The Faculty Senate of North Georgia College & State University met on August 16, 1999, at 12:30 P.M. in Oaks 016.  The meeting was called to order by Dr. Donna Gessell, CEO, with the following Senators present:  Anthony, Barnett, Batchelder, Biddy, Carroll-Cobb, Corotto, Gordon, Herbert, Kokkala, Link, Patten, Roberts-Betsch, Sisk, Skelly, Smith, Spraker, Stahl, Szuminski, Temples, Tennis, Thurman, Weinberg, Wiedmann, and Woods.  President Hansford, Dr. Buckheister (Acting VP-AA), and Ms. Peggy Inman (Staff Council Representative) were also present.  Guests included  Dr. Barry Friedman, Dr. John Nardo, COL. Palmer (Commandant of Cadets), and Ms. Dee Stegelin (Ad Hoc Graduate Committee).  Senator Margeson was excused; Senators Democko and Yonts were absent.

Minutes of the June 17, 1999, Meeting

The minutes of the June 17, 1999, meeting were submitted by CEO Gessell for approval with the following corrections:
        Page 4 - the paragraph beginning "Dr. Corotto," "the Dr. McLeod" is replaced with "that Dr. McLeod."
        Page 5 - in the second line, "instrument" is replaced with "incident."
        Page 6 - under "Announcements,"  "Ron Upchurch" is replaced with "John Upchurch."
Senator Smith moved that the minutes and corrections be approved.  Senator Woods seconded the motion.  The motion carried.

President's Report

President Hansford reiterated his appreciation to Past-President Sherman Day for his contributions to the university and his assistance to President Hansford during the transition period.  President Hansford went on to announce that the strategic planning process will soon begin.  It will, in general, follow the method used in the past while meeting current BOR guidelines.  Dr. Catherine Finnegan will serve as the central contact person for strategic planning.  President Hansford anticipates that the Administrative Council will meet by September 1, 1999, with departmental meetings scheduled in the month of September.  Following departmental feedback to the Strategic Planning Committee, it is anticipated that the strategic plan will be completed by December 1, 1999, well in advance of the BOR deadline in January 2000.

Reporting on the budget, President Hansford stressed that much is still tentative.  He pointed out that, if the official enrollment formula is strictly followed, NGCSU will be "negatively impacted."  President Hansford, however, stated that he is optimistic that the enrollment formula will not be strictly followed.  He stated that, once again, 5% of the budget will be re-directed.  We will comply, as we have in the past, but the focus of the re-direction may see some change.

President Hansford announced that, as of August 15, 1999, NGCSU enrollment figures were down from the previous year.  The university, however, expects to enroll an additional 500 students on August 17, 1999.  If this expectation is fulfilled, enrollment should be close to that of the previous year.  He also informed the Senate that, while summer enrollment figures were down, enrollment figures for the graduate programs were up.

Reporting on the Learning and Technology Center and Library improvements, President Hansford reaffirmed that the BOR had approved the concept proposed.  The project will be funded, at some point in the future, in the amount of $19.7 million.  90% of this is for new construction, with 10% for renovation.  The library expansion will consist of an additional 140,000 square feet with about 1/3 of the building for instructional support, 1/3 for academic support, and 1/3 for student support.

President Hansford congratulated COL. Palmer and the Military Science department for a very successful Frog Week.  He reported that 175 new cadets participated in Frog Week with the vast majority of those still in attendance at the end of the week.

Report from the CEO

Due to the presence of many new senators, CEO Gessell began her report by asking all senators in attendance to briefly introduce themselves.  She then charged all senators to actively report the work of the senate to their represented units stating it is "our responsibility that our faculty know what's going on."

It was announced that Senators Kokkala and Smith will serve on a committee to establish a Faculty Senate Web site.  Dr. John Nardo is chair of the committee.

CEO Gessell stated that the switch to a four school arrangement has made necessary some changes in representation regarding the Ad Hoc Bylaws Committee.  The committee membership is as follows:
            Jill Hayes                Mike Reese
            Eric Link                  Arlene Thurman
            John Nardo, Chair   Linda Roberts-Betsch, Advisor

Regarding the Ad Hoc Committee to Plan Sexual Harassment Workshops, the committee membership was announced as follows:
            John Nardo            Peggy Inman
            Harriett Richard     Nancy Schwartz
            Carl Weinberg
In addition, the committee will include a third staff member, a representative from Human Resources, and a student representative.  CEO Gessell also announced the purchase of two sexual harassment videos, one dealing with harassment in the workplace, and one dealing with harassment in the classroom.  Purchase of the videos was made possible by the Staff Council through Human Resources.

Regarding the Ad Hoc Committee on Graduate Studies, CEO Gessell asked Committee Chair Barnett to report.  Barnett reported that two meetings have been held; information has been gathered from NGCSU programs; and additional information is being gathered from other institutions in the Georgia State System.  The committee is scheduled to meet again on September 20, 1999.

