Faculty Senate Minutes - 2/1/2001
FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
February 1, 2001
Call to Order
President Mikkelsen called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m.
Senators Present
Aschermann, Bargar, Cadden, Caldwell, Fowler, Greiert, Hamzaee, Mikkelsen,
Nelson, Noynaert, Radmacher, Roberts, Tapia, Williams
Senators Absent
Klostermeyer, McLear
Ex-officio
James Roever, vice president for academic affairs, Missouri Western State
College
Guests present
Larry Andrews, professor of criminal justice
Todd Ekdahl, associate professor of biology
Ken Lee, professor of mathematics
Kathyrne Mueller, administrative associate to vice president of academic
affairs
Shiva Nandan, associate professor of business
Randye Williams, associate professor of health, physical education, and
recreation
Meeting agenda
The agenda for today's meeting was approved by unanimous consent
(Nelson/Greiert).
Report from college interim president
This report was combined with that of the vice president for academic
affairs.
Report from vice president for academic affairs
James Roever, vice president for academic affairs, indicated that he would
incorporate information given to him by MWSC interim President James
McCarthy in his own report. Roever stated that tenure decisions had been
rendered and that he was currently looking at promotion documents and
sabbatical applications. He said that the Master Plan Committee would not
meet until newly appointed President James Scanlon arrived in March to
assume leadership of the college. Scanlon wants to re-examine the mission
statement of the college and to incorporate a revision of that statement
into all long-range planning efforts.
Roever announced that Suzanne Colgan had recently been appointed as the
newest member of the MWSC Board of Regents. She replaces Julia Rupp on
the Board.
As noted in minutes of earlier faculty senate meetings, Roever is chair of
an ad hoc committee on faculty salaries. That committee includes both
academic deans as well as the faculty senate salary committee
members. The deadline for its report is April 1, 2001. Roever remarked
that the salary committee of the professional and support staff would like
to hire outside consultants to assist them. Otherwise, Roever is
unfamiliar with what that committee is doing or thinking.
Report from faculty senate executive committee
President Mikkelsen stated that at its meeting on January 25, 2001, the
CGAC had approved all curriculum proposals except for those numbered from
19 through 22. Roever clarified the problems concerning these proposals
from the Department of Engineering Technology. This proposal requires
additional sections of computer science courses. Projected costs for
recruiting competent faculty in computer sciences are high. Roever noted
that these curriculum proposals were approved by the CGAC "in
principle" but still need details to be worked out.
Mikkelsen reported that the food and drink policy proposals of the two
academic deans and the faculty senate bill on mid-term grading policy
would likely be discussed at the March meeting of CGAC.
Mikkelsen reiterated that Senators Nelson and Noynaert will attend the
MAFS meeting in Jefferson City, scheduled for February 5th and
6th. Mikkelsen stated that he and members of the faculty senate general
studies committee would attend the statewide COTA meeting on February 7th
and 8th. The new statewide general studies guidelines will be discussed
at this meeting.
Mikkelsen said that the respective presidents of the faculty senate,
professional staff, support staff, and the student government association
will meet with Suzanne Colgan, the newly appointed member of the Board of
Regents, on February 6th.
Mikkelsen announced a change in the Spring schedule of reports to the
faculty senate. The ad hoc committee on faculty salaries chaired by
Roever will make its report by March 1st rather than on April 5th.
Mikkelsen mentioned that Nannette Wolford, recently appointed to the
faculty senate promotion and tenure committee, will have to step down from
the committee due to a scheduling conflict. The faculty senate executive
committee will search for yet another new candidate for appointment to
that committee.
Vice president Nelson submitted a proposal outlining procedures for the
election of faculty senators. After discussion that was lengthy,
tortuous, and inane, the faculty senate decided to send this proposal back
to the faculty senate executive committee for re-examination.
Report from faculty senate general studies committee
Mikkelsen distributed the minutes of the meeting of the faculty senate
general studies committee on January 24, 2001. In addition, he referred
everyone to the MWSC 2000-2001 Policy Guide, Section V. FACULTY
OBLIGATIONS RE: DEPARTMENT, DIVISION, INSTITUTION,
C. CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT, 2., pp. 60-61. This section concerns itself
with proper routing of curriculum proposals. Roever, an ex-officio member
of that committee, clarified its recent actions regarding the prefix of
courses listed as HUM being given a new prefix of PHL. Mikkelsen noted
that, if these changes had been substantive, a problem might have arisen
because it is not clear from the Policy Guide what routing procedure to
follow for general studies proposals. Questions have arisen about the
language contained in the routing statements.
