Meeting 11                                                                                                       February 1, 2006

 

Central Missouri State University

Faculty Senate Minutes

 

 

The Faculty Senate met at 3:19 p.m. in Union 237A with President Jack Rogers presiding.

 

ROLL CALL: In addition to FS President Jack Rogers, the following nineteen senators and one alternate were present:  Ament, Bonsall, Ciafullo, Hynes, Joy, Jurkowski, Katsourides, Koehn, McKee, Nickens, Norwood, Popejoy, Riley, Robins, Saran, Staab, Sundberg, Williams, Zelazek and Karsig (alternate for Swanson).  Absent were Geiger, Grigsby, Kidwaro, Miller and Washer.  Also present was Mike Grelle, Acting Associate Provost for Academic Programs and Services, and Parliamentarian Art Rennels.

 

MINUTES:  A motion was made by Senator Sundberg, seconded by Senator Riley and passed unanimously to approve the minutes of the January 18, 2006 Faculty Senate meeting.

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

 

President Podolefsky and Provost Wilson were in Washington, D.C. and therefore unable to attend the meeting. 

 

Vice President Riley announced that the spring meeting of the Missouri Association of Faculty Senates would be next week (February 6 and 7) in Jefferson City, and that Senator Allison Norwood will attend as an alternate, and that Bob Yates, who is a member of the MAFS advisory council, and Senator Odin Jurkowski have also agreed to attend.  Riley also said that in conjunction with Higher Education Lobby Day, CMSU is providing a bus to take students to Jefferson City and that it is hoped that approximately fifty students will participate.  She said that Bob Yates will ride on the bus with the students and tutor them about how to be most effective while in Jefferson City.  Riley said that students from Missouri State University would also be attending, and that the goal is to insure that a united voice speaks out for higher education.   In response to a question from Bonsall, Riley said that she it is likely that there are still seats on the bus available for students who wish to participate and that if anyone has questions or suggestions about ideas to encourage more students to take part in this trip, they should contact Beth Rutt or the SGA.  Rogers said that Mike Bailey, Speaker of CMSU’s SGA, is also talking with other Missouri student government associations with the hope that they will participate in this event.  Riley also announced that since Senator Geiger was ill and unable to attend today’s meeting, she has payroll deduction forms available today for anyone wishing to make a contribution to the Disaster Relief Fund.

 

FS President Rogers said that he wanted to end a rumor that at the Board of Governors meeting in March, they were going to consider whether or not CMSU would continue to pay the employee’s portion of their health insurance premium.  He said that this rumor is not true and that the Board of Governors will not be discussing this issue at the March meeting.  He said that he believes it is possible that the Board of Governors may discuss the possibility of not paying for health insurance benefits after retirement for new hires, but this would not impact those currently employed at CMSU.  He said that forums for faculty and staff are planned for April to discuss what benefits are the most important to them, and that input from these forums will be taken into consideration when decisions are made regarding future benefits.  Senator Koehn said that since the cost of health insurance is such a large part of the budget that all employees, even current employees, should be aware that at some point, it might become necessary to cut or adjust these benefits.  Rogers responded that administration and the Board of Governors are aware of the commitments made to current employees and that they want to honor them.

 

Senator Hynes announced that Congressman Emanuel Cleaver will be on campus on February 17 as the featured guest artist for the Gala Scholarship Concert.  Hynes said that Congressman Cleaver will do a narration for a piece titled “The Lincoln Portrait”, and extended an invitation to everyone to attend.

 

FS SPPRC representative Staab said that he had no new announcements because the SPRC did not meet last week.  He also reiterated that the Winter Planning Retreat will be held on February 28 in Union 236.

 

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

Vice President Riley presented Motion 2005-2006-16 from the FS Committee on Committees regarding recommendations made as a result of the annual review of the charges of one-third of the Faculty Senate committees, as follows:

 

Motion:  As a result of the annual review of one-third of the FS Committees, the Committee on Committees recommends the following changes be made in committee charges.  Changed wording is noted by a strikethrough; new wording is in bold.

 

Academic Standards Committee – requested an editorial change in the numbering and asked that the comments section include: The chair may appoint a secretary to maintain minutes.  The official charge would change as follows:

           

            III. Membership

A. Composition (14 members 11 members)

IV. COMMENTS

Whenever possible, a second-year committee member should be selected as chair. The committee chair is responsible for creating and maintaining a Procedures Manual, a copy to be kept in the Faculty Senate Office.  The chair may appoint a secretary to maintain minutes.

 

Distance Education Committee – rewrote the function section (basically just changed the format) and changed the membership section.  The official charge would change as follows:

           

            I. FUNCTION

                        To review and provide input into the following aspects of distance                                              education, as requested:

            a. Current best practices in distance education

                        i. methodologies, facilities, and infrastructure

                        ii.course assessment appropriate to the technology

            b.  Faculty concerns

                        i.  criteria for including distance education efforts in promotion and                                     tenure policies

                        ii. faculty development activities

                        iii. faculty work load standards

            c. Intellectual property rights

            d. Cooperative partnerships

                        i. Intra- and inter-institutional

                        ii. Funding opportunities

                        iii. Marketing

 

            III. MEMBERSHIP

                       

                        A. Composition (15 members)

                                   

                                    1. Two faculty members from each college and L/AE

                                    2. One undergraduate student

                                    3. One graduate teaching assistant student

                                    4. Director of WeMET CentralNet(ex-officio, non-voting)

                                    5. Assistant Director for Distance Learning (ex-officio, non-                                             voting)

                              6. Assistant Director for Outreach Services Director of                                                    Extended Campus and Distance Learning (ex-officio, non-                                    voting)

                                    7. Distance Education Librarian* (ex-officio, non-voting)

B. Selection

3. Graduate teaching assistant student selected by the Vice President for Academic Affairs/Dean of Graduate Studies  GSA.

           

Ethics in Research Committee – No changes requested.

 

General Education Committee – recommended a change in wording.  The charge would change as follows:

D. Term of Service

1. Representatives of units and General Education faculty shall be elected to two three-year terms on a staggered replacement basis.  Each year, three members will rotate off with no more than two being at-large members.  When a committee member leaves prior to the expiration of his or her term, elections will be held for a replacement to fill the unexpired portion of his or her term.

Professional Enhancement Committee –  requested editorial changes.  Sections that would not change are not included here.  The charge would change as indicated below:

 

I. Function

 

A.  To recommend policy for professional enhancement and development

C. To advise in the coordinateion of campus development activity

D.  To recommend and develop faculty and academic staff professional development and enhancement activities

E.   To review faculty applications for and make recommendations in the areas of: 1) travel requests, 1) instructional development grants 2 1) professional development facilitation opportunities, and 3 2) academic leave requests.  Recommendations regarding academic leave requests are made to the Provost. ( and make recommendations regarding funding to the Provost.

 

III. MEMBERSHIP

A. Composition (9 8 members)

3. Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs  (ex-officio/non-voting)

4. Director of Sponsored Research and Projects (ex-officio/non-voting)

5. Director of Academic Professional Development (ex-officio/non-voting)

3. Assistant Provost for Research and Dean of the Graduate School (ex-officio/non-voting.)

4. Assistant Provost for Information Technology and Instruction (ex-officio/non-voting)

 

University Assessment Committee change membership to include additional member from Information Services

 

III. MEMBERSHIP

A. Composition (14 15 members)

 

11. One representative from Information Services

 

B. Selection

Representatives from offices identified in  "III.A. 5, 6, and 7., 11 be appointed by the appropriate administrator

 

Riley briefly reviewed the motion and explained that each year, the FS Committee on Committees reviews the charges of one-third of the FS committees.  She said that most of the changes being recommended in this motion are to bring the charges in line with practices that are currently occurring.  In response to a question regarding the change in the number of members on the Academic Standards Committee, Riley said she thought there were currently eleven members on this committee, and that she was not sure when the number of members was changed from 14 to 11, but that the charge had not been updated to reflect the change.  She said that the changes recommended in this motion were sent to her by the chair of this committee.  Senator Zelazek asked Riley to provide a breakdown indicating which areas the 11 members represented and Riley said she did not have that information with her at this meeting.  Zelazek said that until information could be provided that would indicate which areas the 11 members represented, he would recommend that this motion be tabled.  Senator Williams seconded the motion to table Motion 2005-2006-16.  The motion to table was voted on with the following results:

 

-PASSED-       For:   15          Opposed:   3          Abstentions:   2                   (Motion to table                                                                                                                                      2005-2006-16)

 

Senator Koehn requested that the FS CoC revise the motion before it was sent to the FS again so that all requested changes in the membership of committees would be explained and Riley agreed that this information would be provided. 

