Post Tenure Review - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Oct 5, 2004

RE: Post Tenure Review

Date: Oct 5, 2004

The New USM Post Tenure Review Commit-AY.

Date: Oct 5, 2004

Enough about "post- tenure reviews" for faculty. USM has been toying around with that concept, unsuccesfully, for quite a while. The institution clearly does not seem to know how to handle the matter appropriately. A system of "post- administrative reviews" of deans, department chairs, and "others" is a matter of much more importance.

Date: Oct 5, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Standard Bearer
"Is this because we hold a higher standard than the others, or because we are held to a higher standard than the others? "

It sounds more like a different standard. Perhaps the IHL was not clear in what it meant by "unsatisfactory."

Date: Oct 5, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: The Shadow
" It sounds more like a different standard. Perhaps the IHL was not clear in what it meant by "unsatisfactory.""

Yes, a different standard. That sounds more like the correct response. I should have realized there was a third choice. Life is filled with ambiguities. Among them, the IHL is the most perplexing.

Date: Oct 5, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: The Shadow
"

It sounds more like a different standard. Perhaps the IHL was not clear in what it meant by "unsatisfactory.""

The annual evaluation form used at USM in some colleges has a summary evaluation, besides a detailed evaluation on each of Teaching, Research and Service. The summary ranks the faculty in each category as:
Excellent/far exceeds expectations;
Good/exceeds expectations;
Satisfactory/meets expectations;
Unsatisfactory/ need improvements

Then there is an overall evaluation. The Chair or Evaluation Committee could give an overall ranking of “Unsatisfactory” to a faculty member low or very low in several categories.

A question is whether all colleges, departments and universities are ranking faculty in similar ways. Is USM using stricter standards or demanding more for each ranking. In the past, faculty were just ranked “in comparison” to the others in the department and the four levels were just for the sake of determining % raises and a low rank was not to be considered as “not competent”.

Date: Oct 5, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Clarifier
" The annual evaluation form used at USM in some colleges has a summary evaluation, besides a detailed evaluation on each of Teaching, Research and Service. The summary ranks the faculty in each category as: Excellent/far exceeds expectations; Good/exceeds expectations; Satisfactory/meets expectations; Unsatisfactory/ need improvements Then there is an overall evaluation. The Chair or Evaluation Committee could give an overall ranking of “Unsatisfactory” to a faculty member low or very low in several categories. A question is whether all colleges, departments and universities are ranking faculty in similar ways. Is USM using stricter standards or demanding more for each ranking. In the past, faculty were just ranked “in comparison” to the others in the department and the four levels were just for the sake of determining % raises and a low rank was not to be considered as “not competent”. "

You confirm what I have observed: the rules changed as the deans changed. Sometimes the rules changed even within a given dean's administration. a frivilous, footloose and fancyfree evaluation system to say the least.

Date: Oct 5, 2004

OK...

Let me see if I have this straight.

USM recently had a post-tenure review process, spelled out in the Faculty Handbook, in which tenured faculty who were deemed unsatisfactory in two areas were given three years to improve their performance.

Who actually evaluated the faculty members in that process? Department commitee? Department chair? Dean? Any sort of university commitee, before it went to the Provost?

Under Shelby Thames, in 2004, all of a sudden just the Provost was carrying out a post-tenure review of every tenured faculty member, all during the same year? (At Clemson, post-tenure review takes place every six years, starting when a faculty member is tenured--clock reset if the faculty member is promoted to Full Professor in the meantime--and isn't done more frequently than that unless the individual is on a three-year plan already.)

And the Provost was getting evaluations from whom? Anyone other than himself? Or did he just compile the annual evaluations of every tenured professor and turn the report in to Thames and the IHL Board as though it were the product of a special post-tenure review?

And now Thames wants a committee to study post-tenure review? After he's just carried out one out--to please himself? To please the Board? Or is he going to say that Tim Hudson did it on the sly, and gave hims a copy of the report as a fait accompli?

Why I am reminded of Mussolini, who is supposed to have said after taking power, "I order that a philosophy of Italian Fascism be created at once"?

Robert Campbell

PS. And what sanctions are being invoked against the 20 professors (12 in CBED) who were rated Unsatisfactory? Has that still not come to light?

Date: Oct 5, 2004

Sorry about the typos in the preceding...

I did know how to spell committee, once upon a time.

Robert Campbell

Date: Oct 5, 2004

Some of the colleges have and follow procedures developed at the college level for faculty evaluations. These procedures may not be the same across colleges. Evaluators are specified in the procedures but are most likely chairs, reviewed by deans, reported to provost. Faculty are evaluated on mutiple dimensions. A faculty member is not deemed "unsatisfactory" overall if he or she is "unsatisfactory" on any one dimension. My understanding is that the USM numbers reported to the IHL were individuals deemed unsatisfactory on only one dimension. I don't know if this is consistent with what the other universities reported.

