Meeting 5 October 4, 2006
University of Central Missouri
Faculty Senate Minutes
The Faculty Senate meeting was called to order at 3:15 p.m. in Union 237A with President Odin Jurkowski presiding.
In addition to FS President Jurkowski, the following twenty-one senators and two alternate were present: Bowman, Callahan, Ely, Geiger, Hynes, Joy, Kidwaro, Koehn, Liu, Mandali, McKee, Miller, Popejoy, Robins, Strohmeyer, Swanson, Thomas, Washer, Williamson, Zelazek, Gillis (for Staab) and Lurker (for Saran). Also present were Provost Y. T. Shah and Parliamentarian Riley.
A motion was made by Senator Stromeyer, seconded by Senator Williamson and passed unanimously to approve the minutes of meeting 4 of the 2006-2007 Faculty Senate held on September 20, 2006.
Provost Shah announced that he has had 10 meeting with departments. He has spoken about what is going on with the campus and has been receiving some interesting feedback. He has also been supporting the task forces. He is aware that some of the faculty have been concerned that they do not know what is going on and so he is encouraging the faculty to become involved. He would appreciate the help of the Faculty Senate to make sure the faculty are involved with the conversations. He has been asked to respond to the proposal on merit pay and he is having conversations with various faculty and administration regarding the proposal. He plans to meet with the commission and find reasons behind the recommendations and to work from there. Shah has spoken to his cabinet regarding Motion 2006-2007-3: Department Chair tenure changes and has informed them that he will accept the motion.
McKee handed out notes from the Provost Cabinet meeting. Ely asked if the issue of SAS vs. SPSS is something that can be talked about or is it just information for the Senators. McKee stated that she is reporting to the Senate what has been discussed at the cabinet meeting. She believes the discussions have already been taking place and the deans were supposed to be contacting their faculty to find out who needed SAS to find out how many copies are needed and then Provost Shah will speak with Dr. Helm regarding how those programs should be paid for. McKee was sure he would be willing to listen if there were any ideas. Ely stated he didnít have any ideas on how to pay for it; however, he is one of the individuals that use SAS. Shah stated the dean of the Harmon College of Business made a good point about needing SAS. It appears that 50-100 faculty use it at a cost of about $75-100 each. He will be talking to Dr. Helm regarding how this will be payed. Shah stated that they would do their best to accommodate everyone. Callahan stated that she is also in support of using SAS, but also doesnít have any ideas on payment. She stated her real concern is for the Academic Planning Committee because she has been on it for the last three years and she always was concerned that there was not enough faculty representation. There were two others, but both were chairs of departments, so she noticed there is a major restructuring of the committee and wondered if that was an accurate assumption. Jurkowski answered the committee should have one faculty member from each college, so there should have been four faculty members on the committee. There is a major restructuring occurring where by the deans of the college will be coming off the committee and replaced with one additional faculty members from each college, so there will now be two faculty members from each college. Callahan wanted to commend the person who made the decision to restructure the committee because it is an important committee for faculty input.
Jurkowski wanted to remind the faculty that if the faculty signed up to attend the SGA meetings, to please do so, there have been a few people who have not attended. If the faculty do not remember when or if they signed up, please check with Kerr as she has the list in the office. If something comes up at the last minute and the faculty member is unable to make it, please contact Kerr so she might be able to find someone else to attend. Monday and Tuesday of next week, Rogers, Riley, Norwood, and Jurkowski will be attending the Missouri Association of Faculty Senates in Jefferson City. He will let the Faculty Senate know what happens there at the next Faculty Senate meeting. Last week Jurkowski attended a luncheon on campus that the President arranged. The President brought in Elson Floyd from the University of Missouri and other representatives around the state to talk about higher education and funding needed. Jurkowski stated there was a good turnout and reception. They learned more about finances and how itís going across the state. He has had conversations with the Vice President of Administration and Finance, Betty Roberts, and she is putting together an ad hoc committee to work on a new master plan and has asked for two faculty members to join that committee. Jurkowski has shared this information with the Executive Committee already; however, if anyone is interested please let him know, he currently has one name and needs one more faculty member. It is important to have faculty representation on the committee. The committee make-up consists of 4 vice presidents, 2 faculty, a dean, department chair, and student. This committee will look at building a new master plan for the campus and hiring an external consultant to assist with this plan. Geiger asked what is meant by a master plan. Shah answered entire campus layout, not only signage and buildings, but also how the campus is laid out and campus boundaries.
SPRC Representative Koehn announced that the SPRC has met once since the last report. She stated it should be safe to say that this fall the agenda for the SPRC would be more about mission refinement and the subcommittees will report at the next SPRC meeting. The last meeting was largely the reports from the task forces and at the General Faculty Meeting, on November 8, the bulk of that meeting will be the task forces report on their work to date. On the SPRC website faculty can find the composition of all the task forces, their meeting times, as well as minutes from those meetings.
