Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes - October |
Meeting Minutes for October 2002
Meeting 2 October 9, 2002
Central Missouri State University
Faculty Senate Minutes
The Faculty Senate met 3:15 p.m. in Union 237A with President Shellie Myers presiding.
ROLL CALL: Twenty-three senators and two alternates were present Campbell for Palmer and Ewing for Sundberg. Also present were Provost Kyle Carter and Associate Provost for Academic Programs Fran Waller.
MINUTES:
Minutes of the September 18, 2002 Faculty Senate meeting was approved
as printed.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Provost Kyle Carter announced searches underway for positions in the Colleges
of Arts and Science and Applied Science and Technology. Carter reported
the Kansas City Chiefs visited the University. The visit went very well
but we will not know of any decision for many months. Carter reported
the Academic Council viewed a videotape of the Moody Report yesterday,
which explains the financial condition of the state of Missouri. This
tape is available through his office. Carter distributed a hard copy of
frequently asked questions in regards to the Compensation Proposal.
Myers referred to the printed reports from the President’s Extended
Cabinet, Administrative Council, and Academic Council highlighting specific
items: Policy Review and Approval Process Policy was redistributed and
minor changes were made. If the policy is available to us for the next
FS meeting on October 23, we will review for approval. Myers reported
discussion with the EC that there are so many policies coming forth we
are going to channel the policies through our committees then the senate
can take action on them. Myers encouraged the senators to take time to
review the Policy Review and Approval Process for our next FS meeting.
Eason referred to the printed Council of Deans and Academic Affairs General
Council. Morgan asked if the Council of Deans would be handling item six
Rolling contracts & multi-year contracts. “Professional faculty”
would be those in market areas who may not have a PhD, “the typical
terminal degree,” but “may have certification, licensure or
other professional credentials to document their expertise as a practitioner
in an applied area,” for example, technical or clinical work. “As
faculty they teach in lab or clinical settings but they are more likely
to practice their profession on a limited or consulting basis than to
engage in traditional research for publication.” Eason stated this
is a preliminary plan and Dean Greife is working on this plan. Provost
Carter responded there is no reference to market looking at professional
faculty and those who are related to a professional discipline. In response
to Bryant, Carter stated the professional faculty would not have the same
rank structure.
Myers announced the members of the Conference Committee for Merit Pay. George Wilson, Dean, HCBA; John Sheets, A&S; Mollie Dinwiddie, Lib/AE; Dianna Bryant, CAST; Cheryl Riley, Lib/AE; Dennis Laster, EHS; Kathy Callahan, CAST; Rick Sluder, EHS; Shing So, A&S; Ken Stone, HCBA. Myers expressed the Executive Committee’s appreciation to those who are serving on this committee.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Eason referred to the nominations made by the FS Committee on Committees
for vacant faculty positions on Committees. Zinna Bland for the CAST position
to the FS Awards Committee, Maureen Wilt for the at-large position to
the FS International Affairs Committee, George Sesser for the at-large
position to the Traffic & Parking Policy Committee and John Howard,
DVM, BB Veterinarian Hospital to the Institutional Animal Care & Use
Committee. The CoC will come back to you on this committee. The charge
states, the nominee comes before the Senate. Due to the fact, there is
no veterinarian who is faculty the IACUC is in the process of proposing
that its charge be changed to have the veterinarian who serves on the
committee be nominated by the IACUC and approved by the University President.
In order for this committee to begin functioning between now and the time
when the charge is revised they ask the Senate to approve Dr. Howard as
the veterinarian. All were approved unanimously.
John Gole, Chair of the Academic Standard committee introduced the motion
for a required C-BASE score.
The Missouri Coordinating Board for Higher Education requires that each
public four-year institution assess the student’s learning outcomes
of its general education program using externally validated measures.
