For
a WORD file of these minutes - click the disc 
2000-2001
FACULTY COUNCIL
MINUTES
2000-2001
Meeting #19, Tuesday, February 13, 2001
Present:
McKeever (chair), Smelser (vice-chair),
Bitterwolf, Brunsfeld, Finnie, Foltz, Glen, Goble, Haggart (w/o vote),
Kraut, McCaffrey, McClure, Meier, Nielsen, Olson, Norby, Pitcher (w/o vote) Absent:
Chun, Fritz, Goodwin, Guilfoyle, Hong, Nelson, Thompson, Trivedi Observers:
13
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 January 30, 2001,
meeting as distributed.
Chair’s
Report. Chair McKeever reported on her meetings
with individual legislators and committees which she indicated was well
received. The ICHEF group made a presentation to a joint meeting of the
education committees. McKeever said that the meeting was then extended an
hour and she was able to respond to many questions concerning specific
salary issues affecting the U of Idaho. She said that it was difficult to
speculate at this time on the outcome of salary proposals presented to the
committee. Work on the budget for education should begin this week.
McKeever
also reported that after a seven month period of being moved to and housed
in two different locations on the campus, the Faculty Secretary’s office
has been moved back to its original quarters on the Mezzanine floor of Brink
Hall. Safety upgrades and the elevator construction have been completed. She
also announced that the meetings of the Faculty
Council would be held in the Brink Hall Faculty Lounge for the remainder of
the semester.
McKeever
then summarized how the discussion of the task force recommendations on
tenure review would be handled. At today’s meeting the council will
discuss the recommendations for the first hour and then members of the
audience will be invited to speak for one minute each in the order they
appear on the speakers’ sign-up list. Audience members will be able to
yield their minutes to another speaker. If time remains, the audience will
be able make further comments. Next week the council should be able to come
up with a "directive" of some sort [indicating that she was being
deliberately vague to give the council plenty of room to decide the fate of
the report recommendations] concerning the proposal and its recommended
changes to the Faculty-Staff Handbook (FSH). The secretary has
assigned agenda action number FC-01-021 to the recommendations in the
report.
Provost’s
Report. Provost Pitcher reminded the council that
the Lionel Hampton Jazz Festival starts next week. The campus will be
alive with thousands of primary, secondary, and college students who are
attending clinics and concerts, while at the same time competing for honors.
He said the administration appreciates the willingness of the faculty,
staff, and students at the U of Idaho to be accommodating during this period
of time. The festival is also a good opportunity to recruit new students. In
connection with the festival activities there will be a special press
conference to formally announce the start of the fund drive for the
Lionel Hampton Performing Arts Center. United States Representative John
Conyers and President George and Barbara Bush are co-chairs of the fund
drive.
Committee
Reports. The Committee on Committees presented the
following committee appointments for approval:
Marc
Klowden to replace Robert Dwelle on the Sabbatical Leave Evaluation
Committee for the Spring Semester
Robert
Kirchmeier to replace Ginna Babcock on the Committee on Committees for the
Spring Semester
The
council approved the appointments by unanimous voice vote.
FC-01-021
– Report and Recommendations on Tenure Review and Development
(dated September 18, 2000). The council began its discussion on the
recommendations of the Task Force on Tenure Review and Development. Provost
Pitcher provided the council with a discussion document concerning the
proposal. He summarized the document and attempted to bring a context to
the recommendations of the task force, indicating the ways in which these
recommendations are good for the faculty and the university.
·
The U of Idaho seeks to attract, develop and retain the "best
and brightest" faculty by a variety of means, including compensation,
support, professional development, and rewards.
·
Foundation pieces have been laid by the U of Idaho through policy
changes, the use of salary models, early retirement incentives, recruiting
quality students, leadership skill development, new facilities, and new
funding.
·
The U of Idaho seeks to have every administrative unit and every
level of employment involved in a comprehensive and constructive system of
performance review and improvement.
