Role of the Department Chair in Faculty Development

Role of the Department Chair in Faculty Development

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

(9:00-10:30am)

MEB 202

Attendance:

Alan Schiller, Bill Boisvert (via phone, APTC), Damon Sakai, Ginny Tanji, Henry Lew, Georgeann Suguitan (via phone, Geriatric Medicine), Kamal Masaki, Ken Nakamura, Lee Buenconsejo-Lum (for Chip Hixon), Liz Tam, Lori Emery, Maria Chun (for Susan Steinemann), Olivier Le Saux (APTC), Rosanne Harrigan, Sandra Chang (APTC), Shelby Wong (via phone for Ivica Zalud), Takashi Matsui (for Scott Lozanoff), Tony Guerrero, Venkataraman Balaraman (APTC), Vivek Nerurkar

MINUTES

·  Promotion/Tenure Issues/Feedback/Discussion

·  APTC Feedback - JABSOM’s Appointment, Promotion and Tenure Committee (APTC) Members attended today’s meeting to provide helpful feedback about the promotion/tenure review process.

The following is a summary of Faculty Development, Chairs, APTC, and Dean promotion/tenure feedback so far:

·  External Letters

·  There should be an equal number from applicant and department list

·  There should be at least 4-5 total letters received

·  Make sure they are from “external” reviewers

·  Department Chairs should identify potential COI’s such as past co-workers or collaborators or mentors

·  It was noted that it is difficult to get external letters (on a national level) for applicants applying for promotion from the Instructor (or Junior Researcher) rank to the Assistant Professor (or Assistant Researcher) rank because they have limited national connections or presence

·  Chairs should develop a network of potential external reviewers (as applicable) that you can ask to write letters

·  Look at revising/enhancing the external reviewer request template letter to ask for more specific feedback and comments from external reviewers. (Lori to look for samples from departments who have done this)

·  Start early! Applicants need to send Dept Chairs a list of potential reviewers early

·  Tip: Email or call potential reviewers first to see if they are willing and able to write a letter; only after they have agreed, then send them the formal request letter and applicable material to review

·  DPC and Dept Chair Letters

·  Some DPC and Dept Chair letters were very weak and did not provide enough helpful information

·  Chair letter should be complementary to the DPC letter (not just restating the same information)

·  DPC and Dept Chair letters need to provide sufficient information about the applicant’s contributions and how the applicant meets the criteria

·  Letters should address the areas of teaching, research, service and clinical (as applicable) and not just include comments on positive citizenship in the department and a mere count of the votes

·  Recommend Dept Chair letters to be on Dept letterhead so that it looks more official. Otherwise, it should be clearly defined as the Chair letter with a header at the top to distinguish it apart from the DPC letter

·  Suggest to use standardized format for writing DPC and Dept Chair recommendation letters to include addressing Strengths and any Weaknesses in each of the following areas: Teaching, Research, Service, Clinical (as applicable), Future Value (for tenure applicants only), External Letters

·  Meeting Criteria

·  It is helpful if the applicant and especially the DPC and Dept Chair document how the applicant meets the criteria

·  It is especially helpful to explain how M-faculty meet the M-criteria (ex: meets 9 out of the 11 examples in the JABSOM M-series criteria, etc.). The most helpful DPC and Dept Chair letters stated this.

·  It was noted that some applicants stated that they had a very minimal % FTE assignment in certain areas (such as teaching and research) which seems like this is in conflict with the general UH faculty duty expectations

·  It was also noted that for clinical faculty promotions, it is difficult for these faculty to meet the same criteria as regular, compensated faculty, which creates a morale issue. This needs to be addressed among the clinical Chairs and with the Dean to see if the criteria for clinical faculty can be changed at the BOR level.

·  Votes

·  Difficult for reviewers to determine what “Abstain” votes mean

·  It is perceived by reviewers as a negative vote

·  If “Abstain” is used as a “Recuse” because of potential conflict, then the vote should state this so that it is clear to other reviewers

·  Faculty Mentoring

·  Be sure to meet with your faculty to discuss their readiness for promotion/tenure on an on-going basis (annually). Feedback should be consistent and documented.

·  Be sure you meet with your faculty the year they are planning to apply.

·  Provide them guidance and helpful suggestions (even if that means suggesting they wait another year to apply to make their dossier stronger)

·  Make sure faculty are provided with a copy of any applicable department criteria and procedures and JABSOM M-criteria (as applicable).

