Meeting 4 September 20, 2006
Central Missouri State University
Faculty Senate Minutes
The Faculty Senate meeting was called to order at 3:15 p.m. in Union 240 with President Odin Jurkowski presiding.
ROLL CALL: In addition to FS President Jurkowski, the following twenty senators and four alternate were present: Callahan, Ciafullo, Ely, Hynes, Joy, Koehn, Liu, Mandali, McKee, Miller, Popejoy, Robins, Rogers, Schmidt, Staab, Strohmeyer, Swanson, Thomas, Williamson, Zelazek, Lurker (for Saran), Norwood (for Washer), Burkett (for Bowman) and Wang (for Geiger). Also present were President Aaron Podolefsky, Provost Y. T. Shah and SGA Representative Jesska Daugherty.
MINUTES: A motion was made by Senator Joy, seconded by Senator Popejoy and passed unanimously to approve the minutes of meeting 3 of the 2006-2007 Faculty Senate held on August 30, 2006.
President Podolefsky announced that he received a fax from Patricia L. Budsmith, Advisor of Statues in the State of Missouri, congratulating the university on the name change from Central Missouri State University to the University of Central Missouri. The name change is now official and a press release has gone out. This was received well at the emeriti coffee and they are very excited about the direction the institution is taking. Podolefsky thanked the Senate for recommending, supporting, and putting together the name change task force. The Board of Governors declared the motion had passed with the legislation set that once four votes were passed the name will be changed. The chair then stated that with the four positive votes, it would be best if everyone else would join in with the positive vote, which the others did. Podolefsky stated he believes this is a tremendous level of support for the institution. There will be a web page designed to answer some further frequently asked questions at a later time.
Provost Shah stated he is also pleased about the name change. He has stated several projects since being on campus September 1, 2006. The first project he is working on is meeting with each individual department. He has met with four departments so far, as he is very interested in having the conversation with everyone. Shah also announced that the Strategic Task Force and Planning Resource Committee have had some conversation as a follow-up to the name change. Many have stated we need to move forward aggressively to try to improve the stature of procedures and make sure we are doing the right thing with the academic processes. He has discussed a few items with a number of groups including the Curriculum committee and asked them to look at the issues of the functional majors and required minors, what is really needed for graduation. He also intends to talk to the General Education committee in the near future regarding this issue. Shah said that his objective is to put some thoughts on the table and he has told every group that this is all for discussion purposes. He would appreciate open conversations and he will listen to everyone’s point of view and see what changes need to be made and what changes are inappropriate.
Another conversation is in regard to the structure of the colleges. It is important for us to see whether we want to have a different structure. Shah asked if we should promote health science as the state of Missouri is putting a lot of effort on life science. Another issue that was discussed in the Strategic Planning committee was if there should be a separate college for education. If this is done, how would the other colleges need to be structured? Shah believes that some of the current structures work well, but we need to keep open to change. The Provost has put together six new task forces to look at various issues that are part of the strategic planning. Shah hopes to have some agreement by the end of November or some conclusion on where we want to move forward. This conversation needs to be had before new deans are appointed. There is no point in talking about putting new deans within the colleges if the structure is being changed. The six task forces that are working on various ideas have been encouraged to be very open, communicate, and make sure that the university community has open access to them. Shah stated he will welcome any thoughts directly or indirectly and hope that the faculty will go to the department chair, dean, Faculty Senate, to the subcommittees, or to one of the task forces.
Ely asked if when Shah was speaking about the health science and life science if he was speaking on the life science initiative that ran a number of years ago or life sciences in general. Shah answered that the university has a component of health related subject matter such as nursing, dietetics, etc. Currently the university is not on the radar screen with these majors partly because we have not made any aggressive marketing. Shah stated he would like to see some form, whether it is the college level of health and life science or college of health and ally science, whatever would make the best sense for the university that will bring in more interest in these areas. There are many life sciences initiatives out there at this time, such as a bio energy group that has been formed they are a $250 million national research center now looking at alternate energy for renewable fuels and bio energy. The university currently has a very good nursing program and it just needs to be marketed, as well as the education department, so we can compete. The university needs to make bold moves, but they must be calculating bold moves.
