November 12, 1996

CEFO Minutes

(J. Carter, Secretary)


COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING FACULTY ORGANIZATION Tuesday, November 12, 1996 @ 12:30 PM McEniry, Room 134
CEFO President Art Edwards opened the meeting at 12:35 PM. The following individuals signed the attendance sheet:

COLLEGE OF ENGR: R. Snyder, S. Middleton, J. Roblin. 
COMPUTER SCIENCE: M. Allen, B. Chu, R. Lejk, J. Quinn, Z. Ras, H. Razavi, R. Shaw, K. Subramanian, W. Tolone, B. Wilkinson. 
CIVIL ENGINEERING: D. Bayer, J. Evett, J. Graham, M. Kane, E. King, J. Wu, D. Young. 
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING: A. Edwards, M. Hasan, Y. Kakad, M. Miri, F. Tranjan, T. Weldon. 
ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY: J. Bowen, J. Carter, R. Priebe, W. Shelnutt. 
MECHANICAL ENGR & ENGR SCIENCE: P. DeHoff, R. Dubler, H. Estrada, Y. Hari, J. Hill, R. Johnson, E. Munday. 
GUESTS: None. Total documented attendance: 37 (32 voting members.) Quorum=39

I. Announcements, Art Edwards.

There is a new layout for the College Faculty Organization WEB page. Check it out.
The balloting process for voting upon the approval of the guidelines for teaching evaluations was successful. The motion to approve the document passed. Hard copies will be available next week.

II. CEAPCC Report, H. Modaress-Razavi. The following recommendation was brought by the CEAPCC which concerns changes in the Computer Science undergraduate curriculum.

Eliminate CSCI3106 (Structured Systems Analysis and Design, 3 credits) as a required course.
Add ENGR1201 as a required course.
Change Math, Physica and Econ to their new designations.
Additional designation of CSCI1201L as CSCI1203L to meet an MIS requirement.
Revise courses and curricula to incorporate the above changes.

Because of a lack of quorum, ballots will be distributed to allow all faculty to take part in voting on this recommendation. The results will be announced in the next meeting.

III. Post-Tenure Review, Art Edwards. The document under discussion is the one distributed by the Vice Chancellor which states principles covering post-tenure review (PTR). The Vice Chancellor is looking for input as he prepares his response to the general adminstration following their distribution of a draft PTR policy. This is an important issue which should get more discussion within the departments of the college. The Vice Chancellor must respond to the administrative memorandum. If there is a PTR policy it should be consistent with UNCC policies concerning reappointment, promotion and tenure reviews. It should also be consistent with the principles of academic freedom.

What should trigger the review of a tenured faculty member? Procedures are currently in place for the review of tenured faculty members, and they are regularly applied to tenured faculty members who are to be promoted to full professor rank. One argument being presented is to trigger a review at regular periods, such as every 1, 2 or 5 years. Such a procedure could bury us in reviews. It is already a burdensome task. An alternate scenario is that we continue to use the annual faculty evaluation for review. However, it represents only a year's performance and is not in depth.

Dr. Snyder's suggestion is to have reviews at 3 or 5 year intervals with two levels of assessment. A normal, non-exhaustive, resume review can be done by a peer committee. This would suit a high percentage of the needed evaluations. If there is a problem revealed by the non-exhaustive review, an exhaustive review can be triggered for the next review. This will accomplish sending a message to someone who, in the opinion of their peers, is not carrying their share of the load. General discussion followed.

IV. Workload Policy, Dean Snyder. There has been a working policy in place concerning faculty workload for many years. These procedures have evolved over that time. The document being presented at this time is a compilation of those existing policies and procedures. The purpose of discussion at this meeting is to finalize the document. This will be the last iteration of adjustment. It represents a substantial change in the way we do business.

Faculty are expected to attend the December commencement exercise. If there is a conflict, approval to be absent is to be obtained.

A question has been raised concerning the confidentiality of student evaluations. Secretaries are expected to handle many matters within their departments which may be considered confidential, and their handling of student evaluations is one appropriate example.

The meeting was adjourned at 1:23 PM.

Submit corrections/additions here: (