Meeting Minutes: April 4, 2013

Attendance

Members Present: Clyde Bentley, Tim Evans, Francisco Gomez, Raja Gopaldas, Art Jago, Kattish Katti, Sudarshan Loyalka, Tony Lupo, Judith Mabary, Tom Marrero, Dennis Miller, Stephen Montgomery-Smith, Joe Parcell, Craig Roberts, Harry Tyrer, Douglas Wakefield, Rachel Brekhus (Librarians), Don Sievert (MURA), Mark Prelas (AAUP), Richard Guyette (NTT), Katherine Reed (NTT), and Rebekah Hart (sec.). Members Absent: Steve Ball, Jim Baumann, A. Cooper Drury, Lisa Flores, Candace Galen, Bina Gupta, Cheryl Heesch, Rebecca Johnson, Ilhyung Lee, Camila Manrique, Karen Piper, Stephen Sayers, Vitor Trindade, Charles Nilon (Black Faculty and Staff), Nicole Monnier (NTT), and John Lory (NTT).

Approval of Minutes

Chair Harry Tyrer called the meeting to order at 3:28 p.m. in S203 Memorial Union. The minutes of the February 28, 2013 Faculty Council meeting were approved as submitted.

Report of Officers

Tyrer announced that the general faculty meeting will be held Tuesday, April 9 at 3:30 p.m. in Jesse Wrench Auditorium (Memorial Union).  Tyrer met with the Provost today regarding the results of the Provost evaluation. Foster will look for ways he can communicate better with the faculty. Tyrer also met with HES recently and will visit other units soon.

 

Miller reported on the Intercampus Faculty Council Meeting (IFC) noting that President Wolfe discussed the distribution of new funds and the importance of the strategic plan. A report was sent to Faculty Council. There is an ongoing search for a VP of Academic Affairs. This is a closed search with one member representing faculty on the search committee. There is concern about the authority this hire will have. The hope is that the new person will be in place by June or July, but at the present rate of the search committee’s progress, it could well be later. Wakefield asked about the person’s duties to which Miller responded that it was not entirely clear. Tim Evans suggested formulating a series of questions to give to the candidates. Their responses could be given to the faculty for their comments. Tyrer offered that he would have no problem forwarding a list of questions. Miller concluded that we don’t know what the responsibilities of this person will be with regard to day-to-day affairs. Brekhus expressed concerns related to the press root causes report in that we do not have the same checks and balances at the system level yet it seems that more decisions are being shifted to this larger campus structure.

 

Tyrer offered congratulations to Evans on receiving the Kemper award.

Action Items

NSEI Resolution – Montgomery-Smith.  Montgomery-Smith suggested changes to the resolution, namely to split the present resolution into two separate ones as one is calling for action from Faculty Council and the other is asking Chancellor Deaton to take specified actions.

The revised resolutions would read as follows:

 

Resolution 1

FC will:

1. Draft a letter to the Chancellor and President on transparency and shared authority and the critical importance of following CRR.

2. Form a task force to perform a root cause analysis regarding actions with respect to NSEI, and the creation of NEP.

 

Resolution 2

FC will call upon Chancellor Deaton to:

1. Conduct an audit of NSEI and NEP in accordance with 20.035B. "The purpose of a program audit is to determine if a selected degree program or academic unit should be modified, consolidated with another degree program and/or academic unit, suspended, or discontinued."

2. Restore NSEI to its status prior to March 12, 2012 until the above audit is completed.

 

A motion to pass Resolution 1 was made and seconded. Evans asked that the matter be tabled until the next Faculty Council meeting as the chancellor will be meeting with NSEI faculty on April 6. Montgomery-Smith asked that Resolution 1 be considered; Resolution 2 could be tabled until the next meeting. After much discussion regarding the parameters of the root cause analysis, Wakefield stated that it must be made clear whether the root cause analysis would examine the actions taken or the process involved. Montgomery-Smith noted that the issue is larger than NSEI and has to do with not following process. He suggested that the language in Resolution 1, point 2 be changed from actions to processes. Tyrer stated that he would feel better if a precise statement came from the committee to Faculty Council for the vote. Evans made the motion that the request for a vote be tabled. The motion was seconded and passed with 8 yes, 4 no, and 1 abstention. The motion for a vote was tabled. 

Discussion Items

Guest(s): Chancellor Brady Deaton. Topics: 1. AAU Membership

Deaton discussed the significance of UM’s membership in the AAU and concern with the university’s present status based on four key indicators consulted by AAU in selecting and maintaining members . The following specific information was provided. Out of the thirty-four members of AAU in the category of public institutions, sixteen are land-grant universities. Nebraska was recently voted out. The process of entering AAU and maintaining one’s membership status is based on several indicators. Four primary indicators (updated annually) are the categories in which we hope to do better. They are Research, Faculty, Arts and Humanities Awards/Fellowships/Membership, and Citations. We are already doing well in secondary indicators. The US News and World Report rankings are based on research dollars brought in; we will fall in these rankings as well. Deaton stated that the alumni don’t want to take over where the state funding stops. It is important that we are able to maintain our AAU status in order to recruit top faculty. Improving our standing in AAU is of primary importance in the strategic plan.

 

2.  Faculty Hiring Strategy

Goal: to add 100 tenure-track faculty and 100 new non-tenure track research faculty over the next five years. Funds will be reallocated internally to enable the university to hire in strategic areas. The plan is to hire twenty tenure-track faculty per year. Roughly 20% of the funding for the NTT positions will be from non-tenure funds. Rob Duncan is developing a plan for the NTT funding.

