Faculty Policies & Procedures – FPPC Meeting

Date: June 16, 2006

Location: Penthouse CR1

Time: 7:30 – 9:30 a.m.

 

Attendance:

 

Members Present:   Dr. Madelyn Coar, Dr. Pat Greenup (Past Chair), Dr. Donna Handley, Dr. Audrey Harris, Dr. Jeanne Hutchison, Dr. Mark Lockhart, Mr. Timothy Pennycuff, Dr. Rose Scripa, Dr. Om Srivastava, Dr. Uday Vaidya, Ms. Carolyn Walden (Chair), Dr. John Waterbor

 

Alternates Present: None

 

Members Absent With Notice: Dr. Peter Anderson, Dr. Kathleen Berecek, Provost Eli Capilouto, Mr. Ed Kennedy, Dr. Philip Musa, Dr. Eduardo Neiva

 

Members Absent Without Notice: Dr. Loucrecia Collins, Dr. Joan Grant

 

Ex-Officio Members Present:

Representative to FPPC: Mr. Kris Findlay – HR Executive Director of Business Operations

 

Agenda Items:

 

A. Call to Order:  

 

The meeting was called to order at 7:35 a.m.

 

B. Adoption of May 2006 Minutes:

 

      The minutes of the May 19, 2006 FPPC meeting were approved as

      distributed.

 

 

C. Chair Report:

 

Chair Greenup indicated that over the last month she has been following up on the FPPC sub-committee activities. The only outstanding action item to be completed by Dr. Greenup is the FPPC mail tracking log. Dr. Greenup thanked everyone on the committee for their support over the last year while serving on the committee.  Dr. Greenup indicated that an annual report of the FPPC recent activities are included in the May 19, 2006 FPPC minutes.

 

 

 

            D. Election of Chair and Chair Elect

 

John Waterbor (Nominating Committee Co-Chair) noted there were 3 candidates on the FPPC election ballot for the 2006-2007 FPPC term. There were brief remarks from candidates Walden, Coar, and Lockart. There were no additional nominees.  Ballots were distributed to the FPPC members and approval voting was used. 

 

Election Results: Ms. Carolyn Walden Chair – Dr. Madelyn Coar Vice-Chair

 

Ms. Walden thanked out-going Chair Greenup for her service and began her conduct of the FPPC meeting.

 

E. Senate Report:

 

Dr. Greenup indicated that the changes related to the Operating Rules of the FPPC (Section 2.10.2 of the Faculty Handbook and Section II.2. of the Senate By-laws were approved by the Provost. The Senate Bylaws have been updated to indicate the new changes.  Dr. Lockhart informed the FPPC members that the Periodic Career Review Draft policy will be voted on at the July 2006 Senate meeting.

 

Dr. Greenup indicated that previous revisions to the Handbook including the Introduction, and several changes for additional section and the Conflict of Commitment policies were sent to the senate in January 2006 and have since been forwarded to the Provost Office for approval.

 

F.   Old Business – Subcommittee Reports:

 

1.  Family Friendly Subcommittee – report by Madelyn Coar

 

Members were not able to arrive at new strategy for moving past the objections raised by the President and Provost. The subcommittee decided not to reword the proposed policies previously approved by the full FPPC and submitted to the Senate. There was a suggestion to survey the faculty to determine if there is a concern for the issues raised but Rose Scripa suggested waiting and perhaps adding relevant topics to the “Work Life and Climate” survey being developed by Cheryl Locke in Human Resources.  Survey may include issues relevant to ADVANCE and the Commission on the Status of Women. Rose also indicated that Sue Rosser, author of  The Glass Ceiling (i.e. The Science Glass Ceiling: Academic Women Scientists and the Struggle to Succeed), would make a presentation to the Academic Programs Council to share creative solutions Georgia Tech has tried to include family friendly policies for faculty. The meeting had not been scheduled at time of FPPC meeting.

 

ACTION ITEM: Subcommittee will meet with Dr. Scripa to review creative solutions and will review recommendations from Sue Rosser presentation to the Academic Programs Council.

 

 

2.  Student Intellectual Property Subcommittee – report by Om Srivastava (handout attached)

 

 M E M O R A N D U M

 

DATE:            May 23, 2006

 

TO:                 FPPC Members

 

FROM:           Kathleen H. Berecek, Chair

 

 

Charge 1: 

 

To review existing policy on student ownership-intellectual property as in the undergraduate, graduate, and Direction Student Handbook.