Date: Oct 5, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"OK...
"Let me see if I have this straight.
USM recently had a post-tenure review process, spelled out in the Faculty Handbook, in which tenured faculty who were deemed unsatisfactory in two areas were given three years to improve their performance."

No Robert, the faculty handbook (old or new) doesn't have a procedure for P-T Review. One was *proposed* to the board, but it has never been approved ASAIK. The proposed procedure was similar to what you mentioned above.

"Who actually evaluated the faculty members in that process? Department commitee? Department chair? Dean? Any sort of university commitee, before it went to the Provost?"

The annual evaluations are conducted by departments (either a faculty committee or chair). Apparently the evaluations (for 2003???) were used to identify faculty rated as "unsatisfactory" in some or all areas.

....
"And the Provost was getting evaluations from whom? Anyone other than himself? Or did he just compile the annual evaluations of every tenured professor and turn the report in to Thames and the IHL Board as though it were the product of a special post-tenure review?"

This is apparently what happend. It may even be standard procedure to supply the board with annual evaluations. This time the board?, President? Deans? , all three? used this for P-T Review. More on this may become clear tomorrow at the PUC meeting.

"And now Thames wants a committee to study post-tenure review? After he's just carried out one out--to please himself? To please the Board? Or is he going to say that Tim Hudson did it on the sly, and gave hims a copy of the report as a fait accompli? ..."

My interpretation of what was said is that SFT wants a committee to study the process *State Wide* for all universities. The system can't be applied the same over the state when 20/28 are at one (world class) university.

"

Date: Oct 5, 2004

Originally posted by Information: "My interpretation of what was said is that SFT wants a committee to study the process *State Wide* for all universities. The system can't be applied the same over the state when 20/28 are at one (world class) university. "

Then let's hope colleagues at the other Mississippi universities are paying attention.

Date: Oct 5, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Level the Playing Field
"My interpretation of what was said is that SFT wants a committee to study the process *State Wide* for all universities. ... Then let's hope colleagues at the other Mississippi universities are paying attention."

Is this the sound of Mr. Klumb snapping his fingers?

Date: Oct 5, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
"Is this the sound of Mr. Klumb snapping his fingers?"

Don't know how effective the fingersnapping might be, but it does seem like somebody is cracking their knuckles in anticipation of saving lots of money.

Date: Oct 5, 2004

prance on, oh, prance on!!!!!

Date: Oct 6, 2004

Blatant pandering but I still love it!

Date: Oct 6, 2004

10/6 HA is on-line - relevant article is in local news section:

"For the second time in as many months, University of Southern Mississippi administrators are blaming the school's former provost for submitting an inaccurate list of professors who were said to have unsatisfactory performance."

Date: Oct 6, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Sleeping Dogs Lie
"10/6 HA is on-line - relevant article is in local news section: "For the second time in as many months, University of Southern Mississippi administrators are blaming the school's former provost for submitting an inaccurate list of professors who were said to have unsatisfactory performance.""

This is just beyond incompetent...what else can SFT pin on the departed Provost? So incredibly sad....

Date: Oct 6, 2004

What is incredible is the complete incompetence and chaos up and down the line in this administration. Talk about shooting off toes....they all are doing it both to themselves and to someone else and then blaming another person. If this were a mistake (wink, wink), it just shows how disfunctional and incompetent the administration is. Shouldn't there have been some communication among these guys?

Date: Oct 6, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Music patron
"What is incredible is the complete incompetence and chaos up and down the line in this administration. Talk about shooting off toes....they all are doing it both to themselves and to someone else and then blaming another person. If this were a mistake (wink, wink), it just shows how disfunctional and incompetent the administration is. Shouldn't there have been some communication among these guys?"

MP, you're dead on. Read the whole story on this other thread.

Date: Oct 6, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Sleeping Dogs Lie
"10/6 HA is on-line - relevant article is in local news section: "

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/news/stories/20041006/localnews/1367912.html

Date: Oct 6, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Shakin' in my boots
"Thames wants post-tenue review committee for state universities"

Though perhaps this is too late (and it will certainly be obvious to most readers of this board),
most college presidents KNOW how post-tenure review works at their schools and at other schools. That is one of the reasons they are qualified to be a president. That Shelby has to establish a committee to tell him how it works shows he is clueless (yet again). More signs of amateurs in charge.

Date: Oct 6, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: foot soldier
"

Though perhaps this is too late (and it will certainly be obvious to most readers of this board),
most college presidents KNOW how post-tenure review works at their schools and at other schools. That is one of the reasons they are qualified to be a president. That Shelby has to establish a committee to tell him how it works shows he is clueless (yet again). More signs of amateurs in charge."

Foot Soldier, to be fair I must point out that there is NO Post-Tenure Review policy in place at USM. Faculty Senate proposed a policy and procedure in the 90's, but the IHL board did not approve it because it only referred to "sanctions" and they wanted it spelled out all steps leading to termination. This is being done and is due to IHL by February 2005. AFAIK none of the universities in the system have IHL approved policies in place.

