MSU FACULTY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 17, 2002 PRESENT: Young, Morrill, Sherwood, McDermott for Engel, Kommers, Linker, Leech, Benham, Howard, Stewart, Lewandowski for Jones, Ross, Nehrir, Bradley, Locke, Lansverk, Bandyopadhyay for Levy, Bogar, Idzerda, McKinsey for Pratt, Lynch, Fisher, Lynes-Hayes, Kempcke, Griffith. ABSENT: Hatfield, White, Anderson, Peed, Chem Engr, Mooney, Weaver, McClure, Henson, Jelinski, Butterfield, Carlstrom. The meeting was called to order by Chair John Sherwood at 4:10 PM. A quorum was present. The minutes of the April 3, 2002, meeting were approved as distributed. Chair's report - John Sherwood. - University Governance Council members met with Commissioner of Higher Education Crofts yesterday as part of the evaluation of President Gamble. - A list of faculty nominees for university-wide committees was distributed. Nominees are still being accepted for positions. - UPBAC met April 11 to make decisions about the MSU budget and proposed budget amendments. A forum will be held May 2 for public input. - The 4% raise for employees was approved. - Money to help pay off the student accounts receivable debt was approved. - A $600,000 university reserve was approved. - The Faculty Council Pay Proposal was approved. - Some faculty positions lost over the past years and some new faculty positions were approved. - High priorities which will be funded if additional money becomes available include catalog software for the Library and a new faculty position in MTA. - In response to a question about how decisions are now being made to fund faculty lines (or to take a position from a department) the Chair stated that UPBAC is making decisions about allocation of resources, including faculty lines. Usually, the dean of a college would decide whether or not to fill a faculty position that already exists. - It was pointed out that reallocation is to be expected. It will be helpful when a strategic plan is in place and it is known which KPIs will be used to make decisions regarding resource allocation. - Faculty are encouraged to attend the May 2 budget meeting. Ombudsman Proposal - Marvin Lansverk. - The proposal is for a two-year trial period and requests 1/4 release time for a faculty member and $5,000 for training and expenses. - Much of the ombudsman's work will be an informal process of communicating. - The grievance process will still exist. - In the current proposal, the Ombudsman reports to the President for administrative and budget purposes, only. However, the President has stated he wants to maintain his independence from the process in case an issue is not resolved through the Ombudsman and proceeds to the grievance process. In addition, many of the issues that will come up may be under the purview of the Provost. Therefore, it has been proposed by the President and Provost that the Ombudsman report to the Provost. - Reasons given for keeping the President as the office receiving reports is that having the ear of the highest authority gives the process more possibility of succeeding. Receiving a report is not the same as implementing or passing judgement on the report. - It's possible for the process to have the "ear" of the President without involving him in the reporting. Additionally, the Ombudsman should by definition have the "ear" of everyone and so the Ombudsman can discuss issues with any appropriate individual. - The Ombudsman has ability to enforce (has "teeth") only by virtue of the office, the ability to remain neutral, and to exhibit good and fair judgment. - Compromise has to be acceptable to upper levels of the administration, as well as to the individuals involved. - No finding of fact is documented in the process. No paper work is kept by the Ombudsman. The only reporting taking place would be to disclose the number of issues brought to the Ombudsman and perhaps the general nature of the issues. - The Ombudsman is not restrained to areas of academics. Any issue, except those listed in University policies and the Faculty Handbook, may be investigated by the Ombudsman. - Harry Benham moved approval of the proposal. The motion was seconded. - During discussion, it was stated that the President is not willing to accept the role as the office to which the Ombudsman reports. The definition of "reporting" may address his concern. - The motion was voted on and carried. - The Chair will discuss the proposal with the President and if necessary, work out compromises in the proposal that will be acceptable to the President and Provost and bring it back to Faculty Council. - After the trial period, the process will be assessed, probably by Faculty Council and Professional Council, in consultation with the Provost and the President. As there was no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 5:05 PM. Joann Amend, Secretary John Sherwood, Chair