·
The objectives of post-tenure development are to:
o
improve motivation and support for career development
o
modify policy and procedure to create a constructive improvement
framework
o
assure effectiveness and accountability of educational programs
o
satisfy SBOE/Regents and Northwest Association of Schools and
Colleges (NASC) requirements for tenure review
·
The task force recommendations focus on improving professional
development by having more effective periodic in-depth reviews [getting
away from the current punitive and superficial system] seeking more
collegial participation that emphasizes constructive feedback.
Provost
Pitcher recommended that the council eliminate FSH policy section
3320, C-4, regarding dismissal and instead emphasize the constructive
plans for faculty development. He also suggested renaming the policy to put
emphasis on development and improvement.
Pitcher
provided the council with a few "best practice"
suggestions that he finds consistent with the current literature on
post-tenure review and development:
·
emphasis should be on development within the context of an
individual’s career objectives
·
need a clear understanding of the goals and objectives of
improvement
·
clear understanding of evaluation criteria
·
evaluation should be based on multiple indices, including a
self-assessment
·
significant peer involvement is a key element in the review process
·
support and training is needed for unit administrators who
administer the process
·
need of continuity between annual review and the periodic in-depth
review
·
any review process must be a cost-effective strategy in time,
money, and effort
Pitcher
said that there is no denying the fact that the legislature, the
SBOE/Regents, and accreditation bodies are taking a more active role in
setting expectations and standards, as well as mandating policies of
accountability. There has been a renewed interest in post-tenure review
as a strategy for blunting the attack on tenure. Many states have now
taken the position of encouraging post-tenure review rather than looking at
eliminating tenure in higher education systems. He called the council’s
attention to a recent national report by the American Federation of Teachers
(AFT) that does not reject post-tenure review, but instead suggests that
accountability to public authorities is a legitimate obligation of a
university. Pitcher said that most universities are ahead of the U of Idaho
on this issue. The U of California has been doing these reviews for seventy
years. He concluded by noting that the type of five-year review that the
task force is asking for is already being used by all of the departments
in the College of Agriculture, as well as in a number of other departments.
He said that the task force recommendations for changes in the handbook will
move us closer to a workable review system that will meet the accreditation
requirements of all agencies.
The
council members then began a discussion of the proposal and its
recommendations.
Councilor
McCaffrey noted that he had already been through a five-year review in the
College of Agriculture. The problem with this college’s review process is
that there is no reward attached to a positive review. The U of
California has a reward system attached to their review process. McCaffrey
asked, what is the purpose of having a five-year
review when we already have an annual review?
Vice
Chair Smelser said that he had just gone through his annual review in his
department. In none of the discussions during the review process was development
ever brought up. All of the discussions concerned only what had been done
during the past year. Annual reviews need to have an added focus on faculty
development. Smelser said that to him development seems to mean only what he
wants it to mean, he is given no direction. Others noted that development
goals are a part of some departmental reviews and that they could easily be
added to all annual reviews.
Councilor
Bitterwolf noted that the purpose of the review is to identify the 5 percent
of the faculty who are not performing well and provide them with help.
However, poor performers should be identified on a yearly basis, rather
than waiting for five years. A necessary part of any review process is
having a uniform set of criteria by which faculty members would be judged.
Bitterwolf suggested that a key component in the review process is having properly
trained administrators who know how to take the proper steps to correct
performance problems. He wondered what actions "trigger" a more
thorough review that might lead to dismissal? Is it a lack of
publications or a series of negative teaching evaluations? Why is nothing
done now? Provost Pitcher responded that we have an obligation to try
and correct deficiencies once we are alerted to the problem. The present
perception on the campus is that there are only two levels of disciplinary
action – nothing and dismissal.
Councilor
Kraut agreed that the annual reviews are not consistent throughout the
university. She noted that in her department (accounting) they used very
detailed criteria. Every faculty member is aware of their responsibilities.
Her colleagues also submit a faculty development plan for the next year to
review with their department heads. However, she thinks that it would be too
difficult to provide a five-year development plan.
Councilor
Meier noted that the current student evaluation instrument used at the U
of Idaho could have a detrimental affect on the review process. It is
not a good survey instrument.
Councilor
Finnie reminded the council that our current annual review process is
handled by administrators and fails to involve colleagues as required by
our accrediting agency. Colleagues should be involved in the review process.
