(minutes to be considered for approval at March 13, 2001, Senate meeting)
UM-ST.
LOUIS
February
13, 2001
3
p.m. 126 J. C. Penney
The meeting was called to order at 3 p.m. by the Faculty Senate Chairperson, Dr. Lawrence Barton.
Minutes from the previous meeting (held January 23, 2001) were approved as submitted.
Report from the Chairperson – Dr. Lawrence Barton
The Chair announced that the two meetings that day, the Faculty Senate and the University Assembly, would be short and encouraged senators to stay for both of them. He reported that an attendance sign-up sheet was being circulated and requested that senators sign it. Hopefully, this practice will improve attendance.
The Chair said he attended the spring meeting of the Missouri Association of Faculty Senates. The major issue that the Association has concerned itself with recently is an effort to have faculty representation on boards of trustees. Almost all of the member institutions have passed a resolution supporting such representation. The Chair noted that he is a member of the Intercampus Faculty Council, which discussed this topic at its retreat and came to the conclusion that it would be a long shot to have the legislature support such a bill and that we really are in a different situation than many of the regional campuses in that we have access to the President and to members of the Board. There are actually two bills that have been written. The problem is that the position would be non-voting and access to closed sessions would not be part of the arrangement. The Chair noted that many on the campuses of the UM System are frustrated about the large salary increase the University President received this year. Under the Association’s plan, we would not be privy to such discussions, he pointed out. The IFC was also concerned that if a faculty member were on the Board we could be coopted. Any disagreements that the faculty in general had with the Board would be minimized if we were part of that discussion group. Several resolutions have been passed by the regional university campuses, and the Chair offered copies to those interested. He said he would like to hear from those favoring pursuing this issue. The Chair noted that some of the regional university boards are quite autocratic and much less responsive to faculty than our Board.
Another matter the Association addressed relates to cooperative on-line courses. There is a fear that joint on-line programs may be developed in order to meet some Education degree requirements, and there is concern that faculty input will be minimized by such development. A resolution was passed by the MAFS affirming that normal faculty governing processes must be used in the development, approval, and operation of on-line and other cooperative degree programs. This was presented to the Council of Presidents of Higher Education on February 7.
The Chair said he did not attend the DREAM conference (“Designing Real Educational Alliances in Missouri”), but Dean David Ganz, who did attend, will report later in the meeting.
Another activity in Jefferson City was some lobbying in the Capitol. The Chair said he spent some time in the Senate chamber watching what was going on. They were debating a bill concerned with decreasing the allowable blood alcohol limit to 0.08 percent. He came away from that session convinced that the UM-St. Louis Faculty Senate is a much better run and much more efficient Senate – and that we have been for many years.
The Chair announced that Dr. Teresa Thiel has been elected to replace Dr. Suzanna Rose as an at-large member of the Senate.
Senators were encouraged to complete the Committee Service Preference Poll, which accompanied the election ballot for the College of Arts and Sciences and which was mailed separately to those in other units.
One of the candidates for Vice Chancellor for University Relations is on the campus.
The Chair reported that he is a member of the search committee and also meets with the candidate as Chair of the Faculty Senate.
At a recent Cabinet meeting, Chancellor Touhill made a Powerpoint presentation on workforce development in the St. Louis region. It describes the campus contribution in this area and also outlines the support we receive from the state. We have 30 percent of the students, 20 percent of the FTEs, but only 12 percent of the University’s budget. When this point is made, the response received by UM is that we don’t have many expensive programs. Our response should be that we now know why we don’t have many expensive programs. They don’t fund them. The Chancellor’s presentation will be given to groups to enlist political and other support in efforts to redress the injustice of the division of the University’s budget. The Chair said he urged that the presentation be given to the Faculty at a forthcoming Senate meeting. He said this will be done after the University of Missouri President has seen this. Chair Barton said we should make this point about the budget at every available opportunity to Central Administration, to our colleagues in business, and to the legislature. The Chair promised to include this in his report to the Intercampus Faculty Council, which meets on February 16.