The College Basic Academic Subjects Examination (C-BASE) test is currently
required of all undergraduate students completing 60 credit hours as a
means to assess mid-point competencies. The Faculty Senate University
Assessment Council ( FSUAC) requested that the Faculty Senate Academic
Standards Committee (FSASC) review their proposal that a minimum score
on the C – BASE test be required of all undergraduate students prior
to graduation. This requirement affects the Academic Policies and Procedures
section IIB of the faculty guide, Academic Advisement.
All students must receive a passing score of 235 of all four areas of
College – BASE General Education test before graduation.
Callahan asked how many other institutions in the state are implementing this requirement? Myers responded all institutions are required to assess general education and to use a standardized test. Gole added he did not know the exact test other institutions were using. Lynch asked when the requirement would go into effect? Gole stated Grelle has not addressed to the Academic Standards Committee when this would go into effect. Carter responded we would need to require notice for students. Young asked that as we transition would there be any procedures if the score needs to be adjusted before the rules are enforced? Gole responded there would be alternatives if the students do not pass; however at this moment there is no procedure. Davis reported that her department is working to develop 1-hour remedial courses to address each of the four areas of C-BASE. Zupnick asked what was available to help students prepare for the test? Myers reported there is a study guide available for the C-BASE through the Testing Center. Carter stated the importance to understand why this standard came forward; it goes back to the CBHE requirement. Carter reported the Faculty Senate University Assessment Committee recommended to Mike Grelle that every student should be tested. One of the driving factors for a score requirement was to hold students accountable to a certain standard so they will do their best. Carter expressed concern with the proposal due to the questions and concerns by the faculty in today’s meeting, but is in favor with assessing general education. Carter reported the Faculty Senate University Assessment Committee believes there should be a standard set for passing in order for the students to be motivated to take the test that is why it came to the FS Academic Standards Committee. Carter shared his concern that the FS University Assessment Committee makes recommendations to the Senate for discussion and he has not been a part of some of the administrative issues that are being brought up. Our assessment oversight is flawed right now. The Academic Standards Committee is coming forward with a very simple proposal not worrying about the administrative issues. They have done their job but there are other issues associated with a graduation standard being set. Atkinson moved to question. Myers stated this motion is not debatable and if approved discussion on the motion from FSASC will be closed. Call for the question passed. The motion from the FSASC failed.
FOR: 1 AGAINST: 22 ABSTENTIONS: 1 (2002/2003-1)
OLD BUSINESS:
Myers introduced the Morgan & Eason Motion:
The Faculty Senate recommends additions to, and a reordering of, the strategic planning process as depicted on the attached revised page 20, figure 3.1 and revised page 27, figure 3.2 of the Draft 3, Strategic Planning document (as posted on the SPRC website). The original strategic planning process as presented in draft 3 is attached for comparison.
Senator Morgan provided additional comments as follows:
The addition to figure 3.1 of the words “Governance Bodies Propose” in phase 3 of the “Determining Institutional Strategic Directions and Goals” process is to make the figure consistent with the dialogue that explains the processes depicted in figure 3.1. That dialogue, found on page 21, second paragraph, of the Strategic Plan Draft 3, 2002 as downloaded from the SPRC website states:
“Strategic goals give specificity to strategic directions and establish expectations of success. They, too, are key features of the written strategic plan. Strategic goals set the parameters for the institution in terms of how the approved strategic directions will be realized. Any unit on campus may propose a strategic direction or goal for inclusion in the university’s strategic plan. Proposals are submitted to the Strategic Planning and Resource Council through the appropriate dean and vice president/university director or the appropriate campus governance group.”
The addition to figure 3.2 of the words “Governance Bodies Propose” in phase 2 of the Developing, Selecting and Monitoring Institutional Strategic Initiatives and Action Plans” process is to maintain consistency with figure 3.1 and to maintain congruency with the stated intent for governance bodies to be involved in the Strategic Planning Process.
