Call to Order
The Faculty Senate of North Georgia College & State University
met on Thursday, September 14, 2000. The session was called to order
by CEO Woods at 12:30 PM. President Hansford and VPAA Buckhiester
were in attendance. Senators attending were as follows: M.
Anthony, T. Barnett, K. Biddy, P. Bielec, N. Campbell, C. Chastain, D.
Cronic, L. Delargy, B. Friedman, S. Gannaway, B. Glass, J. Jones, I. Kokkala,
R. Larkin, E. Link, V. McCard,H. Margeson, B. Morris,
J. O'Neal, K. Sisk, T. Temples, C. Weinberg, M. Westerfield, S. Wiedmann,
S. Williams, J. Woods. Senator Spraker was excused. Senator
Herbert was absent. Guests present were Dr. Tom Fox, Dr. Robert Fuller,
and Dr. Linda Roberts-Betsch.
Minutes of the August 31, 2000, Meeting
CEO Woods submitted the minutes of the August 31, 2000, meeting with
the following corrections and clarification. Senator Bielec was present
at the meeting but had simply failed to initial the roll. Under "Call
to Order," CEO Woods asked that the phrase "attended in place of" be changed
to read "attended at the request of." He stated that he would explain
the reasoning behind the correction in his CEO's Report. Under "Old
Business," the sentence "VPAA Buckhiester delayed forwarding the
recommendations to President Hansford to give the Ad Hoc Committee
the opportunity to act on them." is changed to read "Former CEO Gessell
delayed forwarding the recommendations to President Hansford to give the
Ad Hoc Committee the opportunity to act on them." The last sentence
in the same paragraph also was corrected. The portion reading "VPAA
Buckhiester waited until now to return to the Senate for a clarification
of the 'or'." is changed to read "VPAA Buckhiester
returned now to the Senate for clarification." Finally, at the
end of "New Business," the year "2001-2002" is corrected to read "2001."
CEO Woods asked if there were any further corrections or additions.
There being none, Senator Friedman moved that the minutes so corrected
and clarified be accepted. Senator Margeson seconded the motion.
The motion carried.
President's Report
President Hansford began his report to the Senate with an update concerning
upcoming changes in health care plans available to NGCSU employees.
He announced that all updated information is available on the NGCSU website.
He went on to explain that the information available at the present time
is general in character. He expressed a hope that detailed information
will be forthcoming over the next month or so. He informed the Senate
that the new PPO Plan and proposed changes in the
current indemnity plan were scheduled to be brought before the Board
of Regents and approved the previous day. He reiterated that
the open-enrollment period for changes in health care coverage will run
from October 16th to November 16th. He explained that, in the event
an employee does not specify which form of coverage is desired, the employee
will automatically be enrolled in the PPO Plan. He went on to say
that the University's website contains a link to the state's website concerning
the plans. President Hansford characterized the two plans as very
similar but not identical. Although premium rates have not yet been
set for the PPO Plan, it is known that the indemnity plan will experience
a large premium increase. It is expected that the premium for the
PPO Plan will be in the current premium range of the indemnity plan.
President Hansford then called for questions from the Senate. Senator Barnett inquired if current coverage would run until January 1, 2001. President Hansford stated that was his understanding.
President Hansford, in response to an inquiry made at the previous Senate meeting by Senator Weinberg, reported that the walking/jogging trail being installed will be about 3/4 of a mile in length, not the 3 miles the President had earlier reported. The trail will be gravel and will connect to the concrete walkway by the ball field.
A question was raised concerning a stated goal in the current Strategic Plan. Specifically, a stated goal involves participation in a system-wide survey regarding faculty salaries. President Hansford was asked if any progress had been made on this point. President Hansford replied that he is not aware of any such system-wide survey at this time. He went on to point out that the Strategic Plan went into effect on July 1, 2000, so we are only a little over two months into the period covered by the plan.
VPAA Buckhiester explained that salary information recently reported in a number of newspaper articles is based on data covering the Southern states; it is not USG system-wide data.
