Meeting Minutes: August 26, 2004

Attendance

Present: Edward Adelstein, Elizabeth Baker, Rex Campbell, Gordon Christensen, Bruce Cutter, Pat Fry, Richard Hessler, Catherine Holland, Philip Johnson, Michael Kramer, Bill Lamberson, Glenn Leshner, Sudarshan Loyalka, Kenneth MacLeod, Tom Marrero, Tom Phillips, Jenice Prather Kinsey, Charles Sampson, David Schenker, Laura Schopp, Barbara Townsend, Frank Schmidt, Wilson Watt, Flore Zephir, Dean Yarwood (Retirees), and Michael Muchow (Library). Absent: Bruce Bullock, Eric Landes, Eileen Porter, Adrienne Hoard (Black Faculty & Staff), and Andrew Simpson (AAUP).

Approval of Minutes

The meeting was called to order by Chair, Gordon Christensen at 3:30 p.m. in room S203 Memorial Union. Christensen opened the meeting with reflections on the land grant mission of this university especially on our responsibilities of stewardship and trust. Christensen called for approval of the May 12, 2004 General Faculty Meeting minutes. The minutes were approved with two modifications: Core to Corp, and to include a url address at the request of Vice Provost Lori Franz.

Report of Officers

Christensen announced that the Faculty Council Workshop will be held on Thursday, September 16, 2004 starting at 3:00 p.m., followed by committee work, and a dinner. Representative Timothy Harlan (Tim) will be the after dinner speaker and other guests invited are Provost Deaton, and Vice Provost Lori Franz.

Christensen related to Council that the comments and concerns about the interim appointment of Dr. Brady Deaton and the recruitment of a new chancellor had been given to President Floyd. Further, he will come to the September 23, 2004 meeting to discuss in a closed meeting the recruitment process for the MU chancellor.

Sudarshan Loyalka, Intercampus Faculty Council Representative (IFC), made some brief comments on some of the issues that were discussed at the IFC retreat in August. On the topic of the recent revisions to the Columbia campus grievance procedures there will be a two-year trial period beginning fall semester 2004. The other campuses would be eligible to review this grievance procedure in fall semester 2006. Frank Schmidt, Vice Chair, who was also at the IFC meeting commented that a conflict of interest policy proposal was being considered and it will be coming to the Faculty Council after receiving further discussion at the IFC.

Discussion Items

Committee Reports and Updates (Tracker) - Christensen. Christensen began by asking each member to introduce themselves. Christensen cited the past work of the committees and stated that the annual reports of committees would be included in the electronic version of these minutes (see appendix). He noted that at the annual workshop each member would have an opportunity to make input on the various committees' plans for the next year. Committee reports were introduced and the chairs of the committees were asked for any additional comments. The comments from the committee chairs follow.

1) Academic Affairs, Bill Lamberson, Chair - no additional comments except that the academic calendar will be the first item to be considered.
2) Fiscal Affairs, Charles Sampson, Chair - will carry forward several items for further consideration.
3) Special Projects, Bruce Cutter, Chair - one of the primary duties of the special projects committee is the review of the various campus administrators. The Chancellor was scheduled for review last year, but was not reviewed because of his forthcoming retirement. This year the Provost is scheduled for review and Dr. Deaton will be reviewed even though he will be serving as the Interim Chancellor.
4) Student Affairs, Barbara Townsend, Chair - no additional comments.
5) Faculty Affairs, Philip Johnson, Chair - he reported on the considerable work that the committee has done regarding the role of non-regular faculty at MU. Currently, members of the Faculty Council represent only tenured faculty with the exception of the library staff. Non-regular faculty members have increased on this campus while tenured faculty numbers have decreased. The committee considered the possibility of recommending the establishment of a council for non-regular faculty however this group of faculty lack the feature that distinguishes the tenured faculty - a tenure process or a set of qualifying standards and rules. The committee made a series of recommendations for changes including: (a) streamline the academic titles for non regular faculty; (b) improve the level of understanding of expectations for non regular; (c) tenure for professional faculty; (d) governance; (e) teaching values and recognition of merit; and, (f) job security for this group.

There was also a separate report from the previous web editor Wilson Freyermuth. Freyermuth was given special recognition for his large contribution for the development of a new website. The technical undertaking was attributed to Ms. Amy Reeter, IAT Services. The financial resources were provided by Vice Provost Lori Franz. There was a brief demonstration of the new site for the Council. Elizabeth Baker, '04-'05 web editor expressed her thanks to everyone involved. Christensen noted in response to questions that Elizabeth Baker is the one to speak to if anyone wishes to request an item added and that routine items will continue to be handled by the Faculty Council office staff.

