Faculty Senate
2001-2002
Minot State University
---------------------------------------------------------
Executive Board Meeting
March 7, 2001-2002
3:30 pm -- Westlie Room
----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Officers
President: Rick Barkosky
Vice President: Christopher Keller
Secretary: Lisa Borden-King
Parliamentarian: Bethany Andreasen
Executive Board
Bethany Andreasen Rick Barkosky
Lisa Borden-King Nancy Hall
Christopher Keller Warren Gamas
Michael Duffy Eric Furuseth
----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
Members present: Rick Barkosky, Christopher Keller, Nancy Hall, Michael Duffy, Eric Furuseth, Lisa Borden-King
Members absent: Bethany Andreasen, Warren Gamas
Guests: Dr. Shaar, Steve Huenneke
1. Announcements/Review Agenda: Dr. Barkosky reiterated his announcement that  he would not be running for CCF representative. He also distributed the current list of faculty priorities developed to assist Dr. Hall with her administrative reports. Dr. Barkosky added an agenda item concerning student course evaluations  under new business. Also, the faculty opinion survey is being copied for distribution.
2. Approval of Minutes: Minutes from the previous meeting were approved as written.
3. CCF Report: Dr. Huenneke:
a)CCF is preparing for their annual meeting with the Board. Last year the meeting  was a larger meeting but this year CCF is meeting alone with the Board. The focus is to help both groups understand each other better. CCF will also raise the issue  of students and faculty being on presidential search committees again.
b)Arts and humanities summit will be held next Fall with the CCF meeting. An all faculty mailing will be coming about this. Right now they are collecting applications  for papers and presentations.
4. Administrative Reports -- Dr. Hall:
a) Dr. Shaar’s report on Old Main construction: There is a bid opening right now for phase II. It was delayed one week due to the need to accomodate a larger  field of general contractors who wanted to bid on the project. We should get better  bids due to the competition. The demolition of the first floor of Old Main will begin soon. There will be no passage through the building and students and faculty  will need to use the two stairways on the far east and west sides of the building.  All residents have been moved out of that ground floor. The project should be  completed by mid-August with the exception of the auditorium. He has informed the ballet group that the area will be unavailable until January. Dr. Shaar also announced that in March Dr. Duffy is presiding over graduation for Executive Management  Job Corps members in Washington D.C.
b)Dr. Hall: Sick leave policy: Wes Matthews has completed work on draft four and is ready to distribute it to the whole campus. Dr. Hall suggested that he send the document to the whole campus and then tell people to get information/suggestions  to their Faculty Senators. It will be important to distribute this tomorrow due  to Spring Break.
c)Excellence in Teaching: Dr. Hall just finished meeting with the Excellence in Teaching Committee and they would like time on the April 27th meeting. Dr. Hall asked if we would like Dr. Ross to come to EFS. Dr. Barkosky indicated that he  and Dr. Ross would be meeting to work on presentations to both EFS and FS.
d)Academic Affairs Committee: The revisions to the 400 section of board policy are finished and posted for review on the web. Next year the 600 and 700 sections will be reviewed. The 400 section concerns academics, and the 600 section focuses  on compensation.
e)The Arts and Sciences Dean Search: The committee has made a recommendation and a report about strengths and weaknesses of candidate. Dr. Hall will investigate those and a decision will be reached soon.
f)Salary information from Bruce Haskins: Dr. Hall distributed a handout regarding  salary information. MSU has an additional two percent of money for salaries. One  percent came from the money from the Board for the peer comparator project and  the other one percent is reallocation from the cut Dean’s position and other  campus adjustments. Distribution of the money for salaries is being done differently than before. Wes Matthews took nationally normed data to discover how far away from the national market faculty and staff are, taking into account both position  and rank. Then he looked at who was the furthest away. He identified 40 people (20 staff, 20 faculty) most distant from market equity. This approach to salary decisions was done in response to faculty opinion surveys which indicated that there is no system in place. Equity is being addressed within each unit. Performance/merit  increases are addressed in the fourth paragraph of the handout. The MSU visions  and goals are to be used to distribute the merit discretionary money but there will be individual approaches within departments. Workload affects staff more whereas promotion, and changes in rank affect faculty. Dr. Hall also reviewed  the processes for budget allocations in regard to operations and equipment. The  operating budget is based on size as indicated by FTEs and the equipment budget is needs based.
Dr. Barkosky asked if the full Faculty Senate would like to see the system that Wes has worked out. Dr. Hall indicated that Wes would be very happy to share that  information as he has worked hard on it and is proud of his work.
g)New software for NDUS ERP: NDUS is currently looking at who will customize it.  Dr. Hall distributed a handout outlining information on who will be doing what in the conversion process. The model calls for “module leads” -- 15 people who will be pulled 100% FTE to work on this. Our campus has been asked  to contribute four “subject matter experts” who will be asked to dedicate  25%-50% of their FTE to this work. The bulk of the time will occur during summer  which is good overall. This process, and the resulting software, will affect staff  more than faculty but will affect all of us due to services to students. The budget  for this process is two million dollars short. One idea to deal with this problem  is to charge students $2 per credit. The other idea is to bond it, and the final  idea is to go back to legislature. The State Board almost pulled the money from  the initiative money but decided against it. Dr. Keller asked Dr. Hall to describe what this system will do. Dr. Hall replied that there are several new features:  All human resource managements will be on the system for faculty and staff to look up. Students will also have access to the system. They are saying that there are features of the system that will allow us to move to best practices in terms  of student services. Yellow graduation cards will be done this way also (automatically).