Staab asked if it was Shah’s expectations that the task forces would make recommendations in November and if so, when does he think some of these things will be implemented? Shah answered that his intention so far was to open up conversations. To assist with this, he is using various forms to put it out there. The task force will make recommendations and then the recommendations will come to the SPRC, if the recommendations are found to be meaningful and worth pursuing then the recommendation will be brought to the president’s cabinet for discussion. He would also want to see the entire community respond to these recommendations. His objective is to collect input from various parties and bring that to the president and the president’s cabinet, but he wants the support of the faculty and administrations, and then the president would take it to the Board of Governors to move forward in a public manner. Shah stated he does not want to make a change for the sake of changing, but make a change to make a difference.
McKee passed out a handout with notes from the previous three Provost’s Cabinet meetings that were held on September 1, 15, and 19, 2006. She mentioned that the committee used to be the Provost Advisory Council and the name has now been changed to the Provost’s Cabinet. The meeting on September 15 is the meeting where Shah outlined the same ideas he brought to the Senate to the Cabinet.
Jurkowski thanked everyone on the task force, as well as the President, faculty, staff, and everyone involved with the name change. Many e-mails have been sent out just before the meeting began, so he asked that everyone check their GroupWise for further information. Jurkowski stated that previously he had been on the President’s Cabinet; however, that has recently changed and now he will be on the Policy Review Council. He delivered some handouts that showed who was on the committee, the structure of the committee, as well as a little bit about the committee and what they will be doing. Podolefsky stated that he wanted to let everyone know that previously the President’s Executive Council would be on the Policy Council and SPRC as well as the Executive Council and see recommendations several times for review. To have more representation on the Policy Review Council with more directors, department heads, deans, etc. and then when the recommendation would come to the President’s Council, with the Executives, Vice-presidents, etc. it will have been seen by more eyes. Other than that the function is still the same. It has always been what was called the President’s Cabinet has always been a Policy Review Council. This is the same function, the same venting, the same sending out of policy drafts to the campus, all that is the same, it is just a broader level of constituents that includes directors, deans, faculty chairs, etc. and then saves the vice presidents to not have to see the same recommendations three times. The Council is not taking anyone out, but making it more inclusive.
Jurkowski announced that he will be attending a luncheon on Monday with a group of educators around the state to talk about higher education within the state of Missouri. He will update the Senate on that at the next meeting.
Koehn asked Podolefsky about the headline in the paper regarding the MOHELA board and she asked for an update. Podolefsky stated that he was at the Governor’s office last week and the Governor remains in support of the MOHELA process and the presidents had the opportunity to stand in front of the press while the Governor took their questions and explained how this is a political issue. The Governor is absolutely supportive of it and expresses good support for higher education and appreciates the way the presidents are all working together. Afterwards the Interim Commissioner for the CBHE resigned due to health issues and he will need to be replaced. Also a member of the board stepped down due to a conflict of interest and the Governor has recommended a replacement. The person may have to be confirmed by the Senate before they can take an active role as a MOHELA board member. They are supposed to vote on the 27th on MOHELA. Another group that bonds money to Missouri voted yesterday to approve the MOHELA bonds if the board votes to go along with this. No matter which way it goes, there eventually could be a law suit, so nothing will be spent until the cash arrives. There is a possibility that when the legislature comes back they could change the law and allow the board itself to settle it. Koehn then asked if MOHELA does pass could this work against us in the future as far as our operating appropriations. Podolefsky stated no, he believes that everybody understands that the operating budget has been reduced 12.87% over the last 5 years, not counting inflation, which is way behind. The Governor is talking about supporting higher education operations to a greater degree next year. They understand that the university used to receive capital funds routinely and now haven’t. They understand that the buildings need capital periodically separate from our operating budget. We need a base budget item for the institutions so that we get it periodically. If you have 50 buildings and you renovate every 25 years, you ought to be doing 2 a year in order to keep up. Really there is a need to come back with a plan for basic funding and not doing it with one time money like this. There is a potential to get the funding and they could say the university doesn’t need any money for the next 5 years, but President Podolefsky doesn’t think that will happen.
