MINUTES UMKC FACULTY SENATE 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: http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills97/bills97.

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: http://p3636.pb.uiuc.edu/vpaa/tenure_seminar/ 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.