Faculty Senate Minutes - 10/7/2004
Missouri Western State College
Faculty Senate Minutes
October 7, 2004
SU 220
Senators Present: President Andrews, Vice President Hegeman, Secretary Ottinger, Past President Greiert, Caldwell, Gregory, Haney, Heider, Holian, Hunt, Nandan, Noynaert, Tapia, Tushaus, Williams
Senators Absent: Voelkel
Ex-Officio Members Present: Vice President Arnold, President Scanlon
Ex-Officio Members Absent: none
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Call to Order: President Larry Andrews called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
Approval of September 23rd Minutes: (Gregory/Heider)
Approved by voice vote
Approval of Agenda: (Tapia/Caldwell)
Agenda approved by voice vote
Report from College President:
DHE Capital Recommendations will be submitted to CBHE next week. They are expected to be approved. In the recommendation the MWSC Science & Mathematics Building is at priority #3 on the list. If approved the building will received $29.8 Million dollars from the state with $2.4 Million in matching funds raised by the college. Each candidate for governor supports a bond issue to pay for the capital improvements.
Copies of this year’s “Points of Pride” were distributed to the senators present and will be distributed to faculty during the upcoming week.
CBHE has asked Dr. Scanlon to chair the Two-year and Four-year Presidents’ Advisory Commission to the CBHE for this upcoming year.
Report from Vice President for Academic & Student Affairs:
Dr. Arnold deferred his report until the discussion of the Distinguished Professor Program.
Report from Senate President:
Report added as Appendix A of the Minutes.
President Andrews is a member of the President’s Committee for Evaluating the VPASA. The committee is requesting questions to be placed on a faculty survey. Anyone with questions should submit them to Diane Gorcyca by next Thursday (Oct 14).
Old Business:
SR-03-05: (Heider/Caldwell): Motion to Approve Distinguished Professor Proposal.
Discussion: VP Arnold passed out a Memo (included as Appendix B) to answer some questions on the DPP. Asked if the Equity Funding was part of the Distinguished Professor Proposal Motion. It was not included in the motion. Dr. Arnold then went through the revised proposal to explain the changes made by the committee. Additional questions were:
o Why “Normally” in first paragraph of 4.a? -- It is a new program so this would allow faculty beyond the 3rd year to apply. However, it would be expected that new faculty would apply in their 3rd year.
o How do the Peer Evaluation Committee, Promotion & Tenure Committee, and Jesse Meyers Committee and the Distinguished Professor Committee fit together? --The programs fit quite well together, but there is no relationship between the committees.
o Do articles published in Foreign Languages need to be translated to be included in the portfolio? -
Dr. Arnold – No, but a good letter about the article would be helpful.
Dr. M. Johnson – If no letter, and I cannot read the article, then I cannot evaluate the article. This is the same for any article outside my field of study. I could read a history article, but it would be difficult to evaluate the significance of that article. It would be better to have someone within that field explain the significance of the article.
Dr. Scanlon – Candidate should explain the signifance of the Journal/ Publication, but the faculty should not translate the article.
o Will the DPP go into the Policy Guide this year, or wait (as other changes) until July1st? --Applications for the award will be accepted in January 2005 for awards to enter base pay in July 2005.
o That is short notice to any candidate wishing to create a portfolio – The application would be done in place of the annual evaluation. Possibly the deadline could be relaxed this year.
o Does the State Auditor have to approve this new plan? -- No, but we must send a report to the Auditor for each of the audit problems.
o If we encounter a lean budget year, will the DPP be eliminated that year
Dr. Scanlon –No, the DPP and Promotions would always be awarded.
o Is the DPP grievable? If it is in the Policy Guide and is added to the base, then it becomes a property right and should be grievable. – I cannot answer that as I am not a lawyer.
o In Dr. Bringles’ discussion he stated that “an Institution rewards what it values and gets what it rewards”. This program (and all other evaluations) seem to reward Scholarship and not Service. I am foolish to spend any time in service, I should be spending all of my time in Scholarship. –If an application had no service it would be rejected.
o Can professors without terminal degrees participate in this program? -- No one is locked out.
