SUBJECT: Minutes, System Governance Council February 28
University of Alaska
System Governance Council
Videoconference meeting
Monday, February 28, 1994, beginning at 9:00am
Minutes
1. Call to order and roll call
==================
Voting members:
Donna Chantry, Chair, System Governance Council; President,
General Assembly; President, UAS Assembly; Member, Staff
Alliance
Toni Croft, President, UAA Faculty Senate; Vice President, UAA
Assembly; Member, Alliance of Faculty Senates
John Dede, President, UAA Assembly; President, UAA APT Council;
Member, Staff Alliance
Karen Enochs, representative and past president, UAF Staff Council;
Member, Staff Alliance
David Spell, President, UAF Faculty Senate; Member, Alliance of
Faculty Senates
Brian Brubaker, representative, Associated Students of the University
of Alaska Fairbanks; coordinator, Coalition of Student Leaders
John d'Armand, President, UAS Faculty Senate; Member,
Alliance of Faculty Senates
Chris Delez, President, United Students of the University of Alaska
Southeast-Juneau; member, Coalition of Student Leaders
Bonnie Williams, President, Statewide Administration Assembly;
Chair, Staff Alliance
Absent:
Kevin Gallagher, President, Union of Students of the University of
Alaska Anchorage; Member, Coalition of Student Leaders
Others present:
Pat Ivey, System Governance
Jeannine Phillips, System Governance
Mike Mayberry, President, UAF Staff Council
Sheri Layral, UAF Governance Office
Kathy McGill, UAF Governance Office
Paige Adams, Vice President, United Students of UAS-Sitka
2. Adopt agenda
==========
MOTION: passed
"The System Governance Council moves to adopt the agenda for the
February 28, 1994 meeting.
1. Call to order and roll call
2. Adopt agenda
3. Approve minutes of January 31, 1994 meeting
4. Round table discussion on efficiency and effectiveness
Brian Rogers, Vice President for Finance. Regents have also
been invited to participate in the discussion.
5. Action items
a. Council purpose and role (cooperation and coordination)
b. Motion(s) relating to Council membership
c. FY95 Council budget
d. Other action items
6. Reports
a. Coalition of Student Leaders meeting February 19 and 20
b. Alliance of Faculty Senates meeting February 16, and
task force meeting February 25
c. Staff Alliance meeting, February 23
7. Other items of concern
a. Date of next meeting: March 28, 1994, beginning at 9am
b. Agenda items for next meeting
* Approve Council constitution
* Changes to proposed regulation 03.01.01 to
reflect Council constitution changes
* Other items of concern
8. Comments
9. Adjourn
This action is effective February 28, 1994."
3. Approve minutes of January 31, 1994 meeting
=================================
MOTION: passed
"The System Governance Council moves to approve the minutes for
the January 31, 1994 meeting. This action is effective February 28,
1994."
4. Round table discussion on efficiency and effectiveness
=======================================
Not taken up. Presenter was absent due to illness.
5. Action/discussion items
=================
a. Council purpose and role (cooperation and coordination)
Discussion:
President Chantry said she spoke with several people including President
Komisar about the role of the System Governance Council. President
Komisar stressed to her that the Council speaks for no other group. The
Council works with the President as a think-tank, as a group that meets
to discuss those things which are defined in the constitution. At least
once in the fall and once in the spring, the President will meet with the
Council and some of the regents and discuss issues facing the university
currently, those that are coming up and identify areas that need work.
This has been the tone of President Chantry's conversations with regents
as well.
John Dede said there is really two aspects to the role, as drafted. One is
that the Council will interact with the president, regents, etc. The second
is that the Council will communicate between the three groups, Faculty
Alliance, Staff Alliance and Coalition of Student Leaders. In some ways,
the latter is the most important role, in that there is no other formal
mechanism for the Alliances and the Coalition to communicate between
each other. Dede wondered if Coalition members were happy with the
placement of the communications role in the last sentence.
David Spell asked if Dede was suggesting deleting the phrase "at the
request of those groups." Dede said that would make the role of the
Council a little stronger. Spell supported that. Dede asked if the group
was happy with the word "interact" in the first sentence. The word interact
is a bit overused, but no one could think of a correct word to replace it.
