Faculty Senate
2001-2002
Minot State University
---------------------------------------------------------
Faculty Senate Meeting
December 6, 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: Tito Sifuentes (for Evelyn Holmquist), Dave McCormack, DeVera Bowles, Patty Fedje, Rick Barkosky, Christopher Keller, Robert Kibler, Heidi Super, Linda Haider, Ron Royer, Bethany Andreasen, Joseph Jastrzembski, Susan Podrygula, Ernst Pijning, Tom Seymour, Nancy Hall, Alisha Ford, Nelrene Yellowbird, Lisa Borden-King
Members absent: Ken Staub, Deanna Klein, Rose McKenney, Clark Markell, Michelle Sauer
Guests: Steve Huenneke, Selmer Moen, Michael Duffy

1)Announcements and agenda: Dr. Barkosky requested the addition of Michael Duffy speaking on absentee notifications to the agenda
2)Minutes from previous meeting: Minutes were approved with the addition of Dr. Jastrzembski to the list of those present.
3) CCF report: Dr. Huenneke
1)Dr. Huenneke provided an update on the resolution concerning changes regarding executive compensation (Board policy 705.1). The Board has taken action to amend existing poicy to give additional compensation to the presidents. The compensation will begin with retirement or death after six years of service. The original proposed policy had resignation or non-renewal as conditions for compensation as well. Chancellor and presidents would get additional compensation up to 12 months of base salary. There is no detailed description of the source of the money. By default, if the Board doesnít mention a source of funding, it will come from campus budgets. Dr. Keller asked about the reduction of the incentive for early retirement. Dr. Huenneke doesnít know if it is retirement or early retirement and will ask what the definition of retired is. Dr. McCormack asked if this means that the resolution regarding sources of funding was ignored by the Board and Dr. Huenneke indicated that it was ignored.
2)Dr. Huenneke also provided an update on the resolution regarding presidential search and screen committees. This resolution concerned action already taken in June by the Board. We are hoping for a reconsideration of the Boardís actions and formal inclusion of faculty and students previously included on search committees. Five campuses have passed resolutions similar to the one passed by the MSU Faculty Senate. The North Dakota Student Association has also passed a similar resolution. The momentum is building and may have an effect. CCF is bringing a resolution of its own, based on the other resolutions, to the January 2002 meeting. There are questions about timing. One suggestion from CCF was not to introduce this in January but to wait until March meeting since there would be more faculty in the room in March.
3)No date has been set for liberal arts summit. This summit was funded out of the special block grant initiative pool. The 2001 legislature gave the Board over a million dollars as a block grant. CCF and UND have received money to do the NDUS arts and humanities summit. There has also been a diversity initiative that has received funding. Another funded project is the replacement of ODIN in library for which 250,00 dollars is being used from the special block grant initiative pool. Dr. Jastrzembski asked if the pure sciences have been included in a summit already or are they a part of the arts and humanities summit? He also asked about the source of the diversity proposal. Dr. Rasmussen will check on the diversity proposal. Dr. Kibler says that in informal discussions science would have been included under arts and humanities. He also mentioned that UND president had promised 30,000 dollars to the summit. Dr. Huenneke indicated that he will check on these issues. Ms. Podrygula asked about the $250,000 for ODIN replacement. She stated that they need about two and a half million dollars. Dr. Huenneke said that the Board is supporting the project.
4) Dr. Huenneke mentioned an article concerning two year institutions becoming four year institutions which was discussed in Executive Faculty Senate. He would be glad to share this with Senate at the next meeting. During EFS, we had a discussion about hypothetically what it would mean to two and four year institutions in ND. Since then Dr. Huenneke has had additional conversations which seem to indicate that in ND, four year institutions will probably take over BAS degrees rather than two year institutions becoming four year institutions.
4) Adminsitrative Report: Dr. Hall
Dr. Hall indicated that she has talked to EFS about the content of her adminstrative reports. She brought minutes from November meeting of Academic Affairs Council. She asked Senate members to read these and think about the kinds of issues and information they would like to hear more about in her administrative reports.