The question was raised whether the funding formula was a fixed formula. In other words, the inquiry concerned whether the funds budgeted to the University contained an already-fixed amount for salary or whether the portion used for salaries was determined by the University. President Hansford explained that the budget for salaries is a fixed amount as are the amounts budgeted for all other areas within the budget. The President went on to explain that the University can request specific, additional money at budget hearings. Such hearings, however, have not been held due to the lack of available money.
Unfinished Business
Dean Tom Fox brought to the Senate the Ad Hoc Evaluation Committee
Report. The committee made the following recommendations:
A question was raised concerning how the threshold would be set. Would the threshold be set department by department? Dean Fox explained that the threshold would be set collaboratively by each department and the institution. He went on to point out that this was not intended to serve as a means to produce cost-of-living increases.
Another question raised concerned the potential for such an approach
to lead to a "race to the bottom." In other words, might not some
faculty be tempted to set deliberately low expectations to insure that
the faculty member would qualify for the threshold money? Senator
Chastain and Dr. Brian Mann, both members of the committee, explained that
the requirements delimiting the three tiers (minimum expected threshold,
above the threshold, below the threshold) would require
approval of a faculty member's respective Dean.
Dean Fox noted that sweeping changes in how raises are determined cannot be made due to the given nature of the fixed funding mechanism and the legislative requirement for "merit raises" only.
Senator Wiedmann inquired if the recommendations were to be treated separately. CEO Woods pointed out that the committee's report says each is a motion. As recommendations coming from a committee no seconds were needed. Dean Fox then moved that the Senate accept the committee's recommendation to eliminate the 1-7 scale and curved ranking, and replace both with a minimum expectation threshold.
Senator Kokkala pointed out that the two recommendations are obviously linked. Dean Fox responded that the first recommendation can be enacted without the second. Senator Margeson asked for the justification for eliminating the 1-7 scale. Dean Fox pointed out that the current evaluation tool, in addition to the 1-7 scale, also calls for the evaluation of the faculty member as above average, average, and below average. Dr. Brian Mann explained to the Senate that the committee had held a series of fora for faculty. He reported that the main point made by numerous faculty members at the fora involved the concern that faculty members thought they suffered by comparison with a "stellar" individual within their department. Their other great concern was that the current method pits faculty members against one another within each department.
The question was asked if "stellar" individuals shouldn't receive a larger increase. In other words, isn't it unfair for "stellar" individuals to receive nothing more than the average performance receives? It was also suggested that the recommendation merely replaces a 1-7 scale with a 1-3 scale in another form.
Dean Fox pointed out that the first recommendation called only for the elimination of the 1-7 scale; the first recommendation says nothing about the disbursement of salary money. He also pointed out that the new method being recommended is not a 3 point scale since the upper tier is potentially multi-level.
Senator Weinberg suggested that the mandated merit approach is insulting to faculty members. He argued that the proposed change at least moderates the current law and should reduce friction between faculty members. Senator Cronic, also speaking in support of the recommendation, stated that the 1-7 method seems fairly arbitrary. "What's the difference between 3 and 4?" Senator McCard, in support of the recommendation, pointed out that a performance which receives, for example, a 7 one year may find that the same level of performance may receive only a 6 another year.
The question was called, and the motion to accept the committee's first recommendation carried.
Discussion next turned to the committee's second recommendation; namely, that a three-tier approach be used with tiered requirements set collaboratively by the faculty member and her/his department chair. The recommendation also called for distribution of merit money to be tied to the three-tier approach.
Senator Sisk pointed out that the recommendation does not answer the
largest question; namely, what percentage of merit money would be distributed
to each tier. Senator O'Neal inquired which tier would involve equal
distribution of the percentage allocated to the tier as a whole.
Dean Fox explained that those faculty members meeting the minimum threshold
(but not exceeding it) would all share equally in the money apportioned
to that tier. Senator Kokkala inquired whether the money
apportioned for the upper tier would be divided equally or unequally
amongst those qualifying for that tier. Dean Fox responded that department
chairs will do what they do now. Some in the upper tier would receive
more than others. He went on to stress to the Senate that the change
being recommended is primarily semantic. Instead of average, below
average, and above average, the evaluation tool would refer to meeting
the threshold, not meeting the threshold, and exceeding the
threshold.
