For
a WORD file of these minutes - click the disc
2000-2001
FACULTY COUNCIL
MINUTES
2000-2001
Meeting #16, Tuesday, January 16, 2001
Present: McKeever (chair), Smelser (vice-chair), Brunsfeld,
Chun, Finnie, Foltz, Fritz, Glen, Guilfoyle, Haggart (w/o vote), Hong,
Kraut, McClure, Meier, Olson, Norby, Pitcher (w/o vote), Thompson Absent:
Bitterwolf, Goble, Goodwin, McCaffrey, Nelson, Nielsen, Trivedi
Observers: 0
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 December 12, 2000,
meeting as distributed.
Chair’s
Report. Chair McKeever reported on her activities
in Boise at the start of the Idaho legislative session. The Idaho
Council of Higher Education Faculty (ICHEF) held a legislative luncheon.
Over half of the legislators came to the luncheon, as well as
representatives from the SBOE/Regents. There was a lot of positive feedback
from the legislators and ICHEF, in turn, learned some valuable lessons on
issue presentation that they will put into practice next year. McKeever had
many personal conversations with individual legislators and her feeling was
that all of these contacts were positive. They seem to appreciate the fact
that all of the faculty representatives are working together on higher
education issues. McKeever hopes that next year ICHEF can be expanded to
include Idaho’s community college and vocational school representatives.
She feels that ICHEF should represent all public institutions involved in
education beyond high school.
McKeever
reviewed the significant budget recommendations affecting higher
education salaries made by the governor in his budget presentation to a
joint session of the Idaho Legislature.
ICHEF
will be making presentations to the legislature’s education committees
next week. They also plan to have personal
meetings with legislators they feel need additional information on the
needs/concerns of higher education.
McKeever
noted that the Associated Students of the University of Idaho (ASUI)
would be sponsoring a Legislative Breakfast in Boise on the 24th
of January. McKeever said that she will be informing the extension faculty
and asked council members to inform their colleagues who will be in Boise
that week of this breakfast meeting – extending to them a personal
invitation to attend. Councilor Guilfoyle said that she would notify the
College of Education faculty working out of the U of Idaho Boise Center. The
council will be notified of the time and place of the meeting later this
week.
Introduction.
Chair McKeever introduced and welcomed the newly elected ASUI undergraduate
representative to the council, Amanda Norby.
Provost’s
Report. Provost Brian Pitcher welcomed the council
members back after what he described as a "much needed" winter
break. He shared with the council the following items of interest:
-
spring
registration numbers show a 5% increase over last year – including a
4% increase on-campus, 4% in Boise, 22% in Coeur d’Alene, and 25% in
Idaho Falls (a councilor noted that the U of Idaho is once again
becoming a "bargain" for out-of-state students)
-
last
week’s university planning sessions included a report from the
Advancement Office indicating that the U of Idaho Capital Campaign has
raised over $70 million at the end of the 2nd year of the 5
year campaign
-
the
governor is recommending needed financial support in program enhancement
areas; including seed grants, science and technology research initiatives,
faculty support in professional programs, one-time funding for technology
equipment, and the Promise Scholarship program
-
the
governor has also recommended full funding for all higher education
building projects for which there had been prior planning money approved
– meaning that the new Teaching and Learning Center project (formerly
the University Classroom Center) could be fully funded this year
Pitcher
noted that the immediate challenge will be to convince legislators of the
need to fund the governor’s requests, realizing that many legislators
feel that the governor’s budget calls for more spending than the
anticipated resources will allow.
The
provost brought to the council’s attention an item that he would like to
have them consider at a future meeting. He noted that there is a growing
problem of faculty members not turning in final grades by the prescribed
deadlines. The problem has grown worse over the years. Councilor Glen
also noted that this appears to be the case with mid-term grade reporting.
Pitcher said that not meeting the deadlines can cause problems for students
seeking admittance to programs, securing financial aid, and registering for
classes. He thought that it would be helpful to have a discussion of the
problem and try to find solutions. Chair McKeever asked the provost to
provide data indicating in which departments this situation is occurring,
its frequency, and trends over several semesters of reporting. Councilor
Thompson asked that the Outreach courses not be included in those figures,
since they have a later reporting date than on-campus classes.
Budget
Liaison Report. Councilor Marla Kraut, Chair of
the Budget Liaison Committee, reported that in addition to the other
legislative issues already reported:
-
the
governor has recommended that utility rate increases be funded by the
state, rather than passing the costs on to the students in the form of
fee increases
-
university
unit action plans call for the approval of a professional fee for the
College of Business and Economics of $200 per year – increasing over a
period of time to a maximum of $600 – to be implemented in the Fall of
2001 (the College of Engineering has deferred its professional fee
proposal)
Final
Examination Schedule 2001-2002. The council
considered a memorandum from Reta Pikowsky, U of Idaho Registrar, proposing
a final examination schedule for the 2001-2002 academic year. It was moved
and seconded (Thompson, Foltz) to approve the final examination schedule.
