MSU FACULTY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 27, 2002 PRESENT: Young, Sherwood, McDermott for Engel, Kommers, Linker, Leech, Taylor for Benham, Erickson for Howard, Stewart, Ross, Nehrir, Bradley for Lefcort, Weaver, Locke, Lansverk, Bandyopadhyay for Levy, Bogar, Jelinski, McKinsey for Pratt, Lynch, Butterfield. ABSENT: Hatfield, Morrill, White, Anderson, Peed, Chem Engr, Jones, Mooney, McClure, Henson, Idzerda, Fisher, Lynes-Hayes, Kempcke, Griffith, Carlstrom. The meeting was called to order at 4:10 PM by Chair John Sherwood. A quorum was present. The minutes of the March 20, 2002, meeting were approved as distributed. Chair's report - John Sherwood. - UPBAC met yesterday. Most of the discussion centered around proposals regarding Information Technology. - Operations and infrastructure will be separated for budget purposes. - It is proposed the student fee instituted to help pay for Banner remain in place and be used for infrastructure and support in student computer labs. - An Information Technology Advisory Committee is proposed. - The faculty pay plan approved at last week's Faculty Council meeting was forwarded to UPBAC. - The equal rights resolution approved by Faculty Council last week was sent to the Commissioner of Higher Education, Regents, and President Gamble. - At its March 21 meeting, UGC Steering Committee discussed the policy regarding research faculty paid out of grants (included under the "Policies and Procedures" material e-mailed from the President's Office). It is recommended all language referring to tenurable faculty be removed from the policy, because the Faculty Handbook already contains language concerning compensation for tenurable faculty. - At its March 21 meeting, UGC Steering Committee agreed to sending a statement to faculty and professionals that a provision exists for employees who do not want to sign the Vehicle Use Agreement. In discussion with President Gamble, Chair Sherwood and Chair Elect Howard were told that what is needed from all employees is a statement that they've read the policy and understand it. A statement that an employee does not want to sign the agreement because of privacy concerns may be attached if the policy is not signed. Nominations for University-wide Committees for 2002-03. - A list of faculty vacancies on university-wide committees was distributed and discussed. The list will be e-mailed to Faculty Council representatives to distribute within their departments. - A Council Liaison to the New Core Committee should be added to the list. - Jim Linker volunteered to serve as Council Liaison to the Undergraduate Studies Committee. - Shannon Taylor volunteered to serve as Council Liaison to the Core Curriculum Committee. Faculty Affairs Committee Report - Marvin Lansverk. - An Ombudsman proposal is being discussed by Faculty Affairs. - Survey results have been tallied from the ombudsman survey. Of 557 surveys sent to faculty, 135 were returned. About one-half of the respondents knew of the conciliation process. Of those who have used the conciliation process, about half were satisfied with the results and about half were not satisfied with the results. - Most respondents would like to try the ombudsman process. - In a meeting of the President, Provost, Faculty Council Chair and Chair Elect, and the Faculty Affairs Committee Chair, the conclusion reached was that the Ombudsman should report to the Provost. This protects the President's role if the case goes to grievance. Also, a large proportion of the concerns heard by the Ombudsman will probably be in the area of academic affairs. - Professionals appear to have as great of interest in the Ombudsman process as faculty. - The Faculty Affairs Committee has been discussing post-tenure review. - AAUP's policy on post-tenure review, adopted in 1983, has been discussed. It can be found at www.aaup.org/statements/SpchState/Postten.html. - After discussing the AAUP statement and other universities' post-tenure policies, three guidelines become apparent: - Post-tenure review should not be used to make it easier to terminate faculty. - Post-tenure review should not shift the burden of proof for termination from the institution to the individual. - Post-tenure review should not be used to limit academic and creative freedom. - There is doubt as to whether post-tenure review of all faculty is cost- and time-effective. - Post-tenure review should be designed to identify and remediate problems. - The University of Montana has a post-tenure review policy. It appears that the regents are looking for consistency among the units in pre-tenure and post-tenure review. - The Board of Regents strategic plan contains language that all units will have a post-tenure review policy. Faculty Council is discussing the issue now so a policy that best fits MSU and the faculty here can be developed. All MSU faculty currently prepare annual reviews, so it's not entirely clear what the Regents had in mind with their statement that every three years the universities will report on pre-tenure and post-tenure review. - It was pointed out that the Faculty Handbook lists reasons for dismissal of tenured faculty and that a method to review post-tenure faculty already exists, although it is not a routine review. - Would there be a positive side to post-tenure review? If faculty receive excellent ratings, will there be a reward for excellent performance? The meeting adjourned at 5:00 PM. Joann Amend, Secretary John Sherwood, Chair