MUW - Faculty Senate Minutes

Members present: Tom Velek, Pres. (A&S); Brian Anderson, Sec. (A&S); Jimena Aracena (A&S); Shawn Dickey (A&S); Richard Holden (ED/HS); Ellen Jackson (ED/HS); Dee Larson (BUS); Bill Parker (proxy for Bonnie Oppenheimer–A&S); Glenn Rhyne (BUS); Van Roberts (A&S); Cathy Smith (NSLP); Theresa Sparks (NSLP); Robert Swanson (NSLP); Cathy Young (LIB)

Name	College	$	Conference	Participation
Lea H. Evans	ED/HS	350	Natl. Speech-Lang.-Hearing Assn. (San Diego)	present
Rick Montalto	A&S	300	SE Composers League Forum (Spartanburg, SC)	required
Will Peveler	ED/HS	350	Oxford Round Table on Health/Nutrition (U.K.)	invited

C. Meeting with Pres. Limbert: Discussion of Fulbright fellowships, the Academic Master Plan, and Gov. Barbour’s pledge to make university funding his next education policy priority.

D. PIE Council: Nora Miller (VPFA) presented statistics on MUW funding to the IHL Board and learned that the Board hopes to increase faculty salaries by 15% over three years, funded partly with this year’s 6% tax revenue increase over 2004. MUW’s FY 2007 request is $17.4 million (a 31.2% increase over FY 2006). This request is the lowest of all eight public universities and the % increase is the lowest as well. Pat Donat (Assoc. VPAA) presented last spring’s commencement survey results. The highlights: 36.6% of students are over 25; 27.9% work full time while enrolled; 57.7% are transfers; at least 90% rated faculty-student interaction and instruction as good/excellent; 82% plan to continue their education at the graduate level. Sam Gingerich distributed the AMP campus update information (as presented October 28).

F. Special Issues Committee: Met recently in Hogarth Dining Center but found the behavior/noise level appropriate. In process of compiling a survey on campus decorum, which will be administered on-line next semester.

* Policy Review: Dee Larson brought forward the College of Business’ recommended changes to: PS 1301 Employment of Faculty or Professional Staff in the Area of Academic Affairs; PS 1302 Standards for Initial Appointment & Continuing Employment of Faculty; PS 1303 Promotion of Faculty; PS 1304 Tenure of Faculty. Discussion: Larson–Some of the changes are to clarify the language, but others reflect a desire to maintain fair representation on p&t committees in light of the fact that Business has a small number of full professors. Gingerich–Yes, it is feasible that an associate professor from a college could be chosen to sit on a p&t committee if full professors are not available. Velek–There is a request that department chairs serving on a p&t committee will have already evaluated a candidate and should perhaps recuse themselves from university-level deliberations. Gingerich– Maybe in such an instance a separate representative from the college could be appointed to deliberate and cast a vote at the university level. Larson–There is also a request that a majority of p&t committee members be required to recommend approval, not just a majority of members at the meeting. Velek–Is there a quorum requirement stated in the p&t policies? Without it, we assume simple majority rule holds, so if only 4 of 7 members show up, a candidate’s career fate can be decided by three peers. Gingerich–I also would like to bring to light the lack of an escape clause in these policies. Application materials are the property of the applicant, so the policy should state that the candidate may withdraw the application from the process at any time. Vote: The Senate approved the following changes.

PS(Sec)	Changes	Margin
1301	None	14-0
1302(8)	First sentence: Strike “at”, and restore “be” after the word “shall”.	14-0
1303(8)	Last sentence: Change “the CAO and the Dean may appoint an advisor” to “the CAO and the Dean will appoint an advisor”.
1303(14)	After second sentence: Insert “Membership will be limited to tenured faculty who are full professors, except in units with no full professors. If a unit has no full professors, the Dean and CAO will appoint a representative for the college.”	14-0
1303(14)	After fourth sentence: Insert “Department Chairs may be elected to serve on this Committee, but they will be required to recuse themselves from any and all deliberations involving a faculty member from their department. In such cases, the Dean and CAO will appoint a representative that is a tenured faculty member first from the college; if one is not available, a tenured faculty member will be appointed from outside the college.”	14-0
1303(15)	Second sentence: Change to “For the Committee to recommend approval, a majority of the committee members must approve.”	12-2
1304(8)	Second sentence: Identical change as PS 1303(15).	12-2

A. Review Committees: With no volunteers coming forward to fill committee vacancies, the Senate agreed to fill them only on an ad hoc basis.

B. Dr. Gingerich: Comments have been received on the Academic Master Plan. The draft will be reviewed after Thanksgiving, and a meeting will be held in January 2006 to present the final report. There is some excitement on campus about the AMP: there are some who believe the information in the report does not provide a consistent focus for academic life at MUW. I believe, however, that the report will help us allocate resources for the future. Discussion: Aracena–Everyone on campus has taken the AMP differently. Some are upset, others are confused. Dickey–In my department, Art Education functions with part-time faculty only. So how did it receive a higher program ranking than Fine Arts? Gingerich–The AMP Working Group on Academic Programs developed a numeric ranking accompanied by a narrative. The particular justification for each ranking may be found in the narrative. Velek–Keep in mind that the AMP groups investigated programs but also faculty, support services and students. We should not see any part of the AMP, especially the program ranks, as a judgment of faculty quality. Anderson–As a professor in a program that received a 3/4 ranking, I initially wondered how AMP working group members who established the rankings determined whether a program was primary to the mission of MUW (3) or secondary to the mission (4). I took the ranking personally for about five minutes, then I realized that this document mainly is a guide for allocation of resources. There are those on campus, however, who may interpret the rankings as a “hit list” for program cuts when budgets are tight. Aracena–In voting the rankings, how can we be assured of objectivity? How could a non-mathematics professor accurately evaluate the Mathematics program? Gingerich–The working group considered each program’s benchmarks of excellence, the number of credit hours generated, the cost of the program, plus a number of qualitative measures. Velek–We considered data provided by Institutional Research, plus the aforementioned benchmarks, plus discussion in the working group on specific issues such as the nature of grade distributions in the program. For example, a pattern of stingy grade distributions was looked upon with favor.