(Tapia/Noynaert) Motion to Amend (SR-03-05) to replace the original Distinguished Professor Proposal with the revised proposal, as found in the Memorandum addressed to Dr. James Scanlon and dated October 7, 2004. (Minutes Appendix B) Amendment passed by voice vote.
(Noynaert/Ottinger) Motion to vote on (SR-03-05) by ballot. Motion passed by voice vote.
Paper ballot for (SR-03-05) counted by Past President Greiert and Senator Heider.
Yes=5, No = 9. Motion Fails.
New Business:
SR-04-05 (Tapia/Hegeman) Motion to endorse Special Adjustment for Assistant Professors as contained in Memorandum to Dr. James Scanlon from Dr. J. David Arnold and dated October 7, 2004 (See Minutes Appendix B).
SR-05-05 (Noynaert/Ottinger) Motion to request parking lot in the area between the Science and Mathematics Building and the Professional Studies Building. Full motion is attached as Minutes Appendix C.
SB-06-05 (Ottinger/Caldwell) Motion to reword Early Warning Policy. Full motion is attached as Minutes Appendix D.
President Andrews requests that Senators Hunt and Williams, as committee liaisons, report on their committees progress at the next senate meeting.
Senate Adjourned at 4:58 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Michael B. Ottinger, PhD
Senate Secretary.
MINUTES APPENDIX A
Faculty Senate President Report
October 7, 2004
The following reviews information and actions of the executive committee since the last faculty senate meeting on 9-23-04. The executive committee has met twice including one meeting with President Scanlon and VP Arnold.
o Additional work session concerning the proposed Distinguished Professor Program
o Evaluation committee for VP
o Big Event – Senate and Faculty involvement
o Governors Award
o Alumni Award Dinner – Faculty awards
o MAFS meeting next week
o Reports from liaisons
o CGAC – previous early warning update
o ACT update
o Resolution – parking –request for VP Olinger
(additional comments from executive committee members Senate Vice- President Hegeman, Senate Secretary Ottinger and Senate Past-President Greiert
MINUTES APPENDIX B
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Dr. James Scanlon, President
FROM: Dr. J. David Arnold, Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs
DATE: October 7, 2004
SUBJECT: Review of phase one and two of faculty equity, a new recommendation for distinguished professor program (attached) and a new recommendation for special adjustment for Assistant Professors
CC: Faculty Senate
Review of phase one and phase two of faculty equity:
As you will remember from the 2003-2004 AY, on May 11, 2004, the Faculty Equity ad hoc committee met to discuss implementing the second phase of recommendations on “parity” from the 2002 Faculty Senate Salary and Benefits Committee.
Faculty members appointed to the ad hoc committee once again included one professor from each rank (Steve Greiert, Barry Nelson, and Christa Adam), the current Chair of the Faculty Senate Salary and Benefits Committee as an ex officio member (Kevin Anderson), the two school deans (Jeanne Daffron and Martin Johnson), and David Arnold (who served as chair).
Consistent with phase one, the ad hoc Committee used salary averages from the comparison group supplied by Dr. Anderson to produce the following annualized recommendations for Associate and Professor ranks (Assistant equity, as defined by the Committee was met 100% in January 2004):
· Professors @ $1750 annualized adjustment
· Associates @ $773 annualized adjustment
Faculty, along with staff, will receive their second phase of equity adjustments in their rate of pay starting in January 2005.
