FPPC Meeting
Minutes April 26, 2000
PRESENT: Wilson, Laquer, Campbell,
Beard, Horiuchi, Montgomery, Sato, Jacobson, Hatzenbuehler, Sieber, Lawson EXCUSED: Nunn
I. Minutes of April 5 were approved 8-0-0
(y/n/a). (Hatzenbuehler, Sieber and Lawson arrived after the minutes were
approved)
II. Reports
A. Wilson reported that the agenda for the final FPPC
meeting this year (May 3, 2000) would include selection of a Chair and of a
meeting time and day for next year.
B. Wilson reported on the new FPPC
members selected to start next fall as elected by Faculty Senate.
III. Business
A.
Members of the AAHE Mini-Grant Committee were introduced.
B.
The remainder of the meeting focused on discussions of the Post-tenure Review
(PTR).
1.
The
Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges (NASC) requires that faculty be
'subject to a subtantive performance evaluation and review' on a 3-year
rotation. This is more frequent than the State Board of Education (SBOE)
requirement of a five-year frequency (as our current ISU policy states). Having
a 3-yr cycle should satisfy both organizations.
2.
ISU
will be re-evaluated by NASC in 2005, so ideally a PTR policy should be created
within the next two years to have time for implementation and outcomes prior to
the next evaluation.
3.
The
current ISU policy does not require "substantive peer review", an
apparent deficiency that will need to be addressed to satisfy NASC.
4.
There
was extensive discussion regarding the current "substantive" annual
reviews that most units require and the role of such reviews in the PTR
process.
a.
Annual
review policy and procedures for each unit on campus can be provided by the
AAHE Mini-Grant Committee but the FPPC may wish to re-solicit (through the AAHE
Mini-Grant Committee membership) for current policies.
b.
There
has been no specific distinction between annual review for tenure-track faculty
vs. tenured faculty. This may be an issue if annual reviews can be used toward
fulfilling a PTR.
5.
There
was discussion regarding the need to include (invoke) positive aspects or
results from the PTR. Having a reward system, identifying the rewards, defining
the reward system and where/whom to burden with providing the rewards.
6.
The
need for identifying and describing 'remediation' was discussed. If the PTR
purpose is to identify deficiencies, then a PTR should include suggestion for a
course of action and provision of resources to accomplish remediation. It
appears that NASC intends that PTR include provision of assistance to alleviate
deficiencies.
7.
If
current PTR policies include a 'ballot-peer review' the results of which
'trigger' a substantive review- does this fulfill (at least in part) the
requirements? {Again, 'substantive' and 'peer' will need to be defined}.
8.
It
was also discussed that the FPPC must create a policy (either new or
modification of the current one) that is not restrictive to any unit or
individual. Therefore, the policy may also need wording to guide each unit
toward creating a more detailed policy specific to that unit's function
(similar to the policies defining the tenure and promotion process).
9.
The
PTR should address faculty development rather than progression (the promotion
and tenure policies cover the aspects of progression), and so should be
distinct and non-restrictive in this purpose.
Meeting
Adjourned:
2:10 pm