GENERAL FACULTY MEETING
APRIL 28, 1998
I. Call to Order.
PRESIDENT PALMS - I would like to welcome you to the spring 1998 meeting of the University Faculty.
II. Correction and Approval of General Faculty Minutes.
PRESIDENT PALMS - You have received a copy of the minutes of the September meeting. Are there any corrections or additions to the minutes? Hearing none, they stand approved as circulated.
II. Report of the President.
I will be brief as I hope we have a good meeting here on some important issues. First of all, I want to congratulate you for the year. You continue to make us look good as exemplified by the vote of confidence by some really major gifts that have come in. Thursday evening, we will be celebrating the public aspect of our campaign with some announcements as to how well we are doing. I wanted to thank you for the hard work that you are doing and the help that you have given us with all of the nurturing and cultivating of our prospects. You will hear more details about that in the next month or so.
We have graduation beginning May 12. I have listened to 77 graduation addresses since I have been here, and I am about to hear 12 more. But you should be proud of the fact that we will be awarding 396 associate degrees, 2,196 bachelor degrees, 1,172 master's degrees, 64 medical degrees, 220 law degrees and 77 doctoral degrees. If there are any questions about what the faculty is doing, I think these results speak for themselves.
We have been successful once again in our scholarship programs with our graduating seniors and some of our juniors. Are you going to announce those? Okay, well, we had three Goldwaters and a number of National Science Foundation award winners and a number of Rotary winners. We had a Truman scholar this year once again. We had one about a year and a half ago, the only institution in the state that has had one. Our Carolina Scholars Program is going national this year and we hoped to have five National Carolina Scholars. We brought a number of finalists here, enough we thought, to get five. We have eight already, with three offers still out. So, we could have doubled the amount that we had hoped for. That is a good yield. These students can go anywhere in the country. They have those kinds of credentials. Again, it is a great vote of confidence that these students have chosen to come here. A donation was announced prematurely by a reporter who has a small place in Kiawah where this major donor also has a 16,000 square foot home. It is indeed a $20 million gift coming from Robert McNair and his wife, Janice. He was a graduate here in 1958. The President of his class. No one had contacted him in 23 years, I think, and we had a lead. He is doing is he is endowing the McNair Scholarship Program which will be similar to the Mooreheads in Chapel Hill and the Jeffersons in Virginia. This will result in eight out-of-state Carolina Scholars getting full scholarships to the University of South Carolina. He is not here but let's give him a hand.
We had a wonderful faculty authors' dinner at the house the other night. During the period 1 July 1996 to December 1997, we had 90 books published by our faculty and in the previous three years we only had 100. So, in one year, we had 90 books published by the faculty which is a very, very good year.
I hope you will take a copy of the annual report that just came out today with you on the way out. Again it is a small example of the successful programs that you are engaged in and I hope you will share that. If you need a copy for somebody we will be glad to get you those. It reviews our 10 goals trying to get us to AAU status and how we are doing on those 10 goals. I think you will enjoy reading about that. I also want to refer you to the article in this morning's front page of the The State newspaper.
We have a Horseshoe Society luncheon on Thursday before the evening event where we are going to recognize those donors who have given over $100,000. We will also have the McNair Scholarship announcement. He will be in town with his wife, Janice, and will stay through that luncheon and announcement afterwards and then meet briefly with the National Advisory Council to the campaign. He has some relationship with horses at the Kentucky Derby which is why he can't stay for the evening. I think that is all the announcements I am going to make and I will call the Provost for his announcements on the award ceremony.
Thank you very much, President Palms. I am going to be very brief because this is my favorite meeting where I get to recognize faculty and give out awards. I wanted to report to you with respect to deans' searches. We have appointed a dean in Public Health, Harris Pastides who is currently a department chair at the University of Massachusetts - Amherst. He will be joining us this summer. I just had lunch with a prospective dean of the College of Science and Math who is here for the second time. He is Professor Gary Crawley from Michigan State University. He is a former dean of the Graduate School, former associate provost, a professor of physics and I have high hopes that we will bring that search to a close fairly soon. We still are working with the searches in the College of Liberal Arts and the College of Education. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the faculty this year who have been so active in many, many activities outside of your normal duties and that includes faculty who have served on search committees.
The President mentioned all of the students who have been awarded scholarships and fellowships. None of that would have happened, or certainly we would not have been as successful, if many, many faculty on the campus had not given of their time and efforts to serve on committees and to be involved with these students in terms of interviews, writing letters, sitting down and advising these students. It is incredibly gratifying to me to see the effort that so many faculty put into helping our students win these awards. At a reception recently we did honor the these faculty but I would like to tell you again how much I appreciate it.
If there are no questions I going to move directly to the awards. Are there any questions? Fine. Let's go to the awards.
First of all I would like to recognize the professors emeriti who are listed on the back of your program. I would like to call their names and ask those who are here to please stand and remain standing until I have called all the names and we can thank you appropriately at that time.
