Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes - March

March 6 Minutes  -  March 20-21 Minutes

Meeting 15 - Central Missouri State University - March 6, 2002

Faculty Senate Minutes 
(approved 3-20-02)

The Faculty Senate met at 3:13 p.m. in Union 237A with President Michael Bersin presiding.

Senators present were Atkinson, Bersin, Best, Callahan, Check, Davis, Eason, Franz, Johnson, Joy, Kemp, Limback, Lynch, Miller, Morgan, Myers, Palmer, Small, Ben Yates, Bob Yates and Zupnick. Alternate present was Bryant for Bacon. Ghozzi, Laster, Mihalevich and Martin were absent. Also present were President Patton, Provost Carter and Dr. Waller.

Minutes and committee notes of the February 20 Faculty Senate meeting were approved as printed.

President Patton gave an update on Paul Engelmann, who is in St. Luke’s Hospital. Referring to the non-instructional budget reduction recommendations, there could be a $3M reduction from administrative review, plus $2M from the proposals explained at the budget presentation. It is difficult as this involves real people and real dollars. Reducing forty-seven positions is both painful and difficult. We realized part of the reduction is affecting the Faculty Senate. Regarding the support staff cut to half-time Patton hoped it could be combined with another half-time position, with full benefits. Patton asked Provost Carter to benchmark and ask what other campuses are doing in the Faculty Senate area. Other places he has been had less than what we offer presently. Patton values those in the positions currently. He is trying to be equitable and fair. He will reconsider the recommendations after getting the benchmarking information. He will be as fair as possible. Bob Yates referred to the numbers used in the FS recommendations, noting that it states reducing the release time from teaching for both Senate officers saves $15,000. How was that arrived at? Are those teaching requirements filled by adjuncts? Patton replied that the funds would stay in the department to do what they need. After Yates presented an example, Carter said actual money is saved as courses need to be covered, and there is an additional expense to provide release time. Patton said the amount could be less within a department, and the chair could allow half release time for the Senate president. Yates concurred but noted an adjunct would not cost as much as a full professor, which saves money. Yates asked how Patton and Carter understood faculty governance and how important they feel it is to stay pulled together. Patton replied that in his different roles of activity with faculty governance he values the opportunities for input. Yates referred back to Patton’s request for benchmarking, and noted that when he came to Central in 1990 and looked at peer institutions, Central was better than the others when it came to faculty governance support. He is now disturbed in the last year or so and that Patton’s last statement sounds indicative, requesting we look at peer universities to see if we are doing nothing less than at other institutions. Yates continued that we should strive to be better, not the same or less than others. As Central’s delegate to the MAFS, Yates asked why there was commitment here that is not shared by others. That is a good thing not a bad thing. It is good to have the needed release time for faculty service and support staff. It is good that we pay incoming faculty more. Yates asked what has happened or was he missing something since we want to be better. Patton said we want to be the cleanest and safest campus but we need to let some custodians go. Patton cannot be totally driven with what peers are doing that we want academics to be first. We have to eliminate special speakers to cut costs. Patton reiterated that these are difficult decisions and that he was not trying to sugar coat it. He wants the Senate to be better, but must decide how to get the bottom line budget balanced.

Provost Carter referred to the budget process announcing that it will be advertised as a process with recommendations of all programs campus-wide. Starting tomorrow two budget briefings will be held weekly. Carter and Patton will be at tomorrow’s meeting. All meetings are scheduled in the Union Piano Lounge, with the first one tomorrow at 3:30 p.m. Future meetings will be on Mondays at 3:30 p.m. and Thursdays at 11:30 a.m. Someone would be there even if there were nothing to report. Progress emails will be sent as well as through Ann Pearce.

Provost Carter asked all to tell students no decision has been made, just a process right now. No one should be talking about transferring. There has not been an announcement on those programs that went though stage one and stage two, as it is left up to the department. The Academic Planning Committee will make its recommendations by 10 a.m. Monday march 18. The provost will then release the recommendations publicly and to the Muleskinner. This is an open process. Please ask students to remain calm and patient. Carter and Patton participated in the NCATE exit interview, noting that we did well. Eason understood that currently enrolled students would be allowed to finish their program here. Carter agreed and noted IF a program would be eliminated that Central would address it and make an announcement allowing two or even three years to complete the program here. Patton added that we would find accommodations by offering other courses here that would satisfy the need. Bob Yates noted that it is good to keep decisions open, but important to give a sense to what the student concerns are. The responses by the provost to agriculture students last week were good. Hopefully support staff feel welcomed to the budget briefings. Carter said everyone is welcome including the press. We want accurate information. Rumors are being circulated. We should ask questions of Carter and Patton to get true answers. Patton heard a rumor that 3,500 employees are being released. Patton said sometimes the answer could be "we don’t know" as no recommendations have been made to him yet.

Bersin announced the following.

President Patton notified him on Friday that he was proposing cuts in the Faculty Senate budget.

Myers and Bersin met with President Patton and Provost Carter on March 4.

The resolution regarding support for higher education budgets was mailed to every member of the Missouri house, senate and the governor. A response was received from Representative Roy Holand.

Please note the Senate’s time-line as required by the retrenchment policy and procedures:

We will receive recommendations by 10 a.m. March 18 from the Provost’s office.

The senate’s "comments and recommendations" to the provost are required by March 25.

The FS Executive Committee will meet on Monday, March 18 at 11 a.m. to review information received from the provost.

The FS Executive Committee has scheduled Faculty Senate meetings on March 20 and 21 to address recommendations. Every senator and alternate is asked to contact the Faculty Senate Office regarding your attendance at both meetings to assure the needed quorum. Reminder that the FS Executive Committee meeting on March 7 is in Union 109 at 3:30 p.m.

