November 11, 2008
The meeting was called to order by chair Matthew Keefer at 3:02 p.m. The minutes from the previous meeting were approved as written.
The chair outlined the focus issue (Radio Station KWMU) to be discussed today. After today's discussion we will continue to revisit the topic as needed.
At the last Board of Curators meeting both civic engagement and economic impact were discussed extensively.
At a recent IFC meeting President Forsee asked the IFC members how they would handle serious budget reductions. UM and UMSL may be looking at vertical cuts. In any exercise involving campus budget reductions or cuts, the Senate Budget and Planning Committee will be heavily involved.
At a future Assembly meeting enrollment and retention issues will be discussed.
Chancellor's Report The HLC review is going well! Contingency planning will be discussed on Thursday at the General Officer's meeting in Columbia. No separate committee will be put in place for contingency planning.
President Forsee will be on campus this afternoon to meet with the HLC Review Team.
Joe Martinich asked the Chancellor if there are likely to be cuts made this fiscal year. The Chancellor replied that it probably won't happen until FY 2010.
SGA Report (Grace Marie Ritter)
Staff Report (Steffanie Rockette).
A general meeting will be held next month. Safety will be a topic for discussion. A holiday bazaar will be held on December 10th at the MSC. Steffanie praised 130 staff members for their presence at HLC review meetings.
Ad Hoc KWMU Committee Report (Terry Jones)
A summary was presented of the workings and findings of the committee (see report sent to Assembly and Senate members by e-mail today). The committee recommended priorities that are outlined in the written report. SGA representative, Bryan Goers, summarized advantages of the KWMU plan for students to be involved both the operation of the station and related educational opportunities that could evolve.
Joe Martinich asked if we have a design in terms of how much money is needed to make a decision. The Chancellor responded that we now have enough money to make a decision. The Vice-Chancellor for Development indicated that we currently have $4.3 million with a promise for an additional $1 million from Emily Pulitzer if we relocate KWMU to Grand Center. He also indicated that there is a $12 million campaign goal.
Zulema Tang-Martinez asked if a satellite radio station on campus could accommodate faculty interviews on campus.
Terry Jones replied that it could. It was also asked if community people could go either place for interviews. The answer was yes.
It was indicated that broadcasts from the Touhill could also be accommodated.
Bernard Feldman asked if there was anyone on the committee with opposing views toward the relocation of the station.
Terry Jones indicated that there were opposing views at times.
Steffanie Rockette raised concerns about staffing issues that were discussed by the committee.
Terry Jones asked for further questions and asked if more discussion should take place before the move happens. One of the students present expressed support for the move and reinforced the need for UMSL branding and advertising related to the station.
Tom McPhail indicated his support of downtown visibility for UMSL as a result of moving KWMU to Grand Center.
Margo Hurwitz asked if the committee had considered a shuttle between campus and Grand Center. Terry Jones indicated that a shuttle had not been part of the committee discussion.
Susan Kahn indicated that UMSL students may be able to take advantage of SLU's shuttle service.
Paul Speck was enthusiastic but cautious about the move. His cautions were: What kind of building and where is the footprint of the building? The long-term branding of UMSL. He further indicated that this project provides UMSL with a rich branding possibility that will need expert handling. Other issues to consider are who should be in charge of the facility and who will coordinate the various uses of the facility.
Jim Richards, chair of the KWMU Manager Search Committee, indicated the the committee has, as a priority, a stronger relationship between the campus and the station.
Joe Martinich expressed a concern about the possible financial drain on the campus. Why was $2.7 million marked up front for academic purposes? Will there be ongoing cost to "force" academic use of the new location?
Matt Keefer responded that the reason behind academic use was not intended as a "selling" issue.
Tom McPhail assured the body that Media Studies will not have to be forced to go to Grand Center.
Kathleen Sullivan Brown also reminded the Assembly that many faculty and students already work at remote sites such as schools. This location would not be that different from present practices.
One of the students present indicated that since most students commute, driving to Grand Center would not be much different.
Susan Kahn described how art classes are already being taught at Grand Center. Parking issues that existed earlier have been worked out.
On-going costs were addressed by the Chancellor. He indicated that $175,000 per year has already been committed.
John Hylton described the Grand Center location as a "natural outgrowth" of on-going programs. He sees more opportunities for both students and faculty in this location. Classes held there could generate revenue to help with costs.
Dean Schmitz, COE, supported the Grand Center location as a place for classes to occur-especially those related to current partnerships. He indicated that he has a long list of ways COE could use space at Grand Center.
Paul Speck indicated that the inclusion of a satellite campus studio was a turning point in his thinking about increased branding. He also reinforced the "urban nature" of the campus and how the Grand Center location matches that urban mission.
