Meeting 11                                                                                           April 4, 2007

 

 

 

University of Central Missouri

Faculty Senate Minutes

 

 

 

The Faculty Senate meeting was called to order at 3:17 p.m. in Union 237A with President Odin Jurkowski presiding.

 

ROLL CALL: 

 

In addition to FS President Jurkowski, the following nineteen senators and three alternates were present:  Callahan, Ely, Geiger, Joy, Kidwaro, Koehn, Liu, Mandali, McKee, Miller, Popejoy, Robins, Rogers, Schache, Schmidt, Strohmeyer, Swanson, Washer, Zelazek, Wang, and Bordere (for Thomas).  Also present was Provost George Wilson.

 

MINUTES: 

 

A motion was made by Senator Rogers, seconded by Senator Popejoy and passed unanimously to approve the minutes of meeting 10 of the 2006-2007 Faculty Senate held on March 14, 2007.

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

 

Provost Wilson stated that President Podolefsky had asked him to bring one announcement to the Senate.  Recently a motion was sent to him and he has approved the recommendation regarding the distribution of faculty salaries between the across-the-board, merit, and market pay.  This was approved knowing there was not a merit pay system established at this time.  Wilson stated the President appreciates the work that has been done; however, he does not want to rush into merit pay too quickly just so there is an implementation with the merit pay salary system for the next fiscal year.  He does not want to necessarily change the recommendation, but he suggested possibly deferring the implementation of a merit plan until the next year, so that plenty of time can be made to establish a good system.  Geiger asked if the President has any plans for the merit pay.  Wilson stated there is a committee at this time working on a merit pay proposal that has been brought to the President.  Wilson stated he thought the President is in favor of the proposal, but his concern is if there is sufficient time to get a complete proposal done and if the proposal is completed, would the departments be sufficiently ready to implement merit pay.  Wilson stated that the President is in favor of the merit pay system being established; however, he doesn’t want the faculty to feel that they have been rushed.  Jurkowski stated there have been several merit pay committees over the years and the current committee has been in place this semester and is working on the proposal.  There is an open forum for faculty on Friday, April 6.  The President has seen the draft proposal and has given some unofficial positive feedback.  The hope is that after the form is finalized, the President will approve it.  Koehn asked if there is a budget mechanism in place if faculty do want to wait to implement the merit proposal so that the money for merit pay can be held and distributed at a later time or rolled forward and used next year.  Wilson stated he thought the faculty should suggest what should be done if the merit pay plan is not ready to be implemented in time. 

 

McKee asked Jurkowski when the open forum would be held.  Jurkowski stated it was Friday, April 6 at noon in the University Union 235.  Faculty should have received the latest draft from the Merit Pay Committee within GroupWise.

 

Jurkowski then reminded the Senate that the next Senate meeting on April 18, will be the last meeting for this year and it will be dual meeting with the old Senate representatives and new and elections at that time as well.  He asked that everyone continue thinking about running for President and Vice President for next year, as well as representatives for the Executive Committee.

 

Jurkowski also gave a handout of notes from the previous Academic Council meeting.

 

McKee announced that the Provost Cabinet has been renamed the Provost Council, due to confusion with the President’s Cabinet, which is sometimes referred to as the Cabinet.  The last Provost Cabinet meeting discussed much of what was already in the notes from the Academic Council meeting.  They discussed the initiatives that were completed in the last few semesters and the direction that the Council will go with the initiatives and assuring those ideas will be continuing and not dropped. 

 

McKee also stated that the Committee on Committees is nearing the end of their work for this semester, as is in the motion later in the meeting.

 

Koehn announced that the last SPRC meeting Vice-President Roberts gave a budget report.  She also gave three different budget scenarios based on getting the 4.2% increase from the state.  Roberts stated what increases will be necessary, such as utilities, etc.  The larger question is what will happen with compensation dollars.  The scenarios included what would happen if there were a 3% in compensation as well as if there were a 3.5 or 4% increase.  SPRC said they would support a 3.5% increase in compensation dollars.  Based on the previous motion that the Senate passed, that would result in approximately a 2.45% across the board increase, a .525% increase for merit and market dollars.

 

Koehn wanted to pass on information to the faculty also how important taking the roll is in classes.  She didn’t think faculty understood that the university has to do federal reporting regarding enrollment numbers.  This reporting is for some reimbursement of actual budget dollars; therefore, responding to this information can make a difference in the budget.  This year reporting the information in a timely manner amounted to just about enough money to fund promotion and tenure, so it is a significant amount of money.  Koehn suggested the Senate help get the word out how some of these things can effect the budget overall and they are not just requests from the university.  Wilson stated that that information also has to do with students who are receiving federal loans and if they do not attend classes and are not reported, and then the university can be held liable for the money the student has received.  Koehn stated she felt that this information has not been adequately communicated with the faculty and Wilson agreed.  Even though there has been requests made for roll to be taken and reported, he is not aware that there has been a reason given for the request.  Wilson agreed that faculty need to be aware that this is a budget and federal request, not a University request.  Koehn stated she always thought the attendance had to do with the retention incentive.

 

Koehn stated that the SPRC will be having back-to-back meetings and should be meeting again this week.

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

Jurkowski stated that last year, spring semester, the Faculty Senate voted to request that a task-force be created to evaluate the Information Services department.  The task force was created by President Podolefsky and Dean Dinwiddie came to present the final report.  Dinwiddie stated that the committee had begun work last fall and met part of spring.  The report has been sent out to all the Senators.  Dinwiddie stated the first step for the committee was to read the charge and attempt to address it accurately.  The committee did deviate slightly from the charge towards the end.  Some things they felt were important included identifying specific things that were relevant to how Information Services is viewed to be performing on campus.  They then decided on three areas to explore, customer service, in the user standpoint, fiscal resources devoted to the unit, policies and practices within the unit, and how the internal structure is set up and how strategic planning goes on within Informational Services.  To do this, the committee divided was into three sub-committees that worked independently and then communicated their findings to the committee as a whole.  Each of those sub-committees then identified issues and developed some specific recommendations, which are included within the final report.  The first page has an executive summary including the key findings and the recommendations.  Communication was a specific targeted area to improve.  In the review of resources and strategic planning, the committee felt a fresh look should be taken at the current model. In 2000 there was an outside consultant brought to campus to look at the IT operations and that was referenced while this review was being done. 

 

The methodology for doing the review included several areas, such as, devising questions that were submitted to Dr. Helm and Information Services, there was a customer service survey distributed electronically throughout campus, benchmarking data was used, and the 2005 executive summary was looked at for the data survey.  Noted were things like silos in communication were to be avoided and that contributes to the communication issue.  Customer feedback needs to be taken into account any time services are being rendered and with customer feedback, continued improvement can take place.  Feedback also showed that individuals are concerned with data integrity and they wanted to ensure that area was addressed.  The final report is a condensed version of information that includes specific information as well as general recommendations.  The committee also suggested that there should be an opportunity for the Information Services area to respond to this report and possibly consider at some point to bring in another outside consultant.  A letter was also sent from President Podolefsky stating the next steps that should be taken.  Dinwiddie stated she is not aware at this point if the report has been distributed widely, but if the Senate would like for it to have a wider dissemination, that can be done.  She did go back and look over the original resolution that lead to the formation of this committee and since that did come from the Senate last spring, they may want to look it over again and consider if the concerns and issues of the Senate addressed to their satisfaction.  Jurkowski stated the Senators can and should share the report with their colleges to disseminate the report on campus. 

 

Koehn presented Motion 2006-2007-22 regarding Domestic Partners.  She stated that the University has a non-discrimination clause and part of the clause states that perspective employees will not be discriminated based on sexual orientation; however, that does not extend to benefits.  This could be a problem in recruiting and retaining faculty and staff.  This motion suggests that UCM should consider offering benefits to those that qualify as domestic partners.  The benefits only extend to those that are held locally, such as medical, but not state benefits, such as MOSERS.  Attached to the motion are a couple of examples from other universities, SIU, UWM, and Edwardsville, to show what the General Counsel could create for here.  Koehn stated she and Geiger believed this would be a positive way for the University to demonstrate that they embrace the diversity and will provide equity where it hasn’t been in the past. 