CEO Gessell proposed the following schedule of meetings for the Faculty Senate for the coming year:
            September 9, 1999
            October 14, 1999
            November 11, 1999
            January 13, 2000
            February 10, 2000
            March 9, 2000
            April 13, 2000
            June 22, 2000
With the exception of the June date, all meetings are set for the second thursday of the month.  It was felt that a later date in the month of June would be more convenient.
Senator Smith moved that the calendar of meetings be accepted.  Senator Spraker seconded the motion.  There was no discussion.  The motion carried.

Report from the Faculty Performance Evaluation Tool Revision Committee

The report and recommendations of the committee were acknowledged as officially received as of August 16, 1999.

Senator Tennis moved that recommendation #1 be accepted.  Senator Thurman seconded the motion.  Recommendation #1 read as follows:

1.    The committee recommends that the Academic Affairs office or the Faculty Senate develop and publish clear, detailed (to limited extent) baseline guidelines for faculty evaluation procedures in the three areas of focus - teaching, professional development and service.  Procedures should be developed which define how the faculty performance evaluation is to be used for purposes of salary increases, promotion, tenure, and retention.  The committee also concluded that schools, departments and/or programs should determine the need or desirability of developing school, department, or program specific guidelines in addition to the general guidelines.
        a.    Criteria should be established for each of the three areas of evaluation
               - teaching, service, and professional development.
        b.    The Deans and/or the Vice President for Academic Affairs should approve
               departmental policies for faculty evaluation.
        c.    Within the departmental policy for faculty evaluation a statement should
               be included that will ensure that each faculty member will receive and
               read the policy within a specified time period prior to the annual
               evaluation.

Discussion focused on the issue of developing both general and department/school/program specific guidelines.  Senator Woods pointed out that some activities, such as publication, are easier in some academic fields than in others.  Senator Tennis pointed out that some academic areas, such as fine arts and performance arts, may need performance-oriented guidelines very different from those appropriate to other academic areas.  Dr. Buckheister added that a difficulty associated with institution-wide guidelines is their very generality.  Such generality may provide less than sufficient guidance.  Further, the very generality of the institution-wide guidelines is directly due to the great variety of fields and areas to which they must apply.  The vote was called, and the motion carried.  Recommendation #1 will go to an ad hoc committee in future.

Senator Thurman moved to accept recommendation #2.  Senator Sisk seconded the motion.  Recommendation #2 read as follows:

2.    The committee recommends that the faculty evaluation form be modified with respect to the use of the categories "long-term value to the institution" and "collegiality."  This item should be removed from the three locations in which it currently resides (Teaching, Professional Development, and Service) and placed as a separate category (a fourth category) since it impacts all areas.  It should not be accorded a percentage value.  Instead, it should be treated as a "pass-fail" issue.  If the decision is "fail," then a clear statement justifying this decision must be made.  Non-tenured faculty should be given guidance by their department head to help them correct difficulties and tenured faculty should be given the opportunity to correct problems developmentally.

Senator Smith argued for the removal of the terms entirely, arguing that they are too subjective.  Senator Weinberg then made a motion to amend the recommendation by placing a period after "in which it currently resides," and deleting the remainder of the recommendation.  Senator Patten seconded the motion.  In the ensuing discussion, Senator Weinberg, speaking in support of the amendment, pointed out that disagreements, even heated disagreements, can and do occur between members of the university and such diametrical positions may both be supported by good reasons.  Senator Barnett voiced the view that the evaluation process is, itself, largely subjective.  Senator Woods pointed out that these criteria are used in the decision-making process for tenure, promotion, and retention, and, thus, must be a part of the evaluation tool.  Senator Corotto raised the question of what is meant by "long-term value to the institution."  Senator Thurman reminded the members that recommendation #1 serves to help define and clarify all criteria for evaluative purposes.  Senator Patten suggested that the institution ought to avoid "obviously" subjective criteria.  Senator Temples pointed out that issues of disruptive and/or non-compliant behavior are valid criteria in the workplace.  Acting VP-AA Buckheister then pointed out that "collegiality" will always be a criterion for evaluative purposes and, therefore, must be in the evaluation tool or we "default" on recommendation #1.

The vote on the motion to amend was called.  The motion failed.

Senator Sisk suggested that something other than "pass/fail" be applied to the criteria of collegiality and long-term value to the institution.  The vote on recommendation #2 was called, the motion carried.

Senator Thurman moved that recommendation #3 be accepted.  Senator Sisk seconded.  Recommendation #3 read as follows:

3.    The committee recommends that the period of time included in the annual performance evaluation be extended to three years.  Thus, each year department heads would look at a three year time frame for faculty evaluation.