 

Vice President Riley then presented Motion 2005-2006-17 from the FS Committee on Committees regarding recommendations for changes in the charges of University Administrative Committees, as follows:

 

Motion:  The Faculty Senate Committee on Committee’s (CoC) requests that the Faculty Senate endorse the following list of recommendations for University/Administrative Committees and that those recommendations be forwarded to President Podolefsky for his consideration.

 

At the request of the FS Executive Committee, the CoC spent most of their deliberations this fall reviewing the charges of all Faculty Senate and University Administrative Committees for possible conflicts of interest.  The Committee saw this as a very useful exercise because it allowed us to review committees as a whole, rather than focus on a single committee as is done during the routine charge review process.  The biggest problem the CoC discovered was that a number of U/A Committee charges listed on the website were out-of-date.  CoC members contacted committee chairs and charges listed on the web are now current.  However, the number of out-dated charges indicates the need for a mechanism to routinely review and update U/A Committee charges.  The CoC suggests that reviewing charges of U/A become a responsibility of the CoC.  The CoC currently reviews the charge of each FS Committee on a triennial basis. The CoC believes it could easily assume the review of these additional committees on a rotational basis.  The CoC also discovered that some of the U/A committees did not meet on a regular basis (Enrollment Management, Extended Campus Advisory Committee, Undergraduate Appeals Committee).  The CoC recommends that committees not meeting in a period of two years be reviewed.  This follows the same procedure utilized for FS Committees.

 

As a whole, the Committee on Committee found very few cases where there was a potential conflict of interest.  However, the Committee on Committee recommends the following changes be made to University/Administrative committees in order to alleviate the appearance of potential conflicts of interest.

 

Awards Selection Committee – the CoC recommends to the Senate that the VP for Student and Alumni Affairs become a non-voting position.  This committee reports to the VP for Student and Alumni Affairs; the VP is a member and chair of the committee.  We believe that is necessary for the operation of the committee for the VP to chair the committee.  We believe changing this position to a non-voting position eliminates the potential for a perceived conflict of interest and that this change follows the models already in place for the Graduate Council, Teacher Education Council and other committees.

 

Central Technology Grants Committee – The CoC recommends to the Senate that the Assistant Provost for Information Technology and Instruction become a non-voting position.

 

Enrollment Management Team - The CoC recommends to the Senate that the Assistant Provost for Enrollment Management hold a non-voting position.

 

Extended Campus Advisory Council – The CoC recommends to the Senate that the Director of Extended Campus and Distance Learning become a non-voting position.  In addition we recommend that the charge be changed as follows to reflect updated position titles:

A. To advise the Director of Outreach Services Director of Extended Campus and Distance Learning and to make recommendations on policies and procedures used by Extended Campus.

B. To serve as a liaison between the Office of Extended Campus and the particular group that each member represents.

 II. POSITION IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Reports to the Assistant Provost for Outreach and marketing Director of Outreach Services.  Director of Extended Campus and Distance Learning. 

III. MEMBERSHIP

A. Composition (11 members)

5. Director of Outreach Services  Extended Campus and Distance Learning (ex-officio, non-voting)

B. Selection

5. Director of Outreach Services  Extended Campus and Distance Learning (ex-officio)

 

Honors College Advisory Committee - The CoC recommends to the Senate that the Dean of the Honors College hold a non-voting position.

 

Undergraduate Appeals Committee – As a result of questions expressed to Judith Siminoe during the review process, the Associate Provost, the Assistant Provost for Undergraduate Studies, and the General Consul met to review the charge of this committee and made several revisions, including renaming it the Undergraduate Exceptions Committee.  The Committee on Committees feels these changes adequately address the identified concerns.  We have no changes to recommend for the Undergraduate Exceptions Committee.  The Committee on Committees commends these administrators for the attention paid to our concerns and to the speed with which our issues were addressed.

 

Riley explained that Motion 2005-2006-17 originated from a constituent concern that was voiced at a FS Executive Committee meeting, and that because of the concern, the EC directed the FS Committee on Committees to review the charges of all Faculty Senate and University Administrative committees for possible conflicts of interest.  She said that this motion included a recommendation that any committees that did not meet in a period of two years be reviewed for possible disbandment, and a recommendation that the FS Committee on Committees review the charges of UA committees on a triennial basis like the review process currently used for the FS committees.  Riley then briefly reviewed the motion and said that during the review of the charges, the biggest concern arose from the UA Undergraduate Appeals Committee.  She explained that because of CoC’s concerns about the charge of this committee, she had asked questions of CMSU’s legal counsel, Judith Siminoe.  Because of those questions, Siminoe met with the Associate Provost of Academic Programs and the Assistant Provost for Undergraduate Studies and reviewed the charge of the UA Undergraduate Appeals Committee.  After their review and subsequent changes in the charge, each concern that had been expressed by the FS Committee on Committees was addressed.  Riley said that the new charge now appears on the website.  Senator Ciafullo asked what concerns were raised by the CoC about the charge of the Undergraduate Appeals Committee and Riley responded that the biggest concern was that there was an appeals process to an academic policy, but the students had no way of knowing about this process, and that there was also a concern that the appearance of a conflict of interest existed within the structure of the committee. Senator Staab asked what role faculty has on the Undergraduate Appeals Committee and Riley responded that because this committee was formerly a FS committee and was then changed to a UA committee, and because it has not met for an extended period of time, that faculty’s role is still being developed.  Senator Ament asked if Riley was aware of any committees that have not met for an extended period, and Riley advised that according to faculty members who are on these committees, she believes that three committees, the UA Enrollment Management Committee, the UA Extended Campus Advisory Committee and the UA Undergraduate Appeals Committee, have not met for an extended period of time.  Ciafullo voiced concern about the lack of faculty input on the Enrollment Management Committee and questioned why this committee was not meeting on a regular basis.  Mike Grelle advised that he was surprised that Riley was told that this committee has not been meeting because he said he is on this committee and that it has been meeting.  Riley said that Senator Wendy Geiger and Sharon Lamson are the two faculty members on this committee and they have both reported to her that they have never received notice of meetings for this committee and that they have never been invited to attend.  Ament said that before he could support the recommendations to the president contained in this motion, he would like to be advised why these faculty members are not attending this committee’s meetings.  He also suggested that a review process should be formalized for all committees so that if it appears that a committee is not meeting, the reason why they are not meeting can be determined.  Riley said that all FS committees have guidelines and are reviewed on a triennial basis, but that the Faculty Senate Committee on Committees currently has no responsibility to review University Administrative committees.  The possibility of amending this motion to address concerns discussed at this meeting was briefly discussed.  However, Senator Sundberg said that most of the concerns voiced by Senator Ament are addressed in the second paragraph on the first page of this motion.  Grelle said that he believes the concerns discussed today regarding the Enrollment Management Committee are the result of a simple oversight and that he will check with the committee in an attempt to resolve these issues.  Senator Zelazek explained a situation that occurred on a committee on which he was a member several years ago that did not meet for an extended period of time and said he felt that periodic review of all committees could alleviate possible oversights and miscommunications in the future.  Rogers said it was important that faculty members who are on committees report to the CoC to advise whether or not their committees are meeting and what issues those committees are discussing.  Zelazek asked if a university administrator could dissolve a Faculty Senate committee without the approval of the Faculty Senate and Rogers said they could not.  Zelazek then asked if a FS committee dissolved in the past without the approval of the Faculty Senate, could now appeal, and Rogers said he thought that if this has happened in the past that the FS could reconstitute that committee if there was a need.  Grelle said that as a point of information, in the past, FS committees were called “committees” and UA committees were called “councils”.  A vote was then taken with the following results:

 

-PASSED-       For:   14          Opposed:   1          Abstentions:   4                   (2005-2006-17)          

 

 

Rogers then opened discussion about the draft of Motion 2005-2006-18 that was distributed regarding faculty development grants, as follows:

Whereas, a fund has been established within the University President’s Office which serves to reimburse colleges and/or departments for funds expended to cover the hiring of adjuncts to cover classes which would normally be taught by the President and Vice-President of the Faculty Senate who are awarded release time for their service to the Senate;

Whereas, that account balance is currently in excess of $15,800.00; and,

Whereas, currently, no further reductions to this account for the 2005-2006 budget year are anticipated;

Whereas, this fund was established in the spirit of assisting the faculty of Central Missouri State University;

Be it therefore resolved: that the Central Missouri State University Faculty Senate requests that the President allocate $10,000.00 from this fund to provide funding for Faculty Senate Faculty Development Grants.  These grants would be open to all faculty members, regardless of rank, and are intended to supplement faculty development activities to include travel and research/creative activities up to $500.00 for the Spring and Summer semesters of 2006.  Any unexpended funds would be returned to the Faculty Senate Salary Replacement Fund on September 1st, 2006.

