LCSC Faculty Senate
April 1, 2004
Minutes

I.                    Call to Order: The Chair, Kathie Wilcox at 3:21PM, called the meeting to order.  Present:  Lynne Bidwell, Larry Haapanen, Okey Goode, David McCullough, Anita Darrington, Scott Brainard, Leanne Parker, Clay Robinson, Jason Blazzard, Verna Studer Chris Riggs, Alan Marshall, Jeff Matthews,  Robbie Reno, Diane Johnson, Ryan Gill, Linda Coursey

Absent: Jim Tarter, Wayne Carroll, Gary Mayton, Marilyn Heckendorn, Victor White, Susan Odom, Gene Straughan, Bill Clouser, Eric Martin

Introduction of Visitors: President Thomas and Chet Herbst, Director of Assessment

II.                 Approval of Minutes of Feb. 19 and March 4, 2004: The minutes of February 19, 2004 and March 4, 2004 were approved as presented. 

III.               Chair’s Report

A.       Treasury Report: The balance in the allocated account is $764.04.  The balance in the service account is $3209.56.  The amount in the benevolence account is $600.00.

B.        March SBOE Meeting: 

·        The Legislature declined to approve a further increase in student fees from the already approved 8.5 % fee increase for next fall. 

·        CAAP endorsed the ICHEF recommendation for dismissal of tenured faculty in the financial exigency: As a compromise between the American Association of University Professor’s (AAUP) recommendation of one year’s notice to tenured faculty in the event of financial exigency and the present Idaho policy of “…one full semester after the semester in which the exigency is declared,” ICHEF proposes the adoption of either “…two semesters following the semester in which the exigency is declared,” or “…36 calendar weeks following the semester in which the exigency is declared.”  
 

·        PACE credit fees were adjusted to match the regular semester fees.  

C.       President’s Council: 

·        The President announced that there would be a soft hiring freeze in place because of finances.

·        The vice-president of Administrative Services position will be filled as well as an interim chair for Natural Science.

·        Volunteers for the NAIA World Series are needed.

IV.              Provost’s Report:

·        As part of the discussion on salary increases, the following information was shared: BSU is considering 3 – 3 1/2 % increases while the U of I may not give raises at the beginning of the year but award 1 – 1 1/2 % starting at mid year.

·        President Thomas stated that she is committed to finding money for raises in a smaller budget.

·        Governor Kempthorne still has the option of asking for additional holdbacks in funding.

V.                 Old Business

A.     SUB Faculty Lounge telephone: Until now the SUB has picked the cost for the phone at a cost of $5/mo.  As there is a cost increase, the Senate has been asked to pick up the cost of the phone. Since the phone is used very infrequently, the Chair would like the Senate to consider removing the phone.

Motion:  Remove the phone from the Faculty Lounge.  The motion was approved.

VI.              New Business

A.     Datatel Advisory Committee: Since most of the information available on Datatel is now available to advisors on Warrior Web, the committee would like to request that access by the faculty be eliminated since the cost is based on the number of users.  Senators are asked to take this information back to divisions so that faculty can inform the Senate and the Committee how and to what extent they use the Datatel system.

VII.            Standing Committee Reports

A.     Administrative Procedures – Patricia Keith - The Committee will meet to discuss the policy for advancement in rank and also meet with Susan Odom of Faculty Development to review the changes to the Sabbatical Leave policy. The committee report is available in full through the Faculty Senate web page from the standing committee page.

B.      Budget Liaison – Kathie Wilcox – The Budget Liaison Committee submitted their proposal for approval by the Faculty Senate.   Upon approval, this proposal will be submitted to President, Provost, and Budget Director of LCSC for their approval.

There was a motion to approve all five recommendations as presented with the change of the FY 2004-2005 amended to read FY 2005.  The vote on the motion was twelve (12) yea and three (3) nay.  The motion was approved. The full text of the proposal is attached to these minutes. 

C.     Curriculum – Mike Vernon -  There was a motion to approve the report as presented.  The motion was approved.  The full text of these proposals is available through the Faculty Senate web page.

