Minutes of MiSU Faculty Senate

February 26, 2004


Members present: Larry Atwood, Chris Beachy, Lisa Borden-King, Casey Coleman, Patti Fedje, Nancy Hall, Joan Houston, Christopher Keller, Karland Kilian, Paul Markel, Clark Markell, David McCormack, Cheryl Nilsen, Ernst Pijning, Gary Rabe, Ron Royer, Clarine Sandstrom, Michelle Sauer.

Members absent: Rita Curl, Alexandra Deufel, Christian Fantoni, Leisa Harmon, Chad Johnson, Robert Kibler, Linda Olson, Susan Podrygula, Beth Pross, M. Saeed, H. Erik Shaar, and one student not yet selected.

Guests present: Stephen Hayton (curriculum), Don Burke (Psychology), Margaret Sherve (proxy for Robert Kibler), Maila Zitelli (proxy for Alexandra Deufel), Stewart Kelly (proxy for Christian Fantoni), and Doug Pfliger (proxy for Linda Olson).


The meeting was called to order by President Paul Markel.
Larry Atwood moved to approve the minutes of the January 22, 2004 meeting. Patti Fedje seconded the motion. The motion carried by concensus.
Joan Houston moved to approve Doug Pfliger as proxy for Linda Olson, Stewart Kelly as proxy for Christian Fantoni, Margaret Sherve as a proxy for Robert Kibler, and Maila Zitelli as a proxy for Alexandra Deufel. Christopher Keller seconded the motion. The motion carried by concensus. 
Announcements - Paul Markel: Pres. Markel reported that there will be a large number of curriculum issues brought before the senate at its next meeting.
Review the Agenda – The agenda was approved as presented.
Administrative report - Nancy Hall: Dr. Hall provided an update on the Presidential Search. She stated that five candidates are being invited to MSU for a campus visit. Four of the finalists will be here the week of March 22nd and the fifth candidate, who is also a finalist for Chancellor, will be here March 3rd. The Search Committee meets again March 30th to review the in-depth due diligence material from the Search Consultant and to analyze campus reactions. The Committee prepares a report on the finalist for the Board. The Board interviews and selects the next president on April 1.
Dr. Hall informed the senate that WebCT chose not to submit a request to the Learning Management Software Task Force for consideration as a North Dakota University System platform for the statewide delivery of online courses. This will be a topic of discussion at the Academic Affairs Council on Tuesday.
Dr. Hall announced that preparation is underway for the development of a Title III grant application to support the recruitment and retention of students. The grant proposal is for a multi-year award.
Other updates and announcements of campus activities were provided to senators via a handout from Dr. Hall. Text of those items is found following the agenda after these minutes.
MSU Presidential Search – Gary Rabe: Dr. Rabe presented the following observations from his experiences as part of the Search Committee:
1.)  Dr. Rabe underestimated the involvement and interest of the community in the search process. Because of their interest, it is important that MSU faculty and staff hold up their end of the search process by attending sessions during the finalists’ campus visits.
2.)  Dr. Rabe was impressed by the quality of the candidates. He feels that there is something different in searches at the administrative level than in faculty searches. Two draws were noted. The first was that North Dakota has a balanced budget and relative to other states, higher education gets some priority from the legislature. The second draw was the notion of a state system. Candidates liked the Roundtable and roadmap that is followed by SBHE. It demonstrated to the candidates that ND has vision for higher education in the state.
3.)  Dr. Rabe valued the uniformity in questioning that was used for candidate interviews prior to making selection of the five finalists by secret ballot.
4.)  Dr. Rabe indicated that additional information about some candidates had been submitted to individual members of the Search Committee by people in the community and within the university. The question has arisen as to how to handle this type of information. It was decided that such information would be given to the committee unless it was both negative and anonymous. In that case, the information would be given to the Search Council to be either verified or refuted. Should such information be verified, the candidate whom it concerned would be questioned about it by Chairman Christenson during the campus visit.
Dr. Rabe handed out a schedule for the Presidential Finalist Interviews and campus visits. He indicated that faculty will have about one hour of interaction with each candidate. Candidates’ spouses have not been invited to the interview sessions, but will be on the campus tours, at the dinners, and at other social events during their respective visits.
After the campus visits are completed Dr. Rabe will present to the Search Committee a written and oral report on the faculty response to each candidate. The committee will prepare a written report on each candidate to submit to SBHE, which will then interview each candidate and make its selection of a new president for MSU.
CCF - Chris Keller: CCF met over IVN on Feb. 10. The meeting was dominated by the textbook policy issue. Two new versions were examined and discussed. One was presented by UND, and the other was presented by Mike Hillman. Text for both of the two new versions is found following the Administrative Report found after the agenda in these minutes.  Discussion centered on how the CCF would respond to the Hillman proposal. Faculty felt very discouraged as they felt that their views were not being valued in the process. Feeling was that the policy is handling with a sledgehammer a situation with a fly. 
CCF adopted the following resolution to be presented to SBHE: An instructor may not receive financial compensation or any other form of remuneration, excluding examination copies for professional use, from a publisher or an agent of the publisher for the purpose of adopting textbooks or other curricular materials, excluding those of his/her own authorship. 
CCF adopted a second resolution to be presented to SBHE, which reads as follows: In light of the State Board’s recent efforts of turning to our peer institutions for guidance in policy matters, The Council of College Faculty requests that the State Board of Higher Education postpone for 45 days establishing the policy covering issues other than those covered in Point 1 (of the Textbook policy) including such questions as self-authored textbooks and alleged conflicts of interest thereby allowing us to investigate what peer institutions outside of the state do in this regard.
The policy is not on the next SBHE meeting agenda, so time has been granted. Chris K. has requested and received sample language from other institutions out of state concerning their textbook adoption policy. Krueger has resigned as chair of CCF effective at end of the semester after completing one year of a 2-year term.


