Meeting 13                                                                                                       April 5, 2006


Central Missouri State University

Faculty Senate Minutes



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


ROLL CALL: In addition to FS President Jack Rogers, the following twenty-two senators and two alternates were present:  Ament, Bonsall, Geiger, Grigsby, Hynes, Joy, Jurkowski, Kidwaro, Koehn, McKee, Miller, Norwood, Popejoy, Riley, Robins, Saran, Staab, Sundberg, Swanson, Washer, Williams, Zelazek, Ewing (alternate for Katsourides), and Streck (alternate for Ciafullo).  Nickens was absent.  Also present was Provost George Wilson, Parliamentarian Art Rennels, SGA representative Mike Carey, and Ron Long, a professor in the English Department who spoke regarding Motion 2005-2006-23.


MINUTES:  Senator Sundberg commended the Faculty Senate secretary for an excellent job on extremely lengthy, accurately detailed minutes from the last FS meeting.  A motion was then made by Senator Sundberg, seconded by Senator Williams and passed unanimously to approve the minutes of the February 15, 2006 Faculty Senate meeting.




Provost Wilson said he did not have any announcements but would be happy to answer questions.


FS Vice President Riley called attention to her report on Provost Advisory Council and Academic Affairs General Council meetings that was distributed to each senator, and said that she had no other announcements.


 FS President Rogers directed attention to the Faculty Workload Survey that was distributed to each senator.  He said the survey was sent to him from Northwest with a request that CMSU faculty be asked to complete the survey within the next two weeks.  Rogers encouraged senators to complete the survey, responding as they believe their constituents would, and return it as quickly as possible to the Faculty Senate Office.  He said that Northwest has stated that they will share any data they obtain from the survey with CMSU if we participate in the survey.  Rogers also called attention to the invitations that were distributed to each senator for the 2006 Byler Distinguished Faculty Award reception that will be held at 3:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 20 at the Art Center Gallery. 


Rogers briefly reviewed Motion 2005-2006-18, requesting that a portion of the unobligated funds originally budgeted to reimburse colleges for expenses incurred in the hiring of adjuncts to cover classes that would normally be taught by the FS president and vice president be given to the Professional Enhancement Committee, that was recently passed by the FS.  Rogers said that the chair of the Professional Enhancement Committee has advised him that the PEC does not pay for travel and therefore, if the FS intended these funds to be used to help faculty cover some of their out-of-pocket travel costs for scholarly activities, their intention would be better served if these funds were given to the Scholarly Activity Fund.  Provost Wilson confirmed that the Scholarly Activity Fund does provide funds for faculty travel related to scholarly activities.  Rogers said that President Podolefsky has agreed to delay transferring these funds until the FS makes a final determination regarding where the money should be transferred.  Rogers then asked if the Faculty Senate was agreeable to transferring these funds to the Scholarly Activity Fund instead of the Professional Enhancement Committee, and if so, he requested that such a motion be made.  McKee moved that the funds be given to the Scholarly Activity Fund.  The motion was seconded by Riley, and a vote was taken with the following results:


-PASSED- For:  21        Opposed:  1        Abstentions:  0       (Motion 2005-2006-18 - revised)



Rogers briefly discussed the response received from President Podolefsky regarding Motion 2005-2006-20 that was recently passed by the FS which recommends that “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.”  Sundberg asked for clarification of the questions that were asked by Podolefsky and of Rogers’ responses.  Rogers then reviewed the questions asked by Podolefsky and discussed his responses.  Sundberg said it was her understanding that this evaluation process was at the discretion of each department, but voiced concern that Rogers’ response did not reflect this.  After a brief discussion, Rogers agreed to revise and clarify his response to President Podolefsky to indicate that the final decision concerning the re-hire of non-tenure track faculty would remain with the department chair, and that the final decision concerning whether or not to implement an evaluation policy regarding non-tenure track faculty would be made by the permanent faculty in each department.


As suggested by Senator Sundberg at a prior FS meeting, Rogers passed around a sign-up sheet for remaining SGA meetings this year and asked for volunteers to attend these meetings as representatives of the Faculty Senate.


Mike Carey, SGA representative, announced that many of the new students involved in the SGA will hold an open forum tomorrow at 6:00 p.m.  Topics to be discussed at the forum will include the future direction that will be taken by the SGA and their goals for next year.  He said the recreation center will also be discussed.  Carey said that although the issue of the rec center did pass in a recent election, there were some challenges to the election.  As a result of those challenges, he said that changes have been made to the rec center proposal and it will appear again in the next election.


FS SPPRC representative Staab reported that since the last FS meeting, the SPRC met on February 23 and March 23.  He said that the February 23 meeting was primarily devoted to last-minute planning for the Winter Planning Retreat.  Also at that meeting, Provost Wilson distributed a document titled “Conceptual Draft Institutional Score Card”, which attempts to provide KPIs for the university’s new vision statement.  Staab said another document was also distributed at that meeting which traced the history of the CMSU statewide mission.  Additionally, documents were distributed summarizing preliminary findings of the CMSU Name Change Task Force.  Staab said that at the March 23 meeting, an announcement was made that a special Board of Governors meeting would be held to discuss and determine the tuition rates for 2006-2007 and also to discuss the compensation commitment to CMSU employees.  Also at the SPRC meeting on March 23, Staab said Martha Albin, CMSU Vice President of Finance and Administration, reported that a 1% increase in salary and benefits to CMSU employees would cost the university approximately $615,000, and that based on the current enrollment, a $1 per credit hour increase in tuition would generate approximately $250,000.  Staab also reported that at the Winter Planning Retreat, it was generally agreed that CMSU should develop a new, shorter, more accessible mission statement.  In order to proceed with the development of a new mission statement, two new committees were formed.  Sue Sundberg, Julie Clawson and Carole Nimmer volunteered to serve on the Mission/Vision committee, and Mike Grelle and Virginia Wheeless volunteered to serve on the Strategic Directions and Goals for Five Years committee.  It is hoped that the new mission statement and the strategic plan will both be completed by the end of the Fall 2006 semester; however, Provost Wilson said that Podolefsky has stressed that he wants the SPRC to do a thorough job, and that quality is more important than speed.  As co-chair of the CMSU Name Change Task Force, Staab reported that the task force has agreed that a White Paper will be drafted which will contain the findings of the task force, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of a name change.  He said the task force intends to disseminate the White Paper to as many faculty, students, professional and support staff as possible and to solicit comments and feedback.  He said the task force hopes to give a final recommendation to the president in May or June, and that this matter will be discussed at the Planning Retreat that will be held in July.