SGA representative Jesska Daugherty announced that SGA met last night. They discussed the name change and it was unanimously agreed that the association supported the name change and they sent some SGA representatives to the Board of Governors meeting and they are very excited and they have some student representatives that are ready to move with the new energy and direction that the university is taking. The SGA is growing and they actually had to expand the meeting room. The meetings have been longer, between 3-3 ½ hours, so there has been much legislation they are working on. The night rider program, transportation to and from downtown and there is also a supplemental program that will run to Wal-Mart and the cinema in town. The program was contracted out to another source this year instead of using OATS as last year and there have been some concerns with that, so the program has been reevaluated and they will go back to having at least one OATS bus running. There is a ballot for some constitutional amendments on the homecoming elections that will be coming up in October. They also looked at legislation last night supporting a recycling program on campus and they would really like to see one implemented. They are working on much in house and trying to figure out how they can get help and maybe work with others on some of the issues. Please let them know if there are needs for student representatives or any help from them. Koehn stated that there was a mention the need for more representation on the task forces.
Koehn stated the Strategic Planning retreat was held on September 12. There was more faculty representation at the retreat. SPRC scheduled two main items. The morning was spent gathering comments about the mission statement. The SPRC is going to, within the next few months, try to get a new mission established for the university, so they will take all the feedback from the retreat for that. Then in the afternoon, every table submitted ideas for the task forces. Each task force is being chaired by an SPRC member so the SPRC will be receiving regular reports to monitor what is happening with the task forces.
Podolefsky announced that Donald Johanson is on campus today. He is the individual that in 1974 discovered Lucy, a 3.2 million year old fossil. Today at 1:00 pm there was a press release that one of his students discovered a 3.3 million year old fossil that is much more complete than most. Tonights talk by him at 8:00 pm may be a revolutionary finding, so this is a very exciting day to have him here on campus with us.
Matt Melvin presented to the Senate on Enrollment at the university. He handed out a diagram showing the current statistics as of this time; however, he pointed out that these were preliminary numbers and a new report would be run tonight at 5:00 pm. In terms of the quantity of the freshman class, there has been an upward trend between Fall 2003 through Fall 2006. They are very pleased with the 1591 freshmen for this fall. New Transfer students: the handout shows the numbers decreased and they will continue to look into that, as it may be a coding issue to make sure they are coding them correctly within the Banner system, but there will also be further assessment on that if it is indeed down. They want to find out which institutions they didn’t yield across in terms if it was 4 year institutions, about 50% of transfer students come from a 4 year institution, the rest are community college, so they want to identify if that is coming from a 4 year institution or a 2 year institution and then they will break that down even further to find out compared to years ago to find out what college, departments, or majors. They are currently working with advising and admission to make sure there is a seamless and integrative link between the admissions phase and getting the transfer students to their advisors. The handout then covers Quality and the average ACT scores throughout the years, and that too has shown a positive trend. An item that is most pleasing is the Student Persistence and Graduation. The preliminary first-time full-time (FTFT) retention rate for the fall is 73.3%. Also, the 4 year and 5 year graduation rate is the highest they have been in 20 years and the 6 year graduation rate is the 2nd highest in 20 years. The handout showed an overview for the last 20 years for the numbers of first-time full-time students, as well as 1 and 2 year retention rates and 4, 5, and 6 year graduation rates. The handout also showed a headcount and credit hour production for under graduate and graduate rates, International Enrollments for the years 2001-2006, First-time full-time student earning 24+ hours with a 2.0 GPA, and finally a breakdown count of the first-time freshman, undergraduate, and graduate, both full-time and part-time.
Zelzack asked if he understood correctly that tonight is a new census count. Melvin stated that yes, at 5:00 pm. Zelzack stated that the number tied heavily to the MAT program noticed a tremendous number of errors. Many MAT students are listed as freshmen, Harmon School of Business, undergraduates, etc. Have those items been corrected because if they have not then some of the data is. Melvin agreed with what Zelzack stated and he believes there are some issues with the conversion. He has spoken with Information Systems and they have been reviewing the data to address those issues. Melvin asked if Zelzack notified anyone of these issues. Zelzack said he did notify his department chair, his dean, and Darlene Taylor. Melvin said that was exactly what he needed to do, so he is hopeful that they are corrected.
