Faculty Senate Minutes - 9/15/2005

Missouri Western State University
Faculty Senate Minutes
September 15, 2005
Blum Union 220

Senators Present: President Mullins (presiding), Andrews, Chevalier, Fulton, de Gregorio, Gregory, Heider, Holian, Hunt, M. Nandan, S. Nandan, Noynaert, Ottinger, Tushaus

Senators Absent: Williams

Non-voting and Ex-Officio Members Present: President Scanlon, Acting VPSASA Jeannie Daffron, Past Senate President Larry Andrews

Ex-Officio Members Absent:

Guests: Brenda Blessing, Martin Johnson, Lee Evinger, Jennifer Hegeman, John Tapia


Call to Order: President Phil Mullins called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.

Approval of September 01, 2005 Minutes: (Heider/Hunt) Approved unanimously

Approval of Agenda: (Gregory, Ottinger) Approved unanimously

Report from the University President:
• We should anticipate a report on governance structures from the Governor’s office. One current proposal is to create a Secretary of Education position, and a governing board consisting of selected institutional presidents and others. There are at least three committees looking at these issues, and there may be a fourth committee. One committee in the house is looking specifically at funding issues related to higher education.
Report from the Acting Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs:
• We presented two promotion and tenure workshops and they seem to have gone well.
Report from the Senate President:
• The Executive Committee has met twice, mainly to discuss committee charges and activities.
• Senator Randye Williams has submitted her resignation. On behalf of the Senate, we wish to thank Dr. Williams for her service to the Senate and the institution. A special election will be held within 30 days to elect her replacement.

New Business
Ad hoc Constitutional Revision Committee

Last year’s ad hoc Bylaws Revision Committee recommended work on the constitution. Especially important is the matter of specifying a procedure to replace a past president who cannot serve. Lee Evinger and Jennifer Hegeman have been asked to head up the revision effort. How many proposals is it prudent to put forward to the faculty? How complex should such proposals be? The sentiment of the Senate concerning constitutional revision needs to be clear before a charge to an ad hoc constitutional committee is framed.

Is there a way to effect a remedy to the problems at hand (such as locating a fill-in past president ) without requiring a vote of faculty? There really isn’t a way to change the constitution without a vote. Bylaws are easier to change. Article 10 of the existing constitution explains the method for doing amendments.

In order to get the required approval by the majority of all faculty for a constitutional amendment, all Senators will need to support the proposal and go out and sell it in their departments.

One idea to improve continuity would be to make the President serve a two-year term, and perhaps require the President to have previously served on the executive committee.

It may be possible to address situations such as the need to find a substitute past president by relying more on Robert’s Rules of Order. That is, the Senate might avoid a laborious constitutional change by passing a bylaw addition that specifies that we will follow the guidance of Robert’s Rules for matters that are not covered in the constitution or bylaws. Robert’s Rules may have a discussion of procedures for the replacement of officers that could be followed.

Does the present system need to be changed at all? Making a constitutional change like giving the president a two-year term might invoke the rule of unintended consequences. Would senators need to serve three-year terms, for example?

After 15 minutes of discussion, the Senate reached no clear consensus on the scope or nature of any constitutional revisions to be proposed.

Discussion of 04-05 Recommendations of Distinguished Professor Committee

The current distinguished professor program was created last year by the Board of Governors. A committee of administration and faulty served to review and select those recognized in the spring of 2005. Since President Mullins was a member of the committee, he asked Vice President Heider to preside over this portion of the meeting. Vice President Heider asked senators to review the recommended changes being made by the committee and to provide comments. First, however, she invited comments from Dr. Scanlon.

Dr. Scanlon noted that the Distinguished Professor Awards Committee was an institutional committee. He noted that the Distinguished Professor Awards Committee’s recommendations were being considered and that he was here to listen to the Senate discussion. The Senate is free to make whatever recommendations they wish about the committee’s recommendations or, more generally, about the Distinguished Professor Program.

Faculty discussion - There are problems with the program. First, during last year’s discussion the number of awards was cited as being 18. However, only 10 awards were made in spring 05. Lack of feedback to applicants not given awards was a major problem. Faculty members who applied had to put in a great deal of effort, but all the feedback they got was a form letter, which many regarded as an insult. Dr. Arnold did not give any specific feedback to candidates who spoke directly with him. Although this program is an award and awards are somewhat different than the promotion process with several layers of feedback, when you get a form rejection letter, you have no idea what needs to be done to improve your chances of getting the award at a later date. If you want to reapply, you have absolutely no insight into your deficiencies.

There are also concerns about the decision process. One Senator suggested that secret ballots should be used instead of “consensus” in making decisions about awards by the committee. The ten faculty members who received the award probably like the program, but overall this program has had a negative impact on faculty morale. Also, the awards committee looks like a “good old boys club” because people who have already been selected pick the new members of the club. One suggestion is that an outstanding mid-term tenure packet should be able to be submitted by a departmental committee and/or chairperson as an application for this award.

Dr. Scanlon pointed out that the award specified “up to 18” awards. It is a matter of the judgment of the committee as to whether an application meets the criteria for recommendation for the award. The number of awards in any year also depends on the number recommended by the committee.