 

Result:  After reviewing all handbooks (i.e., UAB Postdoctoral Educational Guide, UAB Graduate School Handbook, and the UAB Direction Student Handbook), we failed to find any clear descriptions of rules and policies for student ownership of data, the right to publish data, or student ownership of teaching materials.  The current handbooks consider only policies concerning inventions, patents, and incomes acquired from these endeavors.  The Faculty Senate is in the process of developing clear-cut copyright and student ownership policies.  Once they are approved, we assume (and recommend) that they will be added to each handbook.

 

Charge 2:

 

To review the content of the GRD717 course “Principles of Scientific Integrity” (Dr. H. Kincaid). 

 

Result:  We have reviewed this course and feel that student ownership was covered as one topic among several on one day of class.

 

Charge 3:

 

To identify any existing and ongoing activities that enhance awareness of faculty, students, and staff related to ownership of intellectual property with specific focus on products that students produce for course projects or any activities related to their time as students at UAB. 

 

Result:  We could not find anything other than what is embedded in Dr. Kincaid’s course.

 

Charge 4:

 

To develop recommendations for the FPP related to development of new materials by the UAB Graduate School.

 

Results:  We recommend the following:  (1) That UAB develop materials that can be reviewed by graduate students and postdoctoral fellows during their orientation concerning UAB and NIH policies regarding student ownership.  Sara Vollmer has met with our committee and is willing to put together a PowerPoint demonstration dealing with UAB policies regarding mentoring, authorship, note/lab books, and teaching materials.  (2)  That each mentor provide a letter of understanding/agreement concerning the handling and ownership of materials produced by the student which should be signed by both mentor and student prior to starting the lab experience.  We recommend that UAB (FPPC and Legal Department) draft a standard letter of agreement for eventual approval by the Provost.  We also suggest that individual schools or departments be given the flexibility to make their letters more stringent, in accordance with general UAB policies.  (3)  An additional mandatory requirement for graduation should be the return of all lab notebooks and data files to the mentor in an organized fashion. 

 

Charge 5:

 

To review information posted for the Ethics Center Guide and case studies for the DVD “In the Lab: Mentors and Students Behind the Scenes” by Sara Vollmer.

 

Results:  We reviewed these materials and feel that this is a highly comprehensive course concerning mentoring, scientific conduct, and integrity for the student, their peers, and their mentors.  We feel that this course should be mandatory for all incoming graduate students who will be going into research disciplines.  It also would be highly helpful and important for postdoctoral fellows as well as junior faculty in terms of information about issues in the lab, how to run a lab efficiently, and how to mentor students.  We were all so impressed with the material that we’ll share it with our Chairs and colleagues. 

 

Charge 6:

 

            Identification of other issues.

 

Result:  We narrowed our focus to student ownership; however, we feel that the larger issue of academic/scientific integrity and ethics should be further studied by the FPPC.

 

 

John Waterbor questioned whether the issues are student or faculty issues and therefore an FPPC concern. Members felt that faculty are involved, especially junior faculty but felt clarification of the issues are needed. Since many of the issues relate to the Graduate School, Dr. Scripa suggested that Dr. Noe, Dean of the Graduate School, be a part of the discussions. Chair Walden volunteered to arrange a meeting with Dr. Noe and the subcommittee in order for the subcommittee to further refine the recommendations specifically for charge 4 (“to develop recommendations for the FPPC related to development of new materials by the UAB Graduate School”) One suggestion was that each mentor provide a letter of understanding/agreement concerning the handling and ownership of materials produced by the student which should be signed by both mentor and student prior to starting the lab experience. The committee further recommended that the FPPC and Legal Department draft a standard letter of agreement for eventual approval by the Provost and all individual schools or departments be given the flexibility to make their letters more stringent, in accordance with general UAB policies. Chair Walden suggested that the subcommittee draft the letter and allow the Legal Department to revise. Sometimes this helps move the process along.  

 

ACTION ITEM: Subcommittee will meet with Dr. Noe, Dean of Graduate School before refining recommendations previously submitted.

