(to be considered for approval at February 19, 2002, meeting of the University Assembly)
UM-ST. LOUIS
November 13, 2001
3 p.m.
Student Government Chamber, Millennium Student Center
The meeting was called to order at 3 p.m. by the Chairperson of the University Assembly, Dr. Lawrence Barton.
Minutes of the previous meeting (held September 18, 2001) were approved as submitted.
Report from the Chairperson – Dr. Lawrence Barton
Because there was no Assembly meeting last month, the Chair said he would repeat some of the comments he made at the October Senate meeting.
There are three new members of the Steering Committee this year (Drs. Gary Burger, R. Rocco Cottone, and Gail Ratcliff). Continuing members include Drs. Lois Pierce (Assembly Secretary), Chancellor Blanche Touhill, and the Chair, himself. Those who have concerns about how the Assembly is functioning were invited to contact any member of the Steering Committee.
Amendments to the Bylaws of UM-St. Louis were approved at the most recent meeting of the Board of Curators.
The Chair reported that he has
been appointed to the search committee for the position of Vice Chancellor
for Student Affairs. He also serves as an ex officio member of the
Alumni Association Board and was distressed to hear that Alumni Affairs Director
Robbyn Wahby has tendered her resignation. Ms. Wahby has done an outstanding
job, the Chair said, expressing hope that the Administration did its best
to dissuade her from resigning.
-2-
Chancellor Touhill, the Chair reported, performed superbly at the hearing. The Chair’s own presentation was cut short. He described President Pacheco’s performance as mirroring that of former president James Olson, when Olson came here in 1984. Dr. Timothy McBride on the Faculty Forum discussed comparator groups and how UMC and UMSL both compared poorly to their respective comparator groups. The Chair paraphrased from Dr. McBride’s comments:
Dr. Pacheco concentrated on the comparison of UMSL’s state appropriations per student with those of its comparison group, and UMC’s appropriations per student as compared to its comparison group. Dr. Pacheco stressed the fact that both UMSL and UMC receive about 80 percent of the appropriations in their comparison groups, as his charts reflected. Actually, while UMSL would fall at the bottom of its comparison group, UMC would fall 9th out of 12. While UMC receives 83 percent of the mean spending in its comparison group, it receives 93 percent of the median spending of its comparison group. This results from the fact that four campuses at the top of their list are outliers with a lot of spending per capita (over $13,500). In other words their comparator group is a much better funded one than ours. In contrast, UMSL’s comparator group is more tightly distributed around $6,000, but even then, UMSL’s $5,125 per student puts it at the bottom of its list.
Dr. McBride noted, as did many, that Dr. Pacheco did not present data on UMKC or UMR. Apparently, data on UMR do not exist, according to the System. However, the data from UMKC show its spending per student is 6 percent higher than the mean of its comparison group, 7.6 percent higher than the median of its comparison group, and higher than UMC or UMSL. If UMSL is underfunded, and President Pacheco admits that is the case, then it could be argued that UMKC is overfunded.
The Chair said we need to keep hammering away at this issue, and the students can perhaps help more than the Faculty inasmuch as they are the ones who are being cheated by the current funding system. All of us need to inform our neighbors and state representatives about the problem. Unfortunately, it seems a well-kept secret. The Chair said he was very disappointed that the local paper did not cover the hearings; apparently, they await the report of the Subcommittee on Funding Equity. We, too, await that report, the Chair said.
Ms. Victoria Heffernan, a student member of the Assembly, inquired as to what the students can do. Dr. Barton reiterated that they should help get the word out to neighbors and state representatives about the problem. He reminded everyone that the University of Missouri is a constitutional body so the Board of Curators makes all decisions unaffected by the Legislature. On the other hand, the Governor appoints the Board, and we elect the Governor. We should remind everyone of that fact.
-3-
Report from the Chancellor – Vice Chancellor Jerry Durham for Chancellor Touhill, who is out of the country
The Curators approved our master plan in 1993. This plan suggested the placement of new buildings, road realignments, and property purchases. Among the most important acquisitions mentioned by the master plan’s consultants was the Normandy Hospital property. The University purchased that property October 31st for $2.6 million. Over the next 12-18 months, Vice Chancellor Durham will work with academic and community leaders to determine the best uses for this property and to determine potential funding sources to effectively renovate the facility for campus use. If a funding source is not identified, Chancellor Touhill has told the Curators that the facility could be razed to make way for parking or some other purpose.
Late last month, Vice Chancellor Durham announced that Dr. Joel Glassman, Director of the Center for International Studies, has been given the additional title of Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The Vice Chancellor publicly congratulated Dr. Glassman and thanked him for his contributions to the campus. The title change reflects the importance of his current and future responsibilities to help internationalize the UM-St. Louis campus.
Vice Chancellor Durham announced another important academic appointment, namely, that of Dr. John Hylton as Interim Dean of the new College of Fine Arts and Communications. His appointment is effective immediately; however, Dr. Hylton will continue to serve in a part-time capacity as Interim Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs during the next several months. Vice Chancellor Durham reported that he will be working with the Chancellor to form a search committee to appoint a permanent dean of the new Fine Arts College, and that he hopes to have that process completed before the fall term. Meanwhile, the Vice Chancellor will be looking at the organization of the Office of Academic Affairs to determine how best to fill the Interim Associate Vice Chancellor position.
