August 2004                                    Editor: Patricia Brodsky                                   Vol. 5, No. 1


Senate "All-Faculty Meeting" on Restructuring, by Pat Brodsky

Welcome Back Get Together!

E-com Meets with President Floyd

Shared Governance and Academic Freedom: A Message to the Faculty Senate, by Karen Bame

Faculty Senate Budget Committee: an Interim Report, by Ed Gogol

Copyright Notice

Dues Information

Back Issues

Senate "All-Faculty Meeting" on Restructuring

by Pat Brodsky

        The Senate will sponsor an "All-Faculty Meeting" from 3:00 to 5:00 on Thursday, August 26, in 111 Royall Hall, focussing on the administrative restructuring proposed by the Chancellor during the summer. The AAUP urges all faculty to attend for a discussion of this important issue which could have repercussions for all of us.

The Background

        In late May the Chancellor proposed a major campus reor~ganization which would create two separate administrative divisions.  One, called the Division of Academic Affairs, would in~clude Arts and Sciences, the Conservatory, SICE, the schools of Business, Education and Law, and the Libraries.  The second, the Division of Life and Health Sciences, would include the schools of Biological Sciences, Dentistry, Medicine, Nursing and Pharmacy.  The Divisions would be headed by a "Senior Vice Chancellor" and a "Health and Life Sciences Vice Chancellor."  It is not clear what would become of the current position of Provost.  Notably, the current Division of Research would disappear, apparently to be subsumed into the Division of Life and Health Sciences.

        The AAUP immediately solicited faculty responses to the Chancellor and President Floyd.  One objection was to the tim~ing of the proposal.  Deans were requested to "discuss [it]~ in units with faculty and staff" and send "first round responses" to the Chancellor by [ITALIC]June 1[END IT], with 2nd and 3rd round responses de~manded by June 15 and 30.  The cynical, or at least unreason~able, nature of this timetable offended many, given that faculty are typically unavailable during June (the time when most of us leave town to pursue our research).

        The proposal itself raised many concerns.  Since Chancellor Gilliland took office, life sciences have taken center stage at the University.  It became clear early on that for the Gilliland ad~mi~nistration, research meant research in the life sciences, and grants meant large business or government grants.  Other types of scholarship didn't count, especially in terms of university funding or rewards.  The new administrative structure would merely institutionalize the policy that the only "real" sciences on campus are life and health sciences, and that these are more im~portant to the University's mission than the other disciplines.  The new structure would also have the potential for redistributing scarce funds to the life and health sciences, reinforcing a culture of haves and have-nots.

        Some faculty feared that the new structure could endanger undergraduate programs in SBS, Nursing and Pharmacy, whose students would be at a disadvantage within a primarily professional division.  Others noted that even the definition of "life and health sciences" was prejudicial, since it omitted disciplines clearly related to and supporting the life and health sciences, such as chemistry, physics, and psychology.

        Many questioned the need for reorganization.  The administration argument, that the Provost's office couldn't  handle the twenty-five persons or entities that report directly to it, was not convincing.  Some suggested that inefficiences in the Provost's office could be solved by less draconian and expensive means.

        Despite the fact that many faculty were not available, the deans scheduled meetings and hoped for the best.  Even then, many faculty attended to voice their concerns.  When Dean Le Beau reported the feelings of the College faculty to the Chancellor, he--and they--were chastized for being too negative.  A case of "keep voting till you get it right?"

        This question clearly concerns us all, and deserves our serious attention.  Please attend the "All-Faculty Meeting" on the 26th, hear the arguments, and make your feelings known, in a hands-on exercise in faculty governance.

Welcome Back Get Together!

        All faculty--AAUP members and others--are invited to join us for an informal get-together to ease our way into the semester.  Greet old colleagues, meet new ones, talk over the issues!

        Time: August 26, 5-7:00, after "All-Faculty meeting"

        Place: Upstairs at the Planet Sub, 4936 Main Street (across from US Bank).  First round's on the AAUP!

