Faculty Senate Minutes
The Faculty Senate met at 3:15 p.m. in Union 237A with President Michael Bersin presiding.
MINUTES of the November 7 Faculty Senate meeting were approved as printed.
In response to Bob Yates Carter said our lawyer is drafting guidelines regarding the protection of student records. A court order is needed to get these records. Carter introduced Centrals General Counsel Judith Siminoe. She offered to send out through Groupwise a reminder on how to analyze the protection of records regulation. Dr. Waller announced that Byler Award nominees due by December 7.
Bersin referred to the printed Academic Council, Administrative Council, and Presidents Cabinet highlights. Contact Bersin with concerns. The results of the Faculty Referendum were distributed to all faculty. Myers referred to the Council of Deans report. Contact Myers with concerns.
Three Year Committee Charge Review:
Rewrite the first sentence following item 3). To facilitate this process, the chair of
the committee, or the committees appointee,
FS Salary & Fringe Benefits Committee Chair Don Wallace presented the committees proposed faculty compensation implementation plan. The proposal included the creation of a joint committee with timeline to accomplish specific tasks.
Eason proposed a substitute motion supported by the Arts & Sciences Caucus. (With references to the caucus reasoning.) The substitute motion was seconded. There was lengthy discussion regarding following the charge given by the Board of Governors and the time needed to gather input. Some felt all three points of the Boards charge were not addressed in the FS Salary & Fringe Benefits Committee proposal, compared to specifics in the A&S substitute motion. Bersin relinquished the gavel to reiterate that the charge from the Board was to have the provost negotiate a plan with the faculty. The plan would be sent to President Patton for approval, who would then report to the Board on December 14.
Some felt that the original FS Salary & Fringe Benefits Committee motion was just the sentence on page one. After further discussion, there was a call for the question. Mihalevich asked for a roll call vote on the substitute motion. Those for the motion were Callahan, Davis, Eason, Heming, Lynch, Morgan, Bob Yates and Zupnick. Those against the motion were Atkinson, Bacon, Best, Check, Franz, Ghozzi, Joy, Kemp, Laster, Limback, Mihalevich, Myers, Palmer, Small and Bryant. Those abstaining were Martin and Miller. The vote on the substitute motion failed with 8 yes votes, 15 no votes and 2 abstentions.
There was an appeal from Bersins ruling that the full 14-page FS Salary & Fringe Benefits Committee report was the implementation plan if the Senate approved it. The appeal was sustained (overruling Bersin) with 7 yes votes and 17 no votes.
After continued discussion Eason offered an amendment to the FS Salary & Fringe Benefits Committee report "to include the Arts & Sciences Caucus proposal titled An Alternative Proposal to be used with the working document." The amendment was seconded and passed with 14 yes votes, 6 no votes and 4 abstentions.
It was assumed that Provost Carter role with the new joint committee would be the same as when he worked with the ad hoc committee. Bersin said the FS Salary & Fringe Benefits Committees 14-page report and Arts & Sciences Caucus document "An Alternative Proposal" will go to the president immediately. The FS Executive Committee will start fulfilling the charge of creating the joint committee at its December 7 meeting. Small moved that "the joint committee will submit the Compensation Model to the Faculty Senate for approval in the regularly scheduled meeting in April 2002." The amendment passed with 23 yes votes and 1 abstention.
The entire FS Salary & Fringe Benefits Committees amended motion passed.
FOR: 22 AGAINST: 1 ABSTENTIONS: 1 PASSED (FS 2001-2002-6)
FS Faculty Personnel Policies Committee member Mollie Dinwiddie referred to the printed report regarding evaluation of administrators, noting it is the consensus of our committee that the FS should not vote in favor of such a motion. The reasoning of the committee was part of the report. Small referred to the two reasons given by the FS FPPC requesting the Senate vote the idea down. Small thought the FS already decided that it wants to do this. Bersin relinquished the gavel to Myers. Bersin reported that the language in the Mo. Sunshine Law is permissive not mandatory. He gave an example of what the state auditor reported. Franz was not a member of the Senate last year when this was brought up, but thought there are ways in place already and disapproved the motion. Dinwiddie clarified the motion. Eason moved "to postpone this issue until December 12." (FS Executive Committee will discuss if a member of the FS FPPC needs to be at the December 12 meeting.) Dinwiddie thought that through their discussion the Senate could send the issue back to the FS FPPC to answer all the original questions. Eason requested that after the vote, we have our general counsel explain her concerns today. The Eason motion to postpone until December 12 passed by unanimous voice vote.