Senators also noted that there seems to be a very strong and unstated bias toward publication in this award. This isn’t what the Application Guideline specify, but in practice this is what was favored. If this is intended to be an award for publication, then the guidelines should be written to state this. Finally, many faculty feel that they are disenfranchised or discounted by this program.

The chairs need to use the review process to give real, meaningful feedback to faculty members. Chairs and senior faculty need to be mentoring and explaining institutional expectations. Annual evaluations should be giving meaningful guidance. An annual awards workshop (a recommendation) may also be helpful to faculty. It likely would be helpful to have a chart in which promotion, tenure and all possible awards were described and linked on a time line. A faculty member could see at one glance career options.

The distinguished professor program is a different system than what we had with the old merit plan. When this went in place it was sold as a successor to merit, but really this is quite different.

Distinguished Faculty Committee members reported that it was not the case that the committee simply followed what administrators desired. This year’s committee had six faculty representatives (appointed by the President from winners of the Career Ladder award for full professors); no faculty representative had less than 25 years at the institution. The opinions of administrators were just as subject to challenge and debate as those of any faculty members. At times administrators did not agree with each other; faculty did not agree with each other; and faculty did not agree with administrators. The committee process was a long and lively one of working to a point of agreement about awardees. This was a process whose goal was to make awards based on materials presented. Promotion and tenure is a sieve process with feedback (on a package) at every level. It is difficult to design an effective mechanism providing feedback to a large number of applicants in an awards process. Members of the committee were given the impression that feedback would be provided to applicants, but apparently this did not happen. This committee deliberation process was a process that required from February to May. The current recommendations put forth by the committee focus on ways to promote fairness, efficiency and better understanding of the distinguished professor awards, which go beyond what is required for promotion and tenure.

Some people were disappointed because some people went up for this award and promotion. Some people got promoted, but did not get the award. The award was a different process than promotion.

Only one person received an award for service, although this is a campus that acknowledges a strong commitment to service. Many faculty do much service but service seemed to receive short shrift in the 05 awards process. How should service be documented? The requirements for this award are excellence in all three areas with outstanding achievement in one area. This year one person received the award with a service designation because this person was judged to have achieved excellence in all three areas (according to rank) plus outstanding achievement in the service area. The documentation was careful and concrete in the committee’s judgment and had to be for awards in service and scholarly/creative activity also.

The distinguished professor program is one that intends to recognize exemplary contributions. It is a new program and most faculty were accustomed to an old merit program with a different philosophy. Faculty need to develop better methods of documenting excellence. One thing the committee observed is that the narrative needs to make the argument, and everything else is supporting material. Perhaps the VPASA and a faculty member need to be co-chairs (a committee recommendation for a committee that next year will include a number of faculty still in the promotion system). It was observed that much of the present animated discussion is reminiscent of the discussion of promotion/tenure 25 years ago when the Promotion and Tenure Committee was created. The awards program needs to be set up so that faculty can clearly recognize criteria. Should the award have explicit requirements or should it remain subjective?

Has any consideration been given to having the faculty member meet with the committee? Some people are better at promoting themselves in writing, and others are better at promoting themselves in person. Interviews might contextualize judgments. Interviews would also allow committee members to get questions answered, and perhaps give some live feedback.

The committee made six recommendations that were distributed with the agenda and draft minutes. The recommendations were largely procedural—i.e., aimed at improving the existing process. This discussion has brought on to the table larger concerns about the awards program.

Recommendation 1 - The recommendation merely proposes an annual workshop to show materials of successful applicants; the workshop would include some discussion. There is an annual workshop for promotion and tenure.

Recommendation 4 seems that we are telling the outside peer reviewers what to say. The committee read many letters. Many weren’t helpful, and some did some actual harm. The committee recommendation is that we improve the instruction statement that goes to the people who are writing the outside reviews. The intent is to get people to take great care in writing the recommendation, and make sure they focus on the area they have some competence to evaluate. It might be that some people would find the letter to be too pushy. Can evaluators be expected to evaluate quality of work in all three areas? No. Different evaluators are expected to speak to only the area (or areas) they can comment on.

Vice President Heider closed discussion on the topic for the time being and turned the gavel to President Mullins.

Old Business
SB 1-05 Charges to ad hoc Peer Review Committee memberships
No comments or discussion offered. Unanimous voice vote.
SB 2-06 Charges to standing committees
No comment or discussion offered. Unanimous voice vote.
SB 3-06 Evaluation of Faculty committee charge
No comment or discussion offered. Unanimous voice vote.
SB 4-06 Scholarship Committee charges
No comment or discussion offered. Unanimous voice vote.
SB 5-06 Fringe Benefits
This was partially covered under 2-06, but it was also broken out as a separate motion. President Scanlon said that action has already begun under this. The motion was withdrawn by Ottinger (motion second).
SB 6-06 Formation and charges to the Academic Honesty committee
No comment or discussion. Unanimous voice vote.
SB 7-06 Formation and charges to the Graduate Studies Committee.
No comment or discussion. Unanimous voice vote.

Adjournment