Vice President Riley presented Motion 2005-2006-26 which proposes an adjustment to the calculation of compensation for academic department chairs and librarians.   She explained that the department chairs developed a plan wherein all twelve-month faculty, including both department chairs and librarians, would be compensated at the rate of 11.5/9ths.  Riley brought that motion to the Executive Committee, but the Executive Committee felt that all twelve-month faculty should be paid at the rate of 12/9ths.  At the direction of the FS Executive Committee, Riley revised the motion to read that all twelve-month faculty, department chairs and librarians, should be compensated at the rate of 12/9ths.  She said that the FS Executive Committee feels that a two-week vacation is a standard fringe benefit and that all twelve-month faculty should be compensated for working twelve months and that their compensation should be calculated at the rate of 12/9ths.  Riley said that one justification that has been given in the past for the current compensation calculation was that many department chairs incur a lighter workload during the summer months.  She said that in the past, similar motions regarding this issue were not passed because of lack of funds, but that because this Faculty Senate has a history of trying to do the right thing for everyone at CMSU, she is hopeful that this motion will be endorsed by the FS.  In response to a question from Miller, Wilson explained the current plan regarding time off given to department chairs, professional staff and other administrators.  He said it is generally based on the amount of time they have been employed by CMSU.  In response to a request from Koehn to analogize the current vacation policy for librarians, Riley said that basically, librarians were paid for two weeks of vacation and then the pay for that vacation is deducted from their salary.  Riley said that nine-month faculty are not paid for vacation, but that they currently have approximately forty more days off than librarians.  Koehn said she could support this motion if it will cause all faculty to be treated consistently regarding compensation for vacation, but that she does not believe that department chairs or librarians should be given a raise regarding vacation that is not consistent with all faculty.  Ewing commented that he appreciated the attempt of this motion to treat everyone equally, but said he feels that there is a definite difference in these positions and that they should be treated differently.  Ament said he feels this issue is part of a broader compensation issue that has been struggled with for quite some time and that although he believes everyone should be compensated fairly, he fears that the passage of this motion might stir up conflict about various items for which nine-month faculty are not currently compensated, such as graduate courses and lab courses.  A motion was then made by Miller, seconded and passed unanimously to call the question.  A vote was then taken on Motion 2005-2006-26, as follows:


Proposal to Adjust the Calculation of Academic Department Chair Compensation



§         Currently, salaries for academic department chairs employed on twelve-month contracts are calculated as 11/9 of the individual's 9-month academic salary plus an administrative stipend.  The amount of the administrative stipend depends on the number of faculty in the department, calculated as $2,259 + $188 per faculty member.  The department chair does NOT count in the number of faculty in the department for the calculation of the administrative stipend.


§         Salaries for librarians with faculty rank on 12-month contacts are calculated as 11.5/9 of the applicable 9-month academic salary.


§         At the present time, the Council of Deans recommends changing the salary calculation for department chairs from 11/9ths to 11.5/9ths in order for the salaries of 12 month faculty to be compensated in an equitable manner.  The cost of the proposed change (to move from 11/9ths to 11.5/9ths) in department chair salaries (for 30 department chairs), including BOTH salary and fringe benefits, is approximately $135,000.


§         The Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate believes that 12-month faculty should be compensated for working 12-months and that a more equitable salary calculation is 12/9ths.  The cost of this change (based on the above information provided by the Provost’s Office) would be $270,000 for department chairs and $67,000 for librarians, for a total of $347,000.


Motion:  The Faculty Senate proposes that salaries for 12-month faculty (department chairs and librarians) be calculated at 12/9ths.  A two-week vacation is a standard fringe benefit and 12-month faculty should be paid for the entire 12-months.  We request the proposal be funded beginning AY 2006-2007.


-PASSED-       For:  20          Opposed:  3          Abstentions:  1          (Motion 2005-2006-26)



Riley presented Motion 2005-2006-27 recommending the funding of market pay for faculty in approved market disciplines.  She said this motion was made as a result of the failure of the part of Motion 2005-2006-22 – Bullet 3 that was made by the FS Salary and Fringe Benefits Committee at the February 15 FS meeting regarding the funding of market pay.  Riley said she thought part of the reason that the previous motion failed was the fact that it requested that “an amount of up to 1 percent of the funded salary line be set aside to fund market pay”, and that no specific dollar amount was given.  She said that the figures included in this motion were obtained from Provost Wilson and that the amount listed reflected the exact amount needed to fund this motion.  Riley said this motion is being made in the spirit of equity and because of the Faculty Senate’s history and desire to “do the right thing”.  She said she is hopeful that when discussing this motion, the merits of it can be discussed, rather than discussing the merits of market pay.  Zelazek asked how much money is currently being spent on market pay.  Wilson said he did not know the exact amount.  Zelazek then asked if the amount is under $1,000,000, and Wilson said it was.  Zelazek asked if the amount is greater than $600,000, and Wilson said that without looking it up, he did not know.  Zelazek said that he believes the amount is approximately $750,000, and that he feels an exact amount should be determined before a vote is taken on this motion.  Staab questioned why funds to cover market pay have not been given to the various departments and Wilson responded that funds were simply never allocated.  The fact that the university previously adopted a salary plan that has still not been fully funded was briefly discussed.  Jurkowski said he feels that since a plan is already in place to fund market pay, it should be funded, and voiced concern about plans that are approved, but simply not funded.  He said he believes it is important to make sure that all areas in which commitments are made are funded.  McKee commented that the Department of Computer Science listed in this motion is actually in the Math Department.  She also said she is in favor of market pay, but said she feels that if the university is going to fund market pay for some, it should be funded for everyone who is eligible and has qualified to receive it.  Koehn asked Wilson to clarify whether or not the original intent of the compensation policy was that merit pay, market pay and across-the-board salary increases would be funded by the university, rather than by the various departments and Wilson responded that the current compensation plan specifies that it is the university’s responsibility to fund these areas.  Popejoy suggested that if departments could get caught up to their benchmarks, that normal cost-of-living increases should thereafter keep them at their benchmarks, so this would likely be a one-time issue.  McKee asked if these funds were in addition to each department’s base salary and Popejoy responded that they were in addition to base salary.  Wilson briefly explained the procedure that is used to obtain benchmark data and said this procedure was done annually.  Williams stated he felt that using the words “equity” and “market pay” in the same sentence is a contradiction, and that if this motion is voted on, it will exacerbate a gap that already exists between departments and disciplines and the people within CMSU.  In response to Williams’ comment, Popejoy said that this is an equity issue, but that there is a difference between internal equity and external equity.  Saran questioned where money to fund market pay comes from and Wilson said that it is built into the base budget every year.  Staab said that compensation issues are very complex and asked if approval of this motion would impact a future motion concerning merit pay.  Wilson responded that the committee reviewing merit pay should be asked that question, but that he does not think that one issue would preclude the other.  Bonsall said that part of the reason she has supported market pay in the past was that each specific college would make the determination regarding whether it could afford to fund market pay from their own budget, and she voiced concern that this motion seems to veer from that.  She also voiced concern that this motion would allow salaries of some faculty to be competitive, but does not allow all faculty salaries to be competitive.  Jurkowski said that the FS should be vocal in an effort to make all areas of compensation competitive for everyone at CMSU.  Zelazek said he thinks that production of credit hours in HCBA has gone down as market pay has continued.  He voiced agreement with Riley’s comment that this motion reflects that we are investing and maintaining a very good program in HCBA, but said he feels that the decrease in credit hours indicates that something is wrong.  Williams suggested that departments that require additional resources and higher paid faculty should have differentiated student fees to help cover the additional costs of those programs.  Swanson said that when a study of cost per credit hour was done, the study showed that the business college was one of the lower cost programs.  The study indicated that nursing was one of the higher cost programs per credit hour, and that music was the most expensive program and had the highest cost per credit hour.  Norwood said that the nursing department would like to find a way to fund market pay from within their own department and explained various circumstances which were causing them difficulty.  Robins said that she believes that part of the concern regarding market pay stems from an equity issue which is aggravated when new faculty are hired at a considerably higher salary than current faculty within the same department.  A motion was made by Ewing, seconded and passed unanimously to call the question.  Staab requested that a recorded vote be taken on Motion 2005-2006-27, as follows:


Whereas, CMSU is dedicated to providing competitive salary and benefits to employees, and also acknowledges that many departments previously designated for market pay currently remain either under funded or unfunded, and


Recognizing from information received from departments approved for market salary adjustments that the total cost of raising faculty in those areas to the approved benchmark level is as follows:


Harmon College of Business Administration (all departments)                      $49,828

Department of Nursing                                                                                $45,748

Department of Communication Disorders                                        $15,084

Department of Computer Science                                                               $          0


Total                                                                                                        $110, 660


It is moved that in order to remain competitive through the benchmarking of salaries in the academic market place and in order to fulfill the approved policies and procedures already in place in regards to market pay at Central Missouri State University, the Faculty Senate endorses the full funding of market pay to all faculty in approved market disciplines.


A recorded vote on Motion 2005-2006-27 resulted in the following results:  For:  Geiger, Joy, Jurkowski, Koehn, McKee, Norwood, Popejoy, Riley, Robins, Sundberg and Swanson.   Opposed:  Ament, Bonsall, Hynes, Kidwaro, Miller, Saran, Williams, Zelazek, Ewing and Streck.   Abstentions:  Staab.


-PASSED-       For:  11       Opposed:  10       Abstentions:  1              (Motion 2005-2006-27)



Riley presented Motion 2005-2006-23 which recommends that a performance-based evaluation of the Information Services Department be done and she asked Ron Long to step forward and address this motion.  Long said that the primary purpose of this motion is to improve the level of service from the IS Department.  Williams asked how much it would cost to implement this motion and Long answered that the cost will depend on precisely what President Podolefsky decides to include in the evaluation process.  He indicated that he spoke with one firm and explained how the IS Department at CMSU works, and was given an estimate of $25,000.  Rogers said he believes it is important that the evaluation process is done by someone outside of the university.  He said that an internal evaluation of IS was done several years ago, but that it did not result in any noteworthy changes or any significant improvement in the level of satisfaction received by users.  Geiger said that one reason she agreed to second this motion was because during the time she has served on the FS, a number of her constituents have voiced frustration and concern regarding dealings they have had with IS.  She also said that she believes this motion follows the same line of thought as the motion that was recently passed by the FS concerning the accountability of administrators.  Bonsall asked why the internal review conducted in 2000 that established a foundation for evaluation has not resulted in having an evaluation process implemented and questioned if lack of funds was the reason.  She also asked if the same reasons that kept the recommendations made in 2000 from being implemented would keep recommendations made in the requested new evaluation from being implemented.  Rogers said that he believes that because a new administration is now in place, different results would occur if an evaluation was done.  Ament suggested that the first line of the motion should be changed to read “Whereas, the University is committed to the Continuous Quality Improvement Process” (rather than the Continuous Process Improvement Process).  Ament also said he is concerned about spending money to pay an outside firm to do an evaluation because he is not convinced that such an evaluation could not be performed internally.  He stated that the evaluation process should be continuous and ongoing and that it should be made a high priority, especially in terms of satisfaction of services.  Sundberg voiced support of this motion because all faculty, staff and students are directly affected by IS and she feels this motion is a good way to address the issue.  Zelazek said he likes the concept of this motion and that he understands the cost involved, but asked who is in charge of the IS department.  It was agreed that IS reports to the university president.  Zelazek then asked if a current policy is in place regarding review of IS by President Podolefsky, and said if a policy is currently in place, he does not want to see the FS circumvent that policy by passing this motion.  Rogers and Wilson agreed that if President Podolefsky is already working on this issue or if he has already determined what procedure will be followed, he will advise the FS accordingly.  Riley said she feels this motion will emphasize to the president that this is a recurring problem.  She also stated that before President Podolefsky became the president at CMSU, the FS Executive Committee met with him and told him that one of their top five concerns was IS, and that if changes were not made and the problems were not addressed, they would take a vote of non-confidence in IS.  Williams concurred with Riley’s statement, but said he is bothered by the motion’s ambiguity.  He said an evaluation needs to be done, and that everyone at CMSU needs to know what is going on, they need answers and they need people who can fix things, but he is concerned that this motion gives the president the authority to engage an outside evaluation group to systematically evaluate IS.  Long said that as one of the persons who helped write this motion, he felt that if the motion was more specific, it might tie the hands of those who would work to implement it.  Long also said he is hopeful that if this motion is passed, the person or firm hired to do the evaluation will work with a group of faculty and staff.  In order to address Williams’ concerns, Geiger suggested that the last bullet (•) on the motion be revised to add the phrase “in association with a task force consisting of members of the CMSU faculty, staff, and administration” to the first line of the motion, after the words evaluation group.  Williams agreed that Geiger’s suggested revision would address his concern.  Ament asked if this proposal is requesting that an external agency be solicited on a regular and continuous basis, and Geiger responded that Podolefsky would make that determination.  Ament said he supports the concept of this motion, but that he believes a major concern is that this evaluation process needs to be comprehensive and needs to be done on a regular basis.  He said the process needs to include substantial input from faculty, staff and students and result in a significant increase in their satisfaction.  He voiced concern that if the motion does not emphasize that the evaluation process needs be done on a regular and systematic basis that the process will produce the same lack of results as the internal evaluation that was done in 2000.  To address Ament’s comments, Riley suggested that the phrase “to allow for a regular and systematic evaluation of the Information Services Department” be added immediately after the phrase suggested by Geiger.  Ament also said he believes it is important that feedback from students should be included in this process and requested that the word “students” be added to the revision suggested by Geiger.  Additionally, Ament said he is uncomfortable with the current wording of item “b” under the last bullet because it is too general, and suggested that the words “representative members” be replaced with the words “significant number of faculty, staff and students”.  Riley suggested that “b” be revised to read “significant number of end users of all university units served by the Information Services Department” and Ament agreed with Riley’s suggestion.  McKee voiced disagreement with the wording of the revision suggested by Geiger and suggested that it be omitted.  McKee said that it appears that two different issues are being dealt with, one issue being that an outside firm will be engaged to perform an evaluation, and a second issue that later, regular, systematic evaluations will be done.  McKee said that the systematic evaluations that will be performed later could be done internally, rather than by an outside firm.  Long said that if this motion is passed, the intended process would be to have the recommendations made by the person or firm doing the initial evaluation reviewed by the Information Technology Policy Council, who would then give the report done for the initial evaluation, along with their suggested recommendations, to President Podolefsky.  Staab agreed with McKee’s comments and suggested that rather than having the motion become too detailed, it was more important to approve this motion, thereby addressing this issue with Podolefsky.  He suggested that the phrase “to allow for a regular and systematic evaluation ….” be omitted because it deals with an implementation issue that would

likely be dealt with by the group performing the evaluation.  A motion was made by Sundberg, seconded and passed unanimously to call the question.   A vote was then taken on Motion 2005-2006-23, as follows:


Motion Recommending a PERFORMANCE-BASED Evaluation of the

Information Services Department at Central Missouri State University


Whereas, the University is committed to the Continuous Quality Improvement Process, at all levels of the university, and

Whereas, the nature of technology and the timely integration of same in an educational setting is an ongoing and evolutionary challenge, and

Whereas, the services provided by Information Services affect multiple constituencies with different needs across the University: students, staff, faculty and the administration, and

Whereas, the function of and the services provided by the Information Services Department are central to the overall mission and day to day operations of our university, and

Whereas, technology is more and more embedded in the ongoing nature of teaching and learning at the core of the University's mission, and

Whereas, an internal review of Information Services conducted by the President's Commission on Information Technology in 2000 has established a foundation for meaningful evaluation that has not been implemented, and

Whereas, as Central's Strategic Plan for 2002-2007 clearly outlines 6 principles to guide the technology vision and objectives established by the university: user focused, educationally focused, innovation focused, service focused, results focused, and resource focused, and

Whereas, the 2004 Self-Study Report prepared for the Higher Learning Commission visit states that Central will develop strategies for evaluating Information Services (p. 86), and

Whereas, the Higher Learning Commission recommends that all Administrative Units at a University be evaluated with the view to improving overall communications and services (Final Report p. 25), and

Be it therefore resolved that the Faculty Senate recommend to the President of Central Missouri State University that:

• the University engage an outside evaluation group in association with a task force consisting of members of the CMSU faculty, staff, administration and students to evaluate the Information Services Department by using both carefully designed surveys and conducting individual and group interviews with:

            a.) all levels of the Information Services staff, and

b.) significant number of end users of all university units served by the Information Services Department.


-PASSED-       Unanimous                                                                 (Motion 2005-2006-23)



John Zelazek presented Motion 2005-2006-24 and said there are two parts to this motion.  He explained that one part deals with the university’s ethical responsibility to compensate for awards that are given, and the second part of the motion deals with the university’s responsibility to pay its bills, including those that extend back to 1990-1991.  Zelazek briefly reviewed the history leading up to this motion and explained that in 1988, CMSU made the decision to implement merit pay.  He explained that at that time, each college determined criteria for making merit awards and funds were set aside in the office of then Provost Bill Bloodworth.  Zelazek then briefly outlined the procedure that was used to determine how performance recognition awards (now known as merit pay awards) were given.  He said that these awards were given during the 1988-1989 and 1989-1990 terms, but that sometime during 1991, Provost Bloodworth announced that because of budget constraints, there was no longer any money available for professional recognition awards.  At that time, Bloodworth said that awards would still be made, but that no compensation would be given.  Zelazek said that many faculty felt that the university had breached the agreement they had made with faculty and that many of them were quite angry, but that some faculty chose not to pursue the issue because of fear of reprisal.  He said that this issue has been discussed with numerous provosts that have succeeded Bloodworth, but that until this matter was discussed with current Provost George Wilson, satisfactory resolution of this matter has never been seriously considered.  Zelazek explained that Wilson advised that before further action could be taken regarding this matter, it would be necessary to determine what documentation still existed concerning awards that were made, but never compensated, for 1990-1991.  Zelazek said that he believes it would take approximately $12,000 to compensate the awards for 1990-1991 for which documentation was discovered.  Wilson has estimated that it would take approximately $200,000 to fund awards that were made in 1990-1991.  Zelazek said that Judith Siminoe, CMSU’s Legal Counsel, has stated that she does not believe the university is legally responsible to compensate for these awards, but he briefly described a case in Washington that he considers to be similar wherein plaintiffs were awarded approximately $17,000,000 to be paid by the university.  Rogers briefly explained the differences between the Washington case that Zelazek described and the 1990-1991 matter involving Zelazek and pointed out that the Washington case was heard in 2003-2004, whereas Zelazek’s incident at CMSU occurred in 1990-1991.  Koehn questioned how this issue differed from that of other currently unfunded mandates.  Zelazek responded that Bloodworth was not a good money manager and that he had shifted the funds that were originally allocated for professional recognition awards to other areas where he had misbudgeted.  Staab said that although he feels this was an unfortunate situation, he believes this issue should be dealt with as a grievance, rather than as a FS issue, and questioned what role the FS should play in this matter.  In response to Staab’s statement, Zelazek suggested that the first paragraph of the motion be reread and said that this issue has been further provoked by the issue of merit pay.  Additionally, he said that the role he hopes that the FS will play in this matter is that of support.  Jurkowski voiced support of this motion and said he feels this is an ethical issue, but questioned how awards would be determined for faculty who did not have a specific amount listed in their award letters.  Sundberg said that based on her discussions with some faculty who received award letters in 1990-1991, she concluded that most of them understood that funds were not available to compensate the awards.  She said that they did not view it as a breached contract or promise and that they felt it was kind of silly to pursue the issue after fifteen years have passed.  A motion was made by Sundberg to call the question, seconded and passed by the following vote:  For – 16,  Opposed – 1,  Abstain – 1.  Motion 2005-2006-24 was then voted on as follows:



The Faculty Senate believes that Central Missouri State University, on behalf of the president, has an ethical responsibility to compensate all faculty and staff for various types of performance awards within a calendar year from the date of any award acknowledgement.


The Faculty Senate  believes that all faculty (active, retired, deceased--through their estate) who can document a Professional Recognition award (merit pay) for the 1990-1991 school year should be compensated as listed in their documentation distributed that year.  The faculty member's documentation should be processed through the Provost's Office for prompt disbursal of the compensation



A recorded vote was requested and taken on Motion 2005-2006-24 with the following results:  For:  Ament, Jurkowski, Miller, Robins, Swanson, Williams, Zelazek, and Ewing.   Opposed:  Joy, McKee, Norwood, Saran, Staab, and Sundberg.   Abstentions:  Bonsall, Koehn, Popejoy and Streck.


-PASSED-       For:  8          Opposed:  6          Abstentions:  4          (Motion 2005-2006-24)



President Rogers reminded Executive Committee members of the EC meeting was scheduled for tomorrow at 3:15 p.m. in Union 219.


The meeting was adjourned at 5:18 p.m.


Janie Seymour

Faculty Senate Office Professional




Meeting 14                                                                                                       April 26, 2006


Central Missouri State University

Faculty Senate Minutes



The Faculty Senate met at 3:19 p.m. in Union 235 with President Jack Rogers presiding.