The President and Provost notified me that the senate will be provided with Stage 1 and Stage 2 Program Profiles, the Academic Planning Council recommendations, and the Provost’s recommendations, if different. Please note that these meetings are open.

The Academic Planning Committee and the Strategic Planning and Resource Council have voted to close their meetings. Bersin contacted the Missouri Attorney General’s office for their opinion, and was told by James Klahr that the Missouri Sunshine Law would indicate that these meetings should be open. Bersin will write President Patton and Provost Carter with a copy to Klahr.

Bersin thanked every one for their commitment to faculty governance as expressed by their willing ness to be here. As a body, the Senate has successfully dealt with imposed deadlines on short notice on more than one occasion this academic year.

Bersin stated that we were very close to finishing the Promotion and Tenure document, noting he personally appreciated the work and careful thought, which had gone into the document.

Bersin stated that he believed tenure is academic freedom. In its present form for the individual faculty tenure as a property right can only be removed through due process.

"De facto" tenure, the practice of stating that faculty have academic freedom (sometimes nothing more than an "I promise"), is really not academic freedom. Bersin believed such would shift the burden to the individual faculty member who is "given" academic freedom, to show that they were removed because they exercised such, rather than to the institution, which must show cause for dismissal for those with "de jure" tenure. In the present environment we need to consider where we place our all of colleagues and in fact, reflect on our own individual academic freedom as represented by tenure.

SGA President Joel Ritchie and Student Governor Jay Wilson were introduced. Ritchie reported that demonstrations and mass gatherings, and proposed committee review of the grade exclusion draft will be presented to the President’s Cabinet meeting March 7. Ritchie reported Attorney General Jay Nixon would attend the April 23 as the recipient of the Excellence in Governance Award. Student Board of Governor member Jay Wilson wrote a letter to students that will appear in the March 7 edition of the Muleskinner. In response to Bob Yates’ question "are you familiar with the resolution the Faculty Senate passed and is the SGA considering such a resolution?" (Two other SGA’s passed it.) Ritchie stated that Bersin provided the resolution and that he is working in conjunction with three other universities to lobby. SGA presidents were to meet with the state budget director today, but Ritchie and Wilson both had class conflicts Then Ritchie learned his class was canceled. At the request of Bob Yates, Ritchie said that he would send a report to the Faculty Senate Office noting what SGA was doing regarding the budget in Jefferson City. In response to Small’s question regarding a committee review of grade exclusion, Ritchie reported that the draft needs additional work with the aid of Melanie Gross, before the proposal goes forward for consideration. Waller noted that the students started this action last year. A document was drafted and now will be sent to a committee for review. In response to Bob Yates, Ritchie noted the sentiment of the board of Governors was to go tobacco free. Ritchie and Gross are concerned with the proposal as how would it be enforced. Ritchie did not think students would support a tobacco free campus.

Representing the FS Executive Committee, Franz moved that the Special Rules of Order, section g. be amended to read "Resolutions and motions, excluding FS Committee on Committees nominations that are presented at a Faculty Senate meeting without having been submitted to the FS Executive Committee and distributed to Senators one week prior to the meeting shall be offered for a first reading only. Action on such items will be taken at the next meeting of the Faculty Senate after due time for analysis and discussion. This rule may be suspended." The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

                FOR: 21 AGAINST: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 0 PASSED (FS 2001-2002-11)

Small moved, it was seconded and passed to act as a quasi-committee of the whole in which President Bersin would serve as chair to review the February 20 version of the Promotion & Tenure document.

Eason referred to the two A&S Caucus motions. Atkinson seconded the first motion. Atkinson noted about 13 in his department will be affected. The EHS department chair will be sending a letter to Provost Carter in support of the proposal. Carter asked for clarification on the time-line and if it meant the years in between rank. It may be confusing. It was agreed to make an editorial change to read Time and Rank for Promotion, and probationary period for tenure. Carter referred to the first sentence noting his interpretation was that some were procedures not policies. Bersin referred to the earlier changes on the back page that were approved. Eason thought the intention was to put it all in one statement.

In response to Best Eason agreed that the proposal replaces items 1-3. Yates and Myers stated that the proposal actually addressed items four and five, not the first three. Bersin said it might repeat some items, but does not over-ride the others. In response to Yates, Bersin said the provost could adjust for the notification deadline for candidate’s time line that has already passed.

Time Line for Implementation

"Upon their acceptance, the new promotion and tenure policies will become effective immediately for all full-time faculty. The revised length of time in rank for promotion and in the probationary period for tenure apply to all whose employment at Central as full-time faculty begins after the 2001-2002 academic year. Faculty who were hired in tenure-line positions prior to the fall of 2002 may opt to follow the time in rank and probationary period guidelines specified in the 2001-2002 Academic Policy and Procedure through the fall of 2007." The motion passed with 20 yes votes and 1 abstention.

Eason opened discussion on the second motion, which was a substitution of the original proposal not yet addressed by the Senate at the last meeting. The motion was seconded. Discussion focused on HCBA concerns regarding accreditation and "rigorous" implications. An editorial change included adding The faculty of, prefacing colleges, departments…

Carter expressed concern that a department chair could make a change different than the dean or provost, noting that some departments may not have specific guidelines to follow, and suggested changing the language. Carter agreed that if a department or college uses specific criteria, that he would like to be in on the criteria formulating. Morgan opened discussion on just who develops the criteria, if not the faculty, then the Board of Governors would decide. The intent is for a peer review process. Suggestions for word changes included using "explicit" and "rigors."

Clarity was made to the third sentence of the motion. It was agreed to remove the second sentence of the motion. Best opened discussion regarding the weight carried is different between departments when it comes to academic scholarship and research. Eason wanted the policy to be defined as central, allowing departments and colleges to make decisions. After further discussion an amendment created by Carter and presented by Best/Joy was made then withdrawn. Eason made a friendly amendment that read "The faculty of colleges, departments, and disciplines, may adopt additional criteria in response to additional criteria."

