Faculty Senate
2001-2002
Minot State University
---------------------------------------------------------
Faculty Senate Meeting
February 21, 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: Rick Barkosky, Christopher Keller, Lisa Borden-King, Bethany Andreasen, Christopher Beachy, Jerry Stai (proxy for Patty Fedje), Alisha Ford, Linda Haider, Joseph Jastrzembski, Robert Kibler, Lori Willoughby (proxy for Deanna Klein), Clark Markell, David McCormack, Ernst Pijning, Susan Podrygula, Ron Royer, Michelle Sauer, Roger Mergenthal (proxy for Tom Seymour), Heidi Super, Colin McNamara
Members Absent: DeVera Bowles, Rose McKenney, Stephanie Martin, Ken Staub, Nelrene Yellowbird
Guests: Steve Huenneke (CCF representative), Lisa Johnson, Judy Swanson, Stephanie Witwer, Teresa Loftesnes, Keith Witwer, Linda Cresup, Bob Sando
1. Announcements/Review Agenda:
Formal action:
Ms. Haider made a motion to accept the proxies. The motion was seconded by Dr. Keller and approved.
Announcements: 1)The Faculty Senate secretary will be emailing minutes to members one week prior to meeting dates to ensure sufficient time to review the minutes before the meeting. 2) Dr. Jastrzembski suggested that the statement at the bottom of the new student absentee notification forms be moved up to the top of the form. 3) We are waiting to hear about some of the group activities that took place at the recent retreat concerning online issues. Once we hear about those, we will charge senate committees with some work related to those issues. 4) Dr. Barkosky announced that he will not be putting his name in for CCF rep for next year; therefore, we need to think about who to nominate for that position. We will also need an alternate.
Formal action: Dr. Royer noted that the minutes for the last meeting need to specify that the humanities certification for general education concerned only Humanities 251, 252 and 253. The minutes were approved with this change.
2. CCF report--Steve Huenneke
a) Dr. Huenneke announced a change regarding the configuration of liberal arts summit and State of the Faculty conference. Both will be done simultaneously and will begin on Sunday, October 13th and conclude on Tuesday the 15th. There will be discipline meetings. CCF will meet with the Board, but not with other academic officers this time. CCF is looking for a more intimate, informal meeting to get to know the Board. There has been discussion about whether or not we want a facilitator at the meeting and people are considering this.
b)CCF put together a strong resolution regarding the presidential search and screening committees. Resolutions were also put forth by other universities and the statewide student group. Dr. Huenneke distributed the CCF resolution. He indicated that there have been unconfirmed reports that the Board will not reconsider. CCF found out today that the decision will stand. At the March meeting, the faculty will want to discuss this. Dr. Barkosky suggested that Faculty Senate could endorse all the other resolutions, or write our own. He stated that it seems we are being shut out of a very important part of the presidential selection process. Dr. Barkosky believes that it is important that this body consider having another response between now and the next meeting. Dr. Huenneke clarified the situation, saying that there MAY be students and faculty on the committee but there is no longer a requirement that we be included. The language that assured a place on the committee was removed. Dr. Barkosky handed out previous resolutions for consideration by the next meeting.
c)The State Board Committee on Employee Compensation has asked the CCF Faculty Compensation Committee to provide input to them. The highlights of that report are as follows: 1) 55% of those choosing to leave NDUS employment cite low wages as the number one factor in their decision; 2) 65% of those leaving NDUS had less than five years of service; 3) 71% of faculty and staff in 1999 and 67% in 2000-2001 indicate that low salary either greatly influenced or somewhat influenced their decision to leave NDUS; 4) 40% identified workload as a factor in terminating employment with NDUS; 5) Faculty salaries lag 16.6 % to 31.1% behind regional averages depending on the institution; 6) The North Dakota standard of living is below the national standard of living. The report concludes that the combination of low salaries and high workload make it hard to fill and retain positions. CCF recommended the following to the State Board committee: 1)Provide for an adjustment to salaries to adjust for inflation; 2) Move to 100% of regional rate; and, 3) Maintain contributions to benefits. The emphasis in CCF was to write the document and teach them a little bit about labor supply at the same time.
