM CR&R set forth these points as follows:
1. “Tenure is the right to be free from dismissal without cause. Tenure is indispensable to the success of an institution of higher education in fulfilling its obligations to the common good.” (UM CR&R ) 2. “[T]enure does not protect faculty from the consequences of not performing satisfactorily their duties to the University.” (UM CR&R )

12. Reasons IFC Undertook PTR CR&R Revision
Campuses were not following the CR&R
Departments that have not established review standards
Departments and admin not following annual or PTR
Large number of academic ‘waivers’
Constitute a workload reassignment but had some abuse
S&T had well-policed waiver policy
Mizzou blowup and ‘out of control faculty’
Legislators constructing bill to set up committee to audit University and evaluate annual and PTR

13. Current CR&R IFC Evaluation Regarding PTR: Strengths
The relevant CR&R are generally well-written with positive intentions. They include the following sections that deal with faculty performance standards and thus are tied to PTR:
Program Assessment and Audit
Procedures for Review of Faculty Performance
Regular Faculty Workload Policy
The CR&R provide faculty with strong protections from abuses of power.
Multi-layered appeal process (…) up to the Chancellor
PTR is independent of the process for dismissal for cause (CR&R )
The CR&R provide a framework within which more details (…) as well as discretionary action by provosts and deans (can be added).
The CR&R allow flexibility to departments (…) to craft their own guidelines in accordance with:
Mission
Nature of the discipline
Requirements of external accreditation

14. PTR IFC CR&R Review: Areas for Improvement
The CR&R may be well-written, but they are not being uniformly implemented. E.g., the workload policy CRR, departmental standards
Connections among CRRs are unclear or conflicting
The current post-tenure review policy is only viewed as punitive and not constructive
The CR&R do not provide any guidance concerning gradations among “satisfactory” evaluations
The CR&R do not outline a developmental process, (thus) post-tenure review thus concludes with a binary result – either an overly harsh outcome or nothing.
The CR&Rs currently provide little guidance to department chairs about how to handle under-performing faculty before the stage of the post-tenure review
In egregious cases where tenure removal may be warranted, the current post-tenure review is perceived as a cumbersome process that takes too long. The review occurs every five years, and the remedial measures may take as long as three
In many cases, a faculty member who receives an unsatisfactory rating in one category would benefit from a reallocation of workload

15. IFC Recommendations
Make the details of the department members’ workload assignments transparent
Teaching: # & types of student, max and min class sizes, and considerations unique to that department
Research: goals for grant proposal production, publications, and other creative activities
Service: the service obligations for faculty members
Performance Standards for each department should be clearly articulated
Establish best practices content for standards

16. Best Practices for PTR Standards
Date of the policy version.
Describe a process for revising the document.
Stipulate who conducts the annual reviews and the post-tenure reviews (chair or committee).
Present quantitative metrics as much as possible, complemented by qualitative metrics. Teaching, research, and service should be broken out separately.
Specify unsatisfactory, adequate, good, and outstanding performance.
Link the metrics to workload assignments.
Specify consequences for each level of evaluation and remediation of unsatisfactory evaluations, in single categories and overall.
Describe a clear oversight practice, including whether the review is conducted by the chair or an evaluation committee, the composition of the committee, and the appeal procedure (within the framework of the CR&R).
Link annual performance reviews with the post-tenure review, so that consistency of performance is needed for a satisfactory post-tenure review

17. IFC Recommendations
Each campus should have a center for teaching excellence to which faculty will be directed when they have received a “bare pass” or an “unsatisfactory” in teaching
Faculty with a satisfactory evaluation may be further subdivided into Adequate, Good, and Outstanding
Outstanding evaluations should be approximately 20 percent of reviewed faculty
Outstanding faculty eligible for bonus raise (optional)

18. (Most of the) Proposed Changes to PTR CR&Rs

23. Proposed increase in salary raise potential for ‘Outstanding’
New designations :
Proposed increase in salary raise potential for ‘Outstanding’

25. Questions ? Comments ?

26. Adjourn