February 17, 1999
PRESENT:  Young, Sherwood, Burgess, Kommers, Neff, Yost for Leech,
          Benham, Howard, Duncan, Larsen, Harkin, Nehrir, Mooney,
          Weaver, Amend, Locke, Lansverk, Gedeon, Jelinski, Richard
          Smith, McKinsey, Martell, Monahan, Prawdzienski,
          Butterfield, Scott.

ABSENT:   Paterson, O'Neill, McDermott, Anderson, Robert Smith, Jost,
          Cherry, Cutler, Griffith, Cash.

The meeting was called to order at 4:10 PM by Chair Peter Kommers.  It
was determined a quorum was present.  The minutes of the February 3,
1999, meeting were approved as distributed.

Chair's report - Peter Kommers.
     - Regent Dick Roehm has been invited to tomorrow's UGC Steering
     Committee meeting to give some clarification of the draft
     regents' planning document.  If he is unable to attend, Peter
     will try to get some clarification over the phone.
     - Concern has been expressed that only five sabbaticals were
     granted this year, although there were more applications
          - An explanation by the administration is that the funds no
          longer go as far as they did, because of faculty raises.
          - It appears there needs to be a dedicated reserve for
          funding sabbaticals.
          - The original intent of sabbaticals was not that they be
          competitive grants but that they be a respite and
          opportunity for faculty to regenerate.
          - Funding of sabbaticals and sabbatical policies need to be
          discussed further.
     - Faculty Council was well-represented at the presentation of
     Teaching Excellence Awards February 16.  Bill Neff, Jack
     Jelinski, and Ron Larsen received awards.
     - Forums for interim Provost candidates will be held the week of
     March 8-12.  Applications are now being received for the

Faculty Affairs report - Ron Larsen.
     - Four changes to the Faculty Handbook are being proposed by
     Faculty Affairs.  Faculty have been notified of the proposed
     changes.  The full text of the changes may be found at
     - Today's discussion will be considered the first reading of
     these proposals and they will be voted on at the February 24,
     1999, Faculty Council meeting and will then be forwarded to the
     - Section 254.01 - University Promotion and Tenure Committee
     Membership: delete "Dean of Graduate Studies" and add to the end
     of the paragraph, "An administrator for academic affairs (e.g.,
     Vice Provost for Academic Affairs), designated by the Provost,
     shall serve as chair of the committee, without vote."
     - Section 603.02 - Philosophy (Review of Faculty) - Add "student
     outcomes and" to last sentence of Teaching: "This document
     challenges faculty and administrators to adopt rigorous
     strategies for the assessment of student outcomes and teaching
     performance, including peer, student and self-evaluations."
     - Section 1132.03 - Approval of Faculty and Staff
     Consulting/Avoiding Conflicts of Interest - Add "an average of
     ...during the contract period" to A. so the last sentence reads,
     "Faculty members will use annual leave or leave without pay for
     consulting activities that take them away from the university or
     their university assignments for more than an average of one work
     day per week during the contract period."
     - Appendix A.  Faculty Handbook Amending Procedure - Change the
     15-day notification for Faculty Handbook changes to 10 days.
     First sentence of A.  Amendments Proposed by Faculty Council
     would read, "No less than 10 days before Council takes action to
     approve an amendment for proposal to the administration, Council
     shall make know the text and a concise statement of the reasons
     therefore, ..."

Wrap-up UPT Discussion.
     - The current Faculty Handbook policies provide for procedural
     review at all levels of P&T except for the department P&T
     committee.  Procedural review is mentioned at the preliminary
     level, only.  All levels currently provide for "substantial"
     review, although it appears to be applied differently at
     different levels.
          - Faculty Affairs proposes different levels of "substantive"
          review at different levels.  A detailed preliminary
          substantive review would be done and reviews would become
          less substantive up the line.
          - The UPT Committee would deal with conflict resolution, as
          - It is proposed that the President be removed from the
          review process.  He would become the first level of appeal
          for all MSU campuses.
          - Consideration may be given to putting the department head
          and dean back into the department and college committees.
          During discussion, it was pointed out that this model was
          used at one time at MSU.  The department head and dean were
          removed from the committees because it was felt they had too
          much influence as part of the committees.
     - Grievance procedures must be considered along with P&T
     procedures.  Current Grievance procedures (Faculty Handbook
     Section 1300) were approved in 1994, prior to adoption of current
     P&T procedures.  "Substantive" was not defined, but it is stated
     the grievance process will consider policy and procedures.  The
     grievance process if not able to overturn a P&T decision and can
     only send it back if the committee thinks policy or procedure has
     not been followed.
     - The grievance process should not become a parallel UPT process.
     - Concern was expressed that the current grievance process gives
     a lot of discretion to the Chair of Grievance Hearings.  The only
     outcome of the Grievance Hearings Committee can be re-review by
     P&T committees which have already reviewed the case.
     - Members of the UPT Committee see all university cases, the
     Grievance Committee sees just the one being grieved.
     - Redefinition of "independent and substantive" is important.
     Higher reviews should be linked to earlier reviews.  However,
     each review is in a way "independent" because information from
     earlier reviews is added.  At the same time, each review is
     "dependent" upon the earlier reviews.
     - It was suggested the possibility of removing a level of review
     so all colleges would have the same number of levels should be
     - Jack Jelinski moved forwarding these P&T issues to Faculty
     Affairs for further discussion.  The motion was seconded and

The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 PM.

Joann Amend, Secretary
Peter Kommers, Chair