Faculty Senate
2001-2002
Minot State University
---------------------------------------------------------
Executive Board Meeting
January 10, 2002
3:30 pm -- Westlie Room
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Officers
President: Rick Barkosky
Vice President: Eric Furuseth
Secretary: Lisa Borden-King
Parliamentarian: Bethany Andreasen

Executive Board
Bethany Andreasen Rick Barkosky
Lisa Borden-King Nancy Hall
Christopher Keller Warren Gamas
Michael Duffy Nancy Hall
 

Eric Furuseth
 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
 

Members present: Michael Duffy, Bethany Andreasen, Eric Furuseth, Rick Barkosky, Warren Gamas, Nancy Hall, Chris Keller, Lisa Borden-King, Nancy Hall
Members absent: None
Guests: Steve Huenneke, Stephanie Witwer, Dale Goehring

1. Announcements/Review Agenda: Dr. Borden-King suggested that the format for minutes be altered slightly by the addition of a “formal action” section under each agenda item, allowing readers of the minutes to read only the formal actions of the meetings if they desired. There was general approval of this idea.

2. Minutes from the previous meeting:
Formal actions: The minutes were accepted as written.

3. Administrative Reports -- Dr. Hall:
a)Update on Deans search: The search committee for the Dean of Business made an offer to their top candidate and he accepted the offer. He was here in town and bought a house. The search for the Arts and Sciences Dean has hit a rough spot. We have made two offers. The first candidate turned down the offer because of spouse job issues, although he did say this was a great place. The second candidate has a daughter who is a senior in high school, so they don’t want to relocate. Dr. Rasmussen is checking with his committee over who to bring in next. They will conduct phone interviews and we will host a couple more candidates. We need to move quickly to get candidates here soon.
b)Upcoming retreat: Dr. Hall’s office is planning a retreat in February to work on two issues. The first issue concerns long range planning for online development. This is the last year of Title 3 funding, but we can apply for one more year. Kris Stonebreaker has been appointed as director to replace Bruce Fifield. Kris will report to Stephanie Witwer. At the retreat we will discuss a couple of key issues and then explore a process for making decisions about issues that come up regularly. Stephanie Witwer indicates that they are looking at building the quality of online programs and ways to keep students involved with MSU. The enrollment for this semester is 851. Dr. Hall indicated that she is using the Center for Extended Learning committee for this issue and that committee could report back to Faculty Senate. Stephanie Witwer could also report back to Faculty Senate. The second issue to be considered at the retreat focuses on summer school, including both credit and non-credit activities for summer. Some examples of non-credit activities include a diabetes clinic, boys state and girls state. One issue is the dates for summer school term. This is problematic and we will try to talk about it and get a recommendation from the group at the retreat. The retreat will be held on February 7th.
c) Grant Initiatives: MSU submitted the grant initiatives we discussed last time and we have the Chancellor’s recommendation for $150,000 for the international student grant. The research proposal grant is not being recommended for funding but we have another source of funding for the project. Dr. Hall and Dr. Barkosky attended a workshop recently which focused on a proposal with UND. MSU would get a subcontract with UND for about $70,000 over three years. Faculty will write proposals to get the funding. Dr. Hall indicated that she sees potential for additional funding as UND gets to know MSU researchers. Dr. Barkosky said that MSU is the only institution that is considering a competitive process for this.
No formal actions taken.

4) Administrative Reports: Dr. Shaar
: Dr. Shaar thanked Dr. Barkosky for giving time to the meetings being held between Dr. Shaar, Dr. Hall and Dr. Barkosky. These meetings are an effort to address issues and discuss items that might be coming to Senate. Dr. Shaar also alerted members of Executive Faculty Senate to the upcoming Board of Higher Education meeting in Newtown. One item on the agenda focuses on envisioning what we may be experiencing in higher education in the year 2011. Each President must give his or her vision of 2011 at the next meeting. Dr. Shaar wants to make a reasoned presentation to them, centered on continuing on our somewhat conservative but practical approach to higher education. We are ahead of most, if not all, in terms of technology. We are moving into a national arena in some areas. Dr. Shaar invited anyone with ideas on this topic to share those ideas with him before the next Board meeting.
No formal actions taken.

5. CCF report: Dr. Steve Huenneke
:
Dr. Huenneke announced that CCF will meet next Tuesday and he does not yet have an agenda. Thus, he will bank his time from today to use the next time he runs too long on his report.
No formal actions taken.

