Faculty Senate, May 1, 2012

Plaza Room, Administrative Center, 3 p.m.

 Present:   Ebersole, Ward-Smith, McArthur, Burnett, Wyckoff, Plamann, Taylor, Durig, Peng, Ellinghausen, McDaniels, Thiagarajan, Butner, Luppino, Sykes Berry, Alleman, Gerkovich, Krantz, Stanley, Kumar, Igwe, Bethman, Lyne, Madison-Cannon

 Excused: Stancel, Sohraby, Sherburn, Holt, Nickel

 Absent:   Gardner, Odom, O’Brien, Hermanns

 Guests:   Leo Morton, Chancellor; Gail Hackett, Provost; Anne Spenner. Vice Chancellor for Marketing and Communications; Tom Stroik, co-chair of GEOC

  Welcome and Informational Items

At 3:05 p.m. the Chair welcomed everyone to the last regularly scheduled Faculty Senate meeting.  Chair Ebersole thanked all those senators whose terms are ending this year. 

The chair announced that the Secretary of the Faculty Senate, Cathleen Burnett, has been elected chair of the Faculty of the College of A&S and also that the incoming Vice Chair/Secretary for the College A&S is Senator Laurie Ellinghausen. Ebersole asked approval to appoint a Faculty Senate Secretary to begin August 1^st for next year until the regularly scheduled election cycle in the Spring.  He invited nominations to be sent to him or to anyone on the Executive Committee.  There was no dissent.

There is a reception from 4-6 pm this afternoon in 408 Student Union to honor the Guggenheim Fellows in the College and the Conservatory.  If this meeting ends early, that event might be something for Senators to attend.

Express Scripts is sending three notices to persons in the medical plan requiring that we respond.  It is not necessary to sign up for ES home delivery, but you must respond to let them know you go to a retail pharmacy.  Otherwise, after the third refill you will be charged full price.  For maintenance medicines you are automatically put into category you will be charged full price.  An active decision is necessary.  You must make a choice.  Please pass the word to faculty and staff to pay attention to what might be thought to be junk mail.  It is not. 

Approval of Agenda

Senator Butner moved to accept the agenda and IFC Representative McArthur seconded the motion.  All approved.

Approval of Minutes 

Senator Wyckoff moved to accept the minutes of April 17 and Senator Thiagarajan seconded the motion.  All approved.

Chancellor’s Remarks:  Leo Morton

Should we change our name?  The Rolla name change worked out well because their title explains who they are—and their enrollment is now maxed out.  Why would we do it?  It is about clarifying who we are and distinguishing ourselves from others.   A name change could increase enrollment and philanthropy.  It would not be a move away from the UM System.

In 1933, the University of Kansas City emerged out of the depression because Kansas City needed a University.  The city supported it.  A name change could put us into good company.  U of Cincinnati, U of Chicago, etc…

75% of this University’s enrollment comes from this SMSA.  The National Goal for 2020 IS that 65% of adults have a post- secondary degree.  Now only 38% do.  Therefore, there is plenty of potential to grow.  The University is mentioned in 3 of 5 of the Chamber of Commerce’s Big 5.  We are the envy of every University within 200 miles because of the companies in this city from which to draw support; Kansas City is the most giving city per capita in the nation. A name change could also be a defensive move.  KU, MU, KState are all coming to Kansas City to raise money.  But what are those universities doing for Kansas City? 

The timeline is spring-summer-fall 2012.  The Chancellor hopes to have something to the Board of Curators before the end of the calendar year.  Some challenges include the need for outside support, although there is a Campus Beautification fund that could be tapped for some funds.  The costs are just north of $1 million. 

The Chancellor received strong positive reactions from the Senators. Some raised questions about whether the University has the right to the name.  Senator Hermanns thought that the School of Medicine might be concerned about another medical school in the city.  Alumni might also be concerned. 

Provost’s Remarks:  Gail Hackett

The Chancellor is signing the letters for Promotion and Tenure decisions.  One observation from this year’s review, related to the issue of a possible name change is that there appeared to be some bias on the part of external reviewers to view us as not being a research institution.

General Education motions

Two motions were discussed.  A suggestion was made to add an ex officio member from the Law School to the ad hoc committee.  The standing committee would not be working over summer.  Units would be asked to elect or appoint ad hoc committee members to work over the summer and that committee will bring to the first September Faculty Senate meeting recommendations for the process for course approval, then that work will be handed over to the standing committee.  The ad hoc committee will meet by the end of May.  The Standing committee will start early in the Fall semester but will need some time for unit elections to populate the committee. 

The ad hoc committee will be tasked with getting ready for approval of courses, guidelines for faculty, procedures and processes for course approvals.  This will include helping programs identify existing courses that could fit into the Student Learning Outcomes. 

Chair Ebersole recognized that this will be a significant summer commitment and suggested a modest honorarium from the Senate for those especially on nine-month contracts to participate. 

The Provost was concerned that there be a critical mass of GEOC folks on the ad hoc committee.  The proposal accepted was that if the unit elections don’t accomplish that goal, then the Provost could appoint up to four members from the GEOC to continue this work on the ad hoc committee.    

