Time and Location of Meeting
February 17, 2017
- Review Charge & Timeline
- Framework for Review
- Process for Assigning Rank to APs
- Assigned Primary/Secondary Reviewers
- Developing a Rubric
- Vitae Request – What to do if we don’t receive resumes from individuals?
- Process for Equity Assessment
- Appeals Process
- Process for Assigning Rank to APs
- Communications About Process
- Faculty meeting(s)
- AP & Open Session(s)
- Documenting Next Steps – Sept. 30, 2017 deadline
- 2018 Activities
Tom Teper, Tom Habing, Greg Knott, Jennifer Teper, Angela Waarala
Review Charge & Timeline
Tom Teper opened the meeting announcing that a charge had been drafted for APPIT and
sent to EC. EC has approved the charge. Tom went through the team’s timeline. Tom
asked the team to pay special attention to the July-August deadline. This is the time when
BHRSC renews AP contracts in Banner. Classification changes need to be finalized by
July 15th to avoid double data entry work.
Framework for Review
Tom asked that the team develop a preliminary framework for the review process plus
conduct initial reviews and recommendations by the end of June.
Developing A Rubric
Tom Teper stated that the team does not have a rubric per se. “Do we need to develop
one? How are we going to classify?”
JoAnn suggested that before the group develops a rubric, they should try a couple of test
cases. She also suggested that submissions be handled more like a search as far as criteria
for each level.
Jennifer suggested the group loosely follow FRC criteria, not the same process exactly,
but something similar. She stated that every FRC member ranks faculty and that it may
be a good idea for each APPIT member to rank APs.
Susan requested that job descriptions be completed by March 15th
Tom Habing stated that he felt CV’s were more important in the review process than job
descriptions because the team will be ranking individuals on their experience and their
CV more than the contents of a job description.
Susan noted that the team should inform APs of CV requests sooner rather than later.
Tom Teper requested that the team clarify exactly what APs will be expected to submit.
As a starting point, Susan suggested that the APs be sent the document “AP Promotion
Greg stated that position description updates are due to BHRSC by May 19th
What to do if we don’t receive resumes from individuals?
The group agreed that if an AP does not submit an updated CV, their classification will
be solely ranked on the position description on file.
Tom Teper will draft a letter next week to request updated CV’s and job descriptions.
Process for Equity Assessment
Tom Habing suggested the need for consistency and clear criteria.
Jennifer stated that supervisors should not evaluate their own employees.
Greg commented that he feels assessment will be easy, once they get started.
Jennifer requested clarification of whether assessment is based on the “person” or
Conversation ensued about how to clarify the rating system.
Greg stated that no equity adjustments will go along with this process
In conclusion, it was decided that Greg would gather five to ten examplars and meet with
Tom Teper next week. There will be no rubric developed at this time.
The group will need to figure out what to do regarding the appeals process. This will be
discussed later down the road.
Communications About Process
Tom Teper will share updates from the team at the next Faculty Meeting
Susan will draft a letter to all APs and send to Tom for approval before sending it out.
Jennifer suggested that some type of CV development assistance be offered.
Tom Teper will send an update blurb to Heather Murphy for LON each month.
Greg stated that this process is not ranking, but analysis.
In conclusion, the group will look at the FRC template to assist with getting started.
Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.