 

Liu asked what state law has to say about this issue.  Koehn replied there are certain regulations from the state level, just as the University has campus policy and the campus level, but she is not aware of any laws addressing this aspect.  Geiger stated this motion would not ask the University to go against any state laws.  This would only affect what the University can control and offer, such as tuition reimbursement for children and partners.  There is no law against being gay in Missouri, so changes can be made within the local government.  Washer asked if this would affect any part of the state contributions if changes were made to the benefits package.  Wilson responded that the money for benefits is fairly modest.  Money is about half from the state and half from tuition; therefore, technically, it could be said that tuition money is being used for this.  The key is there would be no laws violated and other things would be details that would have to be worked out along the way.  Wilson stated he didn’t think offering domestic partners the same benefits as married individuals would be a very large amount and it could be looked at for the health benefits as a way to get healthier people in the program.  Koehn stated that this is beyond funding areas such as health insurance, but would also include things like bereavement leave, married student housing, and it could be applied to students on campus and allow it to broaden many areas on campus.  Wilson suggested a place to start would be a list of items that could be dealt with and those that could not.  Koehn stated the University of Wisconsin has such a list on their website.  General Counsel could better say what can and can not fall under this policy.  Callahan asked if there are any examples of institutions within Missouri that use this policy.  Koehn stated she wasn’t sure if there were any.  Callahan stated it leads to the legality of the policy if other areas within Missouri have a similar policy.  Wilson stated that one thing he could assure is that the University would not do anything to violate the law and that is why Legal Counsel would have to be involved in the process to assure the University remains within the law.  The motion supports that issue.  Rogers stated he would like to speak in favor of the motion.  He stated that after Legal Counsel looks at it, there may not be many things that can be done.  He felt the question should be a fundamental moral issue of is it okay to treat people who have a different definition of partnership that doesn’t conform to the legal definition of marriage, do we treat them differently than those that are married.  Rogers stated he didn’t think it was okay to do that with a good conscience.  The University teaches tolerance, diversity, different views of life and religion, and there is an antidiscrimination policy within the University, how can we say to members of the community that this all applies, but not to you.  If there is something that is within the University’s control, such as health benefits, and it can be stated the University is not using state dollars, then there is a moral obligation to treat everyone the same.  Rogers also stated that this could definitely have its benefits, such as retention, when there are many individuals within various disciplines that have different lifestyles.  Joy stated he did not believe the legal system would say anything about this issue because that is not something that they are concerned about.  He agreed with Rogers and said it is time to recognize everyone.  Zelazek stated he understands the motion and understands both sides; however, he would like to know potential cost and the impact on the institution this would have.  Koehn stated that the General Counsel would have to decide what benefits would be eligible and so that data is not available right now. Zelazek suggested that maybe holding the motion until that data is available to make sure it would not be a hardship for the University in the long run.  Wilson said that would have to be considered and would be part of the process that would be done if this were to be approved.  He stated the President would not approve this plan without knowing what the money implications would be.  He, however, believes it would have a minimal direct impact on the University.  There are at least two distinct benefits to this motion, one being the ability to expand the pool of people and improve the experience rating, and second the ability to attract even more qualified faculty because of the benefits package offered.  Many of the items that have been suggested at the meeting probably do not have a direct cost impact, such as married housing, health care would have some but a small amount, but this would be a part of the examination of the whole issue before the President or Board would approve anything.  Liu stated he is not against the motion and he was concerned with the law because since the law does not recognize same sex marriage, then how can the University extend benefits to them that we offer to married couples, since they legally can not be married.  Geiger responded that this motion includes domestics of any kind, same sex or not.  There are certain elements the couple would have to meet before they would be classified as a domestic relationship and that would extend to all unmarried couples, whether they are same sex or opposite.  Bordere stated that there are institutions within Missouri who have this policy, not necessarily universities, but within the health care and hospital areas.  Strohmeyer stated he would hate to see the right decision deferred because of lack of data.  He felt that the data information should be within the administrations control.  Wilson stated that if this is sent to the President as is, he would suggest that he get tentative approval subject to the development of specific plans and the physical analysis.  Kidwaro asked besides retention is there any indication how many could be affected by this.  Geiger replied that living together or sexual orientation is not a question that is reported, so there is no way to get the data unless a person-by-person analysis was to be done.  She stated she has been concerned about this issue and several of her colleagues have been concerned as well.  Washer stated that sometimes a person has to vote what their constituents want based on the information they have received; therefore, he would have to vote no based on what he has read and what his colleagues have informed him.  Wilson asked if there was a specific modification that they were concerned with.  Washer stated they did not offer any.  Popejoy said he would like to speak in favor of the motion.  He said he did not see a significant impact financially because dependent coverage within health, dental, and vision is minimal.  He also didn’t see any issue where legality would come up within this issue.  Sexual preference laws are normally more protective than restrictive unless there were a constitutional amendment passed to define marriage, this should not be a legality issue.  Schmidt suggested that maybe this should be extended to employees only as a first step, because it seems broad right now and he is concerned about what could happen within the student environment.  Rogers stated there is distribution of justice and it is difficult to say that employees can have a different standard of discrimination than students.  There is quite a bit of criteria to determine domestic status.  Most students do not live together long enough and are stable enough to fall within the domestic status guidelines to benefit from this.  Swanson asked if Missouri had any rules or laws for domestic partners. Geiger stated that same sex marriage is not recognized within Missouri; however, within Kansas City, MO there is a nondiscrimination law for housing and same sex couples. Swanson stated that the handout is from Wisconsin policy and did they come up with it.  Koehn stated that it is a university policy.  Swanson stated that the first thing that would have to be done is to set rules to define what a domestic relationship is.  Geiger stated there are several models out there, so that should not be an issue.  Rogers stated that the University would define and set the rules.  Swanson said that is more what he wants so he knew exactly what he was voting for.  Koehn stated that is why they supplied the examples, to show what can be created similar to what is already out there.  Wilson stated the motion does refer to adopting a policy and there should be wide spread participation as to what that policy would be and again, Legal Counsel would be involved with that.  Swanson stated that some members of his college stated the last time this issue was addressed, Legal Counsel was not involved.  Wilson stated that may have been why anything previous did not go farther; however, he would guarantee that Legal Counsel would be involved this time and it would not be approved without them.  Swanson reiterated that he would like to know what the policy would look like before voting on it.  Wilson stated that he believed the President would give a statement to this that Legal Counsel would be included within the process.  This process might even require going outside the University for someone with more specialty in this area. 

 

Patrick Bradley, Senior Director of University Housing, stated that 4-5 years ago students approached Housing and they were able to show joint partnership on several documents and when they spoke with the University attorney, they were informed that they are a State of Missouri entity and they are not necessarily required to honor the request for housing.  President Podolefsky later asked the Housing office to look at policy and they also looked at the University of Wisconsin’s policy.  The office then wrote their own policy and they have been using it for the last two years.  If they can produce a couple of these documents, then they would be allowed to live within the University housing.  It is no longer called family housing, but University apartments, to get away from the idea that only families live there.  This policy has been approved by the Cabinet and they have used it for the last couple of years and so far there have not been any issues.  At the Board meeting when the additions and changes were made to the nondiscrimination policy, there were two issues, housing and insurance benefits, that were not clarified at that meeting and were to be determined at a later time.  The housing issue is moving closer now and so far there are no problems.  Bradley stated that they did adopt the University of Wisconsin policy and stated if students could bring two of the items on the list, they would be identified as a unit.

 

Rogers stated that Bradley’s description stated several things, that it is possible, can be done legally, Legal Counsel was involved, that the University recognizes that the President thinks this is something that ought to be looked at, and the President took this under consideration and has moved forward with it.  That should address any concerns that individuals are having.  Rogers felt that if the Senate waits until there is a specific plan, then individuals will argue about the details.  He felt morally it is the right thing to do.  Trust the administration and Legal Counsel to figure out the specifics of how it needs to be done to make it functional.

 

A recorded vote was requested on 2006-2007-22 as follows:

 

Background:     The University of Central Missouri supports, in principle, the ideals of equity and diversity.  Currently, even though UCM has a non-discrimination clause relative to employment, discriminatory practices persist in the area of benefits.   The University could remedy certain inequities in benefits through the adoption of a domestic partnership policy qualifying such partners for benefits which are within the sole control of the University.  For example, health care insurance benefits are negotiated by Central and, thus, domestic partners could be included in the university health care plan.  However, certain MOSERS beneficiary benefits would be beyond the reach of a campus domestic partnership policy since the state of Missouri controls the MOSERS retirement benefit and currently disallows spousal equivalent benefits for domestic partners.

 

See attached examples of current existing policies used by the University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee and Southern Illinois University- Edwardsville.

 

 

Move that:   The University of Central Missouri adopt a domestic partnership policy to extend all benefits solely under the control of the University to qualifying domestic partners.

 

A recorded vote resulted in the following:  For:  Ely, Geiger, Joy, Koehn, Mandali, McKee, Miller, Popejoy, Robins, Rogers, Schmidt, Strohmeyer, Swanson, Bordere, and Wang.  Against:  Washer and Zelazek.  Abstain:  Callahan, Kidwaro, Liu, and Schache. 

 

-PASSED-   For: 15          Against:  2              Abstain:  4                                (2006-2007-22)

 

McKee presented Motion 2006-2007-23 from the Committee on Committees.  The Committee on Committees met this past Monday and had some additional nominations to present after the original motion went out to the Senate.  The amendment showed additional nominations that the CoC has approved and only shows the committees that have changes are listed on the amendment that was handed out.  Also, for the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, Jennifer Mittelhauser was originally nominated; however, the nomination needs to be a nonscientist and Mittelhauser is a scientist.  Therefore, her name will need to be changed to Jenny Emanuel has volunteered to remain on the committee in this position.  There are still two nominations open at this time; however, those should be handled at a later date.

 

A vote was taken on the amendment

 

Due to the Committee on Committees meeting the Monday before the Faculty Senate meeting, some names were added and changes made to the previous motion, therefore, The Faculty Senate Committee on Committees moves to amend Motion #2006-2007-23 by adding the names in gray highlight in the original motion.  

 

-PASSED- Unanimous                                                             (2006-2007-23 Amendment)

 

Then a vote was taken on the original Motion 2006-2007-23:

 

The Faculty Senate Committee on Committees submits the following faculty nominations for Faculty Senate and University/Administrative committees and requests approval of the Faculty Senate.  Nominations are in bold. 