Dr. Kibler asked if this was the same committee that he had attended on IVN. Dr. Huenneke responded that it was at that meeting that the CCF FCC was asked to play a major role in writing the report. Dr. Reegler and Dr. Huenneke coauthored it. Dr. Reegler is the one who actually sits on the committee. Dr. Kibler suggested that when you look at the numbers, 100% will bust the general fund. 65% seems more reasonable. Dr. Kibler stated that it is better to illustrate an understanding of the nature of the general fund when dealing the the State Board and the legislature. He worries about providing evidence to administrators that faculty are kooks. Dr. Huenneke replied that the CCF committee just wanted to make the evidence clear. We are burning up a lot of resources doing searches. Dr. Jastrzembski asked if the report actually gives evidence of the cost of searches. Dr. Huenneke replied that members thought this would be a good possibility for live testimony at the legislature next year, rather than placing it in the report. Dr. Kibler stated that these sessions are open sessions. He was invited to speak to either side of the aisle by the Board but you don’t need to be invited. People who stand up first get to say their say. Dr. Royer recalled one year when faculty were actively discouraged from going to the legislature.
d)Dr. Huenneke concluded by referring to his email in which he publicly resigned his CCF position and expressed his desire to not be nominated for any position in campus politics. He stated that the whole NDUS System is not moving in a direction that he agrees with and referred members to his recent email concerning this issue. He also cited recent difficulties managing his multiplying work responsibilities and stated that his teaching and research need more attention. Dr. Huenneke thanked people for the responses to his resignation.

3. Administrative report: Dr. Hall is absent due to another meeting she needed to attend.
4. Old Business:
1)Faculty tuition waivers: Dr. Kibler: Things are going well with this initiative. The committee just met and will now write up a report with the recommendations to put in the hands of Faculty Senate at the next meeting. We looked at some of the limiters our peer comparators have used, particularly typical definitions of dependent. We discussed limits today and based on those will create a report and get it to Faculty Senate on the 21st. Dr. Huenneke and Dr. Kibler crunched numbers last week and concluded that it seems like the best model would be 50% tuition remission. We have 25 dependents currently attending MSU and if we can get 25 more enrollments, then the program would break even. The committee intends to offer models at 25%, 50 and 75%.
3)Sick Leave Policy: Mr. Matthews: Since the last time Mr. Matthews was here, he has been able to gather short term disability information from TIAA CREF. After a 30 day illness, the short term disability insurance would cover salary. The quote come in around 45,000 dollars for this insurance. The cost is prohibitive. There is some possibility of sharing the cost system wide, but it doesn’t seem likely. The state system has recently changed and sick leave could be accrued in the same way for faculty as it is for staff. The Wahpeton campus is now doing this, but they have no plan about what to do with what you have accrued -- the issue is how does one spend it? We are staying true to the idea that the intent is not to nickel and dime faculty; we are still looking at this as an extended illness policy. If we choose to use the state system as an accrual system, there is a provision that you get 10% of the unused sick leave which seems unfairas staff have to use sick leave for brief leaves.
Mr. Matthews stated that MSU is settling in on an approach which would allow ten business days for every year of academic service. These days would not be accrued but “allowed.” Mr. Matthews indicated that he is at the point now of word smithing the next draft. He is currently looking at the NDSU model to see what makes sense and what parts we might want to change. The 10% issue steered us away from an accrual system and the cost steered us away from short term disability. Mr. Matthews indicated that the next draft will be available by March 21st.
Dr. Kibler stated that faculty were concerned that were a sick leave policy put in place, the years would be retroactive. Mr. Matthews said that this is what we are considering. Wahpeton went with 80% of the retroactive amount. Dr. Barkosky asked if Mr. Matthews had looked at our peer comparator models. Mr. Matthews replied that he had not and Dr. Barkosky suggested that this might be an idea worth pursuing. Mr. Matthews concluded by saying that MSU has been trying to find a good approach up to this point. There is still some more refining to do. For example, there are some people on 12 month contracts who are not teaching who could be on staff appointments. Dr. Barkosky suggested that it would be good to see the draft before the meeting if possible. Mr. Matthews said that he is looking at completing the draft sometime around the middle of the month and when it is done he will forward a copy.
