2001-2002 Faculty Council – Meeting #20 – April 23, 2002 – Page 2
University of Idaho
FACULTY COUNCIL MINUTES
2001-2002 Meeting #20, Tuesday, April 23, 2002
Present: Smelser (chair), Bitterwolf (vice-chair), Butts-Matheson, Chandler, Chun, Dickinson, Fairchild, Goodwin, Guenthner, Haggart (w/o vote), Hong, Kraut, Lillard, McCaffrey, Meier, Murray, Netzer, Nielsen, Olson, Pikowsky, Pitcher (w/o vote), Thompson, Wagner Absent: McClure, Nelson Observers: 10
Call to Order. A quorum being present, Faculty Council Chair, Professor Ronald Smelser, called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. in the Brink Hall Faculty Lounge.
Minutes. Councilor Hong called the council’s attention to the fact that the minutes showed the Geography Department had been assigned in the reorganization plan to the wrong college. The secretary offered his apologies and will correct the official minutes to show the department accurately placed in the new College of Science. The council then accepted the minutes of the April 16, 2002, meeting as corrected.
FC-02-041 – Proposed M.S. and Ph.D. Degree Programs in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology and FC-02-042 – Proposed M.S. and Ph.D. Degree Programs in Neuroscience. Both of these proposals were taken up by the council at the same time. Professor Jeff Harkins, Chair of the University Curriculum Committee (UCC), introduced the proposals and provided the council with some important background information. He praised the collaborative nature of these programs. Both of the programs are interdisciplinary in nature and the UCC believes that the College of Graduate Studies will introduce a proposal during the next academic year to provide a framework for and also house a Ph.D. interdisciplinary degree, making the approval process for these kinds of cooperative advanced degree programs easier in the future. The budgets for both of the new programs are secure for three years and the UCC believes that funding will be available from a variety of sources to fund the new programs in future years. Also noted, in the vein of cost savings, was the fact that these two programs will be housed in the College of Graduate Studies and they will utilize one staff person to service both programs. After a brief discussion both FC-02-041 and FC-02-042, coming to the council as seconded motions from the UCC, were adopted by unanimous voice vote. After the vote the originators of these new graduate degree programs were given a round of applause by the members of the council in recognition of their innovative and cooperative work.
FC-02-043 – Proposed B.S. Degree Program in Early Childhood Development and Education. Professor Harkins provided the council with background information on this proposed new bachelor’s degree program. He said that this degree program is an innovative cooperative venture between the College of Education and the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences. This program has significant backing from both colleges and a large grant from the Albertson Foundation for scholarships($627,000) over a seven year period. Provost Brian Pitcher identified this program as one that answers an educational need that has a very high national and state priority. He said that the university has also placed a high priority for this program within its budget. The degree will also provide teacher certification for grades K-3. The proposal, coming as a seconded motion from the UCC, was adopted by unanimous voice vote.
Report from the Director of Athletics. U of Idaho Athletic Director Mike Bohn reported to the council on the status of the athletic program. He thanked the council for their development and support of several programs intended to honor faculty and staff members for their accomplishments at U of Idaho athletic events. Bohn said that those recognition programs would continue next year. All of the 2002 U of Idaho home football games will be played in Moscow. Recent NCAA Division I qualification requirements will mean that the following year a “marquis” game will have to be played in Martin Stadium in Pullman to meet the overall attendance requirements that call for an average attendance of 15,000 for all home games. The requirement for playing home games in a stadium that seats at least 30,000 has been dropped by the NCAA.
In other developments regarding NCAA Division I regulations, the U of Idaho will need to add at least one women’s sport, probably swimming and/or water polo, to meet the new requirement for 16 sports and to address gender issues. Other NCAA changes will require increasing U of Idaho full-ride scholarships from 174 to 200 and playing five home football games against Division I opponents. Bohn seemed confident that all the NCAA Division I requirements could be met, but that it would take a good deal of expert management and marketing of the athletic teams and programs. Playing home games against Division I opponents means that the program loses a chance to play away games that have large financial guarantees.
Bohn said the new regulations can become a “rallying point” for increasing fan interest and support. However, he warned that the U of Idaho must become competitive in major sports and that was going to be very difficult to do. The football schedule in 2002 features games with three top 15 schools with a U of Idaho team that was last in the nation in defense and 6th in the nation in offense last year.
FC-02-037A – Proposed Change to Faculty-Staff Handbook Section 3560, Faculty Promotions. This item was held over from the last meeting. University Counsel Georgia Yuan presented the council with a revised version of this proposed change. The discussion on this proposal once again centered on the advisability of requiring a faculty member to go up for promotion at a specified time, or whether to let the faculty member make that decision.
It was moved and seconded (Wagner, Guenthner) to amend the proposal by including the wording of the last line in D-3 as the last line in D-2 (changing associate professor to assistant professor). There was a brief discussion looking at both sides of the amendment, but focused on the linkage between promotion to associate professor and the awarding of tenure. The provost pointed out that it is a rare instance when a faculty member is tenured but not promoted. The amendment to the main motion was adopted by majority voice vote.
D-2. Assistant Professors. Assistant professors are considered for promotion before the end of their sixth year in that rank. When an assistant professor has been considered for promotion and not promoted, he or she will be considered again no less frequently than at four-five year intervals. The review may be delayed upon the request of the assistant professor and the concurrence of the department administrator and the dean. [See also F-4.]
