Minutes of the AAUP Meeting of the Executive Committee, January 23, 2010, held in
Memorial Union, S110. The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m.
Those present included: Victoria Johnson, Stephen Montgomery-Smith, Jason
Aubrey, David Robinson, Eddie Edelstein, Andrew Twaddle, Sudershan Loyalka,
Haskell Taub, Rainer Glauser, and Phebe Lauffer.
It was mentioned that Leona, FC representative expressed appreciation for the last
meeting with AAUP. She felt it was productive.
Eddie called the meeting to order by introducing hybrid courses as the first item on
the agenda. Sudershan recommended that “the MU faculty” be added to item 4 of the
handout; which is attached to, and made a part of these minutes. Jason opened
discussion regarding intellectual property by indicating that it should be apparent
that the content of the courses belong to the faculty member. David gave report on
his research with the national AAUP; and had several handouts to share. The last
article he could access was from 2006, and the paper raised the same issues that the
Executive Committee has discussed. Distant learning and contingent faculty were
major areas of concern addressed by the author. David’s efforts will be ongoing; he
mentioned another article from 2000 by Donna Ubin.(sp?) In it she stated that the
faculty owned the content of hybrid courses, and took it with them upon their
leaving the institution. They did not, however, own the graphics associated with the
course, since they were developed by the University. Jason indicated that Education
Technology@MO (ET@Mo), encouraged you to put your ownership on the material
that you produced. It is Eddie’s contention that we should appoint a Joint Task
Force, to include faculty and administration to define the issues of faculty rights. He
further stated that it is their responsibility. Jason called for an articulation, but is
concerned it might make the situation worse. We do not want to restate the policy to
faculty’s detriment. David indicated it should be apparent they are following AAUP
guidelines. Victoria suggested we find the URL where rules are listed, and review
prior to acting. David’s concern is that the stated policy is from 2000, and hasn’t
been changed. Jason, Stephen and David will be on the committee to move this
forward.
Sudershan reported he has sent three emails to administrators regarding a meeting
to discuss the budget. We should pick a time, the agenda should be well defined; and
he reiterated that there should be a joint task force to ensure the faculty is involved.
Sudershan will move forward in his efforts. Phebe said that a smaller budget such as
the hybrid monies would be a good place to begin to understand the budget process;
and that the departmental budgets would be a good example of what members will
be working with. It was stated that since many of the fiscal decisions are politically
motivated, it is absolutely necessary that transparency be the norm. A salary audit is
the only thing that they have provided. Andrew thought we should absolutely be
pushing for the budget to be more transparent, and Sudershan further indicated that
they should give us the budget and ask for our input. Entire budget figures should be
available. Rainer said that justifications should be put in place, so that when they
make ill-advised decisions, it can be challenged. When they retrofit the decisions, we
must challenge that.
Eddie reported on the status of the faculty lounge and believes that coffee should be
there all the time. He said that a faculty lounge was available at the medical center,
and it was the only time he met and interacted w/other faculty. Interdisciplinary
activity is encouraged on campus, but there is really no opportunity to actually
involve oneself in the activity. Stephen indicated that FC did not endorse the faculty
lounge because of the lack of room. But what WAS discussed on Tuesday was one
night a week from 4 to 6 and free coffee, cookies, and cash bar at a location to be
determined. Stephen thought everyone at the meeting, including Brian Foster, was
in favor of the idea. Ken Dean, Leona and Tom Phillips were all there and are in
support of it. Sudershan said there used to be a faculty lounge and contributions
were collected. FC indicated financial support will be provided by Mizzou
Advantage. We must make an effort to use the facility if it becomes available, and
Victoria said it was an excellent opportunity to encourage more involvement by
faculty. Rainer encouraged it to be an effort for interdisciplinary action, and he
thought there were other forums on campus for interdisciplinary activity.
Mathematics and Life Sciences (MLS) could chip in dollars for this effort. It was
unanimously decided that this be pursued.
Victoria requested input on sending a representative to the national meeting of
AUUP. The meeting is in February and David strongly suggested we nominate and
send someone. He will take issues to the AAUP faculty senate in Jefferson City
February 8 & 9; and the state AAUP Missouri conference meeting in Kansas City on
February 13 at UMKC on our behalf. If we send a delegate to national, we should do
a proper ballot election, and he suggested delegates be selected by union process.
Thus, advertising and secret ballots would be necessary; so we will abide by their
rules. One item on the program is that Chris Kelly has agreed to come; and it would
be nice if our representative could make an appearance. Eddie strongly suggested
on-line/hybrid course, and intellectual property rights be put on the agenda, and
brought to the senate’s attention.
David mentioned that Truman was looking into sustainable environmental policies,
and the students strengthen that involvement. Domestic partnership should also be
on the agenda, and Victoria will send a message to the list serve to see if there is any
interest from anyone on working with these issues. David reiterated that AAUP was
especially interested in efforts pursuant to working conditions.
Victoria encouraged members to run again for FC; there were those who came in
close last time – Stephen and Karen, for instance. It was pointed out that it is difficult
to speak freely in the institutional culture of staying silent. Contingent faculty is still
not represented and if they would endorse AAUP as their power group, it was felt
they would have more influence. David indicated it would take a pool of 10
contingents to achieve representation, and have a voting block. Thus, four truly
interested participants would be the requirement. As a first step, Jason asked if
there was a way to develop a “list” for the contingent faculty. Jason will look at
setting up an email list. It will be researched. Stephen will ask Leona if there is such
a mechanism. There should be a way for contingent faculty to be on tenure tracks,
and Eddie will research from past FC minutes how to go about doing so, because it
was discussed in past meetings.
The question was raised if contingent faculty were included in the faculty lounge
accessibility. The intent was to absolutely include them, and discussion was held on
the inclusion of graduate students And that too, was tabled and will be taken up in
future discussions.
Elections for faculty council are in the near future; let’s discuss that. The next
meeting will be mid-February; meeting place to be announced. There being no
further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 11:50.
Respectfully submitted, Phebe Nichols Lauffer