I.                    Attending: Warren Martin; Bill Ogard; Gary Sapp; Ted Benditt; Tim Kraft; Pete Anderson; Pat Greenup; Mike Wyss; Joseph Telfair; Stephanie Belcher


II.                 Minutes of FSEC July 28, 2004 meeting. Stephanie Belcher will distribute draft minutes and utilize electronic voting process for receiving revisions and or approval of the minutes.


III.             DRAFT Agenda for September 14, 2004 Senate Meeting

UAB Faculty Senate Meeting Agenda

September 14, 2004

7:30 - 9:30 A. M.

Hill University Center – Great Hall A and B

  1. Call to Order
  2. Recognition of Visitors – Please Sign Attendance Roster
  3. Approval of Minutes – August 10, 2004 Meeting
  4. Chair Report
  5. Chair-elect Report – Effort Reporting – Training Information
  6. Presentation – Acting Dean of Graduate School – Dr. James McClintock – Graduate School Update – Traineeships, Teaching Assistants, Recruitment
  7. Senate Standing Committees
    1. Curriculum & Research – Senator Jeff Engler
    2. Faculty Affairs – Senator Gary Sapp
    3. Governance & Operations Senator Beverly Mulvihill
    4. Finance – Senator Warren Martin
    5. Faculty Policies and Procedures – Past-Chair Smith
  8. New Business
    1. Faculty Senate Representatives to University-wide Committees
  9. Open Forum
  10. Announcements
    1. State of the University Address – President Garrison – September 14, 2004 in HUC Auditorium
    2. Next Senate Meeting – October 12, 2004 – Hill University Center A&B


IV.              DRAFT Agenda for September 7, 2004 FSEC Meeting with President Garrison


Administration Building 1070

Tuesday, September 7, 2004





  1. IDEA Proposal and Timeline
  2. Fringe Benefits – Dr. Warren Martin
  3. Faculty Senate Bylaws (Status Update)
  4. Section and – Dr. Pat Greenup


V.                 IDEA Process Update


A.     Secretary Greenup reported that FAC Chair Sapp, Secretary Greenup, and Office Associate Belcher met on August 13, 2004 to discuss questions that needed to be asked of IDEA. The list of questions included the questions asked by President Garrison and Acting Provost Capilouto at the August 3, 2004 FSEC meeting.

I.D.E.A. Questions-August 16, 2004


  1. Can feedback information be more specific? Example by school?
  2. Can items on survey be changed? Example on Section 5 of administrator survey – Question #34 we would like to read “I hold an academic position at or above dean or chair level? Can the data analysis be done for multiple titles such as by academic rank? If changes can be made to the form what is the fee?
  3. Can we obtain results in two formats – (1) total aggregate summary tables for total faculty participants, and (2) summary tables by academic units [15]? What would be the charge for such reports?
  4. How does our email listing need to be sent? We do not want the total faculty listing to be distributed to all faculty members. Can the listings be separated by academic unit rather than one entire listing?
  5. What format do your pre and should this be sent by email/fax or mail?


Stephanie – I do not understand this question. What did we do last time? I thought we sent the email addresses via internet. This way IDEA has an electronic version. Was there a problem? What is advantage of fax or mail?

  1. How will surveys be distributed? We do not want messages going to all 1800 + faculty at the same time. Will it go out by school or in one entire distribution list? If your company sends out email by distribution list and not by school is there an additional fee to have it sent by school listing?
  2. How many times has this administrator form been used to evaluate president and provost positions?
  3. What does the IDEA Center do with the data after a survey has been completed? Do you retain the information for your own database or is it published someplace?
  4. On a report by academic unit can the report include both summary tables and summary of comments report for each academic unit? We would like both.  If yes is there a fee and how much? We would like to receive a report for the President and the Provost that is an aggregate report for the summary tables. The summary of comments would be most useful if by academic unit.
  5. Does IDEA use secure socket so that no UAB person has access to your system or data?
  6. Can reminders be sent every 3 days until faculty submits or until deadline is past? Is there an additional fee for these reminder emails?
  7. Can our office be copied on the emails that are sent to the President / Provost and Faculty? If yes is there a fee and how much?
  8. Can we have a designated contact for the President and the Provost as a backup contact for receiving all messages from IDEA?
  9. What is the purpose of the AIF? How is this completed information from the administrator used by IDEA? Is this used in data analyses of faculty responses?
  10. Is the completed AIF form retained for future analysis by IDEA?
  11.  Do you require 20 days after completion of data submission for data analyses?
  12. Can a PDF report of the survey results be sent to our office? If yes is there a fee?

