Meeting Minutes: October 14, 1993

Attendance

Chairman Hunvald called the meeting to order at 3:40 p.m. in room S110 of the Memorial Union. Present were: Gary Allee, Robert Birkenholz, Dale Blevins, Irv Cockriel, Vicki Conn, Jay Dix, Hildegarde Heymann, Jean Hamilton, Edward Hunvald, Eugene Lane, John Miles, Kerby Miller, Loren Nikolai, Deborah Pearsall, Glenn Pierce, Patricia Plummer, Michael Prewitt, Kit Salter, Dennis Sentilles, Don Sievert, Mary Ellen Sievert, Harry Tyrer, Betty Winfield, Warren Zahler, Roy Utz (Retirees), Dean Schmidt (Library), and William Fales represented Brent Jones. Absent were: John Bauer, Hardeep Bhullar, Larry Penney, Don York, and Mabel Grimes (Black Faculty and Staff Organization). Guests present: Ralph Caruso, Chief Information Officer University of Missouri System; Allen Hahn, Professor of Veterinary Medicine; Rob Logan, Associate Dean of Journalism; Joyce Mitchell, Professor of Child Health and Director of Medical Informatics; Bill Plummer, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Campus Computing; and, John McCormick, Interim Vice Provost for Research and Dean of the Graduate School. The guests are members of the President's Advisory Committee on Computing.

Approval of Minutes

The minutes of the meeting of September 30, 1993 were approved as presented.

Report from the President's Advisory Committee on Computing

Mr. Caruso, aided by the other members of the committee present, reported the following.

a) Administrative, academic, and hospital computing had been merged in Columbia, as of September 1. In spite of some members' initial reluctance to the idea, it had been agreed on that this was the best scheme.

b) The idea of out-sourcing had early been abandoned in the committee's deliberations.

c) The university was moving from the notion of mainframe-platform computing to that of a client-server environment, with cheaper but more-powerful platforms. Old hardware would consequently be replaced over the next two years. Administrative computing would no longer call all the shots, but computing would return to the departmental-faculty level. Computing is now answerable to an academic person, namely Bill Plummer. But it was impossible to see more than five years into the future.

d) Multi-media computer use in all classes would attract a lot of students.

Professor Sievert asked whether any system employees had been transferred to the Columbia campus as a result of this reconfiguration. The answer was yes, but no general operating dollars were involved, as their salaries were covered by fees for service.

Professor Plummer inquired about computing on the other three campuses, and was assured that the directors of computing from the four campuses met regularly and coordinated their operations.

There was a general feeling of satisfaction at the direction now taken by computing.

Report of Officers

Chairman Hunvald reported that President Russell is planning to issue an executive order that plus-minus grading scales, wherever adopted across the four campuses, would be uniform. It will be the same scale as that already proposed here. There would be no grades of A+ or F+. The Faculty Council will have to move expeditiously to get this matter before the General Faculty Meeting of November 9, 1993.

No action was taken by the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Curators at its last meeting. There was a report that there would be a possible increase in enrollment until the year 2008. There had also been spirited discussion of the C-Base examination. None of the four campuses had much use for it. Curator Cozad, however, insisted that there be a "viable alternative" if C-Base were abandoned. Concerning the topic of enrollment management Chancellor Kiesler had pointed out that decreasing the number of undergraduates would result in additional costs; if you cut departments with fewer than 30 majors there also would be additional costs, and in general cutting for its own sake will not accomplish anything.

The new Student Conduct Policy proposed by UMSL has encountered objections from the other three campuses and was still under discussion. Professor Hunvald also reminded Council of the breakfast meeting with the Curators on Friday, October 29.

Action Item

Resolution from Fiscal Affairs. On behalf of the Fiscal Affairs Committee of Council, Professor Miles presented the following resolution.

"The Faculty Council on University Policy endorses [the intent] and recommends implementation by the Provost and Chancellor of the plan forwarded by the Fiscal Affairs Committee dealing with certain specific statistical reporting of annual salary increases. Furthermore we request that implementation begin with those salary increases given for the 1993-94 academic year."

(The entire text of the plan appears as Appendix I.) Discussion centered on the effect of "hierarchializing" divisions and departments. Professor Sentilles expressed the opinion that he did not foresee a problem. Such neutral and full disclosure had long been routine in the Department of Mathematics and merely made more information available. If anything, it cuts off the possibility of grievances. Professors Tyrer, Nikolai, and Heymann concurred from their various Page 3 of the 10-14-93 Minutes of the Faculty Council points of view. On the other hand Provost Brouder feared that such a policy would breed additional grievances and generate resentment, if people felt they had been unfairly treated. Professor Hamilton (Pierce second) moved to amend the motion by striking the words "the intent" (in brackets). The amendment carried without dissent, as did the original motion.

