“Supervising the faculty, and administrative staff” seems to me to be a broad statement with too much room for interpretation. Individual duties are spelled out in detail under the next bullet point, and this one should be removed IMHOReference
The campus has expanded to include Navy Yard and Pfizer. It is unreasonable to require a student or faculty to move between campuses, and tend to class preparation and health in 1 hour between classes.
I propose that students and faculty whose classes are required to teach in the Navy Yard or Pfizer are not permitted appointment or registration to classes directly before or after.Reference
Does not seem appropriate to list under the section title “1.5.4 Academic Administration: Chairs.” Could a more appropriate section title that be created?Reference
Seems strange to list this under
1.5.4 Academic Administration: Chairs.” Suggest creating a more appropriate subheading and/or making a more expansive heading title.Reference
Conflicting definitions of ‘Brooklyn Campus’ – either it includes Navy Yard and Pfizer, in which case it should read: “Pratt’s Brooklyn Campus, which includes its 25 acre park-like main campus, and spaces in the Brooklyn Navy Yard and the Pfizer Building, and its Manhattan site…”
or, The Brooklyn Campus is considered the main campus, with BNY, Pfizer and Manhattan being other sites, in which case it should say “Pratt’s 25 acre park-like Brooklyn campus, plus spaces in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, the Pfizer building and its Manhattan campus, are conveniently located in the heart of New York City, an international hub…”
Also, ‘conveniently’ is marketing speak that detracts from the main point of Pratt being in NYC. None of this is about convenience.Reference
Why does this say “scholar-teachers” instead of just scholars, when none of the other professions are hyphenated with teachers?
Also, there are too many ideas and problems of agreement in these new sentences – models of learning don’t make creative differences, and strange specificities that don’t encompass all of the Pratt experience. This needs an edit.Reference
Tried posting a comment but it didn’t go through – this needs an edit – there are agreement issues in the sentences, and too many ideas clumped together.Reference
IN the paragraph about faculty meetings, this is most relevant: “adequate communication of issues and forums for the discussion of issues;” – some departments are so large that regularly scheduled meetings would not enable this to happen. It seems best to say something like this:
“Offers regular opportunities for faculty to have meaningful input in department decisions, and to facilitate transparency in decision-making; this includes adequate communication of issues and forums for the discussion of issues, including holding regular meetings with the faculty.Reference
As a part-time Visiting faculty member, it’s rather unclear how we are “expected to attend such departmental, school, or general faculty meetings as necessary for the fulfillment of their teaching responsibilities” when we are not paid for these activities and work other jobs as well.Reference
Since the language on coordinators was deleted, are the faculty who manage minor programs now considered academic directors, or are these responsibilities no longer to be given to faculty members?Reference
for project relevance, feasibility and potential impact, I think we should require: 1. a statement that illustrates why the faculty member thinks the project is relevant — give some context; 2. a more formal schedule that describes the feasibility of the project and addresses any contingencies (i.e. if anticipated funding or residencies do not get awarded, what is plan B); 3. a dissemination plan that would follow the completion of the research/project.Reference
This section should include some reference to the PRC handbooks published on the Union’s website. Faculty should know where to look to get the most up-to-date and department-specific informationReference
In the last bullet point “sponsoring entity” is very unclear. Does this mean outside sponsors? What if research conclusions are not in the interests of sponsors? Could Pratt be considered to be a “sponsoring entity” if a faculty member receives research funds from Pratt? Needs clarification or elimination.Reference
“Supervising the faculty” can be interpreted many ways and could potentially have unintended consequences in the future. I believe this section should be removed or made far more specific.Reference
supervision?! …I think we need to be mindful of the language slippage here. Chairs are now supervisors? Of course the role role of the chair involves engaging faculty, and administrative staff in their respective roles and responsibilities in accordance with Institute policies and procedures…. but supervisors?Reference
The term “supervisor” is a technical term used in the CBA, in Article 1, referring to those excluded from the bargaining unit. Chairs “supervise” faculty in hiring, choosing not to reappoint, assigning courses, and evaluating faculty. These are essential functions that sometime sit in tension with the role of a faculty member. The word “supervisor” makes that plain. Additionally, the word “supervisor” in our CBA is linked to this specific definition of the word from the National Labor Relations Act Section 2 (11) which states “The term “supervisor” means any individual having authority, in the interest of the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend such action, if in connection with the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.”Reference
“whose primary responsibility may be outside the department and institute.” what does this mean? It sounds like adjuncts are not at Pratt as fully-involved faculty. This is unclear.Reference
there is no mention of overseeing the considerable number of departmental events and promotion.
can the bullet about supporting the recruitment of undergrad and grad students be more specific. chairs aren’t directly involved in recruitment at undergrad level.Reference
Being a search committee chair is mostly admin work figuring out scheduling, communicating with candidates, and keeping the process on track and it is quite a lot of work if done well. I think it is important to have a chair or former chair on the committee but I’m not sure how important it is for that person to perform the labor of search committee chair, unless I misunderstand that role.Reference
wanted to second this. this section is so vague…”Shall have the option” — under which circumstances? require clarity.
Humanities and social sciences faculty can apply for external fellowships that have a teaching release componentReference
I don’t know what happened to my comment. But its important to note the informal labor of advising also — often times disproportionately shouldered by BIPOC FacultyReference
what is considered an “administrative title” because staff who teach are included in bullet three so not sure why they are excluded here unless we are talking about vps, deans, assistant deans, etc?Reference
Heading is “evaluation of full-time faculty” does that mean this section is meant to outline the process of evaluating faculty outside of the ARPT process?
The section then refers to tenure and PRC
is the Evaluation Process section being eliminated?
After reading this section it is not clear what is being evaluatedReference
As with FTF (see comment above) the heading is “evaluation of Part-Time faculty” and the first para refers to “continuous process….careful implementation of this process” but the process outlined is the ARPT process.
Confusing. Are these sections about the ARPT process or intended to describe how faculty are “continuously” evaluated?Reference
….not sure if “Curriculum Lead” and “Teaching Lead” are also titles? If so, there should also be clarification on what these roles are. If not, they should not be in same category as “Coordinators and Academic Faculty Director”Reference
this process needs to be clearer. is there a feedback mechanism once faculty notify their chair? are they cc’d along on an email with students? there is a vacuum in communication with students and faculty are left in the dark.
this process should be clearer, who will be communicating with whom when a faculty has an emergency situation?Reference
re: supervising faculty, this language comes from the this Supreme Court decision https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/444/672/ includes full-time faculty part of the union and separates chairs as supervisors and admin. this language regarding chairs as supervisors has been reviewed by James Lipovac, Union President.Reference
thank you for your comment. as this is an administrative position, the only other chair could be the dean and the dean is the hiring manager so that doesn’t quite work. interesting point though, we had a conversation about it.Reference
I agree with the concept that a former chair should be represented on the committee, but perhaps does not need to chair the search committee. It is important that someone on the search committee for a chair has intimate knowledge of the types of operations that the individual will be confronted with.Reference
Provost Heiland and I have had a long conversation about this process. The Dean’s office is administrating the survey and composing the survey.Reference
these are all positions that we currently have. we will be working towards clarifying all of this in the next revision of the faculty handbook. all of these different titles fall under faculty leads. we worked with Laurel Voss on this.Reference
this section only refers to ARPT processes as referred to in the linked CBA article. the part we have taken out at the end is an old process which we no longer follow.Reference
yes, that is correct. we too see and experience the emotional labor shouldered by us. informal advising is difficult to create guidelines around, but if you have ideas, we’d love to hear them, we can think more about this for the next fhb revision.Reference
However, it does state that visiting faculty are expected to attend faculty and other meetings when they’re not compensated for them and/or may have prior commitments to their other jobs, etc.Reference
Chairs are reviewed annually by their Dean’s as a part of the Performance Review process. What is described here is an additional review process. Do only Chairs have two review processes? How are the two aligned, in what ways does the annual performance review processes inform this ‘review for reappointment’ process. It makes no sense.
And a question for upper admin: why do Chairs not have a Handbook? Shouldn’t the Deans and upper admin put together a handbook for Chairs, that is then discussed with Chairs in Chairs Council. Why are the policies related to Chairs literally being drafted/refined in the process of drafting the faculty handbook?Reference
“Visiting faculty are expected to attend such departmental, school, or general faculty meetings as necessary for the fulfillment of their teaching responsibilities.”Reference
“Visiting faculty are expected to attend such departmental, school, or general faculty meetings as necessary for the fulfillment of their teaching responsibilities. “Reference
How often is “regular evaluation” Who is performing the evaluations? Is the chair required to visit the classroom or are these evaluations based on things like syllabi or student evaluations? The method of evaluation needs to be laid out more thoroughly.Reference
How is this supposed to be achieved? all part-time faculty! Based on their course evaluations? This is incredibly vague, and is evaluation or ‘supervision?’Reference
Does this include the CTL? What is the difference between the CTL faculty development programs and the Provost faculty development programs? What formal role do faculty play in determining the nature of faculty development programs?Reference
It would be good to add language as to how these assistant and Associate chairs are appointed and evaluated. Often these individuals are the primary interface with faculty. It remains unclear whether their evaluation falls under the Chairperson’s annual eval or there are separate channels.Reference
It would be helpful to add language as to how Assist. and Assoc. Chairs are hired and evaluated. Often these individuals are at the front line of faculty and student interface, and it remains unclear whether they are evaluated in the Chairperson’s annual evaluation or through some other channel.Reference
In merit the added line is good…”whose rank and status shall be equal to or exceed the rank and status of the faculty search position.”
I would venture that the chair of the committee for a tenure-track hire should EXCEED not be equal to the rank and status of the faculty search position in order to speak towards promotional processes from an experienced position.Reference
There is no Chair for school of information so perhaps we also need a disclaimer of some kind that these duties are assumed by dean in that case?Reference
Why is this statement on chairs and deans but not all staff/faculty? If this is just a general statement on our approach to evaluation this should live earlier in this section.Reference
And in the case of graduate? The area of advising for faculty is not scaling well as our student numbers increase. Need to clarify number of hours and/or workload here in a tangible way. This is a larger conversation and one perhaps that can be revisited in future revisions.Reference
Where is the information about the Assessment committee and the assessment coordinators? What is the relationship between the Curriculum Review Committees and the Assessment Committtee?Reference
It says: “Pratt Institute shall receive a copy of such notification”. What does the notification look like and who is it sent to? And I assume prior approval would need to be sought from Chair and Dean after which a copy of the ‘notification’ is sent?Reference
If these positions currently exist, how are they differentiated? (I’d imagine it is possible to speak to this as otherwise there would not currently be different titles?)Reference
I think Laurel is referring to the title- it isn’t accurate to say “Department Committees on “Appointments”” but we do refer to PRCs as part of the ARPT process.Reference
This is important and too vague. (In my 13 years teaching PT at Pratt the one time I was evaluated by a Chair was during a formal promotion process.)Reference
I think the last two sentences are redundant and should be combined/condensed. Also, I think the first two department names (Core Data Systems, Core Operations) should capitalize the first letter of each word in the title, as the other department titles doReference
Since the Academic Leads sub-section was moved to 1.6.2, I think it should say “such as academic leads as defined below”. Although that sub-section heading was changed to “Faculty Leads,” so maybe this should also be changed to faculty leads? Or does “academic leads” here refer to Academic Directors, which are defined above in 1.5.4?Reference
Nida and Uzma had a conversation with Provost Donna Heiland about this question. Here is her response:
The responsibilities of chairs are articulated in the Faculty
Handbook, and their performance is evaluated based on their effectiveness in meeting
these responsibilities, and with reference to goals set at each year's annual performance
review (all staff reviewed annually set goals for the year – it's a regular part of the
review). Evaluations are done by the dean, with input from faculty and staff via survey
administration on the schedule delineated in the Handbook.Reference
Nida and Uzma had a conversation with Provost Donna Heiland about this question. Here is her response:
Chairs are reviewed annually by their deans (ie by their supervisors), as
are all Pratt staff members. At specified intervals over the course of a chair’s initial contract,
and every third year after that, review of the chair’s performance is enhanced by
administration of a survey that invites departmental faculty and staff to provide their feedback
on the chair’s leadership of the department. There are not separate processes; rather the
annual review process is more comprehensive in the years when a survey is administered.