Edward H. Beardsley James G. Hilton
History Business Administration
Lewis G. Brierley David Lawrence
Journalism and Mass Communications Geological Sciences
Elizabeth Moore Bullard D. Bruce Marshall
Education Government and International Studies
Thomas H. Buxton James T. Myers
Education Government and International Studies
Donald Colquhoun Hilel B. Salomon
Geological Sciences History
William T. Drennen Herman E. Scheiblich
Robert Ehrlich John H. Spurgeon
Geological Sciences Physical
Rita M. Gardiol E. Fontelle Thompson
Spanish, Italian and Portuguese Biological Sciences
Gilbert R. Gredler Susie H. VanHuss
Psychology Business Administration
Roland E. Haynes John David Waugh
Robert V. Heckel Nancy T. Wolfe
Psychology Criminal Justice
The University has chosen two new Carolina Distinguished Professors and I would like the following individuals to stand and be recognized:
Professor Karl Heider
Professor Daniel L. Reger
Chemistry and Biochemistry
Now for the Ada B. Thomas Outstanding Faculty Advisor, I would ask Carl Shirley from Spanish, Italian and Portuguese to come forward please. As Carl is coming forward I would like to tell you about him. Carl is a professor in the Department of Spanish, Italian and Portuguese. He has been a dean's advisor for some 20 years in the College of Liberal Arts. He has frequently gone beyond the call of duty to help entering students adjust to the rigors of college life. Customarily other advisors send undecided majors to Professor Shirley because of his reputation for unfailing patience, kindness, and understanding. After talking with the students about their grades, their backgrounds, their hopes for the future Carl doesn't simply tell students how to enroll, he helps them do it. Then he reminds them that he will always be available to talk with them about their courses, their grades and their plans anytime that they need help. His advisees realize he means it. They do come back to him for mentoring. Carl, congratulations.
Next we have the Russell Research Award for Humanities and Social Sciences and I would like to ask Professor Harvey Starr, Government and International Studies, to come forward please. Harvey is a professor in the Department of Government and International Studies. Since his arrival in 1989, he has authored or coauthored 4 books; 3 new editions of his
textbook with Bruce Russett entitled World Politics - The Menu for Choice. He has also published 2 dozen articles and chapters. Harvey has continued his work on geopolitics, the diffusion of phenomena from conflict to democracy and the application of Geographical Information Systems. Harvey, congratulations.
For the Russell Research Award for Science, Mathematics and Engineering, I would ask Sarah Ann (Sally) Woodin to come forward please. I understand that Sarah is only used by Sally's mother. (Sally - only when she is mad.) Sally Woodin is a professor of Biological and Marine Sciences. Her areas of interest include marine benthic ecology, the dynamics of macrofauna, recruitment into sedimentary systems, biogenic disturbances and chemical ecology of infauna. Sally's Ph.D. thesis is a classic document in marine benthic ecology where she pioneered the use of experimental ecology in marine soft bottom habitats. She has made more creative contributions to our understanding of soft sediments than anyone. She has opened our eyes to the role of partial predation among seabed animals and helped open the area of chemically mediated interactions among seabed biota particularly those mediated by naturally produced halogenated hydrocarbons. Sally, congratulations.
The USC Educational Foundation Award for Health and Sciences. Could I ask Professor Thomas Chandler of Public Health to come forward please. Tom Chandler is an associate professor and chairman of Environmental Health Sciences. He is recognized nationally and internationally for his work in culturing large populations of miobenthic invertebrates in sediments in the laboratory. Prior to Tom's elucidation of this laboratory culturing technique, the ecology and behavior of the species had to be deduced from field studies. Tom Chandler has an impressive record of extramural funding and scholarship. Since 1990, he has authored or coauthored over 20 peer reviewed research papers and has made numerous presentations at national and international scientific meetings. He has attracted over $2 2 million dollars in research funding from agencies such as NSF, NOAA, and EPA. Tom, congratulations.
For the USC Educational Foundation Award for Humanities and Social Sciences, may I ask Paul MacKenzie, Department of History, to come forward please. Paul is an associate professor in the Department of History. He has earned an international reputation for his work as a published scholar. Paul has received may awards and fellowships along with grants. His book,
The Home Guard, based on extensive research in national and local archives in the United Kingdom, is the first full-length treatment of citizen force raised to defend Britain from Nazi invasion in 1940. The book has been called "the definite history of the Home Guard." Congratulations, Paul.
For the USC Educational Foundation Award for Professional Schools, may I ask Professor Ronald T. Farrar, Journalism and Mass Communications, to come forward. Ron is a professor and associate dean in the College of Journalism and Mass Communications. He joined the faculty in 1986 and is nationally recognized for the quality and consistency of his research in journalism history. His most recent publication effort is entitled, "Journalist to the World: The Story of Walter Williams," which is a biography of the founder of the study of journalism. He has also recently completed an advertising and public relations law textbook. In addition to his focus on historical and legal research, he has written an introductory mass communications text that is now in its second edition and has been adopted by more than 50 colleges and universities around the country. Congratulations, Ron.
The USC Educational Foundation Award for Science, Mathematics and Engineering, I would like to ask Lukasz Lebioda, Chemistry and Biochemistry come forward. Lukasz is professor in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry. He is known for his diverse achievements in structural chemistry, which includes studies of amides of biological importance, to the novel structures of organometallic complexes and most importantly to large biological molecules. He found an unusual and unexpected metal-ion environment in the protein that is critical for the catalytic process. This study was published in "Science" magazine. In another protein structure, he has shown that tellurium can be successfully incorporated in dihydrofolate reductase and has shown that derivatives of this type can be used to facilitate protein structural determinations. Recently, he has determined the structure of a novel peroxidase enzyme and discovered a unique folding pattern when compared to other heme-containing structures. In 1995, he became a foreign member of the Polish Academic of Arts and Sciences. Congratulations, Lukasz.
