Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes - October


October 10 Minutes    -    October 17 Minutes   -    October 31 Minutes


Meeting 5 - Central Missouri State University - October 10, 2001

Faculty Senate Minutes 
(approved as corrected 10-17-01)


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 Nikaido for Smith and Alkire for Ben Yates. Also present was Provost Kyle Carter.

MINUTES AND COMMITTEE NOTES of the September 26 meeting were approved as printed.

ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Provost Carter referred to the 150+ faculty who attended the Academic Forum held on October 2. There was good discussion of important issues that everyone should feel free to express views. Carter announced Dr. Bob Dickeson would meet with the Faculty Senate and general campus on October 16, 3-5 p.m. in Union 237A. Dickeson will meet with the FS Executive Committee, Strategic Planning & Resource Council and Council of Deans on October 17, 1-3 p.m. in JCK Library 2441.Carter reported that hard copies of the Strategic Plan would be distributed campus-wide shortly. Focus groups are meeting to review the draft document of the Strategic Plan. This is the time to offer corrections and comments. Contact Carol Nimmer with suggestions. Carter reported that the Nursing Department completed an accreditation that appears to be very successful based on the exit visit.

Bob Yates asked if Dickeson would offer suggestions or would his ideas influence our administration's perspectives for the future. Carter anticipated Dickeson would address the importance of planning and strategic issues, especially shrinking budgets, as he has helped various campuses deal with those issues. Central may or may not use what Dickeson suggests. Carter explained the terrible situation at the University of Northern Colorado in 1981 when Dickeson was hired there. A massive analysis was conducted, with some programs and services being eliminated. (Carter was there at that time.) Thirty plus faculty were let go. Dickeson stayed until 1991. Carter encouraged faculty to feel free to ask any questions, with expectations to get a response. Dickeson developed a system for institutions to evaluate themselves and spend their own money.

Bersin referred to the President’s Cabinet report, specifically to item 5. Next year the best we can hope for is "what we’re operating on today…" Contact Bersin with concerns.

Myers referred to the distributed Council of Dean’s report. Contact Myers with concerns.

Student Government Association Senator Richard Holtmeyer reported discussion on the grade exclusion policy and smoking on campus. Although there has not been a motion yet, students feel there should be some form of grade exclusion.

Bob Yates distributed a report from the October 5 MAFS meeting, noting that Yvonne Johnson attended as Central’s alternate. Yates highlighted the faculty pay increases, budget process, Regional College Retirement Plan of MOSERS, a retired AAUP member who shared the changes from 1975 to 1999 in personnel at the University of Missouri-Columbia and a CBHE report on Faculty Fellows. (Eighty to ninety percent of Central’s faculty are tenured.) Bersin noted that Dr. Vickrey would discuss the RCRP at the FS Executive Committee meeting October 11. Yates concluded by stating he would deliver all the MAFS information to the Faculty Senate Office.

COMMITTEE REPORTS:
FS Committee on Committees chair Shellie Myers reported that the names of Someswar Kesh and John Small were forwarded to President Patton to select one for the Information Technology Policy Council. Myers nominated the following. Delia Cook as the third at-large faculty member through 2002 on the Service Leaning Advisory Council. (Rhonda Atkinson and Som Sarkar were approved by the Faculty Senate on September 12, 2001.) Jan Wiggins as the HCBA member through 2003 on the Extended Campus Advisory Council, replacing Cheryl Shattuck. All nominations were approved unanimously.

FS Academic Standards Committee chair Michael Wright referred to the printed catalog degree requirements proposal that read

"Change the effective dates for checking degree requirements in the Undergraduate General Catalog to an eight year period from first enrollment and to edit the Undergraduate General Catalog to reflect this change."