(FYI from the Registrar)  When changes to program plans are approved, these changes cannot take effect until the new catalog takes effect.  We are currently using the 02-04 catalog and the next catalog will be 05-07.  Program evaluations are based on the catalog year that student is assigned.  Any change in the current policy needs to come through the curriculum committee.  President Thomas asked that the Registrar’s office put the current policy in writing so that the Senate can look at options.  Jeff Matthews will act as liaison to curriculum committee.

D.     Faculty Affairs – Jeff Matthews  - Recent activity of Faculty Affairs

1)      Passed the Employee Reaction to Administration with a final modification

2)      Doing additional research on dis-enrollment

3)      Progress report on SRI revision policy – update on Strategic Assessment

Please see the attachment for the full report

Faculty Affairs Committee will bring a proposal to the next Senate meeting for Senate approval.

       E.   Faculty Development – Susan Odom -

Sabbaticals:  The FD committee has sent forward to the Administrative Procedures Committee a revised Sabbatical Leave Policy (#2.114) and a revised Sabbatical Leave Request Form (#2.114 Attachment) for consideration. The FD committee made no recommendations regarding the criteria for funding sabbaticals but did make changes to the rating system. The purpose of the proposed changes is to make the rating system more equitable relative to the sabbatical criteria.
 

Faculty Development Grant:  The committee is conducting a second round of spring funding. We have eight proposals to rank for funding. The proposals will be discussed at the next FD meeting on 4/2. Any proposal funded must be completed and paperwork in to Billie by June 15.

F.       Student Affairs – Wayne Carroll no report

G.      Technology Advisory – Gary Mayton no report

H.     Other:  All campus meeting on Monday, April 5 at 3:00.

                                    April 27 Faculty Association meeting 3:30

                          Vicki Cerutti Memorial Golf Tournament will be held on
                          May 15.  Proceeds from this event will go directly into
                          helping those in need in our community.  The Lewiston
                          Service League is sponsoring the event.

Adjournment:  4:55 PM

Respectfully submitted,

Linda Coursey
Secretary

Attachments:

Budget Liaison Committee Report:

Budget Liaison Committee of the Faculty Senate

April 2004

The Budget Liaison Committee of the LCSC Faculty Senate has approved the following recommendations and respectfully submits them to the Faculty Senate for approval.  We further recommend that these policy proposals be submitted to the President, Provost, and Budget Director of LCSC for their approval:

Revised Salary Policy Recommendations

I.                   The Faculty Senate of Lewis-Clark State College does not endorse the implementation or use of increases in student fee monies for faculty salary increases.

II.                The Faculty Senate of Lewis-Clark State College recommends that a permanent institutional budget line item be dedicated to annual promotions.

III.             Per the SBOE Objective #8 and the Lewis-Clark College Strategic Plan, the Faculty Senate of Lewis-Clark State College recommends that the institution commit to the dedication of annual salary monies accruing from employee retirements, resignations or for any other reason to the rectification of salary inequities due to gender, age, compression or any other cause.   This commitment should formalize annual salary analysis and identification of salary inequities by department supervisors and division chairs.   Per the annual amount accrued for this purpose, the Vice President for Financial Affairs, Budget Director, and the Compensation Review Committee should collaboratively decide on the per employee percentage to be allocated. 

IV.              The Faculty Senate of Lewis-Clark State College recommends that all faculty at Lewis-Clark State College receive a salary increase for FY2004-2005 equal to 2% of his or her salary or $500.00, whichever is greater.

V.                 The Faculty Senate of Lewis-Clark State College recommends that all adjunct instructors of the college who have been employed for two or more semesters receive a salary increase of 2% for FY2004-2005.

