For
a WORD file of these minutes - click the disc 
2000-2001
FACULTY COUNCIL
MINUTES
2000-2001
Meeting #7
Tuesday,
October 10, 2000
Present:
Smelser (vice-chair), Bitterwolf, Brunsfeld,
Chun, Coonts, Finnie, Foltz, Fritz, Goble, Guilfoyle, Haggart (w/o vote),
Hong, Kraut, McCaffrey, McClure, Nelson, Nielsen, Olson, Thomas (w/o
vote), Thompson, Trivedi Absent: McKeever, Goodwin, Meier
Observers: 4
Call
to Order. A quorum being present, Faculty
Council Vice Chair, Professor Ronald Smelser, called the meeting to order
at 3:30 p.m. in the Idaho Commons.
Minutes.
A correction was needed in the minutes of the October 3, 2000,
meeting. In the presentation on the U of Idaho Employee Benevolent Fund,
on the seventh line, the reference to "sick leave" should
have been to "annual leave." The sentence as corrected now
reads, "It would work in a fashion similar to the U of Idaho’s Shared
Leave Program that allows U of Idaho employees to give accumulated
annual leave to other employees in need of additional leave time."
The council, by voice vote, accepted the minutes as corrected.
Provost’s
Report. Vice Provost Dene Thomas reported that
the university has been reviewing retention and recruitment practices
during the past week with the help of an outside consultant. She noted
that there are a number of factors that impact our ability to register new
students. All of them are important and the "calling program"
aimed at students who had indicated an interest, but had not registered at
the university, was a particular bright spot in this effort to register
new students. Thomas thanked the faculty and staff members who
participated in this calling program which helped the university achieve a
3% increase in enrollment this year. Next year a more organized calling
program is planned and she encouraged those who had participated to
continue their efforts.
Budget
Liaison Committee Report. Councilor Marla Kraut,
Chair of the Budget Liaison Committee, reported to the council that the
committee has been meeting on a weekly basis. She focused her remarks on
the "Differential Mandatory Fee Policy" that will be proposed
to the SBOE/Regents.
Differential
Mandatory Fee Policy
After
a thoughtful review of the impact of trends in General Fund support for
public higher education in Idaho, and an analysis of the impact of
professional fees on the operations of academic programs, the University
of Idaho would like to test the use of differential mandatory fees in
the following fee categories:
Summer
Fees
Off-campus
Fees
Matriculation
Fees
Graduate
Fees
Part-time
Fees
While
customary practice has been to set a uniform fee within each of these
categories, the University of Idaho has concluded that differential
mandatory fees may offer a more flexible and robust approach to fee
setting that will better enable the university to fulfill its mission
and achieve the goals and objectives in its strategic plan. We envision
these differential fees as potentially affecting:
a
set or group of courses (e.g., all laboratory courses in Engineering),
an
individual course (e.g., a Summer seminar in Creative Writing), or
a
section of a course (e.g., a section of a distance education course
concurrently offered in many different locations).
Moreover,
we envision that some to these differential fees will be above the
average fee rate and that others will be below the average rate.
In
its policies, the Board has neither expressly permitted nor prohibited
the setting of differential mandatory fees in fee categories other than
the Professional Fee. We thus seek guidance from the Board with respect
to public policy regarding the permissibility of differential fees in
the other fee categories. A policy expressly permitting differential
fees would apply only to the setting of rates for permissible mandatory
fees and would not establish a new fee category. If enacted, a new
policy would apply to all of the institutions.
The
University of Idaho seeks direction from the Board at this time so that
if differential mandatory fees are deemed permissible we may begin to
test their use in fiscal year 2001-02. Under existing policies, we
anticipate that next Spring the University will submit a customary
schedule of mandatory fees along with recommendations for both new
professional fees and increases in the rates of existing professional
fees. If the Board approves a policy permitting differential mandatory
fees at its November [first reading] and January [second reading]
meetings, then the University may also recommend the establishment of
some differential mandatory fees.
