Faculty Caucus Minutes
April 25, 2007
(Approved)
Call to Order
The
Senate Chairperson called the meeting to order immediately following the Senate
meeting.
Approval of
Faculty Caucus Minutes of 2/21/07
Motion: By Senator Coleman, seconded
by Senator Borg, to approve the Faculty Caucus Minutes of February 21, 2007.
The minutes were unanimously approved.
Advisory Item:
04.06.07.01 ASPT Clarification: Consideration for
Associate Professor Promotion During Fourth Year (Mike
Plantholt/University Review Committee)
Following
the February 21, 2007 Faculty Caucus meeting, the University Review Committee
further revised its language concerning promotion to Professor from Associate
Professor during the fourth year of service as an Associate Professor. The
revised language presented to the Caucus at this meeting read as follows:
“Ordinarily an Associate
Professor must have served fulltime for at least four years as Associate
Professor at Illinois State and have completed at least ten full-time
years as a faculty member at the college or university level. Review
for promotion to Professor may occur in the tenth year of service and/or
the fourth year as Associate Professor; promotion to
Professor may take effect in the next year. Faculty who
hold…”
Senator Alferink: I am puzzled as to how to
interpret the revised language. If I interpret as I think I am supposed to, the
ten years of service is no longer serves any function in this document. Is that
correct? You have to have served four years as an Associate Professor and if
you have done that, it does not matter if you have served ten years on the
faculty.
Professor Plantholt: That is not the intent
here. As you remember, on February 21, this was approved by the Senate, but a
number of senators expressed confusion and did not understand that you could be
reviewed the year before you were eligible and then be immediately promoted. A
number of people thought that you had to have finished four years as an Associate Professor before being reviewed
for promotion. So, after going back to the URC, we tried to make it clear that
you did not have to wait until after the fourth year, but could start that
review process in the fourth year and
also, as the rules were in the past, in your tenth year of service.
Senator Alferink: But it is an “and/or”.
Senator Crothers: The first sentence makes that reading less
complicated. The first sentence says, “Ordinarily, an Associate Professor must
have served fulltime for at least four years as an Associate Professor and
completed at least ten years full-time years as a faculty member at the college
or university level.” The rest of it is just saying that “Review for promotion
to Professor may occur in the tenth year of service and/or the fourth year as
Associate Professor.” Are you saying that one is in contradiction of the other?
Senator Alferink: I just find them confusing,
personally.
Professor Plantholt: It was a little tricky to
write because maybe the tenth year or maybe the fourth year comes first. So,
there are different situations in which one is going to be the situation that
holds you up. That is why the “and/or” is there. Still, there is the rule that
you need the ‘at least ten years’ and the ‘at least four years.’
Senator Borg: Is the key point here four years
as Associate Professor at Illinois State or its possible to be an Associate
Professor elsewhere? For example, is it possible from someone to be ten years
elsewhere and four years as an Associate Professor here?
Professor Plantholt: Before this came before the
Senate, it had always been ten years as a faculty member at the college or
university level. So that could include service elsewhere. The change that was
being implemented here was that it previously said four years as Associate
Professor, but now we changed it to four years as an Associate Professor at
Senator Borg: Might I suggest that “Review for promotion to professor may
occur in the tenth year of a faculty member’s university service and the fourth
year as Associate Professor at Illinois State University.”
Senator Crothers: I am becoming increasingly
worried. We are trying very hard to recruit highly influential people. We hire
someone at the Associate Professor level. A year and a half later, they, for
example, publish extraordinary work, and we tell them it is two and a half
years before they can be a Professor because they have not been at ISU for four
years.
Provost Presley: The word “ordinarily” and
the word “may” are the important words there. I have the same concern that you
do. We want there to be guidelines for the average person going through the
process, but I want it to be flexible enough for those who do extraordinary work.
Senator Smith: It seems that the first
sentence stipulates the rules quite clearly. So, if we could find away to get
rid of the second sentence, that would perhaps be desirable. So, my suggestion
is that we would add “prior to” to that sentence. It then would read, “have completed at least ten full-time years as a
faculty member at the college or university level prior to review for promotion to professor.” End of
paragraph.
Professor Plantholt: That would change the meaning. Right now, you can be reviewed in your
tenth year. You do have to have finished the tenth year.
Senator Mallory: If I may clarify. The first sentence specifies your requirement for
service and the second sentence specifies when you may come up for review.
Correct?
Professor Plantholt: That is
correct.
Senator Borg:
Perhaps we can accept Senator Smith’s suggestion and add “reviewable in the ninth year”.
Senator Kalter:
I suggest that we eliminate “and” in “and/or” and put a comma after Associate
Professor to say, “Review for
promotion to Professor may occur in the tenth year of service or the fourth
year as Associate Professor, whichever comes last.”
