About the Senate
Senate Operating Rules
UM Collected Rules and Regulations
Previous Senate Chairs
Message from the Chair
Senate Meetings and Actions
Current Meeting Documents
Current Year Agendas & Minutes
2018 - 2019 Meeting Schedule
Faculty Senate Membership
2018-2019 Senate Members
University Assembly Membership
2018-2019 University Assembly Members
Curriculum and Instruction
Intercampus Faculty Council
Senate and Assembly Committees
Senate and Assembly Archive
(minutes to be considered for approval at February 13, 2001, Senate meeting)
January 23, 2001
3 p.m. 126 J.C. Penney
The meeting was called to order at 3 p.m. by the Chairperson of the Faculty Senate, Dr. Lawrence Barton.
Minutes from the previous meeting (held December 5, 2000) were approved as submitted.
Report from the Chairperson – Dr. Lawrence Barton
As was reported in the press, the Post-Tenure Review procedure was approved by the Curators last week. The articles correctly reported that UM-Columbia opposed it, but erroneously reported that the faculties on the other campuses did not express an opinion. The Chair commented that the fact that our views carried the day is no cause for rejoicing, since we simply approved what we considered to be the best of several possible evils.
At the Chancellor’s Cabinet meeting this week, the Chair said that upon his election, he wanted to try to be upbeat and to spread a feeling of optimism among the Faculty. He lamented that his goal was not being met. Budget cuts, faculty reductions in departments, and a bleak year for state funding all have contributed to low morale. We seem, he said, to be forever preoccupied with undergraduate enrollment numbers, when only last year we were encouraged to attempt to move up in the Carnegie rankings of research universities. He said he would prefer more of the latter and less of the former. Although the Chair missed the last Budget and Planning meeting, he understands that the campus will have to effect about $2 million in cuts this year. The Faculty needs some good news, he told the Cabinet.
The Chair reported that he has been encouraged by some former Senate chairs to participate in the Missouri Association of Faculty Senates. He plans to attend part of the Association’s annual spring meeting next month. The meeting is followed by the DREAM Conference on Transfer and Articulation, which will be attended by Dean David Ganz, chairperson of the Curriculum and Instruction Committee.
In accordance with a suggestion by the Faculty Senate Steering Committee, Chair Barton contacted Dean Ganz and requested that he move forward with plans for course renumbering. A task force on general education requirements, appointed by former Vice Chancellor Nelson in early 1999, apparently has been meeting since then and last met in April 2000, but has never shared its activities with the Faculty.
The Chair said he was contacted in early-December by Mr. Rick Blanton, who requested that we generate a list of 10 names for a student grievance panel by December 11. Dean Jerry Durham, chairperson of the Committee on Committees will report the specifics later in the meeting. It was decided at the Steering Committee meeting to incorporate into Operating Rules provision for the creation of such lists by the Committee on Committees at the beginning of the year.
Recent activities by the Senate Office include the solicitation of interest for faculty members to stand for election to replace at-large member Suzanna Rose, who has left the University, and a solicitation of nominations for the Thomas Jefferson Award. Nominees are urged to take a close look at the guidelines for this Award, which have undergone some changes.
The Chair was asked in December about faculty sentiment on the possible establishment of a Faculty and Staff Club. Chancellor Touhill has appointed a committee of Dr. Nasser Arshadi, Mr. Curt Coonrod (President of the Staff Association), Dean David Ganz, Administrative Services Vice Chancellor Reinhard Schuster, and Chair Barton.
The Chair was frustrated to hear about what appears to be the move to independence for the UM-Kansas City Engineering Program. About 12 years ago, Dr. M. Thomas Jones and Chair Barton served on a committee called “Bringing Engineering to the Urban Areas.” The Committee’s work was followed and accompanied by much work from successive Chancellors Barnett and Touhill. Chancellor Touhill finally clinched the deal of the joint program with Washington University, which was fine, the Chair said, but not quite what the Committee originally had in mind.
At the close of his report, the Chair invited questions/comments from the floor.
Dr. Gail Ratcliff suggested adding student names to the committee membership roster posted on the web. Ms. Joan M. Arban, Faculty Senate and University Assembly Assistant, explained that some student names are listed; however, in a number of cases the students have yet to elect their committee representatives.
