For
a WORD file of these minutes - click the disc 
2000-2001
FACULTY COUNCIL
MINUTES
2000-2001
Meeting #26, Tuesday, April 17, 2001
Present:
McKeever (chair), Smelser (vice-chair),
Bitterwolf, Finnie, Fritz, Glen, Goble, Guilfoyle, Haggart (w/o vote),
Kraut, McCaffrey, McClure, Meier, Nelson, Nielsen, Olson, Norby, Pitcher
(w/o vote) Absent: Brunsfeld, Chun, Foltz, Goodwin,
Hong, Thompson, Trivedi Observers: 4
Call
to Order. The council meeting began at the Idaho
Commons with the Faculty-Staff Kick-Off for the Campaign for Idaho. U
of Idaho President Bob Hoover and Provost Brian Pitcher provided background
material and updates on the status of the fundraising campaign.
Representatives of the faculty, staff, and retirees spoke of their reasons
for giving to this campaign, and urged those in attendance to consider
supporting the campaign. After the program, council members returned to the
Brink Hall Faculty Lounge for the business portion of the meeting. A quorum
being present, Faculty Council Chair, Professor Kerry McKeever, called the
meeting to order at 4:05 p.m.
Minutes.
The council accepted the minutes of the April 10, 2001, meeting as
distributed.
FC-01-025.
Changes in Regulation J-3. The council received a
seconded motion from the University Curriculum Committee (UCC) requesting
changes in Regulation J-3. Professor Jeffrey Harkins, sitting in for the
chair of the UCC, explained that the reasoning behind the proposed changes
was to make the current regulation less confusing and ambiguous. The
following two changes were proposed:
1.
The last sentence of Regulation J-3 Subject Requirements (Core
Curriculum) would be changed to the following two sentences:
Degree-seeking
students They must also be enrolled in Math 108 or
in a course that meets the core requirement in mathematical mathematics,
statistical statistics, and or
computer sciences and in Engl 090 or 101 or 102 in their
first year in residence and in each subsequent year
semester until the core requirements in mathematical
mathematics, statistical statistics, and
or computer sciences and Engl 102 have has
been satisfied.
2.
Regulation J-3-c would be changed to read as follows:
J-3-c. Mathematical
Mathematics, Statistical Statistics, and
or Computer Sciences (3 cr). Mathematical reasoning as a skill and
as a theoretical structure has played a crucial role in modern
civilization as well as in the everyday lives of individuals. The core
curriculum requirement in mathematical mathematics,
statistical statistics, and or
computer sciences science should, therefore,
foster both an appreciation for the aesthetic and historical dimensions of
these areas and a sense of their practical necessity.
The mMathematics,
statistics, and computer science courses will help
students develop analytical, quantitative, and problem solving skills by
involving them in doing mathematics, statistics, or computer science and
by focusing on understanding the concepts of these disciplines.
Documentation
accompanying the motion stated that these changes would place no new burden
on students. The regulation already requires students to take and complete
these core courses as early as possible. The motion was adopted by
unanimous voice vote.
FC-01-021.
Post-Tenure Review/Development. The council then
took up for action a report from the Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC)
concerning revisions of the Faculty-Staff
Handbook regarding "Position Descriptions" (Section 3050) and
"Periodic Performance Evaluations and Salary Determination for Faculty
Members" (Section 3320).
Provost
Brian Pitcher told the council that he had submitted a report to the
Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges (NASC) on the progress
that the U of Idaho was making to meet NASC accreditation requirements in
the area of post-tenure review. He said that his report detailed the
positive steps that are being taken by faculty committees to address the
issues raised in the NASC report. Pitcher believes that the council does not
face an immediate deadline for completing the handbook revisions. The
progress that has been made by the original task force, the Faculty Council,
and the Faculty Affairs Committee, plus the fact that the deliberations are
continuing, should be acceptable to NASC for the near future.
Therefore, Pitcher urged the council not to be rushed into any hasty
decisions.
Pitcher
also informed the council that the SBOE/Regents is currently going
through the process of converting all of its rules into policies. As a
part of this process the board is reviewing all of its personnel policies.
One personnel policy change being considered is to give the institutions
more flexibility in administering the mandated 5-year performance review.
Those proposed board revisions will be part of a public hearing at the June
board meeting in Moscow. He urged the council and its leadership to keep
track of the board discussions on this subject and make sure that the
proposals now under consideration will be in sync with these possible
revisions of board personnel policies.
Professor
Jeffrey Harkins, chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC), reiterated
some of the background information concerning the work of his committee and
the charge they received from the council (see the minutes of Faculty
Council meeting #25 for details).
