Faculty Senate
2001-2002
Minot State University
---------------------------------------------------------
Faculty Senate Meeting
April 11, 2002
3:30 pm -- Westlie Room
----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Officers Executive Board
President Rick Barkosky Bethany Andreasen Eric Furuseth Warren Gamas
Vice President Christopher Keller Rick Barkosky Nancy Hall
Secretary Lisa Borden-King Lisa Borden-King Chris Keller
Parliamentarian Bethany Andreasen Michael Duffy
----------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Members Present: Colin McNamara, Ernst Pijning, Michelle Sauer, Robert Kibler,  Patty Fedje, Deanna Klein, Susan Podrygula, Ron Royer, Rose McKenney, Nelrene  Yellowbird, Bethany Andreasen, Joseph Jastrzembski, Rick Barkosky, Christopher Keller, Clark Markell, Dave McCormack, Nancy Hall, Tom Seymour, Linda Haider, Chad Johnson
Members Absent: DeVera Bowles, Ken Staub, Alisha Ford, Stephanie Martin, Heidi  Super, Christopher Beachy
Guests: Stewart Kelly, Linda Cresup, Linda Olson, Gary Ross, Larry Greenwood, Marilyn Hedberg, David Bradley
1. Announcements/Review Agenda: Dr. Barkosky asked if all concerned had received the new agenda. He announced that he is organizing the final meeting for the campus elections for Memorial Room 131. He will let us know when it is finalized. The meeting will be at 12:30 on April 25th. The minutes were approved as written.
2. Administrative report: Dr. Hall
a)Construction: Dr. Hall has toured Old Main and things are on track. She is working with Lisa Johnson on getting needed equipment for the rooms that will be used  for teaching over the summer. There will also be some construction in Hartnett Hall over the summer.
b) MSU Marketing: Dr. Hall attended an Academic Affairs meeting in which it was announced that the State is going to help ND universities with marketing by purchasing  some databases from ACT. We are also purchasing statewide the database for Juniors  and Seniors. Currently, we have been going to high schools and asking for databases.  Some high schools give them to us and some don’t. Dr. Croonquist recently  told Dr. Hall that 85% of the students with ACT scores of 30 or higher go outside of state leaving us with no opportunity to recruit them.
c) Statewide curriculum changes: Dr. Hall is giving the Stage One reports to Curriculum  Committee on a regular basis but summarized some select pieces. UND came forward with an autistic spectrum disorder certificate program. They are also proposing an online Bachelors in Business Administration degree with a major in Information  Systems. This is very similar to the program we are taking through the approval  process currently. UND is also developing a minor in Chinese Studies. They have  articulation agreements with China as do Mayville, Valley City and Dickinson. About 40 students and 5 faculty will be making exchanges this next year.
3. CCF Report: Dr. Barkosky
Steve Lawson has reminded Dr. Barkosky that his term is over, Steve Huenneke is  stepping down, and therefore MSU will need two new representatives. Steve Lawson  encourages faculty to refer to flip chart notes on how discussion went at the  CCF and State Board meeting went. Dr. Barkosky distributed the handout which focused on the recent Board and CCF conversation about the strengths and weaknesses in their relationship. Presidential search policies are back on the agenda because  campus feedback has been that they don’t want the issue to die. There were no questions about the report.
3. Old Business:
a)Family tuition waiver: Dr. Kibler
Dr. Hall, Dr. Barkosky and Susan Staub met with Dr. Shaar about the tuition waiver proposal. Dr. Shaar approved the policy with a targeted start date of Fall 2002  pending the budget results from State. The policy is approved, but start date  may change depending on budget.
b)Network and computer usage policy: At previous meetings Dr. Barkosky has encouraged faculty to email him with concerns about the proposed policy and has asked if  we want a joint response from Faculty Senate regarding the policy. There is additional  time now to make that response. The majority of the emails he received indicated concerns about the phrase “mirror community standards.” The majority  of those contacting Dr. Barkosky wanted a unified response from Faculty Senate,  so Dr. Barkosky has prepared a draft statement which he distributed. He still encourages us to forward concerns to Board as well. Dr. Royer stated that a statement  this specific targets only one piece of the policy when other problems may exist.  Dr. Kibler suggested that other universities may have formulated responses to  this policy in general. Dr. Royer said that would approach the problem he was  concerned about. Dr. McCormack suggested that any response should also indicate what should be done, not just what the problem is. Dr. Barkosky suggested that Dr. Sauer might like to volunteer to take the lead here. Dr. Borden-King will  help her.