In order to provide adequate time to discuss ideas and suggestions regarding how these funds should be used, Rogers said that the FS could ask President Podolefsky to roll over the funds to the 2006-2007 budget year.  He said that this would allow sufficient time to make sure that all faculty are aware that these funds will be available.  In light of the discussion concerning this motion at the last FS meeting, he asked for suggestions regarding other ideas on how these funds could be used.  If these funds are used for faculty development grants, Senator Ament asked if the FS Executive Committee would be the entity that reviewed the applications and determined who would receive funding.  Rogers replied that either the Executive Committee or an ad hoc committee of senators could be appointed to perform those duties.  Ament said he is very supportive of having faculty benefit from these funds, but voiced concern about the numerous issues would need to be clarified to appropriately handle these funds.  He suggested that it might streamline this effort if these funds were transferred to existing sources that support travel for faculty and already have mechanisms in place for reviewing applications and distributing funds.  Additionally, since these monies are a “one shot deal”, he questioned if it was worth the amount of work that would be required to create a whole new funding process, and also voiced concern about possible damage that could result to the image of the FS if the distribution of these funds is perceived by faculty as inequitable.  Senator Zelazek voiced support of the concept of the motion and suggested that if it is approved, it should be retroactive.  He also said that since these funds actually belong to the president, that consideration should be given to the fact that there are past commitments made by the university, such as merit pay, that have not yet been honored.  He stated that it was his belief that the university should first pay debts such as merit pay commitments before the FS approved this motion concerning faculty development grants, and he described letters sent to various faculty in 1991 awarding merit pay.  Ament agreed that the university should honor its previous commitments, but said that he believes debts such as merit pay should be paid for with monies other than the funds discussed in this motion.  Riley suggested that perhaps a separate motion could be made to address concerns regarding merit pay.  Senator Jurkowski said he feels that merit pay is an important issue, but it should be addressed separately.  Senator Katsourides said that he received a letter awarding him merit pay that he has never received, but that he feels that the motion being considered is a separate issue.  Rogers said that if the FS would like to request that President Podolefsky rollover these funds to 2006-2007, he will prepare such a motion.  He also asked if the FS prefers to give control of these funds to another committee for distribution, or if the FS wants to retain control of the funds.  Senator Sundberg suggested that these funds be given to the FS Professional Enhancement Committee because they already have guidelines in place regarding how these funds can be used and how they are distributed.  In response to a question from Senator Bonsall, it was generally agreed that the guidelines of the Professional Enhancement Committee are fairly broad in order to assist the maximum number of people.  A lengthy discussion ensued regarding various ways these funds could be used.  Senator Katsourides said that because the motion deals with a relatively small amount of one-time funds, this motion should be addressed today and suggested that the last paragraph of the motion be amended to read as follows:

Be it therefore resolved: that the Central Missouri State University Faculty Senate requests that the President allocate not more than $10,000.00 to the Faculty Senate Professional Enhancement Committee for the 2006-2007 academic year.

Senator Joy seconded the revised motion.  Senator Williams said he supported the revised motion because the PEC has clear guidelines in place for the distribution of funds.  Senator Ament said he would like to support this amended motion, but was concerned because there are numerous sources in addition to the PEC, including the University Research Council, the Center for Teaching and Learning, the International Office, and others that provide resources for travel for faculty, and he questioned how the FS could determine which source should receive these funds.  He suggested that this motion be reconsidered by the FS Executive Committee and revised to address all of the concerns voiced at the meeting today.  Ament also asked if this amended motion was passed if the Faculty Senate would be given any credit for contributing these funds to the PEC and Rogers said that he thought the only recognition that might possibly be given to the FS would be if Provost Wilson publicly recognized the FS for making the contribution.  He also said that he would attempt to announce the Faculty Senate’s contribution to the PEC by making a statement in the Faculty “L”.   A vote was then taken with the following results:

 

-PASSED-       For:   16          Opposed:   1          Abstentions:   0                   (2005-2006-18)          

 

 

President Rogers announced that the next regular FS meeting would be held on February 15, and reminded Executive Committee members that the next EC meeting was scheduled for tomorrow at 3:15 p.m. in Union 219.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:39 p.m.

 

 

Janie Seymour

Faculty Senate Office Professional

 

 

************************************************

 

Meeting 12                                                                                                       February 15, 2006

 

Central Missouri State University

Faculty Senate Minutes

 

 

The Faculty Senate met at 3:20 p.m. in Union 237A with President Jack Rogers presiding.

 

ROLL CALL: In addition to FS President Jack Rogers, the following twenty-one senators and two alternates were present:  Ament, Bonsall, Ciafullo, Geiger, Grigsby, Hynes, Joy, Jurkowski, Katsourides, Kidwaro, Koehn, Miller, Norwood, Popejoy, Riley, Saran, Staab, Sundberg, Swanson, Williams, Zelazek, Thomas (alternate for Nickens), and Yousef (alternate for McKee).  Absent were Robins and Washer.  Also present was President Aaron Podolefsky, Provost George Wilson, Kathy Callahan of the FS Salary and Fringe Benefits Committee, and Robert Lurker.

 

MINUTES:  A motion was made by Senator Williams, seconded by Senator Jurkowski and passed unanimously to approve the minutes of the February 1, 2006 Faculty Senate meeting.

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

 

President Podolefsky announced that the Masters program in Environmental Science was approved by CBHE.  He also said that he appeared before the House appropriations committee on January 24 and gave them a dual message, basically telling them thanks for the 2%, but that it is not sufficient to meet our needs.  Additionally, he said that yesterday, he testified at the Senate Education Committee on behalf of the governor’s proposal which includes funding for improvements for the Morrow/Garrison building.  Podolefsky said that the governor made a proposal which included the selling of MOHELA (Missouri Higher Education Lending Authority), and he explained how the governor planned to use the proceeds from this sale.  He said MOHELA did not want to be sold, but they did agree to sell enough loans to make a $450,000,000 profit to fund the governor’s initiative. Podolefsky briefly explained that he and the other university presidents have banded together to support this proposal, which he believes is in CMSU’s best interest.  The Governor’s proposal differs from the proposal put forward by the Missouri House.  In response to a question from Senator Geiger, Podolefsky said that under the Governor’s plan, ten capital projects were chosen from the CBHE list of capital priorities and that they were initially supposed to be related to life sciences.  He said that under the House proposal some schools, including Northwest and Southeast, lost their projects and that it appeared obvious that some of the projects were selected because of relationships that have been developed with various corporations.  President Podolefsky also encouraged everyone to contact any member of CMSU’s caucus to voice support of the governor’s proposal.  The President thanked FS VP Riley, Beth Rutt, Senator Jurkowski, Senator Norwood and Bob Yates for taking the group of students to Jefferson City and for their efforts at the recent MAFS meeting and the Higher Education Lobby Day.  In response to a question raised by Senator Saran at a previous FS meeting, President Podolefsky distributed a brochure entitled “Economic and Social Impact” that was used to help explain to legislators that CMSU impacts a much greater area than Warrensburg and he briefly reviewed the brochure.  He said that another brochure was developed regarding CMSU’s airport master plan and explained that 95% of the money needed for this airport project would be funded by MODOT and the FAA and that the remaining 5% would be privately funded.  He emphasized that any efforts towards the airport project would not impact funds for programs on campus.  Podolefsky also distributed a sheet concerning FY07 Federal Appropriations Proposals (ear-marked funds) and explained that the proposals were put into four categories, each of which was selected with the hope that they would “catch a legislator’s eye”.  Additionally, he said he and Provost Wilson attended a nice alumni event in Houston and at that event, Jim Crane, for whom Crane Stadium is named, agreed to serve on the Central Missouri Development Corporation.  He said that another CMSU alum, Paula Derks, president of Aircrafts Electronics, has also agreed to serve on this board.  President Podolefsky reiterated that funding for mandatory expenses and salaries will be the administration’s primary objective when working on the budget, and that in order to fund those areas, consideration must be given to the impact that an increase in tuition will have on student enrollment.