Faculty Senate Committee Charge #1

The Faculty Senate General Education Implementation Committee

Motion #1

It is moved that the Faculty Senate shall create an ad hoc committee, the “Faculty Senate General Education Implementation Committee” that will, in coordination with and with support from the Provost’s Office, implement the general education model as adopted by the Faculty Senate. This committee will consist of the following members:

                a) one faculty member from each of the three divisions in the College (Humanities, Social Sciences, Natural Sciences); one elected faculty member from each of the remaining schools with an undergraduate program (including the Medical School), and one representative from the University Libraries.  One member from the Law School will be ex officio.

                b) two members elected from the Faculty Senate;

                c) two to four faculty members, selected by the Provost, from the current General Education Oversight Committee, in order to facilitate continuity of purpose during implementation.

                d) one liaison from the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, who may be appointed from that committee.

                e) the Provost, or two representatives from the Provost’s office, acting as non-voting members.

This ad hoc committee shall exist for no more than six months or until such time as, having met its responsibilities, the Faculty Senate and Provost move to dissolve it. The Faculty Senate and Provost may, if needed, agree to extend the term of this committee.

N.B. If this motion is approved, the Faculty Senate will immediately request that units hold elections for these positions, charge this committee to start its work no later than May 30, 2012, and request monthly updates regarding the progress of this committee with recommendations to be brought before the Faculty Senate at their meeting on Sept. 4^th, 2012.

Senator Sykes Berry made a motion to approve Motion #1 with the amendments.  IFC Representative McArthur seconded the motion.  There was no opposition or abstentions.

Discussion continued regarding Motion #2.  It was the consensus of the Senators that it was not necessary to include advisors or publicity people on the Standing committee, although they might participate on occasion.  However, adding the Registrar to the Standing committee was considered an important addition. 

Faculty Senate Committee Charge #2

 Motion #2

It is moved that the Faculty Senate shall create a standing committee, the University General Education Committee, to establish procedures for and to oversee the approval of new courses for the university-wide General Education Curriculum. This committee shall consist of:

                a) one faculty member from each of the three divisions in the College (Humanities, Social Sciences, Natural Sciences); one elected faculty member from each of the remaining schools with an undergraduate program (including the Medical School), and one representative from the University Libraries.  One member from the Law School will be ex officio.

                b) two members elected from the Faculty Senate;

                c) one liaison from the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, who may be appointed from that committee.

                d) the Provost or two representatives from the Provost’s office, as non-voting members.  In addition, the Registrar would also be a non-voting member of this committee.

This committee will additionally work with the Provost’s office to develop and review assessment criteria for the University Wide General Education Program and courses, in coordination with the existing Faculty Senate Undergraduate Curriculum Committee.  During the implementation period, the committee will also coordinate with the Faculty Senate General Education Implementation Committee and report regularly to the full Faculty Senate.

Senator Thiagarajan moved that Motion #2 be approved as amended and Senator Stanley seconded the motion.  The motion passed with 20 in favor, 0 negative, no abstentions.

Now it is important that the Senators spread the word.

To begin the process of populating the Ad Hoc Committee, Senators Wyckoff and Sykes Berry were elected by acclamation to represent the Faculty Senate on this implementation committee. 

Other Committee Reports

As there were no other committee reports, the Senate adjourned.

Faculty Senate, April 17, 2012

New Health Sciences Building, room 4306, 3 p.m.

 Present:   Ebersole, Ward-Smith, McArthur, Burnett, Wyckoff, Plamann, Taylor, Durig, Peng,

                 Ellinghausen, McDaniels, Thiagarajan, Butner, Luppino, Sykes Berry, Alleman,

                 Gerkovich, Krantz, Stanley, Kumar, Igwe, Bethman

 Excused: Stancel, Sohraby, Madison-Cannon, Sherburn, Holt, Nickel

 Absent:   Gardner, Lyne, Odom, O’Brien, Hermanns

 Guests:   Cindy Pemberton, Deputy Provost for Academic Affairs; members of the General

    Education Oversight Committee: Tom Stroik, Linda Plamann, Steve Dilks

 Welcome and Informational Items

This meeting is the discussion and vote on the General Education Model.  Once approved, then a second motion will be discussed to enable implementation of the General Education model.  The vote on that second motion will take place at the next Faculty Senate meeting on May 1^st.

 Approval of Agenda

The Agenda was approved by voice vote. 

 Approval of Minutes

Senator Wyckoff moved to approve the Minutes of April 3^rd.  Senator Igwe provided a second to the motion.  All approved.

 Provost’s Remarks

            Cindy Pemberton attended for Provost Hackett and she had no particular remarks to share at this time. 

 Motion to approve Model 2 for the General Education Curriculum: Jerry Wyckoff

After a review of the Model, questions and discussion followed. 

 There are three Discourse courses that will be presented as interdisciplinary and will be team taught.  Each one will be a pre-requisite of the others.  Pathways will be able to guide/force students to take courses in order.  Some of the Platform courses can be experiential courses. Each unit can offer their own Platform courses.  There will be a pool of platform courses, many if not most of which can be existing courses that will be redesigned to fit into the General Education student learning outcomes. There will be a need for 15 new or redesigned courses by Fall 2013.

 Question:  Whose responsibility will it be to redesign the courses?

 Response: There will be an implementation group that discusses this question but ultimately the answer to this question would be the professors. Units should have discussions about what courses could be translated, i.e., applied to the new General Education model.

 Question: Would you suppose that the responsibility for providing the General Education curriculum will fall more on the faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences?

 Response: We have a lot of reactions about this. Some say we should leave all this for Arts & Sciences to do. Others say this is going to kill Arts & Sciences. Some others asked whether they had to engage?  Or couldn’t let just let another Unit do it? My answer to those questions is that  we should engage in it as faculty and select the subjects that we feel are beneficial to our students. The likelihood that Arts & Sciences will be doing much of it is because a broad range of courses already fall under Arts & Sciences and any intended interdisciplinary course outside Arts and Sciences will need to have A&S involved.

