Skip to main content
Scenes from Faculty Senate

Faculty Senate Executive Committee Meeting

Minutes #12

October 24, 2012

 

1. The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, October 24, 2012 in the Dorothy Vocino Conference Room in the URI Library, Chairperson Larsen presiding. All members were present.

2. The Minutes of Executive Committee Meetings #11, October 17, 2012 were approved.

3. Announcements/Correspondence/Reports


a. Chairperson Larsen welcomed Senator Barbour to the Executive Committee. He said that he appreciated her willingness to run for the position. He also noted that since she had served previously on the FSEC, she would be in a good position to catch up with this year's committee.

b. Chairperson Larsen said that the October 19 meeting of the Board of Governors was held in executive session. The only thing he had learned about the meeting was the discouraging report that the Board voted to contest the Labor Board's decision requiring that RIBGHE members' depositions be taken.

Chairperson Larsen announced that President Dooley had supported the Faculty Senate's resolution about the URI/AAUP Contract on Friday afternoon and the President's Office had transmitted it by fax to Lorne Adrain after he signed it.

c. Chairperson Larsen said that he planned to attend the October 29 meeting of the Board of Governors and intended to speak about the Faculty Senate's Resolution. Vice Chairperson Byrd and Senator Rice indicated that they might attend the meeting as well.

d. Chairperson Larsen and Vice Chairperson Byrd reported on their October 23 meeting with President Dooley. They said that the President had indicated that he wanted to get searches for the Vice President for Administration and the Vice President for Research underway as soon as possible. They said the idea of hiring one search firm for the two positions might be a good idea.

It was suggested that members of the Council for Research, as well as research faculty, research scientists and PIs should at a minimum be involved in interviews for Vice President for Research candidates. They also agreed it might be desirable if candidates for the position had experience working with research foundations at other institutions.

In response to a question about membership of Search Committees for Vice Presidents, Ms. Grubman shared the following from section 2.14.10 of the University Manual:

2.14.10 Appointment of Administrative Officers... Search committees for academic administrative positions and Vice Presidents shall include two faculty members appointed by the Faculty Senate...


Chairperson Larsen and Vice Chairperson Byrd also reported that they had raised the issue of the Provost's Administrator Evaluation and had asked the President's advice as to whether the current academic year, 2012-13, or next year, 2013-14 when the Provost will be in the second year of his contract, might be a better time for the evaluation.

The Executive Committee agreed that both the Provost's Evaluation and the Searches for the Vice Presidents should be topics for discussion when they meet with President Dooley on November 8.

e. Chairperson Larsen announced that neither President Dooley nor Provost DeHayes planned to attend the December 13 Faculty Senate meeting because they were both scheduled to be in China.


Ms. Grubman expressed concern that neither would be present for the December 13 meeting of the General Faculty-Graduate Faculty. The Executive Committee discussed three possible alternatives: postponing the meeting until January, moving the meeting to November, or having the meeting on December 13 with another administrator chairing the meeting. It was noted that under succession, the Vice President for Administration, Vice President for Research and Vice President for Student Affairs were designated in that order to conduct business should the President and Provost not be able to do so.

The Executive Committee agreed that January would be too late for approval of December graduates, but that November might be possible because motions to approve graduates are always contingent upon certification by Enrollment Services and the Graduate School. Ms. Grubman was asked to contact the President and the Provost about the alternatives.

4. The FSEC discussed Faculty Senate Meeting #2, which had been held on October 18, 2012. It was agreed that the outcome of the discussion, the approval of the resolution was probably the most productive result of the original motion. The Executive Committee asked Chairperson Larsen to forward to Senators the signed copy of Resolution #12-13--2, along with a brief explanatory cover note, before the end of the week.

It was noted that the description of the persons to be evaluated during the 2012-13 academic year and the editorial suggestion agreed upon at the meeting should be publicized for clarification purposes. Ms. Grubman agreed to attach the edited report to the Minutes of this meeting.

After further discussion, it was agreed that the Faculty Senate Office should obtain a license for Survey Monkey for use during the Administrator Evaluation Pilot.

