| Policy Committee | |
|
Issues, input and comments can be sent to the Policy Committee or can be communicated to any
|
Minutes of the Policy Committee for 1999 - 2000April 26, 2000 | April 5, 2000 | March 29, 2000 | March 22, 2000 |
March 1, 2000 Meetings 1 - 26: August 20, 1999 - May 10, 2000 The Policy Committee of the Faculty Council of the University of New Orleans represents the faculty as an advisory committee to the Chancellor, making recommendations and stating faculty viewpoints concerning the policies and proposed policies of UNO. The Committee also acts as a committee on committees for Faculty Council committees and carries out whatever other duties are designated to it by motions adopted by the Faculty Council or its representative, the University Senate. Policy Committee Members 1999-2000
In its last meeting of the 1999-2000 academic year, the Policy Committee met with Provost Louis V. Paradise, who reported on and dSiscussed with the committee the following issues:
The Provost offered comments on the proposed merit guidelines (recently adopted by the University Senate): he expressed ambivalence about using a 3-year time frame to measure meritorious achievement, because it might encourage individuals to count their achievements several times. On the other hand, he acknowledged that merit increases have been sufficiently sporadic in the past to undercut this concern. On ruling out faculty who have been with the University for less than one academic year: this will work to the disadvantage of a newly hired full professor, he observed. On the recommendation to set aside a portion of the merit pool for across the board increases: the Provost is not opposed to this, but said that some restrictions would be necessary. Jocelyn Thomas pointed out the importance of this recommendation: it would help to insure that faculty members who have made a genuine and significant contribution to the University--especially in teaching and service--are not passed over in any department chair's merit recommendations. The Provost responded that he already attends to this: while the University's goals stress teaching and service, the department's goals usually are disciplinary. When faculty who excel only in the latter area are rewarded while those whose achievements mainly fall into the former category are not, he tries to intervene by identifying and rewarding those who do contribute to the University. At the beginning of the meeting Ralph Thayer announced that the committee would meet with the Provost the following week. The committee again discussed the charges for the current and proposed curriculum committees. Several members of the committee noted that there was already too much business on the agenda of the May 2 University Senate meeting, and there seemed to be general agreement therefore that discussion of a proposal for a new curriculum committee had better be postponed until the fall semester. In the meantime, the committee agreed, discussion with Carl Malmgren (current chair of the Courses and Curricula Committee) should be pursued. The committee then turned its attention to PM-35, discussing the new ideas and proposals for revisions generated in the hearings at each college. Among these was the recommendation made in both Business and Liberal Arts that reviews be biennial instead of annual. Another was the proposal (arising in the College of Business) that tenured faculty vote before a Department Chair judge a faculty member's performance to be unsatisfactory. Explaining this view, Gerald Whitney noted that the current draft of the document gives too much responsibility to the chair here; the senior faculty should be involved in the process. The merits of building this into the document were debated for some time. Steve Alleman noted that incorporating such a provision might be problematic: it might be difficult to get senior faculty to vote against a faculty member, since so many would perceive such a vote as an attack on tenure itself. This issue seemed to be resolved when the committee noted that nothing in the document prohibits individual departments from devising their own review procedures. The committee also debated the wisdom of trying to get the document ratified in the University Senate before the end of the semester. Several members of the committee argued that an initiative this important and new--one that possibly threatened tenure--should be debated and explored longer. Don Barbe said that the document itself does not authorize anyone's attack on tenure, but its mere existence might encourage an unscrupulous administrator to try to persecute a faculty member; Jocelyn Thomas agreed. Given these concerns, several committee members wanted to know: how real is the deadline under which we are operating? Steve Alleman responded that not every aspect of the document needs to be settled by the end of the spring semester, but postponing a vote until the fall semester will force the University to wait until the Fall of 2001 to begin the first year of formal evaluation. Some members of the committee seemed unalarmed about so delaying the vote; Peter Schock expressed concern that our relationship with the accountability-happy state legislature would suffer if we were unable to implement the review procedure for Fall 2000. The threats to academic freedom posed by the review procedure were small in comparison, he opined, to what we might lose in funding from the state. The committee seemed more or less divided on the question of the urgency of getting the document ratified by the end of the spring semester. The committee discussed the proposed Faculty Council Committee on Curriculum Planning and Development, considering various issues and questions. Jeff Oescher wanted to know what is the essential difference between the charges for the existing and proposed committees; Steve Alleman replied that the difference lies in