The other issue which frustrates the Chair is the policy of the President to mandate salary increases and then to ask us to reallocate half of the required funds from existing programs. We knew about the 2 percent, which we will have to find from somewhere, and now we may have to come up with another 2 percent in the absence of any state funds. This puts this campus at a major disadvantage relative to the much larger and better-funded Columbia campus, for example, and the Chair believes it is unfair to treat us the same when it comes to reallocation, but not when it comes to funding the campuses adequately. This, he said, is another point that we need to keep hammering away on.
The Chair invited comments or concerns from those present. None were expressed.
Report from the Chancellor – Chancellor Blanche Touhill
President Pacheco has asked that each campus incorporate more connections between the Systemwide Strategic Plan and their respective plans. The President has requested that we submit revised strategic plans to him by April 1. The Chancellor said she has begun a series of meetings with the Strategic Plan Task Force to determine how these new components can best be integrated into the Strategic Plan we developed last year. She also will be discussing these changes with the Senate Budget and Planning Committee and would like to bring recommendations to the March Senate meeting. The next meetings of the Strategic Plan Task Force are Wednesday, February 14 (2-4 p.m. in 78
J. C. Penney) and Tuesday, February 27 (3-5 p.m. in 222 J. C. Penney).
The first of four candidates for Vice Chancellor for University Relations met with various people and groups yesterday and today. The first candidate made a presentation today on her “Vision for the Division of University Relations.” That presentation was open to the campus. The next candidate will make a two-day visit, beginning February 25th. He will make his campuswide presentation on February 26th. If you have any questions, please consult with Dean Charles Schmitz, who is chair of the search committee.
Chancellor Touhill reported that Vice Chancellor Gary Grace is finalizing a campus interview schedule for candidates for Registrar. The schedule will be distributed later this month. If you have any questions about that search, please contact Dr. Grace.
The Chancellor announced that we have been informed that the state may give UM increased funding for Mission Enhancement but may not provide an anticipated 2 percent increase in state appropriations for its core budget. Although disappointed, Chancellor Touhill was thankful that it appears that higher education will be spared from a 10 percent reduction that other state agencies are experiencing now. The Chancellor said she plans to consult with the Budget and Planning Committee and with the Academic Officers in order to consider various options. These meetings are scheduled during the week of February 26th. The General Officers will meet on Wednesday, February 28th, at which time each chancellor will be asked to discuss their options.
Chancellor Touhill asked Interim Vice Chancellor Douglas Durand to update senators on his meetings related to serial and periodical acquisitions at the library. Dr. Durand reported that serial costs are increasing at an exponential rate. If this continues, it will bankrupt any campus. Our faculty do the research and submit to journals, then the journals take the copyright and sell them back to us. We are, in fact, buying back the fruits of our intellectual efforts on our own campus. The UM-System, in working with other systems, will have some very concrete approaches to dealing with this in the coming months. Vice Chancellor Durand said giving additional funds to the library is not the solution; the solution is a much bigger issue and one that we have a stake in—but so do our colleagues across the nation. Dr. Nasser Arshadi commented that the government is concerned about the number of professional journals that will be under the jurisdiction of one publisher. The issue is not copyright, Dr. Barton pointed out, but rather the issue is cost. Dr. Durand replied that by giving the copyright to the publisher, they may have an escape to try to break the monopoly the publishers have on the copyright. Dr. Barton urged that it shouldn’t be UM-St. Louis taking the lead in taking on the publishing companies, but rather we should follow the lead of other universities. Durand said the University of Missouri System is working with other university systems to address this issue in general. At another level, we are working on copyright and how to break this monopoly force that’s working against all campuses. Dr. Jeanne Morgan Zarucchi inquired as to where the discussion is taking place and suggested that it might be good to bring a copyright group into this discussion. The discussion, Dr. Durand said, involved the Faculty retaining the copyright themselves. Dr. Joseph Martinich reported on a presentation on this topic made to the IFC a few months ago by Vice President Stephen Lehmkuhle.