ROLL CALL: In addition to FS President Jack Rogers, the following twenty senators and two alternates were present:  Ament, Bonsall, Ciafullo, Geiger, Grigsby, Joy, Jurkowski, Katsourides, Kidwaro, Koehn, McKee, Miller, Norwood, Popejoy, Riley, Robins, Staab, Swanson, Washer, Zelazek, Thomas (alternate for Nickens), and Yousef (alternate for Sundberg).  Hynes, Saran and Williams were absent.  Also present was President Aaron Podolefsky, Provost George Wilson and Parliamentarian Art Rennels.


MINUTES:  A motion was made by Senator Bonsall, seconded by Senator Ament and passed unanimously to approve the minutes of the April 5, 2006 Faculty Senate meeting.




President Podolefsky apologized for not being able to attend more FS meetings this year, but explained that he has been out of town on numerous occasions.  He said he has made several trips to Jefferson City regarding two major bills that would impact CMSU.  Podolefsky said that the House has passed the Beardon bill which puts caps on state appropriations and also puts caps on tuition increases.  He said that various university presidents collectively wrote a lengthy letter in opposition to this bill and that the Senate committee has now removed most of the objectionable parts from the Beardon bill.  He also said that Beardon told the Senate that he would not pass the MOHELA bill unless the Beardon bill was passed.  Podolefsky said that the MOHELA bill has now passed.  He then briefly discussed the 4% across-the-board raise that will be given to all full-time CMSU employees for FY 2007.  He said he would have liked to have been able to give a 6% salary increase, but that if a 6% increase was given, tuition would have needed to be increased by 10% and he did not feel that he could reasonably or ethically increase tuition by that amount.  He also said that he has received numerous e-mails and comments regarding CMSU’s health insurance coverage and that the university is trying to prepare a recommendation for the Board of Governors that will likely make modest changes to the current health insurance benefits.  He stated that he doubts that these changes will make anyone overly happy, but he is hopeful that they will also not make anyone extremely unhappy.  Ciafullo thanked Podolefsky for his comments regarding the dedication of CMSU’s faculty and staff in the recent press release about the salary increase, and asked if anyone in Jefferson City realized that 64% of CMSU’s budget was funded by the state in 2001 and that now only 49% of the budget is funded by the state.  Podolefsky responded that he has been attempting to make this point known in Jefferson City.  In response to another question from Ciafullo, Podolefsky explained another part of Beardon’s bill, a voucher called “Access Missouri.”  He said that when this voucher is fully funded, it would provide $1,000 to every Missouri resident who attends a Missouri institution, unless they receive A+ funds.  He said the downside of this voucher is that it gives public funds to private schools who are not overseen by the state.  However, Podolefsky said he believes that the majority of Missouri freshmen will attend public schools.  Koehn said she believes the entire campus is pleased about receiving a 4% pay increase and asked what the current status is regarding market pay.  Provost Wilson said that the market pay proposal that was recently passed by the FS has not yet been referred to the SPRC.  Podolefsky said he believes that Wilson plans to follow the compensation model and that he included the cost of market pay in his calculations regarding salary for FY 2007.  He also said that in the coming year, he hopes to improve the timing of making recommendations to the Board of Governors, and he briefly explained how salaries are calculated with regard to the budget.   Staab said that a motion passed recently by the FS for $110,000 did not include market pay and asked Podolefsky if his plan was to postpone the implementation of market pay.  Staab also asked Podolefsky what he plans to do about merit pay.  Wilson said he did not see any way that merit pay plan could be considered for the next year because if it is approved by Podolefsky, it will then require considerable work by all the colleges and departments to prepare for its implementation.  Regarding the market pay motion recently passed by the FS, Wilson said that the $110,000 in that motion would have brought current salaries for faculty in market disciplines up to the market benchmark based on this year’s salary.  However, he said that salaries have not yet been figured after the 4% increases are given and that while he believes that the 4% increases will bring some faculty closer to target, the benchmarks for faculty in market disciplines for next year have not yet been received.  Riley asked for an update on the status of the search for the Vice President of Finance and Administration and Podolefsky said that Dr. Betty Roberts, from the University of Houston, has accepted that position.


Provost Wilson said that he did not have any announcements, but that he would be happy to answer any questions from senators.


FS Vice President Riley briefly discussed recent problems incurred by many users with GroupWise and advised that when anyone sends out an e-mail, they should contact the Help Desk if the sent e-mail does not appear in your mailbox within thirty minutes.  Riley also thanked the Faculty Senate for allowing her to serve as the vice president for the last three years.


FS President Rogers extended congratulations to Senator Sundberg for receiving the Byler Award and voiced appreciation to Sundberg for all that she does for the university.  He also wished Riley a happy birthday, and voiced congratulations to the CMSU mock trial and moot court team on winning a prestigious national championship in Chicago this past weekend.  Rogers also said that said that he has enjoyed serving as the FS president this past year and that he will continue to serve as a senator for the next two years.


FS SPRC representative Staab advised that the SPRC met on April 13 and said that at that meeting, Podolefsky provided an overview of the budget.  He said that the overview stated (1) that the budget will be based on enrollment for the present year, not on anticipated enrollment for the coming year.  The overview also stated that (2) CMSU should attempt to budget money where it will actually be spent, (3) that the current state proposal is an increase of 2% in funding, which would result in an overall increase of 1% to the budget, and that Podolefsky hopes to keep tuition increases somewhere between 5% and 6% to remain competitive with our peer institutions, (4) that a 4% across-the-board salary increase will be recommended to the Board of Governors, (5) that although compensation proposals for department chair salaries, longevity and merit pay have recently been received, these areas will probably not move forward until further discussions on compensation priorities occur in FY 2007, and (6) that Podolefsky’s office is developing a budget timeline for areas to follow when submitting ideas or requests for funding.  Staab said that Podolefsky also informed the SPRC that he is hopeful that MODOT will provide funds for improvements to the university’s airport, including a new terminal and new aprons.  Podolefsky said that these improvements could be 95% funded by federal money and only 5% of the costs would be paid by CMSU.  He further explained that this would be a $34,000,000 project spread over the next twenty years and would result in an airport facility that would be capable of handling corporate jets.  Podolefsky then pointed out that the university’s portion of the funding for the airport does not necessarily have to come from university funds, and will hopefully be paid by university donors and other such sources.  Regarding the Mission Statement, Staab said the Mission Statement Subcommittee recommended that a portion of the statewide mission should be referenced in the new university mission statement and that a motion was unanimously passed at SPRC to support the subcommittee’s recommendation as guidance in developing the university’s mission statement.  Regarding the Name Change Task Force, Staab reported that a subcommittee of the task force was preparing a White Paper summarizing the pros and cons of a name change.  He said that the White Paper would be distributed to as many faculty, staff, students and alumni as possible and that anyone wishing to provide feedback regarding the name change should do so by May 31.  He advised that the name change website is





Vice President Riley presented Motion 2005-2006-31 from the FS Committee on Committees requesting approval of a slate of nominations to fill committee vacancies, as follows:


The following represents a list of current Faculty Senate and University/Administrative Committee members.  Current nominees are listed in bold.  The Faculty Senate Committee on Committees submits the following faculty nominations for committees and requests approval of the Faculty Senate:


Faculty Senate Committees with Appointed Faculty Members

Academic Year 2006-2007 – Membership Rosters


FS Academic Standards Committee

Name                                       College             Term Ends

Janice Klimek                        HCBA                         2008

Barb Rhodes                           L/AE                            2007

Henry Wambuii                       A&S                            2007

John Zelazek                           EHS                             2007

Robert Lurker                        AS&T                         2008



FS Committee on Dispute Resolution & Grievance

Name                                       College             Term Ends

Naomi Williamson                  L/AE                           2008

John Zey                                  AS&T                         2007

Teresa Earles-Vollrath  EHS                             2007

Arthur Young                          HCBA                         2007

Dane Miller                            At Large Attorney     2008    (2nd term)

Phoebe McLaughlin               A&S                            2008


FS Constitution and By-Laws Committee

Appointments made if issues arise


FS Distance Education Committee

Name                                       College             Term Ends

Ruth Burkett                          EHS                            2008

Ray Leonard                            AS                               2007

Mark Love                               L/AE                            2007

Marilyn Grechus                       EHS                             2007

Dick Kahoe                              AS&T                          2007    (2nd term)

Dawn Fry                                L/AE                           2008

Keshav Bhattari                     AS                               2008

John “Skip”Crooker              HCBA                        2008

Linda Mulligan                       AS&T                         2008

Silvana Faja                              HCBA                         2007    (2nd term)


FS Elections Committee

Name                                       College             Term Ends

Pam Hart                               EHS                            2008

Barton Washer                       AS&T                         2008

Paula Schaefer                          HCBA                         2007

Cheryl Riley                           L/AE                           2008

Charles Martin                      A&S                           2007 (replaced Robison 2006)


FS Ethics in Research Committee

Name                                       College             Term Ends

Mary McCord                          HCBA                         2007

Mike Wright                             AS&T                          2007

Jerry Brown                           L/AE                           2008

Duane Lundervold                    EHS                             2007

Shari Bax                                A&S                            2008



FS Faculty Awards Committee (Tenured; 1-year appointments)

Name                                       College             Term Ends

Scott Wilson                          AS&T                         2007

Barbara Wales                       L/AE                           2007

Mary McCord                        HCBA                         2007

David Ewing                           A&S                            2007

Jennifer Aldrich                     E&HS                         2007

Darlene Budd                          Past Chair                    2007


FS Faculty Personnel Policies Committee

Name                                       College             Term Ends

Dianna Bryant                           AS&T                         2007

Kim Stark-Wrobleski               E&HS                          2007

Marian Davis                         L/AE                           2008

Dennis Ehlert                         E&HS                         2008

Jeff Ulmer                              AS&T                         2008

Steve Del Vecchio                 HCBA                         2008

Jon Taylor                                A&S                            2007

Karen Waner                           HCBA                         2007

William Vaughn                      A&S                            2008

Linda Medaris              L/AE                            2007


FS International Affairs Committee (3-year term)

Name                                       College             Term Ends

Richard Frazier                      At-Large                     2009

Karen Foster                           At-Large                      2008

Henry Wambuii                        At-Large                      2008

Fred Worman               At-Large                      2008

Robert Yates                            Testing Coordinator

MA TESL program      2007    (replaced D.Muchisky fall  05)

Dan Crews                             At-Large                     2009    (2nd term)

Donald P. Miller                       English Language Ctr    2007    (2nd term)


FS Professional Enhancement Committee (3-year terms)

Name                                       College             Term Ends

Della Goavec                         At-Large                     2009

Kathleen Marchiondo               AS&T                          2007

Davie Davis                              L/AE                            2007

Freda Herrington, Chair            E&HS                          2007

Chris Azevedo                        HCBA                         2009    (2nd term)

Sandra Merrill                          A&S                            2007



FS University Assessment Council

Name                                       College             Term Ends

Mary Ragland                        L/AE                           2008

JoAnn Jenkins              AS&T                          2007    (2nd term)

Julie Stephens                        A&S                            2008

Silvana Faja                              HCBA                         2007

Joyce Downing             E&HS                          2007


University Administrative Committees with Appointed Faculty Members

Academic Year 2006-2007 - Membership Rosters


UA Awards Selection Committee

Name                                       College                   Term Ends

Hang Chen                             A&S                                        2008

Roger Pennel                            E&HS                                      2007

Paula Schaefer                          HCBA                                     2007

David McCandless                AS&T                                     2008

Jerry Brown                             L/AE                                        2007


UA Central Technology Grants Committee

Name                                       College                   Term Ends

Mahmoud Yousef                   A&S                                        2008

Jenny Emanuel                       L/AE                                       2008

Quingxiong Ma             HCBA                                     2007

Brad Mears                              E&HS                                      2007

Kyle Palmer                             AS&T                                      2007


UA Course Fees Committee

Name                                       College                   Term Ends

Gail Crump                               A&S                                        2008

Someswar Kesh                       HCBA                                     2007

Duane Lundervold                    E&HS                                      2008

Janet Bonsall                            AS&T                                      2007


UA Enrollment Management Team – Disbanded


UA Extended Campus Advisory Council

Name                                       College                   Term Ends

Carl Grigsby                           E&HS                                     2008

Carol Heming                           A&S                                        2007

Scott Norwood                        L/AE                                        2007    (2nd term)

Jeff Banhart                           AS&T                                     2008

Charlie Schwepker                 HCBA                                     2008



UA Honors College Advisory Committee (3-year terms)

Name                                       College                   Term Ends

Mick Luehrman                        A&S                                        2007

JoAnn Jenkins                       AS&T                                     2009

Charlie Schwepker                   HCBA                                     2007

Richard Frazier                      E&HS                                     2009

Tony Shaffer                             L/AE                                        2008


UA Human Subjects Committee

Name                                       College                   Term Ends

Pat Decker                               At-Large                                  2007

Sandy Hutchison                       At-Large                                  2007

Mark Sherman                       At-Large                                 2008

Swarna Mandali                     At-Large                                 2008    (2nd term)

Gene Bonham                        At-Large                                 2008

Scott McKay                         At-Large                                 2008

Bryan Carter                            At-Large                                  2007


UA Information Technology Policy Council (ITPC) (3-year terms)

                                                                                      (No vacancies AY 2005-2006)

Name                                       College                   Term Ends

Joe Vaughn                              At-Large                                  2007

Dale Bachman              At-Large                                  2007

Ken Cust                                At-Large                                2009


UA Institutional Animal Care & Use Policy

Name                                       College                   Term Ends

Victoria Jackson, Chair

   Supervisor of Animal Room  A&S                                         2008    (ex-officio position)

Jenny Emanuel, Nonscientist       At-Large                                2007

Stefan Cairns
    Practicing Biologist                 At-Large                                2007    (2nd term)

Cynthia Bracken,              Animal Scientist

    Department of Agriculture                                                2008    (2nd term)

John Gole
    Practicing Biologist              At-Large                              2008    (2nd term)


UA Intercollegiate Athletics Advisory Committee

Name                                       College                   Term Ends

Brian Hughes                            E&HS                                      2007 (completes McHenry term)

Steve Popejoy                          HCBA                                     2007

Jason Scales                          AS&T                                     2008

