Minutes of the Instructional Academic Staff Committee

Tuesday, January 3, 2006

1:00 p.m.  116 Cowley Hall

 

Present:  Sue Anglehart, Bonnie Bratina, Kay Dailey Peggy Denton, Michael Durnin Kerrie Hoar, Sandy Koster

Absent:   Don Socha, Phil Bice 

 

1.      Kerrie Hoar posed these three questions for the group:

a.       Can we meet a Feb 1 deadline for a joint proposal from the Provost and our committee in preparation for the Feb 23 senate meeting?

b.      After initial review of the Provost’s package, can we modify or do we need to start from scratch?

c.       When should our next meeting take place?

 

2.      Carmen Wilson spoke briefly to the group about the timing of the proposed action.  She indicated that this was an opportunity to work on progress for some issues with IAS and that we may not get everything, but we should try not to miss this opportunity.  She closed by saying that it was our committee’s decision whether to proceed with a joint proposal.

 

3.      Discussion on split appointments resulted in modification of their proposal for the % time calculation for employment years accumulated at UWL.  We would like to see 65-100% appointments = 1 year and 40-64% appointments = 0.5 years.  This is based on the majority of split appointment contracts that now exists.  In addition, the Articles and Bylaws Committee is proposing language regarding the governance of split appointments.  We concurred with their proposed idea of having a 1 time choice (for split appointees) of their governing body.

 

4.      The committee feels that we can move forward with some of the items proposed in the Provost’s package.  We were asked to focus on the first 5, in particular the titling document.  The committee reviewed the titling document  (Appendix A) and suggested the following modifications:

 

a.       Titling Series:

ü      On page 1, in the Associate Lecturer paragraph, we agree with striking the sentence “The Associate Lecturer’s involvement in course curriculum development, advising and committee work may vary given the experience and expertise of the individual hiring department.”

ü      On page 1, in the Lecturer paragraph, we agree with changing 1-3 years to 4 years.  We questioned why “advising” was removed.  We need further information on that in order to agree or disagree – for now we will keep it in.

ü      On page 1, in the Senior Lecturer paragraph we disagree with the requirement to have 3 years of teaching time at UWL as it would not allow us to hire someone in at a senior lecturer.  As this description will be utilized for initial placement into title series, it should say “The Senior lecturer title is used primarily for individuals with 6 years full time teaching in higher education.

ü      On page 2, in the Distinguished Lecturer paragraph, we agree with striking the phrase “and to cope independently with new, unexpected or complex situations.”

ü      Also under Distinguished Lecturer, we think that the final sentences should read as follows:  “The distinguished Lecturer will normally hold a terminal degree related to the discipline and documented certification or license if required by the specific program or department.  The use of this title would be extremely rare.”  The sentence “This prefix in not a natural step in career progression.” should be struck.

ü      On page 4, the Clinical Instructor should be equal to Associate Lecturer.  We agree with striking the sentence “The Clinical Instructor’s involvement in course curriculum development, advising, and committee work may vary on the experience and expertise of the individual and the hiring department.”

ü      On page 4, the Clinical Assistant Professor should be equal to Lecturer.  We agree with changing 1-3 years to 4 years of full time teaching experience in higher education.

ü      On page 4, the Clinical Associate Professor should be equal to Senior Lecturer.  Therefore, the experience sentence should be “The clinical Associate Professor title is used primarily for individuals with 6 years full time teaching in higher education.

ü      On page 4, the Clinical Professor should be equal to Distinguished Lecturer. We agree with striking the phrase “and to cope independently with new, unexpected or complex situations.”

ü      Also under Clinical Professor, we do not agree with changing the ten years full time teaching in higher education to 15 years.  It should remain 10 years to be consistent with Distinguished Lecturer.

ü      We agree with the addition of the Clinical Distinguished Professor title.

 

b.      Career Progression Grids:

ü      Under the Career Progression Grids for both the Lecturer and the Clinical Professor series, we disagree with the calculations of part-time and full-time employment for use in career progression.  We think that the sentence should be “Full academic year contract required, with 40-64% = .5 year and 65-100% = 1.0 year for tracking and eligibility purposes, with no more than one academic year break in service from UWL.”  This would apply to all titles in both series.  This change will allow part-time employees and coaches to advance through career progression without being unfairly disadvantaged.

ü      On page 2, the entire grid involving “Associate Lecturer” should be eliminated – this is not a step on the career progression ladder.  The grid should start with “Associate Lecturer to Lecturer.”

ü      On page 2, the committee agreed on the following changes in the Associate lecturer to Lecturer grid:           

o       Under Minimum Higher Education Teaching Experience. . . We would like it to read “4 years full time teaching in higher education or other appropriate experience.  At least one year full time teaching at UWL.

o       Under Teaching Experience. . .We would like it to read “1.  Demonstrated strong record of accomplishment in Teaching from SEI Scores, peer Reviews, Department Recommendations, & Dean Recommendations.

o       Under Additional Accomplishments. . .We would like it to read “1.  Evidence of interest and initiative in professional development and/or service.  2.  Evidence of involvement in at lest one of the various instruction related activities, such as undergraduate advising, assisting in developing lab safety protocol, participating in departmental outreach program or other instructional programs.”

