December 2005 - Faculty Senate Minutes
UM-ST. LOUIS FACULTY SENATE
December 6, 2005
3 p.m. 222 J. C. Penney
The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Faculty Senate Chairperson
Paul S. Speck, Sr.
There were no minutes to approve because the immediately preceding meeting, held in November, was a joint meeting. Minutes for the joint meeting will be considered for approval in February.
Report from the Chairperson -- Dr. Paul Speck
Senators were reminded that the election for 2006-07 officers will be held in spring. Dr. Speck announced that neither he nor Secretary Peck will be candidates. He urged the Senate to begin thinking about who will serve as Chairperson and Secretary, and he offered to spend time with interested candidates to acquaint them with the responsibilities involved in each of these positions.
Report from the Chancellor -- Chancellor Thomas George
Chancellor George opened his report by announcing that the St. Louis Realtors Group had just presented awards to Dick Shepard, to Express Scripts, and to UM-St. Louis, prompting applause from the Senate.
Next, the budget picture was addressed. At present, we do not know what size cut (if any) will be levied against us. The Chancellor said we are treating this as an exercise as we consider what the result of a 10 or 12 percent reduction in appropriations would mean.
At December’s Board of Curators meeting in Kansas City, the Curators appeared to favor cutting the number of administrative positions by 10 percent. Chancellor George noted that a lot of staff people can get caught up in this. Our campus is preparing a report for President Floyd sometime in 2006. Our response will be broadly considered by faculty, staff, and student groups across the campus. All areas of the budget will be examined. The Chancellor turned to Provost Cope for an accounting of the number of administrative positions in the past few years, a number which was requested at the November meeting by Dr. Peter Stevens and others. There are, she explained, at least two classification systems, and we have not been clear in our definitions. It appears, however, that the number of administrators has increased between 7 and 23 since 2001. Provost Cope noted the creation of the College of Fine Arts and Communication and the elimination of the Evening College. She promised to return to the Senate in 2006 with a clearer picture.
Dr. Joseph Martinich suggested that she also examine the growth of income for administrators because many have been reclassified since 2001. Provost Cope responded by noting that faculty salaries also have risen in this time.
Dr. William Long asked if the Chancellor planned to bring the proposed 10 percent cut to the Budget and Planning Committee. Chancellor George said he would come to the Steering Committee and to other groups. Dr. Peter Stevens asked if this 10 percent is separate from the administrator reduction exercise. Chancellor George confirmed that this is separate. Chair Speck asked for and received clarification that the request from the Department of Administration is totally separate from the request by the Curators. The Chair pressed on, asking specifically, “If all institutions of higher education have to cut by 10 percent, would that cover the Board of Curators’ cut?” The Chancellor confirmed that it would not. So then, asked the Chair, will the Provost be able to move forward with initiatives involving advising, reaccreditation, assessment, and other things? Provost Cope said she would look at her office over the holidays with a view toward reorganization. She said she would talk to people about a course release to handle assessment, etc. Reaccreditation, she reported, has been assigned to Dean Judith Walker de Felix. Dr. Lucille Travis is writing a summary of what we have accomplished since the last accreditation exercise and what we still have to work on. Provost Cope informed senators that she is finding ways to avoid additional, non-essential responsibilities for Dean de Felix’s office at this busy time. The Provost vowed that the search for a dean in the College of Nursing will continue. Chair Speck inquired if, under the current scenario, cuts will include faculty positions. Provost Cope said, “No, we are talking about administrators, not faculty searches.”
Report from the Intercampus Faculty Council -- Dr. Teresa Thiel
It was reported by the Chair that our bylaw amendment proposals were approved at the last meeting of the Curators.
Report from the Budget and Planning Committee -- Dr. E. Terrence Jones
Report from the Committee on Curriculum and Instruction -- Dr. Fred Willman
The course additions/eliminations/changes that were effected by the Committee were reported to the Senate. There were no action items.
Report from the Committee on Faculty Teaching and Service Awards -- Dr. Vicki Sauter
Dr. Sauter reordered her presentation as indicated on the report. Motion I was passed unanimously. Motion II, which involved the public electronic posting of nominations for successful candidates, caused some debate. Dr. Lawrence Barton expressed concern that people wouldn’t write how they feel about the candidate. Provost Cope suggested posting a summary, rather than the document in its entirety, but Dr. Sauter indicated that it is the Committee’s desire to make award recipients’ documents public in toto. Dr. Joseph Martinich felt that such publication would present too many risks. Dr. E. Terrence Jones moved to amend the motion to state that all reference letters from faculty, staff, and students be excluded from the posting. The motion was seconded by Dr. Teresa Thiel. Dr. Jones defended his motion, pointing out that in order to achieve the level of candor desired, it would be helpful to guarantee that such references are secret. The Jones amendment was supported both by Drs. Robert Keel and Jeanne Morgan Zarucchi. Dr. Lawrence Barton called the question, and it was approved. Dr. Jones clarified that his motion to exclude covered all letters, and his amendment passed without dissent. Dr. Long asked what would remain without the reference letters. Dr. Sauter said there would be statements on the recipient’s philosophy of teaching, the curriculum vitae, and other evidence in support of the candidacy. Dr. Long felt the risk to be considerable, noting the basic need for a nomination letter, and Dr. Peck noted that some people are sensitive about such things as their name, address, and telephone number being posted. On the Committee’s behalf, Dr. Sauter agreed that this information, as well as the spouse’s and children’s names would be omitted. Dr. Joseph Martinich proposed a second amendment, stating that neither the curriculum vitae nor department/school teaching evaluations are to be included, prompting Dr. Teresa Thiel to question whether the Committee’s purpose was to provide a model for preparing future nominations or to provide information about a specific candidate. “All of the above,” said Dr. Sauter. After a brief further discussion, the question was called by Dr. Jones. Calling the question was approved. By a split vote, the Chair ruled that the Martinich amendment passed. Motion III then passed without dissent.
The Faculty Senate Chair’s Executive Assistant, Ms. Joan M. Arban, responded to a question about award eligibility posed by Dr. Sauter. She explained that owing to a dearth of nominations one year, the Committee sought then-Chancellor Touhill’s permission to allow a recipient in one category (i.e., teaching, research, or service) to be nominated for a second award in a different category. The Committee back then convinced Dr. Touhill that a good teacher is probably also a good researcher and is likely one who engages in service.
Report from the Committee on Research -- Dr. Victor Battistich
(see report appended to agenda)
Report from the Committee on University Libraries -- Dr. Harold Harris
At the close of this report, Provost Cope announced (prematurely, as it turned out) that faculty can obtain new identification cards reflecting their employee number instead of their social security number. (Dr. Cope said after the meeting that she will communicate with the Faculty once this is a reality. Some preparatory work still needs to be done.)
Completing the business at hand, the Faculty Senate adjourned at 4:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Carol Peck, Secretary
Faculty Senate
(minutes written by
Ms. Joan M. Arban,
Executive Assistant to the Faculty Senate Chairperson)