(Minutes to be considered for approval at the Senate meeting on April 25, 2000, 3:15 p.m.)

Dr. Jeanne Morgan Zarucchi, Senate Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:15 p.m.

Minutes from the previous meeting (held February 8, 2000) were approved as submitted.

Report from the Senate Chair -- Jeanne Morgan Zarucchi

Dr. Zarucchi recognized Mr. Joe Frank, to speak on behalf of the Student Election Subcommittee.

Dr. Pierce said she would like to add information about the faculty governance document. She said one of the things that needed to be mentioned was that several people have worked very hard to move the document along quickly. Vice President Lehmkuhle's office has waived the usual two-week deadline for information to be forwarded to the Board of Curators and Chancellor Touhill has worked very hard to move things forward and get things approved. The Bylaws and Rules Committee has dropped everything to meet tomorrow morning. Dr. Pierce said she would be happy to share with the Senate, more specifically, the changes suggested by the legal office. Dr. Pierce said many of the suggestions are fairly minor, such as ex officio officers being voting members, the use of capital F versus small f, committee charges, and word usage for committees.

Dr. Burkholder said he thought it would be useful for Dr. Pierce to share any points she would like to make. He said he has looked over the 26 points and was not sure which of them are substantive, except that the President was not mentioned as an ex officio member. He added that in the 30 years he has been here a President did not attend a Senate meeting as a member of the Senate. He said by and large these points are minor things and in some case have been a part of the existing Bylaws for up to 30 years. Dr. Zarucchi said the Bylaws and Rules Committee will provide the information by tomorrow, end of morning, and it would be immediately circulated to the Senate listserv. Dr. Zarucchi said included in the communication would be an opportunity for Senators to see the exact language.

Dr. Zarucchi invited Dr. Pierce to make a summary statement and Dr. Connett and Dr. Judd agreed that it would be very useful.

Dr. Ratcliff said it sounded like the changes that are being asked for are clarifications and changes in wording. She said that she did not hear anything which would change the way the 2 bodies would operate. Dr. Pierce said this is correct.

Dr. Zarucchi said there would be an e-mail message circulated to all Senate members, including all of the changes described by Dr. Pierce.

Report from the Chancellor -- Chancellor Blanche Touhill

Dr. Judd said he heard that Wendell Smith, Norman Seay, Donald Driemeier and Betty Van Uum were taking the VERIP early retirement. Chancellor Touhill answered that some of those names were correct and some were not. Dr. Judd said it was his understanding that Wendell Smith would still be present next year, but would take the buyout. Chancellor Touhill said she hesitated discussing personnel matters in a public forum. Dr. Judd asked if she thought the faculty had a right to know whether an administrator would still be in the same job next year. Chancellor Touhill said I don't think any administrator will be in the same job.

Dr. Judd quoted from page 6 of the VERIP document: "Under no circumstances will senior system or campus officers be allowed to remain in their administrative positions or similar positions and draw retirement. Senior system or campus officers are defined as chancellors, vice chancellors, or executive level positions reporting to these officers." Dr. Judd asked if in the event those senior administrative officers on this campus were to retire, would this language apply to them. Chancellor Touhill answered that this is a personnel matter and she hesitated to respond to that until she gets clarification from the central administration. Dr. Judd said he was not asking about an individual, but a policy. Chancellor Touhill said whatever arrangements have been made, have been made with the knowledge and understanding of the central administration. Dr. Judd said that the language seems very clear, "under no circumstances". Chancellor Touhill repeated that she was hesitating to talk about a personnel matter until she talked to the central administration. Dr. Judd said he couldn't imagine why the Chancellor was being so evasive on a matter of policy. Chancellor Touhill again said that she would not comment on a personnel matter.

Report from the Faculty Council Presiding Officer -- Dennis Judd

In regard to administrator evaluations, Dr. Korr asked Dr. Judd to compare the 40% faculty response this year to last year's. Dr. Judd said the 40% compares favorably with the highest rate of response in the past. He said there was one previous year in which the rate was much lower. Dr. Judd said as a social scientist, 40% looked good.

Report from Intercampus Faculty Council -- Joseph Martinich

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

Report from the Committee on Committees -- Fred Willman

Mr. Steven Wolfe was elected by acclamation to replace Mr. David Baugher on the Computing Committee.

Report from the Curriculum and Instruction Committee -- David Ganz

All action items were approved except for the Ph.D. in Urban and Metropolitan Studies.

Dr. Jones said the New Degree proposal for the Ph.D. in Urban and Metropolitan Studies consisted of 2 components, a history component and a generic component. He said he wanted to talk about the full process and content of the generic component. Dr. Ganz suggested that questions and comments be directed to Dean Wartzok, because the proposal originated from the Graduate School.