 

Faculty Senate Committees with Appointed Members

Academic Year 2007-2008 - Membership Roster

 

FS Academic Standards Committee

Name

College

Term

Janice Klimek

Harmon College of Business Admin.

2008

Robert Lurker

College of Science & Technology

2008

John Zelazek

College of Education

2008

Angela Dunlap

College of Health & Human Services

2009

Shari Bax

College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences

2009

Barb Rhodes

Library/AE

2009

 

Awards Selection Committee

Name

College

Term

Hang Chen

College of Science & Technology

2008

David McCandless

College of Science & Technology

2008

Paula Schaefer

Harmon College of Business Administration

2008

Anita Philbrick

College of Education

2009

Fran Reddington

College of Health & Human Services

2008

Carla Jo Maltas

College of Arts, Humanities, & Social Sciences

2009

Mark Love

Library/AE

2009

 

Central Technology Grants Committee

Name

College

Term

Mahmoud Yousef

College of Science & Technology

2008

Jenny Emanuel

Library/AE

2008

Quingxiong Ma

Harmon College of Business Administration

2009

Jennifer Aldrich

College of Education

2009

Lawrence Wilkes

College of Health & Human Services

2009

Sheri Mattson

College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences

2008

 

FS Committee on Dispute Resolution & Grievance

 

Name

College

Term

 

Naomi Williamson

Library/AE

2008

 

Dane Miller

At Large Attorney

2008

 

Phoebe McLaughlin

College of Science & Technology

2008

 

Janice Klimek

Harmon College of Business Administration

2008

 

George Sesser

College of Education

2009

 

Leigh Ann Blunt

College of Health & Human Services

2009

 

Kevin Prufer

College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences

2009

 

Course Fees Committee

Name

College

Term

Duane Lundrvold

College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences

2008

Gail Crump

College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences

2008

 

Harmon College of Business Administration

2009

Barbara N. Martin

College of Education

2009

Lynn Riggins

College of Health & Human Services

2009

James H. Taylor

College of Science & Technology

2009

           

 

FS Distance Education Committee

Name

College

Term

Ruth Burkett

College of Education

2008

Dawn Fry

Library/AE

2008

Keshav Bhattarai

College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences

2008

John “Skip” Crooker

Harmon College of Business Administration

2008

Linda Mulligan

College of Health & Human Services

2008

Linda Lynam

Harmon College of Business Administration

2009

Andrew King

College of Education

2009

Marilyn Grechus

College of Health & Human Services

2009

Bryan Carter

College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences

2009

Jeff Ulmer

College of Science & Technology

2008

Nicholas Baeth

College of Science & Technology

2009

Robert Hallis

Library/AE

2009

 

FS Elections Committee

Name

College

Term

Pam Hart

College of Health & Human Services

2008

Barton Washer

College of Education

2008

Cheryl Riley

Library/AE

2008

Paula Schaefer

Harmon College of Business Administration

2009

Peggy Kantz

College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences

2009

Jason Holland

College of Science & Technology

2009

 

FS Ethics in Research Committee

Name

College

Term

Jerry Brown

Library/AE

2008

Shari Bax

College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences

2008

Charlie Schwepker

Harmon College of Business Administration

2009

Dawna Lisa Butterfield

College of Education

2008

Kamel Ghozzi

College of Health & Human Services

2009

Selene Nikaido

College of Science & Technology

2009

 


 

Extended Campus Advisory Council

Name

College

Term

Carl Grigsby

College of Education

2008

Jeff Banhart

College of Science & Technology

2008

Charlie Schwepker

Harmon College of Business Administration

2008

Les Lynam

Library/AE

2009

Sue Lasiter

College of Health & Human Services

2009

Patricia A. Marsh

College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences

2009

 

FS Faculty Awards Committee

Name

College

Term

Jo Koehn

Harmon College of Business Administration

2008

Ann Powell-Brown

College of Education

2008

Kamel Ghozzi

College of Health & Human Services

2008

Kim Stark-Wroblewski

College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences

2008

Jay Raveill

College of Science & Technology

2008

Linda Medaris

Library/AE

2008

 

FS Faculty Personnel Policies Committee

Name

College

Term

Marian Davis

Library/AE

2008

Dennis Ehlert

College of Education

2008

Jeff Ulmer

College of Science & Technology

2008

Steve Del Vecchio

Harmon College of Business Administration

2008

William Vaughn

College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences

2008

Cheryl Riley

Library/AE

2009

Mary McCord

Harmon College of Business Administration

2009

Michael Jinks

College of Education

2009

Lynn Riggins

College of Health & Human Services

2008

Don Wallace

College of Health & Human Services

2009

Julie Chapman

College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences

2009

Jason Scales

College of Science & Technology

2009

 

Honors College Advisory Committee

Name

College

Term

Mark Sherman

College of Science & Technology

2009

Richard Frazier

College of Education

2009

Tony Shaffer

Library/AE

2008

Catherine Chambers

Harmon College of Business Administration

2008

Lynn Urban

College of Health & Human Services

2010

Sara Sundberg

College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences

2010

 

Human Subjects Committee

Name

College

Term

Mark Sherman

At-Large

2008

Gene Bonham

At-Large

2008

Scott McKay

At-Large

2008

Swarna Mandali

At-Large

2008

Scott Smith

At-Large

2009

Patricia Decker

At-Large

2009

George Sesser

At-Large

2009

 

FS International Affairs Committee

Name

College

Term

Richard Frazier

At-Large

2009

Karen Foster

At-Large

2008

Henry Wambuii

At-Large

2008

Fred Worman

At-Large

2008

Dan Crews

At-Large

2009

Bob Yates

MA English as a Second Language

2010

Donald Burchard

English Language Center

2010

Julie Stephens de Jonge

Modern Language Department

2010

 

Information Technology Policy Council

Name

College

Term

Yuankun Yao

At-Large

2008

Ken Cust

At-Large

2009

Carol Smith

At-Large

2010

 

Institutional Animal Care & Use Committee

Name

College

Term

Victoria Jackson (Supervisor of Animal Room)

College of Science & Technology

2008

Cynthia Bracken

College of Science & Technology

2008

Scott Lankford

College of Science & Technology

2008

Jennifer Mittelhauser

At-Large

2009

 

Intercollegiate Athletics Advisory Committee

Name

College

Term

Jason Scales

College of Science & Technology

2008

Eric Tenbus

College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences

2008

Mary Ragland

Library/AE

2008

Steven Popejoy

Harmon College of Business Administration

2009

F. Ryan Peterson

College of Education

2009

Scott Strohmeyer

College of Health & Human Services

2009

 

Library Advisory Committee

Name

College

Term

Steve Del Vecchio

Harmon College of Business Administration

2008

Darlene Ciraulo

College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences

2008

Karen Haase

Library/AE

2009

Katherine A. Leslie

College of Education

2009

Gregg Etter

College of Health & Human Services

2009

Joe Kupersmith

College of Science & Technology

2008

 

FS Professional Enhancement Committee

Name

College

Term

Della Goavec

At-Large

2009

Chris Azevedo

Harmon College of Business Administration

2009

Nancy Forth

College of Education

2009

Greg Turner

College of Health & Human Services

2008

Keshav Bhattarai

College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences

2010

Scott Lankford

College of Science & Technology

2010

Carol Smith

Library/AE

2008

 

Scholarships & Awards Advisory Committee

Name

College

Term

Jennifer Aldrich

College of Education

2008

Sandra Merrill

College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences

2008

Quingxiong Ma

Harmon College of Business Administration

2008

Robin Spencer

College of Education

2008

Cheryl Shattuck

Harmon College of Business Administration

2009

Angela Dunlap

College of Health & Human Services

2008

Susan Stockton

College of Health & Human Services

2009

Jeff Yelton

College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences

2009

Phoebe McLaughlin

College of Science & Technology

2008

Somnath Sarkar

College of Science & Technology

2009

Naomi Williamson

Library/AE

2009

 

Summer Sessions Advisory Committee

Name

College

Term

Charles Fair

College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences

2008

Janet Winter

Harmon College of Business Administration

2008

Linda Medaris

Library/AE

2009

Robin Spencer

College of Education

2009

Greg Etter

College of Health & Human Services

2009

Joseph Ely

College of Science & Technology

2008

 

Traffic & Parking Policy Committee

Name

College

Term

Joe Kupersmith

At-Large

2008

Jim Moore

At-Large

2009

 

Traffic Review Board

Name

College

Term

David Aaberg

At-Large

2008

Dawna-Lisa Butterfield

At-Large

2008

Jerry Neal

At-Large

2009

Marian Davis

At-Large

2009

 

Undergraduate Exceptions Committee

Name

College

Term

Karen Haase

Library/AE

2008

Janice Klimek

Harmon College of Business Administration

2008

Dennis Muchisky

College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences

2008

Nicole Nickens

College of Education

2009

Roger Pennel

College of Health & Human Services

2009

Paul Plummer

College of Science & Technology

2009

 

FS University Assessment Council

Name

College

Term

Mary Ragland

Library/AE

2008

Julie Stephens

College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences

2008

Pauline Ratnasingam

Harmon College of Business Administration

2009

 

