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 workload3 % of dept. faculty with a min of 31 Make the service mandatory1 Use multiple committee1 Strongly Opposed 1 Other2

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.