Minot State University
Executive Board Meeting
November 29, 2001
3:30 pm -- Westlie Room
President: Rick Barkosky
Vice President: Christopher Keller
Secretary: Lisa Borden-King
Parliamentarian: Bethany Andreasen
Bethany Andreasen Rick Barkosky
Lisa Borden-King Nancy Hall
Christopher Keller Warren Gamas
Michael Duffy Eric Furuseth
Members present: Lisa Borden-King, Michael Duffy, Christopher Keller, Bethany Andreasen, Rick Barkosky, Nancy Hall, Warren Gamas
Guests: Steve Huenneke
1) Announcements/review agenda: Dr. Borden-King requested that an item for discussion be added under new business.
2)Minutes from previous meeting: The minutes from the previous meeting were approved with three changes: a) Clarify Dr. Andreasenís comments concerning the political science decision. She stated that the decision was a curriculum issue as well as a resource allocation decision; b) Clarify the statement regarding academic freedom in section 3e; c) Clarify that the October document did not have the language in relation to academic freedom crossed out, but the material distributed for November meeting did.
3)CCF Report: CCF has not met since Senate last met. The only really new item is down the road. An article from Leadership Abstracts concerning community colleges offering baccalaureate degrees was distributed for people to read and discuss at CCF. He would like input from us and from Senate about this article so that he can say to CCF that our faculty thought ďthisĒ about the article. The article basically says that community colleges have new and compelling reasons to offer baccalaureate degrees. Dr. Keller asked if there is a discussion of quality of programs. Dr. Barkosky didnít see any such discussion in the article. Dr. Duffy actually knows the school where the guy is writing from and believes that the author didnít tell the whole story. Dr. Duffy indicated that there is growing precedent for two year institutions becoming four year ones. His personal view is that community colleges have a right to expand if the degrees are in demand and the resources donít exist elsewhere in the area. In the case discussed in the article, there were other institutions around the area. Community colleges should have to prove there is an unfilled need. Dr. Gamas suggested that it is interesting that community colleges have been proud of their ability to change and to adapt. This becomes more difficult when shooting at a target four years away rather than two years. It is intriguing that a community college would cause themselves that difficulty.
Dr. Barkosky asked what CCFís interest in this is. Dr. Huenneke indicated that they want to provide input to discussions that happen because this issue could have a big impact on faculty and their work. We wouldnít want to have a change like that happen and have us not involved. Dr. Keller said that our student profile would indicate that this is not a concern. Dr. Hall stated that BSC has been told that if ANY institution can come forward with a BAS (Bachelor of Applied Science) degree then they will not be allowed to develop that four year program.
Dr. Huenneke asked if the BAS degree is conceptualized at the Board level as a response to this kind of article. Dr. Hall stated that these articles are coming from Donna Thigpen. She wants to make the point that nationally two year programs are becoming four year programs. Dr. Andreasen suggested that the resources in ND may well prevent this from being appealing to the Board. The next CCF meeting will be in early to mid December.
4)Administrative Report: Dr. Hall:
a)Initiative funding: State Board has a pool of money for which anyone who wants to can apply. MSU is coming through with three proposals:
1)International student recruitment and services grant: an office and funding for initial marketing. This would include some ESL programs. The proposal is in draft form.
2) Research initiative: Initially started as an initiative of all four year programs; however, all of the other institutions have dropped out. We are still submitting it because we want the State Board to know this is still a high priority.
3)Diversity: Dr. Shaar leads the presidents in terms of diversity. MSU has one of the highest success rates with the Native American population. This grant would enable us to work on curriculum, bringing in speakers, etc. The grant is for the whole state and a state wide board would look at the decisions concerning it.
There are no guidelines yet so we donít even know who the reviewers will be. Dr. Duffy asked if the grants references each other and Dr. Hall replied that they are separate. The international student grant is for 250,000, and the research initiative grant is 100,000. We donít know how much the diversity grant is. They should make decisions around January. Dr. Keller asked about the rationale for the first proposal. Dr. Hall responded that it was related to our declining enrollment plan which includes increasing dual credit enrollment and also increasing the international market. Dr. Keller asked if focusing on non North Dakotans is something the State Board will value. Dr. Andreasen stated that this is more of an issue with some legislators than with the Board.
Someone asked about the decline in Canadian students: Dr. Hall said that part of the problem appears to be the exchange rate. In addition, some programs have been developed in Canada because students were coming here. Students were eligible for financial aid to come here if they couldnít get the program in Canada. Also, the area of Canada just north of us has out migration just like we. On the bright side, Dennis Parisien spoke to Presidentís Council and reported that he is getting a great response in Canada. He is wondering if we have under marketed there.
Dr. Hall is also watching the Minot AFB enrollment. Our tuition collections are down this fall which isnít surprising given the number of people called to service. We are having a hard time planning for Spring. The military students want them back on base but the base will not let community people on base so this splits our enrollment. Dr. Duffy asked about our competition on base. Dr. Hall said that they are hiring strictly base instructors and so are able to continue to offer courses. Dr. Keller asked historically what proportion of off-base people attend base classes? Dr. Hall stated that science and math have a higher percentage of community people whereas speech and English are mostly military people. On and off base enrollment varies by course and by instructor. Overall, the split is 60% military and 40% community. Eliminating the community people would make the courses not very cost effective.
Dr. Hall reminded members about the upcoming open forums for the Dean candidates, and encouraged people to attend.
