Meeting Minutes for October 2002
The Faculty Senate met 3:15 p.m. in Union 237A with President Shellie Myers presiding.
ROLL CALL: Twenty-three senators and two alternates were present Campbell for Palmer and Ewing for Sundberg. Also present were Provost Kyle Carter and Associate Provost for Academic Programs Fran Waller.
Myers referred to the printed reports from the President’s Extended
Cabinet, Administrative Council, and Academic Council highlighting specific
items: Policy Review and Approval Process Policy was redistributed and
minor changes were made. If the policy is available to us for the next
FS meeting on October 23, we will review for approval. Myers reported
discussion with the EC that there are so many policies coming forth we
are going to channel the policies through our committees then the senate
can take action on them. Myers encouraged the senators to take time to
review the Policy Review and Approval Process for our next FS meeting.
Myers announced the members of the Conference Committee for Merit Pay. George Wilson, Dean, HCBA; John Sheets, A&S; Mollie Dinwiddie, Lib/AE; Dianna Bryant, CAST; Cheryl Riley, Lib/AE; Dennis Laster, EHS; Kathy Callahan, CAST; Rick Sluder, EHS; Shing So, A&S; Ken Stone, HCBA. Myers expressed the Executive Committee’s appreciation to those who are serving on this committee.
John Gole, Chair of the Academic Standard committee introduced the motion
for a required C-BASE score.
All students must receive a passing score of 235 of all four areas of
Callahan asked how many other institutions in the state are implementing this requirement? Myers responded all institutions are required to assess general education and to use a standardized test. Gole added he did not know the exact test other institutions were using. Lynch asked when the requirement would go into effect? Gole stated Grelle has not addressed to the Academic Standards Committee when this would go into effect. Carter responded we would need to require notice for students. Young asked that as we transition would there be any procedures if the score needs to be adjusted before the rules are enforced? Gole responded there would be alternatives if the students do not pass; however at this moment there is no procedure. Davis reported that her department is working to develop 1-hour remedial courses to address each of the four areas of C-BASE. Zupnick asked what was available to help students prepare for the test? Myers reported there is a study guide available for the C-BASE through the Testing Center. Carter stated the importance to understand why this standard came forward; it goes back to the CBHE requirement. Carter reported the Faculty Senate University Assessment Committee recommended to Mike Grelle that every student should be tested. One of the driving factors for a score requirement was to hold students accountable to a certain standard so they will do their best. Carter expressed concern with the proposal due to the questions and concerns by the faculty in today’s meeting, but is in favor with assessing general education. Carter reported the Faculty Senate University Assessment Committee believes there should be a standard set for passing in order for the students to be motivated to take the test that is why it came to the FS Academic Standards Committee. Carter shared his concern that the FS University Assessment Committee makes recommendations to the Senate for discussion and he has not been a part of some of the administrative issues that are being brought up. Our assessment oversight is flawed right now. The Academic Standards Committee is coming forward with a very simple proposal not worrying about the administrative issues. They have done their job but there are other issues associated with a graduation standard being set. Atkinson moved to question. Myers stated this motion is not debatable and if approved discussion on the motion from FSASC will be closed. Call for the question passed. The motion from the FSASC failed.
FOR: 1 AGAINST: 22 ABSTENTIONS: 1 (2002/2003-1)
The Faculty Senate recommends additions to, and a reordering of, the strategic planning process as depicted on the attached revised page 20, figure 3.1 and revised page 27, figure 3.2 of the Draft 3, Strategic Planning document (as posted on the SPRC website). The original strategic planning process as presented in draft 3 is attached for comparison.
