Faculty Senate
Minot State University
Faculty Senate Meeting
September 6, 2001
3:30 pm -- Westlie Room
----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Officers Executive Board
President Richard Barkosky Bethany Andreasen Eric Furuseth
 Vice President Christopher Keller Richard Barkosky Warren Gamas
Secretary Lisa Borden-King Lisa Borden-King Nancy Hall
 Parliamentarian Bethany Andreasen Michael Duffy Christopher Keller
----------------------------------------------------------------------- -

Members Present:
Susan Podrygula, Ken Staub, Tom Seymour, Patty Fedje, Rose McKenney, Bethany Andreasen, Rick Barkosky, Robert Kibler, Ron Royer, Linda Haider, Heidi Super, Christopher Keller, Joseph Jastrzembski, DeVera Bowles, Nancy Hall, Alisha Ford, Douglas Warrick (proxy for Christopher Beachy) , Clark Markell
Members Absent:
Stephanie Martin, Nelrene Yellow Bird, David McCormack, Ernst Pijning, Deann Klein, Michelle Sauer
Gary Ross, Don Burke, Stewart Kelly

1. Announcements/Review Agenda

Dr. Barkosky called the meeting to order and distributed agendas. There is a lot of Faculty Senate business this year and he is looking forward to a productive year. There were no announcements or changes to the agenda.
2. Administrative Reports

Dr. Hall:
At convocation Dr. Shaar said enrollment is up. Dr. Hall wants to clarify for Faculty Senate that these numbers include continuing education enrollments for the first time. Approximately 336 students are historically from Continuing Education and are now moving into our regular enrollment report. Even with this change, we are up about 20-25 students. For budgeting, we still need to find out the FTEs of those students. Bruce Haskins will be looking at FTE report and by late October we will have a better sense of what this means. We do know, however, that it does mean our efforts at retention and recruitment are working well. Lisa Johnson will provide break out reports focused on graduate students, international students and other areas we targeted, as well as on freshman retention
The Chancellor was given large block grants and discussion this fall has explored how this money will be used. The block grant money has been put into a couple of areas -- equity and special initiatives. The equity money will consist of 80% of available funds and will utilize the peer comparator project. Minot State University now has ten peers to compare ourselves to as we set benchmarks for where we should be in terms of FTEs, salaries and so forth. 20% of the funding will be used for special initiatives. Criteria are being developed for these grants and will be made public by Oct 15th. We will then have about a month to apply for funds. Creating a research office and an entrepreneurial office were goals we set last year and said we would not move forwards without new funding; however, they don't fit the criteria well as the funds are one time only. Thus, we will need to look at those two goals and consider other funding possibilities, and we should consider other potential projects to do with the block grant money.
Dr. Kibler wondered if the new state policy to make tuition waivers available is being pursued. Dr. Hall replied that presidents of the universities were given this power in June, and decisions were made in July. Here at MSU we were conservative, deciding to not lose a lot of money for Fall and take time to look at it. We allowed all Canadian students to pay 150% of resident tuition fee. We had been doing two provinces and had problems with this, such as students giving false addresses. As there were only four students affected, and athletic recruiters thought it would help them bring more students in, this waiver was granted. Another idea being investigated focuses on allowing all benefited employees to use their three free classes to allow spouses or children to take classes. There are 395 benefited employees, and, of those, 265 have spouses. 117 benefited employees have children between the ages of 18-22. We have calculated that if all those spouses and dependents took us up on three free courses, it would cost us one quarter of a million dollars. If we consider how many dependents already take classes the cost is significantly less. Dr. Hall indicated she knows there is interest on campus and the tuition waivers are being considered.
What is the research office? Dr. Barkosky chaired the subcommittee. His previous institution had a research office which helped faculty receive external grants, both in terms of locating and writing grants.
In terms of the equity grants and funding, Dr. Hall had previously expressed concern about some of our "peers" and it was asked what had happened in that process. Dr. Hall stated that she had concerns with two peers in particular, because one had a lot of two year programs and another had no Master's programs. She was adamant they be eliminated and they were. She is satisfied with the ten peers currently selected.
What is currently being done in relation to the Dean search committees? Dr. Hall responded, stating that in most cases the whole committees are coming back. In a couple of instances, some community members are being replaced. Advertising has been put in the Chronicle for both Dean positions. We are also sending notices to Chairs and Deans in a five state area asking them to consider applying themselves or encouraging others . November 15th is the first screening. The advantage this year is an earlier time frame. The position descriptions and criteria didn't change.
3. Seating of proxies
Dr. Barkosky indicated that Dr. Warrick was attending the meeting as Dr. Beachy's proxy and needed to be approved. Dr. Royer moved to seat Dr. Warrick as a proxy for Dr. Beachy. Motion was seconded and passed.
4. CCF report--Steve Huenneke