For the USC Educational Foundation Outstanding Service Award, I would like to ask Lori Thombs to come forward please. Lori is an associate professor in the Department of Statistics. She has served the university much beyond the call of duty over many years. She currently is the chairperson of the Amoco Outstanding Teaching Award Committee and has since 1993 been a member of the South Carolina Honors College Policy Committee. She is also a member of the Outstanding Graduate Teaching Assistant Selection Committee and the Carolina Scholars Selection Committee. She is also a Preston College Associate and is active in the Women's Studies Program and an Associate of Women in Science on campus. In the past, Lori has served on the Provost's Instructional Development Fund panel, the Teaching Enhancement Task Force Committee, the ad hoc committee to review a merger of Arts and Sciences (and you made the right decision) the Honors College Dean Search Committee, the Faculty Committee on Instructional Development, the University Judicial Board and she has chaired the President's Advisory Committee on Faculty Salary Equity. Congratulations, Lori.
We have five recipients of the Michael J. Mungo Teaching Awards. Could I ask the following to come forward? Dr. Michael D. Amiridis, Chemical Engineering; Dr. Thomas P. Cafferty, Department of Psychology; Dr. Erik Collins, Journalism and Mass Communications; Dr. Scott Goode, Chemistry and Biochemistry; and Dr. James Roberts, Department of Mathematics.
I would like to tell you a little bit about each one of these individuals. First of all, Michael Amiridis is an assistant professor in the Department of Chemical Engineering. He received his doctoral degree from the University of Wisconsin and came to the University of South Carolina in 1994 after spending 3 years as a research engineer at the corporate R & D group of W.R. Grace. Michael's research interests are in the area of environmental catalysis. He is a National Science Foundation Career Award winner and a 3 time winner of the Mortar Board's Excellence in Teaching Award. Congratulations, Michael.
Tom Cafferty is an associate professor in the Department of Psychology. His primary area of interest is social psychology. Over the past 25 years he has taught a wide variety of courses at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. He has twice been the recipient of the Mortar Board Excellence in Teaching Award. In addition, he has received the Psi Chi Outstanding Faculty Member in Psychology Award. In 1985, he was named Outstanding Teacher in Humanities and Social Sciences by students in the South Carolina Honors College. Last year he was the Ada B. Thomas Outstanding Advisor Award winner. Congratulations, Tom.
Erik Collins is an associate professor in the College of Journalism and Mass Communications. He joined the faculty in 1985 after earning a Ph.D. in Mass Communications from the Newhouse School of Public Communication at Syracuse University in 1972. He subsequently was awarded a juris doctorate from the School of Law at Ohio State University in 1978. Erik teaches courses in the areas of mass media law and ethics, public relations management and quantitative research methods and directs the professional master's degree progam. Congratulations, Erik.
Scott Goode is an associate professor in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry.
He received his Ph.D. from Michigan State University and joined the faculty of the University of South Carolina in 1974. Scott's research interests are in analytical chemistry and he has produced over 40 refereed papers and over 100 research seminars. He is currently the principal investigator of 3 research grants that total over $1.44 million dollars. In 1991 he received the Amoco Outstanding Teacher Award. Scott, congratulations.
Jim Roberts is a professor in the Department of Mathematics. He received his Ph.D. in 1970 from Rutgers University and joined the faculty here at the University of South Carolina the same year. He won the 1979 Russell Award for his research in functional analysis. He received the South Carolina College Teaching Award in Science in 1991 and was awarded a Lily Fellowship in the academic year 1993-94. Congratulations, Jim.
The last award is, of course, one that I think most of us on the faculty feel is the ultimate in awards-the Amoco Outstanding Teaching Award. Could I ask Carolyn Matalene to come forward please. Carolyn is a professor in the English Department. She earned her Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania and joined our Department of English at the university in 1974. Carolyn has won teaching awards from the Department of English, Professional Women on Campus, and South Carolina Honors College. She has also won four Mortar Board Excellence in Teaching Awards. In 1996 the Graduate English Association named her the Outstanding Classroom Presence. In 1989, she was a Fulbright Scholar in Finland and then returned as a
Donner Professor for two more visits. Carolyn, congratulations.
Carolyn, you will now find out that there are actual duties with winning this award.
You will have lots of talks to give, but I am sure you will do a great job.
Finally, I would like to invite you to join us at a reception honoring all of the award winners immediately following the General Faculty Meeting in the Law School Lobby. After the reception, the Faculty Senate meeting will begin. Thank you very much.
PRESIDENT PALMS - We will proceed with the business at hand. I would like to point out a special rule of order. Do you want to speak to that? Do you have it there?
PROFESOR WEDLOCK - When we published the materials in the agenda and according to the special rule of order all the proposed amendments had to be submitted last Thursday. I made an exception for the English Department and some other people who didn't get the mailing in a timely fashion. But we have received suggestions. The ones that are in order for consideration have been handed out. They will be presented by Sarah Wise on behalf of the Faculty Steering Committee as the agenda items come up. We now have the report of the Faculty Advisory Committee.
II. Reports of Committees.
A. Faculty Steering Committee, Professor Carolyn Strobel:
PROFESSOR STROBEL - I would like to begin by considering the Annual Performance Review and Post-Tenure Review. I move adoption of I. Is there a second?
PROFESSOR WEDLOCK - Seconded.
SECRETARY SARAH WISE - On behalf of the Steering Committee, we offer conforming amendments to no. I. which would be A,B, and C.
PROFESSOR STROBEL: Is there a second to the amendments?
PROFESSOR WEDLOCK - Seconded.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - Is there any discussion?
PROFESSOR CHARLES MACK - ART - We are taking this Roman numeral by Roman numeral?
PROFESSOR STROBEL - No, just Roman numeral I taken as a whole. When we get to Roman numeral II we will be taking it by number.
PROFESSOR MACK - Do I take it that if one - if we approve Roman numeral I, we approve the whole idea of post-tenure review?
PROFESSOR STROBEL - Yes.