6. Old Business
a. excused student announcements: Dr. Duffy
The issue of excused student announcements was discussed at our last meeting. Following our discussion, we went to Faculty Senate and it seemed as though people were more than slightly concerned. We are going to take a two pronged approach: a)an information campaign to disseminate the student handbook policy; and b)change wording of announcements. Duffy says the second action is the crux. We want to standardize the form that is sent out and add the language from the student handbook regarding student responsibility for contacting professors. Dr. Duffy will be working with Lisa Eriksmoen and will coordinate with Kim Thompson, Dick Jenkins, and Rick Hedberg, the athletic director.
No formal actions taken.

6. New Business
a. BAS degree: Stephanie Witwer
:
Since EFS has expressed interest in the BAS program, Stephanie Witwer is here to talk about the degree. The current BAS proposal is a College of Business proposal. Prior to today’s meeting, Ms. Witwer sent the proposal to everyone. She handed out appendices for additional information today.
Dr. Hall was approached by BSC in late spring or early summer about forming a partnership to offer this BAS degree. We did research on what other institutions were doing and put together this degree proposal. Students enrolled in this program would complete an Associate degree from a ND institution. Typically in these degrees, students complete approximately 50 credits. The general education component for the degree would meet NDUS general education requirements and would typically be completed prior to coming to MSU. The professional component would be offered entirely by MSU. Students could choose from one of three areas of study.
MSU policies would be followed except for one requested exemption, concerning the required 60 credits from a 4 year institution. Granting this exemption would mean students could complete the general education component at a 2 or 4 year institution. The College of Business has looked at what the program should look at and this information is in appendices. Students could take courses in any one of the current formats used at MSU. The Academic Policies committee ( a subcommittee of Faculty Senate that looks at policy issues) has looked at and approved this exemption. The requested exemption will go to Curriculum Committee next and then to Faculty Senate. Dr. Barkosky asked if Stephanie Witwer would come to that Faculty Senate meeting and she said yes. Business faculty will attend the meeting as well. Dr. Hall indicated that the two year institutions have volunteered to come to the meeting as well. We thanked them for the offer but have not told them yes or no yet. Dr. Hall stated that we have no intention of offering a BAS degree on our own. This program will occur only through an articulation agreement. Dr. Gamas asked if there are additional programs being considered and Ms. Witwer indicated that information processing people at BSC have expressed an interest as well.
Dr. Keller asked if most of the course work for the degree is online and what a typical student’s experience would be in terms of on campus and online course work. Ms. Witwer indicated that we aren’t sure yet what kind of mix students will experience. Dr. Keller asked if they can complete the whole degree online and Ms. Witwer stated this was a possibility. Mr. Goehring asked if students will have to complete AAS before being accepted here. His concern is with financial aid. If students are taking both degrees, whose students are they? Ms. Witwer indicated that when she looked at existing programs, almost all had completion of the AAS degree written into the articulation agreement.
Dr. Andreasen stated that she has been talking to Dr. Jastrzembski about the general education issue. These students will be completing approximately 15 credits of general education. What will define what general education program they have to complete? Dr. Hall explained that there is a general education package that is accepted across NDUS. All packages have a minimum of 36 credits. All packages have similar distributions. We are required to accept these packages if they have been completed. The registrar at BSC would not sign off on a general education package completed with an AAS degree. Dr. Huenneke asked if accounting would count for any of those packages? Ms. Witwer indicated that accounting is not accepted in any of the packages. Dr. Huenneke then asked about information processing as a component in the packages. Ms. Witwer indicated that at BSC a student could use “enrichment credits”. Bottineau has elective general education credits as well.
Dr. Duffy stated that there are two concerns: One is for students so they know exactly what they need to do, and the other is for our advisors. Dr. Hall stated that advisors here will just have to look on the transcript for that notation concerning completion of general education. Dr. Barkosky concluded the discussion by stating that we will hold out on bringing this to Faculty Senate until it has gone through Curriculum Committee.

