MSU FACULTY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
April 24, 2002
PRESENT: Sherwood, McDermott for Engel, Kommers, Linker, Leech,
Benham, Howard, Stewart, Jones, Ross, Nehrir, Mooney,
Weaver, McClure, Locke, Lansverk, Levy, Bogar, Jelinski,
McKinsey for Pratt, Lynch, Fisher, Lynes-Hayes, Kempcke,
Griffith.
ABSENT: Young, Hatfield, Morrill, White, Anderson, Peed, Chem Engr,
Lefcort, Henson, Idzerda, Butterfield, Carlstrom.
The meeting was called to order by Chair John Sherwood at 4:10 PM. A
quorum was present. The minutes of the April 17, 2002, meeting were
approved as distributed.
Chair's report - John Sherwood.
- There will be a promotion and tenure seminar on Monday, May 13,
from 1:00 - 2:30 PM in SUB 275. It will be helpful for faculty
being considered for P&T, or for new faculty who would like to
find out about the process.
- The campus recreation user fee is increasing to $150/year for a
single locker and $195/year for a family.
- There were no faculty nominees for the Payroll Frequency
Subcommittee (pay schedule task force). Chair Sherwood suggested
to the subcommittee chair that appropriate individuals
investigate the alternatives for pay schedules and their
ramifications and make a presentation to Faculty Council when the
options are known.
- Nominations for faculty for university-wide committees will be
accepted until the vote at next week's Faculty Council meeting.
Current nominees are:
Chair, Faculty Council (1-year term) - Richard Howard
(Current Chair-Elect)
Chair-Elect, Faculty Council (1-year term) -
UGC Steering Committee (1 year term, 3 positions)
- Jack Jelinski (Modern Languages/Literature)
- Wes Lynch (Psychology)
Chair, Faculty Affairs Committee (1-year term)
- Walter Metz (Media/Theatre Arts)
University Governance Council Nominating Committee (2-yr
term, 1 position)
- Kay Chafey (College of Nursing)
Committee on Conciliation (3-year term, 1 position)
- Will not need to be filled if Ombudsman proposal is
approved
Conciliation Pool (3-year term, 2 positions)
- Susan Dana (Business)
- Kaaren Jacobsen (Political Science)
University Facilities Planning Board (3-year terms -
appointed by President from nominations submitted by Faculty
Council, 2 positions)
- John Brittingham (Architecture)
- Brenda Mathenia (Libraries)
MSU Benefits Committee Chair (3-year term - appointed by
President from nominations submitted by University
Governance Council)
- Don Mathre (Plant Sciences/Plant Pathology)
Intellectual Property Committee (3-year term, 1 position)
- Joanne Erickson (Education)
Equipment Fee Allocation Committee (1-year terms, 2
positions)
- Mike Giroux (Plant Sciences/Plant Pathology)
- Jack Hyyppa (Media and Theatre Arts)
- Marilyn Lockhart (Education)
Enrollment Management Committee (1-year term - appointed by
VP of Student Affairs from nominees submitted by Faculty
Council, 1 position)
- Bruce Raymond (Business)
Athletics Committee (3-year term - appointed by President
from nominees submitted by Faculty Council, 1 position)
- Scott Creel (Ecology)
- JR Woodward (Sociology)
Calendar Committee (3-year term - appointed by Vice Provost
for Academic Affairs from nominees submitted by Faculty
Council, 1 position)
- Richard Wojtowicz (Libraries)
Council Liaison to Core Curriculum Committee (1-year term, 1
position)
- Shannon Taylor (Business)
Council Liaison to Undergrad Studies Committee (1-year term,
1 position)
- Jim Linker (Media and Theatre Arts)
Council Liaison to new Core Curriculum Committee (1-year
term, 1 position)
- Clark, Maxam, College of Business, has been appointed to the
Debt Planning and Management Committee by President Gamble.
- Scott Davis, Bill Hiscock, Kevin McNew and John Miller have
been appointed to the Information Technology Advisory Task Force
by President Gamble.
- During discussion, concern was expressed that Walter Metz,
nominee for Chair of Faculty Affairs, is not tenured, and
therefore cannot be a member of the University Promotion and
Tenure Committee.
Ombudsman Proposal. (Attached for members absent).
- The policy was approved by Faculty Council on April 17. It was
anticipated that some revisions would be requested by the
President, Provost, and Legal Counsel after their review of the
proposal. The changes suggested are few and minor.
- After discussion of the changes, Bill Locke moved approval with
the changes noted. The motion was seconded and carried.
- The proposal will be resubmitted to the administration. The
nomination process for an Ombudsman will then be advertised. A
process to screen and select an Ombudsman will be set up and
implemented as soon as possible. UGC Steering Committee will
discuss the nomination process and the screening process at
tomorrow's meeting.
Post-tenure review - Marvin Lansverk.
- AAUP Guidelines on post-tenure review recommend that this
review not be used to lower the bar for removing tenured faculty
and that the burden of proof not be put on the faculty member
during the process.
- It has been suggested that the post-tenure review is redundant
and that sections of the Faculty Handbook that already exist and
which define special reviews (which mirror the current P&T
process) be modified to accommodate post-tenure review.
- The post-tenure review would be triggered by two
unacceptable annual reviews in a row. The outcome would be
that the President would review the findings and decide what
kind of mechanism should be initiated to work through any
problem that exists.
- Is the purpose of such a review remediation or removal of
a faculty member? There seemed to be agreement that "good"
post-tenure review policies advocate remediation and don't
lead to firing an individual.
- During discussion, it was recommended the standards used for
post-tenure review should be current retention standards, not
current P&T standards. If the purpose of post-tenure review is
to determine whether an individual should be retained, there
already is post-tenure review. However, according to the Faculty
Affairs Chair, the Board of Regents would like to see a specific
review process for post-tenure.
- Although the University Grievance Hearings Committee doesn't
deal with substance of the P&T process but with procedures that
haven't been followed during the P&T process, members of the
Grievance Committee can be convened to find fact in cases where
it appears a faculty members has substantially failed to meet
responsibilities.
- Although not everyone agreed that the original post-tenure
review proposal is redundant, it does set up an additional way to
remove faculty from their tenure positions.
- A possible way to deal with the issue of post-tenure review
standards is to have each department write its own post-tenure
review standards.
- It was suggested the post-tenure review process not be linked
to P&T. Rather, it should ask if the department head's
expectations are reasonable and did the faculty member meet them?
There need to be specific guidelines for the expectations of
faculty performance for the annual review. If the expectations
are not met, what are the remedial steps to be taken to address
the problem?
- It appeared the consensus was that post-tenure review should
not be linked to P&T standards (unless they track annual
expectations), or to firing an individual.
As there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:00 PM.
Joann Amend, Secretary John Sherwood, Chair