MSU-BOZEMAN FACULTY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 5, 2003 Members Present: Gipp, Weaver, Schlotzhauer, Monaco, Leech, Taylor, Howard, Christopher, Seymour, Jones, Yoo, Becker, Bradley, Taper, Ashley, Lansverk, Levy, Cherry, Pratt, Neeley, Lynes-Hayes, Coon, Knight. Members Absent: Ag Econ/Econ, Giroux, McDermott, Schmidt, Jackson, Kommers, Conant, Chem, Bond, Kevane, Idzerda, Lynch, Prawdzienski, Hoffman. The regularly-scheduled meeting was called to order by Chair Warren Jones at 4:10 PM. A quorum was present. The minutes of the October 29, 2003, meeting were approved as distributed. Chair's report - Warren Jones. - Information to complete the administrative review has been distributed to faculty with appointments of .5 FTE or greater. Please encourage your colleagues to complete the review. In order to address concerns regarding anonymity of reviewers, all classes used to gather statistics will include information about at least five individuals. - Joann Amend is retiring as Faculty Council Secretary the end of December. - UPBAC met November 4. It was reported the number of students is up, but because of factors affecting the amount of tuition paid by students, income is not as high as expected. The capital reserve will be used to cover shortfalls before any budget reductions are considered. Retention of students is important. - Don Mathre, Chair of the MSU Benefits Committee, will attend University Governance Council next week to discuss benefits issues. Faculty Affairs Committee report - Marvin Lansverk. - The Committee has discussed a proposal by the Provost to move up some dates in the P&T process. The Committee has agreed that the only date that would require a Faculty Handbook amendment is the date by which the Provost notifies the candidate of the P&T decision. That date currently is March 30. An earlier submission of dossiers would allow enough time to do substantive reviews at all required levels and allow notification of the candidate by the stated date. - The Faculty Affairs Committee recommends the date for notification of candidates be moved to April 15, which still meets AAUP guidelines. - The Committee also recommends the date by which dossiers are due to departments be moved to the 1st day of the contract period for AY faculty, usually August 16, recognizing that departmental committees should be convened in the spring and may request external reviews during the summer. - The proposal that dossiers be submitted by the end of Spring Semester was not met with enthusiasm by most departments. Even though additional material may be added to the dossier, having a more complete dossier by the end of the summer was more acceptable to departments than creating a need for substantial additions. - Moving the date of notification to April 15 gives less time to a candidate to file a grievance spring semester, but the date is already too late to conduct a grievance before the end of Spring Semester. - Paul Monaco moved the Provost's notification to the candidate date be moved to April 15, with endorsement of the Faculty Affairs Committee's recommendation that dossiers be submitted to departments by August 16 or the first day of the contract period for most faculty. The motion was seconded, and after further discussion, a vote was taken. The motion carried by a large margin. - The Provost will be given latitude in setting deadlines within the academic year framework. - Faculty will be notified of the proposed amendment (Faculty Handbook Section 616.01) through the STAFF BULLETIN, and there will be a 10-day comment period before the issues returns to Faculty Council for a vote. The proposal will then be forwarded to the administration for final approval. Program Review discussion. - Chair Jones outlined reasons for academic program review by Faculty Council. - The Faculty Council Constitution specifies that Faculty Council has the power to be involved in curriculum issues. Power suggests responsibility. - Some major revisions to the curriculum have been approved with little input from Faculty Council, the representative body of the faculty. - The administration has stated it is committed to shared governance. It makes sense, then, that faculty take an active role and make well-considered and rational responses to curricular proposals. - It was pointed out there is a difference between reviewing a new, university-wide core curriculum and a program in a specific department. However, a counter-argument was made that all changes in the curriculum impact other areas within the university positively or negatively, particularly in areas of resource allocation and university direction. - Faculty Council, with representation from all academic departments, is the arena in which campus-wide curriculum issues are appropriately discussed. - There should be a regularized procedure within the institutional structure to gather input from faculty as a whole on issues relating to new academic programs. Faculty Council is a logical representative group to implement the procedure. The procedures for review depends upon the model chosen. - Chair Jones called for a show of hands to determine how many members still felt that the review process is not an appropriate function for the Council. One member indicated it is not appropriate. - There will be further discussion of the issues at the November 19 Faculty Council meeting. As there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:10 PM. Joann Amend, Secretary Warren Jones, Chair