Zelazek stated that he had a follow-up from the last meeting when Dr. Melvin gave forth his data on enrollment and acknowledged that a census would be run that night. He had some questions at that time which are reflected accurately within the minutes from last time. He checked the following morning after the census was run for his own particular classes and noticed there was a change. Instead of a 30% error there was an 8% error, which in his mind is still not acceptable. He shared that data with his department chair and dean. He asked his dean if he could stop the census, please do. Census data is crucial to many programs, especially within the area of education. Zelazek called the Graduate school and spoke with Arvin and gave the correct data to them for those individuals who were in error. Arvin told Zelazek that he made the corrections on Banner, but since the census was wrong already they would not be reflected in upcoming data. Arvin mentioned the potential of an additional census to be run within the next couple of weeks, when he was able to get through some other changes. In the meantime, there has been an acknowledgement from Dr. Yale, who has put forth a number of items as far as some preliminary data from census material, which in effect, if it is incorrect he has figured them inaccurately based on that data. Zelazek stated he would hope an institution that is questing for world class status would be able to count. Jurkowski stated he would contact Matt Melvin with this information. Shah stated that he would work with Jurkowski to make sure there is a response regarding this issue.
Martha Albin wanted to first thank Jurkowski for being a champion for assistance with dependent insurance. He held the banner high in negotiations within the last year and because of that progress has been made in that area and he is already rallying for more next year. Albin presented to the faculty a handout showing the tiered Health Insurance Benefit Plan. This information will be on the website the week of October 30 or slightly before. Albin stated that she has received three e-mails last week from people who stated they didnít know they would be paying part of their own health insurance this year. The Board of Governors did approve that in May 2006 and it will begin with the December check. Open enrollment is October 30-November 8. There will be a couple of question and answer sessions, one on November 1 at 2:00 pm and the other on November 2 at 9:00 am. There are no plan changes, so these meetings are not mandatory, but if there are some questions you have or would like to talk to someone personally, that is the time to do that. Enrollment will be online, like it has been the past couple of years. Albin stated she did address the question she received via e-mail asking why we have to enroll again if we enrolled last year. Any year that changes are made in the plan, there is a requirement to make a positive selection, so this year being the first year that we have asked to pay a portion of the individual insurance, you do have to sign to allow to do that. If a person does not do that, then the money can not be taken from the check and the person will not have insurance. Also, an individual will be asked if they want the deduction pre-tax or post-tax. The tiers on the handout are based on salary and they were not adjusted after the 4% raise was given, but they will be in future years. There are still two plans, Plan A and B, as previous years. Robins asked if they will get an actual health plan policy to tell all the details about the insurance. Albin stated that Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Kansas City provides those via web and you can print them off or you can come by Human Resources. However, she suggested waiting until after January 1, 2007 for the 2007 policy. Geiger asked since there are two checks within a month, will the expense come out half and half. Albin stated that yes it does. Koehn stated that she received paperwork from MO Cafe to sign-up, should they wait to do that until open enrollment. Albin stated yes. MO Cafe always seems to jump the gun on open enrollment and sends their information out the first of October. Their actual open enrollment is about 2 months long. Albin suggested waiting until after enrolling with the university so a person will know what the reimbursement might be. Koehn asked if there was any talk about the definition of dependent, whether that includes domestic partners who might have dependents. Albin stated there has been no talk at this time within the Human Resource department. If people are interested, they should bring that forth to the Presidentís Cabinet and ask that be reviewed. The Health Care committee right now has most of the work done for 2007, so they are taking a short break but will begin meeting again after the first of the year. The current method to ask that something be reviewed is that it goes before the Presidentís Cabinet and they decide where it will go from there. Albin reiterated that our definition of dependent follows the state of Missouri and to Albinís knowledge that has not changed.