PROFESSOR MACK - At this point can I ask for some clarification? May I ask you to fill us all in, and I am unclear on this too. How we got to this point with this proposal? Who proposed it? Who is in favor of it? How we got to this point briefly? What are the ultimate consequences if the general faculty declines?
PROFESSOR STROBEL - We got to this point because the state legislature through their performance funding requirements and CHE required that this year to be implemented beginning next year, that all of the higher education institutions in this state adopt post-tenure review. It was presented to Advisory Committee to be considered by Advisory Committee. We had a best
practices guideline we were required to follow. Based upon the constraints we developed this proposal. The proposal was debated in faculty senate meeting. We took comments from Faculty Senate and made amendments to the original proposal and this is the report that we are now submitting to the General Faculty meeting for adoption. The ramifications of not approving this is a loss in funding.
PROFESSOR MACK - Can I continue that just for a moment? I recognize the degree of intimidation that is put upon us. On the other hand, this is geared to performance review funding. It is my understanding that none of this is in the legislature's budget and what the CHE proposes in terms of performance review funding isn't necessarily going to take place. So there is this promise for us complying but there it is not actualized is it, in this year at all?
PROFESSOR STROBEL - No there is no promise of more money. There is a promise of money being taken away.
PRESIDENT PALMS - There is more than that. The Senate budget is being geared by performance funding outcomes last year and this year, so we are obligated to do this. But the discussions here really were initiated way before performance funding came. Among other related actions, we were talking about post-tenure review here for some time. I think we are moving very responsibly and this is just an outgrowth. As for the good practice suggestions, many are already incorporated here. I don't know if the Chairman of the Senate wants to comment about that particular meeting.
CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - We have already had annual performance reviews since 1995. We've had third year performance review since, I don't know, 1996 or 1997 and some departments have done it and others haven't. We put this all together in one package leaving it pretty much up to the departments to develop their own criteria and procedures for considering it.
We think that this is not a threat for tenure. We think that this is a process by which faculty, who may be under performing, by even their own lights, may obtain some guidance for that and some support in improving their performance.
PROVOST ODOM - Let's back up what President Palms said last year. We received the performance funding was on 5% of new money. This year it is on $200 million of the current higher education budget. Next year it will be 100% of the higher education in this state. That's the way it is being phased in. Last year it wasn't very important but this year it is much more important. Next year it is clearly.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - Are there other questions or comments?
PROFESSOR MACK - ART - I hate to keep talking about this but this really concerns me very much. It is the most important action we will have taken in the last quarter century as far as I can determine. I just would like to be - I just would like to have it honestly clarified. Tenure by any other definition is not tenure and, despite the fact that others have said this still preserves tenure, I think any kind of restrictions on tenure destroys it other than those restrictions that are already clearly specified except in the Faculty Manual and they are there. Non-performance is there. Things can be implemented. But this, to me, puts it into a 6-year term contractual renewal arrangement. So it is tenure by renewal. Tenure by its nature - by its definition - has nothing to do with faculty accountability and performance. It has everything to do with academic freedom - intellectual liberty and I think there is, to me, there is a danger - I won't see it in my life time - a danger implicit in the vagaries of this proposal that allows for extraordinary misuse should that happen sometime in the future. I think we should be very careful.
PROFESSOR JOHN SAFKO - ASTRONOMY - I argue just the contrary. It is procedures like this that can preserve tenure.
PRESIDENT PALMS - Can you stand up in the back so people can hear you?
PROFESSOR SAFKO - Sorry. It is a procedure such as this that can preserve tenure by making sure that it is responsibly handled. Some of the problems that have been accused and blamed on faculty members, I personally feel, have been a failure on the part of administration to enforce the responsibility that comes with tenure. I think this will codify that and allow tenure to be much stronger.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - This is definitely not a review of your tenure status. It is a review of your performance. It is a more formal review than the annual review. There is no change except for the addition of additional items under cause for revocation of tenure and that is a pro faculty change in fact so I think that this is not the ending of tenure because we have to have the post-tenure reviews every 6 years. Post-tenure review does mean that if you are unsatisfactory you lose your tenure. That is not what you are voting on here. You may if you don't improve your performance but that is entirely different from saying an unsatisfactory review means your tenure is revoked.
CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - Just to clarify what seems to be scaring some people--that is that an unsatisfactory review. An unsatisfactory review leads to a development program or plan by which a faculty member can improve their performance to the point of receiving a satisfactory review. If you do not make substantial progress toward meeting the performance goals of a development plan established through the post-tenure review process you may be exposed to termination of tenure but only under the terms that we already have for termination of tenure. Post-tenure review does nothing to alter the terms by which faculty can lose their tenure. All that it does is provide a program for evaluating their performance and subsequently helping to improve that performance.
PROFESSOR DON JORDAN - APPLIED PROFESSIONAL SCIENCES - What are the rewards for successful completion of this? If you are successful with this review is there a reward process after that?
CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - The proposal makes reference to three levels of performance:
superior, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory. For those people who will receive a superior performance the Provost has promised to reward them if money is available. So there is in the process a method of finding superior as well as unsatisfactory you will get the satisfaction - the moral satisfaction knowing that you performance is superior even if there isn't any money.
- I move the question.
PROFESSOR CAROLINE STROBEL - The question has been moved. All in favor. Opposed.
We will vote now on the motion to accept the amendments. All in favor. All opposed. The motion passes.
CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - Do you have additional amendments, Sarah?
SECRETARY WISE - Yes, there is an additional amendment. On behalf of the Steering Committee we offer amendment II.A.
PROFESSOR SAFKO - Is there an extra set of these amendments?
CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - Yes, there are some at the door.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - Amendment II.A. has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
PROFESSOR ROBERT PATTERSON - HISTORY - Point of order. Doesn't the passage of the main motion make this moot?