The Council of College Faculties is meant to be a system level forum for faculty on issues such as intellectual property, accountability measures, grievance procedures, system policies, and new Board policies. CCF is a voice for faculty at the system level. Dr. Andreasen noted that CCF also chooses a Faculty Representative for State Board.
Dr. Huenneke's report is focused this time on the State of the Faculty Conference coming up on Sept 21 and 22nd. Dr. Huenneke directed interested parties to the email concerning the conference. The presenters will be Dr. Snyder from the AAUP and Dr. Georgianna from the AFT. Both will speak on shared governance and compensation. Dr. Huenneke characterized recent Academic Affairs conversations about compensation as friendly and indicated that they seemed favorable to inflation adjustments. The State Board had good conversation as well on this issue. The compensation problems are actually having a negative impact at this point due to frequent turnover. All involved seem focused on how do we get to something better. This issue will also be discussed at conference. There will be administrative funding to go but we want to find out how many people are going. Dr. Hall is looking at funding $1,500. This is enough for two vans and about fifteen rooms. The sense of the Senate was that money would be given to people on a first come, first serve basis. Dr. Huenneke will let her know who the people are and she will reimburse when people turn in receipts. Dr. Hall will reserve vans. Dr. Huenneke indicated that those interested in avoiding the rush on places at the conference would want to consider registering online.
6. Old Business