 

Provost Wilson announced the upcoming Faculty Research Days and encouraged attendance, especially to presentations made by colleagues in your area.  He also said that faculty may want to encourage their students to attend presentations made by colleagues in their specific area.

 

FS Vice President Riley said that she did not have a report on the last Provost Advisory Council meeting because she was unable to attend due to the fact that she was at the Missouri Association of Faculty Senates meeting in Jefferson City.  She said that a concerted effort was made to present a unified message to the Missouri legislature in Jefferson City and that CMSU and Missouri State University were the only two schools who took students to the Higher Education Lobby Day.

 

FS President Rogers announced that the FS Executive Committee has suggested that in light of the fact that the FS Budget Committee was disbanded, an ad hoc committee should be appointed to do a detailed review the budget.  After their review of the budget, this committee will make recommendations to the FS Executive Committee, who will in turn make recommendations to the Faculty Senate, who in turn will then make recommendations to the president, regarding cost saving measures that could be taken in an effort to free up additional funds for items such as health insurance premiums, salary increases, etc.  This committee will be chaired by a member of the Faculty Senate and comprised of faculty members who are interested in serving.  Rogers asked that anyone interested in serving on this committee contact him.

 

Senator Ciafullo asked if the problem has been resolved that was discussed at the last FS meeting concerning the fact that the two faculty representatives who are on the Enrollment Management  Committee have not been invited to or advised of any meetings for this committee.  Senator Geiger stated that she has spoken with Mike Grelle about this issue and that he is working to resolve it.

 

Senator Katsourides questioned why an SGA representative was never in attendance at Faculty Senate meetings this year.  Rogers said that he has reminded SGA members that are in his classes about attending FS meetings, and said that a FS meeting schedule was sent to the SGA with an invitation for a representative from SGA to attend the FS meetings, but they have not responded.  Senator Sundberg questioned if the FS is sending representatives to SGA meetings and Rogers said that other than one SGA meeting that Riley attended, FS representatives were


 

not attending SGA meetings.  It was agreed that a sign up sheet for the remainder of the SGA meetings this term would be distributed in an effort to have Faculty Senate representation at future SGA meetings.

 

FS SPPRC representative Staab reported that the SPRC met on February 9 to discuss the Winter Retreat that will be held on February 28 in Union 236.  He said that three subcommittees were formed in an effort to prepare and better organize the Winter Retreat, and that those three subcommittees are (1) Mission/Vision, (2) Strategic Directions and Goals, and (3) Name Change.  Staab said he is serving as co-chair for the Name Change Task Force and that this committee has formed three subcommittees to (1) research other institutions around the country that have gone through a similar name change, (2) collect a variety of comparative data on CMSU and other institutions around the state, and (3) conduct a SWOT-type analysis of the potential risks and rewards of a name change at CMSU.

 

Senator Hynes reiterated her previous announcement that Congressman Emanuel Cleaver will be on campus on February 17 at 7:30 p.m. in Hendricks Hall as the featured guest artist for the Gala Scholarship Concert.  Hynes said that Congressman Cleaver will do a narration for a piece titled “The Lincoln Portrait”, and extended an invitation to everyone to attend.  Hynes explained that this is her department’s main scholarship fundraiser and that the Gala Scholarship Concert series has already raised approximately $10,000 in the last month.

 

Senator Geiger announced that on February 20 and 21, from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. in Elliott Union, CMSU will host a conference for the Institute for International Justice called Canadian and United States Justice Issues:  Cross-Border and Global Contexts Conference.  She said there will be a number of interesting speakers discussing a variety of topics, including false imprisonment, challenges posed by open borders, and numerous other issues, and encouraged attendance at this event.

 

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

Vice President Riley presented Motion 2005-2006-16 from the FS Committee on Committees regarding recommendations made as a result of the annual review of the charges of one-third of the Faculty Senate committees, as follows:

 

Motion:  As a result of the annual review of one-third of the FS Committees, the Committee on Committees recommends the following changes be made in committee charges.  Changed wording is noted by a strikethrough; new wording is in bold.

 

Academic Standards Committee – requested an editorial change in the numbering and asked that the comments section include: The chair may appoint a secretary to maintain minutes.  The official charge would change as indicated by strikeouts (deletions) and bold text:


 

I. FUNCTION

A. To review and recommend policy regarding the university-wide academic standards at Central Missouri State University

B. To review and recommend policy regarding regulations stated in the General (Undergraduate) and Graduate Catalogs, e.g., graduation requirements, admission standards and policies, academic probation and suspension policies, etc.

II. POSITION IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Reports to the Faculty Senate

III. MEMBERSHIP

A. Composition (14 11 members)

1. One faculty member from each college and L/AE

2. One undergraduate student member

3. One graduate student member

4. Director of Student Records/Registrar

5. One member from the Council of Deans

6. Associate Provost for Academic Affairs

7. One representative from the Graduate Council

B. Selection

1. Faculty members nominated by the FS Committee on Committees and confirmed by the Faculty Senate

2. One undergraduate student member appointed by the Student Government Association

3. One graduate student member appointed by the Graduate Council

4. Director of Student Records/Registrar (ex officio/non-voting)

5. One dean appointed by the Council of Deans

6. Associate Provost for Academic Affairs (ex officio/non-voting)

7. One graduate Council representative appointed by the Graduate Council

C. Selection of Chair

Shall select a chair from its voting membership

D. Term of Service

Two years. After serving for two consecutive terms, a member will be ineligible to serve for a period of one year.   Exceptions may be made by the Faculty Senate Committee on Committees or the Faculty Senate Elections Committee.

IV. COMMENTS

Whenever possible, a second-year committee member should be selected as chair. The committee chair is responsible for creating and maintaining a Procedures Manual, a copy to be kept in the Faculty Senate Office.  The chair may appoint a secretary to maintain minutes.

 

Distance Education Committee – rewrote the function section (basically just changed the format) and changed the membership section.  The official charge would change as indicated below:

I. FUNCTION

A. To provide input regarding the development, initiation and maintenance of distance education partnerships (intra and inter-institutional).

B. To devise creative strategies to promote the development and delivery of courses and programs with the context of existing and new distance education methodologies, facilities, and infrastructure.

C. To develop appropriate distance education faculty workload standards.

D. To develop policies/processes for determining faculty competence for teaching within the context of existing and new distance education methodologies (teaching persona).

E. To develop pedagogy and assessment standards for existing and new distance education methodologies (visual teaching style, visual teaching enhancement)

F. To coordinate standards of quality for students with those in courses on campus.

G. To develop distance education faculty development activities.

H. To develop incentives/rewards for distance education instruction and scholarship within the context of promotion and tenure.