Any
differential mandatory fees proposed by the institutions under a new
policy would still require Board approval during the annual fee setting
process.
The
Faculty Council engaged in a vigorous discussion of the issues
surrounding "differential mandatory fees." The major
points of the discussion were as follows:
The
majority of the students are against this policy. The ASUI Senate is
considering a resolution to oppose this proposed fee policy. The
resolution will speak to the issues of 1) pricing students out of
higher education and, 2) the creation of stratified education realms
where one academic major program will cost more or less than another.
The
proposal is very troubling. It is a horrible idea and it is shocking
that the administration would even consider going to the SBOE/Regents
with this kind of proposal without a more thorough discussion with the
students and faculty. The proposal should be dismissed immediately.
Besides
being an administrative nightmare, it puts departments in bidding wars
for money.
This
proposal is contrary to the spirit of the land-grant mission of this
university (to make higher education accessible to the masses). We
should not be in the "business" of education – to simply
make money.
This
seems to be a "tool" to implement what some call "the U
of Idaho as a business" model of higher education.
There
has been a fundamental change in the nation regarding the funding of
higher education. Higher education is no longer a "public
good" as reflected in our original land-grant mission – it is now
a "private good" that must be paid for by the student and not
the state. The U of Idaho is now struggling to deal with this change.
We
need this new fee system because there are courses on this campus that
cost more to deliver than others. However, departments will have to
prepare documented justifications of why they need differential fees.
The
students who are paying a set fee for a course which is inexpensive are,
in fact, subsidizing the educational expenses of students who are taking
courses that are more expensive to offer.
The
proposed fee structure would allow the university to offer courses at a
fee which would be more in line with the actual cost of offering the
course. A differential fee would allow the university to offer courses
that, in the past, have been prohibited by cost.
The
value of the differential fee is that it provides the opportunity for
experimentation.
The
consternation that this proposal will cause for students and faculty
will be costly from a public/community relations standpoint. This seems
like a rather "costly" experiment.
If
you raise costs you will lose students. You could, in fact, cap programs
(limit the number of majors) and maximize revenues. Students would be
rationed in their ability to enter an academic program based on their
ability to pay, rather than on quality or grade point average. That
should not be the mission of the U of Idaho.
Perhaps
the funding problems that the U of Idaho is facing can be solved by
other means. For instance, instead of making the student pay more for a
course taught at the prime teaching times, perhaps we should insist that
departments offer courses at other times and force the students and
faculty into these less desirable time periods. Have we really exhausted
all of our options?
Perhaps
we should see if we can get the Idaho State Legislature to rethink their
funding of higher education.
The
real problem is that the U of Idaho does not charge high enough student
fees to begin with. Why not raise our present fee structure so that it
is comparable with our peer institutions? We have to stop talking about
the U of Idaho being a "bargain" in education and start
talking about the quality and excellence of our programs. We have some
excellent programs now, but they are being paid for at the expense of
building maintenance, operating expenses, and faculty salaries.
The
proper implementation of "professional" fees is working very
well by allowing those programs that charge those fees to limit the
number of majors and, at the same time, pay for the faculty and
resources that will properly prepare students to meet the demands of
industry. These professional fees – as well as laboratory fees – can
be easily explained to the student/public. They can see what they are
going to get by paying the extra money. Professional and laboratory fees
are too narrowly defined by current SBOE/Board policy.
Differential
fees speak directly to the real cost of instruction. If we have to pay
high salaries and start-up costs to attract top-flight faculty members
to teach "cutting-edge" courses, how are we going to cover
those costs? This is a problem that may make more sense if it is
legitimately talked about by the administration in terms of quality and
costs.
The
U of Idaho administration is not trying to implement this policy because
they are money hungry and greedy – it is because they are trying to
solve very real financial problems.
Wayland
Winstead should be asked to provide the Faculty Council with some
scenarios describing how the present and proposed fee system would
affect specific students in specific majors.