a) Previous minutes
: The minutes from the May 3rd meeting of last year have not yet been approved. Dr. Seymour moved for approval. The motion was seconded and the minutes were read and approved with no changes.
7. New Business
) Meeting schedule
: Dr. Barkosky circulated meeting times for approval. Ms. Podrygula moved for approval and Dr. Jastrzemsbki seconded. Approved the meeting schedule as distributed.
: Dr. Barkosky has appointed individuals to committees and to Executive Board. Some committees replace their own members, and for the others he seeks Executive Board approval. The Executive Board appointees need Faculty Senate approval. Dr. Barkosky sought a motion to accept his appointments of Warren Gamas and Michael Duffy. Dr. Royer moved approval and Dr. Jastrzembski seconded. Motion approved.
The appointment of Dr. Andreasen as parliamentarian also needs Faculty Senate approval. Dr. Royer moved approval and Dr. McKenney seconded. Motion approved.
c)Voting procedures
: Dr. Barkoksy asked Faculty Senate to approve a plan for allowing him, at his discretion, to call for a secret ballot when voting on sensitive issues. The ballots would need a vote number recorded for each ballot taken that way. Failure to fill form out would be abstention by default. Some concern was expressed over placing this power solely in the hands of the president. Some wondered if, as a matter of parliamentary procedure, the majority of Faculty Senate would need to approve a request for a secret ballot. Others expressed concern about the use of secret ballots with elected representatives. Eventually, it was agreed that a secret ballot can be taken if any one member of Faculty Senate wishes to ask for one.
d)Interim promotion process
: In preparation for discussion of the promotion issue remaining from last spring, Dr. Barkoksy reminded senators and guests that no names of the involved faculty should be used during the discussion. Dr. Barkoksy summarized the issue as follows: The issue at hand concerns three faculty members who were not recommended for promotion and who pursued grievance procedures. Two followed the grievance procedures outlined in the Faculty Senate bylaws and one went directly to Dr. Shaar. The special review committee was convened and, after deliberating, asked the promotion committee to reconvene. The promotion committee voted not to reconvene. Dr. Shaar then charged the promotion committee with an interim promotion process whereby the new promotion committee would reconsider the three applications that were appealed. In this process, existing packets would be reviewed and nothing would be added. There is nothing in bylaws that facilitates this interim promotion process. At this point in time, in Dr. Barkoksy's opinion, the President of the university has overruled an action of the promotion committee and thus this comes before Faculty Senate for review. Dr. Barkoksy considers promotion to be primarily a faculty issue thus wants Faculty Senate to consider this issue today.
Point of clarification: Would the interim process be retroactive? The assumption is that it would be.
Question: If the special review committee asks the promotion committee to reconvene can promotion committee say no? Again this is unclear. Both are Faculty Senate committees. A few people mentioned that the special review committee should perhaps have made their recommendation to the Faculty Senate rather than to President Shaar. Dr. Hall and others pointed out that the directions given to the special review committee in the bylaws stated that the committee was to make its recommendations to President Shaar and not to Faculty Senate. Changing this procedure was suggested as one possible action to take to improve this process for the future.
Dr. Barkoksy focused the issue at hand by asking if the Faculty Senate is going to charge the promotion committee with the interim promotion process or not.
Dr. Burke and Dr. Kelly (past and present chairs of the promotion committee) were invited here today by Dr. Barkoksy. Dr. Kelly indicated that the special review committee felt that item "c" on the list of guidelines was violated. The item states: "Specific questions or concerns about materials or packets will be communicated to candidate before he or she meets with the committee." Personally, Dr. Stewart thinks "questions and concerns" refers to incompleteness of the materials or packet, and not that it refers to actual qualifications. Dr. Kelly states the the special review committee used that as their sole reason.
Dr. Burke indicated that there have been many times in the past when there have been things missing from packets. As the promotion committee has not wanted to penalize faculty on this ground they have asked faculty to resubmit. Dr. Burke would like some direction as to whether this interpretation is the correct one OR do we need to inform candidate of actual weaknesses the committee perceives before taking final vote.
Dr. Hall suggested that there was a second concern from special review committee focusing on the fact that in the scholarship area there were conflicting statements about what constitutes scholarship across campus. Thus, candidates had no sense of what the requirements were in relationship to scholarship
Several issues were raised in the ensuing discussion:
a)If there are two committees saying two different things, we should err on the conservative side and provide people another opportunity.
b)There was no grievance that said there were conflicts in descriptions about scholarship, the special review committee said that.
c) To take no action is an indictment of the work of the special review committee.
d)There are two issues involved: first, how to clean up the mess left over from last spring; second, whether to clean up the process for the future.
Dr. Kibler moved that, as a one-time solution, an interim promotion process be established and that those who followed the grievance procedure be allowed to submit their materials to a new committee. Decisions made by this interim promotion process would be retroactive. Dr. Royer seconded the motion. Dr. Barkoksy called for a secret ballot. The motion failed on a 7 to 9 vote.
e)Tenure and promotion guidelines
: Dr. Barkoksy opened discussion on the second issue surrounding promotion by asking if Faculty Senate is interested in charging promotion committee to look at criteria used. He also mentioned that Dr. Hall has indicated willingness to send relevant people to a conference sponsored by AAHE. After some discussion concerning the issue, Dr. Hall made a motion to have an ad hoc committee look at promotion and tenure guidelines on campus. The motion was seconded by Mr. Staub. The motion was approved.
f)Excellence in teaching criteria and tenure committee
: Dr. Ross, Director of the Bush Grant projects, is asking Faculty Senate to authorize the Tenure Committee to consider establishing guidelines for tenure, including "excellence in teaching" criteria. One of his activities as Bush Grant Director is to "encourage the promotion and tenure committees to consider establishing 'excellence in teaching' criteria." He has already met with the Promotion committee and encouraged them to consider EIT criteria. He is asking for the authority or blessing from Senate to pursue this with the Tenure committee as well. Dr. Ross outlined many of the benefits EIT criteria would have for the MSU campus. Discussion ensued, centering around the following points:
Do we want to establish criteria that set forth excellence? Some universities have identified minimum requirements. Perhaps competency is the "bar" for tenure.

