Faculty Council Newsletter April 7, 2011

Guest speaker, Cheryl Shigaki, told us about issues concerning 
disabilities at MU.  The self reported numbers seems to be much lower 
than reality.  About 20-30% felt they didn't get their needs met.  We 
need a Cultural Paradigm Shift, which would feature universal and 
inclusive designs.  There are various examples around town.  Students 
get a lot of accommodation.  We wish to expand this to employees.  
Accessibility policies are required.

Chair's Report - Leona Rubin

She attended the "One Mizzou" rally at student center.  Chancellor Brady 
Deaton was also present, and wore one of their t-shirts.

Announcements: On April 21st, Betsy Rodriguez will talk about potential 
changes to the retirement program.  See FC's web site for more details.

Calendar Change: there will be a FC meeting on May 5.  Rob Duncan will 
talk about Tech Transfer.

Board Report - Leona Rubin

The Board met in Rolla 2 weeks ago.  They discussed presidential search 
criteria.  There are currently 27 nominations.  This is a good time to 
search because there are not many positions open.  The finalists will 
receive a 360 degree evaluation process.  MU has several recruiting 
advantages.  First it has diversity with four different campus's.  
Second, the system is viewed positively because it is seen as distinct 
from state politics, because the board has autonomy.  Also MU has 
demonstrated great diversity in its choices of President (both from a 
point of view of minorities, and non-academics).

Niki Krawitz reported on finances.  Investment should increase 39% this 
year, as will gifts and tuition.  But expenses are also up.  And a lot 
of sources of financial support is disappearing.

Human Resources: The Curators have changed the calculation for 
retirement benefits for faculty on 9 month contracts.  Previously if 
they worked over the summer, they would only get credit for 2 months.  
Now they will get full credit.

Academic Affairs: 4 new programs at UMKC.  One is a new BA in health 
sciences, which is a duplicate of a program at MU.

Board Campus Reports: UMKC has an interesting budget model.  Each school 
can retain some of its tuition dollars.  They allocate state 
appropriations based on teaching hours.  This is probably harder to do 
at MU, but the Provost is working on an RCM model.

Bill Weibold said that the new program at UMKC really undercuts the MDHE 
review.  We should write a letter.  MU has a committee that reviews new 
programs.  Why not have this at a system level?  MU's health science 
class uses an online class.  We didn't get told about this until it was 
a done deal.

Ironically, CBHE is removing the "C" ("Coordinating") from its name.

Clyde Bentley said that at the Missouri Association Faculty Senates 
meeting, that David Russell said that a key finding of the review 
process was that there isn't much waste.  Consolidating programs is not 
a good way to save money.

IFC - Bill Weibold

Domestic benefits will be discussed.

Action items:

Gen Ed - Victoria Johnson

We discussed prerequisites for Gen Ed courses.  The idea is to make all 
1000 and 2000 courses qualify to satisfy Gen Ed requirements.  However, 
nowhere in the rules does it specify that any one department can only 
supply courses for a particular requirement.  So CUE would have to 
decide for every 1000 and 2000 level class if they qualified, and what 
category they would satisfy.  This would overwhelm CUE.

Suggestion: let's make it easier for people creating 1000/2000 level 
courses to "check a box" that they want to be considered as a Gen Ed class.

The next topic was that algebra and English composition courses would no 
longer be required before taking the WI or MRP courses.  This proposal 
brought mixed opinions.

Several People said that the real problem is with registration - the 
computer allows students to sign up without prerequisites.  This is a 
big, big problem.  Students treat prerequisites as a joke.

It was decided to table this issue.

Faculty Grievance Pilot

Near the end of April, this issue will be voted on by the whole 
faculty.  It is on the agenda for the upcoming General Faculty Meeting.

Gordon Christensen gave a long speech.  In the late 1990's he chaired 
the Faculty Affairs subcommittee.  They studied the grievance process.  
There were chronic problems.  They called in the AAUP National, and they 
said that we as the faculty needed to work with administration to revamp 
the GP.  Sudarshan Loyalka played a large role in rewriting the 
process.  Eddie Addelstein was also a big part of this.  Sudarshan and 
Gordon locked horns, because Chancellor Wallace wanted be allowed to 
consult general council.  Sudarshan, who was opposed to this, 
relinquished.  The process passed 9 to 1 with 40% of faculty voting.  
Gordon interprets lack of attendance at recent meetings about GP not so 
much as apathy, but rather as people giving up.

There were problems with the pilot.  Recommendations from a committee 
chaired by Lori Minz included having an administrator on the panel.  
Victoria Johnson and Sudarshan Loyalka see a problem with the 
administrator being present on the panel.

The preamble in the old pilot stated that good faith was essential.  It 
held the Chancellor fully responsible for the outcome.  But things have 
not become better.  There are still spiteful news stories in the press.

Gordon doesn't support continuing the pilot.  We need to do something 
else.  A fundamental problem is that there isn't respect for process.  
Why cannot MU have a working GP when other schools manage to do it.

Then Bill Weibold spoke.  He remembers the bad days.  He also was part 
of a group that tried to rewrite the process.  There were so many 
unresolved issues.  He doesn't want to go back to the old process.  It 
was an ugly time.  Bill thinks things are better because they couldn't 
be any worse than they were then.  He likes the new pilot because it 
reduces the length of time.  And there is something built into the 
process that could bring about some kind of agreement.  As for the old 
process, it was like walking through the sewers of MU.

Lea Cohen said that there have been lots and lots of emails.  Let's cut 
the discussion and vote.

Morera asked how could Gordon give his opinion on what is wrong, without 
presenting a solution?

Eddie Addelstein said that we have suggested a solution.  We have a 
judicial system where they will always win.  We have acquiesced to this, 
and have effectively given up.  He suggests removing GP, so that 
everyone understands that we are a dictatorship.  We are currently 
spending $100,000 in a process that never works.  Let's instead set up a 
legal fund to support faculty.

Johannes Schul said that he had the impression that the discussion takes 
place in two different worlds.  One world sees all administrators as 
evil, and it is us versus them.  The other world seeks a spirit of 
cooperation.  He compared it to Fox News and the Tea Party.  Victoria 
Johnson said that she respectfully disagreed with this characterization.

Motion: are you in favor of the current process going ahead for whole 
UM?  Question: are we voting on exactly what is on FC website.  Answer: 
no substantial modifications.  The motion won 21-4, no abstentions.

Creation of Campus Standing Committee on Family Friendly Issues

The motion to accept the document as it is won with a unanimous vote.

Fiscal Affairs - Harry Tyrer

They are going to create an MU faculty advisory committee on IP and Tech 
Transfer.  This will be a campus committee.  The history is that system 
has a system wide committee that tried to fill this role.  But it was 
not local enough.

There are three groups of licensing units.  Deans will appoint names, as 
will FC.  The committee will evaluate the process, and work closely with 
management, particularly Chris Fender and Rob Duncan.

Harry Tyrer will send out a document by email, seeking input.

Question: Have we defined IP?  Answer: No.  They will initially work on 
patents and licensing.

E-learning and IP has become a major issue at other schools.

There is lots of miscommunication between faculty and administration on 
these issues.

Faculty Affairs - Sudarshan Loyalka

He distributed a document to be discussed next time.  Please read it.  
The information is public.  I will send a link to this document in a 
separate email.