Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes - February

Meeting Minutes for February 2003

Meeting 8 February 5, 2003
Central Missouri State University
Faculty Senate Minutes

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

ROLL CALL: Twenty-one senators and five alternates were present (Ament for Laster, Ewing for Sundberg, Heming for Check, Stark-Wroblewski for Bigby and Wilson for Norwood). Also present were Provost Carter and Associate Provost for Academic Programs Elaine Frank-Ragan.

MINUTES: Minutes of the January 15 Faculty Senate meeting were approved as amended.

Myers reported that President Patton was in Jefferson City to testify before the State Appropriations Education Committee on behalf of CMSU and to attend several meetings. Carter reported that in an effort to be much more aggressive and public to garner support for Higher Education, a letter was being distributed to Alumni and friends of Central regarding the financial situation. Part of the materials sent included the pamphlet, Central Contrasts: Validations & Limitations. Carter referred to the article in the Kansas City Star regarding the budget and compromise proposal for the Governor to consider. The legislation had no interest in looking at the tobacco money as a form of dealing with balancing the budget. Now legislatures are saying they will look at a portion of the tobacco monies and some other kinds of cuts. Carter reported that there are several bills of interest going through the legislation and that these bills can be tracked through the CBHE web-site at www.cbhe.state.mo.us/ which is updated on a weekly basis. Two name change bills include: Missouri Western State College to Missouri Western State University and Missouri Southern State College to Missouri Southern State University. In addition, there is legislation to allow Missouri Southern to offer a Masters Degree in accounting, business and teaching. Carter reported one of the bills that has created much controversy is the name change of Southwest Missouri State University to Missouri State University which would position Southwest as the second tier in the state by its name. President Patton has testified against it. Carter reported two additional items of interest. A bill to allow American sign language to be regarded as a foreign language course and legislation to establish funding on the basis of FTEs. Carter referred to the Central News article “Central Visiting Writers Series Begins”. Carter reported that the University of Akron conducted a national survey on assessment programs and the Accounting Department at Central became 1 of 5 benchmark institutions on doing things right. Carter announced the loss of colleague Jerry Adams and shared that a scholarship fund has been established through the foundation in his memory.

Myers referred to the printed report from President’s Cabinet concerning the question of renaming the Ed Elliot University Union. Myers stated that members of the Board of Governors suggested changing the name of the facility to provide clarity and avoid confusion. Apparently some confusion exists because of the word University thinking that CMSU is the Ed Elliot University. Reference to the Ed Elliott University Union could be shortened to the Elliott Union. Myers stated she was to ask for feedback from Senators and report back to President’s Cabinet. Following Senators discussion, the recommendation was to leave it as is but Senators were curious as to who might be misinterpreting the name. Myers referred to the printed report of the Academic Council. If there are any questions, please contact Myers.

Eason referred to the distributed Council of Deans report. If there are any questions, please contact Eason.

Jenoa McAlister, SGA Representative, reported that SGA was organizing to provide an opportunity for students to travel to Jefferson City on Tuesday, February 11. SGA will provide transportation for students the bus will leave at 8 a.m. Myers reported that the Senate could financially support this endeavor with a maximum of $200 as an educational opportunity for our students. Joy moved that the Faculty Senate support the educational efforts of our students in a trip to Jefferson City with $200 from the Faculty Senate budget. Miller seconded. Passed unanimously.

Myers reported that Yvonne Johnson had attended the MAFS Conference and the MAFS asked all Faculty Senates to write a letter to Governor Holden regarding budget cuts. Callahan moved that the Executive Committee draft and send a letter, Riley seconded. Passed unanimously.

Eason referred to the nomination by the FS Committee on Committees. Roger Best for the HCBA position to the U/A Awards Selection Committee. Approved Unanimously.

Myers introduced the Eason & Davis motion: The opening paragraph of Central Missouri State University’s Mission Statement be revised to read:
Central Missouri State University is a comprehensive, public university dedicated to student learning and committed to service and excellence. Through a foundation in the liberal arts, professional degree programs, personalized higher education experiences, and use of current technologies, Central prepares a diverse body of students to be lifelong learners who are proficient in their fields of study, able to adapt to a changing world and contribute to the betterment of society. Central serves as Missouri’s lead professional technology institution, and is committed to acquiring, disseminating, and utilizing technology to enhance the university’s comprehensive educational mission and to enrich the lives of all Missourians.
Note: The underlined segments are those that have been moved or, in the case of the phrase “student learning,” added.

For: 25 Against: 0 Abstentions: 0 (2002-2003-11)

