Meeting Minutes: November 8, 2012

Attendance

Members Present: Jim Baumann, Clyde Bentley, A. Cooper Drury, Tim Evans, Lisa Flores, Francisco Gomez, Cheryl Heesch, Art Jago, Rebecca Johnson, Sudarshan Loyalka, Tony Lupo, Judith Mabary, Tom Marrero, Dennis Miller, Stephen Montgomery-Smith, Joe Parcell, Vitor Trindade, Harry Tyrer, Douglas Wakefield, Rachel Brekhus (Librarians), Don Sievert (MURA), Mark Prelas (AAUP), Richard Guyette (NTT), Nicole Monnier (NTT), Katherine Reed (NTT), Sam White (NTT), and Rebekah Hart (sec.). Members Absent: Steve Ball, Candace Galen, Raja Gopaldas, Bina Gupta, Kattesh Katti, Ilhyung Lee, Karen Piper, Craig Roberts, Stephen Sayers, and 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 minutes of October 11, 2012 and October 25, 2012 were approved as submitted.

Report of Officers

Deputy Provost Ken Dean reported that the university had just received its largest gift ever—from the Reynolds Foundation in the amount of $30 million to create an endowment that would be used to fund operations of the Reynolds Institute in perpetuity.

 

Tyrer announced that in a meeting with the Chancellor, he had discussed setting up a committee to investigate the AAU metrics and how MU can increase their standing.  The fact that there has been significant growth in enrollment with no salary raises is a disparity that was also addressed.  Tim Rooney, in a meeting with the Finance Committee, noted that it would cost $14 million to get us to the midpoint.  To get to 50% full professors (now at 32%) would require an additional $11 million for a total of $25 million.

 

Tyrer also communicated with Ann McGruder regarding failings in the faculty notification of the fall General Faculty Meeting. In the future, in addition to the present method, e-mails will be sent (1) to save the date, (2) after the agenda is determined, and (3) as a “week before” reminder. Rebekah Hart will also send a notification to Faculty Council members. Faculty Council members should announce the meeting to their respective constituencies.

 

Tyrer reminded Faculty Council that Rachel Brekhus was acting as the Council Web Editor and was revising the website to make it more useful to Faculty Council and to faculty in general. Brekhus noted that she was not making significant changes to format, but was moving older information to a separate location and would be asking for usability testing at some point in the future.

 

Tyrer noted that the Intercampus Faculty Council (IFC) will meet next week and also announced that Gordon Christensen had tendered his resignation from both Faculty Council and IFC. His resignation had been accepted. An action item on today’s agenda is to elect his replacement to IFC. 

Action Items

CRR Revision (NTT) – Montgomery-Smith.  Montgomery-Smith read and explained the following preamble:

 This motion will (i) declare Faculty Council’s approval, and (ii) move to put the following changes of CRR to the UMC Faculty.

1.     Before the vote of the faculty is concluded, Faculty Council will hold a faculty forum to discuss the proposed changes.

2.     The changes to CRR will bring about two changes:

A.   The definition of faculty in 300.010B will be changed to “all persons with full-time ranked academic appointments with professorial designation (Assistant, Associate, and Full).”  This will mean that the definition of faculty will include full time ranked non-tenure track faculty with professorial designation.

B.    The four NTT representatives who currently serve on faculty council will become members with full voting rights (except on matters involving tenure and promotion of tenure track and tenured faculty).  The method by which these four NTT members are selected is the same as the current process.

C.    Every other aspect of how tenure track and tenured faculty are selected will remain exactly the same.  The number of tenure track and tenured representatives from each division on Faculty Council will be based upon the total number of tenure track and tenured members in each division, and the formula will remain unchanged.

Motion: Faculty Council approves of the following changes to the Sections 300.010B and 300.010H to the Collected Rules and Regulations, and moves that these same changes be put to the faculty of MU for a vote.  If the faculty approves the changes to CRR, they will be forwarded to the Chancellor who will forward them to the Board of Curators who will decide whether these changes will be enacted.

 

As the motion came from committee, no additional motion and second were required. In the following discussion, Monnier presented numerous statistics regarding the contributions of NTT faculty to the university and how they were already integrated into many aspects of university governance. In fact, the only exclusion seemed to be in matters directly affecting tenured and tenure-track faculty. Furthermore, several schools already allow NTT faculty voting rights.

 

Trindade added that three members on Faculty Council from Arts and Science collaborated to send an e-mail to T/TT faculty in the Social Sciences asking for feedback on the issue of awarding NTT faculty voting rights in Faculty Council. Only a brief and neutral summary of the proposal, which did not mention that NTT faculty would be exempted from decisions involving T/TT faculty, was sent by e-mail. From an estimated 100-150 distribution, only 12-15 people responded, most from Economics. The great majority of the responses were negative; those responding negatively were more adamant in their replies than those who were favorable to the proposal.

 

Parcell voiced the problem that many don’t understand what faculties in other areas across campus do. Faculty Council must insure that this proposal is set up correctly. Several members affirmed that any communications should be very clear and include the full language, not a summary. Faculty who will be voting must understand what would change. Many on campus don’t realize the responsibilities of NTT faculty. A FAQ sheet to accompany the proposal would be a good idea.

 

Evans stated that if we put this proposal forward as it is now, his impression is that it would not pass. Reed countered that her colleagues in Journalism were outraged that NTT faculty could not vote in FC. Tyrer proposed that a FAQ sheet be placed on the website with a meeting on approx. Feb 1. At this time all questions should have been answered. Then hold an open forum to hear objections. Recraft the motion to insure that it passes. Faculty need to be educated and there needs to be a uniform voting system.

