Minot State University
Executive Board Meeting
August 30, 2001
3:30 pm -- Westlie Room
President: Rick Barkosky
Vice President: Christopher Keller
Secretary: Lisa Borden-King
Parliamentarian: Bethany Andreasen
Bethany Andreasen Rick Barkosky
Lisa Borden-King Michael Duffy
Eric Furuseth Warren Gamas
Nancy Hall Christopher Keller
Members Present: Nancy Hall, Bethany Andreasen, Eric Furuseth, Warren Gamas, Lisa Borden-King, Christopher Keller
Members Absent: Michael Duffy
Guests: Joseph Jastrzembski, Steve Huenneke, Gary Ross
1. Announcements /Review Agenda
The agenda was accepted. There were no announcements.
2. Minutes from the previous meeting
The “rather voluminous” minutes were deemed hefty but accurate, and approved.
3. Administrative Report – Nancy Hall, Vice-President for Academic Affairs
Academic Affairs: The Academic Affairs committee is currently considering three MSU related items: 1) The Master’s of Science degree in Education from Dr. Rasmussen was examined. UND raised questions about the generality of the program. The program provides a “core” of courses and then allows departments to develop cognates within that program. Academic Affairs committee has requested specifications of some of the possible cognates. Dr. Hall will bring the two we are currently bringing forward. 2) Continuing Education wants to change their name to Center for Extended Learning. Dr. Hall anticipates no problems with this. 3) The Academic Affairs committee would like prior notification of any developments on campus which reflect a change in campus mission. For Minot State University, this would include developing a doctoral program or new two year programs. 4)Finally, Dr. Hall announced that Dr. John Ettling (The VPAA at UND) has been asked to work with the Intellectual Property committee which never got out off the dock last year.
Financial Affairs: Bruce Haskins is representing us today in a meeting concerning block grant allocation criteria. Our campus could apply for some of the money. The funding and deadlines will come quickly. Dr. Hall has talked before about the Peer Comparative Project. They are suggesting that 80% of the “Equity and Special Needs Block Grant” go towards Campus parity. The other 20% would be geared towards campus initiatives and programs. Minot State University has considered two initiatives appropriate to this funding effort -- first, the development of an entrepreneurial office and, second, putting a research office back in place. The proposal criteria are included in the handout provided today. Dr. Hall noted the following criteria in particular: a)”Investment is targeted at encouraging partnerships or collaborative efforts”; b)”Leverages other external or internal campus funds”; and c)”Contributes to economic growth in the state”. Proposal guidelines will be distributed by October 15th. The end of November is the probable deadline for proposals and colleges will be notified by January. Dr. Hall suggested that we look at our cornerstones as we think about these monies. In particular, she would like us to look at the two objectives we have set in relation to our cornerstones as sources for potential projects for these grants.
Enrollment: A press release was sent out saying we are up in enrollment by approximately 400 students. Most of this increase is a result of the inclusion of continuing education numbers. Disregarding the continuing education numbers, we are still up about 22 new students. Since we were anticipating a decline, this is good news. Dr. Hall was asked how these numbers will affect our funding. She replied that since Bruce goes by FTEs the Continuing Education numbers won’t help much, but Bruce will keep us posted.
4. CCF Report – Steve Huenneke, MSU Council of College Faculty Representative
There has not been a CCF meeting yet this year but in the next day or two there should be something to pass along digitally concerning the State of the Faculty Conference. For now, Dr. Huenneke wanted to share with the committee what is currently available concerning the conference. The title of the conference is: The Faculty Contract: Shared Faculty Governance and Compensation. The conference will be held on September 21st and 22nd, and will begin at 3:00 at the Ramada Inn in Grand Forks. One lead speaker will be from AAUP and the other will be from AFT and both will speak on faculty/shared governance. The first CCF meeting will follow conclusion of conference.
Dr. Andreasen noted that in the past there has been some support for faculty to attend. Dr. Hall will look at past years to garner a sense of the potential budget.
5. Old Business
a) Approval of minutes from the April 5, 2001 board meeting.
The minutes from 4/15/01 meeting were approved without correction.
b)Meeting schedules for Executive Board and Faculty Senate
Dr. Barkosky distributed copies of the proposed meeting times for both Executive Board and Faculty Senate. He has worked with Dr. Jastrzembski to make these dates mesh with the Curriculum Committee meetings as this is a catalog year. If there are no suggestions or concerns, these meeting dates will go to Faculty Senate next week for approval.
Dr. Barkosky passed out a list of appointments he has made so far. There are still some openings on committees. Dr. Hall mentioned that there are some new faculty who are interested in getting involved . She also mentioned that there was going to be a temporary Honors Program committee. Dr. Barkosky has not yet made appointments to this committee.
A motion was made to accept the appointments currently made and act on the remaining appointments later. The motion passed unanimously.
d)Voting procedures during senate meetings - a proposal
Dr. Barkosky suggested that voting procedures might be facilitated if some sensitive issues were written ballots. Although concerns were raised about the wisdom of elected officials holding secret ballots and about providing one person the power to determine what is sensitive, the general feeling of those present at the meeting appeared to be in favor of the proposal. This issue will be discussed next week in the first full Faculty Senate meeting.