4. New Business
1) Intellectual property rights: Dr. Barkosky
Dr. Barkosky distributed the draft policy from the State Board concerning intellectual property rights, indicating that this policy is important to faculty welfare. Dr. Barkosky stated that faculty members can either directly send their comments and input to the Board or Faculty Senate members can gather information and responses from the people they represent and bring that input back to Senate. The State Board considered this draft yesterday at their meeting.
Dr. Huenneke provided some pertinent background for this issue. CCF and the AAC have had a joint committee meeting for most of the year and they formulated the draft document the Board was reviewing yesterday. The policy will be discussed at the March Board meeting. The Board will look at changes and reactions to the draft document at that time, but the window of opportunity will not be open long and it is important to get our input in quickly.
Dr. Huenneke asked Dr. Grijalva, who is an attorney, what he thought about the draft. Dr. Grijalva indicated that the draft is a compromise . On a scale of 1-10 he would give it a 7. Dr. Grijalva did indicate, however, that he does not know what the Board will do with it. Dr. Huenneke thinks the clause concerning “appreciable use” is very important. This clause defines significant use as that use which “appreciably increases the Institution’s costs beyond those normally incurred in support of an employee in the institution.” Dr. Huenneke also directed Faculty Senate members’ attention to the handout titled “Selected Contract Articles on Intellectual Property”. This handout provides the policies developed by two other institutions concerning intellectual property. The University of Massachusetts has a specific paragraph which lists a variety of exempted scholarly work. The example from the Pennsylvania system provides an actual dollar amount to define what constitutes “substantial use.” Dr. Huenneke sought a brief opinion from AFT. The AFT representative said that he would push for a specific exemption clause like the one in the Massachusetts policy. He indicated that the clause in the NDUS policy seems very weak, and does not provide a good detailed description of what is exempted. In addition, he wondered what would happen if the University and the individual don’t come to agreement about what is and is not substantial use? Who will define what argument is valid? The policy also does not address how disagreements are settled. The AFT representative also suggested adding “subject to approval” to the documents.
Dr. Barkosky noted that under definitions of copyrightable work there are examples provided. In section 4c it states that if employees are employed or commissioned for the creation of work the institution shall have first choice for copyright. What if Dr. Beachy wrote a book about salamanders? Would the university get part of the royalties?
Dr. Kibler asked if a faculty member who was ordered to put up an online course would be construed as working for hire. Dr. Barkosky asked the guests from the Center for Extended Learning about this issue. If a faculty member creates an online course, does the university own it? Ms. Loftesnes indicated that this would be debatable. Dr. Barkosky suggested that after the implementation of this policy, it would no longer be debatable.
Dr. Kibler stated that the Supreme Court has been shooting down these kinds of cases. They believe authorship is as sacred as property. These rulings could compromise this policy if it became State Board policy.
Dr. Barkosky encouraged faculty members to consider passing on individual opinions so they get to the Board before their next meeting. Dr. Barkosky and Dr. Huenneke will initiate an email discussion concerning this issue so we can gather a collective response to this.
Dr. Sauer asked if her book, written using grant money, would fall under this policy. the general agreement was that it would and that the university would have first choice for copyright. Dr. Jastrzembski indicated that he is writing a federal grant and has had to talk to university people about the budget. Given these conditions, his work could also be under the category of “substantial use”. He also wondered if the use of office space and materials over the summer, when not technically on contract, would be a substantial use of university resources? Dr. Barkosky encouraged faculty to send these “what if” scenarios and comments to himself and Dr. Huenneke. He stressed again the importance of this issue. Dr. Royer noted that the cost to the university will be directly related to the economic success of the project.
Dr. Kibler raised a strategic issue, noting that the sample policies from other university systems are all from bargaining states. He suggested that we need to have some from work for hire states.
