DAFVM Faculty Senate

MINUTES

December 18, 2008

November DAFVM Faculty Senate Meeting
Meeting was called to order at 1:00 pm

Agenda for Discussion Topics
-1- Report from Dr. Jimmy Avery as chairman of the ad hoc committee that is reviewing the promotion guidelines for non-tenure track faculty with emphasis on providing contributions related to faculty that do not have a major FTE assignment in research.
 
-2- Report from Faculty Affairs Sub-Committee related to review of parameters applied in the faculty annual review process.
 
-3- Review of Ag Faculty Senate committees and committee assignments.
 
-4- Review of departmental faculty representation on Ag Faculty Senate.
 
-5- Update of faculty list for members of the Ag Faculty Senate
 
-6- Approve Minutes from November meeting.
 
-7- Survey of members in attendance for topics and issues faculty considered important for the Ag Faculty Senate to address.

Topic 1:  Promotion Guidelines for Non-Tenure Track Faculty

Dr. Jimmy Avery presented a report from the ad hoc committee assigned to review the document forwarded to Dr. Mixon by the Office of the Vice President for Research and Economic Development that addresses guidelines for promotion of non-tenure track research faculty. Members of the Ag Faculty Senate ad hoc committee include Jimmy Avery (chairman), Craig Tucker, Ben West, Al Myles, Michael Newman, and Dinah Jordan.

Background Considerations Discussed
-1-  The MSU Operating Policies and Procedures document does not address promotion guidelines for non-tenure track faculty (AOP 13.07: Academic Promotion and Tenure Policies & Procedures)
 
-2-   Dr. Schulz and Dr. Mixon are committed to establishing a single document applicable to both agriculture and non-agriculture oriented divisions.
 
-3-   Previous MSU President Dr. Fogelsong stated on several occasions that issues and processes related to P&T was the most common complaint among faculty.
 
-4-   Faculty throughout the DAFVM that have previously been involved in drafting similar documents within colleges and departments were uniformly frustrated with the process of trying to have promotion guidelines approved.
 
 
 
Concerns Identified
-1- Document primarily addresses promotion guidelines only for non-tenure faculty with primary (extensive) FTE assignments devoted to investigative and applied research.
 
-2- Concerns exist regarding the interpretation of requirements for assistant professors to demonstrate development of a national reputation as a requirement for promotion.
 
-3- Concerns exist that the document does not address methods or mechanisms for accessing national reputation (reservations regarding how national reputation is interpreted by both intramural and extramural evaluators).
 
-4- Concerns exist that the document does not address methods and mechanisms for correlating percent FTE assignments with the degree of progress attained towards developing a national reputation as a requirement for promotion.
 
-5- Specific issues and unique considerations should be identified and documented at the department and college level during the process of performing faculty annual evaluations, faculty mentoring programs, and during the evaluation of faculty for promotion.
 
-6- Concerns have been expressed by some faculty that ideally single University-wide document should address promotion and tenure policies for both tenure-track and non-tenure track faculty.
 
-7- Some faculty have proposed that a common underlying level of professional expectations and productivity should exist for all faculty
 
-8- Some faculty are concerned that having a separate promotion guidelines document emphasizes a different value system and separate class of faculty on the same campus.
 
-9- Concerns have been expressed by some faculty about the promotion and tenure process taking 10 years before it is possible to be advanced to the level of full professor. Are the financial rewards sufficient for this long of a wait…??
 
-10- Several additional topics of contention were identified including, [i] what constitutes scholarship (e.g. peer reviewed -vs- non-peer-reviewed publications); [ii] demonstration of excellence in multiple (fragmented) FTE assignments related to extension, research, teaching, service, and/or administration without establishing a prominent national reputation); [iii] composition of promotion and tenure committees; [iv] effectiveness of the existing evaluation instrument in implementing newly proposed policy changes; and [v] minimum time-of-service requirements prior to promotion (5-years -vs- 3-years).
 
-11- Reference documents that are being reviewed by the ad hoc committee include; [i] Academic Promotion and Tenure Policies and Procedures (AOP 13.07); [ii] Research, Extension, and Clinical Faculty document (MSUOP 50.66); [iii] Ag Faculty Senate Proposal 2005-2007; [iv] Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Promotion and Tenure Document; and [v] CVM Promotion Guidelines for Non-Tenure Track Faculty (draft document).
 
Schedule for Resolution
-1- The ad hoc committee will meet again in January 2009 as a group to draft a letter that describes concerns and provides suggestions related to the draft document received from the Office of Research and Economic Development. Tentatively, it is planned for the letter to be forward to Dr. Mixon and Dr. Schulz by February 1, 2009. Additional future meetings will have to be scheduled in the event it is requested of the Ag Faculty Senate to actually draft supplemental documentation to be included in the promotions guidelines document for non-tenure track faculty.
 
Topic #2: Parameters applied in the faculty annual review process.
The Faculty Affairs Committee has not scheduled a meeting yet to address this issue.
 
Topic #3:  Review of Ag Faculty Senate committees and committee assignments.
Issue addressed briefly and preliminary list distributed for review. Insufficient time was available for further review so discussion was postponed until the January meeting.
 
Topic #4:  Review of departmental faculty representation on Ag Faculty Senate.
Issue addressed briefly. Insufficient time was available for further review so discussion was postponed until the January meeting.
 
Topic #5: Update of faculty list for members of the Ag Faculty Senate
Issue addressed briefly and preliminary list distributed for review. Insufficient time was available for further review so discussion was postponed until the January meeting.
 
Topic #6:  Review of minutes from November Ag Faculty Senate Meeting
Issue addressed briefly and copy of minutes distributed for review. Insufficient time was available for further review so discussion was postponed until the January meeting.
 
Topic #7: Survey of members in attendance for topics and issues faculty considered important for the Ag Faculty Senate to address.
 
A question was asked from the floor about the status of faculty using university funds for professional fees and memberships. The question will be presented to Dr. Melissa Mixon prior to the December meeting and a response provided to the Ag Faculty Senate.
 
Adjourn: 2: 31 pm

 

Return to minutes page