             What will the subject line on the message to the administrators and to the   


             We suggest: UAB President / Provost Evaluation – Is this feasible?

  1. Can our office receive response rates by academic unit at the end of the first week?

      IDEA responded to these questions on August 23, 2004. The responses were

      reviewed by Chair Benditt, FAC Chair and Secretary Greenup.

      Chair Benditt summarized the major comments and forwarded to President Garrison.

       NOTE: On August 30, 2004 Chair Benditt forwarded this response from President Garrison. “After consultation with Eli, I leave this decision up to the faculty senate.”


B.     The IDEA timeline was revised on August 13, 2004 as follows:


August 13, 2004


I.                    By August 10, 2004 – distribute via campus mail the BlazerID letter from Chair Benditt to the 37 faculty members who do not have BlazerID. Due date August 31, 2004 for responses from 37 faculty members. These letters were placed in campus mail on 8-10-04.


II.                 During August – obtain information from IDEA to respond to Senate questions and to the questions identified by the President and Acting Provost during the August 3, 2004 FSEC meeting. A listing of questions was submitted to IDEA on 8-11-04 and IDEA responded on 8-12-04. On August 13, 2004 Secretary Greenup and Office Associate Stephanie Belcher reviewed the questions and responses. Stephanie will contact IDEA for information related to one additional question by August 17, 2004.


III.               Secretary Greenup will update this timeline and communicate with FAC Chair –ASAP. Then the FAC Chair and Secretary need to communicate with the Chair of the Senate and the Vice-Chair ASAP to review the information received from IDEA.


IV.               Stephanie is communicating with the editor of Synopsis to determine the timeline for submitting an article describing the Senate’s implementation of the administrator feedback system for President Garrison and Acting Provost Capilouto.


V.                 On August 25, 2004 - the Executive Committee of the Senate will review the IDEA responses to the questions referred to in item II and make decisions about the process for this fall.


VI.               By September 1, 2004 – Chair Benditt and FAC Chair Sapp prepare an article for the Synopsis.


VII.            By September 7, 2004 – obtain updated BlazerID listing.


VIII.          By September 10, 2004 – Senate Chair and FAC Chair prepare an article for the UAB Reporter. This article must be submitted to Reporter on Monday September 1, 2004 at 10 am.


IX.               By September 20, 2004 – Office Associate send the completed forms to IDEA for administering President and Acting Provost feedback process.


X.                 By September 27, 2004 – Secretary/Office Associate sends the “first alert message to faculty”.


XI.               By October 1, 2004 – IDEA will send AIF to President and Acting Provost and their designated contact if identified.


XII.            By October 1, 2004 – Senate Chair and FAC Chair letter (email message) to be sent to all faculty with BlazerID to encourage participation and explain process.


XIII.          By October 5, 2004 – Second Alert Message to all faculty members by academic unit. This notifies that IDEA will send electronic questionnaire within 48-72 hours.


XIV.          By October 6, 2004 – IDEA will send the questionnaires to all faculty members with BlazerID. October 27, 2004 will be last day for submission of completed questionnaires.


XV.            By October 14, 2004 – Senate to receive the current response rates from IDEA. If the rates are not approaching 65% then the Senators will need to communicate with their colleagues and


XVI.          By October 18, 2004 – Senators will have been sent a reminder by Secretary encouraging talking with colleagues and the importance of having a > 65% response rate for the President and Acting Provost. This may require a second reminder.


XVII.       By October 27, 2004 – IDEA completes data collection.


XVIII.     By November 12, 2004 – Senate will receive reports from IDEA. Paper reports to be sent to Office Associate by UPS.


XIX.          By November 19, 2004 – Senate officers and FAC Chair will have reviewed the IDEA reports.


XX.            By November 23, 2004 – reports delivered to President and Acting Provost using the Senate tracking/log system. Cover-letter addressing the two week period for review of the reports.


XXI.          By December 8, 2004, Senate will receive response from President and Acting Provost. Assuming no major problems with reports, then…


XXII.       By December 16, 2004 – the Chair’s letter, the summary table reports for the President and for the Acting Provost will be distributed to faculty by academic units.


XXIII.     By January 11, 2005, the Chair and FAC Chair will report the response rates to the Senate.


XXIV.     By February 15, 2005 the Senate will have completed a review of the process to determine the opportunities for improvements in the future administrations of administrator evaluations.


NOTE: This is a draft and the projected dates are based on the responses to our questions from IDEA. All of this timeline will need to be examined very carefully by the FSEC on August 25, 2004.

