MSU FACULTY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
December 4, 2002
Members Present: Young, Gipp, Morrill, Sherwood for Giroux, Kommers,
Schlotzhauer, Linker, Leech, Howard, Jones, Yoo, Nehrir, Bradley,
McMahon, Amend, Bandyopadhyay for Levy, Bond, Jelinksi, Idzerda,
Pratt, Lynch, Fisher, Lynes-Hayes, Prawdzienski, Rossman for
Kempcke, Knight.
Members Absent: Engel, White, Anderson, Taylor, Stewart, Chem Engr,
Conant, Locke, Engl, Bogar, Hoffman.
Others Present: Metz, Fedock, Rimpau, Fastnow.
The regularly-scheduled meeting was called to order by Chair Richard
Howard at 4:10 PM. A quorum was present. The minutes of the November
20, 2002, meeting were approved as distributed.
Chair's Report - Rich Howard.
- The Chair and Chair Elect attended the Board of Regents (BOR)
meeting in Missoula, November 20-22. Items discussed of
particular interest to faculty include:
- A proposal that all additional compensation be approved by
the BOR before it is paid. Although Regent Mercer claimed
the proposal was to cover administrative and professional
staff only, the wording of the policy includes faculty, and
discussion that took place used a $10 million figure (which
includes additional compensation from faculty grants and
summer courses, and other consulting activity) rather than
the $450,000 figure for administrative and professional
staff additional compensation.
- A State Government Outreach proposal, which would involve
faculty to a greater degree in identifying and addressing
challenges facing other state agencies. The proposal is
scheduled for adoption at the January BOR meeting. Faculty
representatives made it clear during their meeting with the
regents that the high cost in faculty time needs to be
considered before such a policy is adopted.
- A Montana University System Inreach proposal which
develops an ombudsman process within the system. It would
operate through the BOR and be available for all MUS
employees. Chair Howard volunteered, with other faculty
representatives, to assist in crafting a document addressing
procedures. They will look to the regent making the general
proposal for leadership and guidance.
- During the faculty representatives meeting with the
regents, several issues were discussed. They included
distance education and evaluation of its effectiveness (a
concern from MSU-Billings), the possibility of an
across-the-board tuition reduction for MUS employees'
dependents if there are no salary increases, the discussion
taking place about including all two-year units of the MUS
under an umbrella which would be run out of the Department
of Commerce, and the outreach and inreach proposals.
- One of the highlights of the meeting was a presentation by Doug
Young, MSU professor of Ag Econ/Econ, discussing the economic
outlook for Montana and Montana taxation issues.
Faculty Affairs Committee report - Walter Metz.
- Jack Jelinski moved amending Faculty Handbook Section 1312.00
to include the following: "If notification by the Provost and
Vice President for Academic Affairs is made less than thirty (30)
days before the end of a faculty member's contract period, the
faculty member's right to file a complaint will be extended to
October 1 of the following contract period."
- The motion was seconded and carried. The proposed
amendment and its rationale will be forwarded to the
administration.
- John Sherwood moved amending Faculty Handbook Section 620.00 to
include the following: "A candidate for tenure will be subject to
the Department's Role, Scope, Criteria, Standards, and Procedures
document in effect at the date of hire. In the event of a change
in the Department's Role, Scope, Criteria, Standards, and
Procedures document, the candidate for tenure will be given a
choice of being evaluated using the document in effect at the
date of hire or any approved departmental document up to and
including the document in effect at the time the tenure dossier
is submitted. In any event, the candidate will place the
appropriate document at the front of the tenure dossier."
- The motion was seconded and carried. The proposed
amendment and its rationale will be forwarded to the
administration.
- The proposed amendments to Faculty Handbook Sections 618, 733,
734, and 463 (Post Tenure Review) were discussed. Because there
are still some concerns about wording, Jack Jelinski moved
continuing discussion at a later meeting of the Council, when
more time is set aside for it. The motion was seconded and
carried.
Discussion of KPIs, Delaware Study, and Instructional Program
Evaluation Matrix - Jim Rimpau.
- Chris Fastnow, Office of Planning and Analysis, was introduced.
- KPIs(Key Performance Indicators) have been gathered at MSU over
a period of years. For the purpose of budget planning, KPIs for
the last ten years will be used, weighting those of the past four
years most heavily.
- The Delaware Study (http://www.udel/edu/IR/cost/brochure.html)
provides information about 300 universities. MSU will
participate in the study this year. The purpose for being part
of the study is to provide context for MSU's data.
- The Instructional Program Evaluation Matrix is still being
finalized. A small task force is discussing each category to
determine how it will work within the total matrix.
- Categories and the chair of each category task force are:
Program Demand (Jerry Bancroft), State & National Need (Robert
Marley), Uniqueness in State or Region (Sharron Quisenberry),
Grant & Contract Activity (Tom McCoy), Contribution to Gen Ed
Program (Joe Fedock), Scholarly Work (Jim McMillan), Outreach &
Service (Greg Weisenstein), No-cost Growth Capacity (Jim Rimpau),
Cost of Expansion (Craig Roloff), Overall Growth Priority (not
under consideration at this time), Strength or Reputation (Bruce
Morton).
- Faculty may contact the above-listed individuals to give input.
- According to Rimpau, it has not yet been determined how the
information in the matrix will be used. In early UPBAC
discussions, the intent was to answer the question, "If MSU had
money to invest, where would be the best place to invest it?" If
UPBAC continues discussion of the matrix, it probably will be
used in the upcoming budget cycle. UPBAC needs to go to the next
step to know if developing a matrix is worthwhile.
- Concern was expressed that departments will be evaluated on the
basis of information regarding past, current, or future
performance without having time to respond to the criteria.
There are acknowledged difference in departments, and the
criteria used will affect the conclusions made. It was suggested
that one approach might be to have units themselves weight
criteria.
- A forum to discuss UPBAC's priorities document (and the matrix)
is scheduled for Thursday, December 12, 1 PM, in the SUB.
As there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:05 PM.
Joann Amend, Secretary Richard Howard, Chair