Formal actions: None taken
2) Bylaws: Dr. Barkosky
Dr. Barkosky distributed the bylaw changes and indicated that these have to be approved first by the Faculty Senate and then by the entire faculty. Dr. Royer asked how confident we are that this is an exhaustive list. Dr. Andreasen replied that she is confident but will double check. Dr. Barkosky stated that there are some changes that are not in here and need to come forward still, particularly some language that the handbook committee worked on which is now in David Bradley’s hands.
Dr. Andreasen stated that these changes are not as time sensitive as some we have dealt with in the past, and could be voted on at the faculty meeting in April. So we could approve them in the March meeting. Dr. Keller asked if this would be a packet of changes or if we would vote on each one separately and Dr. Andreasen replied that Faculty Senate members were given the choice last time. Dr. Royer reminded members that bylaw changes need a 2/3rds vote of approval. The bylaw changes will be voted on at the March meeting.
Formal actions: None taken
3) Curriculum Committee: Dr. Jastrzembski
:
There are several items on the agenda for today which Faculty Senate has had for more than ten days, and thus are up for second reading.
a) Dr. Cresup presented two proposals last time we met. She briefly redescribed the proposals -- a change in course credits for the Philosophy of Vocational Education course, and the replacement of CSci 340 with BIT 358. The latter change is endorsed by the Math and Computer Science Department.
Formal action: Dr. McCormack moved approval of these two changes and Dr. Kibler seconded. The motion was approved.
b) There has been discussion at two previous meetings concerning changes to the requirements for Communication Disorders majors. At the last meeting there was some discussion about which physics course ought to be in the proposal. The proposal should say Physics 203 and not Physics by Inquiry. Dr. Jastrzembski indicated that this proposal does not need to return to his committee for this small change.
Formal action: Dr. Super moved approval of the communication disorders packet. The motion was seconded by Dr. Kibler and approved.
c) The last item of business is the BAS program: Stephanie Witwer
Dr. Barkosky opened the floor to questions, since the presentation about this program was made at our last meeting. Dr. Keller: In Executive Faculty Senate we had a discussion about the fact that a student could complete this degree never having set foot on campus. Ms. Witwer agreed that this is a possibility. Dr. Keller pointed out that this raises an issue we have never resolved regarding the residency requirement. Ms. Witwer replied that she looked at the catalog and the language is vague. Currently, the language has been construed to mean any course taught by MSU. Dr. Keller stated that we seem to be backing into online degrees when this has never been approved or directly considered by this committee. Dr. Barkosky said that at the Executive Board meeting we asked Dr. Hall about the language in the catalog. We need to talk about this issue fully once we get clarification on the language which appears in the catalog because it is an important issue. Dr. Royer suggested that it would be inappropriate then to consider this proposal until we have clarification regarding the language. Dr. Jastrzembski asked Ms. Witwer about her time line for this project. Ms. Witwer replied that MSU was given a time line by the Board which stated that if no one came forward with a proposal by March, the two year institutions would be given approval to offer four year degree programs. She added that she would hate to see this program stalled. Dr. Barkosky indicated his surprise over Dr. Hall’s absence since he was hoping for the clarification from her so we could move ahead. Dr. Kibler stated that the language that allows for this is in the NDUS Operations Manual.
Dr. Willoughby stated that she understands the concern over this issue, but went on to state that we can not afford to give the two year institutions this opportunity to develop four year programs. She agreed that faculty need to know about residency issues but stated that there is a bigger issue. Dr. Keller suggested that she might be overstating the case since not many students come to use from Bismarck. Ms. Witwer replied that we get 200 students a year from BSC.
Mr. Mergenthal suggested that one of the larger issues is we can’t keep doing what we did yesterday; we must incorporate changes as we go along. He stated that any discipline sees changes and this is just one more change that we need to pursue. Dr. Barkosky asserted that is support for online coursework, but we are talking about the residency requirement.
Dr. McCormack stated that since Ms. Witwer and others involved in this program from the very beginning have been upfront, it was our responsibility to find out what we needed to know. Dr. Andreasen suggested that we could also hold a special meeting and gather the information we feel we need prior to that meeting.
Dr. Jastrzembski reiterated Dr. McCormack’s point, stating that he has never gotten so much cooperation from a group. The curriculum committee missed this issue also in its deliberations.
