2000-2001 Faculty Council Minutes – Meeting #6 – October 3, 2000
Page 4
University of Idaho
FACULTY COUNCIL MINUTES
2000-2001 Meeting #6, Tuesday, October 3, 2000
Present: McKeever (chair), Smelser (vice-chair), Bitterwolf, Brunsfeld, Chun, Coonts, Finnie, Foltz, Fritz, Goble, Goodwin, Guilfoyle, Haggart (w/o vote), Kraut, McCaffrey, Nelson, Nielsen, Olson, Pitcher (w/o vote), Thompson, Vaughn Absent: Hong, McClure, Meier, Trivedi Observers: 12
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 September 26, 2000, meeting as distributed.
Chair’s Report. Chair McKeever said that she gave a report on the activities of the Faculty Council to the University of Idaho Foundation at their meeting last week. The foundation, in turn, seemed interested in having a representative come to a future council meeting to report on their activities and she will arrange for that to happen. She said that she would be meeting with the governor next Tuesday to discuss salary issues. McKeever also made some changes in the meeting agenda, adding a further discussion of the resolution from the College of Natural Resources. It would be discussed at the end of today’s meeting.
Provost’s Report. Vice Provost Dene Thomas, sitting in for the provost, reviewed for the council the unfortunate use of technological resources by the U of Idaho to promote the “image” of diversity. As was reported in the Argonaut, the U of Idaho web site’s main page displayed an electronically altered photograph of U of Idaho students. The university had, with the aid of computer technology, removed the heads of two of the students and replaced them with the heads of minority students taken at a different time and place. She said that this was a regrettable mistake and that the university intends to use this situation as a learning opportunity which will lead to a discussion of diversity and the important role that minority students play on this campus. Vice Provost Thomas also reported that Jim Black, the Associate Provost for Enrollment Services, at the University of North Carolina-Greensboro, who conducted an external program review of enrollment management at the U of Idaho last summer, was back on the campus. He is conducting workshops on student services and is meeting with faculty, staff, and administrators in order to give further advice concerning recruitment and retention. Black will conclude his visit to the U of Idaho by reviewing the university’s outreach programs.
Employee Benevolent Fund. Dennis Lincks, Chair of the Staff Affairs Committee, explained to the council that the Staff Affairs Committee supports a proposal brought to them by Pete Baljo to establish an Employee Benevolent Fund at the U of Idaho. He said that he felt that this was a worthwhile proposal and thought that it would receive approval by the university if the Faculty Council also supported the idea. Mr. Baljo outlined his proposal for the council. He said the fund would provide assistance to employees and retirees who need emergency financial assistance. An example would be someone who has suffered an uninsured loss from a fire or accident. It would work in a fashion similar to the U of Idaho’s Shared Leave Program that allows U of Idaho employees to give accumulated annual leave to other employees in need of additional leave time. Baljo’s proposal suggests that university employees be given the option of contributing one dollar - plus the cents on their paycheck (a salary payment of $456.36. would have $1.36 deducted and contributed to the fund). He said that this small amount of money would add up very quickly if a third or half of the employees chose to make the deduction. The money would be invested in a trust fund and the income used to help employees meet emergency financial needs. The proposal calls for setting up an ad hoc committee to write the rules and regulations for the collection, investment, and distribution of the funds. The ad hoc committee would then turn everything over to a permanent committee made up of staff, faculty, and retirees. Baljo told the council that Idaho Power has an almost identical fund in place and they have provided him with information which would be invaluable in setting up our own fund. The council was assured by Sylva Staab, Director of Human Resource Services, that the university was willing and able to help set up the collection and investing part of the proposal. It was moved and seconded (Finnie, Brunsfeld) that the Faculty Council endorse the plan for the University of Idaho Benevolent Fund. The motion was adopted with a unanimous voice vote. Chair McKeever said that all of the information about the fund, including the Idaho Power fund information and the U of Idaho fund proposal document, would be made available to the university community through the Faculty Council web site.
Leadership Development Program Report. Professor Tom Trotter, U of Idaho Ombudsman, updated the council on the progress and plans of the task force that has been looking at ways to enhance leadership practices. What precipitated the committee’s work in this area was 1) the nature of the referrals that were coming to the Ombudsman’s Office, the University Counsel, and Human Resources, 2) the general observations of campus leaders, 3) faculty/staff surveys, and 4) the references to leadership practices in the U of Idaho Strategic Plan. All of this data indicated that the problems identified were rooted in leadership practices and that the university should look at ways of improving leadership.
The agenda of the task force was to look at, among many things, critical issues and leadership qualities and to assess the quality of leadership programs already in place. The task force also endorsed the core values of the university, identified elements of effective leadership that good leadership embraces, and developed a full strategic plan.
Professor Trotter then reviewed the following elements of the Leadership Development Program:
· Elements of Effective Leadership
· people skills
· process skills
· professional knowledge
· cognitive skills
· Response Options
· early identification of employees with leadership potential – growing our own leaders
· improving our screening and selection process in hiring
· orientation of new administrators and supervisors – manuals, training programs, and identifying resource people
· ongoing professional development activities – assessing needs, identifying resources, and mentoring
· performance reviews, including corrective action – revising current practices and procedures
· troubleshooting and having a response team able to deal with crisis situations
· Identified Needs (as perceived by U of Idaho administrators attending a recent orientation program)
· team building
· legal issues
· conflict resolution
· performance appraisal
· time management
· promotion and tenure
· how to conduct meetings
· preventing burn-out
· motivational strategies
· balancing leadership and management
· budget development and management
Councilor Questions on Leadership Development. Can you give us an example of what would be termed a “crisis” intervention situation? The death of an employee on the campus and the response to that incident is an extreme example. In ordinary situations, it may be just the fact that an administrator has tried everything in a given situation and simply given up.
