Minutes of Faculty Senate Executive Board Meeting
Call to order by Pres. Paul Markel.
In attendance: Paul Markel, Gary Rabe, Cheryl Nilsen, Casey Coleman, Nancy Hall, Michelle Sauer, Ji-Hee Kim. Absent: Christopher Keller.
Dr. Markel thanked everyone for their participation in Faculty Senate. Board members introduced themselves.
The agenda was reviewed and kept as presented.
Administrative report – Dr. Hall
Board Office Proposals—1.
Resource Allocation—1. New research funding: funding allocation through VPAA that will be managed with the small grants funds. 2. There will be a shift of resources from Bureau of Social and Behavioral Research to ICC and Diversity Committee.
Cooperative Agreements—Chinese students will be coming to campus.
Search for new president—A committee is being formed at this time with the goal of presenting 3 names to board in March.
Curriculum—BFA in Forensic Accounting and the Gender/Women’s Studies degree passed phase one in review process.
Organization—Accounting will change to Accounting and Finance.
This concluded Dr. Hall’s report.
President Markel suggested that we have the deans communicate with the Senate on a regular basis for increased awareness of campus happenings.
Formal approval of candidates for members-at-large: Gary Rabe moved and Nancy Hall seconded that the candidates, Michelle Sauer and Ji-Hee Kim, be approved. Motion carried.
General discussion was held concerning senate goals for 2003-2004. Possible goals are listed below.
Program monitoring—The need exists for faculty senate to consider curricula and program viability when conducting business relative to course and program requests for changes. Regular review process may be needed.
Representation of adjunct FT/PT faculty is a possible goal.
Evaluation of on-line courses by students is a concern. What does the evaluation entail? What form(s) is(are) used? Medium specific questions should be included along with questions concerning learning outcomes. Evaluation should not be only of instructor. For what purpose is the evaluation used? Annual reports are prepared by chairs. What aspect of this area do we want to focus on with Faculty Senate? The entire topic is too broad.
Review of the BA degree standards—how should it be distinguished from the BS degree? The BA could become a marketing tool for the university. It could also raise faculty morale with higher expectations for students in the BA programs and perhaps a stronger group of students. Academic Policy Committee could take this on if senate adopts this as a goal.
US News and World Report University Ranking: Does influence parents. We have been a tier 3 institution for a long time, but have moved to tier 4 due to creation of a new category of multipurpose institutions in which MSU was placed. We are low in retention of students, graduation rates of students, and alumni giving. We are good in ACT scores of students, selectivity, and reputation. We have a fairly high at-risk student body. This ties in with retention and graduation rates and may be an area where we can make some progress.
Intellectual property—We need to design a structure to come into compliance with board policy concerning intellectual property disputes in our institution. There needs to be a structure created to implement this responsibility. Such a structure may in fact foster or promote the creation of intellectual properties by faculty.
How can the faculty senate interact more with the campus diversity committee? The ND Diversity Council will be sponsoring a three-phase program in anti-racism. These focus solely on racism as opposed to other diversity issues.
Prioritization of Goals for Senate needs to occur.
Faculty survey 2002-2003: The question was raised about what to do with responses from the faculty survey of 2002-2003. Recruitment and retention seems to be a priority in the results. Perhaps senate could adopt this as a goal to work on this year. Communication is low as reported in the national survey comparing MSU to other institutions. Perhaps this could be addressed as a goal by the senate. The money issue was evident in the survey responses. Perhaps a look at where the dollars come from could help to mitigate the monetary concerns somewhat.
The question remains as to how the Executive Board should report the survey results to the full senate.
Distribution of Executive Board Report on Faculty Senate Committees for review: Committee chairs are expected to submit a written report on the committee’s activity at the end of each academic year. In September, the executive board will send out a letter to remind each committee of its duties and charges and to remind the chairs of the report to be submitted at the end of the academic year. Some of the suggestions from the review of committees need to be acted on by the senate, as they require changes in the by-laws.
Distribution of USC Academic Governance Report: The USC Academic Governance Report and other documents concerning shared governance could be looked at by a senate committee or the full senate to see how shared governance could work on this campus.
Revision of Academic Affairs Calendar for 2004-2005: Revision is needed on the Academic Affairs Calendar to make some dates more general (ie. 2nd Tuesday of the month as opposed to Sept. 8)
The faculty handbook committee needs to define “grievance”. It is out of date and needs to bring the handbook in line with new and revised state policies.
Concern was raised about the form being used to evaluate
deans. A new one was used last
year. The forms are confusing and need
to be revised.
Gary Rabe moved to adjourn. Nancy Hall seconded the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned.
Cheryl Nilsen, Secretary