College of Education

2009

Julie Clawson

College of Health & Human Services

2009

Vicki Jackson

College of Science & Technology

2008

 

University Research Council

Name

College

Term

Ann Oller

College of Science and Technology

2008

Scott Smith

Harmon College of Business Administration

2008

Rob Hallis

Library/AE

2009

Jennifer Aldrich

College of Education

2009

Janice Putnam

College of Health & Human Services

2009

Wendy Geiger

College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences

2008

 

 

-PASSED- Unanimous                                                                         (2006-2007-23)

 

Ely then stated that the task force on Evaluating Academic Support Services will meet this week to continue the charge.  The Provost spoke with Roger Best, Task Force chair, concerning the charge of the committee.  Wilson further explained that Best wanted further explanation on what his expectations were regarding the committee since they had done much work and he wasn’t the beginning of the committee.  He stated that he has not seen any reports; however, they discussed the sustenance of what the committee was looking at.  Wilson stated he felt it was a useful thing to have done, to evaluate the academic support services, the resources committed to that, and is there a way it can be done better.  Wilson wanted to assure the Senators and their colleagues that he has encouraged the task force to report their findings, ideas, and recommendations as fully as they can, but realize that most things are not going to be taken immediate changes, more information will be gathered first.  This is a good review of what is happening now, gathering ideas, and it can be very useful.  Ely stated he thought this was more of a launching pad to improve services.  Wilson stated that was exactly correct.  It was possible that after a hard look, there might be ways found to reallocate resources better, but it is really about the quality of services we are providing to ourselves and the efficiency with which we do that.  Wilson stated he hopes that everyone can look at this with an open mind.  Ely stated the committee will continue their discussions and will complete a report by the end of the semester.  Wilson wanted to reiterate that individuals should not be discouraged by this report, but remember it is a launching pad for further discussion.

 

Rogers stated that since the next meeting is the last meeting and since the President would like to receive some direction regarding the merit pay, he would like to move to reconsider Motion 2006-2007-21 to be amended to state that “Any funds earmarked in the 2007-2008 budget for the implementation of merit pay should be held in budgetary reserve to be distributed once that merit pay plan has been approved by the faculty and administration.”  Swanson seconded the motion.  A vote was taken to amend the motion.

 

-PASSED- For: 18      Against:  1        Abstain:  1                                (2006-2007-21 Amendment)

 

Rogers stated that all this amendment would do is give the President and Provost an idea what the Senate would like to do with the merit pay monies without rushing the merit pay plan and not throwing that money back into across-the-board.  This would allow it to sit in deferment until the system is in place and ready.  Jurkowski stated this would be when the policy is officially approved.  Rogers said hopefully something can be done mid year, but even if it took until next year, it will be added to that given then.  Jurkowski stated that the question might not be so much as when the policy will be approved, but when the departments feel comfortable to apply the policy.  If the policy were to be approved in the next few months, the departments may need more time before they feel they can implement it.  Rogers stated that if a pool of money is given to a department, then the department could decide to hang on to it until the end of the year while others maybe ready to go, so it wouldn’t prevent the Provost from distributing the money to them.

 

Stromeyer said he would like to speak in favor of the amendment because it reiterates the commitment that the Board of Governors originally passed.  Washer asked when establishing new motions or presenting a motion is there a certain amount of time that must occur before voting.  Jurkowski stated that motions can be made from the floor.  Rogers also stated that it is not really a new motion, but an amendment to a previous motion.  Callahan stated that the response from the President also stated that they should address equity issues.  Jurkowski stated that equity issues were addressed in the original motion and the only thing that is changing from the original motion is merit pay and when it will be implemented.  McKee stated that Callahan is referring to the original motion stated that if there were any left over funds after market pay it would go to covering equity issues for instructors.  The President; however, stated he would like to use the extra to cover equity issues anywhere, so that was done by him and does not require an amendment. 

 

-PASSED- For: 19      Against:  1        Abstain:  1                                (2006-2007-21 Amendment)

 

The Executive Committee will meet April 5, 2007 and the next Faculty Senate meeting is April 18 which again is the final meeting of the 2006-2007 Senate.

 

With nothing further the meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.

 

Julia Kerr

Faculty Senate Office Professional

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meeting 12                                                                                                                                           April 18, 2007

 

 

 

University of Central Missouri

Faculty Senate Minutes

 

 

 

The Faculty Senate meeting was called to order at 3:17 p.m. in Union 237A with President Odin Jurkowski presiding.

 

ROLL CALL: 

 

In addition to FS President Jurkowski, the following nineteen senators and three alternates were present:  Callahan, Ely, Geiger, Joy, Koehn, Mandali, McKee, Popejoy, Robins, Rogers, Schache, Schmidt, Strohmeyer, Swanson, Thomas, Washer, Williamson, Zelazek, Wang, and Heming (for Hynes).  Also present was President Aaron Podolefsky, Provost George Wilson and Parliamentarian Cheryl Riley.

 

MINUTES: 

 

A motion was made by Senator Rogers, seconded by Senator Strohmeyer and passed unanimously to approve the minutes of meeting 11 of the 2006-2007 Faculty Senate held on April 4, 2007.

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

 

President Podolefsky announced that the previous night there was a reception for the recipients of the Governance Award for Excellence.  This award has been recognized in previous years; however, this was the first time they got together and gave plaques and had a dinner for the winners.

 

Podolefsky stated that the Board of Governors approved a 3.8% tuition increase for students, which is precisely the physical year's CPI.  They also approved a flat rate general fee, which will be based on how many credit hours the student takes.  This will allow for those who take 18 credit hours to save money and those who take 15 will not see a difference.  The Board of Governors also approved the student recreation fee and an athletics fee of $25, which should bring the athletics budget in line with its current expenditures. 

 

Podolefsky also stated the merit pay proposal that was forwarded to Provost Wilson and he was great.  He felt the framework of morale boosting relying largely with the department chair is exactly right.  The eligibility and philosophy is terrific.  He would like to take some time and look over the administration part, to make sure he understands it completely.  Podolefsky stated that he thought the holding of the funds until the policy is completed and in place is an excellent idea and the full amount of funds can wait and be allocated mid year.  He did say that rather than distributing a portion of the funds to departments who feel ready to go ahead and holding for others, he would rather wait and distribute the full amount, for consistency.  Jurkowski asked Podolefsky if he has heard anything on MOHELA.  Podolefsky answered that it was being discussed at this time.  There was a House Bill 16, which put back into place various projects including UCM’s.  There is also a Senate Bill 389, which is also being discussed now, is an Omnibus bill.  This bill has some of everything in it, including, but not limited to, scholarship money, tuition caps, many things about faculty qualifications to teach courses must be on-line or available, student governors voting at selective institutions, including UCM, letting individuals know when graduate students are teaching, and an Intel diversity bill.

 

Senator Schmidt asked if there were any plans to review the security policy at UCM, considering what happened at Virginia Tech this week.  Podolefsky replied that last year he met with the safety team on campus as well as talking during cabinet meetings.  Some of that information will be reviewed.  He has met with Bob Ahlering, Campus Police Chief, and Bob has stated they are in the midst of reviewing the policies again.  There are comprehensive policies available on the web at this time.  Also, it is important to remember that the UCM campus police are fully certified police officers by the state.  The policy for a shooting on campus is to look the doors and stay out of sight.  There are many emergency policies out there depending on what type of crisis is happening at the time.  There is no way to stop everything from happening and doing things differently may not have stopped anything.  The policies have been reviewed and the only thing at this time that could be added is creating an across campus PA system, that would enable one person to speak to everyone at once.  Schmidt stated that his thoughts were on professors dying because they were trying to hold the doors shut to keep the shooter out.  Podolefsky stated that most of the classroom doors do not have locks on them, so what do the words “lock down” really mean.  It is a difficult determination as to what can be done.  He stated that the process on campus is that if there is an emergency the President and the Cabinet would become a policy group and command and control would be handled by the police.  The police are the ones that are trained through simulations to tell people where to go and what to do; therefore, even if the President is the spokesperson for the university, he would leave most of the instructions to the trained police.  Schmidt suggested that if the campus has places where a door can be kicked open and there are no options for locks, maybe someone needs to take a look at the situation.  Podolefsky agreed with Schmidt, but stated that unless the door is locked after the students come into the room, when would we know that it could happen.  There will be experts looking over the policies.  Washer suggested that they should look at the policy on seeing the danger signs and referring students.  Podolefsky stated they will look at the policy on prevention of some of these situations.  Zelazek stated that there are policies set up for things that could happen here, such as earthquake, fire, tornado, etc.; however, he did not feel there have been any trainings or drills for these things.  K-12 schools have drills and some faculty have discussed procedures with the students, but there have been nothing formal and he would like to see that start.  Having policy, Zelazek felt, is not enough without some kind of training involved, otherwise, we will be caught by surprise one day.  Podolefsky stated they are looking to see how that might be done, but it will take a lot of effort with as many students on campus.  Williamson stated that the library has been doing drills on their emergency operations procedures that have been approved through Public Safety.  Podolefsky stated that it is probably a building by building issue.  It is hard to prepare for the unknown; however, it is good to always prepare for the worst possible scenario. 

