EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
Present: Bryant, Fuller, King, Logan-Peters, Miller Prochaska-Cue, Sawyer, Scheideler, Siekman, Spann,
Whitt, Wolf
Absent: DiMagno
Date: Wednesday, October 10, 2001
Location: Academic Senate Office, 420 University Terrace
1.0 Call to Order
Bryant called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m.
2.0 Announcements
2.1 Honorary Degrees Nominations
Bryant reminded the committee to submit nominations for Honorary Degrees to that committee.
2.2 Martin Luther King Breakfast
Bryant reported that the Senate has supported the Martin Luther King Breakfast in the past by purchasing five seats to the event for faculty to use. The committee agreed to continue the practice. Bryant stated that the breakfast will be held on January 18, 2002 at the Cornhusker Hotel at 7:30 a.m.
2.3 Senator Raikes at the Teachers College
Bryant reported that Senator Raikes spoke at the Teachers College special event held on Tuesday, October 9. He stated that the Senator discussed the possibility of budget cuts being higher than 3% for the University. Bryant noted that Senator Raikes stated that the K-12 schools could not take much of a budget cut and that Bill 775, which gives corporations tax breaks for creating new jobs, is not working well. He stated that Senator Raikes indicated that the loan forgiveness program could be eliminated. Fuller noted that this program has not been started yet.
3.0 Approval of 10/3/01 Minutes
Wolf moved and Sawyer seconded approval of the minutes as amended. Motion approved.
4.0 University of Iowa Parking
Bryant reported that the Chronicle of Higher Education recently featured an article on the manager of parking services at the University of Iowa. Bryant noted that the manager did not use a market mentality to charge faculty and staff for permits for building garages and yet he was able to build several parking ramps on campus. He suggested that the Senate might be interested in bringing Iowas parking services manager to campus to review the parking situation here. Scheideler suggested that Bryant discuss the visit with the Parking Advisory Committee. Bryant stated that he would speak to them as well as to UNOPA and UAAD. Scheideler stated that the concept of an outside consultant was a good idea. Bryant suggested that the committee think of other outside consultants that could be considered. The committee agreed to discuss the issue further.
5.0 Retirement Cap
Bryant stated that the committee needs to work on removing the retirement cap on the University. He noted that this is an effort only to remove the 8% limit on contributions to retirement. He stated that Chancellor Perlman and the other Faculty Senate Presidents were in support of it. Spann pointed out that the more Unicameral Senators to sponsor the bill, the better chances it would have of being passed. Sawyer stated that this might be a good time for the legislature to back the bill because it would show support the university without costing the state anything at this time. Bryant stated that he would provide the committee with copies of the original statute when they discuss the issue further.
6.0 Changes to the Guidelines for Faculty Evaluations and Promotion and Tenure
6.1 Suggestions Made by Professor DiMagno
Bryant reported that Senator DiMagno suggested that additional language should be included in the section dealing with withdrawal from early tenure consideration. The amendment reads candidates are encouraged to consider the impact of an aborted tenure decision upon their standing in the external academic community, before instigating early withdrawal. Fuller stated that this language is not appropriate to the guidelines because it deals with problems in specific fields. Wolf stated that the original statement is meant to protect a faculty member who decides to withdraw early from the tenure process. He pointed out that the new language indicates that a faculty member should never go up for early tenure decision because of the possible consequences of early withdrawal. Bryant stated that DiMagno thought there were problems for departments that rely heavily on external reviewers. Schedieler stated that a policy couldnt be written for the culture of each department. Bryant pointed out that the document states that a person can elect to withdraw from the tenure evaluation process without prejudice to later evaluation and consideration. Prochaska Cue stated that it is unclear by what without prejudice is meant in the document. Wolf stated that in the context of the document, without prejudice is a phrase with a commonly understood legal meaning. Prochaska Cue questioned whether the document could include a statement on prejudice when it is a somewhat uncontrollable response. Wolf stated that prejudice within someones field cannot be prevented by the document but standards can be set within the university. Logan-Peters pointed out that the document has always included language regarding prejudice. The committee agreed not to support the proposed amendment to the Guidelines for Faculty Evaluations and Promotion and Tenure, but stated that any senator can propose amendments at the November Senate meeting.
6.2 Voting by the Senate
The committee agreed to present the proposed changes to the Senate as a complete package. Spann pointed out that any Senator can call for dividing the question. It was noted that the Senate would have to vote to divide the question and then each individual change to the document would have to be voted upon.
7.0 Evaluation of Administrators
Sawyer stated that the current policy calls for periodic review of administrators only every five years. He suggested that the Senate push to conduct evaluation of administrators independently. Sawyer suggested that this be done for those administrators who are Deans and above. Fuller asked how people would evaluate someone outside of their college. Sawyer stated that only faculty within a college could evaluate the Dean. Scheideler stated that the idea was interesting but that it would take a special committee to handle the work. She pointed out that if the objective is to make evaluations more meaningful, faculty need to be more actively involved in the review process. She stated that there does appear to be a distrust of how the process is currently handled. Spann noted that many faculty members do not want to sign their evaluations for fear of retaliation or feel that evaluations are not considered during the review process. Scheideler stated that the faculty review committee should be informed of the recommendations made on the administrator under review. Bryant suggested that an instrument similar to the Likert scale could be developed. King stated that a number of instruments exist on surveying leadership. Miller stated that the Senate should not get into the business of conducting the evaluations but should be involved in their oversight. He suggested that a faculty representative could be appointed to sit in on the review. Bryant stated that he would like to see an evaluation that deals with the administrative system and climate issues rather than personnel. Scheideler stated that two aspects of the process need to be reviewed: the system of data gathering and faculty input. Fuller pointed out that it would be interesting to survey the climate of the colleges. Whitt noted that a climate survey is currently being conducted on campus. The committee agreed to discuss the issue further.
8.0 Unfinished Business
No unfinished business was discussed.
9.0 New Business
9.1 College Profiles of Tenure/Tenure Leading Faculty
Bryant distributed information on the percentage of tenured and tenure leading faculty in the various colleges. He noted that the percentages for some of the colleges are quite low in comparison to the number of special appointments for that college. Fuller questioned whether there is a trend in tenure track lines being depleted. Logan-Peters stated that she would check to see if this information is available for past years. The committee agreed to discuss the issue further.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:48 p.m. The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be held on Wednesday, October 17th, at 3:00 p.m. at the Academic Senate Office, 420 University Terrace. Respectfully submitted, Karen Griffin, Coordinator and James King, Secretary.