E-com Meets with President Floyd

        The executive committee of the AAUP chapter invited President Floyd to campus in mid-July, at his suggestion, to discuss faculty issues.  The two-hour meeting, the first such ever at UMKC, proved productive and informative for both sides, and established important channels of communication between the faculty and the President's office.

Shared Governance and Academic Freedom:
A Message to the Faculty Senate

by Karen Bame

        At the beginning of the new academic year, it is crucial to advance discussion on the role of shared governance and acade~mic freedom at UMKC.  To do this, the AAUP has compiled a list of questions for which the Faculty Senate should provide answers during the fall semester.  On some issues we provide the readers of the Faculty Advocate with a context for our questions and recommendations.

        1. The AAUP learned recently that the IFC recommends that faculty routinely evaluate upper-level administrators--the Chancellor, Provost, Vice Chancellors--and that faculty at MU, UMSL and UMR have conducted or are preparing to conduct such evaluations.  We are sure most UMKC faculty are unaware of this.  At the latest Senate meeting, the Senate Administrative Affairs Committee was charged with developing a review of the Chancellor.  Our recommendations to the Senate:

        That preparations for a faculty evaluation of upper-level administrators begin immediately, and that the review be guided by high standards.

        2. A search committee will be established to find a new Provost, perhaps within the next year.  The AAUP "Red Book" recommends a central faculty role in the selection of upper-level administrators.  For administrators whose duties include academic policy or who work directly with faculty, it says, in part, "the composition of the search committee should reflect the primacy of faculty interest...[S]ound academic practice dictates that the president not choose a person over reasoned opposition of the faculty" (9th ed., pp. 228-229). In that context we ask:

        What is the faculty role in selecting upper level administrators, such as the Chancellor, Provost or Vice Chancellors at UMKC?  Does it adhere to AAUP guidelines?

        Our recommendation: examine the faculty role and adjust it as necessary to maximize faculty control of this process.

        3. At the end of the last academic year the Chancellor and Provost submitted a plan to the Senate dealing with salary issues.  One of their proposals was that, rather than using funds to increase the general salary pool, the Provost's office would set aside money every year to give "one-time" payments to faculty.  Faculty would have to be nominated in order to receive this payment.  Our question to the Senate:

        Is it in the best interest of the faculty to have one-time monetary awards as a method of compensation?

        Our recommendation: that the Senate actively fight for an increase in university funds for salaries, and reject competitive "bonus" schemes that weaken the principle of contractual agreements and equitable pay for faculty labor.

        4. What are the campus-wide committees for which the Senate nominates faculty?  What is the nomination process?  How are nominated faculty selected to serve on these committees?

        5. What are the campus-wide committees whose members are NOT nominated by the Senate?  Why not?  How are faculty members chosen to serve on these committees?

        6. Why are the current campus-wide committee rosters not published on the UMKC web site?  Which of these committees are "chancellor's committees" or standing committees, and therefore subject to Missouri Sunshine laws?

        7. Who is the Academic Grievance Officer?  Why has the Senate not had an annual report from the Academic Grievance Officer for the last several years?

        Our recommendation: that the Senate institute an annual report, beginning with this academic year, and distribute it to the faculty at large.

        8. How can faculty have more of an impact in UMKC's budget decisions?

        9. Could the General Faculty meetings, as stipulated by the UMKC by-laws, be scheduled on a fixed date each semester?

        The Senate has already begun to address some of these issues, notably the selection of faculty to campus-wide committees, but much more needs to be done for the Senate truly to be the voice of the UMKC faculty.

Karen Bame is a Faculty Senator from SBS, and Secretary of the UMKC AAUP chapter

Faculty Senate Budget Committee: an Interim Report

by Ed Gogol

        How does UMKC spend over $200 million a year?  How much should it spend on its various academic programs?  On its administration?  On other support units, like the library and information services?  It turns out that it's almost impossible for faculty to get an answer to the first question, one detailed enough to allow us to perform our governance role in advising on budget allocation.  Over the past several months, the Faculty Senate Budget Committee has been moving toward understanding the UMKC budget.  One of the key steps is obtaining the appropriate data, specifically the budgeted and actual audited distributions of the general revenue allocation (GRA, mainly tuition and state appropriations) to the various units on campus.  We've been promised these key data for the last few fiscal years by Vice Chancellor Larry Gates.  Upon their receipt, we will be able to provide an updated report.