 

 

3.  Faculty Evaluation Subcommittee – report by Donna Handley

 

            Dr. Handley noted that the submitted draft contains suggested language, but

            represents a work in progress.  Section 2.6.3.7 (handout attached)

 

3. Faculty Evaluation Subcommittee – report by Donna Handley

 

Section 2.6.3.7 (handout attached to minutes)

MEMORANDUM

UAB FACULTY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE

Subcommittee on Annual Faculty Evaluations

 

 

DATE:                        June 16, 2006

           

COMMITTEE:          Dr. Kathleen Berecek

                                    Dr. Om Srivastava

                                    Dr. Uday Vaidya

                                    Dr. Donna Handley

 

RE:                             Progress on evaluation of Annual Faculty Evaluation Procedures – Section 2.6.3.7 of the Faculty Handbook

 

This memorandum serves to provide information regarding the progress of the Annual Faculty Evaluation Procedures Subcommittee.  The charge set forth by the FPPC Chair is as follows: “to examine the UAB Faculty Handbook Section 2.6.3.7. and to develop recommendations for changes to strengthen the section to assure equity for all UAB faculty.”  Items for additional consideration included the criteria utilized for the evaluation process, the authority of department chairs in establishing/overseeing criteria, and how the evaluation process can be improved to achieve procedural fairness and justice.  

 

The Subcommittee met on two occasions prior to today’s meeting and corresponded via email to consider the current language in the handbook and consider revisions that will better represent the charge. 

 

The following document was distributed to the Subcommittee for review.  This should be noted as the current policy on Annual Faculty Evaluations as noted in the Handbook. 

 

2.6.3.7 Annual Faculty Evaluations (CURRENT VERSION in HANDBOOK)

 

The department chair or division director (School of Medicine only) is responsible for conducting an annual evaluation of all regular faculty (non-tenure-earning, non-tenured, tenure-earning, and tenured) to discuss such topics as the faculty member’s professional development, to provide feedback concerning performance and productivity, to discuss departmental goals and to discuss ways in which the department and the faculty member can work cooperatively to assist the faculty member in achieving his/her professional goals.

            The chair is responsible for maintaining each faculty member’s written activity file for each faculty member that documents faculty activities in the area of teaching, research/scholarly activity, and service.  This file is to be updated at least once a year on the basis of information furnished by the department chair and the faculty member.

 

SUBCOMMITEE ACTIONS TO DATE:

 

An assessment of the current issues to be represented in this Section of the Handbook led the Subcommittee to agree that a more adequate policy should include the following items:

 

Annual Faculty Evaluations (RECOMMENDED COMPONENTS OF THE POLICY)

·        Purpose of evaluations

·        The Evaluation – Description of the Process (may include):

§         Criteria utilized for evaluation process

§         Who writes and approves the criteria?

§         Relationship to the Periodic Career Developmental Review

§         Ways to improve the process to achieve procedural fairness and justice

·        The Department Activity File

·        The Chair’s Responsibilities

·        The Faculty Member’s Rights

 

Based upon these general guidelines, the Subcommittee compiled the following working draft, which should be reviewed by members of the FPPC.  Comments and questions regarding action items and wording of the policy are encouraged in the effort to create a more efficient and adequate policy for UAB faculty members.

 

** Note: Revised language shown below in italics.

 

2.6.3.7             Annual Faculty Evaluations (WORKING DRAFT OF REVISIONS)

 

The department chair or division director (School of Medicine only) is responsible for conducting an annual written evaluation of all regular faculty (non-tenure-earning, non-tenured, tenure-earning, and tenured) to discuss such topics as the faculty member’s professional development, to provide feedback concerning performance and productivity, to discuss departmental and school goals and to discuss ways in which the department and the faculty member can work cooperatively to assist the faculty member in achieving his/her professional goals. Faculty reviews are to consist of written and approved criteria that are based on promotion and tenure guidelines (as applicable).

 

2.6.3.7.1          Process of Annual Faculty Evaluations

           

The annual evaluation process must be thoughtfully designed in order to maintain fairness and justice for all faculty members (non-tenure-earning, non-tenured, tenure-earning, and tenured) in all departments and schools.  The process must be conducted based upon written and approved criteria for promotion and tenure guidelines (as applicable).  The department chair and/or a committee assigned by the chair (or dean, as applicable)  is responsible for conducting the evaluation and also reviewing the contents of the evaluation on an annual basis to ensure the process meets the needs of both the department and the individual faculty members as they are reviewed. Revisions to the departmental faculty evaluation process must receive unanimous agreement for approval by the department faculty evaluation committee, in addition to obtaining approval from a majority of the departmental faculty members (2/3 majority vote determines approval for all revisions to annual faculty evaluation procedures) as well as the dean and the provost.  Approved revisions are to be implemented in the academic year following the date in which approval is granted. 

