Faculty Senate
2000-2001
Minot State University
---------------------------------------------------------
Faculty Senate Meeting
November 15, 2001
3:30 pm -- Westlie Room
----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
 

 Officers Executive Board
President Rick Barkosky Bethany Andreasen Eric Furuseth
Vice President Christopher Keller Richard Barkosky Warren Gamas
Secretary Lisa Borden-King Lisa Borden-King Nancy Hall
Parliamentarian Bethany Andreasen Michael Duffy Christopher Keller
 

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


 

Members present: Alisha Ford, Ken Staub, Ernst Pijning, Tom Seymour, Susan Podrygula, Patti Fedje, Deanna Klein, Ron Royer, Chris Keller, Bethany Andreasen, Rick Barkosky, Rose McKenney, Dave McCormack, Jason Jensen, Tito Sifuentes (for Evelyn Holmquist), Clark Markell, Lisa Borden-King, Joseph Jastrzembski
Members absent: Heidi Super, Robert Kibler, Linda Haider, DeVera Bowles, Michelle Sauer, Nelrene Yellowbird
Guests: David Harpster, Wes Matthews, Steve Huenneke

1)Announcements and agenda: There were no announcements and the agenda was approved.
2)Minutes from previous meeting: The minutes were approved with the revision of Dr. Staub to Mr. Staub.
3)CCF Report: Dr. Huenneke
a)Dr. Huenneke shared the final CCF resolution regarding the presidential compensation plan. This resolution is a model for another resolution regarding the process for screening and searching for campus presidents. Dr. Huenneke distributed Jim Grijalva’s handout concerning the changes to Board policy 601.1. The changes to policy include: a)the Board President rather than the Chancellor recommends the search committee’s membership and chairship to the Board; b)the Board now may act as the search committee; c)the former mandate requiring consultation with campus faculty (among other constituent groups) was deleted; d)the former mandate to ensure representation of the various functions and academic disciplines within the campus was deleted; e)a requirement that the committee forward to the Board three or more qualified candidates was added. Dr. Huenneke indicated that there has been a groundswell of concern over how the policy was developed as there was not significant faculty input. Dickinson has written a statement to board expressing their disappointment over the changes to the search policy. The UND Senate has also passed a resolution which was distributed to Faculty Senate members. Dr. Barkosky informed Senate that they need to consider what they would like to do about this. We can do nothing, adopt our own resolution either for or against the policy changes or we can adopt someone else’s resolution.
Dr. Jastrzembski asked what the impetus is for this change. Dr. Huenneke indicated that the excerpts from June minutes tell us that Mrs. Clayburg requested changes because the committee for last UND president was too large. Dr. Royer asked if this is an oversight or if faculty are being intentionally overlooked. Dr. Huenneke indicated that one way to find this out is to pass a resolution and see what they do with it. Dr. Royer moved to endorse UND’s resolution and Dr. Seymour seconded. Dr. Hall asked if this was one of the items that the Board has moved from policies to procedures. Dr. Andreasen said that it doesn’t seem to be so as it came from Mrs. Clayburg and not Mr. Seaworth who does the policy and procedure changes, but we can’t be sure. She also suggested that we could endorse just the “resolved” section of the UND statement. Dr. Royer amended his resolution. Modified version: Whereas the recent SBHE Policy 601.1 deleted the mandate requiring consultation with campus faculty (along other constituent groups) and also deleted the mandate ensuring representation of the various functions and academic disciplines within the campus, be it resolved that: The Faculty Senate of Minot State University respectfully request that SBHE 601.1 be revisited and changed to insure that faculty, students, and other stake holders will have a significant voice in the selection of the leader of their institution. Motion approved.