This timeline permits completion of the evaluation process and distribution of reports before the December holidays. This timeline will need to be discussed by the FSEC as the process evolves.

Prepared by Secretary Greenup – August 13, 2004.


C.     Preparation of article for Synopsis – Chair-elect, Chair and FAC Chair will draft the article to be submitted to Irene Dortch within the week.

D.     IDEA proposal and timeline is an item on the agenda for the September 7, 2004 FSEC meeting with President Garrison.


VI.              FAC – Chair Sapp – Issues Related to Administrator Evaluation Process


A.     In response to a request from Dr. Rose Scripa, Secretary Greenup prepared a report to summarize past and current Senate activities related to the administrator process. This information was requested as part of preparation for the SACS process. Attached is the memo sent to Dr. Scripa.


August 21, 2004


To: Dr. Rose Scripa

From: Dr. Pat Greenup, Secretary of the Faculty

Re: Faculty Senate Evaluations of UAB Academic Administrators – Information Requested for SACS (August 10 at Senate meeting and August 20 via phone)

The UAB Faculty Senate Constitution and Bylaws (Section II.7.e) state – “The Faculty Affairs Committee is responsible for supervising periodic evaluations of academic administrators (Chairs, Deans, and library directors) vice Presidents, the Provost and the President by their constituents.”

It is the decision of the Faculty Senate to determine the timeline and which administrators will be evaluated in a specific year. The cycle used initially by the Senate was every two years. However, the tasks are so large to do every administrator at the same time that the Senate Faculty Affairs Committee (during 2001-2003) completed a study of options for the process. In the fall of 2003, the Senate completed a pilot testing of the Kansas State University’s Center for Individual Development and Educational Assessment (I.D.E.A.) This electronic administration required that we have the capability to communicate with all faculty members via the BlazerID email. This technical capability became a reality in early 2003 and this permitted the Senate to move forward with the IDEA process.


I have attached background information about I.D.E.A. for your review. Additionally, the forms and sample reports used with deans are attached for your review. [Attachment A]


The records for the Faculty Affairs Committee of the Senate document that the President, Provost, Graduate School Dean, VP for Student Affairs, all eligible Deans (in office for 6 months or longer) and Library Directors and Department Chairs were evaluated in 1996, 1998, and 2000. For these cycles of evaluation the Senate produced an evaluation form.


Attached you will find copies of the Scantron forms that were used with the 2000 cycle. Records have not been retained of the forms for the previous administrations. [Attachment B] Also attached you will find an example of the reports that were generated. [Attachment C] In each of these cycles, faculty completed a Scantron form and added comments if they elected to do so. The summary of the items in the Scantron were reported to all faculty for the top administrators and then for specific dean and department chair. At no time have comments been shared with faculty in any unit. The comments generated by faculty have been forwarded directly to the administrator.


In the fall of 2003, Deans for these Schools were evaluated by their constituents: (1) Arts & Humanities, (2) Business, (3) Social & Behavioral Sciences, (4) Health Related Professions, (5) Nursing, (6) Public Health, (7) Education, (8) Engineering, and (9) Optometry. The Deans of Dentistry and Natural Sciences and Mathematics had only recently joined UAB. The Dean of the School of Medicine had announced plans to step down. This meant that faculty in these latter schools and the Joint Health Sciences were not able to participate in the 2003 cycle. The two Library Directors were evaluated by their constituents. The summary reports (tables and comments) for each administrator evaluated were shared with the Acting Provost and the President in January 2005.


Based on information presented by Acting Provost Capilouto, these IDEA reports were included as one component of the evaluation/review process for the 2004 planning sessions with the academic administrators evaluated by the Senate.


At the present time, the Senate is preparing to administer the I.D.E.A. evaluations for the President and Acting Provost during October 2004. Attached you will find a draft of the timeline for the completion of this cycle. [Attachment D] Also attached are the forms for evaluation of administrators (President and Provost) as well as a sample report. [Attachment E]

If you require additional information about the IDEA processes, please visit these links:



http://www.idea.ksu.edu     Open “About Us”



                   B. FAC Review Required-Administrator Evaluation Process – Frequency


  1. Review the Senate Bylaws for FAC and revisit the topic – who should be evaluated and with what frequency by the Senate?