The following amended motion was approved unanimously.

"Full-time faculty who previously had not been eligible to apply for tenure may elect to apply any or all of their previous years of full-time employment at Central toward the probationary period or begin their probationary period with the 2002-2003 academic year. Likewise, full-time faculty with terminal degrees who had not previously been eligible to apply for promotion may elect to apply any or all of their previous years of full-time employment at Central toward the required time in rank or begin their required time in rank with the 2002-2003 academic year."

A call for the question passed unanimously. Small moved to ascend from the committee to the Faculty Senate, which was approved unanimously. Small moved to approve the modified Promotion & Tenure Policy and Procedures. Atkinson seconded. Best thanked all, but said he would have to vote against it on behalf of the HCBA college.

Results of a roll call vote were 16 yes votes from Atkinson, Callahan, Davis, Eason, Franz, Johnson, Kemp, Lynch, Miller, Morgan, Myers, Palmer, Small, Ben Yates, Bob Yates, and Zupnick. There were 4 no votes from Best, Check, Joy and Limback. Bryant abstained.

                        FOR: 16 AGAINST: 4 ABSTENTIONS: 1 PASSED (FS 2001-2002-12)

Intellectual Property Rights would be addressed at a later date, as the draft has not been received from Provost Carter.

Bersin referred to Option B of the Tobacco Policy sent to governance groups from the Board of Governors. The majority of Board members expressed concern with the original proposal feeling that many institutions and businesses are smoke free, and Central eventually will be smoke-free. Instead of changing the policy a little at a time to meet the same goal, the Board might support Option B.

Small moved, it was seconded and passed to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 5:13 p.m.

Ginny McTighe, Faculty Senate Secretary

The next meeting will be on March 20, 2002 at 3:15 p.m.

Meeting 16      Central Missouri State University     March 20 & 21, 2002

Faculty Senate Minutes 
(Approved 4-3-02)

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

Senators present were Atkinson, Bersin, Best, Callahan, Check, Eason, Franz, Ghozzi, Johnson, Joy, Kemp, Laster, Limback, Lynch, Mihalevich, Miller, Morgan, Myers, Palmer, Small, Bob Yates and Zupnick. Alternates present were Bryant for Bacon, Shaffer for Davis and Kupersmith for Ben Yates. Also present were Provost Carter and Dr. Waller.

Minutes and committee notes of the March 6 Faculty Senate meeting were approved as printed.

Provost Carter noted network problems caused problems in reaching the N drive where all the stage one and stage two profiles are contained. Copies are available in the provost’s office. The Provost stated that the Academic Review Board found a glitch in the Retrenchment Policy. ARB is to hear any appeals from the Academic Planning Committee, but there is no mention for appeals of the provost’s recommendations. The ARB is following the document literally. Carter has contacted the departments to send him and the governance bodies any appeals. All decisions must allow for appeal through the process. Bob Yates referred to Provost Carter’s letter in the Daily Star Journal and the problematic language used in the last paragraph. Yates stated we must cover $10M next year. That will cause pain in some places. Some employees and programs will not be here next year. Are we sending a bad message to the community that it is good that we have this problem? Carter said he learned from the forum where Agriculture students discussed their concerns. Carter stood by what he said in the article. Dr. Waller announced the Byler Award Reception will be on April 18, in the Ward Edwards Atrium at 3:30 p.m.

Bersin expressed appreciation to all the senators this year, as we have already met 16 times and the FS Executive Committee has met 19 times. The meeting on March 21 will be in Union 238. Bersin expressed thanks to Franz for providing CD’s and to Mary Griffis for overhead projections.

Bersin noted that the Faculty Senate may offer comment and recommendation in accordance with the Board of Governors retrenchment procedures. We would follow the Actions on Instructional Programs list and calling on those who wanted to speak in behalf of a program. Any motions must come from Senators. There will be a five-minute limit to those presenting and they were asked to be available for questions. Parliamentary rules allow senator comments. Please keep the discussion succinct.

Atkinson moved to recess for five minutes to meet with caucuses and those who requested to present. The motion was seconded and passed with 21 yes votes and 2 no votes. The meeting was recessed at 3:32 p.m. the meeting was reconvened at 3:37 p.m.

Small moved to suspend the Rules of Order g. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

Reference was made to the March 18, 2002 Actions on Instructional Programs list.

Dr. Fred Worman distributed information and discussed the four degrees in the Agriculture Program that were recommended for elimination. There is a large number of stakeholders, students, parents and employers. Diane Tuckwiller, an Ag student noted that this is a unique segment of students as they are location bound. There is a financial issue as students work family farms in the area and attend college. Non-traditional students come from surrounding farms and it is essential to the revenue they create to come to Central. Large number of commuters, and farms pay their tuition. They cannot just pick up their cattle and crops and go elsewhere. The University of Missouri-Columbia has a much larger agriculture program, but would lack the personal atmosphere and ownership students have in the program here.

Students support the local high school agriculture program that includes 3,800 students in 40 schools, and involves them in agriculture contests each spring giving them the exposure to come to Central. There are financial implications as departmental scholarships support students. What would happen if they had to relocate? The quality of Central’s Ag faculty was commended as they are dedicated to the profession and students. Ed Hughner from the Missouri Farm Bureau reported that his organization represents 92,000 families. He has received numerous calls regarding the Central Ag Program. It is critical that the program continues at Central, as it affects us all daily. Students work on their farms and attend school also. They want to stay at Central as it is close to their farms. The Farm Bureau Board met with Central’s Board of Governors a few years back, and the meeting was very positive about the program. Central’s Collegiate Farm Bureau Chapter is very active and shows maturity. Students are involved with state legislation and some will be going to Washington DC soon. Hughner asked that we please consider keeping the Department of Agriculture.