When combined with phase one, effective January 1, 2005, the total adjustments by rank will be:
· Professors @ $3993 annualized adjustment
· Associate Professors @ $2148 annualized adjustment
· Assistant Professor @ $1000 annualized adjustment
These adjustments should also be placed in context of the new amounts for promotion approved by you (that were effective in 2001):
· Professors @ $5000
· Associates @ $3500
· Assistants @ $2000
Recommendation for distinguished professor program (attached):
In response to the auditor’s recommendation to discontinue our system of paying faculty and staff performance based pay in the form of bonuses, you directed me to convene an ad hoc committee, appointed by you, to design a new system of performance based pay for faculty no later than November 1, 2004.
With respect to members you appointed to this new ad hoc committee (Fall 2004), the ad hoc committee once again included one professor from each rank (Steve Greiert, Evelyn Brooks, and Kelly Henry), the current Chair of the Faculty Senate Salary and Benefits Committee as an ex officio member (Kevin Anderson), the two school deans (Brenda Blessing and Martin Johnson), Jeanne Daffron as ex officio member, and myself (as chair).
The ad hoc committee developed a consensus proposal for a distinguished professor program that extends the active career program to assistant and associate professors. The ad hoc committee will present the proposal as an information item to Faculty Senate and CGAC. The proposal is attached for your information. The ad hoc committee will reconvene to make any consensus revisions after the meetings with Senate, but before the October CGAC meeting, in order to meet the letter and the spirit of the November 1 deadline.
Special adjustment for Assistant Professors:
In addition to the distinguished professor program, I asked the advice and consent from the Fall 2004 ad hoc committee on how to respond to the inquiries of several assistant professors to examine to what extent the Western salary average, for the assistant professor rank, is skewed by the presence of long-term assistant professors at Western. My office did extensive research of the institutional salary comparison group and the following is a summary of our findings:
· Every institution except Truman has long-term assistant professors. There is no definitive evidence to support that Western has more long-term assistants, as a percentage, than other salary peer institutions. However, one can infer, that since Western is the only institution without “up or out” tenure, that Western is more likely to have relatively more long-term assistant professors. In fact, Western has 11 of 63 assistant professors in rank for 10 or more years, or about 17% of the assistant professor cohort. Other institutions may have tenured, but not promoted assistant professors.
· Every institution uses a unique formula or process to compute starting assistant professor salaries. Thus, there is not a benchmark to compare starting assistant professor salaries (i.e., a salary scale or schedule)—this would be an indirect means of assessing market for beginning assistants with the terminal degree and no years of experience or market adjustment.
Given the results of our research, the Fall 2004 ad hoc committee recommends a special adjustment, up to $750 (up to the rank average), for assistant professors who meet the following criteria:
· are in rank seven years or less, and
· hold a tenure-track or tenured position, and
· hold the doctoral degree in their field—that is, they are not eligible for educational advancement in salary as defined by the Policy Guide, and
· are below the average salary for assistants (i.e., $45,160)
If this recommendation for a special adjustment were accepted, then the special equity adjustment for eligible assistants would be up to $750 in January 2005. As proposed, 23 of 63 Assistants would receive the full $750.
While equity recommendations are normally an information item for Faculty Senate, given that this special adjustment goes above and beyond the original model for faculty equity adjustments (based on the 2002 Faculty Senate Salary and Benefits Committee report), the ad hoc committee would prefer that this recommendation for a special adjustment receive an ‘endorsement’ from the Faculty Senate (in order to be successfully implemented as part of the phase two adjustments effective in January 2005).
The ad hoc committee will issue a final recommendation to you after the completion of the Faculty Senate and CGAC meetings in October.
MINUTES APPENDIX C
Proposed Resolution:
The Faculty Senate requests that the College President budget for and authorize the construction of a reserved parking area in the area between the Science and Mathematics Building and the Professional Studies Building.
The Faculty Senate further requests that the parking lot be enforced as reserved parking on a 24/7 basis, including periods when the College is not in session.
Need for the parking area:
Parking is often difficult on the north side of campus when major events are scheduled in the stadium or arena. Faculty and staff who come in to work evenings and weekends sometimes have no parking available on the north side of campus. The situation will probably become worse with the construction of the indoor sports facility.