                FOR: 25 AGAINST: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 0 PASSED (FS 2001-2002-1)

FS Distance Learning Committee chair Tom Atkinson referred to the printed Distance Learning checklist and concerns the committee had with the Principles of Good Practice for Distance Learning/Web-based Courses document adopted by CBHE in 2000. In response to the document, Outreach Services created an approval checklist for all online courses offered at Central. The document was submitted to the Senate for approval and subsequent review by the FS Distance Learning Committee. Specific changes are contained in the current version, although Atkinson did not believe the committee reviewed the revised version of the approval checklist. There is some concern by the administration that this document should be approved quickly to begin implementation as policy in regards to copyright infringement. However, neither the process nor the definition of what constitutes copyright infringement has been clearly described by the university. Issues related to copyright such as intellectual property rights of the faculty were not addressed in the document. Questions remain regarding exactly what is meant by "the Resource Team standards" in the Course Development section, which requires approval by the Resource Team Leader and how do these standards differ from our current process. Who is the Resource Team Leader…a faculty member? Why is a different standard or process for courses offered online necessary? Isn’t Blackboard merely an extension of the classroom that is usually restricted to students enrolled in the course? If so, why is the approval process necessary? The document was before the Senate for approval. Morgan shared the same concerns, noting copyright rules or resource team standards were not addressed and that no one she contacted could explain them. Morgan noted that she has had excellent support from the Library and elsewhere to get courses on-line. How would that be affected based on the document? Morgan moved to send the report back to the FS Distance Learning Committee for further review and to determine what constitutes the items listed under the Course Development section and the Resource Team standards and how the process will actually work. (Some things will actually be approved before the department chair & dean approved them, so the order is not clear.) The motion was seconded. Eason noted that the resource team standards being approved before the department chair and dean could include the syllabus. To have a uniform look for online courses is fine, but an interpretation could be that someone else could decide what the syllabus is. There is too much leeway. Small asked that the committee address the curricular matters in the document that would be signed off by the resource team…whoever that is. The motion was approved unanimously.

FS Faculty Technology Needs Committee chair Eric Honour referred to the three-part motion.

That the Faculty Senate forwards a resolution to the University President that, in the opinion of the faculty at-large,

The use of the term "technology", for the purposes of appropriation and funding, should be considered dependent on arena and should never be construed to mean simply "computers" or "information technology".

The construction and maintenance of reliable information technology infrastructure is crucial in facilitating the daily performance of faculty, student, and administrative duties.

The installation, maintenance, repair, and upgrading of classroom equipment, including, but not limited to, data projectors, multimedia capabilities, and other lecture-enhancing equipment, is necessary to maximize student learning and faculty effectiveness.

    FOR: 25 AGAINST: 00 ABSTENTIONS: 00 PASSED (FS 2001-2002-2 )

FS Salary & Fringe Benefits Committee chair Donald Wallace referred to the report on the Faculty Compensation Policy noting that the committee offered no specific motions for Faculty Senate consideration. Reflecting back to last Spring, Bob Yates asked Carter if the Board of Governors were to approve some form of this policy on October 17, would it then go to governance groups to create parameters? Carter agreed. Small suggested the FS S&FBC start working on a list. Eason noted that some parameters were included in the policy already. In response to Bob Yates, Wallace noted that the committee based their discussion on the information supplied to them.

Bersin referred to the current Rules of Order, noting that the Myers motion is germane for consideration.

In response to Carter noting there is no regular Board meeting scheduled in November, Atkinson amended the Myers motion to read "until the next regularly scheduled Board of Governor’s meeting." The amendment was seconded and passed with 24 yes votes, 0 no votes and 1 abstention.

On behalf of the Arts & Sciences Caucus Eason offered the following amendment to the Myers motion.

That the attached information (Business Week article 3/5/01, Chronicle article, information regarding unfilled positions in the HCBA and the A&S response to the Board’s proposed policy) be forwarded to the Board of Governor’s along with our request that the Board postpone its decision on the Academic Affairs Committee’s compensation proposal. The amendment was seconded. There was discussion with examples presented by HCBA senators. Reference was made to the two items the Board of Governors suspended for 12 months or until a policy was implemented, that did help in hiring. It was agreed that pertinent information could be forwarded to the Board. At the attention of Callahan, Eason agreed to include the summer market adjustments in the salary data. Bacon expressed concern with the motions and other information going forward at the same time. Best drew attention to some debatable information. It was noted that the source for each of the four documents would be cited in the headers. The amendment was approved with 22 yes votes, 3 no votes and no abstentions.

