Meeting 10                                                                                           March 14, 2007




University of Central Missouri

Faculty Senate Minutes




The Faculty Senate meeting was called to order at 3:21 p.m. in Union 236 with President Odin Jurkowski presiding.




In addition to FS President Jurkowski, the following nineteen senators and three alternates were present:  Bowman, Callahan, Ely, Geiger, Hynes, Joy, Kidwaro, Koehn, Liu, Mandali, McKee, Miller, Popejoy, Robins, Rogers, Schache, Swanson, Thomas, Williamson, Zelazek, Wang, and Lurker (for Washer).  Also present was President Aaron Podolefsky.




A motion was made by Senator Kidwaro, seconded by Senator Robins and passed unanimously to approve the minutes of meeting 9 of the 2006-2007 Faculty Senate held on February 7, 2007.




Podolefsky announced that the University Conference Committee on the Evaluation of Information Services has created a final report on their findings.  He plans to share that information with the FS Executive Committee at their meeting tomorrow to decide where to go from here.  Podolefsky stated he may have Information Services create a plan and report back to him.  He will release the information of the report to the Senate at a later time.


Podolefsky stated that there has been a lot of movement in the legislation as of late.  The Higher Education Bill has been filibustered and is continuing to change daily.  There has been a lot of negative feedback with this bill; therefore, it has been temporarily tabled.  The only problem with this bill being tabled at this time is that it includes the Lewis and Clark Initiative and the allocation of MOHELA money for building projects.  This bill used to state that the tuition cap needed to be at Midwest CPI, and then it was changed to average Midwest CPI.  Although preference would be given to no tuition cap, if any is necessary, the preferred would be the higher education CPI.  At this point in time, the appropriations increase for UCM is 4.2%.  The 4.5% that was stated previously is for the total overall; however, some universities who are in more need will receive higher appropriations than others.


Due to the Mules continuing into the NCAA Division II Elite Eight, Congratulations, Mules!, they will be playing next week in Springfield, Mass.; therefore, the Board of Governorís meeting will be cancelled at this time.


Podolefsky also stated that he had invited Judith Siminoe, University Council, to the meeting to be a second set of ears for him during the conversation regarding the Provost position.  He stated that everyone should have received an e-mail by now regarding the status of Shah and should be receiving another soon regarding the meetings he has been having, and continues to have, with various groups.  He has met with the Provostís staff, FS Executive Committee, Deans Council, Provost Cabinet, individual Deans, etc. and he will continue to meet with the groups.  One question he asks is ďWhere do we need to go from here?Ē  He has received one constant answer with this question.  Individuals seem to want to continue to move forward with the University.  They would like to continue with the Dean searches, they want someone with confidence in leadership, and someone who can improve the changes to move forward.  Podolefsky stated that 90% of the Provostís directions were right and the issues were not that the changes were happening too fast or that the university was moving in the wrong direction.  He is ready to continue with the move forward with someone who can add even more stability to the process.  Podolefsky stated he has not gotten any negative comments regarding the decision with the Provost.  He believes the campus is understanding and believes we can move past this.  He stated that the problem is solved and now letís move forward.  This will not interfere with the dean search at all.  Podolefsky believed he should be completed talking with various groups by Thursday afternoon or Friday morning and he will let the campus know what the next step will be as soon as possible.  At this point, he is working on getting more feedback from the groups about what they would like the next step to be.  He expects to know what the next step will be by Friday or Tuesday at the latest.


McKee distributed handouts regarding notes from the Provostís Cabinet meeting.  She stated that the student tech fees are not being distributed well.  Currently, a percentage of the fee goes to the provost for BlackBoard, etc., and then the remainder gets distributed to the colleges by credit hours.  It was discovered that those colleges that have higher credit hours are not necessarily the college with the most technology needs; therefore, the deans and David Rice will be working on a more efficient process for the future.


McKee also pointed out that work is being done to create a One Stop Center, where all the services a student needs will be in one place for easier access.  There is a merit pay committee meeting now and Jurkowski is the chair of this committee.  Finally, the flat tuition rate will continue to move forward toward implementation. 


Podolefsky stated he would like to share some information regarding the budget shortfall.  Previously there was a 1.3 million shortfall in tuition because more enrollments were predicted than actually was created.  Therefore, this year, they based the enrollment on last yearís numbers rather than predicting any increases.  Although enrollment is up, revenue is down to Ĺ % of the year before.  This can be contributed to several various reasons, such as in-state and out-of-state revenue, extended campus fees, fewer dual credit enrollments, etc., which left the budget $700,000 short.  Academic Affairs creates 72% of the budget, so it is the area that could be hit hard.  This short fall can be filled with one time money from the base budget; however, then it will need to be filled again next year, what should be done then; therefore, it continues to be a problem from a year ago through now. 