'03-'04 Report to the Faculty Council from the Faculty Affairs Committee on the Role of Non regular Faculty at MU - Johnson. Townsend began the discussion of this issue with the question, are there any MU regulations on non-regular faculty? Schmidt replied that yes there were such regulations in the Collected Rules and Regulations. Adelstein commented that the non-regular faculty did not have academic freedom. In response, Franz commented that the non-regular faculty members have academic freedom for teaching. Adelstein stated that in most situations the non regular faculty did not have protection and that people were leaving because of poor treatment of non-regular faculty such as physicians in the medical school. Subsequently, there has been a large turnover in the medical school in part because of the poor treatment of non-regular faculty.

Phillips commented that there should be more regulations for non-regular faculty due to their many varied duties. In regards to representation for this group, Phillips elaborated how difficult it would be due to considerable heterogeneity within the non-regular faculty group. This discussion continued and became lengthy. Sampson added that the non-regulars do not have property rights and members of Council affirmed that statement. Townsend said that some non-regular faculty wanted rights and responsibilities and some did not want such responsibilities. The tenured members have earned their positions through research and the activities associated with the tenure process and beyond. Such faculty members become competitive in national searches during the hiring process. Phillips added that most non-regular faculty are not hired through such a search however they at times are given a choice as to what type of position they ultimately take. Wilson Watt stated that more regular faculty positions were needed. Adelstein added that funding is an issue. The non-regular positions provide for administrative flexibility, but it comes at a high price and furthermore non-regular faculty members are now a majority. Lamberson noted that the non regular faculty are here only for a short period of time they basically come and go. The discussion continued with the following points being made: 1) non-regulars with short term research contracts,etc. should be treated differently than faculty who were involved with longer term responsibilities; 2) encouragement to this group of faculty to apply for tenure track positions; 3) titles are important and sensitive so any change in faculty titles should be done with care; 4) there should be some commonality between schools on titles; 5) if a position has good funding there should be a three to five year contract; and, 6) there should be a policy handbook for the non regular faculty and it should include what rights they have.

Due to the late hour it was decided to rest the discussion. Schmidt succinctly added that tenure serves the institution by promoting innovation and tenure allows faculty the freedom to try and succeed and the freedom to fail.

Standing Committee Assignments. Council members were reminded that their committee assignment for '04-'05 was in the meeting packet.

Council Workshop. Council members were encouraged to attend our annual Council Workshop on Thursday, September 16, 2004 in the Fifth Floor Conference room of the Life Sciences Building.

Adjournment

The meeting moved into a brief closed session for committee nominations. The meeting was then adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Rex Campbell, Recorder

*appendix*

Special Projects Committee

We have made some progress on the ombuds issue. We would prefer to see a group of ombudsmen/women instead of a single ombudsman. This would spread the responsibility/burden over several shoulders. We also have tossed around the idea that the ex-FC chairs would make an excellent core group for this (since many have functionally served as an ombudsman).

We have made progress on the e-ballot issue. A list of potential qualifying faculty titles was provided to the FC Office some weeks ago through Mike McKean's efforts. This list of qualifying titles (as it was explained to me) needed to be reviewed. One of the concerns that had been raised was security and we are confident that e-ballots can be done with integrity while maintaining a secure environment (at least as secure as any web-based system can be!). Since our current rules state that changes in by-laws have to be done by paper ballot, we will have to have a paper ballot to okay e-ballots!

We have provided a letter to the FC Office that has been sent to the deans and directors of the assorted academic units to assist in clarifying and updating the representation issues in the CRR. We have received several responses (as of 7/123/04).

And finally, next academic year, FC is to conduct the review of the Provost. This past year we would have reviewed the Chancellor but, since he was retiring, FC opted to forego the review. My assumption is that we will review Dr. Deaton per se.

Bruce Cutter

To: Faculty Council
From: Subcommittee on Fiscal Affairs
Re: AY 2003/2004 Report
Date: 29 July 2004

Members: Rex Campbell
Bruce Bullock
Richard Hessler
Charles Sampson

During the occasion of the organizational meeting in August, 2003 the subcommittee on Fiscal Affairs met in Reynolds Alumni Center, considered and accepted the chairs, 'challenge' and subsequently adopted the following as a tentative agenda for the 2003-2004 Academic Year.