PROFESSOR STROBEL - No, we only passed the motion for the amendments under Roman numeral I. Any discussion of this amendment? All in favor. Opposed. The motion passes.
SECRETARY WISE - On behalf of the Steering Committee we also offer an amendment to II.B. Is there a second?
CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - Point of order, II.B., is not currently out of order.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - Oh, I'm sorry. It's my fault. We will retract that. Are you ready to vote now on the main motion? All in favor. The main motion is the passage of I. Annual Performance Review and Post-Tenure Review as amended.
PROFESSOR SAFKO - Point of information. Maybe we are getting a little confused. We have a Roman numeral I called Purpose and Roman numeral II called Definition. I think by Roman numeral I you mean the entire item, right? I think there is some confusion there.
CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - The item that has been moved no. I on your cover agenda. The entire Post-Tenure Review Process.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - We are voting on a whole rather than as an amendment.
CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - We are doing this as an entire agenda item, Roman I. with the entire process.
- Earlier I. and II were the amendments?
PROFESSOR MACK - The question then is did we close discussion on this?
PROFESSOR STROBEL - Not if you want to discuss something on this. Is there any further discussion?
PROFESSOR MACK - ART - I have some questions concerning some what I think are inconsistencies. Are we moving down through the pages here? On page 16, paragraph 4, the post-tenure review must include peer and student evaluations, and, then I refer to A.2.
where it says "Peer evaluations will be included for untenured faculty." What about for tenured faculty? I mean isn't there sort of an inconsistency?
PROFESSOR STROBEL - No, there is not an inconsistency here. And let me explain. For post-tenure review we are required to have both student evaluations and peer evaluations. For non-tenured faculty as well we are required to have peer evaluations and student evaluations. That is not true for tenured faculty except of the year of their post-tenure review.
PROFESSOR SAFKO - It sounds like we may be getting confused between the annual review and the post-tenure review.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - Yes. As you read the requirements, the requirements are slightly different for your annual review, your third-year review and your post-tenure review. They are slightly more rigorous in the years that you are going to have post-tenure review than they would be for a tenured faculty member on a normal annual review. Any other questions or discussion?
- I would like some clarification on the this same point of peer evaluations may that be included? The wording is peer evaluations will be included for non-tenured faculty the question is may they be included for tenured faculty also?
PROFESSOR STROBEL - Yes. You may include them.
- In the first place a practical question assuming that this is adopted it would presumably apply to all faculty who have had tenure for 6 years or more. That's going to be a very large number. The pure mechanics of doing this in a single year seems to me an awesome difficulty. Does the committee have any suggestions about how this should be done in phasing this in? Or is it going to be all at once? Are the units just expected to do this?
PROFESSOR STROBEL - If we do what is being done at other universities that have already adopted post-tenure review we will be phasing it in so that those who have been tenured the longest will be reviewed first. Those who are of a more recent vintage would be reviewed towards the end to space it out.
- My second question then is it not clear to me, perhaps I'm obtuse, but it is unclear to me how one might get an unsatisfactory rating since three categories are here for
rating that is essentially teaching, research and service. Would an unsatisfactory rating in one of these lend to an unsatisfactory rating?
PROFESSOR STROBEL - Not necessarily. Your performance overall would have to be unsatisfactory.
- What is the basis of that decision?
PROFESSOR STROBEL - The basis of the decision would be up to the chair of your particular unit. If you did not agree with it of course you would have appeal procedures.
PROFESSOR JERRY JEWLER - JOUR - I just want some simple clarifications. Page 14,
Roman III., items 3. and 4. AA post-tenure review for all tenured faculty, regardless of rank.
And no. 4. says the same thing for all tenured faculty who are in administrative positions by their immediate supervisors. Does that constitute two reviews?
PROFESSOR STROBEL - No. No. 3 would be for your normal faculty. A post-tenure review for all tenured faculty in administrative positions would be the department chairs, the deans.
They would normally be reviewed but they would not be part of the procedures - the normal procedures that a faculty member not in an administrative position would be in.
PROFESSOR JEWLER - Therefore they would not be reviewed by the T & P Committee. By their immediate supervisor.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - Only the chair. If you look under no. 4 the provision there
because the unit chairs are more closely aligned than the regular faculty. They would be reviewed by their immediate supervisor in consultation with their units. Beyond that level they would be reviewed by their immediate supervisors only.
PROFESSOR JEWLER - Just one more thing on our other matter in here. When a member receives an unsatisfactory or should a member receive an unsatisfactory report it states that that member makes an appeal to the same T & P Committee that rejected that member and I am a little uncomfortable with that.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - No, the review is conducted by the unit chairs. So the appeal is the result of the review of the unit chairs to the faculty in your unit.
PROFESSOR SAFKO - Point of clarification. I believe the review will be conducted by whoever the unit has decided will do it. It may or may not be the chair.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - It may not be the chair. You would have to decide that within your unit. It could be a faculty committee.
- I am having a little difficulty hearing in the back.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - The question was if you had an unsatisfactory review the appeal mechanism for the unit tenure and promotion committee, the query was isn't that having a review by the same group who had given you the unsatisfactory review and I said not necessarily. That it could be the unit chair and then John Safko corrected me and said not necessarily the unit chair because the unit could develop their own internal procedures on how post-tenure review is to be done in that unit. So it could be a subcommittee that is done in some other universities. It could be the unit chair doing the review. It can be whatever your unit wants. But you would go back to the full tenure and promotion committee if you disagreed with the result of the chair. And then of course that would further adjudicated at the level of the dean and the provost.
CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - Yes, I think there it is important to remember that a lot of these things are up to the individual units to resolve. A mention was made early how burdensome this thing could be. We expect the unit will try to minimize that burden. That means they will allow the review to be done by either the unit chair or by select committee of tenured faculty which is to form the peer evaluations required in this process. At that point, if the review is unsatisfactory the faculty member has the right of these provisions to go to the entire tenure and promotion committee of his/her unit for resolution of any disagreement, either in the evaluation or in the suggestions as to what that faculty member would have to do to bring his/her performance up to the level. So a lot of these things that we are discussing here are really up to you and your departmental structure to resolve exactly how you handle it.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - Will you please tell us your name?
PROFESSOR MICHAEL SMITH - HISTORY- This is Roman numeral V. C. the procedures on unsatisfactory review. In no. 1, under C., it speaks of forwarding recommendations for restoring performance. Then over on no. 3. , I believe it is, we get to the establishment of a development plan. Are those two things the same thing? Are the recommendations for restoring performance the development plan? And tied in with that, we have under no. 2, the procedures for appealing an unsatisfactory verdict. Does that appeal process happen before the recommendations or the plan are developed or forwarded or these things happen concurrently? It is very unclear in these three points how the procedure is actually going to work.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - There would actually be two parts to an unsatisfactory review. One would be the unit chair's evaluation which he would or she would forward up to the level of the dean. If an individual is appealing then that report would also be written - a different report but a report would be written by the unit tenure and promotion committee and that would be forwarded to the dean where it would be ajudicated. Now those obviously are going to sort of happen in the same time frame but until that resolution is resolved or whether or not the performance is unsatisfactory you wouldn't have the development plan put into place. The development plan will be put in place when you have an unsatisfactory review and it was resolved.
PROFESSOR MICHAEL SMITH - Let me follow up on that. From what you were saying just now and to several of the previous questions. On the one hand, you say that the writing of this review is open to the decision of the unit but as I read through this not, only on the post-tenure review but all of the other reviews, I would have to say that the assumption or presumption is that the unit chair is the person who writes the review or initiates the review. I think that was implicit in what you were saying just now.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - Well in a sense that it is going to have to be decided whether you have a select committee of faculty doing the reviews, or you just have the unit chair but or it will have to go up through the channels of the unit chair. Alright so in that sense if your unit's decided on a select committee their ultimate decision would still be channeled up through the unit chair.
CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - You get an unsatisfactory review and then there are recommendations. That can either be by the chair if the unit decides that the chair will do it, or by a select committee if the unit decides to allow a select committee to do it. So it is whoever does it would make recommendations for performance. Now you will notice over in 3. where we are talking about development plans. The development plan has to be done in consultation and concurrence with the faculty member. The faculty member could say "right, you are absolutely right. This is what I need to do." that would become the development plan. If the faculty member didn't like that and he says "No, I don't need to do that. I want to do something else," then we go into the appeals process with the entire t&p committee at which point we then go into the development plan of operation. It's flexible enough to admit both of your descriptions. There is not one way to do it but there are several ways to do it. It is up to the unit to decide which way they want to do it.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - Are there any other questions?
PROFESSOR CHARLES MACK - ART - Page 17, items 3. and 4. on page 17, the appointment of a development committee. The chair has reviewed the faculty request and then if the chair decides that something needs to be done to straighten this faculty member out and a development committee is appointed by the chair - is that correct?
PROFESSOR STROBEL - No. It says here, "The plan may include the appointment of a development committee to assist the faculty member in improving performance."That committee can be appointed anyway the unit decides it is to be appointed.
CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - Again, I have to say we consistently focusing on who is doing
this, as part of a criticism of it. It is up to each unit to decide who in their department is going to be doing it. If you don't want the chair, your department doesn't want the chair to be doing it don't allow the chair to do it. Have somebody else do it. The point of these criticisms is to suggest that there is one structure being imposed, where the proposal does not do so.
PROFESSOR MACK - My next question was - thank you for clarifying that - is on item 4. of page 17, about the 5th line down. AThe evaluation will be forwarded to the unit tenure and promotion committee. The committee will review the chair's assessment and state in writing its concurrence or dissent, in general or in any particular. The chair's assessment and the unit tenure and promotion committee's response will be forwarded to the dean and the dean will make the final determination, the dean's determination goes on to the provost etc. It would seem to me that the t & p committee could be simply shunted aside and what we get is a chain of command that goes from appointed administrative to appointed, administrator to appointed administrator.
I'm seeing the worse case scenario.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - Yes, you are trying to. I think what we have here is a real safeguard for the faculty because now your scenario has gone on down the line and if the individual has an unsatisfactory performance there is a development plan. Their next annual review is to be based on their progress on the development plan. The annual review conducted by unit chairs however in some cases deans. All we are saying is that that individual's opinion is not the only opinion at this point about whether or not the faculty member has progressed. We now have the tenure and promotion committee as well review whether or not in their opinion the individual has made progress and that is forwarded to the dean so that the dean has input from faculty, the dean has input as well from the unit chair. It is at that point where you would have a real adverse result if you were a faculty member. In this situation a decision would be made whether or not steps would be taken to revoke tenure.
PROFESSOR MACK - I might add that I think it is our duty in an issue of this magnitude to look at worse case scenarios.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - Yes and that would be the worse case scenario. So what we are doing is we are saying we are not leaving it as merely administrative opinion about whether or not progress has been made--the faculty are also consulted.
PROFESSOR KEITH DAVIS - PSYCH - I would like to urge that we close discussion again.
The devil is in the details. We need to go to our departments and colleges and deal with this. I would like to move the motion.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - Alright, the question has been called. All in favor. Opposed.
