April 5, 2000

PRESENT:  Hatfield, Sherwood, Kommers, Peed, Neff, Leech, Benham,
          Howard, Duncan, Larsen, Jost, Harkin, Mooney, Weaver, Amend,
          Locke, Lansverk, Levy, Bogar, Bond, Jelinski, Lynch,
          Swinford for Fisher, Prawedzienski, Scott, Griffith,

ABSENT:   Ag Econ, O'Neill, McDermott, Burgess, Anderson, Nehrir,
          Francis, McKinsey, Butterfield.

The meeting was called to order at 4:10 PM by Chair John Amend.  A
quorum was present.  The minutes of the March 29, 2000, meeting were
approved as distributed.

Chair's report - John Amend.
     - There will be a President's Executive Council/UGC Steering
     Committee retreat on April 11, from 3-5 PM.
          - If there are topics to be added to the retreat agenda,
          contact John, Ron Larsen, or the Faculty Council Office.
          - Topics to be discussed (left from the Fall  agenda)
          include faculty workload, resources following enrollment,
          cost of a new core, and replacement of tenure track faculty
          with adjuncts.
     - The Lewis Hall renovation is continuing.  The contract is
     written so the work has to be done between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
     which may be so the work can be monitored, but it has resulted in
     some classes being canceled because of noise and dust.  People
     are working outside the building as much as possible because of
     the disruption.
          - Has the task force which is to deal with some of these
          issues met?
          - Could some renovated space be held for other purposes?
     - Post-tenure review came up briefly in today's meeting between
     President Roark, Joe Fedock, John Amend and Ron Larsen..

Faculty Affairs Committee report - Jack Jelinski.
     - Proposed amendments to Faculty Handbook Sections 463.00,
     616.00, 733.00 and 734.00 (Post-Tenure Review) were distributed.
     Representatives were asked to distribute the information
     [attached] in their departments and discuss it.
     - The Faculty Handbook provides for special reviews, but in the
     past, a review hasn't been required when faculty annual review
     evaluations have been below expectations or unsatisfactory.  This
     proposal provides for a remediation plan in such cases, which can
     be appealed if the faculty member is not satisfied with it
     (Section 463.00).
     - The number of below average and unsatisfactory evaluations is
     very low.
          - However, if a faculty member receives a below average or
          unsatisfactory evaluation, a remediation plan is developed
          by the faculty member's department head.
          - If there is a second below average or unsatisfactory
          annual review, and if the faculty member's primary review
          committee agrees with the department head's rating, a
          post-tenure review is initiated.  It will take place after a
          one-year preparation period to allow time for the faculty
          member to prepare a dossier for the review process.
          - This post-tenure review follows the same procedures and
          uses the same criteria standards as a regular tenure review.
          - If a negative recommendation is made at the end of the
          review, a grievance hearing is initiated.
          - Based upon the report of the grievance hearing board and
          the recommendations of the post-tenure review, the President
          will decide if the faculty member should retain tenure
          status.  If tenure is revoked, the faculty member will
          receive a terminal contract.
     - During discussion, the following points were made:
          -The perception that there is a need for such a policy is
          probably greater than the actual need.
          - Should the faculty member involved be allowed to choose
          some of the primary review committee members, perhaps from
          outside the department?
          - During post-tenure review, criteria and standards for
          which rank are used?  Is tenure maintained separate from
          - It may seem reasonable to review the individual according
          to the standards and criteria in affect at the time the
          faculty member was hired, but there is difficulty in keeping
          records of these standards and criteria and in the
          interpretation of them.
          - The President still has the option of calling for a
          special review.
          - Concern was expressed that "below expectations" and
          "unsatisfactory" ratings are treated the same.  If they are
          treated the same, is there any point in the two ratings?
          Might the policy call for two different responses - if
          "below expectations", a remediation plan only and if
          "unsatisfactory",  post-tenure review?
          - This policy is problematic for Extension faculty, because
          they report to two entities with different expectations.
     - Discussion of the policy will continue.

Report from the Strategic Planning and Budget Committee - Peter
     - Handouts containing information about the university budget
     were distributed.
     - At the March 31 SPBC meeting, the Faculty Council
     representatives presented a proposal based on the 98 budget
     recommendations made by Faculty Council.  At the same meeting, a
     financial plan to deal with the deficit in athletics was
     approved, although the Faculty Council representatives voted
     against it, with the rationale that the entire budget should be
     considered and then be voted on at one time.
     - Both the President and the Chair of SPBC would like
     recommendations to come to the committee in terms of broad
     program categories.
     - What recommendation can Faculty Council make, realizing
     in-depth recommendations and assessments can't be made on the
     basis of information available to the Council?
     - It was suggested the Faculty Council representatives on SPBC
     come up with some proposals and bring them to Faculty Council.
     The Council will consider them and vote to endorse them or not.
     - In response to questions about the budget, it was pointed out
     that the legislature may include money in the university system's
     appropriation for certain areas, but the money is not earmarked
     and the appropriation is given as a lump sum.

As there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:10 PM.

Joann Amend, Secretary