  1. Recall that academic units reported to the Senate in the Phase II reports that the majority of faculty want to be involved in the evaluation of President, Provost, Deans and Department Chairs. The evaluation of VP-Student Affairs and Graduate School dean is a toss up based on what faculty members know about the related duties for the person in the position.
  2. In previous FSEC meetings with President Garrison she has suggested that there be a staggering of the evaluations on some cycle such as every 3 years. This would be Deans one year, President/Provost another year, others in the 3rd year.
  3. Question to consider – should the Senate be evaluating the department chairs? This is a huge task (93~ chairs) – my suggestion have the Senate review this and see if the Senate can request the Provost and the Deans to take on this responsibility with the input of faculty members in the process and the opportunity to complete evaluation forms and comments.
  4. The Senate needs to know which schools/departments currently do evaluate their chair. In SHRP we are evaluating Chairs using the IDEA process/form for chairs.
  5. The FAC needs to review the recommendations from past FAC review of these topics. See the 2001 – 2004 annual reports and the minutes of the FAC.

            Prepared August 21, 2004 -Pat Greenup-Secretary


C. FAC is scheduled to meet on September 10, 2004 to address the questions listed in B.

D. Chair Benditt, Chair-elect Anderson and FAC Chair Sapp will prepare a survey for Senators to determine the current practices in schools for the evaluation of department chairs. The goal of the survey is to determine current processes and identify models that might be appropriate for consideration as the FAC deliberates recommendations for the Senate concerning the administrator evaluation process in the future.



VII.           Conflicts of Interest Policy


       Chair Benditt reported that the Senate had received the Conflicts of Interest  

        Policy from James Lowery. This draft policy has been forwarded to the FPPC

        for review and preparation of recommendations to the Senate.


VIII.        Future Senate Presentations


              Chair Benditt reported that a representative of the IRB, the CIRB and the

              IACUC will be scheduled as dates/schedules permit during the coming months.

              One presentation per month will be scheduled. The Senate will need to address

              the Section 2.0 and Appendices A, B and C in one of the coming sessions.

              Joseph Telfair suggested that Dr. Louis Dale be invited to speak with the Senate.


IX.              Section 2.0 Discussion


The following topics and related sections in the Senate and Provost versions of Section 2.0 along with recommended revisions were discussed:

·        The FSEC held a called meeting on August 4, 2004 for review of Section 2.0. Topics were identified and Chair Benditt prepared to discuss these topics with Acting Provost Capilouto.

·        Topics discussed – (1) which faculty should be reviewed annually; the recommendation is that the word regular be added to read “full time regular faculty tenured or tenure-earning positions”; (2) national search for new faculty – it appears that a process is in place in the Provost office but such does not appear in policy; need to consider inclusion of current process in faculty handbook; (3) departmental policies and committees – add statements of clarification as to which faculty members are eligible to vote on a personnel action and to state that school’s policies may not preclude a department’s consideration of personnel actions. These statements need to be further polished and FSEC members should forward comments to Chair Benditt.

·        Section and were placed on the agenda for the September 7, 2004 FSEC meeting.

·        Chair Benditt suggested that the FSEC have a called meeting on September 7, 2004 prior to (8 am) the FSEC meeting with the President to continue discussion of the Section 2.0 and Appendices A, B and C.


X.                 Action Items from August 25, 2004 FSEC Meeting


1.      July 28, 2004 minutes of FSEC meeting will be distributed electronically for review and approval by Stephanie Belcher.

2.      Secretary Greenup and Stephanie Belcher will draft the agenda for the September 7, 2004 FSEC meeting and forward to Chair Benditt.

3.      Chair Benditt will schedule called FSEC meeting for September 7, 2004.

4.      Secretary Greenup will revise the agenda for the September 14, 2004 Senate meeting and forward to Stephanie Belcher.

5.      Chair Benditt, Chair-elect Anderson and FAC Chair Sapp will prepare an article for Synopsis.

6.      FAC Chair Sapp will meet with FAC on September 10, 2004 to discuss recommendations for administrator evaluation process in the future.

7.      FAC Chair Sapp, Chair Benditt, and Chair-elect Anderson will prepare a survey for Senators to determine current practices in schools for evaluation of department chairs.

8.      Chair Benditt and Stephanie Belcher will prepare flyer to faculty to announce the President’s State of the University address on September 14, 2004.

9.      The topic on follow up of Phase I reports will be placed on the agenda for the September FSEC meeting.

10.  Secretary Greenup will update the chronology of Status of Senate Requests to Acting Provost.

11.  Secretary Greenup will communicate with James Lowery to determine Senate process for follow up with UAB policies sent for notification of President’s signature to the Senate.



XI.              Action Items from July 28, 2004 FSEC Meeting


                                 1. All action items listed were completed.



XII.           Adjournment


                                 The FSEC meeting adjourned at 1:20 pm.



Minutes prepared by Secretary Greenup, August 29, 2004.