THE MINUTES OF THE MARSHALL UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE MEETING HELD
ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2001, AT 4:00 P.M. IN THE ALUMNI LOUNGE OF
THE MEMORIAL STUDENT CENTER
Due to numerous
reschedulings, no attendance was taken.
Faculty Senate President
Sottile called the meeting to order at approximately 4:05 p.m.
Dr. Sottile requested a
moment of silence to remember those suffering due to the recent tragedy.
Dr. Sottile introduced
the officers of the Senate; Parliamentarian, Dallas Brozik; Parthenon reporter, Mark Farrell; and upon
his arrival, the Student Government Association President, Jasper Black. Dr. Sottile then requested
the Senators to introduce themselves.
reviewed the “Procedural Notes from the Parliamentarian.”
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
There was a quorum. Minutes of the May 10, 2001 meeting were approved as
Thank you to Dr. Angel for providing the funding for the purchase of a new photocopier for the
Faculty Senate office.
The President has disapproved
recommendation SR-00-01-(39) 80 (FPC)—Recommends that beginning with the 2001-2002 year, Biomedical
Sciences Faculty salaries as a percentage of the salaries paid at peer institutions shall be brought
in line with the corresponding figure for Marshall University faculty as a whole. President
Angel wrote, “At this time inadequate information exists to determine the financial ramifications of
The President has approved
recommendations SR-00-01-(43) 84 (CC)—Course change for the College of Science; SR-00-01-(44) 85
(SCWC)—revision of Section 6.F in the Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities and approve
the establishment of a process for addressing Residence Hall rules as violations of the Student
Housing Contract, rather than as violations of the Code; and SR-00-01-(45) 86 (EC)—that
faculty continue to support the confidentiality of faculty evaluations.
Solicit a volunteer to be the
Faculty Senate Liaison for the Curriculum Committee—Larry Stickler; for the Legislative Affairs
Committee—Dan Hollis; and for the Physical Facilities & Planning Committee—Rebecca
Dr. Sottile discussed his notes
(see Attachment 1) and a handout (available in the Faculty Senate office) from the second meeting of
WV state faculty senate presidents with Chancellor Mullen held on Thursday, September 20th
Dr. Sottile discussed the issue
regarding public perception of the faculty workload. The
Executive Committee suggested that various university departments be utilized to develop a marketing
plan, and if necessary, seek outside assistance to implement.
Dr. Sottile discussed having an additional voice on the local governing
Dr. Sottile discussed the guidelines for merit and the information sheet
about Dr. Arreola (see Attachment 2).
Dr. Sottile discussed the
formation of three ad hoc committees: Ethics, Academic Freedom, and Constitutional. Bill Flannery
volunteered for the Ethics Committee.
As per a motion by the
Executive Committee, the Faculty Personnel Committee has been directed to develop a policy or
guidelines to follow in the event the Faculty Senate becomes involved in a departmental vote of
The General Faculty meeting
will be held Thursday, October 4th beginning at 2:00 p.m. in the Playhouse of the Joan C.
Edwards Fine & Performing Arts Center. All faculty are urged to attend.
Dr. Sottile discussed having an
ACF/HEPC alternate knowledgeable of the university system. Chuck Bailey was selected.
Dr. Ben Miller stated that Dr. Sottile had covered most of the information during his announcements. However, he wanted to speak about the need for faculty to become more organized and to perhaps develop some form of informational materials detailing legislative and other issues which could be presented to the MU Board of Governors.
He related that most colleges and universities in the state system have one
faculty member to act as representative for the ACF and BOG. In fact, a few colleges’ Faculty Senate
president holds all three positions. At his request, this issue has been discussed by the Executive
Committee who determined it best we have separate representatives, with alternates where possible.
He urged faculty to attend the MU BOG meetings in hopes that issues could
be heard beyond the single voice/vote faculty now have.
BOARD OF GOVERNOR’S REPORT:
Dr. Marshall Onofrio reviewed how the board has shifted from being an
advisory group to one that actually provides governance to the university. He also stated how his
presence on the board has gone from that of faculty elected to governor appointment with a term of two
The Board members have elected an executive committee; formed two standing
committees—academic and financial; established a meeting schedule; received extensive education
about their responsibilities; and have given directives to the various senior vice presidents on
campus to provide them with descriptions of their areas of responsibilities.
The Boards most recent action was approving a contact extension for Dr.
There were none.
STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS:
There were none scheduled.
REQUESTS TO SPEAK TO THE SENATE:
Senator David Chaffin expressed concern with the attendance policy as stated in the constitution. He requested President Sottile to discuss with the executive committee the possibility of charging the Constitution Ad Hoc Committee to review this policy in hope of their recommending a change. At present there is no differentiation between excused or unexcused absences.
