For
a WORD file of these minutes - click the disc 
2000-2001
FACULTY COUNCIL
MINUTES
2000-2001
Meeting #17, Tuesday, January 23, 2001
Present:
Smelser (vice-chair), Bitterwolf, Brunsfeld,
Finnie, Foltz, Fritz, Goble, Goodwin, Guilfoyle, Haggart (w/o vote), Kraut,
McCaffrey, McClure, Nelson, Nielsen, Olson, Thomas (w/o vote), Thompson Absent:
McKeever (chair), Chun, Glen, Hong, Meier, Norby, Pitcher, Trivedi
Observers: 2
Call
to Order. A quorum being present, Faculty Council
Vice Chair, Professor Ronald Smelser, called the meeting to order at 3:35
p.m. in the Idaho Commons.
Minutes.
The following corrections were made to the minutes of meeting #16: 1)
the proposed U of Idaho Art Policy is item FC-01-015 and 2) the third item
in the list of budget recommendations (on page 1) affecting higher education
should read "2.0% increase in the base salary budget for faculty."
The minutes of the January 16, 2001, meeting were accepted as distributed
and corrected.
Vice
Chair’s Report. Vice Chair Smelser, sitting in
for Professor McKeever, reported to the council:
The
administration brought to his attention a Lewiston Morning Tribune
opinion column written by Michael Crater (01/18/01), which indicated
that Governor Kempthorne was not providing proper leadership in the
funding of higher education, inviting a council response. Smelser left
it to the discretion of individual council members to respond or not
respond to the opinion column.
The
council’s attention was directed to a letter from the provost addressed
to all council members which states the administration’s position on the
latest draft of the Post-Tenure Development/Review Report and
provides useful background information. The report is available for
viewing on the web at www.its.uidaho.edu/ptd/report.htm.
The council is due to discuss this report at its February 13th
meeting and then bring closure to the issue at its February 20th
meeting.
Vice
Provost’s Report. Vice Provost Dene Thomas,
sitting in for Provost Pitcher, reported the following items to the council:
The
president, provost, and chair of the council are in Boise this week
defending the U of Idaho and higher education budget before the
Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee, as well as focusing on the
development of the Boise Center.
A
luncheon will be held for Student Support Services staff and the
students they serve in February. Thomas said that the support staff
deserves a "pat on the back" for the marvelous job that they are
doing with academically challenged, low income, and learning disabled
students. Council members were invited to show their support.
The
Coeur d’Alene Tribe made a first-time donation of $10,000 in
scholarship money to help Idaho Native Americans attend the U of Idaho.
The U of Idaho matched these funds, as requested by the tribe.
The
University Register has agreed to return to the practice of publishing
the minutes of the Staff Affairs Committee, albeit in a briefer form
than was the past practice.
Professor
Smelser asked Vice Provost Thomas to report on the issue of the use of
classrooms and meeting rooms that was brought up at the last meeting,
when the council reviewed Faculty-Staff Handbook changes in room use
policy. Thomas said the issue is really one of priorities. Classes have
priority for classroom space and student clubs and organizations have
priority for the use of meeting rooms in the SUB and Idaho Commons. The use
can be switched – classroom used for a meeting room, meeting room used for
a classroom – but only on a week’s notice basis and not for any
continuous usage.
Councilor
Thompson noted the need for more classroom space. Vice Provost Thomas
said that the classroom space situation will likely get worse before it gets
better. The university does hope to have the new College of Business and
Economics building’s classrooms available for general use before
renovation begins on the Teaching and Learning Center (formerly the
University Classroom Center). However, an accelerated building schedule
could change that plan.
The
classroom shortage will require the use of modular classroom space
(trailers-without-wheels) and the scheduling of selected courses (upper
division) earlier and later in the instructional day and perhaps on
Saturdays. Most of the new classrooms being built and remodeled will be
"smart" classrooms – up-to-date in design and technology.
FC-00-015
– Proposed Art Policy. Stephen Drown, Professor
of Landscape Architecture, and Byron Clercx, Associate Professor of Art,
presented the draft report of a proposed U of Idaho Art Policy. The
report was researched and written over a twelve month period by members of
the Fine Arts Committee and others. The draft is actually based on a study
of current policies of other states, cities, and institutions of higher
education. Professor Clercx pointed out that one of the best public art
programs in the country is in the state of Washington – a program that has
been in place for over thirty years. Many universities in our region have
embraced the notion of the "built" environment and the policy of
integrating public art into public places.
