Schedule and Current Issues

Proposed Policy on Third Year Review
Resolution to request that the University restrict the use of social security numbers
Computerization of the course evaluations
Revision of department head evaluation forms
Revision of procedures for policy proposals
Implementation of non-smoking entrances to COE buildings

Proposed Policy on Third Year Review

The intent of the College of Education's policy on third year review is to provide ongoing assistance and feedback with respect to promotion and tenure. Promotion and tenure guidelines indicate that [E]ach candidate for promotion or tenure must (1) show evidence of scholarship through publication or other creative works in his or her area of expertise and (2) attain a high level of performance in two of the three primary faculty responsibility areas specified in the University's mission: teaching, research and other creative activities, and service. Those faculty members assigned exclusively to one responsibility area will be advised accordingly.

Proposed procedures for third year review:
1. For assistant professors in their third year, the head of the promotion/tenure unit will appoint a committee of three tenured professors or more (at the rank of associate and/or professor) to thoroughly review the individual's achievements and performance in teaching, research and other creative activities, and service. (Additional faculty members can be drawn from the School if necessary.)
2. This review should commence no later than the spring semester of the candidate's third year of employment. The review should be completed and the required report filed with the appropriate school director by the last day of the academic year contract.
3. The faculty member is responsible for preparing a portfolio that includes vita, summaries of student evaluations, the faculty member's statement of achievements (limited to two single-spaced pages), and other materials requested by the departmental committee. The faculty member may include Individual Mentoring Plans (IMPs) and annual progress reports; a facultymember is not required to do so. Materials produced at other universities may be included in a candidate's portfolio.
4. The committee shall report its findings to the professors and associate professors in the promotion and tenure unit.
5. The promotion/tenure unit head shall provide the faculty member under review with a written report telling him or her of the progress toward promotion and tenure. This report shall include a summary of the committee's feedback. The department head shall meet with the faculty member to discuss the report.
6. The faculty member is encouraged to reply in writing to the report. A reply becomes part of the report.
7. University policy requires that a copy of the third year review be included in promotion and tenure dossiers. A copy of the third year review and any reply will be kept by the faculty member for inclusion in the promotion and tenure dossier.

Resolution to request that the University restrict the use of social security numbers

To protect the social security numbers of UGA faculty, staff and students, the COE Faculty Senate asks that the university administration use social security numbers for extremely restricted purposes, and not for convenient general identification purposes on a multitude of routine university forms. For the latter, another identification number could be assigned, much like the Dept. of Transportation does for driver's licenses.

The rationale for the above request is that identity fraud is becoming increasingly common, with a half dozen UGA cases in the last few months. Currently, faculty and staff social security numbers are used on documents that are easily accessible to anyone interested in identity fraud. For example, grade rolls that contain the social security numbers of faculty and students are frequently left unattended and in open view to the public.

Historically, UGA has used social security numbers for convenient general identification purpose. The genuine risk of identity fraud for financial purposes in these unprotected situations makes the institution liable in cases of fraud, particularly as the University not only makes no effort to protect this information, but actually is responsible for disseminating it.

While the university administration's decision last year to remove social security numbers from identification cards was a step in the right direction, we implore the University to institute a concerted, overall effort to avoid the use of social security numbers. The College of Education Faculty Senate recommends the use of an alternate identification system for faculty and staff as well as students; efforts to minimize opportunities in which such information can be accessed; minimizing assess to vulnerable personal information located on hard copy information, and restricting access to electronically accessible personal information.
Computerization of the course evaluations

The College of Education is in the process of developing a computerized student evaluation of teaching. This spring, the process will be tested in a small number of courses using WebCT1s survey option. Faculty will choose the best items for their course from multiple items organized into five constructs (organization and preparation of subject matter and course, instructor1s teaching style and knowledge of content, teacher-student interaction and respect, student self-rated accomplishments, and evaluation). During the past year, items to measure these constructs were developed based on prior research and input from faculty. Advantages of the system include: increased confidentiality (students will type their responses), faculty members will receive immediate feedback on both close- and open-ended questions, and faculty members will be able to customize their evaluation to their courses. Choosing this method of evaluation will be optional.
Revision of department head evaluation forms

In regard to the development of procedures for administering and report evaluations, there is currently a very low return rate on these evaluations possibly due to a skepticism by the faculty about whether the evaluations are actually read and used during evaluations. Clearly defined procedures for administering and reporting on evaluations will better assure faculty that their concerns regarding the administration of the College are being heard and addressed. Currently, there is no college-wide policy regarding the administration of evaluations. Specifically, we need to determine who will review the evaluations, how confidentiality of the evaluations will be maintained, and whether the Senate and the faculty will haveaccess to individual evaluations.
Procedures for Faculty Senate Initiated Policy Proposals