It
was noted that the administration has given the faculty/staff/students
very little time to respond to this policy initiative. Executive Director
of Institutional Planning and Budget, Wayland Winstead, will be asked
to come back to a council meeting within the next couple of weeks to speak
about the differential fee issue and the comments and questions raised in
this discussion. Some councilors felt that it would also help if
Winstead was able to shed some "statistical light" on the
"real" dollar amounts the state is investing in higher education
(on a per student basis) today compared to 5, 10, or even 15 years ago.
In
response to a councilor’s question concerning our ability to voice
our opinions to board members and legislators, it was noted that you
certainly retain your 1st Amendment rights as a private
citizen, but you cannot offer your opinion as an "official"
representative of the U of Idaho. The vice provost added that the decision
of who should be the spokesperson on any particular issue has always been
a matter of concern for the administration.
Resolution
from the Faculty of the College of Natural Resources. The
faculty of the College of Natural Resources (by a voting ratio of 8 to 1)
asked that Councilor Steven Brunsfeld bring their resolution to the
council. He reminded the council that any resolution – including the one
that he was bringing forward – was simply an expression of faculty
opinion. He told the council that his college has a long history of
administrators ending up as high-paid faculty members with few attendant
responsibilities. This rewarding of former administrators is often done at
the expense of being able to hire new faculty and staff. He said that this
is not just symptomatic of his college and he could cite examples from
other colleges. Brunsfeld noted that past administrations had used this
method to ease administrators – both good and bad – out of their jobs.
This practice results in strong faculty resentment simmering below the
surface in many colleges.
It
was moved and seconded (Brunsfeld, Goble) that the Faculty Council vote on
the resolution forwarded by the faculty of the College of Natural
Resources. He explained that a yes vote would
indicate a majority approval of the principles of the resolution and a
negative vote would express the council’s disagreement with the
resolution’s statements.
Before
a general discussion of the motion, Professor Brunsfeld reviewed the
major points of the resolution’s objections to the past and present
policy of providing administrators with an "excessive golden
parachute" compensation package:
1.
These cases become common knowledge and tend to undermine taxpayer
support for the university, fostering the mistaken impression that all
faculty members are overpaid.
2.
The practice results in a morale problem when faculty members earn
considerably more than their colleagues only because of their former
administrative position.
3.
The expense of these compensation packages results in reduced faculty
and staff resources.
4.
The trust between administrators and faculty is destroyed by these kinds
of practices. Even good administrations – such as our current
administration – still practice a step-down policy that seems to be
endemic to all administrations.
5.
The students associate the high cost of education with these practices.
They wonder why we are raising fees when we have money to cover the
costs of administrative step-downs.
Professor
Brunsfeld said that this resolution is not about the past, but about the
future. He wants the Faculty Council on record as opposing these kinds
of compensation packages so that the SBOE/Regents might think twice
about continuing this practice. Brunsfeld noted that the administration
wants tools to use in getting rid of "problem" administrators
– but they don’t seem to want to use the same tools that they use for
dealing with "problem" faculty members.
Vice
Provost Thomas reviewed the "shadow salary" policy
described by Provost Pitcher to the council several weeks ago. Professor
Brunsfeld said that if the current policy can address the concerns
expressed by the College of Natural Resources faculty, then he
would be happy to withdraw his motion. Another councilor said that it
was difficult to address the resolution until the provost answered the
questions that were brought up several weeks ago:
1.
Is the current step-down policy the right policy to address the issues
raised by the resolution?
2.
Is the current policy being applied?
Councilor
Brunsfeld withdrew his motion and Councilor
Goble withdrew his second of the motion [removing the resolution from
council consideration at this meeting, but not a future meeting] pending
a discussion of current policy with the provost.
The
council asked that the provost be invited to address the step-down policy
at a future meeting. In addition to the two
questions stated above, the council would like Provost Pitcher to provide
examples of how the current policy works. In particular, they are
concerned with the time necessary to move from an administrative salary to
a regular faculty salary.
ITA
Training Proposal. Vice Provost Dene Thomas
presented the council with a proposal for the testing and training of
international teaching assistants.
