2007-2008 Final Report of the Committee on Committees
July 2008
Committee on Committees Functioning:
The Committee on Committees met once during the fall semester of 2007 for the purpose
of acquainting new committee members with the committee evaluation procedure and
questionnaire (2005-06 revision) and to assign committees to review. A sample copy of
the questionnaire and letter of introduction are available for review on the Committee on
Committees’ page on the Standing Committees Web site.
Committee on Committees members conducted their individual committee reviews,
visiting committee meetings where possible and distributing the questionnaires to
committee members. Reports were emailed to the chair during the spring semester.
These reports constitute the basis for the individual committee review summaries for
2007-2008. The committees initially chosen for review were:
Academic Assessment Committee
Admissions Review Committee
Campus Mediation Service Committee
Library Committee
Retiree Advisory Committee
Student Conduct Committee
Student Fee Capital Improvements Committee
Traffic Appeals Committee
Overall Committee Concerns
Several committees under review reported problems related to the students appointed to
the committees. Common problems that were reported in the previous year included:
Student non-attendance at committee meetings; timing of student appointments
(November) either delays initial committee meetings, reducing overall effectiveness of
the committee, or forces students to “jump in late” to committee work, detracting from
students’ ability and/or willingness to find an effective way to fit in
In 2006-2007, student members attended the initial meeting and accepted assignments,
but they did not submit their committee reports, even after contact from the CoC chair
during the spring semester, leaving the CoC chair to pick up the slack. Continuing
communication with MSA regarding student responsibilities on committees is necessary.
This time students were assigned to work under professors; however, their participation
was still minimal.
This year the Chair assigned students to work with a professor who had served several
years on the CoC. Professor Lloyd Barrow was assigned to review the Student Conduct
Committee and the Student Fee Capitol Improvements Committee. As of the end of July
and after several requests, I have not received the reviews. I assume the reports were not
done for whatever reason; therefore these committees should be reviewed in the coming
year. If I receive the reports I will forward them.
Through e-mail correspondence with former Chair of the Faculty Council, Rex Campbell,
I learned that the Retirement Advisory Committee was recommended to merge with The
Retirement, Health and Other Benefits committee in 2007. This committee was not
reviewed and should be reviewed next year to see if the merger was successful.
In brief, only 5 committees were reviewed this year and the reports follow. Of the five,
recommendations are to discontinue two of them: The Academic Assessment Committee
and the Admissions Review Committee. Given how difficult it has become to get
professors serve on committee, the elimination of two committees could assist the
Faculty Council in finding more people to serve on functioning committees.
Campus Mediation Service and Traffic Appeals Committees received very high reviews.
The reviewer for the Library Committee found the committee to be very dedicated but
demoralized and had trouble getting responses from committee members. In his detailed
report he shows why they felt this year that they were not getting administrative support
and did not cooperate fully with the reviewer. This attitude will most likely change as a
result of the recent appropriations by the Provost to the library.
Summary of Individual Committee Reviews
Academic Assessment Committee
Charge: The charge to the Academic Assessment Committee is to establish policy
and advise the provost regarding academic assessment issues, including determining
assessment information needed, developing guidelines for university, division,
department and general education assessment plans and outcomes, and reviewing
and recommending changes to assessment plans.
Comments: This committee was never reviewed because when the committee member
assigned to review contacted the Chair, Jim Spain. she was informed the committee had
not met for several years. Spain seemed to be the committee did not need to meet .His
statement from an email last fall: “Assessment requirements have been established
mostly by the Coordinating Board of Higher Education (CAAP Exam) and according to
individual program requirements (accreditation).”
Comments: The committee has a web site (http://committees.missouri.edu/academicassessment/members.php) and members and has not met in years
Recommendation:
Disband the committee. It has no function according to the Chair.
Campus Mediation Service Committee
Charge: The charge to the Campus Mediation Service Committee is to “act as an
independent oversight body for the Campus Mediation Service, including setting
policy for the Campus Mediation Service and overseeing the director of the Campus
Mediation Service and the Campus Mediation Service operations”.
Comments: In the past there has been quite a bit of dissention on this committee. Some
of this, I have been told, has been due to the chairmanship of the committee and a
feeling by staff representatives that they do not have an equal voice and are not held in
as high regard as faculty representatives (see quote from email below):
…”On a personal note, this committee overall has leadership problems as well as
being ineffective, and I don’t feel staff opinions and/or perceptions are considered
to have much merit. “
I attended the committee meeting on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 and found this not to be
the case. The committee members were very open with each other and with me
regarding past problems and stressed their unified desire to move forward in a more
positive manner. It was generally felt that the appointment of a new chairman was a
positive and from the way the chair ran the meeting, I would have to agree. There was
much discussion (that will be continued at the next meeting) about how to best structure
the chairmanship; alternating years with faculty/staff; having
co-chairs with faculty/staff or some other iteration. I am confident they will work this out.
The meeting was well organized, the agenda was clear and questions and concerns
were discussed and resolved amicably. It was suggested that the presentation of
empirical data surrounding use of the Campus Mediation Service be improved for claritysake. The suggestion was well received and will be implemented by fall at the latest.
Plans were made to tackle a number of issues at the next meeting(s).
I received five responses (out of nine members) to the Committee Self-Evaluation
questionnaire and one email. All respondents clearly understand the charge of the
committee and believe that the committee is fulfilling that charge. All believe that the
committee’s strength lies in its diversity of membership and commitment to its charge.
