Minutes
10 January 2005

I. Ecology technician. Interviews are underway and will be completed 19 January. Hopefully, the person will be on board shortly after.

II. Building and space. Remember that January-February is "Clean Mills Godwin" month. We are required to have the basement completely cleared.

III. Budget. Our monies are almost depleted. Materials previously ordered for courses will be honored. Please speak to the chair if you have emergency requests for small items.

IV. FACULTY EVALUATION AY 2004-2005

Introduction. Metrics for annual evaluation have been established for the College of Sciences and are mandated for all faculty reviews.

What is the time period of evaluation? Our department established the period 1 February to 31 January for the required university annual faculty review. Since these new measures were first introduced with the last round of evaluations we will obviously be asynchronous for the first two years. This will not be corrected until the 2005-2006 round of evaluations.

Who is being evaluated? Tenure track faculty at the ranks of assistant, associate, and full as well as all lecturers are evaluated.

When should supporting materials be submitted? Please submit your materials electronically to me by Friday 15 February 2005.

What should be submitted? A summary of your accomplishments during the past year not to exceed two pages and based on the criteria explicated in the "College of Sciences Guidelines for Annual Faculty Evaluation Ratings". Include an updated curriculum vitae. It is to your advantage to format your CV in accordance with the guidelines set for the College of Sciences (the link currently does not work because it is being revised). Please use the following format: FacultyNameCV05.doc (or wp), FacultyNameSelfEval05.doc (or wp). I will view your web pages to evaluate the web component. Please indicate if you have corrected safety citations.

What about the "Goals and Objectives" I submitted Fall Semester 2004? The purpose of preparing goals and objectives was to help you focus on what was needed in order to meet or exceed the "Good" category on the "College of Sciences Guidelines for Annual Faculty Evaluation Ratings". One of the purposes of this exercise is to determine if additional resources are needed to help you obtain your goals. Obviously, your evaluation category depends on total achievements.

When will I receive my evaluation? I would like to complete your evaluations the first week of March.

How will the evaluations be used? It seems likely that monies will be available for faculty raises for next year. Your annual evaluation will be a major factor in determining raises.

Do I need to submit "Goals and Objectives" for the coming year? This can be done one of two ways. You can meet with me to discuss your goals for the coming year. This is preferable. Or, you can submit written goals. These will be due some time in the summer.

For teaching faculty. Note that a ranking of "Good" on the "College of Sciences Guidelines for Annual Faculty Evaluation Ratings" includes directing undergraduate research, development of educational programs and facilities (for example, submitting proposals for instructional grants), personal professional development, participation in professional societies, and collaborative and multi-disciplinary teaching. While teaching faculty may not rank in all of these, activity in some is necessary for a "Good" rating.

For faculty who have had a research leave during the past twelve months (Dauer, Ratzlaff, Stevens). Include a paragraph or two describing your research accomplishments. (Be certain to follow university regulations for reporting your leave activities. See Faculty Handbook on-line).

V. GRADUATE STUDENT CONCERNS

A. New graduate student orientation. Dr.Musselman suggested a half-day introduction by the department/faculty for incoming graduate students that included an introduction to safety in the laboratories, an introduction to Blackboard and a welcome social. In agreement, BGSO President Alisha Pagel suggested that this session could as well as a library session, given by a member(s) of the faculty instead of the previous library introduction, given by library staff. A list could also be created for the students of all faculty, each providing their favorite journals and search engines. Also, an informal session on academic dishonesty was given previously, and it was recommended by Alisha that this may be a good idea for students coming into the department, especially for those who have not had previous teaching experience. Another suggestion was the construction of a pamphlet containing the bios/background of the faculty, which could coincide with the website, set-up to inform/familiarize all new students of the diversity of our faculty members and allow them to identify with professors and projects going on in their area of interest.

B. Spring symposium announcement. The annual BGSO symposium is scheduled for February 26, 2005. This is a great opportunity for students to present in a less intimidating setting, and many students use this time to prepare for meetings, as well a gather outside ideas/critiques on their research from members of the faculty. The symposium also provides the faculty with an opportunity to see graduate student work, and may encourage communication and collaboration among students. Dr.Frank Day noted that there is not enough faculty participation. It was generally agreed that more faculty should attend and should encourage their students to participate. The event is catered and usually consists of two sessions of talks. The faculty judges present this year will give written critiques to, and award a first place prize of $100 and a second place prize of $50.


C. Departmental Seminar. Alisha relayed the comments from some of the graduate students that the currently scheduled time is simply not feasible for many people due to class and/or teaching commitments. Some other suggestions were that the presenters in the past have not made lecture material accessible to a wider audience, and instead have been too narrow in their topics or have assumed that the audience is already familiar with their area or expertise. Also, it was suggested that more advertisements and reminders be sent to the department, as several students complemented that they simply forget that the lectures were going on. Graduate students would also like to see more presentations from current faculty an their research.

D. Graduate office space and computers. The current situation in the grad office is only two functional computers, only one of which is internet accessible. The original request, submitted by Milissa and followed up by both Milissa and Mary to set-up ports in the office has yet to be fulfilled. Milissa has therefore resubmitted a request. The time frame is a minimum of three weeks, and Milissa hopes that we may see at least someone come to inspect the grad office hub by the end of January. Currently, OCCS, has set the requirement that computers that they will service can be no older than four years, they will be supplying the computers. The current plan is to replace half of all old computers within the dept. this year, and the graduate office is included in this request, with the rest of the computers being replaced in the following year. Alisha inquired about the possibility of at least obtaining a computer that would be able to hook-up to the printer that is currently out of use, so at least TAs and students may use this printer. Milissa agreed, but noted that we have no budget for computers at this time, and so we are reliant on OCCS to supply us with any hand-me-down equipment.

E. Mohammad also inquired about the new rules for the photocopier. Milissa stated that all copy fees will be handled and paid for by the department as a whole, and until the new photocopy cards come in, we all use the same password. When the cards are implemented, the cost will still be billed on the whole to the dept., but the cards will allow us to keep track of usage, as well as use them campus-wide. At no point will the charges be billed to an individual user.

F. Round table discussion of graduate teaching loads (i.e. split TA's and unfamiliar subjects). Graduate students present at the meeting were invited to express their concerns on issues such as split TA positions between two or more courses, as well as teaching subjects unrelated to their own field of study. Faculty were also invited to give feedback on the split TA situation. Dr. Hynes noted that it is extremely difficult to not split TAs, and at times is forced to give grad students courses that are in areas out of their expertise. Hynes stated that if TAs were not split, some TAs would have a very light load, while increasing the load for others, which is not fair. Also, this would increase the total number of TA positions required which is not feasible due to the budget. The only other option would be to allow students to chose how many hours they would teach based on the labs in their area of research, which would significantly reduce the amount of money they would make per semester. All comments from both graduate students and faculty were well appreciated and the discussion concluded with the general feeling that there is no easy fix to this problem. Dr. Hynes stated that new TA's are generally not split among courses and that he makes the best effort possible to keep TA's in a continuous "track" of TA assignments to reduce preparation time and maximize teaching experience.