Meeting Minutes: May 6, 2004
AttendancePresent: Edward Adelstein, Elizabeth Baker, Rex Campbell, Gordon Christensen, Bruce Cutter, Sara Gable, Judith Goodman, Philip Johnson, Michael Kramer, Bill Lamberson, Eric Landes, Sudarshan Loyalka, Tom Marrero, Michael McKean, Stephen Neal, Tom Phillips, Eileen Porter, Charles Sampson, David Schenker, Frank Schmidt, Don Sievert, Barbara Townsend, Flore Zephir, Adrienne Hoard (Black Faculty & Staff), Herb Tillema (AAUP), and Michael Muchow (Library). Absent: Bruce Bullock, Wilson Freyermuth, Richard Hessler, Catherine Holland, Jenice Prather-Kinsey, Paul Sharp, and Tom Freeman (Retirees).
Approval of MinutesThe meeting was called to order by Chair, Gordon Christensen at 3:30 p.m. in room S203 Memorial Union. Christensen opened the meeting by reading a passage on ï¿½Excellenceï¿½ from the University of Missouri-Columbia, ï¿½A Statement of Valuesï¿½ authored by Dr. Mel George. Christensen called for approval of the March 11, 2004 Council minutes. The minutes were approved as published.
Action ItemsService Award Plaques - Christensen. Christensen awarded service award plaques to the following individuals ï¿½For Outstanding Service on the MU Faculty Councilï¿½: Wilson Freyermuth (2002 04); Michael McKean (1998-2001 & 2001-04); Sara Gable (2001-04); Judith Goodman (1998 2001 & 2001-04); Paul Sharp ((2001-04); Don Sievert ((1989-1992 & 1992-1995 & 2001-04). After presentation Council gave the recipients a round of applause acknowledging their years of work.
Discussion ItemsGuest: President Elson S. Floyd, University of Missouri. At the invitation of the Council, President Floyd addressed the group by saying how much he appreciated working with the Faculty Council and the Faculty Council Executive Committee this past year. These meetings have kept him informed of the views of the faculty and this communication serves to make a stronger school. Floyd wanted to discuss four items with the Council: the search for a new Chancellor, the RADIL controversy, the increase in tuition, and the proposed merger with Northwest Missouri State.
Regarding the retirement of Chancellor Richard Wallace, Provost Brady Deaton has agreed to serve as the Interim Chancellor starting September 1. Floyd expects a seamless transition through this interim period. Deaton will address the selection of an Acting Provost in the near future. Floyd intends to appoint a broad search committee for a new Chancellor. The committee will be primarily composed of faculty and alumni, but it will include two students, staff representatives, and community members. He intends for the committee to be relatively small and a member of the faculty will chair the committee.
Floyd is very concerned about the recent increases in tuition; he fears that increasing tuition will prevent some students from attending MU. While the current increase of 7.5 percent was lower than the 20 percent, and 14.8 percent in recent years, it is still far too much. These increases have been due to a reduction in state support. He noted that for the first time in the history of MU, tuition and fees provided more support to the school than did the state appropriation. Floyd believes it is important to maintain educational excellence, and he expects this emphasis to continue in the future, but educational excellence requires financial support. He believes that tuition should be "stable and predictable." He will work with the state legislature and the System to accomplish a more stable tuition policy.
Floyd announced that he has become personally involved in working through the RADIL controversy. To understand this issue he has met with the RADIL faculty and the Vice Provost for Research. An Incentive Plan Committee is also studying this issue. He would like to assure the faculty that this matter is "not falling on deaf ears." Floyd will work for a satisfactory resolution of the issue.
Floyd stated that he was not certain that the proposed merger with Northwest Missouri State would actually take place. Over the past year this issue has become entangled with the issue of changing the name of Southwest Missouri State. Floyd then described the history of the negotiations with Northwest Missouri State, pointing out that the negotiations were conducted publicly. At this time both schools have agreed to a ï¿½Memorandum of Understandingï¿½ describing the merger terms. Enacting legislation has been introduced into both houses of the state legislature. Floyd believes it is important for the University of Missouri System to extend educational services to Northwest Missouri. On the other hand, neither the UM System nor Northwest Missouri State are expecting Northwest to become a full fledged research institution. Nevertheless, the UM System will support targeted graduate programs. Floyd then added that he "will not sacrifice one campus for another." He added that the Northwest faculty support the merger. He also noted that this would be the first time two major public universities voluntarily merged in order to promote teaching, research, and service while diminishing administrative costs. Floyd concluded by commenting on the relationship between MU and the other four-year schools in Missouri. Floyd emphasized that MU should continue to be the leader in the life sciences. Although the original $190 million bond proposal had swelled to $350 million, he hoped the state legislature would pass the proposal.