long-range planning, which the current committee has been unable to pursue. Oescher suggested that such planning should go on at the departmental level--most of this kind of planning operates at a level far below a Faculty Council Committee. Ralph Thayer said that the responsibility of a high-level committee such as the one proposed will be to set general policy. The current committee doesn't really have the authority to do this: for example, it has never acted to terminate underproducing degree programs. Alleman added that the committee has never acted to reduce the 128 credit hour total. The committee continued discussing other concerns: the apparently bloated size of the current committee--are two representatives needed from each college); the overlap between the charges to the two committees. On this latter issue, Don Barbe suggested that the two committees simply divide the responsibility for courses and curricula: the current committee would review course proposals, while the proposed committee would handle curriculum planning and development. At the end of the meeting, Steve Alleman and Jeff Oescher agreed to continue working on the language of the committees' charges, to be discussed at the next meeting. At this meeting the committee completed its work on the merit pay guidelines. Committee members agreed that these guidelines should not constitute merely a set of temporary guidelines to be implemented for a possible merit increase this year, but rather should function--if approved by the Senate--as established guidelines that work in conjunction with those already codified in the Faculty Handbook. Discussion then turned to the draft charge for a new Faculty Council Committee on Curriculum Planning. Peter Schock reported that Carl Malmgren, currently the chair of the University Courses and Curricula Committee, has asked that responsibility for curriculum planning remain with his committee; although this year it has been difficult to address the larger issues of curriculum planning (because of the pressure to complete revisions for the new catalog), Malmgren asserts that last year the committee had the time and will have it again in the coming academic year. Steve Alleman responded by briefly reviewing the history of the problem: in Spring 1999, the Faculty Senate asked the Policy Committee to assume the responsibilities for curriculum planning which the Committee on Courses and Curricula was unable to carry out because of the burden of reviewing proposals for changes in courses and curricula. The Policy Committee judged that it was not the appropriate body to take on these duties, and consequently the Provost has charged Committee Blue with them. Because this committee lacks adequate faculty representation, Alleman pointed out, this committee is not an appropriate group to carry on the task of curriculum planning, either; hence the charge for the proposed committee. Alleman emphasized that the Committee on Courses and Curricula has always been weighed down by its routine responsibilities; thus the situation is not likely to alter. But the proposal to create a new committee will be subject to debate before the University Senate. Discussion of the proposed committee, its charge, and its authority followed: the committee noted that the work of such a committee will be advisory to the Provost and to the Faculty Council; any new programs devised or approved by such a committee would need to be brought before SPG for consideration of their budgetary impact. Putting the two charges (of the present and proposed committees) side by side, the committee noted a certain amount of overlap, necessitating some revision of both charges (among other things, the present committee's charge does extend to curriculum planning). The committee agreed to go ahead with the revision of the charges, and Jeff Oescher and Steve Alleman will do the rewriting. The meeting concluded with a brief report and a reminder from Steve Alleman. Alleman announced that drafts of the PM-35 document will be completed by the end of the week, and hearings will be held in the various colleges beginning next week and extending until spring break. Alleman suggested that the Policy Committee should wait until after these hearings before weighing in with its suggestions for revision. Alleman then reminded the committee that the task of making committee assignments for the coming academic year was still pending; he also brought up another issue: how Faculty Council Committees will report to the University Senate has not yet been resolved. The meeting began with Steve Alleman's brief report on the reviews of Deans Coulter and Crisp and on the work of the PM-35 Committee. All of the questionnaires for the Deans' reviews have been processed, he reported; written comments were transcribed by Associate Provost Dennis McSeveney's administrative assistant. The PM-35 committee is now meeting weekly to complete its document. Ralph Thayer wanted to know if the required faculty reviews may do double-duty--used for merit evaluation as well. Alleman answered that PM-35 calls for a review every other year, but that merit evaluations are or should be conducted annually; it is therefore not clear yet how these two reviews might be intertwined. The committee then turned to the task of revising the draft merit pay guidelines. There was general consensus that these guidelines could not supplant those in the Faculty Handbook, but should work in conjunction with the latter. Alleman reminded the committee that we don't in any case have the authority to rewrite the guidelines in the Handbook. Most of the remaining discussion addressed the question of whether merit money should be awarded as a percentage of base salary or in flat dollar amounts, approximating an across-the-board cost of living allowance. On this point all committee members favored the latter approach except Gerald