5. Committees

a. Vice Chairperson Byrd reported on the first meeting of the Administration and Management Review Committee. The Executive Committee suggested that it would be useful for the committee to work with a consultant knowledgeable about process to help them. It was noted that recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on the Future of URI might be useful with regard to suggestions about research process. The Commission had worked during the 2008-09 academic year and had submitted their report to President Dooley when he first arrived.

b. Members of the FSEC, who were also on JCAP, reported on the Committee's October 22 meeting. They said that the issue of joint appointments was discussed including draft templates for hiring letters. They agreed that the process did not cover many problems within and between colleges. They agreed that joint appointments put new untenured faculty in insecure positions and that trying to meet needs of two departments and possibly two colleges doubled the stress on the new faculty member.

Also discussed at the JCAP meeting were diversity issues related to the cluster hires, bookstore policy concerns, and models for new classrooms.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sheila Black Grubman

 

ATTACHMENT to the Minutes of October 24 Meeting of the

Faculty Senate Executive Committee

Faculty Senate Bill #12-13--5

On October 18, 2012, the Faculty Senate approved the following recommendation of the Executive Committee with regard to Administrator Evaluation:


That the Faculty Senate suspend the Administrator Evaluation Process (sections 5.76.10-12 and 10.90.10-15 of the UNIVERSITY MANUAL) for two academic years. During 2012-13 and 2013-14 the Faculty Senate will conduct and assess a pilot administrator evaluation process. Recommendations for changes to the administrator evaluation process will be based on the pilot and proposed for the 2014-15 academic year.

Following is a corrected version of the full proposal:

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
October 11, 2012
As corrected
Proposal for an Administrator Evaluation Pilot Process

BACKGROUND
During the 2011-12 academic year, the Faculty Senate discussed the current administrator evaluation process as outlined in sections 5.76.10-11 and 10.90.10-15 of the UNIVERSITY MANUAL. A subcommittee of the FSEC reported to the Executive Committee in May and much of the following proposal is a result of that report. As directed by the FSEC, Senator Nassersharif, the Administrator Evaluation Coordinator, Senate Chair Larsen and Vice Chair Byrd met with Provost DeHayes in October to discuss the evaluation process and some recommendations are in response to that meeting.

The FSEC now recommends the following:

That the Faculty Senate suspend the Administrator Evaluation Process (sections 5.76.10-12 and 10.90.10-15 of the UNIVERSITY MANUAL) for two academic years. During 2012-13 and 2013-14, the Faculty Senate will conduct and assess a pilot administrator evaluation process. Recommendations for changes to the administrator evaluation process will be based on the pilot and proposed for the 2014-15 academic year.

The pilot evaluation will be conducted confidentially with an effort to be fair and constructive as follows:


a. The following administrators will be evaluated during the 2012-13 academic year in the third year of their current contracts: Deans of Business Administration, Continuing Education, Libraries, and the Environment and Life Sciences. The Provost may also be evaluated during 2012-13.

b. The following academic administrators will be evaluated during the 2013-14 academic year: Deans of Arts and Sciences and the Graduate School, Chief Information Officer, and Vice Provost for Enrollment Management. The President may also be evaluated during 2013-14.

c. The evaluations will be conducted by electronic survey with attention paid to confidentiality. To the extent possible the Faculty Senate's evaluation will be conducted at the same time as the Provost's 360-degree electronic survey of supervisors, peers, staff, and external constituents.

d. The committees for each administrator shall be comprised of five members of the constituency group as currently described in section 5.76.11 of the University Manual.

e. All continuing faculty members in a college (tenure-track and non tenure track) may participate.

f. In the cases of administrators to whom few or no members of the continuing faculty report, constituency groups will be determined in consultation with the administrator.

The following procedure will be followed:

a. The administrator will be asked to prepare a job description using the guidelines in section 3.20.10 of the University Manual including a summary of accomplishments over the previous two years

b. The evaluation committee will be selected and will review job description and adopt a standard evaluation instrument (survey), adding or deleting questions if necessary

c. The survey will be released to the members of each constituency group in a process designed to protect confidentiality.

d. The data from the survey will be kept confidential and forwarded to the administrator's evaluation committee.

e. The committee will prepare a summary.

f. The committee will meet with administrator under review to discuss the findings.

g. The committee will meet with administrator's direct supervisor.

h. The supervisor meets with the constituency to report survey results while maintaining confidentiality of personnel matters.

I. The administrator will have the option to respond to and clarify portions of the summary.