Sue Ann Carter                      L/AE                                       2007

Eric Tenbus                            A&S                                        2008


UA Library Advisory Committee

Name                                       College                   Term Ends

Allison Norwood                     AS&T                                      2007    (2nd term)

Jennifer Robins             E&HS                                      2007

Steve Walker                           L/AE                                        2007

Steve Del Vecchio                 HCBA                                     2008

Darlene Ciraulo                     A&S                                        2008


UA Scholarship & Awards Advisory Committee

Name                                       College                   Term Ends

Jennifer Aldrich                     E&HS                                     2008

                                                Graduate Council                      200_

Leigh Ann Blunt                        AS&T                                      2007

Glenda Goetz                           L/AE                                        2007

Sandra Merrill                       A&S                                        2008

Freda Herrington                      E&HS                                      2007

Sara Sundberg                          A&S                                        2007

Quingxiong Ma                      HCBA                                     2008

Cheryl Shattuck                        HCBA                                     2007

Robin Spencer                        AS&T                                     2008


UA Summer Sessions Advisory Committee

Name                                       College                   Term Ends

Ruth Burkett                             E&HS                                      2007

Linda Medaris                       L/AE                                       2007 (fulfill term of L. Deaton)

Charles Fair                           A&S                                        2008

Janet Winter                          HCBA                                     2008

Allison Norwood                      AS&T                                      2007


UA Traffic and Parking Policy Committee

Name                                       College                   Term Ends

George Sesser                          At-Large                                  2007

Joe Kupersmith                      At-Large                                 2008


UA Traffic Review Board

Name                                       College                   Term Ends

Scott Norwood                        At-Large                                  2007

Don Wallace                            At-Large                                  2007

David Aaberg                         At-Large                                 2008

Dawna-Lisa Butterfield         At-Large                                 2008



UA Undergraduate Exceptions Committee (name changed in 2006)

Name                                       College                   Term Ends

Karen Haase                          L/AE                                       2008

Larry Ferguson             AS&T                                      2007

Janice Klimek                       HCBA                                     2008

Sharon Lamson                        E&HS                                      2007    (2nd term)

Dennis Muchisky                   A&S                                        2008


UA University Research Council

Name                                       College                   Term Ends

Karen Bradley                          E&HS                                      2007

Anna Oller                              A&S                                        2008    (2nd term)

George Millen                           L/AE                                        2007    (2nd term)

Scott Smith                             HCBA                                     2008

Fanson Kidwaro                       AS&T                                      2007



Norwood advised that JoAnn Jenkins is planning to retire, so that someone will need to be nominated to replace Jenkins on the FS University Assessment Council and the UA Honors College Advisory Committee after she retires.  A motion to approve this motion was then made by Ciafullo, seconded by Joy and voted on with the following results:


-PASSED-       Unanimous                                                                   (Motion 2005-2006-31)



Riley then presented Motion 2005-2006-29 from the FS Committee on Committees requesting approval of a change in the charge of the FS International Affairs Committee, as follows:


The FS Committee on Committees requests the Faculty Senate’s approval of the following changes to the charge of the FS International Affairs Committee.  Deletions are indicated by strikethroughs and additions by bold text.


To advocate that the policies and procedures relating to the university's commitment to international education are clearly established, defined, understood and implemented.

This would be addressed through the review of policies and procedures concerning areas such as curriculum, program planning, recruitment, scholarship, admissions, student orientation, faculty/student exchange, alumni relations, residential life, student services, organizations and fees as they are related to international education. In addition, the committee should encourage multi-cultural events and promote cultural awareness through utilization of total university resources (students, faculty, staff, administration, community, media, etc.).



Reports to Faculty Senate


A. Composition (16 members)

1. Seven Eight faculty representatives ( the testing coordinator one from the MA in tTeaching English as a Second Language Program and one from the English Language Center (ELC)and one from Modern Languages

2. One staff representative

3. Two  One student representative

4. One community representative

5. One dean representative from the Provost’s Advisory Committee (ex officio/non-voting)

6. Faculty representative from the Graduate Council

7. Director of International Students and Scholar Services (ex-officio/non-voting)

8. Executive Director of International Programs (ex officio/non-voting)

9. Director of International Admissions (ex officio/non-voting)

B. Selection

1. At-large faculty representatives nominated by Faculty Senate Committee on Committees and confirmed by the Faculty Senate

2. Staff representative appointed by Professional Staff Council

3. One U.S. student representative appointed by Student Government Association

4. 3. One international student representative recommended by the International Student Organization and appointed by the International Student Adviser

5. 4.  One community representative selected by the committee

6. 5. Dean selected by Council of Deans  Representative from the Provost’s Advisory Committee selected by that committee.

7. 6. Faculty representative from Graduate Council selected by the Graduate Council

C. Selection of Chair

Previous year’s vice-chair becomes chair. Vice-chair is selected from second-year faculty members.

D. Term of Service

Three Years (staggered); students serve one year terms. 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.


The committee chair is responsible for creating and maintaining a Procedures Manual, a copy to be kept in the Faculty Senate Office. Meets once every three weeks monthly or as needed.  Does not meet in summer

REV 3/03  04/06


Riley briefly reviewed the changes to the charge.  A motion to approve this change in charge was  made by Ciafullo, seconded by Ament and voted on with the following results:


-PASSED-       Unanimous                                                                   (Motion 2005-2006-29)



Riley then presented Motion 2005-2006-32 requesting approval of the FS to nominate Riley to fill the At-Large position on the Muleskinner Advisory Board through 2008, as follows:


The FS Committee on Committees requests the Faculty Senate’s approval of the nomination of Cheryl Riley to fill the At-Large position on the Muleskinner Advisory Board through 2008.


  Rogers explained that CoC had only been asked to fill this position yesterday and that the advisory board planned to meet tomorrow and that they were hopeful that the FS would approve Riley to fill this position before their meeting tomorrow.  Rogers said that since this motion did not appear on the agenda and was not distributed a week in advance of the FS meeting that a motion would have to be passed to suspend the rules if the FS wanted to vote on Motion 2005-2006-32.  A motion was made by Miller, seconded by Swanson and passed unanimously to suspend the rules and allow a vote to be taken on Motion 2005-2006-32.  A vote was then taken on Motion 2005-2006-32 with the following results:


-PASSED-       Unanimous                                                                   (Motion 2005-2006-32)



Motion 2005-2006-25 requesting approval of recommendations to revise the Public Speech Activities Policy to allow for a “Speakers’ Area” at CMSU was presented by Senator Robins, as follows:


The Faculty Senate recommends that the following revisions be made to the Public Speech Activities Policy, Board of Governors Policy 1.2.160.  Proposed language to be inserted in the Public Speech Activities Policy is underlined.


Public Speech Activities and Speakers’ Area Policy


II, F. “Public speech activities will not have specific designated locations on campus, and will be held at reasonable times.  Public speech activities may be held in the Speakers’ Area under the terms described in Section IV, but are also permitted in other areas on campus as provided for in sections I, II, and III of this policy. 