A committee already exists and is working on this issue. Faculty are happy that "shared governance" is being used and *faculty* are recommending the policy to the IHL board.

My point is To Be Fair, lets not be critical of SFT when he DOES use "Shared Governance". Otherwise this will be used against the cause.

Date: Oct 6, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: To Be Fair
" Foot Soldier, to be fair I must point out that there is NO Post-Tenure Review policy in place at USM. Faculty Senate proposed a policy and procedure in the 90's, but the IHL board did not approve it because it only referred to "sanctions" and they wanted it spelled out all steps leading to termination. This is being done and is due to IHL by February 2005. AFAIK none of the universities in the system have IHL approved policies in place. A committee already exists and is working on this issue. Faculty are happy that "shared governance" is being used and *faculty* are recommending the policy to the IHL board. My point is To Be Fair, lets not be critical of SFT when he DOES use "Shared Governance". Otherwise this will be used against the cause. "

If you really have "shared governance" then you've got a lousy communication system. Shared governance when so many of the "sharees" don't know they're "sharing" seems rather strange. I wonder who "picks and chooses" what is shared and what is not. It sounds as if faculty participate in minor areas, but when there is perceived shared governance in major areas it seems to be well orchestrated. A transient fingersnapping approach to shared governance (here today, gone tomorrow) will not work.

Date: Oct 6, 2004

Thanks to everyone (particularly Information) for helping me to sort out my confusions about Post-Tenure Review at USM.

The Hattiesburg American article was unusually informative as well. The Hat Am has figured out "the blame it on Tim Hudson" dodge.

Come on, Hudson didn't have the authority to compile the purported "post tenure review" list and submit it to the IHL Board without Thames' OK. If Hudson had really carried out that transaction with the Board in secret, without informing SFT, he'd have been fired the minute SFT found out about it. And that would have been well before TH departed to Texas at the end of August.

The fact that the list was compiled and sent to Jackson to make Robin Robinson (the newest member of the Klumb faction) happy points directly to Thames' involvement anyway.

In response to To Be Fair--beware of any committee process in which Shelby Thames or administrators loyal to him play a key role. Shared governance is no value to Thames, except when the outcome is exactly what he would have gotten by issuing an edict. Again, post-tenure review is an issue where the Faculty Senate should craft the policy (including steps leading to termination, where those are warranted) and challenge Thames to approve it--or explain why he is leaving USM (once again) without a post-tenure review policy. The Faculty Senate at Clemson didn't decide to do post-tenure review, which was imposed by the South Carolina legislature. But it wrote the post-tenure review policy (which is university-wide), would not allow the Provost to rewrite it (he tried), and has written a couple of revisions to it since it was initially adopted.

Robert Campbell

Date: Oct 6, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Thanks to everyone (particularly Information) for helping me to sort out my confusions about Post-Tenure Review at USM.
The Hattiesburg American article was unusually informative as well. The Hat Am has figured out "the blame it on Tim Hudson" dodge.
Come on, Hudson didn't have the authority to compile the purported "post tenure review" list and submit it to the IHL Board without Thames' OK. If Hudson had really carried out that transaction with the Board in secret, without informing SFT, he'd have been fired the minute SFT found out about it. And that would have been well before TH departed to Texas at the end of August.
The fact that the list was compiled and sent to Jackson to make Robin Robinson (the newest member of the Klumb faction) happy points directly to Thames' involvement anyway.
In response to To Be Fair--beware of any committee process in which Shelby Thames or administrators loyal to him play a key role. Shared governance is no value to Thames, except when the outcome is exactly what he would have gotten by issuing an edict. Again, post-tenure review is an issue where the Faculty Senate should craft the policy (including steps leading to termination, where those are warranted) and challenge Thames to approve it--or explain why he is leaving USM (once again) without a post-tenure review policy. The Faculty Senate at Clemson didn't decide to do post-tenure review, which was imposed by the South Carolina legislature. But it wrote the post-tenure review policy (which is university-wide), would not allow the Provost to rewrite it (he tried), and has written a couple of revisions to it since it was initially adopted.
Robert Campbell"

Just an added note. The P-T Review policy the Faculty Senate put together was very standard compared to others I have seen. It provided procedures and probationary periods for improvement. It explains what should be done at each step for failing to accomplish improvement. However, at the end the final failure results in "sanctions" that are not spelled out. The IHL board want these spelled out ending in termination.

Another thing I should have mentioned. Apparently the IHL Board only has the data on the "unsatsfactory" faculty, not the names. At the PUC today, SFT said that if they asked for the names he would tell them the data sent was in error. However, no one believes he would refuse to provide them the names if they wanted names.

Thanks for reminding us Robert that SFT can't be trusted. However, Faculty living through this hell can hardly forget. The new faculty are the ones I worry about.