Staab asked now that we’ve got the name change and a number of the students come from the 21 county areas, what talks are taking place. Are there comparable statistics in terms in where we are drawing from in terms of the student population as of last year and what things have been talked about to attract students from outside the county area, regionally, nationally, etc. Melvin answered that there will be a zip code analysis again to see where students are coming from and some assessment as to how can we best utilize our financial aid. We are looking at expanding beyond the 22 county service areas both on the recruitment side but mostly on the financial aid side. They are looking at identifying programs that are under subscribed that have the potential of pulling students in from a larger geographic area. Shah added that the Board of Governors has asked him to give a plan for over the next 5 years where we want to go. Shah stated that he told one of the groups that an issue that must be addressed is what he called the educational process. He would like to see the university compete head to head with Missouri State, UMKC, etc. in terms of the ACT average. Another target Shah would like to obtain is the graduation rate. We have 50%, he would like to get it to 65-70% and that is coupled with freshman retention, we were 78% and he would like to see it at 85%. Shah will be having some serious conversations with enrollment management to discuss strategy and how we can improve the net revenue and how to improve our financial aid. In most state universities 90% of students will come from 300 miles away of the university. We need to expand by finding out what other markets we have a good potential, while other bodies need to look the financial side very carefully, by looking at the financial aid of international students as well as transfer students. He stated that many international students find us very expensive, so they go to a community college. Therefore, we are in need of looking at the university financially as well as how we can market ourselves and which programs are marketable.
Callahan questioned that for the first time the faculty did not receive accurate class rosters and she was wondering why this wasn’t done. Then the issue of the 600 student schedules that had to be redone and many classes were filled. Callahan stated that this past Thursday a student came and was enrolled in the class, although he did not appear on her roll sheet, but she was informed that even though the class was full she had to accept him. Callahan found this very discouraging. Melvin stated that he could look into the roster situation. Although the green bar rosters are no longer available, the roster through the Banner system is an accurate roster in real time. As far as acceptation of the student, Melvin stated that should be a decision between her and the department chair. Callahan stated that he was enrolled; however, because she didn’t have an accurate roster she filled the seats and since he was enrolled she had to accept him. Jurkowski reminded everyone that there have been some Banner issues this fall and hopefully they will be corrected next semester. Melvin stated that he believes these are growing pains associated with a new system. Regarding the drops there was a real concern about students being dropped for nonpayment. There was approximately 691 students dropped because of this and Melvin acknowledged that is a concern; however, in previous years there have usually been 400-450 students dropped for nonpayment. There are four teams that have been established through financial aid, student housing office, etc. There is a learning curve with Banner and hopefully things have been worked through that. Callahan stated that her main concern was to have an accurate roster for each class. Melvin asked other faculty present if they got real time rosters through Banner and others stated yes, through Banner. Rogers stated going through self-service and there are two views of the role, one is expanded that tells you major, e-mail, and other information and the other is just by name. Jurkowski suggested that faculty should pass along any problems to their department chairs and deans and if there are further questions, Ron Long could be contacted regarding items such as training issues as well. Miller stated that the rosters in Blackboard and Banner were not working together, people were in one place and not the other and it was confusing. Melvin answered that faculty might contact Russ Helm and/or Mike Jeffries to talk about the Blackboard issues. There was a lot of different technology being implemented at the same time.
Ciafullo asked to what extent are we having problems with first year student pre-enrollment and what are they? Melvin stated that from his perspective it is going very well; however, he acknowledged from others perspective they don’t like it. There have been more students come through orientation, they have put in learning communities, and faculty that are teaching AE1400 have stated that the students are really engaging and connecting to the campus very well. A sample of orientation students stated that about 85% of students that were surveyed on the satisfaction level of the orientation and its various processes associated with orientation, as well as their parents, the university was over 6 on a 7 point scale. Ciafullo stated that he has a number of students who are not in the right classes on self pre-enrollment. Is there any data on that? Melvin stated that the advisors are registering students; however, the students are able to change and alter their schedule afterwards. Registration is not done any differently than previously, the advisors are building the schedules. Ciafullo asked a question regarding the content and orientation itself. He asked how extensively are we dealing with students hands-on on personal safety issues, health issues, counseling, interpersonal relationships, and diversity issues. Have any of those been addressed? Melvin answered that in his opinion they are covered; however, maybe not on the level some want them to be. Orientation is a one day program, with orientation and enrollment that occurs throughout the spring and summer of their senior year, faze two would be the Week of Welcome and those issues are covered then. There is also a strong freshman seminar program that is run every year. Ciafullo stated that there is a captive audience during orientation and there is not one during the Week of Welcome. Has there been any thought of going with a traditional orientation and making it a day or two. Melvin stated he didn’t know how a two day orientation program would work out, but thought the students and parents would feel it was a problem. Ciafullo stated that numbers may be up in some of the freshman seminars but they are down 50% in other areas.
