Budget Committee
Date: 4/16/07 Location: Nursing Conference Room
Time: 8:00am Recorder: Jay Hicks
Members Present: Dr. Jessica Dolecheck (Chair), Brett Bennett, Jane Burson, Sharon Chaney, Dr. Florencetta Gibson, Jay Hicks, Beverly Jarrell, Norma Johnson, Peggy Meredith, Dr. Paxton Oliver, Dr. Linda Sabin, Debbie Wiesnor
Members Excused (in class or out of town on business): Dr. Jan Corder, Donna Eichhorn, Dr. Judy Fellows, Sandra Jones, Dr. Mike Ramsey
Call to Order: 8:03am, Dr. Dolecheck
Agenda
- Approve January 2007 minutes
- Review Evaluation Matrix form
- Discuss strengths and weaknesses of form
- Identify changes/revisions/edits (if any)
- Make recommendations for changes/revisions/edits (if any)
January 2007 minutes reviewed by committee and approved.
Discussion
- Conversation began with a review of the Evaluation Matrix usage from last year
- Dr. Oliver passed out a Synopsis of the protocol used last year
- Dr. Dolecheck reminded members that there has not been a clear designation of available moneys made yet. It has been speculated that available moneys will be forth coming resulting in approximately a 5%- 7% faculty pay increase
- Members asked if updated data from the ASAHP survey was available yet. Dr. Corder has that information and will be sharing with committee once her computer issues have been resolved.
- Mrs. Burson opened discussion in search of a better understanding of the meaning/difference of “Exceeds Expectations” versus “Above Average”, referring to the scale used on the Matrix
- Debate ensued regarding the semantics of the wording and the committee will look at ways to bring more congruency to the Matrix scale wording at later time
- Dr. Gibson suggested the development of a college–wide Faculty Evaluation tool which would more accurately reflect/correlate/validate with the Matrix.
- Generic tool to be used by each school/dept , with the possibility of adding sections to meet dept specific needs
- Dr. Gibson also suggested all Depts submit their Faculty Evaluation tools to each other (or the Committee) so a workable master tool could be developed
- Mrs. Johnson (with insight from CODI faculty) suggested the following to be added to the top of the Matrix to better define individuals
- Faculty Rank
- Workload Hours Breakdown
- Track (academic, clinical, research, etc…)
- Years
at
- Mr. Hicks stated one concern was under Research, #3, Serves on graduate committees, which for most all departments except CODI this area was not applicable. He found it difficult last year to accurate mark faculty.
- Much debate ensued, with final suggestion to move Serves on graduate committees under Service and place in Endnote #7, attends student symposiums, convocation, activities, etc; advises ULM student organizations, serves on graduate committees, participates with students in philanthropic endeavors, etc.
- Dr. Sabin suggested replacing Serves on graduate committees with something to more accurately measure the adoption of current research methods in classroom/clinical teachings.
- She suggested to add: integrate and utilize current discipline-related research in all teaching activities
- Mrs. Chaney questioned members as to how personnel designated as “Clinical Coordinators” measured these distinctions on the Matrix. How was the administrative duties of the CC evaluated using the Matrix
- Mr. Hicks considers CC duties to be part of their Job Description and can not to be evaluated on the current Matrix
- Other debate stated that categories were found under Teaching to reflect these CC duties
- Committee asked “Should a separate tool be developed for Administrative positions”? Meaning how are Department Heads and Clinical Coordinators administrative duties evaluated?
- Dr. Dolecheck asked if there is a possibility to have an “Other” category placed at the end of each category. This would take into consideration of administrative duties, graduate advisory committees, graduate research committees, working with graduate students from other universities, etc…
- Dr. Sabin expressed concern as to how this would be quantified and if it would penalize faculty who did not have something to place in the “other” category.
- Dr. Dolecheck stated the need for College wide job descriptions to be composed and in place to aid new faculty and Dept heads in the evaluation /matrix process
- Mr. Bennett stated with the new CoHS Advisor, is Service # 1 “Accurately and correctly advises students” still needed? Members still feel it is needed as we will all still be advising professional students and speaking with transfers, new students, and not all programs are being served by the COHS Advisor.
- Dr. Dolecheck stated that some Evaluation forms have statements regarding the requirements needed to be met for “Exceeds Expectations”, “Meets Expectations” or “Needs Improvement” etc… She will research for some examples to bring to the committee
Recommendations for Faculty Matrix
§ Edit #3, under Research to read “Integrate and utilize current discipline-related research in all teaching activities”
§ Place original Research 3 under Service 7
-
Endnote 7 would read: Examples: attends student symposiums,
convocations, activities, etc.; advises
- Add faculty description information on top of page
- Rank
- Workload
- Focus Track
-
Years at
- Consider changes to scale language to be more uniform:
- Superior / Exemplary
- Above Expectations
- Meets Expectations
- Needs Improvements
- Unsatisfactory
- Is there a need for a separate Matrix form to be used for Administrative positions?
General suggestions: Job descriptions needed for Department Heads/faculty in order for matrix form to be used effectively during evaluations.
Meeting Adjourned: 9:30am
Respectfully Submitted, 
Jay Hicks