ACADEMIC SENATE MINUTES

 

 

DATE:            April 29, 2004

 

PRESENT:     Alan Davis                                                   Mark Hardt

                        Lorrie Steerey                                              Sandie Rietz

                        Audrey ConnerRosberg                               Mary Susan Fishbaugh

                        Keith Edgerton                                            Bruce Brumley

                        Noreen Lee                                                 Connie Landis

                        Matt Redinger

                        Tasneem Khaleel (ex-officio)                        George White (ex-officio)

                        John Cech (ex-officio)                                  Janie Park (ex-officio)

 

ABSENT:       Paul Bauer – excused                                  Randall Gloege – excused

 

                        Carl Hanson (ex-officio)                               Joe Michels (ex-officio)

                        Randy Rhine (ex-officio)                              Terrie Iverson (ex-officio)

                        Curt Kochner (ex-officio)                             Amanda Mears (ex-officio)

                        Victor Sargent (ex-officio)

 

GUESTS:        Matt McMullen                                            Craig McKenzie

                        Michael Dennis                                            Sue Barfield

 

PRESIDING: Keith Edgerton, Chair

 

 

Keith Edgerton called the meeting to order at 3:40 p.m. in the Chancellor’s Conference Room.

 

The minutes of April 22 were accepted as presented.

 

I.          DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS

 

A.  Graduate Committee Issues:  Discussion with Matt McMullen, Chair of the Graduate Committee, and George White, Director of Graduate Studies

 

Keith Edgerton stated that he invited Matt McMullen and Sue Barfield, Chair of the RACE Committee, to give a year-end report to the Senate for their committees.

 

Admissions

Dr. McMullen noted that the Graduate Committee discussed the admissions requirements for graduate students.  The students themselves objected to the admissions procedures because they were inconsistent and often unfair.  The Graduate Committee has attempted to clarify and standardize the admission process, including a handy flow-chart that will be included in the upcoming graduate catalog.  Admission to a program will be handled by the department, not the Grad Studies Office.

 

GRE

Dr. McMullen also noted that the scoring system used on the GRE has changed, and it is now impossible to get a 1350, which is the standard for almost all graduate programs at MSU-B.  The Graduate Committee voted to change the GRE from a minimum score to a component that is to be weighed with other factors.  No specific scores are required.

 

Probation

Dr. McMullen cited that there were just a few students in grad programs that had low GPAs (the GPA cannot drop below 3.0 or the student cannot graduate).  These students were just floating through the program, probably unaware that they could not graduate.  Nothing was happening to these students, however.  The Grad Committee has created a policy wherein students are sent a letter which puts them on probation the first time their GPA goes below 3.0.  They are informed that if they do not bring it up again, they will not graduate.  If a second drop in GPA occurs, the student can be dismissed.

 

Graduate Faculty Status

Dr. McMullen noted that they Graduate Committee has discussed this issue, but has taken no action because it’s a very political situation.  We are still operating under a policy issued in 1972.

 

It was noted that Graduate Faculty status is just something to put on your resume.  It’s not something to be held over other faculty.

 

MSU-B has also has faculty teaching graduate courses and those faculty are not on the list of Graduate Faculty.  Is this a problem or not?

 

It was noted that application to the Graduate Faculty was mainly just to let the campus know that faculty member is teaching graduate courses.  The applications should not be judged in any way, nor should there be any elitism associated with getting Graduate Faculty status.  It is merely recognition.

 

Composition of the Graduate Committee

Dr. McMullen noted that last year the composition of the Committee was changed to 2 members from each college (one regular and one alternate), and that has not worked out well.  The COE, which has the most graduate programs, should have more representation, and the Committee needs to be larger.

 

B.  RACE Committee Issues

Sue Barfield, Chair of the RACE Committee, noted that as in the past, $10,500 were allocated to be distributed to the faculty applicants.  Twelve applications were received and Dr. Park requested that the Committee fund at least nine proposals.  The notification letters should be going out very soon.

 

The Committee had several issues on which they would like input from the Senate.  See the memo included below:

 

April 7, 2004

TO:                  MSU-B Academic Senate

FROM:            Research and Creative Endeavor Committee (RACE)

SUBJECT:      RACE Grant Proposal Issues

The RACE Committee has finished deliberations for the 2003-2004 academic year and submitted our recommendations to Dr. Park.  We concur that moving the dates for review from spring to early fall each year would be beneficial to faculty as well as to the business office.  During our meetings, several issues were brought up that we would like the Senate to discuss.

