(to be considered for approval at 3:00 p

(Minutes to be considered for approval at the Senate meeting on March 14, 2000, 3:15 p.m.)

SENATE MINUTES

UM-ST. LOUIS

February 8, 2000

3:00 p.m. 126 J. C. Penney

Dr. Jeanne Morgan Zarucchi, Senate Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:06 p.m.

Minutes from the previous meeting (held January 18, 2000) were approved as submitted.

Report from the Senate Chair -- Jeanne Morgan Zarucchi

(Attachment 1)

Dr. Zarucchi recognized Mr. Joe Frank, to speak on behalf of the Student Election Subcommittee. Mr. Frank said the Subcommittee consisted of Ms. Andrea Kerley, Ms. Marygrace Rhoda and himself. He said the committee has met twice and would meet again on Thursday, February 10. Advertising fliers for Student Senate Elections would soon be posted.

Mr. Frank announced that Student Senate Elections would be held on Wednesday, March 1 and Thursday, March 2, 2000. Polling stations would include the Pierre Laclede Honors College, the Lucas Hall Lobby for the Evening College, the University Center Lobby and the Marillac Hall Lobby. Volunteers are needed to work the polling stations.

Students may obtain Declaration of Candidacy forms from the Honors College office, the Evening College office and the Office of Student Activities. Candidacy forms must be submitted no later than 10:00 a.m., Thursday, February 24, 2000.

Mr. Stegeman asked Dr. Zarucchi what would happen if the Board of Curators did not approve the governance structure before the Fall 2000 semester. Dr. Zarucchi said at the time of approval the Board of Curators would determine the date of implementation and the Senate would go forward from there. Dr. Zarucchi said the existing bylaws would be honored until that decision was made.

Report from the Chancellor -- Chancellor Blanche Touhill

(Attachment 2)

Dr. Ratcliff asked if a search was on the way for a Vice Chancellor of University Relations, which has been an interim appointment since May of 1999. Chancellor Touhill said when Ms. Kathy Osborne left, the fundraising for the Performing Arts Center had not yet been completed. She said that she wanted to complete that funding before starting the search for a new Vice Chancellor for University Relations and wanted Interim Vice Chancellor Wendell Smith to feel absolutely secure in his leadership in University Relations until that time.

Dr. Kohfeld asked for an update on the traffic light on East Drive. Vice Chancellor Schuster said that a visual cable that was supported on the arm of the light caused a delay and MODOT wanted the cable company to lift it off. Dr. Connett said that the cable company had been working on the light all week. Vice Chancellor Schuster said that the university had paid for everything and tried to facilitate as much as possible to get the traffic light activated, but MODOT controls the light switch.

Report from the Faculty Council Presiding Officer -- Dennis Judd

(Attachment 3)

Report from the Appointments, Tenure, and Promotion Committee -- Bruce Wilking

(Attachment 4)

Dr. Burkholder said he would like to see the expedited review further expedited, specifically cases where we are bringing in endowed professors or high level campus administrators who have been full professors at equal or better institutions for a number of years. Dr. Burkholder said it is very insulting to a candidate to contact references as though they were junior faculty. He said that if we are not obtaining adequate information to make the appropriate hire, then the failing is in the search process. Dr. Burkholder added that the CV and letters of appointment are adequate. Dr. Wilking said it was the feeling of the committee, and in discussions with the faculty, that letters during the hiring process are references suggested by the candidate. The committee wanted to see letters that are academically independent and the suggestion was to request 3 additional letters from outside reviewers. Dr. Wilking said that he would talk to the committee about replacing the factual record with the CV.

Dr. Judd agreed with Dr. Burkholder and said that many times people are eminent in their fields and they clearly have a record that should prevent them from going through this process. Dr. Wilking said that in the past 2 years, 2 of the most controversial cases have been senior appointments. Dr. Connett said that he did not agree with Dr. Judd and Dr. Burkholder. He added that he had served on committees where people claimed to be in the National Academy of Sciences and there were very different standards in different units. He thinks that it's good to go through the process. Dr. Connett said that if it is truly obvious it doesn't take long. If it's not obvious it's good to look at, especially when you find some of these errors.

Dr. Connett said the way the Mathematics department has always operated is if you vote negative in a tenure decision you must put it in writing. He asked if this was still in the document as it goes forward. Dr. Wilking said it was never in the document, it was not in the old guidelines or in the new guidelines and it is not required. Dr. Connett said, so you can come to the meeting and listen to the discussion and say nothing, then vote negative and still say nothing. Dr. Wilking said that is correct. Dr. Connett said he did not like this, but didn't know what to do about it. Dr. Wilking said it is within the right of each department or unit to make that part of their guidelines to require signed letters. Dr. Cottone said that different units do this differently. Dr. Cottone said in the School of Business Administration a negative vote doesn't count unless it's in writing, and the School of Education requires a letter. Dr. Connett asked what is the purpose of a secret ballot. Dr. Wilking said that we are specifying that it be a secret ballot at both the ATP level and the department level.

Dr. Wilking quoted from the proposed document: "The ATP Committee should invite representatives of the unit committee, the dean of the college or school, or the graduate dean to meet with the committee and to provide information and to assist in reaching a decision in difficult cases." Dr. Wilking said that the ATP Committee encourages the committee to bring in outside people.

Dr. Korr said the issue of what is a factual question about someone is highly subjective, and if you think it is more efficient or fair to not have the person participate in the discussion then don't have them participate in the discussions period. Dr. Korr asked what was the ATP Committee's rationale for having a secret ballot at the department level or the ATP level. He said that it is important enough that one should stand up and be counted by one's peers. Dr. Champagne said if a person is a member of the ATP Committee and also a member at the unit level then that person should not be involved at all in the discussions of the ATP Committee, not even the factual discussion. He said this is why we have officers who are elected at the department level and all information should be spelled out in the document as to exactly who should be contacted for factual information.

