Minot State University
Faculty Senate Meeting
March 21, 2002
3:30 pm -- Westlie Room
Officers Executive Board
President Rick Barkosky Bethany Andreasen Eric Furuseth
Vice President Christopher Keller Rick Barkosky Nancy Hall
Secretary Lisa Borden-King Lisa Borden-King Chris Keller
Parliamentarian Bethany Andreasen Michael Duffy Warren Gamas
Members Present: Rick Barkosky, Christopher Keller, Lisa Borden-King, Bethany Andreasen, Nancy Hall, Christopher Beachy, DeVera Bowles, Patti Fedje, Linda Haider, Joseph Jastrzembski, Deanna Klein, Rose McKenney, Michelle Sauer, Stephanie Martin, Susan Podrygula, Ron Royer, Robert Kibler, Tom Seymour, Colin McNamara, Chad Johnson and I-Ming Chiu for Ernst Pijning.
Members Absent: Alisha Ford, Clark Markell, Dave McCormack, Ken Staub, Heidi Super, Nelrene Yellowbird
Guests: Wes Matthews, Judy Swanson, Marilyn Hedberg, William Harbort
1. Announcements/Agenda: Dr. Barkosky requested that a presentation by Mr. Matthews concerning a salary model he has developed for faculty be added to the agenda under new business.
Formal actions: Dr. Royer moved acceptance of I-Ming Chui as a proxy for Dr. Pijning. The motion was seconded by Ms. Podrygula and approved unanimously.
2. Approval of minutes from the February 21, 2002 meeting of the MSU: Dr. Jastrzembski pointed out that the acronym for the Teacher Education Advisory Committee is TEAC not TIAC. The minutes were approved with that change.
3. Administrative Report - Dr. Nancy Hall, Vice-President for Academic Affairs
a) Curriculum concerns: Executive Faculty Senate had indicated a desire to know about curriculum matters. Dr. Hall announced that there is now a two stage process at the state level for program approval. Stage One is just a preplanning stage to keep academic officers on each campus and the State Board aware of what institutions are considering. If there are no changes in mission or money involved, the programs will just be approved. Dr. Hall circulated a memo that lists the different programs that have currently been submitted under Stage One. This is information for departments about programs around state but also should indicate to departments that they need to notify Dr. Hall’s office as they begin thinking about programs they are wanting to develop as well. Dr. Hall routes certain Stage One proposals to appropriate departmental chairs so they can pass on concerns to her to bring up at the meeting. Dr. Hall receives these Stage One sheets on a monthly basis. Dr. Seymour asked about the thinking when there are two doctoral programs in the same area, such as Criminal Justice at UND, MSU and at another campus. Dr. Hall responded that this was one of the influences which led the Board to want the Stage One process -- to avoid duplication of efforts and programs BEFORE campuses have spent a lot of time developing the programs.
b) Hiring: Dr. Hall officially thanked all of the Chairs of hiring committees. There have been wonderful pools for these searches. Dr. Hall made an offer on Monday to the candidate for the Arts and Sciences position and got a verbal approval this morning. Dr. Stokes mentioned that he had two other offers and cited the campus climate, the spirit of cooperation and work ethic, and the things faculty were working on as his reasons for choosing MSU even though other salary offers were higher.
c) Budgeting: The new processes put in place last year will be used again this year for budgets. Equipment budgets are based on need. The operating budget is in process. Dr. Hall gives the Deans a list of credit hour production and then they recommend shifts in percentage changes for various departments. Credit hour production is not the only factor that is used. Mr. Matthews will talk about the salary model which has been developed in an attempt to address issues of equity. Ms. Klein asked if there are institutional or statewide guidelines for technology fee usage. Dr. Hall indicated that some Board policies govern student technology fees.