 

Wilson stated that previously a high risk threat that was identified was a possible pandemic.  There has been a task force created to look at this issue and much work has been done; along with an exercise that will be conducted tomorrow.  Chief Ahlering has assigned an officer to do a threat assessment, as well as contacting other institutions regarding these issues.  Wilson stated he would be glad to work with the faculty and staff to see what kind of training program that could be done and be meaningful and non-intrusive at the same time.

 

Jurkowski thanked everyone for the work they have done this year, with this being the last meeting of the 2006-2007 Faculty Senate.  He appreciates all the hard work that everyone has been done.  He especially wanted to thank Rhonda McKee, the Faculty Senate Vice-President, for all the work she has done with the extra work because of the college reorganization and other campus changes.  He wanted to thank Cheryl Riley for the work of the Parliamentarian for the Senate.  Finally, he wanted to thank Julia Kerr, Office Professional for the Faculty Senate, for keeping everyone on track and he announced that this is her last Senate meeting also, as she has obtained another position on campus. 

 

Jurkowski then updated the Senators on the search for the VP for University Advancement.  He stated information can be found by going to the homepage, clicking on faculty/staff and on the top right corner is a link to the information about the search, including the leadership profile.  There is such a demand for individuals within this position that it is much more than simply advertising for the position.  The university is working with a search firm, J. Robert Scott, who are actively hunting individuals for this position.  Wilson stated that the development of a capital campaign for the university is in process.  He is working with the deans and others on the request for initiatives for this campaign.  The time line for posing potential initiatives is mid May.  He wanted to also make sure everyone is aware that they are actively soliciting proposals for this initiative from faculty and staff at this time.  Podolefsky stated that mid May is not a deadline, but a timeline for this.  It will be on going after that timeline is complete.

 

McKee informed the Senate of items that have been announced at Provost Council meetings.  Students and parents will no longer be able to pay on campus with a credit card because of the fees that are applied with that to the university.  They can pay with a debit card, check, cash, or they can go to the website and pay with a credit card, and the user will then have to pay the fees there.  Visa will not be accepted even on the website because they were unable to transfer the fees to the user instead of the university.  Joy Stevenson has been made Director of the International Program.  All summer teaching contracts will be routed through extended campus, this will allow for each faculty to be under one contract and it will allow for departments and colleges to also take part in the revenue sharing.  There will be no variable contracts this summer, but instead there are guidelines for the deans to use to determine when a course will be cancelled.  At this time it is set at 5 for graduate courses, 10 for upper-level undergraduate courses, and 15 for under-level undergraduate courses.  Deans can make some exceptions, but they will be rare.  Zelazek asked what the rationale was for the 5/10/15, when the fees for the 10 and 15 are basically the same.  McKee stated she was not a part of that decision making.  Wilson stated that previous contracts the minimum numbers were actually higher than that; however, Provost Shah announced those numbers after discussing them with the Deans and Wilson didn’t want to change the information this late in the year, especially since it is probably not going to be significant in the final revenue received.  Wilson stated that one thing they are always concerned about is that students get an idea that if they sign up for a class, this class will then be available.  Washer asked who made the decision regarding the stopping of taking credit cards on campus.  Was this decision made by one or two people and were the individuals who use credit cards included in on making this decision?  McKee stated she heard it in an announcement during a Council meeting, so she doesn’t know how the decision came about; however, the cost was $250,000/year to accept the credit cards on campus.  Wilson stated he heard the announcement the same way and he was not involved in the decision either; however, other institutions have gone to doing this also.  Podolefsky stated that there was a committee formed that looked into this issue.  There are still other ways to pay such as using a debit card, paying with a credit card who can charge the fee back to the individual, they can write a check, there are payment plans available, etc.  The savings of this money can add to other areas at another time and the other institutions that have done this have shown that there are no effects on enrollment.  Callahan stated that she had a concern on the minimum numbers on the summer contracts because it was so late in the semester to be making changes for the classes.  Wilson stated that he agreed with her on that, which is why he did not make the changes on the numbers, because these numbers were announced last January from Provost Shah.  Callahan stated previously it was that if the class was offered, faculty received full contract, and now there needs to be specific numbers or sometimes numbers are averaged.  Podolefsky stated that since it is too late to change the information, maybe waiting and seeing how the summer goes and deciding from there what will happen next is the best idea.  Callahan stated that many faculty relied on summer school contracts to supplement their income and so she is concerned as to how this is being handled.  She did not recall being aware of the numbers being stated in January; however, others were.  She understood that if the class was placed on the calendar, the class would make.

 

Koehn stated the SPRC had talked about many topics that have previously been spoken of, such as the VP for Advancement.  One thing that she thought was interesting is that in this labor market, time does not run on a school calendar and that there are no constraints in that for this search.  She then asked Podolefsky if he had any budget information he would like to share.  Podolefsky replied the appropriation that seems to be going forward is a 4.2% increase for the university.  Koehn said the SPRC did talk some about the budget and Vice-President Roberts announced the request for proposals for the campus master plan are close to being finalized and those will be going out to firms with expertise in developing a master plan for the campus.  Roberts had stated that the master plan would be different than the previous plans because the student housing needs were integrated in with the university facilities needs, so it will be a more complicated look at the campus as a whole.  SPRC has also worked on the mission statement.  They decided that since it was so late in the semester, they would wait until the summer/early fall to send out information on the statement and receive input.  There has been some discussion about decentralizing the early retirement and healthcare cost and moving them back to department/college budgets.  Wilson stated that the money will be set aside in the academic affairs area and then it will be decided by Wilson and the Deans on how to disseminate it, and it will not be done by the number of individuals retiring.  This will begin in the fiscal year 08, which will be paid by the vice-presidential areas, but not by individual departments.  Podolefsky stated that if units are able to keep the salary savings from early retirement, then they should be responsible for some of the cost also.

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

McKee presented Motion 2006-2007-24, from the Committee on Committees regarding the replacement for a resignation on the Faculty Senate Elections Committee.

 

The Faculty Senate Committee on Committees submits the following faculty nomination as the replacement for a resignation and requests approval of the Faculty Senate:

 

Faculty Senate Elections Committee:  Omer Frank, College of Health and Human Services, 2008.

 

See committee composition below.

 

FS Elections Committee (1 each)

Name

College

Term

Omer Frank

College of Health & Human Services

2008

Barton Washer

College of Education

2008

Cheryl Riley

Library/AE

2008

Paula Schaefer

Harmon College of Business Administration

2009

Peggy Kantz

College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences

2009

Jason Holland

College of Science & Technology

2009

 

-PASSED- Unanimous                                                                                                 (2006-2007-24)

 

McKee then presented Motion 2006-2007-25, from the Committee on Committees regarding nominations to fill vacancies that still remained within two committees. 

 

The Faculty Senate Committee on Committees submits the following faculty nominations to fill vacancies within the committees:

 

Course Fees Committee, HCBA, John (Skip) Crooker

 

See committee composition below.

 

Course Fees Committee

Name

College

Term

Duane Lundrvold

College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences

2008

Gail Crump

College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences

2008

John (Skip) Crooker

Harmon College of Business Administration

2009

Barbara N. Martin

College of Education

2009

Lynn Riggins

College of Health & Human Services

2009

James H. Taylor

College of Science & Technology

2009

 

 

 

University Assessment Council, College of Ed., Nicole Nickens

 

See committee composition below.

 

FS University Assessment Council

Name

College

Term

Mary Ragland

Library/AE

2008

Julie Stephens

College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences

2008

Pauline Ratnasingam

Harmon College of Business Administration

2009

Nicole Nickens

College of Education

2009

Julie Clawson

College of Health & Human Services

2009

Vicki Jackson

College of Science & Technology

2008

 

-PASSED- Unanimous                                                                                                 (2006-2007-25)

 

Jurkowski presented six motions from the Faculty Senate University Curriculum Committee and the Faculty Senate General Education Committee, Motion 2006-2007-26-31.  He also introduced a final motion, Motion 2006-2007-32, regarding an individual task force to take a look at the General Education.  Jurkowski introduced Dan Schierenbeck, chair of FS General Education Committee and Stefan Cairns, chair of the FS University Curriculum Committee, to speak on the motions.  Schierenbeck handed out information about some of the motions that were brought before the Senate.  He stated that last Fall, the Provost had asked the two committees to explore ways to streamline the General Education program.  The back of the handout showed the motions that were created and some explanations for the motions.  The committees looked at reducing the credit hours from 48 to 42 and also allow more flexibility for transfer students.  There were some restraints that the committees were working under also, which included the state Transfer and Articulation policy and the Statement of Philosophy and General Goals.

 

Motion 2006-2007-26 is the first motion regarding the removal of Division IV, Integrative Studies, from the General Education program.  These classes could continue to be offered, but it would be up to each individual department.  Schierenbeck stated that some of the reasoning for that is the committee looked at some of the data on the ICAP courses and they are currently being used as capstone courses for majors, so the prefix should be under the majors they coincide with.  The IGEN courses are being required by one major or another, so there is no integrative element to the courses and there is not range of students who take these courses.  The handout showed a list of all the ICAP and IGEN courses and which majors they are offered by and also broken down by the majors themselves.  The Division 4 courses are additional institutional requirements above the 42 hours, so moving the courses out of the General Education program would make the competencies look more flexible for transfer.  Both the ICAP and IGEN are intended to be integrated into the disciplines. 

