Meeting Minutes: April 14, 1994


Present were: Gary Allee, Robert Birkenholz, Dale Blevins, Benedict Campbell, Irv Cockriel, Vicki Conn, Jay Dix, Jean Hamilton, Edward Hunvald, John Miles, Kerby Miller, Deborah Pearsall, Larry Penney, Patricia Plummer, Michael Prewitt, Kit Salter, Dennis Sentilles, Don Sievert, Mary Ellen Sievert, Eva Szekely, Harry Tyrer, Betty Winfield, Warren Zahler, Dean Schmidt (Library), Roy Utz (Retirees), Ruth MacDonald represented Hildegarde Heymann, and W.H. Fales represented Brent Jones. Absent were: John Bauer, Hardeep Bhullar, Loren Nikolai, and Mabel Grimes (Black Faculty and Staff). Guests: Gordon Kimber and members of the Campus Standing Committee on Administrative Review.

Approval of Minutes

Chairman Hunvald called the meeting to order at 3:40 p.m. in room S110 Memorial Union. The minutes of the Faculty Council meeting of March 10, l994 were approved as submitted.

Report from the Campus Standing Committee on Administrative Review

Professor Kimber introduced the other members of the committee that were in attendance. He recapitulated the history of the establishment of the review process. The first task force presented its report to Council on April 16, 1987, proposing a cooperative effort between faculty and administrators, however, little or nothing transpired. In the next step, on March 2, 1989, the Special Projects committee of Faculty Council made an effort to make evaluations just a faculty project. A specially called General Faculty Meeting, April 25, 1990, had referred nine motions to Faculty Council, which entrusted the matter to a task force headed by Professor Paul Blackwell. By May 3, 1991, there had been a faculty vote approving seven propositions regarding administrative review. Further task force work had established two committees, the elective Campus Standing Committee which Professor Kimber chaired and the Financial Oversight Committee chaired by Professor Gordon Springer. The CSCAR had established procedures to evaluate administrators and was working on parallel processes within divisions. The administrators had had the opportunity to make suggestions regarding the questionnaire. The FOC had not yet taken any public action.

The questionnaire for evaluating the Provost had been mailed to approximately 1,750 ranked faculty and 353 responses had been received. The low response was perhaps disappointing, but typical. It was perhaps occasioned by the lack of effect which earlier such efforts had met with; the very reason for the eventual establishment of the CSCAR. The aim of the CSCAR (and ideally of all faculty) is to make these evaluations a constructive feature in the improvement of the university. It was also hoped that there would be a higher response next year. The CSCAR had diligently read all comments, many thoughtful, some humorous or acerbic. Nonetheless, he felt sure that an effort would be made to discount this year's results on the grounds of low response, and that such an effort would be an unfortunate dismissal of the views, both positive and negative, of over 300 people.

The report on the evaluation of the Provost was then distributed, and appears here as Appendix I. It was generally positive, but some persons were obviously very unhappy with some aspects of the Provost's performance. [Recorder's note: since the report is appended, it is needless here to recapitulate Professor Kimber's further remarks.] Groups of the CSCAR had already discussed the results of the Provost's evaluation with both the Provost and the Chancellor. A similar procedure is in process for the Chancellor, and a report to Faculty Council will be made on that subject on April 28.

In subsequent discussion Professor Allee asked about the number of administrators included among the respondents, and was informed that the number included department chairs and the like. Professor Kimber again stressed the typical nature of the number of responses. Professor Hamilton asked about the Provost's response to the evaluation. Professor Kimber indicated that it showed substantial concern about his failure to communicate with those who did not feel he should be reappointed.

