Go to navigation Go to content

Intercampus Faculty Council Agendas Friday, November 21, 2003

President's Conference Room
9:30 a.m. IFC members and Vice President Caruso
  1. Call to order.
  2. Approval of October 29 , 2003 minutes.
  3. Approval of November 21, 2003 agenda.
  4. Major Discussion Items 1-3 with Vice President Caruso
10:30 a.m. Vice President Lehmkuhle & Associate Vice President Graham
to join the meeting

1. Major Discussion Items 4-7.

12:00 p.m. LUNCH

President Floyd and other Vice Preisdents to join the meeting

Campus Reports

Discussions with President Floyd and other Vice Presidents

1. Major Discussion Items 7-9 with President Floyd and other VPs.

1:00 p.m. Continued discussion of agenda items
2:00 p.m. Adjourn
Major Discussion Items
  1. Assessment of scalability and reliability of FAS versus other options to create a system-wide faculty data reporting system with functionality comparable to FAS [Caruso]
  2. Questions have been raised about the Imaging System choice: Expected system features, funding, timing, and process implementation. [Caruso]
  3. Update on Student Module and OnLine Application process implementation [Caruso]
  4. Discussion on non-regular faculty, academic titles, academic tracks (clinical, research, instructional) with ranking, workload expectations and rights, contract duration, and the issue of de facto tenure. Can the term 'non'-regular faculty be abolished? What is an appropriate balance between tenure (-track) and non-tenured/part-time faculty? [Lehmkuhle and K. Smith]
  5. Feedback from Chief Academic Officers and deans on the IFC draft CRR 310.080. Proposal to integrate the 310.080 draft with CRR 310.090 [Lehmkuhle]
  6. Progress of Program Viability Audit processes on all 4 campuses [Lehmkuhle]
  7. Developing a single approach to economic development [Lehmkuhle, Floyd]
  8. Administrative Consolidation proposal of UM President - UMC Chancellor position [Floyd]
  9. Endowment update as of June 30, 2003 [Krawitz]
  10. During the October Board meeting a Leadership Performance presentation was given by a consultant who had interviewed administrators on the four campuses, down to the dean level. The question was raised whether the 'predictable outcome', suggesting many actions that are already on-going, was worth the money and effort, and whether such assessment, if desired, could have been done at least as well by faculty with appropriate expertise [Schweitzberger]. The suggestion by Curator Don Walsworth to "go beyond this level", raised the question whether this meant faculty or whether this meant associate/assistant deans and department chairs.
  11. As a related item to agenda item 6, and as a follow-up of the IFC discussion in the October meeting, the question is raised whether UM data are available to consider an administrative audit. What data are available to support the notion that administration and especially administrative staff has been increased to the detriment of academic priorities? What is the efficiency of administrative parts of campuses and academic units? If possible, should such an initiative be taken? To which extent could an IFC initiative be taken as System interference with fiscal autonomies of campuses and its academic units? Can non-academic units like Advancement be included?
IFC agenda items for this meeting [if time] or for future meetings
  1. Academic Dishonesty
  2. Process differences in tenure policies across the four campuses
  3. "Rule of 85" retirement as option to prevent disruptive VERIP actions
  4. Will IFC start a policy initiative forbidding Consensual Relationships between faculty and students?
  5. The IFC 'Best Practices' website. 
    (see http://system.missouri.edu/vpacad/faculty/faculty_main.htm)
NEXT MEETING DATE: Tuesday, December 16, 2003

Reviewed July 16, 2010.