Debbie Gerhart, Information Services, demonstrated some items in Banner, such as roster access and mid-term grades. She also showed the faculty where to find further information for more assistance. Miller asked if the rosters are final now and also why would he have a difference in the numbers of what the top shows 46 total in the class and the roster only has 45 names. Darlene Taylor, Information Services, asked Miller if he had had a example that he could send to her because the count should be the same although it doesnít include those that have withdrawn. Zelazek stated that he has noticed some of quirks within Banner that can be frustrating and yet because he is still learning his is accepting some of these things. Callahan stated that her concern is what kind of a backup system do we have for grades. There have been some troubles with Blackboard and its backup, so she is concerned about the backup system for grades. Koehn stated she has also been concerned about using Blackboard for a grade book; however, she uses the option to download the grade book every week so she would have that backup. Jurkowski stated that he keeps all his grades in another file and then after he has placed his grades within there, he enters them into Blackboard. Gerhart did acknowledge that there is more than one way to input the grades. Robins asked what CRN stood for. Gerhart answered Course Reference Number. Washer stated that he assumes the data is being backed up within Information Services. Taylor stated that it is being backed up and that data is kept for a certain period of time before they are recycled. She also stated that Blackboard is housed off site and it is backed up every night as well. Taylor stated that she has not heard of there being any hacking within the system at this time. Koehn stated that she did have an incident where a student was dropped from the whole system and her grade had also been dropped, so if Koehn did not have her personal backup it would have been gone. She agrees that the university backup is usually sufficient; however, it is not infallible. Taylor stated that if anything like that should happen to give Information Services a call because probably in that situation a student had a duplicate identification so when someone deleted the identification they deleted the incorrect one. Zelazek asked about the detailed class roster and who enters the data about demographics for the student. Gerhart stated it should be Admissions or the Graduate school. Zelazek stated there have been a number of occasions where a student does not have a primary phone number yet many of the students have numbers listed within CAMS. So did the information not transfer over properly or did the student have an option to enter data in? Gerhart stated she believed the student has the option to alter data. Taylor stated the student can not change things within self-service yet. She stated there were some issues of the conversion across the mainframe and Banner. Zelazek also asked about transcript data and when that will be up and running on Banner and Taylor stated transcripts are being copied over from mainframe into Banner and hope that it will be complete by the end of October. Zelazek stated that his reason for asking that question was that there are a number of students in process for graduation and the deadlines are fast approaching. He stated he can go back to CAMS to look up the information but wasnít sure how long CAMS would continue to be operational, but for checking for enrollment for previous semester he is going back and seeing if that individual is enrolled in the class they need to complete. Taylor answered that everything will be input into Banner from the mainframe. Until everything is moved over, CAMS will be available. Zelazek asked if the coding would change within Banner or if he would be able to find the proper semester and year. Taylor stated that the coding is different within the mainframe and Banner, so when the previous semesterís information is needed, it will be found with the old code, such as Summer=1, Fall=2, Spring=4. Zelazek asked when the e-mail function will be available within Banner. Several faculty stated it does work within their offices. Taylor stated they may need to send a tech over to take a look at Zelazekís computer to check out the settings because that is why it wouldnít work. Zelazek asked if he went to a different computer would it work or would all computers be the same. Taylor stated he should be able to specify what mail program will open based on the computer. Gerhart stated she is working on instructions for each web browser, such as FireFox, Internet Explorer, etc. to show how to go in and change options to make sure it is set correctly. Riley asked how faculty should know in Banner when a student drops. There used to be an e-mail sent to the individual faculty to let them know the student has dropped the course. Zelazek stated as he was entering his midterm grades a student had dropped because it was not permitted for him to place a grade there because that individual had earned an F at that time. He then checked back into the roster and the individual was listed as a W. Taylor stated that the e-mails could be started again and they will try to make that happen. Geiger asked when the audits are going to be available. Taylor stated they are shooting for near the end of October. Geiger asked if graduate students will be able to get an audit. Taylor answered that initially when it comes out it will be for undergraduate, but there is a way for graduate students and that will be in the future.
Jurkowski then presented Motion 2006-2007-6, made by the FS Committee on Committees, requested approval of the following slate of nominations to fill two committees within the ITPC.
A vote was taken as follows:
The Faculty Senate Committee on Committees submits the following faculty nominations for committees and requests approval of the Faculty Senate:
Technology Infrastructure Advisory Committee-Tony Schaffer, At-large
Kerry Henson, At-large
Academic Technology Advisory Committee-Jennifer Emanuel, L/AE
Patrick Ament, EHS
Scott Lubaroff, AS
Pauline Ratnasingham, HCBA
-PASSED- Unanimous (2006-2007-6)
The next Executive Committee meeting will be October 12 at 2:00 pm and the next Faculty Senate meeting will be October 25.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:12 p.m.
Faculty Senate Office Professional
Meeting 6 October 25, 2006
University of Central Missouri
Faculty Senate Minutes
The Faculty Senate meeting was called to order at 3:20 p.m. in Union 237A with President Odin Jurkowski presiding.
In addition to FS President Jurkowski, the following nineteen senators and four alternates were present: Callahan, Ciafullo, Ely, Geiger, Joy, Koehn, Liu, Mandali, McKee, Popejoy, Rogers, Schache, Schmidt, Staab, Strohmeyer, Thomas, Williamson, Zelazek, Burkett (for Robins), Fulford (for Swanson), Heming (for Hynes), and Lurker (for Washer). Also present were Provost Y. T. Shah, Parliamentarian Riley and SGA Representative Jesska Daugherty.
A motion was made by Senator Ciafullo, seconded by Senator Stromeyer and passed unanimously to approve the minutes of meeting 5 of the 2006-2007 Faculty Senate held on October 4, 2006.