Additionally, all are in agreement that the web presence could be better and that if would
be helpful in someone was assigned to administer this web presence (perhaps
whomever is responsible for the Standing Committees page could take this on).
Additionally, there is agreement overall that the committee must address the issue of
chairmanship. Three out of five of the respondents and the individual who sent the email
specifically mentioned that there should be a staff co-chair or an alternating
responsibility for the chair between staff and faculty. This is an issue that will make a
difference in the perception of inclusion as far as staff members are concerned.
Recommendations: Maintain and continue this committee as a Standing Campus
Committee. It would be helpful to the committee if the Office of the Chancellor could
provide direction regarding the website issue and would remain open to alternate
chairmanship suggestions.
Report on the Admissions Review Committee
February 2008
Charge: The charge to the Admissions Review Committee is to act upon cases of
admission to the University referred by the director of admissions or by appeal of
individual students; to act in an advisory capacity to the faculty and to the director
of admissions regarding admissions policies; and to hear student appeals for relief
from admissions decisions on credit or grade transfers.
Committee Membership
7 Faculty (3 year terms)
1 M.S.A Student (1 year term)
1 Ex Officio
Support
Comments: This committee doesn’t meet regularly. After talking to the Chair of
the committee it seems that it has not met in years and he feels these issues are
handled before it becomes necessary to bring it to a committee for appeal.
Since the Admissions Office has reported directly to the Provost, it maintains
regular contacts with both faculty and Vice Provosts on matters of policy and is
able to resolve appeals and borderline cases within the office itself, with no
unresolved appeals in the past eight years.
Recommendation
-The chair states that the committee hasn’t had a need to meet in many
years.
-When the Committee on Committees reviewed this committee in 2006 the
recommendation was made to discontinue the committee due to inactivity
and replace it with an Ad Hoc committee when needed.
-The 2008 recommendation is to discontinue the committee due to
inactivity and replace it with an Ad Hoc committee when needed.
Traffic Appeals Committee
Charge: The charge to the Traffic Appeals Committee is to make recommendations
to the vice-chancellor for Administrative Services regarding appeals made by
persons charged with a University Police Traffic violation
Comments: Based on the results of returned questionnaires, committee members believe
the committee is fulfilling its stated charge and responsibilities. One respondent
commented that it would be wise to meet only when there are three or more appeals.
Although this seems reasonable, if they wait for a specific number of appeals this will
slow up the process. The committee members take their responsibilities on this
committee very seriously. They are well organized and handle the three cases I observed
with fairness and sensitivity
Recommendation: Maintain and continue this committee as a Standing Campus
Committee.
Library Committee
Charge: The charge to the Library Committee is to make recommendations to the provost
concerning the continued improvement of the library collection and library services, and
academic matters related to library policies and programs.
Committee Members
The committee is comprised of sixteen members (eight non-retired faculty members, one retired
faculty member, two staff members (one being a library staff member that helps set up the
meetings), the Director of the Library, and 4 ex-officio members, three MSA undergraduate
members, and 1 GPC member).
Comments: The reviewer attended the beginning of the noon-1 PM meeting on November
30, 2007. The questionnaires were handed out to allow the members to provide feedback about
the committee’s functioning. The reviewer encouraged the committee members to provide this
feedback. Because the meeting had a full agenda for their 60-minute meeting, the Chair (Dr.
Bauer) asked the committee members to fill out their questionnaires after the meeting and to
return them to Dr. Bauer through campus mail. This process for obtaining the information has
been used for Committee on Committee reviews in the past but there was considerable difficulty
obtaining a large number of these questionnaires from the committee members despite urging
by Dr. Bauer since that November date.
Only seven questionnaires were received. Feedback from the committee's membership
indicated that representation and attendance at the meeting are good. Most committee members
responding to the questionnaire responded favorably to most of the questions on the
questionnaire. At least three exceptions were noted. First, about half of the respondents did not
feel that communication with the higher administration was accessible, timely or specific or that
decisions by the committee were taken seriously. Second, half of the respondents felt that the
results of the discussions (i.e., actions required by the committee) at the end of the meeting were
not clear. Third, over half of the respondents felt that time was not used wisely at the meetings
nor was there a sense of real achievement.
The written comments suggested that the faculty members on the committee really care
about the libraries. However, the committee feels powerless and unheard; and the committee
feels that the lack of funding for the libraries is frustrating. The administration makes important
decisions about finances without any concern about the committee’s input. One member
commented on the diversity of the committee’s membership as strength of the committee.
Recommendation
Overall, the committee is trying to serve the campus community but there is conflict
between the administration and the Library Committee. The committee has very adequate
representation. The primary reviewer believes that the committee should continue to function in
its present form. However, the Provost should meet with the committee to discuss aspects of the
library administration that affect faculty and students. One committee member mentioned that
it would be valuable for the Faculty Council to go on record with the Provost and Chancellor in
support of our efforts to stave off further cuts in books and journals (monographs and serials).
One committee member suggested that Faculty Council (and MSA and GPSA) make
appointments for the coming academic year in the spring rather than the fall) since important
committees lose 6 weeks or so of important work (not to mention the summer) while they are
waiting to find out who will be on the committee
Respectfully submitted
Carol Lazzaro-Weis
Chair
Committee on Committee 2007-2008
Student Fee Capitol Improvements Committee
Student Conduct Committee