Review of Appendix 16 for Compliance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement

1. Review of Appendix 16 for Compliance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement FA007809

2. Issues • Academic Senate has difficulty in recruiting and electing faculty to CRTPC and URTPC • Appointment of faculty by URTP to replace CRTPC member may violate CBA • Appointment of faculty by EC to replace URTPC member may violate CBA • Using committee of whole as practiced in some departments may violate CBA

3. Resources Contacted • Presentation to Academic Senate to solicit input • Meeting with Faculty Union representative • E-mail to all faculty requesting comment and input

4. Summary of Responses Support recommendations/lower further 11 Min of 3 members /reduce the workload 3 % of dept. faculty with a min of 3 1 Make the service mandatory 1 Use multiple committee 1 Strongly Opposed 1 Other 2

5. Differences Between Current and Proposed Policy • MINIMUM DRTP size under current policy: • 3 – for departments with less than 10 eligible faculty members to serve • 5 – for departments with 10 to 17 eligible faculty members to serve • 7 – for departments with over 18 eligible faculty members to serve • Departments have discretion to increase the size above the minimum • DRTP size will be fixed under the proposed policy

6. Differences Between Current and Proposed Policy (cont.) • Under current policy the size of the CRTP Committee is three to five. • Current practice is for Executive Committee to establish the size based on precedence and size of the college • Under the proposed policy the size will be three for all colleges.

7. Differences Between Current and Proposed Policy (cont.) • Under current policy if a CRTPC member is unable to serve for any reason, the URTPC shall name a replacement to serve until such time as the elected member returns or until the next regular election of CRTPC. • The proposed policy requires special election to replace the CRTPC member

8. Differences Between Current and Proposed Policy (cont.) • If a URTPC member is unable to serve for any reason, the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate shall recommend to the Vice President for Academic Affairs a replacement to serve until such time as the elected member can return or the next regular election of URTPC members. • The proposed policy requires special election to replace the URTPC member

9. Differences Between Current and Proposed Policy (cont.) • All references to Collins as a school is deleted.

10. Important Considerations/Arguments • People with agendas will get on a small committee • Committees are elected. We should not put people following a preset agenda on any elected/appointment evaluation committee • Small committees take away opportunity for a broader input into the process. • Any faculty member, student, and administrator can provide input during the solicitation period. All input shall be added to candidate’s package • Recommended size is too small • The recommended sizes are the current minimum size • For almost all departments the recommended size exceeds 1/3 of the department faculty eligible to serve

11. Important Considerations/Arguments • Small committee results in skewed interpretation of the candidate accomplishments • Enhanced quality of larger committees is highly debatable • DRTPC is charged with objective evaluation based on department approved criteria. Deviation from department criteria can be grounds for appeal

12. Misconception • Department chairs cannot choose on their own to become a member or to write a separate evaluation • To become a member, the chair must be nominated and elected by majority vote of the faculty • To write a separate evaluation, the chair must be empowered by the vote of the faculty.