Provost Shah announced that he has met with the Information Technology Policy Committee (ITPC) and they have unanimously decided the need to make the entire campus wireless, which will cost around $100,000. The ITPC also discussed the need to make the residential halls wireless. There are three committees that have been created within the ITPC, two of which are the Academic Technology committee and the Infrastructure committee. The ITPC discussed how the committees operate and how they connect with the ITPC. The committee agreed that the chair of the committees need to be a member of the ITPC and Shah would select the chairs for the committees. The selection came from nominations from the Faculty Senate. Shah has asked David Rice, from the ITPC committee, to inform the campus of these selections.
Shah also met with the Academic Counsel and indicated to them that he would like to have a closer relationship and conversations with that body. Instead of using that group as an information exchange group, he would like to get them involved in giving input for policy decisions. Rather than the Academic Counsel stating whether they agree or disagree with an issue, they can let him know what the issues are. It is his intention that next semester he will meet with the counsel more often and will use them as a sounding board.
The SPRC met and agreed that there is a need to have the task forces run their course and then decide what decisions to make. It is his intention to make sure that the decisions will be made public. This will allow for conversations as to why the decisions are made. He has told the SPRC that he will take the decisions to the campus community with explanations.
McKee handed out notes from the Provost Cabinet meeting. One point McKee wanted to mention to the Senate is that in Fall of 2007 the Honors College required GPA will move from 3.25 to 3.5.
Jurkowski reminded everyone that there is a General Faculty meeting on November 8. He asked that the Senators get word to everyone in the colleges to attend the meeting, as there will be reports from the task forces and this will be a great opportunity to know what the status is with them at this time. He also provided handouts for information to the Senators.
The first handout was notes taken from the Missouri Association of Faculty Senates meeting held in Jefferson City on October 9-10, 2006. Jurkowski stated that he, Cheryl Riley, Allison Norwood and Jack Rogers attended. Senator Gary Nodler, Chair of Senate Interim Committee on the Cost of a College Education and Member of Education Committee, spoke and stated that he felt that discussions on MOHELA are very positive and he is confident that will pass. He also spoke on finances of the state and he was optimistic. Although this is still early in the year, at this point things are looking good. He spoke on the potential of the universities receiving full funding back to the highest point they have had. However, there may be some restraints included with this. There has been some initial discussion that since revenue has been decreasing, tuition has been going up; therefore, if revenue goes back up then the legislators may want tuition to go down. He is optimistic at this point, but it is still early on, so there are no definite decisions made yet. Otto Fajen, Legislative Director of the MNEA also spoke. He spoke on Capital Action Days, gave a summary of critical issues of education (also included as a handout), and showed a video on TABOR, Taxpayers Bill of Rights. This is a big issue in Colorado, and even though it has not happened here in Missouri, they are still concerned with this issue. The video can be found at http://www.cbpp.org/ssl-series.htm. Higher Education Lobby Day has been set for February 5 and 6. There were several reports from other Senates from around the state and we are not the only ones going through reorganization, there is a lot of activity from other institutions. There are new compensation systems being put into place, as well as, discussions going on that are happening here as well regarding evaluation of administrators, wellness programs, and addition of endowed chairs being put into place. This is something that Jurkowski stated he hopes that the university here will also move in that direction.
Another handout was copies of a PowerPoint slide from the Senate Interim Committee on the Cost of a College Education by Ms. Kathy Swan. These slides were the ones that Jurkowski noticed as he went through the presentation online. These are the types of items being talked about in Jefferson City. They are keeping track of tuition and fees as State appropriations have gone down, annual salary individuals earn in various degrees, voter turnout tied to education, components of tuition policies, and items the state are thinking about for cost containment in the universities. These are strategies that are currently in place within various universities. Riley stated that one thing she found interesting was that Missouri Western and North West are developing an emergency preparedness plan for a flu pandemic. How if it comes in waves and there are students and faculty ill for weeks at a time, what do you, as an institution do? Jurkowski stated that when Senator Nodler was speaking about what the university could potentially get for money for next year and he stressed the point that the universities need to stick together and not fight. The President and the Provost have been reaching out to other universities the past year and that has been a lot of working together, but Senator Nodler did say that if there is any dissent or disagreement among the universities, that this may not happen and universities may not get all their funds back.
