|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| I. | Call to Order: Kathie Wilcox, Acting Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:16 pm. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| II. |
Introduction of Visitors: Ron Smith, Vice-President, Administrative
Services; Jann Hill, Education Division Chair; Whitney Pugh, Budget Director; Chet Herbst, Director Planning, Research & Assessment; Randi Martin, Business Division Chair. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| III. |
Introduction of Senators: Present: Leanne Parker, Tracy Flynn, Provost Tony Fernandez, Lynne Bidwell, Matthew Brady, Scott Brainard, Wayne Carroll, Diane Johnson, Matt Johnston, Cheryl Jurgens, Eric Martin, David McCullough, Ashley Nicholes, Travis Osburn, Mike Owen, Holly Patterson-McNeill, Chris Riggs, Mike Collins (for Clay Robinson), Jim Tarter. Absent: Jason Blazzard, Anita Darrington, Randy Eriksen, Brian Fonnesbeck, Larry Haapanen, Gin Weber. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| IV. | Approval of Minutes of April 28, 2005: The minutes were approved as presented. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| V. | Special
Report: Ron Smith, Vice-President of Administrative Services: Vice-President Smith responded to the Senate’s proposal for a salary step plan by stating it is a good plan that is worth reviewing. He stated that it needs to go through the strategic planning process in order to be prioritized for funding. Kathie Wilcox responded that the Senate will plan to work with Strategic Planning next Fall. Question was raised regarding creation of a similar plan for CSO and PSO. Vice-President Smith stated that administration will look at any well thought-out plan. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| VI. | Provost’s Report: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A. | CAAP: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1.
Accelerated learning task force is earnestly seeking feedback from
Presidents and Provosts. Standards need to be in place to ensure that a college course offered at a high school is identical to that course on campus. The Provost senses that this is an effort to get higher ed more involved at the high school level to increase overall quality of math and science offerings. 2. Two LCSC programs were approved and sent on by the Council: a. BS Earth Information Systems b. BS Hotel/Restaurant Management 3. A definition for “Professional Program” was determined: At a 4-year institution, defined as requiring state licensure and national accreditation; it is also an expensive program to offer. Designation as a “Professional Program” allows increased student fees attached to related courses. Will likely apply only to graduate programs. 4.CAAP was asked to report on Idaho high school graduates’ progress at college. Responded that high schools need to provide that data. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B. | LCSC has
been working with a realtor in Coeur d’Alene to obtain additional office
and classroom space. Current plans are to lease a facility across from Harbor Center. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| VII. | Chair’s Report: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A. | Treasury Report: Figure for April 30th not yet available. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B. | Other: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1. Ospreys have
been building a nest in lights over baseball field. Fish & Game removed
a pair, but others are rebuilding. 2. More than 50% of LCSC students need remedial courses. Timing of courses was discussed. Recommend that English be taken early, while postponing Math if Program allows. Implications include the possible need for increased sections. 3. President Thomas is keeping an open dialogue with Normal Hill residents, whose primary concern is parking. 4. There has been a change in use of student fees for licensing of Campus Cruiser, which costs $30,000 per year. License was originally meant to be subsidized by online advertisements; however, students have questioned the use of fees to pay for service. Ashley Nicholes reported that the filter does not work; she receives as many as 250 emails per day. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| VIII. | Old Business: None. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| IX. | New Business: None. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| X. | Standing Committee Reports: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A. | Administrative
Procedures – Kathie Wilcox: Proposal put forth regarding Policy #2.106 Advancement in Rank (see Appendix A). Determined that original proposal (see Appendix B) is significantly different from new proposal (see Appendix C), thus requiring a first reading. Discussion as to whether faculty had sufficient notice to consider new proposal. Moved and seconded to approve original proposal per first reading 4-28-05. 18 aye, 2 nay. Proposal approved. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B. | Budget Liaison – Kathie Wilcox: No report. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C. | Faculty Affairs –
Leanne Parker: Proposal put forth to change the Baccalaureate Degree
Honors Policy (See Appendix D). Question was raised as to whether the Student Affairs Committee had reviewed the recommended changes. Although it was not reviewed by the Committee, Dean of Student Affairs Andy Hanson has done so and stated he favors the changes. Motion made and seconded to approve the recommendation: 14 aye, 2 nay, 2 abstained. Motion approved. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| D. | Faculty Development – Chris Riggs: No report. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| E. | Student Affairs – Matt Brady: No report. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F. | Technology Advisory – Holly Patterson-McNeill: No report. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| G. | Curriculum – Matt Johnston: See Appendix E. Approved as presented. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| XI. | Other Business: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A. | Chairs of the Standing Committees were thanked for their hard work. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| XII. |
