Faculty Senate Agenda
Tu, November 2, 3:00 – 5:00 pm
1. Opening of meeting, information items
•
Waterborg
Additions to or modifications of the Agenda
2. Administration updates
Martha Gilliland / Bill Osborne
3. Resolutions re: Promotion and Tenure Process
1.
2.
Resolution by Durig, seconded by Driever: “Be it resolved that the vote count of College P&T committees in
the College of Arts and Sciences on the recommendation for tenure for the 2004/2005 academic year not be
reported to the candidates, nor the actual recommendation letter from the committee chair.”
Resolution by Mardikes, seconded by …: “Be it resolved (1) that the Clarification on the Promotion and
Tenure Process shall include disclosure to the candidate of recommendations made at all levels, from school
committees to Campus P&T committee and the Provost, and (2) that full information and performance
expectations for tenure be given at the time of hiring to any prospective tenure-track faculty member.”
4. Resolution re: Charge to Senate Welfare Committee to assess incentive proposal
Resolution by Ed Gogol, seconded by Karen Bame, distributed by Email on 10/22/2004:
In response to the Provost's proposal to commit University funds to one-time faculty awards, the UMKC Faculty
Senate requests the Faculty Welfare Committee to systematically assess the opinion of the entire UMKC faculty
on:
1. whether the faculty would prefer the proposed system of a yearly distribution of up to 30 $5000
incentive/performance awards, to be selected by the mechanism described in the compensation plan draft (or
as developed after input from the Senate Academic Issues committee, in consultation with the Faculty Welfare
committee), or
2. whether the faculty would prefer instead to have these funds ($150,000) placed into the salary pool to
contribute to merit raises.
As part of the conduct of this survey, the committee is asked to assist the faculty in making an informed decision
by outlining:
• the mechanism proposed by provost Ballard in Spring 2004 for selection of yearly one-time awards, and
• the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed awards, compared to merit-based faculty salary raises.
5. Student Center
Deb Lewis and Geoff Gerling
Presentation of the early-stage planning for the Student Center building design.
6. UMKC Marketing and Branding
Mel Tyler and Sarah Morris
Reporting on planning meetings and focus group outcomes.
7. Fund balance information
Waterborg
This information was requested from the units in August, preceding the 5% draw-down of the unit fund balances.
Questions that you might ask from your dean and/or the budget committee in your school (or should know):
1. How much of the original beginning fund balance is truly, legally committed (i.e., encumbrances,
contractual commitments, etc.)?
2. How much of the funds balance is represented as RIF funds obligated to support faculty research?
3. What items identified will not be funded because of the resource reductions to address the funding needs
of major capital projects?
4. What items represent short-term (1 yr) plans for expenditures?
5. What items represent long-term (2+ yrs) plans for expenditures?
6. For major commitments (#1) or plans (#4, #5), when were decisions made on these choices in your unit?
7. What portion of the funds will remain as a contingency for unanticipated expenses?
8. Committee Reports
Dean’s Council summary, October 11, 2004
Information
1. Budgeting for Excellence: Presentation by Nancy Zielke.
2. Center for the City Research Fellows Program: Informational item by Linda Gill Taylor.
3. Proposal to develop a Graduate Certificate in Disabilities Studies presented by Ron MacQuarrie.
Approved by the Deans; sent to Provost.
4. Medical Leaves for Faculty: Discussion led by Jeff Thomas. There will be no written policy; Provost will
provide monies to help out when faculty member is on medical leave to pay for adjunct or visitor when
required.
5. Update from Jeff Thomas on the Academic Hiring Initiative.