Podolefsky also stated that the flat tuition rate will allow for full-time students to pay one fee no matter how many hours they take.  With this change, the departmental budgets will be driven by credit hour rather than enrollment.  Benefits with a flat rate are that parents will receive a consistent bill as opposed to the bills fluctuating, students will be able to graduate faster, they can take more credits, and take areas of interest instead of worrying about the cost.  This plan will be good for the students and the university.  Budget models are still being investigated at this time.  Kidwaro asked if this would affect international students.  Podolefsky stated that it would depend on if the international students were being charged in-state or out-of-state tuition. Schache asked if any changes would be made to the full-time student hours, with the flat rate fee.  For example, right now, 12 hour is the minimum for a full-time student and 18 is the maximum; however, there are some students who take 21-24 hours, would this affect the flat rate?  Podolefsky stated that he would not have a problem with students taking 21 hours.  At this time, students take an average of 13 Ĺ hours each semester. 


Callahan asked if with a One Stop Center, would Academic Advising go back to being in one centralized location.  McKee stated that Academic Advising always had a central area, so that should not change anything and the college advisors should stay where they are.  Jurkowski stated that the One Stop Center is not finalized at this time.  Podolefsky stated that the One Stop Center would only be reshuffling where the offices are now, so as to put them under one central location, not create new offices.


Jurkowski distributed handouts to the Senate.  One discussed the One Stop Center proposal and the other discussed the latest on the proposed curriculum changes.  He stated that the curriculum changes are still in the discussion stages and nothing formal has been created yet.  The proposal has gone back to the committee to discuss various points regarding it.


Jurkowski stated that the Merit Pay Committee has created a draft plan at this time.  The committee will be meeting again Friday and they are continuing to fine tune the proposal.  There will be a campus wide open forum in the near future.


Jurkowski also discussed that he has been meeting with the Professional Staff Council and Support Staff Council presidents.  They are trying to create some form of collaboration between the various governance groups.  They have also decided to use the Faculty Senate Office Professional to help with work from the other groups.  Each group still has their own independence; however, this meeting allows for information to be shared with the other groups.  Jurkowski feels this is a good way to complement each of the groups and collaborate together and he hopes the next presidents will continue this work.


Jurkowski announced that due to the Muleís basketball game in MA, next weekís General Faculty meeting scheduled for March 21, will now take place on March 28 at 3:15 pm and will be moved to the Wood Auditorium.


Koehn stated that at the last SPRC meeting, Podolefsky shared updated information from Jefferson City.  The subcommittee is currently still working on the mission statement and there should be approval on it at the next meeting.  She stated that some individuals have asked what the role of the SPRC is with the budget constraints and when there is not a lot of money decisions to make; however, the SPRC also makes decisions regarding where money may be reallocated also, so it is still a very important group.  Podolefsky stated that there arenít a lot of money issues to discuss and ration through or any new resources to bring forward to the SPRC, when there isnít much money available.  Most of the resources are being dealt with intra-college/intra-division.  So then the question should not be should SPRC have a role, but what role should SPRC have.  There needs to be a reallocation of 2% of the budget and he is glad that Koehn brought this option of the SPRC to his attention and he can see how important the committee is.




Debbie Gerhart did a short presentation regarding GroupWise Guardian, the new SPAM system to replace D-Spam, and GroupWise 7, upgrade from GroupWise 6.5.  Gerhart stated that Guardian will roll out from Information Services on Monday.  E-mails have been sent out regarding this system and more will be coming in the future.  Callahan asked how this system is new and improved from the previous D-Spam.  Gerhart stated that because there will be a quarantine report sent to your GroupWise e-mail, all deletions or releases can be done from there instead of having to go into the main system.  Also, there is a national spam house that will assist with searching out the SPAM and catching it before it goes into the e-mail.  Rogers asked if Guardian will delete all the mail after 14 days.  Gerhart stated that it will only delete the mail within the SPAM quarantine, not the normal e-mail.  Schache asked if this system would be a voluntary system or if individuals will be automatically placed on it.  Gerhart stated that individuals will be automatically signed into Guardian; however, they can go in and disable it, if they so choose.  Zelazek asked what should make this system better than the other, as he has always had problems with D-Spam stopping his good e-mail from coming through.  Gerhart said that she is aware of individuals having problems with D-Spam stopping various listserves e-mails and Guardian should not be as big a problem with that.  Also, Guardian uses a national SPAM house, which should help.  Callahan stated she would like to know who the contact person is at the help desk because she also has problems with getting e-mails from GroupWise.  Gerhart stated that the help desk is always the first point of contact, then the help desk will create a tech report if needed.


Gerhart then stated that GroupWise 7 updates have been ocurring since the beginning of this month.  They are sending it out within post offices beginning with post office 3 and working through the others.  Gerhart noted some of the benefits with GroupWise 7 that are different than the previous GroupWise, such as an individualized homepage, new navigation bar, multiple calendars, and multiple signatures.  Robins asked if there was a small UCM logo that could be used with the signatures.  Gerhart stated that she used a logo from the UCM homepage and shrunk it down to fit.  She stated she would be happy to assist anyone with that task individually as needed.  Miller asked if the contents that are within the current GroupWise would transfer.  Gerhart stated that everything will go with the transfer, just as it did with the previous upgrade, so folders and rules should remain the same.