Ely asked if the slide on cost containment was recommended by a committee of some sort. Riley stated that the slides are from the CBHE and there is no indication as to who the presentation was to, but she felt this was the CBHE saying, ďWe do well for higher education in the state and these are strategies we use already.Ē Shah stated that some of the items have been implemented around the state. Staab stated that he found the slide interesting. He wondered if there have been questions asked of individual legislators as to whether or not there will be the sort of support that the universities have gotten in recent years or an explanation as to how one move from 70% to around 49%. A question to ask is, are there areas which we can increase funding. What is the direction in which we are going and what is the response if there has been a response? Rogers answered that when Senator Nodler was speaking to the group his thoughts were that there really isnít a public college education anymore, that when the state began paying 49% there is really a private system partially funded by the state. Rogers stated that Senator Nodler indicated that most of the legislators understand how badly higher education is taking it in the last three or four years. When Senator Nodler was questioned about that, he stated that they took the money from there because they could. They couldnít take it from K-12, Medicaid, or other programs without bankrupting them, so the one area that it can come from is higher education. Now that they believe revenue will be strong this year, Senator Nodler stated that he believes that the Senate and House are talking about trying to bring the universities back to the highest historical funding, which would be the 2001-2002 funding year. Senator Nodler also indicated that this will come along with some understanding that there will be some tuition restrictions. Rogers also stated that a Representative north of the university who would rather see the money go directly into scholarships for students, but Senator Nodler was against this idea. However, to make a deal, the legislation might have to put some money into that. Someone pointed out that if the money is given to the students, then the universities will have to raise the tuition, which makes the scholarship money even less. Senator Nodler was unsure what deal would need to be made to allow this money to come back to the universities; however, he did say that if the universities disputed over the money, the Legislator will turn it back on it and not give the universities anything. Rogers stated there were some universities that were found during a study to be under funded, Missouri State, Missouri Western, Lincoln, and Southern are four, and there would probably be an across the board funding and those under funded would receive additional funds. Riley stated that they really needed to be clear that these are Senator Nodlerís opinions and they may or may not happen. It is currently in the discussion stages right now. Ciafullo asked if the scholarship idea would still have the hidden bullet of scholarship to private institution. Rogers answered yes, the student receives a voucher and they can take that to any school they want to.
Ely stated that he had a concern with the statement on one of the slides regarding ďIncrease use of adjunct faculty & temporary staff.Ē He stated the problem he saw is that isnít the purpose of the university to provide quality higher education. Rogers stated that the slide is not a strategy that they are considering adopting. He believed that it is more a report of what many institutions have been forced to do because of the budget cuts and maybe an attempt to persuade legislators how badly it is getting and that universities have to use more adjuncts and are not able to do a lot of things as previously. Rogers stated when he spoke with David Pearce he stated that within the legislator there are still some hold outs that state why the universities canít be more efficient, cut further, and deliver an education with less money. This is an attempt from CBHE to try and get the legislature to understand that universities have cut the fat, cut the muscles, and even sawed off a couple of bones and can not do any more without seriously eroding higher education. Riley stated that she wanted to take the opportunity to remind everybody to be sure to know where their candidates of choice stand on these issues. Missouri needs to begin looking at K-20 education instead of K-12. Rogers stated that Senator Nodler also stated that if universities could get the legislature to understand that K-12 is spelled out in the constitution as a right, so anyone speaking about adjusting funding for K-12, it is considered a right. If universities could get legislators to understand that at least K-16 is also a right, then they could fund it as a package instead of separating higher education from primary and secondary education, universities would not always be the one on the chopping block. Shah stated that part of the issue is that in legislators minds higher education has a way to solve the funding problem instead of competing against K-12, who canít finance themselves. Shah stated also that legislators are also looking at their constituents because they want to some how connect with more money to fund higher education, and this could be viewed as gaining one thing and losing another. This is a way for the legislator to take control of the teaching and that can be risky because they could give money one year and then go with the voucher system and universities lose money. Because of this, universities need to make sure the presidents stick together and higher education is brought to the fore front in terms of funding.
SGA Representative, Jesska Daugherty announced that SGA sent seven delegates to attend the National Student Government Association conference in St. Louis this past weekend. They were able to talk to students from MSU and they are working on getting a Missouri Students Association government similar to our Missouri Association of Faculty Senates. This will allow for an opportunity for the groups to lobby together and work together in the future. The SGA is working on a website to increase communication with the community. There will be an SGA day on November 15 and on part of that day there will be a faculty vs. students volleyball game, so they will take volunteers of anyone who would like to play. SGA is still working on the recreation center and will be making a presentation to the Board of Governors to see where they can move forward with that. Another item SGA is working on is placing clocks in the classrooms on campus and will be working with Dr. Schaefer and Wendy Geiger about working on the public forum committee. Ciafullo stated that he would like to compliment Daugherty on her attendance at the Faculty Senate meeting. It is good to see an SGA Representative at the meetings.
