Meeting Minutes: November 7, 2002


Present: Tobias Baskin, Rex Campbell, Gordon Christensen, Bruce Cutter, Michael Devaney, Wilson Freyermuth, Judith Goodman, Richard Hessler, Tom Hurley, Bill Lamberson, Norman Land, Eric Landes, Robert Leavene, Sudarshan Loyalka, Michael McKean, Catherine Parke, Peggy Placier, Eileen Porter, Charles Sampson, Paul Sharp, Don Sievert, Barbara Townsend, William Wiebold, Herbert Tillema (AAUP), Charles Cramer (Retirees), and Michael Muchow (Librarians). Absent: Jeffrey Anglen, Nelson Cowan, Sara Gable, Philip Johnson, Eric Landes, Daniel Longo, Jenice Prather-Kinsey, and David Schenker.

Approval of Minutes

The meeting was called to order by Chair Michael Devaney at 3:30 p.m. in room S203 of the Memorial Union. The minutes of the October 10, 2002 Faculty Council meeting were approved as submitted.

Report of Officers

Devaney reported that the Executive Committee met with Stephen Lehmkuhle, Vice President for Academic Affairs to discuss the proposed changes in the faculty workload policy section 310.080 of the Collected Rules and Regulations. In a meeting of the Executive Committee and Provost Brady Deaton on November 5, 2002 the problems with this policy were also discussed. Provost Deaton at this meeting supported the faculty's position. At the November 6, 2002 meeting of the Intercampus Faculty Council (IFC) President Pacheco agreed with the faculty and indicated that the present workload policy will remain in effect. Pacheco now plans to issue an executive order dealing with instructional workload and will seek faculty input in its formulation. Other matters discussed with the Provost included the suspension of faculty development funding and the nature of vote counting for an individual in the tenure process. Devaney noted that Executive Committee will soon meet with the Staff Advisory Committee's Executive Council. He also noted that thanks should be extended to the Chancellor and Provost for their support of shared governance.

Eileen Porter, Representative to the IFC, reported that the faculty workload document was the primary topic at the November 6th meeting. She indicated that IFC will continue to work with Lehmkuhle on drafting the executive order. Sudarshan Loyalka, Vice Chair, noted that other campuses were in full agreement with our position on the faculty workload policy and that our thanks should be extended to Pacheco and Lehmkuhle for their openness to the faculty's suggestions. It was also reported that minutes of the IFC meetings will be posted electronically in the near future. Members of the IFC will be seeking out Jim Snider, Assistant to the President for Governmental Relations, to consult him on the applicability of the "sunshine" law to IFC meetings.

Other topics of discussion included: the announcement of President Pacheco's successor at the November Board of Curators meeting, the university's retirement plan, a tuition benefits program for dependents of employees, and reports from individual campuses. It was noted that the Task Force to Reduce Administrative costs includes no faculty members and that Ralph Caruso, Vice President for Information Systems will release the task force's report around December 1. This task force will continue to operate after the release of its report and will also examine the implementation of PeopleSoft.

Action Items

Draft 2004-2005 Academic Calendar - Lamberson. Bill Lamberson introduced a proposed calendar for academic year 2004-2005. Bruce Cutter offered a friendly amendment to change "stop day" to "reading day". A motion to adopt the calendar as amended passed unanimously. The calendar appears below.


University of Missouri-Columbia Proposed Academic Calendar 2004-2005


Orientation and RegistrationW,RAug 18,19
RegistrationFAug 20
Classwork begins, 8:00 a.m.MAug 23
Labor Day Holiday (no classes)MSep 06
Thanksgiving recess begins, close of day*SaNov 20
Classwork resumes, 8:00 a.m.MNov 29
Classwork ends, close of day*FDec 10
Reading DaySaDec 11
Final examinations beginMDec 13
Fall semester closes, 5:00 p.m.FDec 17
CommencementSaSuDec 18,19


Orientation and RegistrationRJan 13
RegistrationFJan 14
Martin Luther King Holiday (no classes)MJan 17
Classwork begins, 8:00 a.m.TJan 18
Spring recess begins, close of day*SaMar 19
Classwork resumes, 8:00 a.m.MMar 28
Classwork ends, close of day*FMay 06
Reading DaySaMay 07
Final examinations beginMMay 09
Winter semester closes, 5:00 p.m.FMay 13
CommencementSaSuMay 14,15


8-week session
Orientation and RegistrationFJun 03
Classwork begins, 7:30 a.m.MJun 06
Independence Day recess (no classes)MJul 04
8-week session closes, 5:00 p.m.FJul 29


Orientation and RegistrationFJun 03
Classwork begins, 7:30 a.m.MJun 06
First 4-week session closes, 5:00 p.m.FJul 01


Orientation and RegistrationTJul 05
Classwork begins, 7:30 a.m.TJul 05
Second 4-week session closes, 5:00 p.m.FJul 29


*Close of day is defined as including late afternoon and evening classes.

The faculty is reminded that a substantial number of students may want to observe religious holidays and days of special commemoration. The faculty is encouraged to avoid scheduling examinations on such days.

Resolution: Charter for the Grievance Task Force - Christensen. Gordon Christensen introduced a charge for the Grievance Task Force. A motion to adopt the document passed unanimously.

