Meeting Minutes: March 7, 2002
AttendancePresent: Jeff Anglen, Tobias Baskin, Nelson Cowan, Gordon Christensen, Bruce Cutter, Michael Devaney, Sara Gable, Judith Goodman, Daniel Hooley, Tom Hurley, Bill Lamberson, Norman Land, Edward Hunvald (for Sylvia Lazos), Daniel Longo, Sudarshan Loyalka, Michael McKean, Anne McKendry, Loren Nikolai, Catherine Parke, Lloyd Barrow (for Peggy Placier), Paul Sharp, MaryEllen Sievert, William Wiebold, Russ Zguta, Jenice Prather-Kinsey (Black Faculty and Staff), Herbert Tillema (AAUP), Charles Cramer (Retirees), and Pat Timberlake (Librarians). Absent: Philip Johnson, Eileen Porter, and Don Sievert.
Approval of MinutesThe meeting was called to order by Chair Russ Zguta at 3:30 p.m. in room S203 of the Memorial Union. Zguta pointed out that the Council meeting minutes of February 7, 2002 had been amended to correct the impression that the Faculty Affairs Committee had met with Chancellor Wallace. The corrected minutes of February 7, 2002 were then approved by Council.
Report of OfficersZguta reminded Council that the Nominating Committee is currently taking nominations for the 2002-2003 Chair and Vice Chair from Faculty Council members. Zguta also reported on the meeting of the Council Chairs in which Michael Paden, Assistant Vice President for Faculty and Staff Benefits, was guest to discuss the current status of the university's pension plan. The plan is in sound condition despite a 15.9 percent decrease in overall rate of return due to market fluctuations.
Discussion ItemsGuest: Provost Brady Deaton on the RAC Model.
Zguta introduced Provost Brady Deaton who came to present a discussion of the budget model being developed by the Resource Advisory Council (RAC). He said that the current (historic) budgeting model is too static and slow to respond to changing circumstances. This RAC model is intended to "create incentives for long term campus planning through a system in which divisions are directly rewarded for productivity, leadership and excellence". The RAC model is intended to make budget decisions more explicit and transparent. Of the three major sources of university funding (extramural, student fees, and the state and federal governments), the RAC model is concerned with the last two. It proposes that 80 percent of undergraduate fees be returned to the divisions that generated them with 20 percent going to departments offering the relevant major. Graduate fees (less fee waivers and fellowships) would be allocated to the generating unit as would fees of professional school students. Using FY 2000 as an example, he showed that the RAC model would have funded all university divisions 45 million dollars less than they actually received that year.
Budget resources apart from student fees would be distributed based on quality of doctoral programs, scholarly activities, contributions to the university's strategic plan (retention, assessment, service, etc), and used for support of libraries and other academic resources. The first two criteria would be based, in part, on comparison with peer institutions (as decided by each department with three universities common to all for "internal" comparison); the others are specific to UMC.
Deaton discussed implementation of the RAC model noting the following four elements: the level of implementation is divisional rather than departmental; the special purpose funds recommended by RAC totaling 8.75 million dollars will be deferred because of budget reductions; academic year 2002-2003 will be the baseline year for subsequent RAC model budgets; and, no department would lose more than two percent of its budget in a single year. Deaton noted that the overall purpose of the RAC model is to focus on academic missions and to let divisions know what they must do to increase funding. He noted that he will work with each dean to establish weights for each criterion of excellence so everyone will know what they have to do for rewards.
Other details emerged as the Provost answered questions. (1) Each division's criteria of excellence will be published as part of the transparency of the process. (2) Credit for interdisciplinary courses will be allocated among the home divisions of the participants. (3) The MU system is not using a comparable budget model now. (4) Undertaking new activities was to have been provided for by the special purpose funds that have been deferred because of budget reductions. (5) The extent to which resources available to peer comparators will be considered a matter of judgement that may be changed over time. (6) Consideration will be given to the fact that a student who graduates from one division may have begun studies in another division. (7) Peer comparisons will be made between both departments and divisions when possible and that decisions about submitting proposals to agencies that won't support student fees would be made on a case-by-case basis.
Representation Report Addendum: Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute. Zguta reported that the nuclear engineering program, now the Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute, is independent of the College of Engineering, thus it is eligible for representation on Council. The addition of this seat would increase Council's voting membership to 30 which is the maximum authorized by the faculty bylaws of the Collected Rules and Regulations of the University of Missouri. Sudarshan Loyalka noted that some issues remain to be resolved before the newly formed institute's autonomy is complete and suggested that the process should be postponed. Edward Hunvald pointed out some irregularities in the reading of these bylaws with Council's current practices. Discussion yielded a consensus that since the bylaws were last revised several schools had changed names, new units had come into existence, and there is a resulting need to process a change in the bylaws. Zguta agreed to talk to Stephen Lehmkuhle, Vice President for Academic Affairs, about the situation and to consult with our executive committee.
Faculty Affairs Committee Resolution - Loyalka. Zguta reported that the Chancellor recently responded to the report or "sense of the Faculty Council" statement from the Faculty Affairs Committee. Loyalka said that the committee had not had time to review the Chancellor's reply and suggested that today's discussion of his committee's resolution be postponed. Loyalka then distributed two AAUP documents concerning the criterion of "collegiality" in evaluating faculty and access to faculty personnel files. Tobias Baskin said that Council should discuss the criteria for non-renewal of tenure track faculty and how such non-renewal differs from dismissal for cause. Gordon Christensen agreed and suggested that Faculty Affairs extend an invitation to the Chancellor to send a representative to the Faculty Affairs Committee to discuss the question. Hunvald suggested that a discussion of the procedures used may be at least as important as the criteria.
Zguta, on behalf of the Faculty Council, thanked Provost Deaton for his presentation.
Standing Committee ReportsAcademic Affairs: Michael McKean, Chair, reported that the Committee on Undergraduate Education requested changes in the Faculty Handbook and that he would have a report for Council later.
AdjournmentThere being no other business, Council was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. to go into a closed session.
Tom Hurley, Recorder