I.                   Call to Order

a.      The meeting was called to order at 3:15 PM by the Chair

II.                 Introduction of Visitors

a.      Present:  Leanne Parker, Tony Fernandez, Susan Odom, Matt Johnston, Barbara Barnes, Laura Bracken, Scott Brainard, Rik Brosten, Margaret Chavez, Mike Collins (proxy for Clay Robinson), Harold Crook, Claire Davis, Julie DeBuhr (proxy for Mike Owen), Ryan Gill, Debbie Goodwin, Allen Hanson, Jacob Hornby, Rachel Jameton, Kent Johnson, Cheryl Jurgens, Ella-Mae Keats (proxy for Tracy Flynn), Eric Martin, Jeff Matthews, Dan Mayton, David McCullough, Ray Miller, Jim Tarter

b.      Absent:  Linda Coursey, Brian Fonnesbeck, Ed Miller, Joni Montez, Gin Weber

c.      Guests:  Chet Herbst, Travis Osburn

III.              Approval of Old Minutes: 

a.      Minutes from the Senate meeting of November 17, 2005 were unanimously approved by acclimation

IV.               Administrative Procedures Report (Jeff Matthews)

a.      The Tenure Policy subgroup has made its first major revision of the tenure policy and procedure.  Dave Thiessen made a recommendation that policy should be separated from procedure.  Administrative Procedures voted to take the extra step of fully separating Policy and Procedure with this revision.  The intention is for this to serve as an example and a template for all future revisions.  Policy is the philosophy and Procedure is the mechanism.  Procedures change far more often than Policies do – having a Policy and Procedure manual that separates the two is far more user-friendly, allows the casual reader to appropriately discern Policy from Procedure and allows Procedure to be easily edited in the future.

b.      With this in mind Administrative Procedures feels that the “Faculty Staff Handbook” should be renamed the LCSC Faculty/Staff Policy and Procedures Manual.  President Thomas will present this idea at President’s Council in the future. 

c.      The Senate Membership sub committee is clarifying language for Senate Membership and for representation and for triggering divisional head counts.  In addition, the committee requests feedback as to whether Administrative Procedures should continue to explore the option of having adjunct representation in Senate. 

The Senate indicated their support of the idea of an adjunct representative. 

d.      The committee received a charge from Provost Fernandez regarding the Administrative Withdrawal proposal.  Provost Fernandez wishes for Administrative Procedures to review the proposed policy and make recommendations to him for changes.   He stressed that Administrative Procedures will be one of many avenues from which he solicits feedback.  The committee is not yet ready to report further on this issue.

e.      The committee has fully reviewed the evaluation timing change that Dean Pharr has requested.  Administrative Procedures has voted to pass the proposed change and present this to Senate (see Appendix A).  The proposed changes are non-controversial and essentially bring policy in line with practice.  The requested change is a response to altered timelines on campus for promotion and review and is also designed to give each stage of the review process adequate time for proper review.  The only possible negative impact Administrative Procedures is aware of is that the process completes for adjuncts the week after the end of school in the Spring.  This is not the case with regular faculty. 

V.                 Provost Report

a.      The Provost has approved the new Honors policy as passed by the Senate in Spring 2005.  This policy will become effective with the May graduating class of 2008. 

b.      The Legislative Faculty Workload Study has been completed and data forwarded to the Legislature.  It is anticipated that this will be an annual process. 

c.      The SBOE accepted the Annual Report updates from all Idaho institutions.  Two highlights from LCSC’s report include our intention to explore a Masters of Applied Teaching degree as well offering BSU’s Masters of Social Work on this campus. 

VI.               Treasury Report

a.      Faculty Senate Appropriated Account:  $2371.69

b.      Faculty Association account:  $4719.77

c.      Faculty Benevolence account:  $1558.39 

VII.            Chair’s Report

a.      President’s Council

                                                              i.      The meeting of the presidents of Idaho institutions involved significant discussion about a community college model for Idaho, especially in the Treasure Valley region

                                                             ii.      Issues related to SBOE

1.      The salary for the new Dean of Engineering at BSU (over $200,000) generated much discussion in SBOE about salaries in higher education

