FC Newsletter Feb 9, 2012

Teresa Vest, Procurement, Client Relations Manager

She gave a presentation on the procurement process in the UM system, and 
how they strive to serve.

Chair's Report - Harry Tyrer

* Board of Curators' Meeting:  There is a request for a tuition hike of 
7.5%.  The deficit is at $13,000,000.

* The UM President (and the Chancellor) will be present at the next 
meeting.  It will include a question and answer time.

Exec Committee Retreat with Provost - Leona Rubin

* There was a discussion about "Responsibility Centered Management" 
(RCM) Budgeting, in which very unit is responsible for its own budgeting.

* There was a discussion about corporate relationships.

* Mizzou Advantage update.

* Ken Dean gave a speech about whether we are compromising our values. 
The upshot of his answer is "no."

IFC - Leona Rubin

Librarians at UMKC would like to be NTT faculty. There is a motion in 
front of IFC that NTT status will be given to librarian faculty 
(Librarian I/II, Librarian III, Librarian IV) on campuses whose faculty 
have formally recognized librarians as having faculty status and full 
voting rights.  (Note that MU librarians don't want it.)

FC voted that the reps on IFC should support this motion.

House Bill 1042 has a few items in it about in state student transfer.
* It mandates a library of 25 core courses that will automatically 
transfer across institutions.  Jim Spain says that this will be a 
non-issue for us.  However other schools are concerned.
* Reverse transfer: Students can transfer courses from MU back to the 2 
year institution they came from to finish their associates degree.
* Coordinating Board may collect fees for assessing out of state programs.

Niki Krawitz spoke on performance funding, and the benchmark for 
sustained excellence.

VP Rodriguez spoke on the new health care program.

Retirement and Staff Benefits Committee - Leona Rubin

They met with Fidelity who handle defined contribution benefits.

Student Organization Disciplinary Changes

This was discussed at last meeting, and is a minor change to the appeals 


Burden of Proof in Revoking Tenure

Harry Tyrer recused himself - Joe Parcell was acting Chair.

Yesterday Exec talked about this issue.
*The by-laws do not specify the burden of proof in FI charges.  In 
normal US law, there are two standards in civil cases: "clear and 
convincing" where one could lose something more dear to them than money, 
and "preponderance of the evidence."
* CRR was written in 1974.  There has never been an FI charge in the 
last 35 years that has come this far.
* Only Curators are allowed to remove tenure.  Tenure must be revoked 
before tenured faculty member is fired.

Joe Parcell then presented a flow chart describing his interpretation of 
the process towards revoking tenure.  He was interrupted by a request 
for a flow chart to be produced by the administration for the next meeting.

** Motion: Gordon Christensen (and Adelstein and Loyalka), to use "clear 
and convincing" rather than "preponderance of the evidence" in revoking 
tenure and suspensions.  CRR 300.010.L should be appropriately modified.


* The policy of the institution has been to change the rules ad lib in 
adjudicating grievance rulings.  Thus "clear and convincing" is a 
reasonable standard.

* CRR 300.010.L was written by faculty.  It didn't occur to them to 
include this phrase.  So it is our duty to decide this.

* CRR 300.010.L was intended to copy AAUP regulations at the time. 
Historically, it was a reaction to Vietnam War faculty dismissals.

* Tenure is more dear than money.

* Immediate suspensions may be necessary.  However administrative 
suspensions should be as nonrestrictive as possible, and not unduly long.

* What about the burden of proof of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, 
who ultimately decide the case?  Should this be established?

* One FC member reported a high degree of concern from his department. 
When in doubt, tenure should be protected.  They recognize that 
procedurally the Chancellor and Provost have the right to challenge the 
ruling.  But faculty want the ethos to be "clear and convincing."

* In rewriting CRR, maybe the burden of proof might be different for 
other types of sanctions which FI charges might bring.

* One person said he thought that "clear and convincing" was implicitly 
understood by the writers of CRR.  "Preponderance of the evidence" is a 
gang lynching "group think."

* We should convey to the Chancellor ASAP the sense of the FC.  Then the 
exact rewording of CRR can be discussed by the Faculty Affairs 
subcommittee.  Ultimately the modifications to CRR should be voted on by 
the whole faculty.