Harkins
then discussed the revisions recommended for Faculty-Staff
Handbook Section 3050, "Position Descriptions," as well as the
accompanying position description form. He said that there were two
substantive changes that the Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC) was
recommending to the council.
First
was a proposed change to part B-2 (Procedure)
which would require that the position description be filled out "in
collaboration with the unit administrator," rather than the current
condition of "under the supervision of" the unit administrator.
The committee felt that this change placed the process on a more
"professional" level two professionals working together on the
process of writing a position description. Discussion of the proposal led to
the following comments and suggestions:
the
administration is concerned that the proposed wording would lead to
legal challenges the unit administrator is primarily charged by the
handbook with defining responsibilities for faculty and staff the
new language confuses the fiduciary responsibility of the administrator
this may lead to unnecessary conflicts between faculty members and
unit administrators the new language should lead to solutions rather
than law suits
administrators
are charged with fulfilling a departmental mission, and faculty members
are hired to help meet those mission goals therefore, those position
descriptions, written under the direction of the unit administrator,
should reflect the goals of the academic unit
faculty
members initiate position descriptions it is a planning document
presented to the administrator the administrator reacts and then, in
collaboration with the faculty member, completes the process
the
proposed wording of the first sentence of B-2 should be changed to read,
"The form should be filled out with the collaboration and approval of
the unit administrator" (which was the intent of the committee) this
became a "friendly amendment" to the FAC proposal
there
is an implied appeal arrangement in this section to appeal to the next
administrative level or use the Ombudsman but it should be clearly
stated (in a general fashion) in this section the
FAC agreed to work on that wording
Second
was a proposed change in the form used for the position description and
subsequent performance review of a faculty member.
The FAC suggested a "goal based" position description accessible
on-line. Harkins said that it would encourage faculty members to write clear
goal statements and reachable objectives for each functional area in which
they have a responsibility (teaching, research, service, advising, etc.).
However,
Harkins advised the council that using this form would require a learning
process and the training of both faculty and administrators in the use
and interpretation of the form and the information submitted by the faculty
member. Some of the items on the form are carry-overs from the previous form
and the categories need to match up with other sections of the Faculty-Staff
Handbook. After a period of discussion the council asked the Faculty
Affairs Committee to look at the following concerns:
this
looks like a product-based reporting system counting the number of
publications, grants, courses, advisees, etc. we are not a
"widget" factory although goals and objectives do not
always mean reporting production output, this subject needs more
discussion
the
position description is a planning document, and care should be taken when
it is used in the evaluation of actual faculty performance
concerns
about the possible abuse of this process applies to a very small
percentage of faculty
a
lot of what faculty members currently identify as "research" is
really not scholarly activity at all it is administering
post-doctorates or graduate students or doing data "drudge" work
because it is not 100% scholarship, the research category should have
sub-categories
the
form needs to be simplified it has too many details faculty
members will feel that they have to put something in every box and space
on the form
estimating
percentages in the numerous sub-categories on the form is burdensome
it is not clear whether the correct procedure should be to provide a
percentage of "time" or a percentage of
"responsibility"
percentages
should be used in the major categories of "teaching/pedagogy"
and "scholarship" and not for all of the sub-categories attached
to "planned coursework" and "planned activities" the
FAC will review this form with an eye to removing the sub-category
percentages it is appropriate to use percentages in the remaining
major categories of the form
instructions/suggestions/examples
for filling out the form should be included in the materials sent to the
faculty member and unit administrator
rather
than being required to put "zero" as the percentage of time
devoted to an activity a faculty member never engages in there should
be a box labeled "n/a" (not applicable)
although
it may look like we are preparing spread sheets, we do need to keep and
calculate numbers as a part of the planning and reporting of faculty
activity
Professor
Harkins concluded by saying that having a complete and accurate position
description (planning document) sensitizes a faculty member to the fact
that he or she has planned a certain allocation of time that was approved by
the administration. If something changes in that faculty members work,
the faculty member will now have a strong incentive to correct and resubmit
that position description. The end result should be an accurate position
description that can be appropriately applied in an annual performance
evaluation. McKeever noted that the discrete nature of the proposed form
allows accountability for many types of faculty positions a much needed
addition to the form. The new form allows more accuracy in those position
descriptions.
McKeever
asked the council to please contact Professor Harkins with their comments
and suggestions regarding this proposal. She said that her goal was to
have a recommendation ready for the general faculty meeting on May 8th.
However, that means coming prepared to take action on this proposal at
the next meeting.
Adjournment.
Chair McKeever adjourned the meeting at 5:05 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Peter
A. Haggart
Secretary
of the Faculty Council
Return
to the Faculty Council Home Page 