I. To develop and review policies regarding faculty intellectual property rights.

To review and provide input into the following aspects of distance education,

as requested:

            a. Current best practices in distance education

                        i. methodologies, facilities, and infrastructure

                        ii. course assessment appropriate to the technology

            b.  Faculty concerns

                        i.  criteria for including distance education efforts in promotion and                                      tenure policies

                        ii. faculty development activities

                        iii. faculty work load standards

            c. Intellectual property rights

            d. Cooperative partnerships

                        i. Intra- and inter-institutional

                        ii. Funding opportunities

                        iii. Marketing

II. POSITION IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Reports to the Faculty Senate

III. MEMBERSHIP

A. Composition (15 members)

1. Two faculty members from each college and L/AE

2. One undergraduate student

3. One graduate teaching assistant student

4. Director of WeMET CentralNet (ex-officio, non-voting)

5. Assistant Director for Distance Learning (ex-officio, non-voting)

6. Assistant Director for Outreach Services Director of Extended Campus and Distance Learning(ex-officio, non-voting)

7. Distance Education Librarian* (ex-officio, non-voting)


 

B. Selection

1. Faculty members nominated by the FS Committee on Committees and confirmed by the Faculty Senate

2. Undergraduate student selected by SGA

3. Graduate teaching assistant student selected by the Vice President for Academic Affairs/Dean of Graduate Studies GSA.

4. Ex-officio, non-voting members by appointment to their positions.

C. Selection of Chair

Shall select a chair from its faculty membership

D. Term of Service

1. Faculty members-two years. After serving for two consecutive terms, a member will be ineligible to serve for a period of one year.   Exceptions may be made by the Faculty Senate Committee on Committees or the Faculty Senate Elections Committee.

2. Student members-one year

3. Ex-officio-as long as in their positions

IV. COMMENTS

The committee shall submit an annual written report to Faculty Senate.

Whenever possible, a second-year committee member should be selected as chair.

The committee chair is responsible for creating and maintaining a Procedures Manual, a copy to be kept in the Faculty Senate Office.

The voting faculty members will be on a rotation of members going off and new members coming on each year. The rotation will be determined by the FS Committee on Committees.

*Non-voting, except for those years when he/she serves as a faculty member of the committee representing Library/AE.

 

Ethics in Research Committee – No changes requested.

 

General Education Committee – recommended a change in wording.  The charge would change as indicated:

I. FUNCTION

A. To periodically review and update the philosophy statement of the General Education program. 

B. To formulate, review and maintain policies and procedures to operate the General Education program.

C. To formulate, maintain and review policies, procedures and objectives for the evaluation and selection of proposed and existing courses for the General Education program.

D. To recommend approval or removal of courses for the General Education program to the FS University Curriculum Committee.

E. To review the operation of the General Education program and make recommendations when appropriate.
 

II. POSITION IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Reports to the Faculty Senate. Each proposal for a revised or new General Education course must be presented by departments, colleges, or interdisciplinary teams to the FS General Education Committee through the normal departmental and college curricular review process. The FS General Education Committee then acts on the proposal in its relationship to General Education and forwards its recommendations for course additions, deletions, and revisions to the FS University Curriculum Committee for its review and for processing for inclusion in the General Catalog. If there is a substantive change by the FS University Curriculum Committee in proposals passed by the FS General Education Committee, then the FS University Curriculum Committee shall return the amended proposals to the FS General Education Committee once for final revision. In no case shall the FS University Curriculum Committee approve any course for inclusion in the General Education Program that does not conform to the guidelines and policies of the FS General Education Committee.

III. MEMBERSHIP

A. Composition (11)

1. Five members, one from each college and L/AE

2. Four General Education faculty (defined in section B.2.) elected at-large by the University Faculty.

3. One student representative.

4. The Assistant Provost for Undergraduate Studies shall serve as an ex-officio member (voting only in case of a tie.)  

B. Selection

1. Faculty elected from each college and L/AE.

2. General Education Faculty elected at-large by the University Faculty.  General Education faculty are those full-time faculty who are currently teaching or who have taught within the past two years at least one University Studies/General Education course.

3. Student selected by SGA.

4. No more than one member shall be elected from any one department. Election by college shall take precedence over election by GE Faculty in the event that two faculty are elected from the same department.

C. Selection of Chair

The Committee shall select a chair from its faculty members.

D. Term of Service

1. Representatives of units and General Education faculty shall be elected to three-year terms on a staggered replacement basis.  Each year, three members will rotate off with no more than two being at-large members.  When a committee member leaves prior to the expiration of his or her term, elections will be held for a replacement to fill the unexpired portion of his or her term.

2. The student representative's term of service will be one year.

3. No elected member or student may serve more than two consecutive terms.

IV. COMMENTS

A matrix of General Education courses shall be developed so that coverage of all General Education areas can be established and maintained.

The committee chair is responsible for creating and maintaining a Procedures Manual, a copy to be kept in the Faculty Senate Office.

In exercising its curricular responsibilities, the committee shall be guided in action by concerns for the spirit of the General Education document and for the proper relationship of the committee to the University, colleges, departments and students. The committee shall be primarily concerned with the appropriateness of courses to the General Education program. In addition to these curricular concerns the committee shall promote the development of interdisciplinary courses which fulfill the spirit of the General Education program.

The GE Committee shall provide a liaison to the FS Assessment Council.

Secretarial support will be provided by the Assistant Provost for Undergraduate Studies/Dean of the Honors College.

This committee also meets in summer.

 

Professional Enhancement Committee –  requested editorial changes.  The charge would change as indicated below:

I. FUNCTION

A. To recommend policy for professional enhancement and development

B. To devise procedures for receiving and processing requests

C. To advise in the coordinateion of campus development activity

D. To recommend and develop faculty and academic staff professional development and enhancement activities

E. To review faculty applications for and make recommendations in the areas of: 1) travel requests, 1) instructional development grants 2 1) professional development facilitation opportunities, and 3 2) academic leave requests and make recommendations regarding funding to the ProvostRecommendations regarding academic leave requests are made to the Provost.

F. To continuously review and recommend changes for improvement in the enhancement and development document.

II. POSITION IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Reports to the Faculty Senate

III. MEMBERSHIP

A. Composition (9 8 members)

1. One faculty member from each college and L/AE

2. One at-large faculty member

3. Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs (ex-officio/non-voting)

4. Director of Sponsored Research and Projects (ex-officio/non-voting)

5. Director of Academic Professional Development (ex-officio/non-voting)

3. Assistant Provost for Research and Dean of the Graduate School (ex-officio/non-voting.)

4. Assistant Provost for Information Technology and Instruction (ex-officio/non-voting)

B. Selection

1. Faculty members nominated by the FS Committee on Committees and confirmed by the Faculty Senate.

2. Ex-officio members by appointment to their positions

C. Selection of Chair

Shall select a chair from its faculty membership

D. Term of service

1. Three years. After serving for two consecutive terms, a member will be ineligible to serve for a period of one year.   Exceptions may be made by the Faculty Senate Committee on Committees or the Faculty Senate Elections Committee.

2. Ex-officio as long as in their position or until replaced by the Provost.

IV. COMMENTS

Any member of the committee who shall decide to submit a request for an academic/research leave will be expected to resign from the committee before submitting the request.

Also, any member of the committee who shall submit a request for any type of funding will be expected not to participate in the evaluation or decision-making of his/her proposal request.

The FS Committee on Committees shall be notified of a resignation so the vacancy can be filled for the remainder of the unexpired term.

Whenever possible, a returning committee member who is also a tenured faculty member should be selected as chair.

The committee chair is responsible for creating and maintaining a Procedures Manual, a copy to be kept in the Faculty Senate Office.

The voting faculty members will be on a rotation of two members going off and two new members coming on each year. The rotation will be determined by the FS Committee on Committees.

This committee also meets in the summer.

 

University Assessment Committee change membership to include additional member from Information Services.  Changes indicated below:

I. FUNCTION

A. To provide leadership and encouragement for faculty, staff, and administration in developing and understanding the what, why, and how, of assessments.

B. To serve to interpret, review, and integrate assessment activities and their results; and to coordinate these activities across academic programs, student support services, and other campus units.

C. To collect and organize information regarding assessment activities and their results; articulate this information in a common language; disseminate this information to internal and external audiences (e.g. CBHE), based on the principle that the department/unit which collects assessment data will have the primary responsibility for the control and interpretation of that data.*

D. To require and review clear, concise, written documentation, which indicates the degree to which the unit has carried out its assessment plan.

E. To review the documentation which supports the degree to which the unit has carried out its assessment plan, with special attention given to mission, pedagogical, and fiscal accountability.

