2001 - 2002
Minot State University
Faculty Senate Meeting
October 25, 2001
3:30 pm -- Westlie Room
Officers Executive Board
President Rick Barkosky Bethany Andreasen Christopher Keller
Vice President Christopher Keller Lisa Borden-King Nancy Hall
Secretary Lisa Borden-King Richard Barkosky Warren Gamas
Parliamentarian Bethany Andreasen Michael Duffy Eric Furuseth
Members Present: Rick Barkosky, Robert Kibler,Linda Haider, Bethany Andreasen, Joseph Jastrzembski, Ron Royer, Patti Fedje, Deann Klein, Heidi Super, Christopher Keller, David McCormack, Tito Sifuentes (for Evelyn Holmquist), Ken Staub, Colin McNamara, DeVera Bowles, Steve Huenneke, Ernst Pijning, Clark Markell, Rose McKenney, Lisa Borden-King, Michelle Sauer, Nelrene Yellowbird
Members Absent: Susan Podrygula, Stephanie Martin, Tom Seymour, Christopher Beachy, Alisha Ford
Guests: Nancy Hall, Erik Shaar, Allen Kihm, Gary Rabe, Pat Lomire, David Demers, Keith Witwer, Selmer Moen
1. Announcements/Review Agenda
b)Dr. Barkosky requested that we add an agenda item related to the minimum number of resident credits for a major.
2. CCF report--Dr. Huenneke
a)Faculty Compensation Committee: CCF has discovered that there is a faculty compensation committee in their bylaws. Dr. Huenneke distributed copies to Senate members. He is asking us to make recommendations regarding someone to be designated to be on this committee. This will be an active committee given the current issues before us. Dr. Royer suggested Dr. Huenneke hold both positions, but it was decided that only Dr. Jastrzembski is able to do that. Dr. Barkosky mentioned that Dr. Kiblerís name had come up. Is there anyone interested in the post? Dr. Royer nominated Dr. Kibler and Ms. Fedje seconded. Motion approved.
b)Changes in Board policy regarding compensation of presidents or their equivalents: There is a proposed change to offer Presidents, after six years of service, one month of compensation awarded at the time of departure from the position. The issue isnít the compensation but where the money is coming from. CCF was under the impression that the money would come from the Chancellorís office. Since then we have found out that it would come out of campus budgets. CCF executive board has drafted a resolution which they have not yet voted on. Dr. Huenneke read the draft resolution from a handout given to Senators. The resolution basically states that while in favor of adequate compensation for all state employees, CCF is opposed to a model in which the money to pay for this comes from campus budgets.
Clarifications: a) The compensation would begin after six years and would accrue one month per year of service for up to twelve years. So, twelve months total compensation is possible. b) Dr. Hall was representing us at the meeting. The Presidents proposed the compensation package but requested that funds would come from the chancellorís office. Chancellorís office changed that portion of the proposal.
Dr. Barkosky indicated that one thing Senate might choose to do is adopt the CCF language and sign off on it. Dr. Huenneke reminded Senators that this is still a draft, not a voted on copy. There will still be a final copy. Faculty Senate could, however, use this as a basis to make a resolution or truncate the language into a briefer resolution. CCF would like to hear from the campuses in advance of voting on the CCF resolution.
Dr. Kibler indicated that we could pass a resolution to agree in spirit, but Dr. Royer mentioned that we havenít seen the final form of the resolution and it could be changed. Ms. Bowles asked how soon CCF will submit its resolution. Dr. Huenneke is unsure of the timeline. Ms. Fedje asked for some background information on the proposal since it is new to her. Dr. Huenneke responded that the rationale for the proposal focuses on the rapid turnover in systemwide presidential positions and the belief that a longer tenure makes long range planning more productive. Dr. Markell asked if Dr. Huenneke could get the CCF final wording and bring it to Executive Faculty Senate. Dr. Andreasen indicated that Faculty Senate would have to authorize EFS for this.
Dr. Keller moved that we resolve that we are in favor in principle of the idea of presidential retirement compensation but not if it comes at the expense of University budgets. Dr. Markell seconded. Motion approved.