Myers suggested changing her motion to read "The Faculty Senate requests that the Board of Governors delay their vote on the faculty compensation policy from October 17 until the next regularly scheduled meeting so that the faculty may have sufficient time to review the proposed compensation policy."

Eason noted that a non-binding referendum was coming for Senate consideration would be addressed by the FS Executive Committee on October 11. Discussion continued on the lack of new state funds next year, individual department scenarios, the concern that some parameters/values are included in the proposal rather than having governance groups create the parameters for implementation, the need to see the actual policy as it will be presented to the Board of Governors. (without introductory comments, etc., that are not actually part of the proposed policy). Yates reported the English & Philosophy Department was unanimous that If implemented, the policy will destroy morale outside the Business College and that they deplore the drift of the university away from faculty governance towards a top-down authoritarian style of administration. Why wasn’t the current salary schedule addressed and suggestions to adjust it be considered? Bersin relinquished the gavel to Myers to express his dissatisfaction with responses he received during the Board of Governors Academic Affairs Committee work and the lack of minutes or notes made public. When Bersin questioned it, he was told him they are beyond that. Carter, Best and Bersin had provided different drafts of implementation of compensation plans. Faculty in the gallery were denied viewing the draft. Bersin now sees he should have insisted the information be posted. In response to Atkinson’s suggestion that Carter ask the Board for more time, Carter stated that he has not yet decided how he will address the Board. The faculty spoke their minds at the forum. The faculty needs to present their views to the Board. Carter will submit what he has heard across campus and then give his own views. Bersin said if we pass the motion, he would report it to the Board. Carter said he was comfortable in asking he Board for more time. He has concluded that we can take the policy and develop a system close to the current one, but addresses the concerns. He has no problem with a delay. We need to begin to flush out details in the next two months, maybe adjusting the current policy to implement. Institutions are captured by their past. There is a lack of trust in the administration and we need things written out. Common sense says if we do not have resources for merit, you don’t do it.

If we cannot afford certain compensation, we don’t do it. Palmer called for the question. It passed unanimously.

"The Faculty Senate requests that the Board of Governors delays their vote on the faculty compensation policy from October 17 until the next regularly scheduled meeting so that the faculty may have sufficient time to review the proposed compensation policy. To include forwarding the four items cited from the Arts & Sciences Caucus."

Those in favor were Atkinson, Bacon, Callahan, Davis, Eason, Ghozzi, Johnson, Kemp, Laster, Limback, Martin, Mihalevich, Miller, Morgan, Myers, Palmer, Small, Nikaido for Smith, Alkire for Ben Yates, Yates and Zupnick. Those opposed were Best, Franz and Joy.

            FOR: 21 AGAINST: 3 ABSTENTIONS: 0 PASSED (FS 2001-2002-3 )

Atkinson moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded and passed with 21 yes votes and 3 no votes.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.

Ginny McTighe, Faculty Senate Secretary


Meeting 6 Central Missouri State University October 17, 2001

Faculty Senate Minutes 
(
approved as corrected 10-31-01)


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

Bersin introduced John Check from AS as the newly elected senator filling the vacancy left by David Smith. Alternates elected were RM Kinder, Regina Tenney, Fran Reddington and Dianna Bryant.

ROLL CALL:
Twenty-four senators and two alternates were present. Alternates were Bryant for Callahan and Nikaido for Zupnick. Later in the meeting Heming was the alternate for Check. Also present was Provost Kyle Carter.

MINUTES AND COMMITTEE NOTES of the October 10 meeting were approved as corrected. Page one first paragraph under announcements. The name of the university referred to by Carter is the University of Northern Colorado. Page three third paragraph second to last sentence should read It was noted that the source for each of the four documents would be cited in the headers.

ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Provost Carter reported that Bob Dickeson met with the FS Executive Committee, Strategic Planning & Resource Council and Council of Deans earlier in the day. This provoked discussion that will be continued later. Carter reported that the Board of Governors revoked the charter of the KC Career Academy. The moderate admissions statement was postponed. Bersin presented a faculty petition and the Faculty Senate motion for the Board to postpone approval of the Faculty Compensation Policy until December. Carter gave the board four themes of what he heard from faculty at the forum regarding the policy. Violation of governance working in a grass roots fashion (although the minority thought the faculty had opportunities for input). Throwing the baby out with the bath water. Once the cap was removed and allowed negotiating earlier, that the current salary schedule was fine and could be modified instead of replaced. Faculty (Mainly in Arts & Sciences) took offense to the base set for liberal arts faculty. There was outrage over the language in the document stating faculty were being over-paid. Carter offered a motion that the Board of Governors Academic Affairs Committee proposal be approved "subject to an implementation plan to be negotiated between the Provost and the Faculty Senate, and approved by the university President. Carter’s motion was modified "followed by an implementation plan." The amended motion passed four to one by the Board. We have work to do. An implementation plan (not everything figured out) needs to go to the Board by December 14, 2001. We might consider breaking the task down into steps, base salary modification, and then begin to describe long-term plans for the merit component. We have wide latitude to do that. Carter looks forward in working with the Faculty Senate to have a document that moves us forward and that will be agreeable to by all. Carter noted that he asked the Board to strike the "liberal arts" faculty phase, and they did.

Bob Yates referred to Bob Dickeson’s reference to Drake University. Was Drake a model for reallocating resources? Yates knew that an academic department was closed and out-sourced. Carter replied that if the Senate approved that, he was just not familiar with that context. Carter said it was important that IF we should go through a process like this that we must be collegial. Bob Yates referred to his area of specialty on how a person learns a second language. The Drake University Faculty Senate is different. Is this a model that we want to consider? Are there places ‘outside the box’ that we are not going to go to? Carter assumed that there probably are places we don’t want to go. Maybe we are going way beyond ourselves, with what Dickeson suggested. In response to Best’s question of what was the faculty petition source, Carter said faculty asked Bersin to submit it noting it was not from the Faculty Senate. Bersin assumed it was sent to all department chairs. Eason asked if the materials the Faculty Senate approved were forwarded to the Board with the Senate’s motion to President Patton. Bersin said yes, that the information was sent with the motion to Patton. Apparently Patton discussed it with the Board, although the Board just received the complete report at the time of the meeting, thereby not having a chance to read it before voting. Atkinson was under the impression that based on what was discussed at the last Senate meeting that Carter would ask the Board to postpone consideration of the proposal, and asked when did he change his mind. Carter noted that earlier in the Board meeting the Board president shared that they needed to come to conclusions on issues.

Carter presented what he considered a compromise. He was concerned that if he came out with a strong recommendation to delay, there would be difficult consequences for him to deal with. Not all faculty wanted the delay. The Board was trying to come to conclusion on issues. One Board member might have steered the Board in a direction we did not want to go. Carter truly believed we can come up with a policy that faculty will feel good about. Let’s address it and put it behind us, and move forward.

Bersin referred to the FS Executive Committee discussion regarding creation of a FS Ad Hoc Committee, with members from each unit. Bersin and Myers will serve as ex-officio, non-voting. Bersin will appoint a chair. The committee will start work on Monday October 22. Something would then go to the FS Faculty Salary & Fringe Benefits Committee by November 5. The charge will include that if the FS Salary & Fringe Benefits Committee did not come up with recommendations, that the ad hoc committee would propose a recommendation. In response to Eason, Bersin agreed that the Board of Governors would probably see the proposal before the Board met again in December. Carter said the Board would not be considering the implementation plan, as the motion read that Patton would be responsible to approve it, not the Board.

Student Government Association Senator Richard Holtmeyer reported the SGA was conducting homecoming elections. It will revamp the Student Finance Board. A committee was created to draft a grade exclusion policy to be forwarded toe President Patton. Holtmeyer hoped faculty would encourage students to run for SGA positions next semester.

OLD 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 3rd version of the Promotion & Tenure document.

Eason made reference to the printed suggestions from the AS caucus.

