--Minutes of the December 12, 2001 Faculty Senate Meeting





Watkins, Lyle, Allison, Rogers




Senators (Elected):

Wall, Redfern, Rom, Rosenkrans, Warnock, Allison, Amason, Brady, Cochran, Freund, Gupta, Dale Johnson, Kennedy, Lieber,MacRae, Ryan, Magalene Taylor, Schroeder, Phillip Taylor, Denny, Farley, Park, Stegman, Dennis, Nutter, Killenbeck, Salisbury, Etges, Fort, Gay, King, Kral, Musick, Norwood, Springer




Senators (Admin.):


Smith, Williams, Geren, Henderson Allen









Senators (Elected):

Don Johnson, Wardlow, Chappell, Lee, White, Hall, Martin, Holyfield, Miller, Schmidt




Senators (Admin.):

White, Weidemann, Shannon, Woods, Dutton, Greenwood, Loewer, Moberly




Patsy Watkins called the meeting to order at 3:35 PM. 




Approval of Agenda. 

Without objection the agenda was approved.




Approval of Minutes

With two changes to the minutes, replacing Hunt with Greenwood (Admin. Senators) and changing David Gay’s statement under V.D.  “David Gay thought the marketers were trying to over insure the faculty” to “David Gay thought that the marketers could be trying to over insure the faculty” the amended minutes of 11/14/2001 were approved.








Response to Senate Questions (Senate questions are posted at the following FS website: http://www.uark.edu/depts/facsen/AgendaMinutes/2001-2002/2001Dec/PedersonQuest.pdf. 

Don Pederson offered a handout to the senators.  This is posted on the FS web at: http://www.uark.edu/depts/facsen/AgendaMinutes/2001-2002/2001Dec/PedersonHandout.pdf. 


Pederson reviewed the handout.  The following abbreviations and terms were used:
Southern University Group [SUG].  The SUG was considered for this report as the peer institutions.  These are listed on pages 1-3 of the handout.

Restricted funds – those that are external - i.e. grants, some foundation funds, etc.

Unrestricted funds – those that are raised – i.e. state appropriation, tuition, fees, tele-funds (laboratory fees), etc.

Education General Budget [E&G].

Also budgets vs. expenditures.  The nomenclature used by Pederson is that budget is what is being planned; expenditures are what were actually done.


1. Total Cost of Administration vs. Teaching & Research.  This question is answered using expenditures, not budgets (current year is not included).  Service was added to the teaching and research.  The current year was not added.  Institutional Support is divided into two categories: General Administration and General Institutional Expenses.  This is what is generally compared when considering general administrative costs.  Page 4 of handout compares UAF administrative costs to the SUG including support to both restricted and unrestricted funds.  This is a better comparison (than what was originally requested in the question), because restricted funds are defined in various ways in the SUG.  Using the Pederson terms, overall we were below the SUG in both total and the teaching, research, and services definition.  A slight downward trend can be observed for UAF and a slight upward trend for SUG is seen.

2. Administration salaries vs. faculty salaries.  The average for continuing personnel salaries is shown in Table 2.0. on page 5 of the handout.   Administration salaries are tracked only for the Deans, Vice Chancellors, and Chancellor.  Staff members, Associate Vice Chancellors, etc, were not included in the data.  The FS would have to request the group below the dean’s level (associate deans, etc) from each dean’s office. 

The problem with answering the question regarding Chancellor, Vice Chancellor and Dean’s salaries is that there have been replacements, and recruiting salaries for these personnel are different from those former positions.  The increased or decreased replacement salaries were not correlated with the administrators leaving those positions.  The Salary Increment Pool is lower than the averages for Assistant, Associate, and Full Professors.  Increases in each category reflect people changing positions (9 to 12 month change, people changing to chair and back, etc), thus making this a very complex question to answer.  In relationship to SUG the number for each rank is low.  Page 6 shows the average salary comparison of UAF vs. SUG.

During Q&A, a question was asked with respect to why both salary categories should include increased salaries for replacement administrators and faculty were not figured.  Also some interest was expressed in knowing the actual dollar amount increase for administrators vs. that for faculty rank.

3. Numbers of students vs. faculty for the past 10 years (professors to full time instructors) and administrators (vice chancellors to assistant deans).  The past 10 years is not a good comparison because we do not have numbers for all students.   The graph on page 8 show data for fall enrollment numbers (slight trend up since 1997); the graph on page 9 shows total full time instructional faculty (fluctuated slightly up and down since 1995); the graph on page 10 shows the number of administrators (chancellor, vice-chancellor and deans (flat)).  The data for associate deans etc are not known.

During Q&A some interest was expressed in knowing the number of associate vice chancellors, associate deans etc.  Pederson did not have the overall number of associate vice chancellors, associate deans, etc.

Questions 4-7 concerned athletics.  In general the athletic department pays for all costs with the exception of university support for administration for business and financial oversight functions.

8.  University has approved $85M bonds for building projects.  The exact projects for the actual $44M bonds are listed in the handout.

9. What % of revenue made from athletics is returned to help academic programs.  For the scholarship tuition of the student athletes, the Athletic Department pays the full scholarship.  This amounts to 1.65% of the unrestricted funds.  Other funds that have been contributed are half price tickets to faculty, annual contribution to university’s advancement and a one time contribution to multicultural center (FY99, $100,000). 

