2000-2001 Faculty Council Meeting #22 – March 6, 2001

Page 1

University of Idaho

FACULTY COUNCIL MINUTES

2000-2001 Meeting #22, Tuesday, March 06, 2001

Present: McKeever (chair), Smelser (vice-chair), Brunsfeld, Finnie, Foltz, Fritz, Goble, Guilfoyle, Haggart (w/o vote), Hong, Kraut, McCaffrey, McClure, Meier, Nelson, Nielsen, Olson, Norby, Pitcher (w/o vote) Absent: Bitterwolf, Chun, Glen, Goodwin, Thompson, Trivedi Observers: 2

Call to Order. A quorum being present, Faculty Council Chair, Professor Kerry McKeever, called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. in the Brink Hall Faculty Lounge.

Minutes. The council accepted the minutes of the February 27, 2001, meeting as distributed.

Elections for New Council Members. Faculty Secretary, Peter Haggart, reported to the council that the terms of office are being completed by nine of its members this spring. He has notified the constituent bodies represented by those retiring council members, and has reminded them of the need to hold elections by April 24, 2001. The first meeting of the 2001-2002 Faculty Council, as well as the last meeting of the 2000-2001 Faculty Council, will be held on May 1, 2001.

Provost’s Report. Provost Brian Pitcher reported that a U of Idaho proposal requesting funding from the governor’s office to support the construction of a Center for Science and Technology in Eastern Idaho has been awarded $5 million. In addition, the university has received $2 million in federal HUD funds. The project is now 70% funded and the remainder of the cost will be covered by issuing bonds.

Pitcher announced that the search committee for the Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies has identified five finalists who will interview on-campus during the next few weeks. Announcements will be forthcoming on the interview schedule for each candidate. In another search, a finalist for the position of Dean of the Idaho Falls program will be on campus next week (March 14th) for interviews.

In response to a councilor’s question about the U of Idaho hiring an executive search company (“head hunter”) to help in searches for administrative positions, Pitcher replied that there were plenty of qualified candidates identified in the vice president search and therefore an executive search company was not necessary. However, an executive search company, that specializes in the area of the design profession, has been retained to help in the search for the new Dean of Art and Architecture. He said that a good executive search firm can always be a benefit when there is some question about the depth of the pool or quality of the candidates. Pitcher said that such a firm might be able to help the U of Idaho fill some vacant senior research positions.

FC-01-021 – Post-Tenure Review and Development. Chair McKeever asked Provost Pitcher to review the Campaign for Idaho goals relative to senior faculty positions and faculty development. Pitcher detailed the campaign’s fundraising goals in the areas of “faculty support” ($15 million) and “program and curriculum development” ($8 million). The campaign staff is identifying annual gift and endowment levels necessary to fund specific classes of several new special faculty positions: distinguished chair, presidential professorship, university professorship, faculty fellow, fellowship, and graduate fellowship. Besides relying on individuals to make these kinds of gifts, he said that many times corporations will put their names on professorial chair positions.

Pitcher also noted that funds raised in the area of program and curriculum development could be used in the enhancement of faculty teaching and research activities, as well as play a significant role in the area of faculty development. The campaign is also seeking contributions to help strengthen academic programs via the core curriculum, graduate fellowships, the president’s excellence fund, an academic excellence fund, a college excellence fund, and a library fund.

In response to a councilor’s question concerning the process for identifying faculty members worthy of those new positions, Pitcher explained that there are already a number of good examples on the campus now. The College of Business and Economics and the College of Law both have competitive peer-review processes and very specific criteria for selecting professors for endowed professorships or special funding grants. The provost also noted that in many cases the endowment or continuing funding for these kinds of opportunities might just as well come from interested corporations, in addition to gifts from individuals.

Councilor Nielsen asked how these funding matters related to the Post-Tenure Review and Development discussion. Chair McKeever replied that the directives in the task force’s plan could be used in applying for these types of incentives. Pitcher said that if the university received full funding for this type of faculty support (endowments and annual gifts from corporations and individuals) that it would certainly be compatible with the incentive plans suggested by the task force. Plans and needs should be coupled with the available money and then used to support faculty development projects. McKeever said that the implementation of Responsibility Center Management should obligate the university to make sure that departments not involved in entrepreneurial projects would still be able to find incentive funding through other channels.

Councilors Smelser and Goble presented a motion and an amendment (which remained un-seconded throughout the discussion) that would modify the recommendations in the proposal of the task force concerning a five-year review. They proposed that certain materials be made available to the relevant faculty members in the department of a faculty member undergoing the current SBOE/Regents mandated five-year review: namely, everything that is required in the annual review, plus an updated curriculum vitae, and the narrative statements from the previous five years of annual reviews. This basic information package would also provide the basis for a discussion of development with the unit administrator. The motion also stated that a formal peer review by a committee (as proposed by the task force) would only be triggered at the request of the faculty member who was undergoing the standard review. In other words, there would be no mandated formal (committee structured) peer review – only the review process that is currently done.

The current five-year review practice has the department circulating the name of a faculty member undergoing competency review, but providing no information on which to make a competency judgment. You simply vote yes or no. If a majority of the faculty say no, then a full review is held. That never happens because there is no information supplied to those doing the voting that could help them make an informed decision. So they simply vote yes! The suggested wording by Smelser and Goble added the requirement of a body of information being made available to faculty members voting on competency and a required discussion of the faculty member’s development plan with the unit administrator.