 

The question was called and comments invited. Trindade stated that he was against the motion, offering that tenure-track faculty come to the university with a specific mission that includes teaching, research, and service. NTTs have specialized duties that differ and may have little to do with the university at large (lab NTTs, for instance). They are, therefore, not as prepared to make decisions on university policy. Wakefield noted that the university has evolved from traditional tenured faculty to a more expanded research dollar mission. Different teaching models are also a part of the changing university culture. “We are struggling with what we are as a university.” Trindade agreed, noting that the manner we are using to define T/TT/NTT is a piecemeal approach. The model requires rethinking. Monnier pointed out that NTTs should be in on this decision.

 

Tyrer called for either a vote or to table the motion. Trindade called for a ballot vote. The motion was reiterated as what Montgomery-Smith had read. Parcell counted the votes (15 – yes and 3 – no for the NTT motion to go forward).

 

Rules of Order Revision (NTT) – Montgomery-Smith.  There was no discussion on this item.

 

IFC Representative Election.  By request of Council members, Council moved to closed session for this election.  After a short discussion and balloting procedure, Dennis Miller was elected to be the Intercampus Faculty Council representative.

Discussion Items

Guests:  Pat Okker and Tom Phillips, co-chairs, MU’s Team for System Strategic Planning.

Tyrer introduced Pat Okker and Tom Phillips, co-chairs of MU’s System Strategic Planning Committee, who presented the progress of the system strategic plan launched by President Wolfe.  By June 2013 the system, as well as each campus, will have a focused plan for the next five years. The system-wide plan process will complement, and not replace, the work already completed on MU’s current strategic plan. On December 6, a draft of a strategy statement, not to exceed 35 words, will be presented to the Board of Curators.  Okker noted that the Strategic Plan is not the same as, nor will it change, the mission statement. The strategy statement outlines the goals of each campus and will be fleshed out with specific plans later on. A strategic plan website is being developed as a communication tool and will be ready by the beginning of the spring semester 2013.  Kattesh Katti, as a member of the System Strategic Planning Committee, will be the Faculty Council’s formal contact.  A document containing the proposed strategy statement and a list of the System Strategic Planning Committee members as follows was presented to Faculty Council. 

 

            MU’s Strategy Statement: DRAFT

            By 2018, MU will enhance its academic stature by serving Missouri and beyond through

            education, economic development, and improvement of quality of life, capitalizing on

            our world-class interdisciplinary teaching and research, epitomized by Mizzou

            Advantage. MU aspires to grow the student body to X, add X tenure-stream collaborative

            faculty, generate $X million in new net revenue (including increase in private support by

            X), increase sponsored research by X%, and raise faculty and staff compensation to

            competitive levels.*

 

            *Targets will be finalized after stakeholders have an opportunity to provide input.

 

            System Strategic Planning Committee Members

            Pat Okker, co-chair                                          Julie Middleton

            Tom Phillips, co-chair                                     Michael Misfeldt

            Vicki Conn                                                      Stephanie Reid-Arndt

            Lori Croy                                                        Jim Spain

            Brian Foster                                                    Robert Tzou

            Kattesh Katti                                                   Lee Wilkins

            Marc Linit                                                       Jeff Zeilenga

 

Faculty Council members raised several questions focused primarily on the wording of the statement. Loyalka voiced a concern regarding the phrase “collaborative faculty,” how such a person would be hired, and that there is a danger in taking faculty authority away from departments and placing it with Mizzou Advantage. Phillips explained that this should be a statement that makes MU stand out (e.g., research and teaching at Mizzou, but would not be limited to a particular area).  Miller asked if there was a “carrot” that would cause everyone to adher to the plans. Okker responded that the Chancellor had made clear that the statement would influence research allocations. Monnier noted that incentive would be the 5-10% budget withholding by the president. No date when accountability would begin was offered. When asked what constitutes the “student body” in the statement, Phillips noted that online and on-campus, a mix of undergraduate, graduate, and professional students would be included. Phillips assured Faculty Council that their questions would be given further consideration. It “is a fast moving process.” MU is ahead, however. “I think you will be overwhelmed by what we are doing.” Phillips also pointed out that the progress report supplies an enumeration of these activities. Concern was also raised about the language regarding revenue and the singling out of Mizzou Advantage. Revenue targets could be an excuse to raise tuition and for generating revenue for revenue’s sake. Revenue needs to be better defined. The terminology “epitomized by Mizzou Advantage” also came under scrutiny. To make Mizzou Advantage the epitome of what happens at MU is too strong. Scholarly productivity is mentioned only in terms of grants; it should receive more focus in a strategic statement. Some units have many citations but are not involved with Mizzou Advantage. Tyrer suggested that Mizzou Advantage be removed. Drury raised the concern that no hard benchmark numbers were provided for compensation, only that they be competitive. Phillips’s explanation was that it is difficult to come up with benchmarks for staff. It is also difficult to include much information in a 35-word statement. “We want to write something that everyone can buy into.” Okker also noted that the next document to be created would be a one-page commentary addressing key words in the statement.  Johnson noted that the word “diversity” should be included to which Phillips responded that we will not abandon what is important to us. No further questions were raised.

 

Adjournment

Following the IFC election procedure, the meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Judith Mabary, Recorder