Whitney. The majority agreed that faculty performing equally meritorious labor should receive equal amounts. Whitney said that he viewed an "equal pay for equal work" philosophy as a slippery slope, and that though apparently unfair, awards based on percentage of base salary were necessary to retain productive faculty members (both those with considerable reputations and those who are relatively new) and thus protect the integrity of academic programs. Whitney warned that guidelines forwarded to the Senate with recommendations for COLAs might end up being tabled. Ralph Thayer suggested that these be presented, then, as talking points, and Peter Schock said that the Senate will have the authority to revise our guidelines before approving them. At the end of the meeting, Steve Alleman reminded the committee of the proposed Faculty Council Committee on Curriculum Planning and its draft charge, which needs to be reviewed and sent on to the Senate in order to appear as new business for the May meeting. The committee met to review faculty responses to the questionnaire on merit pay guidelines. After some deliberation, the committee decided that the final draft of the recommendations should be presented to the Faculty Senate for their approval. Most members of the committee agreed that presenting it to this body was the appropriate way to emphasize that these guidelines have been drafted in response to faculty concerns. The committee resolved to get the matter introduced into the agenda by March 17, so as to discuss and vote on the guidelines at the March 31 Senate meeting. The approved guidelines could then be presented to SPG at its final meeting of the academic year. The committee then turned to the responses to the various questions addressed by faculty. On the first question (concerning which groups of faculty are eligible for merit), committee members noted that a majority favored including all faculty who have served at least one year. The committee agreed that Sept 1 should be the cutoff date. Faculty on sabbatical should be included; those under reprimand cannot be excluded from consideration (the committee agreed not to widen this guideline to include other forms of disciplinary action). On the second question (dealing with the length of the period under which faculty may be evaluated for merit), the committee decided to define this period as the last three years or the period since the last raise, whichever is longer. The committee also chose to recommend annual merit evaluations and consistent evaluation policies across the colleges (while recognizing that criteria cannot be uniform across colleges). Concerning responses to the third question (dealing with merit criteria), the committee agreed that the new guidelines should insist that the criteria be made known to faculty, and that teaching--which might assume prominence in this year's raise package, as it did last year--be evaluated by multiple criteria. The committee asked Gerald Whitney and Jeff Oescher to complete the review of responses and draft the guidelines. 20th Meeting (February 23, 2000) Before meeting with the Chancellor, the committee briefly discussed the ongoing evaluation of Deans Coulter and Crisp. The committee affirmed that the members of the colleges whose deans are undergoing evaluation will recuse themselves from the meeting in which the transcribed comments from evaluations are reviewed. The chair and vice chair only will review this transcript with the Provost and will attend his meeting with the faculty of the colleges concerned. The Chancellor began his remarks by noting that the updating of the university's strategic plan needs to be completed and sent out to the university community. Ralph Thayer urged that more administrative participation needs to be secured, and the Chancellor agreed. The Chancellor also emphasized that the work of the ad hoc committee implementing PM-35 (Faculty Accountability) also needs to be completed, so that hearings can be held before the end of the spring semester. Steve Alleman expressed concern that it might not be possible to take the document to the Faculty Council by the end of the semester. Concerned that the LSU version of the initiative may be imposed if ours is not completed in time, the Chancellor suggested that the document might be taken to the Faculty Senate first; if approved there, it would still be subject to approval by the Council. He also encouraged the building in of rewards for full professors: general recommendations for extra merit (devoid of percent amounts) might be forwarded to SPG for more specific implementation. The Chancellor then reported to the committee that he is still confident that a raise package will be forthcoming, despite the lack of consensus in the state legislature regarding a tax increase. Tuition will possibly rise, with its increase pegged to SREB averages; this may end up as the funding source for salary increases; whatever tax increase is passed may be used for other UNO expenses. The Chancellor warned that health insurance costs will rise this year. The committee then discussed with the Chancellor strategic planning: the process is not working, Ralph Thayer asserted, and the Chancellor agreed, observing that the function of the 3+3+3 group here should be the setting of 3 or so large goals; less attention should be given to debating details of planning. Referring to the need to articulate major goals, Jeff Oescher commended the work of Ed Johnson, which he characterized as powerful in terms of crafting a statement of vision for the university. The committee then discussed the Revenue Enhancement Proposal with the Chancellor, who commented that the central debate concerns how much of an investment should be made in recruitment and retention efforts at the college level. The percentage to be reallocated in the current proposal is too large, he said, while maintaining that