For
a WORD file of these minutes - click the disc 
2000-2001
FACULTY COUNCIL
MINUTES
2000-2001
Meeting #14, Tuesday, December 5, 2000
Present:
McKeever (chair), Smelser (vice-chair),
Bitterwolf, Brunsfeld, Chun, Coonts, Finnie, Foltz, Fritz, Glen, Goodwin,
Guilfoyle, Haggart (w/o vote), Kraut, McCaffrey, McClure, Meier, Nielsen,
Olson, Pitcher (w/o vote), Thompson Absent:
Goble, Hong, Nelson, Trivedi Observers:
6
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 November 28, 2000,
meeting as distributed.
Chair’s
Report. Professor
McKeever asked that the council members turn the completed survey forms that
the membership has been working on for the last few weeks. The survey is
designed to gather information regarding the circumstances that have led
faculty members to leave the U of Idaho during the last 5 years. McKeever
will provide the council with a summary of findings at a later date.
Provost’s
Report. Provost Brian Pitcher reported on the
following items:
Winter
Commencement Ceremonies. The winter commencement is
scheduled for the afternoon of December 16th in the Kibbie
Dome. This commencement was added two years ago and has become so well
attended that it was moved to the Kibbie Dome last year. Approximately
600 students will receive their diplomas at this year’s ceremony.
Leadership
Retreat and Action Plan Hearings. A leadership retreat to
discuss a variety of matters, including Responsibility Center Management (RCM)
issues, is scheduled for January 9, 2001. The retreat will be followed on
January 10th and January 11th with presentations by
Deans and Vice Presidents of their action plans and priorities for the
year. These will be open sessions, and the university community is invited
to attend the presentations. The provost said that he would provide the
council (and the university community) with a detailed schedule of the
presentations at a later date.
Committee
Reports. The Faculty
Council received as seconded motion from the University Curriculum
Committee, FC-01-012.
FC-01-012
– A proposal to name the administrative unit overseeing the existing
International Studies degree program the "Martin School of
International Affairs." Kurt Olsson, Dean of
the College of Letters and Science, presented the council with background
information concerning the establishment of this school. He told the council
that the International Studies Program at the U of Idaho is currently
administered by the Martin Institute for Peace Studies and Conflict
Resolution. The Martin Institute was established in 1989, as an institute
without an academic program. Eventually the International Studies program
was headquartered in the Martin Institute and its offerings were overseen by
a Board of Deans. However, this board is not able to look after the
necessary day-to day-operations of the institute.
The
proposal will make the unit overseeing this operation a school. The title
change more adequately describes the academic program, the nature of the
underlying consortium of U of Idaho departments and faculties that provide
the curriculum and staff the courses, and the fit of the program within a
network of programs across the country that commonly use the terms
"school" and "international affairs." Dean Olsson also
noted that the intent of this renaming is also to encourage the new Martin
school and other academic units to engage in truer interdisciplinary,
interdepartmental, and intercollegiate relationships. It is hoped that this
engagement will, in turn, create stronger ties among academic units that
contributed coursework to the International Studies curriculum. After some
discussion of the implications of the soon to be implemented RCM (the school
and course offering departments should benefit from this type of management)
to this new school, opportunities for students to study abroad through its
programs, and the role and mission of the new Martin school, the council adopted
FC-01-012 by unanimous voice vote.
Sabbatical
Leaves. The Sabbatical Leave Evaluation Committee
forwarded to the provost a list of faculty members recommended for leave.
Provost Brian Pitcher presented those names to the Faculty Council for
approval. Pitcher explained the process used to make the selections and
noted that the U of Idaho is authorized to award sabbaticals to 2% of its
faculty. That factor, along with internal budget allocations, means that the
U of Idaho can award approximately 10 one semester sabbaticals, and 12-14
full year sabbaticals, per academic year.
