FPPC Meeting Minutes May 3, 2000

 

PRESENT: Wilson, Laquer, Campbell, Beard, Horiuchi, Montgomery, Sato, Jacobson, Hatzenbuehler, Sieber, ABSENT: Lawson, Nunn

I.   Minutes of April 26 were approved 8-0-0 (y/n/a). (Hatzenbuehler, Sieber arrived after the minutes were approved).

II.  Reports

       A. Wilson reported that Faculty Senate had approved the FPPC Bylaws, the 'dating' Policy and the FPPC minutes.

B. Wilson reported that the Faculty Senate bylaws contain guidelines for circumstances whereby an issue is subject to a full faculty vote. There was some confusion as to who is included in "full-faculty."

III. Business

A.    Beard and Laquer were nominated and seconded for the Chair position for 2000-2001. A written ballot was solicited. Beard was elected for the FPPC Chair position beginning AF00.

B.    A time and day for the FPPC meetings was discussed. Wednesday at 3 pm was selected. The first meeting will be August 23, 2000 (in the College of Business, room to be announced).

C.    Wilson informed committee members that she would draft a letter to each unit director providing the committee members name and contact information to encourage communication between the unit and the FPPC representative particularly for the upcoming PTR discussions.

  1. The remainder of the meeting focused on discussions of a process that FPPC could use to approach the post-tenure review policy task (PTR). The discussion revolved around what the policy should contain and how to approach drafting/revising a policy. The following is an itemized summary of issues that remain to be addressed:

1.     Describe and define the term 'substantive.'

2.     Define the term 'peer' if necessary.

3.     Include a reward component.

4.     Include a remediation component.

5.     Address and meet the 3yr requirement.

6.     Address the issue of potential redundancy or overlap with current annual review policies and processes.

7.     Determine if guidelines should be included for unit development of the process for implementing the policy.

8.     Review the ISU policies on PTR and annual reviews to determine what deficiencies ISU Policies have as compared to accreditation requirements of SBOE and NASC.

9.     Determine if there is a differentiation in annual review policy of tenured faculty compared to non-tenured faculty. If there is no such distinction, determine if one is necessary in order simplify or minimize workload concerns of implementing multiple review policies.

E. Beard requested that all new and returning FPPC members review the PTR documentation available specifically the AAHE Mini-Grant Committee information and the ISU policies. He also requested that committee members work on drafting a policy based on their vision.

Meeting Adjourned: 1:50 pm