Myers introduced Matt Thomas, Chair of the FSDEC to report on the Intellectual Property Rights Policy. Thomas referred to the BOG Intellectual Property Rights Policy draft from 10-01-02. Thomas reviewed areas of concern and the timeline for completion of the charge. Thomas stated the focus to date has been on the section addressing distance education. The Senators expressed concern about the following items in the Intellectual Property Rights Policy:
Item II. A. Copyright Policy
“Copyrightable materials resulting from such intellectual endeavors will generally….”
Concerns expressed were whether the copyright policy had been changed or perhaps ‘generally’ could be more specific.
Item II. A. 2
“Intellectual endeavors pursuant to a grant or contract with third parties…” Concern expressed was that there are three parties involved and it needs to be defined when the university comes in.
Item II. B. 1 & 7
“ 1) The content for all online courses will be developed with faculty oversight. 7) Faculty reserve the right to determine all content….”
Concern expressed was that they are contradictory to one another. It was suggested to blend these two together.
Item II. B. 2
“Distance-education courses shall comply with all of the standard practices, procedures, and criteria…”
Concern expressed was quality control and that the department should be looking at the quality of the course. The language needs to state this clearly.
Item II. B. 3
“All online courses will be developed under established guidelines as specified in a written agreement.”
Concern expressed was the confusion as to what or who determines the different categories.
Item II. B. 3 c & d
“If substantial CMSU resources are utilized in the creation of the course…”
Suggestion expressed was to define the word ‘substantial’.
Item II. E
“Resolution of disputes regarding intellectual property rights.”
Suggestion expressed was to keep the idea of an Ad-Hoc committee but to form from our current structures--the arbitration pool. Concern expressed about using an appointed committee rather than an elected committee. The arbitration pool is elected and the proposal is for an appointed committee. Suggestion was that the process of selecting/forming the committee from the elected arbitration pool would be more representative of the faculty than an appointed committee.
General Concerns
If a faculty member develops their own course without campus assistance, who has the ownership? If placing it on a server at the university, does this transfer ownership? Does this policy discourage on-line development? Has the committee asked publishers what they would like to see in it or not in it to make it easy for faculty members to do business with publishers?
After Senators expressed concerns, it was agreed that Matt Thomas would take the questions and concerns to the FS DEC for feedback.

Myers referred to the distributed document Attachment A from the SPRC sub-committee, which was to be used as a tool to gather information regarding the program prioritization process. The SPRC is collecting information on the retrenchment process experienced last spring. The information will be shared with the Faculty Senate Personnel Policies Committee. Dr. Jack Elfrink reported from the SPRC on the Retrenchment Process. Elfrink distributed a Financial Stringency Budget Analysis Process flow chart. Elfrink referred to the Attachment A questionnaire. Elfrink reported the sub-committee visited various governance groups to receive feedback. The major goal was to improve the process. The SPRC’s function to the retrenchment policy is to provide input to the Faculty Senate and Board of Governors. We were not asked to rewrite the retrenchment policy. Elfrink referred to the Financial Stringency Budget Analysis Process flow chart. Three review processes were included on the chart. The sub-committee met with the Student Affairs Council, the Professional Staff Council and the Support Staff Council and is on the Academic Council Agenda for Tuesday, February 11, 2003. Myers asked if the SPRC would like specific feedback from the Senate relating to the process of the flow chart distributed. Elfrink responded yes. In response to Myers, Elfrink stated there is no timeline. Elfrink stated that any concerns will be addressed by the SPRC as a whole. Sarkar referred to the flow chart and expressed concern that the Academic Review Board (ARB) is making decisions on hearing appeal process but not working with any organizations that are affected by the process. Elfrink responded later in the process ARB did have the feedback from the various organizations. The recommendations for cutting programs came to the provost from the APC. Myers referred to the original retrenchment policy and reported that the ARB was established to hear appeals. Bryant expressed concern of the review process stating that input from the divisions and departments which included numbers of questionable accuracy. Provost responded that the data were not friendly. Part of the problem was the unit of analysis that we needed to have to make the decisions. Bob Pultz has been informed that this is a problem and we need to correct the data set. The following questions/comments were identified; 1) Is the program review process being incorporated into a regular evaluation system? 2) What is the role of the SPRC on the flow chart? Morgan asked if a written statement for clarity as to how the SPRC envisions their interaction with the provost, deans, APC and ARB could be provided? 3) Concern expressed about the first question on the questionnaire (how do you rate your level of involvement with the program prioritization process?). Since there is nothing written in the retrenchment document regarding the prioritization process how can people comment on it? 4) Concern expressed was that the ARB could only hear appeals based on the APC decision. Some areas/programs were favorably recommended by the APC but lost an opportunity to an appeal when an unfavorable recommendation was given elsewhere in the process. 5) It would be beneficial as information moves from one stage to the next to have net benefits/costs identified. What is the net benefit in cutting a program in terms of dollars? Is there a net savings and what is that net savings? 6) Best stated it needs to be clear or identified in the process what happens at presidential level if the recommended cuts are not sufficient to meet the required cuts/dollars. 7) Concern expressed by Ewing was the current length of program review. Programs are reviewed every five years. Programs should be reviewed more frequently. Everyone should be aware of keeping their program healthy and if the program is not healthy, then those in charge should rectify it or it should be dropped. Hopefully, we will never have to go through the financial stringency and process of retrenchment as experienced last year.
Myers reported she would meet with Dr. Elfrink to determine the extent of formalized feedback desired from the FS. Myers encouraged Senators to continue to review the Retrenchment Policy and Procedures document and continue to review it in their caucuses. The policy is under review by the the FS Personnel Policies Committee.
The committee expects to have a preliminary draft completed by the end of February to provide an opportunity for review by the administration.

Myers announced the winter planning retreat is scheduled for February 11 & 12. The three identified priorities are enrollment, compensation and accreditation.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:07 p.m.

Chris Hayward
Faculty Senate Office Professional

2002-2003 SCHOOL YEAR
please click on the month names below to view the minutes from that month

January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December


please click on the month names below to view the archived minutes from the 2001-2002 school year

January - February - March - April - May - June - July - August - September - October - November - December

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) cseymour@cmsu1.cmsu.edu