The final item of the administrative report concerns the Student Activity Fee. The committee who has responsibility for student fees is considering changes. There will be several follow up meetings and proposals are invited for the distribution of fees. Dr. Duffy asked if five dollars is still taken out for day care center. Dr. Hall responded that the current Student Senate group does not support the daycare. In addition, Dr. Rasmussen did a study and found there were enough daycare spots in the surrounding area. Dr. Keller pointed out that those spots are full day affairs and do not meet studentsí needs. Dr. Gamas has heard similar concerns. Dr. Hall indicated that if we think students are out of sync with Student Senate then we should do something about that. Dr. Andreasen asked if anyone has looked at who would be a student here if we did have daycare available? Dr. Hall replied no. Dr. Keller pointed out that the people who run for Student Senate are not the ones with kids. Dr. Hall said that the issue will end up at the ballot box, so nontraditional students need to be encouraged to vote.
a)Shared governance: Dr. Barkosky:
Dr. Barkosky wanted to bring people up to date on conversations about the issue of shared governance. Recently, there have been some instances and events that have led some faculty to believe that faculty were left out of decision making processes. Then, we looked at faculty surveys which indicated the same issues exist. At previous meetings, we talked about addressing these areas and working towards better communication. At the end of the last Faculty Senate meeting, Dr. Pijning asked what we are going to do to fix the problem. Dr. Barkosky thinks we are taking some good steps. There will be a web site from Dr. Hallís office that has information on it concerning local and statewide issues. Dr. Shaar and Dr. Hall will also participate in faculty meetings in departments around campus. In addition, Dr. Barkosky is going to meet once a month with Dr. Shaar and Dr. Hall to talk about faculty issues. All of these steps will make the conduit of information more fluid and less viscous. There are examples this week of better communication. For example, this week the curriculum committee chair has called a special committee meeting to expedite the process of a joint doctoral degree in Criminal Justice while maintaining the integrity of the process. In regards to the BAS degree, Dr. Hall, Dr. Whitwer and Dr. Jastrzembski have established a timeline together. What we need to do is think about what kinds of information we want to hear about from the administration. Is curriculum at the top of the list? Resource allocation? Deciding this will help us help the administration determine what is most important to share with us. Dr. Barkosky would like to present this idea to the Faculty Senate and see what they think the priorities are for communication. He believes that this should help to keep issues such as have occurred not happen anymore.
Dr. Andreasen stated that there is also a real dirth of knowledge about Faculty Senate, its committees and the procedures. Thus, when things donít happen quickly, people wonder what is going on. We need to inform people about these procedures.
Dr. Gamas indicated that while this is a noble endeavor, it will be a challenge to get a consensus from faculty on the issue of priorities. Dr. Barkosky said that the Academic Affairs minutes would be a great source of information. Dr. Hall suggested that she could bring AAC and State Board minutes to EFS and then EFS could decide what Faculty Senate needs to worry about. There was general agreement that this is a good idea.
a)curriculum committee change
A memo was distributed from Dr. Jastrzembski regarding a proposed change in the status of the director of the library on the curriculum committee. This will be brought forward to Faculty Senate next week. Dr. Jastrzembski did briefly refer to it at the last Faculty Senate meeting, as part of his curriculum committee report. The proposal is to make the Director of the library a permanent voting member of the curriculum committee. The function of the library person is for consultation regarding impact on library resources of curriculum changes. Dr. Gamas said that he would agree that Network Services and the technical side are increasingly an important part of curriculum.
b) time line for passing the BAS degree through:
AAC needs information by March meeting in relation to this degree program. The Curriculum Committee is ready to meet and discuss it at their January meeting. Stephanie Witwer and others will send the documents to Curriculum Committee by December 15th so that at the January meeting, the Curriculum Committee may choose to pass the program through on first reading. Then we will consider the changes at the February Faculty Senate meeting. Since the decisions regarding the timeline were made, Bottineau has also asked to partner with us and so this may be a broader issue soon.
c) Excused student announcements by Kim Thompson:
Dr. Duffy led a discussion concerning the excused student announcements that from from Kim Thompsonís office. Dr. Duffy stated that the way these are worded it is the faculty memberís responsibility to read the email, know who the students are and then excuse them based on the recommendation from the email. Some faculty require attendance, while some require notification. The proliferation of such requests is starting to get out of control and the onus has shifted to us. Sending these notices out is a good idea as it is evidence of the validity of an absence, but it is still the studentís responsibility to talk to faculty. Dr. Hall stated that in the student handbook it says it is the studentsí responsibility and that they have to talk to the faculty member regarding any absences. We should examine the handbook and make sure it is still worded this way. This discussion was raised as a request from a faculty member who ended up in the student rights committee when a grade was challenged which was received by an athlete on a scholarship who was given a lowered grade due to games attended. Dr. Barkosky stated that we will put this on the agenda for next time. We will bring the Student Handbook and discuss the issue more fully.
d)Transfer of courses within professional sequences:
Dr. Borden-King shared information she recently received at a faculty meeting regarding a decision by Kay Fulp and the Chancellor to require the transfer of several courses, including two courses that are within the professional sequence of the elementary education program. Dr. Hall indicated that this issue was also discussed at the AAC and members of that committee were opposed to the idea. The State Board originally said that common course numbering would focus on general education courses only, and not professional courses. Further, we were told that if faculty members disagreed they could exit the process at any point. Dr. Borden-King suggested that we need to respond to this in some way as it signals a serious lessening of the control faculty have over curriculum. Dr. Barkosky asked Dr. Borden-King to bring Dr. Rasmussen or Dr. Nordquist to the next meeting and to lead the discussion at Faculty Senate next time on this issue.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:45
Lisa Borden-King, Faculty Senate secretary