It passes. We will then call the question. We are calling the question on the entire annual performance review and post-tenure review as contained in the information that you have for the general faculty meeting with amendments, Roman numeral I, Roman numeral II.A. All in favor.
Opposed. The ayes have it.
We will now move the next item in the agenda under Faculty Advisory Committee which are some amendments on tenure and promotion. I will take these up one at a time. I am now on page 19 in your materials. The first one being no. 1. on the University Committee on Tenure and Promotion and this is having to do with of course the reevaluation on periodic basis of units' tenure and promotion criteria. I move the adoption of no. 1.
PRESIDENT PALMS- Since she is presiding I will take over presiding and she can make the motion. Any discussion? Are you ready to vote? All those in favor say aye. Opposed. It passes.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - I move the adoption of 2. which is a really a small wording change with regard to high quality. We are taking out "high quality" and putting in "performance consistent with that of major research universities."
PRESIDENT PALMS - Do I hear a second?
PROFESSOR CHARLES MACK - ART - What do we mean by performance? I mean is this open to change or can this be interpreted in a variety of ways? Is it performance? If we are looking at major research institutions are we looking to enhance or broaden or what?
PROFESSOR STROBEL - Performance is just what you are doing as a faculty member. How you are performing? We mean it in that sense of the word as opposed to musical performance.
PROFESSOR MACK - Yes, I realize that.
PROFESSOR ROBERT PATTERSON - If you look at the complete text on page 25, you will see that it is just a clarification of what is already required in the three areas in which we perform.
PROFESSOR MACK - Is that in the Faculty Manual?
PROFESSOR PATTERSON - Yes, thereFaculty Manual. That answers it, Randy-- a major
point. All our year's work rests on this matter, because what we are in effect doing is to bring
about the reaccreditation of all units on the basis of these criteria. Our committee originally had recommended the wording "Research I and AAU institution," but on the advice of the Faculty
Advisory Committee, I accepted this wording -- in fact I proposed it as an alternative. With our
institutional ambitions and our own sense of self-pride, I don't think that we can accept anything else.
PROFESSOR MACK - Let me ask for clarification. We have recently undergone a whole series of tenure and promotion revisions unit by unit. Will this necessitate a re-review of those?
PROFESSOR STROBEL - No, it will be done in a rotating order as determined by the provost and if you look at item no. 3 you will see that is what we are going to vote on next. If somebody had just had their tenure and promotion criteria reviewed again and revised, they wouldn't obviously being coming up again right away.
PROFESSOR JEROME JEWLER - JOUR - There is one implication in the change that bothers me a little bit. It suggests that there is high quality teaching and service at major universities.
I'm serious. I find that troublesome. There is obviously high quality research there.
PROFESSOR MACK - That is the Carnegie report that just came out?
CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - Yes.
PROFESSOR MACK - We are certainly not included.
PROFESSOR PATTERSON - In place of friendly banter, I think that in spite of the findings of the Carnegie Report, which are in some ways disturbing, talking about the criteria of those institutions for assessing research not necessarily the effects. Thank you.
PRESIDENT PALMS - Other comments? Are you ready to vote? All those in favor say aye.
Opposed. So ordered.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - I move the adoption of no. 3.
PRESIDENT PALMS - Discussion?
PROFESSOR JOHN SPURRIER - STATISTICS - If I understand Roman numeral I, we just eliminated the section of the Faculty Manual that this proposal is going to.
CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - That's correct, point of order. This is out of order.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - I move the adoption of no. 4.
PRESIDENT PALMS - Is there a second?
CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - second.
- Call for question.
PRESIDENT PALMS - The question has been called for. Are you ready to vote?
Those in favor of voting say aye. Opposed. Motion is before you. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Opposed. So ordered.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - I move the adoption of no. 5.
PRESIDENT PALMS - Are you ready to vote? All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - I move the adoption of no. 6.
SECRETARY WISE - On behalf of the Steering Committee, we offer amendment II.B.
PRESIDENT PALMS - This is on the handout that you received when you came in.
CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - That is mainly the addition of "chairs" to the list of people with respect to whom the comparison of judgements is made in the report.
PRESIDENT PALMS - Comments on the amendment? Further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. So ordered. Back to the motion. Further discussion of the motion? No further discussion. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. So ordered.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - Now we will move to Roman numeral III. under Faculty Advisory Committee which are changes in the Faculty Manual concerning the Faculty Grievance Committee. I would like to take them as a whole.
PRESIDENT PALMS - Make your motion please.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - I move to adopt Roman numeral III.
PRESIDENT PALMS - We are on pages 23 and 24. The motion has been made. Do I hear a second?
PRESIDENT PALMS - It is open for discussion.
PROFESSOR MICHAEL SMITH - HIST - This is the whole proposal on Faculty Grievance.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - That is correct.
PROFESSOR SMITH - I want to speak to the second of the proposals on the top of page 24, "AThe President shall be the final authority within the University to whom a grievance may be submitted." and I already had discussions with Professor Patterson and Professor Wedlock when this was first being formulated. This I understand has its benefits in many cases but there is a particular case when I think it is inappropriate. In those cases when a tenure and promotion has been recommended by the University Tenure and Promotion Committee and has gone to the President and then the President reverses that or does not except the recommendation then technically; I believe the grievance that follows can be construed as a grievance against the President, in a way that it would not be under many other scenarios. So in that case, perhaps more so than any other scenario, you have a situation where you are defining the President as the final authority in a grievance that is essentially directed at him. This to my mind represents a fairly clear conflict of interest and I believe there should be some other mechanism to handle those cases. Again I am just talking about the case where you have coming out of the entire procedure a favorable recommendation that goes forward to the President and then the President turns that down.
