2000-2001 Faculty Council Minutes – Meeting #26 – April 17, 2001

Page 1

University of Idaho

FACULTY COUNCIL MINUTES

2000-2001 Meeting #26, Tuesday, April 17, 2001

Present: McKeever (chair), Smelser (vice-chair), Bitterwolf, Finnie, Fritz, Glen, Goble, Guilfoyle, Haggart (w/o vote), Kraut, McCaffrey, McClure, Meier, Nelson, Nielsen, Olson, Norby, Pitcher (w/o vote) Absent: Brunsfeld, Chun,Foltz,Goodwin, Hong, Thompson, Trivedi Observers: 4

Call to Order. The council meeting began at the Idaho Commons with the Faculty-Staff Kick-Off for the Campaign for Idaho. U of Idaho President Bob Hoover and Provost Brian Pitcher provided background material and updates on the status of the fundraising campaign. Representatives of the faculty, staff, and retirees spoke of their reasons for giving to this campaign, and urged those in attendance to consider supporting the campaign. After the program, council members returned to the Brink Hall Faculty Lounge for the business portion of the meeting. A quorum being present, Faculty Council Chair, Professor Kerry McKeever, called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m.

Minutes. The council accepted the minutes of the April 10, 2001, meeting as distributed.

FC-01-025. Changes in Regulation J-3. The council received a seconded motion from the University Curriculum Committee (UCC) requesting changes in Regulation J-3. Professor Jeffrey Harkins, sitting in for the chair of the UCC, explained that the reasoning behind the proposed changes was to make the current regulation less confusing and ambiguous. The following two changes were proposed:

  1. The last sentence of Regulation J-3Subject Requirements (Core Curriculum) would be changed to the following two sentences:

Degree-seeking studentsThey must also be enrolled in Math 108 or in a course that meets the core requirement in mathematicalmathematics, statisticalstatistics, and or computer sciences and in Engl 090 or 101 or 102 in their first year in residence and in each subsequent year semester until the core requirements in mathematicalmathematics, statisticalstatistics, and or computer sciences and Engl 102 have has been satisfied.

  1. Regulation J-3-c would be changed to read as follows:

J-3-c. MathematicalMathematics, StatisticalStatistics, and or Computer Sciences (3 cr). Mathematical reasoning as a skill and as a theoretical structure has played a crucial role in modern civilization as well as in the everyday lives of individuals. The core curriculum requirement in mathematicalmathematics, statisticalstatistics, and or computer sciences science should, therefore, foster both an appreciation for the aesthetic and historical dimensions of these areas and a sense of their practical necessity.

The mMathematics, statistics, and computer science courses will help students develop analytical, quantitative, and problem solving skills by involving them in doing mathematics, statistics, or computer science and by focusing on understanding the concepts of these disciplines.

Documentation accompanying the motion stated that these changes would place no new burden on students. The regulation already requires students to take and complete these core courses as early as possible. The motion was adopted by unanimous voice vote.

FC-01-021. Post-Tenure Review/Development. The council then took up for action a report from the Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC) concerning revisions of the Faculty-Staff Handbook regarding “Position Descriptions” (Section 3050) and “Periodic Performance Evaluations and Salary Determination for Faculty Members” (Section 3320).

Provost Brian Pitcher told the council that he had submitted a report to the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges (NASC) on the progress that the U of Idaho was making to meet NASC accreditation requirements in the area of post-tenure review. He said that his report detailed the positive steps that are being taken by faculty committees to address the issues raised in the NASC report. Pitcher believes that the council does not face an immediate deadline for completing the handbook revisions. The progress that has been made by the original task force, the Faculty Council, and the Faculty Affairs Committee, plus the fact that the deliberations are continuing, should be acceptable to NASC for the near future. Therefore, Pitcher urged the council not to be rushed into any hasty decisions.

Pitcher also informed the council that the SBOE/Regents is currently going through the process of converting all of its rules into policies. As a part of this process the board is reviewing all of its personnel policies. One personnel policy change being considered is to give the institutions more flexibility in administering the mandated 5-year performance review. Those proposed board revisions will be part of a public hearing at the June board meeting in Moscow. He urged the council and its leadership to keep track of the board discussions on this subject and make sure that the proposals now under consideration will be in sync with these possible revisions of board personnel policies.

Professor Jeffrey Harkins, chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC), reiterated some of the background information concerning the work of his committee and the charge they received from the council (see the minutes of Faculty Council meeting #25 for details).