Barb Carter then presented to the Senate on behalf of Mike Grelle, who had a conflict with the meeting.  She distributed a handout asking, ďAre you in favor of moving forward with an online evaluation program to replace ALL paper/pencil programs currently used?Ē  Carter stated that there was a pilot test survey done in December.  Twenty-two sections participated within this test and the results were positive and showed this is a good program.  The handout stated highlights and advantages from the program pilot.  Carter stated that many of the faculty liked that the survey could be customized and was flexible and that they could get results within 24 hours of when the survey was closed.  Geiger stated that her college uses the IDEA survey and if changes are made to this online survey, would the IDEA be available also?  Carter stated that certain questions from the IDEA could be incorporated within the online survey.  Geiger asked if any of the students felt uncomfortable with the faculty getting the results before grades have been entered.  Carter said that although results can be seen within 24 hours, that is 24 hours of within the survey being closed, not within the student taking the survey.  Geiger stated that often within the comment area the student will state something where the faculty can know who that student is.  Carter stated that the faculty can see the progress of how many students have taken the survey, but can not see anything other than that, including the names of the students who have or have not taken the survey.  Zelazek asked if Carter knew the response rate of students filling out the online survey because from what he knew, it was only 17-25%.  Carter said she did not know the statistics; however, the student would continue to get reminders to fill out the survey and instructors can also send reminders out also.  Geiger asked what the rate was for the pilot.  Carter said she did not know, but the responses from the faculty were good.  Jurkowski stated he took part in the pilot and his response rate was about 90%.  He stated he did send out reminders to the students also.  Carter stated that as an administrator, she would send reminders to the students, the instructor also sent reminders, and often the instructor would also give the students a half sheet of paper with the web address on it as a reminder to fill out the survey.  Faculty can use various ways to get the students to take the survey.  Miller said the handout shows the highlights and advantages, but were there any lowlights and disadvantages?  Carter stated she didnít have anything from the pilot group.  She asked Robins, who was a part of the pilot to add her input.  Robins said she did the pencil/paper form as well as the online and she had only one student who did not fill out the online form.  Miller asked if there was anything she didnít like about the online survey.  Robins stated that she did like that she got the results faster so she had input before she began teaching the class the next time and she could make adjustments as needed.  Miller asked again if there were any negative points.  Carter stated she didnít get a lot of negative feedback, but most of the pilot said the online survey saved them a lot of time with not needing to use face-to-face time and getting the results back quickly.  Schache stated that he felt it would take too much time to manage the system and monitor the responses from the students to enable enough responses were received.  Callahan stated she was in favor of trying out the system to see if it would be beneficial to use.  Ely stated the IDEA survey results were able to be compared with other campuses and this survey would not be.  Carter stated that since questions are individualized, it would not be comparable to other campuses.  Ely asked if the survey was validated then.  Carter stated that questions from other surveys can be contained within the online survey; however, it is not a nationally recognized survey, so it would not be able to be compared to others.  Rogers stated that the IDEA forms have been used to show excellence in teaching for Promotion and Tenure.  How that would be handled now if it can not be compared to a national base.  If the survey can be individualized, then how can that be used for Promotion and Tenure.  Carter stated that how the questions are created can be set by the college, department, or other area, and the instructor can also add some of their own questions that may only affect his/her class and not the entire department.  Rogers said with that option, the survey could only be compared within each college or department.  McKee stated that not all departments currently use the IDEA form, for example, her department does not use it, but use an individual form created by the department already, so the online survey would be the same type ideas as is already being used.  Rogers asked if the online survey would replace all the surveys on campus and the instructor would not have an option to continue to use another form, such as the IDEA form.  Carter stated that yes; this would be the university wide system and replace all other forms.  She then stated that this is not a completed proposal at this time.  She wanted to speak to the faculty first and receive some feedback before decisions would be made.  There is still some research needed, such as receiving bids on various programs.  Zelazek asked if she knew what the cost would be, as he has heard something around $20-25,000.  He also asked if they have compared the cost with the cost of the paper/pencil surveys.  He stated he liked some things about the online survey; however, there were other items he didnít like about it.  Carter restated that this is simply in the discussion states and if there are any concerns for faculty to e-mail Dr. Grelle or herself with their questions or ideas.  Zelazek stated this could save a lot of money using the online surveys.


Senator Ely presented an update on the Evaluation of Academic Support Services.  He stated that with the occurrence of recent events, the task force was suspended for a few days; however, President Podolefsky began the task force again and they should be meeting next week.  They have complied one page of summaries and should have a more complete report before the next Faculty Senate meeting.  Ely will then try to have a more complete report for the Senate then.  Callahan suggested that she would like to see the online evaluations include Support Staff and Support Services.


The Executive Committee will meet March 15, 2007 and the next Faculty Senate meeting is April 4 with a General Faculty Meeting moved to March 28 at 3:15 pm in the Wood Auditorium.


With nothing further the meeting was adjourned at 4:32 p.m.


Julia Kerr

Faculty Senate Office Professional