In the discussion, Senator Smith pointed out that this would prolong rewards garnered from any exceptional activity (e.g., writing a textbook) but would also prolong the punishment resulting from a less active year.  Senator Sisk suggested that department heads would look at the whole picture and average things out.  Senator Link suggested that the evaluator could be prejudiced by the history of the evaluee and overlook a drop in activity.  Senator Tennis raised the question of whether the time-frame could be kept at a one year limit and still provide full credit for the evaluee.  Senator Corotto pointed out that limiting the time-frame to one year does not eliminate the problem of past performance prejudicing the evaluator.  Senator Carroll-Cobb cautioned against "robbing Peter to pay Paul."  Senator Link responded that writing a book or engaging in some other exceptional academic activity isn't robbing one for the other.

The vote was called.  The motion failed.

Senator Sisk moved that recommendation #4 be accepted.  Senator Smith seconded the motion.  Recommendation #4 read as follows:

4.    The committee proposes that a fraction of the money allocated for salary increases be placed in the hands of the deans, or the deans and the Vice President for Academic Affairs, to allocate based on performance.

In the following discussion, Senator Corotto, speaking in support of the recommendation, suggested it was a good compromise.  Senator Woods expressed the position that it was a good, general concept.  Senator Link pointed out that departments vary greatly in size and, thus, the recommendation would lead to greater differences in how much each department would have to work with.  He argued that no department will voluntarily give up some of its funding and, thereby, judge itself second-rate.  Senator Link argued in favor of leaving things as they are and allowing deans to use their own funding as sources for special rewards.  CEO Gessell pointed out that the issues of merit-pay and the supposed requirement of bell-curves for intra-departmental evaluations had become conflated and need to be separated.  Senator Weinberg raised the question of the effect the recommendation would have regarding "strong and weak departments."  Senator Woods pointed out that the distribution by deans is not limited to a department versus department basis.  Senator Thurman questioned whether compensation decisions should be left in the hands of department heads only, or shared amongst heads, deans, and the VP-AA.

The vote was called.  The recommendation failed.

Senator Thurman moved for the acceptance of recommendation #5.  Senator Skelly seconded the motion.  Recommendation #5 read as follows:

5.    The committee recommends that department heads be given the authority, with the approval of the Vice President for Academic Affairs, to modify the percentages allocated on the Annual Faculty Performance Evaluation in the areas of teaching, service, and professional development according to each faculty member's specific work assignment.

There being no discussion, the vote was called.  The motion carried.

Senator Stuart moved that recommendation #6 be accepted.  Senator Thurman seconded the motion.  Recommendation #6 read as follows:

6.    The committee recommends (as a possible corollary for #5) that North Georgia should recognize that faculty interests, experiences and skills change over time and faculty roles and our system of evaluating and rewarding faculty should reflect those changes.  We should allow department heads, in consultation with senior faculty, determine how to best utilize those faculty to serve the needs of the department, school, or University.  Such changes should be reflected in the evaluation of such faculty.

In the following discussion, Senator Skelly questioned how recommendation #6 differed from #5.  Senator Thurman explained that recommendation #6 deals with faculty members near retirement.  Senator Patten inquired as to what "senior faculty" means.  Senator Thurman responded that it may refer to either age or years of service to the institution.  Senator Sisk suggested that, regardless of one's length of service, the job still needs to be done.  Acting VP-AA Buckheister cautioned the senate not to lose sight of the university's mission and pointed out that evaluations should be made in terms of that mission.  Senator Link expressed the view that the recommendation was unclear as to whom "those faculty" referred.

The vote was called.  The motion failed.

Senator Barnett moved that recommendation #7 be accepted.  Senator Weinberg seconded the motion.  Recommendation #7 read as follows:

7.    The committee recommends that procedures be developed or clarified regarding the faculty response to her or his evaluation.

There was no discussion.  The vote was called.  The motion carried.

Senator Spraker moved that recommendation #8 be accepted.  Senator Stahl seconded the motion.  Recommendation # 8 read as follows:

8.    The committee recommends that the Senate investigate the normal distribution "requirement" of the Board of Regents for salary increses.  We should eliminate the normal distribution requirement if one actually exists.  However, the committee firmly affirms that there should be some sort of a distribution range for salary increases.

Senator Link moved to divide the recommendation into two parts.  The first part to consist only of the first sentence.  Senator Spraker seconded the motion.  The vote on the motion to divide was called, and the motion to divide carried.

During discussion of the first part of the recommendation, Senator Weinberg pointed out that the local chapter of AAUP had already investigated the matter to some degree.  They found that the BOR, under Section 803.1402, in 1986 referred only to "merit," and that there was no mandate for a bell-shaped curve.  Senator Tennis pointed out that in 1984 salary increases were based on an equal distribution.

The vote on the first part of the recommendation was called.  The motion carried.

Senator Link moved to indefinitely postpone discussion on the second part of the recommendation.  Senator Woods seconded the motion to postpone.  The vote was called.  The motion to indefinitely postpone carried.

Senator Link moved that the session be adjourned.  Senator Spraker seconded.  The session was adjourned at 2:02 PM.
 

Respectfully submitted,
 
 
 
 

S.N. Wiedmann, Secretary
NGCSU Faculty Senate