|
|
|
Faculty Assembly Minutes
|
March 13, 2002
|
||
| CLAS Home > For Faculty > Faculty Governance > Faculty Assembly > Attendance Minutes of the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences Faculty AssemblyAttending: Anderson, Arnone, Beckman, Bonacina, Brochu, Broffitt, Buss, Darling, Dominguez, Ehrstine, Fethke, Franklin, Freeman, Gibson, Gidal, Guentner, Hatasa, Huang, Klein, Lara-Braud, Larsen, Latham, Leddy, Lutgendorf, Marvin, Maynard, Méndez, J. Nelson, Norbeck, Oden, Peters, Pietrzyk, Plapp, Randell, Redlawsk, Silliman, Slatton, Solow, Stay,Ton-That, Trachsel, Whitmore, Young Excused absence: Amert, Hanley, Heard, Hesli, Honey, Lafky, Polumbaum, Schwalm, Snider Absent: Abbas, Arthur, Boggess, Borreca, Creekmur, Farrell, Fielding, Fitch, Gross, Heilenman, Helms, Hochstrasser, Jones, Kleiber, Klemm, Lewis, Miller, Mills, Niño-Murcia, Rigal, Robertson, Schnell, Spiess, Squire, Thompson, Tomasini, Troyer, Vlastos, Wilcox, Woodard Visitors: Fred Antczak, Associate Dean; JoAnn Castagna, CLAS Administration; Executive Associate Dean Raúl Curto Vice Chair John Solow (Economics) presided over the meeting in Chair Vicki Hesli's absence. 1. Vice Chair Solow's resignation. Solow delivered the following statement: I understand that the vote taken last month on the proposal to amend the Manual of Procedure to make voting faculty who have less than a 50% appointment on the budget of CLAS ineligible to serve on the Executive Committee was not meant as a statement about my personal contribution to the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. This is not simply a personal matter for me; it is a matter of principle. Faculty in the affected departments, including myself, can and do work tirelessly for the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. This amendment would deny us the opportunity, should we so desire, to present our records of service to our CLAS colleagues for consideration, and would deny them the opportunity to choose one of us as their representative on the Executive Committee, merely on the basis of where our salary lines are found in the University budget. The Dean and the Executive Committee are obviously uncomfortable having
faculty who are not at least 50% on the budget of the College involved
in the governance of the College at its highest levels. While it has been
pointed out that such faculty would still be eligible to serve on the
Educational Policy Committee and on Faculty Assembly, I do not believe
I can serve effectively, and I cannot in good conscience take an active
role, in the governance of a College whose Dean and Executive Committee
consider me at best a second class citizen, qualified to serve at some
levels but somehow unworthy to deal with the really important matters
of the College. It is with considerable sadness, therefore, that I have
submitted my resignation from the Faculty Assembly of the College of Liberal
Arts and Sciences, effective at the adjournment of the March 13, 2002
meeting. 2. The minutes of the Faculty Assembly meeting of February 20, 2002 were approved with no changes. 3. Proposed revision of the College's clinical faculty policy. Executive Associate Dean Raúl Curto explained that the revised clinical faculty policy would allow the College to make unsalaried clinical appointments. Unsalaried clinical faculty would perform functions similar to those of adjunct faculty, but would be appointed and evaluated under the criteria for clinical faculty appointments rather than those for tenure-track faculty appointments. Like salaried clinical-track appointments, unsalaried appointments would be authorized only in departments with academic programs subject to professional accreditation. (Four departments in the College currently have salaried clinical faculty: Music, Psychology, Social Work, and Speech Pathology & Audiology.) Curto said that unsalaried clinical appointments would be made for people who performed periodic or short-term teaching functions, such as supervising internships, teaching clinical courses or sections thereof, or sitting on thesis committees. These functions would be either unpaid or compensated on a non-salaried basis. He said that since there had been some concern among faculty a few years ago when clinical faculty appointments were instituted, he wanted to make sure this revision of the policy was discussed in the Assembly and had the approval of the faculty. Solow asked why the policy called for three-year appointments when unsalaried clinical faculty would have only periodic or short-term duties. Curto replied that it was a matter of efficiency, and that departments would be able to make shorter-term appointments if they knew they would require the services of the individual only once. But if the person would be needed on a periodic basis, it would be much easier for all involved not to have to go through the appointment process every time the person was called to service. The revised clinical faculty policy was approved on a voice vote. 4. Discussion