Meeting Minutes: April 9, 2013gfm
Minutes of the April 9, 2013
Spring Semester General Faculty Meeting
Call-to-Order and Attendance
The Spring Semester General Faculty Meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m. by Chancellor Deaton in Jesse Wrench Auditorium, Memorial Union. Approximately 85 people were in attendance.
Opening Remarks & Introductions-Chancellor Deaton
Deaton greeted those in attendance and recognized new faculty members according to area as follows (CAFNR – 3 new faculty; Nursing – 2; Truman School of Business, 4; Engineering and Computer Sciences - 1; and Health Sciences – 1).
Report from Faculty Council-Harry Tyrer
With the aid of a Powerpoint presentation, Tyrer acquainted those present with the organization of Faculty Council and the faculty leadership, including the new IFC representative Dennis Miller. Tyrer then spoke about the rationale and electronic voting process of the recent NTT vote. He also informed the group of the consequences of the vote that would allow the four NTT members presently on Faculty Council to have their preferences counted. A reapportionment of Faculty Council must now be considered in order to represent NTT faculty fairly.
Tyrer announced the recently completed Root Cause Analysis directed to the process associated with the Missouri Press realignment. The report of the committee has been posted to the Faculty Council website. Other activities with which the Faculty Council has been involved since the last general faculty meeting include: 1) the creation of a committee in response to the strategic plan objective 1.10 and 2) work with Jim Spain on an assessment instrument for student evaluation and changes to the evaluation forms themselves. Future issues to be investigated by Faculty Council involve: 1) the question of shared governance with greater participation at the unit and department levels and 2) the role and authority of faculty in budget and resource allocation for which a policy committee may be formed that will lead to changes in the CRR.
In terms of the diversity enhancement initiative, each division is to develop its own diversity enhancement plan. The problem of assessing adequacy and efficacy must be addressed. The solution may lie in a nationally normed assessment tool. Clyde Bentley, who is heading the initiative, noted that responses from units on how they are addressing the need for diversity enhancement will be posted online. An assessment tool will be given to freshmen and seniors to determine their understanding and experience with diversity enhancement at the beginning and end of the undergraduate college experience. The first batch of statements is scheduled to come in on April 15.
Report from Chancellor Deaton
Deaton recognized Pat Okker and Tom Phillips for their work on the strategic plan before proceeding to an overview of the University of Missouri’s position among research institutions. A committee chaired by Kattesh Katti was formed to investigate the University of Missouri’s AAU standing. UM’s position was reviewed prefaced by a review of the highlights the university has achieved in its first 100+ years. Deaton then reviewed present trends in higher education, namely the consistent decline in state funding, the decline in federal research funds, an emphasis on interdisciplinary research, shifting demographics, and the evolution of modes of instructional delivery.
UM expects an increase of 400 students in Fall 2013. More out-of-state and international students are expected than in-state enrollees. Deaton then reviewed past and present innovative approaches in areas such as distance education and problem-based learning before turning to the current activities of Mizzou Advantage—recruiting faculty in strategic areas, aggressive enrollment management, and the strengthening of data and analysis to enhance student success. Provost Foster is leading efforts to improve student retention. Deaton noted that we want to plan large. At the same time, we are waiting to hear what will happen with state funding, vital for facilities improvements. Tuition will go up by 1.7%, the rate of inflation.
Deaton then discussed strategy for hiring new faculty. The goal is to attract and retain the best. To achieve this, salaries must be competitive. The five-year goal regarding new hires is to attract 100 new tenured/tenure-track faculty over the next five years (20 per year estimated) and 100 new NTT (non-tenure-track) research faculty over the same period (20 per year estimated). Robert Duncan is working on a plan to fund the new NTT hires. Most of the salary for NTT research faculty is expected to be offset by grants they will bring in.
Rhonda Gibler presented a scorecard that illustrated the effects of marginal changes to the budget, assuming a -0- adjustment in state appropriations. With a 3% salary increase for FY2014, a $15.8 million deficit would result. Longer-range planning needs to be implemented. Some tough choices will need to be made in the short term. A comment was made from the audience (Rachel Brekhus) that the special needs of international students should be considered. Deaton assured those present that this issue was being addressed.
Galen Suppes (Chemical Engineering) introduced a motion in the spirit of shared governance concerning the appointment of faculty to new programs. CRR was bypassed in order to create a nuclear engineering program in the College of Engineering and move fourteen faculty to this new program, a decision that did not allow for faculty input. Many of the appointed faculty are not nuclear engineers. Suppes stated that faculty should have played a major role in the move of the faculty affected. Peter Valentine of the Graduate Faculty Senate noted that no new program had been approved. Tony Lupo (Parliamentarian for Faculty Council) noted that a quorum for a vote would number 50. Only 34 voting members were present, therefore no vote was taken.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Judith Mabary, Recorder for the Faculty