The committee adopted the following as an agenda:
· Athletic accountability vis-à-vis fiscal affairs
· Budget and Re-Organization
· People-Soft Follow-up
· State Funding Formula for Higher Education*
· Retirement Fund Concerns*
· Transition Assistance Program (TAP)*
· Reactor- to what extent is the Reactor a strain on University Resources

During the course of the AY we addressed some of the items and took on others including

· Payroll deduction policy
· Fee for use of new athletic conditioning facility
· Changes in Staff Benefits Charges/Costs

The balance of this narrative is intended t o provide background for each issue and its current status.

Athletic accountability vis-à-vis fiscal affairs

Background

This issue was easily the most visible on the campus. Many offices and individuals were involved, therefore the sub-committee on Fiscal Affairs (FA) took note of the fact that there was considerable overlap between the role of FA and the Presidents Select committee Athletic Department Inquiry and resolved that given the internal (President's Select Committee) and external (NCAA) committee involvement we would forego any reporting until it was clear that it was prudent to do so. Nevertheless the subcommittee began its work in September and met with fiscal staff of athletic director (AD) Mike Alden. Our task was to 'examine the financial relationships between the Athletic Department and the academic portion of the University to determine if the net financial support favors MU, the Athletic Department or is neutral.' We were interested in a wide range of information including all costs involving athletics including athletic scholarships and other student support. For example, is the University reimbursed for out-of-state athletes at the same rate as other out-of-state students? To what accounts are such reimbursements credited? Another area of concern is indirect costs such as utilities for athletic buildings. Does the athletic department pay the full costs of water, electricity, sewers, etc.? Does the Athletic Department pay for the travel costs of faculty committee representatives to NCAA meetings and other needed travel? Second, does the AD pay all costs to the campus when out of the ordinary costs come about? For example, there were damages done to the Reactor Recreational Field by vehicles parking there for the last home game. Did AD pick up those costs?

Two forums on the status of athletics at MU were designed to elicit faculty opinions on this subject so that these opinions can be used by the Faculty Council to guide further policy decisions. Sparse attendance could be a fair indication of faculty perception on the importance of the issue. It must be recognized that the forum was scheduled prior to issuance of the NCAA Report of Findings.


Current Status

Interviews with fiscal staff and examination of documents provided by AD staff revealed no irregularities.


Budget and Re-Organization

Background

The issue that drove faculty interest was what appeared to be growth in administrative appointments during times of fiscal challenge.

Current status

This issue has not been answered. Institutional research officers in concert with fiscal affairs are continuing to arrive at useful definitions such that a meaningful answer can be derived.


PeopleSoft Follow-up

Background

1) In the early 1990's IATS decided to replace their computer software systems because they were more than 30 years old.

2) Introduction of PeopleSoft started in 1997, originally estimated to cost $40 M, it has now reached $48 M (a cost merely represents the IATS costs and does not reflect the many millions of additional dollars expended at the department level for integration to occur).

3) Modules for payroll, human resources, purchasing, grants, and billing are in progress. Problems include out-of-date workstations that could not process the software.

4) Difficulties with the PeopleSoft programs cause virtually all who observe that it has failed to live up to expectations. In particular the grant module has not worked well.

5) Regarding the Student Module, there is now more than two years of experience in universities around the country. The IATS personnel have visited with Northwestern and Wisconsin regarding PeopleSoft implementation and determined that these institutions were pleased with the program.

6) The student system will be the next module to be introduced, beginning in Rolla in January.

7.) You may recall that when Ralph Caruso came to Council he promised he would post and update a FAQ section

Current Status

Concerns continue.


State Funding Formula for Higher Education

Background

Some colleagues thought a window of opportunity was available as the state was continually faced with the practice of 'take backs' and that the issue would provide an opportunity to re-think how higher education is funded in Missouri.

Status
This issue has not been pursued. Second thoughts of practical considerations have placed it in limbo.

Retirement Fund Concerns

Background

The escalating lag between cost of living increases and retirement benefits for faculty and staff generated concern particularly in light of health insurance increases.

Status

The issue remains unresolved.


Transition Assistance Program

Background

$30,000 was cited as an amount of assistance paid to any employee (System-wide) who was at least partially funded by a grant and who was terminated due to fund loss. The key words are "at least partially funded by a grant." The total TAP paid to date was estimated to be higher by MU budget officer, Tim Rooney. He interpreted the $30,000 figure to mean there has not been that many grant funded staff that was terminated and eligible for TAP, or possibly the TAP liability for this cohort of employees was not that expensive. TAP pay is based on the number of years of service a staff member has been employed.