Report from faculty senate salary committee
Mikkelsen initiated a discussion of the guidelines by identifying concerns
and feedback that have emerged, during and since the general faculty
meeting on January 30, 2001, regarding the proposals put forth by the
faculty senate salary committee. He stressed the importance of discussing
these concerns in February prior to the report on March 1, 2001, coming
from the ad hoc committee chaired by Roever. For this reason, most of our
guests, including Todd Ekdahl, chair of the faculty senate salary
committee, and four members of the faculty senate promotion and tenure
committee, attended this meeting to listen to questions. Among the
concerns raised were the following issues: 1. Limitation of recipients
of post-professor salary increases to a quota of five. 2. Size of
promotional pay increases. 3. The committee evaluating the applicants
for these pay increases should be comprised solely of faculty. The
committee then should report to the administration rather than have the
committee include members of the administration. 4. The
eligibility of associate professors for pay increases (other than
cost-of-living increases) if they do not seek promotions to full
professor. 5. If the time for promotion eligibility is lengthened from
four years to five years, then under the "exceptional case" clause that
lengthens the waiting period for promotion by two years. 6. Younger
faculty members do not want to wait longer for promotion. 7. Measuring
the "median" in salary issues is a more appropriate statistic than
determining the "mean." 8. In order to hire better, younger faculty
members, MWSC needs to adopt a more attractive salary package than it
currently puts forth. 9. Proposed increments in these proposals are tied
to an index at both the associate professor and professor levels. Is
there a "catch-up" technique within the proposal to assist the faculty
member who sought promotion during a lean fiscal year? 10. A dilemma
exists in hiring. Departments should seek to hire the best faculty
available in each hiring pool. At the same time, to pay newly hired,
younger faculty at salaries above those of everyone else damages morale
within departments. 11. Grievance procedures for candidates salary
increases. 12. If one does not limit the number of recipients of
post-professor salary increases to five, how else does one "sell" the
package within the budget constraints that exist? 13. Determination of
whom will do the evaluating of the candidates for the post-professor
salary increases.
Todd Ekdahl, chair of the faculty senate salary committee, responded
specifically to point #9 and point #13. He said that a "catch-up" factor
has been built into the proposal. He also remarked that the faculty
senate promotion and tenure committee would not do the evaluating of the
candidates for the post-professor increases.
Old Business
SB 00-01.04 (Greiert/Klostermeyer) To change the wording of the MWSC
2000-2001 Policy Guide (Section III.SALARY ADMINISTRATION, C. FACULTY
SALARY, 1., p. 121, paragraph 3) from: "The Faculty Senate Salary and
Fringe Benefits Committee will meet with the Vice President for Academic
Affairs by November 1 of each year to evaluate the appropriateness of such
initial salary adjustments and the advisability of continuing to do
so." to:
"The Faculty Senate Salary Committee will meet with the Vice President for
Academic Affairs by November 1 of each year to evaluate the
appropriateness of such initial salary adjustments and the advisability of
continuing to do so."
No discussion ensued. The question was called (Tapia/Bargar). By
unanimous vote the motion passed.
SB 00-01.05 (Aschermann/McLear) To add to the wording of the MWSC
2000-2001 Policy Guide (Section III.SALARY ADMINISTRATION, C. FACULTY
SALARY, 2., p. 122, paragraph 3) the following sentence: "The new salary
may not exceed the salary that the faculty member would have if he/she had
been originally hired at the new educational level without prior approval
of the Department Chairperson, the Divisional Dean, and the Vice President
for Academic Affairs."
Discussion ensued. A motion was made to table SB 00-01.05
(Tapia/Bargar). This motion passed by a vote of 10 to 1.
SB 00-01.05 (Cadden/McLear) To change the wording of the MWSC 2000-2001
Policy Guide (Section V. FACULTY OBLIGATIONS RE: DEPARTMENT, DIVISION,
INSTITUTION, C. CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT, 1., p. 57, paragraph
8) from: "Unless an informational report, all proposals from one
department or program are to be submitted to the Curriculum Committee as a
package. Such suggestions and recommendations should be executed on forms
provided by the Curriculum Committee. Eighteen copies must be
supplied. If the proposal requires Coordinating Board approval, those
forms should also be completed and submitted with the proposal." to:
"Unless an informational report, all proposals from one department or
program are to be submitted to the Curriculum Committee as a
package. Such suggestions and recommendations should be executed on forms
provided by the Curriculum Committee. Seven copies must be supplied. If
the proposal requires Coordinating Board approval, those forms should also
be completed and submitted with the proposal."
Discussion ensued that was favorable to the proposal. The question was
called (Tapia/Caldwell).
By unanimous vote the motion passed.
New Business
None.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m. (Tapia/Bargar)
Respectfully submitted,
Steven Greiert
Secretary
|