10.  Attention to make buildings safer.  The answer is given in the handout.




Report from APT committee: Draft of the proposed guidelines for university and distinguished professor.  The draft is posted on the FS website at: http://www.uark.edu/depts/facsen/AgendaMinutes/2001-2002/2001Dec/UP%20-%20DP%20criteria1-%20draft.pdf.  Deborah Thomas, chair of Committee on Appointment, Promotion and Tenure.  The major changes are as follows:

University Professors
- Now appointed for service at this university
- Also widely recognized for teaching, research or service as faculty members
- Regarding administrators, cannot be appointed until 3 years after leaving an administrative position.
- Both tenured and untenured faculty in each unit (college, school, etc) can vote in this selection process.

 Distinguished Professors
- Leader in discipline
- Not a lifetime appointment - 5 yr review required to continue to hold rank

 For both positions a new committee will be appointed to identify University and Distinguished Professors.

 During Q&A it was expressed that the new committee could be used for other purposes but the APT committee did not identify other uses.  Some concern was expressed over the term collegiality in the document.  Provost Smith stated, however, that courts have upheld the right to use this as part of the function of the research, teaching and service expected of faculty.  Dennis Brewer asked whether the 5-year review would apply to current distinguished professors.  This was not discussed with the APT committee.  Provost Smith requested that the APT committee review this with the General Counsel.   This review may result in a process that may be viewed as a demotion.  Deborah Thomas and Phil Taylor stated that these were not promotions but rather appointments.  Provost Smith stated that the courts might indeed view the removal of distinguished professor classification as a demotion.  Also the guidelines do not restrict a person from being both a Distinguished Professor and a University Professor.  The norm across the nation is that people either hold one or the other but not both.  Phil Taylor stated that a number of institutions, including either Georgia Tech or Georgia do have a 5-year review of these appointments.  Jerry Musick stated that the intent of the 5-year review is that the appointment will either continue or not.  If a person were not reviewed, then the appointment would lapse.  It was expressed by Provost Smith that he could convene a meeting between the APT committee and general counsel and that the APT committee could come back with a recommendation at that time to the Faculty Senate. 



Old Business




Proposal: Change start time for MWF classes: Joel Freund.  The original proposal is posted on the FS website at: http://www.uark.edu/depts/facsen/AgendaMinutes/2001-2002/2001Dec/MWFtime.pdf.

It was moved and seconded to change the start time for MWF classes to begin at 8:00 AM. 

This proposal was presented at an earlier meeting.  It was referred to the Calendar Committee.  Due to the Calendar Committee’s inactivity, it has now been brought back to the Faculty Senate for a vote.  There are a number of benefits to changing the class time from 7:30 AM to 8:00 AM.  This would give students more time to get to class; also support staff would be present by 8:00 AM.  During Q&A, a number of logistical problems were discussed.

It was moved and seconded to stop discussion.  Motion passed.

The original motion was defeated by a vote of 6 to 21.



New Business




1) Consent Agenda

a. Graduate Council Curriculum Committee (approved on 11/15/01).
This is posted on the FS website at: http://www.uark.edu/depts/facsen/AgendaMinutes/2001-2002/2001Dec/Grad_Coun_Curr_Comm.pdf
b. Undergraduate Course Committee (approved on 11/13/01).  This is posted on the FS website at: http://www.uark.edu/depts/facsen/AgendaMinutes/2001-2002/2001Dec/UndergradCourseCom.pdf.
c. Undergraduate Program Committee
(limited number of complete hard copies will be available at the meeting)

1. AFLS:
Add back HESC Catering for Healthy Lifestyles
Restore Food Engineering course lost with elimination of BAST courses
Delete certain courses, and add others to the requirements for a
minor in animal science
2. ARSC:
Several proposed changes in BM, MUED that are driven by program
evaluation by national accreditation agency
Without objection the Consent Agenda was approved.

2) Motion to support AAUP Resolution: Bill Etges.  The AAUP resolution is posted at the FS website at: http://www.uark.edu/depts/facsen/AgendaMinutes/2001-2002/2001Dec/AAUP_Resolution.pdf.

It was moved and seconded to support the resolution.  Bill Etges stated the AAUP chapter unanimously adopted this resolution.  The last five points are the real meat of the resolution.    Also it is not known how the UofA Fort Smith will operate regarding full time faculty and promotion and tenure.  During Q&A David Gay asked to be refreshed on the 1940  “Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure” and the University of Arkansas Board of Trustees policy number 405.1.  Bill Etges stated that these are the original documents that our personnel document is based upon.  Tom Kennedy stated that it is meant to be for the UofA system units.  A question was raised regarding point 4,  “Protecting the economic and professional interests of part-time and adjunct faculty members”.  It was not clear to the FS members what this statement meant.  Bill stated that many teachers that teach introductory courses are part time teachers just contracted to teach that course.  The question regarding whether this resolution applies throughout the system.  Tom Kennedy stated that it was meant for the UofA system and that the event that triggered this resolution was introduction of UofA Fort Smith.  Jerry Musick stated that this was a very important issue.  He then moved to call a quorum.  A quorum was not present.  No vote was taken; the issue was delayed until the January meeting. Meeting adjourned at 5:15.



Patsy Watkins, Chair;

Neil Allison, Secretary.

Minutes approved: