[phas-faculty_staff_others] Brief senate minutes

[Carlos Bertulani]

The senate met today and discussed two main points, until I left, after almost 2 hours, but before the end of it.

1- Department head evaluation. There was a vote to approve the proposed policy (I think that I’ve circulated it in this mail list). The vast majority of senators approved. I and another senator were the only two abstentions. No ’no’ vote.

Nikolay Sirakov asked: “and now will we also have evaluations for VPs”. The senate president, Yasemin Antic, mentioned that the senate will probably consider it next year.

2- Andrea Graham (Dean) mentioned the three main points proposed for TP revision:

(a) Instead of 3rd year, a comprehensive review of a tenure track faculty would be conducted during the 4th year. Reason: the system adopted this policy, so should we.

(b) Only professors would cast vote for promotion from Associate to Professor.

(c) External reviewer letters will be demanded for promotion from  Assistant to Associate and from Associate to Professor.  A list of reviewers would be prepared by the faculty and the dept. head/committee would select the reviewers from it.

The discussion on item (c) took very long. 

Some faculty argued that there is no need for external reviewers. Some senators mentioned that:

(a) recommendation letters are useless because no one asks for a recommendation letter from anyone, unless the recommendation is strong. Of course!

(b) Good and serious external reviewers are too busy and do not like to spend time writing such letters. Only reviewers with plenty of free time, thus irrelevant ones, would do it.

(c) The dean mentioned that recommendation letters would only be from research activities, not for teaching or service because external reviewers do not know our teaching or service so well. Of course!

(d) after 30 minutes, somebody said that their main activity in this university is teaching. Then the dean said, yes, external reviewers would also evaluate teaching and service by reading our portfolios. You see, we went back to the beginning of the argumentation. OMG!

(e) I’ve asked why they are so interested in external reviewers if most senators in the room are not in agreement with it. The person leading the proposed policy changes  told us that somebody asked to include this item in the policy. I mentioned that “somebody asking” is not a good argumentation. Then I think, maybe, this “somebody", Brent Pierce, got nervous and told us that there has been cases of faculty being promoted based on internal support by close friends only, therefore it would be crucial to have external reviewers. Some senators agreed. But I have the sense that most senators do not like this policy change, although they will get a final policy change within a few months and there will be a majority “yes” and two abstentions. Then within a few years ahead, the policy changes again and no external reviewers will be asked again.

(f) Yasemin Antic, told us to calm down, as we were not voting yet for the policy changes. So far, only discussing.

Because the discussion about external reviewers  lasted too long and it was almost time to end, I left. Sorry. But, probably I did not miss anything relevant.

If you want that I express your opinion to the senate, please let me know. But I would suggest that it has to be a department consensus. Maybe the dept tells me what to do during the department meetings.

Carlos