2000-2001 Faculty Council Minutes – Meeting #14 – December 5, 2000

Page 1

University of Idaho

FACULTY COUNCIL MINUTES

2000-2001 Meeting #14, Tuesday, December 5, 2000

Present: McKeever (chair), Smelser (vice-chair), Bitterwolf, Brunsfeld, Chun, Coonts, Finnie, Foltz, Fritz, Glen, Goodwin, Guilfoyle, Haggart (w/o vote), Kraut, McCaffrey, McClure, Meier, Nielsen, Olson, Pitcher (w/o vote), Thompson

Absent: Goble, Hong, Nelson, Trivedi Observers: 6

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 Idaho Commons.

Minutes. The council, by voice vote, accepted the minutes of the November 28, 2000, meeting as distributed.

Chair’s Report. Professor McKeever asked that the council members turn the completed survey forms that the membership has been working on for the last few weeks. The survey is designed to gather information regarding the circumstances that have led faculty members to leave the U of Idaho during the last 5 years. McKeever will provide the council with a summary of findings at a later date.

Provost’s Report. Provost Brian Pitcher reported on the following items:

  • Winter CommencementCeremonies. The winter commencement is scheduled for the afternoon of December 16th in the Kibbie Dome. This commencement was added two years ago and has become so well attended that it was moved to the Kibbie Dome last year. Approximately 600 students will receive their diplomas at this year’s ceremony.
  • Leadership Retreat and Action Plan Hearings. A leadership retreat to discuss a variety of matters, including Responsibility Center Management (RCM) issues, is scheduled for January 9, 2001. The retreat will be followed on January 10th and January 11th with presentations by Deans and Vice Presidents of their action plans and priorities for the year. These will be open sessions, and the university community is invited to attend the presentations. The provost said that he would provide the council (and the university community) with a detailed schedule of the presentations at a later date.

Committee Reports. The Faculty Council received as seconded motion from the University Curriculum Committee, FC-01-012.

FC-01-012 – A proposal to name the administrative unit overseeing the existing International Studies degree program the “Martin School of International Affairs.” Kurt Olsson, Dean of the College of Letters and Science, presented the council with background information concerning the establishment of this school. He told the council that the International Studies Program at the U of Idaho is currently administered by the Martin Institute for Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution. The Martin Institute was established in 1989, as an institute without an academic program. Eventually the International Studies program was headquartered in the Martin Institute and its offerings were overseen by a Board of Deans. However, this board is not able to look after the necessary day-to day-operations of the institute.

The proposal will make the unit overseeing this operation a school. The title change more adequately describes the academic program, the nature of the underlying consortium of U of Idaho departments and faculties that provide the curriculum and staff the courses, and the fit of the program within a network of programs across the country that commonly use the terms “school” and “international affairs.” Dean Olsson also noted that the intent of this renaming is also to encourage the new Martin school and other academic units to engage in truer interdisciplinary, interdepartmental, and intercollegiate relationships. It is hoped that this engagement will, in turn, create stronger ties among academic units that contributed coursework to the International Studies curriculum. After some discussion of the implications of the soon to be implemented RCM (the school and course offering departments should benefit from this type of management) to this new school, opportunities for students to study abroad through its programs, and the role and mission of the new Martin school, the council adopted FC-01-012 by unanimous voice vote.

Sabbatical Leaves. The Sabbatical Leave Evaluation Committee forwarded to the provost a list of faculty members recommended for leave. Provost Brian Pitcher presented those names to the Faculty Council for approval. Pitcher explained the process used to make the selections and noted that the U of Idaho is authorized to award sabbaticals to 2% of its faculty. That factor, along with internal budget allocations, means that the U of Idaho can award approximately 10 one semester sabbaticals, and 12-14 full year sabbaticals, per academic year.

The following faculty members were recommended for sabbatical leaves for 2001-2002 (this is the second group of faculty members approved for 2001-2002):

Steve Beyerlein / Fall and Spring semesters / George LaBar / Fall and Spring semesters
John Bush / Fall and Spring semesters / Paul McDaniel / Fall semester
Leszek Czuchajowski / Fall semester / Ken Newman / Fall and Spring semesters
Sanford Eigenbrode / Fall semester / Paul Oman / Fall and Spring semesters
Tina Foriyes / Fall semester / Dennis Scarnecchia / Fall semester

The Sabbatical Leave recommendations were adopted by unanimous voice vote.