General Education Report

Professor Miller, representing Professor Jones, reported on the April 1 meeting of the Committee on Undergraduate Education. One topic had been Professor Michael Prewitt's subcommittee's report on the computer-literacy requirement. However, the most important topic had been a motion to implement a one-cluster requirement. Several aspects of the debate had been interesting. One ex-officio member had asked whether anyone had knowledge of any other institution at which a cluster requirement had been successfully implemented and there were no responses. There had been a meeting with the Chancellor which revealed that there would be no new money for the implementation of clusters; some feared that this would lead to intense competition among departments trying to get their courses into clusters. At the end of the debate a hostile amendment had been proposed to eliminate clusters altogether from the motion, but it had been defeated on a 5-4 vote. The entire motion had then been tabled for further discussion on May 6. The general sense of the meeting was that better communication was needed between the CUE and the faculty in general (especially with A & S which would be most burdened by clusters).

In subsequent discussion, Professor Salter and others wondered what teeth would be left in the distribution-of-content requirement should the clusters be removed. Professor Miller replied, inter alia, that one member of the committee reported that there was a perception that the CUE was trying to railroad clusters. The suggestion had also been made that in view of the fact that no new money would be available for clusters that the whole matter should perhaps be referred back to the faculty for another vote. Vice Provost Behymer stated that even if clusters were removed, the 18 hour distribution rule would stand. A meeting with all chairs had been set for April 26 to discuss the matter. The Chancellor had indicated that thee would be transition dollars available. Professor Hamilton asked whether the meeting would be open, and was told it would.

Report of Officers

Chairman Hunvald reported that the ballot on plus/minus grading was being distributed and was due back by May 4. People were admonished to read the accompanying information carefully. He also announced Professors Jones, Birkenholz, and Lane (as well as Professor Hamilton as a consultant) as a nomination committee for the 1994-95 Chair & Vice Chair of Council. The election will be held at the April 28, 1994 Faculty Council meeting. Professors Lane, Salter, Sievert, and Zahler have agreed to serve as faculty marshals at the May 15 Commencement. The Executive Committee will meet Friday, April 22 with the review team for the graduate school.

Professor Don Sievert reported that as a result of Martha Alexander's report to Council at our last meeting (please see Council minutes of March 10 for content of report), and disquieting proposals in "Final Report: Advisory Review Panel for Assessment of Library Needs University of Missouri" that a general forum on the library had been called for Thursday, May 5. Among the most disquieting proposals had been that all journals before 1970 be removed to remote storage, as well as that a facility completely inaccessible to the public be constructed, in part to avoid compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. He expressed his disheartenment with the whole process and stated that this was "the time for us to get vocal". Professor Hamilton seconded Professor Sievert's concerns. An announcement about the meeting would appear on the front page of the next two Faculty Forums. Professor Sievert also reported that he had it on good authority that Dr. Frank Mitchell had indicated that the university might terminate the arrangement with GenCare Sanus after three years and handle health insurance on its own.

Action Items

Modification of Grade Appeal Procedures. On behalf of the Student Affairs Committee Professor Conn presented the resolution which appears as Appendix II. After brief discussion and clarification, the resolution was passed unanimously.

Discussion Items

Procedure for Awarding Emeritus Status. On behalf of the Faculty Affairs Committee, Professor Hamilton presented some proposed revisions to the "Collected Rules and Regulations" regarding emeritus status. If adopted, these would have to be approved by the Curators. The thrust of the proposed changes would be to make emeritus status less of an automatic thing; the impetus to award emeritus status would have to originate with the faculty in their department and then go up the line like any other personnel matter. Without the consent of the retiree's department the emeritus designation would be impossible. In the subsequent discussion Vice Provost Behymer stressed that the Deans' or the Provost's Office needed to be involved because they may know of damaging information not available to the faculty.

Professor Tyrer was particularly vocal on faculty's right to determine whom it wanted to continue having as a colleague. Professor Mary Ellen Sievert stated that female professors should be styled Emerita. Professor Lane mused on the possibility of establishing a category of Professor Demeritus. It was agreed that the proposal would be further refined and submitted as an action item on April 28.

Missouri Association of Faculty Senates. Chairman Hunvald recalled that we have been invited to join this organization, to which all public four-year institutions except us and UMSL already belong. The cost is $50 to join, and perhaps $35 per year. This will be an action item at the next meeting.

Annual Report of the Committee on Committees. This report had been distributed and acceptance thereof will be an action item at the next meeting.