Sonny Castro presented regarding the Foundations of Excellence Program. Castro stated that the university participated in a model that the Quality Center of the First Year College of North Carolina put together. This is a model that was threaded through 300 different campuses for two years before opened for general use. The university decided to become involved with this project because administration was seeing some data that indicated to them that students were not engaging in many different areas that literature suggested leads to student success, such as involvement with faculty outside of the classroom, engaging in extra curriculum activities, issues of loyalty to the institution, etc. Several surveys were completed and indicated that students were engaging in lesser degrees than their national counterparts. Therefore, the university decided to participate with this project. Castro stated that the project has been going on for over a year now and it is almost completed. There have been over 59 people from throughout campus involved with this project, including faculty, administrators, students, and graduate students. A task force was assembled that consisted of 18 people. The task force organized 9 groups to work on each of the dimensions that are the actual model. The model consists of 9 foundational statements: philosophy, organizational, learning, faculty, transition, all students, diversity, rolls and purposes, and improvement. The project began by conducting a current practices inventory and looked at policies, procedures, documents, that informed the intuitions practice relative to the first year as a unit of analysis. The committee then moved into the actual dimension review and there were 9 subgroups, each taking on one of the dimensions and conducted studies along those lines. This produced a report that was submitted to the policy center and the committee received feedback from them. The members of the task force then created a writing team that took all the information and created an executive summary that includes some proposed action plans for administration to consider. What is approved from this summary will then be released campus wide to receive feedback from all stake holders and some implementation will take place after that. There is a web site at www.cmsu.edu/foe for further information.
Jurkowski then presented Motion 2006-2007-3 from Jim Staab requesting changes made to the Academic Policy and Procedure under the section titled “Academic Department Chairs.” Staab stated he felt this motion was fundamentally important to the faculty governing staff of the university. Presently in the Academic Policy and Procedure the Academic Department Chairs serve “indefinitely.” The term is indefinite subject to a formal review every 3 years. Staab stated that it sounds like there is a fixed uniform standard for the length of service for the department chairs. The basic purpose for this motion is to eliminate that language of indefiniteness and to allow for a vacancy for any variety of reasons. The purpose of the motion is to remove a fixed universal standard so as to accommodate departmental by-laws that allow for different length of service for department chairs. What would like to be done here is to remove the indefinite language to accommodate different lengths of service for department chairs. It is important to stress that the deans still have the authority to say yes or no to a particular individual. This will only allow for that time to occur at different points in time. Other institutions were looked at and almost uniformly, they have a length of service for chairs where they can be selected again.
McKee reported that she reports to the Provost Cabinet and she mentioned the motion at the meeting yesterday and was asked to report back to the Faculty Senate some discussion that went on at the meeting. The deans were opposed to the motion. There is currently only one college on the campus that has terms or rotation. The other deans would like to have continuity with department chairs and so they really didn’t want to have to deal with rotation or term limit. McKee stated that she did point out that is not required to happen. It would just give any department that would like to the opportunity to do that if they would like to. McKee believed that some of the deans were still concerned that their departments might say that the Academic Policy and Procedure states they have the right to do this, even if their chair opposes. McKee stressed that she was not speaking for or against the motion, just wanting to let the Faculty Senate know that the deans were opposed to the motion at hand. Shah stated that he also spoke to the group. He admits he was surprised that the deans were against the motion; however, all the deans were very vocal regarding this issue. Dean Sluder addressed the Faculty Senate to relate some of the concern. He stated that there is a college that has that provision and others that don’t, so to modify that provision seemed awkward to him. There are seven chairs in the College of Education and Human Services and this issue has come up when they have done appointments previously. Finding a chair is not easy; there is a need for continuity, fiscal planning, personnel management, making difficult decisions, etc. For those reasons, and others as well, the provision doesn’t seem to make the right sense. Faculty would like for deans to hold chairs accountable, which they are obligated to do that; therefore, if there is a situation where a chair is not performing in the way that they should be, there is a mechanism for that to occur. There is currently a task force looking faculty administration evaluation procedures, there has to be a way to get that feedback, and it comes down to an issue of accountability. The Academic Policy and Procedure procedures states if faculty can vote to remove a chair, but Sluder stated that when the annual review procedures are done, if there is 20-30% of the faculty that express concerns, there is a reason they work with the dean to make sure that person can serve that faculty with the rest of the issues. The deans look forward to working with the Faculty Senate to try and come to a position that addresses the concerns, but Sluder is not sure this is it.