There are a couple of reasons why MU officials believe the costs for MU are modest as it relates to grant funded salaries. First, the $30,000 estimate was for all campuses so they assumed the actual cost for MU would be something less than $30,000. Second, the $30,000 is for all employees who are at least partially paid by a grant. In other words, if a staff member is paid 50% from a grant and 50% from other sources, the grant salary is only responsible for 50% of the TAP costs. Therefore, the actual cost related to grant funding was projected to be less.

As to where the funding is to come from, that is the decision of the departments or divisions. The actual cost related to grant funding is thought to be relatively modest (as described above) and manageable by the divisions within their budgets or reserve balances. The initiative was vetted shared with Deans and fiscal officers and was hoped that the information would be disseminated appropriately.

Regarding why grant funded staff are eligible for TAP: First, funding for staff salaries frequently changes. It is possible that long term employee could be funded "off and on" by grants during their years of employment and it was reasoned that it would be unfair to deny TAP simply because their last source of funding was grants. Second, many staff are only partially funded by grants and it was argued that it would be fair to award "partial" TAP funds. In both cases the variability of salary funding would make it difficult to administer the TAP program unless it includes all eligible staff regardless of funding source.

Current status


The policy is in practice. No contrary recommendations have been considered by the sub committee.


Re-Actor

Background

This perennial issue raised the question of whether University resources (to the Reactor) negatively impact campus fiscal capability.

Current Status

The issue was not undertaken during the past AY.


Payroll deduction policy


Background

MU permits only a very limited number of organizations to use the withholding from pay checks. United Way is the only charity that is allowed. KBIA and the Development office also use it. Karl Kruse represents an environment organization, Earth Share that wants to be able to ask MU faculty and staff to contribute through payroll deductions. The MU Administration has not supported the idea saying that it would cost too much. United Way has opposed it because they are concerned that the amount they get from MU would go down - a zero sum game logic. And my guess is, they are probably correct at least in large part. Karl is looking for another avenue for support to take to the administration

Status

This committee has not deliberated sufficiently to derive a recommendation.


Fee for use of new athletic conditioning facility


Background

What is a fair and reasonable tax for faculty (and staff usage?

Current Status

Committee has not brought forth a recommendation.


Changes in Staff Benefits and Charges associated with Grants and Contracts

Background

It appears that the initiative to generate an increase may have come from system staff rather than the Research Officer and other responsible folks. IFC placed this on a recent agenda.

Current Status

Unknown

Academic Affairs

During 2003-2004 the Academic Affairs Committee conducted the following business:

Clarified policy regarding the repository of official academic regulations.

Updated wording in the Faculty Handbook regarding +/- grading policy (action of Exec.).

Developed a recommendation for guidelines for cancellation of unnecessarily small classes. This proposal was approved by Council.

Developed a proposal to strengthen the transfer admissions requirements. This proposal was approved by Council.

Developed a proposed revision to the charge for the Honors Council, which has the effect of strengthening the Honors Council and recommending development of a rigorous honors option for fulfilling the general education requirements. This proposal was approved by Council.

Reviewed the policy for makeup exams in the case of conflicting finals. The current policy was reaffirmed by the Academic Affairs Committee.

Worked with the Policy Subcommittee to develop a revision to Article VI on academic dishonesty. This proposal was approved by Council.

William Lamberson

Student Affairs

Members: Kitty Holland, Michael Muchow, Steven Neal, Paul Sharp, Don Sievert, Barbara Townsend (chair). The student members: Nathan Brummel (GPC), Brian Laoruangroch (MSA), Amahia Mallea (GSA)

Topics discussed:

1) Update on Pick-a-Prof: was not up and running by fall 2003
2) Update on residence hall master plan (Cathy Scroggs)
3) Cost of books for students: learned that the average cost of $550, as reported by the University Bookstore, is significantly less than the $880 allocated for books and supplies by MU Student Financial Aid Office.
4) Request to access Cornell Hall classrooms for meetings: never received a final response from Jackie Joyner concerning this.
5) Common hour: resolution passed in committee; was later decided to be withdrawn after initial presentation in Faculty Council.
6) Pedestrian quad/closing of Rollins Avenue: resolution passed in committee and present to Faculty Council.
7) Student attitudes toward athletic reform: student representatives on committee did not express a concern that anything needed to be done by Faculty Council.
8) Need for policy concerning recognition for outstanding deceased students not eligible for posthumous degree.
9) Alcohol usage at University-sponsored functions: decided that it was not the role of Faculty Council, to review campus policy about alcohol usage at University-sponsored functions; asked Student Affairs to remind everyone of the operant policies regarding alcohol usage; recommended to Cathy Scroggs that servers do not circulate with trays of alcoholic beverages at University-sponsored events. Those tending the bar at such events would be responsible for carding people.

