MSU FACULTY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
March 27, 2002
PRESENT: Young, Sherwood, McDermott for Engel, Kommers, Linker,
Leech, Taylor for Benham, Erickson for Howard, Stewart,
Ross, Nehrir, Bradley for Lefcort, Weaver, Locke, Lansverk,
Bandyopadhyay for Levy, Bogar, Jelinski, McKinsey for Pratt,
Lynch, Butterfield.
ABSENT: Hatfield, Morrill, White, Anderson, Peed, Chem Engr, Jones,
Mooney, McClure, Henson, Idzerda, Fisher, Lynes-Hayes,
Kempcke, Griffith, Carlstrom.
The meeting was called to order at 4:10 PM by Chair John Sherwood. A
quorum was present. The minutes of the March 20, 2002, meeting were
approved as distributed.
Chair's report - John Sherwood.
- UPBAC met yesterday. Most of the discussion centered around
proposals regarding Information Technology.
- Operations and infrastructure will be separated for budget
purposes.
- It is proposed the student fee instituted to help pay for
Banner remain in place and be used for infrastructure and
support in student computer labs.
- An Information Technology Advisory Committee is proposed.
- The faculty pay plan approved at last week's Faculty Council
meeting was forwarded to UPBAC.
- The equal rights resolution approved by Faculty Council last
week was sent to the Commissioner of Higher Education, Regents,
and President Gamble.
- At its March 21 meeting, UGC Steering Committee discussed the
policy regarding research faculty paid out of grants (included
under the "Policies and Procedures" material e-mailed from the
President's Office). It is recommended all language referring to
tenurable faculty be removed from the policy, because the Faculty
Handbook already contains language concerning compensation for
tenurable faculty.
- At its March 21 meeting, UGC Steering Committee agreed to
sending a statement to faculty and professionals that a provision
exists for employees who do not want to sign the Vehicle Use
Agreement. In discussion with President Gamble, Chair Sherwood
and Chair Elect Howard were told that what is needed from all
employees is a statement that they've read the policy and
understand it. A statement that an employee does not want to
sign the agreement because of privacy concerns may be attached if
the policy is not signed.
Nominations for University-wide Committees for 2002-03.
- A list of faculty vacancies on university-wide committees was
distributed and discussed. The list will be e-mailed to Faculty
Council representatives to distribute within their departments.
- A Council Liaison to the New Core Committee should be
added to the list.
- Jim Linker volunteered to serve as Council Liaison to the
Undergraduate Studies Committee.
- Shannon Taylor volunteered to serve as Council Liaison to
the Core Curriculum Committee.
Faculty Affairs Committee Report - Marvin Lansverk.
- An Ombudsman proposal is being discussed by Faculty Affairs.
- Survey results have been tallied from the ombudsman
survey. Of 557 surveys sent to faculty, 135 were returned.
About one-half of the respondents knew of the conciliation
process. Of those who have used the conciliation process,
about half were satisfied with the results and about half
were not satisfied with the results.
- Most respondents would like to try the ombudsman process.
- In a meeting of the President, Provost, Faculty Council
Chair and Chair Elect, and the Faculty Affairs Committee
Chair, the conclusion reached was that the Ombudsman should
report to the Provost. This protects the President's role
if the case goes to grievance. Also, a large proportion of
the concerns heard by the Ombudsman will probably be in the
area of academic affairs.
- Professionals appear to have as great of interest in the
Ombudsman process as faculty.
- The Faculty Affairs Committee has been discussing post-tenure
review.
- AAUP's policy on post-tenure review, adopted in 1983, has
been discussed. It can be found at
www.aaup.org/statements/SpchState/Postten.html.
- After discussing the AAUP statement and other
universities' post-tenure policies, three guidelines become
apparent:
- Post-tenure review should not be used to make it
easier to terminate faculty.
- Post-tenure review should not shift the burden of
proof for termination from the institution to the
individual.
- Post-tenure review should not be used to limit
academic and creative freedom.
- There is doubt as to whether post-tenure review of all
faculty is cost- and time-effective.
- Post-tenure review should be designed to identify and
remediate problems.
- The University of Montana has a post-tenure review policy.
It appears that the regents are looking for consistency
among the units in pre-tenure and post-tenure review.
- The Board of Regents strategic plan contains language that
all units will have a post-tenure review policy. Faculty
Council is discussing the issue now so a policy that best
fits MSU and the faculty here can be developed. All MSU
faculty currently prepare annual reviews, so it's not
entirely clear what the Regents had in mind with their
statement that every three years the universities will
report on pre-tenure and post-tenure review.
- It was pointed out that the Faculty Handbook lists reasons
for dismissal of tenured faculty and that a method to review
post-tenure faculty already exists, although it is not a
routine review.
- Would there be a positive side to post-tenure review? If
faculty receive excellent ratings, will there be a reward
for excellent performance?
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 PM.
Joann Amend, Secretary John Sherwood, Chair