MINUTES UMKC FACULTY SENATE
January 7, 1997 (Approved 1/21/97)
3:00 PM Jean Braun called the meeting to order.
3:05 Minutes of December 17, 1996 were approved as written.Business Meeting: ·
Faculty Senate Committee Reports
English Proficiency Recommendations update:
Kathy Loncar: Suggestions to the English proficiency recommendation submitted by Marvin Querry were incorporated into the final draft. The Ad Hoc Committee will meet to conduct a final review of the document and present it to the Senate at the February 4 meeting for a vote. Once the Senate approves the document it will be sent to President Mel George. Jean thanked Kathy and the ad hoc committee for constructing a systematic and thorough document for President George.Review of Honorary Degrees:
Our campus has not forwarded any names of candidates for honorary degrees. The Chancellor sent two memorandums to all Deans and was curious as to why no candidates were nominated. UMKC is not keeping up with other campuses as far as number of candidates nominated for honorary degrees. Jean mentioned that the Senate can initiate discussions on this matter and that the process could begin with the Senate instead of the Deans and Directors. This suggestion was made in case the Chancellor’s memorandum is not getting down to the individual units. Traditionally, honorary degrees are used to bestow honors which often bring in money for the campus. The Senate felt that the nomination process should not be an administrative exercise, but rather an act to acknowledge academia talent. A motion was made and seconded to address this issue in time for next year’s nomination process. There were all ayes, and no abstentions. There is not enough time for the Senate to initiate a nomination at this point. This issue will be sent the Senate’s Academic Issues Committee. Next September, it will actively take the lead on this matter.
Kathy Loncar: Posthumous degrees : Dr. Gary Widmar brought this issue to Kathy. This year four students in various units have died while enrolled in school. Each student was close to finishing his degree. There is no university policy that advises if a unit can confer a degree posthumously. Dr. Widmar felt that the Faculty Senate should take up this matter. There was discussion as to whether to student can be awarded the degree if he has not fulfilled all of the degree requirements. The Senate voted to have each unit determine when it is appropriate to grant a posthumous degree. Kathy Loncar made the following motion that was seconded (all ayes, no abstentions):
Posthumous degrees may be awarded to a degree seeking student on the recommendation of the academic unit in which the student was enrolled.
This recommendation will be sent to the Chancellor.
Intercampus Faculty Council Meeting Report: Hans Uffelmann
1. Presidential Selection Committee; A new development is that the Board of Curators has added another member to the search committee. This person will be selected from the Alumni Alliance. The Board hopes that there will be a list of six candidates by the end of January.
2. Medical Insurance; A conflict of interest with United Health Care arrangements has been discovered on the three sister campuses. It was discovered that United Health Care has subcontracted much of the work to be delivered. Many providers and institutions (particularly in St. Louis) have withdrawn their services from the plan after the enrollment period. Dr. Jim McGill appeared surprised and will investigate this matter which constitutes a breach of contract. A particular problem concerns self-referral problems at UMC and Rolla because of the competition between Boone Hospital and University Hopsital.
The UMKC Faculty Senate made a motion (and it was seconded) that every faculty member should be notified where one can review complete copies of potential contracts between the University and each health care provider.The IFC passed this resolution:
Whereas United Healthcare distributed provider network books to UM employees to facilitate their choice of medical insurance offering for calendar year 1997, it is incumbent that United Healthcare guarantee access to these network providers of the whole of 1997. Specifically, the faculty and staff of the University of Missouri consider it a breach-of-contract for United Healthcare to narrow its panel of specialists by excluding major physician specialty practices that were advertised as part of the network during the open enrollment period. “Major” practices include those that have accounted for a significant level of utilization by UM employees during 1996 or those that offer nationally-recognized tertiary treatment above and beyond that which is generally available in the medical community.
Should United Healthcare refuse to make “whole” the network promise to UM employees during the open enrollment period, the University shall identify additional competitive medical insurance offerings and re-open enrollment no later than March 1, 1997 for employees on all affected campuses. Soley at its own discretion, the University may instead instruct United Healthcare to extend “in network” benefits to specialist practices excluded from the United Healthcare network (who were included in published materials distributed in November, 1996) during the 1997 calendar year.
