Senate Meeting Minutes - February
Meeting Minutes for February
Meeting 8 February 5, 2003
Central Missouri State University
Faculty Senate Minutes
The Faculty Senate met at 3:15 p.m. in Union 237 A with President Shellie
ROLL CALL: Twenty-one senators and five alternates were present (Ament
for Laster, Ewing for Sundberg, Heming for Check, Stark-Wroblewski for
Bigby and Wilson for Norwood). Also present were Provost Carter and Associate
Provost for Academic Programs Elaine Frank-Ragan.
MINUTES: Minutes of the January 15 Faculty Senate meeting were approved
Myers reported that President Patton was in Jefferson City to testify
before the State Appropriations Education Committee on behalf of CMSU
and to attend several meetings. Carter reported that in an effort to be
much more aggressive and public to garner support for Higher Education,
a letter was being distributed to Alumni and friends of Central regarding
the financial situation. Part of the materials sent included the pamphlet,
Central Contrasts: Validations & Limitations. Carter referred to the
article in the Kansas City Star regarding the budget and compromise proposal
for the Governor to consider. The legislation had no interest in looking
at the tobacco money as a form of dealing with balancing the budget. Now
legislatures are saying they will look at a portion of the tobacco monies
and some other kinds of cuts. Carter reported that there are several bills
of interest going through the legislation and that these bills can be
tracked through the CBHE web-site at www.cbhe.state.mo.us/ which is updated
on a weekly basis. Two name change bills include: Missouri Western State
College to Missouri Western State University and Missouri Southern State
College to Missouri Southern State University. In addition, there is legislation
to allow Missouri Southern to offer a Masters Degree in accounting, business
and teaching. Carter reported one of the bills that has created much controversy
is the name change of Southwest Missouri State University to Missouri
State University which would position Southwest as the second tier in
the state by its name. President Patton has testified against it. Carter
reported two additional items of interest. A bill to allow American sign
language to be regarded as a foreign language course and legislation to
establish funding on the basis of FTEs. Carter referred to the Central
News article “Central Visiting Writers Series Begins”. Carter
reported that the University of Akron conducted a national survey on assessment
programs and the Accounting Department at Central became 1 of 5 benchmark
institutions on doing things right. Carter announced the loss of colleague
Jerry Adams and shared that a scholarship fund has been established through
the foundation in his memory.
Myers referred to the printed report from President’s Cabinet concerning
the question of renaming the Ed Elliot University Union. Myers stated
that members of the Board of Governors suggested changing the name of
the facility to provide clarity and avoid confusion. Apparently some confusion
exists because of the word University thinking that CMSU is the Ed Elliot
University. Reference to the Ed Elliott University Union could be shortened
to the Elliott Union. Myers stated she was to ask for feedback from Senators
and report back to President’s Cabinet. Following Senators discussion,
the recommendation was to leave it as is but Senators were curious as
to who might be misinterpreting the name. Myers referred to the printed
report of the Academic Council. If there are any questions, please contact
Eason referred to the distributed Council of Deans report. If there are
any questions, please contact Eason.
Jenoa McAlister, SGA Representative, reported that SGA was organizing
to provide an opportunity for students to travel to Jefferson City on
Tuesday, February 11. SGA will provide transportation for students the
bus will leave at 8 a.m. Myers reported that the Senate could financially
support this endeavor with a maximum of $200 as an educational opportunity
for our students. Joy moved that the Faculty Senate support the educational
efforts of our students in a trip to Jefferson City with $200 from the
Faculty Senate budget. Miller seconded. Passed unanimously.
Myers reported that Yvonne Johnson had attended the MAFS Conference and
the MAFS asked all Faculty Senates to write a letter to Governor Holden
regarding budget cuts. Callahan moved that the Executive Committee draft
and send a letter, Riley seconded. Passed unanimously.
Eason referred to the nomination by the FS Committee on Committees. Roger
Best for the HCBA position to the U/A Awards Selection Committee. Approved
Myers introduced the Eason & Davis motion: The opening paragraph of
Central Missouri State University’s Mission Statement be revised
Central Missouri State University is a comprehensive, public university
dedicated to student learning and committed to service and excellence.
Through a foundation in the liberal arts, professional degree programs,
personalized higher education experiences, and use of current technologies,
Central prepares a diverse body of students to be lifelong learners who
are proficient in their fields of study, able to adapt to a changing world
and contribute to the betterment of society. Central serves as Missouri’s
lead professional technology institution, and is committed to acquiring,
disseminating, and utilizing technology to enhance the university’s
comprehensive educational mission and to enrich the lives of all Missourians.
Note: The underlined segments are those that have been moved or, in the
case of the phrase “student learning,” added.
For: 25 Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 (2002-2003-11)
Myers introduced Matt Thomas, Chair of the FSDEC to report on the Intellectual
Property Rights Policy. Thomas referred to the BOG Intellectual Property
Rights Policy draft from 10-01-02. Thomas reviewed areas of concern and
the timeline for completion of the charge. Thomas stated the focus to
date has been on the section addressing distance education. The Senators
expressed concern about the following items in the Intellectual Property
Item II. A. Copyright Policy
“Copyrightable materials resulting from such intellectual endeavors
Concerns expressed were whether the copyright policy had been changed
or perhaps ‘generally’ could be more specific.
Item II. A. 2
“Intellectual endeavors pursuant to a grant or contract with third
parties…” Concern expressed was that there are three parties
involved and it needs to be defined when the university comes in.
