Minutes - Combined LAMU and LSU meeting, September 5 2022

Meeting subject: Combined Occupational Health and Safety Committee (LAMU) and Joint Cooperation Committee (LSU) meeting

Attendees: Marianne Dammand Iversen, Søren Poulsen, Kaj Grønbæk, Tina Rudolph, Olav W. Bertelsen, Simon Hoggan Christensen, Lene Hjøllund, Kristoffer Arnsfelt Hansen, Jens Kristian Refsgaard Schou, Henriette Gammelgaard Farup, and Helena Bach

1. Messages from the chairman
Most of the messages had already been delivered at the faculty meeting the week be-fore. 

A partial hiring freeze has been implemented, which means new hiring procedures cannot be put in motion without the dean's approval, with a few exceptions. Excep-tions include externally funded employees. Hopefully all current hiring processes can continue. 

The intake at CS has been good this year.

AC will be turned off nights and weekends to save money, unless there is a specific reason, such as events.

2. Workplace assessment (WPA) – feedback to the faculty:
- Evaluation of the WPA process

Student counsellors are not evaluated separately, which causes some confusion in questions regarding the immediate managers.

- The faculty has asked for the most significant focus areas
Update from the groups:
FastVIP: There did not seem to be any significant problems in general, so the focus has been directed towards the Tenure Tracks.

Tenure Track: Each TT will be contacted individually, and later the main points will be brought up on a meeting with all the TT's.

FastTAP: Overall the group does not seem to have any significant problem areas, but the identified issues will be addressed at a seminar in the autumn. One focus area has been arranging social events during the working hours, so everyone can attend.

Postdoc: Problem areas are stress, lack of interdisciplinary collaboration, and unclear career trajectories. 

PhD: The problem areas are insufficient understanding of the expectations as a PhD student, need for more contact with their student counsellors, and knowledge of who their immediate manager is. A meeting was held to address the WPA issues, but there was a lack of attendance at the meeting.

3. Hearing: Guide to programme for promotion to professor
There are problems with the entry point and the hiring procedure.

It is unclear how the yearly evaluations are to be managed. Should it for example be uploaded into Workzone? This could lead to employees demanding to see their eval-uations. Some members did not believe it ought to be formalised as such, but in-stead relaxed and be more informal.

4. Hearing: Revision of ”Criteria for evaluating candidates for permanent academic positions”
The term "demonstrated" can be misinterpreted. It is unclear whether this means documented, and how to formally document such things as teaching experience. 

Guidelines are needed as to what is required to be filled out. The uncertainty should not be a barrier for the applicants. Educational experience needs to be at the same level as research experience.

It is unclear whether the teaching portfolio is the same as a teaching statement.
The criteria should be understandable for everyone applying from all over the world.

Some points are repetitive and could be combined. 

5. The staff development interviews (MUS) of the autumn
The interviews will follow the same procedure as last year. 

There is some uncertainty as to who can conduct the interviews for the postdocs and PhD's. The student counsellors should be able to conduct the interviews for the PhD's, but this could possibly be considered a conflict of interest. 

Many of the problems could be handled in the PhD support group meetings with other supervisors at CS. 

In earlier years there has been a low participation in the staff development inter-views, especially for short term employees. Kaj will bring up the issue at a meeting for the research group leaders and investigate how the participation can be im-proved.

6. AOB
It is a problem that the admission committee is too rigid, and this poses a threat to the working environment. There is a loss of PhD candidates because of arbitrary cri-teria, especially regarding grade point average. Grades should not be a guiding fac-tor, recommendations from the student counsellors should carry more weight.