Deans Council Minutes
February 15, 2006 – B 120
GUEST: Bill Gruszka, Information Technology
Item 1: Post-tenure Review Process
The Council discussed the P&P on Post-Tenure Review and the current chain of command for review. Under the current policy the packet goes to the peer committee, the chair, college (now school) committee and if it receives a positive review stops at the department level. If the packet receives a negative review, it can be forwarded to the dean, vice president and the president for appeal. Dr. Szafran asked the Council for input and all agreed that that the deans and the VPAA should see the packets after the review is complete no matter what the outcome and that the original packets should reside in the VPAA’s office. Dr. Szafran will take this issue to the faculty senate for consideration.
Dr. Szafran also addressed the issue of post-tenure reviews for chairs, deans, and the VPAA. Betty Horne at the Board of Regents noted that on many campuses, post-tenure reviews is not conducted on those holding administrative positions until they have returned to full-time teaching. Dr. Szafran will also bring a proposal on Academic Administrator review to the senate for approval.
Dr. Szafran shared an evaluation method he would like to be considered in the future for all personnel. He explained that the process could contain four categories, such as: needs major improvement, needs improvement, meets expectations, and super and would assign merit increases accordingly. The Council debated the pros and cons of such an evaluation tool and it was decided that Dr. Szafran should discuss this first with Human Resources and if approved would then bring to the campus community for input. It was also noted by a Council member that the form used to evaluate faculty needs to be updated to reflect the change from deans to chairs doing the evaluation. This will be corrected and posted on the web. Dr. Gabrielli agreed to share information with the Council on the faculty evaluation process used by Arts & Sciences.
Item 2: Training for Faculty & Chairs
Dr. Szafran talked about a training program for faculty that was shared with him recently. This particular program contained a series of workshops in which the participants received certificates upon completion. The Council discussed how something similar might work on our campus and all agreed that it would be beneficial for the entire campus. Dr. Unsell and Dr. Gabrielli agreed to form a committee, to include one faculty member from each school, to identify topics, find speakers, etc. Dean Ramsey suggested that a leadership program would be helpful, especially to those not familiar with the university as a whole and that staff should be included also. The committee will also coordinate with Keith Hopper and Dawn Ramsey.
Item 3: New Building
Dr. Szafran updated the Council on ideas shared at a recent meeting regarding the next building planned for campus. It was discussed in this meeting that SPSU consider moving away from our master plan which is to tear down and build new buildings to one that encompasses growth. This could be accomplished by moving the site for the new building to another location on campus and instead of tearing down the old building, refurbish it. This idea created some controversy but all were assured that experts would be brought in to evaluate the old building and would only be refurbished if deemed feasible.
Item 4: “Comprehensive”
Dr. Szafran asked the Council where we stand on the idea of “comprehensive”. Szafran stated that he has received mostly positive feedback since presenting his ideas at the last faculty meeting. He spoke with Frank Butler at the Board of Regents regarding the BAS and SPSU pursuing this more extensively was viewed favorably. Gabrielli reported that he met with the faculty in Arts & Sciences and stated that they are in favor for the most part but did have a concern about using the word “comprehensive” if we are not truly “comprehensive”. Barnes reported that some of his faculty are worried about resources; others are positive and happy about growth possibilities. Murphy reported that his faculty are mostly interested in a doctorate and possibly a BAS in the IT area only. Unsell will meet with his faculty next week. Dean Ramsey reported that she is still working on identifying non-credit courses that could be used for credit.
Item 5: Tech Fee
Bill Gruszka was invited to the meeting today to discuss the allocation of tech fee funds and explained the process whereby the committee chooses the proposals that best serve the campus and that they try to stay within the allocations for the three categories (1/3 for faculty, 1/3 for students and 1/3 for Information Technology) but that this is not always possible. Gruszka stated that the funds are not always evenly divided into these three categories because they choose the ones that best serve the campus as a whole. Gruszka also explained that there are a number of projects that fall into a carry-over category that continue to need funding from year to year. Some of the projects include software, maintenance, and lab support. These projects are reviewed first and those that are necessary are funded before new projects are considered. Funds to cover these expenses are removed from the total available in tech fee funds and the remainder is divided into the three categories. Gruszka also stated that if additional funds are identified, priority worthy projects not originally funded will be funded from the proposals submitted.
Meeting adjourned at 4:50.