IV. Speakers’ Area


In addition to the Purpose, Policy, and Procedure stated in sections I, II and III, public speech activities (as well as speech by individuals that does not fit the definition of “public speech activities”) are also allowed in the Speakers’ Area as designated in a sidewalk area near the Elliott Student Union.  For speech in the Speakers’ Area, the following additional rules apply.


  1. Prior notice need not be provided to University officials regarding use of the Speakers’ Area.


  1. In order to avoid disruption to classes, no sound amplification equipment or musical instruments may be used in the Speakers’ Area.


  1. There shall be no disruption of the flow of pedestrian traffic in or around the Speakers’ Area.


  1. Speech in the Speakers’ Area, as in all other areas of campus, shall not include expression that is not entitled to protection under applicable law (as set out in Section E. 1., above). 


  1. The terms of Sections I, II, and III that are not inconsistent with the foregoing are applicable to the Speakers’ Area.



Robins briefly explained the motion and Riley advised that this issue has been discussed with


CMSU’s legal counsel, Judith Siminoe.  Podolefsky asked if this was a Board policy or a university policy and Rogers responded that it was a Board of Governors policy.  A vote was then taken on the motion with the following results:


-PASSED-       Unanimous                                                                   (Motion 2005-2006-25)



Riley presented Motion 2005-2006-30 requesting FS approval to appoint an ad hoc committee to study the issue of changing the grading system at CMSU.  She explained that based on responses to the survey recently distributed on this issue, it is clear that there is considerable interest among the faculty in discussing this issue further.  She explained that the purpose of this motion is simply to approve the appointment of an ad hoc committee to conduct additional discussions regarding this issue.  Koehn asked when this committee would meet and questioned if such meetings would begin in the fall or in the summer. Rogers responded that it would be up to the new FS president to determine meeting times for this ad hoc committee.  Ament asked for information concerning the results of the survey and Geiger briefly reviewed the results.  She said that in response to the last question on the survey asking faculty if they would like to have the opportunity to provide a +/- in addition to a letter grade when submitting the final grades, 56.3% responded that they would like to have this option.  She said that 10.8% responded that they were neutral regarding this question and 32.9% said they strongly disagreed with this option.  Geiger further explained that these results indicate that approximately one-third of the faculty is opposed to adding a +/- grading system, that over half of the faculty are in favor of this option and approximately 11% are non-committal.  Geiger said that 233 faculty (over half the faculty) responded to the survey and stated she believes that whatever decision is made concerning this issue, it is imperative that opinions are heard from as many different constituencies as possible because the survey clearly revealed that this issue is of considerable interest.  Ament questioned what kinds of things would be dealt with by the ad hoc committee and if such a committee would discuss issue such as the cost of implementation to add a +/- grading system.  Rogers briefly explained several issues discussed by the FS Executive Committee that should be addressed by the ad hoc committee, such as how implementation of a +/- system would impact transfer students and what effect it would have on the GPA’s of  sophomores, juniors and seniors who have already established a GPA.  He said that since there are numerous types of +/- systems, the committee would also discuss which type, if any, should be implemented.  Norwood asked if students would be included on this ad hoc committee.  She said she felt that students should be included on  this committee because at a SGA meeting that she recently attended, students voiced considerable opposition to the implementation of a +/- grading system.  Rogers said various viewpoints were expressed at the EC meeting when this was discussed and that numerous letters were received from students who voiced opposition to a +/- system.  However, Rogers said that many of the reasons given for their opposition were somewhat uninformed and unsupported.  Ament noted that on the third line of the motion, the word “for” should be changed to “form”.  In response to Norwood’s question, Geiger said she feels this is a faculty issue and that students should not be included on this ad hoc committee.  Ament suggested that a determination should be made regarding whether or not students will be included before a vote is taken on this motion.  Robins said she did not feel that students should be included on the committee because they have access to the SGA (Student Government Association) and therefore, they have an opportunity to address this issue at SGA meetings.  Staab spoke in favor of this motion and said that he believes that part of the process addressed by this committee will be to educate people about the different options that could be implemented.  He also stated that he is inclined to include students on this committee because although he agrees that this is a faculty issue, it is also obviously of great importance to students, and that including students on the committee could be very helpful in winning the support of students if a +/- system is adopted.  Jurkowski pointed out that the motion is very general and said that the composition of this committee would be determined by the EC.  In response to concerns voiced regarding the composition of the committee, Riley said she would accept a friendly amendment to make this motion indicate that the structure of this ad hoc committee will mirror that of the name change committee.  Ament made a friendly amendment, which was seconded by Norwood,  to add the phrase “to include student representation” to the second line of the motion after the words “ad hoc committee” and Riley agreed that she would accept such an amendment.  Ciafullo said that although he feels this is a faculty issue, he believes it would be wise to have student representation on the committee.  Miller suggested that the motion should include why consideration of changing to a plus-minus system is needed.  Staab disagreed with the suggestion made by Miller because he stated he feels the committee should be neutral and review both the pros and cons of changing to or adding a plus-minus system.  In response to Miller’s suggestion, an amendment was suggested by Zelazek and seconded by Miller to revise the motion to read “The Faculty Senate Executive Committee requests approval of the Faculty Senate to appoint an ad hoc committee to include student representation to examine the current grading system at CMSU.” Riley stated that she would not accept that amendment because it changes the intent of the motion.  After brief additional discussion, a vote was taken on the friendly amendment made by Ament, seconded by Norwood and accepted by Riley to add the phrase “to include student representation,” and was passed with the following results:  For:  17,   Opposed:  2,   Abstain:   2.  A vote was then taken on the revised motion, as follows:


The Faculty Senate Executive Committee requests approval of the Faculty Senate to appoint an ad hoc committee to include student representation to further study the issue of changing the grading system at CMSU from its present system (A, B, C, D, F) to some form of a plus-minus system.



-PASSED-       For:  18       Opposed:  1       Abstentions:  2                (Motion 2005-2006-30)



Popejoy presented Motion 2005-2006-28 from the FS Salary and Fringe Benefits Committee requesting that the FS recommend that 0.25% of the budgeted salary line be set aside to increase employer-provided benefits, 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.


And in recognition of the fact that the CMSU Faculty Senate passed a motion, identified as #2005 – 2006 – 21, on February 15, 2006,


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


The Committee moves that an amount of 0.25 percent of the budgeted salary line be set aside to increase employer-provided benefits.


Popejoy said that this motion was a follow-up motion to the motion passed at the February 15 FS meeting requesting that CMSU implement a flexible benefits plan, and that this motion would cover the cost to implement such a plan.  Koehn asked if this motion would be necessary if the university opts to change to a plan wherein the employee and the university split health care costs, and Popejoy said he had not yet read material from the Health Care Committee, so he could not respond to Koehn’s question at this time. There being no additional questions or comments, a vote was taken on Motion 2005-2006-28 with the following results:


-PASSED-       For:  10       Opposed:  4       Abstentions:  7                (Motion 2005-2006-28)



President Rogers announced that there would be a short break after the adjournment of this meeting, and then the 2006-2007 Faculty Senate would meet briefly.


The meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m.


Janie Seymour

Faculty Senate Office Professional