Agenda for Faculty Senate Meeting
February 18, 2014
2:00 pm – 4:00 pm. Cameron 105
Meeting 2014-02

1.      Call to order.

2.      Special Order of the Day.
Executive session to consider honorary degree nomination. Senators only

3.      Approval of January 14,  2014 minutes

4.      Individual Reports

a.       Chancellor Miller.

b.      President of the Senate Lugo.

o   Faculty Assembly update

o   Review of rules of order for deliberations on RTP

o   Proposed version of the FH with motions with motions M03 and M04.
2013_Faculty_Handbook Rev 02-08-14_v_senate.docx

5.      Committee Reports

a.       [Motion 2014-02-M01]  The University Curriculum Committee offers the following motion: Delete the American Studies minor offered in CAS (no student or faculty interest in the minor for some time offers the following motion.

·   UCC SharePoint site

·   CAF

b.      [Motion 2014-02-M02]  The University Studies Advisory Committee offers the following motion: That the US courses included in the attached list be added to the catalogue.

·   USAC motion

c.       [Motion 2014-02-M03]  The Steering committee offers the following motion:
To amend Chapter IV.H, Section 2.a  of the Faculty Handbook on evaluation of faculty as follows (Note underscored sentences are inserted for compliance with UNC policy 400.3.4 on monitoring teaching workloads)

·   Delete from section 2.a
The chairperson's evaluation draws from peer evaluations, student evaluations, and subjective assessments—each to varying degrees across departments.

·   Insert a new section 2.b
b. Chairperson Evaluation of Faculty
To ensure consistency, each tenure and tenure-track faculty member will provide a report of his/her professional activities each year for review by the Chairperson. This annual report will address the three major areas of teaching, scholarship/research/artistic activities, and service.
The evaluation of faculty by the chair draws from peer evaluations of teaching, scholarship/research/artistic activities, and service; student evaluations of teaching; and each faculty member’s summary of his/her professional work for the academic year. This evaluation will consider each of the three areas separately, as well as all aspects combined.

d.      [Motion 2014-02-M04] The Steering committee offers the following motion:
To amend Chapter IV.H, Section 4 of the faculty handbook to as follows
b. Analysis and reporting

i. All analysis shall be completed by the IDEA Center, and reports returned in a timely manner through the appropriate administrative channels to the faculty member.

ii. Every personnel action recommendation for reappointment, promotion, tenure, or post-tenure review should contain all raw sub-scores, adjusted sub-scores and composite scores from IDEA reports from the most recent two two-and-a half years.* All RTP recommendations shall include a qualitative interpretation of student evaluation results by the department chairperson, and may include—at the individual's discretion—the individual's own qualitative interpretation. All statistical calculations and quantitative analysis processed by anyone other than the IDEA Center (which is discouraged) must be clearly identified as such.

*Some reports may also require (or include) courses evaluated by the previous SPOT student evaluation instrument.  For Until two two-and-a half years from the fall 2013 implementation of IDEA, a summary, in a standard format, of the individual's SPOT results for Q16 (at least) must be combined with the IDEA reports, to cover the most recent two two-and-a half years.

c. Guidelines for appropriate use of student evaluation results

 

i.    Data from individual faculty gathered through the use of student evaluations shall be treated with confidentiality. The data  may, however, be legitimately used by anyone directly involved with evaluation for the purpose of reappointment, promotion, tenure, post-tenure review, or annual departmental review.  Release of the data to anyone else is prohibited without the written permission of the faculty member. Because numerous studies have indicated that both peer and student evaluations are necessary for the equitable evaluation of teaching effectiveness, it is strongly suggested that peer and student evaluations be given similar emphasis in personnel recommendations. No single score from any instrument (e.g, IDEA or SPOTS) will be reported or used to evaluate effectiveness of instruction. Raw sub-scores, adjusted sub-scores, and the composite score will be reported for the IDEA instrument.

e.       [Motion 2014-02-M05] Steering places the rest of the revisions as proposed by the ad-hoc RTP committee on the floor starting in the following order:

·   Ch. IV. H (Rest of section on Evaluation of Faculty)

·   Ch. IV. A (Policies on Academic Freedom & Tenure)

o   Article IV.b (Probationary Service – Recommendations 8, 34, 35, 16, 27)

o   Article IV.c (Procedures)

o   Rest of Chapter IV.A (Note: Chapter IV.A sets forth the official policy of The University of North Carolina at Wilmington regarding academic freedom, rights, and responsibilities, promotion, and tenure of its faculty.)

·   Ch. IV. D

o   D.2 (Criteria)

a.       D.2.a (Introduction.- Recommendation 39, 10)

b.      D.2.b (Evaluation Areas – Recommendations 3, 17, 18)

c.       D.2.c (Mentoring  Faculty – Recommendation 36)

d.      D.2.d (Length of service – Recommendations 18)

e.       D.2 Entire section

o   D.3 (Additional Guidelines – Recommendation 15)

o   D.4 (Process)

a.       D.4.c (External Reviews – Recommendations 20, 21, 22.)

b.      D.4.d (Process for RTP App – Recommendations 1,6,9,11-13

6.      Old Business

7.      New Business

8.      Documents

·   Ad hoc RTP committee documents

·   RTP Forum

9.      Announcements

10.  Adjournment