Spell recommended deleting the word "effective in the first sentence. John
d'Armand recommended substituting the phrase "on a regular basis" with
the word "regularly" in the first sentence.
MOTION: passed with no objections
"The System Governance Council moves to strike Article III.B from the
draft constitution and to revise Article III.C., as follows:
CAPS IN TEST = additions
(( )) = deletions
ARTICLE III. AUTHORITY,((PURPOSES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES,)) ROLE
B. ((C. Responsibilities and)) Role
((The primary responsibility and role of the System Governance
Council is to provide counsel to the President and Board of
Regents)) THE COUNCIL SHALL PROVIDE AN ((EFFECTIVE))
OPPORTUNITY FOR FACULTY, STAFF AND STUDENTS TO
INTERACT WITH THE UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT, REGENTS AND
OTHERS ((ON A REGULAR BASIS)) REGULARLY TO DISCUSS
matters including, but not limited to: policies and procedures for the
university budget process; the framing of long range plans;
university development; enhancing the university's public image,
and educating the public. ((; and other matters affecting the general welfare
of the university and its educational purposes and effectiveness. The
Council may seek input from other governance groups on issues within its
responsibilities, but is not bound by the input.)) THE COUNCIL
SHALL COMMUNICATE THE RESULTS OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS
TO THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY. THE COUNCIL MAY ALSO
COORDINATE MATTERS OF MUTUAL CONCERN TO THE
ALLIANCE OF FACULTY SENATES, THE STAFF ALLIANCE AND
THE COALITION OF STUDENT LEADERS. ((AT THE REQUEST OF
THOSE GROUPS. ))
b. Motion(s) relating to Council membership
(1) Amendment proposed by Coalition of Student Leaders
Discussion:
President Chantry said that given budget constraints, it will become
more and more difficult to meet on site, and that perhaps in the
future, the Council would have to rely much more on video
conferencing and audio conferencing. The president has indicated
he wanted to get together with the Council twice per year but did
not indicate whether those meetings would be on-site or by video or
audio conference, or whether they would be funded from his budget
or from the governance budget.
David Spell asked the students to withdraw their amendment in
favor of the Faculty Alliance amendment because the Alliance
amendment did not detract from the student amendment; in fact,
had all the substantive parts of the student amendment in it.
John Dede said the one new aspect since the last meeting that he
hadn't seen until Friday was the additional language concerning
how the rural faculty and student seat would rotate among the
three academic MAUs. He asked if the mechanism for that rotation
would be built into the Faculty Alliance and the Coalition
constitutions or would it have to be built into the Council
constitution. Spell said the Faculty Alliance chose to have it built
into the Alliance and Coalition constitutions.
Dede asked if the definition of small density schools was the same
for the faculty and the students. Spell said the faculty didn't make
a definition of density schools; that it would be left up to the
Alliance.
Chris Delez asked if the only difference was that the faculty
amendment has the inclusion of one rural faculty from small
density schools. Spell concurred and added that the faculty
included language about rotation for both the rural student and
rural faculty, but that the students were certainly welcome to strike
that for the rural student. Spell said the Alliance just thought it
would be cleaner to have them both rotate.
d'Armand said evidently something had been happening such the
last Faculty Alliance meeting that he was unaware of. He said he
didn't know that the Alliance had finally gone the route of asking for
a rural faculty representative on the Council. He thought what the
Alliance was trying to do was to persuade the students to have their
rural representation within the Coalition itself and not on the
Council.
Spell responded that it was his feeling as well at one time, but then
saw the faculty amendment and thought that it might as well be
acted upon; that there was no sense in holding the Council
constitution up over and over again. He said he would defer to the
other faculty at the other institutions.
d'Armand said making a constitution is like pouring concrete; it was
a lot easier to make it than to break it, and thought it should be
right to begin with. He really did not see the need for the
amendment. He thought the faculty could have their representation
within the Faculty Alliance and so could the Coalition.
Delez asked d'Armand if he was saying that the students should
only get three representatives. d'Armand responded that he thought
the faculty should have three and the students should have three.
