| Present: | S. Bertics, B. Holden, B. Jensen, F. Kooistra, E. Maurer, C. Merrill, T. Tabone, and B. Wilson. |
F. Kooistra distributed a copy of a letter Dean Aberle sent to J. Torphy that addressed the Chancellor's Initiative for the next biennial budget. This is the last phase of the Chancellor's Initiative. The first phase dealt with compensation, new faculty positions, and maintenance. The second phase deals with additional faculty hires in programmatic areas (distance education, economic development, etc.). The Chancellor asked the Deans to come up with ideas for Phase II. Dean Aberle shared this with the department chairs, the administrative group, and the Academic Planning Council. This letter of general ideas came out of those discussions.
F. Kooistra also distributed a letter from John Wiley soliciting proposals for the final phase of cluster hires.
There is one academic staff position open on the Academic Planning Council. A call went out for nomination but no one was nominated. Frank is notifying people to get nominees and would appreciate any suggestions from this committee. Lillian Tong, Peter Leeds, and Dick Wolkowski were suggested. F. Kooistra is going to check on the process for soliciting nominations. E. Maurer suggested sending an email to all academic staff in the College.
B. Wilson asked about scheduling meetings for next year. After discussion by the committee, it was agreed that the committee would meet June 2, 3:00-4:30 p.m. to complete unfinished business.
Wards I, V, and VI are up for election this year. Current members may request to serve on the committee for one more term. B. Wilson suggested everyone stay on one more year to get organization set up. F. Kooistra suggested a couple of alternatives. The committee could ask for volunteers for another 3-year term or representatives from Wards V and VI could get together and determine the length of each of their terms.
It was decided to put the structure of the election process on the agenda for the next meeting. F. Kooistra will solicit those units with potential elections to see how to resolve the election process.
E. Maurer reported on the performance evaluation. Six hundred surveys were sent out and about one-third were returned. B. Jensen entered all the data into spreadsheets. Fifty-five percent were satisfied with job evaluations. Thirty-four percent were either unsatisfied or unsure of how they were evaluated. There were some surprises-some preferred verbal and written form. One suggestion was for a written/verbal/rebuttal format that would go in their formal records. Dissatisfied people were concerned about the effect of the evaluation on merit. The subcommittee will analyze the surveys further and make recommendations to the committee.
The question was asked, "How successful would it be to implement an evaluation system?" F. Kooistra wasn't sure because of faculty governance but felt that the Dean would support a system of evaluation. Human Resources would implement such a system and is currently setting up files for each academic staff person in the College.
E. Maurer said the goal of their subcommittee is to figure out a way to tabulate the information from the survey in a meaningful way.
S. Bertics reported that the final survey has been approved by the Human Subjects Committee. F. Kooistra called Murray Clayton to see if the Gender Equity Survey had gone out and whether there was overlap with the Climate Survey. The Climate Survey will be mailed out soon. The question was asked, "what is a good response rate for surveys?" Ten to fifteen percent is average.
Report is in.
R. Daluge was not present to report.
General report is in.
This subcommittee merged with the Climate Survey subcommittee.
S. Stevenson was not present to report.
Report is in.
Agenda items will be sent out before the next meeting. Fifteen to thirty minutes will be budgeted to discuss each report and then the committee will take action. Subcommittee chairs need to summarize the work of their group for the Dean.
Submitted 5/9/00
J. Simons