Page 1 (2) remove the comma before which in the last line. The motion was made seconded and passed unanimously.

Move the phrase in item (3) last line of paragraph, to read. Hence, they should at all times make every effort to be accurate, exercise appropriate restraint, show respect for the opinions of others, and indicate that they do not speak for the institution. The motion was made, seconded and passed unanimously.

Bottom of page 1. 2. Promotion Policy, change to read: The academic units of Central Missouri State University strive for excellence in all academic matters. Motion was made, seconded and passed unanimously.

Page 2-second full paragraph. Remove comma after appointment and add commas around therefore.

The motion was made seconded and passed unanimously.

Page 4 under Procedures for Institutional Promotion, replace "eligibility" with ‘the year of eligibility to apply." Motion was made, seconded and passed unanimously.

Under e. after September 22 add "At that same time, the committee it will forward to the candidate its letter recommending that the candidate’s application be approved or denied." Motion was made, seconded and passed with 23 yes votes, 1 no vote and 1 abstention. (The word approved was added to the statement later in the meeting as an editorial change.)

Page 5 under item f, first line to read "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." The motion was made, seconded and passed with 23 yes votes and 2 no votes.

Under item f, toward the end of the paragraph to read "The chair will forward to the candidate by October 7 the letter recommending that the candidate’s application be approved or denied. Motion was made, seconded and passed with 24 yes votes and 1 no vote.

Under item f, last line. Replace dean with "chair of the college Promotion & Tenure Committee." The motion was made, seconded and passed unanimously.

Under item g. add college before "Promotion & Tenure Committee." Motion was made, seconded and passed with 20 yes votes and 1 abstention.

Add after "October 28" (after the first sentence): "At that same time, the committee chair will forward to the candidate the committees letter recommending that the candidate’s application be denied." The motion was made, seconded and passed with 21 yes votes and 1 no vote.

Rewrite bottom on page 5 and top of page 6 to read: "Members of the college Promotion and Tenure Committee must be tenured faculty members who are not candidates for promotion. Members of the college committee will be made know to the college faculty. The motion was made, seconded and approved with 22 yes votes.

Page 6, under I, first sentence to read: "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, forward the recommendation packets of those being recommended for promotion to the President by January 7 and notify each candidate in writing of the recommendation." The motion was made and passed unanimously.

Under k, first sentence an editorial change for the sentence to read: "each reviewing level must provide written justification for its recommendation to the next reviewing level."

Page 7 under The Promotion Dossier, first sentence to read: "The candidate’s dossier summarizes the evidence presented to substantiate the candidate’s case for promotion." The motion was made, seconded and passed unanimously.

Second sentence to read: "The dossier represents both quantitative and qualitative data concerning the candidate’s total contribution to the advancement of the students, the academic community at Central Missouri State University and the candidates professional discipline." The motion was made, seconded and passed with 20 yes votes and 1 abstention.

Substantive changes.

Page 1, first paragraph, last sentence. Remove the items in brackets to read: "The university agrees with the 1940 AAUP/AAC Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure. The University therefore, supports the following principles." The motion was made, seconded and passed unanimously.

Mihalevich moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded. Bob Yates asked what happens to the document if we adjourn? Mihalevich thought the document was too important to rush through. Could the FS Executive Committee take care of any editorial items? Bersin said that we would try to do all the editorial changes and distribute the updated document as soon as possible. Laster noted where we stopped on the list of AS suggestions. Eason said the AS recommendations only go through page 7, as that is how far they got. The motion to adjourn passed with 16 yes votes and 5 no votes.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:25 p.m.

Ginny McTighe, Faculty Senate Secretary


Meeting 7 Central Missouri State University October 31, 2001

Faculty Senate Minutes 
(approved as corrected 11-7-01)


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

ROLL CALL:
Twenty-three senators and three alternates were present. Alternates were Alkire for Callahan, Reddington for Mihalevich and Nikaido for Zupnick. Also present was Provost Kyle Carter.