President Floyd then took questions from the Council:
Adrienne Hoard asked Floyd if he would comment on the recent external review of the compliance of MU with the 1988 Mediation Agreement. Floyd responded he had read the review and discussed the matter with Chancellor Wallace, Vice Chancellor Middleton, and Provost Deaton. He believes this is an important issue and he wants MU to improve, however he will leave implementation of the institutional response to the MU leadership.
Don Sievert asked: "When do you decide to get involved in a campus issue?" Floyd replied that he is ultimately responsible for the functioning of all four campuses, so he gets involved with a matter when the local leadership encounters problems in resolving the issue. He admitted, however, that he is a hands-on leader who believes in becoming involved with issues before they become problems.
Sara Gable asked about financial aid for students. Floyd stated that the UM System is working on improving need-based aid, however merit-based aid will continue.
Tom Marrero inquired as to where President Floyd projected we would be in 5-10 years. Floyd said that at the next Board of Curators meeting he would present a revised five-year strategic plan for the UM System. He expects enrollment to increase, targeted research programs should grow (particularly collaborative research programs and life science research), and the school should shift to "performance-based management leadership."
Eddie Adelstein asked about the future of non-tenure faculty at MU. Floyd reminded the Council that he had addressed this issue at Western Michigan State, resulting in important changes in the stature and employment of non-tenure faculty; MU, however, was a different school. Floyd believes it is first important to consider how to support the regular faculty. The regular faculty in turn should guide the hiring of the non-regular faculty. Floyd would support any changes proposed by the regular faculty.
In concluding, President Floyd affirmed his personal commitment to the principle of "shared governance." The Council will find him to be an "active listener" not a "micro-manager." Finally, he assured the assembly that MU will continue to be the "public research university" for the MU system and he expects MU to be "one of the great universities."
Guest: Tim Rooney, Academic Budget and Research Officer. At the invitation of the Council, Tim Rooney discussed the availability of family leave for MU faculty. He noted that a group began discussing this issue during the summer of 2000. The discussion group included Judith Goodman, who represented the Faculty Council, as well as Kate Markie, Steve Graham, Mike Paden, and himself. The group determined that MU did not have a uniform policy regarding family leave. He noted that there were some advantages to this as it allowed for flexibility in addressing specific cases. He also said that they found that in general, MU applied the Family Medical Leave Act to faculty in the same manner as the university applied the act to staff. Unfortunately, because the staff and faculty were employed under different conditions with radically different polices regarding the accrual of leave, it was not possible for the group to develop a uniform policy for faculty. The specific impediment to a parallel policy was that faculty did not accrue leave in the formal manner followed by the staff. For these reasons, the group recommended to the Provost that the staff policy should guide decisions regarding faculty, but the university should refrain from establishing a set policy. This would mean that generally speaking, faculty would have 12 weeks of family medical leave. The application of this time, however, would be subject to negotiation with the faculty supervisor vis-ï¿½-vis teaching responsibilities and the academic calendar. The Provost accepted this recommendation so Mr. Rooney was now free to inform the faculty of the existence of this "guideline" rather than a set policy.
Goodman noted that the Provost did not provide any funds to subsidize this leave; she also thought the guidelines were the best possible compromise for a very difficult issue. Sudarshan Loyalka concurred, however Tom Marrero commented that the faculty were entitled to a formal leave policy. Charles Sampson pointed out that a solution developed for the staff may not work for the faculty. Eileen Porter asked that the "guidelines" be published in written form. Rooney responded that he would provide a written copy of the guidelines to the Faculty Council. Adelstein emphasized that the Family Medical Leave guidelines should be a basic benefit for all faculty, the guidelines should be established policy rather than optional guidelines, and individual departments should increase these minimal benefits whenever possible.
Article VI - Academic Integrity - Lamberson. On behalf of the Academic Affairs Committee, Bill Lamberson introduced the proposed revisions to Article VI of the Faculty Handbook entitled "Academic Integrity." This iteration addressed criticisms raised in the prior reading of the proposed revisions. Specifically:
The Faculty Affairs Committee has revised section 6, so that under Option B the faculty retain the power to award a grade as the faculty deem appropriate. Students may appeal this decision under the pre-existent grade appeal process.
The Faculty Affairs Committee has deleted the option compelling a student to admit guilt. Under the revision the faculty member simply reports "no agreement" when a student disputes a charge of dishonesty. In such situations, the incident is reported to the Provost for investigation.
The Council expressed great appreciation for the work of the Academic Affairs Committee. Since prior iterations of this policy had already been discussed at Council, a motion was made and seconded to suspend the rules to enable approval of the revised honor code. The motion to suspend the rules passed unanimously. A second motion was made and seconded to adopt the revised Article VI as published, the motion passed unanimously.
Athletics (COIA & Intercollegiate Faculty Council). Because the hour was late, the distributed resolutions entitled "Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics" and "Convening a Second Meeting of the Big 12 Faculty on Reform of Intercollegiate Athletics" were tabled by general consent until the next meeting.
AdjournmentCouncil met briefly in closed session. The meeting was then adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Edward Adelstein, Recorder