Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes - April


April 3 Minutes  -  April 10 Minutes  -  April 24 Minutes


Meeting 17 - Central Missouri State University - April 3, 2002

Faculty Senate Minutes 
(approved 4-10-02)


The Faculty Senate met at 3:15 p.m. in Union 237B with President Michael Bersin presiding.

ROLL CALL:

Senators present were Bersin, Best, Check, Eason, Franz, Ghozzi, Joy, Kemp, Laster, Limback, Lynch, Miller, Morgan, Myers, Palmer, Small, Ben Yates, Bob Yates and Zupnick. Alternates present were Bryant for Bacon, Shaffer for Davis and Heming for Johnson. Also present was Associate Provost for Academic Programs and Services Fran Waller.

MINUTES:

Minutes of the March 20 and 21 Faculty Senate meetings were approved as printed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

Bersin noted that Provost Carter and three senators were absent because they are members of the Strategic Planning & Resource Council (SPRC), that was meeting simultaneous to our meeting.

Dr. Waller reported on behalf of Provost Carter noting that the SPRC was almost done with its charge. One of the last pieces to balance the budget is student tuition and housing cost. In response to Bob Yates’ and Eason’s concern regarding other academic programs rumored to be under review by SPRC, although they did not go through the process, Waller reiterated that "one of the last pieces to address are student tuition and housing costs." Best said he spoke with a SPRC member earlier, who said there were no other academic programs being discussed by SPRC. (Further discussion under Old Business.)

Dr. Waller announced that the three-year dean evaluation information would be sent to full-time faculty (random selection for the Rice evaluation) next week. Those due for evaluation are Dean’s Wilson, Bowman and Rice. Deadline to return information is April 26.

The Strategic Plan will be electronically mailed soon. Provost Carter suggested feedback this Spring, then discussion at the Summer retreat, with return to the campus for review and to the president in the Fall, 2002.

Byler Award recipients will be announced next week with the reception slated for April 18 from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the Ward Edwards Atrium.

Myers referred to the distributed Council of Dean’s report from the last two meetings. Contact Myers with concerns.

Bersin announced that the April 10 Senate meeting will be in Union 236 and the final Senate meeting on April 24 (when the 2002-2003 Senators are seated and officers elected) would be in Union 237A.

Bersin referred to the distributed letter regarding Faculty Senate release time support from President Patton dated March 25 and the letter expressing appreciation to the Senate from Provost Carter dated March 28.

Dianna Bryant, member of the Joint Committee on Faculty Compensation gave and update of the committees’ work. An open forum was held on March 27 with poor attendance. Bryant stated the committee charge and noted that AAUP data published each Spring will be used to develop a plan. Guidelines for market pay for new hires will be established, followed by guidelines for market pay for incumbent faculty. Cheryl Riley emailed information including the philosophy statement to all faculty April 2. In response to Best, Bryant anticipated the completion of the committees’ work by the end of the semester, for implementation the next fiscal year. Bryant encouraged feedback to the committee and welcomed attendance at Friday meetings. Bob Yates reported that he attended the forum and encouraged all to read the attachments sent by Riley. The problem on figuring market pay was discussed at the forum. The information that was emailed was broken down by college. Bob Yates suggested Bryant share the gross figures campus-wide. He noted that any decisions need to be done openly and it would be wise to have all the information available. Yates recommended 2002-2003 senators stay abreast of what is being done and how faculty are going to be compensated. "If we believed the promotion and tenure document was a contentious issue, wait until we address compensation."

OLD BUSINESS:

Eason shared information from a copy of a document she received (forwarded to John Sheets, who forwarded it to Provost Carter) assuming it was from an SPRC member titled "Group III Reactions to the Provost’s Recommendations." Further down the page under "Additional Concerns" were in regard to a number of other academic programs that did not go through the review process, that were evidently going before the SPRC. Those being recommendations to eliminate minors in Philosophy, Anthropology and Religious Studies, all French majors and investigating Music because of the expense.) Waller said minors were not a part of the review process this Spring, but probably will be reviewed through the Academic Planning Committee (APC) in the Fall or as a part of the five-year review process. Those programs were not on the report the provost sent to the president. Bersin commented that "if you liked Agriculture, you’ll love Music." Eason reiterated her concern. Eason will provide copies of the document upon request. In response to Check not understanding Bersin’s comment, Bersin stated "that if the University likes the heat that it got from going after Agriculture, it is really going to love the heat it’s going to get for going after Music." In response to Bob Yates noting how minutes of the review groups are not being posted on the web in a timely manner, Waller said that she will see that the minutes are posted. Yates noted that minutes that have been posted did not indicate consideration of the above-mentioned programs. Some expressed concern that we need to address this situation, if indeed, programs are being reviewed outside the retrenchment process. Bersin encouraged senators to express concerns with the FS Executive Committee prior to the April 4 meeting. (Further discussion with Dean Perrin appears near the conclusion of these minutes.)