Future topics:

1) Continue discussion of #8 above
2) Ask someone from MSA to speak with committee about its "resolution to improve the classroom experience" by recommending that faculty use Early Feedback in their courses; ask that someone from P.E.T. Be there to discuss the impact upon P.E.T., should the bulk of faculty use Early Feedback.

Actions:

1) Submitted to Faculty Council a resolution regarding closing Rollins Avenue to vehicular access. Note: resolution passed by Faculty Council.
2) Submitted to Faculty Council a resolution regarding creation of a "Common Hour"; decided in a subsequent committee meeting to withdraw the resolution

Barbara Townsend

Website Editor

The Faculty Council website has been comprehensively redesigned for the 2004-2005 academic year. Special thanks are in order to Interim Provost Lori Franz for providing financial support for this revision, and to Amy Reeter of IATS and her staff for their work in designing and putting together the site.

The redesigned site is currently accessible (in beta, so to speak) at the following URL;
http://facultycouncil-dev.missouri.edu/

A copy of the main homepage is attached, although my printer didn't reproduce the full banner image or the page's use of color, so you will need to direct your browser to the above URL in order to fully appreciate the page's redesign.

Navigation through the site has been streamlined, and the Faculty Handbook has be reorganized and updated in a fashion that should allow users to navigate it more easily. The site will also include a regular column from the Council chair on items of current interest, as well as a moderated forum for members of the campus community to express their opinions or concerns regarding issues of campus interest.

During August, I will work with the new website editor and with Amy Reeter to make sure that any remaining additional information or necessary changes are made so that the site can be fully activated in time for the beginning of classes. Once it is activated, appropriate link changes will be made on other campus websites and we will circulate an announcement to the entire campus highlighting the new site.

I would ask that Council members take a few minutes to look at the new site over the next week, and to provide me with any feedback on the new site and its navigation. Particularly, if Council members would like to have other information or links reflected on the site, please let me know so that the appropriate changes can be made. You can send any comments to me at freyermuthr@missouri.edu.

Please note: the new site will have a Search function that actually works (the current site does not), but the Search function will not be activated until the site is fully activated.

Wilson Freyermuth

Report to the Faculty Council from the Faculty Affairs Committee
Academic year: 2003-2004
Chair: Philip Johnson
Members of Committee: Jenice Kinsey Prather, Tom Phillips, Frank Schmidt & Judith Goodman

The major issue addressed by our committee this year was the role of non-regular faculty at MU. Our meetings have included discussions with invited guests that represent a range of opinions, ranks, and responsibilities with respect to this issue. The guests included: Vice President Steve Lehmkuhle, Vice Provost Lori Franz, Billie Cunningham (School of Accountancy), & Brian Frappier (Veterinary Biosciences).

Contents:
Reasons we looked into this issue
Defining the faculty at MU
Defining the non regular faculty
What do nonregular faculty like?
What do nonregular faculty dislike?
National trends
Why is the non regular faculty proportion on campus increasing?
Pluses and minuses of a large non regular work force for academic freedom and tenure Recommendations for change
Recommendations for future study
Conclusion

Reasons we looked into this issue:
The number of non-regular faculty on the MU campus has been increasing during the past decade. The proportion of regular-to-non-regular faculty has increased in parallel with the increasing number of nonregular faculty. Some members of the regular faculty (through Faculty Council) and nonregular faculty members has requested that specific problems encountered by nonregular faculty should be reviewed, documented and, if possible, addressed (corrected). Some regular faculty members contend that more could be done to "help" nonregular faculty in our MU academic community. It should be pointed out that other regular faculty members urge that more emphasis should be placed on promoting the proportion and significance of regular faculty (the constituency of the Faculty Council).

Below, we layout the concerns that emerged during these meetings as well as questions/answers and comments that have arisen.

Defining the faculty at MU

The distinction between "Regular" versus "Nonregular" faculty needs to be better defined Regular faculty must perform in the three classic areas including research, teaching and service while nonregular faculty should not be hired to perform in all three areas and should not be being promoted based on accomplishments in all 3 areas (this would constitute "de facto" tenure - legally discouraged). This distinction needs to be better emphasized at various levels (individual employee, administrative hiring process, during promotions, etc). In addition, it must be made clearer that regular faculty, but not nonregular faculty are responsible for the curriculum, and student admissions, and are represented by MU Faculty Council.
Campus orientations for new faculty have not generally done a good job of differentiating between regular vs NR faculty.