3. Administrative Report
a)Dr. Shaar: In terms of the issue concerning presidential retirement compensation, Dr. Shaar agrees with the Senate resolution. He has thought all along that since it was a Board initiative it would come as an expense for the Board, not individual campuses. This is an easy expense to plan for -- simply set an escrow account. Dr. Shaar indicated he was as surprised as everyone else when the proposal turned the other direction. This policy proposal was not a self seeking proposal, but an honest attempt to make compensation comparable in order to hopefully attract excellent leadership. Dr. Shaar also informed senate members about a gathering planned for the 30th of this month. The presentation will be a combination memorial service and discussion of the Sept 11th incident and its aftermath. It is being assembled by a variety of on and off campus groups. Dr. Shaar also expressed his delight at everything everyone has done in terms of the enrollment statistics. There is a fourteen percent increase in enrollment this fall. Although this is partially due to a new way of counting, we would still be up without it. Whether we like it or not our existence is based on our enrollment. We are not compromising our quality expectations in this process. Dr. Shaar also wanted to take the time to comment on long range financial planning. He personally likes very much where MSU is in this spectrum. We have been underfunded in comparison to some universities. Using the peer comparator system, we have been able to find out this is in fact the case. In the unlikely event that a large body of additional dollars accrues to the university system our portion will be considerable, although not as significant as UND and NDSU because the comparator group indicates they are even more poorly compensated. Dr. Shaar also informed the Senate that bids for Old Main project first phase have been opened. The next phase will begin immediately and the entire project is scheduled for completion next fall for resumption of classes. Dr. Shaar mentioned that there was major discussion yesterday regarding ODIN. In the future, it will no longer be available to us as the originators have pulled out. We are seeking a new vendor for our online library system.
Questions: Will there be overlap between losing ODIN and getting a new one? Larry Greenwood and Susan Podrygula will report on this question when they return. It is central that the new system, whatever it is, be paid for in a centralized manner.
b)Dr. Hall: Dr. Hall indicated that she had no items for her administrative report.. She was asked to comment on how the dean searches are going. Applications for the dean positions were due on October 15th. We had about eighteen applications for Arts and Sciences and 12 for Business. We hope to have candidates on campus this semester so the campus can look at them. The pool is stronger than last year. The committees are planning on moving more quickly so we can get commitments from people earlier in the year this time. Dr. Andreasen indicated a desire to discuss the process used in the recent decision concerning the political science coursework. Dr. Hall indicated that this decision was a resource allocation issue, and that she would like us to discuss this at Executive Faculty Senate. Dr. Andreasen suggested that this decision was a curriculum issue as well as a resource allocation issue. Dr. Barkosky stated that he would rather have this brought up and sorted out in EFS given the high level of emotions on this issue. We will have a more enlightened and orderly discussion when everyone has time to digest the information. Dr. Keller asked if there is any urgency to this issue and Dr. Hall indicated that while the process used to allocate resources is an appropriate and important issue for Faculty Senate to know about there is no urgency to the discussion. Dr. Barkosky stated that the larger issue seems to be shared governance and that is important as well -- not to diminish the importance of the individual decision that was made today.
4. Old Business
a)approval of minutes from 9/20/01: Minutes were approved pending the correction of the spelling of Dr. McKenneyís last name.
b)family tuition waiver issue: Dr. Kibler presented both a summary of argument for why a policy is needed and then also a draft policy. The general gist of the argument is that we are underfunded, underpaid, and stressed. So, what can we do to improve the lot of faculty at MSU and in North Dakota? Tuition waivers are one way we can do that. Dr. Pijning asked how spouse is defined and Dr. Kibler indicated he wasnít sure. Dr. Huenneke clarified one point in Dr. Kiblerís statement, saying that we are experiencing an annual turnover rate of 7.75. The total rate would be closer to 24. Dr. Kibler reiterated that the argument concerning lost revenue to institution is not truly accurate. Dr. Rabe asked if faculty are leaving because they canít get their dependents in free? Dr. Huenneke responded by saying that a faculty member who is on the cusp of a decision could be swayed by a tuition waiver policy. A positive incentive couldnít hurt. Dr. Rabe noted that the language implies that this tuition waiver policy would affect that 7%. Dr. Markell asked what the path would be for this if we adopted it? The general consensus was that it would proceed to Executive Faculty Senate. Dr. Markell asked if we have sat down and looked at financial implications. Dr. Hall responded that Wes Mathews is looking at this. She would like to bring back the preliminary pieces or have Wes Matthews. come and speak to Senate. They are looking at how many college age students and spouses there are potentially in order to assess the maximum impact. They are also looking at how many currently attending would not have to pay which is real money lost right away. Dr. Staub suggested that we could also look at how many people in similar universities take advantage of similar policies so we could get a more realistic sense of the impact. He also suggested looking at places that have had similar policies for awhile, such as our peer comparators. Dr. Barkosky suggested that Wes Matthews should come to EFS and EFS will gather info and report back to Senate.