MINUTES AND COMMITTEE NOTES of the October 17 meeting were approved as corrected. Under announcements, third sentence should read; Bersin presented a faculty petition and the Faculty Senate motion for the Board to postpone approval of the Faculty Compensation Policy until December. Mid-way the two sentences should read; Carter replied that if the Senate approved that, he was not familiar with that context. Carter said it was important that IF we should go through a process like that that we must be collegial. After the next two sentences, a question mark was added to read; Are there places ‘outside the box’ that we are not going to go to? After the next sentence it should read; Eason asked if the materials the Faculty Senate approved were forwarded to the Board with the Senate’s motion to President Patton. Page two, second to last paragraph, the amendment should read; "At that same time the committee will forward to the candidate its letter recommending that the candidate’s application be approved or denied." Page three, first paragraph, the amendment should read; "The chair will forward to the candidate by October 7 the letter recommending that the candidate’s application be approved or denied." Page three, forth paragraph, the amendment should read; "At that same time, the committee chair will forward to the candidate the committees letter recommending that the candidate’s application be denied." Page three, fifth paragraph, remove the sentence that read; Members of the college committee will be made known to the college faculty."

ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Provost Carter reported that Paul Page was hired to start after January 1, 2002 as the Vice President of University Advancement. The Athletics Department is hosting a Faculty/Staff Appreciation Night at the November 8 football game. Free tickets can be reserved through the Athletics Office. Carter noted that the Faculty Compensation Committee is making progress. The deadline to report to the FS Salary & Fringe Benefits Committee is expected to be met. Faculty and staff will review the second draft of the Strategic Plan. The university is trying to build better relationships with the ethnic community in KC and make Central a more welcoming campus. We are working through hectic times with a number of things on campus-budgets, planning and accreditation, on top of national issues. We need to continue to communicate what we see and feel. Carter has not been going to department meetings because he could not coordinate with the president. Carter will now attend himself with hopes the president will be able to attend when possible. Carter will be sending out Information for special meetings he will have with colleges. In reply to Bob Yates concern with the ethnic community in KC, Carter noted that information he gathered might not be perceived as welcoming as we thought we were. Carter encouraged faculty to contact him if they were willing to participate with the groups that go to KC to meet with leaders of the community.

Bersin expressed appreciation to Senator Franz for hosting a Faculty Senate social at his home. Bersin reported that the FS Faculty Compensation Ad Hoc Committee charge, membership and timeline are on the Faculty Senate home page. The Enrollment Management Team (EMT), a new university/academic committee has been added to the web site. As members are selected, their names will be added to the site. In response to concerns expressed by Palmer, Eason and Kemp regarding visitor parking fees in the recently approved parking policy, Carter reported that he was not sure which visitors would be charged, as this has not been well-fleshed out yet. Concerns could be expressed directly to the Traffic & Parking Policy Committee, with copies to Carter, Vickrey and Patton.

BUSINESS:
Small 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 17th version of the Promotion & Tenure document.

Morgan presented the following amendment from the CAST Caucus.

Page 2, third full paragraph, sentence three to read; 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. The amendment was seconded. After examples of requirements in different disciplines were discussed the amendment passed with 21 yes votes, 2 no votes and 2 abstentions.

Eason presented the following amendments from the A&S Caucus.

Editorial change. Currently Provost and President are capitalized throughout this document and dean is not. Suggested change: All titles for all positions are begun with the lower-case letter.

Page 6 Under item h, following sentence 1, which ends in "to the Provost by November 21."

Currently reads: "Each candidate will be notified in writing of the college's recommendation."

Suggested change: "At that same time, the dean will copy to the candidate the letter to the provost recommending that the candidate’s application be approved or denied." Passed with 23 yes votes, 1 no vote and 1 abstention.

Under item i, sentence 1:

Currently reads: "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, forward the recommendation packets of those being recommended for promotion to the President by January 7 and notify each candidate in writing of the recommendation."

Suggested change to the end of the sentence: " . . . forward the recommendation packets of those being recommended for promotion to the President by January 7. At that same time, the Provost will copy to the candidate the letter to the President recommending that the candidate’s application be approved or denied." Passed with 23 yes votes, 1 no vote and 1 abstention.