Report from the Committee on Undergraduate Education

Professor Zahler reported on the ongoing work of the Committee on Undergraduate Education. The mathematical reasoning proficiency requirement is on course. A request for proposals has gone out, and a review panel is to be instituted. The major point of the meeting of October 13 was the activities of the clusters subcommittee. One cluster will be required for students entering fall semester 1995. A report of the subcommittee was distributed and will appear in a future issue of Faculty Forum as well as updates.

Professor Salter observed that this report goes a long way towards answering the concerns of the Arts and Science Council of Chairs. The Computer and Information Literacy proficiency requirement and the Undergraduate Seminar requirement are still undergoing definition.

Standing Committee Reports

Academic Affairs (Hildegarde Heymann)

The committee is working on the matter of midterm grades.

Faculty Affairs (Jean Hamilton)

The committee reports progress on revision to grievance procedures.

Fiscal Affairs (John Miles)

The committee will meet with Pat Morton, the new campus budget officer.

Special Projects (Dean Schmidt)

The committee has divided into subgroups to discuss various assignments.

Student Affairs (Brent Jones)

No report. Professor Plummer requested that the documents concerning the new student conduct policy be passed to the Student Affairs Committee, which had no report at this time.

Closed Session for Personnel Matters and Adjournment

After a closed session in which Mr. Ken Hutchinson informed the Council as to new developments in the University's Medical Insurance and fielded questions, the meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.

Respectively submitted,
Eugene Lane, Recorder

Appendix I

Statistical Reporting of Salary Increases

[originally entitled, A Merit Initiative from Faculty Council]

In order to encourage a more healthy campus environment and to fund appropriate merit allocations for faculty in exceptionally strong departments who are deemed only "average" relative to their colleagues in that department--but who could be deemed "above average" on the whole campus or college level--an effective merit salary allocation system must operate not only at the individual level but at all unit levels as well, and be seen to do so.

Faculty Council calls upon the Chancellor to ask each academic administrative head (Provost, Deans and Department Chairs) to lead and support implementation of the MU Merit Salary Adjustment system by direct, visible example.

Specifically, at the time the Provost hands down the salary adjustment budget to the Dean of each of his divisions, he will report to each Dean the percentage allocation he has received from the Chancellor along with the overall percentage allocation he has decided upon for each division of the campus. In addition he will report the mean deviation--from the salary adjustment figure allocated to his office by the Chancellor--among the percentage adjustments he has decided upon for all individual vice-provosts and deans and other academic administrative heads under his charge, along with the first and fourth quartiles for this distribution.

Secondly, at the time a Dean hands down the salary adjustment budget to the Chair of each of his or her departments, he reports to each Chair the percentage allocation he has received from the Provost along with the overall percentage allocation he has decided upon for each department of his or her college. In addition he will report the mean deviation--from the figure allocated to his office by the Provost--among the adjustments he has decided upon for all individual Associate and Assistant Deans, all Chairs, and all other academic administrative heads under his or her charge, along with the first and fourth quartiles of this distribution.

Finally, when a faculty member is informed of her or his salary adjustment, it be accompanied by the numbers reported by the Provost to her Dean, by her Dean to her Chair, and a third set of similar (deviation and quartile) numbers arrived at for individual salary adjustments within her department by her Chair.

Example: A Provost is allocated an 8% salary adjustment budget by the Chancellor. He allocates this budget to his (say, for the purpose of example) 3 colleges as follows: C1: 7%, C2: 8.5%, C3: 9%. He reports these to each of his Deans. Additionally, the Provost assigns the following adjustments to his two vice-provosts, three deans and three other administrative heads: VP1: 6%, VP2: 8.5%, D1: 8%, D2: 10%, D3: 6.5%, AH1: 7.0%, AH2: 8%, AH3: 9.5%. His secretary computes the mean deviation: [2.0 + 0.5 + 0 + 2.0 + 1.5 + 1.0 + 0 + 1.5]/ 8 = [8.5]/8 = 1.06%. The Provost advises his Deans of this number along with the first and fourth quartiles: 6.5% and 9.5% respectively. Each Dean follows a similar procedure for unit adjustments, and for individual adjustments, and reports these to his or her Chairs, who in turn do the same for individuals in their departments and report these numbers from all three levels to each of their faculty.

It is to be emphasized that this process identifies no individual or individual adjustment in name or position and maintains full confidentiality for all concerned. It makes no statement about how merit is to be determined. It allows for a great deal of individual variance and does not demand adherence to any number. It does provide an overall indication of the extent and breadth at which the merit system is operating at all academic levels and may encourage departments to pull together as a unit a little more.

(Original document given to the Executive Committee on June 3, 1993)