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 4:52 pm. Respectfully submitted, Tracy Flynn, Secretary |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Appendix A
Administrative
Procedures Committee
Briefly, the proposed modification accomplishes the following:
(a)
re-configuration of the review process for promotion/tenure such that
the STPRC or SPRC
There are no other substantive changes to the proposal by the
APC, though the Business and
The 5/03/05 policy iteration was distributed to all Faculty
Senators and Division Chairs prior to the Respectfully submitted, Kathie Wilcox, APC Chair Appendix B
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By |
Action |
|
First Monday in September |
Provost · notifies faculty of their eligibility to apply for advancement in rank based on time in rank and appropriate terminal degree. |
|
Third Monday in September |
Eligible faculty · submit "Request for Promotion Evaluation" to the provost |
|
Fourth Monday in September |
Provost · provides faculty senate chair, STPRC or SPRC chair, Division Chairs, and Deans with list of faculty members who have indicated they will be applying for promotion |
|
Second Monday in October |
Applicants' division
·
submits names of
Individual Promotion Committee members (including chair) to |
|
Fourth Monday in October |
STPRC or SPRC chair · issues list of approved Individual Promotion Committees (identifying chair) to applicant, faculty senate chair, Division Chairs, Deans, and Provost |
|
Second Monday in November |
Applicant · submits portfolio to division office where it will be housed for reviewers (Division Chair, division faculty, Individual Promotion Committee, and Dean) |
|
Second Wednesday in November |
Dean · ensures that portfolio is complete · notifies appropriate reviewers the portfolio is available in the division office |
|
First Monday in December |
Division Chair
·
places summative
evaluation/recommendation · provides the applicant and chair of the STPRC or SPRC with a copy of the evaluation/recommendation |
|
First Monday in December |
Division Faculty members (optional) · place written recommendation in portfolio · provide the applicant and division chair with a copy of the recommendation. |
|
Third Monday in January |
Individual Promotion Committee
·
solicits and adds to
the portfolio the current year · places written recommendation in the portfolio
|
|
Fourth Monday in January
|
Dean · places written recommendation in the portfolio
|
|
Fourth Monday In February |
STPRC and SPRC
Dean
|
|
Second Monday in March
|
Provost
|
|
Fourth Monday in March |
President
·
sends recommendation
STPRC or SPRC chairs, and the Provost · forwards all written recommendations to Human Resources for filing in the applicant’s personnel file · returns portfolio to the applicant · notifies the State Board of Education of promotion recommendation · announces promotion awarded as appropriate
|
XXIV.
Appendix C
XXV.
A. Philosophy
The quality of the College is determined to a
large extent by the quality of the faculty. In our concern for
the
College's quality, the administration and faculty base the criteria for
faculty promotion upon continued
growth in professional skills and
performance. The College encourages and assists each faculty member to
improve professionally. Promotion is one means of encouraging
professional improvement, of reflecting the
continuing value of the
faculty member to the college, and of rewarding meritorious service.
Faculty who
are awarded promotion shall be afforded all rights, rewards,
privileges and responsibilities pertaining to
said promotion.
XXVI. B. Timeline for Advancement in Rank
Unless otherwise established in the
candidate’s initial letter of appointment, the usual timeline for
promotion
is as follows:
Instructor to Assistant Professor—no minimum
time requirement for Academic faculty, two years for
Professional
Technical faculty
Assistant to Associate Professor—normally, a minimum of four years as Assistant Professor
Associate to Full Professor—normally, a minimum of five years as Associate Professor
XXVII. C. Institutional Criteria for Promotion for all Faculty
Criteria for promotion are consonant with the
role and mission of Lewis-Clark State College. Accordingly,
a faculty
member advancing through the ranks is expected to meet escalating
standards of performance and
assume additional responsibilities in
teaching and advising, scholarly/creative activity and professional
development, and service.
Each division shall maintain a written policy
that identifies appropriate standards of teaching and advising,
scholarly/creative activity and professional development, and service
for promotion from Instructor to
Assistant Professor, Assistant
Professor to Associate Professor, and Associate Professor to Professor.
Division criteria for promotion must be developed by division faculty
and be approved by division faculty,
the division chair, the respective
dean, and the provost. Each list of criteria must include the date the
faculty
approved the division criteria. Copies of the criteria will be
maintained in the offices of the provost, dean,
and division chair. The
division chair will distribute copies to all division faculty.
For faculty whose duties are primarily
instructional, teaching and activities that develop and improve teaching
will be weighed most heavily in any evaluation. However, it is
recognized that the faculty of Lewis‑Clark
State College perform varied
tasks, and that the relative value placed on teaching and advising,
scholarly/creative activity and professional development, and service
differ among faculty. Because of this,
division chairs are to negotiate
with the faculty member the relative importance of each criterion to the
evaluation of an individual faculty member's performance. Each
criterion will be weighed weighted relative
to its value
to the division and its appropriateness to the college's role and
mission. This weighing weighting
shall be used in a
consistent fashion by all reviewers.
