2000-2001
Meeting #22, Tuesday, March 06, 2001
Present: McKeever
(chair), Smelser (vice-chair), Brunsfeld, Finnie, Foltz, Fritz, Goble,
Guilfoyle, Haggart (w/o vote), Hong, Kraut, McCaffrey, McClure, Meier,
Nelson, Nielsen, Olson, Norby, Pitcher (w/o vote) Absent: Bitterwolf,
Chun, Glen, Goodwin, Thompson, Trivedi Observers: 2
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 Brink Hall Faculty Lounge.
Minutes. The
council accepted the minutes of the February 27, 2001, meeting as
distributed.
Elections for New
Council Members. Faculty Secretary, Peter Haggart, reported to the
council that the terms of office are being completed by nine of its members
this spring. He has notified the constituent bodies represented by those
retiring council members, and has reminded them of the need to hold
elections by April 24, 2001. The first meeting of the 2001-2002 Faculty
Council, as well as the last meeting of the 2000-2001 Faculty Council, will
be held on May 1, 2001.
Provost’s
Report. Provost Brian Pitcher reported that a U of Idaho proposal
requesting funding from the governor’s office to support the construction
of a Center for Science and Technology in Eastern Idaho has been
awarded $5 million. In addition, the university has received $2 million in
federal HUD funds. The project is now 70% funded and the remainder of the
cost will be covered by issuing bonds.
Pitcher announced
that the search committee for the Vice President for Research and
Graduate Studies has identified five finalists who will interview
on-campus during the next few weeks. Announcements will be forthcoming on
the interview schedule for each candidate. In another search, a finalist
for the position of Dean of the Idaho Falls program will be on campus next
week (March 14th) for interviews.
In response to a
councilor’s question about the U of Idaho hiring an executive search
company ("head hunter") to help in searches for administrative
positions, Pitcher replied that there were plenty of qualified candidates
identified in the vice president search and therefore an executive search
company was not necessary. However, an executive search company, that
specializes in the area of the design profession, has been retained to help
in the search for the new Dean of Art and Architecture. He said that a good
executive search firm can always be a benefit when there is some question
about the depth of the pool or quality of the candidates. Pitcher said that
such a firm might be able to help the U of Idaho fill some vacant senior
research positions.
FC-01-021 –
Post-Tenure Review and Development. Chair McKeever asked Provost Pitcher
to review the Campaign for Idaho goals relative to senior faculty
positions and faculty development. Pitcher detailed the campaign’s
fundraising goals in the areas of "faculty support" ($15 million)
and "program and curriculum development" ($8 million). The
campaign staff is identifying annual gift and endowment levels necessary to fund
specific classes of several new special faculty positions: distinguished
chair, presidential professorship, university professorship, faculty fellow,
fellowship, and graduate fellowship. Besides relying on individuals to make
these kinds of gifts, he said that many times corporations will put their
names on professorial chair positions.
Pitcher also
noted that funds raised in the area of program and curriculum development
could be used in the enhancement of faculty teaching and research
activities, as well as play a significant role in the area of faculty
development. The campaign is also seeking contributions to help strengthen
academic programs via the core curriculum, graduate fellowships, the
president’s excellence fund, an academic excellence fund, a college
excellence fund, and a library fund.
In response to a
councilor’s question concerning the process for identifying faculty
members worthy of those new positions, Pitcher explained that there are
already a number of good examples on the campus now. The College of Business
and Economics and the College of Law both have competitive peer-review
processes and very specific criteria for selecting professors for endowed
professorships or special funding grants. The provost also noted that in
many cases the endowment or continuing funding for these kinds of
opportunities might just as well come from interested corporations, in
addition to gifts from individuals.
Councilor Nielsen
asked how these funding matters related to the Post-Tenure Review and
Development discussion. Chair McKeever replied that the directives in
the task force’s plan could be used in applying for these types of
incentives. Pitcher said that if the university received full funding for
this type of faculty support (endowments and annual gifts from corporations
and individuals) that it would certainly be compatible with the incentive
plans suggested by the task force. Plans and needs should be coupled with
the available money and then used to support faculty development projects.
McKeever said that the implementation of Responsibility Center Management
should obligate the university to make sure that departments not involved in
entrepreneurial projects would still be able to find incentive funding
through other channels.
Councilors
Smelser and Goble presented a motion and an amendment (which remained
un-seconded throughout the discussion) that would modify the
recommendations in the proposal of the task force concerning a five-year
review. They proposed that certain materials be made available to the
relevant faculty members in the department of a faculty member undergoing
the current SBOE/Regents mandated five-year review: namely, everything that
is required in the annual review, plus an updated curriculum vitae, and the
narrative statements from the previous five years of annual reviews. This
basic information package would also provide the basis for a discussion of
development with the unit administrator. The motion also stated that a
formal peer review by a committee (as proposed by the task force) would only
be triggered at the request of the faculty member who was undergoing the
standard review. In other words, there would be no mandated formal
(committee structured) peer review – only the review process that is
currently done.
The current
five-year review practice has the department circulating the name of a
faculty member undergoing competency review, but providing no information on
which to make a competency judgment. You simply vote yes or no. If a
majority of the faculty say no, then a full review is held. That never
happens because there is no information supplied to those doing the voting
that could help them make an informed decision. So they simply vote yes! The
suggested wording by Smelser and Goble added the requirement of a body of
information being made available to faculty members voting on competency and
a required discussion of the faculty member’s development plan with the
unit administrator.
