- About FS
- Faculty Awards
- FS-L Disc. List
- Benefits Committee
- Chancellor's Reports
- Council of Graduate Students
- Curriculum Reports
- Diploma with Names of Missouri S&T and Collaborative University Proposal
- Guest Speakers
- Judicial Committees
- Officers' Reports
- Proposal Residential College
- Proposed Special Program: Global Studies Minor
- Provost's Reports
- Staff Council
- Standing Committees
- Student Council
VOL. XXIX, NO. 3
Minutes of the Academic Council Meeting
Thursday, November 18, 1999
XXIX,3..The meeting was called to order at 1:30 P.M. by President Jerry Tien. Roll Call was taken, and a quorum proved. One substitution was noted-Levant Acar for Ron Kohser. There was a motion to approve the minutes of the October 21, 1999 meeting as distributed. A second followed, and motion carried.
.1 REPORTS AND RESPONSES
A. PRESIDENT’S REPORT
1. Professor Tien stated that the time for each report would be limited because of a lengthy agenda.
2. President Tien called on Professor Jay Gragg to give a brief report on enrollment.
a.Professor Gragg used an overhead presentation with data from other schools. All are holding steady or rising except UMR. He said he would send copies of this data to anyone who requests it.*(See graph attached)
3. Professor Tien announced that Dr. Steve Lemkuhle would be speaking to the Council after the Chancellor’s Report.
B. CHANCELLOR’S REPORT
1. Dr. Park said he would address four issues as requested.
a.The Chancellor said enrollment projections for next year appear to be well ahead in the recruiting process from last year. He went on to say there is a big difference between getting the applicants and getting them locked in place. He elaborated at length on various ways this is being addressed.
b.The issue of the four hundred dollar raises-Dr. Park read a portion of a memo Concerning exceptions and elaborated briefly on the reasons for these.
c.Administrative Review-The Chancellor said he felt he should leave that for Dr. Lemkuhle to address.
d.Administrative Restructuring-Dr. Park said this process will go on, but no decisions have been made. He said there are no plans to close any departments.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
1. The first question from the floor concerned what percent of Faculty received more than a $400 raise. The Chancellor said he has some control over intrepreta-tion, although this directive came from the President.
2. The question concerning percent of Faculty was repeated. After Dr. Park said that he didn’t know, Professor Ken Robertson said he had heard it was about 30%.
3. Professor Don Myers commented that he had thought the money that "came down" was only for $400 raises, and asked what kind of dollars did come, Dr. Park said additional money was allowed for exceptions, promotions, etc. and that reallocation was at the Chancellors’ level.
C. Dr. Steve Lemkuhle addressed the Council on the matter of Post Tenure Review.
1. Dr. Lemkuhle said that President Pacheco came from an institution where Post Tenure Review was mandated by the Legislature, and felt it was not a good thing. He said the process was so onerous it bogged down. It was designed by the Legislature to be punitive in nature, and became non-functional.
2. Dr. Lemkuhle stated that IFC had discussed this issue for several years, and there had always been some discussion at the legislative level.
3. He said that the UM System has an annual review process, with sanctions attached (remediation period), but it’s not packaged together and not called Post Tenure Review.
4. He said that President Pacheco feels we should repackage what we have for Post Tenure Review, but thinks it should come from Faculty and wants a committee to include Faculty representatives from all the campuses.
5. Dr. Lemkuhle said that’s one thing we don’t have-Faculty doesn’t participate in the process-it’s all administration. President Pacheco wants it to be develop- mental in nature-not punitive. He feels if we wait any longer, we might have to deal with a legislative mandate.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
1. Professor Jay Gragg asked if Dr. Lemkuhle was basically saying that if we formalize what we already have in place, that would be sufficient. The answer was affirmative, but Dr. Lemkuhle said he would also like to see more Faculty involvement.
2. Professor Don Myers asked what the review approval process would be after the committee’s recommendations are in. Dr. Lemkuhle replied that the committee would take it to the President, and he in turn would present it to the Curators.
3. There was a question as to whether the reason for this is a thought that there are tenured professors that need to be out. Dr. Lemkuhle said the reasoning is that there are questions about the effectiveness of the current process, and the Board of Curators’ main need is to assure the process in place is a valid one.
4. Professor Neil Book commented that in his opinion, the Faculty representatives should be elected rather than nominated by IFC. Dr. Lemkuhle said that he has asked IFC to produce nominees to serve on this committee to include the Faculty Government Chair. He said who these are can be addressed on each campus.