NEW BUSINESS:

Bersin made reference to the Intellectual Property Rights document dated May 1, 2002 that was prepared by the Intellectual Property Rights Committee. Morgan thought the committee did a thorough job including the appendices. She suggested that it might be beneficial to include the appendices within the document. Morgan referred to Appendix C, under Course Assessment wondering why students are not included in the monitoring statement. Morgan noted some inconsistent wording throughout the document. Joy noted that Frederick Pinne highly recommended the document. Best moved, and it was seconded, to endorse the document. Bob Yates and Best agreed to endorse the document.

Small noted that he served on the original committee and wanted to amend the document.

Under Policy Recommendations for Online Courses 3) a) rewrite the sentence to read "The commissioning of all online courses for use through Central Missouri State University’s curriculum should, where possible, be approved ahead of time and must follow the specified procedures." The motion was seconded. There were concerns expressed regarding current courses and how those faculty are not required to go through this process when the courses are offered electronically. There are a couple of places in the document that do not mesh with the rest. After further discussion, Small and the seconder agreed to withdraw the motion. Lynch moved "to postpone consideration of the Intellectual Property Rights document until the April 10 Faculty Senate meeting so that someone who created the document could be available to discuss these concerns." The motion to postpone was seconded and passed with 18 yes votes and 3 no votes.

Bersin referred to the Public Speech Activities Policy draft dated 3/1/02. Franz moved and it was seconded "to endorse the Public Speech Activities Policy." Bob Yates opened discussion noting how improved the draft was compared to the current policy. Yates referred to page 118 of the Handbook, noting that students "observing" a demonstration could be subjected to disciplinary action. Best referred to section III A. of the draft policy and questioned if the 24-hour notice was not possible, could they try it in a much shorter time? Since the 24-hour phrase has no purpose, does it make the rest of the statement void? Yates referred to 1970 and how demonstrations occurred immediately at his alma mater when the media announced the shootings at Kent State. Bersin said that he had recently exercised his first amendment rights and without that clause it would be terrible. We are interfering with the educational process vs. someone with a sign on the quad that is different. Bersin felt that the 24-hour clause does not have anything to do with it. Best reiterated his concern, as he would not want to deny any group from protesting. Best gave the example of the Baptist group from Topeka that came to demonstrate against Judith Shepherd’s presentation. The demonstration was planned and announced days ahead of time. Yates referred to page 128 of the Handbook noting that even if you are" walking by" the present policy could subject you to disciplinary action if it turns disorderly. Small expressed concern with the second half of item G. noting that those not a part of the campus community have more rights. A call for the question motion by Franz failed.

Although Bob Yates thought the new document was superior to what we have, he expressed concern with II. E. 1. Noting that we are a campus that is most reasonable, but he was concerned with what is perceived as obscenity and threats. He could not whole-heartedly endorse the document. The motion to endorse the Public Speech Activities Policy passed. It was requested that the meeting minutes be forwarded with the document.

FOR: 9 AGAINST: 7 ABSTENTIONS: 3 PASSED (FS 2001-2002-25)

 

Dean Perrin gave some history of the original FS Professional Enhancement Committee (FS PEC) funding procedures and noted the practice to give Scholarly Activity Funds (SAF) to full-time tenure track was not in the policy. Perrin went to the FS PEC with problems she encountered. A motion sent from Doug Thomas (past chair of the FS PEC) to the Faculty Senate last year stated that "only tenure track faculty" were eligible to apply. After lengthy discussion the FS PEC passed the following motions on March 27, 2002.

"The distribution of Scholarly Activity Fund money passed by the FS PEC in 2001 should remain in effect until June 30, 2002."

"Beginning July 1, 2002, all full-time faculty members are eligible for Scholarly Activity Fund money."