Ms. Yellowbird raised the issue of the definition of a spouse, indicating that language from social work exists to to take this into consideration. During discussion of this issue, several senators expressed an interest in pursuing the definition of a spouse. In the end, it was agree that Dr. Kibler would seek the definition used by NDPERS and pass that on to Wes Matthews. Ms. Fedje indicated that there were parallel issues in the definition of a dependent. Additional discussion ensued concerning the financial cost to Minot State University. There was general agreement that we need to gather more information concerning actual financial issues and that Dr. Staubís idea is worthy of pursuit. Dr. Staub moved we table this discussion until we have information from Wes Matthews available to us. Dr. McKenney seconded the motion. Motion approved. Dr. Kibler is charged to work with Wes on this issue.
c)online faculty handbook and bylaws changes: Dr. Andreasen indicated that she is doing more exploring since the last Senate. There is more of the handbook online than she previously thought. The online version is just missing a few appendices and updates. She reminded Senate that we voted to charge the committees and that is the next step that has to be taken. Also, a couple of questions have come up regarding committee membership on general education committee. Nursing had a spot but now are no longer a separate college, for example. We donít need to pursue these issues today but since we are looking at other changes already these new issues should become a part of that process.
d)Curriculum Committee -- science division proposal -- Dr. Royer moved to remove this issue from the table. Dr. Pijning seconded. Motion approved. The question was called and the motion approved.
5. New Business
a)Curriculum Committee -- Dr. Jastrzembski began with a plea to not leave the catalog changes to the last minute next time.
-- biology proposal -- Dr. Royer moved approval of the package. Dr. Markell seconded. Motion approved.
--Dropping of science 480 from biology program -- Dr. Royer moved approval and Dr. McCormack seconded. Motion approved.
--Educ 497: Mentored practicum experience: Dr. Royer moved approval and Ms. Bowles seconded. Motion approved.
--HMS 208 -- medical terminology: Ms. Haider moved approval and Dr. Royer seconded. Motion approved
--Accounting 360 -- Computer Application -- Ms. Fedje moved approval and Ms. Bowles seconded. Motion approved.
-- Bus Admin -- change course title of 408 -- Ms. Klein moved approval and Dr. Super seconded. Motion approved.
--Social Work -- course droppings -- some courses that have not been taught for awhile are presented as a package to be dropped. Dr. Keller moved approval and Dr. Sauer seconded. Motion approved.
--program change from Comp Sci -- There are some prerequisites that have been implicit for awhile. They want to be up front about them with students but the bottom line is substantially what it has been all long. Dr. Royer moved approval and Dr. Markell seconded. Motion approved.
-- program change and course change from Comm Dis as a package -- Dr. Barkosky asked about the substitution of Physics 203 for the second half of anatomy and physiology. Dr. Keller pointed out that 203 is a fall course just as 220 is. Could this be a problem? Dr. Royer wondered, given the importance of these two areas to the communication disorders students, why not both anatomy courses and the physics course? Dr. Barkosky indicated that 115, a combined anatomy and physiology class in one semester might be more appropriate for the students. Dr. Royer moved tabling this motion pending clarification of the science course issue from Communication Disorders department and conversation with the Biology department re: course load. After some discussion, Dr. Royer moved to remove the one course from the package and table just the one course. Dr. Pijning seconded the motion. Motion approved. Dr. Staub went through the rest of the package. Dr. Royer moved approval and Dr. Kibler seconded . Motion approved.
-- English -- Restrict capstone course to seniors. Dr. Kibler moved approval and Dr. McCormack seconded the motion. Motion approved. The second change concerned the transfer of the list of electives to the BSE in English Education from the B.A. in English. Ms. Fedje moved approval and Ms. Yellowbird seconded. Motion approved.
-- Music courses: Several changes were presented. Ms. Haider moved to suspend the rules. Motion approved. Ms. Bowles moved approval of the package and Dr. Royer seconded it. Motion approved.