Callahan moved "that the agriculture programs 112,111, 209 and 101 be retained." The motion was seconded. Best inquired about the restructuring Worman noted in the report. The programs would be restructured into three programs, including courses in HCBA and other majors (no functional majors). Some other minors would be combined. Continue the BSE program in Ag Education (constrained by DESE-requires an Ag person on campus-six technical areas and at least five people.) Eason asked if the three degrees proposed met with the Provosts recommendation. Worman said the interdisciplinary program requires five people, to meet state teacher certification. (Missouri averages 80 vacancies a year in this field.) In response to Franz, Worman agreed that the cost per hour would drop but he did not know how much. Although the Senate could not offer curriculum changes, it could support the recommendations Worman listed on the report. In response to Small, Worman reported that a donor would meet with President Patton this week regarding donation of 268 acres (east of the city limits).

At this point the provost noted that the Senate had been invited to make comments and recommendations to help the president and provost. He hoped the Senate would do more than vote yes or no, but comment on the programs, to find a solution for everyone. Bob Yates favors the restructuring, but if we are going to be a better institution, is there something we need to do. Being centrally located in the state provides a service to all the farmers. Myers moved to postpone the motion until tomorrow, to review documents and create FS comments. The motion was seconded and after some discussion failed with 3 yes votes, 20 no votes and 1 abstention.

After further discussion Palmer moved to amend the original motion as follows.

"…be retained and that faculty continue to proceed with plans to restructure the Agriculture degree programs." The amendment was seconded and passed with 21 yes votes, 1 no vote and 2 abstentions.

The entire amended motion read "that the Agriculture programs 112,111,209 and 101 be retained and that faculty continue to proceed with plans to restructure the Agriculture degree programs."

                FOR: 21 AGAINST: 1 ABSTENTIONS: 2 PASSED (FS 2001-2002-13)

Kyle Wagner presented information regarding the Aviation Maintenance program and how it would be cost affective to keep the program. The current market includes four to five thousand at American Airlines, the Rocky Mt Helicopters, and Vanguards expansion plan. The ASE is a stepping stone before the BS. Without the ASE, we are missing a component that industry demands. Industry sees the ASE degree more important than the BS. All the ASE classes are in the BS. Central is the only public ASE, AS and BS degree institution in the KC area. There is no other school to link the 2 Plus 2 program with. The U.S. and Canada have links to our program. Keeping the degree is essential. Johnson asked about the numbers in the program. Wagner came from the industry before becoming the coordinator here. TWA had lots of ASE certified mechanics. Over 60% do not have this now according to American Airlines. Wagner received approval to have classes in KC. American Airlines requires AMP at a minimum and will not pay for it. The aviation union has created a fund to help pay for the degree and the masters degree. Meetings have been set to meet with the vice president to start classes in KC. American Airlines will provide the facility and aides to promote the program in KC from Central. Central will be the only one in the nation allowed to do this.

Morgan moved "that the Aviation Technology/Maintenance program number 161 be retained." Seconded.

Atkinson opened discussion noting that it sounds fine for a certificate program but not associates degree. Wagner reiterated earlier statements and added that American Airlines does not pay for the A&P program, but they do pay for a bachelor’s degree. Although Wagner is discussing a possible doctorate degree, industry currently values the A&P more than a bachelors or graduate. By offering the A&P program at Central, it tempts students to continue on for a bachelor’s degree. The program has been expanded and there are currently 81 students seeking bachelor’s degrees. Lynn Tech has a two-year program, (12-14 students) but they are in another region so they cannot do a 2 plus 2 program with Central. The private School of the Ozarks sends students to Central to earn degrees. In response to Laster, Carter agreed that he was aware of all this information when he made his recommendation to eliminate the program. In response to Bob Yates, Wagner noted that with FAA scrutiny, the program could not be offered over the Internet. In response to Best, Wagner said that if the AS was eliminated that there would be a decline in those seeking a major and that a Metropolitan Community College would step in and Central would lose the market. Calls have been received asking that Wagner contact them when a decision is made by Central. Ragland noted she serves on the Academic Planning Committee and learned how essential it is to retain the A&P program, as it keeps Central in contact with industry. She gave an example of her own son’s success as an alum of the program. The APC voted unanimously to retain the program. Small noted that this is a core technology issue. It must be retained as there are students waiting to get into the program. Franz reviewed the low numbers in the major. Callahan noted that the numbers could be deceiving, that our accounting system has no way to record numbers of associate degrees declared, just majors. Scott Wilson, chair of the department noted that we should look at stage one and stage two information, and realize there are hundreds waiting to get into the program.

The cost of the two-year program does not cost Central anything. Wagner noted the helicopter industry has expressed interest in linking with Central. The airline industry has rebounded, and they will need those degreed employees. Bryant referred to the retrenchment policy and the need for a program to generate revenue. We need to see how much it will generate instead of eliminating the program. In response to Carter, Wagner said the A&P program could be taught at an American Airlines building. A few other classes have been added. Some will go to closer area classes for other non-technical classes. In response to Carter, Wagner noted three separate programs are needed, that would be operated as one. Day and night classes at Central and KC classes. Wagner has been looking for adjuncts from curriculum and extended campus, evolving for a year. Economic Development came to Central to ask what can be done. Adkinson reiterated his earlier comment that it looks like a great certificate program. He was concerned with hinging our program on the American Airlines program. Wagner said that KC has asked what facilities we would need, and have identified a building they will remodel and give to Central. In response to Bob Yates, it was noted there are four KC classes with 30 in one and over 20 in another. Students are at different levels, but most want a degree and are concerned with how long it will take to get bachelors degree. They want a quick degree, but once they earn the A&P certification then they stay.