Defining the non regular faculty
One reason it remains difficult to define the responsibilities of nonregular faculty is the remarkable heterogeneity in names and titles.

[see: http://web.missouri.edul-hrswww/cmpnclaslacatitle.htm] This range of titles and duties precludes meaningful comparisons between different divisions (example: use of the term "adjunct" in some divisions means part-time, in others it applies to guests that are not actually members of the university). A priority of the university should be to define the legal "rights, privileges, and responsibilities" of the NR-faculty in terms of teaching, research, service, intellectual property, & practice.
In addition, non-regular appointments are intended to be temporary (not to exceed 7 years), part time, or involve duties substantially different from those of faculty members holding regular appointments. This policy is not practiced across all divisions.

What do nonregular faculty like?
In many cases, nonregular status provides flexibility in hours and responsibilities. Some nonregular faculty have expressed that they enjoy not having the responsibility for research, teaching AND service - this allows them to do other jobs outside the university or time for family and can reduce job stress.

What do nonregular faculty dislike?
On the other hand, many nonregular faculty note disadvantages associated with their status. These include
. Short-term contracts with minimal investment in the long-term well-being of the institution.
. The lack of job security is an issue due in part to the fact that the administrative faculty (and their goals) change with time.
. In some divisions, nonregular faculty are treated like short-term employees (although some have been at MU more than 15 years).
. Misappropriation of temporary appointments.
. Limits on academic freedom (within the specific terms of their employment) and the ability to participate in shared governance.
. Lack of representation on campus.
. Not able to work on many committees on campus (some nonregular faculty actually serve on some committees, not all nonregular faculty have the opportunity to do so, however).
. Lack access to financial support for research and travel.
. They may be judged (for promotion, etc) by regular faculty that do not understand the terms of their employment.
. Ability to make radical changes (for example, revising course content) may be restricted - not protected by tenure - for example, teaching.

National trends
AAUP is pushing for "converting full-time non-tenure track positions to tenurable positions" and/or "creating new tenure-eligible positions...and phasing out contingent positions." (see appendix item AAUP draught statement). In addition, they recommend clearly spelling out the nonregular faculty member's duties, allowing promotion based on performance as defined by those duties, and increasing the length of contracts.
[note: These are AAUP recommendations, not national trends on nonregular faculty.]

Why is the nonregular faculty proportion on campus increasing?
The tendency for increasing nonregular faculty hiring is explained by the fact that it allows administrators flexibility in tight budget times (nonregular faculty can be terminated more readily) and it frees up the time for regular faculty to undertake research (when nonregular faculty are hired for teaching support) or brings in overhead (when nonregular faculty are hired using "soft" money)

Pluses and minuses of a large nonregular work force for academic freedom and tenure
Some regular faculty members dislike the extent to which NR faculty are being "grown" at the expense of regular faculty. Why is this happening to the extent that it is? Plausible explanations include that it is less expensive to hire NR faculty, it gives administration more control over programs and institutional direction. However, expanding the NR faculty population runs the risk of inhibiting free speech and potentially compromises academic freedom.

Recommendations for change

Streamline the academic titles for nonregular faculty:
It is strongly recommended that the titles available for NR faculty across campus should be simplified. Some faculty contend that the term "faculty" should be restricted to regular faculty. Some faculty believe that the use of the title "professor" should similarly be restricted to regular faculty. Various improved title schemes could be designed. Our committee pondered some examples, including:
. NR faculty with emphasis in teaching (assistant lecturer, lecturer, senior lecturer)
. NR faculty with emphasis in research (research assistant, research associate)
. NR faculty with emphasis in professional service and teaching (clinical assistant, clinical associate, clinical professor)(clinician educator stream)
. NR faculty with emphasis in other areas (extension? Librarians/archivists?)
Each title should be carefully defined and both the administration and the individual faculty member should have a full (in some cases, better than currently) understanding of the expectations (of the work and any opportunity for promotion). Expectations should be clearer than they are currently. If a uniform set of titles for NR faculty is developed and adopted with (suitable title specific guidelines) the evaluation process transparent for faculty would be more straightforward.

Improve the level of understanding of expectations for nonregular faculty:
All faculty
(regular and nonregular) should be better informed regarding the differences between the 2 categories. The need to distinguish the role of NR faculty (no more than 2 functions) versus regular (3 functions) faculty should be emphasized. NR faculty appointments should be carefully justified to faculty and their need should be recurrently re-evaluated by the faculty. The role (if any) of NR faculty in curricular development/revision should be reviewed by regular faculty. Clearer explanation of the benefits of being a regular faculty member should be spelled out. Similarly, the different benefits of being a NR regular faculty should be clarified. Each unit should develop and adopt clear policy statement regarding the role of NR faculty in that unit and policies pertaining to their opportunity for advancement (when applicable). This was recommended and requested (by the Provost) in 1999 (following Beth Geden's report) but has not been evidently applied throughout campus.

