Return to Faculty Senate Homepage


February 18, 1997 (Approved with corrections 3/4/97)

3:00 PM Jean Braun called the meeting to order.

Business Meeting

1. President Mel George's six principles: The only topic of discussion at the Curators breakfast held in St. Louis and then Rolla was Mel George’s six principles. When the Board meets in Kansas City in May, our Senate would like to create its own list of discussion topics instead of discussing the six points again. This is the only faculty forum in which we have direct contact with the Board of Curators and it should be an opportunity for us to ask pointed questions of our choosing.

2. Chancellor's Memorandum 77: There was a question concerning part 2, “the Evaluation of tenured faculty”. This part was changed from an earlier version of the same document. Dr. Les Chafetz commented that in the earlier document, a faculty committee, usually the unit's promotion and tenure committee, decided if it concurred with a judgment that a tenured faculty member was unsatisfactory. In the penultimate version of the document, the latest available to the Faculty Senate, it is stated that a faculty committee is asked to render a judgment; however, its decision does not "either compel nor preclude further action". It goes on to state, "If the faculty committee concurs, the dean shall...". The conditional statement is inconsistent with the sentence preceding it. Dr. Chafetz mentioned that he had served on a School of Pharmacy Promotion and Tenure Committee which considered and rejected a charge of unsatisfactory performance against a professor. He stated that it would be worthwhile both to provide due process for tenured faculty members and minimize legal action against UMKC if there were procedures for dealing with such situations; such procedures properly should originate in the Faculty Senate. Dr. Rafael Espejo-Saveedra noted that he and Dr. Chafetz had served together on the Campus Promotion and Continuous Appointment Committee. He asked if Dr. Chafetz had any negative comments on it. Dr. Chafetz noted this was an advisory committee. Dr. Chafetz also noted that he and others were asked by e-mail from Nancy Stancel on 14 February if they would continue to serve on the University Faculty Committee on Tenure, which has not met since 1989. (The question originated with Dr. Mendoza). Dr. Chafetz noted that he had never been asked to a meeting of the committee. Dr. James McKinley stated that he had served on this committee, and its function is advisory.

3. Missouri Legislative Bills: HB39/SB322, HB493 Two house bills have been introduced that place a faculty curator on the Board of Curators. One version of the bill has four faculty members (one from each campus) sitting on the Board. The other house bill has only one representative for the entire campus and the faculty board member position rotates annually between each campus. The faculty board member(s) would hold a non-voting seat. Jean would like the senators to become familiar with both versions of the bill so that we can state a position on this matter at the next Senate meeting. Both of these bills are on the Internet at the following URL:

4. Campus Safety Survey: The Staff Assembly would like the Faculty Senate to consider sponsoring the distribution of a campus-wide safety survey to all faculty and staff members. Senators thought that this would be fine but if we support it then we also want to be privy to the results of the survey. A motion was made and seconded to support this task. There were 18 ayes, no nays, and one abstention.

5. Faculty Senate Committee Reports:

Committee on Faculty Welfare: Rich Hamilton addressed health care issues. The committee strongly believes that our campus must be influential in decisions to be made next year concerning health care options and service. The committee needs concrete examples of problems individuals experienced in dealing with his/her health care provider. The committee recommended a that a sixty day trial period be put in place to monitor and document health care provider problems from beginning to end. A motion to start this process today was recommended and seconded. The intent is to use this information as a negotiating tool in when the university contract expires in 2.5 years. It is possible evaluative tool could be designed to act in long-term fashion. We need the raw data to back up our campus if the HMO’s state that they are adequately addressing the problems, or have corrected them. For insurance companies, the main concern is “loss ratio versus the benefit” question. There was discussion of how this process interacts with the current ombudsman position. For the ombudsman, the concern is resolution of a problem, not the documentation of the problem. The Senate needs to check our current contract to see in what way the health care providers are held to be accountable. Upon further discussion, the Senate decided to table the motion for now.