6. New Business
a)Family tuition waiver
The Executive Board has been asked to consider the family tuition waiver policy. Dr. Barkosky distributed the recently approved Dickinson policy. Dr. Hall indicated that Wes Mathews was asked to look at numbers for a similar proposal. Some form of family tuition waiver is being seriously discussed but the process is at the data gathering stage. The Presidents were given broad authority for tuition waivers this summer. Minot State University has extended 150% of resident tuition to all Canadian students this year. Dr. Hall will speak at the Faculty Senate meeting and let them know where the process is and will continue to update both groups.
b) Excellence in teaching criteria and tenure committee – Dr. Gary Ross
Dr. Ross spoke to both Faculty Senate and the Executive Board last April and was told to return this year. He is the Director of the Bush Grant Projects and the Chair of the Education Excellence Roundtable group. One of the requirements for the Bush Grant money MSU has received was to ask the Faculty Senate to consider excellence in teaching criteria. Dr. Ross approached Dr. Kihm, but he did not feel comfortable acting on his own. When Dr. Ross approached last year’s Senate members, they were not interested in telling this year’s Senate what to do. Next week Dr. Ross will formally ask Faculty Senate to authorize the tenure/promotion committee to consider developing criteria. Dr. Hall made a point of clarification. Dr. Ross has a group already working on some criteria as he was asked to chair the roundtable group to develop excellence in teaching criteria. The Roundtable committee is charged with developing the criteria and that is all. Once this process it finished, it is up to the tenure committee whether they accept those criteria, tweak them or write new ones. Dr. Barkosky indicated that he would like us to formally charge the tenure and promotion committees to develop these criteria. Extensive discussion ensued. During this discussion, the following points were raised:
1)From a human resource perspective, we need to get feedback to people so they can engage in self evaluation and professional development.
2) Consistency across years is a consideration, as it would appear there are multiple and sometimes conflicting descriptions of the criteria for tenure and promotion.
3)The tenure process has worked well throughout the years and more specific criteria may not be needed or beneficial.
4)Any criteria for tenure (or promotion) will always be nebulous by nature because they are contingent upon one’s specific position.
5)There can be criteria without making them stiff and rigid.
6) Does our current system of rewards reflect our new mission, focused more on excellence in teaching?
7)New faculty would benefit from having a sense of what they are trying to develop into via “faculty development.”
Dr. Barkosky indicated that there seemed to be two related but distinct issues: One, should we charge the promotion and tenure committees to look at criteria or is the process not broken; and , two, should Gary’s group help those committees develop criteria. Dr. Ross pointed out that the second issue was beyond the charge of his group. More discussion ensued following the same lines as the previous discussion.
A motion was made by Dr. Keller to charge the promotion and tenure committees with considering criteria for excellence in teaching. A point of clarification was sought concerning the necessity of a motion. The agreement of the group was that a motion was not necessary. The Executive Board is in agreement that Dr. Ross will be included on the Faculty Senate agenda.
Dr. Hall has some info related to this question on the agenda under e)tenure and promotion guidelines - national conference with committee leaders. Faculty Senate wanted to look at “scholarship” last year and there was some talk about gathering information from other institutions. There is a workshop coming up from AAHE on scholarship. Dr. Hall could fund this as an initiative. The ideas would not be in place for people seeking promotion this year. The AAHE conference could be attended by parts of the two committees. Discussion ensued again around the issue of whether or not either committee’s criteria are in need of revision. Lacking an accurate idea of what the current promotion committee chair believes his committee is supposed to be doing, it was agreed that this item, revision of criteria, and the additional question of the AAHE conference would be added to the Faculty Senate agenda.
c. curriculum committee – Dr. Joseph Jastzrembski
Curriculum Committee meetings have been set just slightly more than ten days ahead of Faculty Senate which greatly facilitates the process of course approval. The interactive forms and meeting dates will be up soon on the web site. Deans have been forwarded the forms electronically already. This is a catalog year which means special challenges. This year every curriculum matter must be tied up by Nov 1st in order to meet catalog deadlines. With our ten day rule this causes some challenges. Dr. Jastzrembski is proposing that we designate Sept 17th (Assessment Day) as a day to handle the more mundane matters in a “Super Session”. The Graduate Council, General Education committee, Faculty Senate, Teacher Education Advisory Council, would all need to attend. The schedule would send people from one committee to another. Procedure will be followed and the hierarchy will stay the same. This is tentative but could be set in motion easily. Assessment committee seems to also think this is a good idea. The rules regarding ten days between readings would need to be suspended for the event. Any committee who felt they needed more time to consider an item would have it. The item in question would enter the regular “curriculum stream”. Dr. Hall indicated that this year she would do this instead of bringing in a speaker for that morning. Questions were raised concerning how much could be ready to go by September 17th from departments and how difficult it would be to attain a quorum on committees. The Executive Board seemed generally in favor of the idea and forwarded it to Faculty Senate for their first meeting.
d. online faculty handbook
Dr. Andreasen stated that this item could wait and could be included on the Faculty Senate agenda for their first meeting.
f. faculty hiring criteria
Dr. Hall indicated that she believed this item could be disposed of quickly. The minimum qualification is a Master’s degree. Anything other than that will cause difficulties with NCA. Dr. Andreasen suggested that there were currently new faculty hired who did not meet this requirement. Dr. Hall reiterated the minimum requirement and indicated she will check on the situation.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:42.
Secretary, Executive Board