 Question: Each Unit can offer their own Platform courses. In the proposed model, should each Unit accept the Platform courses of a transfer student coming from another Unit?

 Response: Yes, you should accept that for General Education but that does not eliminate the students’ requirements for meeting the Unit’s pre-requisites.

 Question: Are you imagining that students will be forced into the Anchor courses in their first semester?

 Response: “Forced” is a terrible way to put it. We will try to see General Education courses fulfilled in the first 2 to 2 ½ years. We don’t want students to hold onto them until their senior year.

 Question:  As you mentioned that new courses have to be developed, have you surveyed how many faculty are interested in developing these courses?  And what is your definition of ‘team-taught?’

 Response: Informally I have gotten a lot of positive responses. We want to get the faculty to come to a workshop and let them discuss the ideas. I have had faculty come to me saying that they are interested in teaching a course but haven’t had the opportunity to do so.

Question: In the curriculum committee that you propose, what do you see as the approval process for the new courses?

 Response: The committee should be made up of people from all the units. The professor who wants to come up with a course would take a form that exists and fill out the form, make the assessment plan and submit the materials. The proposed course then goes to a Committee, yet to be established, that would review the course in light of the criteria.  That’s the process we are recommending right now.

 Question: How will this model affect students who transfer in and out of UMKC?

 Response: There are two answers to that. Transfers in with AA degrees [or more] will only take our General Education Capstone courses as they will have met the other articulation courses already in place. It is messier at the lower levels for incoming students.  If the student is transferring out of UMKC then they would have met student learning outcomes.

 Question: Can a different word be used instead of ‘Capstone’ course?  The course will be confused with the Capstone courses offer in majors.  This General Education Capstone is a 300 level course but in the major it is a 400 level course.

 Response: We have gone through a lot of words but Capstone has probably the right meaning for what we’re trying to do.  ‘Bridge’ course was also considered.

 Question: Do we create a barrier for the transfer students by requiring the Capstone course?

 Response: I see it as an opportunity to provide the students with a sense of expectancy at UMKC, i.e., we can set the levels of what the students can expect in this University. It is an opportunity to create experiences by Units for their students. We have also been thinking that there needs to be some talk about how this model is a value-added inducement for the incoming students.

 Question: A lot of my faculty have questions about the financial implications and the administrative structure of this model. Will the costs be under individual units or some general University body?

 Response: There was no intention for us to create some administrative structure. The Discourse courses will be cross-listed and reside in their respective departments as happens now.

 Question: Are the Deans of all the Units on board?

Response: All the Deans I’ve spoken to seem to be on-board. All the Deans from whom I have received feedback are supportive of this model. I’m doubtful about the department heads though. I expect that there might be faculty who want to participate but are told not to.

 Question: Is it possible that we don’t approve the model and then discuss the implementation issues and then vote for them together?

 Response: No. That won’t work. We need to have a plan to implement.

 Senator Kumar made the motion to approve Model 2 and Senator Stanley seconded the motion.  Discussion continued.  This model is not set in stone as some things may have to change, can be viewed as a ‘conceptual model.’

 The vote was 18 Yes; 0 No; 2 Abstentions reflected their Units reservations of the models.

 Discussion of the Implementation Proposals

Motion 1:

 This motion is intended to create an ad hoc committee of committed faculty to work over the summer, the “Faculty Senate General Education Implementation Committee”, to implement the General Education model. Recommendations from this group should be brought to the Senate by the 4th of September, 2012.  A suggestion was made to include Undergraduate advisors in this group.

 Motion 2:

This motion is to empower a Standing Committee to complete the implementation and

• oversight of the General Education curriculum.

The meeting adjourned at 4:50pm.

All Faculty meeting

April 3, 2012

Thompson Courtroom, Law School, 500 E. 52^nd St., 3 p.m.

 Present: Ebersole, Ward-Smith, McArthur, Stancel, Burnett, Wyckoff, Plamann, Taylor, Ellinghausen, Sherburn, Holt, O’Brien, Luppino, Sykes Berry, Gerkovich, Kumar, Igwe, Butner

 Excused: McDaniels, Sohraby, Nickel, Stanley

 Absent: Gardner, Durig, Peng, Lyne, Thiagarajan, Madison-Cannon, Odom, Alleman, Hermanns, Krantz, Bethman

 Guests: Linda Plamann and Tom Stroik (co-chairs of General Education Oversight Committee); all other faculty from campus.

 Welcome and Informational Items

The next Faculty Senate meeting is on the Health Sciences campus and it will be in the new Health Sciences building, room 4306, on the 4th floor at 3pm.

 Approval of Agenda

Senator Taylor offered a motion to approve the agenda and Senator Wyckoff seconded the motion.  All approved

 Approval of Minutes

Senator Wyckoff offered a motion to approve the minutes of the March 20^th meeting and Senator Sykes Berry seconded the motion.  All approved. 

 Budget Report:  Cathleen Burnett

The Faculty Senate was given $10,000 this year to cover the expenses of hosting the Board of Curators breakfasts on this campus. As of today, our balance is $12,888. We had two breakfasts this year and they are not yet reflected in our balance.  Other expenses included in the budget are for travel to IFC meetings and to pay a student assistant.  Chair Ebersole explained that hosting the breakfast is an excellent way to present to the Curators the great things we are doing on this campus. 