4. New Business
a) Excellence in teaching: Dr. Ross
Dr. Ross chaired a committee charged with examining excellence in teaching criteria. The committee examined current research as well as the requirements of accreditation  agencies. They conducted two focus groups, one with faculty and one with students.  They also conducted a survey of all faculty on campus and a random sampling of students. Using all of these sources of information, the committee used an already established framework and modified it. Dr. Ross presented the results of the two  surveys first. All 18 means were ranked above a three on a four point scale, indicating  substantial agreement with the criteria suggested by the committee. There were no significant differences based on degree held, appointment or employment status (part-time, full-time). The student surveys have some minor differences. The only  demographic variable with a statistical difference was the females. They rated items higher than did males. GPA, age, college, and enrollment status were not significant variables.
Dr. Ross distributed a handout with the survey results, briefly outlined the criteria proposed by his committee, and asked if there were any questions. Dr. Jastrzembski  asked why the total sample was 170 people, but some of the subtotals are different  (for example, under “major” there are only 150 responses). Dr. Ross  indicated that this is the result of missing values (people not writing down an answer on the survey).
Dr. Barkosky said that although it wasn’t the charge of this committee to  decide how this would be used he was curious about Dr. Ross’ opinion about  how it might be used. Dr. Ross indicated that he believes, overall, this work  should serve to focus the entire campus on what the campus thinks is important  in teaching. The criteria could be used for tenure, promotion, hiring practices, and faculty development programs. Dr. Barkosky then asked if Dr. Ross had meant  to say that he would like Faculty Senate to consider accepting this. Dr. Royer asked for what purpose we would be accepting it? Dr. Ross indicated that the Faculty  Senate is the one identified body to speak for the campus. Dr. Royer stated that  he finds it odd for a Faculty Senate to accept one model of excellence in teaching.  Dr. Andreasen suggested that since this was an institutional committee, Faculty Senate can just recognize the work of the committee. Dr. Bradley stated that the committee recognizes that discipline, style, class, and other factors will result  in changes and differences. The committee does not see these criteria as something  that is trotted out to ask if faculty meet it or not. Dr. Royer indicated that  if the ad hoc committee’s work (on tenure and promotion) goes forth this  could be used for tenure and promotion decisions. Dr. Jastrzembski asked if the  excellence piece should be removed. A faculty member does not have to be an excellent teacher to get tenure here. He suggested that this could be just be a recommended teaching model.
Dr. Hall stated that we have, as one of our goals, excellence in teaching. The  members of the previous committee suggested that before we can move forward towards achieving this goal, we need to define what excellence in teaching is. This was  the reason for the institutional committee’s formation. If we decide to call  it a teaching model rather than excellence, that is fine. The motivation for these  criteria came from trying to address this goal from the Roundtable discussions.
Dr. Jastrzembski indicated that every goal here is laudable, but the next step is drawing up measurement instruments. Dr. Royer stated that is what the ad hoc  committee on tenure and promotion is setting forth as their work for next year.  Dr. Ross stated that he thinks one has to start by asking what excellence is even  though it won’t mean that one requires excellence for every criteria. Dr. Kibler said that he remembers the last time Dr. Ross was here we balked at the  idea of these criteria being associated with tenure and promotion. Any blanket  idea will favor some over others and the glove won’t fit. At the same time, we thought that this sort of enterprise might fit well for faculty development.  He shares Dr. Royer’s concerns. Dr. Royer stated that he can imagine good  teachers who do not do these things. I can imagine instructional models that don’t  believe it is the teacher’s responsibility to engage the students, rather  that engagement is the students’ responsibility . Dr. Kibler stated that we have an MSU mission statement that says responsibility is shared. Dr. Keller wondered if this were expressed in terms of “may include” instead of 18 boxes to check off, it might be better. Dr. Hall suggested that some questions  may be addressed as Dr. Kelly talks about tenure and promotion and that perhaps we should listen to his presentation and then return to this discussion. She stated  that as much as we need to define scholarship on this campus we also need to define  teaching. Dr. Keller said that clearly teaching is evaluated, so there should be some criteria. Dr. Hall agreed and said that this can not be reduced to student  evaluations. Dr. Barkosky suggested that perhaps the ad hoc committee should be reconstituted and this could be used to guide their work. Dr. Royer suggested  that this might seem a little less onerous if these were used on an evaluation. Dr. Barkosky asked if Dr. Royer was suggesting redoing the teaching evaluation  forms, and Dr. Royer said he was.