--Dr. Jastrzembski concluded with one recommended change to Curriculum Committee composition and a report on the catalog structure issue. Student Senate was asked their opinion of the changes proposed by Dr. Jastrzembski to the structure of the catalog and they were in favor of those changes. At some possible future date this move could be contemplated.
b)General Education Committee -- Dr. Royer: The general education committee has begun the process of reviews for recertification of courses as general education courses. The mathematics component is finished on Oct. 29. The history section will be completed by Nov 19th. So far, only one new course has been proposed for inclusion as general education, World Civilization since 1500. Dr. Royer moved approval and Dr. McKenney seconded. Motion approved.
c)Executive compensation -- Dr. Huenneke: This issue was dealt with already.
d)CCF Faculty Compensation Committee: This issue was dealt with already as well.
e)Faculty sick leave policy -- The administration is proposing a policy and departmental chairs should have disseminated it. Faculty Senate would like to give this issue some consideration. Faculty senators will receive a revised draft of the policy before the next meeting. Dr. Seymour will lead a discussion at the next meeting. Dr. Barkosky distributed NDSU sick leave policy. He encouraged us to study the issue, talk about it with the people we represent and we will discuss it on the 15th at Faculty Senate. Dr. Royer indicated that he thought the Board said we were free to develop a policy but didnít have to develop one. Dr. Hall and Dr. Kibler replied that this has been changed to a requirement to have a sick leave policy in place.
f)vacant senate positions, representatives to student senate, and committee vacancies: Dr. Barkosky indicated that there are three vacancies on Faculty Senate. (one at large position, one Arts and Sciences position and one EHS position). Please forward any interested individuals to Dr. Barkosky. Dr. Andreasen indicated that technically there will have to be a special election to fill the EHS and A & S positions. We could use mailed ballots. The Faculty Affairs committee also needs an Arts and Sciences representative. One more representative to Student Affairs is also needed.
g) Ad Hoc committee on Promotion and Tenure: Dr. Barkosky said that he placed this item on the agenda in order to discuss concerns on the part of some faculty about the constitution of this committee. Dr. Royer suggested that this committee seems heavily weighted towards administration, given that this is a committee focused on tenure and promotion which are clearly faculty governance issues. Dr. Barkosky stated that the committee is also charged with looking at the annual evaluation process and that is part of the reason there is a seeming abundance of administrators on the committee. Dr. Royer indicated that the committee is busily at the job and in good faith but looking at the people involved it just doesnít look like a faculty senate committee. Dr. Kibler suggested that there is no precedent for this composition of a committee. Dr. Hall suggested that one solution would be to call it an institutional committee. One of the problems last year was alignment between deans and chairs and so it made sense to have the administrators on there. Dr. Jastrzembski suggested that the administrators could be non-voting members. Dr. Markell pointed out that the work of the committee will come before us anyway. Dr. Huenneke asked if there is there any sense that this committee will be reconstituted in future years or is it a one time committee? Dr. Royer and Dr. Hall indicated they believe it is one time only. Dr. Royer reiterated that it sounds like it is in truth an institutional committee. Dr. Barkosky would recommend leaving it as a Faculty Senate committee. Dr. Keller asked if there are additional people who want to be on the committee? No one jumped at the possibility. Dr. Royer reiterated his belief that although it was originated as a senate committee, its raison díetre has moved to a more institutional one. Dr. McCormack indicated that tenure and promotion are clearly part of the constitution of Faculty Senate; furthermore, any proposals will need to come before Faculty Senate. Dr. Kibler made a motion to accept committee composition. The motion was seconded by Dr. Markell. Motion approved.
h)credits towards baccalaureate degrees: Dr. Barkosky reported that the majority of the Academic Policy Committee felt we should recommend that the minimum number of hours be reduced from 128 to 121. Dr. Huenneke, who serves on this committee, was on the committee and was not in favor of this reduction. He wants this opposition, and his reasons, on record. Dr. Huenneke believes that it is sometimes the role of an institution to defend a standard regardless of market. Dr. Kibler stated that 120 credits for graduation is not an unusual number around the country. Dr. Royer indicated a stand on record also as opposed to this reduction of credit hours.
Adjourned at 6:00 .
Lisa Borden-King , Faculty Senate Secretary