The schedule was prepared using the rotating time and day rules that had
been recommended by the council last year.
Following
the presentation of this schedule, councilors McClure and Meier expressed
their displeasure with a fall examination schedule that calls for
examinations so close to Christmas that the grading process runs through
that holiday in order to meet the grade reporting deadline. This is
particularly true for those teaching large classes who will give
examinations on December 21st. Councilor Finnie raised a question
concerning the interpretation of the "boiler-plate" paragraph
that is printed with every final exam schedule, which notes that, "students
with two or more finals in one day are permitted, at their option, to have
the excess final(s) rescheduled to the conflict period or at a time arranged
with the instructor of the course." Since it does not say which
final is to be rescheduled, the student must seek out a considerate faculty
member who will allow the change. Councilor Meier said that he would like to
see this rescheduling process formalized. He also raised the issue of how an
instructor might use the Faculty-Staff Handbook (FSH) policy that
allows an instructor to move the date/time for a final examination – with
the approval of the provost. Provost Pitcher said that he did not recall
ever approving a request to have an examination moved. Chair McKeever noted
that all of these issues/problems would be brought into the discussion of
the proposed changes in the spring semester calendar which will come
"off the table" at the February 6th council meeting. The
final examination schedule for 2001-2002 was approved by majority vote (14
yea, 0 nay, 2 abstentions)
Changes
in FSH Sections 4610 and 6860. The council
was presented with an "information only" item concerning changes
made to the Faculty-Staff Handbook sections which address academic
scheduling of university classrooms and provide clarification on the
scheduling process. Provost Pitcher said that the intent of the change was
to optimize utilization of academic and student "spaces."
Despite
the "information only" notation, the council raised several
questions about the scheduling of classrooms for non-instructional
activities. Vice Chair Smelser raised the issue of student
"club" meetings not being able to be held in classrooms. He said
that university officials will not schedule a classroom for any purpose but
instruction and that student clubs wanting to meet in a classroom must do so
in a "clandestine" fashion.
Current
university policy seems to be that classrooms can only be used for other
purposes when there are no meeting rooms available in the Commons or the
Student Union Building. Provost Pitcher noted that the university cannot
commit classroom spaces to on-going student club activities that would
interfere with academic uses. He did think that accommodations might be
made – in fact, using academic spaces for student activities and
student spaces for academic uses. He will ask Vice Provost Thomas to look
into the matter and report to the council at the next meeting. The bottom
line is that we need to optimize the use of all meeting rooms on the campus.
University
of New Mexico Petition. Chair McKeever said that
she would like to respond to the petition she received from the University
of New Mexico concerning the imprisonment of a university faculty member in
Austria. There is both a freedom of speech and an academic freedom issue
involved. The expressed common opinion of the council was that it would like
more information before approving any response. Since the petition involved
practices in a foreign country, there may be other issues that we are
unaware of, such as national laws, that are an important part of this state
action. McKeever said that she would provide the council with background
information and a draft of her response at the January 30th
meeting.
SBOE/Regents
Report. Robin Dodson, Chief Academic Officer of the State Board of
Education, spoke to the Faculty Council about
the relationship of higher education with the legislative process. He
said that when he was a faculty member he did not have a clue as to how the
legislative process worked. As soon as he began working for the
SBOE/Regents, sixteen years ago, he began to appreciate how important it was
for faculty members to be informed about legislative procedures.
Dodson
noted the importance of the faculty members presenting a united voice
in matters of mutual concern to members of the SBOE/Regents and the Idaho
Legislature. He was quick to commend Professor McKeever and the other
members of ICHEF for their excellent preparation and presentation to the
members of the SBOE/Regents, the governor and his staff, and the members of
the 2001 Idaho Legislature. He said that it is important that not only the
members of the legislature be informed, but it was imperative that
legislative committee staff members be well informed. They are the ones that
can push your issues with the committee members. Dodson reminded the council
that it is important for faculty, staff, and students to attend legislative
committee meetings – listening to the dialogue and getting a handle on how
the political process works. He also said that the university can lend
invaluable help to legislative committees by making their own research
expertise and resources available to committees. The personal touch is also
very important – being interested in what legislators do when not in
session, where their children go to school, etc.