 

Motion 2006-2007-27 is regarding the elimination of the “Division II, Area A, Part II Technology” from the General Education core requirements.  The committee again looked at all the courses and the breakdowns.  BE&O 1200 is required by all the business degrees, which means that course could continue to still be offered.  LIS 1600 could have minimal impact in comparison to other changes that could be made.  The Technology and Change course also seemed to have a number of sections being offered, so the committee thought it could also be moved into another category.  Technology is very important to the university’s mission, but the committee felt it should be permeated within all the courses and not in just one category.  To make sure that technology is still an important part of the charter, they asked the University Assessment Council to create an assessment for computer literacy.  The committee recognizes that with information management, some skills maybe best used within individual courses, so they discussed some ways that library modules can be integrated within some courses.  The next part of the motion is regarding moving the T&OE 2000 course to the area of Social and Behavioral Sciences.  Also on this motion, regards the IGEN courses and that some of the courses were never being offered; however, others had significant enrollment and were tied to student success, so these areas would have to be moved to another area in General Education to continue to be offered.  Finally, the committee asked to move the information from Division 3 into Division 2 and renaming the Division 2, Area E “Civic Engagement and Human Well-Being.”

 

Cairns stated that should the Senate approve the motions, the departments will get a list of the courses that fall within their department and they could then decide to delete or move the course to their specific program.

 

Robins asked about the process.  She stated that she could see the decision making of the committees was based on how to move the university forward, but that they looked at other universities in Missouri.  However, Robins questioned if this was the correct process for changing something as fundamental as general education.  She believed the committees should have also spoken to companies, employers, etc. so she felt this process was looking backwards instead of forward.  Schierenbeck responded saying that one of the reasons they were guided by looking at the other state institutions was because they are all bound by the same transfer, accreditation, and grievance.  This also showed how the other universities handled the state competency and goals.  Geiger stated that she understood that this process was asked from the committees to be done is a fairly quick manner and sometimes that can be a hindrance to the process, however, that can also be a help the process.  She asked the committee chairs if they could say what the committees felt of the motions that were going forward.  Schierenbeck responded that the motions themselves didn’t have any votes against them through the entire process.  He stated that part of the decision making process was if they felt they were trying to do something that would be best for the students, they would stand behind it.  Cairns stated the University Committee never felt less about the process; however, the same concerns were addressed in both committees and not everyone had 100% approval on the motions.  Robins stated that her department’s concern was they felt they did not have any input in this process.  She also spoke to some of the Student Government Association’s members and they stated they were unaware of this process as well, because the student rep was not there, but has not spoken to them of this process as well, so the SGA has not discussed this as a whole at this time.  Cairns stated he did not feel like the committee was in a rush to get this done and get it out, but they felt that they wanted to do a good job.  He agreed with Robins that there is a communication problem because some of the college representatives did not get the information to their college and that would be some issues that need to be addressed within the committees.  Koehn asked if Truman State’s 32-57 hours was reflective to every major and why is there such a large range for the general education.  Schierenbeck replied that some of the classes have the options to test out of the class.  The classes can be based on what sort of background or ACT score the student has as to what classes they are required to take, some may have to take more hours than others.  Zelazek wanted to acknowledge that the Department of Curriculum and Instruction was very well aware of what was going on and they had some concerns, which they did express and discussed and they are satisfied with the work the committees have done.  Cairns stated that department did have a very good representative; although, some colleges did not.  A member on the committee stated that they wanted to address the question about the mood of the committees.  She stated that the process was not completely smooth and there was quite a bit of lively discussion around the technology section and while there were no votes against, there was distension against this motion.  Schierenbeck stated that there was lively discussion and not everyone may have left satisfied.  Rogers stated he was concerned about the 120 hours minimum for all baccalaureate degrees and he is confused because they say this information is what the students need to leave the university with to obtain a job and be competitive.  He felt eventually there needs to be some discussion of general education and what it means and what they want the students to leave with and then design the program around that, instead of adding classes, then taking it way, and over and over.  Some of these classes are used during accreditation, so if these classes are removed, what will be used for the accreditation next time.  There isn’t a good idea at this time on what general education is.  Cairns stated they are trying to separate those two problems, what is general education and who makes the decisions in what the students’ need that is in a specific program.  The committee felt the departments are the best judges of what their students need to get those jobs out there.  The departments will still have the control of whether or not to leave ICAP or IGEN classes within their departments.  Rogers stated that most of the students who take IGEN 3224 are not communication majors, so if it is a communication class, they will lose that enrollment, and in turn the class will eventually go away.  Another philosophical discussion would be if there is a biology student, can we say they don’t need art or music or have a general idea that everyone should have some sort of liberal arts to be a well educated person.  Geiger stated she felt Rogers was mixing apples and oranges.  No one is saying that biology students should not have to take art, but the issue with the IGEN courses is that it really isn’t integrative and many times if majors are requiring students to take a particular class, then it isn’t integrative anymore and it supports the idea that it is not a general education requirement, so she would support the change.  Washer stated that maybe they should propose a review of the courses and investigate the integrative approach rather than wipe them out.  Schierenbeck stated that the committee just did that.  Robins asked if the committee will tell the faculty what they have to teach within the class so that areas such as information management will continue to be covered.  Is this what it will come down to make sure specific areas are still taught?  Schierenbeck stated that the management of information is already a competency within the course matrix and there are already courses that offer that information.  Joy suggested that they go back and revisit general studies.  He is concerned when a student comes in and doesn’t know the basics.  A member of the gallery asked if the committee looked at all the general education, such as do we still need 9 hours of humanities, 9 hours of social science, was general education looked at as a whole.  Schierenbeck stated that the courses that are an addition to the institutional requirements did get looked at more closely, but they did look at most areas, if not all.  The committee took several different routes to get where they are.  A member of the gallery asked if the state requires the university to have all the different classes beyond IGEN.  Schierenbeck stated that the state does not say how many hours are required, but does require specific competencies.

 

Robins asked if it would be possible to move Motion 2006-2007-32 up and vote on it first.  Jurkowski stated they would have to suspend the rules and vote on 32, if so moved.  Robins moved that this be done, Strohmeyer seconded.  A vote was taken and Passed, 16 for, 3 against, 1 abstain.

 

Therefore, Motion 2006-2007-32 was then brought to the floor for discussion.  Zelazek asked if the name of the former provost could be changed to Y.T. Shah and the current provost be changed to Provost Wilson.  Rogers stated he did not have a problem with those changes.  A vote was taken as follows:

 

The former provost, Y.T. Shah, asked the Faculty Senate Committees on General Education and Curriculum, chaired respectively by Dan Schierenbeck and Stefan Cairns, to look in to the current policy for meeting General Education requirements and to make recommendations for streamlining the process.

 

While the Faculty Senate wishes to extend its sincerest thanks to both committees for a job well done, we recognize that the task given to both committees by the Provost Shah was probably too broad for the time allotted in which to accomplish its charge.

 

Therefore, we recommend that the Provost Wilson assemble a working group to examine the question of how best to proceed with a process for re-examining the General Education requirements which would include both faculty and administration input. Further, we ask that the Provost or his spokesperson be ready to report the working group's recommendations at the first regularly scheduled faculty senate meeting of the Fall semester.

 

-PASSED-  For:  16                Against:  1                    Abstain:  3                                (Motion 2006-2007-32)

 

Jurkowski then moved back to Motion 2006-2007-26.  Strohmeyer asked to move those six motions in one group and table them until the outcome of the task force.  Joy seconded this.  Geiger asked Strohmeyer why he would like to do this.  Strohmeyer replied for philosophical concerns regarding general education.  Geiger stated that the Senate asked the committees to do this work and even though they did have to do it quickly, sometimes that can be a benefit because individuals do not over think the process.  She stated there will always be questions on the general education and they should consider the work that has been done and not ask for a report and then throw it out.  McKee stated that President Podolefsky pointed out that only two of these motions deal with general education, while the other four do not.  Strohmeyer stated that cutting hours in general education, wouldn’t it affect the overall hours for a degree.  He also stated, in response to Geiger’s statement, that even if the committee did not feel rushed, he does.  Rogers suggested examining some of the motions and voting on some, so he would not support tabling them as a group, but instead look at them individually.  A vote was taken for tabling the motions as a group, which failed, 5 for, 13 against, 3 abstain; therefore, the motions will be looked at individually. 

 

Jurkowski then brought Motion 2006-2007-26 back to the floor.  Robins moved the motion be tabled and Washer seconded.  A vote was taken as follows:

 

The Faculty Senate University Curriculum Committee Recommends the following motion to the Faculty Senate:

The Removal of Division IV, Integrative Studies from the General Education Program.  The IGEN and ICAP courses currently offered in this area could continue to be offered if individual departments wish to do so, but the courses would have to be re-prefixed accordingly. 

-TABLED-      For:  15                        Against:  3                    Abstain:  2                    (Motion 2006-2007-26)

 

Jurkowski brought Motion 2006-2007-27 to the Senate floor.  Robins moved that the motion be tabled and Strohmeyer seconded.  A vote was taken as follows:

 

The Faculty Senate University Curriculum Committee Recommends the following motion to the Faculty Senate:

A) The elimination of the separate category of “Division II, Area A, Part II Technology” from the General Education core requirements.