Provost Presley: I have another suggestion that will hopefully clarify this. “Review for promotion to Associate
Professor, therefore, may occur in the tenth year and promotion to Professor
may take effect in the next year.” Does that make the relationship
between the two sentences more obvious?
Senator Crothers: I have about four proposals now. I think it fair to say, Professor Plantholt,
that we are not clear.
Professor Plantholt: The idea of the second sentence is that you can be reviewed the year
before you are actually eligible to be promoted.
Senator Crothers: Perhaps we need to come up with plain statements that say that.
Senator Ellerton: Professor Plantholt may have just suggested
an appropriate wording.
Senator Crothers: That may be true. I get a sense that this body is still not sure that this
language is saying what you intend it to say. What I think I am hearing is a
recommendation for a striking through entirely and in plain language, with
simple, declarative sentences, saying what you are trying to achieve.
Professor Plantholt: So, let me clarify what I need to take back to the
URC. At the last Faculty Caucus, the following wording was approved:
". . . served full time for at least four years as associate professor
at Illinois State and have. . . "
So, I assume that that
revision will go through and I assume that the URC will consider the additional
language again next year.
Senator Crothers: That is correct.
Action Items:
Election of
Panel of 10 Faculty Nominees
The
Faculty Caucus elected following faculty members to the Panel of Ten:
Radheshyam Jayaswal, Biological Sciences
Susan Sprecher, Sociology
and Anthropology
Christopher Horvath, Philosophy
Patricia Jarvis, Psychology
Bruce Hawkins, English
Ronald Meier, Technology
*Ken Smiciklas,
Agriculture
Kevin Zhang, Economics
Nancy Lind, Politics and Government
Anthony Amorose,
Kinesiology and Recreation
*Kathleen Conley, Milner
Library, was elected to the Panel of Ten; however, she resigned in May 2007.
Therefore, Ken Smiciklas, the next runner-up,
replaced her.
Election of Faculty
Nominees to the External Committees of the Academic Senate
The
following faculty members were elected, as a slate, to the following External
Committees of the Senate; there were no additional nominations:
Athletic Council (5 openings)
Christy
Bazan, CAST 2007-10
Jeri
Beggs, COB 2007-10
Bryan
Hosack, CAST 2007-10
Lauren
Lowell, CFA 2007-10
Cheri
Toledo, COE 2007-10
Council on General Education (3 openings)
Bruce
Hawkins, CAS (Social Sciences) 2007-2010
Sean
Walton, Milner 2007-2010
Gary Weilbacher, COE 2007-2010
Honors Council (3 openings)
Greg Ferrance,
CHEM, CAS 2007-10
Dawn McBride, PSY, CAS 2007-10
Sarah Williams, Milner 2007-10
Library Committee (1 opening)
Fusan Akman,
CAS 2007-10
Reinstatement Committee (3 openings)
Lori Adams, CFA 2007-10
Sylvie Bouriaux,COB 2007-10
Lynn Kennel, Mennonite
College of Nursing 2007-10
SCERB (3 openings)
James
Cunningham, Milner 2007-10
Steve
Landau, CAS 2007-10
Michelle
Vought, CFA 2007-10
SCERB Grievance (2 openings)
Jack Howard, COB 2007-10
David Marx, CAS 2007-10
SCERB University Hearing Panel (8
vacancies/4 filled)
Conley, Kathleen Retired May 2007
Chris Hamaker,
CAS 2007-10
Christine Kubiak,
Milner 2007-10
Marla Reese-Weber, CAS 2007-10
Janet Wilson, CFA 2007-10
Service Award Committee (3
vacancies/1 filled)
Kerry Tudor, CAST, 2007-2009
Student Center Advisory Board
No volunteers for this
committee.
University Curriculum Committee
Jean Standard, CAS, 2007-10
Diane Dean, COE, 2007-2010
Carlyn Morenus, CFA 2007-2010
(COB Vacancy)
Election of
Senate Faculty Campus Communication Committee Representative
Senator
Kalter was unanimously elected to serve on the Campus Communications Committee.
Her term of service will be 2007-2009.
Election of
Senate Council for Teacher Education Representative (Term: 2007-08)
Senator
Conant was unanimously elected to serve as the Senate’s representative on the
Council for Teacher Education. His term of service will be 2007-2008.
Election of
Foundation Board Representative
Professor
Joe Armstrong, the current faculty representative on the Foundation Board, was
re-elected unanimously to continue to serve in this role. His term of service
will be 2007-2010.
Election of
Academic Freedom, Ethics and Grievance Committee Faculty Nominees
There
were five nominations for the six vacancies on the Academic Freedom, Ethics and
Grievance Committee. The five nominees, as follows, were elected to serve on
the committee:
Christopher Horvath,
Philosophy
Eros DeSouza,
Psychology
Steven Landau, Psychology
Temba Bassoppo-Moyo,
Curriculum and Instruction
Jack Glascock, Communication
Adjournment