One of the issues discussed in this meeting concerned articulation and transfer. At the November meeting, Kay Fulp (the articulation and transfer specialist), made a recommendation about courses that would be accepted for transfer. The Academic Affairs Council had some concerns about the courses she was proposing for transfer. At the time, it was unclear where the document was going, but it ended up going to a committee Dr. Rasmussen is on where the Deans of Teacher Education programs meet. The document also went to the State Board Cabinet. In Cabinet the decision was made to go with Fulpís recommendations. The issue was brought up again in the December meeting of the AAC. Dr. Rasmunssen has been asked to go back to his group and discuss the issue again, so Dr. Hall asked Dr. Rasmussen to discuss the issue with Faculty Senate. Dr. Rasmussen began by saying that the group he chairs is the NDACTE representation from all state programs with teacher education and 3 private campuses with teacher education programs. His committee has talked about the whole issue of transfer at length before it came up in this latest version. Members of the committee have serious accrediation concerns. Teacher education programs are held to certain standards in the accreditation process, but it becomes difficult to do this if you are accepting courses from other institutions, particularly in the professional sequence. Some members feel as though we all package our courses in different ways. Some members have an issue with the fact that they get students up to speed concerning their conceptual framework and program requirements in an introductory course, but if transfer courses are accepted for these then the students donít get a chance to become acquainted with the conceptual framework. The biggest concern the committee has is that the push has moved away from accepting introductory courses but is now looking at field experiences and courses that are a part of professional programs. If transfers like these are approved, there is little argument we could make to prevent more courses in the professional program, such as methods courses, being approached in a similar fashion. If methods courses are OK for two year institutions to offer, it becomes difficult to draw the line, and then we would have very serious concerns about accreditation. Educational Standards and Practices Board is not supportive of moving in that direction. Members of the Deans group have had discussions about the transfer of courses. One Dean thought that if we conceded on ED 250 we would be left alone, but this has not turned out to be accurate. The committee will be meeting in Carrington next week. Dr. Rasmussen would like information and ideas from anyone who can help. What can we present that will help people reconsider this issue.
Dr. Hall reminded members to take a look at the minutes and let Executive Faculty Senate know about topics you would like reported on regularly. She also indicated that her office has a new web page and minutes from various local and statewide committees will be posted there.
5)Survey concerning tuition waiver: Dr. Kibler
Dr. Kibler indicated that Dickinson also had questions about the definition of spouse. They felt constrained by the state law. So, the current proposal will use the accepted definition of spouse in terms of state law. He has revised the questionaire in order to respond to concerns raised during the last Faculty Senate meeting. He stated that we need Faculty Senate approval to move ahead with the data gathering. Dr. Barkosky stated that this was an initiative originally began by Faculty Senate and is of benefit to faculty. This questionaire will give us the data to make a policy and we should move ahead with it. Dr. Andreasen stated that the questionaire looks better now. There is still a question concerning the definition of dependents. Dr. Kibler suggested that the limit could be set by who you can or canít claim on your income taxes. Dr. Royer asked if there is a genuine possibility that this proposal can become real. Dr Barkosky replied that there was no possibility in the absence of the data. Dr Royer stated that the faculty should come forward with the policy based on the data gathered from this survey. Dr Hall indicated that this is timely as the campus is looking at waivers as a whole. Dr. Royer asked when this was occuring and Dr. Hall stated that the process would be complete by February or March of this year. Dr Pijning suggested that for Question #3, columns could be used in which you could indicate the ages of your dependents and spouse. Dr. McCormack agreed that it is difficult to tell from the survey where a 16 year old should be placed and agreed with Dr. Pijningís idea. Dr. Kibler said that if the survey were approved he would send it to Kim Thompson to disseminate to campus. Dr. Royer moved acceptance of the questionnaire and its distribution. Ms. Fedje suggested that she would not recommend defining dependent by the tax code because many people get their kids off of the tax form in order to get them financial aid. Will this go to staff as well? Dr. Hall said that if Faculty Senate chooses to get information from staff that is fine and suggested that Faculty Senate could also share it with the Staff Senate president as well. Dr. Jastrzembski suggested that as a matter of courtesy the survey should be shared with the Staff Senate. Dr. Royer suggested the addition of a box at the top to indicate whether the respondent was staff or faculty. The motion to distribute the survey, develop a policy and pass it on to administration was seconded by Ms. Fedje. The motion was approved.

6) Sick Leave Policy: Tom Seymour:
Dr. Seymour stated that it is important to keep this issue on the radar screen and keep Dr. Barkosky posted of any activity on this topic. Dr. Hall said that she just checked with Wes Matthews to see if he has anything new. He is still waiting to hear from TIAA CREF in relation to system wide short term disabiltiy and that is why it is taking longer. He has found it is possible to find software to track the system.
7) Shared governance: Dr. Barkosky
Dr. Barkosky reported positive developments in this area. The Academic Affairs Council minutes and the web site developed by Audrey Sidener are both positive steps. Dr. Barkosky is attending monthly meetings with Dr. Hall and Dr. Shaar and these meetings are strengthening the relationship we have within the shared governance construct. Dr. Andreasen said that we have talked about establishing a list of the kinds of things that are important to us. Are they curriculum issues? Issues pertaining to faculty welfare? Dr. Barkosky indicated that we will continue to work on the list of our top ten most important things. Dr. Huenneke stated that he will also be sending out his reports on AAC to everyone.
Dr. Seymour asked if we will also have a list of the administrationís priorities.
