STATUS OF NONTENURE-TRACK INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY (NTTIF) STANDING COMMITTEE

Meeting
Tuesday, April 29, 2003
9:00 AM, Gilbert (west) 201

Minutes:

Committee Members Attending: Robert Davis (RD), Romance Languages; Susan Fagan (SF), Retired-English, Peter Gilkey (PG), Mathematics, Lynn Kahle (LK), Sports Marketing (co-chair), Business; Jim Long (JL), Chemistry (co-chair), Jeanne Wagenknecht (JW), Business; Greg McLaughlan (GM), Sociology (Senate President 2002/3). Also Present: Gwen Steigelman (GS), Assistant Vice Provost, Academic Affairs

GS explained her work this year on the Faculty Handbook. She plans to enhance existing sections so that every inclusion of NTTIF is clear and to add missing items and highlights in a separate section. This additional section will focus on NTTIF conditions of employment. The handbook often may only direct the reader to departmental material. She and Rachael have examined similar handbooks from about eight peer institutions.

GM asked about the handbook revision. GS responded that she did not want to produce a separate booklet for NTTIF, since that might make them seem outside of the normal faculty. GM also noted that care must be taken to make it clear which policies apply to which group, since the Handbook spells out the requirements for tenure, with a requirement for research, etc.

PG suggested that the Provost's office ask all departments to establish written policies and communicate them to the Provost¹s office within a set time period, much like was done for department policies related to promotion and tenure some years ago. GM suggested that the NTTIF links to existing policies at other campuses, as well as our best practices lists, could help departments in this effort. PG noted that the NTTIF committee¹s work will definitely help. He suggested that a similar web site would help tenure-related faculty. GM pointed out that the NTTIF committee has developed a bare-bones outline of policies, contained within our draft report to the University Senate. We are planning to continue towards more specific recommendations of best practices.

GS said that it¹s best to locate places where written policies don't deal effectively with best practices. Her office is looking more at the overall structure and not at the details yet. They are trying to identify existing policies. PG noted that the work within departments of creating written policies will pay off later with reduced misunderstanding, etc. GS said that department heads would benefit from models on the web to help them create policies. JW and LK reminded the committee that the College of Business has such a written collection of policies, prepared when the LCB was being accredited. JL said that we need to get existing policies as a first step. We may want to get the policies we received last year into electronic form. GM pointed out that since we will soon be working on identifying specific best practices, we may not want to post any department¹s policies on the web until that process has been completed. GS suggested posting best practices, perhaps using existing departmental policies but without identification of the department. LK pointed out that this approach will avoid throwing departments into a defensive stance regarding their policies.

GS pointed out some problems in the wording in the draft of the report to the senate. SF noted those. LK contributed additional suggestions for changes in the report. LK noted that more progress has been made in improving tenure-related faculty salaries than in NTTIF salaries, which have actually lost ground recently with regard to the UP peer institutions. JW remarked that some schools allow NTTIF to have any title, but append "WOT" for "without tenure."

A discussion on "at will" employees and job security followed. PG told the committee that in most departments senior instructors have more job security than instructors. This may vary from department to department.

A discussion on timely notice/job security followed. GM said that a more consistent approach across departments is needed. The Faculty Handbook does not treat this. Contracts, in fact, give the period of time for timely notice. It was suggested that the Handbook may need revision on this point so that it is clear that fixed-term, regular faculty are included in timely notice requirements. GS reviewed her plans.

The committee agreed to: a) Coordinate the NTTIF report writing with the Provost's office - both to fix obvious bugs and also not to miss obvious opportunities.

b) For the future, next fall, work with the Provost's office to come up with some possible models for "good methods and procedures" regarding policies concerning employment practices for NTTIF.

c) Consult with GS concerning her work on improvements to the Faculty Handbook -- both in terms of getting a specific section on NTTIF and also on general bug fixing.

d) Longer range, consider getting the Provost's office to request methods and procedures documents on NTTIF from all the units and then post the approved documents on the web.

Meeting adjourned at 10:50 AM
Minutes by Jim Long