Staab stated it would have been desirable to have the motion go through the Faculty Senate first before hearing back from the deans. As to whether or not this change is necessary, there would be modest changes at the university if this language is changed, because, a lot of departments like the indefinite language and that would be okay. The purpose of the motion is to allow for some flexibility rather than having a fixed and uniform standard. A department, if they so choose, can have the length of service that is indefinite. Rogers commented that he would agree with Staab that he wasn’t comfortable with having legislation before the body while already having reports that seem to say, if you pass it, there will be problems. This seems to create a chilling effect on legislation and debate in chambers because it is like knowing the Governor is going to veto it before it is discussed on the floor. He does understand Dean Sluder’s comment that if he were not in a department that did not have a by-law that allowed a rotating chair on a three year term, if he read this, he might wonder if he can do that too, and it could create a department deciding to make up its own mind instead of allowing the dean to do that for them. Rogers also stated that if a policy is changed, the policy needs to actually function. There is a current policy in place, but have a department that does rotate and other departments that have term limits, so he is not sure what the policy does. The only thing that this policy would change would be to allow for those that don’t that now they could.
Staab asked how much of a change this would be and if it is a change in a direction where departments decide they want to change their by-laws, where should this decision lie? Should it lie with faculty in the departments or at the university level where it can be a fixed and uniform standard? Staab stated he would be interested in knowing if other universities have a fixed uniform principle that department chairs serve indefinitely. It has been presented to some of the departments that their by-laws conflict with university policy on indefiniteness, then that is a very interesting proposition and basically we are saying that we are not going to allow for diversity at this university with respect to the length of service of department chairs. If a department wants their person to serve indefinitely, there is nothing in this motion that would prevent them from doing so.
Lurker stated that he has worked at a university that had a 5 year rotation. He felt that it supported ownership of the department and brings the department closer together and puts the focus on the students, where the real focus is. There seemed to be a greater unity within the department because of the shared responsibility. Lurker stated to him it made lots of sense to have a rotational basis because it would help the department to be more together.
Ciafullo stated that he had raised concern within the Executive Committee about putting this in front of the deans, because he believes it does have a chilling effect. This issue to him seems real simple; it seems to be a matter of governance. As governance in principle, we embrace the faculty at this institution. He spoke in support of the motion.
Callahan also spoke in support of the motion, because while a few departments that rotate, most do not, and there is an indefinite assumption or it is a policy that is being followed. Callahan stated she does not see where the wording changes dramatically effect what can be done and she believes again that it is unfortunate that the deans are giving their input before the faculty have had their input.
Ely wanted to speak on the concept of the motion. He stated the university is heading towards more research on the university and if a chair is chair for a long time, they lose touch with their ability to do current research. Therefore, he can see advantages to have the opportunity of term limits.
Rogers stated the university has some interesting marriages within some departments. There are different strengths within various areas of discipline serving, so that you don’t have, for example, a chemist in charge of physics for 20 years and they feel like they are getting short shift. Are we going to govern ourselves or not?
Podolefsky stated he is not sure how much of a difference one section is from the other. He read that appointments are indefinite with a formal review every three years. This could mean that every three years, it is determined if they are continued or not. Therefore, changing to “is evaluated annually in accordance with university policies and is subject to a formal review every three years,” this takes out the word indefinitely, but the indefiniteness is still there because there is nothing specific about the length of term. He believes that this is taking out the implication that it is a life-time job and is not adding anything that states it should be rotating. Podolefsky stated that it seemed to him that the first policy implied indefiniteness and taking the word indefinite out, does not add the word definite in.