The
following faculty members were recommended for sabbatical leaves for
2001-2002 (this is the second group of faculty members approved for
2001-2002):
Steve
Beyerlein - Fall
and Spring semesters
George
LaBar - Fall
and Spring semesters
John
Bush - Fall
and Spring semesters
Paul
McDaniel - Fall
semester
Leszek
Czuchajowski - Fall
semester
Ken
Newman - Fall
and Spring semesters
Sanford
Eigenbrode - Fall
semester
Paul
Oman - Fall
and Spring semester
Tina Foriyes - Fall
semester
Dennis
Scarnecchia - Fall
semester
The
Sabbatical Leave recommendations were adopted by unanimous voice vote.
Approval
of Candidates for Degrees.
The Office of the Registrar provided the Faculty Council with a list of
degree candidates for Summer and Fall 2000. As called for in Faculty-Staff
Handbook, Section 4910 [Degrees are granted in the name of the
regents upon recommendation of the university faculty (the Faculty Council
acts for the university faculty in recommending candidates for earned
degrees); . . .], it was moved and seconded
(Foltz, Finnie) to approve the list of candidates for degrees (Summer and
Fall 2000) as submitted by the Office of the Registrar. The motion was
adopted by unanimous voice vote.
Unfinished
Business and General Orders. The council took
under consideration items coming as seconded motions from the Faculty
Affairs Committee. Before the items were presented, Chair McKeever took the
opportunity to thank the Faculty Affairs Committee for the work they
have been doing this year. She said that the council would be looking at a
number of proposals from this committee over the next few months. Some of
this work has been going on for over two years, and a lot of that work was
in consultation with the Office of the Provost.
FC-01-013
– Proposal for Revision of the Spring Semester Calendar.
Councilor Karen Guilfoyle, a member of the Faculty Affairs Committee,
presented background on the proposed changes in the Spring semester
calendar. Some years ago, WSU and the U of Idaho agreed to stagger
graduation weekends in order to relieve the pressure on local commercial
resources. The original agreement specified that the institutions
would rotate graduation weekends; however, that rotation has never occurred.
Instead, the U of Idaho has absorbed the additional time by a lengthened
Spring semester.
The
Faculty Affairs Committee recommends that
the Spring semester calendar be adjusted to provide for a semester start two
days later than presently used. This would provide for a Spring semester
that is nearly equal to the Fall semester and satisfy the Faculty-Staff
Handbook requirements for 160 instructional days in an academic year.
This recommendation would have the Spring semester start on Wednesday rather
than Monday of the first week. The net effect would be to provide one class
day of relief for both a MWF and TTH teaching schedule. The academic year
schedule would have 79 instructional days in the Fall semester and 81 in the
Spring semester. The committee also presented the council with a list of
other alternatives considered in their deliberations. The committee felt
that this solution was the proposal of "least resistance"
acceptable to the most people.
This
proposal generated a considerable amount of debate among the members
of the council and with the members of the Faculty Affairs Committee who
were in attendance at the meeting. The major discussion points and
options included:
proposal
still maintains a week difference between the U of Idaho and WSU
schedule
200
faculty members were surveyed, but more faculty members should be surveyed
WSU
does not appear to have the same 160 instruction day requirement as the U
of Idaho
major
changes would impact relationships with all Idaho higher education
institutions, particularly in the area of "distance learning"
programs – make sure that we are fully coordinated with all of them
we
have built programs and partnerships that need calendars that are as close
as possible – requiring other schools to alternate there calendars each
year to match our alternations does not make sense
ISU
has adopted our calendar and any significant change would cause problems
fall
calendar needs adjustment as well – many faculty members will be grading
papers after Christmas because of the late schedule for final examinations
definite
effect on cross-listed courses with WSU if changes are made in the
schedule – many students are taking cross-listed courses at WSU and many
departments have a large number of courses cross-listed with WSU
push
on WSU to support to the original idea of alternating schedules with every
other Spring
change
the 160 instructional days required by FSH policy
proposal
provides some opportunities for enhanced academic activities between
semesters
have
graduating seniors remain for an extra week, while others finish at the
same time as WSU
students
might prefer extending the Spring break by two days, rather than the
beginning of the semester
start
spring semester a week earlier and end the semester two weeks earlier –
graduation a week ahead of WSU
designate
a field trip period (2 days) during the semester to adjust the schedule
make
the fall and spring semesters exactly the same length
take
the two days off the end of the semester rather than the beginning
The
provost and the chair urged the council (as they continued to discuss this
subject) to keep in mind that our calendar must be coordinated with
the other institutions in the state of Idaho, and also with Washington State
University. That requirement limits our options. The provost advocates the
option proposed by the Faculty Affairs Committee.
