Minutes of MiSU Faculty Senate

April 15, 2004

 

Members present: Larry Atwood, Christian Fantoni, Patti Fedje, Nancy Hall, Leisa Harmon, Joan Houston, Robert Kibler, Karland Kilian, Paul Markel, Clark Markell, David McCormack, Cheryl Nilsen, Ernst Pijning, Susan Podrygula, Gary Rabe, Ron Royer, Michelle Sauer.

Members absent: Chris Beachy, Lisa Borden-King, Casey Coleman, Rita Curl, Alexandra Deufel, Christopher Keller, Linda Olson, Beth Pross, M. Saeed, Clarine Sandstrom, Chad Johnson, H. Erik Shaar, one student not yet selected.

Guests present: Stephen Hayton (curriculum) Seif Da’Na, Doug Pfliger (proxy for Linda Olson).

 

The meeting was called to order by President Paul Markel. 
 
Ron Royer moved to approve Doug Pfliger as proxy for Linda Olson and Michelle Sauer as substitute Parliamentarian in Casey Coleman’s absence. Joan Houston seconded the motion. The motion carried by consensus.
 
Ron Royer moved to approve the minutes of the March 25, 2004 meeting as amended. Susan Podrygula seconded the motion. The motion carried by consensus.
 
Review of the Agenda – Joan Houston will report on Student Senate after item 8. Ernst Pijning moved to move item 10b to follow immediately after item 5. Ron Royer seconded the motion. The motion carried by a show of hands. Item 6, the CCF report, will be removed as Chris Keller is absent today.
 
Announcements – Paul Markel: The faculty election will be held on April 29. The final Senate meeting of the term will be May 6.
 
Administrative Report – Nancy Hall: Dr. Hall stated that Dr. David Fuller, who was selected to become Minot State University’s next president, will be on campus May 3rd and 4th. He is scheduling a continental breakfast with faculty from 7:30 to 9:00 am on Tuesday, May 4th. He will also be meeting with staff, students, community members, and administrators, making a trip to Bottineau, and hunting for housing in those two days. 
 
Additional administrative report items submitted to Senate members in written form are found in an appendix following the agenda after these minutes.
 
Old Business: 
Promotion and Tenure Guidelines: Ernst Pijning submitted language for several proposed changes to the draft promotion guidelines. (See sheet.) Ernst Pijning moved to adopt the change proposed in point one. The motion died for lack of a second. 
 
Discussion then centered around the level of subjectivity/objectivity inherent in the numerical schema vs. the categorical schema proposed by Dr. Pijning. Ron Royer spoke in favor of keeping the numerical schema. He stated that when each of the committee members submits a numeric value to reflect the performance of a candidate in one of the three areas, the averaging of those values reflects a consensus of the committee’s evaluation of that performance. Robert Kibler suggested that use of a numeric schema allows a committee member to “hide” behind a number and not have to articulate the basis on which the member’s assessment is formed. It was noted that the promotion committee could elect not to implement any schema for evaluating applicants for promotion. Michelle Sauer quoted the bylaws which state that promotion for all levels shall be based more on qualitative data rather than quantitative data. Christian Fantoni made the point that if each member of the promotion committee votes for or against a particular applicant’s promotion request, there is no need to reach consensus of the committee. 
Ernst Pijning moved to remove the numerical schema from the proposed promotion guidelines. Robert Kibler seconded the motion. The motion failed on a show of hands.
 
It was noted that the minimum scores required in the three categories for applicants for associate professor are evaluated add up to the minimum total needed for promotion. For applicants for full professor, the minimums add up to a value less than the minimum total required for promotion.
 
Ron Royer moved to approve the numerical schema as presented in the first five lines of the document and to delete the remaining categorical schema below the fifth line and leaving the assignment of points to the discretion of the committee. Robert Kibler seconded the motion. The motion failed on a show of hands. Ernst Pijning abstained.
 
The proposed guidelines have come to the Senate moved by the committee. David McCormack called for the question, to vote on the guidelines as previously amended to delete references to collegiality. Ron Royer requested a vote on calling the question. A show of hands resulted in the question being called. The motion failed on a show of hands. Nancy Hall and Patty Fedje abstained.
 
Ernst Pijning moved to make the following changes to add “Performance to be measured in one or more of the following four categories:” on a new line immediately after “Scholarship Performance Standards – Associate Professor” and to replace parts a and b in the Publications section of the Scholarship Performance Standards – Full Professor with the following:
“a. Good:
            Continues to be scholarly active since last promotion, according to the criteria under “good” with associate professor.
 b. Excellent:
            Total performance over academic career as stated as “excellent” under associate professor and continues to be scholarly active since the last promotion.”
Michelle Sauer seconded the motion. The motion carried on a show of hands. 
 