Approval of Candidates for Degrees. The Office of the Registrar provided the Faculty Council with a list of degree candidates for Summer and Fall 2000. As called for in Faculty-Staff Handbook, Section 4910 [Degrees are granted in the name of the regents upon recommendation of the university faculty (the Faculty Council acts for the university faculty in recommending candidates for earned degrees); . . .], it was moved and seconded (Foltz, Finnie) to approve the list of candidates for degrees (Summer and Fall 2000) as submitted by the Office of the Registrar. The motion was adopted by unanimous voice vote.

Unfinished Business and General Orders. The council took under consideration items coming as seconded motions from the Faculty Affairs Committee. Before the items were presented, Chair McKeever took the opportunity to thank the Faculty Affairs Committee for the work they have been doing this year. She said that the council would be looking at a number of proposals from this committee over the next few months. Some of this work has been going on for over two years, and a lot of that work was in consultation with the Office of the Provost.

FC-01-013 – Proposal for Revision of the Spring Semester Calendar. Councilor Karen Guilfoyle, a member of the Faculty Affairs Committee, presented background on the proposed changes in the Spring semester calendar. Some years ago, WSU and the U of Idaho agreed to stagger graduation weekends in order to relieve the pressure on local commercial resources. The original agreement specified that the institutions would rotate graduation weekends; however, that rotation has never occurred. Instead, the U of Idaho has absorbed the additional time by a lengthened Spring semester.

The Faculty AffairsCommittee recommends that the Spring semester calendar be adjusted to provide for a semester start two days later than presently used. This would provide for a Spring semester that is nearly equal to the Fall semester and satisfy the Faculty-Staff Handbook requirements for 160 instructional days in an academic year. This recommendation would have the Spring semester start on Wednesday rather than Monday of the first week. The net effect would be to provide one class day of relief for both a MWF and TTH teaching schedule. The academic year schedule would have 79 instructional days in the Fall semester and 81 in the Spring semester. The committee also presented the council with a list of other alternatives considered in their deliberations. The committee felt that this solution was the proposal of “least resistance” acceptable to the most people.

This proposal generated a considerable amount of debate among the members of the council and with the members of the Faculty Affairs Committee who were in attendance at the meeting. The major discussion points and options included:

  • proposal still maintains a week difference between the U of Idaho and WSU schedule
  • 200 faculty members were surveyed, but more faculty members should be surveyed
  • WSU does not appear to have the same 160 instruction day requirement as the U of Idaho
  • major changes would impact relationships with all Idaho higher education institutions, particularly in the area of “distance learning” programs – make sure that we are fully coordinated with all of them
  • we have built programs and partnerships that need calendars that are as close as possible – requiring other schools to alternate there calendars each year to match our alternations does not make sense
  • ISU has adopted our calendar and any significant change would cause problems
  • fall calendar needs adjustment as well – many faculty members will be grading papers after Christmas because of the late schedule for final examinations
  • definite effect on cross-listed courses with WSU if changes are made in the schedule – many students are taking cross-listed courses at WSU and many departments have a large number of courses cross-listed with WSU
  • push on WSU to support to the original idea of alternating schedules with every other Spring
  • change the 160 instructional days required by FSH policy
  • proposal provides some opportunities for enhanced academic activities between semesters
  • have graduating seniors remain for an extra week, while others finish at the same time as WSU
  • students might prefer extending the Spring break by two days, rather than the beginning of the semester
  • start spring semester a week earlier and end the semester two weeks earlier – graduation a week ahead of WSU
  • designate a field trip period (2 days) during the semester to adjust the schedule
  • make the fall and spring semesters exactly the same length
  • take the two days off the end of the semester rather than the beginning

The provost and the chair urged the council (as they continued to discuss this subject) to keep in mind that our calendar must be coordinated with the other institutions in the state of Idaho, and also with Washington State University. That requirement limits our options. The provost advocates the option proposed by the Faculty Affairs Committee.

Chair McKeever said that it was important for the council and the Faculty Affairs Committee to hear comments and get feedback on the proposal. We need to tell our constituents to carefully read the minutes of this council meeting, and also provide them with the following information:

  • the SBOE regulations concerning the number of required instructional days
  • the FSH statement on instructional days
  • the history of the scheduling problem as outlined by the Faculty Affairs Committee
  • the options looked at by the Faculty Affairs Committee

A question was raised about the discrepancy between the 160 instructional days requirement stated in the U of Idaho Faculty-Staff Handbook and the SBOE/Regents policy statement calling for 150 instructional days. A full explanation of this apparent discrepancy is contained in an addendum to these minutes.