Chair
McKeever said that it was important for the council and the Faculty Affairs
Committee to hear comments and get feedback on the proposal. We need to tell
our constituents to carefully read the minutes of this council meeting, and
also provide them with the following information:
the
SBOE regulations concerning the number of required instructional days
the
FSH statement on instructional days
the
history of the scheduling problem as outlined by the Faculty Affairs
Committee
the
options looked at by the Faculty Affairs Committee
A
question was raised about the discrepancy between
the 160 instructional days requirement stated in the U of Idaho Faculty-Staff
Handbook and the SBOE/Regents policy statement calling for 150
instructional days. A full explanation of this apparent discrepancy is
contained in an addendum to these minutes.
It
was moved and seconded (Coonts, Bitterwolf) to table FC-01-013 until the
next meeting (editorially changed by council consensus to February 6, 2001).
[The motion originally read "tabled until the next meeting" –
however, at the end of the meeting the council felt that it would not be
possible to inform the faculty adequately by that date. The first available
date for the council to take up the matter again was February 6, 2000.] The
earliest implementation of a new schedule would be for the 2002-2003
academic year. The motion to table was adopted by unanimous voice vote.
FC-01-014
– Proposal to Change FSH Section 3520 to include policy statements
relating to Non-Tenure Track Positions. The new
policy statement would read as follows:
E.
TENURABLE RANKS. The tenurable ranks are: senior instructor, assistant
professor, assistant research professor, associate professor, associate
research professor, professor, distinguished professor, research
professor, library, and extension faculties with the rank of
assistant professor, associate professor, and professor. Lecturer
and instructor are not tenurable ranks. (See FSH 3560 D). The rank of
senior instructor can be used with either a tenure or non-tenure track
position but is not a rank from which a faculty member may be promoted.
(See FSH 1565 C) Appointments made to these titles may be made as
"tenure track" or "non-tenure track" positions.
F.
NON-TENURE TRACK POSITIONS.
F-1.
Non-tenure track positions may be created upon the recommendation and
approval of the departmental or unit head, the dean, and the provost.
Non-tenure track appointments are made only on annual contracts.
F-2.
Non-Tenure track faculty are eligible for emeritus status (see FSH 1565 H)
and have the same rights and responsibilities as other faculty at the
university. Non-tenure track faculty may use the grievance processes
available to other faculty. If the appointment is full-time, non-tenure
track faculty receive the same benefits as other full-time employees
including educational privileges. Non-tenure track faculty are not
eligible for sabbatical leaves.
F-3.
Non-Tenure track positions at the assistant and associate professor level
are eligible for promotion to the next rank.
F-4.
The provost will provide the Faculty Affairs Committee with a report on
non-tenure track positions annually during the fall term.
F-5.
Conversion from non-tenure track appointments to tenure track appointments
requires the approval of the appropriate unit faculty, in accordance with
the by-laws of that unit, and compliance with all University policies for
tenure track appointments.
