USC Faculty Meeting
May 1995


GENERAL FACULTY MEETING
May 2, 1995

The meeting was called to order in the Law School Auditorium at 2 PM by
President Palms

I. Correction and Approval of the Minutes.

The minutes of September 7, 1994 were approved as submitted.
The minutes of the meeting of April 3, 1995 were approved with the following corrections.
On page 24, Recommendation 1, first paragraph, line 4: add the word generally so it reads "because it is generally recognized..."
On page 24, Recommendation 1, first paragraph, line 6: should read "...achievements or promise..."
On page 24, Recommendation 1, first paragraph, line 8: change "...candidate's..." to "...candidates'..."
On page 24, the second paragraph of recommendation I, third line from the bottom: add a comma so it reads "...service shall be thoroughly documented, in compliance with UCTP..."

II. Annual Faculty Recognition: Provost Moeser

The Provost gave certificates to emeritus faculty and awards for teaching and research. The list is attached at the end of these minutes.

III. Reports of Officers

IIIA. Report of the President: President Palms

  1. The president expressed his pleasure with the number and quality of the scholarship applicants.
  2. The university has made progress in getting the business community behind support for education in K through Ph.D..

IIIB. Report of the Provost: Provost Moeser, no report

IV, Reports of Committees & V. Old Business: None

VI. New Business

The motion, included in the minutes, by Charles Tucker (SOCY) was moved and seconded. A set of speakers, coordinated by Rick Stephens (JOUR), chair of the UCTP spoke against the motion. They argues that the section of the faculty manual referred to in Prof. TuckerŐs motion was the enabling act that led to the remaining sections of the Tenure and Promotion Rules as they appeared in the Faculty manual. They argued that the "Goldenrod" materials prepared and distributed by the UCTP were guides rather than the guidelines referred to in the Faculty Manual. Prof. Tucker argued that there were sections of the "Goldenrod" materials that set standards; however, he had no examples to present. He referred to his letter to the USC Times, which stated that the UCTP actually decided who is promoted and who is tenured. Sally Weinrich (NURS) moved the previous question. The question was called and debate was stopped. The motion by Prof. Tucker was defeated.

VII. GOOD OF THE ORDER

Elton Wedlock (LAWS) suggested that the lead paragraph of the Tenure and Promotion section of the Faculty Manual be modified to make clear that the goldenrod book is an interpretive guide and style manual and that the unit criteria control.

Paul Higgins (SOCY) asked the Provost about his written memo requiring written student evaluations. He asked how this memo follows from the Faculty Manual.

The Provost responded

As you know in the Faculty Manual there is a requirement for annual evaluation of all members of the faculty. We have in fact I want to start with that because and I think that this is something that we need to be both sensitive to and very accountable to as a faculty and as a university. Not just because it is a requirement in our faculty manual although that is reason enough. But I think in this particular age where the General Assembly is looking over our shoulder and threatening micro management of the University, threatening legislation that could discontinue tenure that responsibility on our part is essential. We have taken the position that department chairs cannot appropriately evaluate faculty if they don't have a complete data base with regard to the quality of teaching. Obviously this is not the only component in the annual evaluation of faculty. But teaching, research, scholarship and service being the three criteria by which all evaluation is done. I felt that it was essential that the ongoing evaluation of teaching be a part of the data base that would be available to department chairs or in some cases to select committees within departments who do those evaluations. It is for the use at the unit.
The Provost further stated that the Faculty Manual does not require written student evaluations; however, there are a number of policies in the Policy and Procedures Manual and policies can be created by the Board of Trustees or by the President.
Charles Mack (ARTH) said that the
"point is though that the requirement for faculty evaluations is part of the Faculty Manual's requirement for evaluations of every faculty member. It is simply part of that."

VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS

The President's reception in honor of the faculty awards will be held after the meeting and the annual meeting of the Faculty House members starts at 5 PM to be followed by a reception.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 4 PM.