XXVIII. D. Terminal Degrees
For the purposes of promotion, terminal degrees are defined as follows:
1. Professional-Technical Terminal Degrees
a. Business Technology and Service
(1) Graphic Arts/Printing Technology...................... Bachelor's Degre
(2) Business Management.......................................... Master’s Degree
Early Childhood Development
Hotel/Restaurant Management
Office Technology
Paralegal
Web Development
b. Technical and Industrial................................................ Bachelor’s Degree
2. Academic Terminal Degrees
a. Business........................................... PhD, EdD, DBA
or CPA+CMA+MBA+Current License
or CPA+CMA+Masters in Accounting+Current License
b. Education......................................... EdD, PED, PhD
c. Humanities
(1) Journalism................................ Master's of Fine Arts (MFA) or a PhD
Art
Technical Theater
Creative Writing
(2) All other areas......................... PhD
d. Library.............................................. Master's of Library Science (MLS)
e. Natural Sciences & Mathematics................. PhD
f. Nursing and Health Sciences
(1) Nursing..................................... Masters in Nursing
PhD, EdD, Doctorate in Nursing or related fields for Professor
(2) Radiography............................ Bachelor’s Degree for Assistant Professor
Masters Degree for Associate Professor and Professor
g. Social Sciences................................ PhD
XXIX. E. Definition of Rank
1. Lecturer: A lecturer is a faculty
member who is qualified to teach college level courses, but is not
eligible for promotion or tenure.
2. Instructor: An instructor is a
faculty member who is qualified to teach all levels of college
level
courses and may be eligible for promotion, but not tenure.
For academic positions, a masters degree
in content area is required.
3. Assistant Professor: An Assistant
Professor is an individual who normally possesses a the
terminal
degree or the equivalent in the field and appropriate
professional expertise as determined by the division.
(e.g. MFA).
The rank of Assistant Professor can be a beginning level appointment for
one who holds
the terminal degree or its equivalent in the field, or it
can be a rank achieved after service in the rank of
Instructor.
4. Associate Professor: An Associate
Professor is an individual who in all but exceptional circumstances
possesses a terminal degree or its equivalent in the field and
appropriate professional expertise as
determined by the division.
5. Professor: A Professor is an
individual who in all but very exceptional circumstances possesses a
terminal degree or the equivalent in the field and who has demonstrated
meritorious teaching, scholarship,
and service in the field as defined
by the individual’s division. The rank of Professor shall be awarded
only to those who are proven masters of the field, are outstanding in
that field, and whose general
attributes of culture are
recognized by their fellows with such determination to be made by the
administrations and the faculty. faculties in a
tradition manner.
XXX. F. Academic Faculty
1. Promotion from Instructor to Assistant Professor for Academic Faculty
Normally, the candidate for promotion to
assistant professor will hold the appropriate terminal degree Reviewers will
evaluate and make recommendations for promotion to assistant
or its
equivalent.
professor
on the basis of the following:
b.
Candidate Statement. The candidate shall provide a personal
statement describing the candidate’s
role within the division that
includes appropriate statements on teaching and advising,
scholarly/
creative activity and professional development, and service.
The statement also shall include a
description of how the candidate
meets division criteria for promotion. Appropriate supporting
documentation shall be included as appendices or made available at the request
of any reviewer.
b. Teaching and advising. The candidate
for Assistant Professor shall demonstrate competency in
teaching and
advising appropriate to the discipline and the rank as established by
the candidate’s
division.
c. Scholarly/Creative Activity and
Professional Development. The candidate for Assistant Professor
shall
demonstrate competence in the basic tools of scholarly/creative
activity common to the
discipline and the rank and demonstrate
sufficient professional development, as established by the
candidate’s
division.
d. Service. The candidate should demonstrate effective service, according to division guidelines.
2. Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor for Academic Faculty
Reviewers will evaluate and make
recommendations for promotion from Assistant Professor to
Associate
Professor on the basis of the following:
a. Candidate Statement. The candidate for
Associate Professor shall provide a personal statement
as described in
section F.1.a.
b. Teaching and advising. The candidate for
Associate Professor shall demonstrate proficiency in
teaching and
advising appropriate to the discipline and the rank as established by
the candidate’s
division.
c. Scholarly/Creative Activity and
Professional Development. The candidate for Associate
Professor shall
demonstrate continuing development or refinement proficiency
in scholarly/creative
activity and professional development as
appropriate to the discipline and rank as determined by
the division.
d. Service. The candidate for Associate
Professor should demonstrate a record of active
contribution and
continuing growth appropriate to the discipline and rank as determined
by the
division.
3. Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor for Academic Faculty
Reviewers will evaluate and make
recommendation for Promotion from Associate Professor to
Professor on
the basis of the following:
a. Candidate Statement. The candidate
for Professor shall provide a personal statement as
described in section
F.1.a.
b. Teaching and advising. The candidate
for Professor shall show excellence in teaching and
advising as
appropriate to the rank and to the discipline as determined by the candidate’s division.
c. Scholarly/Creative Activity and
Professional Development. The candidate for Professor
should provide
evidence of excellence in scholarly/creative activity and professional
development
as appropriate to the rank and to the discipline, as
determined by the division.
d. Service. The candidate for the rank of
Professor should demonstrate an excellent record of
service as
appropriate to the rank and to the discipline, as determined by the
division.
XXXI.
XXXII. G. School of Technology Faculty
Faculty w
Within the School of Technology, faculty have the option
of pursuing one of two paths for
promotion: 1) the Academic Degree Path
or 2) The Business/Industry Path. Both paths lead to the
rank of
Professor.