 

2.6.3.7.2          The Faculty Activity File and Annual Faculty Evaluations

 

The written annual evaluation is designed to provide both documentation of the faculty member’s progress and productivity, while emphasizing how the faculty member’s work fits into the departmental goals.  A copy of the written evaluation should be provided to the faculty member under review, as well as placed within the active faculty member’s department activity file, which should also be available for the faculty member’s review at any time during normal working hours (to ensure administrative staff can provide the file) .

 

2.6.3.7.3          Responsibilities of the Department Chair in Annual Faculty Evaluations

           

The chair is responsible for maintaining a written activity file for each faculty member that documents faculty activities in the area of teaching, research/scholarly activity, and service.  This file is to be updated at least once a year on the basis of information furnished by the department chair and the faculty member. In the event of a newly elected department chair, the process will proceed as______________________________________________________________________________________________________ with the approval of the existing annual faculty evaluation committee.  The department chair does not have unilateral privilege to change criteria for evaluations; all revisions must be approved by department faculty (and _________________________).

 

2.6.3.7.4.         Faculty Member Rights in Annual Faculty Evaluations

                       

Faculty members undergoing annual evaluation are to be provided with an evaluation process that ensures fairness and equity.  It is the right of every faculty member to have access to his/her department activity file.  Further, _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________.

 

 

The draft submitted is suggested language and a work in progress. Questions included:

Should the “written” evaluation be the one from the faculty member or the one from the chair or both? Is the annual evaluation the responsibility of the chair or may it be the responsibility of a committee? What is the feedback mechanism: to ensure that faculty sees the evaluation? Where does the evaluation go?  Where does it reside? What are the ramifications of the evaluation? What implementation strategies/procedures occur?

Dr. Greenup requested that the committee have suggestions / questions at the next meeting of the FPPC.

 

ACTION ITEM: Subcommittee will continue to work on making final recommendations for Section 2.6.3.7. FPPC should bring questions and suggestions to next meeting.

 

 

             

G.  New Business:

 

 1. Year 1 of the 5 year Faculty Handbook review cycle will begin in July 2006. The Operating Rules divides the Handbook into the appropriate sections for each year of the cycle.

 

A.                 Faculty Handbook Duties of the FPPC Membership

 

1.                  UAB Faculty Handbook and Policies Review Process

 

 

(1)               The Handbook should be continuously reviewed

(2)               The process of continuous review should involve a review of several portions of the Handbook each year

(3)               The review of each portion should be carried out by a group of two members of the FPPC, one from each side of campus, who will report to the FPPC whether anything they have reviewed requires further consideration by FPPC

(4)               The portion that each group reviews should be a relatively short section of the Handbook, such as section 4 or section 6; or a subpart or subparts of longer sections, such as section 2.3 or section 2.6, or sections 3.1 through 3.6; or one of the appendices

(5)               The review process should be divided so that the entire Handbook will be reviewed over a 5 year period (for example, it might be divided into 15 parts, with 3 reviewed each year)

 

            Quite apart from the regular cycle of reviews described above, the FPPC should review any matter in the Faculty Handbook that any member of the faculty who is covered by the Handbook, or any authorized member of the administration, asks the FPPC to review.

 

            The discussion on November 18, 2005 included the following:

 

        That handbook revisions will be ongoing with an electronic format

        The 5 year cycle should accomplish the regular review with a goal of a section per year completed by a subcommittee of 2 FPPC members and report to the full FPPC for any recommendations

        The process should be established with a timeline for the review so that the cycle of review is completed and review process not be left to the annual membership of the FPPC

        The FPPC should consider academic unit issues when faculty members within a unit identify questions or concerns for a section of the UAB Faculty Handbook and then the FPPC review the concerns

        That academic units identify some approach to differentiation of policies and procedures that are specific to unit and are more restrictive than the UAB Faculty Handbook. Provost Capilouto indicated that some units use “italics” in their handbook to identify the sections that are more specific than the UAB level handbook.