Dr. Kibler stated that we can separate the residency issue from this program and made a motion to approve the program. Mr. Stai seconded the motion. Ms. Andreasen asked about what would happen if we approve this program and the residency requirement doesn’t work? Ms. Witwer replied that then the program would be done on campus only.
Dr. Markell asked Dr. Kibler if the NDUS operation policy would make our residency policy obsolete and Dr. Kibler replied that he was not sure. Dr. Royer stated that it is conceivable that if the residency requirement stands it would rule against this program being allowed to go forth. Dr. Super asked Ms. Witwer what would happen to the program under those conditions? Ms. Witwer replied that the degree is comprised of courses already existent on campus, online and at BSC. If the online residency requirement becomes an issue, it would not preclude this program.
Dr. Jastrzembski pointed out that students already have the option to take online courses. Dr. Keller stated that he is beginning to suspect that there are already people graduating who have not spent 30 credits on campus. Dr. Willoughby stated that MSU already has many students earning these degrees with online courses.
Dr. Keller stated that this BAS degree program just illuminates the growing issue.
Dr. Kibler suggested that transcripts should reflect where a course comes from. Ms. Witwer replied that one is then saying that the courses are different. Several faculty replied, in chorus, “they are.”
Formal action: Dr. Kibler moved to approve the BAS degree program presented by Ms. Witwer. The motion was seconded by Mr. Stai and approved with abstentions.
4) General Education Committee: Dr. Royer
a)Dr. Royer presented Phil 101 and 102 as well as Art 110, 210 and 211 for renewal.
Formal action: Dr. Royer moved approval of these courses for recertification as general education courses and Dr. Beachy seconded the motion. The motion was approved.
5) Academic Policies Committee: Ms. Swanson
 The Academic Policies Committee has been examining four policies. The committee has recommendations to the Senate regarding the first two policies. The last two policies indicated on the handout are ones the committee has looked at but does not have recommendations for yet.
The first recommendation concerns using the institutional GPA rather than the cumulative GPA for considerations such as suspension from the University and admission to on-campus programs. Ms. Johnson indicated that this will hurt as many students as it will help, and should not be considered a move to help out struggling students.
Dr. Royer pointed out that we need a motion to discuss. Ms. Haider moved to accept the recommendation and Mr. Mergenthal seconded it.
Dr. Keller asked if a student could receive a summa cum laude notation based on only the institutional GPA. Ms. Johnson indicated that the policy could extend to that area. Dr. Royer suggested that NCATE would not be happy with this. Ms. Johnson replied that about 80% of the institutions use institutional GPAs, so there must be some way of dealing with the issue of NCATE. Dr. Markell asked if this discussion has taken place in the programs with accreditation issues such as education and nursing. Ms. Swanson indicated that there must be a way of dealing with it but that the discussion has not gone back to departments. Dr. Markell suggested that perhaps this should go back to those departments for consideration.
Ms. Johnson indicated that there is no immediate time line except for the buying of new software which is at least a year away.
Dr. Willoughby pointed out that one positive benefit would be that students who failed awhile ago, such as ten or twenty years, would get a second chance. Ms. Johnson also indicated that it would help the retake issue as well. Currently, if they fail English at Williston, they can’t get it off their record here by retaking it. Ms. Johnson also stated that the Nursing Department is developing key indicators rather than rely on cumulative GPAs. Dr. Royer reiterated his belief that accrediting agencies are not flexible with such issues. There are some students we do not want admitted to those professional programs. Ms. Johnson indicated that she has the departments saying to her that they DO want these students. The departments come to her asking for help.
Dr. Jastrzembski suggested tabling this motion and taking the issue back to departments. The proposal could also go to either TIAC or PPC or both. Dr. Royer seconded the motion to table and the motion was approved.
Formal action: Ms. Haider made a motion to approve the Academic Policies Committee’s recommendation regarding institutional and cumulative GPAs. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mergenthal. After discussion, Dr. Jastrzembski moved to table the previous motion. This was seconded by Dr. Royer and approved. Motion tabled.
5. Adjournment 5:25
Respectfully Submitted,
Lisa Borden-King, Faculty Senate Secretary