 Motion to Approve Revisions to the Standing Operating Procedures (SOP): Peggy Ward-Smith

See the Faculty Senate website for the new SOP http://www.umkc.edu/facultysenate/files/UMKC%20senate%20SOP%20Spring%202012.pdf

Vice Chair Ward-Smith pointed out the changes that have been proposed:

• The Nominations Committee will be a subcommittee of the Administrative Issues Committee.
• The second change is to have the administrator review every other year, based on the academic calendar of August to May.
• Re-locating the Undergraduate Curriculum committee in the SOP
• Blackboard will be the method of voting instead of paper voting. This is a secure method that insures confidentiality.  The administrators can see when faculty voted but not how they voted.
• The Academic Grievance Hearing Panel has been under a pilot program for the last 2 ½ years but now it is an official process that is in the Collected Rules and Regulations.  The SOP merely refer to that link.

There was some confusion and discussion about the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee.  In the future some other committee may be proposed to handle the General Education Curriculum that is being formulated, however the current change in the SOP is merely to move the standing committee to its appropriate place with the other standing Faculty Senate committees. 

All approved the changes to the SOP.

 Report from the General Education Oversight Committee: Linda Plamann and Tom Stroik

The General Education Oversight Committee has been developing models for the General Education curriculum.  Previously the Senate approved the notion of 30 shared hours. The committee has been getting feedback from other units around the campus. Their hope is that the Senate is ready for a motion to approve the Model. 

A video about the model is still in production.  Senator Taylor brought up the negative reaction from the Bloch School and Senator Madison-Cannon spoke about the challenges faced by the Performance students in the Conservatory, using the term ‘devastating’.  Part of the problem may be the requirement that some of the courses are ‘linked,’ i.e., taken together. 

The negative comments were that the model was unrealistic i.e. the faculty working together in some of the courses and the other issue was complexity of the model and concern for student understanding.  Linda Plamann replied that in presenting the model to the student body leadership they understood it in 20 minutes. It doesn’t seem to be such a big problem.

Other feedback:

There was a concern that Arts and Sciences would be doing all the teaching and it was pointed out that the model will give an opportunity to the other units to participate.  Some units have asked if it is required that they participate at all in the General Education curriculum?  It is not mandatory that all the units create new courses for General Education, although that occurrence would be a loss for the students.

Another concern was expressed for start-up funds for on-going summer work. Nothing is committed by the Provost as of yet.

 Executive Committee Reports

Secretary Cathleen Burnett

Burnett reminded the group of the issue of privacy in the classroom that occurred this year.   There is now, in the student code, a statement that requires faculty to give permission for tape recording and requests permission from all the students for tape recording. The rules are for everyone’s protection and they will be in writing.

Secondly, Burnett reminded the audience of the conversations with Interim Vice Chancellor Bonewald about issues regarding research in the campus and of the two consultants who came to campus. Chair Ebersole added that opening that consultant’s meeting to all interested faculty was pursued as a matter of shared governance.  There are many questions remaining so this topic will be an ongoing discussion.

IFC Representative Carol McArthur

McArthur spoke about the Domestic Partner Benefit [DPB] discussions and movement toward policy acceptance.  For 10 years or so the university system has been pressured to adopt a DPB.  The report is being considered by the new System President and the Board of Curators.  There is support from all the Chancellors and Deans.  She explained that implementing such a policy will hardly make any difference in the budget since it is estimated that there are less than 500 people on all the four campuses and only 1% are likely to claim the benefits.

Vice Chair Ward-Smith

Ward-Smith spoke about her committee’s work to standardize and expand the definition the definition of voting faculty on our campus.

IFC Representative Nancy Stancel

Stancel discussed the work done to affirm the non-tenure track faculty designation of Librarians on all campuses. 

Chair Gary Ebersole

Ebersole introduced the need for establishing a campus wide Undergraduate General Education committee under the authority of the Faculty Senate that would implement and approve the courses for the new Gen Ed curriculum.  At the moment there is not a constitutionally established committee to serve as a central clearing house committee.

 Question and Answer Session

A question was raised about what issues/matters NTT faculty, who now have the right to vote in campus wide elections, are or are not able to vote on.  This matter will be taken up by the executive committee in the future.

Another question was raised about one of the departments in the College concerning shared governance and rules of procedure.  Chair Ebersole responded that the Senate generally deals with issues that are of campus wide concern.  This particular matter should be discussed with the department and/or dean.  Perhaps the Ombudsperson, Nancy Day, would be helpful also. 

 American Association of University Professors (AAUP)

Roger Pick explained that some people think the AAUP is a faculty union but that its main purpose is advocacy for faculty governance and academic freedom. The strength of the AAUP comes from numbers, more members means more power. There are a lot of threats to academic freedom coming from outside the university and it is important to be vigilant. I encourage you all to join this organization.

 The meeting adjourned.

Faculty Senate, March 20, 2012

Plaza Room, Administrative Center, 3 p.m. 

Present: Ebersole, Ward-Smith, McArthur, Stancel, Burnett, Wyckoff, Plamann, Gardner, Peng, Ellinghausen, Sherburn, Butner, Luppino, Sykes Berry, Alleman, Hermanns, Krantz, Kumar, Bethman

 Excused:  Taylor, McDaniels, Sohraby, Thiagarajan, Madison-Cannon, Holt, Nickel, Gerkovich, Stanley, Igwe

 Absent:  Durig, Lyne, Odom, O’Brien

 Guests:  Nancy Day, Ombudsperson; Linda Plamann (School of Biological Sciences), Tom Stroik (College of A&S), co-chairs of the General Education Oversight Committee; Steve Dilks (College of A&S).