"The effects of motion #2 (all full-time faculty) on the SAF process and available funds will be reviewed by the FS PEC after one year of implementation."

Further discussion focused on how the funds are divided throughout the year and the process now used since Perrin is responsible to over-see the funds. She requests ongoing input from the FS PEC.

Eason referred back to the memo regarding discussion of programs outside the retrenchment process and asked Perrin for input, as she is the Council of Dean’s representative on the SPRC. Perrin thought decisions regarding elimination of the above mentioned programs were probably made on April 1 when she was absent due to illness. She was unaware that it was called Group III. She knew some recommendations had been forwarded for future SPRC review, but not as part of the current financial stringency review process.

Small moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded and the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.

 

Ginny McTighe, Faculty Senate Secretary

The next meeting will be on April 10, at 3:15 p.m. in Union 236.


Meeting 18 - Central Missouri State University - April 10, 2002

Faculty Senate Minutes 
(approved 4-24-02)


The Faculty Senate met at 3:15 p.m. in Union 236 with President Michael Bersin presiding.

ROLL CALL:

Senators present were Bersin, Callahan, Check, Eason, Franz, Ghozzi, Johnson, Joy, Kemp, Laster, Limback, Mihalevich, Miller, Myers, Palmer, Small, and Zupnick. Alternates present were Bryant for Bacon, Shaffer for Davis, Heming for Lynch and Nikaido for Bob Yates. Also present were Provost Carter and Associate Provost Fran Waller.

MINUTES:

Minutes of the April 3 Faculty Senate meeting were approved as printed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

Provost Carter announced that the financial stringency recommendations from the SPRC were forwarded from President Patton to the Board of Governors. A student fee increase of $10 above the $10 surcharge was recommended. Central’s in-state undergraduate fees will be the same as Northwest, below all of the University of Missouri schools, Southwest and Truman, and above Southeast, Southern, Western, Harris-Stowe and Lincoln. The Board will approve final recommendations in May. Academic Affairs has gone through a process of administrative review. Carter noted that if your area has not been contacted yet, that you haven’t been affected by reorganization. CAST is still discussing options. An Academic Forum will be on April 23, 3:30 in Union 237A, where Carter will show graphically what was done in Academic Affairs.

Waller announced that Carol Mihalevich and Shing So were selected as Byler Award recipients. The reception is April 18 from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the Ward Edwards Atrium. Forms to evaluate Dean’s Bowman, Wilson and Rice will be sent to those involved. Annual report forms and faculty profiles will be on the web soon. Past years faculty profiles could be used for promotion and tenure dossiers. Reports are due back to chairs by May 15.

Bersin referred to highlights of the Academic Council and noted that the President’s Cabinet meets April 12, 2002.

In response to Callahan, Carter noted that the Retrenchment Policy did not address appeals of the provost’s recommendations by the Academic Review Board. The position of the SPRC in the process needs to be addressed. In response to Callahan, Carter noted that if the student tuition of $137 per credit hour is approved and the president’s contingency can be used we should be okay. With utilities jumping and possible decrease in first time freshman of 150 in the Fall, plus having to keep more buildings open this Summer than planned, we do not know for sure.

 

Bersin referred to an article from The Des Moines Register dated April 3, 2002, where the Faculty Senate at the University of Iowa voted to conduct a bake sale to help offset $40 million in budget cuts.

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

FS Academic Standards Committee member Joanne Reinke reported that the committee reviewed the Undergraduate Grade Exclusion Policy and voted the SGA’s proposed policy down unanimously. Some sections conflict with university policy, others were contradictory or unenforceable. In response to Palmer, Reinke stated that some felt that excluding a semester (whether from Central or elsewhere) would not give an accurate accounting of the student’s actual college performance. Some felt that Central’s current "moderately selective" admissions standards might lessen the need for such a policy. Several felt the FS Undergraduate Exceptions Committee could take care of some situations where the policy might otherwise apply. The committee voted 3 to 2 against the idea of Central instituting a grade exclusion policy. The dissenting view was that some students who had made mistakes in their younger years might deserve a second chance or fresh start when they returned later as more mature non-traditional students.

 

OLD BUSINESS:

Bersin made reference to the Intellectual Property Rights guideline recommendations dated May 1, 2002 that was prepared by the Intellectual Property Rights Committee. Eric Honour was introduced and available for questions. After further discussion Franz expressed appreciation to the committee for offering more ‘faculty friendly’ recommendations.

