From: Craig Turner <craig.turner@gcsu.edu>
To: "fapc@list.gcsu.edu" <fapc@list.gcsu.edu>
Sender: "fapc@list.gcsu.edu" <fapc@list.gcsu.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:45:39 -0400
Subject: FAPC: Update to Advisory to Provost on Faculty Informing Administrative Evaluation
Greetings 2010-2011 FAPC members,
Provost Jordan acknowledged receiving the motion regarding faculty participation in academic administrator evaluation (see below). This motion is the culmination of the committee work on the topic that was referenced on the agenda as "Faculty Evaluation, Triggering Reviews of Department Chairs" which was informed by the recommendations of the committee work group of Susan Steele and Sally Humphries.
-Craig
From: Sandra Jordan <sandra.jordan@gcsu.edu>
To: Craig Turner <craig.turner@gcsu.edu>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 21:12:44 -0400
Subject: Re: FAPC: Advisory to Provost on Faculty Informing Administrative
Evaluation
Thank you, Dr. Turner. I will study the information you provided and take the recommendations under advisement. I'll update the FAPC at our next meeting.
S
Sent from my iPad. Please forgive typos.
On Mar 10, 2011, at 3:59 PM, "Craig Turner" <craig.turner@gcsu.edu> wrote:Provost Jordan,
1. Issue: Faculty Evaluation, Triggering Reviews of Department Chairs
a. Over the academic year, this matter has been considered in the context of how a faculty member might inform the evaluation of an academic administrator, and the specific conversation points have often been expressed in terms of providing suggestions for professional development for her/his department chair. For particular advisory details, see part (2) of FAPC Motion 1 (4 Mar 2011) given in item 3 below.
2. History As you likely recall, a brief history of this matter is
a. 30 Apr 2010: Faculty Evaluation & Triggering Reviews of Department Chairs identified as tentative agenda items for 2010-2011 FAPC
b. 1 Oct 2010: Focus on faculty voice in academic administrator evaluation, FAPC charges work group to review existing Part IV
c. 5 Nov 2010: Work group indicates a preference that faculty voice emphasize professional development suggestions not evaluation
d. 17 Jan 2011: Work group emails its recommendations, placed on 4 Feb 2011 meeting agenda for FAPC consideration
e. 4 Feb 2011: FAPC meeting time exhausted before this item was reached on the agenda, postponed to 4 Mar 2011
f. 4 Mar 2011: Prioritized on this agenda to ensure its consideration, details below
3. Committee Action at 4 March 2011 FAPC Meeting:
Exercising its advisory function, the committee charged me (as committee chair) to forward the motion FAPC Motion 1 (4 Mar 2011) to you for consideration, particularly the second part of the motion.
FAPC Motion 1 (4 Mar 2011) To recommend that
(1) each member of the 2010-2011 Faculty Affairs Policy Committee (FAPC) educate her/his constituency (faculty colleagues) that faculty have an opportunity to inform the evaluation of an academic administrator [see Section 3.07.01 of the Georgia College Academic Affairs Handbook].
(2) the Provost ensure that the administrative evaluation process include a mechanism by which the appropriate personnel solicit developmental feedback, on an annual basis, from the faculty to inform an administrative evaluation. In particular, a recommendation that each Academic Dean actively solicit developmental feedback, on an annual basis, from faculty to inform the administrative evaluation of the department chair or unit supervisor of the faculty. Care should be taken to ensure confidentiality in the collection of this developmental feedback from the faculty. The “Faculty Recommendations for Administrative Development” form (modified version of the existing Part IV) is provided as a sample form that could be used to collect this feedback.
[Note: The sample form referenced in the motion is attached to this email message.]
4. Contextual Information:
a. My impression is that this motion is being sent to you with the understanding that you may choose to inform your consideration to implement this motion with further guidance from those you deem appropriate including seeking further guidance from FAPC.
b. Part (2) of the motion references the "Faculty Recommendations for Administrative Development” form. This form is attached as an MS Word document entitled "ChairDevelopment.doc."
c. Part (1) of the motion refers to this language.
(Excerpt from Section 3.07.01 of the GC Academic Affair Handbook) Part IV, Evaluation of Academic Administrators by others
All faculty have the opportunity to participate in the evaluation of the academic administrators. At their discretion they may complete evaluations on department chairs, deans, directors, assistant vice presidents, associate vice presidents and the Vice President/Dean of Faculties by using the PART IV Academic Administrators Evaluation Form, Located here). Under Georgia state law, all evaluations are considered subject to the open records law. There will be an in depth review of academic administrators conducted every 5 years by the supervisor. The schedule of these 5 year reviews is located here, Administrative 5 Year Review Time Table.
5. Let me know if you require additional information or clarification of this matter.
Craig
<ChairDevelopment.doc>