 1.  Welcome and Informational Items

 On the first Tuesday in April (April 3) will be the All Faculty General meeting in the Thompson Courtroom in the Law School, during the regular Senate meeting time.  At that meeting we will present the changes to the Standard Operating Procedures for final approval.

 There are two minor changes that the executive committee wants to add:

1) Insertion of Nominations as a subcommittee of the Administration Affairs Committee.

2) In the description of COSCO, we want to add the phrase “all other studies as directed by the Faculty Senate.”

 2.  Approval of Agenda

Senator Sykes Berry moved to approve the agenda and Senator Kumar seconded the motion.  All approved.

 3.  Approval of Minutes

Senator Luppino moved to approve the Minutes of the March 6^th meeting and Senator

Wyckoff seconded the motion.  All approved.

 4.  Ombuds Report:  Nancy Day

 Day thanked the Senate for its support.  She has had about 20 visits from across schools and departments. She also works with Jeff Traiger, Assistant Dean of Students and Dr. Marita Barkis, executive director of Counseling, Health, Testing and Disability Services to come up with peer counseling for faculty who have student incivility issues in the classroom.  The major issues Day has noticed this year include

• Supervisory relationships. It’s not only supervisors but faculty who need to beef up their communication skills. New skills may be necessary when a new supervisor arrives on the scene.
• Non-clarity in the nontraditional contracts. The major issues are with adjuncts, visiting scholars, and written contracts which aren’t clear. Roles are not clearly defined.
• Many universities have Ombudspersons who deal with students. Right now I’m only dealing with faculty but Dr. Barkis reports that it would be good to have a student counseling service apart from the counseling services for faculty.

 Chair Ebersole noted that the College of A&S has a life coach for students.  Senator Butner added the School of Education also has one. 

 5.  Latin Honors:  Steve Krantz

The problems that have been run into while evaluating the Latin Honors procedure:  

1) Exceeding the quotas in Units.

2) Student concern about the question of whether or not last semester GPA should be counted in.

3) Whether or not in the event where the last semester GPA is not counted, which is the current procedure, can students petition for that?

4) Students graduating with multiple degrees, can they have more than one Latin Honors?

 We had a meeting with the academic issues committee and came with up some solutions:

1) That the Senate support the policy of GPA requirements of upper 5, 10, 20% as written.

 2) The general consensus says Latin Honors should be given at graduation and graduation happens before the last semester grades are out. So the last semester should not be counted into Latin Honors.

What semesters do count is the next procedural issue?  There was majority of the committee who recommended that the GPA that counts towards the Latin Honors be 3 of the last 4 semesters.

 3) Because the Latin honors are calculated based on GPA and there is only one GPA considered only one Latin honors degree is awarded irrespective of the number of degrees i.e. No student should get honors more than once.

 4) In calculating the grade point average it is recommended that the grades received in upper level courses in the last two years should be taken into account.

 5) Can we have a Latin Honors degree post hoc and the answer to that is NO. We recommend that students not be allowed to petition based on last semester. We have two reasons for that.

• If we create a procedure that last semester doesn’t count then some students may petition for that since they might get good grades in the last semester.
• By doing that we don’t to do more violence to the procedure since that may be helping only 20% of the students.

Senate discussion on recommendation #2 concluded that instead of considering the last two years, instead, the last 60 hours of the degree should be considered for awarding the Latin honors degree.  Then the honors would be awarded at graduation on a provisional basis, just as the diploma is done.

 Secretary Burnett: When I read the policy the 5%, 10% 15% are not in there, I think we should add that in there for consistency.

 Senator Steve Krantz: I would put it in the procedure and not policies.

Dr. Burnett: Does the catalogue represent the new policy?  Senator Steve Krantz: The catalogue reflects the procedure not the policy.

  Everyone approved the recommendations as amended.

 6.  General Education Updates : Jerry Wyckoff

 It has been a month since the formal presentation of the two models were proposed.  Senator Wyckoff reports that there have been positive and negative comments. 

 Negative comments revolve around two issues:

• How to create new courses?
• How do we decide which classes will count for GenEd?

 He would like the Faculty Senate to vote on the proposed models in four weeks [April 17]. And he is still looking for feedback.  .

 One question asked was “how many courses are we going to need for this whole model to roll it out for 2 years?”  Senator Wyckoff responded that the courses that need to be redesigned are the Anchor and Capstone courses and the need will be for 15 courses for the #2 model to be rolled out in the next 1 to 1 ½ years.

 Senator Butner asked where the courses would be housed.  Senator Wyckoff thought the Discourse courses would be in Arts & Sciences but the Anchor courses and Capstone courses need not be in Arts & Sciences.  Chair Ebersole suggested that a Glossary and a Frequently Asked Questions page be available on the University website.  Senator Wyckoff said he thought such were ready but not yet uploaded.  He stated that there will be 4 videos up very soon which will answer your questions. 

 7.  Committee Reports

 Senator Luppino reported that the University Budget committee is awaiting reports from Administration & Finance on (1) the results of the recent budgeting exercise to take into account the anticipated reduction in the State Appropriation and (2) analysis of consulting and professional fees expenditures before the UBC makes final recommendations to the Chancellor regarding FY 2013 apportionment of General Revenues.  He also thanked the Senators for their assistance in getting the UBC faculty input on salary increases policy for FY 2013, and explained that the current discussion proposal contemplates a 1% merit-based salary pool per unit. 