B) The development of a strategy for courses within Division II, Area A, B, C, D, and E to require specifically that these courses address the area of information management.

C) The moving of the T&OE 2000 course to Area B: Social and Behavioral Sciences without having to go through the process of resubmission.  This course should be offered as an option for students.

D) The creation of a Division II, Area E category and list the courses currently identified under Division III: Personal Interaction along with IGEN 3116.  IGEN 3116 would not need to go through the process of resubmission to the FS General Education Committee.  Division III would thus be eliminated.

E) The new category Division II, Area E should be titled “Civic Engagement and Human Well-Being” 

-TABLED-      For:  16                        Against:  3                    Abstain:  1                    (Motion 2006-2007-27)

 

Jurkowski brought Motion 2006-2007-28 to the Senate floor.  A member of the gallery commented that he was unaware if any function major program was contacted regarding this change.  They were instead told it would be done by the last provost and that was the last they heard on it.  Robins moved that this motion be tabled and Strohmeyer seconded it.  Podolefsky stated that if someone reads the catalog, they will most likely not understand what “functional major” means.  Strohmeyer stated that previously a board, CBHE, requested them to change their major to a functional degree; therefore, it is now recognized as a professional preparation program.  He stated he would have to vote against the motion for lack of knowledge of the change.  A member of the gallery stated that if it not a problem with the major, but a problem with the name, he would encourage it to be explained better within the catalog.  A vote was taken as follows:

 

The Faculty Senate University Curriculum Committee Recommends the following motion to the Faculty Senate:

 

Remove the word “functional” from functional majors.

FSUCC Chair will email the new names to departments for approval following Faculty Senate approval.

 

-TABLED-      For:  13                        Against:  4                    Abstain:  3                    (Motion 2006-2007-28)

 

Jurkowski then brought Motion 2006-2007-29 to the floor.  Cairns stated that with the tabling of the previous motion, he would like to withdraw this motion.  Podolefsky stated that the problem is when the content has to require a minor, with the word function, and then the program should not have to require a minor.  The question is would a minor be good for all students as required and what is the value of electives being available to students.  Robins stated that she is aware that some faculty are concerned with some programs where there are no electives.  Cairns stated he supported what Podolefsky just stated, which was where most of the discussion was focused.  The rationale for the ideas of functional major and minors was to give the control back to the departments as to what the students needed for their majors.

 

The Faculty Senate University Curriculum Committee Recommends the following motion to the Faculty Senate:

 

Change the word “required” to “recommended minor or area of emphasis” on page 19 of the catalog.

 

-WITHDRAWN BY COMMITTEE-

 

Jurkowski presented Motion 2006-2007-30.  Cairns stated that this motion came from a problem with the program name change.  Previously the first place this would go was the Academic Planning Council.  With the reorganization, it was discussed what areas needed to have input on just having a program name change.  With these changes, it would allow the committee to streamline the process and place it in front of the Departments, then Deans, then Provost’s Cabinet, and CBHE because there is not any curriculum change, only a name change.  Podolefsky stated that technically it should go to the Provost, then President and maybe the Board of Governors for a name change, but he wouldn’t disagree with the reasoning behind the motion.  Wilson stated that the Provost’s Cabinet should actually read the Provost’s Council, due to the change in the council’s name.  A vote was taken as follows:

 

The Faculty Senate University Curriculum Committee Recommends the following motion to the Faculty Senate:

 

A new process for Program Name Changes.  It is recommended the approval be as follows:

Department—Dean—Provost’s Council—CBHE

 

If APC goes back to including the Provost Cabinet, then for name change only, the approval process will be:  APC—Department—College—Dean—CBHE. 

 

-PASSED-       For:  16                        Against:  0                    Abstain:  4                    (Motion 2006-2007-30)

 

The final motion brought to the floor by Jurkowski was Motion 2006-2007-31, also from the Faculty Senate University Curriculum Committee.  Strohmeyer asked if instead of setting a minimum of hours, they should consider a maximum, if they are trying to encourage less time.  Rogers asked if the 9 hours of minimum in a minor, how will be effected with the other motions that were tabled.  Wilson stated that he didn’t believe it should matter because functional majors don’t require a minor.  This motion would allow things to be more permissive rather than restrictive.  He stated that not every program would be 120 hours.  At this time, all programs meet these requirements, so no changes would be necessary.  This will just allow the individual programs to set the standards above the minimum and there is no point in having a minimum that will apply to no one and this may need to be looked over more carefully.  These were discussed by the Provost Council and recommended by the Deans for consideration, but the idea was this needs to be looked at and some discussion is needed.  Wilson did state that he appreciates the work that the Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee has done in making these recommendations, but he would like to see some assurance that they will generally apply and although there will be acceptations, but not in more than half of the programs.  A member of the gallery commented that he thought the 30 hours is good for the transfer students.  He also stated that it is 4 hours to graduate over a 1,000 a year and he would like to see the hours go down, but it also has to be considered that it revenue for the university.  Cairns stated that the 30 hours were for upper level courses, so the same basic hours required.  He also stated that there are many programs currently at 120 hours, but some of the new programs are below that.  Wilson stated that this will give some additional latitude for programs that can provide a high quality educational without the level of rigidity that the university currently has.  Geiger stated that she had the same thought about the reduction of hours compared to what the student’s pay.  With the discussion of the flat rate, the pay would be even.  A vote was taken as follows:

 

The Faculty Senate University Curriculum Committee Recommends the following motion to the Faculty Senate:

 

That there be:

o       120 hours minimum for all baccalaureate degrees

o       30 hours minimum of upper level (3000 & 4000) courses

o       30 hours minimum residency at UCM

o       15 hours minimum in major at UCM

o       9 hours minimum in minor at UCM (added to Dean’s list)

o       Associates Degree – leave as is currently listed on p. 33 of catalog

o       Expectation is that justification above 120 hours is not needed if program already exists (added to Dean’s list)

o       Ease of dropping free electives in programs if departments want done to get to 120 hours in fall semester as a list by FSUCC chair with approval of chairs (added to Dean’s list)

 

-PASSED-       For:  15                        Against:  1                    Abstain:  4                    (Motion 2006-2007-31)

 

Ely gave an update on the Support Services Evaluation task force.  He stated that the final report is being drafted with a number of key recommendations.  One of those is that the Provost work with the Deans to decentralize the centralized advising to improve the quality and consistency of academic advising and clarify to role of the faculty within the advising process.  They also recommend the President, in conjunction with the Vice-Presidents; undertake a system wide analysis and review of all university support services, primarily because the support services tend to cross all areas of the university.  Finally, they recommend that they university administrators review the cost structure of the institutional support as compared to sister institutions.  The report should be drafted this week and should be completed at the end of the semester.

 

With nothing further the final meeting of Faculty Senate 2006-2007 was adjourned at 5:07 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

The 2008-2009 Faculty Senate meeting was called to order at 5:15 p.m. in Union 237A.  As out going President, Odin Jurkowski presided over the beginning of the meeting.

 

ROLL CALL: 

 

In addition to previous FS President Jurkowski, the following nineteen senators were present:  Callahan, Davis, Ely, Geiger, Joy, Kangas, Neal, Norwood, Popejoy, Robins, Rogers, Sarkar, Schmidt, Smith, Strohmeyer, Thomas, Urban, Wenger, and Williamson.  Also present was President Aaron Podolefsky, Provost George Wilson and Parliamentarian Cheryl Riley.

 

Robins moved to elect Senator Jack Rogers as Faculty Senate President and Steven Popejoy as Vice President, with Joy as second.  Motion passes, 17 for, 0 against, and 1 abstain.  Rogers then took his seat as the Faculty Senate President and presided over the remainder of the meeting.

 

The senators then got together within their colleges to discuss and nominate a member to represent on the Faculty Senate Executive Committee.  The representatives are Alan Wenger, College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Science, Jennifer Robins, College of Education, Scott Smith, Harmon College of Business Administration, Allison Norwood, Health and Human Services, Davie Davis, Library and Academic Enrichment, and Som Sarkar, Science and Technology.  Rogers announced that the first meeting of the Executive Committee will be tomorrow, April 19, 2007, at 3:15 pm in Union 219.