The need for better "letters of appointment" that clearly specify the job requirements and the basis of any promotions (if available) should be strongly promoted. The mechanism by which (and by whom) a nonregular faculty member will be evaluated and promoted should be clearly defined by local unit policy guidelines. There should be greater emphasis placed on hiring of regular faculty to get the work done and the proportion of NR faculty in the institution should be reduced. Nevertheless, there is a role for NR faculty - NR faculty play important roles in teaching (especially large classes), research (under the auspices of programs headed up by regular faculty), and clinical service (MDs, nurses, veterinarians, journalists, engineers, nuclear engineers, etc).

Some faculty contend that MOST NR faculty hires should be carefully explained/justified; specifically, why is a NR faculty member being hired instead of a regular faculty? Possibly, proportionate limits should be applied on a divisional basis as to the percentage of NR faculty in a unit that would be allowed. Possibly, the need to maintain NR faculty positions beyond a certain finite number of years should be automatically reviewed by a committee (of regular faculty within the unit, supervised by faculty council).

Opportunities for promotion and enhancement mayor may not be available depending on the local (divisional) needs - if such opportunities are available, the faculty member's progress and suitability for promotion should be evaluated by a local divisional committee comprising both regular and NR faculty members. All faculty members should be judged (salary, promotion, etc) based on what they were hired to do - they should not be directed to perform in "other" areas, for which they might be minimally qualified, in order to attain a salary increase. Those charged with assessing the performance of NR faculty need to clearly know that NR faculty are not expected to perform in all 3 of the same areas as regular faculty.

Tenure for professional practice faculty:
Professional NR faculty play an incredibly high profile role in representing the MU campus to the public and yet do not have any role in university governance. With relatively short term employment contracts (without job security), faculty will tend to be mobile and less likely to stay at MU with a view to strengthening MU and its programs. Clinical faculty effectiveness is tied to reputation that is tied to a degree of stability (employment longevity). Overall unit/program stability/effectiveness would be improved by faculty stability.

Some faculty contend that tenure should be available for clinicians in professional programs and that tenure should be based on performance in the clinical selling. Under this category, MD doctors, DVM doctors, nurse practitioners, journalists, engineers, performance artists, & law faculty would be able to attain tenure based on excellence in their respective clinical discipline. This type of tenure would be known as "professional tenure" and would acknowledge excellence in teaching (professional students, post-doctoral specialty training, graduate students), service (clinical area of specialty), and some, clinically-based research (clinical publications, clinical activity based research rather than NIH-style funding).

It has been suggested that NR faculty are necessarily contingent to specific tasks. This "contingency" designation does not apply in our medical school. Many critical and essential faculty in the Medical School have been here many years and teach and do clinical research, and have national reputations. Our committee believes that we should add a 'clinician-educator' ("professional practice tenure") tenure track, with the current one being a 'scientist-educator.' The former would be hired specifically for their practice skills and evaluated with the same criteria for promotion (i.e., reputation, scholarly work related to clinical practice, etc.). This is done in the U Texas system. Given the current situation regarding Med Center finances, this may be the norm for some time, but it doesn't do the institution or the faculty member any good to have 'second-class citizens' doing such vital and visible work.

Governance:
Nonregular faculty do not currently have a "voice" on campus - there does not exist a body such as Faculty Council that serves to represent the NR faculty group. The extent to which NR faculty members undertake diverse roles - especially as one compares between divisions presents a challenge for the issue of better representation (this problem is compounded by the heterogeneity between titles across campus). A teaching-oriented NR faculty member might not be qualified to represent issues that are important for a researcher, for example. Therefore, simply adding a NR faculty member (official ex-officio) to faculty council would likely not be sufficient. Although some believe that NR faculty should be represented better from the perspective of faculty collegiality and issues pertaining to university governance, other faculty feel that it is not the 'job" of Faculty Council to "organize" this process. Our committee also suggests considering developing a NR faculty delegation that would serve to represent NR faculty across campus and would have ex officio status on Faculty Council; such a "delegation" might include representatives of teaching extension research professional NR faculty.

