A Question - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Feb 2, 2005

A Question

Date: Feb 2, 2005

If you don't get your original file back, would you be able to look at the one which was being retained?
At USM or anywhere else, one should always be able to see one's own file, and should ask to see it at random and unexpected times. Shenanigans go on in lots of places and employees have to look out for themselves.

Date: Feb 3, 2005

Keep copies of everything and ask to see your personnel file regularly.

Corrupt department chairs like to put material of a derogatory nature into personnel files without letting the faculty member know. They also like to keep secret files on people that aren't housed in the department office.

Robert Campbell

Date: Feb 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: LVN
"If you don't get your original file back, would you be able to look at the one which was being retained? "

I don't know.

I have always gotten them back before.

Date: Feb 3, 2005

Well, CISE is notorious for playing with dossiers - removing included and necessary (Positive evidence for the person submitting the dossier) pages before it gets to the Provost - writing personal comments in the margins of included articles -- even admitting to both of the above when pushed into a very tight corner.

Date: Feb 3, 2005

no worries now that we have a decent provost who does what the president tells him to do. That Griffen guy and Cotton too - they didn't play by our rules very well.

Date: Feb 3, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Watch Your Back
"Well, CISE is notorious for playing with dossiers - ."

There are other places that insert lies, slanders, Memos to you that you never got, evaluations you never saw, and all manner of doctored information into your records. Some people slander others a lot, apparently in the belief that if they say
it enough it will be accepted as the truth. Beware.

Date: Feb 3, 2005

slam dunk slam again

Date: Feb 3, 2005

It's skewed

Date: Feb 4, 2005

You don't get your annual review back? That's crazy? But, considering who is your chair . . . from what I hear around campus, I'm glad I'm not in your dept. - incompetence seems to be Dana's middle name now. Good luck to you and get the heck out of here while you can.

Date: Feb 4, 2005

There are OTHER departments who don't bother with dossiers, interviews, documentation, conferences, etc AND include staff/faculty other than the designated authority for evaluation processes. No one seems to care - so what? This IS and HAS BEEN standard practice for some time!

Date: Feb 4, 2005

SW,

If other departments at USM (besides the notorious CISE) are doing as you describe, this just means that USM is one corrupt institution.

Unfortunately, I think everyone on this board already knows that.

Robert Campbell

PS. I've been chair of my department's Tenure and Promotion for several years--long enough to know how these things are done when they're being done right.

Date: Feb 4, 2005

May God bless you each and every one.

Date: Feb 4, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"SW, If other departments at USM (besides the notorious CISE) are doing as you describe, this just means that USM is one corrupt institution. Unfortunately, I think everyone on this board already knows that. Robert Campbell PS. I've been chair of my department's Tenure and Promotion for several years--long enough to know how these things are done when they're being done right."

Robert-

In my department here the chair doesn't return the materials that we submit as part of yearly reviews (I never thought he should--it is only a couple of pages--and I keep a copy anyway). We do, however, get written feedback including ratings scales and narrative. That paperwork from the chair is like gold and needs to be stored carefully.

A more global issue is how poorly many departments here and elsewhere do yearly faculty evals. Here is how it should be done universally:

1. Mutually agreed upon goals and objectives that are MEASUREABLE should be formulated at the beginning of the ratings period.

2. Division of effort should be agreed upon too (e.g., 50% research; 30% teaching; 20% service).

3. At the end of the ratings period, the faculty needs only to say if they met or exceeded their goals, and if not, why not. Documentation is provided. Proposed goals for the next year are submitted.

4. The personnel authority (usually chair), concurs or disagrees with the self-assessment, and provides documentation. Objective ratings are offered, along wth a narrative. Modifications of goals may be proposed and negotiated that are consistent with the unit mission.

5. A formal and fair system to attempt to resolve ratings disagreements is in place.

How is this done at Clemson?

Date: Feb 4, 2005

Mitch,

At Clemson--when the rules are being followed, as they are in most departments--we do Steps 1 through 4 on annual evaluations.

The faculty member's self-assessement could be more explicit, though (Step 3). For several years, we've had a Faculty Activity System that lines up accomplishments in teaching, research, and service with previously declared goals. (The FAS seems roughly similar to the dreaded FAR, but it doesn't show the same fixation with "economic development," etc.) The FAS does not provide for a summary self-assessment by the faculty member (there was somewhat more of that before we went to the FAS).

A real Step 5 we don't have at Clemson. Faculty members can file disclaimers to the department chair's evaluation (also to the Dean's evaluation and the Provost's, as the evaluations work their way up the ladder); under some circumstances (e.g., a blatantly slanted evaluation that leaves out documented accomplishments) they can file grievances. The grievance process doesn't work that well, though, because of problems with the grievance panels and the Provost's power to reject grievance panel findings. (Since we got an ombudsman at Clemson, the number of grievances has gone way down and some problems have been solved without going through the grievance procedure...but not nearly enough, IMHO.)

I'm describing the process as it applies to tenured faculty. Faculty on the tenure track get evaluated for reappointment each year (and for tenure after the appropriate number of years) by the department Tenure and Promotion Committee, as well as by the chair. The evaluations are supposed to be independent--and in a department that is reasonably functional, they actually are. Department commitees are also involved in evaluating tenured faculty who are up from promotion, and in post-tenure review (which Clemson has been doing since 1997, on a 6-year cycle). Evaluations farther up the line on reappointment, tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review are done by the Dean and the Provost; at Clemson we do not have college or university-level tenure and promotion committees (and we don't miss them).

Robert Campbell

Date: Feb 4, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Slan Dered
" There are other places that insert lies, slanders, Memos to you that you never got, evaluations you never saw, and all manner of doctored information into your records. Some people slander others a lot, apparently in the belief that if they say it enough it will be accepted as the truth. . ."

But that would be wrong!

Date: Feb 4, 2005

It is wrong, and it is the way of life at USM.

Fight!

NO QUARTER!!!!!!!!