F. To review and report how the information derived from assessment activities is being used to improve teaching and learning and students' university experiences.

G. To review and recommend initial, continuing, or permanent funding for current and proposed assessment activities.

H. To meet the primary goal stated in the Preamble of the final report of the Ad Hoc Committee on University Assessment, to improve teaching and learning.


 

II. POSITION IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Empowered by the Faculty Senate to forward its recommendations for assessment activities related to academic issues directly to the Faculty Senate, and non-academic issues directly to the Administrative Council. A copy of academic issues should be sent to the Administrative Council, and a copy of non-academic issues should be sent to the Faculty Senate, for informational purposes.

III. MEMBERSHIP

A. Composition (14 members)

1. One faculty member from each college and L/AE

2. One member of the FS University Curriculum Committee

3. One member of the FS General Education Committee

4. One member of the FS Academic Standards Committee

5. One member from Student Affairs

6. One member from University Advancement

7. One member from Finance & Administration

8. One student member

9. Director of Institutional Research (ex-officio)

10. Assessment Coordinator (ex-officio)

11. One member from Information Services

B. Selection

1. Faculty members nominated by the Faculty Senate Committee on Committees and confirmed by the Faculty Senate.

2. Representatives from offices identified in  "III.A. 5, 6,and 7, and 11 be appointed by the appropriate administrator.

3. Student member will be appointed by the Student Government Association.

4. Director of Institutional Research serves by virtue of office. (ex-officio)

5. University Assessment Coordinator. (ex-officio/non-voting)

C. Selection of Chair

Whenever possible, a second-year committee member should be selected as chair.

The Committee shall select a secretary from its membership.

D. Term of Service

Two years staggered, with reappointments possible.  After serving for two consecutive terms, a member will be ineligible to serve for a period of one year.   Exceptions may be made by the Faculty Senate Committee on Committees or the Faculty Senate Elections Committee.

Student member-one year term

The committee chair is responsible for creating and maintaining a Procedures Manual, a copy to be kept in the Faculty Senate Office.

*It was the intent of the ad hoc committee which proposed and the Senate which approved the University Assessment Council that the council would serve as a campus clearinghouse/collection point for assessment data which may be later sent on to external groups or state agencies (e.g., CBHE) only after such groups or agencies made a formal request for such information through appropriate university administrative channels. It was never their intent to allow off-campus groups direct contact with university or Faculty Senate committees.

Riley explained that at the last meeting, Motion 2005-2006-16 had been tabled until she could provide additional information regarding the change in the number of members on the FS Academic Standards Committee.  Riley said that the motion shown above has now been revised to show the complete charge, including any changes made, for all of the Faculty Senate committees.  Rogers said that before this new revised version of Motion 2005-2006-16 could be voted on, a motion would have to be made from the floor to take the motion off the table.  A motion was then made by Senator Jurkowski, seconded by Senator Sundberg and passed unanimously to take Motion 2005-2006-16 off the table.  Senator Zelazek thanked Riley for her diligence in supplying the additional information now included in the revised motion.  Senator Ament questioned how and when the membership of the FS Academic Standards Committee changed from fourteen to eleven members and Riley explained that this committee has had eleven members since prior to 2000, and that at the time the change was made, the charge had not been revised to reflect the change in membership.  A vote was then taken on Motion 2005-2006-16 with the following results:

 

-PASSED-       For:  22          Opposed:  0          Abstentions:  0          (Motion 2005-2006-16)

 

 

Senator Saran presented Motion 2005-2006-19 recommending the development of a policy to evaluate academic administrators.  Senator Ament voiced support of the idea of this motion, but suggested that it be amended to request that information be obtained about the evaluation process that is currently in place.  Provost Wilson briefly explained that the present procedure is supposed to include a formal evaluation every three years of all persons that have administrative responsibilities in academic affairs.  He said that a form does exist and is currently used for the evaluation of deans and provosts.  He said that some deans and department chairs have also chosen to do an informal evaluation on a more frequent basis for the purpose of their own development.  Senator Koehn asked if the current system allowed the person being evaluated to supply a list of names of those persons they wanted to complete the evaluation form, and voiced concern that if this is occurring, input would not be received from everyone interested in participating in the evaluation process.  Wilson responded that all faculty are supposed to have the opportunity to participate in the evaluation of administrators in their respective departments and colleges.  He said he had heard that at one time, administrators could submit a list of those outside the department or college who he/she would like to have included in the evaluation, but he was not sure whether or not such a list was ever actually used.  He said the purpose of such evaluations is to get better performance from administrators and that these evaluations should primarily focus on fundamental issues, in addition to a performance review.  Senator Zelazek voiced support of the general idea of this motion and said he appreciated the wording, especially regarding item 2 concerning the timing of such evaluations.  Senator Sundberg voiced support of this motion, but questioned whether providing feedback of the evaluations to the faculty was appropriate.  She said the issue of providing feedback was mentioned in the first paragraph of the motion, but was not listed in the issues that should be considered.  Sundberg also said that when students evaluate faculty, she did not feel the results of those evaluations should be shared with students.  Senator Ciafullo said he understands the issue of confidentiality, but said there is also an issue of accountability, and there should be a balance of these two issues.  He also stated that he agreed with Zelazek that there has been a lack of consistency regarding evaluations of administrators.  Senator Ament questioned how much information could be included in an anonymous evaluation done by faculty.  He also suggested that information should be included in the motion about what information is provided to faculty as a result of these evaluations.  FS VP Riley briefly explained how this issue is handled in the library.  Senator Katsourides suggested that if this motion is going to be voted on today that it needs to be amended to insure that a procedure is put in place and suggested possible amendments to the motion that could accomplish this.  Senator Jurkowski stated that the details of implementing an evaluation policy for administrators could be discussed for an endless amount of time, but that he felt that the most important issue would be to pass the motion recommending that a committee be formed to develop a policy.  He said the committee could then review the issue, gather pertinent information and return to the Faculty Senate with their recommendation for an actual policy.  Senator Staab said he believes that regarding this issue, accountability should take precedence over confidentiality.  In response to various suggestions made to amend this motion, Ciafullo said he would be willing to remove the last sentence of the first paragraph of the motion and to remove the list of issues/tasks included in the motion, if this would make the motion more acceptable to the FS.  A motion was then made by Ciafullo and seconded by Joy to amend the motion accordingly.  A brief discussion ensued and Wilson suggested that perhaps this list of issues/tasks could be left in the motion if the last sentence of the first paragraph of the motion was amended to be more general so that the committee would not be locked into any particular course of action.  Ciafullo then amended the motion to read as follows:

The Faculty Senate hereby recommends that the President appoint a committee to develop a consistent policy for evaluating academic administrators from the Chairs to the President, and to provide feedback of these evaluations to the faculty.  Consideration should be given to such issues as:

1.                  Drafting and/or selecting an evaluation instrument;

2.                  Deciding on the timing, frequency and mechanism of administering the instrument (who should administer, who should evaluate, etc.)

3.                  Collecting and analyzing the data (who should evaluate)

4.                  Assuring the anonymity of the evaluating faculty and the confidentiality of data collection and analysis; and

5.                  Determining a mechanism for advising the administrator being evaluated.

A recorded vote, as requested by Ciafullo, was then taken on Motion 2005-2006-19 as amended above with the following results:  For:  Ament, Bonsall, Ciafullo, Geiger, Hynes, Joy, Jurkowski, Katsourides, Kidwaro, Koehn, Miller, Norwood, Popejoy, Riley, Saran, Staab, Sundberg, Swanson, Williams, Zelazek, Thomas and Yousef.   Opposed:  None.   Abstentions:  None.