Professor
Philip Berger, a member of the Faculty Affairs Committee, provided the
council with background information on this proposed change. This
issue has been under consideration for over two years. Although the Faculty-Staff
Handbook provides for non-tenure track appointments, there is no
consistent policy for those appointments. The provost asked the Faculty
Affairs Committee to review the policy and his recommendations/options for
revision of the policy.
The
proposed policy is the product of the collaborative efforts of the provost
and the Faculty Affairs Committee. The result is a policy that does allow
for the appointment of non-tenure track faculty members and provides faculty
oversight to this process.
The
council asked a number of questions concerning non-tenure appointments.
Councilor McCaffrey asked whether there would be any connection between
"soft" money and the use of non-tenure track appointments.
Berger replied that there is no direct connection and that these
appointments would simply be on an annual contract basis regardless of the
funding source – the policy that now exists for any faculty member who is
not tenured.
In
response to a question by Councilor Kraut, Berger said that faculty members
in non-tenurable positions could be promoted in rank and that they
would be held to the same standards for promotion as any tenured faculty
member.
Councilor
McCaffrey noted that these positions could be converted to tenure-track
positions and wondered when the "tenure clock" would start
under those circumstances. Both Berger and Pitcher replied to this question.
As is the case now, people can be given credit for prior service. However,
it should be clearly noted that non-tenure track positions are just that –
positions. If a conversion is to be made, the position would then be opened
up for a national search. Only under the most unusual circumstances would an
employee be converted to tenure-track without conducting a national search.
In
response to another question, Professor Berger noted that while there may be
no time limit placed on how long a person might hold a non-tenure
track appointment, the committee did give some thought to having a limit
– in percentage – of the number of non-tenure track positions that
could be held in any academic unit. The provost added that these positions
are really not a factor in the growth of the university. These
positions would always remain at a very low number. There are probably no
more than 15 of them now.
Professor
Berger noted that there is a check and balance system provided in the
proposal; 1) the provost is required to report annually to the Faculty
Affairs Committee on the number of appointments, and 2) non-tenure track
positions can only be created with the recommendation and approval of the
academic unit, dean, and provost.
FC-01-104
was adopted by a unanimous voice vote.
Adjournment.
It was moved and seconded (Chun, Brunsfeld) to adjourn the meeting.
Chair McKeever adjourned the meeting at 4:55 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Peter
A. Haggart
Secretary
of the Faculty Council
ADDENDUM
The
apparent discrepancy between the Faculty-Staff Handbook
wording and the requirements as stated in State Board of Education policy,
regarding the number of instructional days required, has been researched
by the Faculty Secretary.
Section
4620 of the U of Idaho Faculty-Staff Handbook states,
". . . the fall and spring semesters together
must include at least 160 instructional days, including the
final-examination period."
Section
III. Postsecondary Affairs of the Idaho State Board of Education
Governing Policies and Procedures states, "Each
semester indicated in the Official Calendar of an institution will consist
of seventeen (17) weeks with at least fifteen (15) full weeks or
seventy-five (75) instructional days of class work or its equivalent
effort."
The
Faculty Secretary believes that the two policies are actually in
agreement. The FSH statement includes the phrase "including
the final-examination period" that is missing from the SBOE
statement. If those 10 days allocated for final-examinations (5 each
semester) are added to the 150 days required by the SBOE, the total is 160
days. In fact, if examined closely, the requirement is for 75 instructional
days each semester. If you include final-examination days, the proposed
policy falls short of this standard by one day in the Fall and exceeds it by
one day in the Spring.
The
Idaho State Board of Education Governing Policies and Procedures also
states an academic schedule for any given year " . . . must be
presented to the chief executive officer of the institution for ‘review
and action’ no later than October preceding the start of the planned
academic year. This schedule will be designated the Official Calendar for
the institution and will be distributed in October to the Office of the
State Board of Education . . ." That means that the
earliest any schedule change acted on in 2001 could become effective would
be for the 2002-2003 academic year.
Return
to the Faculty Council Home Page 