Shah stated that he understands that the Faculty Senate should have a weigh-in, but it was interesting to hear how the deans reacted to the motion. Shah asked what removing the indefinite achieves. Staab stated that in his many years with the Faculty Senate he doesn’t recall any presentations of what the deans had already decided when a motion has gone forward, so this is a difficult situation, which others have previously spoken to. It is important to say that those departments within the College of Arts and Sciences, who do have rotation or some sort of length of service less than indefinite, have been informed that those provisions may be in conflict with university policy. Some people do interpret the current language as indefinite length of service. This sort of language can be relied upon to bolster the length of service for some chairs beyond what some would say is a reasonable length of service. This will remove any sort of ambiguity in that area. He doesn’t believe this changes a lot by removing it, it just allows for flexibility and accommodation. Any department that would like to continue to have an indefinite length of service could still have that.
Norwood stated that she did want to clarify that point, because for the Nursing department having a department chair, in that position for an extended amount of time, is to their benefit because of their complexity it takes two to three years to figure out the admission process and the accreditation issue, etc. to keep the curriculum flowing the way it needs to, so for them it would be a major disadvantage to rotate the department chairs. She does agree in reading it, they would have the flexibility to choose that.
A recorded vote was requested on 2006-2007-3 as follows:
The Faculty Senate recommends that the following revisions be made to the section of the Academic Policy and Procedure titled “Academic Department Chairs.” The fundamental purpose of these changes is to give academic departments more flexibility in determining the length of tenure of their chairs. Presently, the tenure of department chairs is “indefinite,” which casts doubt upon current departmental bylaws that specify term limits or rotation in office. Ultimately, the Faculty Senate believes that the tenure of department chairs should be governed by each department. If a department wants its chair to serve “indefinitely,” it should have the ability to do so; but if another department wants to specify a term limit or rotation in office for its chair, it should have this authority as well. The tenure of department chairs is particularly important in light of the wide diversity of departments on this campus, including ones that combine very different disciplines.
H. ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT CHAIRS
See Academic Procedures and Regulations (AP&R Number 2) in section VII of Academic Policy and Procedure
1. Duties. Academic department chairs report to the dean of their college and are responsible for the curriculum, budget, and personnel functions of their departments.
2. Vacancies. The position of department chair can become vacant for a variety of reasons, including death, retirement, resignation, or removal; or in accordance with departmental procedures specifying term limits or rotation in office.
3. Selection Process. When the position of department chair becomes vacant, the college dean will meet with the departmental faculty to assess departmental needs. After meeting with the department, the dean will meet with the provost to determine whether the position will be filled through an internal or external search. The provost’s decision to conduct an internal or external search will be based upon numerous factors including current departmental staffing levels, programmatic needs, financial concerns and leadership needs. After consultation with the Provost, the dean, in consultation with the faculty of the department may, if necessary, name an interim department chair and commence the selection process for department chair. To be eligible for consideration as department chair, the nominee shall have attained the minimum rank of assistant professor.
a. External. If a person from outside the university is selected for the department chair, then appointment as faculty member and department chair will be made simultaneously.
b. Internal. The department faculty acting as a committee of the whole or through a representative search committee shall forward to the dean of the college the names of one or more faculty members as candidates for the position of department chair.
If more than one name is forwarded, the department may at its discretion forward them ranked with vote total.
The dean shall either select or reject a nominee from the nominee(s) submitted. The dean will forward a recommendation to the Provost for approval.
If the nomination is disapproved at any level, the department shall reinstitute its selection process and/or discuss additional options with the dean.
4. Appointment, Evaluation and
Retention of Department Chair. Normally the appointment of a department chair is
effective on July 1 on a 12-month basis.
The term of appointment as
department chair is indefinite, subject to a formal review every three years.
The department chair is evaluated annually in accordance with university
policies and is subject to a formal review every three years.