        In the absence of the GRA budgets and expenditure figures, we have worked with the total UMKC general operating budget figures, available on the UM system web site.  The proposed FY05 UMKC operations budget has also been made public recently.  While these operating budget figures include revenue sources more complex than the GRA, and often restrict~ed in their usage, they do reveal overall trends in UMKC expen~ditures (though complicated by accounting changes, the largest of these implemented in fiscal year 2002, and other factors).  These data indicate that the total UMKC operating budget increased by 19% for the period of FY02-FY04, and is planned to increase another 17% in the coming year.  The percentage increases for the recent past (FY02-04), plans for the next year (FY05), and the overall total for the period FY02-05 are broken down below by the type of unit:
Category FY02-04 FY04-05 FY02-05
Academic Units 21% 16% 41%
Support Services 13% 12% 26%
Administration 19% 26% 50%

        "Support Services" include Scholarships, Information Services, Libraries and Campus Accounts (utilities, etc.).  "Administration" includes the Chancellor's and all Vice Chancellors' offices.  The unit with the single largest percentage increase for FY05 is the Office of Communications, nee Public Affairs, which came into budgetary existence in FY03, with a proposed increase of 65% for the coming year.  In contrast, the libraries are budgeted for a 1% increase next year, making their 4-year total budget increase only 3%.  The overall academic budget figures are inflated by inclusion of restricted funds and flow-through payments, such as those to medical residents, that were implemented since FY02.

        This analysis of the operations budget figures is necessarily incomplete.  I hope to be able to provide a clearer analysis when the administration provides the general revenue allocation figures--which are, after all, public records that ought to be available to all taxpayers of Missouri, specifically including the faculty of UMKC.

Ed Gogol is a faculty Senator from SBS

The entire contents of each issue of The Faculty Advocate (except for public domain material) is copyrighted. The Faculty Advocate, April 2004, Copyright 2004 by the UMKC Chapter of the American Association of University Professors.  All rights returned to authors upon publication.  AAUP chapters, state conferences, and the national organization have permission to reproduce and distribute.  Permission for other non-profit publishers is a formality, but UMKC AAUP asks them for the courtesy of requesting it.  Contact the Editor, Patricia Brodsky: 816-235-2826, e-mail:

AAUP Dues Information

Open to all faculty
Full-time tenured and tenure-track
Full-time non-tenure track
Graduate teaching assistants

Membership requires payment of both local and national dues

Local UMKC chapter dues

$10 per academic year.
Send payment to Treasurer, Alfred Esser, BSB 417, 816-235-5316, or
Please make checks payable to "UMKC-AAUP Chapter."
Also please send Alfred your preferred mailing address(es), phone(s), and e-mail address(es).

National dues

Varies by job classification and state--click this link for up-to-date information

Discounts on national dues for following categories

50% off
a) Entrant: Nontenured full-time faculty, new to the AAUP, for first four years of membership
b) Joint: Full-time faculty member whose spouse or partner is a full-time member
c) Retired
75% off
Part Time: Faculty paid on a per course or percentage basis


Graduate: Person enrolled as graduate student at an accredited institution; five-year limit
Please note that national dues also cover Missouri State Conference dues (but not local UMKC dues)

Back Issues

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 1, No. 1 (September 2000)

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 1, No. 2 (December 2000)

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 1, No. 3 (February 2001)

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 1, No. 4 (April 2001)

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 2, No. 1 (October 2001)

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 2, No. 2 (December 2001)

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 2, No. 3 (February 2002)

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 2, No. 4 (April 2002)

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 2, No. 5 (June 2002)

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 3, No. 1 (September 2002)

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 3, No. 2 (December 2002)

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 3, Nos. 3-4 (April 2003)

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 4, Nos. 1-2 (December 2003)

The Faculty Advocate, Vol. 4, Nos. 3-4 (April 2004)

AAUP chapter home page