COE MENTOR LEADERSHIP SEMINAR
FEBRUARY 9, 2018
8:30 – 10:00 a.m.
LIBRARY STATION – FRISCO ROOM
Attendees: David Hough, Becky Crowder, Denise Cunningham, Paris DePaepe, Jim Meyer, Sarah Nixon, Cathy Pearman, James Satterfield, Emmett Sawyer, Becky Swearingen, Joan Test, Sharon Lopinot
Dean Hough welcomed everyone. He asked faculty from each department to take the handouts and convey information discussed to faculty who were unable to attend today.
The first handout discussed was on the current Annual Evaluation Calendar. The dates on the calendar are dates for specific P & T submissions and recommendations to be completed. The dean suggested those involved work on getting things done ahead of time rather than waiting until the last minute. He also reminded everyone that the department committees, department heads and dean only make recommendations. The Provost makes the decisions. Regarding the deadlines for non-reappointment at the bottom of the calendar, it is also stated about “continuation of appointment to (appropriate) year” by a certain date. Faculty do not get a letter or anything stating their position will be continued. The Provost is going to discuss this at an Academic Leadership Council meeting next Wednesday.
The second handout was the MSU Application for Tenure and/or Promotion. The dean often receives this document incomplete. At the bottom of the form, the committee and department head need to check yes/no for tenure and/or promotion, but also initial and date it. Department Heads need to ensure the form is complete before sending to him.
The third handout was required documents for tenure/promotion application packet. This lists items, in order, to put in the notebook that goes to the Provost. Support information for Teaching, Research, and Service need to be in separate notebooks. The discussion that followed centered on questions Associate Professors have regarding what to put in their documentation notebooks. Some faculty would like a checklist, although it could be varied by program. CEFS faculty added items that could be linked to items required for promotion/tenure in their department guidelines. The dean reminded all departments that guidelines could be changed at any time. Faculty working toward tenure/promotion can use the guidelines existing at their time of hire or the current one, if changed.
Dean Hough asked if any department was making changes to their guidelines. Reading, Foundations, and Technology have formed subcommittees to work on service, teaching and research. The group on service have added lists of possible artifacts a faculty member can use/include for the different requirements. The group working on research are focusing on multiple authors. They want to ask the faculty member for a short narrative regarding what they did specifically. They may also do this for solo research. The group working on teaching will not meet in person until next week but have been working with each other online. They are cleaning up language that is confusing.
The main department guidelines need to clarify that every year is a pre-tenure review. In addition, that faculty are not automatically reappointed every year.
The dean reminded the departments that the Provost needs to approve any changes before they can become official guidelines.
The group discussed having faculty provide documentation showing they attended meetings. This would have to be asked of everyone because they do not want to single out anyone. Some faculty do not attend meetings they have listed on their documentation. Another way to go about this would be to ask what they did on that committee.
James Satterfield asked his faculty if they wanted to work on their guidelines, but there was not a lot of interest. They are going to form an ad hoc committee to look at them and then determine what they should do next year.
Denise Cunningham said the CEFS Department just reviewed and submitted changes for their guidelines last year. They do have examples of documentation faculty can include in their guidelines. She would like to bring up some things to the committee, but they are not currently working on any more changes. Denise did say that they are faced with the issue of what to count for credit for new hires that began working on something at their prior place of employment, but it was published after being hired at the university.
Dean Hough said that it depends, but currently has to say it does not count. We bring in some faculty that have been tenured at their institution. Some are also given some credit towards tenure. In those cases, past service, teaching, and research is credited prior but does not count going forward. A discussion included that if granted a year or two toward tenure, their timeframe for evaluations is shortened. Guidelines do not reflect giving credit for having something published when most of the research was done prior to being hired. The Dean was pleased to see some of the departments reviewing their guidelines. He suggested the possibility of forming a college committee to look at this topic and to include other university faculty.
There are currently twenty-one assistant professors in their first through fifth year in our college. The dean holds monthly tenure/promotion meetings with them. They are getting to know each other. Their questions are more about process. He does tell them on teaching he would like to see how they have resolved helping a student. On scholarship, he would like to see the difference between small articles versus larger ones. For service, they should mostly be doing professional service. These are just his opinions. The dean also reminds them to listen to their mentors and department head. Going forward, starting next fall, he would like to bring the assistant professors to meet with this group and see what they weigh in on as far as the annual appointment process. Do they have any issues or ideas that would be helpful? The dean asked if this should be done as a whole group. Someone suggested to do it by departments or possibly have one or two assistant professors represent their department and meet with the entire group.
Cathy mentioned that some places have faculty account for community service. Our university’s mission is public affairs. This is something departments should think about adding to their T/P guidelines. Emmett said there is some value in that, especially with some of the negativity we get from the press, but it should not count towards tenure/promotion.
Dean Hough ended the meeting and said he would work on putting together a task force next fall comprised of assistant professors, associates, and full professors to review the work of this year’s P & T Seminar and Mentor Leadership Seminar participants. The task force charge would be to submit suggestions for departments to consider regarding R, P, & T Guidelines.
Submitted by Sharon Lopinot, Exec. Assistant