 

                                                   2. UAB Faculty Handbook and Policies Review Cycle

 

 

The subcommittee recommends that the most recently reviewed portions of the Handbook be placed at the end of the five-year cycle.  This means placing most of Section 2 in later years. 

 

The subcommittee recommends that policies referred to in §8 be reviewed in conjunction with the sections of the Handbook in which they arise or are otherwise most suitable, with miscellaneous policies being assigned to the year in which the end of the Handbook is reviewed (which is year 2).

 

Year 1:  Introduction and Part (i.e., section) 1; sections 2.10 through 3.14, and the following policies referred to in §8:

 

Acceptance of Benefits, Awards, and Prizes from External Entities (§3.4)

            General Policy Concerning the Use and Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages (§3.8)

            Computer Software Copying and Use Policy (§3.13)

            Computer Software Policy [Development and Ownership] (§3.11)

            Conflict of Commitment Policy (§3.5.3)

            Conflict of Interest Policy (§3.5.3)

            Consensual Romantic Relationships Policy (§3.8)

Drug-free Workplace Policy (§3.8)

Electronic Data Processing Security Policy (§3.12)

Policy Concerning Employee Falsification of UAB Records and Documents (§3.8)

Policy Concerning Firearms, Ammunition, and Other Dangerous Weapons (§3.8)

Indirect Cost Reimbursement Policy (§§3.3, 3.5.1, 3.5.2; also §5.4)

Policy Concerning the Maintenance of High Ethical Standards in Research and Other Scholarly Activities (§3.6)

Nonsmoking Policy (§3.8)

Patent Policy (Board of Trustees Rule 509) (§3.10)

Personal Services Approval and Payment Policy-UAB Employees (§3.5.2)

Political activities of University Personnel (Board of Trustees Rule 304) (§3.2)

Sexual Harassment Policy (§3.9)

 

 

ACTION ITEM: Chair Walden will discuss the process for year 1 review at the July meeting.

 

 

2.                  Orientation for Officers and New FPPC Members:

Dr. Audrey Harris was welcomed as a new member. Dr. Greenup briefly reviewed the duties of the FPPC committee members using the Policy Development flowchart and guidelines (dated 2003). 

 

H.  Presentation of Informational Items

 

There were no informational items concerning policy revisions.

 

I.    Review of Action Items for Current Month FPPC Meeting:

 

ACTION ITEM:

 

The Subcommittee on Family Friendly Policies will meet with Dr. Scripa to review creative solutions and will review recommendations from the Sue Rosser presentation to the Academic Programs Council.

 

ACTION ITEM:

 

The Subcommittee on Student Seminars-Intellectual Property will meet with Dr. Noe, Dean of Graduate School, before refining recommendations previously submitted.

 

ACTION ITEM:

 

The Subcommittee on Annual Evaluations will continue to make recommendations for revisions to the Faculty Handbook.

 

ACTION ITEM:

 

Chair Walden will discuss the process for year 1 review at the July meeting.

 

J.    Review of Action Items from Previous Monthly FPPC Meeting(s) for 

       identification of pending items:

 

            All action items from the April FPPC meeting minutes have been

            completed or are ongoing.

 

All action items from the May meeting are related to the ongoing activities of the three subcommittees and are on going.

 

K.   Materials Distributed to FPPC Members Electronically Prior to Meeting:

 

            Draft Agenda

            Draft Minutes

            FPPC Operating Rules

            Statements of Interest (Chair and Vice-Chair)

Meeting Dates/Location-2006

            UAB Wide Policy Development and Review Process

 

L.      Materials Distributed at Meeting:  

 

Draft Agenda

FPPC Operating Rules

Subcommittee Report on Annual Faculty Evaluations

Meeting Schedule

Policy Review Guidelines for Faculty-Related UAB-wide Policies – SUMMARY

(September 9, 2003 document) with Flow Chart and selected pages from the UAB Policy Reference Manual

 

M.  Announcements:

 

Next FPPC meeting July 21, 2006 (Penthouse Cr1)   

 

N.   Adjournment:

 

The meeting adjourned at 9:25 am by Chair Carolyn Walden.

 

 

The minutes were prepared by Vice-Chair Madelyn Coar on June 28 with selected additions by Chair Carolyn Walden on July 6, 2006.