Gen. Ed. - Ron Royer: An information sheet was distributed to senators concerning actions taken by the General Education Committee. The committee moved the approval of the following recommendations forwarded by the Gen. Ed. Committee:
Approve recertification proposals for the probationary courses HPER 100, HPER 101, HPER 105, HPER 109, HPER 110, HPER 120, HPER 125, HPER 126, and HPER 127 for the remaining two years of the present cycle, including institution of a new skills-based assessment program;
Approve recertification proposals for the probationary course Political Science 115, pending examination during AY 2005-2006;
Post facto approval of a MATH 102 prerequisite for MATH 103 (had already been approved by Curriculum Committee and Senate, but not, as technically required, by the General Education Committee);
Approve a Communication Program proposal to convert to a “skills-based” assessment plan for English 110 and 120 (College Composition I and II), contingent upon implementation of the program over the remainder of this certification cycle and presentation of comprehensive results with the next recertification application.
Chris Keller seconded the motion. The motion carried. 
The General Education Committee is continuing discussion regarding recertification of Biology 115, Geography 110, and Geography 161, with resolution expected at their next meeting on March 1. Other matters being considered by the committee include annual monitoring of General Education curriculum and diversity as a possible element of requirement within the general education program.
Student Association – Joan Houston: Students participated in a rally protesting proposed tuition increases while SBHE was on campus. SA is undertaking sponsorship of Taxi service, primarily for cutting down on student driving after drinking. They are working at establishing more communication with legislators. They are working with the state SA. On the entertainment front, they are working at getting students involved with campus events sponsored by SA. Students who are on campus committees would like to receive adequate notification of when those committees meet. Often they do not get information concerning scheduled meetings in a timely fashion. Karlan Killian asked whether a second student representative has been selected to attend Faculty Senate meetings. Joan will check on that at their next meeting, next week Monday.
Old Business: Proposal of New Course – Karland Kilian moved to remove the motion to approve PSY 494 from the table. Ron Royer seconded the motion. The motion was carried by concensus. Don Burke spoke concerning the new course. Paul Markel passed the gavel to Vice President Gary Rabe so he could speak concerning the course, which is taught in his department. Dr. Burke indicated that Dr. Curl’s concern about the course dealt with who would be teaching the course. That issue has been resolved. The motion to approve PSY 494 was carried by concensus. 
Promotion and Tenure Guidelines: “A Brief Overview …” sheet was distributed to senators. Text of the handout are located following the textbook selection policy versions after the agenda in these minutes. Dr. Markel reported on the information gleaned from the forums held last week and today concerning the proposed promotion and tenure guidelines. It is his hope that in the three remaining meetings of Senate, this body will be able to adopt guidelines in some form so that the campus has a cohesive and viable mechanism for evaluating candidate qualifications as the apply for promotion or tenure. 
Dr. Markel noted the following findings from the forums: In the area of teaching, evaluation should be made from three groups – chairs, students, and peers. In the area of scholarship, forum attendees believe that peers should be involved at the committee level. Scholarship guideline issues were of less concern than teaching guideline issues. In the area of service, three concerns were voiced. The first was compensation. The second concern dealt with the need for correspondence of this component’s importance to promotion with the percentage of the individual’s contract committed to service. A question was raised as to why the percentage is part of the contracts faculty sign. The third concern was more general in nature, but encompassed the service component. That concern was that Senate would take action on the guidelines as either “thumbs up or thumbs down” or on an all or nothing basis.
A question was raised concerning the meaning of “consistent level of performance since last promotion,” as the definition seemed vague.
Discussion moved to recommendations on how to proceed with the process of addressing the proposed guidelines. Joan Houston suggested we focus on only one portion of the guidelines each meeting for the next three meetings, with less time focused on service since it was perceived as the least problematic of the three areas.
Patti Fedje moved to approve the service portion of the promotion guidelines with the addition of “12. Other relevant activity.” Chris Beachy seconded the motion. Discussion followed concerning item 6. Karlan Killian questioned whether the motion approved at the January Senate meeting would require that item 6 under service be expunged from the document. Parliamentarian Coleman ruled that this should be the case in light of the wording of the January motion. Michelle Sauer moved to insert an item 6 to replace the expunged item 6 as follows: “6. Develops and maintains professional relationships with the extended community.” Ron Royer seconded the motion. The motion carried by concensus. Ron Royer moved to approve all 12 proposed service guidelines for promotion. Patti Fedje seconded the motion. Ernst Pijning called the question. Gary Rabe seconded calling the question. The motion carried by a show of hands with Karland Kilian opposing the motion and Larry Atwood abstaining.
New Business: Distinguished Lifetime Educator Nominations: Senators are to examine the letters of nomination for Helen La Mar, Om Madhok, and Julianne Wallin prior to the next senate meeting.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 5:30pm
Respectfully submitted,
Cheryl Nilsen, Secretary
Minot State University
Faculty Senate
Thursday, February 26, 2004
3:30 p.m., Westlie Room
1.             Approval of the minutes
2.             Announcements - Paul Markel
3.             Review the Agenda
4.             Administrative report - Nancy Hall
5.             CCF - Chris Keller
6.             Gen. Ed. - Ron Royer
7.             MSU Presidential Search - Gary Rabe
8.             Old Business: Promotion and Tenure Guidelines
9.             New Business:
10.           Adjournment: 5:30pm

