Minot State University
Executive Board Meeting
April 4, 2002
3:30 pm -- Westlie Room
President: Rick Barkosky
Vice President: Eric Furuseth
Secretary: Lisa Borden-King
Parliamentarian: Bethany Andreasen
Bethany Andreasen Rick Barkosky
Lisa Borden-King Nancy Hall
Christopher Keller Warren Gamas
Michael Duffy Eric Furuseth
1. Announcements/Review Agenda: Dr. Barkosky announced that we are working on the election materials and the appointments. This is our last Executive Board meeting for the year.
2. Minutes from the previous meeting: Minutes were approved as written.
3. Administrative Report -- Dr. Hall:
a)AAC meeting -- one meeting was a trip to China that several presidents and Vps made. They are anticipating about 40 Chinese students to come to Mayville, Dickinson and Valley City State. They will also bring in some faculty to shadow faculty here. The new Business Dean has some articulation agreements that may help us in this area. As we look at opportunities to diversify our campus this holds promise (Chinese students coming here to college)
b)Stage I proposals:: UND is proposing a minoir in Chinese studies. They have articulation agreements already with China. UND is also looking at an autism disorders graduate certificate program. It is proposed to be offered online and UND is just starting to move into online. UND is proposing an online Bachelor of Business Administration major in Management Information Systems. Our program is moving online and they are right behind us. Dr. Hall informed AAc that that would make two programs in the state and both online. As has been the case before we had 20 -30 curriculum requests. She has routed the whole list to Curr Comm.
c)Vital Link: The Board will put about 4,000 dollars into helping all institutions. THe ACT comopany will sell their databases. For 1,000 dolalrs the PLAN database and for 3,000 the Junior and Senrior level ACT tests. System purchase, more competitive price. Dr. Croonquist talked to Dr. Hall about how 80 - 90% who score above 30 go out of state. Seems like a minimal expenditure for a good payoff.
d) North Central Associations annual meetiing: About half of the sessions were about online issues. They came out with a piece about best practices for online deliveryl. Their standards and benchmarks for evaluating online programs. She thought Curr Comm and maybe other groups would like to look at these guidelines. Dr. Shaar felt that overall the work we have done , particularly in faculty development in this area, is good quality. Dr. barkosky -- if we folow these policices then does that heklp us prepare for accreditation? Yes. Dr. Hall: Our state has negotiated ???? ask Nancy. They will be checking in 2006. She would like to bring a campus team to the NCA meeting in 2003. Do the work through 2005 so that we are really ready in 2006 rrather than pressed for time at the end like last time. They also have new standards out there in relation to research and scholarship on the web. Many sessions at the NCA meeting focused on this. Dr Hall will distribute an assessment survey distruibuted at NCA on Assessment Day. Dr. Barkosky: Where are we with assessment? Dr. Hall: I think we are in good shape and have made good progress. For our campus assessisng non academic areas is new as is assessing general education. Dr. Duffy has stepped down as Chari of Assessm committee and Ron Fishcer has been eleceted.
Resesarch poster session is coming up and if there are faculty who would llike to attend we still have a couple of spots left. (16th of April) This is also student registration day. Starts at 12 and food is available.
Dr. Ken Stokes did sign his contract for A and S Dean. They are on campus today and in town looking for a home.
Dr. Andreasen asked about the student evaluations and the Chairs meeting. Dr Hall stated that the meeting is coming up and it will be discussed.
4. CCF report -- Dr. Huenneke:
a. Passed out a synoopsis of meeting with CCf and the Board heklp at Lake Region State College on March 22nd. Dr. Huenneke did not attend as he had a presentation on this day. There were two moderators and they had a discussion about goals for each group, goals together and barriers that exist. Dr. Huenneke stated that he blieves that CCF and the State Board will be able to communicate better now. Second page presents collective voice of Board and CCF on cooperation and communication. Voted low or high. State results. Third page is suggestions to remedy the various problems. Dr. Hall asked if they went back and picked a few off of this brainstaroemed list to focus on or not? Dr. H said he will find out more at the next CCF meeting.
Dr./ Duffy asked if this friction between CCF and the Board is recent or long standing? Dr. H says the short answer is yes but said Beth A has been around longer. Dr. Andreasen says yes althuogh we are at a higher point of frustration right now than at some poionts in the past.
