Meeting Minutes: December 12, 2002


Present: Tobias Baskin, Rex Campbell, Gordon Christensen, Nelson Cowan, Bruce Cutter, Michael Devaney, Wilson Freyermuth, Sara Gable, Judith Goodman, Richard Hessler, Tom Hurley, Philip Johnson, Norman Land, Robert Leavene, Michael McKean, Catherine Parke, Peggy Placier, Jenice Prather-Kinsey, Charles Sampson, David Schenker, Paul Sharp, Don Sievert, Barbara Townsend, William Wiebold, Herbert Tillema (AAUP), Charles Cramer (Retirees), and Michael Muchow (Librarians). Absent: Jeffrey Anglen, Bill Lamberson, Eric Landes, Daniel Longo, Sudarshan Loyalka, Eileen Porter, and Don Sievert.

Approval of Minutes

The meeting was called to order by Chair Michael Devaney at 3:30 p.m. in room S203 of the Memorial Union. The minutes of the October 24 and November 7 Faculty Council meetings and the October 29 Fall Semester General Faculty Meeting were approved as submitted.

Report of Officers

Devaney discussed a letter he sent to Governor Holden at the Chancellor's request in which he expressed concerns about the reduction in state support of higher education. He announced to Council that the date for our Board Breakfast is Friday, January 24, 2003 and that more information about this breakfast would become available to Council in January. Devaney noted that the Council of Deans expressed disapproval of the proposed executive order dealing with faculty workload at its December meeting with the Executive Committee of Council. Further, at this meeting issues of academic dishonesty had also been discussed. Finally, Devaney announced that Catherine Parke, Bob Leavene, and Jeff Anglen will soon leave Council and he commended them for their service.

Action Items

Reorganization or Dissolution of an Academic Unit - Christensen. Judith Goodman and Gordon Christensen presented a resolution entitled, A Procedure to be Followed for Mergers and Consolidations of Academic Units, on behalf of the Academic Affairs Committee. In discussion of a motion to adopt the resolution the following points were made: terms such as "unit", "department" and "program" refer to individual fiscal entities; and, procedures proposed would apply to merging units from the same or different colleges. A friendly amendment was proposed to include "students" explicitly in section 3B. A motion to adopt the resolution as amended passed unanimously.

Resolution: A Procedure to be Followed for Mergers and Consolidations of Academic Units (Unanimously Accepted at the Faculty Council Meeting on December 12, 2002)

The Collected Rules and Regulations describe a detailed procedure for reorganization when reorganization results in the involuntary separation of faculty from tenured positions. At times, however, reorganization does not result in the loss of a tenured position because faculty from the dissolving academic unit are transferred to one or more receiving units. To ensure shared governance in such cases, the Faculty Council recommends the following procedure.

Academic reorganization should occur within three years of an external review of the academic performance of the units ('Departmental Review') proposed for reorganization. If such a review has not occurred, then the faculty of the units proposed for reorganization have the right to ask for and obtain an external review of their academic unit prior to reorganization. The request for external review will be accomplished by a majority vote of the tenured and tenure-track faculty of the units proposed for reorganization. This election will be by secret ballot administered by the Faculty Council. If such a request receives a majority vote, then the proposed dissolution must be placed on hold until two months after receipt of the report of the external review.

The Dean of the school or college that houses the academic unit proposed for reorganization (henceforth known as the "Dean") must compose an impact statement. This statement must include the following items:

  1. How the program will be reorganized.
  2. The impact of the reorganization on the undergraduate and graduate students and curriculum.
  3. The impact of the reorganization on accreditation.
  4. The impact of the reorganization on the academic reputation of the University of Missouri-Columbia.
  5. The impact statement must also reference the most recent external academic review of the units scheduled for reorganization. If not already addressed, the impact statement must incorporate these reviews into the Dean's recommendations for reorganization.

The Dean must post a public notice of the intent to reorganize the academic unit. This notice should be posted in a manner to ensure adequate communication to the University community.

The Dean must schedule a meeting open to all faculty to discuss the reorganization. This meeting should be scheduled at least one month prior to enacting the reorganization. The Dean must attend this meeting and respond to questions and comments from the floor.

The Dean must inform all tenured and tenure-track faculty within the school that houses the academic unit of the proposal to reorganize the academic unit. This communication must be made at least one month prior to the open faculty meeting to discuss the reorganization. This communication must also include a copy of the Dean's impact statement.

The faculty must be allowed the opportunity to comment on the reorganization in the open faculty meeting. The faculty of the dissolving unit and of each receiving unit(s) should concur with the reorganization. Concurrence will be determined by secret ballots administered by the Faculty Council.

The Faculty Council will report to the faculty and the Provost the results of the vote on concurrence. The Faculty Council will rule concurrence if a simple majority of the tenured and tenure-track faculty of each and every receiving unit vote in favor of the reorganization. If the vote fails to receive a majority vote of the faculty for any of the involved academic units, then the Faculty Council will rule that the faculty does not concur with the reorganization.

Before reorganization can take place, the Provost must receive and review the reorganization plan, impact statement, and the results of the faculty vote of concurrence. The Provost may disapprove the reorganization or recommend approval and forward the plan to the Chancellor.

In the event that the Provost recommends reorganization despite a faculty vote against reorganization, then the Provost must schedule a meeting to discuss the matter with the faculty. This meeting must take place before the Provost forwards the approved reorganization plan to the Chancellor and a summary of this meeting must be attached to the Provost's letter recommending approval of the reorganization plan.

Reorganization can proceed only after the Chancellor has approved the Provost's recommendation for reorganization.

Standing Committee Reports

Faculty Affairs: Gordon Christensen, Chair, reported that they are working on chronic or recurring problems and will have a report soon.

Fiscal Affairs: Bill Wiebold, Chair, reported that the newly merged Strategic Planning and Resource Allocation Committee has met and will meet monthly.

Special Projects: Bruce Cutter, Chair, reported that they will survey the impact of the Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program in the next semester.

Student Affairs: Bob Leavene, Chair, reported that they are working on a revision of the forms that students use to evaluate courses. Norman Land thanked Leavene for serving as chair of this committee this past semester. Norman Land will assume the chairship in the winter semester.

Academic Affairs: Mike McKean, for Bill Lamberson, reported that they will meet with Registrar Brenda Selman concerning her course renumbering proposal.

Any Other Business

Christensen pointed out an article in the current "Chronicle of Higher Education" in which it is shown that Missouri ranked second in the nation last year in the reduction of state support for higher education. Lloyd Barrow suggested that Devaney draw the attention of all faculty members to the article which Devaney agreed to do.

David Schenker asked about the changes in admission standards for transfer students. Devaney replied that the change that raised the grade point average from 2.0 to 2.5 is not new but was made two years ago.

Finally, a discussion of the recent memo from Provost Deaton concerning the cancellation of classes with low enrollments. It was pointed out that this is not a new policy and that a variety of reasons have been used to continue classes despite low enrollments. Devaney asked the Committee on Academic Affairs to study the question of how such decisions are made and to bring recommendations to Council.


The open meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m. Council then went into a closed session for committee appointments.

Respectfully submitted,
Thomas Hurley, Recorder