Additional Written Items in Dr. Hall’s Administrative Report As Provided to Senators:
Admission Discussion at the State and Local Level
ACT has developed an essay exam as a complement to the existing ACT test used nationally for college admission. The company has asked the Chancellor whether the state will be requiring this exam as a component of admissions requirements. The MSU English faculty are opposed to the requirement of the additional exam at this time. That feedback will be communicated to the Academic Affairs Council for consideration at its Tuesday meeting.
The Academic Policies Committee is discussing potential changes to MSU’s admission requirements for the fall of 2005.
Budget planning process for 04-05
MSU’s request to increase tuition rates by 15.8% was approved by the SBHE last week. Valley City and the ND State College of Science were approved to move toward a per credit tuition model.
Prioritized lists of equipment requests for 2004-2005 are due from the deans to the VPAA on February 28th. Operating budgets and salary allocations for 2004-2005 will be worked on during the month of March.
Announcements of campus activities:
·         The Faculty Development and Research Committee has made a call for research proposals for the funding cycle including August 2004 to June 2005.
·         The College of Business in collaboration with Senator Dorgan will be hosting a Value-Added Agricultural Summit April 18th and 19th.
·         Assessment Day is April 1. The keynote speaker will be speaking about new tools for assessment beyond traditional tests, including ways to measure performances.

