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

ROLL CALL:
Twenty-four senators and two alternates were present. Alternates were Heming for Johnson and Bryant for Ben Yates. Also present were Provost Carter and Dr. Waller.

MINUTES of the November 7 Faculty Senate meeting were approved as printed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Provost Carter reported that the SP&RC is meeting simultaneous to our meeting. He would be in and out trying to attend both meetings. Some offices will start moving into Ward Edwards on December 17. Carter has been attending departmental meetings, and continues to be impressed with the job faculty do. Congratulations to Becky Limback as Central’s Governors Teaching and Excellence Award recipient.

In response to Bob Yates Carter said our lawyer is drafting guidelines regarding the protection of student records. A court order is needed to get these records. Carter introduced Central’s General Counsel Judith Siminoe. She offered to send out through Groupwise a reminder on how to analyze the protection of records regulation. Dr. Waller announced that Byler Award nominees due by December 7.

Bersin referred to the printed Academic Council, Administrative Council, and President’s Cabinet highlights. Contact Bersin with concerns. The results of the Faculty Referendum were distributed to all faculty. Myers referred to the Council of Dean’s report. Contact Myers with concerns.

COMMITTEE REPORTS:
FS Committee on Committees chair Shellie Myers proposed the following nominations.
Julie Clawson-AST, Bill Wilson-EHS, and Kathy Desmond-AS were nominated to serve on the Faculty Evaluation Task Force. (The Senate approved Mel Franz-HCBA and Mollie Dinwiddie-L/AE on November 7.) Yousif Mustafa was nominated from HCBA to replace Doug Robideaux on the FS Faculty Personnel Policies Committee through 2003. Kathy Desmond-AS, Joyce Downing-EHS, Josette Ahlering L/AE and Ralph Mullin-HCBA were nominated for the CASTL Campus Ad Hoc Inquiry Committee. An AS&T vacancy remains. Doug Thomas and Joe Vaughn were nominated for the at-large faculty positions on the Enrollment Management Team. Betsy Kreisel was nominated from EHS to replace Sharon Lamson on the FS Undergraduate Exceptions Committee through 2003 or until Roger Pennel returns from active military duty. Harold Keller and Scott McKay were nominated as the two new faculty members that were added to the Human Subjects Committee membership last fall. All nominations were approved unanimously.

Rewrite the first sentence following item 3). To facilitate this process, the chair of the committee, or the committee’s appointee, shall may attend and participate in discussions at appropriate faculty and administrative meetings of the Council of Deans whenever the agenda includes discussion of the academic budget. The FS AE 1400-Student Development Seminar Committee was not due for the 3-year review, but requested changes in the membership section of the charge. Increase the membership to 11 to include the Coordinator of AE-1400 Student Development Seminar as ex officio/non-voting. Correct the title in item 4. To the Chair of Academic Enrichment (ex officio/non-voting). All charge changes were approved unanimously.

FS Salary & Fringe Benefits Committee Chair Don Wallace presented the committees proposed faculty compensation implementation plan. The proposal included the creation of a joint committee with timeline to accomplish specific tasks.

Eason proposed a substitute motion supported by the Arts & Sciences Caucus. (With references to the caucus reasoning.) The substitute motion was seconded. There was lengthy discussion regarding following the charge given by the Board of Governors and the time needed to gather input. Some felt all three points of the Board’s charge were not addressed in the FS Salary & Fringe Benefits Committee proposal, compared to specifics in the A&S substitute motion. Bersin relinquished the gavel to reiterate that the charge from the Board was to have the provost negotiate a plan with the faculty. The plan would be sent to President Patton for approval, who would then report to the Board on December 14.

Some felt that the original FS Salary & Fringe Benefits Committee motion was just the sentence on page one. After further discussion, there was a call for the question. Mihalevich asked for a roll call vote on the substitute motion. Those for the motion were Callahan, Davis, Eason, Heming, Lynch, Morgan, Bob Yates and Zupnick. Those against the motion were Atkinson, Bacon, Best, Check, Franz, Ghozzi, Joy, Kemp, Laster, Limback, Mihalevich, Myers, Palmer, Small and Bryant. Those abstaining were Martin and Miller. The vote on the substitute motion failed with 8 yes votes, 15 no votes and 2 abstentions.

