MUW Faculty Senate
February 24, 2006
Approved March 31, 2006
Members present: Tom Velek, Pres. (A&S); Bonnie Oppenheimer, V.P.(A&S); Brian Anderson, Sec. (A&S); Jimena Aracena (A&S); Lea Helen Evans (NSLP); Margaret Mary Henry (proxy for Van Roberts–A&S); Richard Holden (ED/HS); Ellen Jackson (ED/HS); Scott McKenzie (CAI); Glenn Rhyne (BUS); Jim Roth (ED/HS); Cathy Smith (NSLP); Theresa Sparks (NSLP); Cathy Young (LIB)
Guest present: Paul Sharpe (MUW student/Spectator reporter)
Members absent: Shawn Dickey (A&S); Dee Larson (BUS); Robert Swanson (NSLP)
------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The meeting was called to order at 12:20pm.
2. No new agenda items were added.
3. The meeting agenda was adopted by unanimous vote.
4. Consent Agenda
A. The Jan. 27 minutes were approved unanimously.
B. Two Fund A requests were made this month, but the faculty members need to consult with the VPAA’s office due to the special nature of their requests. Fund A still has $2,339 remaining.
5. Updates
A. Administrative Council: Discussion of the Institutional Research surveys and gate closing times. For the latter issue Bucky Wesley (VPSS) expressed concern over an increase in night time car traffic unrelated to MUW if the gates are left open later. Perry Sansing (Asst. to Pres.) is talking with Calvin Sellers (Chief of Police) about the matter.
B. Academic Council: The Council will hold a retreat to review the AMP program evaluations on March 9.
C. Meeting with Pres. Limbert: Will meet in March.
D. PIE Council: Next meeting today at 2:00.
E. UCC: No report.
F. Special Issues Committees: The campus decorum survey is almost ready to be distributed. Discussion: McKenzie–The decorum survey will be loaded onto the classroom climate survey and will be available on-line for both students and faculty. There will be a two-week period in which to respond, and the process is confidential. Velek–I request that you also include a link to the survey in the e-mail text, because attachments often do not open. Let’s aim for a survey “delivery date” of March 20./// A committee of two senators (Velek, Aracena) has resumed its work on the recruitment and treatment of international students at MUW. The committee’s goal is to develop clear action points for the University. Not only is an increase in international enrollment desirable, but the committee will request that the University think seriously about hiring a staffer with specific expertise in visas and other fundamentals of international students.
6. Old Business
A. Gate Closing: It is unclear who is the final authority on gate closing times: the University administration or the MUW Police. The running policy is that the gates close at 7pm unless there is a “special event”, but sometimes a communication breakdown occurs and alums and townspeople find getting on/off campus for evening events to be troublesome due to locked gates. As noted in previous meetings, those with evening classes find locked gates inconvenient and even dangerous. Discussion: Evans–As Senate President last year, I brought this very issue to Administrative Council and was “smacked down”. A member of the administration told me the lock policy was to use safety and security as selling points to parents of prospective students. Velek–But if the SGA President favors a later locking time, and so do the faculty, why doesn’t the administration listen? Holden–Does the presence of MSMS on campus have anything to do with it? Evans–I never heard that mentioned as a reason. Velek–MUW has this iron fence around it, but several buildings are outside it, such as the new recreation center being built. Jackson–The fence may only give an illusion of security, because someone can walk onto campus at any time via the railroad tracks. Henry–Why did the University build the fence in the first place? Anderson–I’ve always heard that they had a problem with crosstown traffic speeding through campus. Rhyne–I also heard that there was a gun incident involving someone from off campus. Velek–Ten years ago President Clyda Rent had an idea about creating a protected environment by building a wall/fence around campus. But the locking time is a separate issue. There’s really no more traffic at 7pm than there is at 10pm, so why lock early if it creates such a hassle for evening classes and events? Young–I’m curious to see if the SGA will formally request a change to the policy. Vote: The Senate voted unanimously to send a letter to the administration requesting a 10pm closing time for both auto and pedestrian gates except those days when the University is officially closed.
B. Senate Meeting Place: This is the first time the Senate has met in Martin 201, and all agree it is much cleaner and more comfortable than Building 65. Senators agreed to compile a list of items for a request to renovate Building 65 to not only better accommodate the Senate but to serve as a social space, perhaps even as a faculty club–which was a significant point of improvement raised last year by the AMP working group on faculty.
C. Institutional Research Surveys: Administrative Council is unsure why IR surveys are inconvenient for faculty, so the Senate should draft a clear proposal that indicates the disruption these surveys may cause and the preference for notification in advance of the semester, so that faculty may accommodate the surveys in their syllabi. Discussion: Holden–It would make more sense if the students were contacted through e-mail. That would be a better way of gaining a random sample of the campus population. Velek–The IR Office prefers to distribute them in class, because it’s a captive sample, and they get higher response rates that way. Aracena–Maybe they should survey the whole student body by making them compulsory; perhaps they could be tacked onto the CAAP test.
D. MSU Presidential Search: The issue of secrecy surrounding the MSU presidential search has not ceased to be a concern since the last meeting. MSU faculty input is still very limited, and only the IHL Board’s “preferred candidate” will visit the campus. Brian Anderson distributed a draft of a survey of MUW faculty re: presidential search procedures. Discussion: Velek–I do consider it high-handed that the IHL Board can pick a university president without broad faculty input. I personally would like to see more faculty input in the process. Evans–Historically, the Board never considers faculty opinions. Anderson–Yes, but as I said last month, it counts as a point of democracy: a campus visit may raise issues that do not arise in an interview in a Jackson boardroom. Evans–I would like to see more faculty interaction with the IHL Board overall. For one, Faculty Senate presidents have no formal input into IHL Board decision making. We are invited to meetings but only as observers. Rhyne–I believe we need to comment as a faculty on the matter of presidential searches. Action: Senators will submit to Brian Anderson by late March any suggestions to improve the faculty survey, which will be distributed in April.
7. New Business
* The Senate went into closed session to discuss: 1.) the MUW Foundation’s enhancement of administrative salaries; and 2.) Dr. Gingerich’s attendance at Faculty Senate meetings.
8. Announcements: None.
9. Adjournment at 1:50pm.