FACULTY SENATE MEETING

MINUTES

February 9, 1999

SC117

ATTENDANCE

Present: Damon Bahr, Deborah Baird, David Brandt, Joe Buchman, Elaine Byrd, Eddy Cadet, Ernest Carey, Max Christofferson, Malcolm Crawford, Kathie Debenham, Eldon Greenhalgh, Ron Hammond, Jill Jasperson, Chris Jones, sub. for Stephanie Larsen, Dave Manning, sub. for Doug Miller, Duane Miller, Gary Noll, Tom Perkins, LouAnn Provost, Kirk Rasmussen, Liliana Riboldi, Grant Richards, Merlin Smith, Keith Snedegar, K.D. Taylor, sub. for Jon Turner, Lynn Turnquist, sub. for Cristine Veit, Forrest Williams, Don Wilson, Laurie Wood

Absent: John Balden, Jeanille Gooch, Jeanette Hall, Chester Heath

Excused: Pres. Kerry Romesburg, Dr. Lucille T. Stoddard

Guests: Kim Bartholomew, Janet Bennion, Doug Bradley, Andrea Brown, Jeff Bulgar, Clint Bybee, Elaine Carter, Linda Makin, Karl Worthington

CALL TO ORDER

Grant Richards called the meeting to order at 3:12 p.m.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Duane Miller made a motion to approve the minutes for January 29, 1999. Don Wilson asked that his attendance at that meeting be noted. Ron Hammond seconded the motion to approve the minutes with the change. Vote to approve was unanimous.

ACTION ITEMS

• Motion:

Ron Hammond, as chair of the budget committee, made the following motion: "I move that the salary proposal be voted on by the faculty senate and not the senate at large." Chris Jones seconded the motion.

Discussion:

• Lynn Turnquist stated that the math department is split 50/50. He thinks the issue should therefore be voted on by the general faculty.
• Chris Jones stated that in his department a vote regarding how the vote should be taken resulted in only one vote for a general faculty vote.
• Keith Snedegar handed out a prepared document and asked that the senate vote against this motion or table it. Keith expressed his hope for shared governance, stating that all should share in this decision.
• Laurie Wood pointed out that last year only 60% of the faculty voted when given the opportunity. A general faculty vote doesn't represent the entire faculty. Senators should poll their faculty and should have studied this issue and should make the decision.
• K.D. Taylor stated that in her department there were seven in favor of a general faculty vote, and one in favor of a faculty senate vote. She feels sure that it is hard to run a general vote, but thinks that when a faculty senator's department is split, then only half of that department is represented. She believes that all the faculty members are well informed, they all know what is at risk.
• One senator wondered if it might create some resentment if just the faculty senate votes.
• Duane Miller said that his department was 6 to 3 in favor of a general faculty vote.
• Jill Jasperson mentioned that the faculty senate is the body to represent the general faculty.
• Chris Jones felt that the senate is missing the point. All have been voted in as senators, which is designed to represent the faculty members.
• Kathie Debenham said that her department vote was one to one.
• Grant Richards pointed out that if this motion is not adopted, we would need a new motion on the floor to send the vote to the general faculty. We can only vote "for" or "against" on the motion presently being discussed.
• Debbie Baird listed some of the problems with a faculty-wide vote: How many hours/days would the booth be open, what days, where would booth be located, who counts the ballots, who sits at the booth, how are absentee ballots verified, etc.
• Jeff Bulger stated that the best representation might be by the senate. He doesn't think that all the faculty understand the proposals.
• Ernie stated that the faculty senate was organized to be the shared governance body; that this is how shared governance works - by representation.
• Dave Manning said his department was divided down the middle. His department felt like there was a precedent already set to go to general vote. His department would like to have a general vote.
• Tom Perkins called for the vote and suggested a roll call vote.

Vote:

• The senators were called in order as listed on the roll, and called out their vote. There were 20 votes for the motion, and 12 against. The motion carried.
• Keith wanted to explain his vote. He wanted to make sure that all the faculty were informed before it happened. He thinks this would have been a great opportunity to diminish a dismal record on shared governance at UVSC. Even though the senate has full authority to decide this matter, they could have moved beyond that and created a better culture at this college. Now that the senate will be making the decision, he would like to encourage senators to vote for proposal #2.
• Grant stated that senators should already know how the faculty feels about this issue. Ernie pointed out that information has been disseminated in every possible way to inform the faculty.
• Motion:
• Ron Hammond made a new motion: "I move that the vote on the Salary Proposal be held at the next meeting, February 23^rd. It is a good opportunity to further educate the faculty." Second was by Eldon Greenhalgh.