It was moved and seconded (Coonts, Bitterwolf) to table FC-01-013 until the next meeting (editorially changed by council consensus to February 6, 2001). [The motion originally read “tabled until the next meeting” – however, at the end of the meeting the council felt that it would not be possible to inform the faculty adequately by that date. The first available date for the council to take up the matter again was February 6, 2000.] The earliest implementation of a new schedule would be for the 2002-2003 academic year. The motion to table was adopted by unanimous voice vote.

FC-01-014 – Proposal to Change FSH Section 3520 to include policy statements relating to Non-Tenure Track Positions. The new policy statement would read as follows:

E. TENURABLE RANKS. The tenurable ranks are: senior instructor, assistant professor, assistant research professor, associate professor, associate research professor, professor, distinguished professor, research professor, library, and extension faculties with the rank of assistant professor, associate professor, and professor. Lecturer and instructor are not tenurable ranks. (See FSH 3560 D). The rank of senior instructor can be used with either a tenure or non-tenure track position but is not a rank from which a faculty member may be promoted. (See FSH 1565 C) Appointments made to these titles may be made as "tenure track" or "non-tenure track" positions.

F. NON-TENURE TRACK POSITIONS.

F-1. Non-tenure track positions may be created upon the recommendation and approval of the departmental or unit head, the dean, and the provost. Non-tenure track appointments are made only on annual contracts.

F-2. Non-Tenure track faculty are eligible for emeritus status (see FSH 1565 H) and have the same rights and responsibilities as other faculty at the university. Nontenure track faculty may use the grievance processes available to other faculty. If the appointment is fulltime, non-tenure track faculty receive the same benefits as other full-time employees including educational privileges. Nontenure track faculty are not eligible for sabbatical leaves.

F-3. Non-Tenure track positions at the assistant and associate professor level are eligible for promotion to the next rank.

F-4. The provost will provide the Faculty Affairs Committee with a report on non-tenure track positions annually during the fall term.

F-5. Conversion from non-tenure track appointments to tenure track appointments requires the approval of the appropriate unit faculty, in accordance with the by-laws of that unit, and compliance with all University policies for tenure track appointments.

Professor Philip Berger, a member of the Faculty Affairs Committee, provided the council with background information on this proposed change. This issue has been under consideration for over two years. Although the Faculty-Staff Handbook provides for non-tenure track appointments, there is no consistent policy for those appointments. The provost asked the Faculty Affairs Committee to review the policy and his recommendations/options for revision of the policy.

The proposed policy is the product of the collaborative efforts of the provost and the Faculty Affairs Committee. The result is a policy that does allow for the appointment of non-tenure track faculty members and provides faculty oversight to this process.

The council asked a number of questions concerning non-tenure appointments. Councilor McCaffrey asked whether there would be any connection between “soft” money and the use of non-tenure track appointments. Berger replied that there is no direct connection and that these appointments would simply be on an annual contract basis regardless of the funding source – the policy that now exists for any faculty member who is not tenured.

In response to a question by Councilor Kraut, Berger said that faculty members in non-tenurable positions could be promoted in rank and that they would be held to the same standards for promotion as any tenured faculty member.

Councilor McCaffrey noted that these positions could be converted to tenure-track positions and wondered when the “tenure clock” would start under those circumstances. Both Berger and Pitcher replied to this question. As is the case now, people can be given credit for prior service. However, it should be clearly noted that non-tenure track positions are just that – positions. If a conversion is to be made, the position would then be opened up for a national search. Only under the most unusual circumstances would an employee be converted to tenure-track without conducting a national search.

In response to another question, Professor Berger noted that while there may be no time limit placed on how long a person might hold a non-tenure track appointment, the committee did give some thought to having a limit – in percentage – of the number of non-tenure track positions that could be held in any academic unit. The provost added that these positions are really not a factor in the growth of the university. These positions would always remain at a very low number. There are probably no more than 15 of them now.

Professor Berger noted that there is a check and balance system provided in the proposal; 1) the provost is required to report annually to the Faculty Affairs Committee on the number of appointments, and 2) non-tenure track positions can only be created with the recommendation and approval of the academic unit, dean, and provost.

FC-01-104 was adopted by a unanimous voice vote.

Adjournment. It was moved and seconded (Chun, Brunsfeld) to adjourn the meeting. Chair McKeever adjourned the meeting at 4:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Peter A. Haggart

Secretary of the Faculty Council

ADDENDUM

The apparent discrepancy between the Faculty-Staff Handbook wording and the requirements as stated in State Board of Education policy, regarding the number of instructional days required, has been researched by the Faculty Secretary.