Franz moved and it was seconded

"That the Intellectual Property Rights Guidelines dated May 1, 2002 be used as a basis to create an Intellectual Property Rights Policy."

FOR: 19 AGAINST: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 1 PASSED FS 2001-2002-26

 

NEW BUSINESS:

Small/Morgan made the following motion regarding Social Security numbers used as student identification. Small gave examples of how identification numbers are used on the Internet to link to other Library resources. Small found that Central is the only public university who requires SSN use.

Moved that "the Faculty Senate urges the President and the University Administration to change University Identification codes from the Social Security Number to some other number that will not be useful in identifying an individual anywhere except on our Campus."

FOR: 19 AGAINST: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 1 PASSED FS 2001-2002-27

 

In the absence of Morgan, Eason referred to motions created to address market pay adjustment procedures. Upon request, Provost Carter had since forwarded the procedures for distribution to the FS Executive Committee. Eason withdrew the Morgan/Eason motions. In response to Palmer, Carter stated that there is a current provision in the document that market adjustments must be funded by sources within the college, primarily because HCBA used it and it was stated clearly that the administration would not fund them. Upon Bryant’s request, the procedures will be emailed to all senators and alternates. In response to Callahan (who is on the joint committee working on a faculty compensation model), Carter stated that a dollar amount is agreed to between the provost and dean to establish what is market. The dean can go 10% above that amount. The dean must balance the total salaries based on the number of searches being conducted. In response to Bryant, Carter said that the dean would have the information that establishes market in their college.

 

Eason/Morgan made the following motion regarding faculty appointments to committees & commissions.

Move that "The Faculty Senate requests of the administration that in cases in which faculty are sought to serve as representatives of and spokespersons for their peers that the faculty be nominated or selected by those whom they are to represent or by that group’s elected representatives."

Small made a friendly amendment to the motion. Myers referred back to motion FS 2000-2001-15 (dated April 15, 2001) that changed the FS Committee on Committees charge and was approved by President Patton on May 4, 2001. After further discussion and examples, Provost Carter thought the amendment was open to interpretation and misunderstanding. Small withdrew his amendment. The original Eason/Morgan motion passed.

FOR: 15 AGAINST: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 5 PASSED FS 2001-2002-28

Franz/Best made three motions regarding the Retrenchment Policy & Procedures.

Move that

The following sentence be added to the bottom of the first paragraph in section I A. Academic Planning Committee of the "RETRENCHMENT POLICY AND PROCEDURES."

"The provost will provide the APC with a target amount of money that needs to be obtained with this process."

Lengthy discussion focused on the need to review the Retrenchment Policy & Procedures document, now that it has been used for the first time. Carter noted that Governor Russell asked that there be a critique of the process. The Council of Deans brainstormed ideas. Bersin researched the original that came about in the early 1980’s according to FS minutes and Muleskinner. The local AAUP chapter weighed in at that time as when there is retrenchment a policy there must be a collaborative effort including faculty to create a retrenchment document, and that was done. Zupnick gave an example of retrenchment from New York State and how the administration fought for the institution and got impressive results. Johnson added that CMSU did this in the mid 80’s and grew by thousands of students. Callahan was optimistic that we would not need all the rules as this would never occur again. The motion failed with 2 yes votes, 15 no votes and 3 abstentions.

Move to add at the end of first sentence in the first paragraph in section I B. Academic Review Board of the "RETRENCHMENT POLICY AND PROCEDURES"

"from the APC or Provost decisions."

Small and Myers expressed concern regarding the provost’s involvement. Myers preferred the motions go to the FS Faculty Personnel Policies Committee for review and recommendations. The motion failed with 2 yes votes, 14 no votes and 3 abstentions.

 

Move that a Section to be added between I B. Academic Review Board end and the start of II ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT PLANNING of the "RETRENCHMENT POLICY AND PROCEDURES"

"C. President Review

If the President finds that this process did not achieve the reductions necessary, the President will forward the new information to the Provost and the process shall start again with step I A."

The motion failed with 2 yes votes, 13 no votes and 4 abstentions.

 

Eason moved "that the entire Retrenchment Document and these motions be referred to the FS Faculty Personnel Policies Committee for review and recommendation." The motion was seconded.