He repeated that the students should have strong rural
representation but said that was what the Coalition was for, so that
all the concerns of the rural people would be brought to the Council
by their representative, whether it be a person from a large campuse
or someone from the rural campuses.
Delez said, as he said at the last Council meeting, that he didn't
thing the Coalition thought that would be adequate representation
for the various campuses with the diversity that they have.
d'Armand responded that if that was true, then their student
representatives were not representing them adequately. He felt
students would have adequate representation on the Council if
their student representative is a responsible person and will carry
their message forward to the Council, and they didn't have to be
sitting on the Council. They needed to be represented within the
Coalition by having membership within the Coalition and then
having a representative from that Coalition who will go to the
Council, just the way that faculty do and staff do. He could
envision the staff wanting a rural representative as well and the
Council would be unwieldy.
d'Armand said he was not against a student representation from the
rural campuses. His position is that the fewer bodies on the
Council there are, the more efficient it would be. He didn't see any
impediment to students being represented adequately by a
responsible student leader.
Delez responded that the members of the Coalition do see an
impediment to it.
Chantry said she attended the 9th annual student legislative
conference and had an opportunity to spend time with
approximately 50 students from all over the state and hear about
their problems and their need for rural representation. Chantry said
she strongly supported the fourth student member on the Council
because there are problems and circumstances that come up that
are unique to the rural campuses and those students did need
representation on the Council. She saw rural students at the
conference who were very dedicated to their governance work who
are trying very hard to be part of the governance process and who
definitely need to be involved at the Council level so they can
represent those students.
Spell said that the students didn't respond to his suggestion about
putting their amendment aside in favor of the faculty amendment.
He asked d'Armand how he felt about the faculty amendment.
d'Armand said a fourth faculty member wasn't needed, that the
Faculty Alliance represents all the faculty statewide very well. He
has heard no complaints from his outlying campuses. At first, he
thought it might be a fair idea, but now strongly feels that the
Council should stay as small and efficient as possible. d'Armand
favored withdrawing the faculty amendment and said he would vote
no on the student amendment.
Spell withdrew the faculty amendment with the concurrence of the
Council.
MOTION failed. Moved by Delez, seconded by Dede, failed with 3
objections (consensus required on matters affecting membership;
one objection fails the motion)
"The System Governance Council moves to adopt the amendments
to the Council constitution proposed by the Coalition of Student
Leaders. This action is effective February 28, 1994."
CAPS IN TEXT = ADDITIONS
(( )) = deletions
ARTICLE VI. MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION
A. Voting membership
The voting membership of the Council shall consist of one faculty, AND
one staff, ((and one student representative)) each from the University of
Alaska Anchorage, the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and the
University of Alaska Southeast, ((and)) one staff representative from
Statewide Administration Assembly, AND FOUR STUDENT
REPRESENTATIVES SELECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE
V OF THE CHARTER FOR THE COALITION OF STUDENT
LEADERS OF THE UNIVERSITY. TWO STUDENT SEATS SHALL
BE FILLED BY HIGH DENSITY SCHOOLS, DEFINED AS THOSE
SCHOOLS WITH AN ENROLLMENT HEADCOUNT OF 5,000 OR
MORE STUDENTS. ONE STUDENT SEAT SHALL BE FOR
MEDIUM DENSITY SCHOOLS DEFINED AS THOSE SCHOOLS
WITH AN ENROLLMENT HEADCOUNT OF 1,000-4,999. ONE
STUDENT SEAT SHALL BE FOR SMALL DENSITY SCHOOLS
DEFINED AS THOSE SCHOOLS WITH AN ENROLLMENT
HEADCOUNT OF UNDER 1,000 STUDENTS.
Dede asked if the sole reason for disputation was a matter of
efficiency. He said that essentially adding a student would be a
marginal cost. He asked if adding one more person to the Council
was enough to tie up Council deliberations forever, or were there
other issues rather than efficiency.
d'Armand said the question of adequate representation was
foremost in his mind. He said he realized that it is no additional
cost unless there is an on-site meeting.