5. Old Business
a. Faculty tuition waivers: members of the committee and Dr. barkosky are going to meet with Dr. Shaar on next Tuesday. Accolades to Dr. Kibler and the committee for doing all of this work. Dr. Shaar was very upbeat about this when Dr. B spoke to him yesterday.
6. New Business
a. Excellence in teaching model -- Dr. Gary Ross: About a year ago, Dr. Hall asked gary to chair the roundtable discussion groups as part of the stratiegic plan process on this campus. needed to develop criteria for excedllence in teaching. Committee of 7 people. Did literature review and looked at some accrediting agencies and how they define excellence. Did some focus groups with faculty and studetns. Then recently did a survey to faculty and stidents. Committtee wrapped up work about a month ago and he is here to day to present it. Dr. Ross will be presenting this to Facutly Senate next week. He is here to discuss it or answer any questions people might have about. Dr. B: address the potential intent of the model -- how might it be used on campus. How it is used is beyond the committee’s work. But, one of the improtant things is to focus attention on good teaching. Used to align reward systems, hiring systems and faculty development issues. Dr. Gamas: INTASC model is currently being used in our department -- he is hesitant to have a different standard to measure his teaching than the one he is using for his classroom. Seems like on outside imposition on department. Dr, Barkosky. Clearly this is aligned with developing promotuion and tenure criteria. What we are seeing is that different units have different expectations. We have ONE committee trying to establish uniform expectations. WHile this is useful perhaps, it is not the best way to go. Other universities have multiple levels of committees. Dr. Ross -- there are many players in the game of what this is used for...It can be used as a framework around which different departments could develop more specific iedas. Dr. barkosky would certainly recommend that this should be presented at Faculty Senate. Dr. Furuseth -- these things seem so basic. The nature of administration perhaps is that we must keep basic information in front of us but this seems pretty basic on the onehand would suggest things that should be already in place. OThers seem like Micro managing -- question and dicussion techniques for example. Dr. Ross stated that it is incumbenton any institution that we make explicit the ideas under which we operate.
Dr. Gamas: Is there a reason we didnt talk about the classroom environment and how conducive it is? We would look at classroom layout etc. There are space problems that impact excellence in teaching. How would this model address those issues? Dr Ross not particularly addressed in this model you are right. Dr Gamas: Bad to measure someone’s performance when it is impacted by things that one has no control over. Dr. Gamas would like to see some recognition that there are some external constraints. Ross: The paradigm we looked at really focused on faculty, yes. Dr. Barkosky did your committee look at delivery modes. Ross -- we were pretty generic on that issue. Dr B: Could you develop criteria based on delivery mode? Ross, yes, but we have also worked towards keeping things simple,. “elegant”. All are happy with him presenting it to faculty Senate. Dr. Duffy: The fact that it encourages discussion is a good thing.
b. Ad hoc promotion committee report -- Stewart Kelly: Progress report on this committee. Dr. Kelley handed out a handout that presents what has been done and what has yet to be accomplished. Dr. barkosky pointed out that ad hoc committees go away at the end of the year and would need to be reconstituted. Dr Kelely: It is a committee of nine and we are about two thirds of the wya done with what we need to do. Talked through the first page -- can just summarize. We also talked about spelling out a numerical schema for both annual evaluation and proimotion and tenture processes. We ran into various obstacles and difficulties. Theere is also still the issue of getting feedbackfrom the faculty and the Senate approving or disapproving. Dr G: Is this ready to go to FS? Dr. Kelley: When we first started this process, we had talked about the numerical schema but there is currently no agreement on the committee. Dr Hall: The campus needs to see what they have been doing and get a sense of the direction they are going but it is not finished work yet. Dr Hall: The committee would like to know what FS thinks a good process is for this document. Should it go out electornically and gather omcments? Should it be in a tt or Th meeting and have some discussion? Dr. Barkosky -- would you keep this same good and exceptional format when you jmove to teaching and service? Dr Kelley: Who knows... Dr. Barkosky -- He likes the format. Dr Huenneke -- it is a defintie improvement over the current lack of clarity. The different aspirations and standards for publication in different fields is amazing and we just need to keep working. Dr Barkosky: Should we reconstitute the committee with the same memebrs? Dr hall: jack R will need to be replaced. Gary Rabe was on there because he is chair or the resarch committee. We thanked Dr Kelley for his efforts and those ofhis committee.
7. Adjournment 4:35