University Libraries
Faculty Personnel Actions
Procedure Review

Brainstorming invitation: Setting Unit Discussion AGENDA
Thursday, 12 January 2006, 1:15-2:45

INVITATION   ·   NOTES  ·   RESOURCES
Library Faculty,

It's very much time that we take another opportunity to throw out some thoughts and ideas on the Faculty Personnel process. We presently have 4 candidate reviews coming up (you *have* set your calendar for Thursday, 2/23, 1:30-4:30, right?!), and the candidates' portfolios are due to me on January 9. Shortly after Jan.9 the portfolios will be available for your perusal in Blackboard.

On Thursday, Jan.12 I'd like for us to gather and discuss what process we will adopt for this cycle in regards to setting the discussion agenda for our Feb.23 Unit Discussion. The Faculty Handbook stipulates that an agenda for each candidate review conducted in the Unit Discussion will be drafted and finalized prior to the discussion date (Chap. 4, Sec. 2.10.7.A):

"7. Unit Personnel Actions.
A. Review of Candidate Materials and Preparation of Unit Discussion Agenda. All unit regular faculty will be notified of the access to the materials pertaining to the candidate for the personnel action under consideration. The Unit Head or Designate will prepare an agenda before the unit meeting identifying the matters for discussion at the unit meeting concerning the candidate's achievements as well as questions, issues, and concerns under the criteria identified in Section 2.9. In advance of the meeting, this agenda shall be made available for review by the candidate and the unit regular faculty who may then comment and propose revisions to the agenda before the discussion begins. The Unit Head or Designate may amend the agenda based upon input from the candidate and unit regular faculty and must provide any amended agenda to the candidate for review before the unit discussion begins. If an agenda is revised, the original form(s) of the agenda shall be maintained in the Unit Head's or Designate's files."

--How do we want to go about this? how detailed should our discussion agendas be? what dates do we want to set for soliciting agenda items generated by your reviews of portfolios, and for distributing draft and final agendas? How does anything from our (as yet upcoming) Dec.8 meeting with Tom Butcher and Jean Nagelkerk touch on this issue?
These questions will be the focus of our discussion on Jan.12; see you there!

--Debbie
DUH

Relationship of your portfolio to the Unit Discussion Agenda [excerpted from our Nov.'05 Portfolio discussion]
- A subject for another meeting!
- the agenda can be as it appears in the workbook (blank) or very detailed (e.g., with strengths and weaknesses, concerns, etc.)

Notes from 12 January 2006

An excellent and timely discussion on Unit Discussion agendas! --thanks to all who were able to participate. Here's the substance of what we decided:

--The Unit Discussion should be efficiently conducted, and should be fair, open, and without surprises. Achieving these goals can be enhanced by developing a good agenda and following it.
--Developing more specific agendas for guiding the reviews in the Unit Discussion is something we think we should try, beginning with our reviews this semester (Winter'06).
--Agenda items will be specific for each candidate, and will derive from their portfolios in relation to the four Faculty-Manual-stipulated evaluation criteria (Professional Effectiveness, Professional Achievement, Unit & University Service, Community Service), and to the more specific Library Faculty criteria within those (see Resources below).
--Agenda items should be directly related to evaluation criteria, and these should be the focus of the Unit Discussion. Interpersonal differences or behaviour issues should be addressed through the supervisory structure, with the Dean being ultimately responsible within the unit for seeing that such issues are addressed and resolved. It should never happen that these kinds of issues go unaddressed until a contract or tenure review.
--In reviewing portfolios and considering agenda items, consider what IS in the portfolio, and whether it holds up to scrutiny; and what is NOT in the portfolio that should be, or would be desireable. Also consider whether the evidence presented in the portfolio matches your own observations.
--In developing the agenda, the Unit Head will assist in phrasing items in a neutral fashion, designed to elicit informative responses. In the agendas and in the discussion, all participants should work to avoid casting questions or comments in an accusatory or challenging fashion.
--Be careful about laying too much emphasis on one-time occurances vs. consistant patterns; applies to positive as well as negative performance!
--Claims made by either candidates or peers, in portfolios and in the Unit Discussion, should be based on evidence --observable and measurable. Evidence, not impressions or unverifiable second-hand information, should be the basis for positive as well as negative input.
--We will try to stick to the following calendar for reviewing portfolios and developing the discussion agendas: See E-mail Message
[Dated info from 2006
* Mon., 16 Jan.: Portfolios available for review in Dean's Office, JHZ
* Wed., 8 Feb.: Agenda items due to Debbie, either e-mail or hard copy; anonymous items will not be included.
* Mon., 13 Feb.: DRAFT agendas will be distributed
* Mon., 20 Feb.: FINAL agendas will be distributed
* Thurs., 23 Feb.: Unit Discussion, Rm.212 JHZ]

Resources