b)CCF was not opposed to the changes in policy number 605.1, and even some believed it is a good idea. In the past it has been prohibited to pay initial probationary tenure track positions with grant money, but these changes would make it permissible. Sub section 4 of policy 605.1 currently states that initial probationary appointments must be entirely supported by state appropriated funds. The proposed change would delete that sentence so there were no such restrictions on the funding for initial probationary appointments. Dr. Jastrzembski asked what would happen if one was on grant money, occupying a tenure track position, and the grant money came to an end. Dr. Hall indicated that if the individual was on a tenure track position, then it would be the campus responsibility to pick up the contract. Contracts would have to clearly specify these issues.
c)Dr. Huenneke distributed information concerning the process of providing information about the board meetings. Dr. Petros discussed his strong feeling that materials for the board meetings should be provided digitally in advance of meetings. The issue was tabled, in order to work out a satisfactory informal solution.
d)The Chancellor has recommended that 25,000 dollars be provided in funding support for the arts and humanities summit. There is a draft statement about this in the CCF email for those who would like to read it. They are trying to find a date that won’t conflict with other dates.
e)The final issue concerns the language regarding academic freedom in board policies 401.1 and 401.2. The State Board will be discussing this today or tomorrow. When section 400 was reviewed in October there were no changes. But, when Dr. Huenneke gathered his materials to go to the meeting he noticed there were all these lines through the language concerning academic freedom. He contacted various parties and then the Chancellor emailed Dr. Huenneke, as well as everyone else on list, and said he was not contemplating changes like this. The Chancellor told the Vice Chancellor to make this expressly clear to everyone. Tuesday at CCF we had a conversation about these changes and someone noticed that in Seaworth’s email concerning this issue, Seaworth did NOT say changes would not come forth. Dr. Huenneke responded to Seaworth, saying that the statutes in law do not really protect us. In summary, although the Chancellor has indicated he has no plan to suggest changes to the language concerning academic freedom, we are not sure that others might not be interested. Dr. Royer pointed out that very few initiatives that have come from Seaworth have failed to become policy. Dr. Andreasen asked how often this has happened when the Chancellor has indicated he does not support such changes. Dr. Royer suggested that the Chancellor has no choice politically. Dr. Barkosky asked if now is the time to react to this. Dr. Royer applauded Dr. Huenneke for catching this issue early on since sometimes CCF misses the boat and comes in after the fact. There was general agreement that until there is a formal action, we can’t react formally. Dr. Huenneke asked if it would it be worth a special meeting if a crisis developed? Dr. McCormack suggested that if this were to occur, a committee should draft a resolution and get it to us in advance of the meeting.