2.      There seemed to be strong sentiment that student fees increases should be moderate this year

3.      There was concern expressed about duplication of programs at Idaho’s higher education institutions

4.      There was discussion about the potential need for a medical school in Idaho

                                                           iii.      The Business Division is currently working on accreditation efforts

                                                          iv.      Dean Hanson reported that Spring 2006 enrolled headcount is down 10% from last year.  Some of this drop may be attributed to senior level students that have not registered yet

                                                            v.      Marika Botha will be presenting a talk at 7 PM @ the Center for Arts & History on her sabbatical in South Africa

                                                          vi.      The open curator position at the Center for Arts & History will not be immediately filled

                                                         vii.      The Governor’s Office issued Executive Order 2005-22 regarding the appropriate use of computers, email and internet at state institutions. Copies of this order were passed out

                                                       viii.      Student Course Evaluations (SCE’s) are available online until the start of finals week

                                                           ix.      The final report regarding student health insurance was issued:  at present, it is not feasible for the colleges and universities to combine coverage

                                                            x.      The new Faculty Association/Senate office is located in George Pfeiffer’s old office about the art studio

VIII.          Old Business

a.      Second reading of a request from ASLCSC to make midterm grades mandatory for all courses

                                                              i.      Several concerns were expressed:  difficulty in providing accurate feedback, especially in upper division courses or courses weighted more heavily in the second half of the semester; additional workload for faculty; lack of feasibility for technical courses (most are only 8 weeks long)

b.      Proposed Motion:  “Develop a policy that will make the reporting of midterm grades mandatory for all academic courses numbered 001-199.”  The motion was unanimously approved

c.      The Provost’s Office offered to write a draft of the proposed policy and forward it to Administrative Procedures for initial consideration

IX.               Standing Committee Reports

a.      Budget Liaison Committee (Leanne Parker):

                                                              i.      The report on the UAP process as observed by Budget Liaison members is now available online on the Institutional Research & Assessment website

                                                             ii.      The committee is going to consider the constitutional role of the Budget Liaison committee in Spring 2006.  Specifically, they will examine how the committee’s responsibilities overlap with the strategic planning, the UAP process, and the Compensation Review Committee

b.      Curriculum Committee (Jacob Hornby):  No report  

c.      Faculty Affairs (Susan Odom):  The Faculty Affairs Committee is currently working on several issues:

                                                              i.      The committee presented two recommendations for consideration:

1.      “Professional staff, Classified staff and Faculty are invited to use the Faculty Lounge, SUB 140, for meetings during regular business hours Monday through Friday except between 11:30 AM and 1:30 PM.  All meetings must be scheduled through the SUB office.”  This recommendation was passed unanimously by the Senate.

2.      “Each Division will communicate the tests offered, times and fees for testing in the Consolidated Testing Center with the test center personnel.”  Concern was raised about Divisions’ negotiating these items, as well as the need for consistent help with student makeup exams. The Faculty Affairs Committee will propose a revised recommendation.

                                                             ii.      The Compensation Review Committee (CRC) delivered their second report to the administration on 12/12

1.      The CRC is revisiting 2001 guidelines for compensation among the CSO, PSO and faculty  

2.      The committee is examining potential non-monetary compensation mechanisms

3.      The committee is discussing potential allocation of funds for equity issues.  The administration has requested a $240,000 line item in the current budget to the Legislature to address equity and compression.

d.      Faculty Development (Linda Coursey):  No report.

e.      Student Affairs (Harold Crook):  No report.

f.       Technology Advisory (Rik Brosten):  The submission forms for the technology grants are available online.  The committee has $25,000 to distribute for classroom infrastructure technology.  At present, no proposals have been submitted.  The deadline is 1/3/2006.

g.      General Education (Ed Miller):  No report.

X.                 New Business – The Chair is examining policies in place for class coverage by a faculty member, including compensation. 

XI.               Good of the Order

a.      Faculty Association Meeting, Thus. 12/15 @ 3:15 PM in the WCC

b.      The ICHEF Legislative luncheon will be 1/11/2006.  RSVP to Leanne by 1/6/2006 if you plan to attend.

c.      The Senate will meet on the following dates in the Spring semester:  2/2, 2/16, 3/2, 3/16, 4/13, 4/27 and 5/11

XII.            Adjournment :  The meeting was adjourned at 4:32 PM by the Chair

---

Appendix A:  Policy 2.112 Revision

A.  EVALUATION:  PURPOSE

     The purpose of confidential evaluation is to support the faculty member’s continuous professional development and excellence.  In this way, faculty evaluation contributes to ongoing improvement of College programs. 

