Notes: AFC Luncheon with Provosts, Noon to 1:30 p.m., Thursday, April 26, 2007
Memorial Union, Mojave 222

The meeting began at 12:20 p.m.

Chair of the AFC, Marc Ford wanted to discuss:

1.  A possible global climate conference for the three universities to participate in--

     designing, organizing, and planning at some agreed upon location

2.  NAU review process--related to assessment of administrators

3.  Textbook issue (added to agenda by request)

1.  Global Climate Conference

At the last meeting of the ABOR at UofA, there was a presentation on global climate and the changes that will affect Arizona’s economy, social justice issues, and citizens of the state.

The three universities need to come together and have a conference in the fall of 2007.  We should invite John McCain, Governor Napolitano, the president’s of the three universities, among others. 

It should be a high level /media attracting agenda/event

To Educate the public—guests to include farmers, ranchers, forest service, etc.

To be a forum for the three universities internally as well

Presidents Haeger, Crow, and Shelton are on board with this plan, but it should be faculty driven rather than administrative driven

We can communicate together on this more by AFC email—because may difficult to talk about in the classroom as this is also a political issue J

All the campuses could also have this as a theme, such as we are doing at ASU with the 101 courses that all freshmen will be required to take (ASU 101 has sustainability, integrity, mission of asu, diversity modules)

NAU is also looking at something like this geared for sophomores; we also have the new first year experience program

NAU did an incubator type of program like this (and has a skelton in place already that could be expanded, fleshed out).

The question is--are we doing enough; and at all three universities--should we be working on more?

The virtual water folks have a framework in place and work could begin there

After we chose a location, pick a date, develop a plan, invite people. 

Marc will tell President Haeger about this idea. 

2.  NAU Evaluation Issue – Administrators

A few years ago we voted to have annual assessments of administrators 

Some units have implemented this process others have not.

So, what is being done at your campus, institution for chairs, deans others, and is it online, with forms; is it part of the administrative process and how does it work for you?  NAU Senate leaders want to know.

The unique feature of this process is how to get the information flowing upward (from the faculty to the dean as well as downward from the provost to the dean)

Some units regularly poll their faculty in a survey on how well the chairs are doing

Forms should be standardized and used system wide

Would 5-year or 3-year cycles be desirable?

Should be 3-year comprehensive review?  Not every year, especially for new deans

Should external constituents be sought (Identified by the dean)?

As to faculty, they are evaluated by students, online, every semester, in every class

Should there should be such a form used system wide for “all deans,” “all chairs,” and “all directors?”

This should not be a witch hunt and confidentiality is very important

Constructive comments from the faculty would be beneficial, and make the faculty feel more a part this process

Perhaps there should be a new chair mentoring program

What is needed there is a process for feedback before things are at a crisis state

Avoid the end of semester rush this way

Every year there will still be unique problems that arise that need addressing

We need to have discussion with our provosts and deans to see what they are thinking and what their goals are

If we don’t discuss these  things how can we participate in evaluating them—example, if a dean or chair say to the faculty, I want to do x, y, and z and places emphasis on a, b, c, we as faculty may decide to say, we will able to achieve l, m, n, o, and p

Tempe has the ACDC council that is for chairs and directors and they assist by provide workshops and other kinds of assistance

We have things from the top down right now and our goal is to get the information flowing from the bottom up

Deans should give everyone a standard form to fill out and send to the provost

This may not be a good idea, it has been done, but if you do not receive anything beyond filling out the form and sending it in, that is not so good

UA has the process of having goals communicated and the mission explained before the evaluation occurs, there are focus groups, letters from the outside, and the provost sits down with the committee and discusses that input—should that be included in the report to the faculty, yes, but not necessarily all of it.  There could be a series of conversations that take place.  Then there is the step where the provost goes back to the college and gives a report on the process, which completes the circle. 

NAU wants to look at the goals for the university, looking at an annual review process for administrators with greater faculty participation and feedback--perhaps assessment or evaluation would better describe what we hope to achieve.

A statement of expectations from the administrator in charge

Understand the goals of the dean or chair

And then tell the dean or chair what the faculty expect

We want constituency and a standardized process

It is clear that a 3-year or 5-year cycle is better than annual evaluation because can you think of any administrator that take a job where they know they will be evaluated yearly.  That would deter a lot of good people.

If there is this type of review established, there should the limit of two to three points that they are evaluated on

Some issues arise suddenly for new people, usually personnel related issues--and some things take longer than one year to resolve or see the end result. 