Following a brief further discussion, the topic was broadened by Dr. Raymond Balbes to include funding, in general. He commented that for years, we have been starved for funds. If we continue to feed off ourselves, he said, we will disappear as a quality institution. Chancellor Touhill noted that UM-St. Louis receives approximately 12 percent of the UM budget at a time when we have about 30 percent of the students and approximately 20 percent of the FTE. When she has sought more funding, the Chancellor was told that we don’t have expensive programs. Her reaction to this was – give us the money and we will have them. Chancellor Touhill has since changed the focus of her funding request to workforce development (e.g., Education, Nursing, Biotechnology, MIS, Computer Science, Technical Writing, Graphic Arts, and Engineering). She has made a Powerpoint presentation to the Cabinet, soon will make the presentation to President Pacheco, and finally she plans to take the show on the road.
The Chancellor has begun to ask members of the Chancellor’s Council what percentage of their college-educated workers have graduated from UM-St. Louis. We are the largest supplier of college-educated workers at Firstar Corporation, for example. We can say that their interests are our interests, so let us partner together to request funds from the state in order that UM-St. Louis can enlarge its programs to meet the needs of the workforce.
Turning to other matters, Dean David Ganz observed that the invitation to attend the interview with the candidate for Vice Chancellor for University Relations was sent to the campus via e-mail with only a few hours’ notice. The Chancellor agreed that this was insufficient time, and asked that the search committee rectify this in the future.
In response to a comment by Dr. Paul Roth, the Chancellor reported that Budget and Planning had one meeting on enrollment management. The next meeting will deal mainly with that topic. The Chancellor remarked that if we could retain more students, we would allay a lot of our concerns about enrollment numbers. She deferred to Vice Chancellor Durand concerning the advertising campaign. He noted that the Budget and Planning Committee has recommended that we stay at the same level ($750,000) for now and increase our commitment to $1 million in future years. Vice Chancellor Durand said we are waiting for the four-week numbers, which we believe will reflect an upturn from last year.
Report from the Committee on Curriculum and Instruction – Dean David Ganz
Dean Ganz called the Senate’s attention to course addition, changes, and deletions which were effected by the Committee.
2002-2003
Academic Calendar
Dean Ganz turned next to the academic calendar for 2002-2003. He discussed the salient points but cautioned senators that it is unknown if our calendar is required to mesh with the calendars on the other campuses. He said he had called UM earlier in the day and was promised some guidelines via fax, but they failed to arrive. With the understanding that it may be necessary to revise the calendar at a later date, and following a brief discussion, the calendar was approved without dissent. (Note: Upon receipt of the guidelines, Dean Ganz decided to make several minor corrections and return the calendar to the Senate for final action at the March meeting.)
Next, Dean Ganz presented a course renumbering proposal for a first reading. Comments from the Senate body included the following:
1. It would help Education to delineate between master’s
and doctoral courses.
2. There are not enough numbers for the graduate courses.
3. We should have an ad hoc committee to handle course
renumbering while C&I continues with its other work.
4. We should proceed so that the new numbers are in the
Fall 2002 Bulletin.
Dean Ganz reported that the Committee on Curriculum and Instruction will meet at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 20, in 401 SSB, to discuss general education requirements.
All are welcome to attend.
Dr. Marvin Berkowitz reported that his department received a three-year productivity survey that came from the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Dr.
Berkowitz was charged by his department to protest. He said he personally has four different surveys that he is required to complete annually. Dr. Durand said the information is being gathered to look at productivity of various units across the campus. There was an attempt to use data which already exists. He reported that Mr. Larry Westermeyer is responsible for pulling this together, and some definitional refinements were made. Dr. Paul Roth stated that the request was duplicative of what the chairs forward every year as departmental reports. He asked why the departments have to go back and reconstruct work that is already in Academic Affairs.
The Chair urged his colleagues to send their comments directly to the Office of Academic Affairs.
Completing the business at hand, the Faculty Senate adjourned at 4:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Pierce
Senate Secretary
(minutes written by Ms. Joan M. Arban, Faculty Senate Assistant)