Report from the Chancellor – Chancellor Blanche Touhill
The Chancellor announced that enrollment and student credit hour production for the Spring Semester are running about 2 percent ahead of last year. Spring enrollment figures will be finalized later this month.
There is also an increase in student applications for Fall 2001, and we have started to award scholarships. To date, we have awarded 22 Curators scholarships, 129 Chancellor scholarships, and 60 academic scholarships.
Chancellor Touhill reported that the Board of Curators met in Columbia last week and approved new procedures related to post-tenure review on a vote of 7-2. The Curators also heard a presentation from Chancellor Gary Thomas about his vision for adding several new academic programs at UMR. It has been suggested to Chancellor Touhill that this presentation previewed Rolla’s strategy to add schools or colleges of architectural engineering, business, and possibly life sciences.
The Chancellor noted that this year, Paul Steele is serving as President of the Board of Curators. Steele said his three themes or focus points for this year will be strategic planning, the efficient use of space, and returning the University Health Care System to a sound financial condition. The Curators and President have spent at least the past three years involved in strategic planning, and the past two years in dealing with the Health Care System in Columbia. These are carry-over themes. The new focus of the Board under Curator Steele’s presidency would appear to be physical plant issues. He is very interested to learn if the campuses are properly maintaining our existing facilities and if campus master plans are consistent with our strategic plans. Chancellor Touhill predicted that the Curators will devote a considerable amount of time over the next year to learn about these and other issues related to space and the physical plants of the four campuses and the System.
At the close of her report, the Chancellor invited questions from the floor. Dr. William Long noted that home heating bills have gone up and asked if that is also true of the campus. Dean David Ganz, a member of the Committee on Physical Facilities and General Services, advised that Vice Chancellor Schuster told the Committee that we are affected but that we are working to reduce the costs.
Report from the Intercampus Faculty Council – Dr. Joseph Martinich
Regarding the proposed policy for faculty evaluation of campus administrators, Dr. William Long noted that we have formed such a standing committee. Why,
he asked, did the IFC become involved in this? Dr. Martinich said the discussion at IFC seemed to indicate that the task was being done occasionally and differently on each campus. The IFC wanted to provide some guidelines, he explained. Dr. Long stated that the process does not need to be centralized and said he resents interference from IFC. Dr. Martinich defended IFC, saying that it wants each campus to participate and that the results have an effect. He insisted that IFC is not interfering but rather giving some support.
Dr. Mark Burkholder, another member of IFC, commented that Vice President Stephen Lehmkuhle is concerned about recruitment of faculty. One issue that has come up several times is to get the Board of Curators to state that we are a research University and to modify the 2-2 workload. This is on the agenda, he said.
Report from the Budget and Planning Committee – Chancellor Blanche Touhill
The Chancellor reported that the Committee met on December 8 and December 19. At both meetings, the subject of budget reductions for 2001-2002 were discussed. The campus is mandated by the System to effect a $1.2 million rate reallocation for salary increases. The campus would like to continue the marketing campaign at a cost of approximately $750,000-$1,000,000 per year. In addition, the Committee was presented with the question of whether or not the campus should reallocate approximately $500,000 that would serve as a “cushion” in case we do not meet our enrollment targets.
The consensus of the Committee was that the campus should plan on a $1.2 million rate cut for salaries, $750,000 combined rate and cost cut for marketing (with a goal of moving that total to $1 million in future years at $250,000 rate cut annually for 4 years and the appropriate cost cuts to bring the total marketing campaign to $750,000 for three years and another $250,000 for four years), and a $500,000 cut from between $0-$250,000 in rate and $250,000 in cost to provide a cushion for enrollment shortfall with a goal of moving that to $500,000 in rate in future years, if needed.
These figures have been discussed with the Academic Officers. They have accepted the first two recommendations of Budget and Planning and suggested that the $500,000 cushion for enrollment management should be a cost cut during 2001-2002. If necessary, the $500,000 would turn to rate in 2002-2003.
Chancellor Touhill said she is in the process of asking for a recommendation from the Executive Committee of the Staff Association.
