Minutes from 12/7/2017 Were Approved

Present: Deb Donovan (chair), Andy Klein, Pete Stelling, Jim Hearne, John Gilbertson, Takele Seda, Steve McDowall, Jackie Caplan-Auerbach (Assoc Dean), Brad Johnson (Dean)

Visitors from Personnel Committee: Ying Lin, Milton From, Edoh Amiran, David Bover, Lynn Pillitteri, Liz Schermer

Minutes from 12/7/2017 were approved.

Members of the personnel committee joined PPBC to discuss possible improvements to the process by which faculty evaluations are conducted.

Inconsistencies were cited by members of the Personnel Committee regarding the process for reporting peer teaching evaluations. Sometimes, the CSE teaching evaluation form is included in the dossier, sometimes it’s not. Should COPEP be explicit that this form (or, alternate forms used by some departments such as Geology and Biology) be included in the dossier? Some departments (e.g., CS) have decided that letters should only go to the chair, and not be part of the dossier; some PPBC members argued that this approach lacks transparency, while others argued that the approach of writing direct letters to probationary faculty was too confrontational. PPBC decided to take on the responsibility of evaluating and revising the current process for inclusion of peer teaching evaluations in the dossiers.

Personnel Committee members indicated that some chair summary letters only focus on the strengths of the candidate; chairs should be encouraged to do a better job describing weaknesses and areas that need improvement.

There was some discussion about whether it is permissible to discuss with candidates whether they are “ready” for tenure. There is some lack of clarity in this issue regarding potential violation of the CBA. The candidate decides when to go up, and chairs can’t tell them when they’re ready to go up. PPBC and Personnel Committee members discussed how chairs can provide constructive feedback without violating the CBA.

Personnel Committee members discussed the fact that it’s not clear which COPEP to apply to each candidate (e.g., COPEP at time of hiring, or COPEP at time of review). PPBC needs to make a decision about this, and clarify. Dean Johnson suggested that the current COPEP be used, and that all candidates being reviewed in a given year be evaluated against the same version of the COPEP.

Letter of offer is not consistently in the dossiers. A requirement that this letter be part of the dossier needs to be specified in the college COPEP.

Specific words were suggested for inclusion in the COPEP narrative, including: (1) the work needs to be “sustained” and (2) mention of the candidate’s “trajectory”.