Executive Board
Meeting Minutes
February 22, 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); J. Maves (Design Caucus Chair); G. Palermo (Academic
Affairs Council Chair); G. Phye (Education Caucus Chair); B. Robinson
(Judiciary and Appeals Council Chair); D. Vrchota (Governance Council
Chair); T. Zanish-Belcher (FS Secretary)
Absent: C. Heising
(Engineering Caucus Chair); B. Mennecke (Business Caucus Chair); E.
Thacker (Vet Med Caucus Chair); A. Van Der Valk (LAS Caucus Chair);
Yang, B. (Agriculture Caucus Chair)
Guest: B. Dillon
(Ames Tribune)
Call to Order
- 3:10 p.m.
Consent Agenda
- 3:10 p.m.
Agenda
Minutes, Executive
Board, January 25, 2005
Robinson moved,
Girton seconded and the consent agenda was approved.
Announcements
and Remarks - 3:15 p.m.
President
Agarwal has asked
ISU Chief Information Officer Jim Davis to present to the Senate at
its April meeting. The Athletics Council representative, Paula Morrow,
will also present to the Senate sometime in the spring.
As Robinson had
to leave, he updated the group on the changes in regards to the late
information issue for promotion and tenure. The concern about communicating
with the candidate has been added to the language. The Executive Board
agreed to accept the suggested change (except for the last 2 sentences).
Girton moved, Baldwin seconded, and the motion will be brought to
the floor of the Senate.
President-Elect
Baldwin reported
on the Spring conference, which will be held April 1-2. There will
be 3 segments on climate, faculty life and betterment with keynote
speakers and panels.
May 25 has been
scheduled for the Executive Board retreat with the President and the
Provost.
Provost
The Provost reported
that the budget discussions are being continued, and he is hopeful
that the Partnership for Transformational Excellence will go forward.
If not, they are also working on procedures for supplemental tuition.
The Provost noted that there will be a 4 year plan, but not necessarily
4 year funding.
Palermo asked
if the Board could discuss the electronic distance education strategic
plan. The plan involved Extension, but not any faculty. Palermo felt
there should have been faculty involvement and is concerned that the
plan may be out of context to larger strategic plan.
Agarwal felt
the original request was not for a strategic plan, but for a "state
of affairs."
Provost feels
we should focus on inter-institutional cooperation, market assessment,
and context. The Council of Provosts (COPs) will look at this, and
decide what to do with it. There may be some type of submission to
a Board of Regents committee. There definitely needs to be more thorough
discussion or context for the report.
The Provost also
reported on other changes related to the Board of Regents reorganization,
including the Provosts at the 3 institutions having more work and
responsibility. They will now make proposals to the BOR committee
on education and student affairs.
Will there be
any change in faculty input on curricular or academic program issues?
The Provost responded no. However, while the BOR will still approve
curricular changes, they will deal more with the plans (as opposed
to specific changes). He doesn't exactly know how this work, but faculty
will still be involved. There will be a need to balance faculty efforts
with the larger inter-institutional planning. What will the process
of vetting be? The Provost sees the institutions focusing on areas
of curriculum as opposed to precise curriculum.
Palermo commented
that this would put pressure on the cooperative relationship between
the Provosts and the institutions.
Agarwal also
noted that the COPs group also includes the 3 Faculty Senate presidents.
The Provost also
noted that the distance education report should have come after the
universities completed their strategic plans. Agarwal said he thinks
the report should not go to the BOR, but should include a market assessment.
Old Business
A. Changes to
Handbook reg P&T Process-J&A
See discussion
above.
Miscellaneous
changes in Handbook reg Evaluation of NTE Faculty-Governance
Vrchota reported
on the status of this, which was pulled by Palermo from the Consent
Agenda at the last Faculty Senate. She responded to each of the issues
raised by Palermo during the Faculty Senate meeting. This is how she
will present it to the Senate:
Yes, this motion
came to the Senate through the Governance Council
In regards to
the time frame, this language was approved by the Senate in Feb. 2004
and has been in the handbook. Palermo said his question mainly related
to any subsequent changes.
She also noted
that this was merely changing language around in the handbook, in
order to organize it better.
In regards to
footnote #2 and whether the changes are editorial or substantial.
Palermo noted this caught his attention due to the FDAR request in
regards to the title of Adjunct Instructor. Should we hold off due
to these additional discussions?
Agarwal noted
that changes in policy will be discussed separately and this will
need to be made clear to the Senate.
This will be
reintroduced to the Senate under old Business.
New Business
A.
Governance Council
Vrchota then
reported on the Proposal for modification of for the titles of Distinguished
and University Professor. The purpose of revision was to ensure that
they were considered independent forms of recognition. An introductory
paragraph has also been added.
The Executive
Board then discussed the following issue raised by Palermo that this
policy is inconsistent with our promotion and tenure policy, in regards
to scholarship related to teaching or professional practice.
The Executive
Board agreed that the focus for the University Professor should be
on changing the discipline. But, there must also be more than changing
the field, candidates should be viewed in a holistic context. They
must also contribute elsewhere in the university through their performance.
They must have
a substantive contribution in other areas of faculty responsibility.
Some recommended
revisions: Above all else candidates must have made significant contributions
in their scholarship through research, professional practice, and
teaching. They must also have had a significant impact or improved
the quality of the discipline. In addition, there should also be outstanding
performance in one other area of faculty responsibility. Vrchota will
revise and bring back to the Executive Board.
Girton moved,
Baldwin seconded to extend the meeting by 15 minutes.
The Provost noted
that hiring a professor and possibly bringing them in as a Distinguished
Professor shouldn't infringe on our procedures. He really feels this
should be a limited number of individuals.
FDAR:
Crase distributed documents
related to the issues FDAR is handling:
Professional development
opportunities for untenured faculty
Change to Faculty Handbook
Concerning Adjunct Instructor
The Executive
Board will consider these at a March 1 meeting. The agenda for the
Faculty Senate will also be approved at that time,
Council Reports
A. Academic Affairs
B. FDAR
C. Governance
D. J&A
E. RPA
VII. Approval
of the Agenda for the Faculty Senate Meeting-March 8, 2005.
Adjourn - 5:00
p.m.
The meeting adjourned
at 5:15 p.m and will meet again on March 1, 2005; 3:10-5:00 p.m.
NEXT MEETING
March 01, 2004 3:10 -5:00
107 Lab of Mechanics
