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,

Members Absent: Ag Econ/Econ, Giroux, McDermott, Schmidt, Jackson,
Kommers, Conant, Chem, Bond, Kevane, Idzerda, Lynch, Prawdzienski,

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
     - 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

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
          - 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
     - 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
     - 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