1. Approval of Minutes
2. Review of Discussion Topics for 2003-04 - Chair Bledsoe
3. Faculty Merit and Promotion
4. Innovative Use of Technology

Present: Chair Caroline Bledsoe, Mike Allred, Gil Apaka, Joseph Calger, James Case, James Chalfant, Jack Farrell, Jeff Gibeling, Andrew Jones, Rob Kerner, Bob Murta, Stan Nosek, Bob Ono, Judy Sakaki, Marilyn Sharrow, Ellen Sutter, Pam Thomas, Mani Tripathi, Pat Turner, Brenda Unterleitner, and Neal Van Alfen.

Absent: Lund, Kathleen Moore, and Ann Orel.

Excused: John Bruno, Lynn Chronister, Bill Lacy, John Meyer, Celeste Rose, Steve Roth, Dave Shelby, and James Spriggs.

Guest: Janet Brown-Simmons, Rick Catalano for Aby Zubov, Debbie Lauriano, Connie Melendy, Andre McLaughlin for Barry Klein, Ray Reveles, and Keith Young for Lynn Chronister.

Staff to the Council: Julie Saylor, and Babette Schmitt.

The meeting began at 3:10 p.m.

Chair Bledsoe announced that Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Virginia Hinshaw has received and accepted the memo sent to her in June. The memo outlined AC4/AdC3 members’ desire to hold joint meetings this Fall Quarter and identified a list of discussion topics members had brainstormed at the June meeting. (See “Memo to Provost Hinshaw”.)

Chair Bledsoe then requested comments on the minutes from the June meeting. The minutes were approved with no modifications.

• There will be two main topics of discussion this fall, as follows:
  • Consideration of a Faculty Merit and Promotion System. This topic will be discussed today.
  • Consideration of an integrated Sponsored Research Data System. This topic will be discussed at the December 1 meeting.
• Chair Bledsoe noted that this group's deliberations will help inform the provost's prioritizing and funding decisions next Winter Quarter.

“Homework: Faculty Merit and Promotion”
“Entomology, Plant Pathology, Nematology: Web-based Academic Merits and Promotions”

Chair Bledsoe introduced the Faculty and Merit Promotion discussion topic by referring to the “homework”, background, and discussion questions sent by email in advance of this meeting. She noted that several efforts are underway to provide an online system capable of supporting the electronic submission, review and approval of faculty merits and promotions. A few departments are already using such a system, and many more have expressed interest in these capabilities as well as in the need to streamline workloads for staff and faculty. Chair Bledsoe asked Janet Brown-Simmons to provide an overview of her departmental online system and Connie Melendy to outline Academic Personnel’s investigation of a campuswide faculty merit and promotion system.

• Entomology Department’s Faculty Merit and Promotion System: Janet Brown-Simmons, MSO in the department of Entomology, gave a brief demo of the system the department developed internally and implemented three years ago. This year, the system was expanded to include two other departments (Plant Pathology and Nematology). Brown-Simmons noted that the system was designed originally to address two major needs: 1) to enable faculty to review dossiers from remote locations, and 2) to streamline staff workload and merit process management. The demo illustrated the capabilities of the system and some of the steps in the department’s online merit and promotion process (e.g., review, comment, voting), as viewed from a faculty’s perspective.
  
• Academic Personnel Office’s Investigation: Connie Melendy, Assistant Vice Provost for Academic Personnel, provided an overview of the current, paper-based faculty merit and promotion system managed through the office of Academic Personnel. She outlined a number of steps being taken to improve this system and process.
  Three main options are under consideration: a) InfoVault, the system already in use in the School of Medicine; b) a document management system capable of supporting workflow functionality; and c) a customized, in-house solution. Melendy indicated a primary rationale for developing a campuswide system is to reduce workload at the academic department level. Consequently, the notion of a data repository that can serve the merit/promotion process as well as other processes/purposes is very attractive, particularly because much of the information gathered for the merit/promotion process is also required for other processes like grant applications. A campuswide system will also need to provide consistency such that central reviewers (such as the Committee on Academic Personnel) could easily review each dossier, and at the same time must provide flexibility and customization options to departments, colleges, and schools.
  Melendy noted that John Bruno and Barbara Horwitz (Vice Provost for Academic Personnel) will soon appoint a committee to review the fit between the functionality needed and the three options being considered (see handout for a preliminary list of system requirements developed with IET and user input). In preparation, VP Horwitz and Melendy will identify the workload issues that a campuswide system could or should address, consulting with department and dean’s office users, including faculty.
  
• Council Discussion:
  • Neal Van Alfen, Dean of the College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, noted that there is growing interest and pressure in his college to implement more broadly an online system that can alleviate staff’s workload and simplify the process for faculty. He cautioned that, if a system was not made available to campus departments soon, many units will initiate their own development efforts or acquire a system to address this need.
  • Council members raised the following questions which should be addressed before implementation of a campus-wide system: Need to better understand and address security issues. Inventory potential security issues (e.g., securing access controls, preserving confidentiality of materials, server maintenance, etc.), and identify ways of addressing those issues.
    [a] How will security be addressed? This is a very important and difficult topic and should not be underestimated. What are the security issues? Examples: [1] control of access to the system; [2] preservation of confidentiality, especially of reviewer's letters; [3[server maintenance, etc.
    [b] For individual departments, what parts of the system are generic and what parts are specific? Are the dossiers (data repository) relatively similar among departments? Are the processes (e.g., discussion and voting by faculty) quite different among departments? Note: The AC4 Subcommittee on Education has started to look into Educause's study of e-portfolios (see http://www.educause.edu.nlii/keythemes/eportfolios.asp).
    [c] What are the anticipated benefits and time-savings to faculty, staff, and departments? The new system should streamline the workload for faculty and staff (e.g., error correction). The new system should simplify existing processes and go beyond digitizing documents. Would such a Merit/Promotion system really increase faculty participation in the process?
    [d] Members suggested that the system should be optional for departments, not required, but there should be incentives for departments to adopt the campus-wide system. Thus there should be a process to encourage consensus and to help departments, staff and faculty make the transition to the new online system. The suggestion was offered that a pilot should be conducted and lessons learned from it.
    [e] What software options are available? In particular, what are the advantages/disadvantages of InfoVault, the system in use by the UCD School of Medicine? What are other UC universities using?
    [f] How can we deal with the current and anticipated proliferation of ad hoc systems?
    [g] What potential legal exposures and litigations does the campus need to be aware of and prepared for?

IV. INNOVATIVE USE OF TECHNOLGY

Rob Kerner provided a brief demo of an inexpensive substitute for a tablet PC called a "Drawing Pad," which can be used in lectures to annotate PowerPoint. He noted that a good Tablet PC costs around $1500 (though some are available in the $900-$1000 range), while the Drawing Pad is much less.

 

The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.