The addition to figure 3.1 of the words “Governance Bodies Propose” in phase 3 of the “Determining Institutional Strategic Directions and Goals” process is to make the figure consistent with the dialogue that explains the processes depicted in figure 3.1. That dialogue, found on page 21, second paragraph, of the Strategic Plan Draft 3, 2002 as downloaded from the SPRC website states:
“Strategic goals give specificity to strategic directions and establish expectations of success. They, too, are key features of the written strategic plan. Strategic goals set the parameters for the institution in terms of how the approved strategic directions will be realized. Any unit on campus may propose a strategic direction or goal for inclusion in the university’s strategic plan. Proposals are submitted to the Strategic Planning and Resource Council through the appropriate dean and vice president/university director or the appropriate campus governance group.”
The addition to figure 3.2 of the words “Governance Bodies Propose” in phase 2 of the Developing, Selecting and Monitoring Institutional Strategic Initiatives and Action Plans” process is to maintain consistency with figure 3.1 and to maintain congruency with the stated intent for governance bodies to be involved in the Strategic Planning Process.
The inclusion of an interaction between the president and the Governance Bodies in step 5A is recognition of the formalized relationship that exists between the Senate, other Governance Bodies and the President. The Senate reports to the President and thus, is rightly placed within the process to act upon recommendations put forth by the SPRC that:
1) involve areas of responsibility assigned to the Faculty Senate by
In response to Joy, Myers reported the Faculty Guide states we report to the president and that is why the recommendation was to the President. Carter referred to the top of page 27 figure 3.2 and any action would have to come back to the Senate for its recommendation. This process is going to be during the late spring and I do not think this would be practical at this time. The insertion of the Governance group will slow down the process and that’s why I would recommend to the President to not accept this motion. In response to Davis, Carter stated the way the diagram shows every initiative would come back to the Governance Group. Eason stated if there are specific initiatives to carry off the goals and direction and if these initiatives are impacting faculty we need to have some way to be a part of the dialog that is the reasoning for our insertion in figure 3.2. In response to Atkinson, Eason reported the FS representative on SPRC will keep the Senate informed but will not allow us to have any kind of input. Atkinson responded that the FS representative can bring back our concerns and this can be a two-way communication, is this what we are looking for? Myers acknowledged having a FS representative on SPRC would certainly help with communication, but as we are instructed through the Faculty Guide our reporting line is to the president. Discussion ended. Motion carried.
FOR: 12 AGAINST: 6 ABSTENTIONS: 6 (2002/2003-2)
Myers introduced the Morgan and Atkinson motion.
The Faculty Senate approve the vision and core values statements as written in the Draft 3, Strategic Planning document (p. 14-16), 2002 (retrieved 10/1/2002 from the SPRC Website). Pages 14-16 are attached.
It is with somewhat ambivalent and mixed thoughts and feelings that I introduce this motion to the Senate. On the one hand, for the Senate to act on a Vision and a set of Core values that have been approved by the SPRC without debate or deliberation by this body at this point in time may seem to be a meaningless act.
On the other hand, addressing these two key components of the proposed 5 year Strategic Plan at this point in time, points out the need to support planning processes that engage governance bodies in early dialogue about such critical aspects as a Vision and Core values.
As an institution, we have struggled over the years to obtain a governance system that honors the perspectives of the faculty on issues of concern to us. Yes, I was here during the Lovinger days and I know the impact on morale, productivity and student learning in a system that does not support faculty governance. We have made progress over the years and this body has engaged in thoughtful, spirited and productive dialogue over issues that have great bearing on the character of our academic community such as the mission of this institution.
The mission statement that appears in the third draft of the Strategic Planning, 2002 document as available on the SPRC website, was discussed with much vigor and intellect by this body. At the same time the current mission was being discussed, the notion of a vision for the institution was put forward. That also was discussed in lively debate by this body. At that time, the Senate did not support a vision statement.
And here we are now, presented with a document, which is about to be approved by our Board of Governors, containing a vision and core values that seek to define the character and moral integrity of this institution.
This is not to say that our colleagues have not captured an appropriate vision or have misrepresented the core values of this institution. It is to say these two key elements have not benefited from debate by this body.
Even if approved by this body at this point in the process, a sense of “ownership” of the vision and core values may not exist. What the record will show, however, is that this body has a vested interest in key philosophical statements that seek to define this institution.