Franz moved to amend the motion "…retained, and be put in a development category and be allowed to be expanded in a self-supporting environment." Bryant noted that elimination of two-year programs might change the demographics greatly. This program reaches out to non-traditional students. In response to Kemp, Wagner reported there are less the 1% holding a masters degree in this area, as industry focuses more on the A&P. Bryant noted that extended campus has an agreement with the program, and that revenues generated would show at the end of the fiscal year, for carry-over to the next year. Callahan thought this was discriminatory.

Best noted that although the history of other programs is higher, we should vote on this programs potential, as this is a unique situation. The amendment passed with 20 yes votes, 2 no votes and 2 abstentions.

The entire amended motion read "that the Aviation Technology/Maintenance program number 161 be retained and be put in a development category and be allowed to be expanded in a self-supporting environment." The amended motion passed unanimously.

    FOR: 24 AGAINST: 00 ABSTENTIONS: 0 PASSED (FS 2001-2002-14)

Johnson moved "to retain the German programs numbers 321, 322 and 335." The motion was seconded. Johnson, Check and Bob Yates expressed the importance to retain the programs. After further discussion Eason offered a substitute motion that instead of eliminating, "that the German programs numbers 321, 322 and 335 be put in abeyance." Carter noted that his action should read "abeyance" on the report (not eliminate K-12). Carter must find money, but did not want German to go away. In response to Small’s question as to the definition of "abeyance", Carter and Waller noted that the degree would no longer be offered, but it would not be surrendered to CBHE. CBHE allows up to five years to bring a program back without starting the process a new program requires. The major could be offered, and when there is increased enrollment for a minor, it would justify bringing it back out of abeyance. Dorothy Robbins reported that the majors in German have dropped 30% across the nation since 1997. We can cut it right now if we look at numbers only. We have a long way to improve German, like through genealogy. We are serving diverse students on campus. Looking back 5 to 10years and what we might have for the future is important. Students are diverse coming from places like Bolivia, Bulgaria and Russia. The German program represents world diversity and real international experiences. Susan Pentlin preferred abeyance if there was a choice, but noted most of the majors do not cost us as they transfer in and also encourage students to go abroad.

The substitute motion "that the German programs numbers 321, 322 and 335 be put in abeyance" passed.

FOR: 22 AGAINST: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 1 PASSED (FS 2001-2002-15)

Dr Davenport presented information on the 451 and 460 MSE degrees in Elementary Ed/mathematics and Secondary Education/Mathematics respectively. He thought being put in abeyance would be fine, but then he learned later in the review process that they would be eliminated. There is potential to offer the degrees, as teachers are in very short supply in this area. Without the MSE program, we lose contact with the Teacher Education program. The program is weak currently, with no majors in the Elementary Education/Mathematics and a few in Secondary Education/Mathematics. Similar actions have been taken in MSE programs, which would be consistent.

Eason moved "that the 451 Elementary Education/Mathematics MSE and the 460 Secondary Education/Mathematics MSE degrees be placed in abeyance." The motion was seconded and passed.

            FOR: 19 AGAINST: 1 ABSTENTIONS: 2 PASSED (FS 2001-2002-16)

Atkinson moved "that the Faculty Senate recommends the Student Personnel Administration program number 770 be retained." Seconded. Jim Machell said it is a small and inexpensive program, with one director, adjuncts, and students recruited who work in student affairs capacities. Academic quality of the program is an issue. There are well-qualified leader and adjuncts. Placement is near 100% on graduation. Machell read a letter from Kent Poorfield, Vice President of Student Affairs at Northwest University to David Sundberg requesting that Central maintains the program. In response to Eason, Machell said there are 25 students, and they graduate about 10 a year.

If the program were cut, Student Affairs would have to find and fund their own help for GA, residence hall, student affairs and Greek office positions. Zupnick expressed the value of students learning to do something. Franz stated with Central being one of two institutions offering the program and job opportunities in residence halls, just how are other institutions making it? In response to Eason’s reference to 10 graduate students Machell said the tuition dollars cover the faculty position. Carter said it would be close, with $80,000 and tuition, less the graduate assistant expense and stipend paid to students. There is a cost in Student Affairs now to hire those people via tuition and stipends to do the job. Myers asked what the curriculum looked like for the Student Personnel Administration MS. Machell said there is student involvement to a large degree and adjunct supplements. Eason thought administrators teach many of the courses. Machell agreed noting it was done gratis.

The motion "that the Faculty Senate recommends the Student Personnel Administration program number 770 be retained" passed.

FOR: 15 AGAINST: 3 ABSTENTIONS: 2 PASSED (FS 2001-2002-17)

Atkinson moved to recess until 3:15 p.m. on Thursday. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m.

Faculty Senate President Michael Bersin reconvened the meeting on March 21 at 3:15 p.m. in Union 238.

Senators present were Atkinson, Bersin, Best, Callahan, Check, Davis, Eason, Franz, Ghozzi, Johnson, Joy, Kemp, Laster, Limback, Lynch, Mihalevich, Miller, Morgan, Myers, Palmer, Small, Bob Yates and Zupnick. Alternates present were Bryant for Bacon and Alkire for Ben Yates. Also present was Provost Carter.

Bersin referred to copies of letter the FS Executive Committee’s letter of appeal that was delivered to President Patton. Bersin received notice from the Missouri Association of Faculty Senates (MAFS) regarding the delivery of the resolutions that many Faculty Senates passed to legislators and numerous newspapers throughout the state. Bersin referred to the memo from Provost Carter noting SPRC meetings are open meetings. Also included was a list of scheduled meetings. Other meeting information will be noted on the SPRC web site. Bersin referred to the March 21, Kansas City Star Editorial and the premises contained in the article. He encouraged interested faculty to send letters to the editor to correct the writers assumptions.