There was an appeal from Bersin’s ruling that the full 14-page FS Salary & Fringe Benefits Committee report was the implementation plan if the Senate approved it. The appeal was sustained (overruling Bersin) with 7 yes votes and 17 no votes.

After continued discussion Eason offered an amendment to the FS Salary & Fringe Benefits Committee report "to include the Arts & Sciences Caucus proposal titled ‘An Alternative Proposal’ to be used with the working document." The amendment was seconded and passed with 14 yes votes, 6 no votes and 4 abstentions.

It was assumed that Provost Carter role with the new joint committee would be the same as when he worked with the ad hoc committee. Bersin said the FS Salary & Fringe Benefits Committees 14-page report and Arts & Sciences Caucus document "An Alternative Proposal" will go to the president immediately. The FS Executive Committee will start fulfilling the charge of creating the joint committee at its December 7 meeting. Small moved that "the joint committee will submit the Compensation Model to the Faculty Senate for approval in the regularly scheduled meeting in April 2002." The amendment passed with 23 yes votes and 1 abstention.

The entire FS Salary & Fringe Benefits Committee’s amended motion passed.

                        FOR: 22 AGAINST: 1 ABSTENTIONS: 1 PASSED (FS 2001-2002-6)

FS Faculty Personnel Policies Committee member Mollie Dinwiddie referred to the printed report regarding evaluation of administrators, noting it is the consensus of our committee that the FS should not vote in favor of such a motion. The reasoning of the committee was part of the report. Small referred to the two reasons given by the FS FPPC requesting the Senate vote the idea down. Small thought the FS already decided that it wants to do this. Bersin relinquished the gavel to Myers. Bersin reported that the language in the Mo. Sunshine Law is permissive not mandatory. He gave an example of what the state auditor reported. Franz was not a member of the Senate last year when this was brought up, but thought there are ways in place already and disapproved the motion. Dinwiddie clarified the motion. Eason moved "to postpone this issue until December 12." (FS Executive Committee will discuss if a member of the FS FPPC needs to be at the December 12 meeting.) Dinwiddie thought that through their discussion the Senate could send the issue back to the FS FPPC to answer all the original questions. Eason requested that after the vote, we have our general counsel explain her concerns today. The Eason motion to postpone until December 12 passed by unanimous voice vote.

Atkinson moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded and passed.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.

Ginny McTighe, Faculty Senate Secretary

Meeting 10 - Central Missouri State University - December 12, 2001

The Faculty Senate met at 2:00 p.m. in Union 237B with President Michael Bersin presiding.

ROLL CALL:
Twenty-two senators and two alternates were present. Alternates were Bryant for Callahan and Tenney for Kemp. Also present were Provost Carter and Dr. Waller.

MINUTES AND COMMITTEE NOTES of the December 5 Faculty Senate meeting were approved as printed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Bersin referred to the printed Academic Council report. Contact Bersin with concerns.

Dianna Bryant Chair of the FS General Education Committee announced that CBHE mandated "Managing information" as the fifth component. After discussion it was agreed to have the FS General Education Committee and FS University Curriculum Committee include the mandates.

COMMITTEE REPORTS:
The Evaluation of Administrator’s report from the FS Faculty Personnel Policies Committee (that was postponed on December 5) was brought back for consideration. There was discussion regarding the need and implementation for such an evaluation. The institution currently reviews administrators. Other institutions hold informal evaluations by faculty of administrators to determine overall performance on general issues. Was a scale to rate people used? Would percentages be used? Provost Carter questioned who would be evaluating, how much time would it take and who would get the results.

Franz moved and it was seconded to include "faculty evaluation by students" to the proposal. Some departments routinely have students evaluate faculty. Davis referred to original discussion noting that the issue was sent to the FS Faculty Personnel Policies Committee because administrators evaluate faculty and other administrators. Faculty do not evaluate administrators and some faculty wanted that. It was reported that faculty are already evaluated from the top down and from the bottom up. Atkinson called the question for the amendment which failed with 2 yes votes, 17 no votes and 4 abstentions.

