For
a WORD file of these minutes - click the disc 
2000-2001
FACULTY COUNCIL
MINUTES
2000-2001
Meeting #23, Tuesday, March 13, 2001
Present:
McKeever (chair), Smelser (vice-chair),
Bitterwolf, Brunsfeld, Chun, Finnie, Foltz, Fritz, Glen, Goble, Guilfoyle,
Haggart (w/o vote), Kraut, McCaffrey, McClure, Meier, Nelson, Nielsen,
Olson, Pitcher (w/o vote) Absent: Goodwin, Hong, Norby, Thompson,
Trivedi Observers: 3
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, by voice vote, accepted the minutes of the March 6, 2001,
meeting as distributed.
Chair’s
Report. Chair McKeever reported to the council
that the Associated Students of the University of Idaho (ASUI) petition
commending the legislature for their support of higher education had
received a good reception in Boise. She also announced that Governor
Kempthorne wants to meet with the U of Idaho faculty members to discuss
coordinating a number of U of Idaho research efforts with some of the
"social needs" of the state of Idaho. A date for that meeting has
not been set.
Provost’s
Report. Provost Pitcher circulated to the council
the interview schedule and curriculum vitae for Dr. James Petersen.
Petersen is one of the candidates for the position of Vice President for
Research and Graduate Studies and will be interviewing on the campus
from March 28-30, 2001. There will be an open forum with Petersen for the
faculty from 1:30 to 2:15 pm on Wednesday, March 28th.
FC-01-023
– Directive to the Provost – On-Line Course/Teaching Evaluation.
The council resumed its discussion of the proposal presented by the
Faculty Council Task Force on the Teaching Evaluation Process. As a result
of the discussion at last week’s meeting, Councilor Nielsen presented the
council with an updated proposal from the task force. The main
additions to the revised proposal were 1) the extension of the
evaluation time period from one week to three weeks, 2) to include an option
that would allow students to indicate that they did not intend to evaluate a
course, and 3) the ability of instructors to make the evaluation mandatory
by including it in the course syllabus.
Professor
Nielsen responded to some concerns that were raised at the end of
last week’s council meeting. He stated that the response rates for on-line
evaluations will be comparable with those for students using the
paper evaluation form. He said that the suggestion that
"complainers" would dominate the use of the on-line evaluation is
not borne out by the results of the on-line experiment last semester.
Nielsen admitted that it would be impossible for the task force to address
all of the concerns of the faculty council regarding the proposal, saying
that many of those concerns could only be addressed after the system was
implemented. He said that experiences at other universities indicate that
this system will work. In response to a councilor’s question, Nielsen said
that because of a variety of administration problems, the university
would have to either adopt a paper or an on-line form. The same
evaluation (involving newly designed forms) could not be done both on paper
and on-line. Nielsen concluded his remarks by saying that the task force
firmly believed that an on-line process was a reasonable and workable
evaluation system. He urged the council to adopt the proposal.
Several
councilors revisited some of the concerns about the proposed evaluation
process that they had raised last week. However, a majority of the
councilors, some of whom had earlier expressed doubts about the
proposal, spoke in support of on-line evaluations. The main reasons
for supporting the new system are the overall dislike for the present
evaluation form and the ability for each instructor to design an evaluation
form specifically suited to his or her course. These reasons have become
major selling points for the proposed on-line evaluation system.
In
response to concerns about the use of a new evaluation system that is so
crucial in the annual review of faculty, the provost noted that the
whole concept of evaluating teaching needed to be broadened beyond the
process we are now using. It needs to include other ways of assessing
courses and teaching. He said that the whole process needs further
discussion, and he would be interested in hearing suggestions for improving
the evaluation of teaching, particularly as it is used in the annual
evaluation of faculty members.
Everyone
agreed that a key point in implementing any new evaluation process was
education of the user. Providing incentives is important, but the
students must be convinced that this process is important. Councilor Glen
said that the ASUI was in full support of on-line evaluations and felt an
obligation to play a role in the education process. Wayland Winstead,
Director of Institutional Planning and Budget, said that his office would be
able to do both quantitative and qualitative research that would offer the
faculty a great variety of information that would prove helpful in the
analysis of the data collected through the on-line evaluation process.
The
motion that was presented on March 6th
was amended by the memorandum from the task force dated March 13, 2001
(FC-01-023) – "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" – was adopted by majority vote (13
yea, 2 nay, 1 abstention). This matter will come before the general
faculty at its May meeting for discussion and final vote. Chair McKeever
thanked the task force for its work on this proposal.
Directives
to the Faculty Affairs Committee – Revisions to Faculty-Staff Handbook
Section 3320. The council then took up the process
of making recommendations to the Faculty Affairs Committee regarding the
new/revised wording of the handbook. All of the motions passed by the
council and directives are to be sent to the Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC).