Bersin noted that since an agenda was not created for the March 27 FS meeting, we could move to recess today to carry over any current items to March 27. If we did not carry over items, a motion to adjourn would be made. The next meeting is scheduled for April 3. Bersin noted that he received the Intellectual Property Rights document that would be included on the April 3 agenda. Bersin concluded by announcing the 14th anniversary today of McTighe’s employment at Central.

Donald Miller distributed and presented information on the Physics Program. He referred to the Academic Planning Committee comments. The provost recommended elimination of the three Physics functional BA 396, BS 397 and BSE 486. Miller referred to item P5. The functional major was imposed a number of years ago. Currently there are programs that have minors that do not relate to the major. He compared the programs with other universities noting there is quite a range, based on the individual university missions and needs. He moved to the critiques of changes made and to be made. There has been discussion about combining advanced courses and coordinating laboratories to be called Advanced Physics Laboratory. They have decreased the numbers of hours for BS and BSED degrees. Changes for efficiency have not been completed as yet.

Miller moved "that the Faculty Senate recommends that the programs 396 BA in Physics, 397 BS in Physics and 486 BSE in Physics be retained." Seconded. Kemp expressed concern with other degrees. The only ones being considered are 396, 397 and 486.

Franz noted that none of us wanted the Universities income to be reduced, but we know that it will be reduced. The administration quickly realized that to make up the more that $10 million in reduced income, we must balance our expenses with the income. Thanks to the work and sacrifice of the rest of the university, we have found most of the savings but we must make up the difference. The reduction of a program does not mean that program has no worth, or the students in the program are not as valuable as other students, it simply means that in accord with the Retrenchment Policy, that program was judged to be the one to be removed. This is not an easy task, but it is a necessary task. When we raise our right hand to say, "we think this one should be saved" we have to at the same time raise our left hand and say, "we think this one should be eliminated and it is not on the current list." Franz believes in shared governance, as others do.

We have a policy that describes how we share in this process, and believed that the administration and faculty working together will make better judgements than either group by themselves. Therefore we need to toll up our sleeves, stiffen our backbone and share in this tough decision making process.

Miller said some courses are not offered every year or every other year. Sometimes there are two courses extra. Introductory courses that were offered once a year are now offered twice a year. Some could be cut back again to one a year. Eason referred to the chart of total costs per credit hour, asking what it meant. Did the Physics cost per credit hour drop radically this year? How does that compare to generated tuition fees? Mike Powers said the values in the column heading identify one credit hour cost. ($117) The fourth row shows the cost per credit hour. ($97) Costs have gone down as 15-20 years budget reductions and fees increased. Franz referred to the BSE degree list noting 786 credit hours per FTE this year. Powers said all programs are less than 10% of what the physics faculty teach. Over 90% are in general education and service courses. There has been an increase from 400 to 786 through the years since 1997. In response to Best, Powers said the increase was from the general education and service classes. The nation is facing an all-time low in Physics. In response to Franz’s question if the provost’s suggestion in P5 was the same as Physics faculty, Powers said no as P5 states elimination. A Physics major has not been created. What is current is considered as a traditional Physics major like that of other universities. The BSED degree was just approved by NCATE and DESI. Cooperative engineering students major in Physics, and also other areas of engineering. It is a rigorous program that students could fall back to. We could continue to cut back as necessary. Atkinson noted there are only two graduates and maybe they should be put in abeyance until the numbers increase. Powers was opposed to putting them in abeyance, as when that was done with other programs in the past, a few years later they were eliminated. In response to Bob Yates concern with P5, it does not look like these courses are out of line and wondered if the provost had other data, different than that at other institutions, Carter said he should have discussed hours, 44 at Central. It is in the ballpark but he is not concerned with elimination, but places need more faculty. So he decided to throw down the gauntlet to come to some type of resolution. The descriptive nature, not the degree is his concern. Other degree programs have required core hours, with electives to make up the difference. Carter’s intent was to work with the faculty to preserve the program, but make changes for quality programs. Carter would like to work with the Physics faculty for a better program. They are very close to it already. In response to Kemp, Powers said it would have to be a functional but could be changed to a major minor program. You need to have a Math minor to become an engineer. Math courses are essential. There is a minimum of 13 hours in Math for the major, with no options. Course hours must range 40-45, which is in that range. In response to Zupnick, Carter could not answer specifically what it will take to work. Attention and collaboration takes time. Physics averages 450 credit hours per FTE, and Carter cannot give them more faculty. Powers and Miller would like to work with the Provost on any needed modifications. They have not asked for another position. One Physics professor retired and was replaced with a full-time adjunct. Powers stated it is not the same as a full-time tenured faculty.

The adjunct is not working towards tenure. They would like to get the position they lost, back. Callahan stated that maybe a collapsing to two bachelor’s degrees could work. Powers said two or three might work. There is a demand for physics teachers nationally. He would want to retain the BS degree, to keep students on campus who find they do not want to teach.

Morgan moved to amend the motion "and that the Physics Department work with the provost to develop viable Physics majors degrees." The motion was seconded and passed with 20 yes votes and three abstentions.

The full amended motion "that the Faculty Senate recommends that the programs 396 BA in Physics, 397 BS in Physics and 486 BSE in Physics be retained and that the Physics Department work with the provost to develop viable Physics majors degrees" passed.

FOR: 20 AGAINST: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 3 PASSED (FS 2001-2002-18)

Greg Brown presented the Child Development Family information to retain the program. Student Ruth Hill spoke on behalf of the program. She will have 132 credit hours for graduation in December. She has been challenged more by these courses than the general education courses, giving an example and the careers she will be qualified for. No associate’s degree would prepare her. Hill has six children, and will not seek a child care position. She expressed appreciation to those faculty and Central for helping her to attain her goal.

