FPPC Meeting Minutes September 6, 2000

Present: Beard, Bhushan, Campbell, Egger, Hatzenbuehler, Hitchcock, Jacobson,

Laquer, Lawson, Miller, Pumphrey, Ronald, Sato

Absent: All present

I. Minutes of August 23, 2000 were approved 11-0-0. Will forward to Faculty Senate

for approval.

II. Reports

A. Jacobson reported on 'Peer'-

B. Beard reported on 'substantive'-

III. Business

A. Periodic Professional Review (PPR)

1. The discussion with Dr. Lawson occupied the majority of the meeting. He

spoke on what the NASC was seeking and suggested a few directions the

FPPC might want to investigate revising the existing state-mandated

Annual/5-year PPR policies to meet NASC’s requirements and provide for a better environment for the faculty. Dr. Lawson wants to see the Council take their time and make the PPR Policy work for the faculty. He also went over some of the changes Utah State made to their policy that might be of use to the FPPC. A number of additional comments were made:

a. Provide for reviews that may lead to remediation and rewards, but do not

work against the faculty.

b. Develop a policy that consists of a set of standards or goals, not necessarily a set of procedures.

c. Administration’s responsibility is to insure that the implementing

procedures developed in each college to meet the final policy will result

in the University’s compliance with NASC standards.

2. The rest of the meeting focused on moving toward a consensus on which

direction to go with the Periodic Professional Review policy. The council

started to set the initial goal of changing the existing annual review policy into

a draft policy that meets NASC requirements. Beard had developed an initial

approach addressing the NASC issue by combining the existing annual review

language with NASC’s language. The comment was made that while this

initial approach would meet both state and NASC requirements, it would be

best not to use NASC language. The following goals were set:

a. Draft an alternative not using NASC wording, which keeps a near-identical

meaning as an improvement to the initial approach mentioned above.

b. Then augment such an initial acceptable policy to have remediation

language.

c. Next, provide for a reward system.

e. Special care must be taken to handle faculty that are not evaluated by

students such as those in the library.

Meeting Adjourned at 5:10 p.m.