Dodson
said that if you look at the agenda of the Western Governors Association you
will have a good idea of what the important issues are in the state of
Idaho. Our legislators go to national meetings. They don’t operate
in a vacuum. They are aware of national issues and how they affect
the state of Idaho. For instance, the issue of the amount of money being
spent on controlling alcohol and substance abuse and on correctional
facilities (costs of holding prisoners vs. educating our children) are
significant issues for the state of Idaho. There are resources in higher
education that may be able to help those legislators find solutions to these
problems. These issue areas may be rallying points for higher education –
providing the means to solve the problems.
Dodson
said that this was the first time in his memory that faculty members had
been able to make a unified presentation of faculty issues directly to the
governor and his staff. Salary compensation has been an issue with the
SBOE/Regents for a number of years, but it took this faculty group to make a
significant impact on the thinking in the governor’s office and to have
him pay special attention to these issues in his budget address. He said
that a lot of work needs to be done between now and the end of the
session, when the budget figures are finalized. After the education hearing
next week there will be additional opportunities for input in
February before the budget setting process begins in earnest. Phone calls
and letter writing are very important in the process of influencing
legislation. Don’t blame the board or the legislature – get involved in
the process and help change minds and influence legislation.
There
were two important items that did not get into the governor’s budget
presentation that are important to higher education and the state of
Idaho. One was the need to increase the number of "seats"
available in the cooperative medical education programs and the other is the
funding of the science and mathematics initiative that would provide the
means for creating a strong foundation in those two subjects beginning in
elementary school. The last issue is really a complex problem with no easy
answers, but the initiative needs funding so that the issues can be studied
and answers found.
Dodson
said that the Joint Finance and Appropriation Committee (JFAC) chairs have
ruled the budgeting process with an "iron fist" during past
legislative sessions. He noted that this year the JFAC chairs will
actively seek appropriation recommendations from the chairs of legislative
committees after all the budget hearings have been held, but before the
appropriation recommendations are voted on and sent to the legislature for
action. So the chairs of the Senate and House Education Committees become
important allies who can see that your requests move forward in the
legislative process. The budget needs of higher education need to be
"sold" to the committees and the legislators. Legislators are
really very nice people – invite them into your workspace – help them
understand your situation. He told the council to keep in mind that he is
a bureaucrat. Therefore, he is not as trustworthy in the eyes of the
legislature as faculty members in presenting higher education problems and
issues. Faculty, staff, and students can have a considerable impact on
legislation.
Chair
McKeever and Dodson commented on the possibility and practicality of
following the Nevada model of creating an association for higher
education faculty that would then hire a lobbyist to work for them with
the legislature. Both thought that this was a good way to get issues before
the legislature, but noted that everyone concerned – board, university
administration, faculty – must be "on the same page" when issues
are presented by a lobbyist. It is also very important that any
representative of higher education issues be armed with facts and figures to
back up the requests. However, Dodson said that there is so much information
available, the problem really becomes one of "staying on task."
In
response to a comment made by Councilor Thompson, Dodson noted that the
new philosophy of the SBOE/Regents is changing the way that they conduct
business. The board is now delegating more authority back to the
institutions and board staff. Items that do need board approval now move
through the process at a much faster pace than ten years ago. The board
wants a "seamless" approach to education from "K through
death." The board has streamlined its internal committee structure –
moving from seven standing committees to three. However, there is still a
lot of work to be done in folding old committees into the new structure. The
board also wants institution and institutional personnel to spend more time
looking at the "back-side" of programs – how the programs have
worked – compared to the amount of time spent on the
"front-side," getting a program started.
McKeever
asked Dodson to consider putting together a training session at the
board office for higher education leaders, a workshop that would acquaint
faculty leadership with the operations of the SBOE/Regents, the governor’s
office, and the legislature. Dodson agreed that this would be very helpful.
He also noted that it might be time to reinstate the faculty internship
program with the SBOE/Regents.
McKeever
thanked Dodson for coming to Moscow and speaking to the council. Dodson
expressed his gratitude to the administration and faculty for their good
work – it makes his job much easier. He said that it is a pleasure working
with and for the University of Idaho.
McKeever
reminded the council that the major item for discussion next week is the
proposed U of Idaho Fine Arts Policy (FC-00-015). The draft policy was
distributed to the council earlier and should be reviewed so that they are
prepared for the discussion. McKeever said that she will be in Boise next
week and Vice Chair Smelser will chair the January 23rd council
meeting.
Adjournment.
It was moved and seconded (Thompson, Olson ) to adjourn the meeting. Chair
McKeever adjourned the meeting at 4:55 pm.
Respectfully
submitted,
Peter A. Haggart
Secretary of the
Faculty Council
Return
to the Faculty Council Home Page