Item II. B. 1 & 7
“ 1) The content for all online courses will be developed with faculty
oversight. 7) Faculty reserve the right to determine all content….”
Concern expressed was that they are contradictory to one another. It was
suggested to blend these two together.
Item II. B. 2
“Distance-education courses shall comply with all of the standard
practices, procedures, and criteria…”
Concern expressed was quality control and that the department should be
looking at the quality of the course. The language needs to state this
Item II. B. 3
“All online courses will be developed under established guidelines
as specified in a written agreement.”
Concern expressed was the confusion as to what or who determines the different
Item II. B. 3 c & d
“If substantial CMSU resources are utilized in the creation of the
Suggestion expressed was to define the word ‘substantial’.
Item II. E
“Resolution of disputes regarding intellectual property rights.”
Suggestion expressed was to keep the idea of an Ad-Hoc committee but to
form from our current structures--the arbitration pool. Concern expressed
about using an appointed committee rather than an elected committee. The
arbitration pool is elected and the proposal is for an appointed committee.
Suggestion was that the process of selecting/forming the committee from
the elected arbitration pool would be more representative of the faculty
than an appointed committee.
If a faculty member develops their own course without campus assistance,
who has the ownership? If placing it on a server at the university, does
this transfer ownership? Does this policy discourage on-line development?
Has the committee asked publishers what they would like to see in it or
not in it to make it easy for faculty members to do business with publishers?
After Senators expressed concerns, it was agreed that Matt Thomas would
take the questions and concerns to the FS DEC for feedback.
Myers referred to the distributed document Attachment A from the SPRC
sub-committee, which was to be used as a tool to gather information regarding
the program prioritization process. The SPRC is collecting information
on the retrenchment process experienced last spring. The information will
be shared with the Faculty Senate Personnel Policies Committee. Dr. Jack
Elfrink reported from the SPRC on the Retrenchment Process. Elfrink distributed
a Financial Stringency Budget Analysis Process flow chart. Elfrink referred
to the Attachment A questionnaire. Elfrink reported the sub-committee
visited various governance groups to receive feedback. The major goal
was to improve the process. The SPRC’s function to the retrenchment
policy is to provide input to the Faculty Senate and Board of Governors.
We were not asked to rewrite the retrenchment policy. Elfrink referred
to the Financial Stringency Budget Analysis Process flow chart. Three
review processes were included on the chart. The sub-committee met with
the Student Affairs Council, the Professional Staff Council and the Support
Staff Council and is on the Academic Council Agenda for Tuesday, February
11, 2003. Myers asked if the SPRC would like specific feedback from the
Senate relating to the process of the flow chart distributed. Elfrink
responded yes. In response to Myers, Elfrink stated there is no timeline.
Elfrink stated that any concerns will be addressed by the SPRC as a whole.
Sarkar referred to the flow chart and expressed concern that the Academic
Review Board (ARB) is making decisions on hearing appeal process but not
working with any organizations that are affected by the process. Elfrink
responded later in the process ARB did have the feedback from the various
organizations. The recommendations for cutting programs came to the provost
from the APC. Myers referred to the original retrenchment policy and reported
that the ARB was established to hear appeals. Bryant expressed concern
of the review process stating that input from the divisions and departments
which included numbers of questionable accuracy. Provost responded that
the data were not friendly. Part of the problem was the unit of analysis
that we needed to have to make the decisions. Bob Pultz has been informed
that this is a problem and we need to correct the data set. The following
questions/comments were identified; 1) Is the program review process being
incorporated into a regular evaluation system? 2) What is the role of
the SPRC on the flow chart? Morgan asked if a written statement for clarity
as to how the SPRC envisions their interaction with the provost, deans,
APC and ARB could be provided? 3) Concern expressed about the first question
on the questionnaire (how do you rate your level of involvement with the
program prioritization process?). Since there is nothing written in the
retrenchment document regarding the prioritization process how can people
comment on it? 4) Concern expressed was that the ARB could only hear appeals
based on the APC decision. Some areas/programs were favorably recommended
by the APC but lost an opportunity to an appeal when an unfavorable recommendation
was given elsewhere in the process. 5) It would be beneficial as information
moves from one stage to the next to have net benefits/costs identified.
What is the net benefit in cutting a program in terms of dollars? Is there
a net savings and what is that net savings? 6) Best stated it needs to
be clear or identified in the process what happens at presidential level
if the recommended cuts are not sufficient to meet the required cuts/dollars.
7) Concern expressed by Ewing was the current length of program review.
Programs are reviewed every five years. Programs should be reviewed more
frequently. Everyone should be aware of keeping their program healthy
and if the program is not healthy, then those in charge should rectify
it or it should be dropped. Hopefully, we will never have to go through
the financial stringency and process of retrenchment as experienced last
Myers reported she would meet with Dr. Elfrink to determine the extent
of formalized feedback desired from the FS. Myers encouraged Senators
to continue to review the Retrenchment Policy and Procedures document
and continue to review it in their caucuses. The policy is under review
by the the FS Personnel Policies Committee.
The committee expects to have a preliminary draft completed by the end
of February to provide an opportunity for review by the administration.
Myers announced the winter planning retreat is scheduled for February
11 & 12. The three identified priorities are enrollment, compensation
The meeting was adjourned at 5:07 p.m.
Faculty Senate Office Professional
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
please click on the month names below to view the archived minutes from
the 2001-2002 school year
- February - March
- April - May
- June - July
- August - September
- October - November