Dr. Jones said the proposal notes the Urban Affairs Review, the preeminent journal in the field, and there are 4 people on campus that have published at least 2 articles in that journal. Dr. Jones asked if any of the 4, including Dr. Judd and Dr. Kohfeld, were consulted. Dean Wartzok said that the deans were consulted. Dr. Jones asked if the chair of the political science department recommended that those people be involved in the process. Dean Wartzok said it was circulated to the department chairs in those areas to give their feedback. Dr. Jones said that the chairs were asked which courses might fit in and which faculty do research in that area, but it was not his understanding that the chairs were involved in the curricular development. Dr. Jones said that arguably we have one of the top ten Urbanists in the country on our faculty and others faculty who are solid researchers in the field, why didn't you pull them together and ask for their input. Dean Wartzok said that they were trying to structure something that was as open as possible for the future development of the degree and we were trying to avoid locking something into place that would limit what our options would be in the future. Dr. Jones said requiring 3 courses in 1 field and 2 courses in 2 others do not limit too much. Dean Wartzok said with the experience that UMKC had 10 years ago developing an exclusive interdisciplinary proposal with a Ph.D., we tried to avoid some of the same mistakes with this proposal. Dean Wartzok said there is a lot of opportunity for development of the specifics of the interdisciplinary degree as the faculty work on this more. Dr. Jones said UMKC is very interdisciplinary, but this is a Ph.D. in Urban and Metropolitan Studies, and such Ph.D. programs exist in many other institutions around the country, and that distinguishes it from UMKC. Dr. Jones added that at UMKC, Social Science is the only one that he is aware of in any detail, and it has a core curriculum. Dr. Jones asked if the people listed as core faculty were asked for permission for their courses to be offered. Dean Wartzok said the department chairs were asked for recommendations. Dr. Jones asked if the individuals were then contacted. Dean Wartzok replied no.

Dr. Jones said he wanted to make a couple of comments about the content. The absence of any core curriculum seems to be very difficult to comprehend and the notion that people will come with a Master's Degree and automatically know what their Ph.D. is going to be flies in the face of his experience. A majority of students need some help sorting though the literature in their field. Dr. Jones said he thought it would be a very weak program if it does not have even a basic, modest core, and most of the Urban Studies Ph.D. programs around the country have a core curriculum. Dr. Jones said this degree, as now structured, is an embarrassment to him: we will tell students to take these 7 courses and find 3 faculty to sponsor you, find some kind of tool along the way, and we will give you a Ph.D. Dr. Jones moved that the generic part of the proposal be tabled and sent back to the Graduate School with instructions that it not be brought forward again until a representative group of faculty with specializations in this field have an opportunity to help shape the proposal. The proposal was seconded. Dr. Ganz asked if Dr. Jones was referring the whole proposal back. Dr. Jones said he was referring only to generic Ph.D. in Urban and Metropolitan Studies.

Vice Chancellor Nelson said we have an invitation from the President for a proposal for a Ph.D. in Urban Studies. He said we would have no assurance that the President would accept this proposal if it is split. Dr. Judd said he would like to respond to the generic portion of the proposal. Dr. Judd said he was not consulted and never saw the proposal, and got the impression that he was being held at arm's length by the department chair. Dr. Judd said that this is a silly proposal and insulting. Dr. Spaner admitted that he saw an e-mail regarding the proposal from his dean, but his offer to participate in the program received no response. Dr. Spaner supported tabling the proposal.

Dr. Barton said 25 years ago a proposal was shut down by lack of cooperation, and he guessed the wrong title was chosen in this case. Dr. Barton asked if there was any way that we can do what Dr. Jones wants without jeopardizing the proposal. Dr. Martinich said that those who have spoken are being very kind but only scratching the surface, and he asked who was on the committee. Dean Wartzok said he wrote most of the text, and the title grew out of discussions with the President. He said that the other part he wrote and forwarded to the deans, who, he assumed, consulted with others. He received feedback from the system, actually 2 versions were taken to the Board. He got feedback from the Board and the program development committee of the Graduate Council; and all deans of faculty were involved. He believed that because the system initiated it, we have kept them informed as to how we are progressing on it, and we had never thought about sending it forward without the general area.

Dr. Long said that on page 9, the special skills are very vague and may open ways for program abuse. Dr. Connett asked Dr. Ganz if the proposal could be split. Dr. Ganz said he asked about the practicality, but didn't say it couldn't be split and the Curriculum and Instruction Committee wouldn't want to be responsible for splitting the proposal. Dr. Ganz said if it is divided and passed, it would go forward to the Chancellor and other appropriate mechanisms for approval. Dr. Connett said he is deeply disturbed that a Ph.D. program would be run by the Dean of the Graduate School, and that everything is loose and not focused.

