criteria that may be considered for punishment but it should not be only reason for punitive action.
In the later part of discussion, all senators suggested that each unit can have own evaluation schema and fit it into the university's evaluation benchmarks. A senator suggested there should be some procedure at campus that evaluates the faculty fairly.
Some senators compiled faculty evaluation documents of other universities similar to KSU. It was found that when a faculty is hired, he/she is immediately assigned with a mentor and is made aware of unit level faculty T&P criteria, evaluation benchmarks as stated in the T&P policies of most of the universities they reviewed. They also practice class room observation for teaching evaluation and provide feedback to junior faculty in positive way, which is not punitive.
F/S president Sipes asked how can we meet the January deadline. Suggestions were made to form subcommittees to work on teaching, scholarship and public service. Steven suggested that each senator review Boyer's model along with Registry's recommendations and work in three sections and make one action item to the senate in the next PCC meeting. Senators can suggest the criteria that can be made consistent across the university.
Sipes reminded that all policies have to be approved by BOR unless they rescind earlier decision which made president Burse responsible for the day to day operations of the University (November 2014) which is awaiting reconsideration by the Board at its next meeting.
Senators agreed to come to the next meeting with a draft of teaching effectiveness section after reviewing two documents. Sipes provided (Boyer and Nursing.), and any other research they have found. Senators can also review current faculty handbook benchmarks, CAFSSS's revised T&P evaluation criteria (full senate approved in 2015) and Registry's report and recommendations for revising T&P policy.
Meeting adjourned at 4:40 PM
Notes prepared by
Buddhi Gyawali
PCC secretary
3