Senator Clayton Brooks related an incident about a colleague who was
assigned to teach an 11:00 a.m. Tuesday/Thursday class in a room that was unacceptable and her
discovery that no other rooms were available. He questioned if there is a plan to provide more
classrooms in light that the university’s long-range plan is to continue increasing enrollment. Mr.
Brooks requested President Sottile to find out how many classrooms will be available once the
BioMedical Center is built.
Senator Bill Flannery presented a question regarding teaching loads given
the strategic plan to gain research prominence—should teaching loads be reduced or adjusted to meet
this goal? Discussion ensued as to which standing committee this issue should be sent. It was decided
that President Sottile will present this to the executive committee for their decision.
AGENDA REQUESTS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS:
There were none.
MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT APPROXIMATELY 5:00 P.M.
ATTACHMENT 1: DISCUSSION WITH CHANCELLOR
Discussed impact of decreased economic support in country (USA). This
will impact the state of WV and you will see a scale down in service items.
Discussed how to maintain civility on college campuses. The state (WV)
will apply a liberal leave policy to people in the military.
WV is in the minority when it comes to budget cuts or freezes.
College campuses will move to an environment where budget is related to
enrollment. Budget for institutions will also be affected by an institution’s expenditures. Will
also re-visit peer institutions. Peer process will be related to the number of programs and
similarities between each of the institutions. Peer selection process will be open to faculty input
Chancellor asked all institutions to provide “institutional requests” (want list) which will be channeled through the policy board. The policy board will rank order the system-wide requests.
Chancellor is appalled by the physical conditions of the campuses. The
conditions of the campuses are interfering with instruction.
A tuition/fee policy will be established some time soon. Possible options:
Tuition is a percent of cost.
Deal with what is in place.
Define price per credit for every institution.
According to Bruce Flack, tenure is established in the four-year colleges and will not be challenged.
65% of faculty are 50 years old and over. It is important to get young faculty.
Due to the gray machine bill/language, an increase in salary could not occur until October 1, 2001. If funds are available next year, increases will occur beginning of the fiscal year.
How merit pay is distributed is “up” to each campus. In five years (not written in stone) the merit approach for pay increases will be substantially based on how much work a person accomplishes. Pay increases will not all be based on merit.
Faculty need to understand that “their” local governing board will approve/reject salary plans.
An outside team will analyze all assessment programs on all campuses.
Please have faculty review draft policy (hand-out) and provide feedback to Chancellor.
ATTACHMENT 2: Developing a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation System
Raoul A. Arreola
The University of Tennessee-Memphis
Suggested Steps to
Developing a Faculty Evaluation System
Step 1: Determining the Faculty Role Model
Step 2: Determining Faculty Role Model Parameter Values
Step 3: Defining Roles in the Faculty Role Model
Step 4: Determining Role Component Weights
Step 5: Determining Appropriate Sources of Information
Step 6: Determining information source weights
Step 7: Determining how information should be gathered
Step 8: Completing the System/Selecting or designing forms, protocols and rating scale
About the Author
Raoul A. Arreola
received his Ph.D. in educational psychology from Arizona State University in 1969, specializing in
educational research and measurement. He has taught in the areas of statistics, educational
psychology, personnel evaluation, and educational leadership, and has held a number of faculty and
administrative positions involving planning, assessment, faculty evaluation, and faculty development.
These positions include Director of the Office of Evaluation Services, Associate Director of the
Learning Systems Institute, and Associate Professor of Educational Research and Measurement at Florida
State University; Director of the Center for Instructional Services and Research and Professor of
Educational Psychology at the University of Memphis; and Professor and Chair of the Department of
Education, Assistant Dean for Assessment and Planning, and Director of Educational Technology at the
University of Tennessee, Memphis. Dr. Arreola is currently Professor and Director of Institutional
Research at the University of Tennessee, Memphis.
Dr. Arreola has worked
and published in the field of faculty evaluation and development for 30 years and has served as a
consultant nationally and internationally to over 200 colleges and universities in designing and
operating faculty evaluation and development programs. He has also served as a consultant to the US
Department of Labor and the Florida House of Representatives on designing and evaluating professional
and occupational licensing examination procedures. He is president of his own consulting firm, the
Center for Educational Development and Evaluation (CEDA), that annually conducts national workshops on
faculty evaluation and assessing student learning. These workshops have been attended by thousands of
faculty and administrators from more than 400 colleges and universities. Raoul Arreola is married to
Dr. Mona J. Arreola, Administrative Director of the Hematology and Oncology Department of St. Jude
Children’s Research Hospital. They have four grown children and three grandchildren (so far).