Textbook Selection Policy Language Proposed by UND





Section: 611.9 Selection of Textbooks and Other Curricular Materials



The following rules govern selection of textbooks and other curricular materials:


1.   An instructor may not receive financial compensation or any other form of remuneration from a publisher or an agent of the publisher for the purpose of adopting textbooks or other curricular materials.


2.   If an instructor adopts a textbook or other curricular materials that he/she authored, and continues to receive financial compensation for the sale of the material; that instructor must disclose that situation to his/her supervisor.


3.   Each institution’s governing body shall appoint a committee consisting of faculty, students and administration to develop a policy to govern the potential conflict of interest in #2.


HISTORY: New policy.


Textbook Selection Policy Language Proposed by Mike Hillman


Section: 611.9 Selection of Textbooks and Other Curricular Materials



The following rules govern selection of textbooks and other curricular materials:


1.   An instructor may not receive financial compensation or any other form of remuneration from a publisher or an agent of the publisher for the purpose of adopting textbooks or other curricular materials.


2.   An instructor or other employee who writes textbooks or other curricular materials may choose to:

a.   Relinquish royalty payments or other remuneration earned through the use of these materials at his/her institution. Each institution shall adopt procedures for determining the allocation of those resources.

b.   Retain royalty payments or other remunerations earned at his/her institution. He/she must receive approval, in a format designated by the institution, to assign or select such materials.


3.   Each institution shall adopt procedures for implementing the conflict of interest policies involved in this textbook selection issue.

A Brief Overview of the Context and Intent of the Ad Hoc Committee’s Report

(Or: The Intent of the Founding Fathers and Mother)


·         The Committee decided to keep two distinct committees with two distinct sets of guidelines.

·         The only substantive change suggested for Tenure was the addition of a Collegiality Clause (which has since been removed). The Tenure process was otherwise left untouched.

·         Service – no significant changes were made here. The list of examples is very much similar to the current guidelines/by-laws

·         Teaching

    • Concern – we presently only have the class evaluations, which though helpful, are of limited value and capable of being manipulated (e.g., by giving higher grades, etc.) by the instructor
    • Proposal – to add a Peer Review Committee to aid in the evaluation of probationary faculty (and those who are tenured)

Ø      We also proposed that a Chair and Self evaluation be part of the annual process for probationary faculty

·         Scholarship

§         Goal – to spell out in greater detail what was required both for Associate Professor and Full Professor

§         The criteria/guidelines suggested are very close to the actual practice of the Promotion committee over the past 10 years

§         Numerical Schema –

Ø      The inclusion of the Schema was part of a compromise between the Peer-Reviewed Faction and Non-Peer-Reviewed Faction

Ø      It merely seeks to quantify (and thus guide) the value judgments we already make (e.g., “her scholarship is excellent”)

Ø      It enables one with (great) strengths in one area to (at least partially) “compensate” for other areas that are more modest/marginal in nature

Ø      Two issues to consider:

1.       Should the idea of “compensation” (or “Promotion Packet Balancing” for the otherwise inclined) be part of the Scholarship guidelines?

2.       If yes (the Committee’s recommendation), then is the numerical schema the best way to capture this idea?

A. I would (editorially) encourage its adoption, as opposed to relying entirely on qualitative judgments such as “his teaching is enough to help a little with his modest scholarly output” or “her teaching is good enough to help a moderate amount,” etc.