some amount should go back to the colleges, not to to fund instructor lines, but travel, equipment, and other expenses: departments whose services are unfunded need compensation. Jeff Oescher then said that the current proposal seems to assume that the proposed reallocation will supplement the existing departmental "infrastructure," when in fact in many cases that infrastructure simply isn't there as a consequence of long-term funding shortages. After some discussion about the ability of the Provost to remedy problems in various departments and colleges, Jocelyn Thomas asked the Chancellor why the Revenue Enhancement Proposals was needed at all, if the Provost can be approached for help. The Chancellor answered that the reallocation is needed because the Provost cannot fund specific college proposals, which would amount to playing favorites. In the final minutes of the meeting the committee discussed the plan to graduate 60 PhDs annually. UNO must pursue this goal, the Chancellor said, because it helps us fit in the only available institutional "niche" UNO can now fill--that of the urban research university. The research park in particular commits us to this aspect of the overall mission of the university. 19th Meeting (February 16, 2000) The Policy Committee met with the Provost, discussing first the work of the ad hoc committee on the Faculty Accountability initiative. Once the draft of the document is completed, hearings in the various colleges are planned, to be followed by a Faculty Council meeting. One major issue that must be clarified concerns the distinction between faculty performance and conduct: the Accountability Initiative addresses quality of performance, not instances of faculty misconduct (for which a disciplinary procedure already exists). The committee then discussed the Revenue Enhancement Initiative, scheduled for a vote in the SPG meeting Thursday February 17. In response to Jeff Oescher's concerns about procedures for voting, the Provost explained that the vote would be held by secret ballot. The Provost further explained that the Chancellor originally envisioned a plan that would aid retention efforts, not recruiting, Retention, however, is notoriously difficult to measure, he commented, and the current semester, with its lopsided gains and losses in various areas, illustrates the problem. While the new funding formula is still pending, he went on, he has concerns about a reallocation of 50% of incremental tuition revenues. If implemented, such a plan will remain advisory, he concluded. The committee next discussed with the Provost its concerns about UNO's goal of sustained production of 60 PhD's. The Provost observed that producing this number annually will be difficult, even with the addition of 70 new scholarships for doctoral students. Budget cuts have fallen hard on graduate education: graduate assistant lines have generally been reduced first when cuts have been made. It is difficult, moreover, to add new doctoral programs, when LSU typically blocks these efforts. There are no guarantees that the money ($500 per student) will materialize, he observed. Given all of these impediments, why pursue the goal, Jocelyn Thomas asked: because success will raise us into a peer group comprised of better institutions, the Provost answered, noting that the bottom 25 institutions in the SREB grant 60 PhD's annually. State funding follows growth, he added, and the new formula will help us only if we grow. The committee agreed that strategic planning should be asking the basic question: is bigger actually better? And are cuts necessary in order to grow? The Provost commented that the contraction of the university's mission will actually jeopardize it, and will force budget cuts. Finally, Jocelyn Thomas asked about retention efforts. Is anyone working on a comprehensive retention plan? The Provost answered that the Freshman Affairs Office intends to return retention responsibilities to individual departments (as was proposed by the Chancellor 18th Meeting (February 9, 2000) The meeting began with an approval of the last three sets of minutes, with revisions to the minutes from the February 2 meeting (concerning the retirement of the VAX). The committee took up once again discussion of the Revenue Enhancement Initiative Proposal, accepted by SPG at its February 3 meeting; SPG members will vote to approve the proposal at the next meeting. Looking ahead to this vote, committee members again expressed various concerns about the proposal: that such a budget reallocation cannot possibly be implemented in the face of the budget deficits the University is currently running, that it is academically inappropriate to offer incentives, however obliquely the offer is made, for retention. Gerald Whitney suggested that the initiative is strictly speaking a budgetary matter not falling under the purview of the committee. The committee then discussed the Chancellor's goal of producing 60 Ph.D.s annually in relation to the resources actually invested in sustaining these numbers. Several members of the committee expressed concern that the commitment to sustaining these numbers has not been made and proposed that we speak to the Chancellor or the Dean of the Graduate School or both. Peter Schock urged that we gather specific information before speaking to the Chancellor on the matter. In the final minutes of the meeting, Don Barbe reviewed the reapportionment of faculty senators by enrollment gains and losses among the colleges, asking committee members to check his reckoning. 