A committee under the leadership of Dean Mark Burkholder and Dr. Nancy Gleason is determining how the campus should implement a CBHE-mandated plan to conform general education courses at all Missouri colleges and universities. Assembly members were invited to contact Dean Burkholder or Dr. Gleason with any questions or concerns about this process.
Course renumbering in the units is under way.
Vice Chancellor Durham ended his report on a note of caution. He said he met last week with President Pacheco and other academic leaders from the four UM campuses to discuss, among other things, the condition of Missouri’s economy and its probable impact on our budget. The outlook is not good. There is a strong likelihood that the 5 percent withholding
-4-
in our budget this fiscal year will become a permanent cut and that an additional 5 percent will be withheld from next fiscal year’s state allocation on top of that cut. Given this scenario, the Curators might vote on student fee increases in March or May, instead of the traditional January date. It is felt the delay is needed so that the Curators can gather more accurate budget numbers from the state before setting new fee guidelines. Also, there is a possibility that state agencies, including colleges and universities, could be notified of a mid-year withholding in January 2002. The Vice Chancellor encouraged individuals and units to consider how they would handle these budget cut scenarios.
At the close of his report, Vice Chancellor Durham invited questions from the floor.
Referring to a draft policy on final examinations that has been circulated by the Vice Chancellor’s office, Dr. E. Terrence Jones read from the policy as follows: “Final examinations are integral parts of academic programs and should be given in all undergraduate courses, except laboratory/clinical/studio courses, seminars, colloquia, and independent study.” He asked if a faculty member could choose to use some other culminating assessment method. Vice Chancellor Durham said the policy is only in draft form and is awaiting response from the Council of Deans. The final policy may look altogether different. Dr. Jones followed up by asking about the consultative process that will be used in determining the final policy. The Vice Chancellor said he will consult with the deans and they will consult with chairpersons. Dr. Jones asked, “On a line between what’s appropriate for administrators to do and what should be left to the judgment of the Faculty, how do you regard choosing which method to assess a class’s performance—as an administrative decision or a faculty decision?” Vice Chancellor Durham said he wanted feedback from faculty, deans, and chairpersons. The document, he clarified, was distributed to deans with the request that they share it with chairpersons. The deans were advised that they could share the draft with a wider audience if they desired to do so.
Dr. Gail Ratcliff commented that this appears to be an infringement on her academic freedom. She asked about the motivation for bringing the draft forward. Vice Chancellor Durham said the existing policy is a two-sentence policy, plus a paragraph. On other campuses there is a much more extensive final examination policy. Dr. Ratcliff indicated that she has her students submit a portfolio and asked if, in the Vice Chancellor’s mind, that is inadequate. He replied that that is one way of assessing students; however, he is concerned about what happens on the campus during final examination week. In response to a question from Dr. Joseph Martinich, it was explained that the draft constitutes a proposed Academic Affairs policy. Dr. Martinich remarked that even the most conservative Board member would see this as entirely a faculty matter. He suggested that the deans should have been told that they must distribute the draft to faculty. Vice Chancellor Durham said he plans to take the deans’ advice, recraft the policy in keeping with that advice, and submit it for another round of advice. The Vice Chancellor confirmed for Dr. Paul Speck that the policy would not be implemented this semester. Dr. Charles Korr commented that, if and when this comes through another stage of advice, the draft should not be shared at the deans’ discretion but distributed widely to faculty with the demand that they get as much feedback as possible and that they send it to the Vice Chancellor unfiltered. Vice Chancellor Durham
-5-
pointed out that there is an Academic Advisory Committee of the Senate with which he will share the feedback. Dr. Korr responded by saying that as much as he respects that committee and its chair, consulting them is not the same thing as getting as much feedback as possible from individual faculty members. Dr. E. Terrence Jones inquired if the final document will be submitted to the Committee on Curriculum and Instruction for their deliberation and approval. Vice Chancellor Durham said it would.
Report from the Student Government Association – Mr. Ryan Connor
At the next Student Government Association meeting (November 20, 2 p.m., Student Government Chamber), student fee increases will be discussed.
The Associated Students of the University of Missouri, along with the Intercampus
Student Council, and our own SGA are working with the sexual orientation clause within the University’s Bylaws.
The selection process for naming a student to the Board of Curators is under way.
Three names have been given to Governor Holden. The student representative will come from UMR this time.
Mr. Connor echoed the Chair’s encouragement that all faculty, staff, and students write letters concerning funding inequities among the four UM campuses.
It was announced that Vice Chancellor Schuster is about to turn the parking ticket
appeal procedure back over to students.
Shell space in the Millennium Student Center will be used as a sports bar/café to be known as the Pilot House. It should open early next semester. Also in that space will be a student art gallery.
Report from the Committee on Computing and Instructional Technology – Dr. Robert Keel
(see attached)
At the close of his report, Dr. Gail Ratcliff inquired if students would be able to have their mail forwarded to another address. Dr. Keel reported that forwarding will not be allowed but that students will be allowed to request in writing to have some address other than their campus-based e-mail address used.
-6-
Completing the business at hand, the Assembly adjourned at 3:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Pierce
University Assembly Secretary
(minutes written by Ms. Joan M. Arban, Assembly Assistant)