1. Promotion from Instructor to Assistant Professor for School of Technology Faculty.
Candidates who choose either the Academic
Degree Path or the Business/Industry based path
for promotion to
Assistant Professor will have acquired a professional technical
certification from
the State of Idaho.
a. Candidate Statement. The candidate
shall provide a personal statement describing the candidate’s
role
within the division and that includes appropriate statements on teaching
and advising,
scholarly/creative activity and professional development,
and service. The statement also shall
include a description of how the
candidate meets division criteria for promotion. Appropriate
supporting
documentation shall be included as appendices or made available at the
request of
any reviewer.
b. Teaching and advising. The candidate
for Assistant Professor shall demonstrate competency in
teaching and
advising appropriate to the discipline and the rank as established by
the candidate’s
division.
c. Scholarly/Creative Activity and
Professional Development. The candidate for Assistant Professor
shall
demonstrate competence in the basic tools of scholarly/creative activity
common to the
discipline and the rank and demonstrate sufficient
professional development, as established by the
candidate’s division.
d. Service. The candidate should demonstrate effective service, according to division guidelines.
2. Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor for School of Technology Faculty
Candidates who choose the Academic Degree
Path for promotion to Associate Professor will have
acquired a
bachelor’s degree in an appropriate field. Candidates who choose the
business/industry
path must meet the criteria for this path as
established by the division.
Reviewers will evaluate and make
recommendations for promotion from Assistant Professor to
Associate
Professor on the basis of the following:
a. Candidate Statement. The candidate
for Associate Professor shall provide a personal statement
as described
in section G.1.a.
b. Teaching and advising. The candidate for
Associate Professor shall demonstrate proficiency in
teaching and
advising appropriate to the discipline, rank, and promotion path as
established by
the candidate’s division.
c. Scholarly/Creative Activity and
Professional Development. The candidate for Associate Professor
shall
demonstrate continuing development or refinement proficiency
in scholarly/creative activity and
professional development as
appropriate to the discipline, rank, and promotion path as determined
by
the division.
d. Service. The candidate for Associate
Professor should demonstrate a record of active contribution
and
continuing growth appropriate to the discipline, rank, and promotion
policy as determined by
the division.
3. Promotion from Associate Professor to Full Professor for School of Technology Faculty
Candidates who choose the Academic Degree
Path for promotion to Professor will have acquired the
terminal degree
in an appropriate field. Candidates who choose the business/industry
path must meet
the criteria for this path as established by the
division.
Reviewers will evaluate and make
recommendations for promotion from Associate Professor to
Professor on
the basis of the following:
a. Candidate Statement. The candidate
for Professor shall provide a personal statement as
described in section
G.1.a.
b. Teaching and advising. The candidate for
Professor shall demonstrate proficiency excellence in
teaching and advising appropriate to the discipline, rank, and promotion
path as established by
the candidate’s division.
c. Scholarly/Creative Activity and
Professional Development. The candidate for Professor shall
demonstrate
continuing development or refinement excellence in
scholarly/creative activity and
professional development as appropriate
to the discipline, rank, and promotion path as determined
by the
division.
d. Service. The candidate for Professor
should demonstrate a record of active contribution and excellence in service appropriate to the rank,
discipline, and promotion policy
continuing
growth
as determined by the division.
XXXIII. H. Promotion Portfolio
The promotion portfolio must include, at a minimum, the following contents:
1. Candidate Statement (See F.1.a.)
describing how he/she meets the division criteria for promotion
to the
rank desired.
2. Curriculum Vitae.
3. Job descriptions and annual chair and peer evaluations for the last 4 years.
4. Student Reactions to Instructor for the last 4 years.
5. Other materials as determined by the division guidelines.
6. Additional materials as may be
requested by reviewers. If additional material is requested by |
the
Individual Promotion Committee, Standing Tenure and Promotion Review
Committee (STPRC)
or Standing Promotion Review Committee (SPRC),
division chair, dean, provost, or president, the
request and
justification for the requested materials must be in writing to the
applicant. If the applicant
chooses to honor this request, he/she must
sign a waiver available in the Human Resources office
allowing access to
the requested materials. The requested information will be added to the
portfolio as
it is forwarded to the next level of review. The applicant
may respond in writing to clarify the situation
if he or she believes
his or her record has been or may be misinterpreted. Any such
letter will be
added to the portfolio and forwarded with the rest
of the portfolio.
XXXIV. I. Promotion Process
1. The Promotion Portfolio
Applicants eligible for advancement in rank
shall prepare a promotion portfolio. The applicant shall
receive copies
of all items sent to the provost or placed in the portfolio by
reviewers.
The applicant’s portfolio may also
be used for tenure decisions if tenure and promotion occur
simultaneously (see Tenure Policy 2.111 ).
2. Portfolio Review
b.