Teaching values - recognition of merit:
Some feel that the teaching mission is not as thoroughly appreciated as the research mission, and that successful teaching is not likely well-rewarded (such as with tenure) as research success. Our committee perceived that NR faculty with teaching responsibility were more likely to "complain" than NR faculty with research responsibility. Nevertheless, some NR faculty with critical teaching responsibilities clearly enjoy being NR, in that time is available for other (nonMU) activities.

It seems that regular faculty often enjoy having NR faculty do a lot of teaching because it "frees-up" time for the regular faculty to do research. However, many regular faculty believe that teaching should be done by the real specialists (the regular faculty) in both big and small classes. In that sense, the students are being taught, not by professional teachers, but by experts in the field who are responsible for new discoveries. It was noted that NR faculty with primary teaching responsibility should be promoted based on their ability to advance the science of teaching (pedagogy) per se.

Our committee believes that the "scholarship" of teaching should be promoted to a greater extent on campus - not simply teaching but getting involved in the science of teaching and researching the process and publishing results. This advocacy should pertain to both the nonregular and the regular faculty.

Job security for N R faculty
:
Where applicable, rolling 3- or 5-year recurring contracts could be applied to non-regular faculty members who have been successful within their defined work. Certainly, the opportunity for contracts longer than one year could be considered for cases in which a NR faculty member has demonstrated competence, when the departmental needs justify, and when resources are available. A gradually increasing level of longer term contracts could be coupled with subsequent promotions.
Alternative perspective:
Although this committee has been charged to review the positives and minuses about being a NR faculty member on this campus, we also think that there might be value in enquiring further about how regular faculty perceive the NR faculty and their role in our community.

Recommendations for future study:
. Acquire data from departments across campus pertaining to role of NR faculty?
. Hold a campus-wide FORUM to hear and discuss more opinions on the role of nonregular faculty in our academic community.
. Assign a dedicated task force to "take the ball and run".
. Obtain opinions from more regular faculty regarding the role of NR faculty in the community.
. Continue to monitor the initiatives of the Provost with regard to the existing rights and responsibilities of NR faculty. For instance, the Provost recently sent a memo to all Deans to indicate that their office would be involved in all promotion decisions of NR faculty. We need to maintain dialogue with the Provost about our activities.
. Maintain dialogue with the UM System about their efforts in ensuring the documentation of the rights and responsibilities of the NR faculty.

Conclusion:
Two points or view were unresolved and deserving of further discussion/debate:-
Some would like to see the MU Faculty Council, which is the vehicle of shared governance on this campus, extend to the non-regular faculty some formal recognition that would allow them to participate in shared governance. This might be full representation (as extended to regular faculty), or partial 'non-voting' representation as is currently extended to the librarians, or an independent Council of Non-regular Faculty (or some similar arrangement). Some would also like to see MU extend some basic guarantee or 'academic freedom' to the non-regular faculty, meaning a basic recognition thaI academic freedom includes non-regular faculty and some form of improved employment security, such as 'rolling' multiyear contracts.

Others would like to see MU reduce the number of non-regular faculty by enforcing the rules for employing non-regular faculty and by allowing the small number of 'nonregular' faculty who function as 'regular' faculty the opportunity to apply for and receive a regular faculty appointment. The value and relevance of tenure should be strengthened.

Dr. Philip Johnson would like to recognize and thank the committee members.

Respectfully submitted,

Philip J. Johnson, Professor of Veterinary Internal Medicine
Chair, Faculty Affairs, 2003-2004

Specific recommendations (Beth Geden 1999):
Annual written performance evaluation with opportunity for a response by the evaluee Provost should instruct deans, chairs, unit leaders to establish guidelines and procedures based on the following...

A. Letter of appointment - should include conditions that affect their appointment - such as continuing grant support or other funding sources
B. Local departmental/sectional guidelines should be developed and submitted to provost for approval. Include - criteria for hiring, dismissal, appeals process, as well as criteria for evaluation leading to promotion - development of these guidelines should include input from non-regular faculty
C. Every 3 years - evaluation by the local faculty (including a phasing-in process for those already in situ). Develop an implementation plan and submit to provost for approval.
D. Satisfactory progress should lead to written renewable contract of 3 to 5 years or a 3-year rolling contract, providing that financial support is expected - including longer-term grant support.

Excluded: No renewable contract for those hired and supported by short-term grants «3y) or other non-recurring funds, ALSO excluded - student graduate research assistants, graduate teaching assistants, post-doc fellows, & coaches. Provost may exclude other non-regular faculty on a case by-case basis (such exclusion should be made known in the letter of appointment).

[We need to keep in mind that Provost Deaton actually took Beth Geden's recommendations and told the Deans to implement them.]