The
goal of the new policy is to have a university art collection that
will enhance the public image of the U of Idaho, to integrate art into the
"built" university environment, and to have public displays and
collections that have artistic and cultural significance.
The
objectives of the art policy are to:
integrate
art into the residential campus environment
promote
diverse cultural identities through the support of a spectrum of artistic
media and genre
demonstrate
stability through a commitment to scholarship and quality in the creative
arts and campus design
provide
resources for teaching and scholarly activity which draw upon the cultural
history of the university, state, and region
testify
to the responsible investment by the university and the ongoing support of
alumni and friends
The
art policy calls for:
a
new university standing committee – the University Art Committee
hiring/appointing
a University Art Administrator
a
1.5% public art commitment assessed on all capital improvement projects
– new and remodeled buildings
involvement
of artists in university capital building and remodeling projects
installations
and displays of public art and university art collections
stewardship
policies for the preservation and storage of current and future art
acquisitions
writing
a gift acceptance policy that ensures appropriate and meaningful art gifts
Following
this presentation, the council and professors Drown and Clercx engaged in a
lively dialogue concerning the proposal. While a number of subjects were
covered, the bulk of the time was spent discussing the philosophy and
practicality of having public art a part of the planning and construction of
university buildings.
The
major points and suggestions for additions and changes to the draft policy
made during the general discussion are outlined below:
a
1.5% public art commitment should be a "goal" and not a
"requirement" in capital construction plans – most other
places require a 2% commitment and the U of Idaho should adopt that
"goal," which would put the university in a far better
position than it is now
a
concern exists about how the policy would affect and be implemented in
state funded projects
perhaps
there should be a mandated art agreement when hiring an architect
there
is a real concern about a percentage requirement dedicated to art that
would siphon off any building finances – the construction process at the
U of Idaho always requires cut-backs or unfinished areas – this practice
leaves little room for the inclusion of art
the
public art commitment should probably have a dollar "cap" – no
matter what the actual construction cost – a maximum commitment
the
policy proposal needs to identify what is included in figuring the
construction costs that the art commitment percentage is based on
a
public art commitment on the part of the U of Idaho should be used as
leverage to get the state of Idaho to require such commitments on all
state building projects – however, a state requirement might be a
double-edged sword that forces unwanted funding changes
architects
should be "forced" to think about functional art from the very
beginning of any building project – artists and landscapers should be
included as consultants in all architectural phases of building design and
construction, as well as in general campus planning – we have too many
ugly buildings on the campus now, we don’t need more
an
art commitment should go beyond just purchasing a piece of art to put on
display – it should be art that is integrated into the building – a
part of the character of the building design and space – it is art that
need not be "traded off" for a more "practical"
building requirement – a railing, a door, a wall can have practical form
and function and still be constructed artistically
a
goal should be to have "functional art" a part of every new
building – even the Memorial Gymnasium gargoyle art has the practical
function of serving as downspouts for rain water
art,
as a part of a the building design, can be cost effective and functional
– thus art is not really an added expense and can have long term
cultural and historic value – 100 years or more
a
"test" is needed to decide what "counts" as art when
asking that art be included in building plans and construction – perhaps
the inclusion of good examples in the policy would help guide architects
the
position of Art Administrator could be funded by public and private
grants, but needs internal funding to get started – the job description
for the Art Administrator is not very clear, but the guidance and
oversight responsibilities are very important and need emphasis – the
position should not be a tenured academic position
there
is a lot of artistic material on the campus that is stored away and needs
public display
art,
architecture, and landscaping tend to make a total "statement"
about any building and all three should be a part of any university
building/planning policy
the
proposed "gift acceptance policy" is a very important part of
the proposal
the
proposed policy document needs to be clearer in its presentation of all of
these ideas and how the proposals will be implemented, including costs –
make it less an insider’s document using language and shorthand that is
only understood by artists and architects – the whole university
community needs to be able to understand the proposal
research
should be done – probably with the state of Washington – to see how
they have faced and solved the kinds of problems that have been raised
during this discussion
The
vice chair and the vice provost expressed the viewpoint that art was an
important consideration in building construction and the general aesthetics
of the university environment. They urged the committee to review the
notes from this meeting and return to the council with another draft which
would better express not only the philosophy, but the practical
considerations in providing that environment.
Adjournment.
Vice Chair Smelser adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Peter
A. Haggart
Secretary
of the Faculty Council
Return
to the Faculty Council Home Page 
