MSU-BOZEMAN FACULTY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
November 5, 2003
Members Present: Gipp, Weaver, Schlotzhauer, Monaco, Leech, Taylor,
Howard, Christopher, Seymour, Jones, Yoo, Becker, Bradley, Taper,
Ashley, Lansverk, Levy, Cherry, Pratt, Neeley, Lynes-Hayes, Coon,
Knight.
Members Absent: Ag Econ/Econ, Giroux, McDermott, Schmidt, Jackson,
Kommers, Conant, Chem, Bond, Kevane, Idzerda, Lynch, Prawdzienski,
Hoffman.
The regularly-scheduled meeting was called to order by Chair Warren
Jones at 4:10 PM. A quorum was present. The minutes of the October
29, 2003, meeting were approved as distributed.
Chair's report - Warren Jones.
- Information to complete the administrative review has been
distributed to faculty with appointments of .5 FTE or greater.
Please encourage your colleagues to complete the review. In
order to address concerns regarding anonymity of reviewers, all
classes used to gather statistics will include information about
at least five individuals.
- Joann Amend is retiring as Faculty Council Secretary the end of
December.
- UPBAC met November 4. It was reported the number of students
is up, but because of factors affecting the amount of tuition
paid by students, income is not as high as expected. The capital
reserve will be used to cover shortfalls before any budget
reductions are considered. Retention of students is important.
- Don Mathre, Chair of the MSU Benefits Committee, will attend
University Governance Council next week to discuss benefits
issues.
Faculty Affairs Committee report - Marvin Lansverk.
- The Committee has discussed a proposal by the Provost to move
up some dates in the P&T process. The Committee has agreed that
the only date that would require a Faculty Handbook amendment is
the date by which the Provost notifies the candidate of the P&T
decision. That date currently is March 30. An earlier
submission of dossiers would allow enough time to do substantive
reviews at all required levels and allow notification of the
candidate by the stated date.
- The Faculty Affairs Committee recommends the date for
notification of candidates be moved to April 15, which still
meets AAUP guidelines.
- The Committee also recommends the date by which dossiers
are due to departments be moved to the 1st day of the
contract period for AY faculty, usually August 16,
recognizing that departmental committees should be convened
in the spring and may request external reviews during the
summer.
- The proposal that dossiers be submitted by the end of
Spring Semester was not met with enthusiasm by most
departments. Even though additional material may be added
to the dossier, having a more complete dossier by the end of
the summer was more acceptable to departments than creating
a need for substantial additions.
- Moving the date of notification to April 15 gives less
time to a candidate to file a grievance spring semester, but
the date is already too late to conduct a grievance before
the end of Spring Semester.
- Paul Monaco moved the Provost's notification to the candidate
date be moved to April 15, with endorsement of the Faculty
Affairs Committee's recommendation that dossiers be submitted to
departments by August 16 or the first day of the contract period
for most faculty. The motion was seconded, and after further
discussion, a vote was taken. The motion carried by a large
margin.
- The Provost will be given latitude in setting deadlines within
the academic year framework.
- Faculty will be notified of the proposed amendment (Faculty
Handbook Section 616.01) through the STAFF BULLETIN, and there
will be a 10-day comment period before the issues returns to
Faculty Council for a vote. The proposal will then be forwarded
to the administration for final approval.
Program Review discussion.
- Chair Jones outlined reasons for academic program review by
Faculty Council.
- The Faculty Council Constitution specifies that Faculty
Council has the power to be involved in curriculum issues.
Power suggests responsibility.
- Some major revisions to the curriculum have been approved
with little input from Faculty Council, the representative
body of the faculty.
- The administration has stated it is committed to shared
governance. It makes sense, then, that faculty take an
active role and make well-considered and rational responses
to curricular proposals.
- It was pointed out there is a difference between reviewing a
new, university-wide core curriculum and a program in a specific
department. However, a counter-argument was made that all
changes in the curriculum impact other areas within the
university positively or negatively, particularly in areas of
resource allocation and university direction.
- Faculty Council, with representation from all academic
departments, is the arena in which campus-wide curriculum issues
are appropriately discussed.
- There should be a regularized procedure within the
institutional structure to gather input from faculty as a whole
on issues relating to new academic programs. Faculty Council is
a logical representative group to implement the procedure. The
procedures for review depends upon the model chosen.
- Chair Jones called for a show of hands to determine how many
members still felt that the review process is not an appropriate
function for the Council. One member indicated it is not
appropriate.
- There will be further discussion of the issues at the November
19 Faculty Council meeting.
As there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:10 PM.
Joann Amend, Secretary Warren Jones, Chair