Meeting Minutes: February 9, 2012

Attendance

Members Present: Edward Adelstein, Robert Johnson (for Andre Ariew), Steve Bell, Clyde Bentley, Gordon Christensen, Jeni Hart (for Lisa Flores), Candace Galen, Francisco Gomez, Cheryl Heesch, Rebecca Johnson, Jonathan Krieckhaus, Ilhyung Lee, Sudarshan Loyalka, Tom Marrero, Dennis Miller, Joe Parcell, Craig Roberts, Leona Rubin, Johannes Schul, James Tarr, Harry Tyrer, Douglas Wakefield, Shelley Worden (Librarians), Don Sievert (MURA), Stephen Montgomery-Smith, Richard Guyette (NTT), Nicole Monnier, Katherine Reed, Sam White, and Rebekah Hart (sec.). Members Absent: John Dwyer, Ann Harrell, Art Jago, Kattesh Katti, Norman Land, Stephen Sayers, Vitor Trindade, Charles Nilon (Black Faculty and Staff).

Approval of Minutes

Chair Harry Tyrer called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. in S203 Memorial Union. The January 19, 2012 Council meeting minutes were approved as submitted.

Report of Officers

Tyrer reported on the Board meeting in Kansas City last week.  The Board is dealing with the budget and the impact of the 13 million dollar cut.  There was discussion of increasing tuition by 7.5 percent and making other adjustments in the different budget pools.

At our next Faculty Council meeting our guests will include both President Tim Wolfe and Chancellor Brady Deaton.  A question and answer period will follow the President’s presentation.  The Executive Committee participated in the recent Provost’s Retreat, some of the discussion items were:  Mizzou Advantage update, responsibility centered management (RCM), and corporate relationships.

Rubin reported on the Intercampus Faculty Council (IFC) meeting.  At the February meeting of IFC a vote will be taken that will allow Kansas City librarians to have NTT faculty status.  The Columbia campus librarians have voted against this measure and do not want to be included in this change.  This will allow Columbia campus to vote in favor of the Kansas City measure.  Other IFC items are:  HB1042 on student transfers, reverse transfers, charging out-of-state fees for online learning, performance funding benchmarks, and discussion of domestic partner benefits will be on the April Board meeting agenda.

Discussion Items

Guest:  Teresa Vest, Manager, Procurement.  Vest spoke on the four-campus (system) Procurement function.  She gave a detailed account of all aspects of campus purchasing which included:  ShowMe Shop, surplus property, purchasing cards, purchase orders, bid processing and processing contracts. 


Student Organizations, Governments, and Activities Committee Role & Charge Proposed Change – Roberts.  After a brief discussion, Council approved the following proposal.

“Eliminate SOGA’s role with student organization conduct altogether and move that responsibility to the Student Conduct Committee.  In this proposal, the Student Conduct Committee would be responsible for ALL formal conduct hearing for individual students and student organizations.  SOGA’s primary responsibility would continue and that is on-going recognition of student organizations at the University of Missouri.”

Continuing Discussion on IFC Proposed CRR Changes.  This item was discussed by Council during Officer Reports earlier in the meeting.  A “sense of Council” vote was taken and Council voted unanimously to allow our Columbia faculty representatives on IFC to affirmatively vote for the Kansas City librarian status change.
Report of Officers
Parcell, in an extension of officer reports, reserved his Vice Chairs’s report for the topic, “Burden of Proof in Revoking Tenure”.  Tyrer recused himself from this discussion.  Council discussed wording in the “Collected Rules & Regulations” found in the Faculty Bylaws section concerning the “burden of proof” should it be “clear and convincing” or “preponderance of evidence”.  It was recognized that procedurally the Chancellor and Provost have the right to challenge a ruling, however, the faculty want “clear and convincing” to be applied in cases of dismissal.  It was acknowledged that any changes to the UMC Faculty By-Laws in the CRR’s must be voted upon by the whole faculty. 

The two resolutions presented were discussed and will be up for a vote at the next meeting.

“MU Faculty Council Resolution Regarding:
Standard of Evidence for a Finding of Faculty Irresponsibility.

A motion submitted by Professors Gordon Christensen, Sudarshan Loyalka, and Eddie Adelstein.

Preamble:
1.    In a recent communication (January 27 2012), the Provost has appealed to the Chancellor of the University of Missouri to review a decision by the Campus Committee on Faculty Responsibility. (This appeal was consistent with the duties and obligations of the Provost as specified by Faculty Bylaws of the University of Missouri-Columbia, under CRR 300.010.L.9.)
2.    Using a standard of “clear and convincing” evidence (meaning more highly probable to be true than not), the Faculty Responsibility Committee exonerated the Professor of all charges of faculty irresponsibility.
3.    The Provost has asked the Chancellor to review the decision by the Faculty Responsibility Committee, using a lower standard of a “preponderance of evidence” (meaning just enough evidence to make it more likely than not).
4.    In making this request, the Provost correctly points out that the Collected Rules and Regulations do not specify the evidence standard that should be used in cases such as this.
5.    This request by the Provost could set a precedent for deciding accusations of faculty irresponsibility at the University of Missouri-Columbia, making this request an appropriate item of business for the Faculty Council.
6.    Other institutions of higher education, like the University of Iowa, Washington University, and Stanford University, use the standard of “clear and convincing” in similar situations.
7.    The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) statement on Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom & Tenure, entitled “Dismissal Procedures” (Sections 5.c.8 and 7) states: “The burden of proof that adequate cause exists rests with the institution and will be satisfied only by clear and convincing evidence in the record considered as a whole.”
8.    In a prior exchange of correspondence regarding this case, the Chancellor assured the AAUP that the accused Professor will be “afforded every right and protection required by the Collected Rules of the University of Missouri or recommended by the AAUP.”
Whereas, Section L of the Faculty Bylaws of the University of Missouri-Columbia (CRR300.010) do not explicitly state the standard of proof to be used by the Campus Committee on Faculty Responsibility, and
Whereas,   Other academic institutions use the standard of “clear and convincing evidence” in similar proceedings when sanctions such as suspension or dismissal are sought,
Whereas,   The AAUP recommends the standard of “clear and convincing evidence” in similar proceedings, be it
RESOLVED, by the University of Missouri Faculty Council on University Policy, that in all matters adjudicated under CRR 300.010.L, wherein a member of the faculty faces severe actions such as suspension or dismissal, the burden of proof that adequate cause exists will rest with the institution and will be satisfied only by clear and convincing evidence when the record is considered as a whole, be it further
RESOLVED, that the University of Missouri Faculty Council on University Policy asks the Chancellor to propose to the Board of Curators that CRR 300.010.L be amended to clarify that the standard of clear and convincing evidence should be used.”

Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
  
Respectfully submitted,
Shelley Worden, Recorder