 

-PASSED-       Unanimous                                                                 (Motion 2005-2006-19)

 

 

Senator Norwood presented Motion 2005-2006-20 requesting that non-tenure track faculty be evaluated by tenured or tenure-track faculty before they are re-hired.  She explained that this motion resulted from a constituent concern that was discussed at a FS Executive Committee meeting and that the intent of the motion was to have a basic process put in place for the evaluation of re-hires.  She said this motion was not intended to impede the evaluation process already in place in some departments, but rather to implement a basic structure so that all departments would be consistent in this process.  Senator Katsourides said he supported this motion in theory, but voiced concern that the motion does not sufficiently address how this issue would be handled in small departments or programs.  In response to Katsourides’ comments, Senator Bonsall said that the motion does not state anything about the decision made after the evaluations.  She said the final decision would still be made by the chair, but that this motion allows tenured faculty to have the opportunity to provide input.  Senator Zelazek said he does not support this motion because he feels it is up to each department and/or program to decide how they want to handle this issue.  As a tenure track faculty member, Senator Williams said he does not support this motion because he does not want the responsibility of making recommendations concerning the re-hire of non-tenure track faculty to a department chair, whose job it is to make decisions on issues such as this.  Senator Ament asked if this motion is approved if this would become a policy that was included in the Faculty Guide and Norwood said she thought that if passed, a policy regarding this issue would eventually appear in the Faculty Guide.  Ament said that he is somewhat hesitant to support this motion.   Senator Sundberg said she was concerned that while this issue may be relevant in some departments, it may not be relevant for all departments, and suggested a friendly amendment to precede the first sentence of this motion by adding the words “If the tenure and tenure track faculty in a department so desire…..”  Norwood said she was agreeable to such an amendment.  Zelazek reiterated that this is a department issue and that it is at the discretion of the department chair whether or not to re-hire adjuncts.  Riley said she thought that for most departments, this motion would not change the way this issue is currently dealt with.  However, she said the passage of this motion would provide the opportunity for our colleagues who do not currently have a voice in this issue to be able to have input concerning the re-hire of non-tenure track faculty.  Bonsall and Staab both voiced support for the motion as amended by Sundberg.  Senator Geiger said that if there is no policy prohibiting the course of action requested in this motion, she would support it, and Wilson responded that there is no policy that would prohibit the requested procedure.  Ament questioned how effective the passage of this motion would be.  Provost Wilson responded that even if this motion is passed, there is nothing that would prohibit a department chair from saying that it was not going to follow this procedure, although it obviously would be considerably more difficult for that department chair not to participate in the requested evaluations.  After brief additional discussion, Ament called the question.  The motion to call the question was approved with a vote of 15 in favor, 5 opposed, and 0 abstentions.  A vote was then taken on amended Motion 2005-2006-20, as follows:

 

If the tenure and tenure track faculty in a department so desire, all non-tenure track faculty will be evaluated annually by tenured faculty in the specific Program Area, before re-hire.  An evaluation, designed by tenured faculty in each specific Program Area, will be submitted to the department chair each year by March 1, effective March, 2006.

 

The motion was passed by the following vote:

 

-PASSED-       For:  12          Opposed:  6          Abstentions:  3          (Motion 2005-2006-20)

 

 

Senator Popejoy presented Motion 2005-2006-21, as follows:

 

Whereas, CMSU is dedicated to providing equitable salary and benefits to employees, and

 

Whereas, the University has placed a priority on the provision of a quality, competitive and flexible benefits plan, as stated in

 

Strategic Direction 6.9  Serve the changing needs of the campus community by providing the optimal number and choices of benefits and maximum protection at the best possible cost.

 

And as stated more explicitly in

 

            Strategic Goal 6.9.2  Increase defined contributions and the choice of benefits provided to employees.

 

The Faculty Senate Salary and Fringe Benefits Committee submits the following motion regarding benefits for employees at CMSU:

 

The Committee moves that:

 

·        CMSU provide a monthly benefit amount (“flex dollars”) to each employee;

·        Said benefit amount will not be less than the most recent cost allocated to the Plan A 12-month individual health insurance rate of record;

·        Employees may designate how their monthly benefit amount beyond the cost of health insurance will be spent, to be allocated among specific stated categories of qualified benefits, as defined under I.R.C. Section 125; and

·        Employees will not have the option of “opting out” of the university health plan, except where allowed by university policy regarding proof of alternative coverage.

 

Motion 2005-2006-21 – Flexible Benefit Plan – Draft Proposal Summary

 

This plan proposes to provide a more equitable distribution of benefits among CMSU employees by increasing both the number of benefits available and also the options in how they are utilized.  The most dramatic change from the current system would be providing an increase in the “designated benefit amount.” 

 

The current designated benefit amount is $397.32, and includes coverage of the employee individual premium or partial coverage of the family premium, as well as partial coverage of the employee individual premium for dental and vision.  The Faculty Senate Salary and Fringe Benefits Committee is proposing individual coverage in the amount of $450 per month, requiring the employee to apply for health care benefits, and allowing him/her to select other benefits to which the remaining benefit amount would be applied.  Employees who are able to opt out of the individual plan due to proof of spousal or military coverage (per current university policy) would not be allowed to transfer any health insurance benefit amount to other qualified benefits.

 

Implementation

 

Each full-time employee would receive a designated benefit amount (to be called “flex dollars”) to be applied to authorized CMSU benefit plans.  This amount would not be transferable to external insurance plans.  Where flex dollars are not spent in full, remaining dollars cannot be spent on other non-qualified benefits or credited to the employee.  Options* could include:

 

 

All of the above are “qualified” pre-tax benefits, available for Sec. 125 treatment.

 

*  Note that Long-Term Care Insurance is no longer billed through the University via payroll deduction and is also not considered a “qualified” benefit.

 

 

 Popejoy prefaced his explanation of this motion with comments about the general topic of compensation and about the current compensation plan.  He said that a fully functioning compensation plan is normally measured by both external competitiveness and internal consistency, both of which are equity-based criteria.  He explained that the current compensation model at CMSU has a three-pronged approach based on base pay, market pay and merit pay, along with the de facto component of fringe benefits.  He said that typically, the issue of external competitiveness is dealt with through market pay and base pay.  Additionally, he said that the issue of internal consistency is dealt with through base pay, via equity adjustments, and merit pay.  Popejoy said that in order to have a good compensation system, all components need to be working properly and be operational at the same time.  He said that it is the intent of the two motions from the FS Salary and Fringe Benefits Committee on the agenda today to encourage that the components of the current compensation system are working properly, are operational, and are funded.  Popejoy said that the FSSFBC has been working on this motion for approximately three years, and that Southeast Missouri State University, who is considered to have one of the best benefit packages of universities in this state, has recently adopted a program almost identical to the one proposed in this motion, which allocates approximately $430 in “flex dollars” to each employee.  He explained that the main purpose of Motion 2005-2006-21 is to recommend that all CMSU employees are provided with a monthly benefit amount called “flex dollars”, the amount of which will not be less than the current cost allocated for employees enrolled in the Plan A health insurance.  Popejoy said the current amount allocated to each employee who is enrolled in the Plan A health insurance is approximately $385.  This motion requests that any amount allocated to each employee over the amount needed for the monthly health insurance premium be used to help defray the cost of other qualified benefits, such as vision or dental insurance, or other qualified options.  He further explained that employees will not have the option of “opting out” of the health plan, except as allowed by university policy regarding proof of alternative coverage, and that this will help maintain the integrity of the plan and avoid the problem of having healthy employees opt out of the CMSU plan to enroll in less expensive plans.  Popejoy explained that the motion does not recommend a specific amount, and reiterated that it does state that the amount will not be less than the amount currently allocated to those enrolled in the Plan A health insurance.  Additionally, he said that if an employee does opt out, they cannot take the designated amount of “flex dollars” as part of their compensation.  In response to a question from Jurkowski, Popejoy said this motion would give every employee the same amount of “flex dollars”.  In response to a comment from Geiger, Popejoy said this motion is designed so that as more funds become available, they can be put into this plan and used to provide additional “flex dollars” for employees.  Under this plan, Ament asked if he elected to enroll in a qualified benefit plan that is currently subsidized by the university, such as dental, would the university continue to subsidize the cost of that coverage (i.e., in this case, dental insurance).  Popejoy explained that the university would not subsidize coverage for any of the qualified benefit plans because a specific amount will be given to each employee, and the employee can then apply that amount to whichever benefits they select.  Sundberg voiced support of this motion and said she feels this plan is equitable to all employees.  A vote was then taken on Motion 2005-2006-21 with the following results:

 

-PASSED-       For:  19          Opposed:  0          Abstentions:  2          (Motion 2005-2006-21)

 

 

Senator Popejoy briefly explained Motion 2005-2006-22 requesting a six percent across-the-board raise in base pay for faculty for FY 06-07, an amount of .5 percent of the funded salary line for employer-provided benefits (which would be put into the “flex dollars” plan), and an amount of one percent of the funded salary line to be set aside to fund market pay, as follows:

 

Whereas, CMSU is dedicated to providing competitive salary and benefits to employees, as stated in

 

Strategic Direction 6.8  Maintain a competitive compensation system to attract and retain the necessary quality faculty and staff to support Central’s mission as a regional comprehensive institution offering quality academic programs, some of which compete on the national level.