SPRC Representative, Jo Koehn, announced that at the last SPRC meeting they had two agenda items. The first was continuing to refine the mission statement. The effort is to come up with a refined mission statement that is short, where people can have it in mind, but not so generic that it is meaningless. Next they had all the task force chairs report out. There is one main concern that there are still comments from faculty stating they donít know what is going on with the task forces. All the task force activity is documented on the SPRC website, which includes minutes, documents, dates of meetings, and when open forums are scheduled. With all this information at hand, there should be no surprises. There may be more surveys coming out, such as the 5 year direction task force, so please take that opportunity to provide some feedback. All the task forces are planning to have their reports completed by the end of November and November 8 is a good chance to efficiently touch base with all the task forces.
Phil Wright presented to the Senate. Wright stated that yes; the last slide on that report was what higher education looks like. He stated it is important to keep in mind that there is a problem in the stateís general assembly history that has occurred since 2001-2002. In 2002 90 freshmen came into the House and they had no clue about anything that had been done in the past, instead they had an idea that they were going to change the world and make it in their own image. The state was operating as best as they could and then the appropriation in physical year 2002 ran out of money, and so that is what universities have to react to. That is the framework of what the university is operating in.
Wright then gave some background information on himself. He is a graduate of University of Central Missouri. He began as a math major, but soon switched over to Criminal Justice and ended up with a Business Management Degree in 1990. He interned in the Capital for Jim Mattheson, who was President Proteome of the Senate. He ultimately formed his own company and later joined forces with his wife in 1999. He has been working with the university since 2001 working with Bob Johnson. Wright stated he reports directly to the President and tries to work very closely with the Vice-Presidents. He is glad to finally have a team in place to begin working on some initiatives that the university wants to go with to provide a quality education.
Wright stated that the framework of the House and Senate are currently 23 Republicans and 11 Democrats within the Senate. After November 7th it is likely that one of the Republican seats will flip Democrat. The House currently has 93 Republicans and 7 Democrats and there are 4-10 seats that may flip Democrat. On the Federal level, there are many different scenarios currently in play. There are basically 6 seats in play and Missouri is one of them, which experts do not know where it might fall. Most experts are saying the House will flip Democratic, but they donít know how far. Earlier this year experts said there were 19 seats in play, now they are saying 60 seats are in play and the number continues to change. Many issues will cause this change, to include stem cell, minimum wage, tobacco tax, and the competition for public officials. Wright said to make sure everyone gets out and votes. Wright wanted to announce that David Pearce is an individual who has been outstanding for the institution. Pearce went against his own party on issues last session when there was a compromise proposal that went along with the MOHELA proposal and Pearce was one to stand against that compromise. $700-900 million is what is being talked about in the budget surplus for next year, so there will be many hands out for this money. Legislation has combined two of the scholarship programs to make each award a little higher for students. Staab asked if there has been research, comparatively speaking, the downside to term limits, such as loss of the experience, or the upside, diversity and different ideas. Staab felt that the downside could lead to higher education taking a hit with this over times. What is the counter argument and is there comparative research? Can we do state by state analysis that would show the situation clearly that can be persuasive to our legislators or is it fighting a losing battle? Wright stated that issue was put forth by the people so any way for it to change it must go through the people. There was a previous system in place before term limits of individuals moving out. Term limits have caused the elections to increase cost rather than decrease the focus on money it as it was intended to do. Any research could possibly be taken on as a university or a university community; however, it could be subjective as to the quality of representation also.
Wright then spoke on what was happening next year. He stated the main focus would be MOHELA and Senator Nodler and others are very confident that it will happen. The state has always looked at capital as they would like to fund everything else that is necessary then they will look at building some buildings. There are some in the legislature that think a good higher education system is one that moves students through as quickly as possible. Some even believe that universities could be more efficient. There has been a task force created looking at science, math, and engineering areas and how there is a shortage of teachers going into these fields. Within this task force, they did not include anyone from a university that prepares teachers in those areas. There will be many proposals and issues to try to encourage and move students into that field. What the task force did find, however, is that the students at the university level are saying they are not getting a very good product. They feel they are not prepared when they leave high school to come into the university community. The individuals from secondary education say they do not know what the students want. Then they are also stating that the parents are not involved, the parents say the schools arenít teaching their students enough. Then it becomes a circular argument from there. The task force did not know any history about if there were groups that were already working together on this task. McKee stated that in her department of Math and Computer Science they have several things going on. Several faculty members have federal funding to have conferences every summer to train middle school teachers to be better math teachers. METS is STEM backwards, which stands for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, and the department of Math and Computer Science just received about a half million dollars from them to draw up a scholarship for students within these areas.