 

Rogers brought Motion 2007-2008-1 regarding dates for the Faculty Senate and FS Executive Committee meetings.  Sarkar asked what the purpose of the summer meetings are, because he will not be on campus.  Rogers stated that if there are no agenda items, the Faculty Senate will not meet, but the dates are open incase there are some meetings that are necessary.  Robins stated that previously the President asked if the dates were looked at for religious holidays and has that been checked.  Kerr, Office Pro, stated that the dates have been checked as well as possible; however, there are some dates that could not be moved around holidays.  Rogers stated that if some of the meetings might need to be moved, then they might be done, or the Senator can always send an alternate in his/her place.  Schmidt stated that this year’s calendar had a mistake on it and he missed a meeting, so he would like to make sure the information is correct.  Kangas stated that he would prefer to get the information hard copy instead of e-mails.  Rogers stated that there should be a new student worker and they may be able to deliver some hard copies.  Neal asked if the motion could be voted on since the motion number is incorrect.  Rogers pointed out that the motion is correct, the agenda is incorrect, and that does not make a difference.  A vote was taken as follows:

 

The Faculty Senate and the Faculty Senate Executive committee shall be available for meetings on the following dates:

 

2007-2008 FACULTY SENATE MEETING SCHEDULE

 

DATE                                                                         TIME                          LOCATION

May 16, 2007                                                              3:15 pm                        Union 237A

June 13, 2007                                                              3:15 pm                        Union 237A

July 18, 2007                                                               3:15 pm                        Union 237A

August 29, 2007                                                           3:15 pm                        Union 237A

September 19, 2007                                                     3:15 pm                        Union 237A

October 3, 2007                                                          3:15 pm                        Union 237A

October 24, 2007                                                        3:15 pm                        Union 237B

November 7, 2007 (General Faculty Meeting)              3:15 pm                        Union 237A&B

November 14, 2007                                                     3:15 pm                        Union 237B

December 5, 2007                                                       3:15 pm                        Union 237A

January 16, 2008                                                          3:15 pm                        Union 237A

February 6, 2008                                                         3:15 pm                        Union 237B

March 5, 2008                                                             3:15 pm                        Union 237A

March 19, 2008 (General Faculty Meeting)                   3:15 pm                        Union 240

April 2, 2008                                                                3:15 pm                        Union 237A

April 16, 2008                                                              3:15 pm                        Union 237A

 

2007-2008 FACULTY SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULE

 

DATE                                                                         TIME                          LOCATION

May 17, 2007                                                              3:15 pm                        Union 219

June 21, 2007                                                              3:15 pm                        Union 123

July 19, 2007                                                               3:15 pm                        Union 219

August 30, 2007                                                           3:15 pm                        Union 219

September 20, 2007                                                     3:15 pm                        Union 219

October 18, 2007                                                        3:15 pm                        Union 219

November 1, 2007                                                       3:15 pm                        Union 219

November 15, 2007                                                     3:15 pm                        Union 219

December 6, 2007                                                       3:15 pm                        Union 219

January 17, 2008                                                          3:15 pm                        Union 219

February 7, 2008                                                         3:15 pm                        Union 117

March 20, 2008                                                           3:15 pm                        Union 219

April 3, 2008                                                                3:15 pm                        Union 219

April 17, 2008                                                              3:15 pm                        Union 219

 

-PASSED-       Unanimous                                                                               (Motion 2007-2008-1)

 

Rogers then asked for a representative for the Strategic Planning Resource Council, which is a two-year term.  Ely volunteered.  Joy moved to vote Ely as the SPRC representative, Callahan seconded.  Vote was Unanimous.

 

Rogers then asked for nominees for the Missouri Association of Faculty Senates.  He stated that Cheryl Riley is the current state President and he, Rogers, is the voting representative, and they need an alternate.  This group allows for the Faculty Senates across the state to present a unified front on bills and such.  There are two meetings a year that the Association has and the Faculty Senate will pay the travel.  Kangas volunteered.  Popejoy moved to vote Kangas as the Missouri Association of Faculty Senate Alternate, Callahan seconded.  Vote was Unanimous.

 

Rogers stated that Cheryl Riley has agreed to stay on as the Parliamentarian.  Kangas moved that they elect Riley as Parliamentarian, Ely seconded.  Vote was Unanimous.

 

The Executive Committee will meet tomorrow at 3:15 pm in Union 219.  The next Senate meeting will be May 16. 

 

With nothing further, the meeting was adjourned at 5:45 pm.

 

 

Julia Kerr

Faculty Senate Office Professional

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meeting 1                                                                                                         April 18, 2007

 

 

 

University of Central Missouri

Faculty Senate Minutes

 

 

 

The 2007-2008 Faculty Senate meeting was called to order at 5:15 p.m. in Union 237A.  As out going President, Odin Jurkowski presided over the beginning of the meeting.

 

ROLL CALL: 

 

In addition to previous FS President Jurkowski, the following nineteen senators were present:  Callahan, Davis, Ely, Geiger, Joy, Kangas, Neal, Norwood, Popejoy, Robins, Rogers, Sarkar, Schmidt, Smith, Strohmeyer, Thomas, Urban, Wenger, and Williamson.  Also present was President Aaron Podolefsky, Provost George Wilson and Parliamentarian Cheryl Riley.

 

Robins moved to elect Senator Jack Rogers as Faculty Senate President and Steven Popejoy as Vice President, with Joy as second.  Motion passes, 17 for, 0 against, and 1 abstain.  Rogers then took his seat as the Faculty Senate President and presided over the remainder of the meeting.

 

The senators then got together within their colleges to discuss and nominate a member to represent on the Faculty Senate Executive Committee.  The representatives are Alan Wenger, College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Science, Jennifer Robins, College of Education, Scott Smith, Harmon College of Business Administration, Allison Norwood, Health and Human Services, Davie Davis, Library and Academic Enrichment, and Som Sarkar, Science and Technology.  Rogers announced that the first meeting of the Executive Committee will be tomorrow, April 19, 2007, at 3:15 pm in Union 219.

 

Rogers brought Motion 2007-2008-1 regarding dates for the Faculty Senate and FS Executive Committee meetings.  Sarkar asked what the purpose of the summer meetings are, because he will not be on campus.  Rogers stated that if there are no agenda items, the Faculty Senate will not meet, but the dates are open incase there are some meetings that are necessary.  Robins stated that previously the President asked if the dates were looked at for religious holidays and has that been checked.  Kerr, Office Pro, stated that the dates have been checked as well as possible; however, there are some dates that could not be moved around holidays.  Rogers stated that if some of the meetings might need to be moved, then they might be done, or the Senator can always send an alternate in his/her place.  Schmidt stated that this year’s calendar had a mistake on it and he missed a meeting, so he would like to make sure the information is correct.  Kangas stated that he would prefer to get the information hard copy instead of e-mails.  Rogers stated that there should be a new student worker and they may be able to deliver some hard copies.  Neal asked if the motion could be voted on since the motion number is incorrect.  Rogers pointed out that the motion is correct, the agenda is incorrect, and that does not make a difference.  A vote was taken as follows:

 

The Faculty Senate and the Faculty Senate Executive committee shall be available for meetings on the following dates:

 

2007-2008 FACULTY SENATE MEETING SCHEDULE

 

DATE                                                                         TIME                          LOCATION

May 16, 2007                                                              3:15 pm                        Union 237A

June 13, 2007                                                              3:15 pm                        Union 237A

July 18, 2007                                                               3:15 pm                        Union 237A

August 29, 2007                                                           3:15 pm                        Union 237A

September 19, 2007                                                     3:15 pm                        Union 237A

October 3, 2007                                                          3:15 pm                        Union 237A

October 24, 2007                                                        3:15 pm                        Union 237B

November 7, 2007 (General Faculty Meeting)              3:15 pm                        Union 237A&B

November 14, 2007                                                     3:15 pm                        Union 237B

December 5, 2007                                                       3:15 pm                        Union 237A

January 16, 2008                                                          3:15 pm                        Union 237A

February 6, 2008                                                         3:15 pm                        Union 237B

March 5, 2008                                                             3:15 pm                        Union 237A

March 19, 2008 (General Faculty Meeting)                   3:15 pm                        Union 240

April 2, 2008                                                                3:15 pm                        Union 237A

April 16, 2008                                                              3:15 pm                        Union 237A

 

2007-2008 FACULTY SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULE

 

DATE                                                                         TIME                          LOCATION

May 17, 2007                                                              3:15 pm                        Union 219

June 21, 2007                                                              3:15 pm                        Union 123

July 19, 2007                                                               3:15 pm                        Union 219

August 30, 2007                                                           3:15 pm                        Union 219

September 20, 2007                                                     3:15 pm                        Union 219

October 18, 2007                                                        3:15 pm                        Union 219

November 1, 2007                                                       3:15 pm                        Union 219

November 15, 2007                                                     3:15 pm                        Union 219

December 6, 2007                                                       3:15 pm                        Union 219

January 17, 2008                                                          3:15 pm                        Union 219

February 7, 2008                                                         3:15 pm                        Union 117

March 20, 2008                                                           3:15 pm                        Union 219

April 3, 2008                                                                3:15 pm                        Union 219

April 17, 2008                                                              3:15 pm                        Union 219

 

-PASSED-       Unanimous                                                                               (Motion 2007-2008-1)

 

Rogers then asked for a representative for the Strategic Planning Resource Council, which is a two-year term.  Ely volunteered.  Joy moved to vote Ely as the SPRC representative, Callahan seconded.  Vote was Unanimous.

 

Rogers then asked for nominees for the Missouri Association of Faculty Senates.  He stated that Cheryl Riley is the current state President and he, Rogers, is the voting representative, and they need an alternate.  This group allows for the Faculty Senates across the state to present a unified front on bills and such.  There are two meetings a year that the Association has and the Faculty Senate will pay the travel.  Kangas volunteered.  Popejoy moved to vote Kangas as the Missouri Association of Faculty Senate Alternate, Callahan seconded.  Vote was Unanimous.

 

Rogers stated that Cheryl Riley has agreed to stay on as the Parliamentarian.  Kangas moved that they elect Riley as Parliamentarian, Ely seconded.  Vote was Unanimous.

 

The Executive Committee will meet tomorrow at 3:15 pm in Union 219.  The next Senate meeting will be May 16. 

 

With nothing further, the meeting was adjourned at 5:45 pm.

 

 

Julia Kerr

Faculty Senate Office Professional