8)Curriculum Committee: Dr. Jastrzembski
a)Dr. Jastrzembski began with the issue of making the library director a voting member of the Curriulum Committee. This would mean a bylaws change and would necessitate a univeristy wide vote which would be simple since we are bringing forth other issues. Dr. Pijning asked if the voting position should be the director or a member of the library staff? Dr. Jastrzembski replied that it specifies library direcetor currently in the bylaws. Dr. Royer suggested that the rationale given is not sufficient to change the bylaws. Dr. Jastrzembski stated that librarians are considered faculty. Dr. Keller suggested that was not the issue, as the Chair of the History department is not a permanent voting member of the Curriculum Committee. Dr. Jastrzembski stated that the resource people on campus play a pivotal role in curricular issues. Dr. Kibler asked if there are issues about curriculum and library that come up in committee? Ms. Podrygula said such issues arise frequently, particularly in relation to expenditures. Dr. McCormack asked if the recommendation is from Dr. Jastrzembski as the Chair or from the committee? Dr. Jastrzembski replied that he canvased committee members and the responses he got supported this recommendation. Dr. Royer suggested that the same rationale could apply to technical services and other support services. Ms. Podrygula stated that the the library plays a much more important role. Dr. Jastrzembski stated again that this argument classifies them as service providers rather than faculty. Dr. Royer stated that the libraryís role is not sufficiently diverse to justify a special, permanent, seat on the committee. Dr. Kibler moved that we approve the suggested change. Dr. Pijning seconded the motion. Dr. Jastrzembski was asked if there are other such consultant positions on Curriculum Committee. He said that the Director of Records has a purely informational role on the committee. Dr. McCormack suggested that the curriculum committee would seem to be the group that would best know about this issue and said that perhaps the committee needs to discuss it formally. The question was called. The final vote was nine in favor and six opposed. The motion was approved.

9)General Education Committee: Dr. Royer
1)There was a proposal at the beginning of the semester for a course in the nursing department which came forward under the heading of wellness and personal development. The General Education Committee had a battle trying to understand what wellness is and whether a 3 credit course would make sense for a two credit requirement. Thanks to Dr. Rabe we came across the exisitng but long lost definition of wellness as leading to spiritual, cultural, physical, aesthetic, and emotional health. All five of those criteria must be met to be considered a general education course in this component. The death and dying course did not meet these criteria. Ms. Fedje asked which criterion was not met and Dr. Royer indicated it was the physical one. Dr. Royer briefly tried to clarify the five strands. The five strands do not make a course a general education course. The five strands were conceived of as a way to assess general education courses.
2)At the last meeting, the mathematics general education course was up for review. The mathematics department came forward and made a case for the presentation of the math courses. They stated they are in the process of working on an assessment process. The original acceptance was made on the basis of having an assessment system in place. Therefore, the committee extended the math departmentís period another year pending the development of that system.
The mathematics department was exonerated by Faculty Senate from the need to assess the history component of the course and Dr. Royer assumes that still stands.
Dr. Seymour moved that we approve the recommendation by the general education commmittee regarding the math departmentís extension. The motion was seconded by Dr. Ford and approved.
3) History also came forward with their proposals. Dr. Royer complimented the program on their assessment plan and a well articulated and presented presentation. Dr. Royer asked the Senate if, in the cases of these recertifications, we want to revisit the courses in Faculty Senate. Dr. Barkosky suggested that Senate may choose to rely on the recommendations of the general education committee but if there is a way to have access to the information before the meeting, then people can take issue if they so desire. Dr. Barkosky suggested that we consider a motion to approve the packet in its entirety. Dr. Royer indicated that the motion would be to approve the recertification of the history courses. Dr. Hall stated that an official set of what the general education committee has approved needs to come to Records Office or Institutional Planning. Dr. Royer stated that the material will go from him to Dr. Barkosky to sign, and then to Dr. Hallís office. Ms. Fedje made a motion to ratify the recomemmendation of the general education committee to recertify the general education history courses. Dr. Seymour seconded and the motion was approved.
4) Speech courses will be acted on at the next meeting. Next semester the Humanities courses will be up for recertification. Other categories will begin the process by Fall. The amount of work will be voluminous.
10) Absentee notifications: Dr. Duffy:
Dr. Duffy led a discussion concerning the recent proliferation of absentee lists from Kim Thompsonís office. It is apparently the responsibility of the faculty to scan the list and see if they have a student on the list who will be missing class. One important rationale for these notes is that they serve as an indication from someone official that the excuse is real. However, the lists should not be a justification for the student to not talk to the professor. The Student Handbook states that it is the studentís job to contact the professor. Dr. Duffy suggested a two part approach to the problem: first, an information campaign to disseminate the policy in the handbook; and, two, to change the wording of the notices so there is a standardized document to use that makes the studentsí responsibility clear and which clearly states that it is not a guarantee of exemptions for missed work and exams. Dr. Duffy was empowered to deal with this by Faculty Senate.

Faculty Senate was adjourned at 4:35.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa L. Borden-King, Faculty Senate Secretary