Debate arose over proposed changes to the salary policy from the new promotion and tenure agreement at the Faculty Senate meeting Tuesday.

ISU Provost Rollin Richmond answered questions about the research vs. education issue.

Palmer Holden, agriculture senator at-large, asked Richmond about a quote that was published in a newspaper where he called Iowa State a research university. Holden said he thought it was a land-grant university.

In response, Richmond said Iowa State is both.

“This is a land-grant university,” he said. “This is also a research university.”

Gregory Palermo, architecture senator, asked about inconsistencies between the teaching and research missions of the university.

Richmond said the primary emphasis is “better education for our students and better research,” and he is “saddened” by the belief that goals of research and education cannot co-exist.

“I believe the two are intimately connected,” he said.

Richmond said he wants to reward the faculty who have a balance between all four areas of performance: teaching, research and creative activities, extension and professional practice, and institution and professional service.

“I have not intended anything I said to deviate from that interpretation,” he said.

Denise Vrchota, past president of the senate, said that in the previous promotion and tenure document, research tended to be the priority where promotion was concerned.

Richmond said the new document differs in that respect.

“We do believe that scholarship can be broadly defined, and there is more than one way to demonstrate scholarship, other than being published in scholarly journals,” he said.

Senate President Dean Ulrichson said the comments made during the discussion were similar to some previous remarks.

“I think we’re getting some progress in people coming together and getting positions on the other side,” he said.

The senate also voted to change the salary policy that goes into the Faculty Handbook. A debate developed over whether the salary increases should be described as “general” or “departmental” increases.

Robert Angelici, chemistry senator, argued in favor of “departmental” increases because he said a general-salary increase causes weaker departments to get as much money as others, so less money is available for salary increases based on merit.

However, Grace Kunz, family and consumer sciences senator at-large, said making a general increase was “an effort to put into practice what has been done in practice for the last few years.”

Ulrichson said the deans and the chairs, or Department Executive Officers, were not in agreement over the issue.

“The DEOs liked ‘departmental’ because they thought that it would be easier to explain to their faculty,” he said. “The deans were strongly in favor of ‘general.'”

The senate voted in favor of ‘departmental’ by 29-27.

Ulrichson said the salary policy recommendation will go into the Faculty Handbook if it is approved by the administration.