This process should not be labor intensive

Why not?  Faculty have to endure such a process every year?  All faculty are evaluated all the time, and the sense of our faculty is that this is not done enough in the administrative levels—documentation is needed and more accountability

One form could be a periodic, anonymous, “how am I doing form” that is off the record.  Discussed and then given to the provost.  Confidentiality it was said, is not protected if something is entered into your personnel record in writing--because a copy of that file or document can legally be requested.  Some disagreement on that point.

ASU provost receives evaluations of the chairs each year—deans are on five year cycle and faculty are polled.  They are evaluated on three things: academic excellence, retention, and fund raising. 

Everyone should read the 360 Evaluation because it addresses all these issues. 

There is some disconnect when you ask the question how is a dean doing at ASU? 

There are differing perspectives on what is expected.  The faculty has one set of expectations and there are other complexities to be considered.

The Arizona Board of Regents is looking at accountability in faculty post tenure review.  Is there nothing like that for administrators?  If there is, it is not being implemented uniformly. 

The ABOR policy states that there should be review of administrators annually, and that guideline is available, but it is probably delegated back to the university president to do the evaluation. 

Please remember that our goal is not negativity, and that is to uphold the confidentiality of process

Again there is not confidentiality in written documents that can be requested from a public file (personnel folder)

Textbook Issue

This is a very complex issue

Some courses are not taught every semester

Some courses are taught by faculty who are not hired yet

Some course are not scheduled yet

Therefore 80% is not an attainable goal for faculty to turn in their textbook orders by deadline—perhaps we have moved from 2% to 30% and possibly 40% is possible but not 80%

Some courses are small courses where the text is changed each year

More careful analysis is needed to better understand all the issues involved here

There is no simple solution as to what percent of orders should be turned in

Why doesn’t the bookstore buy back books they have sold?

There is a big used book business out there

Does the bookstore simply refuse to provide this service to the students because it is inconvenient?

Are the faculty being set up as the scapegoat?

Because people seem to want to deal with bad faculty data but have skepticism on the other data being presented—this methodology is suspect

Do we believe that the Board of Regents is willing to hear an annual report each year on the cost of textbooks?

Perhaps there could be additional material gathered before the June meeting in Tucson

Bob Mitchell volunteered to assist

The prime directives on this issue are 1) increasing student learning 2) can we obtain the data from all three universities 3) can we make it a requirement that when bookstores bid to come to campus, that they have this as a requirement in their proposal?

What is our strategy to maximize the options for faculty to get their orders in early?

We want the cost to students reduced—however, the students are educated in how to find used books online and even have them delivered to their home.  We do need leverage in bidding but that will not be happening any time soon.  There are as we have a discussed a million factors that go into this.  So, to say, let’s  jump on the faculty is unfair

Statements that sensationalize such as “saving multi-millions of dollars by….” or “the faculty are costing the students x million dollars per year” do not help this situation.

The legislature needs to have more funding for higher education—by doubling funding for textbooks. 

Orders could be placed over the summer even if it is inconvenient to the bookstores.  This definitely needs to be entered into the equation

The bookstore is not the bad guy either, at UA, and they are not a profit center with the exception of sweatshirts and other memorabilia. 

If too much pressure is put on the faculty, they may decide to opt out of the university system, and tell their students to buy their books at where ever.com

For big class sections these orders are usually placed on time. 

Another question to ask is are books really going up that much because it is claimed that since 1998 they have risen 35% in pricing--when the inflation rate has been 35% for the same period.  So, have books really risen in price that much?

The issues of academics are very important to all of us, but this is taking one issue, the cost of textbooks, and placing it squarely on the shoulders of faculty and that is absurd.

The idea of imposing artificial deadlines (80%) for the faculty to get their orders for texts in by a certain date should be rejected. 

Yet there was a great discussion recently about imposing a $100 technology fee for students--and the question came back, why are faculty not included?

There was a request to include in the report this afternoon to the regents about the conference on climate; that there should be better methods to gather accurate data other than surveying the faculty to self identify who turns their orders in on time.  Ask the question if the bookstores have any leeway in pushing back that deadline. 

Perhaps the language could be changed to say 80% of the books have to be ordered, rather than 80% of the faculty must turn in their book orders. 

There also needs to be a few emails circulated closer to the bookstore deadline to remind, rather than one long email at the beginning of the period

The meeting adjourned at 1:24 p.m.

Recorded by: Darby Shaw
Executive Assistant.