Minutes of the meeting of the Lecturers’ Forum, 02. vii. 03

Present: The Provost, Jean Quigley, Maryann Valiulis (Arts (Humanities)); Darryl Jones, Amanda Piesse (Arts (Letters)); Ken Benoit, Martin Fellenz (Business, Economics and Social Studies); Arthur Hughes, Ann McNamara, Mary Sharp (Engineering and Systems Sciences); Damien Brennan, Helen Roche, Irene Walsh (Health Sciences); Linda Hogan (Irish School of Ecumenics); Suzanne Borich, Graeme Watson (Science)

Apologies: Brian Lucey, Vasilis Politis

In attendance: The Vice-Provost.

1. Minutes of the meeting 15.iv.03

The minutes were amended as follows: Ann Macnamara’s name was removed from the list of those present, and Helen Roche’s name added to the list of apologies received.

Under item 3, the third paragraph was felt to be unclear and it was agreed to amend it as follows: ‘Those financed by the expert skills budget, by self-financing courses, by departmental pay-budgets or by benefactions are not directly affected by the current cutbacks and are as secure as the funding for the area in question’.

2. Matters arising

  • The audit committee reported to Board that morning, 2 July 2003, on best practice, the function of Board and the function of committees. It made a distinction between the supervisory and the executive function, where Board and Council perform the former and the College officers the latter function. A committee, comprised of two members of the audit committee, two College officers and two non-executive members of Board, are to come back to Board in September with proposals regarding the structure of College decision-making processes.
  • The Provost was asked if the terms of advertising for the new-blood posts was likely to result in a cut in pay for those applying. This would create an unhappy precedent. The Provost agreed to clarify this at the next meeting.
  • It was agreed to create a website where the minutes of the Forum meetings could be posted.

3. Mentoring

Members reported on current practice in their faculties.

There is no formal process at present in Arts Humanities. A questionnaire has been sent out to elicit response to the introduction of a system.

In Science, the forum representatives interviewed 2/3 of Heads of Departments. There is an informal system. Four or five respondents said the system must remain that way or it won’t work and, if formalised perforce, the system must stay within the remit of the Head of Department. A questionnaire is in circulation.

In Engineering, Computer Science has a formal confidential system in place. The Director of Research or Head of Department matches mentors to mentees, or the mentee can choose directly. There is a formal meeting once a year between mentor and mentee, but mentors can be approached at any time. The system is currently in its first year.

In Health Sciences, a system is being introduced in the School of Nursing, but is not formally ongoing. The Dental School holds training days for new staff, with feedback and evaluation for those staff later in the year. Phone calls from forum representatives on the subject received a positive response to the idea of a College-wide system.

In BESS, responses from lecturers expressed satisfaction with the good informal processes that were in place. All processes are within departments. There is no formal process.

In Arts Letters, a formal blueprint on the CS model has been agreed to by the Faculty, but is not being implemented until the outcome of the Forum’s discussions become apparent.

In the School of Ecumenics, there is no formal process in place, but there is broad support for the introduction of such a system.

Several issues were discussed:

the relationship of mentoring to formal appraisal

the relationship between confidentiality and transparency

the need to connect with ongoing College initiatives in this area

the need to formalise a review process of the system

the roles and responsibilities of Heads of department

It was agreed that a pilot scheme would be desirable, and that taking into account the current situation and the issues raised above, the Forum would bring a formal blueprint to the next meeting, identify a sub-group to liaise with the Personnel and Appointments Committee and the heads of department Forum, and roll out a pilot scheme over the coming academic year.

4. Communication from constituencies to meeting.

It was agreed that each agenda for the forum would include the item ‘Reporting’ within which members could bring items as requested by members of their constituencies.

Length of service on the Forum had not been agreed when the group was first formed. It was agreed that current members should stay for three years, although, in the interests of continuity, one member of each Faculty should step down after two years if an election had not already come about naturally.

AOB

New –blood posts.

Several members of the Forum had been asked to express disquiet about the process for application to the new blood posts. The time between advertisement and closing date for application was held to be too short; the information regarding the extension of the date too slow in circulation. There was disquiet about the transparency and fairness of the process. In response, the group was told that the Senior Lecturer is to chair the nominating committee; nominations arise from each faculty executive committee (which includes heads of department and the junior and senior representatives to Council) producing a shortlist of three names. The recruitment manager Alison Taylor sits on every faculty committee to ensure parity and to prevent the admission of anecdotal evidence.

Vacated contract posts will be filled. If funded by the sista communis, it will go back to the dean of the faculty for reallocation. If funded otherwise, it goes back to the funding source for allocation.

The meeting concluded at 4.30 pm.