MSU-BOZEMAN FACULTY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
January 27, 1999
PRESENT: Young, Sherwood, McDermott, Burgess, Kommers, Peed for
Robert Smith, Neff, Leech, Benham, Howard, Larsen, Harkin,
Nehrir, Mooney, Weaver, Amend, Locke, Lansverk, Jelinski,
Richard Smith, McKinsey, Prawdzienski, Butterfield, Scott.
ABSENT: Paterson, O'Neill, Anderson, Duncan, Jost, Cherry, Gedeon,
Cutler, Martell, Monahan, Griffith, Cash.
The meeting was called to order by Chair Peter Kommers at 4:10 PM. It
was determined a quorum was present. The minutes of the January 20,
1999, meeting were approved as distributed.
Chair's Report - Peter Kommers.
- A draft of the most recent version of the Board of Regents'
planning document was distributed (attached for members absent).
- UGC Steering Committee will discuss it tomorrow.
- Comments may be sent to Chair Kommers
(peterk@montana.edu).
- Chair Kommers and Chair Elect Amend will attend the Board of
Regents meeting in Helena January 28-29.
- Faculty from the four MSU campuses will present
information highlighting the lack of resources for
instructional programs and for the integration of research
and learning.
- In response to a question from the Chair, distribution of
the ABIS was discussed and there was consensus that some
editing should be done before it is publicly distributed. A
one- or two-page summary would also be useful.
University Governance Council Steering Committee Report - Alan Leech.
- There is a faculty vacancy on the Traffic Appeals and
Regulations Committee.
- Nominees are needed for the position of Chair on the following
committees. Anyone who is interested in the position or knows of
someone who might be is urged to contact Alan.
- University Governance Council Nominating Committee
- Faculty Affairs Committee
- MSU Benefits Committee
- Committee on Grievance Hearings (must have served a
minimum of two years on the committee)
Faculty Affairs Committee Report - Ron Larsen.
- Topics unders discussion include:
- Replace Graduate Dean with the Vice Provost on the
University Promotion and Tenure Committee.
- Add wording to review procedures that states student
outcomes and assessment should be acknowledged by the
department head.
- Consider wording in the consulting policy which allows
faculty one day per week to consult.
- Check consistency between latest MUS conflict of interest
policy and MSU's policy.
- Consider a policy from AA/HR concerning accessibility for
disabled students.
- The Committee would like to sent out a postcard to faculty to
let them know the above-mentioned issues are under discussion,
that proposals can be found at a particular web site, and that
comments about the proposals will be accepted. There was no
voiced objection to the recommendation.
- The "split-appointment" policy is still under discussion by the
administration and will be returned to Faculty Council with some
changes.
Promotion and Tenure Policies - Jack Jelinski.
- "Faculty Handbook: Suggestions for Revision" was distributed
(attached for members absent).
- A major concern is Substantive vs. Procedural review (Section
800.00) at various levels of the review process.
- Observations concerning the current policy were outlined.
Suggestions are that:
- Sections 816, 820, and 830 be changed to delete language
requiring "independent and substantive review" and replacing
it with language to indicate these review levels are charged
with making "an independent review to ensure that preceding
reviews have been conducted in substantial compliance with
the procedures set forth by the department, college and
university."
- Add language concerning procedural review to Sections 813,
814, 815 and 817 so it is clear that at these levels,
compliance with procedures is also considered at the level
of department, department head, college and university level
reviews.
- Modify Section 811 so it is clear that "reviewing
administrators" beyond the level of Department Head are
charged only with procedural review.
- Rationale for the suggestions is included in the distributed
document. The point is made that AAUP's position is that faculty
status and related matters are primarily a faculty
responsibility.
- Discussion followed:
- If the Provost and President have only procedural review
authority, decisions based on substance would be made at the
UPTC level.
- If substantive review is removed from some levels, the
definition of procedural review may need to be broadened.
- Philosophically, the key decision should be made with the
department and department head. However, there may be a
need for the college dean or a higher level to say that the
quality of a particular department's work is not up to the
level of the university as a whole. However, the quality of
the department or college criteria should be independent
from these faculty reviews.
- Concern was expressed for the effect the proposed changes
would have on small colleges, which do the first review at
the college level. It was suggested exceptions for these
colleges could be written into the procedures.
- Two other recommendations are made in the hand-out:
- Section 817 - Discuss current procedures of UPTC which
excludes college representatives from voting on candidates
from that college and limiting them to providing background
information about the college or department.
- Faculty Council should seek an outside legal opinion
regarding the protection of faculty rights in Section 800,
Section 1300 and in any other university procedures deemed
appropriate for such review.
The meeting adjourned at 5:10 PM.
Joann Amend, Secretary
Peter Kommers, Chair