USC Faculty Meeting
GENERAL FACULTY MEETING
The meeting was called to order in the Law School Auditorium at 2 PM
May 2, 1995
I. Correction and Approval of the Minutes.
The minutes of September 7, 1994 were approved as submitted.
minutes of the meeting of April 3, 1995 were approved with the
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
III. Reports of Officers
IIIA. Report of the President: President Palms
- The president expressed his pleasure with the number and quality
of the scholarship applicants.
- 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
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."
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.