Faculty Affairs Committee Report:

Lewis-Clark State College

“Connecting Learning to Life”

Employee Reactions to Administration (ERA) Survey

Purpose:  The objective of the ERA process is for LCSC employees to provide constructive feedback to their supervisors (and to their supervisors’ supervisors) so that leadership/management effectiveness can be improved continuously throughout the College.  Results from ERA surveys are one of the (many) factors considered in supervisors’ annual performance evaluations.  The ERA system is not a substitute for face-to-face feedback sessions between employees and their supervisors—candid feedback is needed by subordinates and supervisors alike to help us all accomplish our mission and take care of our people.

Instructions for Use:  For each of the major areas listed below (e.g., Leadership, Interpersonal Relations, Communications, etc.), provide constructive comments that, in your opinion, best describe your supervisor’s overall performance for the designated area.  In addition to commenting on the overall area, you are encouraged to provide comments on any applicable sub-areas on the list, or on other factors related to that area that may not appear on the list.  At the end of the form is an area for you to provide feedback on your supervisor’s overall performance, taking all factors into account.  Remember the “Golden Rule”—we all need feedback to reinforce good performance and to help us improve, but strive to keep the tone of your comments constructive, professional, and collegial.

Non-Attribution Policy;  ERA inputs will not be relayed to supervisors (and supervisors’ supervisors) where only one assigned subordinate responds to the survey.  However, we will forward single ERA responses if you request that we do so in your written comments.  All ERA ratings and comments will remain anonymous.  ERA ratings/comments are provided only to the individuals within your direct supervisory chain.  Record copies of ERAs are maintained by Human Resources and Institutional Planning, Research, and Assessment for five years.

Questions?  Need Assistance?  Contact Institutional Planning, Research, and Assessment (IPRA) at 792-2065 or instres@lcsc.edu.

Supervisor’s Name:      ____ [provided automatically by the ERA software]___

Supervisor’s Position:  ____[provided automatically by the ERA software]___

Number of Subordinates:  _[provided automatically by the ERA software]___

Evaluation Period:       _____[provided automatically by the ERA software]

Name of Supervisor’s Supervisor:  _[provided automatically by the ERA software]_

Leadership/Vision

[The list below is offered to prompt your reflection and comments—it is not all-inclusive—feel free to comment on other attributes related to Leadership/Vision]

*Sets and communicates goals and objectives for the unit

*Actively involves subordinates in establishing their own goals/objectives/plans

*Empowers subordinates to carry out unit programs

*Delegates responsibilities to subordinates as appropriate

*Sets reasonable schedules; monitors and follows through on tasks assigned to unit and subordinates

*Adjusts plans and operations when required

*Shows initiative in carrying out the mission while balancing needs of people in the unit

*Supports professional development of subordinates; mentorship

*Acts as an effective advocate for the unit

*Acts as an effective advocate for LCSC

Comments: [Comment on the overall area and the specific attributes noted above, as applicable.  You may commend excellent performance and/or offer suggestions for improvement. 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Interpersonal Skills

[The list below is offered to prompt your reflection and comments—it is not all-inclusive—feel free to comment on other attributes related to Interpersonal Skills]

*Encourages teamwork

*Accessible/approachable

*Empathy/genuine concern for welfare of subordinates

*Fair, impartial toward all employees

*Maintains positive relations with people in and outside the unit

Comments: [Comment on the overall area and the specific attributes noted above, as applicable.  You may commend excellent performance and/or offer suggestions for improvement.

______________________________________________________________________ 

 Working Environment

[The list below is offered to prompt your reflection and comments—it is not all-inclusive—feel free to comment on other attributes related to Working Environment]

*Works to achieve a positive working atmosphere in the unit—sustains morale

*Works to achieve collegial/civil working relationships among employees/people outside the unit

*Ensures that the unit’s working environment/conditions are safe and secure

Comments: [Comment on the overall area and the specific attributes noted above, as applicable.  You may commend excellent performance and/or offer suggestions for improvement. 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Communications

[The list below is offered to prompt your reflection and comments—it is not all-inclusive—feel free to comment on other attributes related to Working Environment]

*Effective verbal communications

*Effective listener

*Effective written communications

*Gets out the word (key information about events inside and outside the unit)

Comments: [Comment on the overall area and the specific attributes noted above, as applicable.  You may commend excellent performance and/or offer suggestions for improvement. 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Personal Attributes

[The list below is offered to prompt your reflection and comments—it is not all-inclusive—feel free to comment on other attributes related to Personal Attributes.]

