MiSU Faculty Senate Executive Committee
April 24, 2003
Present: Andreasen, Barkosky,
Burke, Hall, Keller, Markel
Absent: McCormack, Seymour
- President Chris Keller called the meeting to
order at 3:32 p.m.
- President Keller indicated a need for a temporary
secretary and Markel was selected to fill this position.
- The minutes of the April 10 meeting were approved
with a minor correction.
- The agenda was reviewed and President Keller had
no announcements. There was no
- President Keller asked us to consider the
comments detailed by Mr. Hayton, Chair of the Curriculum Committee from
the last Faculty Senate meeting.
Keller requested input on proactive mechanisms for reviewing
program effectiveness for next year's business.
- The Faculty Senate Executive Committee continued
review of the Faculty Senate standing committees. The following comments were made:
J. Faculty Handbook
Committee. No changes for this committee were recommended.
K. Faculty Rights
- The Senate should specifically consider the
status of SBHE Section 605 as it pertains to the duties of this committee
along with any additional duties specified by the Constitution.
- Hall raised consideration of the membership
distribution, advocating a representative of at least one person from each
college and two additional members-at-large.
L. General Education
- A representative from the records office should
serve as a non-voting representative on this committee to represent the activity of this
office as well convey the activity of this committee in interactions with
the ND University System.
- The language of the first duty should be changed:
"to evaluate the General Education Program on an annual basis."
M. Library Committee.
- The second and third duties should be deleted.
- The first duty should be restated: "To
assist in the formulation and revision of library polices on instructional
resources." Also, there
assists a critical need to include in the language of the first duty or
add a duty that reflects the following responsibility: "assist in the
formation of procedures regarding censoring challenges."
- The fourth duty should be restated: "To
propose library policies to the Faculty Senate for information and
N. Promotion Committee.
- This committee should be instructed not to
disclose the name of those denied promotion to the Senate. Instead, this committee should only
provide this information to the respective chair and the University
- Andreasen raised the question whether the Senate
needs to vote to approve considerations for early promotion. This needs to be clarified.
- It was noted that this commitee emphasizes
criteria and not so much procedure.
- A general discussion ensued regarding whether
this committee is subject to the open records policy (ORP); the
discussions held by this committee might be hampered by the ORP. It seemed that the ORP only applies to
the minutes of this committee.
- In Section N, under Procedures, something to the
following effect should be stated: "Committee discussion is
confidential and committee minutes are subject to the open-record
law." Check what other committees are germane; a reference of the
open records law should also be clarified in a statement in Section C.
Note: A communication of
general committee rules, specific committee duties, and by-laws associated with
committee activity should be sent to the committee chairs and members in the
O. Special Review Committee.
- The duties need to clarify in procedural fashion
which activities refer to Bylaws or SBHE policy. This will require a careful
consideration of the sequential steps of procedure.
- Revisions should be investigated and considered
for the second duty "to investigate allegations of possible
misconduct in research." For
example, what is the role of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) as it
pertains to research misconduct?
The broad ramifications of any changes here should be considered.
P. Student Rights Committee.
- The Director of Records or the Vice President for
Advancement and Student Affairs shall chair this committee.
- This committee should be renamed the
Undergraduate SRC or instead of a renaming, the duties should be redefined
to reflect the issues of both undergraduate and graduate students.
- The Senate should investigate and consider the
relationship between this committee and the Graduate Research Council.
Q. Tenure committee
- Concern about the tenure requirement for members
was debated; the primary concern was the importance of protecting
untenured faculty from potential hardship that may arise as a result of
Committee work which involves detailed discussions of colleague activity
and behavior. It was pointed out by
Keller that this requirement has already been voted on by Faculty Senate
and it is unlikely that the Senate may consider any change in this
requirement for either the Promotion or Tenure Committee.
- It was suggested that a subcommittee with members
aware of the required forms for tenure application help review packets
prior to their submission to this full committee.
- This committee should take a pro-active role
informing the faculty campus-wide of their expectations.
- It was agreed that the last two suggestions are
also appropriate for the Promotion Committee.
7. The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
Dr. Paul D. Markel