FOR: 23 AGAINST: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 1 Passed (FS 2002/2003-3)
Eason moved to revise agenda and move to item 6:B, no objections.
Myers introduced the Laster & Atkinson motion.
The Faculty Senate supports the University Foundation and its efforts on behalf of the University. Further, the Faculty Senate authorizes the FS President to sign the follow-up letters as a part of the Foundation’s Faculty/Staff Campaign.
Myers announced Dr. Page & Sarah Thompson are available to answer questions. Atkinson suggested in the future more information on how the money is applied and what was accomplished would enhance participation.
FOR: 23 AGAINST: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 1 Passed (FS 2002/2003-4)
Myers opened discussion for the Faculty Compensation Plan. Carter hands out additional information on the compensation proposal. Carter in response to Miller the data for different disciplines is by zip codes it is very specific but there are some disciplines that the data is not as good as it should be. Morgan expressed concern with how great the disparity would be from new hires and incumbent salaries. With limited funding to attract new hires, a respectful salary would have to be offered; thus, there will be less to fund incumbent. Carter responded most faculty here will fall in range and that would be their salary. There are exceptions where individuals will fall outside of the range and they will have to be taken care of over time. Eason stated there is some concern how the Conference Committee Plan would be funded. Eason referred to the printed salary data. In response to Zupnick, Carter reports the goal for this change is to attract, retain and be able to monitor the faculty’s salaries. Myers affirmed that we are all aware of the need to have a compensation plan and this discussion is to respond to the concerns of the faculty. Bryant referred to the Academic Affairs website and an academic review procedure for existing faculty. Will this procedure stay in effect if a new compensation policy is adopted and existing faculty will have to go through the procedure as described in the academic procedure? Carter responded absolutely, the compensation proposal is dealing more with establishing market for new hires and we have to establish market for current faculty to put them into this model. Myers encouraged the Senators to continue to work within their caucuses and continue discussion with other faculty to seek clarification and understanding. Myers reported the Conference Committee is available to respond to any concerns. Eason reported the Faculty Senate was charged by the president for comments and that is where the A&S caucus substitution draft developed. Myers acknowledged the concern from the faculty on transition issues and stated that once transition issues are understood some fear may be reduced. Myers reported the EC would discuss these issues at their next meeting. Myers encouraged continuing review of the materials and thanked Provost Carter.
CASTL COMMITTEE-information update by Dr. Rice
Myers welcomed the new Senators Kathy Callahan, Mustafa Kamal , Mary McCord and Arthur Young.
Atkinson moved to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
Meeting 3 October 23, 2002
The Faculty Senate met at 3:15 p.m. in Union 237A with President Shellie Myers presiding.
ROLL CALL: Twenty-three senators and three alternates were present Stark-Wroblewski for Kemp, Moege for Lynch and Wilson for Palmer. Also present were President Patton, Provost Carter and Associate Provost for Academic Programs Fran Waller.
Provost Carter announced the 2002 Excellence in Teaching Award would
be presented to Mary Snyder, Associate Professor of Middle School and
Elementary Education and Chair of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction,
December 5 in Jefferson City.
Eason referred to the suggested change in a committee’s charge.
The Faculty Senate
That the veterinarian who serves on the University/Administrative Institutional Animal Care & Use Committee be nominated by the IACUC and approved by the university president.
Change of charge was approved unanimously.
Faculty Compensation Proposal
Senators discussed recommendations as presented in the draft for the meeting. The following items were discussed: 1) merit pay becoming a separate part of the Faculty Compensation Plan and merit being awarded after a compensation plan was in place, 2) definition of terminal degree, 3) concerns with new higher's with experience and criteria used to determine base salary, 4) equity adjustments for incumbent faculty, and 5) defining the term discipline. Eason withdrew her motion, (that the Faculty Senate forward to President Patton progress reports on their discussion of the Conference Committee’s Faculty Compensation Proposal.) Morgan seconded no action was taken.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.