Board of Curators Report

Professor Cockriel expressed some concern about the "Advisory Groups on the Improvement of the University". The timetable for these groups (appointment in April, reports in fall) seemed rushed.

Standing Committee Reports

There were no reports from any standing committee.

Closed session for Personnel Items and Adjournment

A motion was passed unanimously that the President of the Retired Faculty Association or his delegate be an ex officio member of the Retiree Advisory Committee. Committee assignments as presented by Chairman Hunvald on behalf of the Executive Committee were unanimously accepted. It was announced that a substitute recorder would be needed to take Professor Lane's place in June and July. The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Eugene N. Lane, Recorder

Appendix I

The Campus Standing Committee on Administrative Review's Report on the Faculty Evaluation of Provost Brouder, March 1994.

A total of 353 replies were received. Some did not contain any responses, most had answers to almost all of the questions, and not all had written responses. The replies with written comments also did not always contain responses to all questions requesting comments. Since not providing a written opinion can be regarded as a neutral view the numbers of responses are described as fractions of total written responses received.

Overall, most of the comments were positive, although some respondents were clearly very unhappy with some particular aspect of the Provost's performance. It was possible to classify 187/226 of the written responses concerning satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the provost, 109 were clearly positive, 42 ambivalent, and 36 clearly negative.

A substantial number (42/226) of the respondents commented, in one way or another, that the Provost is ignored, by-passed, restrained or otherwise limited by the Chancellor. This perception is spread among the responses of all academic ranks, administrators and divisions.

He is generally viewed as an open administrator although some respondents (26/226) stressed the need for him to increase his contacts and interaction with faculty. Dr. Brouder's good interpersonal relationships were frequently commented upon. Dr. Brouder's ability to interact with people external to the university was also viewed positively.

Some respondents (10/226) commented, in various ways, on a lack of vision for the campus or a limited recognition of scholarship.

There was some concern (10/226) about the absence or slowness of responses from the Provost's office, both to individual communications and also to plans that departments or divisions have forwarded.

The average score for each of the 21 questions for which a numerical (1 through 9) response was requested were all above average, ranging from 6.1 (154) for recognition of on-the-job technical skills, to 7.3 (282) for human relationships and also 7.3 (248) for promoting an environment free from discrimination.

Only small differences were noticeable between the differing academic ranks. Question 21, which asked for an overall rating, produced means of 6.7 (147), 6.3 (81), 6.4 (61) and 7.0 (11) for Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor and Instructor, respectively. Administrators (Dean, Chair, Director or other) rated the Provost as 7.5 (57) for question 21. The overall mean of all respondents for this question was 6.6 (331).

Of the 292 responses to the question whether the Provost should definitely be re-appointed 244 voted yes and 48 voted no.

Based on those responses that indicated divisional affiliation, and in which five or more responses were obtained, two divisions (Engineering and Veterinary Medicine) were less enthusiastic about the Provost's performance than the average for all respondents, and in particular with the recent appointments to the deanship, while Extension, Human Environmental Sciences, Law, Medicine and Nursing rated the Provost higher than the general average.

Similarly, those respondents who identified themselves as holding administrative positions were much more uniform and effusive in their opinions.

Submitted for, and on the behalf of, the Campus Standing Committee on Administrative Review.

Gordon Kimber

Appendix II

On April 14, 1994, the MU Faculty Council adopted the following change in the Academic Regulations. The additions are bold and the deletions are in [brackets].

Article VII - Credits and Grades
Section 2. The Grading System
Subsection I. Review of Student Grades
iv. Procedures for appeal.
c. The student may elect to provide an oral presentation to the authority considering the appeal in addition to the written petition described in section a. above.

d[c]. The appeal shall be considered [heard] pursuant to the appeal guidelines established by the department, which (the guidelines) shall be sent to the student with the acknowledgement letter.

e[d]. The appeal shall be considered [heard] within 15 working days after the date of the acknowledgement letter, unless the student consents to a longer time, after good cause has been shown.

f[e]. The final determination.