Category II Faculty Evaluation Implementation

Sheila Rucki, Chair, FSWCJoice Gibson, CAT II Interim Representative

Ashby Butnor, CAT II Representative

May 2013: FS Approval of New Chapter VI Language Governing the Evaluation of Category II Faculty

1. Provides for Multi-Year Contracts

2. Provides Guidance for Promotion to Sr. Lecturer

Background

June 2013: BOT Approval of New Chapter VI Language Governing the Evaluation of Category II Faculty –Putting the Changes into Effect

Background

November 12 2013: Dr. Golich sends e-mail to CAT II faculty informing them of the changes, including language reflecting the MOU May 2013

November 15 2013: Handbook Published

Background

December 19 2013: Deputy Provost Luis Torres e-mailed CAT II Faculty setting a January 31 deadline for submission of intent to apply for promotion or multi-year contracts to chairs and a March 31 deadline for Digital Measures portfolio submissions to department chairs.

Background

February 3 2014: Provost Golich e-mailed the Deans and Dr. Torres affirming the MOU, clearing the way for faculty to apply for multi-year contracts and promotion

Background

Is the Procedural Deadline Appropriate?

Issue

1. The Procedural Calendar for 2013-2014 makes no reference to either a deadline for portfolio submissions or for filing an intent to apply from faculty to chairs.

Findings

2. Handbook changes approved in July 2013 were not published until 15 November 2013. • Regular members of the faculty did not

have ready access to these changes until then.

Findings

• Even those who were aware that the changes were coming were unlikely to be able to begin the process of compiling portfolios until November 12 when Dr. Golich sent her e-mail detailing the review requirements and standards

Findings

3. Issues with Peer Reviews• Many departments did not have a

formal peer review process in place for Category II faculty

• Required for Evaluation of all CAT II faculty

• Questions about the ability to get formal peer reviews in the time available

Findings

4. Contract Practices

• Confusion about how these deadlines mesh with the existing contract cycle• Faculty may be asked to seek

reappointment for CAT II lines that no longer exist

Findings

• T he proposed deadline is set two months prior to the completion of the annual contract. Thus, it only covers the first eight months of a 10-month contractual period.

Findings

• New Category II faculty will effectively have a single semester of work available for evaluation if this timeline persists.

Findings

1. Phase-In Evaluation Implementation

a. 2013-2014: Review cycle for Promotion and Multi-Year Contracts

b. 2014-2015: Review cycle full implementation

Recommendations

2. Timeline Changes

• Portfolio from Faculty to Chair: 31 May (the last day of the Category II contract)

• Recommendation from Chair to Dean: 15 June• Recommendation from Dean to Provost: 01 July• Recommendation from Provost (if necessary) 20

July• Contracts Issued: 01 August

Recommendations

Resolution #1

The Faculty Senate supports the recommendation that Category II Faculty evaluation processes, as described in Chapter VI of the Handbook for Professional Personnel and the language of the MOU be phased in over two years.

Resolution #2

The Faculty Senate supports the recommendation that the timeline for Category II evaluation proposed above be implemented for the 2013-2014 review cycle and the recommendation that future deadlines be established in cooperation among all stakeholders.