- 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. XXX, NO. 3
Minutes of the Academic Council Meeting
October 19, 2000
XXX,3. The meeting was opened at 1:30 P.M. by President Don Myers. Roll call was taken by the office secretary. Members absent at the time of roll call were: James Stone, Martin Bohner, Matt Insall, Paul Worsey, Patrick Giunta, H.L. Tsai, Wayne Huebner, Michael Hilgers, Mark Mullin, Ronald Bieniek, Dr. Gajda, Dr. Thomas, Dr. Ogrosky, and Dean Saperstein
There was a motion by Professor Lenn Koederitz to approve the minutes of the June 15, 2000 meeting as distributed. Professor Dan White seconded, and motion carried.
There was a moton by Professor Hal Nystrom to approve the minutes of the September 21, 2000 meeting as distributed. After a second, motion carried.
.1 President Myers mentioned that the Board of Curators meeting was on this date also, so Chancellor Thomas and Vice Chancellor Gajda were not able to attend the Council Meeting. Professor Myers then introduced Dr. Teresa Thiel, Chair of the system wide Post Tenure Review Committee.
Dr. Thiel gave a brief history of how and why this committee originated. She stated that this was not mandated by the Legislature or the Board of Curators. She said President Pacheco felt that this would happen soon, and decided to ask the Faculties to develop a Post Tenure Review document. Although this idea has been the subject of much criticism, Dr. Pacheco said it’s not realistic to say we don’t have or need it.
Dr. Thiel said that Executive Order 27 (already in existence) covers this area to some degree, but the committee did not like it for Post Tenure Review. She said it provides virtually no protection for Faculty. UMKC has a 1989 Chancellor’s Memorandum on Post Tenure Review, but it also offers no protection for Faculty.
President Pacheco asked the four campuses to provide three members each to serve on this committee, as Post Tenure Review should be Faculty-driven. The committee members felt this was an opportunity to draft a document that would protect Faculty. Their primary design is to help Faculty, not to punish-a developmental plan.
Dr. Thiel briefly went over the high points of the draft document, and then invited questions and comments. Professor Myers said the three representatives from UMR(Jack Ridley, Don Myers, and Don Askeland) are looking for input. Dr. Thiel also said at the system website, faculty members can email their suggestions to the committee.
.2 REPORTS AND RESPONSES
A. PRESIDENT’S REPORT
1. President Myers briefly mentioned six items that were discussed at the October 6 IFC meeting.
a. The movement to change guidelines on the Thomas Jefferson Award and to increase the stipend.
b. A request to look at the UM System Committees (members not rotating often enough).
c. A tuition waiver policy for Faculty and Dependents. IFC asked President Pacheco to take this under advisement.
d. Post Tenure Review
e. Administrator Review Process
f. Rules, policies, and procedures in selecting endowed chairs.
B. CHANCELLOR’S REPORT-Due to Dr. Thomas being away at the Board of Curators’ Meeting, Professor Keith Stanek presented this report. The Rules, Procedures, and Agenda Committee asked Professor Stanek to report on Mentoring to Improve Retention, as he is the co-chair (with Carl Burns) of the Retention Committee.
1. Professor Stanek gave an overhead presentation of past enrollment losses and gains, graduation statistics, and comparisons to similar schools.
2. Professor Stanek said retention is a factor that outside people use to rate UMR and its peers.
Questions and Answers
1. Mr. Joe Maul from STUCO asked what percent of the lost students were from out of state. The answer was that the comparison with instate students is very close.
2. Professor Hal Nystrom asked if UMR is coming up with priorities as to what can be done about it. Professor Stanek said Chancellor Thomas is looking at courses with high failure and drop rates.
3. Professor Don Myers aksed if anyone could doubt the importance of improving these numbers. He said the RP&A Committee is looking at ways Faculty can input that. He said he has asked Professor Arlan DeKock to chair an ad hoc committee on Mentoring with about six members.
4. Professor Stanek stated that the ExCel Program had much to do with retention.
5. There was a question as to why students are leaving, and how the problem can be addressed if you don’t know what it is. One answer was that they leave Engineering. Professor Myers said there are things Faculty can do about this-not just administration. He asked that any suggestions be given to Professor DeKock.
.3 REPORTS OF STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
A. CURRICULA-Professor Charles Morris presented this report.
1. Professor Morris said the committee recommended approval of a new Degree Program-Bachelor of Science in Architectural Engineering. He said UMR has the expertise on campus to offer this-Dr. Tony Nanni and Dr. John Myers and only one new faculty member would be needed.
a.Professor Lenn Koederitz asked how many freshman registered for the program would not come without it. Professor Morris said 90% of Kansas Unversity’s Enrollment in this program come from Missouri.
b.Professor Hal Nystrom asked when this program could start, if approved. Professor Morris said they hope to start it next fall for incoming freshman.
c. Professor Morris then moved to approve this program. Professor Dan White seconded, and motion carried.
2. Professor Morris then moved to approve the CC1’s as distributed. Professor Dan white seconded, and motion carried.
3. Professor Morris presented the EC1’s for information only.
B. PERSONNEL-Professor Don Myers presented this report.
1. Professor Myers called the members’ attention to the Resolution on the Faculty Performance Shares Plan, which was distributed with the agenda. He then read the resolution.
2. Professor Lance Haynes moved to approve the resolution. Following a second, motion carried.
C. STUDENT AFFAIRS-Mr. Mark Potrafka presented this report on the referral to his committee concerning Academic Free Time.
1. Mr. Potrafka said that his committee and STUCO both support this. He sad the committee would recommend their information and suggestions be put on the Academic Council Website for comments.
2. After a lengthy discussion, Professor Todd Hubing moved that the Student Affairs Committee work with the Registrar on a specific proposal to be put on the web site within a week. Professor Lance Haynes seconded, and motion carried.
3. Mr. Potrafka presented information concerning the Graduate Students’ Council, saying it was now inactive.
.4 No old business was presented.
.5 NEW BUSINESS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
A. No one was present to represent the Staff Council.
B. STUDENT COUNCIL-Mr. Joe Maul mentioned that the Parking, Security, and Traffic Committee had removed the bans on skateboards and rollerblades on campus, as long as They were not in buildings.
Professor Charles Morris moved to adjourn. There was a second and motion carried.
*Minutes of the Academic Council are considered official documentation and notification of actions approved.