·  Department Peer and Student Evaluations (Dept Review Process)

·  If your department uses a faculty peer or student evaluation form or rating scale as part of the DPC and Dept Chair promotion/tenure review process, you need to include a blank copy of the form so that reviewers know how the applicant was evaluated. Also provide a brief explanation of how the evaluations were solicited (how many were sent out, how many people responded, etc)

·  Hawaii Journal of Medicine and Public Health (HJMPH)

·  Just to clarify, HJMPH is considered a peer-reviewed publication. However, the hotline is not peer-reviewed

·  Applicants, DPC, and Chair should help to explain the significance of publishing in this journal if the applicant is publishing here.

·  Dossier Format

·  It was expressed that having a standard dossier format would be helpful for all reviewers. Some dossier were difficult to read.

·  A committee will be set up to develop a standard dossier format for JABSOM. Please let Lori know if you are interested in helping with this committee.

·  Dossier that were easy to read were organized well and included summary statements of how the applicant met the criteria (such as quantified accomplishments - # of publications total and broken down since initial hire and since last promotion, etc.)

·  CV Template

·  A CV template was sent out to all Chairs which many departments have adopted.

·  We recommend that faculty use this format for keeping track of all relevant information needed for preparing to apply for promotion/tenure and for Chairs to send out to external reviewers.

·  It was recommended that the month and year be included for dates of activities, employment, etc.

·  Teaching Evaluations

·  Teaching evaluations in the dossier need to be in summary format per year for each course taught. It should not just include numerous individual evaluations.

·  The UH CAFÉ teaching evaluation form is recommended (as applicable to the course taught).

·  Some clinical departments are also starting to use an online program called New Innovations to manage teaching evaluations.

·  The Office of Medical Education said they are trying to get all PBL evaluations online, because his office receives numerous requests around promotion/tenure time (even though it is the faculty member’s responsibility to keep their own evaluations).

·  DPC Procedures

·  Discussed general feedback received so far from the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (OVCAA)

·  Reminder for all departments to submit DPC Procedure drafts for review and approval. Email draft to Lori Emery.

·  Note: DPC Procedures are mandatory; however, additional Department Criteria are optional.

A summary of the common concerns from the OVCAA regarding DPC Procedures are as follows:

·  OVCAA Concern: Lack of criteria in the document that states how faculty are to be evaluated.On what basis will any judgment be made? How important is teaching, research, service? How is the quality of these activities to be measured?

(Our Note: only DPC Procedures are mandatory, not additional department criteria. However, If criteria are included it should be stated in a way that will be helpful to reviewers.

·  OVCAA Concern: Lack of information on authorship convention within the department or discipline/field. VCAA has requested that each department articulate relevant authorship conventions within their field/discipline.

·  OVCAA Concern: Procedures should include a description of the orderly review process for promotion and tenure reviews and contract renewal evaluations.

·  OVCAA Concern: Dept Chair should not select the DPC Chair because the contract states that the "Dept Chair not participate by voice, vote, presence or in any other form of communication in the deliberations of the DPC."

(Our Note: this concern is based on Manoa’s past experience. This issue is debatable as selecting the DPC Chair does not necessarily mean that the Dept Chair is participating in the evaluation or voting discussion; however Manoa feels that the Dept Chair would be indirectly influencing the process.)

·  OVCAA Concern: Faculty exclusion of DPC members when conflicts may exist. VCAA does not recommend allowing faculty to exclude peers at the department level as they are closest to the faculty member's work, especially in very specialized fields.

(Our Note: this appears to be in direct conflict with the language in the CBA which states the following "The DPC policies and procedures may include provisions for an individual candidate to exclude participation by other department members where the candidate believes that a conflict exists that would prevent the faculty member's fair evaluation of a tenure or promotion application made by candidate.")

·  OVCAA Concern: Use of a 5-point rating scale used in the faculty evaluation (example: contract renewal) process needs to be clarified. What is the rating scale, what areas are being evaluated, etc.

·  OVCAA Concern: If faculty peer evaluations or student or resident evaluations are collected as part of the promotion/tenure review process what procedures are used to collect these evaluations?

·  OVCAA Concern: DPC Procedures should also state procedures for periodic review of tenured faculty (5-year review of tenured faculty) and recommendation of Department Chair.

·  LCME Site Visit Preparation

JABSOM is preparing for a mock site visit in June. You may be contacted to help provide information to be included in the database report as needed.

·  Future Meeting Days/Times

For now, the current day/time for future meetings will remain the same 3rd Wednesday of the month (9:00-10:30am). Next meeting will be April 16.