Bryan Goers asked about the timeline for the project. The Chancellor indicated that we need to raise several more million dollars and indicated that the project could be well underway by next year. "We need to get a stake in the ground before someone else takes up the opportunity."
Chair Keefer asked the Chancellor to clarify that 30% of the space would be allocated for academic purposes. The Chancellor confirmed the 30% figure.
The building would be comprised of 27,000 square feet on 3 floors. Money for the project will be raised for BOTH the station and academics.
The Vice-Chancellor for development indicated that he sees this project as a great opportunity for gaining new funding. Emily Pulitzer is a good example. It's very likely that the Grand Center Board and other agencies should give us a NEW constituent base for giving.
Chris Spilling raised concerns about budget cuts in relation to this project. He indicated that he would like to see programs at Grand Center generating NEW student credit hours rather than replacing existing credit hours generated on campus.
Paul Speck said that he hopes for new programs as a result of this project but urged us to look for more financial support outside state sources. He indicated that he believes this project has the potential for obtaining outside financial support.
Terry Jones moved the adoption of the report. It was approved by voice vote. The Chancellor and Chair thanked the committee and the assembly for their hard work and support.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:56 p.m.
November 11, 2008
The meeting was called to order at 4:05 p.m. by Chair, Matt Keefer.
Report of the Chair
No additional report
Provost's (for Chancellor) Report
Optometry has a visiting accreditation team here this week.
Curriculum and Instruction Committee Report (Michael Allison)
The Academic Calendar was discussed and the procedure necessary to be allowed variance from the rules. In the past, variance has been requested to change the starting date for Spring Semester in order to accommodate the inter-session. The committee is again requesting that variance (see agenda for proposed calendar for 2010-2011).
Joe Martinich stated that last year we asked for a change in Spring break and were told no by the Curators. As a result, it wasn't attempted this year. There are very few multi-campus courses. Why can't we have a separate calendar for multi-campus courses. A late Spring break isn't appropriate.
Paul Speck asked about finals. Does the calendar also affect summer school? Michael Allison indicated that it is not all that problematic.
Matt Keefer suggested that we might want to ask for more permanent changes so we don't always need to ask for calendar variances. Michael Allison indicated that the starting Spring Semester date may not always be an issue.
The Provost suggested that if we want to ask for a permanent change it should be done at a later time so it doesn't jeopardize our requested variance for this calendar.
The calendar was approved as proposed. (There was 1 opposing vote.)
Joe Martinich moved that the Chancellor, Provost and IFC use their influence to get effect a change that would decentralize the calendar. There was a second for the motion.
Bernie Feldman spoke against the motion on the grounds that it sends a wrong message to the Curators.
Dean Sebastian asked for more information since their college has more common courses with the other campuses.
It was suggested that perhaps we could only ask for an earlier Spring Break.
Zulema Tang-Martinez questioned how many UMSL courses are actually involved.
Tom McPhail spoke against the motion because he feels we are moving in the direction of more inter-campus courses.
Paul Speck indicated that the Professional Schools may be able to set their own individual calendars and asked how can we find a solution that will work with the central administration's calendar. He spoke against the motion.
The motion failed.
Joe Martinich moved that we ask for a permanent change in the rules to make Spring Break occur during the week following the 8th week of the Spring Semester. His motion was seconded.
Kathleen Sullivan Brown asked about the system's rationale for the last week in March spring break. Paul Speck responded.
Zulema Tang-Martiniz moved to amend the motion to include that all campuses begin the Spring Semester on the Tuesday after Martin Luther King Day. There was a second for the amendment.
Jeanne Zarucchi spoke against the amendment and the orginal motion.
Terry Jones spoke against the amendment in order to obtain a cleaner motion.
The amendment failed.
Jeanne Zarucchi proposed a new amendment that we request the Chancellor, Provost and IFC representatives to reopen the discussion about a common calendar with the board. The amendment was seconded and approved.
Kathleen Sullivan Brown proposed an additional amendment to add "for pedagogical reasons." Her motion was seconded. The question was called and the amendment was approved.
The original motion , as amended, was approved.
The changes in the Civil Engineering Program were approved.
Course change proposals were reported.
IFC Report (Paul Speck)
The following items were highlighted. (See full report attached to the agenda for today's meetings.)
• faculty representation on search committee for Vice-President of Academic and
• new faculty grievance policy
• academic honesty and academic discipline
• revenue concerns for the next fiscal year
The Senate was called into Executive Session to discuss and vote on 3 recommended honorary awardees. The slate of potential awardees was approved.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:54 p.m.