Dr. Martinich said one reason the ATP Committee is saying that active members on campus ATP should not take part in discussions is because they would somehow have double influence, and yet individual deans or department chairs are able to write recommendations and the campus committee will bring them forward, to bring the same sort of information the ATP Committee member could provide. He said we need to work out a way for a person to provide accurate factual information, not transferring it away from the ATP Committee member to dean and chairs who have a double effect.

Dr. Mushaben said that factual questions could lead to a negative impression. She said the person giving the factual information should be the department member who served on the ad personam committee that has read every line that this person has ever written in their entire life.

Dr. Harris said he could understand reasons for having a secret ballot and the reasoning for requiring people to stand up for a negative vote, but you can't have both. He said that all units should follow the same procedures for voting. Dr. Wilking said this was never part of the campus ATP guidelines. Dr. Harris said he understood that, but hoped that the ATP guideline change would lead all units to follow the same basis for judging.

Chancellor Touhill asked if the ATP Committee had checked with the legal counsel. Dr. Wilking said no, that Vice Chancellor Nelson wanted the document to be a faculty document.

Dr. Barton asked if the ATP member was mute and there was some misinformation, how would they be able to point that out. Dr. Wilking said what has been happening in the ATP Committee is that people do not vote at the unit, they save their vote for the ATP Committee. He said they openly discussed cases in their own unit and the worry is that this is having an influence on the committee's vote and it is presenting information beyond the dossier.

Report from the Assessment of Educational Outcomes Committee -- Helene Sherman

(Attachment 5)

Mr. Stegeman asked how much longer the new test would take to complete. Dr. Sherman said the current test takes approximately 40 minutes and the new test would take 1 hour and 40 minutes. She said that some schools are giving a 2 to 3 hour test.

Mr. Stegeman asked how students would be attracted to taking the 1 hour and 40 minute test. Dr. Sherman said that we would have to work within the departments and with faculty members to encourage students to take the tests. She said that the tests reflect on the university's reputation as well as the instructor's reputation. Dr. Sherman said that we want to have scores that are more meaningful, and that the new tests will translate directly to the units.

Mr. Stegeman asked about the cost of the new test. Dr. Sherman answered that the pilot test would be free, but the new test would cost slightly more.

Mr. Stegeman asked if a student would be required to take a test in each module. Dr. Sherman said that it was her understanding that a sample test from each module would be taken, because taking all 4 tests would be terribly long.

Report from the Budget and Planning Committee -- Chancellor Blanche Touhill

(Attachment 6)

Dr. Kohfeld asked if we are going with the 80% - 20% in #5 of the handout. Chancellor Touhill said yes, it just substitutes what was in the recommendation from the Budget and Planning Committee from a previous meeting. Dr. Burkholder asked when President Pacheco would rethink the implications of reallocations of this magnitude, particularly on our campus, because we are such a smaller campus.

Report from the Computing Committee -- Fred Willman

(Attachment 7)

Report from the Curriculum and Instruction Committee -- David Ganz

Dr. Ganz said the February Senate Agenda listed courses that were reviewed by the Curriculum and Instruction Committee and reported to the Senate.

Dr. Ganz reminded all units that March 1st would be the deadline for course proposals to be submitted to Academic Affairs if they are to be included in next year's bulletin.

Report from the Faculty Teaching and Service Awards Committee -- L. Douglas Smith

(Attachment 8)

Report from the Video and Instructional Technology Committee -- Raymond Balbes

(Attachment 9)

Dr. Willman indicated that the Computing Committee also investigated the same proposal and came to the same conclusion. Dr. Willman said that he asked Dr. Balbes to give the report.

Dr. Harris said he recently heard about a National Science Foundation program that would establish a center for teaching and learning. He said that the University of Missouri is involved in putting together a proposal that is due March 1st and he thought he should mention that there is at least one other campus organization associated with teaching and learning.

Dr. Connett asked what was causing this great outbreak of centers. Dr. Balbes said he didn't know how to answer that. Dr. Ratcliff said she was glad the proposal had been tabled, because some academic input into such a center is really important and it sounds like there had been very little of that. Dr. Ratcliff asked that a message be relayed to Vice Chancellor Nelson, that Academic Affairs should make sure that all of these different proposed centers are coordinated.

Other Business

Mr. Metcalf announced that he is a co-chair of the Homecoming events. He said the bulk of the events start on Wednesday with Rec Sports Day and a Big Man on Campus competition that will include 3 Student Senators; himself, Mr. Josh Stegeman and Mr. Aaron Kohrs. Mr. Metcalf named some of the other events including:

Wednesday night - Pep Rally and Bonfire

Thursday night - Homecoming Basketball games

Friday night - Homecoming Dinner Dance at Convention Center (tickets at U-mart and Bookstore)

Saturday - Basketball games

Mr. Metcalf said that he is the Chair of the Student Senators Organization (SSO) and last week they passed an attendance policy for Student Senators. He said the SSO intended to forward this policy on to the Senate in hopes that it would become part of the Bylaws and Rules. Mr. Metcalf said the intention of the attendance policy is to make sure that students who sign up and want to be Senators are actually Senators and not using the position as resume filler.

Mr. Metcalf said the SSO also passed 4 other resolutions: a resolution to open up parking in the West Garage; a resolution to increase campus computing hours in the morning; and 2 resolutions regarding the campus shuttle that would help students who reside or travel to South campus.