*Integrity, ethical values

*Loyalty (to employees, supervisors, and the institution)

*Flexibility

*Creativity, intelligence, perceptiveness (situational awareness)

*Judgment

*Moral courage

*Decisiveness

*Reliability/dependability

*Kindness, compassion, sensitivity

Comments: [Comment on the overall area and the specific attributes noted above, as applicable.  You may commend excellent performance and/or offer suggestions for improvement. 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Key attributes related to specific unit missions or unique functions (provide a specific comment that identifies the area being rated and how the individual performed in that area)

[Examples]

*Support of Scholarly Activities (teaching, research, artistic creation) by subordinates [faculty]

*Professional competence within a specific field (e.g., coaching ability)

*Effectiveness/accomplishments in representing unit as member of Faculty Senate, CSO, etc.

*Other noteworthy accomplishments that impacted the unit, you, or other personnel in the unit

Comments: [Provide comments on any unique functions applicable to the position—your comment should clearly identify the attribute you are evaluating.]

______________________________________________________________________ 

Overall Rating

Meets or exceeds your expectations ____     Does NOT meet your expectations____

Comments:  Provide constructive feedback on your supervisor’s overall effectiveness.  Comment on your supervisor’s accomplishments, strengths, suggested areas for improvement, and/or any other key areas that were not covered in previous sections; comments are essential if you rate your supervisor “does NOT meet expectations”])

______________________________________________________________________

THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING OUR EFFORTS TO MAKE LEWIS-CLARK STATE COLLEGE A WONDERFUL PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO WORK, LEARN, AND SERVE.

“Employee Reactions to Administration (ERA)” Project Outline

[Possible Framework for an LCSC Supervisor Assessment Program]

Filling the gap.  LCSC has a feedback process in place to assess the effectiveness of courses and instructors:  the “Student Reactions to Instruction (SRI)” system.  The College also has well-defined processes in place for evaluating the performance of subordinate employees, i.e., Classified Staff, Professional Staff, and Faculty evaluations.  During the past two years’ strategic planning cycles, members of the LCSC community recommended that a system (or systems) be put in place to provide feedback on how well supervisors are managing their subordinates and how well administrators and functional units are serving customers from other units across the college.  The “ERA” ad hoc working group suggests that the following points be the basis for more detailed work on establishing such a process.

§         The working group advises against trying to create a single system to evaluate supervisors as well as gather “cross-campus” survey comments on general support from other units and administrators.  Institutional Planning, Research, and Assessment (IPRA) has already been tasked (in a separate initiative) to explore methods for measuring cross-unit support and assess the satisfaction of customers who are not in the direct chain of command of the unit.

§         The ERA should focus on the immediate chain of command of the affected supervisors and subordinates.

§         The process should complement and mirror the systems now in place to assess subordinates’ performance.  The tighter the interlock between subordinate and supervisor evaluation systems, the less likely there will be concerns over fairness and efficiency of the process.

§         The system should permit anonymity (as the rule) for respondents and preserve confidentiality.  Only the individuals in the ratee’s immediate chain of command (subordinates and higher level supervisors) should have access to ERA inputs.

§         The group recommends adapting the current software being used for SRIs as the host for the ERA questionnaires and tracking system.  This will ensure flexibility of formats and timeliness of responses.  The infrastructure is already in place to adapt and apply such a system.  Paper formats can be used as a back-up system, or until an on-line system is developed.

§         The office of Institutional Planning, Research, and Assessment (IPRA) should have responsibility for maintaining the system, gathering inputs, and disseminating results to supervisors and the Human Resources (HR) office.  This should provide independent oversight of the process and checks and balances.