Small noted Student Governments at other universities evaluate administrators. Small recalled that when this issue was sent to the FS Faculty Personnel Policies Committee it was his understanding that there was no option for the committee to turn down the evaluation, but to design a brief form to evaluate administrators by faculty. Small moved "to send the document and discussion to the FSFPPC to return by the April FS meeting, with a specific policy including a list of questions." The motion was seconded. Franz offered a friendly amendment that the evaluation be added to the existing evaluation system. Small did not accept the friendly amendment. Bacon noted that an evaluation form for faculty to evaluate administrators would permit formal input. Carter noted that all faculty have been involved with evaluating chairs and deans on a three-year rotation. A very formal summative evaluation. Carter reported that he meets with deans annually to be sure they are on target. Carter is hearing that we want a global evaluation of administrators. If that is what faculty want it is fine. Carter is not interested at this point, without knowing the reasoning to marry the current system with a new one. In response to SGA doing the evaluating, Carter suggested that the Faculty Senate could do the evaluating, tabulating and announcing results to faculty. The vote to send back to committee failed with 5 yes votes, 15 no votes and 3 abstentions. The original motion printed in quotes on the FS Faculty Personnel Policies Committee report failed with 3 yes votes, 17 no votes and 3 abstentions.

OTHER BUSINESS:
Franz moved, it was seconded and approved to act as a quasi-committee of the whole in which President Bersin would serve as chair to review the October 31 version of the Promotion & Tenure document.

The Arts & Sciences Caucus offered the following changes.

CHANGES IN SUBSTANCE

p. 2, 3rd full paragraph

The university recognizes, however, that in some disciplines and for some positions other degrees and/or discipline-specific, professionally recognized certifications [are customarily regarded as the highest normally appropriate to scholars in those areas. are equally appropriate for scholars in those areas.] Approved with 21 yes votes, 1 no vote and 1 abstention.

For those disciplines or positions where the appropriate terminal degree is normally not the doctorate, the degree [or certification] requirement will be stated in established policies initiated by the department affected and agreed to in writing by the college dean and the provost. Approved with 22 yes votes and 1 abstention.

p. 2, last paragraph

Promotion is recognition of a faculty member's sustained and distinguished service to the department, college[, and] university[, and profession] and is based upon accomplishments. Approved with 22 yes votes and 1 abstention.

p. 3 under Criteria for Promotion

Criteria for promotion [at the department and college level] shall be those specified in the Faculty Guide.

Approved with 21 yes votes and 2 abstentions.

p. 5 and p. 17, f.

The department chair, after consideration of the recommendations of the departmental Promotion Committee, will write a recommendation regarding each candidate and will forward the entire recommendation packet (including the dossier) for each candidate being recommended for promotion in ranked order to the college Promotion and Tenure Committee by October 7.

p. 5 and p. 17, g.

The college Promotion and Tenure Committee will forward the recommendation packets and its written recommendations in order of priority to the dean by October 28.

p. 6 and p. 17, h.

If the recommendations of the dean differ from that of the committee or if the dean believes a re-ordering of the priority listing is justified, the reasons should be stated to the committee at a meeting called for that purpose.

The above three were approved together with 17 yes votes, 4 no votes and 2 abstentions.

Eason withdrew the following. p. 6 and p. 18, j.

The president, after consideration of the recommendations of the provost, will write a recommendation regarding each candidate for whom materials have been forwarded [and copy that letter to the candidate].

p. 8 and p. 19. Section B - The Candidate’s Section

The dossier [represents] is the primary database [needed by ] the candidate [uses] in support of his/her candidacy for promotion. Approved unanimously.

The following editorial changes were approved.

p. 1, B., 1.

The university agrees with the 1940 AAUP/AAC Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure[. The university, and,] therefore, supports the following principles.

p. 2, last paragraph

Promotions are awarded on the basis of merit, which has been substantiated by academic credentials and by [the results of a ] systematic evaluation of a faculty member involved.

The criteria for recognition and evaluation of merit will become progressively more exacting [as a faculty member moves] from lower to higher academic ranks.

p. 4, c. Professor

It is assumed [that] candidates meet all requirements of the associate professorship prior to promotion to professor.

p. 4, a.

