February 3, 1999
PRESENT:  Young, Sherwood, McDermott, Burgess, Kommers, Peed for
          Robert Smith, Neff, Leech, Benham, Howard, Larsen, Jost,
          Harkin, Mooney, Weaver, Amend, Locke, Lansverk, Gedeon,
          Jelinski, Richard Smith, McKinsey, Prawdzienski,
          Butterfield, Scott.

ABSENT:   Paterson, O'Neill, Anderson, Duncan, Nehrir, Cherry, 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 27,
1999, minutes were approved with the following correction: Promotion
and Tenure Policies, the third bullet should read, "Observations
concerning the current policy were outlined.  Suggestions are that..."
and the fourth bullet should read, "Rational for the suggestions is

Chair's Report - Peter Kommers.
     - Letters to faculty for the administrative review are being
     sent.  Please encourage faculty in your department to fill out
     the requested information and return it by Friday, February 12.
     - The Board of Regents met in Helena January 28.
          - Most of the degree issues discussed at last week's Faculty
          Council meeting were tabled so the units involved can
          clarify them and work out differences.
          - Classified employees representing all units except
          community colleges made a presentation.  Salary issues are
          being negotiated, so the presentation centered around the
          additional multi-tasking required of classified employees
          without time for training or time to get the work done.
          - At  BOR meetings, regular meetings with classified
          employees will be instituted.  They will be in addition to
          the current regular meetings with faculty representatives.
          - UM presented tentative information regarding additional
          computer fees for the UM campuses.
          - Because the faculty meeting with regents was cut short,
          MSU campuses faculty were not able to make a presentation
          about resource issues.  They will do so at the March
          Regents' meeting.
          - The point was made that faculty would like to discuss the
          regents' planning document at greater length, although it
          appears the Commissioner wants to approve the document
          quickly and views it as the regents' document.  Chair
          Kommers would like to send a response to the regents
          expressing specific concerns about the document.
     - The Strategic Planning and Review Committee will meet with
     President Malone February 5 to discuss direction of the

Faculty Affairs Committee Report - Ron Larsen.
     - Items that have been sent to UGC Steering Committee for
     discussion are (the first three are Faculty Handbook issues):
          - On UPTC, replace the Dean of Graduate Studies with someone
          from the Provost's Office .
          - Clarify "one day per week" in the consulting policy.
          - Change the 15-day notification for Faculty Handbook
          amendments to 10 days.
          - Consider a policy from the Affirmation Action Advisory
          Committee regarding accommodations for disabled students.

University Governance Council Nominating Committee Report - Alan
     - Gary Harkin was appointed by the Provost to serve on the Salary
     Review Committee.
University Promotion and Tenure Discussion.
     - Jack Jelinski distributed a possible outline for discussion,
     based upon input from the January 27 meeting.  Jack suggests
     beginning with a grid of substantive and procedural review at
     different levels and then also consider how units without
     department structure (Business, Nursing, Library) can fit into
     the substantive/procedural review outline.  There may also be
     discussion of the types of disputed cases the Provost would
     attempt to resolve.
     - If conflict in recommendations exists between a department and
     college, it is currently usually resolved at the UPTC level.
     - Any changes made to UPT procedures must be parallel to
     grievance procedures.
     - Discussion continued about what constitutes "substantive" and
     "procedural" review.  Where should "substantive" and "procedural"
     reviews take place?
     - Attempts have been made to reduce the number of levels of
     review over the years, but no level appears to be willing to give
     up "substantive" review.
     - The wording may be a problem rather than the type of review
     done at each level.  Perhaps wording other than "independent and
     substantive" and "procedural" would be more definitive.  At this
     time, information from lower-level reviews is used at each
     subsequent level of review.
     - Grievance and appeal are two separate procedures.
     - It was suggested that "substance" should be grievable.
     - There needs to be one place for conflict resolution.  Where is
     - It was suggested Council get input from faculty who have
     recently served on the UPTC.

The meeting adjourned at 5:05 PM.

Joann Amend, Secretary, and Peter Kommers, Chair