Ciafullo asked if the MOHELA money would have the restrictions on it regarding stem cell research for universities. Wright answered yes it does. Ciafullo asked if there was a task force on education of government and history or is that too dangerous. Wright stated there was previous legislation last year that required American Government or American History to be taught at all levels of education including higher education; however, it was very specific as to what can be taught. Geiger asked what the view of the legislature is on the funding of a two year institution vs. a four year institution and is there any difference. Wright answered that there is a difference and he believes there is an image defect as a public four year institution. He stated it is not anything that the university has done specifically; however, the institution is viewed as not teaching enough hours, etc. A book written by one legislator states that higher education should have students move through the system quickly and faculty teaching larger classes; however, then the business community will say they are not getting quality product from the universities. There is a need for everyone available to speak up for higher education. It must be as one voice because if they sense any division or dissention, it will undermine the foundation. The big view will be first student/equity funding and seamless education, where does education begin and end. There was a group of department chairs from, DESE, CBHE, etc, and they proposed the creation of a Secretary of Education position to bring all these ideas together.
Wright stated that other issues that will be coming is a large tax credit bill for inline development, fixing Medicaid, and TABOR. Koehn asked if there was any discussion if there are an optimal number of institutions within the state. Wright answered that is not a discussion anyone would want to begin getting into. Riley asked if there was discussion about limiting the number of private schools within the state. Wright stated that private schools compete within the market; therefore, the state does not have any control over that. Wright suggested that instead the public universities fix their image problems and become better, smarter and more efficient than everyone else to show we are worth the investment.
Geiger presented Motion 2006-2007-7 regarding Faculty Senate membership. This motion was brought up at an Executive Committee meeting because of a question of clarification about who is and is not allowed to participate on the Faculty Senate. There was a suggestion that those faculty members who are in administrative positions that require them to evaluate other faculty, it may not be in their best interest to be on the Senate as well because it could cause a conflict of interest. The idea at the time was to not place anyone in a position where they felt they were forced to try and please two leaderships at the same time. The idea was to require that if a faculty member holds an administrative position, are a faculty member and are required to evaluate others that they not hold a seat on the Faculty Senate. Staab asked if this would involve department chairs. Geiger stated yes. Staab stated that he is currently the interim department chair which was unexpected for him; however, he does understand the reasoning behind this motion. Geiger stated that was brought up at the Executive meeting when someone asked if this would affect anyone now and she had stated that it would affect Staab. However, this motion was not directed to Staab in particular. Ely asked if this would affect any faculty who evaluate other faculty. Geiger stated only if it is in an official capacity. Department chairs were included in this, because the idea was they may not be appropriate on the Senate. McKee stated that word administrative is in the sentence itself; therefore, a general faculty member wouldnít hold an administrative position to evaluate someone else. Zelazek asked about a situation where a faculty member has ľ release time as an assistant chair and they do evaluations, are they included? Zelazek stated he understands and likes the intent, but isnít sure it is clear. Ciafullo asked what about a faculty member who assists in evaluating junior faculty, how is that addressed. Ely asked what if it is suggested active faculty members, meaning faculty members who are actually teaching more than 50%. Rogers stated he is the director of forensics and he gets a 50% release time for that and he evaluates his assistant coach as a faculty member within the department. Rogers stated he felt it could be a sticky situation trying to define what an administrator is. Perhaps it would be better to say Department Chairs instead of Administrators. He asked what the odds are that there would get a Department Chair and faculty member from the same department elected to the Senate. Rogers stated it may be a problem they are trying to head off or solve that has not been experienced within the Senates history and are very unlikely to be faced with in the future. Jurkowski stated there are no issues or problems in this current year but it is just a point of clarification for the future. Zelazek stated that it goes back to classification. If one is classified as an administrator and is coded as such, if coded as an administrator then they are considered an administrator, if someone is simply evaluating others, they may not be classified as an administrator because they are not coded as such, therefore those not coded as administrators would be simply aiding an administrator and not be an administrator themselves. Koehn stated she thinks it is broader than just the idea that someone might be from the same department. It goes back to another motion passed previously regarding rotating department chairs, with those kinds of issues there is a conflict of interest. Ely asked for clarification regarding those individuals who are on the promotion and tenure committee. How would that affect the personís status on the Faculty Senate? Geiger stated she did not believe that this motion addresses that example at all. Ely stated he understood that, however, what about a situation where someone is on tenure track, could that cause a conflict of interest? Rogers stated that if the intent is not to put someone in a position where they are afraid to speak out in a Senate debate or they are afraid to take sides because their department chair or someone who might evaluate them might be on the opposite side and might take it out on them at some point in the future, then he believes that the Promotion and Tenure Committee might be a spot where someone might use it against the other person. If the intention is to not chill debate, then Rogers believes the Senate can not pass anything that would guarantee any way to not chill debate because ultimately faculty are responsible for one another. McKee stated there was another issue that the committee brought up at the Executive Committee meeting and that was there are other forums for Department Chairs to have their opinions heard and to pass motions, where as the Faculty Senate is the forum for faculty members to have their opinions expressed. Geiger stated the purpose was that there may be times where motions come through that a particular department chair may feel like they canít speak on behalf of the faculty because they wouldnít want to be perceived as being speaking from an administrative position rather than a faculty position. With this situation, there will be a lost seat where someone who could speak could have been there. It was not to chill debate in any means, but to provide individuals who felt they could serve the faculty only and having to serve two masters.
