Executive Board
Meeting Minutes
January 25, 2005 | 3:00-5:00 p.m.
107 Lab of Mechanics
Present: S. Agarwal
(FS President); B Allen (Provost); C. Baldwin (FS President-Elect);
S. Carlson (Assoc. Provost); S. Crase (FDAR Council Chair); A.M. Fiore
(Family and Consumer Sciences Caucus Chair); J. Girton (Past-President
& RPA Chair); C. Heising (Engineering Caucus Chair); D. Holger
(Assoc. Provost); J. Maves (Design Caucus Chair); B. Mennecke (Business
Caucus Chair); G. Palermo (Academic Affairs Council Chair); G. Phye
(Education Caucus Chair); B. Robinson (Judiciary and Appeals Council
Chair); E. Thacker (Vet Med Caucus Chair); D. Vrchota (Governance
Council Chair); M. Wortman (Past President); T. Zanish-Belcher (FS
Secretary)
Absent: A. Van
Der Valk (LAS Caucus Chair); Yang, B. (Agriculture Caucus Chair)
Call to Order
- 3:10 p.m.
Agarwal called
the meeting to order at 3:15 p.m.
Consent Agenda
- 3:10 p.m.
Agenda
Minutes, Executive
Board, January 4, 2005
Baldwin moved,
Girton seconded, and the consent agenda was approved.
The Executive
Board then moved into Executive session to hear a report from Max
Wortman, on behalf of the Honorary Degrees Committee. The Committee
has recommended 3 candidates for consideration, in ranked order.
Wortman briefly
described the qualifications for an honorary degree from ISU. Candidates
must have made a major contribution to society as a whole. The Committee
receives nominations from the faculty or academic unit. There should
be a career of superlative intellectual or creative activity. So far,
we have tended to favor those with an Iowa State or an Iowa tie.
Girton moved,
Thacker seconded, and the list was forwarded on to the President.
Baldwin moved,
Heising seconded and the Executive Board exited the Executive session.
Announcements
and Remarks - 3:15 p.m.
President
Agarwal made
the following remarks:
There are University
and Distinguished Professor Committee vacancies and a need for nominations.
Dan Saftig from
the ISU Foundation will speak to the Senate at the next meeting. Are
there any questions from the Executive Board?
Palermo: how
will the strategic plan and reallocation plan work together, and how
they will mesh with fundraising priorities? Conceptually, how does
the Foundation position and strategize for named professorships?
Phye suggested
that he discuss the Foundation management of private foundation donations
and gifts.
Agarwal asked
for folks to send him any ideas.
Baldwin suggested
asking about the open records issue.
How they are
addressing the alumni for the newly created College of Human Sciences?
How do they define allegiances to the institution? How are they articulating
the new mission of the College?
Finally, future
visitors to be invited to speak to the Faculty Senate include Paula
Morrow, as Iowa State's NCAA Representative, and Olivia Madison as
Dean of the Library.
Phye suggested
Jim Davis as the CIO.
The next Board
meeting with the President will be a lunch on Feb. 15.
President-Elect
Baldwin had two
announcements:
They are finalizing
the date for spring conference to ensure the attendance of the President
and Provost.
The Executive
Board retreat with the President and Provost will be May 25 from 12-5.
Palermo pointed
out that with a later meeting in the summer, the budget will already
have been passed.
Provost
The main issues
now relate to the leadership changes in the Board of Regents and what
this might mean for the budget. The current president pro tem—Regent
Downer (IC) will continue budget planning along the previous lines.
Old Business
A. Request from
Department of Construction Engineering to allow them to recruit PhD
students and appoint them as lecturers-FDAR
Chuck Jahren
from the Department was there to answer any questions related to the
Departmental request.
Crase presented
the following language recommended for the handbook:
"Adjunct
Instructor may also be used for post MS students in specific departments
where a limited number of PhD students come with previous relevant
experience (with the relevancy to
be decided by
the academic department). Each specific department/program proposing
such use of Adjunct Instructor must receive approval by the Provost
and Faculty Senate before beginning to use it in that way."
Crase then read
an e-mail from Senator B. Woodman who expressed concern over the emphasis
on the use of the adjunct position, when we have been trying to abolish
it. Also, creating a second tier student (who are financially secure).
Phye noted that
any inequality could result in unionization.
Baldwin described
how Vet Med is using this classification. She feels this should be
determined by the Departments. The issue is whether these individuals
have experience that should be shared with students.
