FC Newsletter 3-8-12

Chair Harry Tyrer

President Wolfe will be present at the next FC meeting at 4pm.

Budget.  BoC has approved 3% tuition raise.  They have stated that they 
want to see faculty raises 2-3%.  This will result in a 3% deficit.

Action Item: FC rules changes

Changes include rules concerning preparation of evaluation of 
administrators, to reflect actual practices.  See attachment.

Passed unanimously.

Recommendations from online academic programs task force

See attachment, and the newsletter from the last meeting.  The vote to 
accept will take place at the next meeting.

Provost Evaluation - Joe Parcell

Question: Why should faculty bother to fill in these surveys?  Could 
faculty be informed on how the results of these surveys get used?
Answer: This is a good question.

Academic Affairs - Nicole Monnier

Nicole was not present - Harry read a letter from her.  The issues are 
returning vets, and student evaluations.  The recent changes to 
accommodate returning vets have found a lot of positive response.

Faculty Affairs - Clyde Bentley

The task force for tenure is asking for help defining their task.

Next meeting: Faculty Affairs is asking FC to comment on the "definition 
of faculty."  Many NTT and other faculty are not represented in any way, 
neither as faculty nor staff.  Faculty Affairs wants a sense of how FC 
feels on this issue.

Fiscal Affairs - letter from Kattesh Katti

He is excited about the online stuff.

Diversity Enhancement - Joe Parcell

* Disabilities - we need to centralize finances for providing special 
* Diversity competence requirement.  Maybe this should go to a campus 
committee rather than FC.
* Status of Women Committee/Minority Committee - revisit the charges and 

Student Affairs - Craig Roberts

Memorializing students involved in wars.  One idea: a "kiosk" where 
people can get info.

Students have concerns with grading systems.  They don't like that they 
get a 3.7 instead of a 4.0.

Faculty Responsibility standards of evidence

Joe Parcell took over as Harry Tyrer recused himself

See attached letter to the Chancellor, and the response.  Case sent back 
to FI Committee, asking them to use "preponderance of the evidence." 
Joe expressed disappointment with the Chancellor's response.

Gordon Christensen read a motion to FC.  See the attachment.  This will 
be voted on at the next meeting.

Gordon Christensen explained that he has no personal animosity, but FC 
needs to guard process.  He requested a secret ballot to decide the 
motion.  He understands that "denounce" is a harsh word, but they 
couldn't think of a better term.

* A member of general council and a vice Provost were present right from 
the beginning.
* This is more egregious because this is part of the pattern of behavior 
from university administration.
* We are denouncing decision, not the person.
* Why the "furthermore"?  It appears as a judgment to our peers.
Answer: The one thing we can do is to declare the process illegitimate.
Rebuff: Prefers the word illegitimate than invalid.  This was accepted 
as a friendly amendment.
* One member doesn't like the statement about "collegiality" - prefers 
making statements about process.
* Can we see the letter referred to in the motion?  (Answer: most likely 
* CCFR is not the last word.  "Let's report the p significant level as 
well as the decision as to whether the p-level is met."
* One member wanted to add "strongly" to "denounce."
* One member was struck by the Chancellors sentence concerning how clear 
and convincing evidence would be needed for suspension from service for 
a lengthy period.  This is because Engel has been suspended for several 
years indefinitely.  (In an earlier letter, the Chancellor says he is 
not suspended - he is relieved of his duties!!!)
* Chancellor Deaton is on record that he would follow AAUP rules when MU 
rules are not clear.