Waller shared that she was on the retrenchment committee years ago and that she was glad we had it this Spring. The motion passed with 18 yes votes and 2 abstentions.

 

Myers moved to suspend the rule. The motion was seconded and passed with 19 yes votes and 1 abstention.

Myers moved that "The Faculty Senate appoints an ad hoc committee comprised of one senator from each college and L/AE to address the reply/recommendations received from President Patton regarding the Promotion & Tenure Policy. A report should be made to the Faculty Senate no later than the final meeting of this academic year." The motion was seconded.

There was lengthy discussion for and against the motion. Some felt that the A&S caucus and FS Executive Committee worked as "ad hoc committees" and the Senate worked as a committee of the whole. Myers stated that the Senate was the body that rewrote the document and a standing committee review would be starting over. The five member ad hoc committee of senators would report back to the Senate. Bersin expressed concern with the discussion that would take place by the Senate when such an ad hoc committee made its report. There would be redundancy. The Senate is a representative body, whether senators chose to be informed or not. He had confidence in the Senate, above and beyond the call of duty. Myers trusted the Senate but wanted a way to expedite the process once President Patton replies to the Promotion & Tenure recommendations approved by the Senate. Some felt that this was a philosophical issue and that a review could be done in the Fall. Others expressed the need to ensure completion of the document this year.

The vote for the ad hoc committee to review President Patton’s reply/recommendations to the Promotion & Tenure document and report to the Senate no later than the final meeting of this academic year, passed with 10 yes votes, 3 no votes and 7 abstentions. Those selected by their caucuses to serve on the ad hoc committee were EHS-Shellie Myers, A&S-Cheryl Eason, CAST-Susan Morgan, HCBA-Roger Best and L/AE-John Small.

It was moved and seconded to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 4:57 p.m.

 

Ginny McTighe, Faculty Senate Secretary

The next FS meeting will be on April 24, at 3:15 p.m. in Union 237A.


Meeting 19 - Central Missouri State University -  April 24, 2002

Faculty Senate Minutes
(Approved 5/1/02)


The Faculty Senate met at 3:15 p.m. in Union 237A with Vice President Shellie Myers presiding.

ROLL CALL: Senators present were Atkinson, Best, Check, Eason, Franz, Ghozzi, Johnson, Joy, Kemp, Laster, Limback, Lynch, Miller, Morgan, Myers, Palmer, Small, Ben Yates, Bob Yates and Zupnick. Alternates present were Bryant for Bacon, Alkire for Callahan and Shaffer for Davis. Also present were University President Bobby Patton, Provost Carter and Associate Provost Fran Waller.

MINUTES: Minutes of the April 10 Faculty Senate meeting were approved as printed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS: Myers announced that Bersin was resting easy in the hospital. He hopes to be back soon. Myers announced that the final Senate meeting would be on May 1 at 3:15 p.m. in Union 237A. The new FS Executive Committee will meet on May 2, at 3:30 p.m. in Union 308 to set goals.

 

Patton announced that he had just returned from a national meeting in which it was reported that other states are struggling with higher education budget cuts.

Patton reported that the past years accomplishments were summarized at the April 23 Faculty Forum.

Patton hoped for resolution on the Promotion & Tenure document by May 1. Referring to the proposed discussion committee, Patton noted that any area not agreed upon would remain as stated in the current policy. Patton stated he was relieved over the Elliott settlement.

 

Carter noted that the Faculty Forum was well attended and that we are coming to a time of consolidation and refinement. There is an atmosphere of stability and improvement.

Waller expressed thanks to those who participated in the Byler Awards reception. Waller is working with Curt Reams, FS Faculty Awards Committee chair, to nominate faculty by May 10 for the Excellence in Teaching Award. Contacts will be made and information will be ready when Central is contacted during the summer.

In reply to Bryant, Carter noted that Central is a backup for National Guard communications, which allows us to run our own telephone system. Patton stated faculty offering to teach courses to National Guard students would do so as an over-load or for extra pay.

The FS Committee Policy & Procedures Manual Report was presented. FS committees are encouraged to provide updated manuals to incoming chairs, with a copy to the Faculty Senate Office.

A bouquet of flowers and card were presented to McTighe in observance of Office Professionals Week.

 

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

FS Salary & Fringe Benefits Committee Chair Jeff Yelton presented the following.

