2nd FASP March Minutes

Academic Senate
(530) 898-6201, Zip 020

March 24, 2011

1.     Minutes of February 17, 2011 meeting were approved.

2.     The day’s Agenda was approved.

3.     Senator Kotar announced a University Budget Committee meeting on March 25 at 8:30am in Kendall 207/208.

4.     It was decided to take up item 5 ahead of item 4 in the agenda. By way of context, Kotar explained that the purpose of present version is to provide examples of possible concrete standards that might be adopted by a given department as benchmarks. Postma opined that the FPPP as a whole specifically assumes an absolute rather than a predictive standard of evaluation, wherefore approving the present document, which allows each department to choose either a predictive or an absolute standard, would perhaps necessitate making additional changes to the FPPP. Conversation ensues about whether an uniformly absolute standard is more reassuring to the faculty under evaluation. Huntsinger also suggested exploring a less complex process of evaluation which would the deans and provost from the evaluation process and really only on the decisions of other faculty. The proposed clarification to the guidelines for performance review were rejected.

5.     Proposal to revise FPPP 8, sections 8.1.a.2 (probationary and tenured faculty) and 8.2.d.5 (temporary faculty), classroom visitations. (Introduction, CFA)

Deliberation over wording changes that were discussed in the Executive Committee. Kotar suggested that the salient question was whether to adopt the clause “as well as any other issues needing clarification before or after the visit.” Postma pointed out that, by allowing the faculty member under review veto power over the schedule, he or she could effectively refuse to accept a visit. Kotar suggested the need a procedure for breaking a tie. Mills opined that (1) requiring five days’ notice is excessive, (2) the meaning of the added wording is nebulous, and (3) evaluation ought not be announced well in advance, in order to allow evaluator a representative picture of the subject’s teaching. Postma added that (1) the existing system of evaluation already includes other safeguards to protect the subjects’ interests, and (2) this level of specificity and legalism suggests a more adversarial atmosphere than is desirable. Concerning this second point, Kotar observed that the CFA hears principally about the minority of cases with which candidates for evaluation are dissatisfied. Postma opined that it is unnecessary to specify that email is acceptable, though Brady suggests that text messages should not be considered sufficient notice, and the consensus was that indeed they are not and would continue to be excluded by the proposed changes. Discussion ensued about whether to introduce only the first amendation (“…shall be provided a [written] notice ([e-mails are acceptable])…”) or both the first and the second. Finally the Committee accepted the proposal as an introduction item. Amendments at Action may include a version that will strike “mutually agreeable” from 8.1.a.2.

6.     Discussion – proposed amendment to the Constitution of the Faculty of CSU, Chico. (Huntsinger)

Huntsinger proposed an amendment to the Faculty Constitution to state that emeritus professors are members of the faculty. (Huntsinger rescinded the portion of the proposal that the Provost also be so listed, upon discovering that Provosts are already appointed professors by virtue of their office.) Postma observed that, as a complicating factor, emeritus faculty are distinct in that they are not employed by the university, “emeritus” being an honorary title rather than a job description. Making this change would necessitate revising many other documents (such as that requiring that faculty members maintain an RTP dossier). Mills added that emeritus faculty are also distinct in that they do not bear job responsibilities in the university. Huntsinger underscored that this change would not make them members of the faculty quorum. Huntsinger then suggested that, alternatively, an amendment be substituted which requires that emeritus faculty be guaranteed due process in their dealings with the university. Postma and Mills responded that there are no mechanisms for due process for faculty independent of those of the CFA, which do not apply to emeritus professors. Huntsinger suggested instead that an amendment be substituted which requires that emeritus faculty be guaranteed due process as guaranteed by the state and federal Constitutions. Postma suggests that this would not be an appropriate inclusion for a policy document, and Kotar opined that such an amendment would be redundant. Huntsinger resolved to submit a revised document for the committee’s consideration.

7.     Meeting adjourned.

Submitted by Jason Clower