Discussion:

• Grant, to clarify: A vote against the motion would allow an opportunity to vote today. If a senator is not here, their vote won't be counted.
• Don Wilson feels that the senate needed to hear first from the Ad Hoc Committee.
• Grant, to clarify: A vote for either proposal would allow the Ad Hoc Committee's work to go into effect for one year. If proposal #2 were to pass it would then become a great starting ground for each of the school's own merit programs.
• Keith wondered if an extension of two weeks would allow any prospect of an amendment to the proposals.
• Ernie stated that the senate cannot make any changes to the proposals, everything done so far applies to the proposals as they were presented.
• Chris Jones feels that there is no need for additional time to make the decision. Senators should be ready to vote.
• Clint Bybee, a member of the ad hoc committee studying the merit bonus issues, reminded the senate that they agreed to hear from the committee before making a decision. He appealed to the senate to at least hear them out.
• K.D. stated that in the last meeting it was said that the vote would be held on the 23rd.
• Duane said that Ben Bean wanted to bring the vote to the faculty, and that he specifically was told the vote would not be this time.
• Dave stated the senate should now hear from Ad Hoc Committee.
• Forrest asked to hear from the committee and then vote on the motion after hearing from them.
• Elaine Byrd voiced similar concerns, also wondering about putting in a "grandfather clause" for people currently working on advanced degrees. She wanted to hear from the committee on this.

Vote:

• Vote on motion was taken by raise of hands: 23 in favor of the motion, four opposed. The motion to wait two weeks passed.
• The senate will vote next senate meeting, Feb. 23rd, for either proposal #1 or proposal #2.

INFORMATION ITEMS

• Wolverine Achievement Awards: Belinda (sub. for Stephanie Larson) told the senate that it's time for the Wolverine achievement awards for students, teachers, departments, and other services. Applications can be filled out and returned to Belinda or to Lori at SC104.
• Report from the Legislature: Linda Makin explained that tomorrow the Executive Appropriations Committee will decide its "hot topic" for next week. Every school has made its presentation. Regents were told to have the allowable tuition increase set by tomorrow. Items of interest include: Financial aid, enrollment, library, tuition, Educators Mutual insurance. Educator's Mutual made a presentation to explain that they need to increase revenues from Dixie, CEU, UVSC, Snow, SLCC, and Weber as well as public education anywhere from 25% (UVSC) up to74% (CEU and Dixie). The total increase needed is over six million dollars for Educators to continue as an insurance provider. There is some debate over whether Educators should be bailed out by the entire system or if each school should determine its own tradeoffs in copays and premiums. This is an issue of great concern. UVSC has finished taking bids for next year's insurance provider. We have two or three bids. UVSC's need for a building is a separate issue and still coming along. U of U's building may be bumped down the list, and we may become second on the list.
• Academic Policy: Kim Bartholomew made a presentation for the Academic Policy committee.

Goal 1- Consolidate policies (5 different policies were found)

Goal 2- Reword policies to make uniform (Called a problem, dispute, complaint, grievance)

Goal 3- Online Tutorial starting with a page called, "What is the problem?" Then hyperlink to definition, then to "Who is the other party involved?" with direction to the informal process outlined with timetable and steps. Wellesley College and ASU use the timetable and steps. Other possible pages address the issues called: Informal Process Fails, Negotiated Resolution, Negotiated Resolution Fails, and Formal Grievance- timetable and steps. This slideshow presentation will be made available on the senate Web site.

Discussion: Kim pointed out that anyone, including students, could walk through this process. Chris Jones wanted to know if the language was to be legalistic. Kim feels that the pages could provide some examples or supplemental information for clarification. Chris Jones asked "What if we broaden or make the policies bigger than what they are?" Kim replied that the committee may have to rewrite some of the policies. That would be done later. This tutorial will be the first step, with other changes being presented to the senate periodically.

• Introduction of Janet Bennion, Faculty Senate Secretary-Elect: She came to us from the University of Maine. She is an anthropologist and works for the Behavioral Science department. Her background is in social structure, most recently studying polygamy. She just published a book on that subject through Oxford University Press.
• Ad Hoc Committee: This committee is unsure how the salary proposal vote will affect their work, and how their work might affect the vote itself. They had encouraged the senate not to make a vote until they had given a full report from their committee. Both Clint and Jeff were given opportunity to make a presentation to the senate today. They did not have a proposal ready yet, but will e-mail it to the senators this week. They will also need to work out some questions with Linda Makin, and she suggested that the document they send out on email needs to be carefully written with the complete picture.
• Merit Bonus: Duane Miller announced that all of the department chairs or deans should have the merit bonus forms in their hand today. If faculty don't receive it in their box by today or tomorrow they should ask their dean about it. Application must be filled out and returned to the department chair. Then the paper work will go out for peer evaluations. It should all be done by Feb. 26^th. Duane also mentioned that column changes paperwork is due to him by March 15.
• Elections: Laurie Wood told the senate that elections will be held in April for committee replacements. She needs senators to find out who is interested in those spots. Senators could ask department chairs who needs assignments. Those on tenure track know they need to serve on a committee.
• Teacher of the Year: Forrest said that the date was moved back, and he does not know the new date.

ADJOURNMENT

Grant Richards adjourned the meeting at 4:40 p.m.