Crase noted that
neither Construction Engineering or Animal Science have terminal degrees.
Palermo asked
what degrees they are here for, Ph.D or board certified? Either or,
or both.
Agarwal felt
that we need to be clear about why the Lecturer classification cannot
be used.
The Board returned
its discussion to the FDAR Council statement to make comments:
Vrchota had concerns
about the broadness of the statement. She feels there is a need for
more precise criteria.
The Board felt
there is a need to capture the uniqueness of this position. Girton
pointed out this could be another opportunity to get rid of faculty.
We do need to reflect the special nature of this position.
Vrchota suggested
that Crase use language similar to the criteria for the University
and Distinguished Professor awards, focusing on their contributions
to professional practice.
This could include
supervisory experience or other kinds of recognition.
FDAR will continue
to look into this.
Girton suggested
having examples of test cases.
B. Changes to
Handbook regarding the Promotion &Tenure Process-Judiciary &Appeals
Robinson presented
a revised proposal related to the addition of information during the
promotion and tenure process.
Vrchota recommended
using language that follows the regular path. Recommended “all relevant
information…” and remove favorable and unfavorable. Robinson disagreed.
Palermo suggested
removing by the department chair. The wording currently states the
information is “Forwarded by the chair.” What about the information
going to the college committee and the Dean?
Girton noted
that all implies that things could be forwarded in a file that the
candidate does not want in there. Could this not be applied to non-mandatory
cases? The Provost stated that it should.
There is a need
to distinguish between additional information and appeal situations.
This refers specifically to cases that are still active.
Baldwin was concerned
about disfavorable information, could this include allegations? The
Provost talked about the difficulty between the promotion & tenure
process and due process. It is still an issue in regards to when can
someone else add information? When does the candidate have the chance
to respond?
The Provost sees
this as being about having as much information as you can and doesn't
feel we can anticipate every situation, but we will handle it on a
case by case basis.
Heising was also
concerned about the Dept. Chair making decisions about what is relevant.
This would place these decisions in the hands of only one person.
What about the
candidate? Will they know about new information? How can they respond?
This is currently
new business on the Faculty Senate agenda. While the Executive Board
agrees to the principle, there are problems with the language. Robinson
will revise and the Executive Board will reconsider.
Miscellaneous
changes in Handbook regarding NTE appointments-Governance
The changes refer
to section 5.2 on the promotion and tenure process for review and
evaluation of NTT appointments. This is only to make it consistent
with other language in the handbook. The motion is to accept and recommend
for inclusion in the handbook. There is nothing new, just shifting
language from one section to another.
Phye, Fiore seconded,
and the motion passed. There was one abstention.
New Business
As there was
no New Business, there was then a recommendation to cancel the February
8 Faculty Senate meeting, and replace it with another meeting of the
Executive Board. The Board agreed. Agarwal will confirm at a later
date.
Council Reports
A. Academic Affairs
Palermo then
reported on a variety of proposals related to the handbook. They do
concern academic standards, but should they come to the Academic Affairs
Council or directly to the Executive Board?
1. The first
is from Political Science, which has a special grade point requirement.
They would like to modify the policy to extend to those courses taken
outside the department for the degree. Since there is already an established
grade point policy, this would be managed at the departmental level.
2. The second
relates to a department name change. The current catalog has an editorial
omission of special grade point requirement, and the department would
like it back in.
3. Related to
the curriculum in biology, they want to add or create a new standard
for passing grade, and change credits for minors. They would also
like to apply the pass standard to the minors (in Agriculture and
Liberal Arts and Sciences). Tentatively approved.
4. Finally, there
is a new program seeking special GPAs. Should there be a broader discussion
since this is an enrollment management technique?
Girton was concerned
about this setting a precedent and feels it needs some form of approval
from the FS. Does this go against the university standard of the D?
The Board agreed that Academic Affairs should hear this and make a
recommendation to the Executive Board.
Palermo finally
noted that currently students, when dropping designated repeats (3
times), have to fill out a card. The Registrar just wants them to
continue (without the card), but this does affect student process.
The Board agreed
that the majority of these proposals could simply go to the Academic
Affairs Council.
Girton moved,
Thacker seconded, and the Board meeting was adjourned.
NEXT MEETING
February 22,
2004 3:10 -5:00
107 Lab of Mechanics