Senator McCard wondered if faculty members would be trying, mainly,
to meet the threshold set by the department and institution or would they
be trying to meet goals set by each faculty member. Dean Fox explained,
again, that minimum expectations would be set by the department and the
institution. Senator Gannaway suggested that the interests of the
department and those of the institution may vary in terms of preference
from year to year. She gave, as an example, a year in
which a department is being reviewed for purposes of accreditation
would probably require department interests to take priority. Senator
Friedman pointed out that the system being proposed could result in evaluations
based on a relatively small set of goals. This, in turn, could result
in goal displacement. Dean Fox responded that the committee was aware
of this potential problem. As a result, the committee's recommendations
include a recommendation that department chairs all receive
training in the area of goal-setting to avoid goal displacement.
CEO Woods pointed out that the recommendation coming from the committee
does not specify how goals will be set. Senator Larkin offered the
opinion that this new process will not eliminate dissension and friction
amongst colleagues. Senator Weinberg reminded the Senate that what
was needed was the development of an association with sufficient political
impact to mandate cost-of-living raises. Senator Friedman inquired
whether the recommendation would allow re-negotiation during the evaluation
period. Dean Fox replied that, although the committee favors allowing
re-negotiation during the evaluation period, it was not part of the recommendation.
VPAA Buckhiester expressed concern over the change in language. He
reminded the Senate that the evaluation tool results go on file in the
Central Office, and, legally, all raises are required to be "merit raises."
Senator Link suggested that the recommendation could have "potentially
disastrous" results. He gave, as an example, the case in which a
faculty member sets the goal of publishing one article, has an article
accepted for publication, but then, for reasons entirely beyond the faculty
member's control, publication is delayed beyond the evaluation period.
Dr. Brian Mann responded by explaining that the spirit behind the
recommendation was to shift goal-setting for purposes of evaluation
to an earlier point in time.
Senator Sisk recommended that the Senators take the issue back to their faculty constituents before making a decision. Senator Sisk moved that the question be postponed to the October Senate meeting. Senator Barnett seconded the motion to postpone. The motion to postpone carried 16 to 9.
Senator Friedman informed the Senate that the Committee on Committees
recommended the following changes or additions in committee assignments
requiring the appointee be a Senator:
Loretta Delargy
is appointed to the Academic Review Committee
Noel Campbell
is appointed to the Admissions Committee
Major Joshua
Jones is appointed to the Discipline Committee
Further, recommended appointments not designated for members of the
Faculty Senate are:
Doris Mohr replaces
Kim Melton on the Discipline Committee
Marina Slemmons
is appointed to the Health Committee
The recommendations were approved.
Senator Friedman also asked all interim chairs of standing committees (all members of the Senate) to call the first meeting of their respective committees for the purpose of electing permanent chairs.
CEO's Report
CEO Woods welcomed new Senator Catherine Chastain. Senator Chastain
was elected as a Senator-at-Large to fill the position left empty by the
retirement of Dr. Gay Tennis.
The CEO went on to invite all the Senators to visit the Senate web page, and to share with him any suggestions or point out any errors they find.
CEO Woods next reported that he had received, since June, 6 notices from various Senators saying that "so and so will attend the meeting for me." He has reviewed the By Laws and they contain no provision for proxy attendance. Senate meetings are open meetings and, thus, anyone is free to attend. Such guests, however, may not speak unless they have requested speaking privileges 10 days prior to the meeting. Further, the granting of speaking privileges to a guest still does not empower such a guest to vote. The By Laws simply do not allow proxy voting.
New Business and Announcements
CEO Woods announced that he had received no requests to place any items
on the agenda under New Business. He called for announcements.
There being none, the meeting was adjourned at 1:45 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
S.N. Wiedmann, Secretary
NGCSU Faculty Senate