Academic Council Minutes
March 11, 2004

Present: Faye Vowell, Junius Logan, Marcia Bourdette, Michelle Behr, Jack Ellis, Theresa Lugo, Lloyd Cowling, Duane Elms, Tony Macias, Barbara Taylor, Julie Miller, Bertha Benavidez, Donna Rees, Cynthia Bettison, Randy Jennings, Rick Johnson, Linda Baldwin, Jerry Harmon, Gail Gruber.

1. PM PMT Discussion of Framework— Duane Elms — The PM PMT has a three-page preliminary report. The focus of this PMT has been to figure out how to deal with the amount of data we have and the data that we don't have. At this time, the PMT is looking for feedback from the important data generators and data users on campus. Lloyd Cowling asked for clarification on the purpose of the PMT. Duane Elms stated that the point of this PMT is to create an office that will simplify the availability of information so people who are using it can access it in a more timely and accurate manner and those responsible for generating the reports for government entities can produce or get assistance in producing those reports. This process will allow people who do analysis to have a way of accessing data which is accurate and will provide a process for ad hoc queries. Michelle Behr asked if this office could provide information for grant data. Cynthia Bettison stated that this office would facilitate the access of data and procurement of correct data. The PMT has identified the producers and users of data and have met with both groups and are structuring a framework for managing the data. Jerry Harmon asked if the office could manage specialized data such as a database of all candidates in SOE. Cynthia Bettison responded that this is data production and SOE would speak with this office and decide whether it would be put into Banner or not. Linda Baldwin interpreted this office's purpose to be the starting point for obtaining data. Faye Vowell also stated that reports could be designed by this office for departments to run themselves. This office would be independent of IT, could combine what Barbara Taylor has been doing in assessment, and what Academic Affairs has been collecting regarding program review. This office could also do testing. Currently ASC manages testing on campus. Duane Elms also stated that currently new data that is needed could be pulled together through this office. The next step of the PMT is to go over what has been written, make changes from feedback, and issue it to the Executive Council. Faye Vowell encouraged the Academic Council to send any feedback to the PMT. The PM PMT will be meeting again on March 17 from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

2. Faculty Evaluation Proposal — Rick Johnson — Handouts: (1) Draft Evaluation Proposal (MBO Replacement); (2) Promotion and Tenure Timeline; (3) Proposed Student Evaluation of Faculty Advising Policy. The Draft Evaluation Proposal contains only three major categories rather than five (see handout). There are examples available on the handout in each of the areas. The handout included a teaching and learning classroom visit rubric, one for research, and one for service. We are going back to the idea that it’s okay to be okay; you can't be a superstar in every category. We are trying to say that satisfactory is acceptable. However, for promotion and tenure one would be expected to have one or two commendable or exemplary areas in each category. These evaluations will become the faculty dossier when applying for tenure or promotion. The documentation would already exist and the faculty shouldn't have to come up with a new package for tenure and promotion. This Evaluation would then become the summative results over a period of time. This may not be a perfect process, will need work, and will need buy-in by faculty. It was suggested that faculty may want to remove the evaluation process from the Faculty Handbook to enable changes to be made more easily and not need the Board of Regents approval. This would make this evaluation process more of a flexible and living document, one more open for changes. Faye Vowell asked what would be the implementation time-line if this proposed evaluation is passed this year. Rick Johnson stated that if passed and placed in the faculty handbook, it would be implemented in the Fall semester of 2005. Jerry Harmon stated that he did not see any reference to the weighting process. Rick Johnson pointed out that this is contained on Draft Page #10. Jerry Harmon asked what the terms commendable and exemplary, etc. mean under the teaching and learning section, and does this imply that each department has the ability to further define these terms? Michelle Behr stated that each department would define reasonable expectations and come to an agreement about what makes sense in the context of what each department is doing. There, of course, would need to be departmental consensus. Rick Johnson reminded the Council that the rubrics are merely examples and can be tailored for each department. Faye Vowell stated that she would need feedback from each department as to what the rubrics categories would be. She would need to know the rubric categories at the beginning of the process and not at the end. The flexible rubric process was questioned. Faye Vowell stated that she is more concerned about the definition of commendable, etc. Julie Miller suggested a case study workshop for Academic Council.

3. Procedures for requesting leave and for overtime/Non-execution of contracts — Faye Vowell — Handout: Memo dated March 3, 2004, from Human Resources and Payroll re: Changes in Non-Exempt Employees Reporting Leave and Overtime Approval on Time Sheets; Academic Affairs Procedure on Employees Reporting Leave; Academic Affairs Procedure on Overtime for Non-Exempt Employees. This revised procedure is an attempt to reduce paperwork for Human Resources. For non-exempt employees, there will be no need to fill out leave slips. Time sheets will reflect any time off and, therefore, will become increasingly more important. The procedure for Academic Affairs will be that non-exempt employees will do a leave slip for each department and the departments keep the slips. This possibly means more work for the departments that choose to keep and file these. If departments choose, departmental leave slips can be trashed. The new policy on overtime has come about because of a legal opinion that states that WNMU is responsible for paying overtime worked whether or not approved. The problem that the Academic Affairs division has is that there is no money to pay for overtime. Each of the VPs are putting forward policies/procedures in their own areas to deal with this problem. Academic Affairs’ policy is on the handout. The new policy on non-execution of contracts is that if an adjunct doesn't sign his or her contract, HR will cut the contract but will hold it until the person signs the contract. When the contract is signed, he or she will get the check. Checks will not be direct deposited the first time but will be direct deposited the next time. Gail Gruber asked if Human Resources can call individual people when their contracts are ready rather than just calling the departments?

Other —

Michelle Behr asked if there was any word regarding faculty hiring and what the timeline is. Faye Vowell stated that the VPs and the President will have a meeting next Tuesday and decide whether or not to move ahead with the hiring of the contingent positions. Faye Vowell and Junius Logan are constructing arguments stating that we need all of the contingent positions. Suggested arguments: (1) Pride in high percentage taught by full-time faculty. Reconstruct the percentage of student credit hours taught by faculty vs. adjunct. For issues of quality, we need to add more faculty positions. If we get these positions, these people will teach in Deming, on-line, and ITV. If Chairs don't want this for their positions, let Faye Vowell know. Chairs need to inform applicants that this is part of the University’s expectations. (2) Go back and look at cost of that we have paid for adjuncts and show how the adjunct and overload budget will be reduced. This reduction will show some impact on the bottom line. (3) Every time we hire an adjunct, we hire someone without a proper terminal degree. (4) Contributions that full-time faculty bring to committee-work, service, research, and teamwork. (5) Being able to sustain programs. Faye Vowell asked that Chairs send information on the programs that each of the faculty applicants will support.

Faye Vowell encouraged Council members to attend last Systems Portfolio on Friday, March 12.

Meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.