Minutes
Faculty Senate Executive Committee
Emporia State University
3 October 2001

Members present: Keith, Landis, Moore, Schwenn, Starr, Webb, Wyatt
Members Absent: Harrell
Visitors: none

  1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order by President Moore at 2:05 in the KSN room.

  2. Approval of the Minutes: After some discussion the minutes of September 26 were approved with minor changes.

  3. Announcements:

    1. President of the Faculty Dwight Moore: Moore said that he had been asked about the evaluation of faculty with respect to general education. Schwenn stated the intent of this evaluation is not to evaluate instructors, rather that instructors should be clear on the objectives of their course and how these objectives fit into the general education scheme. It was asked whether the general education goals fit with the performance indicators. Schwenn responded in the affirmative. It was mentioned that the Gen Ed council will likely seek Senate approval of their evaluation plan. When this occurs the matter will be referred to Academic Affairs.
      There was expressed a concern about faculty not having sufficient input to Gen Ed planning. Landis asked where do the minutes of the Gen Ed Council go? To COCG, AA, and Schwenn was the response. Moore added that Senate has the right to review all actions of the Gen Ed Council. If there is concern about Gen Ed actions then the matter should be brought to the attention of a faculty senator. Landis asked about the increase of credit hours required by the proposed change in the analysis of fine arts requirement. Starr stated that the proposal has not yet been acted upon by Dean Black. Moore recommended a resolution rather than a bill may be the best way to address issues of concern over Gen Ed proposals. After some additional discussion, Moore suggested that we could ask Gen Ed to send a copy of any proposal to COCG or to the President of the Faculty at the same time that it is sent to the Dean. It was decided that Moore would write a letter to the Gen Ed Council requesting that the council send a copy of any proposal to the President of the Faculty.

    2. Vice President for Academic Affairs John Schwenn: Schwenn reported on the plan for making application to Regents' institutions uniform. He distributed a memorandum addressed to COCAO from Amanda Golbeck (Regents' staff) regarding the uniform application process. A year ago the BOR approved the goal to have a uniform application process. Modern technology will "deliver a customized application for each university while containing the common core of data elements. "When a student applies online to a Regents' institution, the information goes into a database and is stored. If the student later applies to another Regents' institution, then those data which are common to the applications of the two institutions will be applied automatically to the new application. The plan is to use the service provided by Collegenet which is already in use by ESU and KU. Moore noted that Collegenet is collecting a large database on prospective college students. He asked what the company is doing with that data. It was recommended that the question be put to Susan Brinkman. Schwenn added that the application fee is being raised from $25 to $30, the additional $5 will cover the vendor fee. "Community colleges, technical colleges, and area vocational schools- and perhaps also private colleges - will be encouraged to participate in this initiative." "The universities will continue the use of paper applications, with the expectation that eventually all applications will become electronic."
      Schwenn discussed the university's response to the BOR's questions regarding the PLAN program. The PLAN program and how it may affect ESU was discussed. He distributed a draft of the university's response which included the administration's response and the faculty response penned by Moore. Schwenn asked the committee to review the document and give feedback by the next morning. Wyatt remarked that the PLAN program doesn't recognize the importance of accumulation of knowledge within the program of learning. Taking courses in the appropriate sequence is important. Considering this it may not be possible for students after completing essentially 3 years of coursework at a community college then complete in one year the remaining courses required for their major. Schwenn mentioned that the community colleges are each preparing a response to a set of questions put to them by the BOR, and they are as a whole also preparing a response.
      There is a proposal that COCAO move its monthly meetings in order to better handle its business. Moore reported that COFSP is united in opposition to this proposal.