b. faculty opinion survey: Dr. Barkosky:
The data from last year’s survey has been analyzed. Dr. Cole-Harding will contact Dr. Huenneke. Dr. Barkosky will task the Vice President and Secretary to analyze the written comments. We hope to have results completed before the next round of surveys are distributed. Dr. Hall would like us to look at another survey from HERI.
Dr. Hall stated that there are accountability issues that the Higher Education Board is required to report on to the legislature. We are required to use the HERI survey, although we can decide how it is implemented and if we would like to add additional questions. There are about six mandated instruments that will be used.
The HERI is the instrument being used in the NDUS for faculty. This HERI survey could replace your current survey, and will give you normative data statewide and nationally.
Dr. Duffy expressed his strong commitment to faculty retention. He would like to see, at a minimum, exit interviews for faculty who are departing MSU. Dr. Hall stated that Wes Matthews does conduct exit interviews. Dr. Duffy indicated that he knows of instances in which the interviews were not conducted. Dr. Hall will check on this, because exit interviews are a required piece. Dr. Duffy asked if we could see the interview results at some point.
Dr. Barkosky sees no problem with having two surveys and it might be useful to see relationship between the HERI survey and ours. He would like to see us keep our survey. Dr. Andreasen said that we did conduct the HERI survey a few years ago and that information is available on the web site. Dr. Barkosky pointed out that the HERI survey does not have a mechanism for written comments, and he believes such comments are useful. Dr. Huenneke pointed out that another value of our survey is that it was designed to be of the Senate, by the Senate, and for the Senate. In addition, using a survey over time provides an important longitudinal perspective. He believes the regression analysis of our survey results is a significant source of information.
Formal actions taken: Although no formal action was taken, the general consensus appeared to support continuing to use both surveys.

c. late course drop -- Dale Goehring
:
Dr. Barkosky began discussion of this item by indicating that he has been approached by faculty concerned about the increase in requests from students for late course drops. Faculty expressed concern about this as it removes the responsibility from students to meet the drop date and puts faculty in an uncomfortable position. Dr. Barkosky asked if this is an issue we want to discuss or bring forward to the whole Faculty Senate. Dr. Duffy stated that there has been an increase in such requests and he personally does not sign any late course drops. Dr. Huenneke stated that he puts the last day to drop on his syllabus and tells them they will have two exam scores by then. Mr. Goehring was asked if there are financial aid concerns with this practice. He indicated that there are not financial aid concerns with the late course drops but that he has some other concerns he would like to discuss. He has a list of over 300 students who received incompletes. In addition, he has a list of over 100 students on financial aid who failed all of their courses. He is also requesting a report from Continuing Education identifying those students who have never made any contact in an online course, so that they can be administratively dropped. Dr. Hall stated that current policy does not let us administratively drop students because of financial and practical concerns (for example, being dropped is a deportable offense for Canadian students). Another example concerns sports. If the student plays in a game, unaware that he or she has been dropped, then the game is thrown out. Those are the reasons why we don’t have faculty dropping students.
Dr. Huenneke asked about the actual conditions that make students repay financial aid. Mr. Goehring responded that those who fail everything must repay 50 percent which is paid back to their student loans. Then they have to complete 2/3 of the credits they sign up for and maintain a 2.0 GPA by the end of the fourth term. Students who fail to meet these requirements are put on probation and then suspended. If students drop a lot of classes they can lose aid as they are failing to complete 2/3 of the courses they register for.
Dr. Hall stated that the issues Mr. Goehring raises about the failure rates, the suspensions, and incompletes are real and extremely important. Dr. Hall has requested that the names of all those students are routed to TRIO grant for possible services. Lisa Eriksmoen will get this list and refer students on for services.

d. a hierarchy of faculty concerns -- Dr. Barkosky:
Dr. Barkosky reminded members of EFS that we have dedicated ourselves to coming up with a list of priority items in relation to communication from administration. He started the list in the email he sent out about this meeting. In that email, he started with curriculum and program changes. Do people agree with that? Dr. Hall asked if the interest is in our campus’ curriculum or the state level.
Dr. Andreasen indicated that she believes the focus should be on those items like the joint programs we are getting into or competitive programs, because Dr. Hall is in more of a position to hear about those than we are. We can hear about the ones on our own campus.
Dr. Huenneke stated that another area of interest concerns major changes, philosophically or technically. Also, resource allocation is an important issue as it affects all other areas. Dr. Barkosky asked about faculty welfare issues, such as the sick leave policy. Dr. Duffy suggested that if there if were questions related to this on the survey then we would have some information about faculty opinions.
Dr. Andreasen suggested that an additional area of interest focuses on issues where resource allocation interacts with on campus curriculum concerns.
There was general agreement that the amount of reporting on construction could be reduced. Several members also expressed an interest in learning about how the university markets itself. Dr. Hall indicated that there is a whole committee that works on that issue. She is inviting the committee to the chairs committee and asked if EFS would like that group to be invited to EFS or FS as well. The committee is the Marketing and Retention committee.
Dr. Duffy suggested that this whole process needs to be done differently. We need to begin with a huge list, but then the list needs to be pared down to something manageable. No more than ten or twelve items. Dr. Barkosky will start with a general email to Faculty Senate to tell them to think about it and come with a list to talk about at the next Faculty Senate meeting.

7. Adjournment 5:00

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Borden-King, Faculty Senate secretary