Faculty will be notified of eligibility to apply for promotion and/or tenure on or before March 1 of the academic year prior to the year of eligibility to apply for promotion and/or tenure. The candidate for promotion/tenure will submit the dossier to the departmental Promotion/tenure Committee by September 1. And on p. 15, in the tenure section, strike reference to promotion.

p. 4 and pp. 15-16, b., under NOTE

NOTE: A recommendation packet consists of a dossier and other related documents, such as copies of administrative and student evaluations, letters of recommendation for promotion, copies of publications[, omit comma] or evidence of the same, [and] documentation of professional activities and any additional significant activity which the candidate feels is relevant to the application. All materials for each candidate will be available for examination **at all levels of review by the review committees.

p. 4 and p. 16, d.

[Dossiers are A dossier is]not forwarded to the next level of review if the candidate has been denied at a particular level except when the candidate requests that it continue along the process. Such requests should be made in writing to the [committee] chair or [individual administrator] at the rejecting review level and must be submitted no later than 7 calendar days after receipt of the letter of notification.

p. 5 and p. 16, e. (1)

Members of the Promotion Committee [will be made known to the department faculty and] may not be candidates for promotion. Members of the Promotion Committee will be made known to the departmental faculty.

p. 7 and p. 18, l.

All materials in the original dossier[would are to] be considered confidential at every level of review and all materials returned intact to the candidate within two weeks after the review process is completed.

p. 8 and p. 19 (strike through Promotion and in Tenure Section)

Item 4 The department Promotion and Tenure Committee will recommend or

not recommend. Its chairperson will sign in the appropriate place and attach to the dossier a written justification for the recommendation made.

Item 6 The college Promotion and Tenure Committee will recommend or not

recommend. Its chairperson will sign in the appropriate place and attach to the dossier a written justification for the recommendation made.

p. 8 and p. 19, Section B - The Candidate’s Section

The dossier [represents] is the primary database [needed by ] the candidate [has to] [in] support of his/her candidacy for promotion.

p. 10 and p. 22, Scholarship/Creative Activity

Scholarship includes discipline-related inquiry and/or creative activities. As the faculty member advances through the ranks, [the body of scholarly activity is such activities are] expected to reflect increasing scholarly maturity. The following items [should may] be used as evidence of scholarship.

p. 1, 2. In light of this quest for excellence[,] the academic personnel process is designed to facilitate the evaluation of faculty in a fair and professional manner.

To do so requires the exercise of informed professional judgments as well as respect for the rights and responsibilities of all persons involved in the process. Central Missouri State University is best served when personnel matters can be decided, and disagreements resolved, in an environment of informal cooperation and full discussion[,--omit comma] based upon clearly stated criteria for evaluation.

p. 2., 3rd full paragraph

In most instances[,] a terminal degree is required for promotion. In most academic disciplines and for most faculty positions, the appropriate terminal degree is the doctorate.

p. 3 under Criteria for Promotion

The faculty of individual colleges may adopt college guidelines [, which that] are consistent with but more rigorous or explicit than the university policy.

[Begin a new paragraph with:] All candidates are expected to demonstrate excellence in teaching1 and also achievements in both the scholarship and service categories.

p. 5 and p. 16 e. (1)--changes in capitalization

Directors of public and technical services will serve in the capacity of the department chair, ex-officio member without a vote, on promotion and tenure committees in those instances when a faculty member under consideration is from their respective units.

p. 5 and p. 16, f.--changes in capitalization

If the recommendation by the chair differs from that of the committee, the letter must clearly so state.

p. 6 and p. 17, i.

The provost, after consideration of the recommendations of the dean and college Promotion and Tenure Committee, will write a recommendation regarding each candidate for whom materials have been forwarded[,--omit comma] [and] forward the recommendation packets of those being recommended for promotion to the president by January 7.

p. 7 and p. 19, Item 2 Enter the complete rank(s) and title(s) (e.g., "Professor of Psychology" or "Assistant Professor"). Year, in this item, refers to year of appointment or promotion.

p. 7 and p. 19, Item 3

Item 3 Enter degree(s) earned, year(s) awarded, and institution(s) awarding degree.

Eason moved to adjourn 4:40 p.m. The motion was seconded and passed.

Happy Holidays from the Faculty Senate. The next meeting will be on January 16, 2002.

Ginny McTighe, Faculty Senate Secretary