b) Ad Hoc Committee on Tenure and Promotion: Dr. Kelly
The first report is just the results of this year’s promotion committee and  Dr. Kelly presented it to Faculty Senate. Dr. Barkosky asked Dr. Andreasen if we need to approve this. Dr. Andreasen replied that only in cases of early promotion  do we have to approve them.
Dr. Kelly said that the second report is from the ad hoc committee on promotion  and tenure. We met last fall and this spring and got some matters settled but  not everything. There is an outline on the front page of handout. Dr. Kelly talked about what work the committee has completed. Dr. Kelly was asked if the teaching and service criteria will be in the same format as the scholarship criteria. Dr.  Kelly indicated that he is not sure if the committee has decided they could be plugged into the same format or not. Dr. Royer indicated that he is not sure the  ad hoc committee is dissolved at the end of the year. Dr. Barkosky said he assumed  it was but he might be wrong. Dr. Andreasen indicated that she shared Dr. Barkosky’s  assumption. Dr. Royer suggested that, given the complex nature of the work, it seems strange and difficult to reconstitute a new committee. He suggested that Dr. Barkosky could reconstitute the committee with the same people. Dr. Keller said that this is a big job and it doesn’t make sense to start over again  with new people. Dr. Barkosky said that the Parliamentarian will clarify this  issue between now and the next meeting. Dr. Kibler asked Dr. Kelly what relationship he sees between the contracts that we fill out that say 80/10/10 , and what is taking place in the committee’s work. Dr. Kelly indicated that the committee  tried to develop a system for looking at all of those things but weren’t able to get it done.
5. Clarification regarding CCF Representative and Elections:
We are looking for nominations for both positions and the one year alternate. The representative positions should be on staggered terms. Thus, we need one person to finish out Dr. Huenneke’s term and then a three year position to replace Dr. Lawson, and an alternate. Dr. Barkosky indicated that we need to form a nominating  committee responsible for nominating people for these three CCF positions. Dr. Barkosky suggested that Dr. Super serve on the committee as well as Dr. Beachy. Dr. Royer suggested that two representatives from biology was excessive. Dr. Barkosky asked for additional names. Dr. Seymour, Dr. Super and Dr. Sauer were suggested.  Ms. Fedje moved to accept these three names and Dr. Kibler seconded the motion.  Dr. Andreasen pointed out that this committee also needs to nominate the Vice  President and Secretary.
6. Curriculum Committee: Dr. Jastrzembski
a)BS in Arts Administration:
This degree program was presented last meeting to Faculty Senate. Dr. McCormack  pointed out that the first page says it is a B.A. when it should say B.S. . Dr. Kibler moved to remove the motion from the table. Dr. Jastrzembski seconded this motion and the previous motion was duly de-tabled. The motion was approved unanimously.
b) Course proposal for Humanities 210: Research Strategies
Dr. Kibler moved to de-table the previous motion and Ms. Podrygula seconded it. The motion to de-table passed unanimously. Dr. Royer pointed out that a course  like this is usually required of all students at the University. A student who  doesn’t know how to do this is in trouble. It is a good idea. Dr. Kibler  suggested that such a course could be expanded. There are lots of possibilities  here.