Janet McKinney reported on the elimination of tenure concerns. Thus far, no court cases have been reported for a public institution, and only one case was found for a private institution. Most of the research on this issue is appearing in newspaper format. Nine states have been threatened with tenure reduction but it has not been accomplished anywhere as of yet. The Web site: has an excellent study on tenure reduction. The “Chronicle of Higher Education” has had several articles dealing with this issue.

Academic Issues: Kathy Loncar reported that there is no chair for this committee. She convened the committee in order to produce the English proficiency statement for the Chancellor, but no one has come forward to take over the committee chair duties. The Senate bylaws do not allow her to chair this committee because she is a Senate officer.

The English Proficiency policies went forward. Each campus has its has own policy in place. The Missouri Association of Faculty Senates met on February 10. This body is important in that they maintain close contact with the CBHE. An information handout from Jefferson City was distributed that addresses an affirmative action resolution similar to one made in California. It was introduced by Representative Kinder and the joint resolution gives a response from the university system.

Administrative Issues: Barbara Glesner-Fines reported that the deans evaluations are arriving in her office. The committee will be meeting soon to go over the responses.

General Officers: The General Officers went on a retreat. One of the items they felt should be considered for discussion is the creation of a student creed. A handout of the Carolinian creed was distributed. It includes an analysis of the creed by the Columbia campus.

6. Miscellaneous: The Missouri Environmental Fund organization may approach us to ask for our support to offer a payroll deduction option to make contributions to their fund. Although we allow this for the United Fund, the Senate wondered whether or not this would open the door for other charitable organizations to ask for the same consideration as well. No action was taken on this issue.

The Kaufmann Foundation will break ground for their project in the Research Park on Thursday, March 6, at 1:30 PM.

The Student Government Association will be sponsoring a round table with the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellors. It is to be held on Thursday, February 20. The meeting will be held in Pierson Hall, room 106, at 12:30 PM. Several issues will be discussed: Why is no child care provided for students, day or night?; How is the computer use fee is being spent?; Why are so many classes are scheduled at the same time?; Why is there no nursing station on campus?; Why are masters classed scheduled at night instead of during the day?. Other topics include parking problems and the desire to see scanners and color printing made available in the computing labs.

The Senate stated a concern of how class cancellations are communicated. During the last snow storm, class cancellations were broadcast on the radio but faculty members were not simultaneously informed of the class cancellations. There needs to be a better system to communicate this information.

Kathy Loncar reported on the campus infrastructure. The biggest problem on campus is the lack of support for computer technology. Funds are also insufficient for photo copying money and travel expenditures.

Alma Mater: Kathy Loncar commented on two new verses sung at commencement. Charles Robinson and his class wrote new verses, one and three. Kathy suggested that the Senate ask that verses one and three be considered as part of alma mater. She also recommended that verse one be included in the commencement program. These new verses are much more meaningful for our campus. The Senate will ask the Student Government Association if it would like to support the Senate in this proposal to take effect in May 1997.

Dr. Mendoza informed the Senate officers that there are four committees for which the Faculty Senate forwards faculty names to the Chancellor for service on these committees. When it is necessary for these committees to meet, a pool of names is drawn from lists submitted by the Faculty Senate and by the Deans and Directors. Those committee are include, University Grievance Panel, Continuous Appointment and Promotion Committee, University Faculty Committee on Tenure, Campus Faculty Committee on Research Dishonesty.

Adjourned 4:35. PM.

Present: Greg Arling, Valerie Blanco, Jane Carl, Les Chafetz, Robert Cleary, Alfred Esser, Barbara Glesner-Fines, Rich Hamilton, David Harris, Kathy Loncar, James McKinley, Janet McKinney, Ed Mills, Jerry Place, Jan Russell, David Schwarzer, Nancy Stancel, Jakob Waterborg, David Yourtee

Excused: Jean Braun, Julie Cheslik, Ray Coveney, Rafael Espejo-Saavedra, Bill Frederickson, Joseph Hughey, Steve Krantz, Gary Pettett, Dennis Pyszczynski, Khosrow Sohraby, John Rapley, Hans Uffelmann


Nancy D. Stancel

Secretary, Faculty Senate

© UMKC Faculty Senate