 The Faculty Senate meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.

Faculty Senate, March 6, 2012

Plaza Room, Administrative Center, 3 p.m.

 Present:  Ebersole, Ward-Smith, McArthur, Stancel, Burnett, Wyckoff, Plamann, Gardner, Taylor, Durig, Peng, Ellinghausen, McDaniels, Thiagarajan, Madison-Cannon, Holt, Nickel, Butner, O’Brien, Luppino, Sykes Berry, Alleman, Gerkovich, Hermanns, Stanley, Kumar, Igwe, Bethman

 Excused: Sohraby, Sherburn

 Absent:  Lyne, Odom, Krantz

 Guests:  Leo Morton, Chancellor; Gail Hackett, Provost; Amy Johnson, Student Curator; Erica Hernandez-Scott, Marji Datwyler, Division of Diversity, Access and Equity; Bob Simmons, Associate Vice Chancellor of Administration; Sharon Lindenbaum, Vice Chancellor of Finance and Administration; Kim McNeley, Associate Vice Provost for University College; Cindy Pemberton, Deputy Provost for Academic Affairs.

 1.  Welcome and Informational Items

 New Senator Santosh Kumar from Pharmacy was welcomed.  He replaces Jack Fincham for the remainder of the year.

 A reminder that all schools should be holding elections for the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee if the term is expired for your representative.

 The Inter-Faculty Council (IFC) meets on March 21 with President Wolfe about the Partner Benefits plan proposal.

 2.  Student Curator:  Amy Johnson

Amy Johnson, the new student Curator, spoke about the way she viewed her role as a

funnel for the voices of all the students on all four campuses, ensuring that those opinions are taken into account when decisions are made.

 3.  Chancellor’s Remarks:  Leo Morton

 The UM System has been very supportive in making changes regarding Oak Place Apartments. It started as a public-private venture a few years ago and if we gain the ownership it will become more beneficial to us and will leave us in control of the assets so we will be able to do everything in the best interests of our students.

 Over a year ago plans were discussed to relocate the Young Matrons. We now have a private partner who will take care of the relocation.  That space will include a grocery store facing Brookside, 150 housing units and a place where we plan to relocate student health services. We will take this to the Board of Curators in April.  This is a great opportunity for us. Bob Simmons and Sharon Lindenbaum have been working with the developers and if you have questions you can contact them.

 Finally, a brief update on the budget.  The governor initially proposed 12.5% reduction and now it’s down to 7.8%. All of the budget planning is now assuming the 7.8% state reduction.

             The Chancellor mentioned how proud he is that the Lady Roos are playing in the finals in Sioux Falls, SD.    

 4.  Approval of Agenda

Senator Sykes Berry moved approval of the agenda.  All approved.

 5.  Approval of Minutes

All approved the minutes of February 21. 

 6.  Women of Color Leadership Conference: Erica Hernandez-Scott

The Women of Leadership Conference will be held in May.  Attendees will gain access

to information, professional development, peer networking and opportunities for dialogue on topics and issues pertinent to Women of Color.  Attending this conference will improve the lives of those involved and also the condition of women in the university. Please make sure that you promote this in your own units and we want more participation from the university.

 7.  Tiered Parking fees: Bob Simmons

Simmons first explained about the parking arrangements for the ground breaking event at

the Bloch School on Thursday. 

 Simmons presented three alternative plans for a tiered parking program to begin Fall 2012.  First the assumptions:

1) The program has to be revenue neutral, i.e. if someone pays less then someone has to

pay more

2) Working with Human Resources we can have a pay based plan that will not include

 overtime. The Chair asked whether summer pay would be included.  That has not been

decided.

 Simmons provided a hand-out with a number of options.  The next step will be a campus wide survey to get thoughts on the parking options.  IFC representative McArthur asked whether any consideration was given for those earning under $25,000 to pay nothing. Simmons replied no.

Another issue raised was of confidentiality when one is paying cash for their tier.  Simmons responded that we are public employees and all salary information is available on the website for the Secretary of State [and in our library]. Another Senator asked about a number of non-UMKC employed people who pay for parking on the Health Sciences campus.  Simmons said that will be decided by the hospital which has hired them.

 Some interest was expressed for a 5-tier model that would put a bracket in the $50,000-$75,000 range.  Simmons thought the survey they planned to do would help identify the breaks for brackets.

 8.  Provost’s Remarks:  Gail Hackett

 The Provost reminded everyone about the Award Ceremony for faculty and staff on March 12th, from 3-5pm on the fourth floor of the Student Union and encouraged the Senators to stop by and support our colleagues.

 Conversations about University College have been happening for 3 ½ years but she discovered that there was a committee that made recommendations about university college even before she arrived.  She reviewed the history of the working group and then the advisory council she created to implement the Strategic Plan.  That group produced a draft set of recommendations and in February this year produced a final report about the University College. She has heard concerns about the budget model and how the University College might impact the College of A&S since undecided students are now housed in A&S.  She turned to Kim McNeley and said she hoped that would be addressed. 

 9. University College: Kim McNeley

 The University College is called a general college, a division of undergraduate studies.  It is created to improve retention rates of undeclared first time, full time students which averages 55% as compared to 74% for all UMKC first time, full time freshmen. The retention rates of undecided-transfer students average 63% compared to 76% for transfer students with declared majors.  UMKC has established a goal for first time, full time freshmen retention of 85% by 2020.