Dede said his personal feeling right now was that he didn't see any
reason not to add an additional representative to this Council,
especially from a group that traditionally has not a strong voice and
may have some very valid concerns for Council deliberation.
d'Armand asked why couldn't students send their concerns through
the current Council student representatives; that it would seem
irresponsible of their representatives if they did not carry those
concerns forward.
Delez said he didn't think that three seats was adequate
representation for the students; that there were approximately
35,000 students compared to numbers of faculty and staff; that the
numbers paled in comparison. He said the students are transient
and it was very difficult for students to break away from classes to
attend meetings, even with three. Two out of three student
representatives are here today; last meeting Delez was the only
student. Delez said he was missing a practicum experience in order
to attend the Council meeting and defend the students' cause, so he
didn't see how anyone could say that three students were adequate
representation when talking about 35,000 students compared to the
numbers of faculty and staff.
d'Armand responded it was because students have adequate
representation in the Coalition. He said if they don't, what was the
purpose of the student network.
Chantry repeated that after attending the student legislative
conference and spending time with the student leaders, she saw
first hand how the students from the three main campuses really
cannot represent students from the smaller campuses; that there
are unique concerns on the smaller campuses that simply cannot
be addressed by students located on urban campuses such as
Anchorage students who don't understand what is happening at
Bristol Bay, or understand the concern of students from
Kuskokwim who think that the legislators are going to shut down
their campus in the near future.
d'Armand said if they cannot make these concerns understood to
their student leaders, then how can they make them understood to
the Council? Chantry said she understood them.
Brubaker said that in addition to the numbers of student
representatives, there was the problem of the different experiences
that the students have at the rural campuses. By default, the three
representatives will come from the urban campuses and not
necessarily a rural campus. That didn't represent the rural student
needs, and they are a large chunk of the Coalition agenda; a large
chunk of student concerns. Students feel that it is not very effective
for main campus representatives on the Council to espouse rural
issues. The Coalition feels that a rural student representative is
best suited to espouse rural issues. Brubaker said he believed from
his experience and observations of the Coalition that a fourth seat
for a rural student representative is a very deeply held belief and
extremely necessarily.
Bonnie Williams said her perspective was that the purpose of the
Council is now to talk; that's all--not to recommend, not to initiate,
not to advise--but to talk. She said actions, recommendations and
votes are now the exclusive property of the Faculty Alliance, the
Staff Alliance, and the Coalition of Student Leaders. The place
where the students must have representation from rural sites is on
the Coalition. If they are not on the Council, if the three student
representatives do not happen to come from a rural small-sized
school, it didn't matter because all the Council does is talk.
However, it does matter if rural students are not represented on the
Coalition.
Brubaker said that Williams was right if the Council was just
communication, but it seemed to him that the Council would be
very instrumental in communicating on issues such as distance
education, academic reqirements and certain concerns with the
resource alternatives task force. Brubaker thought that in these
cases, the rural viewpoint is sometimes just not there. The Faculty
Alliance and Staff Alliance each have a small number of
representatives from Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau, who can
meet by audio or videoconference and that's fine and works because
each of the staff and faculty groups at the campuses represent the
rural faculty and staff as well. But with the Coalition, there are at
least ten different sites participating in meetings, so then the
Coalition focus is less a focus on the larger campuses and more a
focus on the rural sites.
d'Armand said there was no reason why one of the three student
representatives couldn't be from a rural site. He said having the
rural sites communicating within the Coalition was much more
valuable to the rural students than having only one of them
communicating with people who are not from rural campuses. He
said that the students already have a voice directly to the Board of
Regents in the student regent.
d'Armand said he did not want to be misunderstood; he was not
here to squelch the student voice in any way. He said he
encouraged the student voice all he could, but just didn't see the
Council was a necessary medium for that particular aspect.
Chantry said that the Council was not going to come to a conclusion
on the matter today. She asked for a motion to table the
amendment until the next meeting.
Spell called for point of order. Williams said the motion had already
been defeated.