Ron Royer moved to replace all references to “exceptional” to “excellent” throughout the document. Leisa Harmon seconded the motion. The motion carried.
 

Ernst Pijning moved to replace part 1 A. Criteria concerning the Self-narrative: in the Teaching portion with “Self-narrative: The individual should address how (s)he creates a classroom atmosphere that promotes student learning on a university level appropriate for the courses taught.” and to replace “should” with “may” in part B. Ron Royer seconded the motion. The motion was changed via a friendly amendment to have part 1 read as “Self-narrative: The individual shall provide a self-narrative on his/her teaching that may include written reflection on student course evaluations, peer evaluations, chair evaluations, professional development activities, and strategies for incorporating that feedback for the improvement of teaching and learning.” This language replaces the former parts A and B. The motion carried by a show of hands.

 
Ernst Pijning moved to remove “(e.g., 3 classes per academic year)” from section 2 of the proposed Teaching guidelines. Michelle Sauer seconded the motion. Patty Fedje moved for a continuance of the meeting. Ron Royer seconded the motion. The motion for continuance carried. Discussion of the earlier motion continued. Dr. Hall indicated that results gleaned from polling chairs show that 3 courses being evaluated by students each year for tenured faculty is on the low end, with the trend going toward evaluating all courses. Dr. Pijning withdrew his motion.
 
Ernst Pijning moved to replace item 3 “Peer evaluation:” on the Teaching page of the proposed guidelines with “Peer evaluation: The Faculty Senate will form a committee of twelve teaching and tenured faculty members (with at least three from each of the colleges. This Faculty Senate Committee will conduct an evaluation for each probationary faculty member subject to her/his request. Among other activities the probationary faculty member may ask her/his peers to review current syllabi, to attend classes and/or to interview students. The peer evaluation shall be optional.” Ron Royer seconded the motion. Discussion focused on whether the peer evaluation should be optional. A question was raised concerning the make-up of the committee as to discipline appropriateness for evaluators. The question was called. A request for a vote on calling the question was made. The motion to call the question carried. The motion failed.
 
Patty Fedje moved to do what was asked in the previous motion but deleting the sentence, “The peer evaluation shall be optional.” Gary Rabe seconded the motion. The motion carried by a show of hands. The intent of the vote is to make the peer evaluation required, with the purpose of the probationary faculty member’s request for the peer evaluation to be a method for scheduling the review.
 
Ron Royer moved to remove the final two sentences in section 4 of the Teaching section of the proposed promotion guidelines and per SBHE policy, strike the word “probationary”, as all faculty must be evaluated each year. Michelle Sauer seconded the motion. The motion carried.
The question was called on the entire document as amended. The motion carried. 
 
Gen. Ed. - Ron Royer: The Gen. Ed. Comm. has met once since our last Senate meeting. The committee moved to remove Biology 115 as a general education course, effective fall 2004. The motion carried by a show of hands.
 
New Business: 
Nominating committee: Dr. Sauer spoke concerning the duties of the nominating committee. Ron Royer nominated Clark Markell. Dr. Markell agreed to serve. Gary Rabe nominated Ron Royer. Dr. Royer agreed to serve. Dr. Fantoni also agreed to serve. Karland Killian moved to approve the slate of candidates for the nominating committee. Ernst Pijning seconded the motion. The motion carried.
 
Michelle Sauer moved to strike the remaining items from the agenda except for the curriculum items deemed most crucial by Curriculum Committee Chair Stephen Hayton. Ernst Pijning seconded the motion. The motion carried.
 
Gary Rabe moved to approve Stephen Hayton as a proxy for Gary Rabe for the rest of the meeting. Ron Royer seconded the motion. The motion carried by consensus.
 
Curriculum - Stephen Hayton: Christian Fantoni spoke to the proposed changes in the French major. The committee moved for approval of the proposed changes. The motion carried by consensus.
 
Michelle Sauer spoke to the proposed new program in Gender/Women’s Studies (minor). The committee moved for approval of the proposed program. The motion carried by consensus.
 
Seif Da’Na spoke to the proposed concentration in gerontology. Michelle Sauer moved to fast-track the proposed concentration in gerontology and to approve the proposed concentration. Ron Royer seconded the motion. The motion carried.
 
Steve Hayton moved to have Faculty Senate consider creating/tasking an ad hoc committee to review and make recommendations as to the Curriculum Committee mission, goals, (purpose) tasks, duties, and the relationship with Faculty Senate, VPAA, deans, departments/divisions, Office of Records, etc. The committee would consist of the Curriculum Committee Chair (Dr. Mosbaek in fall 2004), past Curriculum Committee members and chairs, the registrar, 2 or more department chairs, faculty at large, and others as needed. Patty Fedje seconded it. Rationale for the motion was provided by Stephen Hayton. He stated that during the past two years the committee has been meeting ten or more times per year and has only been able to deal with basic catalog issues. The motion was withdrawn.
 