Page 7

Item 4. Currently reads: "The department Promotion and Tenure Committee will recommend or not recommend, sign in the appropriate place by the chairperson, and write a justification for the recommendation made." Suggested change: ""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." Passed with 24 yes votes and 1 abstention.

Page 8

Item 6. Currently reads: "The college Promotion and Tenure Committee will recommend or not recommend, sign in the appropriate place by the chairperson, and write a justification for the recommendation made." Suggested change: ""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." Passed unanimously.

Editorial change. Fourth sentence under Section B - The Candidate’s Section.

Currently reads: "Though the dossier should be complete, should not contain extraneous material (e.g., annual faculty reports, works in which the candidate's name is merely mentioned)." Suggested change: "Though the dossier should be complete, it should not contain extraneous material (e.g., annual faculty reports, works in which the candidate's name is merely mentioned)."

Page 9

Editorial change. Under General Information, Item b. Suggested change: Remove comma after experiences in the first sentence so that it will read as follows: "Include those non-teaching experiences which will improve or increase teaching effectiveness."

After discussion Eason withdrew the following amendment. Under Teaching, Item g. Editorial change.

Suggested change: In the header, change Degree to Thesis so that the header will read: "Graduate Thesis Committee Memberships."

Page 10

First sentence under the heading Scholarship/Creative Activity

Currently reads: "Scholarship includes discipline-specific scholarly activities involving discipline-related inquiry and/or creative activities." Suggested change: "Scholarship includes discipline-related inquiry and/or creative activities." Passed unanimously.

Page 11

Add after item e and its description: f. Other Evidence of Quality Scholarship. List recognitions, awards and honors from professional organizations, publications and sponsoring agencies. Categorize the items as international, national, regional, state, or local. List the date, nature, and source of each. Where appropriate provide brief explanatory statements. Passed unanimously.

Suggested editorial change throughout this section:

Change capitalization within headings to match formatting of headings under the Teaching and the Scholarship/Creative Activity categories.

First sentence under Service: "Providing academic and program support to department, college, and university levels as well as participation in professional discipline-related organizations at state, regional, national or international levels." Suggested change to make it parallel with description under scholarship: "Service includes the provision of academic and program support at department, college, and university levels as well as participation in professional discipline-related organizations at state, regional, national or international levels." Passed unanimously.

Item f, first sentence after the heading "Recruitment of Students": "Cite any effort that encourages high school students to visit the Central campus." Suggested change: "Cite any effort that encourages prospective students to visit the Central campus." Rationale: Includes transfer and grad students. Passed unanimously.

Items i. & j.

Suggested change: Omit current i and j. Recognitions for scholarship go above in suggested item f. under Scholarship/Creative Activity. Recognitions for service to professional organization go in new item i proposed below. Suggested change: New item i. Recognitions for Service to Professional Organizations. Categorize the items as international, national, regional, state, or local. List the date, nature, and source of each. Where appropriate provide brief explanatory statements. Passed unanimously.

Page 12

Item k. Item currently reads "Membership in Academic, Professional and Scholarly Societies. List the date of membership and the name of the society. For continuing memberships indicate initial year of membership only (e.g., 1965-). List offices held in each." Suggested change: "j. Membership in Academic, Professional and Scholarly Societies. Categorize the organizations as international, national, regional, state, or local. List the dates of membership and the names of the societies. For continuing memberships indicate initial year of membership only (e.g., 1965-). List offices held and other leadership activities, e.g., membership on the planning committee for a conference. Where appropriate provide brief explanatory statements. Passed unanimously.

Item l.

Suggested change: Move entire item to become item m under the Teaching heading. Passed unanimously.

Editorial change: Strike the word would in the sentence "List here professional development activities that would contribute to teaching effectiveness and/or subject mastery."

Third suggested change: Add at the end of the entry, "(Note: Evidence used to support performance in one category should not be repeated in another category. Thus, programs listed here cannot be repeated under item g in the Scholarship/Creative Activity section or item l in the Service section.)" Passed unanimously.