of criteria for adjunct faculty rank. At the Executive Committee's request, the Faculty Assembly discussed the section on "Appointment to Adjunct Faculty Status" in the Handbook for CLAS Faculty. The EC asked for feedback on three options for revision of the following statement: "Adjunct faculty appointments carry faculty rank (adjunct instructor; adjunct assistant, associate, and full professor). The expectations at each rank are similar to those for the same rank on the tenure track." The first option was to revise the statement regarding expectations of rank thus: "The rationale for adjunct faculty rank must be based on the University and Collegiate criteria for tenure-track faculty rank and departmental criteria for rank if those exist. The criteria will be interpreted in light of the types of teaching, publication, and service that are appropriate to the professional environment in which the candidate works and the impact of his/her work on that environment." The second option was to make all adjunct appointments at the rank of adjunct lecturer, except in cases of unusually distinguished individuals. Under this option, adjunct faculty would not be eligible for promotion. The third option was to propose a new and separate faculty track for appointments of some individuals now appointed as adjunct faculty. These individuals would be distinguished professionals who contribute to teaching but do not have traditional academic portfolios. Dean Curto explained that the current policy of evaluating adjuncts using tenure-track criteria was often not workable in practice, because many adjuncts had their primary career outside academia and it was difficult to evaluate their accomplishments using academic standards. Member Virginia Dominguez (Anthropology), who is an EC member, said that the EC's discussion revolved around the questions of what a university professorship was and whether that was eroded by evaluating adjunct faculty using different standards. Member Jim Broffitt (Statistics & Actuarial Science) said the topic was discussed in the most recent DEO meeting, and most DEOs agreed that adjuncts are teachers, not researchers, and the DEOs did not want to spend time evaluating them for promotion. The DEOs were in favor of doing away with adjunct ranks and suggested "adjunct faculty" as a title, rather than "adjunct lecturer," since some considered "lecturer" to be an undesirable rank. The Assembly discussed the advantages and disadvantages of having adjunct ranks. Member Jael Silliman (Women's Studies) argued that ranks were important as an incentive and reward for adjunct faculty who made important contributions to a number of programs, sometimes giving many years of service. Member John Nelson (Political Science) agreed that ranks for adjuncts could give recognition to people who often were not well compensated. He also noted that there was a semantic difficulty with the title "adjunct faculty," as it did not give adjuncts something to call themselves. Several members observed that there was wide variation in the job description of adjunct faculty across the College, and that adjuncts were not always primarily teachers, since research associates sometimes became adjunct faculty in order to direct graduate work. Others maintained that even considering the wide variation in adjunct duties, a single rank fit the vast majority of cases, and that a "one rank fits all" policy would be easier with respect to paperwork. A single rank would also prevent any possibility of promotion reviews for adjunct faculty becoming an onerous burden on departments. Dean Curto said that eliminating ranks would have no effect on what adjuncts were paid. He explained that adjunct appointments were made when a department had a particular need that matched the specific expertise of a non-faculty member, and that the compensation for the job was negotiated independently of rank. He further noted that adjuncts are limited to 49% appointments, which meant they could teach only one course per semester, unlike lecturers, who must have at least 50% appointments. Member Carol Fethke (Economics) suggested that there be two ranks for adjuncts, adjunct and senior adjunct, which would allow for some of the incentives ranks provided, but which would be distinguishable from the three-tiered tenure-track structure. Member Philip Lutgendorf (Asian Languages & Literature) asked for an unofficial vote on the various options. Nine members were in favor of the first option, especially if it were amended to state "teaching, publication, or service," rather than "teaching, publication, and service." About 20 members were in favor of the second option. No member expressed preference for the third option. 