{ "document_id": 13648, "page": 42, "width_pt": 612, "height_pt": 792, "rotation": 0, "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48", "engine": "paddleocr_vl", "source_run_id": 13759, "item_count": 15, "counts_by_type": { "footer": 1, "list": 1, "list_item": 7, "text": 6 }, "build_ms": 2, "items": [ { "id": "p42.1", "order": 1, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 69.84, "t": 719.76, "r": 186.96, "b": 707.76 }, "text": "To: Dr. Erin Wheeler" }, { "id": "p42.2", "order": 2, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 69.6, "t": 696.96, "r": 261.36, "b": 684.72 }, "text": "From: Professional Concerns Committee" }, { "id": "p42.3", "order": 3, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 69.84, "t": 674.64, "r": 185.76, "b": 661.92 }, "text": "Re: Advising Policies" }, { "id": "p42.4", "order": 4, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 69.84, "t": 652.32, "r": 181.2, "b": 639.6 }, "text": "Date: October 3, 2016" }, { "id": "p42.5", "order": 5, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 68.88, "t": 628.56, "r": 535.68, "b": 572.4 }, "text": "Members of the PCC have developed several questions and outlined various concerns with respect to the memorandum which was circulated late last week which outlined our new advising policies and procedures. We would like to invite you to address the many concerns at the Faculty Senate meeting on Monday, October 10, 2016, if you are available on that date." }, { "id": "p42.6", "order": 6, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 68.64, "t": 563.76, "r": 424.32, "b": 550.32 }, "text": "In particular, we would like to have more information regarding the following:" }, { "id": "p42.7", "order": 7, "type": "list", "bbox": { "l": 68.64, "t": 540.24, "r": 543.12, "b": 73.44 }, "text": "", "attrs": { "item_count": 7 }, "children": [ { "id": "p42.7.1", "order": 8, "type": "list_item", "bbox": { "l": 69.12, "t": 540.24, "r": 541.92, "b": 483.84 }, "text": "We are concerned that faculty input was not sought in this new process. This new procedure, particularly in the first semester of implementation, is not clearly defined and seems to have much room for error as we transition between faculty advising and centralized advising. Can you explain to us about the decision-making process behind this new policy?", "marker": "1." }, { "id": "p42.7.2", "order": 9, "type": "list_item", "bbox": { "l": 69.12, "t": 474.48, "r": 538.8, "b": 447.6 }, "text": "We are unclear on who will serve as the success coaches. Are these new positions being created, at a time when we are already in a budget crisis?", "marker": "2." }, { "id": "p42.7.3", "order": 10, "type": "list_item", "bbox": { "l": 69.36, "t": 437.28, "r": 543.12, "b": 367.44 }, "text": "We are concerned that there were some broad generalizations made when implementing this new plan, specifically the charge in the memorandum that faculty engage in only prescriptive advising. We do not believe administration clearly appreciates or understands the role that faculty play in the advising process and we would like to have a better understanding of what our new role, as faculty mentors will be.", "marker": "3." }, { "id": "p42.7.4", "order": 11, "type": "list_item", "bbox": { "l": 68.88, "t": 357.12, "r": 531.12, "b": 270.96 }, "text": "We are concerned about the many duties which appear to be tasked to the Faculty Liaison. There appears to be many hours of additional work tasked to this individual, meeting in focus groups with students, meeting with centralized advising, etc. without regard for the teaching or research duties of that faculty member. This will be true across all divisions, but will be quite burdensome for small departments which may have few faculty, thus rendering one person as both a Liaison and also a Mentor for several students, and also for larger departments which have many declared majors.", "marker": "4." }, { "id": "p42.7.5", "order": 12, "type": "list_item", "bbox": { "l": 68.88, "t": 261.84, "r": 539.76, "b": 175.92 }, "text": "We do not understand the portion of the memorandum (Roman Number V) which specifies a plan for evaluation which is to be included as part of the annual review process and in the tenure/promotion process. It is not clearly defined who will be evaluating whom, or the criteria to be used for such evaluation. In particular, it is the position of PCC that any such plan that would impact the tenure and promotion policies would have to be approved by the Faculty Senate and not come in the form of an administrative directive. We believe this item needs to be discussed with the full Faculty Senate.", "marker": "5." }, { "id": "p42.7.6", "order": 13, "type": "list_item", "bbox": { "l": 68.88, "t": 166.32, "r": 541.92, "b": 125.28 }, "text": "We recognize and appreciate that this new model of 3:1 advising is intended to be a benefit to the student, and allow for the possibility of higher retention and graduation rates. While the theory behind this is sound, we are concerned about the practical implementation of it, especially hastily." }, { "id": "p42.7.7", "order": 14, "type": "list_item", "bbox": { "l": 68.64, "t": 115.44, "r": 536.16, "b": 73.44 }, "text": "We welcome you to the Senate, and hope that you will be able to provide us with more information on this new policy and procedure, especially given that the time for implementation is in the immediate future. Thank you for your willingness to discuss this with Faculty Senate in further detail." } ] }, { "id": "p42.8", "order": 15, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 508.8, "t": 36.72, "r": 541.2, "b": 26.4 }, "text": "Page 42", "attrs": { "block_label": "number" } } ], "excluded_furniture": { "first": [], "last": [] } }