The University of Idaho Faculty Senate discussed a new option in the administrator evaluation process for the second time this semester Tuesday, deciding that it would be voted on next week.
Three weeks ago, this provision was sent back to the Faculty Affairs Committee with suggestions for revisions.
For the change to go into effect, Faculty Senate, the University Faculty meeting and the president would have to approve it.
Marty Ytreberg | Courtesy
Marty Ytreberg, representing the Faculty Affairs Committee, presented the revised provision to the Faculty Senate. The provision provides a process that faculty members could use to call for the review of an administrator they are unsatisfied with. The provision proposes that a review of an administrator could be triggered by 50 percent of the faculty in a department or college signing off on a petition.
Sen. Charles Tibbals said the changes still did not address the worry he had brought up when this provision was discussed last time. Tibbals feared staff members were not included enough in the provision because only faculty members can initiate the review process and sign the petition.
Ytreberg said the Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC) did consider incorporating staff members into the provision but said they thought this particular type of review should be faculty initiated.
He said FAC felt it could put staff members in an uncomfortable position if they were involved in this process. He said many staff members within departments and colleges work as administrative assistants or in other ways work closely with administrators and because of that relationship might feel uncomfortable if they were forced to weigh in about their superior’s performance. He added staff are included in annual evaluations of administrators, so if they have feedback, they want to give that route is available to them.
Tibbals responded that the process was supposed to be confidential so it shouldn’t matter if they work closely with an administrator or not because that administrator is not supposed to know who does or doesn’t sign the petitions. He also said he believed staff should be part of the process, especially because they work closely with the administrators and may have a lot to say about their performance.
Sen. Richard Seamon asked who would be included as staff members under the provision. He asked if this provision would mean that part-time workers, facility management employees and student employees would get a say in the process. Torrey Lawrance, vice-provost at UI, said he didn’t know where student employees like teaching assistants would fall under this provision.
Charles Tibbals | Courtesy
Seamon said he didn’t think student employees or other non-full time staff should be included in the provision. He also said the change would be voted on at next Tuesday’s meeting.
Elizabeth Brandt, faculty secretary, suggested the vote on this issue be postponed until next week so the Faculty Senate could come back with a clear definition of which employees should be considered a part of this process and a method for implementing that effectively in the faculty staff handbook.
BLANK said he did not know what would be meant by staff members in the new provision. Faculty Secretary Elizabeth Brandt said that term usually refers to anyone working in the department who is non-faculty, but she admitted she didn’t know for sure if that was what was being addressed in the provision. Seamon suggested the vote be postponed to next week to give more time for faculty senate leadership to make some definitions more clear.
Gavin Green can be reached at [email protected] or on Twitter @gavingreenphoto