(2) Coalition amendment as amended by Faculty Alliance
WITHDRAWN
JANUARY 14 COALITION OF STUDENT LEADERS MOTION,
AS AMENDED BY THE ALLIANCE OF FACULTY SENATES:
CAPS IN TEXT = ADDITIONS
(( )) = deletions
underlined in text = Faculty Alliance amendments
ARTICLE VI. MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION
A. Voting membership
The voting membership of the Council shall consist of one faculty,
AND one staff, ((and one student representative)) each from the University
of Alaska Anchorage, the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and the
University of Alaska Southeast, ((and)) one staff representative from
Statewide Administration Assembly, ONE RURAL FACULTY FROM
SMALL DENSITY SCHOOLS, AND FOUR STUDENT
REPRESENTATIVES SELECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE
V OF THE CHARTER FOR THE COALITION OF STUDENT
LEADERS OF THE UNIVERSITY. TWO STUDENT SEATS SHALL
BE FILLED BY HIGH DENSITY SCHOOLS, DEFINED AS THOSE
SCHOOLS WITH AN ENROLLMENT HEADCOUNT OF 5,000 OR
MORE STUDENTS. ONE STUDENT SEAT SHALL BE FOR
MEDIUM DENSITY SCHOOLS DEFINED AS THOSE SCHOOLS
WITH AN ENROLLMENT HEADCOUNT OF 1,000-4,999. ONE
STUDENT SEAT SHALL BE FOR SMALL DENSITY SCHOOLS
DEFINED AS THOSE SCHOOLS WITH AN ENROLLMENT
HEADCOUNT OF UNDER 1,000 STUDENTS. THE RURAL
FACULTY SEAT AND THE STUDENT SEAT REPRESENTING
SMALL DENSITY SCHOOLS SHALL ROTATE AMONG THE THREE
ACADEMIC MAUS.
c. FY95 Council budget
Bonnie Williams said the budget was too large for a group that was only
going to be talking. She added that the university budget was shrinking
overall and it was hard to justify this much money for a non-action group.
Williams moved that the audio-video conference budget by $1,000 and
reduce the chair travel and release by $2,500 for a total reduction of $3,500.
She said she couldn't believe all the different budgets that all the different
system governance groups are submitting; they were all pie-in-the-sky and
groups would be lucky to get $500. Spell seconded the amendment on the
motion.
Chantry asked how much the remaining $2,000 would cover meetings. Ivey
responded that it depended on whether the meetings were by video or audio
conference, how many times per year the Council would meet and how
many sites would be involved.
Toni Croft said if the main goal of what the Council was going to do is to
look at an overall of the system and talk to each and coordinate that the
video/audio conferencing was one of the most important aspects of the
budget. John Dede said video conferencing at $240 per hour at its current
rate would be approximately 12 hours of video conferencing and numerous
hours of audioconferencing. Chantry shared Croft's concern that as a
communicating and coordinating body that the $3,000 was important.
Chantry said that as chair of the Council and given the department she was
in, her department would be thrilled if she had release funds. Her
department is not very happy that she does not have it this year. She said
she cannot speak for people who will chair the Council in the future. She
asked if there couldn't be a reduction for chair travel instead. Ivey said the
chair release was calculated at $2,500 with $2,500 for travel to the Board of
Regents meetings.
Dede said that if and when a faculty member is a chair in the future, that the
release time would become even more important so it was necessary to leave
that in the budget. Dede wasn't particularly enamored of the survey of
legislative candidates for $2,500. He wasn't convinced the Council was
getting any bang for the buck out of that.
Williams said the General Assembly had been doing the survey each
election year since 1986 with interesting results. With each suceeding
survey came in increasing heightened awareness on the part of the
candidates about the university and some of the issues of the university. The
survey doesn't keep legislators from cutting the university budget, but it does
make them take greater care. It makes them pay a little bit more attention to
the university's issues and problems. Williams said they don't now grab
money from the university now when they want it. They used to do that.
Williams thought the survey had made an enormous difference and said the
$2,500 was cheap for the outcome.
Spell asked who composes the questions for the survey. Ivey said in the past
the General Assembly executive committee drafted the questions, and that if
the Council took over the survey, the Council would draft the questions.
Generally, the group has Wendy Redman review the list of questions. Croft
asked how it was administered. Ivey said the Council would draft the
questions, Ivey formats the survey questionnaire, sends it out to the
candidates, compiles the responses and prepares a report of the results.
