Call to Order
C.E.O. Jimmy Woods called the August 21, 2003 faculty senate meeting to order at 12:30 PM.
Senators in attendance: Biddy, V.P.A.A. Buckhiester, Chastain, Friedman, Fuller, Gaillard, Ghafarian, Gilbert, Hislope, Irwin, Lewis, Lu, Mace, Mann, Morris, Pomphile, Reiselt, Powell, Reeves, Sampson, Schaffer, Stucke, Sumners, Wiedmann, Woods
Senators excused: President Hansford, Combier
Senators absent: Benton, Dare, Olsen, Smith
Guests: Dr. Linda Roberts-Betsch
Minutes of June 12th, 2003
C.E.O. Woods submitted the minutes of the June 12th meeting for approval and called for any additions or corrections. There being none, R. Fuller moved to accept the minutes. A Stucke seconded, and the minutes were approved.
C.E.O.'s report: Dr. Jimmy Woods
The committee assignments for this year are on the senate website. The designated senator should call the first meeting as soon as possible.
New business: presented by Dr. Jimmy Woods
The group of faculty bringing the following proposal forward wish to remain anonymous. Their proposal for a change to the promotion and tenure guidelines calls for two changes:
Section 4.5 Promotion and Tenure
3. The documentation file contains supporting documentation such as published materials, abstracts, evidence of creative work, letters of support from no more than tree individuals who know the candidate's academic work, annual performance evaluations, acknowledgments of awards, etc. Publications must be "in hand," or an acceptance letter that is verifiable must be presented as evidence. Tabbed and labeled dividers should be…
4. In addition to the dossier and the documentation file, the applicant's personnel file shall be made available to the promotion and tenure committees and shall play an active role in their decision making process.
Point three is being brought forward to determine what we mean by a publication in our vita. R. Fuller moved to adopt point 3. D. Morris seconded the motion. In discussion, M. Gilbert asked if it was really clearer what "in-hand" means. Gilbert made a motion for a friendly amendment. Point 3 will read, "Publications must be in the documentation section or an acceptance letter that is verifiable must be presented as evidence". The motion carried.
Point four. Questions were asked as to why the committee would want to see a personnel file. C.E.O. Woods suggested that there are problems that happen between colleagues that may only be documented in a personnel file. The group who brought this point forward want this line in order to ask for a personnel file without "fear of reprisal".
Chastain asked for clarification on what personnel file was being asked for. There are departmental files and other files on campus. Woods thinks it is human resources files.
Wiedmann believes that "shall be made available" sounds like a mandate. Woods does not see it as a mandate, however, "Shall play an active role" is different.
Wiedmann is concerned that it may not be appropriate for the committee to see some of the information in the files.
Pomphile questioned who decides who gets to see the file. Powell asked if there are system-wide rules? V.P.A.A. Buckhiester does not think so. As tax payers we can make an open records request, however, this is not the question. The question is does the senate want to endorse the use of these files in promotion/tenure situations.
To allow further discussion, M. Gilbert moved to amend section 3 item 4 to "In addition to the dossier and the documentation file, the applicant's personnel file may be made available to the promotion and tenure committees by request" (leaving out "…and shall play an active role in the decision making process). S. Irwin seconded the motion.
Discussion. C. Powell stated that if the personnel file is requested on one person and they are denied tenure but the next person gets tenure without their personnel file having been requested then we may have a problem.
Woods said collegiality may play a part.
Chastain questioned the definition of personnel file. She made a friendly amendment to make “file” plural.
R. Fuller stated that the GA open records act permits us to use the files, but he opposes this amendment because it encourages using the files and he does not want to see others’ files. V.P.A.A. Buckhiester added that any medical records and social security information are not included in the GA open records act.
Pomphile questioned what is the purpose of having a file if it is not used for anything. There was no reply to her question.
Schaffer made the point that we need to know what we are looking for and what the intentions were of the people bringing this forward.
Gilbert stated that there is a representative from the department or school that can readily inform the promption/tenure committee. If there is hostility then the committee could look at the file. C. Powell said the non-present faculty member might not know what has been put in the file. Gilbert feels if the committee needs more information they should get it. We should vote it down but let the people who brought it forward let us know what they are looking for.
B. Friedman called the question. Wiedmann seconded the motion, ending discussion on the matter. The motion to call the question passed. The proposal failed.
Irwin asked if this will be coming back to the senate. C.E.O. Woods stated that he will call the people who brought it forward to see if they want to clarify it for the senate.
Announcements: There were no announcements.
Adjournment: C.E.O. Woods adjourned the meeting at 12:55 PM.
Respectfully submitted, Kristi Hislope (in the absence of Secretary Combier)