The department faculty may request removal of the department chair by a "no
confidence vote" of two-thirds of the department faculty; or in consultation
with the faculty of the department, the dean of the college may initiate the
process of terminating a person as department chair. (See APR Number 2)
A recorded vote on Motion 2006-2007-3 resulted in the following: For: Callahan, Ciafullo, Ely, Joy, Koehn, Liu, Lurker, McKee, Miller, Norwood, Popejoy, Rogers, Schmidt, Staab, Swanson, Thomas, Wang, Williamson, and Zelazek. Opposed: Strohmeyer. Abstentions: Hynes, Mandali, and Robins.
-PASSED- For: 19 Against: 1 Abstain: 3 (2006-2007-3)
McKee apologized that she brought the motion forward at the Provost Cabinet meeting. She mentioned this in a general discussion regarding items that were going on in the Senate and discussion came from that. The Deans asked her to bring that discussion back to the Senate and that is why it was done. Shah stated that the Deans have not decided anything on this motion.
Rhonda McKee presented Motion 2006-2007-4, from the FS Committee on Committees, requested approval of a change in the charge of the FS Personnel Policies Committees. McKee pointed out that several committees have a similar paragraph within their charge, so they are requesting that this paragraph be added to the charge.
A vote was taken as follows:
The FS Committee on Committees requests the Faculty Senate’s approval of the following changes to the charge of the FS Personnel Policies Committee. Additions to the text of the charge are indicated by bold print in section IV, “Comments.”
A. To review current faculty personnel policies on a continuing basis. Such a review would include, but not be restricted to, policies regarding: terms of employment; promotion and tenure; contract status; early retirement; temporary and adjunct contracts; non-tenure track, full-time faculty contracts; and faculty evaluation procedures.
B. To review proposed faculty personnel policy changes in the Academic Policy and Procedure for submission to the Faculty Senate.
C. To advise the Faculty Senate on proposed personnel policy changes to the Academic Policy and Procedure and other related faculty personnel matters.
II. POSITION IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
Reports to the Faculty Senate
A. Composition (10 members)
Two faculty members from each college and L/AE
Faculty members nominated by the FS Committee on Committees and confirmed by the Faculty Senate.
C. Selection of Chair
Shall select the chair from its membership
D. Term of Service
Two years (staggered). After serving for two consecutive terms, a member will be ineligible to serve for a period of one year. Exceptions may be made by the Faculty Senate Committee on Committees or the Faculty Senate Elections Committee.
Whenever possible, a second-year committee member should be selected as chair. A first year committee member may be selected to serve as co-chair.
Business may be conducted via e-mail if that business would not entail/merit discussion. If a committee member cannot be present at a meeting, that member may make nominations or vote via phone by calling either the Faculty Senate office professional or the chair of the Personnel Policy Committee prior to the meeting at which the nominations are being made or the vote is being taken.
The committee chair is responsible for creating and maintaining a Procedures Manual, a copy to be kept in the Faculty Senate Office.
-PASSED- Unanimous (2006-2007-4)
Rhonda McKee then presented Motion 2006-2007-5, also made by the FS Committee on Committees, requested approval of the following slate of nominations to fill committee vacancies.
A vote was taken as follows:
The Faculty Senate Committee on Committees submits the following faculty nominations for committees and requests approval of the Faculty Senate:
FS University Assessment Council: Ruthann Williams, AS&T 2007
UA Honors College Advisory Committee: Mark Sherman, AS&T 2009
See committee composition below.
FS University Assessment Council
Name College Term Ends
Mary Ragland L/AE 2008
Ruthann Williams AS&T 2007
Julie Stephens A&S 2008
Silvana Faja HCBA 2007
Joyce Downing E&HS 2007
UA Honors College Advisory Committee (3-year terms)
Name College Term Ends
Mick Luehrman A&S 2007
Mark Sherman AS&T 2009
Charlie Schwepker HCBA 2007
Richard Frazier E&HS 2009
Tony Shaffer L/AE 2008
-PASSED- Unanimous (2006-2007-5)
Jurkowski reminded everyone there is a Faculty Senate Executive Committee tomorrow at 3:15 pm and the next Faculty Senate meeting will be October 4.
Zelazek asked Podolefsky if there has been any discussion regarding the domain name. Podolefsky stated there has been discussion and that ucm.edu is currently owned by the University of California – Merced and they currently do not use it; therefore, we are working on these negotiations. The task force will work on this and related issues. There will be a transition time before everything will be completed.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:09 p.m.
Faculty Senate Office Professional