The councilors
then engaged in an extended discussion of the annual review, the current
five-year review process/purpose, the five-year peer review process/purpose
as put forth in the task force report, faculty development plans, and the
changes proposed by the task force to Faculty-Staff Handbook, section
3320 C (the complete proposal can be read at the task force web site: http://www.ets.uidaho.edu/ptd/report.htm).
Chair McKeever reminded
the council that the Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC) is currently looking at
the job description form and adding a goals section to that form. They are
also working on strengthening the annual review process to make it more
consistent from department to department. She said that the main item that
the council should consider is sending the task force’s recommendations on
the wording of FSH section 3320 C to the FAC to rework, based on what
has been discussed previously and is being discussed today.
After some
discussion concerning the correct wording, it was moved and seconded
(Brunsfeld, McCaffrey) to send to the Faculty Affairs Committee the draft
wording of FSH section 3320 C as proposed by the task force,
accompanied by the task force narrative concerning the issues of post-tenure
review/development, along with a list of council concerns and directives.
After some
discussion of the reward system part of the task force proposal, and the
realities of funding that system, it was moved and seconded (Meier,
Finnie) to table the previous motion pending further clarification. The
motion failed (5 yea – 7 nay).
The council then
resumed its discussion of the previous motion. Councilors Goble and
Fritz said it appeared that the council was approaching this issue
backwards. The council should be going through the four parts of FSH
section 3320 C and making specific recommendations for the Faculty Affairs
Committee to consider in its review. Councilor Brunsfeld felt that the main
issue to be considered was whether or not the council liked the idea of a
development plan and incentives. If we like that idea, he said, then the
council should go ahead and vote on the details. The question was called. The
motion was defeated (3 yea – 11 nay).
It was moved and
seconded (Nelson, Fritz) with a friendly wording change by Councilor
McClure that the council proceed to work on the details of the report,
specifically Faculty-Staff Handbook section 3320 C, and send specific
directives to the Faculty Affairs Committee.
In the discussion
that followed Councilor Goble summarized the problem by stating that
what the council really needed to decide was whether or not to have a formal
committee structured five-year peer review (the basic proposition of the
task force report) or whether the council wanted to take the current
SBOE/Regents mandated five-year review and "beef it up."
Councilor Fritz
said that she wanted the council to address all of the issues in FSH
3320, not just the five-year review. The council needs to go through that
material and send directives to the Faculty Affairs Committee. The motion
was adopted by a unanimous vote.
Provost Pitcher
commented that the council should not be discouraged by the
disagreements surrounding the discussion of these issues. He feels that the
council is moving in the right direction and progress is being made. He said
that the positions that are being discussed are all plausible and that
agreement can be reached. Further discussion at the next meeting should
allow the council to sort out the issues and find the best solution.
Task Force on the
Teaching Evaluation Process. Councilor Nielsen presented the council
with a formal recommendation from the task force regarding an on-line
teaching evaluation system. The task force asks that the Faculty Council
recommend to the provost that a web-based system for course evaluations be
implemented as soon as practical. It was also suggested that the on-line
system be reviewed after its fourth consecutive semester of use. That review
would decide whether or not to make the on-line evaluation system
permanent, make further adjustments, or go back to a paper based,
in-class, evaluation system. The proposal also outlined a suggested format
and process, as well as features that could be programmed into the
evaluation system.
It was moved and
seconded (Nielsen, Foltz) to send the task force recommendation to the
Provost with a recommendation for implementing an on-line course/instructor
evaluation system under the guidelines recommended by the Faculty Council
Task Force on the Teaching Evaluation Process.
Councilor Kraut
expressed concerns voiced to her by members of her college’s faculty.
They are not convinced that the participation rate shown in the experiment
can be repeated in the "real world" atmosphere of actual usage in
all university courses. She said that many faculty members felt that there
should be a mandatory aspect to the evaluation system, such as a student not
receiving a grade for the course unless that student had submitted an
evaluation of that course. Instructors could make this mandatory by
incorporating it in the course syllabus.
Councilor McClure
said that two of her colleagues who had participated in the experiment were not
satisfied that the experiment really worked. She said that participation
rates using the current written forms were very high in her college –
approaching 80 to 90 percent in many cases, yet the return rates for the
on-line system were much lower. She also said that the faculty members that
participated in the study felt that there was not enough follow-up by the
researchers on what actually took place. She cited several problems that
need further investigation by the task force.
Councilor
McCaffrey noted that the key to the success of any evaluation process was
that the department faculty and students understood that this was an
essential task. His department head speaks to classes, stressing the
importance of the evaluations and replaces the instructor as the one who
hands out the evaluation forms. The result has been that the participation
rate has increased.
Councilor Nelson
suggested that the time frame for the next phase of the on-line
evaluation should be shortened to one or two semesters, rather than
waiting for four semesters to make a decision about keeping the system.
Professor Nielsen responded that a longer period of time was necessary to
get a change in the "culture" of conducting evaluations.
Councilor Meier
suggested that the proposed use of a "nag" window on the
student’s computer to remind them that they needed to complete course
evaluations might just have the opposite effect of driving students away
from completing the task. He likened this to the "nag" window that
appears to get faculty and staff to change their computer passwords – it
makes his blood pressure go up! Professor Nielsen said that the task force
could live without that requirement being in the proposed format.
Other council
members noted that the course evaluation system was so important to the
annual review that it really needed very careful study before making any
changes. The council needs to weigh the benefits to the student and
faculty in having an on-line system and to carefully look at the reasons for
changing the current system.
Chair McKeever
ruled that the motion would be held until the next meeting. She asked
the council to carefully study the recommendations of the evaluation task
force and be prepared to vote on the motion next week.
Adjournment.
After reminding the council to do its "homework," Chair McKeever
adjourned the meeting at 5:08
Respectfully submitted,
Peter A. Haggart
Secretary of the Faculty Council