Atkinson moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded and passed.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
There will be a meeting on December 12 beginning at 2 p.m. in Union 237B.
Ginny McTighe, Faculty Senate Secretary
Faculty Senate Minutes
The Faculty Senate met at 2:00 p.m. in Union 237B with President Michael Bersin presiding.
MINUTES AND COMMITTEE NOTES of the December 5 Faculty Senate meeting were approved as printed.
Dianna Bryant Chair of the FS General Education Committee announced that CBHE mandated "Managing information" as the fifth component. After discussion it was agreed to have the FS General Education Committee and FS University Curriculum Committee include the mandates.
Franz moved and it was seconded to include "faculty evaluation by students" to the proposal. Some departments routinely have students evaluate faculty. Davis referred to original discussion noting that the issue was sent to the FS Faculty Personnel Policies Committee because administrators evaluate faculty and other administrators. Faculty do not evaluate administrators and some faculty wanted that. It was reported that faculty are already evaluated from the top down and from the bottom up. Atkinson called the question for the amendment which failed with 2 yes votes, 17 no votes and 4 abstentions.
Small noted Student Governments at other universities evaluate administrators. Small recalled that when this issue was sent to the FS Faculty Personnel Policies Committee it was his understanding that there was no option for the committee to turn down the evaluation, but to design a brief form to evaluate administrators by faculty. Small moved "to send the document and discussion to the FSFPPC to return by the April FS meeting, with a specific policy including a list of questions." The motion was seconded. Franz offered a friendly amendment that the evaluation be added to the existing evaluation system. Small did not accept the friendly amendment. Bacon noted that an evaluation form for faculty to evaluate administrators would permit formal input. Carter noted that all faculty have been involved with evaluating chairs and deans on a three-year rotation. A very formal summative evaluation. Carter reported that he meets with deans annually to be sure they are on target. Carter is hearing that we want a global evaluation of administrators. If that is what faculty want it is fine. Carter is not interested at this point, without knowing the reasoning to marry the current system with a new one. In response to SGA doing the evaluating, Carter suggested that the Faculty Senate could do the evaluating, tabulating and announcing results to faculty. The vote to send back to committee failed with 5 yes votes, 15 no votes and 3 abstentions. The original motion printed in quotes on the FS Faculty Personnel Policies Committee report failed with 3 yes votes, 17 no votes and 3 abstentions.
The Arts & Sciences Caucus offered the following changes.
CHANGES IN SUBSTANCE
p. 2, 3rd full paragraph
The university recognizes, however, that in some disciplines and for some positions
other degrees and/or discipline-specific, professionally recognized certifications [
For those disciplines or positions where the appropriate terminal degree is normally not the doctorate, the degree [or certification] requirement will be stated in established policies initiated by the department affected and agreed to in writing by the college dean and the provost. Approved with 22 yes votes and 1 abstention.
p. 2, last paragraph
Promotion is recognition of a faculty member's sustained and distinguished service to
the department, college[,
p. 3 under Criteria for Promotion
Criteria for promotion [
Approved with 21 yes votes and 2 abstentions.
p. 5 and p. 17, f.
The department chair, after consideration of the recommendations of the departmental
Promotion Committee, will write a recommendation regarding each candidate and will forward
the entire recommendation packet (including the dossier) for each candidate being
recommended for promotion
p. 5 and p. 17, g.
The college Promotion and Tenure Committee will forward the recommendation packets and
its written recommendations
p. 6 and p. 17, h.