The portfolio will be made available for review in the division
office for the division chair, the
division faculty, individual
promotion committee, and the dean. The portfolio will be made
available for review
in the provost’s office for the provost, president, and
if necessary,
the STPRC or SPRC.
b. Each reviewer or group of reviewers
will write a promotion recommendation. The
recommendation will address
the candidate’s fulfillment of institutional and divisional
promotion
criteria. The original copy of the recommendations
of the division chair, division faculty, Individual
Promotion Committee
and dean will be placed in the portfolio with copies to the
applicant and
chair of the STPRC or SPRC.. and a copy will
be sent to those reviewers who have already
made a recommendation.
c. At the completion of the applicant’s
review process, the original written recommendations will
be sent to Human Resources for filing in the applicant’s personnel file
and the portfolio will be
returned to the applicant.
d. The applicant’s portfolio may also be
used for tenure decisions if tenure and promotion occur
simultaneously.
3. Reviewers
Each reviewer will make a written
recommendation regarding the applicant’s request for promotion.
The
Division Chair’s summative evaluation/recommendation and recommendations
from the applicant’s
Individual Promotion Committee, Dean, STPRC or
SPRC, Provost and President shall be placed in
the portfolio. If the
recommendation is negative, then reasons for the negative recommendation
(in
writing) are transmitted to the applicant, Individual Promotion
Committee, Division Chair, Dean,
STPRC or SPRC, Provost and President.
The faculty member may submit a written statement regarding
the negative
recommendation, which will be placed in the portfolio and forwarded to
the next level of
review. All materials reviewed by the committee and
reviewers and all proceedings of the committee
shall remain
confidential. The President will make the final determination about
promotion and report
his or her decision to the State Board of
Education.
3. Individual Promotion Committee
a. The Individual Promotion
Committee may be the same as the Individual Tenure Committee as
long as criteria
for both committees are met (see Tenure Policy 2.111).
b.a.
There shall be an individual promotion committee for each applicant.
The individual promotion
committee will consist of five (5) members and
be composed as follows:
(1) Two (2) or more faculty members that
hold the rank the applicant seeks or a higher rank
(from the candidate’s
division if available),
(2) One (1) or more faculty from outside the division,
(3) One (1) or more students, but not more
than 50 percent of the committee membership.
(Student members must have
declared a major and taken upper-division course work in
the applicant’s
division.)
c.b.
Faculty in the applicant’s division will elect one (1) member from the
division’s faculty and one
(1) student to serve on the committee; the
applicant will select the remaining members.
d.c.
Faculty in the applicant’s division will elect the chair of the
committee from the members of the
Individual Promotion Committee.
d. The Individual Promotion Committee may
be the same as the Individual Tenure Committee as
long as criteria for
both committees are met.
4 Standing Review Committee
The College has two (2) standing
promotion review committees, one (1) for academic faculty and
one (1)
for professional-technical faculty. The name of the academic faculty
standing promotion
review committee is the Standing Tenure and Promotion
Review Committee (STPRC). The name
of the professional-technical
faculty standing promotion review committee is the Standing Promotion
Review Committee (SPRC) (see 1.104 Article IV, Section 5 for both
committees’ ’s responsibilities,
committee makeup, and
terms of service).
XXXV. J. Procedures for Promotion Evaluation
1. After review of all credentials and
criteria, the provost notifies faculty of their eligibility to apply
for promotion
2. Following notification by the provost
of eligibility to apply for promotion, the applicant submits a
"Request
for Promotion Evaluation” to the provost's office. Request for
Promotion Evaluation
authorizes the individual promotion committee to
secure current formal student evaluations and
Peer Review
3. The provost provides the faculty
senate chair, STPRC or SPRC chair, division chairs, and deans
with a
list of faculty members who have indicated they will be applying for
promotion.
4. The applicants' division submits names
of individual promotion committee members, including the
chair, to the
faculty senate chair and the STPRC or SPRC chair.
5. The STPRC or SPRC chair issues the
list of approved individual promotion committees, identifying
the chair,
to the applicant, the faculty senate chair, the division chairs,
the deans, and the provost.
6. The applicant submits the portfolio to
the division office where it will be housed for review by the
division
chair, the division faculty, the Individual Promotion Committee and the
dean.
7. The dean will ensure that a portfolio
for each faculty member is completed and made available for
review in the division office by the division chair, the division
faculty, the individual committee, and the
dean. The dean will notify
the above mentioned reviewers that the file is ready for review.
8. The division chair will write a
summative promotion evaluation/recommendation of the applicant
member
based on annual evaluations and other materials in the applicant’s
portfolio. Prior to
submission, the division chair and applicant must
discuss the summative evaluation/recommendation.
The summative
evaluation/recommendation should be attached to copies of prior annual
performance
evaluations, including those by both the division’s
evaluating body, if applicable, and the division chair
or director. The
original copy of the evaluation/recommendation is to be placed in the
portfolio. A
copy will be given to the applicant and to the chair of
the STPRC or SPRC.
The applicant may submit a written
response to be attached to the division chair’s
evaluation/recommendation. This is to be placed in the portfolio.
9. The division faculty members may
choose to review the portfolio and make a written recommendation
to be
placed in the portfolio. A copy will be submitted to the applicant
and the division chair. and
the individual promotion
committee.
The applicant may submit a written
response to be attached to the faculty members’ recommendation.
This is
to be placed in the portfolio.
11.
The Individual Promotion Committee will secure current formal
student evaluations
Student Reactions to Instruction (including the immediate previous fall semester), annual
performance evaluations
and Peer Review evaluations and add these to the portfolio.