4)Sick leave policy: Mr. Matthews
 Dr. Barkosky indicated that he is switching the order on the agenda in order to discuss the sick leave policy since Mr. Matthews needs to leave to teach class. He turned the floor over to Mr. Matthews.
Chronology: State board decided this summer that individual campuses should have sick leave policies on the books but nobody really rushed in to do this. This happened on July 1 and we still don’t have a policy. Mr. Matthews was charged to develop the MSU policy. He came up with a draft and shared it with Deans’ Council. Following this meeting, he wrote a new draft. The new draft was shared with faculty in some departments, and with chairs in other departments. Mr. Matthews then got a lot of comments from many people. This input has yielded some good questions and comments that have led in unanticipated directions. For example, the issue of short term disability insurance has been raised. As a result, TIAA CREF has been contacted for information concerning short term disability insurance. He is hoping for that information within a week or so. Mr. Matthews will examine that information and then write a new draft. The bulk of the feedback indicates that faculty expect a policy that is somewhat graduated (in terms of longevity with institution) but not necessarily an accrual system. The sick leave policy is intended to address an extended illness situation, not the flexibility of what to do with a cold. The definition of an extended illness is also in need of clarification. Other issues concern online course responsibilities versus on campus responsibilities and maternity leave. NDSU does have a policy in place but Mr. Matthews sees it as brief and somewhat unclear.
Dr. Hall indicated that there are close to ten legal challenges on file due to lack of clarity concerning policies focused on extended illness. At Minot State University we have one to two cases a year of extended illness. In the absence of a policy, we have to look at federal policy but those are not good protection for faculty.
Dr. Barkosky asked about leave to take care of spouse or children prior to the activation of Family Leave. Mr. Matthews explained the federal family leave act. He also indicated that North Dakota has a family leave act that provides for 4 months for spouse or children but not for the employee. Dr. Barkosky stated that the second draft of the sick leave policy left the determination up to the chair or dean about when to begin the extended illness but pointed out that the Human Resource person would have the information and such information is confidential. Would Mr. Matthews then make recommendations to the Dean? Mr. Matthews indicated that he expects the final policy to be more specific and clear.
Dr. Barkosky asked Mr. Matthews if he would be willing to come back and bring Faculty Senate a draft to examine. Mr. Matthews suggested that a better avenue might be to work with the Deans. Dr. Barkosky said that since this is a faculty welfare issue, we would prefer to have Faculty Senate be the conduit. Dr. Royer indicated his support for this approach as well. Ms. Fedje asked if material should be sent to everyone and not just Faculty Senate. Dr. Barkosky suggested that since this is a representative body, if we did distribute information to all faculty then faculty should let senators know their opinions. Dr. Jastrzembski stated his support for Dr. Barkosky’s recommendation, based on the fact that working through the Deans results in uneven treatment (as evidenced by the fact that Mr. Matthews met with the Business faculty and not anyone else. Mr. Matthews left for class, promising he would keep Faculty Senate “in the loop.”
Dr. Hall stated that she believes this is an issue about which all faculty need to be very well informed. An email should be sent to all faculty, and Mr. Matthews should come to this group as well. Dr. Jastrzemsbki suggested sending out the message through Kim Thompson. Ms. Klein said she was glad to hear Dr. Hall is in support of this because early on faculty were told this was not a Faculty Senate issue.
Dr. Hall indicated that the intention always was to involve the faculty but the first draft was too rough to share with any one other than the deans. Dr. Pijning asked if the sick leave policy will come before Faculty Senate for approval or not and Dr. Hall replied that she will bring the policy to Faculty Senate.
5) Administrative Report: Update on Dean searches: We have two college of business candidates coming on Dec 7th. A press release will come out soon, and background information will be in the press release. The Arts and Science search is only about a week off from this schedule. They are having phone interviews right now to narrow it down from seven candidates.
Dr. Hall distributed a packet to Faculty Senators containing the most current copy of the institutional planning document. This is the result of Faculty Senate, Student Senate, Deans Council, and any other interested campus members. This document drives Dr. Hall’s work for the year. She will be asking Deans to each take the point position for a different cornerstone.
Dr. Hall described changes to State Board policy concerning stage one curricular requests. The Board now wants notification when we even contemplate something that: a)is a mission change; or, b)requires any new state funding. We have been told no doctoral programs as this would constitute a change in mission statement, but we could partner with UND. Similarly, Bismarck wanted a four year degree in power plant management and were told no but they could seek a partner. Bismarck is trying to decide whether to do that OR go to all the work anyway and take it to the Board even though their request will be denied. This is a substantial shift in State Board operation, and Dr. Hall wanted everyone aware of it. UND turned in 89 different proposals --so when we see these proposals, it is important to remember that they are preplanning and not all will be actively pursued.
Dr. Jastrzembski mentioned that a similar early warning system would be good for us on this campus as well. We could ask that the same kind of notification be given to Curriculum Committee or Faculty Senate. Dr. Royer agreed, indicating that for an entirely new program, ten days is not enough.
Dr. Hall shared a communication she got in October that lists what other institutions are doing now with tuition waivers. Some of the waivers we currently offer we can’t get rid of but others we can now eliminate (cultural diversity for example).
Dr. Hall concluded her report by saying that she would like more direction about the administrative report. She and Dr. Barkosky have talked about better communication on campus. She feels there is a lot of misinformation going around. Dr. Hall requested our input concerning what institutional committees, other committees or other events about which we would like her to regularly report. We will talk more about this under shared governance item.

