FC Newsletter 3-22-12 ===================== Recognizing MU Veterans - Martin Walker ======================================= Suggesting a kiosk system. (External media, such as names on bricks, has many difficulties.) Faculty Affairs - Clyde Bentley =============================== See attached document. This is meant to define faculty for the purpose of representation of NTT in shared governance. There are far more NTT being hired than TT. They are not represented. We are looking only in terms of representation at the campus level. The current working document would make NTT have equal status to TT on FC. Q: What about extension? A: Extension faculty who were asked like the way it is written now. They prefer not to use the word "extension." Q: Some tenured extension members have no teaching or research duties. A: Probably we will add a clause so that any tenured faculty member is counted as faculty. Q: What about ramifications, for example, ability to apply for Research Board Grants? Q: Many NTT faculty are on short term contracts. A: We expect them not to get involved. Remember each college or school picks their own representatives. Q: Too few tenure track people being hired. A: This is a big issue, for another time. NSEI - Harry Tyrer ================== (This actually happened at the end of the meeting, but I am placing it here in the newsletter.) The faculty of NSEI had a cordial meeting with the Provost. The Provost will prepare a written document. Loyalka trusts that NSEI will come out ahead. He thanked everyone for helping. Q: Is the decision to close NSEI rescinded? Harry Tyrer: Things will go back to the March 11 status (the letter announcing the closure of NSEI was announced March 12), and the decisions are on hold. President Tim Wolfe =================== * He started by apologizing for missing the last meeting, and said that missing meetings is not his style. But he had an opportunity to see the ER from a patient's point of view. He enjoyed the comments in the Tribune, for example, the hangover jokes. * He spoke to Civic Council at KC on the importance of higher education. There is not a full awareness of what MU does. He is looking for different ways to message what we do for MO, and how it effects them. * Budget: 7.8% cut in state appropriation. 47 million dollar deficit. This leads to tough decisions. His Budget principles: 1. Protect student successes; 2. Reinforce strategic vision (such as Mizzou Advantage); 3. Cut out particular services rather than make uniform cuts. Right now 245 jobs at risk. Compensation is currently not adequate. We need to attract and retain the best and brightest faculty. Good news: the House has passed a bill to flatten HE funding. * Observations: He has visited a lot of the campus. He has also viewed university as a prospective applicant, taking the tour. He noticed that the campus has changed completely. He is jealous of what we have compared to what he experienced when he was a student. The campus is very beautiful. At the end of the day, it is all about getting great students, and having great faculty. * He comes from academic family. He thinks academics is very important. Unfortunately there is a constituency that wants to throw stones at HE. People are questioning the value of HE. But at MU, the cost of educating an individual student has come down. This is unique to MO. However funding has moved from taxpayers to the students. 50% of funding used to came from the state, now it is 30%. We don't want to raise tuition. So we are in search of alternative funding sources. We are beginning to get more students from out state than in state. Q: The State of Missouri spends a lot of money attracting and retaining new jobs. How does 245 jobs at MU compare to say a new factory in Moberly? A: There are three ways to create economic development. 1. Persuade company to move to MO; 2. Take an existing business and expand presence; For both of these, the number one reason why businesses do this is "tax credits." Also this is not improving things on the global scale, merely moving development from one part of the country to another 3. Growing companies. Commercialize research we are doing on campus. He really believes in this. However he pointed out an example of a company, built on research at UMKC, that ended up locating in Kansas - because of tax credits. Q: Comment on the 3rd budget principle. A: The easiest thing is to cut everyone's budget uniformly. That is how we do it now. Does that make sense? No. Let's feed those areas that make sense. Those areas that are struggling, let's cut our losses and move on. Q: What metrics do we use? A: Brady should make those decisions rather than Tim, because Brady knows better than Tim. Q: What is our vision? A: To be globally recognized for being a leader in education. We are going to nail those vision statements, so that we become more predictable with respect to where we are going. They will come from the bottom up, not top down. Everything - messaging, funding, etc - follows from the strategy. Q: Is there a trade off between research and teaching? He is asking about this because of performance funding metrics discussed last year. Do we hire more adjuncts, or create more tenure track lines? A: We are a land grant research institution, constitutionally established as such. Tim Wolfe likes that we are a research institute. "Student Success" is not just about producing students, but also changing the economy and the world. Research at MU does cost money. But student success is not just what happens in the classroom, and research plays a big role in student success. 94% of research in MO is done by the UM system. We are four out of 13 research institutions in MO. Do we get credit for this? Q: Economic development - should we as faculty see how we could bring companies to MO? Look at models of MIT and other big schools. They start with small companies that become big. They have built a sustainable model. Is that Wolfe's vision? Also what should faculty do? We are already struggling with teaching and research. A: We don't have the benefits and flexibility of private institutions with considerable endowments. E.g. Wash U gets zero from the state, and has a particular business model. We should look more and more like a Wash U. We need more self-sufficiency. Tim would prefer to move to research heavy rather than teaching heavy. Q: What are the main issues in strategic planning? A: The most concerning issues are those beyond our control. E.g. state funding. From a market standpoint, people might start to minimize value of HE, and demand will dry up. We have a comfortable margin as global leader in HE. But as other markets take our market share away, we need to keep the obvious advantage of what we give in our classroom. Students might go to other countries. Q: Is there a disconnect between MU and its public? A: It comes from lack awareness. For example, before being asked to do the job, Tim knew very little about UM. E.g. very few know that there are four campuses. Also, right now we have four messages from four different campuses. We need to make them complement each other. Q: Disproportionate number of NTT faculty? A: The challenge is to keep operating expenses low, and keep classes full. He is glad he has Brady as a leader to help with these decisions. Brady Deaton: His first plea is we need more TT faculty. But we have so many needs to satisfy. Q: Find the truth of the matter in the different operating divisions. (Ford Motor Company.) A: He feels like he gets the unvarnished truth from his leadership. Q: Communications issues - do we have a strategy? Cindy Pollack has been responsible for the communications strategy for last three years. e.g. Advancing Missouri campaign. We need to first understand who we are and who we want to be. UM system is in place to support the four campuses. The communication strategy has to represent the four brands (four campuses + extension and hospital), coming together. Also, we are asking the "Missouri 100" to be involved. Q: Domestic Partner Benefits. At IFC, Tim said we will commit to get this on the agenda. 3 of the 4 universities have made their conclusions. The 4th institution is not as far along as the other 3. All 4 institutions should agree on the same recommendation. Q: What about the youth, who are less interest in engineering and such like. A: 1. The High school population is going down. 2. Motivation. We need to go down to K-12. This is a scary issue. In particular, the health of the family - people are older, and we are generally not healthy (obesity, diabetes, smoking, etc). But also the family unit is not setting a good example to their kids. Q: The UM System can only do so much with limited staff to communicate to the public. Suggestion - have a critical mass of faculty that will bring about this connectivity. A: This is a fabulous idea. This is something more at the campus level than the system level.