George endorsed the IFC resolution. Dr. McGill stated that the university was unable to get a vision care contract together. He asked if he should continue to try to get a contract in place that might be out of our price range, or just “bad’ in general, or shelve this for a year? The IFC opted to shelve this until next year.
3. Breakfast with the Curators: This has always been an open meeting. There was consensus in the IFC that the time could be used more constructively. The IFC recommended preparing six topics for discussion. The topics are decided upon by the Faculty Senate that is hosting the breakfast. This format was initiated at the last Curators’ breakfast, and it was well received. March 20-21 is the next Board of Curators’ breakfast to be hosted by UMKC. The Senate needs to consider what topics to suggest for discussion at this breakfast meeting.
4. Education Round Table: Specific tasks are being discussed. There is a goal to create a catalog of specific courses of higher education available in Missouri.
5. Missouri Joint Resolution, No.3 is to be introduced to the Missouri legislature. It would require that MU (and not other state institutions of higher education) present a detailed budget to the unit level (departmental programs) prior to November 1 every year. The motive behind this legislation is not known but it poses a real danger to MU because it would not allow for any flexibility in the budget. The legislature would have line-item veto power over department level decisions. This is an obvious effort to micro-manage the MU system.
6. Governors Mansion Meeting: The Chancellors attended this meeting. The purpose was to gain support for the proposed CBHE budget. The Governor feels the university budget has reached its ceiling and is turning his attention to other state services, especially the prison system.
7. Malaika B. Horne was elected as President of Board of Curators. The assumption was made that she will therefore be re-appointed to the Board of Curators.
8. Rolla Curriculum: The fine arts and humanities programs are poorly funded and Mel George will be putting money into it to enhance the programs.
9. ADA, Executive Order 21: The question was asked, “who makes initial contact with a student if the student is disabled?” There are different guidelines and procedures on each campus. The General Officers will discuss the need for uniformity at the next meeting.
10. Ombudsperson: What is the desirability and viability of having an ombudsman on each campus? The IFC does not want a campus-wide ombudsman. The IFC needs to determine what are we looking for, the purpose, scope, and existing models utilized by the university. It was noted that Gary Widmar’s office has an student ombudsman (Nate Chouteau) paid out of Larry Dietz’s office. In some ways, this complicates the grievance process that is in place. The Senate decided that it needs to take a position on the matter. It will be placed on the February 4 Senate meeting agenda. Bypassing the school and contacting a faculty member directly is inappropriate for a student ombudsman.
11. Post-tenure review: In Texas, post-tenure review was legislated. This is a national trend to tends to pay more attention to research rather than teaching.Chancellor's Memorandum No.77:
The 12/1/94 version was passed out, which is not the most current version. It was noted that in Section II, if “the faculty committee shall in no way compel nor preclude further action,” then why have this committee at all? The Collected Rules and Regulations deals with post-tenure review. This memo attempts to deal with a faculty member in one year. The Senate will write a statement concerning this memorandum. The policy still needs to be able to deal with faculty members who are incompetent or non-productive. We can resolve to do away with this memo since the Collected Rules and Regulations already address this issue. We need to go on record that an automatic review of tenured faculty is not appropriate. Any attempt to do away with tenure will preclude us from hiring good people. This type of review is not applied equally in departments or between schools, which calls the process into question. The first issuance of Memorandum No.77 had a three year time period for the faculty member to improve, instead of one year.
Present: Valerie Blanco, Jean Braun, Les Chafetz, Robert Cleary, Ray Coveney, Rafael Espejo-Saavedra, William Frederickson, Rich Hamilton, Kathy Loncar, Ed Mills, Dennis Pyszczynski, Jan Russell, Khosrow Sohraby, Nancy Stancel, Hans Uffelmann, Jakob Waterborg
Excused:Greg Arling, Jane Carl, Julie Cheslik, Alfred Esser, Barbara Glesner-Fines, David Harris, Joseph Hughey, Steve Krantz, James McKinley, Janet McKinney, Gary Pettett, Jerry Place, John Rapley, David Schwarzer, David Yourtee
Nancy D. Stancel
Secretary, Faculty Senate