 

And as stated more succinctly in

 

Strategic Goal 6.10  Maintain a motivated, highly qualified and current faculty and staff.

 

The Faculty Senate Salary and Fringe Benefits Committee submits the following motion regarding salary raises for employees at CMSU:

 

The Committee moves that:

 

·        CMSU faculty receive a 6 percent across-the-board raise in base salary for FY 2006-2007;

·        An amount of 0.5 percent of the funded salary line be set aside to fund an across-the-board raise in employer-provided benefits; and

·        An amount of 1 percent of the funded salary line be set aside to fund market pay for those disciplines previously authorized to receive market pay, but which are currently unfunded from the University budget.

 

 Senator Zelazek said he understands the first bullet recommending a 6% across-the-board raise, but asked if the .5 % in bullet 2 and the 1 % in bullet 3 would actually mean that this motion is requesting a total increase of 7.5%.  Zelazek also referred to the last line of the motion that says “….but which are currently unfunded from the University budget” and asked where the money would come from to fund this motion.  Provost Wilson said that it would not take 1% of the currently funded salary line to fund market pay for those disciplines that have been authorized to receive market pay and suggested that the wording of the last bullet be changed to request that “an amount of up to 1% of the funded salary line…”.  Zelazek suggested that wherever the majority of merit pay is currently being housed, that a surcharge be assessed to the credit hours that are being generated in that area.  He said that he believes that over 90% of market pay is within one college at CMSU.  Kathy Callahan of the FSSFBC then distributed handouts giving a review of past and present state appropriations and where money is being spent and generated at CMSU.  In order to clarify discussion of this motion, Rogers suggested that it be divided into three separate parts, with discussion and an individual vote on each of the three bullets in the motion.  Regarding the first bullet in the motion recommending a 6% across-the-board raise in base pay for faculty for FY 06-07, Sundberg said that although she would definitely like to see a salary increase given, she would prefer that the motion request a more reasonable amount, and said that she has serious concerns about the possibility of a 6% salary increase being funded.  Zelazek said he does not want to reduce the amount requested, and in fact, would prefer to request a higher amount of possibly 9% or 10%.  He said because CMSU salaries are currently so far behind, he would prefer to request a higher amount and have areas in the budget other than salary be cut.  Ament said he would like to see the amount requested be higher than 6% because a 6% increase will not bring CMSU up to the salary level of its peer institutions.  Ciafullo stated that even though it will not bring CMSU salaries up to the level of our peer institutions, he feels that the 6% increase requested in the motion is reasonable and said it is agreeable to him.  A suggestion was made to amend the first bullet of Motion 2005-2006-22 to add the words “minimum of a” so this bullet will now read “CMSU faculty receive a minimum of a 6 percent across-the-board raise in base salary for FY 2006-2007”.  Popejoy said this amendment would be agreeable to the FSSFBC.  Katsourides voiced concern that if “a minimum of a 6 percent” raise was requested, perhaps the president might feel that if the minimum amount could not be awarded that no raise would be given.  Wilson said he was fairly confident that the president would not take that stance and reiterated that President Podolefsky has repeatedly stated that salary increases were his primary concern.  A vote was then taken on the first bulleted item in Motion 2005-2006-22 with the following results:

 

-PASSED-       For:  20       Opposed:  1       Abstentions:  0       (Motion 2005-2006-22-Bullet 1)

 

In order to clarify the intent of this motion, Riley suggested that both bullets 2 and 3 should be amended to begin with the words “In addition”.   Sundberg voiced apprehension about the request in bullet 2 asking for an amount of 0.5 percent of the salary line to fund employer-provided benefits because she is concerned that health insurance premiums will increase more than 0.5 percent.  Wilson suggested that employees might be better served if the motion was amended to request a specific dollar amount in addition to what the university is currently contributing to employee benefits.  Ament asked for clarification of bullet 2 and Rogers explained that .5% of the total salary line would be set aside to be put into the “flex dollars” account for employer-provided benefits.  Wilson said that CMSU’s total salary budget is approximately $70,000,000 and said he did not believe that .5 percent of that amount would be enough to fund bullet 2 of this motion.  Discussion ensued about the different ways this bullet could be defined and it was agreed that to clarify bullet 2, it should be amended to read “In addition, an amount of 0.5 percent of the funded salary line be set aside to enhance employer-provided benefits”.  Wilson said that if this part of the motion was as confusing to the president as it appears to be to everyone else, it would be a disservice to send it to him in its present form.  Ament agreed with Wilson and made a motion to table bullet 2 of Motion 2005-2006-22 so that the FSSFBC could reword it to clarify the intent.  The motion to table bullet 2 was seconded by Miller and voted on with the following results:

 

-TABLED-      For:  15       Opposed:  2       Abstentions:  2       (Motion 2005-2006-22-Bullet 2)

 

Regarding bullet 3 of Motion 2005-2006-22, Koehn suggested that the words “up to” be added so that the wording of bullet 3 would be amended to read “In addition, an amount of up to 1 percent of the funded salary line be set aside to fund market pay for those disciplines previously authorized to receive market pay, but which are currently unfunded from the University budget.” Wilson said that based on the existing compensation plan and the number of faculty currently in market discipline, it would not take anywhere close to 1% of the salary line to move the faculty that are supposed to receive market pay up from their current salaries.  Sundberg questioned the correctness of the first sentence of the last paragraph of the justification attached to Motion 2005-2006-22 and said that she believes that market pay is now largely funded, with the exception of a few instances of market pay that have been approved, but not yet funded.  Wilson generally concurred with Sundberg’s statement and briefly explained the current status of market pay.  Ciafullo thanked the FSSFBC for their hard work and said that philosophically, he opposes market pay because he believes it is an equity issue, and therefore, he opposes bullet 3.  Staab asked Popejoy if merit pay was discussed during the preparation of this motion and Popejoy responded that merit pay is being considered as a separate issue.  Bonsall also commended the FSSFBC on their hard work, but said she is confused about what is currently funded and what is not, and made a motion to table bullet 3 of Motion 2005-2006-22 until the FSSFBC can provide additional information.  The motion to table bullet 3 was seconded by Ciafullo.  The motion to table bullet 3 failed with a vote of 12 in favor, 7 opposed and 0 abstentions.  Concerning a vote on bullet 3, Ament moved to call the question.  The motion to call the question was passed with a vote of 16 in favor, 1 opposed and 2 abstentions. 

 

A recorded vote, as requested by Ciafullo, was then taken on bullet 3 of Motion 2005-2006-22 as amended above with the following results:  For:  Ament, Joy, Koehn, Norwood, Popejoy, Riley, and Swanson.   Opposed:  Ciafullo, Katsourides, Miller, Saran, Staab, Sundberg, Williams, Zelazek, Thomas and Yousef.   Abstentions:  Bonsall and Jurkowski.

 

-FAILED-        For:  7       Opposed:  10       Abstentions:  2       (Motion 2005-2006-22-Bullet 3)

 

 

President Rogers requested than anyone interested in serving on the ad hoc Budget Committee should contact him.  Additionally, he reminded everyone that any senator interested in pursuing a motion concerning the issue of establishing a surcharge regarding specific market disciplines, as was discussed earlier in the meeting, could submit such a motion to the FS Executive Committee to be placed on an agenda for a future FS meeting.  He also reminded Executive Committee members that the next EC meeting was scheduled for tomorrow at 3:15 p.m. in Union 219.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 5:34 p.m.

 

Janie Seymour

Faculty Senate Office Professional