4. Old Business
a. Family Tuition Waiver - Dr. Robert Kibler: Dr. Kibler thanked the committee for their work on this issue. Administration, faculty, staff and students all worked together. The work involved a lot of compromise and hard work. The current proposal is for a 50% waiver which is justified by the numbers. Dr. Kibler distributed a handout containing the committee’s work. Pages three and four have critical findings, while page five presents the scope of the problem, focused specifically on needs for quality faculty and staff and the need to bring in students. The report identifies benefits of the plan to MSU and the surrounding community. Page eight provides a history of the tuition waiver issue in this state. In 1988, a tuition waiver policy was almost approved by the State Board, but it ultimately drew a stalemate when it came to a vote. The reasons for the stalemate were mostly practical difficulties encountered as they started to look at giving tuition reimbursement for attendance at ANY university in the system. Page nine of the report gives the economic rationale for this program. The rationale is based on the elasticity of demand. Smart sellers know their market and if they are aware that there is a potential of buyers who would be in their market if prices dropped, the seller does well to drop the price and bring the buyers in. Page seventeen shows three models of tuition waivers. If we were we to grant a 25% remission, we would need 8.33 students to break even. A 50% remission means we need 25 new students and a 75% waiver would mean we need 75 new students to break even. The committee chose 50% because they believed that bringing in 25 new students is possible. Dr. Seymour asked if the economic impact of the program also took the bookstore, food services, and similar factors into consideration. Dr. Kibler replied that Dickinson found that people with tuition waivers were then able to put their students in dorms, but these factors are hard to measure and therefore the committee stuck with a worse case scenario. Dr. Borden-King asked if the committee considered an endowment should the program actually make money. Dr. Kibler indicated that this was not considered. Dr. Royer pointed out that the argument is grounded almost entirely on economic grounds whereas we could prorate these benefits in relation to time at MSU. This would reward faithfulness to the institution. He also suggested that the argument could be made that as people advance in tenure at the University, they are less likely to have dependents to take advantage of this and thus, such a plan might even be economically better. Dr. Kibler agreed with Dr. Royer but said that due to the need to convince more conservative people the committee went with the 50% waiver. Dr. Kibler pointed out that if we are able to recruit and keep high quality faculty, we are more likely to increase our reputation which will increase attendance in general. Dr. Beachy moved to forward these as recommendations to President Shaar. Dr. Seymour seconded the motion. Dr. Barkosky suggested asking Dr. Kibler to present this to the president and this was added to the motion. Dr. Martin commended Dr. Kibler for his amazing job on this committee. General applause followed. Dr. Sauer asked if the committee addressed the concerns expressed by some in the initial survey. Dr. Kibler stated that there were only two negative comments and all other surveys were expressly positive, so the committee did not.
Formal actions: Dr. Beachy moved that the report and recommendations be forwarded on to President Shaar by Dr. Kibler. The motion was seconded by Dr. Seymour. The motion was approved unanimously.
b. Sick Leave Policy - Mr. Wes Matthews: Mr. Matthews expressed an interest in receiving feedback concerning the draft sick leave policy he recently distributed. Dr. Martin indicated that the questions in her department had to do with what sort of plan would be put in place for length of time at MSU and what would be done about maternity leave under this plan. Mr. Matthews stated that currently the proposal is for ten days of extended illness sick leave per year of academic service. Dr. Royer asked if a faculty member used their allotted time and returned to MSU, would the count of available sick days start over again? Mr. Matthews stated that the count would start over again. Dr. Kibler asked if faculty would be able to give away sick leave as staff do now. Mr. Matthews said that at this point the answer would be no because this is not an accrual system. Dr. Royer asked if there was any compensation at retirement or departure. Mr. Matthews said there would not be any compensation. Dr. Barkosky noted that the draft policy indicates that job related information would be shared with the Dean, and asked what the definition of job related information is. Mr. Matthews responded, saying that when his office gets the letter from the doctor, his office is interested in how the condition is going to affect job performance, not the condition itself. Approval from doctor to teach online from home would have a different