MSU-BOZEMAN FACULTY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 27, 1999 PRESENT: Young, Sherwood, McDermott, Burgess, Kommers, Peed for Robert Smith, Neff, Leech, Benham, Howard, Larsen, Harkin, Nehrir, Mooney, Weaver, Amend, Locke, Lansverk, Jelinski, Richard Smith, McKinsey, Prawdzienski, Butterfield, Scott. ABSENT: Paterson, O'Neill, Anderson, Duncan, Jost, Cherry, Gedeon, Cutler, Martell, Monahan, Griffith, Cash. The meeting was called to order by Chair Peter Kommers at 4:10 PM. It was determined a quorum was present. The minutes of the January 20, 1999, meeting were approved as distributed. Chair's Report - Peter Kommers. - A draft of the most recent version of the Board of Regents' planning document was distributed (attached for members absent). - UGC Steering Committee will discuss it tomorrow. - Comments may be sent to Chair Kommers (peterk@montana.edu). - Chair Kommers and Chair Elect Amend will attend the Board of Regents meeting in Helena January 28-29. - Faculty from the four MSU campuses will present information highlighting the lack of resources for instructional programs and for the integration of research and learning. - In response to a question from the Chair, distribution of the ABIS was discussed and there was consensus that some editing should be done before it is publicly distributed. A one- or two-page summary would also be useful. University Governance Council Steering Committee Report - Alan Leech. - There is a faculty vacancy on the Traffic Appeals and Regulations Committee. - Nominees are needed for the position of Chair on the following committees. Anyone who is interested in the position or knows of someone who might be is urged to contact Alan. - University Governance Council Nominating Committee - Faculty Affairs Committee - MSU Benefits Committee - Committee on Grievance Hearings (must have served a minimum of two years on the committee) Faculty Affairs Committee Report - Ron Larsen. - Topics unders discussion include: - Replace Graduate Dean with the Vice Provost on the University Promotion and Tenure Committee. - Add wording to review procedures that states student outcomes and assessment should be acknowledged by the department head. - Consider wording in the consulting policy which allows faculty one day per week to consult. - Check consistency between latest MUS conflict of interest policy and MSU's policy. - Consider a policy from AA/HR concerning accessibility for disabled students. - The Committee would like to sent out a postcard to faculty to let them know the above-mentioned issues are under discussion, that proposals can be found at a particular web site, and that comments about the proposals will be accepted. There was no voiced objection to the recommendation. - The "split-appointment" policy is still under discussion by the administration and will be returned to Faculty Council with some changes. Promotion and Tenure Policies - Jack Jelinski. - "Faculty Handbook: Suggestions for Revision" was distributed (attached for members absent). - A major concern is Substantive vs. Procedural review (Section 800.00) at various levels of the review process. - Observations concerning the current policy were outlined. Suggestions are that: - Sections 816, 820, and 830 be changed to delete language requiring "independent and substantive review" and replacing it with language to indicate these review levels are charged with making "an independent review to ensure that preceding reviews have been conducted in substantial compliance with the procedures set forth by the department, college and university." - Add language concerning procedural review to Sections 813, 814, 815 and 817 so it is clear that at these levels, compliance with procedures is also considered at the level of department, department head, college and university level reviews. - Modify Section 811 so it is clear that "reviewing administrators" beyond the level of Department Head are charged only with procedural review. - Rationale for the suggestions is included in the distributed document. The point is made that AAUP's position is that faculty status and related matters are primarily a faculty responsibility. - Discussion followed: - If the Provost and President have only procedural review authority, decisions based on substance would be made at the UPTC level. - If substantive review is removed from some levels, the definition of procedural review may need to be broadened. - Philosophically, the key decision should be made with the department and department head. However, there may be a need for the college dean or a higher level to say that the quality of a particular department's work is not up to the level of the university as a whole. However, the quality of the department or college criteria should be independent from these faculty reviews. - Concern was expressed for the effect the proposed changes would have on small colleges, which do the first review at the college level. It was suggested exceptions for these colleges could be written into the procedures. - Two other recommendations are made in the hand-out: - Section 817 - Discuss current procedures of UPTC which excludes college representatives from voting on candidates from that college and limiting them to providing background information about the college or department. - Faculty Council should seek an outside legal opinion regarding the protection of faculty rights in Section 800, Section 1300 and in any other university procedures deemed appropriate for such review. The meeting adjourned at 5:10 PM. Joann Amend, Secretary Peter Kommers, Chair