Also: Add as new item under the Scholarship/Creative Activity heading new item g: "Conventions, Clinics, Institutes, Workshops, Post-Doctoral Course Work, Internships, Sabbaticals, and Other Programs. List here professional development activities that contribute to scholarship/creative activity. These activities should be listed by date, title and sponsoring agency. (Note: Evidence used to support performance in one category should not be repeated in another category. Thus, programs listed under item m in the Teaching section and item l in the Service section cannot be repeated here.)" Passed with 24 yes votes and 1 abstention.

New item L under Service.

"L. Conventions, Clinics, Institutes, Workshops, Post-Doctoral Course Work, Internships, Sabbaticals, and Other Programs. List here professional development activities that contribute to the ability to serve the university and/or professional organizations. These activities should be listed by date, title and sponsoring agency. (Note: Evidence used to support performance in one category should not be repeated in another category. Thus, programs listed under item m in the Teaching section or item g in the Scholarship/Creative Activity section cannot be repeated here.)" Passed with 24 yes votes and 1 abstention.

Under item 3. Tenure policy.

Editorial changes. Change the beginning of sentence 1: "The colleges of Central Missouri State University" to "The academic units of Central Missouri State University" Change the R in "Responsibilities" in the third sentence to lower case r.

Page 13

Under b. Eligibility for Tenure.

Suggested change: Strike the entire 3rd and 4th paragraphs. They begin with the words, "In most instances" and "For the purposes of this policy" respectively. Passed with 18 yes votes, 4 no votes and 3 abstentions.

Page 14

Editorial change: Right before item e. Individual contracts. Suggested change: Strike the entire paragraph that begins "In addition, the review." This idea was moved to the first sentence under item d. Criteria for Awarding Tenure.

Items that needed consideration:

Page 4:

What do we mean?/Please clarify:

Under b. Associate Professor. "Above all, the individual should still be demonstrating excellence in teaching while developing technically and professionally." What is technical development?

Changed to "Above all, the individual should still be demonstrating excellence in teaching while developing professionally. Passed with 20 yes votes and 4 abstentions.

Pages 5 & 6:

Clarification: If P&T committees at the department or the college level do not recommend a candidate’s request be approved, does the candidate need to appeal that the dossier be forwarded to the department chair or the dean or will the dossier automatically be forwarded to the chair and dean for their responses as is done in most departments and all colleges/academic units now? Should the department chairs and deans be considered as separate levels? After discussion Eason offered to take the information back to the A&S caucus for further consideration.

Page 6:

Under k, 2nd P: "Reviewers at a higher level may seek written clarification of dossier content from reviewers at a lower level. A copy of the written request with the clarification will be provided to the candidate." If someone needed clarification about the dossier content, shouldn’t he or she speak with/correspond with the candidate? Is this really about seeking clarification for a decision made at a lower level? The wording was changed to read "Reviewers at a higher level may seek written clarification for decisions made by reviewers at a lower level. A copy of the written request with the clarification will be provided to the candidate." Passed unanimously.

Eason referred to the following items sent out by Shellie Myers.

Suggested rewordings/editing:

Item 2, page 15, item f: Full-time faculty members are those Central employees who are under a full-time contract to teach or serve as professional librarians. At times, these employees may have a special assignment to serve in some additional capacity, such as department chair; these alterations in assignment will not alter their status as full-time faculty.

The presidents reserves the right to determine at the time of appointment whether prior service in institutions of higher education or other professional experience shall reduce the probationary period. Any such arrangement will be stated in writing at that time. Generally, prior service is computed at a rate of two years of prior service to one year of Central Missouri State University credit not to exceed three years credit. Consequently, in such cases, tenure review could not take place before the second year of Central Missouri State University service. Passed with 23 yes votes and 1 abstention.

Item 3, page 15, item g: remove the commas after March 1 and December 1. Passed with 14 yes votes, 7 no votes and 3 abstentions.

Editorial change: Item 4, page 18: Strike "if credit for prior service experience has been awarded"

All editorial suggestions were accepted throughout the review.

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

The meeting was adjourned at 5:14 p.m.

Ginny McTighe, Faculty Senate 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