MSU-BOZEMAN FACULTY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 3, 1999 PRESENT: Young, Sherwood, McDermott, Burgess, Kommers, Peed for Robert Smith, Neff, Leech, Benham, Howard, Larsen, Jost, Harkin, Mooney, Weaver, Amend, Locke, Lansverk, Gedeon, Jelinski, Richard Smith, McKinsey, Prawdzienski, Butterfield, Scott. ABSENT: Paterson, O'Neill, Anderson, Duncan, Nehrir, Cherry, 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 27, 1999, minutes were approved with the following correction: Promotion and Tenure Policies, the third bullet should read, "Observations concerning the current policy were outlined. Suggestions are that..." and the fourth bullet should read, "Rational for the suggestions is included...". Chair's Report - Peter Kommers. - Letters to faculty for the administrative review are being sent. Please encourage faculty in your department to fill out the requested information and return it by Friday, February 12. - The Board of Regents met in Helena January 28. - Most of the degree issues discussed at last week's Faculty Council meeting were tabled so the units involved can clarify them and work out differences. - Classified employees representing all units except community colleges made a presentation. Salary issues are being negotiated, so the presentation centered around the additional multi-tasking required of classified employees without time for training or time to get the work done. - At BOR meetings, regular meetings with classified employees will be instituted. They will be in addition to the current regular meetings with faculty representatives. - UM presented tentative information regarding additional computer fees for the UM campuses. - Because the faculty meeting with regents was cut short, MSU campuses faculty were not able to make a presentation about resource issues. They will do so at the March Regents' meeting. - The point was made that faculty would like to discuss the regents' planning document at greater length, although it appears the Commissioner wants to approve the document quickly and views it as the regents' document. Chair Kommers would like to send a response to the regents expressing specific concerns about the document. - The Strategic Planning and Review Committee will meet with President Malone February 5 to discuss direction of the committee. Faculty Affairs Committee Report - Ron Larsen. - Items that have been sent to UGC Steering Committee for discussion are (the first three are Faculty Handbook issues): - On UPTC, replace the Dean of Graduate Studies with someone from the Provost's Office . - Clarify "one day per week" in the consulting policy. - Change the 15-day notification for Faculty Handbook amendments to 10 days. - Consider a policy from the Affirmation Action Advisory Committee regarding accommodations for disabled students. University Governance Council Nominating Committee Report - Alan Leech. - Gary Harkin was appointed by the Provost to serve on the Salary Review Committee. University Promotion and Tenure Discussion. - Jack Jelinski distributed a possible outline for discussion, based upon input from the January 27 meeting. Jack suggests beginning with a grid of substantive and procedural review at different levels and then also consider how units without department structure (Business, Nursing, Library) can fit into the substantive/procedural review outline. There may also be discussion of the types of disputed cases the Provost would attempt to resolve. - If conflict in recommendations exists between a department and college, it is currently usually resolved at the UPTC level. - Any changes made to UPT procedures must be parallel to grievance procedures. - Discussion continued about what constitutes "substantive" and "procedural" review. Where should "substantive" and "procedural" reviews take place? - Attempts have been made to reduce the number of levels of review over the years, but no level appears to be willing to give up "substantive" review. - The wording may be a problem rather than the type of review done at each level. Perhaps wording other than "independent and substantive" and "procedural" would be more definitive. At this time, information from lower-level reviews is used at each subsequent level of review. - Grievance and appeal are two separate procedures. - It was suggested that "substance" should be grievable. - There needs to be one place for conflict resolution. Where is this? - It was suggested Council get input from faculty who have recently served on the UPTC. The meeting adjourned at 5:05 PM. Joann Amend, Secretary, and Peter Kommers, Chair