6)Tuition waiver for dependents and spouses: Dr. Barkosky indicated that Dr. Kibler and Mr. Matthews have developed a faculty questionnaire to find out how many people would take advantage of this waiver. Dr. Barkosky distributed the questionnaire and asked if Faculty Senate wants this questionnaire distributed. he also said that since ND does not recognize same sex spouses, this policy would not either. Several suggestions concerning the questionnaire were made: 1)include a place to indicate that the faculty member has no spouse and/or no dependent; 2)design the questionnaire to clearly indicate how many dependents exist; 3)the level of education being pursued would make a difference also as it will allow us to gauge the effects on the general education program and graduate degree programs; and 4)the questionnaire should include a place to state whether the dependent or spouse would be pursuing a degree program or simply taking occasional classes. Dr. Royer moved approval to disseminate it when it becomes a viable vehicle and Ms. Fedje seconded. Motion was approved. The questionnaire could focus on faculty specifically but Dr. Hall’s office will need to collect the same information from staff as well. Dr. Markell mentioned the need to establish a vehicle for getting the survey back since full return is important.

7) Shared governance: Dr. Barkosky passed out excerpts from the MSU constitution relevant to the issue of shared governance. He stated that some recent incidents have suggested that faculty need to reassert themselves back into the shared governance process. Dr. Barkosky cited recent faculty surveys which indicate that several respondents suggested that administration and faculty relationships could be strengthened. Dr. Barkosky began the discussion concerning shared governance by reading from the Constitution. He read Section 3 of Article 4:
“Section 3. Subject to Board policy, the faculty through the Faculty Senate has responsibility for all academic matters and for certain non-academic matters of the University. The faculty shall recommend:
1) any changes, deletions, or additions of courses for classroom instruction or of major, minor or their requirements for graduation, such as standards of grading; 2) any matters affecting faculty welfare;
3) any change in scheme of faculty organization or of chain-of-command involving faculty; and 4) this Constitution and Bylaws and any subsequent changes.”
Dr. Barkosky then read Section 5 of Article 6:
“Section 5. The purpose of the Faculty Senate shall be:
A. To examine any action taken by any committee, academic unit, or administrative office of the University which modifies policies or regulations of the University academic program.
B. To act upon matters relating to curriculum and instruction, including Continuing Education, within the limits established by the Board.
C. To cooperate with the President in determining policies pertaining to faculty relations, organization of the University academic programs, and student participation in the control of student affairs.
D. To establish, to determine the method of personnel selection, to determine the functions, and to supervise and review the proceedings and recommendations of all Senate committees.”

Dr. Barkosky also cited recent events which have contributed to this concern. Some faculty members think the sick leave policy was not brought early enough to faculty. Some Deans also said this was not a faculty issue and would not be voted on by faculty. The moving of the courses from Social Sciences to Criminal Justice is another recent example. In order to address this, Dr. Barkosky thinks the Faculty Senate should look to a goal to address the morale problems and the issues concerning the relationship between administration and faculty. We should work with the administration on the communication issue. These steps will go a long way to changing this difficulty and perhaps create a more conducive atmosphere among the administration and faculty. Dr. Barkosky is confident that the VPAA is committed to these ideas as well. We are going to work towards resolving this issue.
8) Curriculum Committee: The math department is requesting that geometry become a prerequisite for the history of math course. Without this background, the course is quite difficult for students. Dr. Royer moved approval and Ms. Podrygula seconded. Motion approved.
Dr. Jastrzembski asked for the indulgence of Faculty Senate on the science department changes as documents were sent to Faculty Senate Secretary to distribute. The Secretary, however, did not receive the documents. The request is to allow BSE students to take the physics calculus based class or the algebra based class. Dr. Royer moved suspension of the rules and approval. Dr. Pijning seconded. Motion approved.


9) General Education Committee: Dr. Royer indicated that there is no business to bring forward.

10) Student fee increase: This issue has been discussed in finance committee. A representative from Student Senate, stated that the Finance Committee thinks there is need for change in the student fees. They are looking at a redistribution, not really an increase. Another Finance Committee meeting will be held on the 20th. If faculty have any ideas concerning redistribution or allocations, they should bring an informal proposal to the committee so they can make it more public to students. Any feedback on this should go to the Finance Committee.
Dr., Barkosky suggested the possibility of a public forum on this issue, announced by faculty in their courses. Jason also asked faculty to inform the committee if they know any of the directors for the programs on the line items.

11) Change in policy concerning the 12 semester hour minimum in a major: Dr. Barkosky indicated that people are looking at charging the academic policies committee with examining the 12 semester hour minimum in a major. He asked if this was a charge Faculty Senate would like to pursue. There was general agreement with the idea.
12) Other: Dr. Barkosky proposed an ad hoc committee to work on the resolution to address any potential attacks on academic freedom. He recommended that the committee consist of himself, Dr. Andreasen, Dr. Huenneke, Dr. Royer, and Dr. Keller. Anyone else who is interested could also be on it. Dr. Markell moved approval and Dr. Royer seconded. Motion approved.


Faculty Senate was adjourned at 6:00.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa L. Borden-King, Faculty Senate Secretary