Councilor
Goble said that he was a faculty member in a small college (law) and
noted that by a colleague’s calculations every faculty member in his
college would either be in the process of being reviewed or be a member of a
review committee. That is a significant amount of time devoted to what
would be considered administrative duties. The proposed review process seems
like an onerous task for faculty members.
Councilor
McClure said that 80 percent of the people going through the proposed
five-year review process will not qualify for the "excellence"
category which carries with it a monetary reward. She thinks that the
process will actually undermine faculty productivity. Another problem
with the proposal is that only full professors and students will be able to
pass judgment on those under review. She has trouble understanding why
students would be a better judge of productivity than assistant and
associate professor colleagues? She said that we need a clearer and
more rigorous five-year review – the current policy is simply
superficial.
Councilor
Brunsfeld agreed with the comments of several other councilors and then
stated that this proposal is "dead on arrival" with the faculty
if there is not some sort of reward for going through all this extra
work. Brunsfeld asked, what is the minimum requirement needed to meet the
NASC accreditation requirements? Provost Pitcher responded that the
Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges (NASC) is asking for a substantive
performance review of every faculty member every three years. However,
he indicated that this requirement can be adjusted. We can have a strong
annual review that meets the criteria on an annual basis or a combination of
a stronger annual review combined with a five-year review. The problem with
a "triggered" review system is that it does not meet either the
NASC or the SBOE/Regents requirements. The task force looked at the
challenge of trying to design a system that would meet those expectations.
The task force felt that strengthening the annual reviews (including peer
review) was just too much to ask of the faculty. The task force’ proposal simply
requires that you put together your annual evaluations with your vita, along
with a brief assessment of your last five years, and a one page development
plan for the next five years. He said that he does not understand the
argument that the proposal is so difficult and onerous.
Chair
McKeever stated that Washington State University (WSU) had met the NASC
requirements by strengthening their annual evaluations. They do not have a
five-year review. She indicated that the SBOE/Regents and NASC would
both be satisfied if we had a strengthened annual review process. The
incentives do not appear in the Faculty-Staff Handbook changes, but
are a part of the report and should be considered as a part of the overall
proposal.
Councilor
Nielsen said that the peer review issue really needs to be addressed.
He asked whether or not WSU included peer reviews in their annual review?
McKeever responded that she did not know, but that she would find out.
Professor Stock (chair of the task force) responded that she did not think
that WSU required annual peer reviews. Nielsen said that
we need a system that NASC will accept, but one that will not be burdensome
on the faculty and administration.
Councilor
Foltz wanted to know what would happen if the U of Idaho did not meet the
standards set by NASC? Provost Pitcher responded that we need to make a
progress report this spring. If we do not meet the requirements, then the
university can be warned and the next step is probation. NASC may not do
that if we are making progress on the issue. The disadvantage that the U of
Idaho faces is that the NASC accreditation visit in 1994 identified tenure
review as a problem. Upon their revisit in 1999 NASC said that it was still
a problem and needed to be addressed. Any accreditation team that comes in
from now on will want to know what we have done to improve tenure review.
Councilor
Foltz also asked what our annual review lacks that makes it unacceptable
to NASC? Chair McKeever responded that our annual review is not consistent
from department to department, peer review is missing, and there is no
development plan. Professor Griffiths (a member of the task force) added
that he concurred about the inconsistency in departmental standards for
annual reviews and agreed that we needed to add a development component and
a reward system. He also noted that the five-year review mandated by the
SBOE/Regents is absolutely worthless!
Provost
Pitcher reviewed the NASC accreditation requirements, which were
discussed in some detail in his memorandums to the council and in the task
force report. NASC finds that the current U of Idaho five-year faculty
reviews do not "provide for effective review of tenured
faculty." He noted that the implicit requirement of NASC is that
the "institution take regular and systematic steps to ensure that
faculty are effective teachers and that associated responsibilities for
ensuring quality instruction and other faculty responsibilities are carried
out in a competent manner." The NASC policy further states that "every
faculty member at every institution be subject to some type of substantive
performance evaluation and review at least every third year." They
also suggest that multiple indicators be used in the evaluation process;
such as teaching, scholarly performance, and productivity.