  4. Committee Reports:

    1. Committee on Campus Governance (Starr): Starr reported that President Schallenkamp wants to create an animal care and use committee. It will become a permanent committee. Thus far it has operated on an ad hoc basis. It was suggested to base the committee on the radiation safety committee that was created a couple years ago. Specifics of the committee were discussed. It was suggested also that the committee be modeled after the Human Subjects Committee. Moore indicated that usually animal use committees include a veterinarian, some humanities faculty, some science faculty and some psychology faculty. Moore asked whether it would be sufficient to determine the name, identify members, identify the charge. He recommended that COCG come up with guidelines for the committee and place these in the end of year COCG committee report. There remained some confusion as to who should establish the committee. Starr pointed out that Human Subjects does not fall under review by COCG but the radiation committee does. It was suggested that perhaps the committee should be established and appointed by the president. Wyatt added that there may be value in having a document which specifies under what conditions a committee falls under Senate review. It was asked who checks to see that these committees, which are federally mandated, are functioning properly. Radiation safety reports to VP Hauke. Human subjects reports to Dean Downs. The animal care and use committee might best report to Downs as well. Landis emphasized that these committees are required by federal law. Information about these committees should be included in the policy manual so that people know where to go for information.

    2. Academic Affairs (Webb): Webb reported that AA continues work on projects described in previous minutes.

    3. Faculty Affairs (Landis): Landis reported that FA will discuss further the bill that was brought to the Senate yesterday. He does not foresee any amendment to the bill. Confidentiality continues to be an issue of concern to members of FA.

  5. Items for Discussion:

    1. Chronic Low Performance: Keith raised the concern that there are cases on campus in which administrators are misusing the policy. The attempted applications of the policy are not consonant with the intent of the Senate which authored and passed the policy. The applications are also not in compliance with the explicit procedures of the policy. Once a faculty member is identified as someone who may potentially be labeled as a chronic low performer, the administration is obliged to work with the faculty member to help the person improve their performance.
      It was pointed out that departments had been asked to include reference to Chronic Low Performance in their FRC documents. Departments may be creating loose interpretation of the policy in these documents. It was suggested that this is an issue for the VPAA. The VPAA has to make sure that the FRC documents are consistent with current policy; and the department should specify procedures in their FRC documents. It was noted that it may occur that a department changes its mission focus. If it does then it must develop a way to deal with helping faculty to adapt to changes in the department's direction. Faculty who have developed in compliance with department direction must be protected when the department changes direction. Webb added that there needs to be a procedure for departments for defining their goals and how this will affect faculty already there. Moore added with respect to Chronic Low Performance that the chair needs to document the case carefully. Schwenn agreed. There was some discussion as to what would characterize a faculty who might identified as chronically low performing. Starr offered that sometimes faculty judged as lower performing are given the worst assignments, and thus are encouraged to see themselves as low performing. It was added that such faculty are encouraged to failure in this way. Thus identification as low performing becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. And therefore there is special need to work with the faculty member to help that person become more successful again. Landis added that if someone is a low performer, then by the time the second year comes around the VPAA and the dean should be aware of this and the VP should be involved in and knowing about steps taken at remediation with the faculty member. Webb strongly recommended the need for regular and rigorous review of faculty. Schwenn agreed that should happen every year. The concern was expressed that it is not happening. Cumulative additions and chair's letter do not represent a rigorous review. There is no self-evaluation process. This should also be done each year. Furthermore some people do a lot of service and get trapped into that. This can lead to low performance in other areas. There was discussion of the goal-setting that faculty should do each year. Moore recommended that this issue is brought up in chair training. There was also complaint that there is a lack of continuity from year to year in evaluation. Keith summarized some issues surrounding the Chronic Low Performance policy:
      • standards: what are the criteria of teaching, scholarship/creative performance & service that would lead to the identification of a faculty member as a low performer; is the bar being set too high?
      • departments in transition: when departments change their direction how are faculty helped to adapt?
      • notification: how are faculty notified? who else is notified?
      • development: how does the university from chair upward help the faculty member develop to be more successful again? What counts as sufficient progress?
      • attitude: the department should have the encouraging attitude that it wants the faculty member to be successful rather the challenging attitude that the faculty member must prove him- or herself.

  6. For the Good of the Executive Committee: none

  7. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 3:43.

Last updated on 15 October 2001.
Provide comments about the format to Dwight Moore at mooredwi@emporia.edu.
Return to the Minutes of the Faculty Senate.