effect than no teaching at all. He would share the parts the Deans need to know such as when the faculty member would be back at work, or how many hours a day the faculty member would be able to work. The privacy of medical condition would be kept as much as possible. Ms. Podrygula asked about maternity and paternity. Dr. Sauer asked if the phrase “five consecutive business days” refers to days you teach or any days? On the same lines, Dr. Royer asked if a faculty member has 12 credit hours of teaching and can do it all from home, what would happen? Mr. Matthews indicated that if you can find another way to fulfill your duties that is fine. Dr. Jastrzembski asked about the definition of a doctor for the sick leave note. Mr. Matthews replied that anyone who Workmans Compensation or BCBS would identify as an acceptable doctor. Dr. Borden-King asked how benefits would be figured on a pro-rated basis given the variety of duties a faculty member has. Mr. Matthews stated that the percentages would be based on 80, 10 , 10. So, if a faculty member can only do 40% of his or her 80% teaching responsibilities, then the absence would be pro-rated at 40%. Dr. Royer wondered if the President of Faculty Senate misses a meeting, and the Vice President fills in, does the President lose whatever percent of his salary is represented by that meeting. Mr. Matthews replies that one can still be a Senator from home. We don’t want to worry about 4 hours here and there. Dr. Royer suggested that we need a standard procedure and absence from service responsibilities would need to be defined. Dr. Barkosky asked if it is possible to develop a policy for every exception. Dr. Jastrzembski stated that Dr. Royer raises excellent points -- it may well be impossible to make the requirements consistent. Even if I resign as senator, I still do a lot of things for my service component. How do you determine what percentage I am doing or not doing? There are senior faculty who only sit on one committee, and new faculty who sit on five. Mr. Matthews replied that he is hearing we need to take a deeper look at defining “pro-rated”. Ms. Fedje stated that we are expected to do things in service and research but there is not one of us who has been fired because we don’t do that. Perhaps the policy should relate only to teaching, the academic portion of our duties. Such an approach would also address the questions raised by only one day a week teaching -- missing that one day would be the equivalent of missing a week. Dr. Royer asked if a faculty member has a three hour a week class and decides to offer the class by individualizing the semester and meeting again at the end. How free is a faculty member to define how he or she wants to run class? Ms. Fedje stated that seemed like a situation in which your chair steps in and says you are not really teaching. Dr. Royer stated that then the Chair should be in charge of sick leave. Dr. Kibler reminded members of the case in Bismarck in which a woman was fired. One charge against her was her practice of giving research papers and taking ten days off from class. Dr. Royer asked if there is a written policy about this. Dr. Kibler responded that there seemed to be enough of a policy to fire an 18 year teacher. Dr. Borden-King asked if the new policy would include hiring substitutes to replace faculty members with extended illnesses. Mr. Matthews stated that this would occur when faculty can’t cover anymore. Dr. Hall stated that one of her concerns has been faculty having to cover the duties of other faculty members, but hiring substitutes will depend on availability. Dr. Andreasen asked if there would be some financial recompense for faculty who are covering for a colleague.
Mr. Matthews concluded the discussion of the new policy by discussing maternity. He stated that maternity is covered in the same way as other extended absences. There would be a note from a doctor stating when the individual can return to work. Family leave time, not medical, would be covered under the Family Medical Leave Act. The same would hold true for matters of paternity.
Mr. Matthews indicated that he will come back again this year with some responses to these ideas. Dr. Royer asked if we are mandated to have a sick leave policy. Mr. Matthews replied that we are mandated, by the Board, to have a policy in place. He also indicated that he has checked with our peer comparator institutions and has not found one policy for just extended illness. The policies were day by day accrual systems with use limits per year. Dr. Kibler suggested that we should confirm that we actually need to have a policy. Some people have argued that to not set a policy is still a policy. Dr. Hall indicated that this was not her understanding. Dr. Hall believes that we should have some policy for reasons of fairness. Dr. Royer raised the issue of what it takes to get to long term disability. Dr. Seymour suggested that there should be a cost projection if we are planning on bringing in substitutes. Dr. Sauer asked what the current maternity leave policy is and was told that there is none.