The proposed area would serve the buildings most affected by sporting and other events. The location of the lot would make it convenient to the PS, SM, JGM, and the Arena.
Description of the area:
The proposed area of the parking lot is the low area between the Science and Mathematics Building and the Professional Studies Building. It would be located in the area previously occupied by the Department of Corrections temporary offices. Depending on the design, the lot would hold ten to twenty vehicles. The existing parking lot has three handicapped parking spaces which would be retained.
The area would be bounded on the north by the north curb of the existing PS driveway. The area would be bounded on the south by the existing sidewalk that connects the SM and PS buildings. The PS building would be the west boundary. The east boundary would be the base of the hill below the power transformers and the existing SM handicapped parking area.
Aesthetic considerations:
The area is well screened. There is a row of ornamental apple trees along the street side of the lot. From the Clock-tower area the area is screened by some mature fir trees. Some additional trees could be added if additional screening is desired.
This is not currently an attractive area of campus. It was the site selected for the temporary trailers used by the Department of Corrections. Since the trailers have been removed, the area has been left bare and is filling in with various weeds and volunteer grasses. Currently the existing parking area is used for vehicle storage. This side of the PS building is dominated by a large garage door that is badly in need of paint. The hill overlooking the area is dominated by electrical transformers and a large power distribution box.
As discussed below, the proposed extension of the SM building will be adjacent to this area. The greenhouse that is proposed as part of the expansion will further screen the area.
SM Building expansion:
The area is well outside the footprint of the proposed expansion of the SM building. There is an area west of the proposed expansion where air handling and other traditional “rooftop” utilities will be located. The proposed parking lot is also well outside this proposed utility area.
It is possible that the proposed low area would be a “staging area” during the construction of the SM building. If this is the case, then the area would be temporarily graveled. If construction of the new building appears imminent, then the area could be graveled for construction, and then after construction the gravel area could be replaced by a permanent lot.
Note: It is more likely that the contractor will want to stage out of the area east of the existing SM building because more space is available. In this case the proposed parking lot would not interfere with the proposed construction. If the area east of the building is used for staging, the proposed parking lot could relieve some of the additional parking stress brought on by major construction activities.
MINUTES APPENDIX D
Amend the 2004-2005 Missouri Western State College Policy Guide as follows:
Replace the second paragraph under "Early Warning Provision for Faculty," (p.67) with the following:
"Faculty members who have been employed full-time at Missouri Western State College for more than two years shall not fail to receive a reappointment recommendation by the administration because of an unsatisfactory evaluation in instruction, department support, professional development, or institutional and community support unless they have been advised of their shortcomings. The formal early warning shall be issued by the department chairperson, or, in the case of chairperson, by the appropriate dean, in writing on the FACULTY REAPPOINTMENT FORM and incorporated within the formal evaluation process.
A faculty member placed on early warning must demonstrate at the next annual evaluation to the satisfaction of the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs, in consultation with the department chair and dean, that the shortcomings have been remedied and are not likely to reoccur. Failing to do so will result in the termination of a non-tenured faculty member effective at the end of that spring semester, or in the case of a tenured faculty member, will result in a terminal contract for the following academic year."
Replace the first bullet under “IX. TENURE” (p. 84) with the following:
“· Tenured faculty are subject to the Early Warning Provision (VII.C.2)”
Justification:
On April 18, 2002 the Faculty Senate approved unanimously SB 01-02.08 to clarify the “Early Warning Provision for Faculty”, as recommended by the Promotion and Tenure Committee. When that bill was discussed at the CGAC Meeting on May 2, 2002 it was returned to the Senate for clarification. Due to the start of a new academic year and the appointment of a new Vice-President for Academic and Student Affairs, the senate did not immediately review the bill and it was subsequently forgotten.
The original wording for the Early Warning Provision in the Policy Guide is still confusing and should be clarified.
|
