Senate Minutes 04/28/2000

Members present: Lea Helen Evans, Pres. (ED/HS); Jimena Aracena, VP (S/M); Brian Anderson, Sec. (HU); Richard Bailey (FPA); Shawn Dickey (FPA); Linda FortJ (NU); Janice Giallourakis (NU–proxy for Theresa Sparks); Richard Holden (ED/HS); Ellen Jackson (H&K); Bonnie Oppenheimer (S/M); Glenn Rhyne (B&C); Van Roberts (B&C); Theresa Sparks (NU); Tom Velek (HU)

4. The Jan. 28 minutes were approved unanimously (the Senate actually failed to vote on them the past meeting).

a. Administrative Council: EMCC transfers will visit campus April 8; W Fest is April 2, and the gates will be open for visiting students; staff morale is low due to salaries and the position classification scheme (currently under review), though some efforts (e.g., an appreciation luncheon) are being made to counter the trend; the higher education budget situation is bad (the worst case scenario cut of 4-5% is now our best hope!), and the IHL is pressuring state government about this problem, though legislators will only consider higher ed. after they have funded K-12; we should not be surprised if public universities raise tuition for next year by 3-5%, though Ole Miss has threatened a 20% hike if the legislature makes significant cuts in the higher ed. budget; MUW Foundation money is up compared to last year; MUW cabinet members were in D.C. for Ms. Stark’s memorial–her estate will fund the Pohl Chair and part of the Stark Building (FEMA funding is part of that formula too); we should expect about 1,000 alumnae on campus for Homecoming; the Awards Day ceremony will be April 19 at 5:30 in the Hogarth banquet room.

b. Academic Council: Discussion of reorganization, the AMP process, and catalog changes; a committee will study the use of space on campus, so we know what our true physical capacity is before we create more.

d. PIE Council: Results from the ACT Survey of Student Opinions are in, and opinions of MUW’s “college environment” place nine of the eleven faculty/academic items well above average for both importance and satisfaction (and the two below average do not miss by much and can be explained mainly by faculty shortage); MUW’s results are noticeably better than those for our peer institutions.

e. UCC: Made four course modifications, three curriculum modifications, and approved the creation of one new course. UCC’s next meeting will be mainly devoted to modification of their governing documents re: reorganization.

a. Dr. Gingerich: MUW’s reorganization plan went over well at the March IHL meeting./// The AMP timeline has been extended so final reports from working groups are due May 10. The AMP steering committee will then integrate the reports over the summer./// MUW has used the ETS student evaluations at a cost of $12,000/year; we will now go back to our own survey instrument. A team will be assembled to put together the new survey. Discussion: Giallourakis–No evaluation form has ever addressed team teaching, which is very common in Nursing./// The current policy on emeritus faculty requires tenure, and there is a request to expand consideration to untenured faculty who have made a “significant contribution” to MUW. This will allow those who teach here as a second career to receive this honor. The request was made with Sue Coates (FPA) and Betty Metheny (NU) in mind: both are retiring after thirteen years and both made valuable contributions to MUW. Discussion: Oppenheimer–If this will be a permanent policy change, we need to be sure candidates were not granted emeritus status at a previous institution. Evans–Do other institutions have a similar exception clause in their emeritus policy? Gingerich–Other schools do have an interest in an exception clause. FortJ–Will we go back to already-retired faculty and award them emeritus status? Gingerich–Anecdotal evidence tells us no one has been missed, but we’ll have to see. Velek–So we’re just making an exception for two people. Evans–Yes, but the policy will have to be revised.

b. Policy Reviews: The Senate must review and approve (with changes reflecting reorganization) PS 1303 Promotion of Faculty, PS 1304 Tenure of Faculty, PS 1312 Post-Tenure Review, and PS 3528 Faculty Appeals Committee. Discussion: Giallourakis–I see a concern with Sec. 15 of PS 1303 (and related sections in the other policies). Who will serve on the tenure and promotion committees if there are not enough full professors? Velek–Maybe we should shift the requirement to having tenure (regardless of rank) as a minimum standard. Vote: The Senate unanimously approved all four of the ad hoc committee's recommended changes. Will vote on Faculty Senate constitution at April 29 meeting.

c. Elections: Will vote on new Faculty Senate officers at April 29 meeting, though reorganization will probably require current officers to carry their terms until August. We may need to wait to see how reorganization changes the constitutional provisions on Senate membership.

d. Fund A: The Executive Committee met on April 1 and disbursed funds as follows:

Name	Div.	$	Conference	Partic.
D. Burlingame	ED/HS	350	Auditory/Lang. Processing Disorders (St. Louis)	attend
Joyce Yates	H&K	350	Amer. Alliance of Health, Phys. Ed., etc. (Chi.)	present

8. Announcements: There’s so much standing water in front of Fant residence hall that it could pose a mosquito problem./// Residence hall staff are now required to take a two credit leadership (LDR) class. Can we find out the content of this class? Evans agreed to raise this issue at Administrative Council./// There are also concerns about how decisions are made in the Financial Aid office about terminating scholarship money after a certain number of semesters. Honors students often take longer to get their degrees, and we are now encouraging students to study abroad, which also can extend their time in baccalaureate programs. Can we explore the idea of granting extensions to students in these circumstances?