PTS Committee Meeting Minutes
Those present: R. McCannon, C. Miller, W. Khandker, S. Kelly, Dougherty-Harris, D.
Those Excused: R. Sullivan, C. Foster, R. Carney, J. Anderson
I. Minutes from previous meeting were approved.
II. Discussion was opened regarding the final report. Format, mechanics, etc., were discussed.
a. D. Dougherty-Harris went on record as expressing disappointment in the process of our work so far. While she felt that progress was made toward the charge given the committee, she also felt that the committee missed a huge opportunity to investigate/document faculty service in relation to promotion and tenure issues. While there seems to be a general belief around the committee table that service expectations are changing as positions are cut and budgets rolled back, i.e., more service is needed at the departmental level, this belief was not investigated due to the nature of our charge, namely, finding out quantity and quality of service in relation to standing committees.
b. This opened up discussion as to how we could have completed our charge differently. This led to the realization that we had been directed to investigate faculty service in reference to participation on faculty committees. The committee had determined through a meeting with the chair from the committee on committee’s that there was not a huge problem with participation on faculty committees. In looking at the larger question of quality and quantity of faculty service, it was recognized that we did not need to survey the campus to discover the amounts and types of service, instead, since this is the PTS committee, our concern is in how service done by individuals is evaluated in terms of tenure and promotions. Because of this and the fact that we had unofficially heard about confusions over how service is evaluated by JPC, it was decided that the best next step might be to meet with JPC members to uncover possible problems related to service and promotion. This seemed to be the right time to do this since JPC had just finished this years evaluations.
c. Discussion returned to the final report in relation to these newer realizations, with suggestions being made in regard to the format of the letter to ensure its being read and acted on.
d. Final report was tabled until the next meeting.