MSU FACULTY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES December 4, 2002 Members Present: Young, Gipp, Morrill, Sherwood for Giroux, Kommers, Schlotzhauer, Linker, Leech, Howard, Jones, Yoo, Nehrir, Bradley, McMahon, Amend, Bandyopadhyay for Levy, Bond, Jelinksi, Idzerda, Pratt, Lynch, Fisher, Lynes-Hayes, Prawdzienski, Rossman for Kempcke, Knight. Members Absent: Engel, White, Anderson, Taylor, Stewart, Chem Engr, Conant, Locke, Engl, Bogar, Hoffman. Others Present: Metz, Fedock, Rimpau, Fastnow. The regularly-scheduled meeting was called to order by Chair Richard Howard at 4:10 PM. A quorum was present. The minutes of the November 20, 2002, meeting were approved as distributed. Chair's Report - Rich Howard. - The Chair and Chair Elect attended the Board of Regents (BOR) meeting in Missoula, November 20-22. Items discussed of particular interest to faculty include: - A proposal that all additional compensation be approved by the BOR before it is paid. Although Regent Mercer claimed the proposal was to cover administrative and professional staff only, the wording of the policy includes faculty, and discussion that took place used a $10 million figure (which includes additional compensation from faculty grants and summer courses, and other consulting activity) rather than the $450,000 figure for administrative and professional staff additional compensation. - A State Government Outreach proposal, which would involve faculty to a greater degree in identifying and addressing challenges facing other state agencies. The proposal is scheduled for adoption at the January BOR meeting. Faculty representatives made it clear during their meeting with the regents that the high cost in faculty time needs to be considered before such a policy is adopted. - A Montana University System Inreach proposal which develops an ombudsman process within the system. It would operate through the BOR and be available for all MUS employees. Chair Howard volunteered, with other faculty representatives, to assist in crafting a document addressing procedures. They will look to the regent making the general proposal for leadership and guidance. - During the faculty representatives meeting with the regents, several issues were discussed. They included distance education and evaluation of its effectiveness (a concern from MSU-Billings), the possibility of an across-the-board tuition reduction for MUS employees' dependents if there are no salary increases, the discussion taking place about including all two-year units of the MUS under an umbrella which would be run out of the Department of Commerce, and the outreach and inreach proposals. - One of the highlights of the meeting was a presentation by Doug Young, MSU professor of Ag Econ/Econ, discussing the economic outlook for Montana and Montana taxation issues. Faculty Affairs Committee report - Walter Metz. - Jack Jelinski moved amending Faculty Handbook Section 1312.00 to include the following: "If notification by the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs is made less than thirty (30) days before the end of a faculty member's contract period, the faculty member's right to file a complaint will be extended to October 1 of the following contract period." - The motion was seconded and carried. The proposed amendment and its rationale will be forwarded to the administration. - John Sherwood moved amending Faculty Handbook Section 620.00 to include the following: "A candidate for tenure will be subject to the Department's Role, Scope, Criteria, Standards, and Procedures document in effect at the date of hire. In the event of a change in the Department's Role, Scope, Criteria, Standards, and Procedures document, the candidate for tenure will be given a choice of being evaluated using the document in effect at the date of hire or any approved departmental document up to and including the document in effect at the time the tenure dossier is submitted. In any event, the candidate will place the appropriate document at the front of the tenure dossier." - The motion was seconded and carried. The proposed amendment and its rationale will be forwarded to the administration. - The proposed amendments to Faculty Handbook Sections 618, 733, 734, and 463 (Post Tenure Review) were discussed. Because there are still some concerns about wording, Jack Jelinski moved continuing discussion at a later meeting of the Council, when more time is set aside for it. The motion was seconded and carried. Discussion of KPIs, Delaware Study, and Instructional Program Evaluation Matrix - Jim Rimpau. - Chris Fastnow, Office of Planning and Analysis, was introduced. - KPIs(Key Performance Indicators) have been gathered at MSU over a period of years. For the purpose of budget planning, KPIs for the last ten years will be used, weighting those of the past four years most heavily. - The Delaware Study (http://www.udel/edu/IR/cost/brochure.html) provides information about 300 universities. MSU will participate in the study this year. The purpose for being part of the study is to provide context for MSU's data. - The Instructional Program Evaluation Matrix is still being finalized. A small task force is discussing each category to determine how it will work within the total matrix. - Categories and the chair of each category task force are: Program Demand (Jerry Bancroft), State & National Need (Robert Marley), Uniqueness in State or Region (Sharron Quisenberry), Grant & Contract Activity (Tom McCoy), Contribution to Gen Ed Program (Joe Fedock), Scholarly Work (Jim McMillan), Outreach & Service (Greg Weisenstein), No-cost Growth Capacity (Jim Rimpau), Cost of Expansion (Craig Roloff), Overall Growth Priority (not under consideration at this time), Strength or Reputation (Bruce Morton). - Faculty may contact the above-listed individuals to give input. - According to Rimpau, it has not yet been determined how the information in the matrix will be used. In early UPBAC discussions, the intent was to answer the question, "If MSU had money to invest, where would be the best place to invest it?" If UPBAC continues discussion of the matrix, it probably will be used in the upcoming budget cycle. UPBAC needs to go to the next step to know if developing a matrix is worthwhile. - Concern was expressed that departments will be evaluated on the basis of information regarding past, current, or future performance without having time to respond to the criteria. There are acknowledged difference in departments, and the criteria used will affect the conclusions made. It was suggested that one approach might be to have units themselves weight criteria. - A forum to discuss UPBAC's priorities document (and the matrix) is scheduled for Thursday, December 12, 1 PM, in the SUB. As there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:05 PM. Joann Amend, Secretary Richard Howard, Chair