c. Faculty salary model: Mr. Matthews began by stating that this process is in its infancy. The primary goal is to achieve equity across the campus. The primary source of data is from the College and University Professional Association (CUPA). When examining the market rate, the Department of Labor’s statistics will be used and aged it for inflation. The target rate is not the determined pay a person should get; rather, the target rate is based on 80 percent of market rate and represents an average. The target rate will be figured on years at MSU and prior relevant work experience -- each year is one more percentage point. For example, if the market rate is 60,000 dollars, that would be taken times 80 % for target, plus one percentage point for years of service (.8 and .12 times the target.) The difference is then 85% for this particular example. If everyone were at 85% of target pay we could say we had equity. The resulting numbers are maybe not what we WANT, but would nonetheless represent equity. This will help us see who is behind and ahead in terms of equity. This process does not take into account performance issues but provides a baseline of comparison for position to position to see what areas are the most discrepant. If someone is ahead of an equitable position, it may be for a good reason.
Dr. Royer asked if this model was related to the other model discussed recently which began to 100% of the regional average and then went to 80% of regional. Mr. Matthews stated that they are not the same model. This model is based on looking at low and high of average, 100%, plus 20% on either side. Dr. Hall indicated that we are at 83% now in terms of regional averages and we need to set new goals and keep moving, but she used 80% to look at equity. Ms. Fedje asked if we could receive copies of the report. Dr. Hall replied that MSU purchases one a year and faculty can come look at it in her office. Ms. Fedje agreed that it is frustrating to see the disparity between people’s salaries. Dr. Royer asked where the policy is eventuating -- will it be based on K-12 model of lanes for example? Mr. Matthews replied that this will depend on the feedback. The origin of the approach was his work with staff issues. Dr. Royer replied that it would be good to have a “coin of the realm” for negotiations on campus.
5. New Business
c. Bylaws Changes, Corrections, and Additions: Dr. Andreasen began by stating that Faculty Senate members should have copies of the changes and the corrections. She distributed hard copies of what was distributed over email. Dr. Andreasen recently finished looking over the list of bylaw amendments put forth by the Constitutional Review committee. This handout represents her changes and additions to that list. There is one issue concerning the Faculty Handbook. We have discussed moving to an online model and not trying to print out new pages and distribute them. If this is in fact what we wish to do, we should change the statement in the job description for the Handbook Committee. Membership on the General Education Committee is another issue given the recent reorganization of colleges at MSU. Dr. Royer pointed out that the logic was that we have significant representation from Arts and Sciences since they offer the most General Education courses and one representative from each other college. The membership of the Curriculum Committee has also changed this year, since the Director of the Library has been made a voting member. Dr. Andreasen summarized the changes relative to CCF. Dr. Jastrzembski asked if the new way of counting enrollment, has caught up to CCF in terms of assigning membership. Dr. Andreasen replied that CCF is based on number of faculty not students. Another membership change concerns the Faculty Development and Research Committee. The committee currently is supposed to have the Director of the Midcontinent Institute as a member, but that entity no longer exists. We need to decide if we want to put someone in that position.
Dr. Andreasen noted that the Senate could choose to deal with any of the issues on the other page should it so desire. Some of the issues can easily wait. In terms of time, anything to go before the whole faculty needs to be approved today. The measures need to be approved by Faculty Senate and then by an at large vote of the faculty. For this vote, two-thirds are needed for approval. Dr. Keller asked if we need to have a motion to pass the measures on the first page. Dr. Andreasen replied that at this point one could put forth a motion to accept the recommendations of the Constitutional Review committee with these changes presented today. Dr. Jastrzembski moved for approval of the recommendations with Dr. Andreasen’s suggested changes and additions. Dr. Seymour seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Dr. Andreasen asked if, on the ballot, we can just indicate that where Student Senate is named, the name will change to Student Association and adopt the same procedure for the EHS name changes. This would make for a significantly shorter ballot. Dr. Jastrzembski moved that this procedure be adopted and Ms. Fedje seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Dr. Andreasen asked if the Senate wanted to deal with any of the other issues. Dr. Jastrzembski made a motion to strike the term “Associate Director of Midcontinent Institute” from the Faculty Development and Research Committee. Ms. Podrygula seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. Dr. Jastrzembski suggested tackling the general education issue. Dr. Royer moved that the new College of Education and Health Sciences have one position on the general education committee, replacing the two positions held (one by the College of Nursing and the other by the College of Education and Human Services). Dr. Jastrzembski seconded the motion. The motion was approved with two abstentions.