Chantry said it was effective, and it showed not only what candidates
thought about the university and its issues but also what the concerns of the
candidates are about the university, which ones attended UA, which ones
have children presently attending. She said she refers to it year after year
between times the survey is conducted so she can keep track of what
legislators think and so when she visits with legislators, she has some idea of
she's getting into.
Ivey said the report of results was distributed to all employees and student
governments, legislative candidates, and student newspapers.
Dede said he was enlightened by this discussion and was in favor of doing
the survey. He said that if the Council was paying for it, the Council should
be the one that drafts the questions.
Croft said she has never seen the survey. Ivey said the survey was not done
last year because it was not an election year.
d'Armand said since the survey made the legislature more aware of the
university, perhaps it should be done every year.
MOTION: failed Moved by Williams seconded by Spell, tie fails the
amendment
The System Governance Council moves that the audio-video conference
budget by $1,000 and reduce the chair travel and release by $2,500 for a
total reduction of $3,500 for a revised total of $9,500.
Yes No Abstain
Chantry Croft Brubaker
Spell Dede
d'Armand Enochs
Yes Delez
Karen Enochs asked why the "Who's Who in Governance" was needed when
there was a handbook. She agreed with Croft that if the point of the Council
was discussion, the audio/video conference portion of the budget should not
be decreased. She said that if Council didn't publish the the "Who's Who in
Governance" that would free up $1,000, allowing the Council to keep the
audio/video conference budget intact. She asked if the "Who's Who"
information was the same as what was in the handbook and if so, why have
two. Ivey said it was not. She said "Who's Who" contained the photos and
bios of all the governance leaders. It was originally envisioned that the
"Who's Who" portion would become part of the handbook, but it was
discovered that the "Who's Who" portion could not be published until late
October or early November because many governance leaders are not
elected until September or October. Given that, and given the need to
produce the handbook and distribute it well in advance of the fall semester,
Ivey recommended that the "Who's Who" be published separately. She
indicated that perhaps there were ways to reduce the cost and still have both
and she would investigate them.
John d'Armand said he's only looked at the "Who's Who" twice and would
prefer having a list sent to him on the vax. Spell said it was used at UAF,
expecially in the governance office. Ivey responded that the regents use it a
lot, so that they know when governance leaders come before them who they
are and who they represent. Some legislators who have received it have
been very appreciative of it, so that they also know who the governance
leaders are and who they represent. Chantry said that she has found over
time that people in governance at UAS use it to identify other governance
leaders across the system; the chancellor's office uses it and that it was
widely used throughout the system.
Croft said that if the Council had all the money in the world, the "Who's
Who" would be a great idea, but it didn't. She thought that since the Council
did not have all the money in the world, people will just have to ask who the
leaders are. She said she liked the publication and thought it was very
flattering but when there was a need to cut the budget, that was one thing
that could be done without.
MOTION passed Moved by Dede, seconded by Croft, passed without
objection
"The System Governance Council approves the FY95 Council budget
request as amended to eliminate funds for the preparation of "Who's Who in
Governance" and reduce the Chair travel and release by $1,000 for an
adjusted budget request total of $11,000, and directs the executive officer to
prepare alternative budget scenarios for discussion at the next meeting. This
action is effective February 28, 1994."
d. Other action items
There were no other action items.
6. Reports
=====
a. Coalition of Student Leaders meeting
February 19 and 20
Chris Delez said the legislative forum was held on Sunday afternoon, had
about eight legislators attend, another four or five sent aides. There was a
presentation from Mary Lou Madden and John Seiberg for about an hour
with a 45 minute discussion with students afterward. Everyone seemed to
think it was a success.
Brian Brubaker said during the general sessions, the Coalition took a
position on student loans in support of the recommendations of the Alaska
Commission on Postsecondary Education with some minor changes.
Brubaker said legislation has already been introduced for that. The Coalition
adopted a position paper on tuition. The minutes will be available soon.
These are sent to the spokespersons of the other governance groups and can
be sent to anyone who requests them.