Callahan requested a call for the question. Zelezek seconded it. A vote was taken and resulted in 21 for, 0 against, and 2 abstain. A vote was taken as follows:
The Faculty Senate proposes a change in the eligibility requirements for members of the Faculty Senate in order to prevent a possible conflict of interest. We propose excluding from the Faculty Senate those faculty members who hold administrative positions that require them to evaluate the performance of other faculty.
Eligibility requirements are defined in the Faculty Guide. Revisions are noted in bold below:
(1) The Faculty Senate shall consist of twenty-six elected members. Eligible for membership is full-time faculty with at least one academic year of service including the current term. Full-time faculty is those persons holding academic rank of instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, or professor with full-time appointment by the university. Faculty members who hold administrative positions that require them to evaluate the performance of other faculty are not eligible to serve on the Faculty Senate.
-PASSED- For: 18 Against: 1 Abstain: 3 (2006-2007-7)
Koehn presented Motion 2006-2007-8 regarding the Faculty Senate reporting structure. This motion also came out of a Faculty Senate Executive meeting. The way things have been involved in practice at the university as far as items received from the Senate to administration should involve the Provost as the primary voice at the Faculty Senate and also at the administrative level on academic issues. The faculty guide says that motions would be forwarded to the President of the university and this motion recommends changing that language to reflect what we do in practice and that is that the issues go to the Provost and it changes two places within the faculty guide to reflect this. Jurkowski stated this idea actually came from a meeting with the President and Provost and they recommended that these changes make sense as the Provost is the primary contact for faculty. These changes would also negate any questions about the reporting structure. Strohmeyer stated that while it seems fairly clear that is what is happening, he wasnít sure it is happening that way because the Senate has much more than academic issues and while he doesnít distrust the current administrations, future administrations may provide for a structure that the Provost would not share necessarily non-academic issues. McKee stated that the committee might have taken care of that by forwarding resolution to the Provost who will then forward them to the President. Therefore, the President is still required to make the final approval. Jurkowski stated that there has been a point of clarification made by Riley that this is an amendment made directly to the constitution must be sent to the faculty for a vote. Therefore, Motion 2006-2007-8 will have to be tabled for another meeting.
The Faculty Senate ultimately reports to the University President and the Board of Governors. However, the structure of the reporting process should ideally reflect the role of the Provost in academics and overall governance. Therefore, the Faculty Senate makes the following changes to the Faculty Guide whereby the Faculty Senate reports directly to the Provost who will in turn report recommendations to the University President:
J. FACULTY SENATE
Under the provision of the revised
Faculty Senate Constitution approved by the Board of Governors, the Faculty
Senate serves as the representative body of the faculty. The Senate may initiate
deliberations on those issues provided for in the Constitution or respond to
requests for its deliberation. Elections are conducted annually to fill
vacancies. Senate resolutions are forwarded to the Provost
President as recommendations for adoption by the University President.
Article II - Functions
Section I. Collegial Relationship of the Faculty Senate and Administration
c. The Faculty Senate President shall
report directly to the Provost
University President, those
recommendations made by the Faculty Senate as a result of the Faculty Senate's
consideration of matters of concern initiated within the faculty under Article
I, Section b, 3. The University President shall report to the Faculty Senate in
person or through a selected representative, the action taken on these matters.
McKee presented Motion 2006-2007-9 regarding a nomination for the Professional Enhancement Committee due to a resignation. Janice Putnam was nominated and her term will end in 2007.
The Faculty Senate Committee on Committees submits the following faculty nomination for the committee and requests approval of the Faculty Senate:
Professional Enhancement Committee: Janice Putnam
See committee composition below.
Faculty Senate Professional Enhancement Committee (3-yr term)
Name College Term
Della Goavec At-Large 2009
Janice Putnam AS&T 2007
Davie Davis L/AE 2007
Freda Herrington E&HS 2007
Chris Azevedo HCBA 2009
Sandra Merrill A&S 2007
-PASSED- Unamious (2006-2007-9)
The next Executive Committee meeting will be October 26 at 3:15 pm, there will be a General Faculty Meeting on November 8 at 3:15 pm and the next Faculty Senate meeting will be November 15.
Zelazek asked if there was any discussion for consistency for numeration, since the university is now in the school year 2007, not 2006-2007, to change the numeration with respect to motions, so that in effect it would be 2007-9 instead of 2006-2007-9. There is a lot of inconsistency across campus as far as how the university tally and define other items. Has there been any discussion as far as consistency at all and might it be a possibility? Jurkowski stated there has not been any discussion, but there can be at the Executive Committee meeting tomorrow.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
Faculty Senate Office Professional