Formal actions: Dr. Jastrzembski moved approval of the changes to the Constitution and Bylaws presented by the Constitutional Review committee as amended by Dr. Andreasen. Dr. Seymour seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Dr. Jastrzembski moved that on the ballot name changes to EHS and Student Senate be dealt with by one vote apiece for changes throughout the documents. Ms. Fedje seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Dr. Royer moved that the new College of Education and Health Sciences be allowed one seat on the General Education committee rather than the two previously allowed, one for Nursing and one for Education and Human Services. Dr. Jastrzembski seconded the motion and the motion was approved with two abstentions.
d. Academic Policies Committee - Ms. Judy Swanson: Ms. Swanson presented a new policy being recommended by the Academic Policies Committee concerning the number of credits needed in residence for certificate offerings. The c committee is recommending that at least 50% of the credits for a c certificate must be through Minot State University. The Academic Policies Committee felt that it was easier to specify a percentage given the diversity of certificate programs. Dr. Sauer asked if the minimum credits required for a certificate at the graduate level was eight and Ms. Swanson indicated that was correct. Dr. Jastrzembski pointed out that all of our current graduate certificate programs require more than eight credits, but if we did have a program requiring only eight credits, one could conceivably get a certificate from MSU with only one course from MSU. Ms. Swanson indicated that the committee struggled with this issue, and looked at the residency requirements for a regular degree. Of the 128 credits needed to graduate, only 30 must come from MSU. Following the same percentage resulted in needing only two credits from MSU for a certificate which seemed too few. Dr. Hall suggested that getting a certificate with only one course from MSU under this policy would be pretty unusual as most of our graduate courses are two credits. Dr. Royer agreed with Dr. Hall, indicating that those courses that are four credits are either repeatable or variable credit. Dr. Jastrzembski asked if all classes would be counted the same, regardless of the mode of delivery. Dr. Royer stated that the issue of residency is still unresolved. Dr. Beachy indicated that this issue was settled at our last meeting. Dr. Seymour moved approval of the APC’s recommendation concerning residency requirements for certificate programs. Ms. Haider seconded the motion. Dr. Keller asked if Dr. Jastrzembski believes that a different percentage is appropriate and Dr. Jastrzembski replied that he really did not have a recommendation for an alternative plan. Dr. Royer stated that we have opened a door that could result in a completely online university. Dr. Beachy replied that the door was already open and Dr. Keller added that half the horses are gone. Dr. Barkosky asked if there was any further discussion as we hurdle out of this open door. There was none. The motion was approved with five abstentions.
Ms. Swanson presented the Academic Policies committee’s recommendation regarding correspondence courses and repeating failing grades. Ms. Swanson stated that the committee’s idea was that it is 20th Century thinking to say a student can’t repeat a course via a distance model. Not allowing students to repeat courses using correspondence courses means that a student has fewer options. Dr. Sauer suggested that this had nothing to do with options, but instead is focused on avoiding responsibility on the part of the student. Dr. Beachy suggested that Dr. Royer’s previous comments were now very appropriate. Dr. Royer thanked Dr. Beachy for recognizing the excellence of his position. Ms. Swanson stated that the committee invited Dr. McCormack to the meeting and he said it is more difficult to achieve a good grade in a correspondence course than on campus. Any student who can pass algebra via correspondence could have passed it on campus. Dr. Kibler countered by saying that it is easier to get a good grade in correspondence courses but not easier to complete them. Dr. Keller suggested that the argument is quite specious. If a student can not succeed in a course face to face, this policy is simply giving them the illusion that they have a chance of succeeding at a correspondence course which is just taking their money. Dr. Sauer suggested that such a policy would eliminate our ability to monitor what quality of courses our students are using. Dr. Seymour stated that there are instances in which this would be appropriate. The student came here to campus, didn’t do well because he or she was away from home, moved home to Rugby and took the course via correspondence. Dr. Martin stated that for most of her department’s courses this policy wouldn’t be a good thing. There are many places students could take a course and pass it but the quality would be suspect. Dr. Kibler moved approval of the policy recommendation from APC to allow students to repeat a course via correspondence. Dr. Seymour seconded the motion. Dr. Sauer stated that this will also affect continuous enrollment on the part of students because if they only took correspondence courses they would not be continuously enrolled. The motion was defeated on a voice vote.