Brown noted there are three faculty who are quite proficient, holding three PhD’s. Students are prepared for a large variety of professional positions in many settings. They separated from the Home Economics Department two years ago. Now a Major in Child Development is offered independently. There has been an increase compared to the Fact Book figures. We need to focus on the BS and encourage transfers. Family and child issues are hot topics globally and are addressed.

Atkinson moved "that the FS recommend that the B.S. in Child and Family Development Program 121 be retained."

It is in its infancy and is growing. We should consider keeping it. It would be a disservice to the community to not offer this. In response to Kemp’s concern with the P8 merge into C&I Psychology, Brown agreed that it could be done. In reply to Kemp’s question-would other universities have Central’s faculty degrees, to work in other departments, Brown said yes, although there could be some overlap. Franz and Bryant questioned what the career center was that was mentioned in stage 1-page 6. Provost Carter said it is a new center being developed in his mind that also relates to Dr. Limback’s area. In hearing Brown’s presentation, it would not be appropriate for the program to go there. Brown said the bachelor’s degree is broader than the associate’s degree. In response to Morgan, Brown would like to retain a bachelor’s degree but as a part of a health and wellness philosophy that may be a good match. Alkire referred to discrepancies in the Fact Book and Browns figures. Brown said there are 6 to 8. Some students are in the old pipeline under the Home Economics title. Atkinson reiterated that this is a new concept, and needs time to see what happens a little further down the road. Alkire noted that the degree had been offered for a number of years, although changes were made within different departments. Brown agreed. Brown stated there are three full-time and two adjuncts. Machell explained how he arrived at the figure used as an estimate. Brown said it could be under estimated, as there are large graduate programs. Atkinson asked Dean Bowman for comments as he is on the Academic Planning Committee. There are more students in the program than what the Fact Book states. They are comfortable with student numbers in the bachelor’s degree. There is no problem with funding for the associate’s degree. In response to Lynch, Brown definitely thinks that the visibility has paid off.

In response to Best, Brown said only 10 to 15% were exclusive majors. In response to Myers, Brown said if the program was eliminated the faculty would be reassigned not released. In reply to Kemp, Brown said they would just teach service teacher education courses.

The motion "that the Child and Family Development BS 121 be retained" was seconded and passed.

FOR: 18 AGAINST: 4 ABSTENTIONS: 1 PASSED (FS 2001-2002-19)

Limback discussed the programs 524, 525, 526, 550 and 551.

Motion "that the FS support the recommendation of the Academic Planning Committee to retain the following programs: 524, 525, 526, 550 and 551." Seconded. In response to Zupnick, Limback said the program offers courses in administrative support, professional development, business education-graduate and under-graduate (mostly in the summer, so may not be counted in FTE’s). We are doing what CBHE is pushing at the graduate level. We have a consortium agreement with two other universities for online courses. The graduate MSE in Secondary Education is an option not a degree. There are currently 17 with 10 in process. The Alternative Teacher Education program is per the CBHE, with 21 people approved for the two-year certification and 15 more in the process. Business lends itself well to this alternative certification. CBHE is pushing access, as teachers stay in the locale of the university near where they live. In response to Franz, Limback reported there are over 100 majors. The education major has been growing to 60. Faculty teaching CSI are not shown in the data, nor the summer hours. In response to Carter, Limback said the difference between Business Education and the functional degree, is that Business Education has a minor option. Many students change their majors so they want that minor and for alternative education as a minor. There is a purpose for both of them.

Callahan asked if collapsing them into one degree would that be possible. Limback was not sure with the two certifications, but it could be looked at and receptive. This is the best program in the state. It was clarified that the APC information would be included with the motion. In response to Best, Limback stated additional classes are not required with 524 and 525, but with another program coming in it may change. Carter said we were discussing a whole set of degrees, but he sees each degree differently. Maybe we could divide the question.

Atkinson moved "to divide the question by level in any order." Seconded and passed with 21 yes votes and 2 abstentions.

In response to Myers, Limback explained that two BSE programs are necessary. One has a minor and one a major. The functional major is for those who know they want to be a business teacher, with business course concentration. BE&O courses are the same. Provost Carted asked that in place of a functional major, could they have a flexible minor and electives? What would prohibit one from taking a business minor and electives in business to make up the difference? Limback stated the functional degree offers strength on passing the Praxis. The minor is not specified, as they do not carry teacher education specifications. In response to Kemp’s concern with the Praxis, Limback said there is no data on those in the functional degree vs. others, although she wished it could be broken down. In response to Zupnick, Limback said it would not be possible to build flexibility to combine the two degrees into one because they need to keep in 124 hours to allow for a minor on top of it. It would remain just a major. Limback said she would continue to look for cost savings and maintain flexibility to meet the needs. Eason and Carter reviewed the minor and elective hours required for both degrees. In response to Best, Limback said there would be no cost savings to combine the two programs, and it may decrease options for students.

Atkinson moved to amend the motion "…to retain the Secondary Education/Business Education BSE 524 and Secondary Education/Business Educational-functional BSE 525 and that they be reviewed for consideration to combine." The amendment was seconded.

After further discussion Atkinson called the question on the amendment. Seconded and passed with 19 yes votes, 1 no vote and 1 abstention.

The amended substitute motion read "that the FS support the recommendation of the Academic Planning Committee to retain the Secondary Education/Business Education BSE 524 and Secondary Education/Business Educational-functional BSE 525 and that they be reviewed for consideration to combine." The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

FOR: 22 AGAINST: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 0 PASSED (FS 2001-2002-20)

Limback moved "that the FS support the recommendation of the Academic Planning Committee to retain the Secondary Education/Business & Office Education MSE 526." The motion was seconded.