The performance review and evaluation process is of great concern to both faculty and staff. It is an important element, but the task force has not had the time to investigate this area fully. Our goal is to improve the “content” of the employee and supervisor evaluation process, not just the information gathered, but how that information is processed. Also, trying to put a “positive spin” on any corrective actions that are necessary. We also need to look at the complex issue of the transition of administrators back into the teaching or working ranks.
Councilor Comments on Leadership Development. An important element of leadership training would be including administrators already on-the-job along with those newly hired administrators. We hope that there is not the assumption on the part of the task force that present administrators already have all the training they need. A number of faculty members are concerned that leadership training be meaningful training, such as inviting good administrators to tell and discuss “war-story” experiences or by using case studies – not by just reading articles or books on the subject of leadership. Another concern is that we train our best people to be effective leaders and they take those skills and move on to other jobs for better pay. Some attention should be paid to the idea that sometimes second-level administrators are held back or limited by those who are above them, thus, leadership improvement can be a factor at all levels of administration.
ASUI Resolution. The council then took up for discussion a resolution passed by the ASUI Senate. This resolution concerns the communication process between teachers and students. In particular, the students would like to see a requirement for speech testing of international teaching assistants as a part of the hiring process, as well as training in the “culture” of American institutions of higher education. ASUI President Bart Cochran, ASUI Vice-President Buck Samuel, and the author of the resolution, ASUI Senate Pro-Tempore Kasey Swisher, were in attendance at the council meeting. Swisher reviewed for the council the background of the resolution. He said that this has been an on-going issue for many years for the ASUI. The common theme has been “I cannot understand my teacher.” The ASUI Senate decided that, despite the fact that this is a controversial issue that could offend some people, it would bring the issue to the full attention of the university community this fall.
Swisher also stated that the real purpose of the resolution was not to hurt people, but to help them. This problem affects both the students’ (learning) and the teaching assistants’ (teaching). The resolution is only a piece of paper, but it represents thousands of students who are in classrooms trying to learn. The goal of the resolution is to find a good solution to the problem – one that would help both the teaching assistants and the students. Swisher concluded his opening remarks by stating that, “something good can come from this resolution.”
Vice Provost Dene Thomas noted that the International Programs Office and the American Language and Culture Program (ALCP) supports the “heart” of the student resolution. She said that they have been working for the last year and a-half on a program that would help international TA’s improve their pronunciation and their understanding of the American higher education classroom “culture.” There are two issues in particular that she supports. The first is the setting of a requirement for international TA’s to take the “speak” pronunciation test (which is a widely-used standard test at many universities) in addition to the TOEFL exam (which tests written English skills). For those TA’s who score below an acceptable level on the “speak” test, Thomas proposes that the ALCP offer expanded courses in pronunciation improvement and accent reduction. A main three-week course in August, just before the semester begins, and workshops in the fall and spring would be available to international TA’s. The second issue concerns funding. Thomas assured the council, that if the “speak” test requirement is recommended by the council and approved by the president, the Office of Academic Affairs would pick up the funding for the testing and courses. A similar proposal was presented to the Dean’s Council last week, and while they accepted the central ideas, they were unsure as to the timing of a TA’s entry into the classroom. What “speak” test score indicates that they are ready to teach? Vice Provost Thomas said that she would not support the part of the resolution that requires student participation in the TA selection process. She indicated that this part of the resolution was outside the expertise of the students and that they should not be a part of the selection process.
Questions and Comments. Would this requirement be just for TA’s or also for all new faculty members? The vice provost said that she was only addressing requirements for TA’s. However, colleges and departments can discuss that issue and certainly these courses could be made available to any instructor, at any level. Senator Swisher said that although they have had complaints about “regular” professors, what they really want “fixed” is the problem with teaching assistants. They now have no interest in seeing this applied beyond the level of teaching/lab assistants.
What does the mandatory American culture program addressed in the student resolution mean? Swisher responded that the resolution was not worded correctly – the intent was the culture of the university and not a course in American culture. Thomas added that the American Language and Culture Program is the title of the program that is under the International Programs Office that offers courses. It is meant only to be an introduction to the culture of American universities. International TA’s should understand the culture that they are going to teach within. It was also made clear that there is a clear line between a person’s “accent” and “audibility” (the ability to clearly understand what your teacher is saying).
Did the student senate approach individual departments to try and clear up these problems? We did not. We were afraid that by singling out departments the issue would not be perceived as a problem that really affects the whole university. Also, the fear was that if handled at the department level, there would be no chance for this to be a university-wide testing and educational program. It might become just another one of the university’s un-funded obligations and never receive proper funding. If I was teaching a class, and students were having problems with my diction or understanding the subject matter, I would want to work on a one-to-one level with the student to solve the problem, rather than having an administrator tell me that I am not communicating with my students. One-on-one is a good idea, but we need both. What the student senate can try to do is help educate the students about what is being done for the TA’s and, at the same time, tell the students to go to their teachers and explain their problems to them openly. One-on-one interaction with the instructor, while important, begs the question of the need for a universal international TA training program that many universities already offer and we do not.