FPPC Minutes, 7 Nov 01
Present: Beard(Chair), Bhushan, Jacobson, Keeter, Laquer, Leung, Miller, Burch
Absent: Egger, Hitchcock (Substitute attended), Hatzenbuehler
Excused: Pumphrey
I. Minutes of October 3, 2001
Action: Moved by Dr. Bhushan and seconded by Dr. Leung to approve the minutes of the October 3, 2001 meeting with corrections. Motion carried.
A. Council discussed a draft motion by Jacobson to extend sabbatical-type leave to non-tenure-track faculty. A number of issues were discussed:
i. What is the purpose of Sabbatical leave? Is it a benefit for the faculty or is it for improving the scholarship of the university by insuring a core group of faculty stay current and bring in new ideas? Some even felt that sabbaticals should be forced on all tenured faculty periodically to insure “fresh thinking”. Others felt that identical leaves should be provided to both groups.
ii. Are sabbaticals mainly for improving research or also for improving teaching? If non-tenure-track faculty do not have a required research role should they be provided with same-type leaves as tenured faculty? One idea presented was for non-tenure-track-faculty leave to occur less frequently than sabbaticals for faculty since they do not have both a teaching mission and an assigned research mission; perhaps every 14 years, rather than 7. Others felt the leaves should be identical.
iii. What will it cost? Some felt that while extending sabbatical-type leave to non-tenure faculty was a good idea in principle, it would increase the cost of this group of faculty to the university by up to 7% and that the money would have to come from either faculty raises or from existing sabbatical leave for tenured faculty; given that we are currently both losing good faculty and cannot fill some faculty positions due to insufficient funds, this was troubling to some. These council members felt that until funds were provided by the state to fully fund sabbaticals for tenured faculty, such leaves should not be extended to non-tenured faculty. Others strongly felt that fairness required that non-tenure-track faculty be provided the same type of leaves as tenured faculty and it was inappropriate for the council to consider from where the funds would have to be taken.
B. Council discussed a draft motion by Dr. Keeter to modify the “clock” rules for sabbatical leave. Dr. Keeter will provide a revised version of her motion for the next council meeting.