Chantry said the conference was excellent and she was impressed with all
the students who attended and with how far the Coalition of Student Leaders
had come in just a few short months.
b. Alliance of Faculty Senates meeting February 16, and
task force meeting February 25
d'Armand said he was glad the Alliance was in Juneau so that members
could attend the UAS Faculty Senate meeting on the 18th. He said Croft
prepared several resolutions for action the Alliance might take and Alliance
spokesperson Colin Read presented those at the UAS Faculty Senate
meeting. These will be on the UAS Faculty Senate agenda March 25.
Read, Croft and d'Armand had dinner with President Komisar and Regent
Gagnon and that was a productive meeting.
Croft said the Alliance looked at the legislative audit and the results of the
audit. She said the legislature is not likely to be very sympathetic to
university pleas for increases, based on the audit and based on the current
financial situation.
The Board of Regents, in going over its policies, is dealing with some which
are really critical to faculty, not the least of which is the salary schedule.
The problem with the salary schedule is that when talking about market
adjustments for the schedule, the nature of the schedule is completely
changed, although almost everyone says that there needs to be some market
adjustment mechanism. What those are will change entirely what the salary
schedule looks like. The additional Alliance concerns are about merit and
how it is administered: is it an addition to the base pay, or is it handled
somewhat like a bonus? Most people seem to feel that it should be handled
somewhat like a bonus.
The Board is reviewing Board policies over this year and the concern about
tenure. There was a presentation to the Board by Bill Kauffman about
tenure and a motion by one of the regents to suspend the granting of tenure
for the next two years. That was postponed until June and it's is feeling of
the Alliance that that it is probably not supported by the full Board but it is
indicative of the concern by the Board for what tenure does to the institution.
Croft asked President Komisar in the UAA Academic Affairs Board meeting
last Friday what he predicted what would happen as a result of the tenure
issue, and he responded that the whole thing would be reviewed; he didn't
think anything so radical as a suspension of tenure would happen. Croft said
that Brian Rogers reported to the Board of Regents on a list of things that he
thought had to be addressed to accomplish the changes that they had
delineated in the January Board retreat. These have been passed on to the
UAA faculty, including some of the concerns about coordinating curriculum,
common course numbering, residency credit. The UAA Academic Affairs
Board is beginning to work on some of these issues.
Croft said the Alliance resolutions have all been sent to the UAA Faculty
Affairs item. These are projected to come back before the UAA Faculty
Senate for action in one month. The resolutions including 1) asking that
programs define productivity in a better way, 2) relating to who pays for
department heads, moving that to the administrative budget rather than the
instruction budget, 3) relating to service, that service related to governance
be paid from the administrative budget, and 4) some others on workload and
resource utilization.
Spell reported on the February 25 meeting of the task force on non-
bargaining unit salary structure and instructional workload. He said that the
president presented to the Board of Regents a proposal that had not
received faculty input. The task force proceeded with some its own ideas
and about the president's proposal. The task force is proceeding with some
proposals relating to productivity and compensation that will be relayed
back to the faculty senates for action. Spell said he has received a copy of a
letter from the president to the chancellor requesting that the chancellor
arrange a meeting for him with the faculty senate. Spell viewed this as the
president turning his back on the Faculty Alliance as any kind of group to
negotiate with. The Faculty Alliance will continue to move ahead.
c. Staff Alliance meeting, February 23
Bonnie Williams reported that the Staff Alliance proceeded to immediately
address the Alliance recommendations compared to the administrative
proposal. The Alliance had 15 specific recommendations in its report to the
Board and at the February 23 meeting, the administration agreed to the first
13.
7. Other items of concern
================
a. Date of next meeting: March 28, 1994, beginning at 9am
via audioconference
b. Agenda items for next meeting
* Approve Council constitution
* Changes to proposed regulation 03.01.01 to
reflect Council constitution changes
* Report on the Open Learning Cooperative (Brubaker)
* Revised FY95 Council budget
* Other items of concern
Agenda items may be submitted up through March 21.
8. Comments
========
Ivey apologized for the record for the late dissemination of the agenda and
the public meeting notice, citing multiple meetings of other group and
resultant demands on limited staff time.
d'Armand thanked Ivey for her efficient work.
9. Adjourn
======
The meeting adjourned at 11:05am.