The FS S&FBC "does not recommend a salary increase for fiscal year 2002-2003."

They do not make this recommendation lightly. The Committee feels that there is a serious need for a substantial increase. However, the Committee recognizes the state of financial stringency under which CMSU will have to operate. The Committee "urges the University to make every effort to grant the faculty an across-the-board component representing a catch-up provision, for fiscal year 2003-2004" for the following reasons.

This will mark the second year of the last three that CMSU faculty have not received an across-the-

board increase.

Our salaries during this period are not keeping pace with even the mild state of national inflation.

Increases in health insurance premiums, over which Central has no control, have offset the raises

that some faculty and staff with families have received.

Ten-year date that we have examined clearly show that mean salaries of our faculty have eroded

relative to other institutions of the AAUP’s West North Central Division. This is the peer group by

which our future compensation probably will be benchmarked.

 

FOR: 22 AGAINST: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 0 PASSED FS 2001-2002-29

 

FS University Budget Advisory Committee Chair Arthur Young presented a report and recommendation

but noted that a proposal for Library acquisitions was received from the Library Advisory Committee after his report was sent to the Senate. The committee is now reviewing the LAC recommendation. It was agreed to address a combined report on May 1. Contact Young with any concerns.

Atkinson moved to suspend the rule to address the ad hoc committee report and motions. The motion was seconded and approved with 21 yes votes and 1 no vote.

Eason noted that the ad hoc committee reviewed the responses from Patton one-by-one and responded in the same order. Members were Best, Eason, Morgan, Myers and Small. Some items were editorial changes; other items that were reviewed the ad hoc committee decided to keep the Senate recommendations, other items the committee asked for more information.

Both Patton and Carter apologized for an error in the promotion section of Patton’s response letter.

Bob Yates was very impressed with the language used. We are working collegially. In response to Palmer, Small said the discussion committee would review all the items including those that the ad hoc committee offered no recommendation for.

Eason moved as follows.

That the "FS accept the report from the Ad Hoc Committee in response to President Patton’s memorandum on the Promotion and Tenure document and that the President (or in his absence, the Vice President) of the FS send the report to President Patton."

A roll call vote was requested. Those voting for the motion were Alkire, Atkinson, Bryant, Check, Eason, Franz, Ghozzi, Johnson, Kemp, Limback, Lynch, Miller, Morgan, Palmer, Shaffer, Small, Ben Yates, Bob Yates and Zupnick. Abstaining were Best, Joy and Laster.

 

FOR: 19 AGAINST: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 3 PASSED FS 2001-2002-30

 

Atkinson moved as follows.

That the "FS form an Ad Hoc Discussion Committee comprised of the President and Vice President of the FS and three additional elected Faculty Senators to meet with President Patton and any other representatives of his choosing to discuss any areas where disagreements remain within the Promotion and Tenure document." "Further, this Ad Hoc Committee is charged with submitting motion(s) to the FS on any items discussed for final approval by the FS." The motion was seconded. Small offered a friendly amendment increasing the senators from two to three, which passed unanimously. Palmer suggested that information from the new committee be sent to the Senate ASAP so that it could be considered on May 1. Atkinson moved that we select three from the original ad hoc committee to work with Patton. The motion was seconded and passed with 18 yes votes, 2 no votes and 2 abstentions.

Lynch moved to replace the motion "to include the original members of the ad hoc committee."

The replacement motion read

That the "Faculty Senate form an Ad Hoc Discussion Committee comprised of the President and Vice President of the Faculty Senate and the original ad hoc committee members to meet with President Patton and any other representatives of his choosing to discuss any areas where disagreements remain within the Promotion and Tenure document."

"Further, this Ad Hoc Committee is charged with submitting motion(s) to the FS on any items discussed for final approval by the Faculty Senate."

The motion was seconded and passed.

FOR: 19 AGAINST: 2 ABSTENTIONS: 0 PASSED FS 2001-2002-31

 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m.

Ginny McTighe, Secretary


please click on the month names below to view the minutes from that month

January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December



Central Missouri State University
Faculty Senate Office - Central Missouri State University - Union 309 - Warrensburg, MO  64093 - phone 660-543-4808
click mailbox to send E-mail to Faculty Senate   
mailbox.gif (1071 bytes) myers@cmsu1.cmsu.edu  

Site design by L. Schmidt -   Instructional Design and Development