Note that Deans are evaluated in the same way, with annual performance reviews,
augmented by feedback from a survey sent to all school faculty and staff every three
years.Reference
Nida and Uzma had a conversation with Provost Donna Heiland about this question. Here is her response:
I would not say that policies and practices related to the work of
department chairs are drafted as the Faculty Handbook as drafted. Rather, I’d say that those
policies and practices are reported or recorded in the Faculty Handbook, as are those
relating to faculty members. Policies and procedures related to searches for and evaluation
of Deans also appear in the Faculty Handbook. The compilation of this kind of material in
one place is meant to be informative to all Senate constituents, and of course, those
constituents include not only faculty but also chairs and assistant chairs (arguably a further
justification for including this material in the Handbook).
It’s important that the Faculty Handbook is written by faculty working in consultation with the
provost’s office. Were a Chairs’ Handbook to be desired, I’d think it would be developed in
an analogous way, by Chairs working in consultation with the deans and the provost’s office,
most likely. It would take some discussion to develop an appropriate process. A past Chair
of Chairs Council proposed it and offered to work on it with the provost’s office, though in the
end it wasn’t possible to proceed with the work in the year it was proposed.Reference
Nida and Uzma had a conversation with Provost Donna Heiland about this question. Here is her response:
Assistant and Associate chairs are typically identified through searches, conducted
according to the policies and practices established by Pratt’s HR office. Associate and
Assistant Chairs are evaluated annually by their Chair (ie. by their supervisor), as are other
non-union staff employees.
Adding language could be something to consider for a future edition of the Handbook. More
effective might be an expanded organizational chart and structure for academic
administration, to which the Faculty Handbook could link, to make visible the variety of
staffing relationships that exist within departments at Pratt in one location.Reference
Nida and Uzma had a conversation with Provost Donna Heiland about this question. Here is her response:
Responsibility for various aspects of faculty development programming is shared among the
members of the provost’s staff. In general, any faculty development program developed by
the provost’s office is based on faculty input, solicited–for example–via survey (in the case of
the mentoring programs the provost’s office is developing).
As indicated in the description of the work of the Associate / Vice Provost for Academic
Affairs, the person in that role “collaborates with others in the provost’s office to develop
and offer a robust suite of faculty development programs, and in review of faculty
actions.” To date that work has included working with the Vice Provost for Integrative
Planning and Faculty Development to develop a mentoring program for FT faculty,
among other things.
CTL reports to the Associate / Vice Provost for Interdisciplinary and Integrative Learning,
as indicated in the description for that position. CTL develops its programming on the basis
of its stated mission, what CTL’s experience and interaction with faculty tells them faculty
need, and in consultation with the Associate / Vice Provost for Interdisciplinary and
Integrative Study.Reference
“Any candidate for promotion may at any
stage of the evaluation process, from the Chair’s recommendation through
the Provost’s review, submit a written response for consideration in the
succeeding stages of the review process.”Reference