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 pm.
 
 
Respectfully submitted,
 
Cheryl Nilsen, Secretary
Minot State University
Faculty Senate
Thursday, April 15, 2004
3:30 p.m., Westlie Room
 
Agenda
1.             Proxy approval
2.             Approval of the minutes
3.             Review the Agenda
4.             Announcements - Paul Markel
5.             Administrative report - Nancy Hall
6.             CCF - Chris Keller
7.             Gen. Ed. - Ron Royer
8.             MSU Presidential Search - Gary Rabe
9.             New Business: 
               a. Nominating committee
               b. Curriculum - Steve Hayton
10.           Old Business: 
               a. Recommendations on Faculty Senate Committees
               b. Promotion and Tenure Guidelines
11.           Adjournment: 5:30pm
 

Additional Administrative Report Items Submitted in Written Form by Dr. Hall
 
Academic Excellence: The research poster session was exceptional in the quality of research work and the growing numbers of faculty working with students on research. Congratulations to all participants!
 
Academic Discussion at the State Level: ACT and SAT corporations made presentations to the academic officers at their April meeting. A state-wide recommendation will be made in May 2004. A summary and notes from the meeting were provided in written form. These notes and the summary follow:
Summary of the ACT Writing Test
 
Early responses to earlier e-mails to college Presidents and Admission Officers indicate:
 
·         Slightly more than half of the schools responding will not require a Writing Test.
·         About one-quarter will recommend but not require a Writing Test.
·         About one-quarter will require a Writing Test
 
The academic unit, admissions, or a combination of both will make the Writing Test optional decision.
 
The ACT Plus Writing will be added to the ACT Assessment in February 2005, and it will be optional. The ACT Plus Writing will:
 
·         Collect a writing sample under standardized testing conditions as part of the regular ACT Assessment administration. The writing sample will require an additional 30 minutes of test time.
·         Complement the ACT English Test.
·         Be scored with a high degree of accuracy and reliability.
·         Be reported as a combined score with the ACT English Test.
·         Provide information about students’ understanding of the conventions of standard written English and their ability to produce a direct sample of writing.
·         Provide a Writing Test sub score.
·         Provide individual feedback on the student’s writing.
·         Provide online access to the student writing sample for faculty and staff at colleges to which students send ACT scores.
·         Contribute valuable information as a component of freshman composition placement.
·         Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), ACT is required to provide facilities for extended-time testing at all national test centers.
 
The ACT website provides up-to-date information about the Writing Test. Information at www.act.org/aap/writing includes:
 
·         A framework to help institutions make the decision that’s most appropriate for their institution.
·         Comments from officers of other institutions about why they chose to require, recommend, or not require a writing test.
·         Answers to frequently asked questions.
·         Sample essays and information about the scoring rubric.
·         Various materials that can be downloaded and printed.
Some specifics concerning administration of the Writing Test:
 
·         30 minutes at the end of the ACT test.
·         3 readers.
·         Scores and sample sent to high schools and colleges. 2-12 will be scores. The rubric is being finalized now.
·         $10-$15 additional charge to take the Writing Test.
______________________________________________________________________________
 
Additional revisions were made to the proposed Policy 611.9 on Textbook reimbursement. The State Board of Higher Education is expected to make a final decision on this policy at today’s Board meeting in Williston. CCF representatives from our campus are attending this meeting.
 
The Learning Management System Task Force is meeting tomorrow, April 16th, in Bismarck to see demonstrations from Angel, Blackboard, and Desire to Learn. Five or more individuals from Minot State University are attending to watch demonstrations of how our WebCT courses can be converted.
 
Accreditation: A preliminary report was received by ASHA regarding the November 2003 accreditation visit. The report raised concerns about the future of the Audiology program at Minot State University given that the standards to continue the program beyond 2007 would require a doctoral program and mission change. In a discussion with the faculty last week a decision was made to seek closure of the program. Plans are being made to examine who the final class of students will be accommodated. Long term planning will take place to examine how the existing
Resources can be used to further enhance the Speech Pathology program. The closure of the program will not affect any tenure-track faculty member. The clinic will continue to offer services to the public.
 
The Social Work faculty are submitting their report at this time addressing recommendations by the accreditation team. They have revised learning outcomes for a significant number of their courses and revised the assessment plan for their major.
 
Thank you to everyone for all of your efforts during the recent NCATE accreditation and State accreditation review of the teacher education programs!