Dr. Burkholder said 4 or 5 years ago a proposal went to the system with the Ph.D. in History and got favorable reviews. The President then suggested that he did not want to take individual Ph.D. proposals forward to the Coordinating Board, what he wanted was a mechanism which would give the campus the maximum flexibility to develop doctoral work as it felt capable of making it available in specific disciplines or in a multiple package. He said he hoped that there was a way to split the proposal and move the history part forward, as the Ph.D. in Urban and Metropolitan Studies. He said this is not the title he would have selected, but the students who will be served with this program do not care if the title is Ph.D. in Urban and Metropolitan Studies or simply Ph.D. History, it will not affect them at all. He said that this is clearly a political issue, the President has indicated that he wants this, supports this and will support it at the Coordinating Board level. If this is approved it offers a way for the campus to offer a new Ph.D. without taking a quarter century to get a New Degree proposal. This would open the door in a way we have never had it open. It wouldn't be too much to say that it is one of the most important things the president of the system has ever done for the campus.

Vice Chancellor Nelson spoke in defense of the Graduate School. He said 18 months ago was the first time the President of the System said he wanted to help form a Ph.D. program, and said he could not get a Ph.D. in History through the bureaucracy. The President proposed this as a means whereby we could get the Ph.D. in History. Vice Chancellor Nelson said they were not thrilled, but in the future the door would be open for other programs, and if in the future we want a Ph.D. in Economics, we would ask for a Ph.D. in Urban and Metropolitan Studies: Economics, and that would not have to go through the CBHE. Vice Chancellor Nelson said he regretted that the generic portion was not well developed, but was not sure what other topic we could go forward with except the History portion. He said that he would not be willing to stand on principle and argue with specifics if we know in advance that they are going to say no, it would be better for us to wait until we have a package developed before it goes forward.

Dr. Roth said he was in the room when President Pacheco spoke the words Jack Nelson just mentioned and Dr. Roth emphasized that this is an opportunity. He said it would not fly with just the History portion because we were told that the generic program would fly. He said the door is open and we are going to lose if it is divided. Dr. Calsyn said he agreed with everything that was said here, they are all good points, except Dr. Roth's. Dr. Calsyn said if we send something forward as vague as the generic component of this proposal, we are going to be the laughing stock of the Coordinating Board. He said we need 2 things at least, and the reason no one jumped on it is because of the resources. The History has extra resources, they have more bodies, and other Social Science units don't have the resources. Dr. Martinich said he thinks we should hold on to the proposal and if the President is in support now he will still be in support 3 months from now. Dr. Martinich said UMSL would be better off sending forward a good proposal that we are proud of.

Dr. Kohfeld said if we pick something that fits into a particular discipline, this is where we are concerned, because we do have Urban and Metropolitan Studies Ph.D. level courses, and just to say we are going to put something else in it, is sort of strange. The CCJ people do study these problems or issues now, they do it in the CCJ Ph.D. We have a number of students who study urban issues and urban problems in the Political Science Ph.D., so those of us listed in the generic section of this proposal are already serving on all of these Ph.D. programs. Dr. Kohfeld said that Urban and Metropolitan studies is a pretty silly title, and asked if we couldn't pick another word, one that is not in our area. Dr. Burkholder said that he proposed to the President that we have a Ph.D. in Humanities and Social Sciences, because that is really what this proposal is going to do. The President was unwilling to accept that, but when asked about urban studies if we have a poet living in London, will this fall under the rubric, and he said absolutely.

Dr. Burkholder said he believed it would be a mistake to send the proposal forward if we are not in agreement. He said he believed it would be in the best interest of the campus to get a Ph.D. under whatever guise that will allow all the departments to be involved. He does not want to see something set up that 2/3 of the campus does not think is ready. He had been through 30 years without a Ph.D. in history on this campus, and can certainly wait until next year.

A voice vote was taken on the motion to divide the program and return the generic section of the interdisciplinary component to the committee. The motion was approved.

Dr. Korr made a motion to send the history portion back to the committee until the further review of the generic proposal was completed. The motion was seconded. A voice vote was taken and the motion was approved.

Report from the Physical Facilities and General Services Committee -- William Connett

Dr. Mushaben said parking on the new West Drive, near the stop sign, is a risk because the stop sign is not visible. Dr. Connett agreed with Dr. Mushaben and said the committee is working on a solution to the problem. Dr. Connett said that one of the problems is that this part of the road is going to be a part of the new road, but of course the new road won't be built for several years, so there is a funny dogleg where the new West Drive meets the old West Drive. Dr. Connett said that after the road is completed this should not be a problem.

Report from the Research Committee -- Winter Panel -- Gordon Anderson

Dr. Ratcliff said that 2 years ago there were over 40 proposals in the winter round and asked if Dr. Anderson knew why there was a decline. Dr. Anderson said no, he did not know why there was a decline and added that this year there were 14 in the fall and 28 in the winter.

Completing the business at hand, the Senate adjourned at 4:44 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Carol Kohfeld

Senate Secretary

Attachments:
1) Report from the Senate Chair
2) Report from the Student Election Subcommittee
3) Report from Dr. Pierce-Summary of Legal Office's Concerns
4) Report from the Chancellor
5) Report from Faculty Council Presiding Officer
6) Report from Intercampus Faculty Council
7) Report from the Budget and Planning Committee
8) Report from the Physical Facilities and General Services Committee
9) Report from the Research Committee -- Winter Panel