The FAC has already been charged with the process
of using these motions and directives in revising section 3320 of the Faculty-Staff
Handbook.
It
was moved and seconded (Finnie, McClure) to delete, in its entirety,
"C-4. Action By President And Regents" in Section 3320 of the Faculty-Staff
Handbook as proposed in the task force
document dated 9/15/2000. The intent is to remove this part of
the handbook section (C-3. in the current handbook and C-4. in the proposed
handbook revision) entirely from the FSH. This was originally
proposed by the provost several weeks ago. The motion was adopted
by unanimous vote.
It
was moved and seconded (Goble, Foltz) to accept the revisions in the wording
of "C-1. Policy" in Section 3320 of the Faculty-Staff Handbook
as proposed in the task force document dated 9/15/2000. The intent is to
accept the new wording of the task force. The motion was adopted by
unanimous vote.
It
was moved and seconded (Foltz, Goble) to accept the proposed new "C-2.
Timing Of Review" in Section 3320 of the Faculty-Staff Handbook
as proposed in the task force document dated 9/15/2000. The intent is to
accept a new section heading and statement as C-2 and change the present C-2
to C-3. The promotion review, when moving from associate to full professor,
counts as a comprehensive tenure review. Under normal circumstances, the
next comprehensive tenure review would take place in the fifth year
following promotion to full professor, and every five years thereafter. The
language of this section needs further revision for purposes of
clarification – to make sure that this part refers to the five-year review
(comprehensive) and not the annual review. The motion was adopted by
unanimous vote.
It
was moved and seconded (Nielsen, Kraut) that "C-2. Procedures (part
a.)" of Section 3320 of the current Faculty-Staff Handbook
or Section 3320 C-3. Procedures (parts a., b., and c.) as proposed in
the task force document dated 9/15/2000, be clarified by specifying that
the following materials be made available by the faculty member and the
departmental administrator: an updated curriculum vitae, a summary of
student evaluations, a brief narrative description of scholarship, teaching,
service, and professional activities for the preceding five years and a
development plan for the next five years – all related and relative to the
faculty member’s job description. The intent is to make the materials
required basically the same as those recommended in an earlier directive
given to the Faculty Affairs Committee for the annual review. It also makes
sure that material is available for review by other faculty members for the
five-year review. If the FAC removes the requirement for a review
committee, then parts b. and c. would be unnecessary. The motion was adopted
by unanimous vote.
It
was moved and seconded (Goble, Nelson) that the five-year review document
that is distributed to the reviewing faculty include an area for written
comments on each of the relevant topics. The
intent is to allow narrative comments in addition to the normal check-off
boxes on the form. The motion was adopted by unanimous vote.
It
was moved and seconded (Olson, Foltz) that an opportunity for input by staff
and graduate students under the supervision of the faculty member being
reviewed be provided in the review process. The
intent was to provide staff and graduate students with an opportunity to
provide input, an opportunity that does not now exist under the current
review system. This generated a considerable amount of discussion. The major
point in opposition was that this was an academic review and not an
administrative function review and therefore should exclude people who
"worked for or were under the supervision of" a faculty member: in
other words, people who were not qualified to offer a review of the academic
performance of the individual being reviewed. The major point in favor of
the motion was that this was only for "input"
(participation/comment, but not vote) and not a critical
"evaluation" of the academic work. The motion was adopted
by majority vote (10 yea, 7 nay).
It
was moved and seconded (Goble, Nelson) that Section 3320 C-3. Procedures
(part b.) of the Faculty-Staff Handbook
as proposed in the task force document dated 8/15/2000 be removed from
consideration. The intent is to make it clear that the Faculty
Council does not want a review committee as is called for in the
task force proposal. The motion was adopted by majority vote (14 yea,
2 nay, 1 abstention).
The
Faculty Council directed that the remainder of the task force report,
particularly the material dealing with the development plan, be forwarded to
the Faculty Affairs Committee for their consideration in the final draft of
Section 3320 of the Faculty-Staff Handbook.
It
was moved and seconded (Nielsen, Brunsfeld) to recommend that the language
developed by the Faculty Affairs Committee for the development plan
component of FSH Section 3320 make it clear that rewards should go to
a broader spectrum of the faculty than has been proposed in the task force
report. The intent is that the rewards included in
the development plan be made available not just to the "usual super
stars," but to a wider range of faculty members. After debating the
feasibility of being able to finance any reward system, the council
determined that rewards and incentives were an essential part of any
development plan. The motion was adopted by majority vote (9 yea,
0 nay, 7 abstentions).
Adjournment.
It was moved and seconded (Chun, Goble) to adjourn the meeting. Chair
McKeever adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
Next
Meeting. The next meeting of the Faculty
Council will be on March 27, 2001 – two weeks from today.
Respectfully
submitted,
Peter
A. Haggart
Secretary
of the Faculty Council
Return
to the Faculty Council Home Page 