The inclusion of an interaction between the president and the Governance Bodies in step 5A is recognition of the formalized relationship that exists between the Senate, other Governance Bodies and the President. The Senate reports to the President and thus, is rightly placed within the process to act upon recommendations put forth by the SPRC that:
1) involve areas of responsibility assigned to the Faculty Senate by
the Administration
2) involve matters referred to the Faculty Senate for its recommendations
or
3) involve matters that are of concern to the faculty and report that
action to the President.
In response to Joy, Myers reported the Faculty Guide states we report to the president and that is why the recommendation was to the President. Carter referred to the top of page 27 figure 3.2 and any action would have to come back to the Senate for its recommendation. This process is going to be during the late spring and I do not think this would be practical at this time. The insertion of the Governance group will slow down the process and that’s why I would recommend to the President to not accept this motion. In response to Davis, Carter stated the way the diagram shows every initiative would come back to the Governance Group. Eason stated if there are specific initiatives to carry off the goals and direction and if these initiatives are impacting faculty we need to have some way to be a part of the dialog that is the reasoning for our insertion in figure 3.2. In response to Atkinson, Eason reported the FS representative on SPRC will keep the Senate informed but will not allow us to have any kind of input. Atkinson responded that the FS representative can bring back our concerns and this can be a two-way communication, is this what we are looking for? Myers acknowledged having a FS representative on SPRC would certainly help with communication, but as we are instructed through the Faculty Guide our reporting line is to the president. Discussion ended. Motion carried.
FOR: 12 AGAINST: 6 ABSTENTIONS: 6 (2002/2003-2)
Myers introduced the Morgan and Atkinson motion.
The Faculty Senate approve the vision and core values statements as written in the Draft 3, Strategic Planning document (p. 14-16), 2002 (retrieved 10/1/2002 from the SPRC Website). Pages 14-16 are attached.
Morgan provided comments for the motion on Vision and Core Values: (pages
14, 15, and 16).
It is with somewhat ambivalent and mixed thoughts and feelings that I introduce this motion to the Senate. On the one hand, for the Senate to act on a Vision and a set of Core values that have been approved by the SPRC without debate or deliberation by this body at this point in time may seem to be a meaningless act.
On the other hand, addressing these two key components of the proposed 5 year Strategic Plan at this point in time, points out the need to support planning processes that engage governance bodies in early dialogue about such critical aspects as a Vision and Core values.
As an institution, we have struggled over the years to obtain a governance system that honors the perspectives of the faculty on issues of concern to us. Yes, I was here during the Lovinger days and I know the impact on morale, productivity and student learning in a system that does not support faculty governance. We have made progress over the years and this body has engaged in thoughtful, spirited and productive dialogue over issues that have great bearing on the character of our academic community such as the mission of this institution.
The mission statement that appears in the third draft of the Strategic Planning, 2002 document as available on the SPRC website, was discussed with much vigor and intellect by this body. At the same time the current mission was being discussed, the notion of a vision for the institution was put forward. That also was discussed in lively debate by this body. At that time, the Senate did not support a vision statement.
And here we are now, presented with a document, which is about to be approved by our Board of Governors, containing a vision and core values that seek to define the character and moral integrity of this institution.
This is not to say that our colleagues have not captured an appropriate vision or have misrepresented the core values of this institution. It is to say these two key elements have not benefited from debate by this body.
Even if approved by this body at this point in the process, a sense of “ownership” of the vision and core values may not exist. What the record will show, however, is that this body has a vested interest in key philosophical statements that seek to define this institution.
FOR: 23 AGAINST: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 1 Passed (FS 2002/2003-3)
Eason moved to revise agenda and move to item 6:B, no objections.
Myers introduced the Laster & Atkinson motion.
The Faculty Senate supports the University Foundation and its efforts on behalf of the University. Further, the Faculty Senate authorizes the FS President to sign the follow-up letters as a part of the Foundation’s Faculty/Staff Campaign.