If the recommendations of the dean differ from that of the committee
The above three were approved together with 17 yes votes, 4 no votes and 2 abstentions.
Eason withdrew the following. p. 6 and p. 18, j.
The president, after consideration of the recommendations of the provost, will write a recommendation regarding each candidate for whom materials have been forwarded [and copy that letter to the candidate].
p. 8 and p. 19. Section B - The Candidates Section
The dossier [
The following editorial changes were approved.
p. 1, B., 1.
The university agrees with the 1940 AAUP/AAC Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure[
p. 2, last paragraph
Promotions are awarded on the basis of merit, which has been substantiated by academic
credentials and by [
The criteria for recognition and evaluation of merit will become progressively more exacting [as a faculty member moves] from lower to higher academic ranks.
p. 4, c. Professor
It is assumed [that] candidates meet all requirements of the associate professorship prior to promotion to professor.
p. 4, a.
Faculty will be notified of eligibility to apply for promotion
p. 4 and pp. 15-16, b., under NOTE
NOTE: A recommendation packet consists of a dossier and other related documents, such
as copies of administrative and student evaluations, letters of recommendation for
promotion, copies of publications[, omit comma] or evidence of the same, [and] documentation
of professional activities
p. 4 and p. 16, d.
p. 5 and p. 16, e. (1)
Members of the Promotion Committee [will be made known to the department faculty and]
may not be candidates for promotion.
p. 7 and p. 18, l.
All materials in the original dossier[
p. 8 and p. 19 (strike through
Item 4 The department Promotion
not recommend. Its chair
Item 6 The college Promotion
recommend. Its chair
p. 8 and p. 19, Section B - The Candidates Section
The dossier [
p. 10 and p. 22, Scholarship/Creative Activity
Scholarship includes discipline-related inquiry and/or creative activities. As the
faculty member advances through the ranks, [
The following punctuation changes were approved.
p. 1, 2. In light of this quest for excellence[,] the academic personnel process is designed to facilitate the evaluation of faculty in a fair and professional manner.
To do so requires the exercise of informed professional judgments as well as respect for the rights and responsibilities of all persons involved in the process. Central Missouri State University is best served when personnel matters can be decided, and disagreements resolved, in an environment of informal cooperation and full discussion[,--omit comma] based upon clearly stated criteria for evaluation.
p. 2., 3rd full paragraph
In most instances[,] a terminal degree is required for promotion. In most academic disciplines and for most faculty positions, the appropriate terminal degree is the doctorate.
p. 3 under Criteria for Promotion
The faculty of individual colleges may adopt college guidelines [
[Begin a new paragraph with:] All candidates are expected to demonstrate excellence in teaching1 and also achievements in both the scholarship and service categories.
p. 5 and p. 16 e. (1)--changes in capitalization
Directors of public and technical services will serve in the capacity of the department chair, ex-officio member without a vote, on promotion and tenure committees in those instances when a faculty member under consideration is from their respective units.
p. 5 and p. 16, f.--changes in capitalization
If the recommendation by the chair differs from that of the committee, the letter must clearly so state.
p. 6 and p. 17, i.
The provost, after consideration of the recommendations of the dean and college Promotion and Tenure Committee, will write a recommendation regarding each candidate for whom materials have been forwarded[,--omit comma] [and] forward the recommendation packets of those being recommended for promotion to the president by January 7.
p. 7 and p. 19, Item 2 Enter the complete rank(s) and title(s) (e.g., "Professor of Psychology" or "Assistant Professor"). Year, in this item, refers to year of appointment or promotion.
p. 7 and p. 19, Item 3
Item 3 Enter degree(s) earned, year(s) awarded, and institution(s) awarding degree.
Eason moved to adjourn 4:40 p.m. The motion was seconded and passed.
Happy Holidays from the Faculty Senate. The next meeting will be on January 16, 2002.
Ginny McTighe, Faculty Senate Secretary
please click on the month names below to view the minutes from that month