§         A master database (sounds fancy, but probably a simple spreadsheet) should be compiled to provide a current list of each supervisor, the supervisor’s immediate subordinates, and the supervisor’s immediate supervisor. The database should indicate when each supervisor is scheduled to be evaluated by his/her supervisor, so that there is sufficient lead time to solicit inputs from subordinates.  The objective is for ERA ratings/comments to be available as one of the inputs in the supervisor’s own performance evaluation.

§         The group recommends that all LCSC supervisors (Administration, Professional Staff, Classified Staff, and Faculty, where applicable) be included in the ERA system, from the President of the College (inputs provided, in that case, to the President of the State Board of Education) down to the lowest supervisory level.  The working group does not envision that the ERA process would extend to supervisors whose only subordinates are students.

§         Description of the Cycle.  Prior to the evaluation of a supervisor, that individual’s subordinates would be notified to log on to the ERA website and complete an evaluation of the supervisor.  Employee ID numbers would be used to ensure that each employee has a chance (and only one chance) to provide feedback.  After collection, the feedback would be provided to the rated supervisor’s supervisor.  The supervisor’s supervisor would review the information, and provide an information copy to the ratee.  Results on ratees should not be disseminated lower (or laterally) without the ratee’s express permission.  IPRA would also provide a copy of all collected results to the HR office.

§         Information obtained by the ERA process would be used for two primary purposes:  to give useful feedback to supervisors on the effectiveness of their management and leadership, and to provide greater insight to supervisors’ supervisors on how well subordinates are being led.

§         Criteria.   The group recommends that a basic, common set of questions be prepared for all LCSC supervisors.  These questions should mirror the factors used for subordinate performance reviews (i.e., from a top-down perspective, how well the supervisor is communicating, organizing, supporting professional development, ensuring a positive work environment, etc.). “What’s good for the goose....” This short list of fundamental factors would be augmented with a list of functionally-specific parameters (i.e., factors drawn from the faculty, library staff, division, and/or unit evaluation formats used for assessing subordinates).  The question sets could be tailored to units and to types of employees (e.g., adjuncts could have a slightly different questionnaire than regular faculty.)

§         The process should encourage direct interaction between supervisors and their own raters during the evaluation cycle.  For example, the when the Provost meets with a division chair to discuss the latter’s performance, the ERA feedback from that division’s faculty members would be one of the areas covered.

§         Accommodation for assignment changes:  it is envisioned that supervisors should accumulate at least six month’s experience in a position before subordinates rate them in the ERA system (parallels minimum times currently used for evaluating newly-assigned subordinates).  Newly-assigned supervisors should be given access to their immediate subordinate’s ERA information upon assumption of office (to facilitate effective leadership of the people in their units).

§         IPRA and/or HR may observe significant trends as they gather and collate ERA results.  These can be elevated or shared with the campus community in “generic” terms—any practices or events highlighted in such “cross talks” should not impugn specific individuals or units.

§         Retention of Records.  Supervisors will retain ERA results as one of the elements of their subordinates’ files.  HR will maintain backup records.  As mentioned above, the committee recommends that ERA results be handled with the same level of confidentiality and regard for personal privacy as other performance evaluation material. 

§         Documentation:  Once agreed, the procedures for the ERA process should be incorporated in the LCSC Policy and Procedures manual.

§         Implementation Date Target.   The working group suggests that the College aim at testing and adopting an ERA system before the end of the 2003-2004 academic year.

§         Resource Requirements.   The process outlined above would piggyback on existing assessment (performance evaluation) functions currently performed by LCSC employees, HR, and IPRA.  While costs associated with the ERA process should be marginal and manageable, the working group should try to estimate cost impacts, once detailed planning work on the process begins.

§         Oversight and Review of the ERA Process.   A periodic review process should be established to ensure that the ERA process itself is working well and is keeping pace with the needs of the College.  The (draft) LCSC Institutional Assessment Plan (LCSC IAP-1) describes a College-wide assessment council and committee structure, which, in conjunction with standing shared governance committees, could ensure that the ERA process is reviewed and refined, as necessary, on a recurring basis.