D-3. Associate Professors. Associate professors are considered for promotion before the end of their seventh year in that rank. If review for promotion to full professor is scheduled during the fifth, sixth or seventh full year after the award of tenure then the promotion review may, if it meets substantially similar criteria and goals of the post tenure review, take the place of the periodic performance review required by the board of regents. (RGP IIG 6g) When an associate professor has been considered for promotion and not promoted, he or she will should be considered again within five years no less frequently than at four-year intervals. The review may be delayed upon the request of the associate professor and the concurrence of the department administrator and the dean.
It was also noted that an editorial change should be made so that the interval time would be 5 years in both D-2 and D-3. The main motion was then adopted by unanimous voice vote.
FC-02-038 - Proposed Change to Faculty-Staff Handbook Section 3910, Dismissal of Faculty. It was moved and seconded (Meier, Bitterwolf) to approve the proposed handbook change as presented by university counsel. U of Idaho Counsel Georgia Yuan explained the background to this proposed change and answered several questions concerning its wording (i.e. the change from “good cause” to “adequate cause”), as well as its legal underpinnings. [The full text of Section 3910 is available for viewing at the Faculty Council website.] Yuan noted that there have been no recent legal challenges to dismissals and it is an event that happens rarely. The motion was adopted by unanimous voice vote.
FC-02-039 - Proposed Change to Faculty-Staff Handbook Section 5400, Employment Agreement Concerning Patents and Copyrights. A revised version of this proposed handbook change was provided to the council. It was moved and seconded (Meier, Fairchild) to approve the proposed handbook change. The council engaged in a lengthy discussion of their concerns about patent and copyright regulations and laws as they might apply to their work and the work of their colleagues. Most of their questions could only be answered by the provost and university counsel in a speculative manner. The conclusion drawn was that faculty members should recognize when their work is patentable and copyrightable. They should then be responsible for engaging the proper university officials in conversation concerning their rights, as well as the rights of the university, in these matters. [The full text of Section 5400 is available for viewing at the Faculty Council website.] The motion was adopted by unanimous voice vote.
FC-02-040 - Proposed Change to Faculty-Staff Handbook Section 6240, Employee Rights and Responsibilities. It was moved and seconded (Wagner, Bitterwolf) to approve this change in the handbook. The proposal adds the following paragraph to the existing handbook section:
A. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
A. In addition to the requirements set forth below, all employees of the UI are also subject to the Conflict of Interest and Ethical Conduct Policy of the Regents RGPIIQ This policy can be reviewed at http://www.sde.state.id.us/osbe/policy.htm To the extent there is a conflict between this policy and the one stated in the Regents policy manual, the Regents' policy overrides this policy.
There was no discussion and the motion was adopted by unanimous voice vote.
FC-02-028A - Proposed Change to Faculty-Staff Handbook Sections 3050, 3140, 3320, and their Associated Forms. The discussion, held over from the last council meeting, was continued in earnest at this meeting. Professor Kerry McKeever, Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee, provided additional background information and answered questions posed by the members of the council. Although the council was provided with updated copies of the proposed changes, it was discovered that part B of 3320 was not the latest version of the proposal. Councilor Chun also pointed out that the term “less than professional” appeared numerous times in the revised section and that it should be changed to “unacceptable performance” to match the wording used elsewhere in section 3320. Smelser and Pitcher noted that part B of section 3320 was a very important policy that needed to be in place before our next accreditation visit and they would like to see that section approved.
The council focused its attention on part A of section 3320 and its proposed 5-point rating system. Chair Smelser pointed out that it is interesting to note that the university salary model uses five categories that are used by the academic unit administrator. He said that the proposed changes will not result in a “formula” driven evaluation system. It is up to individual academic units to make the fundamental decisions regarding the workings of the appraisal system. Out of those discussions will emerge the decision on merit salary increases. Councilor Hong noted that in some academic units salary decisions seem to be based more on the length of time a person has been employed at the U of Idaho, rather than on the merit of their work. The provost said that longevity should only apply to equity salary adjustments and not merit increases.
Councilor Lillard reiterated for the council the main points of a memorandum that she had sent to them last week regarding part A. She agrees with a majority of the items that are presented in the proposal and commended the Faculty Affairs Committee for their work. Her concerns centered around the use of any numbering system in the rating, ranking, or review of faculty members. Numbers do not reflect differences between people and there is the “appearance of objectivity,” but no validation in the numerical rating system. You want to motivate people to improve, but the short range numerical system does not leave room for improvement. Despite some drawbacks, she strongly recommends the use of a narrative evaluation system. Lillard was joined by several other councilors in voicing the desire to have a narrative only evaluation process.
The council could not come to an agreement on how numbers are currently being used or even on how they were proposed to be used in the new wording of section 3320. However, council members favored the proposed plan of using both numbers and a narrative. Some made the point that a true narrative only evaluation had too many drawbacks and pitfalls. Councilors Chun and Guenthner asked for an explanation of why any change from the current rating system is needed.
McKeever said that the central idea behind the Faculty Affairs Committee proposal was to have a simple numerical evaluation used in conjunction with a narrative evaluation of faculty members. Faculty members believe that the old system is unfair. A key to that evaluation process is that administrators who are responsible for these evaluations receive proper training and for academic units to have a realistic evaluation plan that they can and will apply to all the members of that unit. That plan also needs to be flexible enough to allow faculty members to amend the plan when circumstances change.