ü      On page 2, the committee agreed on the following changes in the Lecturer to Senior Lecturer grid:

o       Under Minimum Higher Education Teaching Experience. . . We would like it to read “6 years full time teaching in higher education or other appropriate experience.  At least three year full time teaching at UWL.

o       Under Teaching Experience. . .We would like it to read “1.  Demonstrated sustained record of accomplishment in Teaching from SEI Scores, peer Reviews, Department Recommendations, & Dean Recommendations.

o       Under Additional Accomplishments. . .We would like it to read “1.  Demonstrated sustained record of accomplishment in the area of  professional development and/or service.  2.  Evidence of sustained involvement in at lest one of the various instruction related activities, such as undergraduate advising, assisting in developing lab safety protocol, participating in departmental outreach program, teaching-related research, clinical-related research, clinical practice, or other instructional programs.  3.  Holds an advanced (NOT TERMINAL) degree and documented certification or license if required by the specific program or department.”

ü      On page 2, the committee agreed on the following changes in the Senior Lecturer to Distinguished Lecturer grid:

o       Strike the “Not part of natural career progression; very rarely used title”.

o       Under Minimum Higher Education Teaching Experience. . . We would like it to read “10 years full time teaching in higher education or other appropriate experience.  At least five year full time teaching at UWL.

o       Under Teaching Experience. . .We would like it to read “1.  Demonstrated sustained record of Excellence in Teaching from SEI Scores, peer Reviews, Department Recommendations, & Dean Recommendations.

o       Under Additional Accomplishments. . .We would like it to read “1. National or International recognition of significance for teaching excellence, discipline expertise and serving as a mentor and role model.  2.  May guide or train other academic staff or oversee their work.  3.  Holds a terminal degree and documented certification or license if required by the specific program or department.  4.  Contributions are significant and recognized by peers outside the program or department.

ü      On page 5 & 6, the committee agreed that the requirements for the Clinical Professor Series career progression should be equal to those of the Lecturer Series as follows:

o       Clinical Instructor to Clinical Assistant Professor = Associate Lecturer to Lecturer

o       Clinical Assistant Professor to Clinical Associate Professor = Lecturer to Senior Lecturer.

o       Clinical Associate Professor to Clinical Professor = Senior lecturer to Distinguished Lecturer.

ü      On page 6, the committee agreed on the following changes in the Clinical Professor to Distinguished Clinical Professor grid:

o       Strike the “Not part of natural career progression; very rarely used title”.

o       Under Minimum Higher Education Teaching Experience. . . We would like it to read “1 years full time teaching in higher education or other appropriate experience.  At least ?? year full time teaching at UWL.

o       Under Teaching Experience. . .We would like it to read “1.  Demonstrated excellence above and beyond the level of Clinical Professor with regards to accomplishments in Teaching from SEI Scores, peer Reviews, Department Recommendations, & Dean Recommendations.

o       Under Additional Accomplishments. . .We would like it to read “1. National or International recognition of significance for teaching excellence, discipline expertise, service or professional development and serving as a mentor and role model.  2.  Expected to  guide or train other academic staff or oversee their work.  3.  Holds a terminal degree and documented certification or license if required by the specific program or department.  4.  Contributions are significant and recognized by peers outside the program or department.

 

5.      On page 6, we discussed the Questions to be considered by the IAS Committee:

a.       Is there a minimum time period that the IAS must have been performing the duties to go to the next level?  This is answered in the Minimum Experience column of the Career progression grid.  In addition, the committee agreed that the IAS must have demonstrated the skills required for advancement to the next level – not just served the time.

b.      Can we presume that the titles not listed are excluded from IAS Career Progression?  Yes – those with split appointments could go through career progression with the portion of their appointment that is IAS.

c.       Can we presume retired or resigned faculty who are rehired in IAS title series are not eligible for IAS Career Progression?  Yes – but is there is different title series that would better fit these individuals?  Kerrie will investigate this.

d.      Continuous employment or can there be a lapse?  The committee agreed that a 1 academic year break in service would be allowed for the continuous employment definition.

e.       How do we count service?  The committee agreed that the number of years that an IAS has been employed at UWL as IAS would count as years of service.  This is trackable, but will require Human Resources to go through IAS files by hand to determine this number and to implement a new database that will track IAS.

f.        Are criteria sufficiently broad. . .?  The committee agreed that this has been met by the changes made above.

 

6.      The committee left off at the end of this section on page 6 and needs to pick back up with DRAFT OPTIONS FOR CAREER PROGRESSION PROCESSES.  Then continue on to the areas of Workload, Contract Language, Multiple Year Contracts and Position Descriptions.  Will we also request Renewable Contracts?

 

7.      On the workload issue (to be discussed next time) we considered the following:

a.       The Provost is unlikely to change on the 15 hour concept.  That said, we could propose a range of 12 minimum up to 15 maximum. 

b.      Would the “list of other responsibilities” result in current employees meeting the change with their current workload intact?

c.       What would a change to 15 hours mean in terms of benefits for part time employees?

d.      Would the 15 refer to contact hours or credit hours?

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

Sue Anglehart and Kerrie Hoar