5. Dr. Park said whoever is elected should be instructed to go for a process that will not "drag on"-a system that works, but doesn’t bog down in paperwork.
6. Professor Ken Robertson said he has been a Faculty member at UMR 30 years, and taking away tenure is not what was planned 30 years ago. He said this is a very important issue and should be taken as such.
.2 REPORTS OF STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
A. CURRICULA-Professor Ken Robertson presented this report.
1. Professor Robertson presented the EC1's for the Council’s information.
2. Professor Robertson moved to approve the CC1's as distributed. Professor Lance Haynes seconded the motion.
3. There were some comments as to the wording of the course descriptions. Dr. Park then asked if the grammar would be corrected before they went in the handbook, and the registrar replied that it would be done.
4. Vote was then taken and motion carried.
B. PERSONNEL-Professor Don Myers said the committee is reviewing the process received from the Chancellor.
C. PUBLIC OCCASIONS-Professor Jerry Bayless presented this report.
1. Professor Bayless presented the 2001-2002 calendar, stating that it meets the general theme of the system wide calendar.
a.After a few comments, an addition to the calendar was distributed*(See attached).
b.There was a motion to approved, followed by a second. Motion carried.
2. Professor Bayless presented the Public Events Dates for 2000-2001. Professor Jay Gragg moved to approve. There was a second and motion carried.
D. RULES, PROCEDURE, AND AGENDA-Professor Lance Haynes announced that a representative to the Curricula Committee needed to be elected to replace Howard Pyron, who retired.
1. Professor Haynes said that RP & A had nominated Charles Morris.
2. There was a motion to elect Professor Morris by acclamation. There was a second and motion carried.
E. STUDENT AFFAIRS-This report was presented by Mr. Mark Petrofka.
1. Mr. Petrofka referred to the Constitutions included with the agenda, beginning with the Chinese Students Club. He mentioned that the wording had been changed (as requested at a previous meeting) to include all students.
a.Professor Susan Murray proposed a friendly amendment that the male pronouns be changed to both male and female. With this amendment accepted, Professor Jay Gragg moved to approve the constitution. Professor Don Myers seconded and motion carried.
2. Mr. Petrofka then presented for approval the Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia Fraternity. Professor Ken Robertson moved to approve, followed by a second. After a brief discussion, motion carried.
3. The next constitution presented was the International Association for Exchange Students of Technology and Engineering. Professor Ken Robertson moved to approve. Professor Jay Gragg seconded, and motion carried.
.3 OLD BUSINESS-Professor Tien made brief mention of the Action Items and the Chancellor’s response that were included with the agenda.
.4 NEW BUSINESS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
A. President Tien referred to the three proposed resolutions on Administrative Restructuring that were included with the agenda.
1. Dean Saperstein asked who submitted them. Professor Haynes said none were recommended over the others by RP & A.
2. Professor Tien then read Resolution #1 to the Council.
a.After some brief comments, Professor Lance Haynes moved to approve Resolution #3. It was then read aloud to the body. Professor Jay Gragg seconded the motion.
b.The question was asked whether each resolution came from a different source. Professor Don Myers stated that he believes the intent is to seek advice and approval from the Academic Council after a plan is made.
c.The question was called by Professor Lance Haynes. Professor Neil Book commented further, and presented a friendly amendment to remove the words "academic departments". Professor Haynes said that would not be appropriate.
d.Professor Matt Insall suggested the word implementation be replaced with the word development. Professor Bruce Selberg seconded.
e.Professor Insall and Professor Selberg withdrew the motion to amend, when Dr. Park stated that he couldn’t get approval before something was developed.
f.Professor Don Myers then moved to amend, so that the last sentence would read, "Furthermore, the Council hereby calls upon the Chancellor to include appropriate Faculty representation and to seek its advice and approval prior to implementation of any such proposal". There was a second and motion carried.
g.Vote was then taken on the main motion, which carried, with 2 opposed.
3. Professor Jay Gragg moved to adopt the first resolution also. Professor Selberg seconded.
a.Professor Lance Haynes objected, saying it covered too large a group.
b.Professor Acar moved to table. This died for lack of a second.
c.Vote was then taken on Professor Gragg’s motion, which carried with one opposed.
There was a motion and a second to adjourn. Motion carried.
*Minutes of the Academic Council are considered official documentation and notification of actions approved.