DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT (03sep10mins)




Present:          Beck, Buck, Carlo, Fech, Fuller, Logan-Peters, Miller, Peterson, Shea, Spann, Whitt


Absent:           Alexander, Wunder


Date:               Wednesday, September 10, 2003


Location:        201 Canfield Administration Building


1.0       Call to Order

            Peterson called the meeting to order at 3:01 pm.


2.0       Announcements

2.1       Welcome New Committee Member

Peterson welcomed Professor Carlo from the Psychology Department.  Carlo is replacing Professor Wolf who retired in August.


2.2       Interviews with Candidates for Director of Student Judicial Affairs

Peterson announced that there are two interviews scheduled with candidates for the position of Director of Student Judicial Affairs.  He noted that Thursday, September 11th at 4:00 will be the first interview and the second will be held on Monday, September 15th at 4:00 pm.  He asked that any Committee member that can attend, do so.


2.3       Academic Planning Committee Hearings

Peterson reported that the APC hearings for the Health and Human Performance Department are scheduled for Wednesday, September 17th from 2:00 to 4:00 pm.    Fuller stated that she would attend the meeting since Wunder may be out of town and Peterson needed to chair the Executive Committee meeting.  Peterson suggested that anyone who is available and wanting to attend the hearing from 2:00 to 3:00 pm until the Executive Committee meeting should do so.


3.0       Chancellor Perlman

The Chancellor was unable to meet with the committee due to a conflict with an earlier meeting.


4.0       Approval of 9/3/03 Minutes

Spann moved and Beck seconded approval of the minutes as amended.  Motion approved.  The Committee agreed that a message should be sent along with the copy of the minutes, to the Senators requesting that they share the minutes with their constituents.




5.0       Senate Meeting Follow Up

Fuller stated that the Executive Committee should present the Senate with a ballot whenever an election is to be conducted.  She pointed out that having only nominations from the floor puts people under pressure.  She stated that the Committee needs to plan better and that getting candidates to run in the April elections should begin early in the spring semester. 


6.0       Unfinished Business

            6.1       Wasted Time Committee

Whitt reported that other committees within some colleges are working on issues similar to those being considered by the Wasted Time Committee.  He asked Miller if he is getting any information from these college committees.  Miller stated that he is not getting information at this time. 


Logan-Peters asked what Miller is planning to present to the Senate in October from the committee.  Miller stated that he wants to present five proposals to the Senate.  Logan-Peters asked if the mechanics for making changes to the various procedures will be included.  Miller stated that it would just be the proposals.  He noted that trying to work through the mechanics of making these changes would take a considerable amount of time and he hopes that the committee will complete its work by the end of the semester. 


Peterson asked what the process will be for making these changes.  Miller stated that some of these changes will require faculty approval and some of the changes would need to be approved by the Board of Regents. 


Logan-Peters suggested action steps be included with the proposed changes.  The Committee agreed to discuss the mechanics of making the proposed changes with SVCAA Edwards when they meet with him on September 17th. 


Logan-Peters pointed out that there needs to be serious discussion on annual reviews.  She stated that some faculty members feel they should be conducted every year while others feel that this is not necessary.  Spann asked if the assessment process is being reviewed.  Logan-Peters stated that it is.  Shea asked how salary raises will be determined if annual reviews are not conducted. He also noted that conducting an annual review every two years could extend the length of time of a post tenure review.  Miller stated that faculty members would be responsible for updating their personal file on a database each year.  He noted that faculty members would have the option of asking for an annual review, even though they may not be scheduled for one that year.  Logan-Peters pointed out that only faculty members would be allowed to make this request, not administrators. 


Peterson suggested that the Wasted Time Committee should review the various processes after the changes have been implemented to see how things are working.  Fech stated that action steps should be included along with the proposals that are presented to the Senate.  He agreed that the changed processes should be reviewed to see if they are as efficient as the Wasted Time Committee had hoped they would be. 


Carlo noted that there are similar procedures amongst colleges for hiring people but promotion and tenure procedures vary widely.  He stated that faculty members within the same discipline are the most qualified to make judgments on promotion and tenure decisions.  Whitt pointed out that administrators would argue that department members are biased and would not judge objectively. 


7.0       New Business

7.1       Service on Committees

Peterson pointed out that the lack of nominations from the floor during the Senate meeting was an indication of the difficulty of getting people to serve on committees.  Griffin reported that she has had several phone calls from faculty members who state that their departments are shorthanded and that their teaching load has increased so much that they cannot serve on committees.  She stated that more and more faculty members are feeling that the time they have available to serve is very limited.  She pointed out that there are still committees that are lacking members even though President Wunder and she have been working on filling the committees throughout the summer. 


Shea noted that service is not valued by either administrators or peers, which is a particularly critical issue for promotion and tenure files.  He pointed out that faculty members often may not know the work the committees do and whether anything is accomplished. 


Logan-Peters asked if IANR faculty members have a service apportionment.  Beck stated that the apportionment is only about 2 or 3%.  She noted that service is an expected part of a faculty member’s work.  Peterson pointed out that in IANR apportionment of duties has budget implications because many faculty members are paid from different sources. 


Carlo stated that the categories of apportionment need to be redefined.  He pointed out that there is much overlap between teaching, research, and service.  He noted that teaching can be defined as a service in his department.  He stated that one of the problems in defining service is to determine whether it is at the campus, department, or committee level.  He stated that it would be helpful if the administration were to push departments to define these areas.  He pointed out that all categories are equally important. 


Fuller stated that letters to faculty members from administrators, committee chairs, the Senate President, and Deans noting the faculty member’s service and the importance of this activity is helpful to the faculty.  She noted that faculty could include these documents in tenure and promotion files so their peers and the members of the promotion and tenure committees as well as the Deans will see them and will assess service as worthy.


Beck noted that the apportionment of duties is explicit in IANR job descriptions.  Peterson pointed out that this leads to a rigid system because the apportionment of duties may not necessarily reflect what a faculty member actually does.  Spann noted that unexpected conflicts and new opportunities may result in a faculty member’s actual activities being changed somewhat during the year the initial apportionment of duties were set.  The committee agreed to put this item on the agenda when they visit with SVCAA Edwards and VC Owens.


7.2       President’s Search Committee

Beck stated that she is concerned that some members of the Board of Regents are stating that they hoped to have a list of candidates for President Smith’s position by October.  She noted that the search committee has not even been formed yet.  Peterson suggested that they should raise the question with the Chancellor. Griffin suggested that the issue could be discussed with Dick Wood, General Counsel since the Regents Bylaws specifically state that procedures need to be followed to fill this position.  The Committee agreed to check further on this issue.


Shea wondered where the funding for SVCAA Edwards and President Smith will come from when they return to departments.  The Committee questioned whether they have tenure in those departments and if faculty members in the departments had the opportunity to vote on the administrators’ tenure.  The Committee would like to discuss the issue with the Chancellor at a future meeting.  Beck questioned whether the administrators have been active in the departments they are returning to.  She pointed out that Chancellor Perlman stated that a person must be active in a department in order to be able to claim it as a tenure home. 


7.3       Search Committees

The Committee discussed whether search committees have any power if they are not allowed to rank candidates.  They questioned why anyone would want to serve on a committee if they feel that the recommendations of the committee are going to be ignored. The committee agreed to put this issue on the agenda the next time they meet with administrators. 


The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 pm.  The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, September 17 at 3:00 pm.  The meeting will be held in 201 Canfield Administration Building.  The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator and Shelley Fuller, Secretary.