     Evaluation of instructional personnel at Lewis-Clark State College has several parts.  The job description and annual evaluation comprise the foundation.  Other parts include advancement in rank, tenure, and periodic performance review.

     Division Chairs, Deans, Directors, and the Provost are responsible for ensuring compliance with these policies.

B.  GUIDELINES: 

     Within the parameters outlined, the faculty of each Division and the Library will, in consultation with the Dean, establish procedures for evaluating all faculty within the general categories of teaching and advising or library duties, scholarly/creative activity and professional development, and service.  These procedures will recognize variations among disciplines and programs and standards of excellence for the profession as a whole.

     It is the responsibility of the division and library faculty to review their procedures regularly and to make appropriate modifications.  Any modifications will take effect at the beginning of the next academic year.

     The procedures established by each Division and the Library (and any subsequent revisions) will be reviewed for compliance with SBOE guidelines, consistency with other policies, and legal standards and will take effect upon approval by the Dean.  Copies of all procedures will be kept on file in the Dean’s office.

 JOB DESCRIPTION AND ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

A.   JOB DESCRIPTION

     Each year a job description will be developed for all instructional* and library faculty members.  The “job description” for all instructional personnel will include four categories:  teaching and advising; scholarly/creative activity and professional development; service; and collegiality. The “job description” for all library faculty will include four categories: library duties; scholarly activity and professional development; service, and collegiality. 

* Job descriptions are not required for adjunct faculty teaching six or fewer credits per semester.

     The faculty members of each unit are responsible for defining each category.

1.0  Procedure:  The job description will be a result of annual mutual negotiations between the individual faculty member and the Division Chair or Director.  The emphasis a faculty member will give to each of the categories during a contract period will be mutually determined at that time. 

1.1  Division Chair’s Responsibilities:  The Division Chair or Director is responsible for seeing that the unit’s strategic plans are met.  Any reduction or change in teaching load must be approved in advance by the Provost.  The Division Chair or Director is responsible for ensuring that the job descriptions are in accordance with LCSC’s role and mission and strategic plan.

1.2  Dean’s Responsibilities:  All job descriptions must be approved by the Dean.  In the event that the faculty member and the division chair cannot agree to a job description the matter will be referred to the Dean who will make the final decision.

1.3  Timeline:  Before September 15 March 1, the Division Chair or Director will meet with the faculty member to negotiate the job description for the contract period spring semester of the current academic year and the fall semester of the following academic year. and the information to be provided for evaluation.  By September 15, the.  By March 1, the signed “Job Description” form must be submitted for approval to the Dean.  The approved job description will be returned to the division/library and kept on file for use in completing the annual evaluation. filed in the Division or Library Office, the Dean’s Office, and the faculty member’s personnel file in Human Resources.

B.  ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

     All personnel will be confidentially evaluated annually on assigned duties for a given contract period as established by the “Job Description.”  Evaluator(s) will use the categories described below (giving primary consideration to teaching for instructional faculty).  No single datum will be the basis for evaluation, rather a combination of appropriate data will be used to make an overall evaluation, and evaluator(s) will give greater weight to quality of performance, rather than quantity of data.

     Evaluations shall be conducted by a faculty peer process and the Division Chair or Director; in the event that the Division Chair or Director is being evaluated, he or she will be evaluated by the faculty peer process and the Dean will perform the function of the Division Chair or Director.

     For non-tenured faculty, the Division Chair or Director must include with the evaluation a recommendation about continued employment.

     The written annual evaluation will be used as a factor in decisions about reappointment, promotion, tenure, and periodic performance reviews.

1.0  Categories of Evaluation:

Instructional Faculty

a.  Teaching and advising

b.  Scholarly/creative activity and professional development

c.  Service to college, community, and profession

d.  Collegiality: A fundamental responsibility of a faculty member is to maintain constructive and civil interactions with other members of the campus community.

Library Faculty

a.  Library duties

b.  Scholarly activity and professional development

c.  Service to college, community, and profession

d.  Collegiality. A fundamental responsibility of a faculty member is to maintain constructive and civil interactions with other members of the campus community.

