Chapter Pres. T. Keene called meeting
to order at
and called for introductions.Attending:Bill Baker,
Debra Coffey, Tom Dolays, Mel Fein, Dot Graham,
Tim Hedeen, George Hess, Carol Holbert, Amy Houston, Jackie Jones, Tom Keene, Karen Kuhel, Thierry Leger, Kathy Lishman,
Nina Morgan, Meg Murray, Barbara Neuby, David
Parker, Robert Paul, Carole Pierannunzi, Tom Pynn, Sarah Robbins, Susan Rouse, Alice Snyder, Rich Vengroff, Chris Ziegler, Ulf Zimmermann
T. Keene asked to hear about
departmental/college progress on the creation of DFCs
and CFCs—coming along well, with exceptions.
S. Robbins, from the President’s
office, reported that the fundraising campaign was well under way (3rd
year of a 4-year effort); crisis prevention (in wake of VA Tech) projects
also moving along; the PBAC will begin to meet for next year’s budget
L. Lands reported on the 360-review of
deans; other levels have not been reviewed, though evidently mandated by
the BOR.S. Robbins observed that
since faculty members are reviewed every year, why couldn’t there be more
frequent reviews for administrators as well.
noted that we’re doing that in HSS.The big issue is the fixed terms, whether renewable or not.Without these, reviews are less useful.
Re the three deans’ review:According to T. Keene, not only were the
reviews pretty much mere formalities but the three deans actually received
identical letters.One reason that
the faculty received no further details as to these performance reviews
was that the way the survey was conducted allowed anyone with access to
the survey to comment on any of the three deans, whether in that dean’s
college or not.From the deans’
perspectives that “invalidated” the survey results.C. Pierannunzi,
who was responsible for the survey, commented that she saw no indication
that deans were evaluated by those outside their colleges.
R. Paul noted that he had written and
sent the memo voted on in the Faculty Senate regarding explanations of
these review procedures to Provost Black.
C. Ziegler reported on efforts to
adjust the Provost’s across-the-boardrequirement for service of
“national significance” to the realities of the different disciplines,
e.g., for faculty in education for whom the state level is the most
significant (and such of us who specialize, for example, in local