The University College student population will be 1) Undeclared/ exploratory students, 2) Newly admitted freshmen or transfer, and 3) Continuing students unsure/changing academic goals.

The administrative structure for University College included reporting to the Office of the

Provost with an Associate Vice Provost charged with implementation and oversight.  Finally there will be involvement of faculty and staff from across the university.  McNeley spoke about a seminar series that is to be based on guidelines established by the National Resource Centre for First Year Experience.  The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee approved the first course for a one year pilot period for Fall 2012-2013.  All the UC students will be required to participate.

The UC Advisory Council is made up of faculty and staff from all academic units.  They

will establish policy and procedures to ensure the early and effective transition of students to academic units. 

The UC has space reserved in the new Student Success Center. Staffing will be based on

the facility we have. The Writing Center will be reporting to the University College. We will be hiring staff very soon.

 How will the effectiveness of the University College be assessed?

• Improved decision making and timely selection of an academic major
• Timely completion of students selected academic degree program
• Decreased number of times students change majors
• Improved student retention and graduate studies.

 My role is to get concrete feedback. You can talk to me and give me your feedback.

 10. Discussion of Standing Operating Procedures proposed changes and vote

 The proposed changes in the Standing Operating Procedures were approved unanimously.

 11. Committee Reports

Senator Wyckoff reported that a new Faculty Senator is needed on the General

Education Oversight Committee to replace Scott Baker.  He reminded the Senators that the GEOC is gathering feedback on the two models presented.

Senator Peggy Ward-Smith asked if everyone filled out the feedback regarding the

Undergraduate Research Committee. Most of the members said that they did not receive the form.

Meeting adjourned before 5pm.

Tuesday February 21, 2012

Plaza Room, Administrative Center, 3 p.m. 

Present:  Ward-Smith, McArthur, Burnett, Wyckoff, Plamann, Gardner, Taylor, Peng, Ellinghausen, Lyne, Thiagarajan, Sherburn, Nickel, Butner, O’Brien, Luppino, Sykes Berry, Alleman, Gerkovich, Hermanns, Stanley, Igwe

Excused:  Ebersole, Stancel, Sohraby, Madison-Cannon, Holt, Bethman

Absent:  Odom, Krantz

Visitors:  Provost Hackett; Lynda Bonewald, Interim Vice Chancellor for Research; the GEOC committee

 The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Secretary Burnett who was chairing the meeting in the absence of Gary Ebersole, who was meeting with the IFC and the new President of the UM System, Wolfe. 

Informational Items

• The student curator Amy Johnson will be introduced in March.
• A reminder that the All Faculty meeting is April 3^rd at the Law School.
• Senator Fincham is retiring from the Faculty Senate a bit early.  He will be missed.

Approval of Agenda

The agenda was approved.

 Approval of Minutes

Senator Wyckoff moved approval of the minutes of February 7 and Senator Stanley

seconded the motion.  Approved.

Provost’s Remarks:  Gail Hackett

The Provost shared a few comments.  Last night at the concert in the Conservatory we have announced the first recipient of the Distinguished Faculty title to Prof. Zhou Long.

Letters initiating a budget planning process went out to all the units. Numbers were given to provide a starting point for units. This planning number is not the exact figure but acts as a reference point for units to start addressing the budget plan proposed by the Chancellor. The UM System is asking for a report on how we will address budget cuts by the end of February.  The Provost said that so far it looks as if we can get a considerable way towards meeting the cuts by not filling unfilled positions.

 Senator Luppino said the two figures given to the deans were only different in that a 3% salary increase was in one and not the other.  This is a campus-wide decision to be made on the salary increase for which the faculty should also give input.  Provost Hackett added that the salary issue is complicated by the increases for promotions will be honored.  And there are always things that happen across the university such as people being raided and equity adjustments that are very necessary.  The Provost was not looking for votes from the units regarding the increase but would be interested in a sense of what the units think about having an increase.

Senator Wyckoff asked if it would possible to have a concept about local control over this issue?, prompting Senator Luppino to make a motion that “It is the sense of the UMKC Faculty Senate, adopted by unanimous vote of the members in attendance at its February 21, 2012 meeting, that the UM System should not mandate any specified level of salary increase for all campuses, but instead should permit each campus the flexibility to adopt its own salary-increase policy in the context of its particular budgeting circumstances for FY 2013.”

The motion passed unanimously.  Afterwards, Senator Thiagarajan:asked how the resolution would be conveyed to the System.

 Discussion of Consultants’ Report:  Lynda Bonewald

 Dr. Bonewald began with some history. “In October 2009, I was asked to take up the interim Vice Chancellor for Research position and I am still here.”  She was given the strategic plan which is posted on the website.  There are two goals:

1. Implement organizational enhancements to advance the Life and Health Sciences.

2. Promote research and economic development.

Part of the strategic plan was to establish a Life and Sciences Research Advisory Council. That was accomplished.  Membership criteria included having had research experience.  The Advisory Council has met four times.  The first three times it was mainly Dr. Bonewald presenting to the Advisory Council the changes that are being made in the research. As part of their charge they needed external help and advice on how to move forward in the life and health sciences. Two people were recruited for this purpose: Dr. R. F. Shangraw, Jr. of Arizona State University and Richard Marchase of The University of Alabama at Birmingham who visited and interviewed many groups and various stakeholders regarding the UMKC research and economic development agenda.  They prepared a report to send back to the Advisory Council. The Senators have seen the report and the response to the report. The report suggested the following things:

1. Encourage the Deans to take a more direct and active role in research leadership.

2. The Chancellor should play an important role in enhancing the research programs at UMKC

3. The Vice Provost for Research and Economic Development (VPR) position be filled with a permanent candidate who brings high credibility to the position and who can devote all of his/her time to the responsibilities. 