The Individual Promotion Committee will review the portfolio and arrive at a recommendation.
Each member of the committee will
have a full vote. Voting will be by secret ballot with no tally
recorded.
The chair of the Individual Promotion
Committee will prepare a written recommendation. The
committee’s
recommendation shall be signed by each member of the committee or by the
chair only.
The original copy of the
recommendation will be added to the portfolio with a copy submitted to
the applicant and the chair of the STPRC or SPRC. division
chair.
The applicant may submit a written
response to be attached to the individual promotion committee’s
recommendation. This is to be placed in the portfolio.
11. The dean shall review the portfolio and
prepare a recommendation. The original copy of the
recommendation will
be added to the portfolio and a copy forwarded to the applicant and
the chair
of the STPRC or SPRC, the division chair, and the
Individual Promotion Committee chair.
The applicant may submit a written
response to be attached to the dean’s recommendation. This is
to be
placed in the portfolio.
12. The dean will then moves
the portfolio to the provost’s office for review of the provost,
the STPRC or SPRC if
warranted, and the president. reviews.
15. The provost will review the recommendations submitted by all reviewers and the
portfolio and determine whether the portfolio will be reviewed by the STPRC or SPRC.
prepare a recommendation to the president and
submit copies to the applicant, division chair,
individual promotion
committee, and dean.
When the provost recommends
against granting promotion, the applicant shall be afforded the
opportunity to present a written response to the provost, who will
consider all pertinent material prior
to submitting a recommendation to
the president. The applicant’s written response will be added to
the
portfolio.
14. The STPRC or SPRC will review the
portfolio if the division chair, Individual Promotion Committee,
or dean
recommends against promotion or if requested to do so by the provost.
The STPRC or
SPRC will submit its recommendation to the provost, and
provide a copy to the applicant, the
division chair, the individual
promotion committee chair, and the dean.
15. When any reviewer or the provost
recommends against granting promotion, the applicant shall be
afforded
the opportunity to present a written response to the provost, who will
consider all pertinent
material prior to submitting a recommendation to
the president. The applicant’s written response will be
added to the
portfolio.
16.14.The
complete portfolio and the provost’s final written recommendation
shall be forwarded to
the president.
The president shall review the portfolio
and determine whether to recommend approval of the
application for
promotion.
If the president decides to not
recommend promotion, he/she shall, in writing, notify the applicant,
the
Individual Promotion Committee chair, the division chair, the
dean, the STPRC or SPRC, and the
provost. The applicant may meet with
the President to discuss the recommendation.
If the president recommends
promotion, he/she shall submit a recommendation for granting promotion
to the State Board of Education, with a copy to the applicant, the
Individual Promotion Committee
chair, the division chair, the
dean, the STPRC or SPRC, and the provost.
1. Applicant
a. Following notification by the
Provost of eligibility to apply for promotion, the applicant submits a
"Request for Tenure and Promotion Evaluation” to the Provost's Office.
Application for Promotion
authorizes the Individual Promotion Committee
to secure current formal student evaluations and Peer
Review
evaluations.
b. The applicant submits the Promotion
portfolio for review to the Division Office.
2. Division Chair
a. The applicant's Division Chair will
write a summative promotion evaluation/recommendation of the
faculty
member based on Annual Evaluations and other materials in the
applicant's Promotion
portfolio. The Chair's evaluation/recommendation
should address the criteria listed in policy 2.107.
b. The summative
evaluation/recommendation should be attached to copies of all prior
Annual
Performance Evaluations, including those by both the division's
evaluating body and the Division
Chair or Director.
c. Prior to submission, the Chair and
faculty member must discuss the summative
evaluation/recommendation.
d. The faculty member may submit a
written response to be attached to the Chair's summative
evaluation/recommendation.
e. In the event the Division Chair has
not had at least one (1) year to observe the applicant, she or
he may
choose to submit the name without recommendation, but may submit an
evaluation of the
candidate.
f. The Division Chair places
submits the summative evaluation/recommendation in the portfolio.
to the Individual Promotion Committee.
g. The Division Chair will ensure the
portfolio is placed in the Library, where it will be housed for
the STPRC and SPRC reviewers.
3. Dean
a. The Dean will ensure a promotion
portfolio for each faculty member is completed and made
available for
reviewers (Division Chair, Dean, Division Faculty and Individual
Promotion
Committee) in the faculty member's Division Office. The Dean
notifies the above reviewers
the file is ready for review in the
Division Office.
b. The Dean shall review the portfolio
and prepare a recommendation. The recommendation
will be added to the
Promotion File portfolio and a copy forwarded to the
Individual Promotion
Committee and division chair.
c. After the applicant receives a
recommendation from the STPRC or SPRC, the Dean will
ensure the
portfolio is placed in the Provost’s office, where it will be housed for
the Provost’s
and President’s reviews.
4. Divisional Faculty (Optional)
a. Division faculty may choose to
review the portfolio and forward a written recommendation to
the
Individual Promotion Committee and applicant.
b. The faculty member may submit a
written response to be attached to the faculty member’s
recommendation.