New faculty might benefit from knowing the institution's definition of excellence in teaching.

Perhaps the ad hoc committee currently being formed to look at promotion and tenure guidelines is the appropriate committee for this information. 4)Guidelines for promotion and tenure will always differ from department to department and should differ due to the nature of the disciplines. 5) Common language on campus concerning what excellence in teaching is would facilitate new faculty development, as well as ongoing faculty development efforts. The criteria would not entail specific guidelines, but general concepts.
Dr. Ross reiterated that he is seeking permission to share the criteria his committee is developing with the Tenure committee for their consideration. Discussion continued. Dr. Hall suggested that perhaps Dr. Ross should return to Faculty Senate when his committee has completed their work in order to share the specifics. There was general agreement to this idea.
g)Curriculum committee: Super Monday proposal by Dr. Jastrzembski

The Curriculum committee is recommending that the morning portion of assessment day be designated as Super Monday. This would be a one time affair, intended to facilitate departments' concerns about course and program changes for the catalog. Committees needed to approve course and program changes would meet simultaneously, allowing departments to move their courses through several committees in one day. These committees would include Graduate Council, TEAC, Curriculum committee and Faculty Senate. Dr. Royer made a motion to accept Dr. Jastrzembski's proposal. Dr. Kibler seconded the motion. The motion was approved.
Dr. Jastrzembski raised another Curriculum committee issue: Kim Thompson circulated a suggestion from Dr. Jastrzemsbki concerning the way in which the catalog is organized. The feedback to his email so far has been 23 to 2 in favor of his recommendation. He would like feedback from Senate and then a charge from Senate to deliver this material to Lisa Johnson. Dr. Hall mentioned that student input had led to the current organization of the catalog and that students should be consulted in some form before making changes. Senate asked Dr. Jastrzembski to continue to gather faculty input and ask the liaison to Student Senate to bring the matter up at Student Senate.
Dr. Andreasen suggested that unless there was a strong opinion to the contrary she would like to move her items to early on the agenda for next time. Hearing no opposition, those items were moved to the agenda for the next meeting.

8. Adjournment

Adjourned at 5:42

Respectfully Submitted,

Lisa Borden-King, Faculty Senate Secretary
Faculty Senate
Minot State University
Faculty Senate Meeting
September 17, 2001
9:15 am -- Conference Center
----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Officers Executive Board
President Richard Barkosky Bethany Andreasen Eric Furuseth
 Vice President Christopher Keller Richard Barkosky Warren Gamas
Secretary Lisa Borden-King Lisa Borden-King Nancy Hall
 Parliamentarian Bethany Andreasen Michael Duffy Christopher Keller
----------------------------------------------------------------------- -

Members Present:
Tom Seymour, Ken Staub, Ron Royer, Susan Podrygula, Deanna Klein, Nancy Hall, Chris Beachy, I-Ming Chui (proxy for Ernst Pijning), Shirley Cole-Harding (proxy for Alisha Ford), Rose McKenney, Linda Haider, Dave McCormack, Rick Barkosky, Christopher Keller, Patty Fedje, Stephanie Martin, Heidi Super, Michelle Sauer
Members Absent: DeVera Bowles, Nelrene Yellowbird, Joseph Jastrzembski, Clark Markell, Robert Kibler, Bethany Andreasen

1. Seating of proxies: Shirley Cole-Harding is attending as a proxy for Alisha Ford and I-Ming Chui is attending as a proxy for Ernst Pijning. Dr. Royer moved acceptance of these proxies and Ms. Podrygula seconded the motion. Motion approved.