5. Expression of gratitude for Professor Solow's contributions. Nelson moved that the Assembly endorse the following resolution: The Faculty Assembly of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences is grateful for Professor John Solow's many contributions to the College. It especially appreciates his efforts in the Assembly. It welcomes his full-fledged participation in the Assembly. And it urges him to withdraw his resignation from the membership and leadership of this body. The motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote. Solow thanked the Assembly for the gesture but declined to reconsider his resignation. 6. Nominating committee. Members Roberta Marvin (Music), Jerry Maynard (Exercise Science), and Mary Trachsel (Rhetoric) were introduced as the nominating committee. The committee acts to ensure that there will be at least one candidate nominated for each Assembly office that will be open for next year (chair, vice chair, and secretary). Next year's officers will be elected at next month's Faculty Assembly meeting. Members interested in serving as officers were encouraged to make their interest known to the nominating committee. 7. Proposed revision of the Foreign Language Incentive Program. Lutgendorf presented the EPC's proposal to revise FLIP so that students who had studied a foreign language successfully in high school would have an incentive to study another (less commonly taught) language at the UI. The current program, which gives students an incentive to study further a language that they studied in high school, has had the unintended effect of funneling prospective UI students into Spanish classes at the high school level, since many high schools can provide four years of instruction in only one foreign language and that language is invariably Spanish. The current program gives 4 s.h. of ungraded additional credit to students who have completed four years of high school foreign language study if they earn at least a B- in the fourth semester of that same language at the UI. If they choose to take the fifth semester course in that language rather than the fourth semester, they can earn 8 s.h. of ungraded additional credit if they pass the course with at least a B-. The revised policy would eliminate the additional credit for fourth semester courses, and reduce to 4 s.h. the additional credit that could be earned by taking a fifth semester course. In addition to revising the above option, the proposed policy would create a new option for students with four years of high school foreign language study. If they chose to study a different language than the one they studied in high school, they could earn 2 s.h. of ungraded additional credit if they pass a first semester course with a B- or higher. Then, if they went on to take the second semester course and pass with a B- or higher, they would earn another 2 s.h. of ungraded additional credit. The proposed policy would allow students to exercise both options, so the total amount of additional credit that could be earned would still be 8 hours. However, students would have to take three courses in two different languages to earn that much credit, whereas the current policy allows them to earn up to 8 s.h. by taking only one course in a language they have already studied. Several members expressed surprise and displeasure that the College would grant students so much additional credit for no additional work beyond course requirements. JoAnn Castagna (CLAS Administration) pointed out that the current program had been approved by the Faculty Assembly ten years ago and had been in effect since then. Associate Dean Fred Antczak said that the ungraded credit was intended to recognize work done at the high school level beyond what was required for admission to the College. Solow asked whether it would be appropriate to give students additional credit for studying a language that was closely related to one they had already studied successfully. Several members from the language faculty assured the Assembly that even closely related languages were different enough to be challenging, and that first-year courses were quite intensive learning experiences. Fethke said that four hours of additional credit was too much to grant for taking one course. She said she would rather see a program that gave incentives for students to study abroad. Members Lutgendorf and Glenn Ehrstine (German) both maintained that students became interested in studying abroad by taking foreign language courses, and that the revised FLIP policy would provide effective incentives to get them interested in taking such courses. Several members said they were not in favor of allowing students to exercise both options of the revised policy, but agreed that the revised policy was much better than the current policy. Member Ed Norbeck (Physics & Astronomy) maintained that the proposed policy was unclear as written and suggested that it needed to be reworded to make it more understandable. A motion to call the question was made and seconded but failed on a hand vote. The proposal was tabled until the next meeting. 8. Adjournment. The meeting had already run beyond its appointed time and so adjourned. Respectfully submitted,
|
|||
© 2008 The University
of Iowa, College of Liberal Arts
and Sciences |