Councilor
Meier asked what would happen to a faculty member who received low
ratings for a number of evaluations despite attempts to correct the
problem. Professor Deutchman suggested using the Ombudsman’s Office
to resolve the problem.
Provost
Pitcher outlined the normal procedure that would be followed –
based on existing policy – when the performance of a faculty member is
questioned (Section 3910 of the FSH). It is up to the administrator
– in consultation with colleagues – to work with the employee to
strengthen performance.
At
4:30 pm Chair McKeever opened the discussion to
members of the audience.
The
first presentation was made by Professor Phil Deutchman. Several
faculty members in the audience gave their time to Professor Deutchman. He first
presented the council with a resolution unanimously adopted by the faculty
members of the Physics Department on May 4, 2000. The resolution spoke
to the formal stance of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP)
that formalized institutional evaluation of all post-tenure faculty members
was a threat to academic freedom. The resolution of the Physics Department
recommended that a new document related to post-tenure faculty development
be developed based on the faculty reward and development features included
in the April 18, 2000, draft of the task force. They also recommended that
any post-tenure developmental activities be voluntary and be initiated by
the concerned faculty member.
Professor
Deutchman then presented his own individual comments and recommendations,
saying that the proposal:
attacks
academic freedom – professors need freedom from this endless cycle of
self-justification
attacks
free speech – it "chills" free speech, which lies at the heart
of academic freedom
attacks
independent thinkers – making them demeaning and humiliating "hoop
jumpers"
subtly
shifts the burden of proof – faculty members must reprove themselves
periodically
contains
no specific recommendations for faculty development
speaks
to accountability, but not development, and there is already plenty of
accountability in the present evaluation system
does
not solve the basic problem: what do you do with the recalcitrant faculty
member, or one who has become discouraged or demoralized?
should
take a closer look at the leadership development programs being developed
by the Ombudsman’s Office and use that office to deal with individual
cases of poor performance – a velvet glove approach
Deutchman
concluded his remarks by asking the Faculty Council to remember that the
U of Idaho Faculty Constitution charges them to be concerned with
the welfare of the faculty, specifically with regards to academic freedom,
tenure, and working conditions. He also asked the council to remember that
it is empowered to act for the university faculty in all matters pertaining
to the immediate governance of the university. He asked that the council
reject the proposed changes and to make use of the closed ballot
provision of Robert’s Rules of Order so that they can vote their
conscience.
Councilor
Finnie asked Professor Deutchman if he had an alternative plan to
propose? Deutchman responded that he had no specific proposal, but would
leave it up to the Faculty Council or the Faculty Affairs Committee to bring
forward a proposal that would assure a "faculty friendly" positive
evaluation system. Professor Stock asked what Professor Deutchman sees as
being "negative" in the proposed handbook language? Deutchman
responded that the negative feeling is generated by the proposal’s
"silence" in identifying what is "satisfactory" or
"outstanding" performance and what kinds of rewards would
accompany those evaluation conclusions. He said that the document wording
implies "faculty accountability" rather than "faculty
development."
Several
audience members and councilors made the following observations at
the conclusion of the meeting:
expressed
concerns about the use and quality of student evaluations in the review
procedure and the need to include information relating to student
performance – students can easily manipulate student evaluations
indicated
a favorable response to the suggested elimination of FSH Section
3320, C-4 (dismissal)
five
years is too long to go between reviews – annual reviews conducted
properly would be very helpful to faculty and could be something that we
could point to with pride
asked
that the WSU situation should be investigated – is the U of Idaho being
held to a higher standard than WSU?
pointed
out that the proposal asks that we not reward just the "super
stars" of the faculty and yet the reward system seems to be set up to
do just that – ignoring the faculty members who are doing a good job
Adjournment.
After reminding council members to review all of the post-tenure information
before the next meeting, Chair McKeever adjourned the meeting at 5:05 pm.
Respectfully
submitted,
Peter A. Haggart
Secretary of the
Faculty Council
Return
to the Faculty Council Home Page 