Myers announced Dr. Page & Sarah Thompson are available to answer questions. Atkinson suggested in the future more information on how the money is applied and what was accomplished would enhance participation.
FOR: 23 AGAINST: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 1 Passed (FS 2002/2003-4)
Myers opened discussion for the Faculty Compensation Plan. Carter hands out additional information on the compensation proposal. Carter in response to Miller the data for different disciplines is by zip codes it is very specific but there are some disciplines that the data is not as good as it should be. Morgan expressed concern with how great the disparity would be from new hires and incumbent salaries. With limited funding to attract new hires, a respectful salary would have to be offered; thus, there will be less to fund incumbent. Carter responded most faculty here will fall in range and that would be their salary. There are exceptions where individuals will fall outside of the range and they will have to be taken care of over time. Eason stated there is some concern how the Conference Committee Plan would be funded. Eason referred to the printed salary data. In response to Zupnick, Carter reports the goal for this change is to attract, retain and be able to monitor the faculty’s salaries. Myers affirmed that we are all aware of the need to have a compensation plan and this discussion is to respond to the concerns of the faculty. Bryant referred to the Academic Affairs website and an academic review procedure for existing faculty. Will this procedure stay in effect if a new compensation policy is adopted and existing faculty will have to go through the procedure as described in the academic procedure? Carter responded absolutely, the compensation proposal is dealing more with establishing market for new hires and we have to establish market for current faculty to put them into this model. Myers encouraged the Senators to continue to work within their caucuses and continue discussion with other faculty to seek clarification and understanding. Myers reported the Conference Committee is available to respond to any concerns. Eason reported the Faculty Senate was charged by the president for comments and that is where the A&S caucus substitution draft developed. Myers acknowledged the concern from the faculty on transition issues and stated that once transition issues are understood some fear may be reduced. Myers reported the EC would discuss these issues at their next meeting. Myers encouraged continuing review of the materials and thanked Provost Carter.
NEW BUSINESS:
Myers opened discussion on FS SPRC Representative. Eason moved to postpone
to a definite time, the next FS meeting. Ewing seconded. Motion to elect
FS SPRC Representative at the FS meeting on October 23 passed unanimously.
CASTL COMMITTEE-information update by Dr. Rice
Myers welcomes Rice the chair of the CASTL Committee. Rice reported CASTL
stands for the Carnegie Academy for Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
The committee was formed in the spring of 2002. CASTL seeks the support
and development of teaching and learning which fosters the following:
long lasting learning for all students, enhances the practice and profession
of teaching, brings the faculty members work as teachers the recognition
and reward appointed to other forms of scholarly work. To further that
process the Teaching Academy has been formed and institutions can become
members by addressing three different levels. The first level is called
Campus Conversation that is where CMSU is presently. The Campus Conversation
process offers campuses the opportunity to take action regarding the Scholarship
of Teaching. We are in the process of defining what scholarship for teaching
and learning should be for the University. When this is decided the University
registers with the Carnegie Academy. Once the University does this we
go to level two which is going public. The third step is to become a part
of the national network of teaching academies to work directly with other
campuses. It is very important to share the knowledge we gain with our
colleagues. In response to question, how many schools are members of the
Carnegie Academy, Rice reported 145 members. Rice reported in response
to Myers there is no timeline but we would like to be close to a campus
definition by the end of this school year, as this would allow us to register
the following year. Laster thanked Rice for coming and said it is very
refreshing to the faculty to hear reports of this nature.
Myers welcomed the new Senators Kathy Callahan, Mustafa Kamal , Mary McCord and Arthur Young.
Atkinson moved to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
Chris Hayward
Faculty Senate Office Professional
Meeting 3 October 23, 2002
Central Missouri State University
Faculty Senate Minutes
Approved
The Faculty Senate met at 3:15 p.m. in Union 237A with President Shellie Myers presiding.