5. Old Business
a. faculty and staff dependent tuition waivers - an update: The issue is still  alive and well. Dr. Kibler is getting closer every day to making a presentation to Faculty Senate. There are many different models to choose from and this decision  is currently being made.
6. New Business
a. intellectual property rights: We discussed this issue at the last Faculty Senate meeting. Dr. Barkosky distributed the draft of the policy. Dr. Barkosky and Dr. Huenneke encouraged Faculty Senators to read over the policy and elicit responses  from their constituents. One way to present opinions is through CCF. The other way is to go straight to the State Board and present opinions. Alternately, people  could bring opinions to Faculty Senate and Faculty Senate could try to come up with a unified response. How people’s opinions are expressed is not as important  as THAT they are expressed. Dr. Barkosky is not sure that Faculty Senate will come up with a unified response or not; however, people are expressing themselves so that is good. Dr. Huenneke sent the comments of those who have made them on  to the Board committee. The faculty on this committee need the input from faculty  to build their presentation to the board committee. This is VERY important. Members of Faculty Senate and the Executive Board have the policy and some alternative models from other universities from a previous meeting.
b. distinguished lifetime educator award: Dr. Barkosky is looking for brief direction  on how he proceeds with this. Dr. Furuseth will help Dr. Barkosky with this.
c. computer and network usage policy: Dr. Barkosky distributed the current proposed NDUS Computer and Network usage policy. Dr. Hall asked if Dr. Barkosky knew who sent out the draft. Dr. Huenneke indicated that Pat Seaworth was the sender. He said he wanted the Academic Affairs council to look at this draft. Dr. Hall stated  that it didn’t get on the Academic Affairs agenda. Pat Seaworth had wanted  it added to the agenda but it was late in the meeting. Dr. Barkosky pointed out the final paragraph of “Background and Purpose” which states that users  should “reflect academic honesty, mirror community standards...” etc.  Dr. Furuseth asked if there had been a lot of cases of problems. Dr. Hall indicated  that we are having significant problems with student usage. Cathy Horvath could  come and tell Faculty Senate some of the incidents that have happened. Dr. Huenneke thinks it is a good idea to have a policy. As a faculty member, however, he has very ambivalent thoughts about some of the phrases put in that beginning section. He acknowledged the ode to academic freedom in the first paragraph, but stated that he also knows that we live in a state where people don’t want to be talked to about things. There should not be guard rails or restrictive rules about  communication. Dr. Huenneke stated that we need more clarity on what academic  speech is and that it should be protected. It is very important for it to be in policy. Dr. Huenneke also stated that, as faculty, we want to be involved in this process. Dr. Barkosky suggested that we handle this in the same way we are dealing with the intellectual property rights issue, by passing on responses from faculty constituents to Faculty Senate and then Faculty Senate can bring their opinions forth to important groups. Dr. Barkosky indicated that he would pass this draft  on to Kim Thompson to disseminate. Dr. Furuseth asked why, if it hasn’t been a problem, do we need rules? Faculty have been able to use their computers without  a problem. Dr. Huenneke indicated that there have been problems and told the story of his talk to City Council and response from an Alderman. Dr. Furuseth pointed  out that Dr. Huenneke has been able to put up the web page about economic development  and Dr. Huenneke responded by asking if he would have been able to if this policy  had been in place that we are considering. Dr. Huenneke asserted that the only  way a society progresses is through the expression of ideas. Dr. Furuseth stated that we have been allowed a great deal of freedom and wondered if bringing this  up may curtail that freedom. Dr. Barkosky suggested that we should err on the  side of the flow of information. Dr. Barkosky concluded the discussion by suggesting that we decide as a group to present this information to faculty and let them decide if they want to do anything about it.
d. stage I program notices: Dr. Barkosky reminded members that we had previously stated our desire to hear about any suggested program changes and so Dr. Hall  will speak about this issue.
Dr. Hall stated that there have been extensive conversations about Stage 1 program  notices at Academic Affairs committee. AAC has decided that when you are at the  stage of developing new programs , it is the time to notify the Board. They are asking two questions: will the program require state funding and does it signal a change in mission. Dr. Hall likes Dr. Barkosky’s idea that the Curriculum  Committee would like the same heads up by receiving the Stage 1 program notices  as well. Stage I are program change ideas and Stage II is where an institution  brings up what they actually decide to do. The purpose of this at AAC is to get  some conversation going about the programs. The arts administration degree proposed at MSU was recently discussed there. There was discussion concerning whether or  not this program was a change in mission but AAC said no as did NCA. The same was said of our new BAS degrees. Dr. Hall indicated that she has also been routing proposals to Chairs of affected areas so that we can get concerns raised at AAC.
e. student course evaluations: Dr. Furuseth stated that this issue reemerged at an English meeting . Student evaluations are still being typed in his department. He looked back and found the discussion in March and April of 2000. There seem  to be two issues: evaluations are not being handled uniformly and we did pass  a policy concerning this issue. Dr. Barkosky stated that they should be handled uniformly. The general consensus (although not unanimous) of Executive Faculty  Senate seemed to be against using staff time to type these forms. Dr. Duffy suggested  eliminating the comment section since it provides only subjective and invalid material anyway. There was a brief squawk of protest from the more qualitatively  inclined secretary of the Senate.
Dr. Hall volunteered to take this issue to the Chairs committee and they will work on developing common directions. She will report back to us the results of those endeavors.
7. Adjournment at 4:50
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Borden-King, Faculty Senate secretary