Dr. Mark Burkholder inquired as to how the marketing effort is being evaluated. Vice Chancellor Douglas Durand reported that marketing done this semester has resulted in an increase of 2 percent enrollment. When we do marketing, he pointed out, we go up in enrollment; when we do not, we go down. Durand said we have good results in the shorter term. Dr. Burkholder asked if we are getting more than $750,000-$1,000,000 value in return. Dr. Durand said there is an ongoing evaluation done by the agency with which we are working. Chancellor Touhill commented that Budget and Planning wants a report on this, too. Dr. Gail Ratcliff wondered if there will be some attention devoted to retention. The Chancellor said Budget and Planning wants to focus first on recruitment.
Report from the Committee on Committees – Dean Jerry Durham
Dean Durham reported that in addition to 10 students and 10 staff members, the Faculty Senate was asked recently to put forward 10 faculty names for appointment to the Discrimination Grievance Panel for Students. The Committee on Committees was pleased to accept the recommendation from Student Affairs that we ask previous Panel members to continue to serve. It was necessary to augment the continuing contingent due to retirements, resignations, etc., and the final list provided to Mr. Rick Blanton is as follows:
Sylvia Cook, Thomas Eyssell, Winston Hsieh, Barbara Kachur, Vasudevan Lakshminarayanan, Ruth Jenkins, Chikako Usui, E. Paulette Isaac, J. Frederick Fausz, Cynthia Sanders
Dr. William Long questioned why these names were not brought forward to the Faculty Senate for vote. Dean Durham explained that the Panel is not an elective body, and the Chair reported that the request for names came as the result of a pending grievance at a time when faculty were giving finals and leaving the campus for the semester break. In the future, we will include this group in our regular Operating Rules so that we are better prepared to respond to this request from Student Affairs.
Report from the Committee on Curriculum and Instruction – Dean David Ganz
Dean Ganz began by calling the Senate’s attention to course additions, changes, and deletions, which were approved by the Senate, and to “housekeeping” changes to degree requirements. The sole action item, changes in degree requirements to the B.S.N., were approved without dissent following a brief discussion.
Dean Ganz reminded the Senate that the deadline for new programs and program changes to be submitted to the Office of Academic Affairs is February 2.
March 2 is the deadline for course actions to be submitted to Academic Affairs.
Course renumbering will be on the agenda for the Committee’s forthcoming meeting, and a special meeting will be called to allow Dean Young and Dean Bliss to report to the Committee on recommended changes to general education requirements.
Report from the Committee on Research – Dr. Gordon Anderson
Dr. Anderson reported that the Fall Panel met and reviewed a total of 25 Research
Award proposals with requests totaling $231,258. Thirteen of these were recommended for funding for a total of $96,147 (42 percent of the total requests). Two awards were made to assistant professors, 6 to associate professors, and 5 to full professors. Of the 25 proposals, 22 were from Arts and Sciences, and 11 of the awards were were made to faculty in Arts and Sciences. Of the funds awarded, 25 percent were for teaching replacement, 16 percent for summer stipends (assistant professors only), 14 percent for travel, 31 percent for equipment and supplies, and 14 percent for research assistants.
Upcoming deadlines are January 26 for the Small Grants competition and February 9 for the second round of Research Awards.
Report from the Committee on Bylaws and Rules – Dr. Lois Pierce
Dr. Pierce explained that there are currently three versions of the UM-St. Louis Bylaws floating about: the version we approved, a version on the web placed there by the General Counsel’s Office, and a hard copy distributed by the
General Counsel’s Office for inclusion in bound editions of the Collected Rules and Regulations. These copies do not agree.
All of the “housekeeping” changes proposed by the Committee to bring the various versions into line were approved without dissent, as were two substantive changes:
Allowing the Senate Office to replace at-large members of the
Faculty Senate and University Assembly when it becomes necessary
with the next-highest vote-getter from the most recent election. The
replacement will serve only for the year during which the vacancy
occurs; the remainder of any unexpired term will be filled at the next
regular election in spring.
A charge that was formerly given to Curriculum and Instruction (“…recommend general policies and procedures governing the evaluation
of academic instruction and advisement.”) was transferred to the Academic Advisory Committee.
Completing the business at hand, the Faculty Senate adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
(minutes written by Ms. Joan M. Arban,
Assistant to the Faculty Senate)