1.1  General Guidelines for procedures: 

By a majority vote, the faculty of each Division and the Library will develop procedures for carrying out evaluations.  Procedures must adhere to the following general guidelines:

a.  The faculty will determine, by a majority vote, who will conduct the peer evaluation (e.g., a faculty committee, a faculty member from either inside or outside the division, or some combination of these).  This evaluating body is responsible for adhering to the timelines and for submitting evaluations to the Division Chair or Director.

b.  The Division Chair or Director will submit a separate annual evaluation following the same guidelines, procedures, and timeline as the evaluating body.

c.  The faculty will determine what materials will be used in preparing the written evaluation.  At minimum the following materials are required:

1.  Current “Job Description” form

2.  Current Student evaluations (Faculty must submit evaluations as required by SRI guidelines.)

3.  Current curriculum vitae

4.  Current syllabi

5.  All of the above material shall be kept on file in the Division or Library office; upon request by the peer evaluating body, the Division Chair or Director shall forward these documents (and any additional material required by the unit’s procedures) to the evaluating body.  Upon completion of the process, the Division Chair or Director will forward her or his own evaluation along with the evaluation by the evaluating body to the Dean.

1.2  Timelines:  The following timelines will apply:

Faculty Evaluation Timelines
Activity (Event)	Submit to	1st Year Faculty	2nd Year Faculty	Beyond 2nd Year Faculty	Adjunct
Submit Materials for Evaluation	Peer Evaluation Body	January 15	November 1 October 24	January 15 February 1	April 1 May 15
Evaluators & Division Chair complete and submit “Annual Evaluation”	Deans	February 1 January 25	November 15 8	February 1 March 1	May 1 June 1
Deans submit recommendations	Provost	February 15 1	December 1 November 15	March 15	May 15 June 15

a.  Units will establish procedures for ensuring that required materials are available to the peer evaluating body in a timely manner.

b.  The peer evaluator(s) and the Division Chair or Director will complete the “Annual Evaluation” form.  If the evaluation calls for a plan for improvement, see Section D below. 

c.  “Annual Evaluation” form, plans for development and improvement, and any response shall be submitted to the Dean (see attached chart for dates).  All documents must be signed by the Division Chair or Director.  The faculty member should also sign to indicate having seen them.

1.3  Provisions for Improvement: If the faculty member agrees with the evaluation and deficiencies in performance have been identified, the faculty member together with the Division Chair or Director are responsible for developing and carrying out a plan of improvement.  Any such plan will be included in the final “Annual Evaluation” report.

      If the faculty member does not agree with the preliminary “Annual Evaluation,” she or he may discuss the evaluation with the evaluating body.  If after this discussion, they cannot agree, the faculty member may attach a response to the “Annual Evaluation.”

1.4  Resolving conflicts:  See Grievance Policy.

C.  EVALUATION INSTRUMENTS

Job Description Form

This instrument is a general statement of what each faculty member's job entails.  It is not a Professional Development Plan with specific goals and strategies.  It is negotiated by the faculty member and the Division Chair or Director and must be approved by the Dean.  The Job Description is valid for a specified contract period.  A new job description will be developed annually.  This is the yardstick against which annual performance will be measured.  If any part of the form does not apply to an individual, it can be marked "N/A.”  There are different forms for instructional faculty and library faculty.

It is the responsibility of the Division Chair or Director to ensure that each faculty member's Job Description supports the strategic plans of the Division or Library and LCSC’s role and mission.

Annual Performance Evaluation Form

This instrument is exactly parallel to the Job Description.  It is fundamentally a tool to answer the question: "Did this faculty member perform his/her job, or not?”  It is a checklist that will be used by the evaluator(s) to verify that the job responsibilities outlined in the Job Description have been met.

The evaluation will be conducted in the same manner and by the same evaluator(s) for every faculty member.  The faculty members of each Division will decide by majority vote what the method for the Division will be.  Some possible variations include but are not limited to: a committee of faculty members drawn from the Division (e.g. the Policy and Governance Committee in the Humanities Division), or from more than one Division; one faculty member from the Division who receives release time or service credit; or an outside evaluator.  There are different forms for instructional faculty and library faculty