These are to be added to the portfolio.
5. The Individual Promotion Committee
(IPC)
a. Each member of the committee will
have a full vote. Voting will be by secret ballot with no
tally
recorded.
b. The Individual Promotion Committee
will review the Promotion File portfolio and arrive at a
recommendation.
c. The chair of the Individual
Promotion Committee will prepare a written recommendation.
d. The committee's recommendation
shall be signed by each member of the committee or by the chair
only.
e. The recommendation will be added to
the Promotion File portfolio and a copy forwarded to the
applicant, the division chair, and STPRC or SPRC.
f. Information from the applicant
received after the Individual Promotion Committee has arrived at
a
recommendation will not be considered unless the applicant reapplies in
a subsequent year.
g. The form indicating the Individual
Promotion Committee recommendation shall be sent to the
applicant, the
applicant’s Division Chair, and Dean.
6. If instructed by the Provost, the
Standing Tenure and Promotion Review committee (STPRC) and
Standing
Promotion Review Committee (SPRC) will review the portfolio.
a. The STPRC or SPRC will review the
Promotion File and arrive at a recommendation by simple
majority vote.
Votes shall be cast by secret ballot, and no tally of the votes shall be
reported.
Each member of the committee will have an equal vote in all
matters. The chair of the STPRC
or SPRC will prepare a written
recommendation.
b. The committee's recommendation
shall be signed by each member of the committee or by the
chair only.
c. If the STPRC or SPRC recommends
against granting promotion, it shall inform the applicant
before
submitting its recommendation to the Provost. The applicant shall then
be given an
opportunity to meet with the STPRC or SPRC and to present
additional material in support of the
granting of promotion.
Immediately after the meeting with the applicant the STPRC or SPRC
will
review all materials and again arrive at a recommendation.
d. A copy of the Promotion File
including the committee's recommendation shall be forwarded
to the
Provost. A copy of the STPRC or SPRC's recommendation will be sent to
the
applicant and the Division Chair.
7. Provost
a. The Provost will review the
Promotion File portfolio and prepare a recommendation to the
President.
b. If the Provost intends to disagree
with the recommendation of the STPRC or SPRC, the Provost
will, in
writing, inform the STPRC or SPRC and candidate of that decision.
Before forwarding
a recommendation to the President or sharing it with
the applicant, the Provost will meet with the
STPRC or SPRC to discuss
how the applicant has met or failed to meet the criteria for
promotion,
or other reasons for the recommendation.
b. When the Provost recommends against
granting promotion, the candidate shall be afforded the
opportunity to
present a written response to the Provost, who will consider all
pertinent material
prior to submitting a recommendation to the
President.
c. The Promotion File portfolio
and the Provost’s recommendation shall be forwarded to the
President.
The Provost's final recommendation shall be sent to the applicant, the
Individual
Promotion Committee, Division Chair, and the STPRC or
SPRC, and Dean.
8. President
a. The President shall review the
Promotion File portfolio and determine whether to recommend
approval of the application for promotion.
b. If the President intends to
disagree with the recommendation of the STPRC or SPRC, the
President
will, in writing, inform the committee and applicant of that decision.
Before forwarding a
recommendation to the State Board or sharing it with
the applicant, the President will meet with
the STPRC or SPRC to discuss
how the applicant has met or failed to meet the criteria for
promotion,
or others reasons for the recommendation.
b. If the President decides to not
recommend promotion he/she shall in writing notify the applicant,
Division Chair, Dean, Individual Promotion Committee, STPRC or SPRC, and
Provost.
The applicant may meet with the President to discuss the
recommendation.
c. If the President recommends
promotion, he/she shall submit a recommendation for granting
promotion
to the State Board of Education and the applicant.
K. Procedures for Appeal
1. The candidate may appeal to the Hearing Board (see Policy 2.115, Faculty Grievance Policy).
2. The president's decision on the Hearing Board's recommendation is final.
L. Timeline
1. The timeline for review of
applications for promotion will be: (deadlines that occur on weekends or
holidays are automatically extended to the next working day)
|
By |
Action |
|
First Monday in September |
Provost · notifies faculty of their eligibility to apply for advancement in rank based on time in rank and appropriate terminal degree. |
|
Third Monday in September |
Eligible faculty · submit "Request for Promotion Evaluation" to the provost |
|
Fourth Monday in September |
Provost · provides faculty senate chair, STPRC or SPRC chair, division chairs, and deans with list of faculty members who have indicated they will be applying for promotion |
|
Second Monday in October |
Applicants' division
·
submits names of
individual promotion committee members (including chair) to |
|
Fourth Monday in October |
STPRC or SPRC chair · issues list of approved individual promotion committees (identifying chair) to applicant, faculty senate chair, division chairs, deans, and provost |
|
Second Monday in November |
Applicant · submits portfolio to division office where it will be housed for reviewers (division chair, division faculty, individual promotion committee, and dean |
|
Second Wednesday in November |
Dean · ensures that portfolio is complete · notifies appropriate reviewers the portfolio is available in the division office |
|
First Monday in December |
Division Chair
·
places summative
evaluation/recommendation · provides the applicant and chair of the STPRC or SPRC with a copy of the evaluation/recommendation |
|
First Monday in December |
Division Faculty members (optional) · place written recommendation in portfolio · provide the applicant and division chair with a copy of the recommendation. |
|
Third Monday in January |
Individual Promotion Committee
·
solicits and adds to
the portfolio the current year · places written recommendation in the portfolio
|
|
Fourth Monday in January
|
Dean · places written recommendation in the portfolio
|
|
First Monday In February |
Provost
|
|
Third
In February |
STPRC and SPRC
|
|
First Monday in March
|
Provost
|
|
Fourth Monday in March |
President
·
sends recommendation
STPRC or SPRC chairs, and the provost · forwards all written recommendations to Human Resources for filing in the applicant’s personnel file · returns portfolio to the applicant · notifies the State Board of Education of promotion recommendation · announces promotion awarded as appropriate
|
XXXVI.