The councilors then engaged in an extended discussion of the annual review, the current five-year review process/purpose, the five-year peer review process/purpose as put forth in the task force report, faculty development plans, and the changes proposed by the task force to Faculty-Staff Handbook, section 3320 C (the complete proposal can be read at the task force web site:

Chair McKeever reminded the council that the Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC) is currently looking at the job description form and adding a goals section to that form. They are also working on strengthening the annual review process to make it more consistent from department to department. She said that the main item that the council should consider is sending the task force’s recommendations on the wording of FSH section 3320 C to the FAC to rework, based on what has been discussed previously and is being discussed today.

After some discussion concerning the correct wording, it was moved and seconded (Brunsfeld, McCaffrey) to send to the Faculty Affairs Committee the draft wording of FSH section 3320 C as proposed by the task force, accompanied by the task force narrative concerning the issues of post-tenure review/development, along with a list of council concerns and directives.

After some discussion of the reward system part of the task force proposal, and the realities of funding that system, it was moved and seconded (Meier, Finnie) to table the previous motion pending further clarification.The motion failed (5 yea – 7 nay).

The council then resumed its discussion of the previous motion. Councilors Goble and Fritz said it appeared that the council was approaching this issue backwards. The council should be going through the four parts of FSH section 3320 C and making specific recommendations for the Faculty Affairs Committee to consider in its review. Councilor Brunsfeld felt that the main issue to be considered was whether or not the council liked the idea of a development plan and incentives. If we like that idea, he said, then the council should go ahead and vote on the details. The question was called. The motion was defeated (3 yea – 11 nay).

It was moved and seconded (Nelson, Fritz) with a friendly wording change by Councilor McClure that the council proceed to work on the details of the report, specifically Faculty-Staff Handbook section 3320 C, and send specific directives to the Faculty Affairs Committee.

In the discussion that followed Councilor Goble summarized the problem by stating that what the council really needed to decide was whether or not to have a formal committee structured five-year peer review (the basic proposition of the task force report) or whether the council wanted to take the current SBOE/Regents mandated five-year review and “beef it up.”

Councilor Fritz said that she wanted the council to address all of the issues in FSH 3320, not just the five-year review. The council needs to go through that material and send directives to the Faculty Affairs Committee. The motion was adopted by a unanimous vote.

Provost Pitcher commented that the council should not be discouraged by the disagreements surrounding the discussion of these issues. He feels that the council is moving in the right direction and progress is being made. He said that the positions that are being discussed are all plausible and that agreement can be reached. Further discussion at the next meeting should allow the council to sort out the issues and find the best solution.

Task Force on the Teaching Evaluation Process. Councilor Nielsen presented the council with a formal recommendation from the task force regarding an on-line teaching evaluation system. The task force asks that the Faculty Council recommend to the provost that a web-based system for course evaluations be implemented as soon as practical. It was also suggested that the on-line system be reviewed after its fourth consecutive semester of use. That review would decide whether or not to make the on-line evaluation system permanent, make further adjustments, or go back to a paper based, in-class, evaluation system. The proposal also outlined a suggested format and process, as well as features that could be programmed into the evaluation system.

It was moved and seconded (Nielsen, Foltz) to send the task force recommendation to the Provost with a recommendation for implementing an on-line course/instructor evaluation system under the guidelines recommended by the Faculty Council Task Force on the Teaching Evaluation Process.

Councilor Kraut expressed concerns voiced to her by members of her college’s faculty. They are not convinced that the participation rate shown in the experiment can be repeated in the “real world” atmosphere of actual usage in all university courses. She said that many faculty members felt that there should be a mandatory aspect to the evaluation system, such as a student not receiving a grade for the course unless that student had submitted an evaluation of that course. Instructors could make this mandatory by incorporating it in the course syllabus.

Councilor McClure said that two of her colleagues who had participated in the experiment were not satisfied that the experiment really worked. She said that participation rates using the current written forms were very high in her college – approaching 80 to 90 percent in many cases, yet the return rates for the on-line system were much lower. She also said that the faculty members that participated in the study felt that there was not enough follow-up by the researchers on what actually took place. She cited several problems that need further investigation by the task force.

Councilor McCaffrey noted that the key to the success of any evaluation process was that the department faculty and students understood that this was an essential task. His department head speaks to classes, stressing the importance of the evaluations and replaces the instructor as the one who hands out the evaluation forms. The result has been that the participation rate has increased.

Councilor Nelson suggested that the time frame for the next phase of the on-line evaluation should be shortened to one or two semesters, rather than waiting for four semesters to make a decision about keeping the system. Professor Nielsen responded that a longer period of time was necessary to get a change in the “culture” of conducting evaluations.

Councilor Meier suggested that the proposed use of a “nag” window on the student’s computer to remind them that they needed to complete course evaluations might just have the opposite effect of driving students away from completing the task. He likened this to the “nag” window that appears to get faculty and staff to change their computer passwords – it makes his blood pressure go up! Professor Nielsen said that the task force could live without that requirement being in the proposed format.

Other council members noted that the course evaluation system was so important to the annual review that it really needed very careful study before making any changes. The council needs to weigh the benefits to the student and faculty in having an on-line system and to carefully look at the reasons for changing the current system.

Chair McKeever ruled that the motion would be held until the next meeting. She asked the council to carefully study the recommendations of the evaluation task force and be prepared to vote on the motion next week.

Adjournment. After reminding the council to do its “homework,” Chair McKeever adjourned the meeting at 5:08

Respectfully submitted,

Peter A. Haggart

Secretary of the Faculty Council