4. Create a transition committee to enact these plans.

5. Establish a research space committee.

 One of the Senators asked about the number of standing committees. Dr. Bonewald answered that there is only the Life and Health Sciences Advisory Council which is the one that came up with this report.  It was noted that there is also a Strategic Plan for Research Working Group as well as the Research Advisory Council.  Dr. Bonewald responded that the Research Advisory Council hadn’t met since 2008.  Curiously, however, just last year the Faculty Senate received a request for a Senator to serve on that committee.   

 Secretary Burnett said that one of the positives about the old Research Advisory Council was that members included elected faculty rather than appointed faculty.

 One of the Senators observed that most of the members in the list of the Advisory Council members seem to be administrators.  Dr. Bonewald replied that she tried to balance Professors and Administrators.  Going forward, she said that she invited the Faculty Senate to identify members for the committees.

Senator Peng said that he was on the committee [the research working group] but he never got the report or an email about the report.  Dr. Bonewald answered that it was because the report was never ready so it wasn’t sent.

IFC Representative McArthur asked for the approximate number of researchers on the UMKC campus who are actively involved in research activities and are served by the Office of Research. Dr. Bonewald responded that she would have to go back and count the exact number but she could call Ted Knous right away.  Dr. Bonewald was also asked for the names of those specific researchers on the Life and Health Sciences Advisory Council who read and actually approved the consultant’s report.  Dr. Bonewald stated: Dean Betty Drees, Jerry Jean, Pat Kelly, Mark Johnson, Marilyn Yoder, Kathy Goggin, Dean Kevin Truman, Ted White, Dean Russ Melchert, Joy Wheeler, June Carbone, Peggy Mullaly-Quijas, Bob Simmons and that all approved the report, although Kathy Goggin had a reservation that was included. 

Another Senator asked how the IRB process was coming along.  Dr. Bonewald said that recently they had been able to reduce the turn-around time for approvals by 50%.  Senator Stanley asked what the turn-around time was before this improvement and Dr. Bonewald stated that it was 3 months. 

Dr. Bonewald also mentioned the Research Working Group: Roger Sommi, Travis Solomon, Rob Krumlauf (Stowers), Larry Dreyfus, Josh Peng, Mike Kruger, and David Westbrook.  She intends them to work as the “transitional committee.”  There was concern about how the committees arose and were populated and how many of those actually participated in reviewing the consultant’s report.

After some discussion, Secretary Burnett thanked Dr. Bonewald for coming and fielding these questions. She said the Senate will take a look at the committees and suggest some names.

Dr. Bonewald closed by saying that if Senators have any issues to please bring such to her attention so that she can work it out.

 General Education Oversight Committee Report:  Jerry Wyckoff

Senator Wyckoff presented two models of General Education for the Senate’s consideration. [The powerpoint presentation is available on the Faculty Senate website.] In developing the Gen Ed models, the GEOC wanted to fulfill multiple criteria.

1) Have an interdisciplinary curriculum

2) Follow a development strategy

3) Show students a clear path through general education

4) Empower high impact learning experiences

5) Foster student achievement through cohort groups

 The Committee proposes two models for achieving these mentioned criteria.  The first model does not reflect UMKC’s unique qualities.  The second model intends to reflect the realities of UMKC i.e. based on how we handle transfer students, how we handle new students, our faculty strength, and instructional mission.

 Model 1: Anchor courses linked to Discourse courses

The first goal was to take student learning outcomes and build a development sequence called Anchor courses where we try to have a central cohort experience for students.  Anchor courses are developmentally sequenced and expected to be team taught. The professors will work in tandem and come up with a teaching method where they can work as a team and teach the course. Course levels in the Platform courses relate to expectations derived in Anchor courses above: each will integrate expectations from a specific level of Discourse courses. The Discourse courses are the backbone of the Anchor courses. The “Capstone” experience is ideally experiential: for example, clinic, SEARCH research, internships, semester abroad, etc. It will relate to the goals of the General Education program and students will be expected to write a report about their experiences. There is a pool of approved courses in the Platform that relate to each subject area noted.

 Model 2:

The Capstone course experience will have cohorting of students and partnering of teachers across the III: 300 level and Discourse III classes. Course levels in the Platform relate to expectations derived in Anchor courses above: each will integrate expectations from a specific level of Discourse courses. Some Platform courses may be experiential: for example, clinic, SEARCH research, internships, semester abroad, etc. There is a pool of approved courses in the Platform that relate to each subject area noted, and these courses will help introduce and discuss disciplinary boundaries.

 We already have a set of basic courses and a set of courses which can be reconstructed and coupled with discourse courses.  These courses are serving the students well. That’s the main goal of this whole model.

 The Committee wants opinions and feedback from Senators about Model 2 so that we can move forward. Senator Thiagarajan suggested the Committee build a glossary and Senator Wyckoff responded that it will be ready very soon.

 A question was asked about student feedback?  Senator Wyckoff stated that there is not a  full time student representative on GEOC but students have given feedback that they want the Platform courses as well as the cohort groups.”

 Re-affirmation of the Spring Break resolution

Everyone was in favor of re-affirming the 2011 resolution to change Spring Break

 Executive Session

After discussion the Faculty Senate approved the honorary doctorate for the proposed candidate.