Appendix D
Faculty Affairs
Recommended Changes to Baccalaureate Degree Honors Policy at Lewis-Clark State CollegE
Calculating Grade Point Average
For each student, there are three types of grade point average (GPA):
- LCSC Semester GPA
- LCSC Cumulative GPA
- All-Source Cumulative GPA
Each of the three types of GPA is calculated with
the same formula: total number of grade points you have
earned divided
by the total number of graded units (for example, credits) you have
attempted.
Total Grade Points Earned = GPA Graded Units Attempted
In calculating your All-Source Cumulative GPA, LCSC
uses courses you have taken at this college and all
courses you have
taken at other post-secondary institutions.
Graduation Honors
Calculating Graduation Honors
Students who are candidates for baccalaureate
degrees are graduated with honors if they satisfy EITHER
ONE of the
following conditions:
1) their LCSC Cumulative GPA is as specified in the
table below, and they have earned at least 64 credits in
LCSC
courses, OR
2) their All-Source Cumulative GPA meets the specifications in the table below.
Cumulative GPA Honor
3.7 – 3.79 cum laude
3.8 – 3.89 magna cum laude
3.9 – 4.0 summa cum laude
Honors Recognition at Graduation
In honoring a student at commencement, LCSC uses
the following standards, based on the appropriate
grade point average
earned by the end of fall semester for the subsequent May ceremony.
1) LCSC Cumulative GPA for students who have completed at least 48 credits at LCSC; OR
2) All-Source Cumulative GPA for students who have completed fewer than 48 credits at LCSC.
Implementation
Full implementation
of the changes outlined above should be in place and utilized for the
May graduation
of 2007. We strongly encourage IT to prioritize the
creation of the Datatel screen needed to accomplish
this revision of the
Honors Policy.
In the meantime, we
recommend no changes to the awarding of honors. For the calculation of
honors
recognition at graduation, we recommend continuing the “1-time”
policy change approved this spring, as
specified below:
Per the LCSC policy, for all students
with at least 32 LCSC credits earned by the end of Fall
semester 2005,
honors designation at the commencement ceremony will be based on those
LCSC
credits. However, in order to be designated during commencement
with honors, any student with
FEWER than 32 resident (LCSC) credits must
have at least 20 LCSC credits earned by the end of
Fall semester 2005
AND honors will be based on the entire GPA, including transfer
credits.
Respectfully Submitted,
Leanne Parker
Chair, Faculty Affairs
Appendix E
Curriculum Report to Senate
May 5, 2005
The Curriculum Committee has approved the following proposals.
NATURAL SCIENCES DIVISION
Add new courses
GEOL 313/314 (Earth Materials I & II) and delete old courses GEOL
250/251 (Earth Materials I & II): A005-332, A005-333, A005-348,
A005-349
- These
proposals would move the Earth Materials courses from the 200
level to the 300 level. The level of
the course and amount work is appropriate for a junior level class. Other state institutions offer these courses
at the junior level.
NURSING DIVISION
Split NU 203 (Health
Assessment) into a two separate courses, NU 203 (Health
Assessment)
and NU 204 (Health Assessment Lab): A005-334,
A005-336
Split NU 306 (Health
Assessment for RN’s) into two separate courses, NU 306 (Health
Assessment for RN’s) and
NU 307 (Health Assessment for RN’s Lab):
A005-343, A005-340
SOCIAL SCIENCES DIVISION
Add SW 386 (Research Methods) and delete SW 385: A005-348
- This proposal
would effectively change the course number of SW 385 to SW 386. At
present, this course
is cross-listed with PSYC 385 and SS 385. However, the SW version of this course involves a significantly
more rigorous approach. Changing the course number would remove the cross-listing.
Delete the SS
499A/499B (Senior Research Design/Senior Research Project & Seminar)
and change the SS
program to require one semester of SS 499 (Senior
Research Project & Seminar): A005-352, A005-357, A005-358
- The proposed
changes are requested after an internal assessment of the program.
Student are exposed to
many the educational goals of SS 499A in other courses. The proposed changes will also allow students to
take an additional course in their concentration or breadth area.
CC: Acting Senate Chair
Senate Secretary
Senate Webmaster
Curriculum Committee Chair