Formal actions: Dr. Seymour moved approval of the Academic Policies Committee’s recommendation to require that 50% of coursework for a certificate program be taken from MSU. Ms. Haider seconded the motion and it was approved with five abstentions. Dr. Kibler moved approval of the policy recommendation from APC to allow students to repeat a course via correspondence. Dr. Seymour seconded the motion. The motion was defeated on a voice vote.
e. Network and Computer Usage Policy: Dr. Barkosky indicated that he had some responses to his recent email that encouraged him to have Senate come up with a unified response to this policy. One of the ideas suggested was to either clarify or strike the phrase “mirror community standards”. Another comment concerned section 4.4 , the use of computers at home. Dr. Jastrzembski asked when the Board will deal with this. Dr. Jastrzembski suggested that we need to make a unified response to the proposed policy. Dr. Barkosky suggested that we could attempt to circulate a draft response via email. Dr. Kibler stated that the most unifying point is that one sentence concerning community standards. Dr. Barkosky concluded the discussion by stating that he would begin an email discussion on the policy.
5. New Business
a. Curriculum Committee - Dr. Joseph Jastrzembski: The next Curriculum Committee meeting is on March 26th, lining us up for Senate meeting on April 11th. Senators have received three items but have not had them for ten class days. We will look at these as a first reading and look at them for second reading in April.
a)Arts Administration proposal: Some comments regarding this program have been made at Curriculum Committee and those changes have been made. Dr. Kibler moved to approve the proposed program. Ms. Podrygula seconded the motion. Dr. Sauer pointed out that under section 12 the proposal highly recommends Engl 411; however, you can’t enroll in Engl 411 without taking Engl 211, so the program would want to list that in the list of prerequisites. Dr. Andreasen asked if there is a particular reason why this is a BS degree instead of a BA degree. Dr. Hall indicated that Linda Olson talked to her about that issue. The program has a heavy practicum component (internship credits). In addition, if they have a BA it requires a major and minors. They had that built in already in terms of concentrations but with BA would still have had to get majors and minors. Thus, they chose to go with BS degree. The motion was tabled on first reading.
b)Humanities course: Marilyn Hedberg stated that this course has now been offered for four semesters as a special topics course. We now would like to have it included as an elective. Enrollment in the course has been growing. Dr. Jastrzembski stated that the Curriculum Committee has heard only positive things about this course. Ms. Podrygula moved to suspend the rules and approve on a first reading. Dr. Royer spoke against suspending rules without grave cause. Dr. Jastrzembski agreed. The motion to suspend the rules failed unanimously. Dr. Royer moved approval of the course and Dr. Jastrzembski seconded the motion. Motion is tabled automatically until the second reading.
c) Special Education proposals: Since there is no one from Special Education here, Dr. Jastrzembski recommended dealing with these proposals in April meeting.
b. General Education Committee - Dr. Ron Royer: The general education committee recently approved one of the strongest proposals to come before them, from the area of foreign languages. They have a total of 12 language courses for proposed recertification. Dr. Royer moved for approval of these twelve courses. Dr. Keller seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. The committee has one meeting left this year. The remaining business is Theatre 110, Music 100, Music 201, Music 205 and some other English courses. This courses will be dealt with at the next meeting of Faculty Senate.
Dr. Jastrzembski asked when the Faculty Senate President expects committee reports. Dr. Barkosky indicated that ASAP would be good. Dr. Jastrzembski stated that his committee will not be done until next meeting.
Dr. Keller announced that the faculty opinion survey will be going out within a week.
6. Adjournment 5:35.
Lisa Borden-King , Faculty Senate Secretary