PRESIDENT PALMS - Do you want to talk about this before I make any comment?
PROFESSOR PATTERSON - I should perhaps comment not for the understanding of my colleagues on the Faculty Ad Hoc Committee, but perhaps for the information of the rest of you here. This is an issue that we discussed at length over the year in which we considered the revisions of the Tenure and Promotion system. We felt, and I can speak from personal experience in this matter as a former Chairman of the Faculty-Board of Trustees Liaison Committee, that although the Board of Trustees' subcommittee deals with these cases, they are not technically competent to assess the nature of appeals or the administrative responses to them. So with the Trustees' approval to in effect get them out of the business of appeals, we adopted this policy. We based our recommendation on the procedure which is currently in place. It doesn't mean that there couldn't be another system proposed; but we are perfectly happy with this one. I am happy with the recommendation of my committee and with its acceptance by the Faculty Advisory Committee.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - I would like to further point out what Rob has said that the President will have additional input from the Grievance Committee so there is additional faculty input and additional time for him to reflect on his first decision. This is not saying that his first decision will necessarily stand.
PRESIDENT PALMS - I think there are enough safeguards in our processes: if the President disagrees with the Tenure and Promotion Committee, the President is currently obligated to meet with the committee as we did last week. If there are disagreements between the Tenure and Promotion Committee, the Provost and the President on recommendations, they meet with the committee to explain the disagreement and have discussions with that committee. I can assure you I feel that if there was such a president who overruled the unit, the dean, the provost, and the Tenure and Promotion Committee, the vote of "no confidence" is always available to the faculty. I don't think that president would last very long. I have sat on in these appeals with the trustees and I share their great concern that it gets to be very technical. In addition, they have legal counsel--the candidate and the trustees do not have this. They don't have access to the Tenure and Promotion Committee. They have not heard those discussions and deliberations and they really feel kind of lost and some of these procedures take sometimes hours and hours and they still get confused and they just feel like if the University can't resolve this - the faculty with the president - then it ought to go to court. I concur with that.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - Is there any other discussion?
PRESIDENT PALMS - Any other comments? All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - We will move now to the final Roman numeral IV. We will take this by proposals. The first proposal having to do with the University Committee on Tenure and Promotion. That change is on page 26.
PROFESSOR JOHN SKVORETZ - SOCY- I would like to strike the department chair from the list of people that would be excluded from service.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - Oh, I guess I'm sorry--I should have made a motion to move adoption of this definition.
PRESIDENT PALMS - Open for discussion.
PROFESSOR JOHN SKVORETZ - SOCY - I would like to strike "department chair" from the
list of administrative positions that could be excluded. Just a few moments ago we talked about department chairs as being very close to the faculty so they undergo a different review process in the post-tenure review. I think the same logic applies here.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - I would like to explain the position of the Advisory Committee in this matter. We feel that department chairs are administrators. It is true they are also faculty members but so are deans faculty. We feel that the University Tenure and Promotion Committee is a faculty committee and not a committee that should be composed of administrators and that is why this change is presented to the faculty to vote on.
CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - Reflecting on your proposition, I'd make a point of order. This was not presented to the Thursday deadline prior so the options are to vote on the proposal or to recommit it to the Faculty Advisory Committee or to approve it.
PROFESSOR PATTERSON - In spite of my high regard for the Faculty Advisory Committee and its judicious consideration of all these issues, I would like to speak personally from my experience on the UCTP. We have had some valuable administrators on this committee. It is by no means a committee of administrators. It is a faculty committee which is enriched from time to time by its administrative members. I would also like to point out as a reason for sending this back to committee or rejecting it that it always been the traditional philosophy of this university not to draw strict lines between administrators and faculty. We always have had, in spite of periodic differences which are I suppose stem from the nature of our work, some reasons to draw lines, but generally we have not encouraged a formal division into management and labor. And so I would urge my colleagues to consider some form of rejection, whether it is temporary by referral to committee or permanent by rejecting it out of hand. Thank you.
PRESIDENT PALMS - Further comments or expressions? Are you ready to vote on this motion? All in favor signify by saying aye.
- What about the amendment?
PRESIDENT PALMS - The amendment is out of order since it was not submitted before the deadline. So you only here have the option of adopting this or not adopting it based on the rule on page 11. All those in favor of this motion signify by saying aye. Opposed. Let's try this one more time. Let's have a show of hands. All those in favor of this motion signify by raising your hand. All those opposed raise your hands. The chair rules that the opposition has it --I mean the for. The ayes have it.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - We will move on with B. B. has to do with the terms of appointed members to faculty committees. I want to make clear that this does not mean ad hoc members of faculty committees or ex officio.
PRESIDENT PALMS - Do we have a second?
PRESIDENT PALMS - Discussion? The President has no comment on it. Are you ready to vote? All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. It passes. Thank you very much.
PROFESSOR STROBEL - We now move to the last change and that concerns the composition of the Board of Governors of Faculty House. I move to adopt this provision.
PRESIDENT PALMS - Is there a second?
CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - Second.
PRESIDENT PALMS - All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. It passes.
Thank you very much. Any announcements?
CHAIRMAN WEDLOCK - Given the shortness of the agenda of the Faculty Senate I would like the senators to remain so we can conduct that business fairly quickly before we join the revelry.
Thank you very much.
PRESIDENT PALMS - Do we have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Please stay and enjoy the reception.
Adjourned at 3:23.
This page updated 25 August 1998 by the Office of the Faculty Senate,
and copyright 1998, The Board of Trustees of the University of South Carolina.