Executive Committee Minutes
March 31, 2006
March 31, 2006 10-12 Noon
I. Policy on Course Load Redistribution
a. See corrected draft below for work of the committee and Vice-Chancellor Rominger
II. Pres. Bodmer reported that the Chancellor asked the UFC (during their meeting on our campus last week) to help us figure out our administrative and faculty-governance communication problems
III. Vice-Chancellor Rominger reported on the Pilot Project for Course Load Reassignment
a. Has been working with the Deans
b. Has seen all units except one small unit
c. Very few cases with problems identified so far (10 or less) by the Deans. These individuals have not been notified yet and their cases have not been presented to the Chancellor yet
d. The order of the process is 1-Deans, 2-VCAA, 3-Chancellor, 4-Meeting with Dean, Vice-Chanc. and faculty member
IV. The Chancellor has asked that 3 additional faculty members be selected to attend the Reorganization retreat scheduled in May of 2006. Pres. Bodmer is working on this task.
a. much discussion ensued, centered around what problems reorganization was trying to solve, the connection between mission differentiation and reorganization and why the summer for such an important process
b. I. Hozo requested that Pres. Bodmer ask for the entire representative and elected executive committee to be invited to the May Reorganization retreat. Pres. Bodmer will write a letter requesting this.
c. D. Coffin suggested that faculty members with expertise in organizations and human resources be selected for the retreat
VI. Pres. Bodmer will call another Executive Committee Meeting for 2 weeks from today, (April 14, 2006).
VII. Meeting Adjourned at Noon.
ACADEMIC AFFAIRS DRAFT: 03/01/06
TO: President, Faculty Organization and the Executive Committee
FROM: Office of Academic Affairs
RE: Policy on Course Load Redistribution
Thank you for forwarding the Faculty Organization Resolution on Course Load Reassignment. Based on the Resolution and the comments and suggestions of Academic Affairs, I am forwarding to you a draft of an Academic Affairs Policy on this matter for discussion.
Office of Academic Affairs
Policy on Course Load Reassignment DRAFT: 03/01/06
1. The course load for all full-time tenure and tenure track faculty on the IU Northwest campus as set by the Board of Trustees of Indiana University is four courses per semester with a course load reassignment of one course per semester for faculty actively engaged in research and creative activity.
Because research and creative activity are highly valued as evidence of academic excellence on this campus, the campus expects that all full-time and tenure-track faculty members covered by this policy are actively engaged in scholarly activity, and the campus is undertaking a review to document that activity.
1. The following policy is not intended to replace or supersede provisions of
Faculty Annual Reports,
including the Teaching Load Reassignment Form
· Annual salary recommendations
· Tenure reviews
· Promotion review
· Post-tenure Review
· Promotion and Tenure guidelines
· IU Academic Handbook
The course load reassignment policy encourages a Dean, Program Director, or Department Chair to work with a faculty member to develop a program to improve faculty research performance.
2. All faculty members holding tenure-track probationary appointments, will receive a one-course time-reassignment for research for each semester during the academic years of their probationary periods.
3. Each faculty member will submit a Faculty Annual Report, including a Teaching Load Reassignment Form. In determining whether the faculty is actively engaged in research and/or creative activity, the reviewers will consider the past three years research and creative history of that faculty member in conjunction with the future plans of the faculty as reported in the Teaching Load Reassignment Form and the Faculty Annual Report. The reviewers including the Chair (if applicable), the Dean or Director, and the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs will use the unit specific research standards approved by the academic unit to review each case. Based on these standards, the reviewer will determine the faculty member’s level of activity.
The Dean or Director (or his/her designee) will communicate the results of the review to each faculty member covered by this policy. If a faculty member covered by this policy receives a less than adequate rating in scholarly activity under the approved department and division criteria, the Dean or Director may, at his/her discretion, give the faculty member one year of conditional satisfactory rating, if the faculty member has since begun to engage in active research or creative activity, which shows satisfactory progress toward the unit specific standards.
In the event the reviewers find that the faculty member is not adequately engaged in research or creative activity, the Dean or Director shall deny the faculty member’s request for a course-load reassignment and assign the faculty member a four course load in the next semester in which the course schedule can be adjusted.
If a faculty member is denied a course load reassignment by the Dean or Director, the faculty member will work with the Dean or Director to develop a plan to return to adequacy.
4. If a faculty member covered by this policy
receives a less than adequate rating in scholarly activity, the faculty member
may appeal the decision of the Dean or Director. Faculty who, through this
process of review, are not offered the reassigned course for research shall have
thirty days to request an appeal formally in writing to the Dean or Director
who made the decision
The review, to take place in the Spring
and/or Summer Term, will be
conducted by a department or unit committee composed of a minimum of
three faculty members tenured in the faculty member’s academic unit and
will exclude administrators at the level of department chair and above.
It there are not enough tenured members of the
faculty member’s academic unit available to form the committee outside members
will be sought. The faculty member will be notified as to the makeup of
the committee and has the right to reject a faculty member in the case of
perceived conflict of interest.
The review committee
, and to the dean or director.
and faculty member should make a recommendation
to the dean or director for agree on a clearly delineated
development plan for the faculty member to implement to
overcome the deficiency in research. The Dean
or Director will seriously consider the recommendation the faculty committee
generates. While the dean or director
shall suggest several ways to
return to adequacy, including, but not limited to, mentoring,
attendance at research conferences, or other academic support, the
faculty member is ultimately responsible for meeting the adequacy requirement
for research and scholarly activity.
5. Any faculty member who loses the
reassigned course for research may regain it by returning to adequate
performance in research as measured by unit requirements, which can include
6. Faculty retain all rights of appeal as
specified in the IU Academic Handbook
Pilot Program 2006-2007 Academic Year
Each faculty member will submit a Faculty Annual Report, including a Teaching Load Reassignment Form in 2006. During the 2006 review of the Teaching Load Reassignment Form completed by the faculty, the campus will conduct a pilot review based on both of these completed forms. The reviewers will include the Department Chair (if applicable), the Dean or Director, the VCAA and the Chancellor. This pilot will be used to establish the processes and advise faculty members who might need to increase their research or creative activity in order to continue to receive a course-load reassignment. The Dean or Director (or his/her designee) will report the results of the pilot review to each faculty member and make recommendations for improvement to any faculty member who does not meet the criteria for course-load reassignment.
Bold type – Language from the Faculty Organization Resolution
Regular typeface - Changes we inserted
Strikethrough - Changes during last
Deans’ and Directors’ Council meeting
Underlining – indicates words added
Yellow highlight – additions during Vice-Chancellor meeting with Executive Committee. Strikethroughs removed for clarity as text was agreed upon by the two parties. Additional original information that was removed through discussion with the two parties has also been deleted from the document.
Return to Faculty Org Main Page