Resolution: Charter for the Grievance Task Force

The Faculty Council recommends that a Grievance Task Force be appointed to conduct an audit of grievances filed by members of the faculty against the University of Missouri-Columbia. The purpose of the Grievance Task Force audit is determine whether or not the grievance process has been a fair and effective mechanism to resolve Faculty grievances. With regard to the Grievance Task Force, the Faculty Council recommends (a) criteria for membership, (b) procedures for nomination and selection of members, and (c) specific criteria and procedures for the audit, as follows:

1. Criteria for membership

A. Only active or retired members of the Faculty of the University of Missouri-Columbia are eligible to serve.

B. Each member must agree to keep all proceedings confidential with the exception of published reports. Upon appointment, each member will be asked to sign a statement pledging to maintain confidentiality.

2. Nomination process

A. The Faculty Council and the Chancellor will each nominate a slate of three candidates for membership.

B. The Faculty Council's nomination procedure will be as follows:

1. The Executive Committee will nominate prospective candidates.

2. The Faculty Council will receive the nominations and open the floor for further nominations, and then select a slate of three nominees. The Chair of Faculty Council will notify nominees and determine whether they are willing to serve if appointed. If one or more nominees are unable to serve, the nomination process will be continued until the slate is complete.

3. Selection process

A. The Chancellor will select one member from the Faculty Council slate, and the Faculty Council will select one member from the Chancellor's slate.

B. These two members will jointly nominate a third member, who (1) must be approved by both the Chancellor and the Faculty Council or the Executive Committee and (2) will serve as Chair.

C. The Chancellor and the Faculty Council will notify each member in writing of the charge of the Grievance Task Force and effective date of appointment.

4. Procedure for conducting the audit

A. The audit should be completed with the greatest dispatch. Within 60 days of its appointment, the Task Force should file a progress report and specify a completion date.

B. The audit should include each grievance filed from July 1997 through June 2002, regardless of the status of the grievance at the time of the audit. The most recent grievance should be audited first.

C. All written reports are to be submitted to the Chancellor and to the Faculty Council.

5. Content of written reports

A. For each grievance filed, these data should be reported: (a) academic home of the grievant (i.e., unit, department, school or college), (b) the nature of the grievance (i.e., violation of academic freedom, denial of promotion, discrimination, harassment, etc.), (c) completed steps of the grievance process (as specified in the Collected Rules), (d) duration of time for each step, and (e) current status of the grievance in terms of the steps of the process. If a decision was reached, these data should be reported: (f) whether the grievance panel decided in favor of the grievant or the respondent and (g) whether University administration followed the panel's recommendation.

B. For each grievance filed, evidence should be documented pertaining to each of these characteristics of an effective grievance resolution process, as adopted by the Faculty Council:

1. Procedurally sound. Due process was followed. The process adhered to a calendar that rapidly addressed the grievance. Rules were followed to ensure the grievant had an adequate opportunity to present the complaint and the respondent had an adequate opportunity to respond.

2. Substantive. The hearings addressed the justice of the matter. Neither party "got off on a technicality."

3. Fair. The process was directed toward determining, in an unbiased manner, whether the grievant's allegations were true. If a grievance panel's decision was overturned, the reasons for doing so were based on an impartial weighing of the evidence.

C. For each grievance filed, the Task Force should document a judgment in relation the effectiveness of the grievance resolution process, based on the evidence above. If there was not consensus on the judgement, any other viewpoints should be included in the report

D. For the group of grievances as a whole, these data should be reported: (a) number of grievances filed by faculty in each academic unit; (b) mean, median and range of the time required to complete each step of the process; and (c) overall status: number of grievances currently at each step of the process.

E. Reports should not include information that would enable an independent party to identify the grievant or the respondent, unless that information has already entered the public domain.

Discussion Items

Guests: Brenda Selman, Registrar on Course Renumbering & Ann Korschgen, Vice Provost Enrollment Management, Registrar & Director of Admissions. Korschgen began this segment with a description of the new division of Enrollment Management (involving no new administrative positions). She noted an unprecedented graduation rate (65.1 percent) and a retention rate of (85 percent) for African-American students as well as record undergraduate enrollment and increased graduate student enrollment. Korschgen distributed copies of the enrollment management plan and a profile of the student body on the Columbia campus. She noted that the management plan focuses on the quality of the educational experience rather than on increasing enrollment. Among the items discussed during the following question and answer period were: the serious problem of freshman being excluded from courses that is exacerbated by increasing enrollment, and the declining quality of the educational experience that will follow increasing enrollment without increasing instructional capacity. Korschgen indicated that the policy is to emphasize quality of education and that plans are being developed to survey students who leave as well as stay at the university. Devaney thanked Korschgen for her presentation.

Devaney then introduced Brenda Selman who discussed a proposal to renumber courses and the reasons for renumbering courses. Selman distributed a letter from John David, Director of the Division of Biological Sciences, supporting the course renumbering proposal. Tobias Baskin raised objections to the proposal and suggested that departments with course numbering problems should address those problems within the framework of the existing numbering system. Devaney thanked Selman for her presentation.

Resolution: A Procedure to be Followed for Mergers and Consolidations of Academic Units - Christensen. Christensen introduced a resolution dealing with merging departments when loss of faculty positions is not involved. He pointed out that the faculty's role is advisory since the administration has the authority to merge departments. Further discussion of the resolution was postponed.

Standing Committee Reports

Student Affairs: Bob Leavene, Chair, reported that the Chief of University Security has been contacted regarding concerns about pedestrian safety on campus. A meeting concerning traffic safety is scheduled for November 18 at 1:30 p.m. In room S201 Union.

Any Other Business

Bill Wiebold expressed thanks to the Executive Committee, Wilson Freyermuth, and Eileen Porter in particular for their work on the proposed revisions of the faculty workload policy.


The open meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Council then went into a closed session for committee appointments.

Respectfully submitted,
Thomas Hurley, Recorder