 

3.  New Revenue Sources

New sources of revenue are critical for initiating new programs. State funds above base funding will be allocated to campuses on a competitive basis. Past allocations have been shared equally and thus, have unfairly favored the smaller campuses (e.g., Pell grant allocations).

 

4.  Root Cause Analysis of UM Press Decision

Deaton commended Art Jago’s committee for their work on this issue and the fine report that resulted. Discussions similar to those conducted with regard to the press decision should continue and be the new norm.

 

5.  Promotion and Tenure Decision Process

There seems to be concern that the Chancellor and Provost overturn P&T decisions too often. Deaton noted that this is rarely done. By the time a file reaches them, it has gone through several levels of review. Furthermore, annual and third-year reviews should identify problems before the time for the tenure application. Deaton explained that when examining a file, he is looking for consistency in faculty decisions at the different levels. If we override a decision, it would be because there is disagreement at various levels and questions have been raised regarding performance at these levels. Deaton pointed out that they are looking at trajectory—is there evidence that the faculty member will be a long-term quality contributor to the university community? The Provost and Chancellor do all they can to gather information that will insure they make the best decision.

 

6.  NSEI

Deaton stated that he took the Faculty Council’s action very seriously when making his decision. NSEI will remain in the College of Engineering but the curriculum will continue until faculty determine that it needs to be changed. Leadership is needed in the NSEI area and there are NSEI members who have demonstrated this necessary leadership.

 

Deaton ended by saying that we need a shared vision of where we want to go. Funding will be examined carefully to determine how monies can be reallocated to fit the vision of the university.

 

The meeting was opened for questions: Wakefield asked whether the post-tenure review was stringent enough. Deaton responded that it was not. This activity should be viewed as positive but it is not. Deaton favors varied lengths of time by field for these reviews.  Roberts asked for an explanation of resource allocation, which at present seems to be a mining operation, beneficial to some but detrimental to others. Deaton addressed this concern by pointing out that we are obligated to develop strength throughout the system. Strategic priorities must be determined, selections that the faculty can assist with by identifying where the best results can be achieved (i.e., which campus). President Wolfe has made a commitment to allocate resources in terms of strategic mission and not strictly numbers.

 

Evans noted that comparing UM to the other campuses was like comparing apples and oranges. Our students are not the same as they were fifteen years ago. Parents are now interested in how well the students are mentored. UM should be better at marketing how we excel in this. Rather than dividing into research, teaching, and service, we are a team interested in getting students to achieve their goals. Deaton added that we are paying more attention to these issues in the strategic plan. Each campus has its unique mission; chancellors in the system are working toward better collegial relationships.

 

Miller raised a concern regarding the amount of physical space required to accommodate the addition of new faculty over the next five years as Deaton had proposed. Do we have the infrastructure to support these new faculty members? Deaton assured the group that this problem is being considered. Buildings are being targeted for renovation. We hope to get bond support in addition to the money normally allotted for campus facilities. He also noted that capital expenditures have been over $200 million per year over the past decade.

 

Tyrer thanked Chancellor Deaton for his contribution to the meeting.  

 

NTT Vote.  The only remaining matter is the effective date. Steve Graham has indicated by e-mail, and Ken Dean confirmed in the meeting, that the NTT vote will be effective with the Board of Curators approval. Tyrer thanked all who had participated in the NTT vote, the oversight  committee, Montgomery-Smith’s work with Mike Watson (IT), and to Brekhus for her development of the website relative to the NTT vote.

 

Election Committee Report – Jago. Nominations for chair and vice-chair will be open until tomorrow. Elections for these offices will take place at or after the April 25th meeting. It is up to Executive Committee whether or not they want paper ballots. Otherwise, electronic voting will be used. Jago favors paper ballot. Selection of chairs for the various committees will take place after the chair and vice-chair are elected. Committee assignments will be made during the summer. Evans asked if a non-tenure track faculty member can now serve as chair or vice-chair. Tyrer responded that there is nothing to exclude NTT members.

 

Pilot Committee for Budget Committee Changes on Columbia Campus – Loyalka. Loyalka suggested that for now it will be best to retain an advisory role rather than attempt to gain shared authority on budget issues. Present proposed action is to form a committee largely appointed by Council as outlined on the Resolution Concerning Faculty Advisory Authority on Budget and Planning (attached). This committee will focus on macro aspects, such as resource allocation principles, that address the dynamic needs and future of the university and any other items that the Committee finds relevant to budgets and planning. Chancellor Deaton has responded favorably to the proposal, indicating that he likes the possibility for increased transparency and getting more faculty involved.  Wakefield addressed the concern that we must be clear on whom this pertains to. Auxiliary enterprises such as the hospital and athletics are not represented. Should the committee include representatives from these areas as well? Loyalka noted that they were thinking more of the faculty constituency to which Wakefield responded that staff and students are represented on the committee. Since the chancellor is open to this, we must think through it carefully. Tyrer reminded that this is a pilot to see how this idea will work. Other suggestions for membership included Budget Director Rhonda Gibler and her assistant.

Standing Committee Reports

Fiscal Affairs Committee:  Montgomery-Smith, chair, indicated that the committee had met and discussed various issues, including whether tenured/tenure track administration should be allowed to vote on campus ballots. The response was yes. Other issues discussed were related to commercialization and the role of patents.

 

Student Affairs Committee:  Roberts, chair, reported that the committee met regarding the Mizzou veterans war memorial. The decision regarding location has been made and now costs and sources of funding are being investigated. The committee is also connecting with Deaton on the issue of alcohol use. Deaton is already working on this and the committee would like to plug into his efforts before semester end.

Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Judith Mabary, Recorder