17th Meeting (February 2, 2000) At the beginning of the meeting, Ralph Thayer pointed out that the Chancellor assured the Senate at its last meeting that a salary increase package is indeed pending; the committee must therefore finalize the merit pay guidelines now in draft form. The committee discussed the questionnaire on merit pay guidelines, confirming among other things that deferred merit and salary compression would be addressed. The committee decided to allow two weeks for responses to the questionnaire, which would be e-mailed to faculty (with some hard copy distributed to department chairs through college offices). The committee decided to review the responses and revise the guidelines as needed, then present them to the Senate for revision and ratification at its March meeting. The completed guidelines will then be forwarded to SPG. The committee then briefly discussed the draft statement of principles to be submitted to the Ad Hoc committee on Faculty Accountability, deliberating about the relative weight teaching and research should be given. Should the quality of teaching constitute the main criterion in a performance evaluation? While some members of the committee argued that teaching, because it is central to the mission of UNO, should indeed be the main criterion, the group did not reach consensus on this point. What about satisfactory research or service combined with unsatisfactory teaching, some asked? Would these factors prevent a faculty member from receiving a negative review? Steve Alleman urged the committee to look into the prospects for sustaining the annual average of 60 Ph.D.s needed to receive the anticipated formula funding. Do we have the resources and students to keep up the average in the next few years? Jeff Oescher said that the College of Education was stretched in resources, and the new student pool may be drying up. Ralph Thayer suggested that we speak to the Provost about the matter at our next meeting with him. Peter Schock volunteered to speak to the Dean of the Graduate School in the meantime. 16th Meeting (January 26, 2000) The committee concluded its discussion of the Revenue Enhancement Proposal, to be considered by the SPG Steering Committee at its next meeting. Various points of view were expressed. Peter Schock explained that he finally decided to support the proposal in the hope that it would end up joined to a larger and coordinated effort to recruit and retain students; he mentioned that the proposal had been revised to call for that kind of action. Members of the committee continued to express reservations about the proposal: Jocelyn Thomas said that the use of the financial carrot was academically inappropriate and that the proposal if enacted might pressure faculty to lower academic standards. Steve Alleman explained that his main objection has been that the proposal is presently being considered in isolation from other initiatives directed at recruitment and retention; Don Barbe and Gerald Whitney both observed that it might be simply suspended in the face of budgetary emergencies and wondered as well whether the amount of money involved was worth the trouble of enacting the proposal. Steve Alleman then reported on the deans' evaluation: Dean Crisp has not yet responded to the questionnaire and distribution list; Dean Coulter asked for a few changes, notably the addition of the College Advisory Board to the "other community leaders" on the distribution list. Alleman reported that the questionnaire should go out by February 1 and should be returned by March 3. Finally, the committee discussed the Faculty Accountability Initiative, noting first that the three faculty members nominated by the committee (Steve Alleman, Gary Allen, and Jane Cromartie) have all accepted. The committee then turned to the draft guidelines, with discussion focusing on the review cycle. Don Barbe argued that the cycle would need to be standard across campus; both Jeff Oescher and Steve Alleman agreed, observing further that the review should be annual (although PM-35 calls for reviews every other year). Jeff Oescher expressed concern about the kind of information that would be gathered annually in such a review. Typically this information is used for formative purposes (e.g., discussing strengths and weaknesses, monitoring progress). A problem might exist if such information was subsequently used for summative purposes (e.g., evidence of lack of acceptable performance or improvement). While a professor might be willing to be evaluated in a formative sense, a conflict could arise in the use of this information for summative purposes. How might the gathering of such information, which is the not the same kind of information produced for promotion decisions, affect the latter process? Safeguards should be explicitly stipulated before the evaluation process begins. The guidelines drafted by Gerald Whitney were approved by the committee, to be sent to the ad hoc committee charged with drafting the Faculty Accountability Policy. 15th Meeting (January 19, 2000) The meeting began with the approval of the minutes for the last three meetings. Discussion then turned to the Revenue Enhancement Proposal, soon to be presented to SPG. Ralph Thayer urged that the proposal be cleared by the Steering Committee first. Discussion followed: Gerald Whitney wondered whether this matter falls under the heading of faculty governance at all; Jocelyn Thomas suggested that the committee has been inconsistent in the past in these recommendations. Don Barbe urged that the agreed upon procedure should be followed in any case, and Ralph Thayer said that he would see to it. Discussion of the Faculty Accountability statement of principles followed, and the committee reviewed and discussed Gerald Whitney's draft. The committee agreed to finalize the statement at its next meeting. The committee then considered once more the names of potential appointees to the Faculty Accountability Task Force, and tentatively approved a list of 3 faculty members (with 2 alternates). Ralph Thayer said he would begin contacting the appointees immediately. Don Barbe reported that he would have information on reapportionment in the Faculty Senate by next week's meeting; he offered a brief update on the activities of the various Faculty Council committees, noting that he will ask each for a formal report in one month. 14th Meeting (January 12, 2000) The Policy Committee discussed a number of issues:
13th Meeting (December 15, 1999) The Policy Committee met to review and revise the questionnaire concerning merit pay guidelines drafted by Jeff Oescher and Gerald Whitney. When completed, the questionnaire will be distributed to departments. 12th Meeting (December 1, 1999) The Policy Committee began the meeting by reviewing and revising the questionnaire used for the evaluations of deans. A number of questions were added to assess the following areas of performance: demonstrating leadership in the development of new programs and revision of existing programs, insuring broad-based participation in strategic planning, and respecting faculty governance in curricular matters. Steve Alleman next asked the committee to determine the distribution of the questionnaire; there was agreement that the only UNO personnel outside each dean's college receiving the questionnaire would be the following: deans, associate deans, and assistant deans (all of whom deal closely with the dean under review), faculty senators, and an off-campus advisory committee. The committee also agreed to sort questionnaires (by color-coding) into two groups: inside and outside the college of the dean under review. With this business concluded, Ralph Thayer drew the committee's attention to the question of faculty senate reapportionment, asking Don Barbe, the committee coordinator, to meet with Rene Toups to determine if changes in enrollment will change the number of senators to be elected for the following academic year. The committee next discussed the impending faculty accountability initiative, and Ralph Thayer announced that the awaited Presidential Memorandum from the LSU System calling for such an initiative has already arrived. Thayer reminded the committee that its responsibilities will involve naming 2 members of the committee charged with the task of developing the initiative as well as revising the statement of guiding principles. The committee then discussed the work of Senate Committee A, charged with exploring retention strategies. Ralph Thayer reported on his conversation with that committee's chair, who has specifically asked for guidance. Thayer sounded out the committee on his proposal that Committee A review the SPG Blue recommendations from the mid-1990s, estimate the costs of all recommendations which were never funded, and ask the Provost to fund them. The committee agreed with this proposal, and then turned its attention to the proposal Committee Silver is currently developing and preparing to bring before SPG. The committee agreed that it will insist that this proposal be reviewed first by the Steering Committee before it is introduced into the agenda of the next SPG meeting. The committee next discussed the functions of Faculty Council committees and agreed that these groups must be asked to report on their work to the Policy Committee in March and the Faculty Senate in April. To insure that these committees are familiar with and are pursuing their responsibilities, the committee agreed to invite the chairs of these committees to visit Policy Committee meetings early next semester. Finally, the committee discussed the revision of merit pay guidelines, agreeing that a first step will involve developing an email address list for faculty college by college (so that faculty can be surveyed about the pertinent issues soon). The committee went on to discuss the question of UNO's policy on reprimands and its implications for merit pay. Ralph Thayer recommended that the policy on reprimands should be considered separately, perhaps by a Faculty Senate committee; Steve Alleman observed that the low number of reprimands actually issued did not justify assigning the issue this much prominence. Thayer reminded the committee that short of a grievance there was no means of appealing a reprimand. The committee agreed that the issue turned on how reprimand policy (and its implications for merit pay) is communicated to faculty. The committee seemed to achieve general consensus that the issue deserved consideration but did not determine what group should look into this. 11th Meeting (November 10, 1999) The Policy Committee discussed the following:
10th Meeting (November 3, 1999) The Policy Committee met with Bobby Dupont, at his request, to discuss the recruiting and retention incentive proposal currently before Committee Silver. The Policy Committee presented its concerns: that too little is understood about either the details or the philosophical thrust of the proposal. Dupont explained that the plan put forward by Dean Crisp originated in a Deans' Council meeting several months ago, as a means to increase revenue in response to budget cuts. Dupont has been charged with evaluating Crisp's plan, modifying it as needed in order to submit it to SPG. Crisp's original plan emphasized recruiting; Dupont's contribution emphasizes retention. Some committee members then said that they had had a different understanding of the charge, and Jeff Oescher wondered why the effort was not focused on developing a "blueprint" for action by exploring and debating several different plans. Dupont answered that such exploratory work has already been done, and that the present proposal is grounded in the mandates adapted by SPG in 1994, when it first called for retention action plans. Don Barbe observed that the present proposal appears not to address retention and recruitment efforts in any direct way, but merely to reallocate funds. Why do this in the absence of demonstrated results in recruitment and retention? Efforts can't be carried out without funding, Dupont answered; the document Committee Silver is considering creates an instrument for awarding funds. Ralph Thayer