2. Super Monday: Super Monday, or "Dr. J. Day," as it may be affectionately known, was called to order by Dr. Barkoksy at 9:15. Dr. Barkoksy reminded senators that the purpose of the day was to expedite materials for the catalog while maintaining the integrity of the process. Any more complex issues may be tabled until Senate's regular meeting time. The rules will need to be temporarily suspended in order to deal with material the same day. After some discussion concerning the best way to accomplish this goal, it was decided that each motion would individually need to suspend the rules and that the record should reflect the unusual circumstances involved and indicate that this temporary approach does not reflect an erosion of the Senate's commitment to the ten day rule.
a)History packet: Dr. Ringrose presented a packet of nine course and/or program changes. Dr. Seymour moved suspension of the rules and approval of the packet. Motion was seconded by Dr. Beachy and approved.
b)Native American Studies program presented additional courses to count towards the program. All courses would be approved by the instructor and the NAS coordinator. Dr. Royer moved for suspension of the rules and approval of the request. Ms. Podrygula seconded the motion and it was passed.
c)Dr. Lomire presented changes to the B.A. in social science focusing on making the program narrower but more in-depth. Dr. Beachy moved suspension of the rules and approval of the program changes. Dr. Royer seconded the motion and the motion was approved.
d) Special Education presented a certificate of completion in the area of developmental disabilities. Ms. Klein moved suspension of the rules and approval of the certificate of completion. The motion was seconded by Ms. Haider. Discussion focused on availability of resources, standards for certificate programs, and inclusion of these courses in a regular four year degree. Motion passed.
e)Dr. Huenekke presented a title change to Econ 410. Dr. Royer moved suspension of rules and approval of change. Dr. Beachy seconded the motion and the motion was passed.
f)Dr. Willoughby presented a packet from BIT recording prerequisites for catalog. Dr. Royer moved to suspend the rules and approve the packet. Dr. Seymour seconded the motion. During discussion questions arose about the numbering of BIT 456. A substitute motion was made by Dr. Beachy to approve the packet minus BIT 456 in order to allow Dr. Willoughby time to gain her department's approval for the course number change. The motion was seconded by Dr. Martin and approved.
g) Dr. Super presented a packet of changes for the clinical laboratory science program. Dr. Royer moved for suspension of the rules and approval of the packet. Dr. Sauer seconded the motion. Discussion indicated that the UND prefixes and numbers for the courses will not be included in the catalog. The motion was approved.
h) The biology department presented a packet of changes. Dr. Royer moved suspension of the rules and approval of the packet. Ms. Podrygula seconded the motion. Discussion focused around Biol 497, a course intended to provide research opportunities to undergraduate students. The biology department proposed that the course be 1-2 credits and be repeatable up to four times. A designation of "X" would be used on the transcript to indicate the ongoing nature of the work. After consideration, the biology department indicated a desire to withdraw Biol 497 from consideration. Dr. Royer amended his motion to reflect this change. Dr. McKenney seconded the motion and the motion was approved.
i) Dr. Neuharth presented Comm 392, Junior Project. Ms. Podrygula moved suspension of the rules and approval of the course. Dr. Royer seconded the motion and the motion was approved.
j) Ms. Olson presented a packet focused on developing a photography program. Dr. Seymour moved for suspension of the rules and approval of the packet. Dr. Beachy seconded the motion and the motion was approved.
k) Ms. Pettersen presented a new course, HMS 208 Medical Terminology. Dr. Royer moved to suspend the rules and approve the course. Dr. Martin seconded the motion and the motion was approved.
l) Dr. Moen presented a packet of changes for math and computer science. Dr. Royer moved to suspend the rules and approve "these eminently sensible proposals." Dr. Sauer seconded the motion and the motion was approved.
m) Ms. Dokken, Chair of the Music Division, presented Musc 099. Dr. Royer moved to suspend the rules and approve the course change. Ms. Podrygula seconded the motion and it was approved. Ms. Dokken presented a new course, Musc 442 Piano Pedagogy. Dr. Beachy moved for suspension of the rules and approval of the course. Dr. McKenney seconded the motion and the motion was approved. Ms. Dokken presented changes for the manner in which credits are assigned for all applied music courses. Dr. Martin moved to suspend the rules and approve the changes. Dr. Beachy seconded the motion and the motion was approved.
3. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 am.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lisa Borden-King, Faculty Senate Secretary