The motion to approve was passed unanimously.
c)Special Education concentration for new M.Ed degree: Dr. Linares
Dr. Royer moved approval of the whole package and Dr. McCormack seconded the motion. Dr. Linares said that the special education department wanted to be a participant  in the new masters in Education. They only had to add one new course (SPED 510) to have an appropriate concentration, as the rest of the courses are already on the books. The M.Ed. program needs to be 30 credits and this one is 33 credits. Dr. Royer called the question and the motion was approved unanimously.
d) Geology 101H: Honors hybrid course: Dr. McKenney
This course is intended to accommodate the need for science honors courses. A section of lab would be dedicated as an honors lab section. Students would experience  the same lecture as the others. There would be additional projects and labs that would span several weeks. Dr. Royer stated that historically the way the program has worked is that a course is opened up and is only given to other students if  there are seats left. Dr. Royer also indicated that there are some who believe that the idea of “hybrid” courses may be a slippery slide. Dr. Jastrzembski indicated that Dr. Royer is part of the committee that is examining that very question, along with Dr. Ringrose, Dr. Watson and Dr. Hall. Dr. Jastrzembski indicated that he is more comfortable with this proposal as it is a separate lab and has  more credits.
Dr. Jastrzembski pointed out that we have had this ten days prior to today. Dr. Kibler asked Dr. Royer, since he is serving on the aforementioned committee, if he would vote for this proposal. Dr. Royer indicated that he will because of the  separate section.
A motion to approve was made by Dr. McCormack and seconded by Dr. Kibler. Dr.  Sauer pointed out the use of the word “man” in the course description. Dr. McKenney stated that her department had discussed this but it is a common course with a common description. Dr. McCormack stated that in the dictionary  man is accepted as referring to humans. Dr. Jastrzembski stated that as a Senator  he recommends we take the opportunity of the next catalog revision time to remove  all sexist language from any course or program description. This could be done editorially rather than going through a curricular senate process. The motion  was approved with one nay vote and one abstention. Dr. Jastrzembski made a motion to strongly recommend to departments and divisions that the next catalog revision remove all exclusionary language. Dr. Royer stated that a first step would be  to define sexist language. Dr. Barkosky suggested that this is not an area over which Faculty Senate has any jurisdiction. Dr. Pijning seconded the motion. Dr. Barkosky stated again that he believes this issue is beyond the purview of Faculty  Senate. Dr. Sauer stated that this is an important campus issue. Dr. Kibler suggested  making a recommendation to Dr. Hall to do what is necessary to increase awareness of the issue of exclusionary language on campus. Dr. Hall stated that there is a NCA standard in relation to diversity, and MSU did look at all print material.  Dr. Sauer will be chairing the diversity committee to look at these issues (both NCA and NCATE had concerns about the diversity standards). Dr. Hall will ask the  committee to look at what kind of shape we are in regarding this issue.
Dr. Jastrzembski withdrew his motion and Dr. Pijning withdrew his second. Dr.  Andreasen, in response to a question by Dr. Sauer, said she did not share the  president’s interpretation of this being beyond the purview of Faculty Senate.
7. General Education Committee: Dr. Royer
a) At the committee’s final meeting of this year, the committee approved recertification of English 220, 225, 251, 252, 261 and 262. Dr. Royer recommends that the Senate approve this recertification. In addition, Theatre 110 should be approved. Dr. Keller moved approval and Ms. Podrygula seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
b)The recertification proposals are then complete and the recertified courses  are recognized as general education courses for four years.
c) A new course in English (World Literature Masterpieces) has been approved by  the general education committee as a new course for general education.
Dr. Kibler moved approval and Dr. Keller seconded. The motion was approved unanimously.
d) Dr. Royer presented his final report for the general education committee. In  addition, the minutes of meetings are attached to report. Math courses were put  on probation until fall pending an assessment plan. There have been three events worthy of note: 1) An explicit definition of wellness has been formulated; 2) the committee should foster an annual calendar basis for four year cycle so we don’t have to wonder when a course needs to be approved or recertified; 3) Bible as Literature has been asked to return next year for approval. Dr. Royer concluded by outlining what needs to be done next year.
8. Adjournment 5:10
Respectfully Submitted,
Lisa Borden-King , Faculty Senate Secretary