said that it was his impression that a significant area of UNO's problem with retention lies with sophomores who are unable to advance into the third year. Why do we not devise a plan that directly addresses that problem? Dupont replied that with all of the other causes peculiar to UNO's students factored in, our dropout rate is indeed 10% higher than it should be. The redistributed funds will go to Liberal Arts and Sciences to help enhance teaching at the freshman and sophomore levels; he expressed confidence that the deans will distribute the money effectively. English, for example, would certainly be able to avoid raising the enrollment caps in its lower-division courses. The committee wanted to know why the Crisp plan projected an increase of 2000 students over the next 3 years. Dupont said that he believed 200 was a more reasonable estimate, but emphasized that retaining even this modest number would have a cumulative effect in terms of tuition revenue. He emphasized that enrollment--in effect a body count--would be the measure of recruitment and retention, not student credit hours. In any case, Dupont said, how the efforts and results are measured is less important than the philosophical issues embedded in such a proposal. Jocelyn Thomas agreed and reiterated her conviction that it is academically inappropriate to tempt faculty with retention dollars, a practice she believes is too likely to promote the relaxation of standards. Instead, we should be trying to identify the appropriate points at which recruiting and retention efforts should be made. Jeff Oescher asked: what if significant recruitment and retention problem areas lie in non-academic areas? Won't the reallocation of funds then fail to address these problems? Dupont answered that there is in fact a history of efforts to identify our problems, and he assured the committee that he will provide them with documents going far enough back to provide an historical context for the present proposal. He also said that he found it incredible that UNO's faculty would sacrifice standards for monetary awards, and said that in any case the deans can be charged with the responsibility of overseeing grade distributions: evidence of grade inflation can be used to withhold funding. 9th Meeting (October 28, 1999) The Policy Committee met with the Provost. He reported to the committee that the search committees to replace the deans for CUPA and the Library have been formed. He also announced that a draft of the formula funding plan has been received by his office; because of our increased production of doctoral degrees we will see an increase in funding for instruction (5% more than LSU receives). The committee discussed merit pay guidelines with the Provost. Ralph Thayer asked three questions:
The Provost responded that there certainly was room for modification of the existing guidelines. The Provost was asked if the faculty role in modifying these guidelines might be enhanced: specifically, could a committee bring to the Faculty Senate a set of recommendations for revising the guidelines? The Provost answered that this was possible, but that SPG must approve any recommendations. He suggested submitting a proposal to SPG, which would consider and vote on it. Only SPG can approve such changes, he emphasized, as it is the budget committee for the university and was so charged by the Faculty Council in 1992. When asked about accountability in the evaluation of faculty performance (especially teaching), the Provost replied that department chairs provide ample documentation, forwarding detailed rankings of faculty performance, all of them signed. Don Barbe observed that the perception is that deans do not necessarily follow these rankings. The Provost also observed that disqualifying newly hired faculty from merit, though it may help to address compression, is not always possible since the state legislature has in the past instructed administrators to award merit to the newly hired. Awarding deferred merit (on one occasion a few years ago salary increases were restricted to faculty hired in the last 3-5 years) is another way of addressing compression. The guidelines can be rewritten, the Provost emphasized, so long as they do not conflict with what the state may require. The committee also discussed with the Provost the merit areas of teaching, service, and research, noting that the three are weighted differently from college to college. Jocelyn Thomas observed that often there is sufficient imbalance in this weighting to provoke the question: are these merit criteria consistent with the goals of the institution? The Provost answered that unanimity among the colleges as to which areas of faculty performance are most merit-worthy is not possible to obtain: the College of Sciences, he noted, typically values research much more heavily than other colleges. Is there a mechanism for discovering and dealing with excessive merit awards given to faculty with demonstrably ineffective teaching, Steve Alleman asked?The Provost answered that deans were accountable to him in making such awards, and suggested that those faculty whose commitments were tilted excessively toward research and away from teaching may have their teaching bought out by the department; the problem can be confined in that way. Ralph Thayer pointed out the problem that lies in the inverse situation: rewards are less available to those whose commitment to teaching is 100%. The Provost once again urged that all of these concerns be explored and brought to SPG in the form of specific recommendations and predicted that they would find a receptive audience there. 8th Meeting (October 20, 1999) The Committee again discussed merit pay guidelines. The concerns of the committee are as follows:
7th Meeting (October 13, 1999) The committee met with the Chancellor to discuss the proposed post-tenure review initiative. The Chancellor emphasized the twofold purpose of post-tenure reviews: to provide the means to reward faculty who continue to excel beyond their final promotion and to provide accountability by identifying and working with those faculty who are not performing adequately. Committee members made several observations in response to the Chancellor's remarks: Don Barbe urged that performance criteria need to be fully defined and delivered to new hires; when the Chancellor agreed and suggested that these criteria be integrated into the third-year review, Ralph Thayer suggested that a tracking system be devised to determine whether or not the criteria had been delivered, the review performed, and so on. Jeff Oescher observed that unless adequate resources are provided to improve lagging faculty performances, the post-tenure review will not perform its remediating function: the formative process will become merely summative. The Chancellor agreed and said that the proposed Faculty Development Center should provide the resources here: he invited the committee to make specific recommendations here and promised his support. When Jeff Oescher spoke of the problem of salary compression, the Chancellor suggested that here again the post-tenure review can help, offering a salary increase to high-performing faculty. The committee met with Associate Provost Dennis McSeveney to discuss the proposed Faculty Accountability initiative. McSeveney explained to the committee that Dr. H. Douglas Braymer, Vice President for Academic Affairs of the LSU System, is currently working on a post-tenure review procedure, which will be set in place in January 2000 when it will be communicated through a Presidential Memorandum. It is in our interest, McSeveney argued, for UNO faculty and administration to develop the Faculty Accountability plan now and devise the criteria and procedures by which faculty performance is to be evaluated. Dr. Braymer's current version calls for faculty reviews to be conducted at least every other year; 2 years of negative reviews for a faculty member would trigger a peer review. If this more thorough peer review identifies deficiencies, a committee of peers will be identified to help the faculty member overcome his or her deficiencies; after three years of assistance, if the deficiency is not corrected, a final review, involving due process, would be undertaken to remove tenure. Among the issues that must be addressed in developing our procedures for assessing faculty performance is the variation in criteria from department to department: each department defines differently how faculty contribute to the work of the University, with some valuing research more than teaching, others less. Committee members expressed additional concerns. If the purpose of an accountability procedure is "formative" (that is, intended to improve unsatisfactory work), Jeff Oescher observed, then the performance criteria must be campus-wide--some form of minimal standards for an adequate performance must be devised. Don Barbe observed that the administrators overseeing the review must themselves be held accountable. McSeveney sought the Policy Committee's advice on how UNO should respond to these and other issues. In 1997, the Policy Committee asked Academic Affairs to develop policies for faculty accountability. McSeveney has been working with the academic deans on this. Because it is almost certain that the LSU System will mandate post-tenure review, McSeveney felt that there needed to be more faculty input brought into developing the process for UNO. He proposed the following:
5th Meeting (September 29, 1999) The committee discussed the following items on the agenda:
4th Meeting (September 23, 1999) The Policy Committee met with John Bryan, Assistant Vice Chancellor for University Computing and Communications, Norm Whitley, Chair of STPIG (Strategic Technology Planning and Implementation Group), and Scott Whittenberg, STPIG member and former chair of FCCAC (Faculty Council Committee on Academic Computing). The group discussed two concerns:
3rd meeting (September 15, 1999) Several topics and issues were discussed:
The Provost met with the committee to report on Formula Funding and Current Initiatives; he distributed documents on both matters. Formula funding: UNO is likely to benefit modestly from formula funding because it is close to the middle quartile in the Doctoral II group. Enrollment levels will have to be maintained, however: if enrollments drop, formula funding will hurt UNO. The Provost noted that comparative analysis of academic program costs is part of the funding formula process; he predicted that this analysis will not produce major changes but that some "strategic decisions" will be made partly on this basis. Initiatives: the Provost emphasized graduation rates and retention. US News and World Report recently ranked UNO in the 4th tier; our 6-year graduation rate of 18% is close to the lowest in the nation. Recent retention efforts seem to be helping: there is a modest increase in returning students this fall, but we are losing TOPS students to LSU. We pledged to SACS to bring our graduation rate up to 45% (the average of the Urban 13). Following the outline he distributed on Current Initiatives, the Provost commented on various retention problems and solutions, emphasizing the areas of developmental and freshman math. He also reported on progress in other initiatives: the Office of Freshman Affairs, expansion of the Women's Center and Honors Program, and faculty development efforts.
|
 |
|||||
|
 |
Hurricane Plan | Prospective Students | Current Students | Parents | Faculty & Staff | Alumni & Visitor News | University Alert System | Calendar | E-Mail | Phone Book | Blackboard | Contribute to UNO |
|||
|
A-Z Index | | ||||
|
The University of New Orleans • 2000 Lakeshore Drive, New Orleans, LA 70148 (504) 280-6000 • Toll-Free at (888) 514-4275 |
||||