March 29, 2017 Meeting of Academic Professional Promotion Implementation Team

I. Feedback from LCAP
II. Grievance Process
III. FAQ
IV. Reviewing Initial Submissions, i.e., dividing up the world (so to speak)
V. Next Steps

Tom Teper, Tom Habing, Jennifer Teper, JoAnn Jacoby, Greg Knott, Susan Schnuer, Angela Waarala
Absent: Beth Namachchivaya

I. Feedback from LCAP
Susan asked what the equity assessment will look like. Greg responded that he won’t
really know until he gets into it. Greg suggested that they refer to this as a salary
analysis as opposed to equity assessment. LCAP asked what this program will look
like in 5 years. APPIT will present recommendations to EC in September and they
will make determinations from there. We really can’t predict what it will look like in
five years. Tom Teper thought it was a good idea to use the LCAP questions for the
FAQ. Angela asked, how do we create a structure for new positions after this process
is completed. JoAnn responded that we will need to shape positions within this
context. Tom T stated that this process will need to begin at the search level. Susan
said that a question arose about visiting AP’s. The group unanimously agreed that
visiting AP’s will not be included in this process. The group also agreed that they
need to make it very clear that visiting positions are not included, since that has not
been stated anywhere. Tom volunteered to talk to Bill Mischo about this and send a
note to all visiting AP’s indicating that they could submit documents or not.

II. Appeals Process
Tom Teper spoke with the chair of the Grievance Committee, and they concurred
with APPIT’s feeling that they cannot handle the appeals process because it is not in
their charge. The committee decided that if there are any appeals, Greg, one person
from LCAP, and Cherie’ Weible (as chair of Grievance and someone familiar with
the grievance process) will compromise an appeals body. Tom stated that the appeals
process should be outlined. Greg will contact Cherie’ to develop a draft. The
committee confirmed its previous agreement that if documents are not submitted by
an AP on time, or not submitted at all, the AP will forfeit an opportunity to appeal.
Jennifer asked if the committee will provide more information to the AP if they
disagree with a ranking before an appeal. Susan suggested that if the two people
reviewing disagree with the AP ranking, they should share the file with the group for
a unanimous decision. The group agreed that they probably won’t receive too many
appeals.

III. FAQ
Angela took many notes at the open sessions. Angela agreed to edit her notes and
share with the group to develop an FAQ. Jennifer volunteered to take Angela’s notes
and work with Susan to develop the FAQ.
IV. Reviewing Initial Submissions, ie: dividing up the world (so to speak)
Susan asked if evaluations will be done in pairs. Greg stated that yes, evaluations
will be done in pairs, but we will not always work in the same pairs. It will be done
randomly.

V. Next Steps
Susan stated that an AP lunch is scheduled for next week. Wendy will also schedule
one last open session during the committees regularly scheduled meeting on April
13th. Susan asked, if we receive all documentation by April 17th, when do we need to
have everything completed? Tom responded that we have until May 30th, however,
we should have everything ready by the second week of May to allow time to draft
letters, etc.

Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.