Harkins then discussed the revisions recommended for Faculty-Staff Handbook Section 3050, “Position Descriptions,” as well as the accompanying position description form. He said that there were two substantive changes that the Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC) was recommending to the council.

First was a proposed change to part B-2 (Procedure) which would require that the position description be filled out “in collaboration with the unit administrator,” rather than the current condition of “under the supervision of” the unit administrator. The committee felt that this change placed the process on a more “professional” level – two professionals working together on the process of writing a position description. Discussion of the proposal led to the following comments and suggestions:

  • the administration is concerned that the proposed wording would lead to legal challenges – the unit administrator is primarily charged by the handbook with defining responsibilities for faculty and staff – the new language confuses the fiduciary responsibility of the administrator – this may lead to unnecessary conflicts between faculty members and unit administrators – the new language should lead to solutions rather than law suits
  • administrators are charged with fulfilling a departmental mission, and faculty members’ are hired to help meet those mission goals – therefore, those position descriptions, written under the direction of the unit administrator, should reflect the goals of the academic unit
  • faculty members initiate position descriptions – it is a planning document presented to the administrator – the administrator reacts and then, in collaboration with the faculty member, completes the process
  • the proposed wording of the first sentence of B-2 should be changed to read, “The form should be filled out with the collaboration and approval of the unit administrator” (which was the intent of the committee) – this became a “friendly amendment” to the FAC proposal
  • there is an implied appeal arrangement in this section – to appeal to the next administrative level or use the Ombudsman – but it should be clearly stated (in a general fashion) in this section – the FAC agreed to work on that wording

Second was a proposed change in the form used for the position description and subsequent performance review of a faculty member. The FAC suggested a “goal based” position description accessible on-line. Harkins said that it would encourage faculty members to write clear goal statements and reachable objectives for each functional area in which they have a responsibility (teaching, research, service, advising, etc.).

However, Harkins advised the council that using this form would require a learning process and the training of both faculty and administrators in the use and interpretation of the form and the information submitted by the faculty member. Some of the items on the form are carry-overs from the previous form and the categories need to match up with other sections of the Faculty-Staff Handbook. After a period of discussion the council asked the Faculty Affairs Committee to look at the following concerns:

  • this looks like a product-based reporting system – counting the number of publications, grants, courses, advisees, etc. – we are not a “widget” factory – although goals and objectives do not always mean reporting production output, this subject needs more discussion
  • the position description is a planning document, and care should be taken when it is used in the evaluation of actual faculty performance
  • concerns about the possible abuse of this process applies to a very small percentage of faculty
  • a lot of what faculty members currently identify as “research” is really not scholarly activity at all – it is administering post-doctorates or graduate students or doing data “drudge” work – because it is not 100% scholarship, the research category should have sub-categories
  • the form needs to be simplified – it has too many details – faculty members will feel that they have to put something in every box and space on the form
  • estimating percentages in the numerous sub-categories on the form is burdensome – it is not clear whether the correct procedure should be to provide a percentage of “time” or a percentage of “responsibility”
  • percentages should be used in the major categories of “teaching/pedagogy” and “scholarship” and not for all of the sub-categories attached to “planned coursework” and “planned activities” – the FAC will review this form with an eye to removing the sub-category percentages – it is appropriate to use percentages in the remaining major categories of the form
  • instructions/suggestions/examples for filling out the form should be included in the materials sent to the faculty member and unit administrator
  • rather than being required to put “zero” as the percentage of time devoted to an activity a faculty member never engages in – there should be a box labeled “n/a” (not applicable)
  • although it may look like we are preparing spread sheets, we do need to keep and calculate numbers as a part of the planning and reporting of faculty activity

Professor Harkins concluded by saying that having a complete and accurate position description (planning document) sensitizes a faculty member to the fact that he or she has planned a certain allocation of time that was approved by the administration. If something changes in that faculty member’s work, the faculty member will now have a strong incentive to correct and resubmit that position description. The end result should be an accurate position description that can be appropriately applied in an annual performance evaluation. McKeever noted that the discrete nature of the proposed form allows accountability for many types of faculty positions – a much needed addition to the form. The new form allows more accuracy in those position descriptions.

McKeever asked the council to please contact Professor Harkins with their comments and suggestions regarding this proposal. She said that her goal was to have a recommendation ready for the general faculty meeting on May 8th. However, that means coming prepared to take action on this proposal at the next meeting.

Adjournment. Chair McKeever adjourned the meeting at 5:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Peter A. Haggart

Secretary of the Faculty Council