Limback noted the program has been growing as more teachers retire. There are 17 teachers in the program. Night, summer and on-line classes are offered. Grants from the state each summer in the amount of $8,000 is used for workshops that are well attended. We are in consortium with other universities, with over 20 on-line graduate students. The state requires continuing education classes for teachers. In response to Atkinson’s question on how many graduate annually, Limback said at least one or two per semester and no more than five or six in any one year. The college was founded on the MSE degree.

The motion "that the FS support the recommendation of the Academic Planning Committee to retain the Secondary Education/Business & Office Education MSE 526" passed.

FOR: 18 AGAINST: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 4 PASSED (FS 2001-2002-21)

Limback opened discussion on the Administrative Support/Legal Administration AS 550 and Secondary Education/Business Education AS 551 degrees. Students pick one or the other. There would be no cost savings to eliminate either although FTE’s would be lowered somewhat. Some displaced local workers receive funding to attend two years of college. We serve professional staff and the campus as a whole. In response to Kemp’s concern relative to P2-eliminating all AS degrees, Limback said both degrees tie into the mission of technology, vocational rehab, the handicapped and parents with many children.

The program is most important as $25,000-$27,000 state matching funds is received annually that funds computers and support of all the other programs. Franz thought the BSBA is central to the university, but the associate may not be essential. During this crisis, if it brings in money we should support it. If not, eliminate it. Carter noted the AS program is a double-edged sword. It makes a philosophical statement. In terms of cost, when many employees take the program it must be paid for out of the university budget. So there is a cost. Yates thought that is why we need to retain the program, as support staff salaries are low. We need to provide important skills so support staff can earn more. It is our responsibility to offer these programs to the community. In response to Myers, Limback stated all the AS courses are offered for the degree except the legal ones. In reply to Myers reference to Stage 1 DESI listing as required for accreditation, Limback said no it isn’t required. Bryant asked Carter that if the program is eliminated and the state funding lost, how would that revenue be replaced? Carter said he would earmark statewide mission funds as base budget dollars for a period of time as other commitments have been met (nursing and music). Bryant asked about the other mission programs that are not funded. Carter said he would replace the lost dollars in this particular program, and Bryant’s concern is an issue he will work on with the deans. We cannot keep a program just because the state is funding some of it, but the university has to match those funds. Lynch thought that matching half of what they need to run the program is preferable than paying for all of it. Carter agreed with Lynch, and said they have not worked out the details. In response to Alkire, Limback said it has been readily available under federal regulation.

Limback moved "that the FS support the recommendation of the Academic Planning Committee to retain the Administrative Support/Legal Administration AS 550 and the Secondary Education/Business Education AS 551." The motion was seconded and passed.

FOR: 12 AGAINST: 4 ABSTENTIONS: 6 PASSED (FS 2001-2002-22)

Morgan stated that recognizing that the Faculty Senate motions go to the university president, "that we send in toto, all the recommendations and minutes accompany the motions to the president, provost and SPRC." The motion was seconded and approved.

FOR: 21 AGAINST: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 1 PASSED (FS 2001-2002-23)

Bob Yates stated

"Whereas President Patton has recognized the importance of faculty governance;

Whereas the proposed cuts in release time for the elected officers of the Faculty Senate and dramatic reduction of secretarial support seriously impair faculty governance,

Be it resolved by the Faculty Senate "that the President act favorably on the letter of appeal from the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate." The motion was seconded and passed.

FOR: 21 AGAINST: 1 ABSTENTIONS: 0 PASSED (FS 2001-2002-24)

In response to Franz on how we get to where we need to be for the budget cuts, Carter said we have between $1.5 to $2M from instructional cuts. He is working with deans to stop searches and not replacing those who take early retirement ($900,000). Carter has to find more money. He hoped to find additional funds from early retirements and potential resignations by June 1 in Academic Affairs, although he is not just taking vacancies to take vacancies...they will be done strategically. Carter will meet with deans for an all day workshop to look at Academic Affairs administrative concerns. It will work its way out, but we did not save a lot of money through this process, although we learned a lot. It has focused our discussion on academic programs, which is a nice thing to do. Carter is optimistic that we will not have to go through another round of cuts. We have not dealt with tuition as yet. We need $1.5-$2M on the instructional side to close the gap. In response to Small’s suggestion about combining programs vs. eliminating them, Carter said it upsets the campus by combining programs to save money.

Carter prefers any combinations that would be a viable proposal to make us better and invigorate. It should be done but not at this time of crisis. There will be continuing discussions with the deans regarding combinations, but we are far from where we need to be. We won’t know for several more weeks who is leaving. He is being patient that it will all work out. It has become crystal clear to him that he might have to come up with one time Academic Affairs funding. We’ve gone through the instructional side trying not to hurt people. He cannot say that on the non-instructional side, as it is hurting some. In response to Bryant’s concern about increasing revenues elsewhere, Carter said we would need to declare Lee’s Summit as a residency campus, and it has not been approved by CBHE. He and President Patton visited with UMKC recently regarding collaborating. By June 2002 we could have official residency. Then we could advertise heavily in the KC area. On-line courses are an option, although it remains difficult to get them up and running. Lee’s Summit would not be an auxiliary but a self-supporting one in our general budget.

Franz moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded and the meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m.

Ginny McTighe, Faculty Senate Secretary

The next meeting will be on April 3, at 3:15 p.m. in Union 240.

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

Central Missouri State University
Faculty Senate Office - Central Missouri State University - Union 309 - Warrensburg, MO  64093 - phone 660-543-4808
click mailbox to send E-mail to Faculty Senate   
mailbox.gif (1071 bytes) myers@cmsu1.cmsu.edu  

Site design by L. Schmidt -   Instructional Design and Development