The purpose of the procedures is to establish clear guidelines for the development of COE policy through the collaboration of the faculty and administration. These procedures are not designed for policy proposals initiated by School Directors, Associate Deans or the Dean of the College of Education. The procedures for acting on Faculty Senate proposals, responsibilities of involved parties, and means of disseminating information about the proposal are listed below.
1. A policy proposal from the COE Faculty Senate must have the support of a two thirds majority of the Senate before it is sent to the Dean. The policy proposal will include a rationale for the proposal in writing. Progress on the development of a proposal will be included in the minutes of the meeting. The minutes will be communicated to the faculty via the COE-listserve. When a policy proposal is complete and has the support of two thirds of the Faculty Senate, the President of the Faculty Senate will communicate the proposal to all faculty using the COE-listserve.
2. The President of the Faculty Senate will present the proposal to the Leadership Team and answer questions related to the proposal. The proposal will be revised to reflect the concerns of the Leadership Team. The revised version is returned to the Senate. The Senate can accept the revised version or create an ad hoc committee to negotiate with the Leadership Team. The President of the Faculty Senate will communicate the revised version of the policy proposal to the faculty via the COE-listserve.
3. When a compromise has been created by the Faculty Senate ad hoc committee and the Leadership Team the policy proposal will be forwarded to the Dean. The President of the Faculty Senate will communicate the policy proposal to all faculty via the COE-listserve. The Dean shall provide a written response to the Senate regarding the policy proposal no later than two months following receipt in the Dean's office. If the Dean is unable to respond within a two month period, the Dean will submit an interim report to the Senate explaining the status of the proposal and the reasons for the delay.
4. If the policy proposal is accepted by the Dean, the Dean signs a copy of the policy proposal making it COE policy. The President of the Faculty Senate sees to it the approved policy is then placed on the COE web site by the Office of Information Technology and linked to the Faculty Senate web site as approved policy. The President of the Faculty Senate communicates the newly created policy to the faculty via the COE-listserve.
5. If the Dean modifies the proposal the Senate may accept the modified version or may vote to create an ad hoc committee to negotiate with the Dean to further revise the proposal. In the case of the Dean rejecting the proposal the Senate may vote to create an ad hoc committee to negotiate with the Dean in an effort to reach a compromise.
Responsibilities of Senators: To understand and accurately communicate with their departments about the development of proposals. To provide accurate information to the Senate about their departments wishes regarding proposals.

Responsibilities of Departments and Department Heads: To be aware of the faculty senate policy proposals through discussions with their senators and through COE-listserve announcements about proposals.

Responsibilities of the President of the Faculty Senate: To communicate information about proposals as it is created to the Leadership Team and to the faculty with frequent announcements via the COE listserve. Announcements will include the agenda for upcoming meetings, meeting minutes and special announcements regarding specific policy proposals after the vote of the senate.

Responsibilities of the Leadership Team: To be aware of senate proposals and to work with the Senate to improve proposals during the development of the proposals and when proposals are presented at the Leadership Team meeting.

Responsibilities of the Dean: To be aware of senate proposals and to work with the Senate to improve proposals during their development. To respond within two months to senate initiated proposals and to work with the Senate to create compromise proposals.

________________________
Date
________________________
Louis A. Castenell, Jr. Dean
College of Education
Non-smoking entrances to COE Buildings
March 29, 2002

It is important that we consider nonsmoking entrances to COE buildings for numerous reasons including: (1) cigarette smoke being an irritant to certain respiratory conditions (i.e. asthma, allergies, and emphysema) and (2) individuals with conditions that require the use of respirators or oxygen may be particularly sensitive to cigarette smoke.

In choosing nonsmoking entrances it is important to keep in mind the entrances that are designed for multiple ways of entering the building. Thus, it is necessary that we consider the potential hazards smoking may pose to those individuals who have no other option but to enter the building via a particular entrance. It is also important that we do not deny any individual's right to smoke. As such, individuals who smoke should also have access to areas that are both covered and provide shelter from the elements. In considering these factors it is proposed the following entrances be designated as nonsmoking entrances:
1. The first and second floor entrances to Aderhold including the garden area;
2. The parking lot entrance of Rivers Crossing; and,
3. The north entrance of Ramsey (already nonsmoking).