ROLL CALL: Twenty-three senators and three alternates were present Stark-Wroblewski for Kemp, Moege for Lynch and Wilson for Palmer. Also present were President Patton, Provost Carter and Associate Provost for Academic Programs Fran Waller.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
President Patton reported that Johnson County is now included in the Business
Relocation Guide as part of the Greater Kansas City Area. Patton announced
tickets are still available for the Alumni dinner and encouraged faculty
to support the Alumni event. Patton commented on the Faculty Compensation
Plan. The policy is to provide procedures on how money is distributed
in line with the BOG’s Policy to address fairness, equity, merit
and market with guidance coming from the faculty. It’s a matter
of how do we make use of available resources for salary enhancement purposes.
Provost Carter announced the 2002 Excellence in Teaching Award would
be presented to Mary Snyder, Associate Professor of Middle School and
Elementary Education and Chair of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction,
December 5 in Jefferson City.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Eason referred to the printed nominations and a suggested change in a
committee charge. The Faculty Senate Committee on Committees submits to
the Senate for confirmation the following nominees for vacant faculty
positions on the Faculty Senate and the University/Administrative Committees.
Julie Clawson for the CAST position on the FS Personnel Policy Committee,
Ken Wood for the A&S position on the Library Advisory Committee and
Eric Tenbus for the A&S position on the Intercollegiate Athletics
Advisory Committee (to replace Alvin Tinsley upon Tinsley’s retirement).
All were approved unanimously.
Eason referred to the suggested change in a committee’s charge.
The Faculty Senate
Committee on Committees seeks the Senate’s approval for the following
proposal from
the IACUC:
That the veterinarian who serves on the University/Administrative Institutional Animal Care & Use Committee be nominated by the IACUC and approved by the university president.
Change of charge was approved unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS:
Myers introduced FS nomination and election of FS SPRC Representative.
Miller moved to nominate Somnath Sarkar, Sundberg seconded. Sarkar was
elected with 24 yes, 0 no & 1 abstention.
Faculty Compensation Proposal
Myers referred to the email she sent explaining the FS Executive Committee
meetings. The Executive Committee has met three times in regards to the
Faculty Compensation Proposal and will continue to meet. Myers will identify
future meeting times when they are known for those who would like to attend.
Myers opened the floor for discussion on Faculty Compensation. SGA representative
John reported she wrote a letter to the Muleskinner in regards to Faculty
Compensation. John stated that she was a business major and she hoped
that the faculty compensation plan would help hire faculty for business
programs. Morgan suggested the Senate go through the printed report from
the Executive Committee to the Faculty Senate for discussion and deliberation
at its meeting on October 23, 2002. In response to Laster’s request
regarding the process, Myers reported there would be an additional FS
meeting on November 13. We should continue with the dialog electronically
and through our caucus groups so that we have more definitive recommendations
by the November 13 meeting. All final recommendations to the Faculty Compensation
Proposal are due to President Patton following the November 20 meeting.
The President will respond back to the Senate and the final vote will
occur at the December 4 meeting. Patton distributed a memo on extending
the timeline on merit pay. Patton stated this gives us more time to reflect
on the merit pay system.
Senators discussed recommendations as presented in the draft for the meeting. The following items were discussed: 1) merit pay becoming a separate part of the Faculty Compensation Plan and merit being awarded after a compensation plan was in place, 2) definition of terminal degree, 3) concerns with new higher's with experience and criteria used to determine base salary, 4) equity adjustments for incumbent faculty, and 5) defining the term discipline. Eason withdrew her motion, (that the Faculty Senate forward to President Patton progress reports on their discussion of the Conference Committee’s Faculty Compensation Proposal.) Morgan seconded no action was taken.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
Chris Hayward
Faculty Senate Office Professional
2002-2003
SCHOOL YEAR
please click on the month names below to view the minutes from that month
January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
ARCHIVES
please click on the month names below to view the archived minutes from
the 2001-2002 school year
January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December