1)      Change the Application Cover Sheet to include Chair and Dean notification of the proposal but not require their authorization

2)      Proposals to be able to relate to one or more of the following:  the University Strategic Plan, the Academic Master Plan, college strategic plans, or departmental strategic plans

3)      Include a more comprehensive instruction sheet in the application so proposals can better meet the grants’ goals and objectives

4)      What are the priorities of these grants?

a.      Degree of completion of a project (should those at the beginning of the project have priority over projects that are already completed?)

b.      Student involvement

c.       Potential for future funding

d.      Potential for publication

e.       Because of limited funding, should priority be given to junior faculty members to encourage and support professional development?

f.        Opportunity for funding in other places (applications that deserve merit but might be able to appropriate funds elsewhere)

g.      Publication fees 

5)      Policies regarding selection

a.      How will those proposals that are written by RACE Committee members be evaluated?

b.      Should faculty members on sabbatical be allowed to submit proposals?

c.       Should multiple applications by different faculty members on the same project be allowed to submit separate proposals?

6)      What is the faculty member’s responsibility to the university should he/she have personal monetary gain from the project?

We appreciate your consideration regarding these issues.

 

It was noted that more money for faculty research and travel is needed.  Dr. Janie Park, Provost, noted that perhaps the UBC (University Budget Committee) should take up the subject of more faculty funding this fall.

 

II.         ITEMS – SECOND READING

 

Item 28  Audit Policy – Proposal from the Academic Standards & Scholastic Standing Committee.  Karen Everett, Director, Admissions and Records

 

Karen Everett was unable to attend the meeting.  Item 28 is tabled until the first meeting in Fall 2004.

 

Item 22  Revision of General Education Program – Proposal from the Gen Ed Committee REVISED.

 

It was noted that bumping “stagnant” courses was mentioned last week.  Who is to say what each individual instructor in Gen Ed/Academic Foundations should teach?  Only that faculty member.

 

It was noted that once the Gen Ed Faculty is formed, they will be the ones concerned with the quality of the Gen Ed/Academic Foundations program.

 

It was noted that although outcomes are described in this model, there is still no assessment.  An assessment tool has been the struggle of every Gen Ed Committee for the last several years.  It was noted that the Gen Ed/Academic Foundations Committee can develop an assessment tool, but it is up to the faculty to assess their students.  It was noted that this proposal only assesses individual courses, not the whole program.  Mark Hardt, Chair of the Gen Ed Committee, noted that a program assessment tool is still in the works, but is required by Northwest.

 

The question was raised as to whether we are voting that the new program will go into the next undergrad catalog, or that we hope it will go into the next undergrad catalog and if it doesn’t it will be moved back two years.  It was noted that the Gen Ed Committee hopes to get it into the next catalog.

 

It was noted that a meeting should be held in the fall to show faculty how to submit courses.

 

It was noted that the program can go into this fall’s catalog, but the assessment (which will not go in the catalog) can be done afterward.

 

It was noted that faculty need to remember that this proposal is being approved as a work in progress.

 

Ž Motion by Mark Hardt, seconded by Audrey ConnerRosberg to approve Item 22 on second reading.

 

Ž Motion carried:  10 for (1 by proxy), 1 against, and 1 abstention.

 

III.       ITEMS FOR INFORMATION

 

Item 46  AAS Degree in Application Development.  New program of study.

Item 46.a  CST 110 Applied Basic Programming Concepts Using Visual Basic .NET.  New course.

Item 46.b  CST 111 Applied Intermediate Programming Concepts Using Visual Basic .NET.  New course.

Item 46.c  CST 112 Applied Microsoft SQL Server.  New course.

Item 46.d  CST 115 Introduction to Game Programming.  New course.

Item 46.e  CST 120 Applied Introduction to Java.  New course.

Item 46.f  CST 121 Applied Intermediate Java.  New course.

Item 46.g  CST 180 System Analysis and Design.  Change number and prerequisites.

Item 46.h  CST 210 Applied Advanced Visual Basic .NET Programming.  New course.

Item 46.i  CST 211 Visual Basic .NET Capstone Project.  New course.

Item 46.j  CST 217 Microsoft Certified Applications Developer Exam Preparation.  New course.

Item 46.k  CST 227 Sun Certified Java Programmer Exam Preparation.  New course.

Item 46.L  CST 231 Software Design and Documentation.  New course.

Item 46.m  CST 232 Applied Advanced Database Concepts.  New course.

 

Lorrie Steerey stated that she met with Craig McKenzie and Victor Valgenti of the COT to discuss the duplicate courses in this program.  They agreed that COT students can take some of the COB courses, and changes to cross-list and cross-number those courses will be forthcoming immediately in the fall.  The COB students can also take the Cisco lab at the COT.

 

Ž Motion by Lorrie Steerey, seconded by Matt Redinger to accept Items 46, 46.a, 46.b, 46.c, 46.d, 46.e, 46.f, 46.g, 46.h, 46.i, 46.j, 46.k, 46.L, and 46.m for information.

 

Ž Motion carried.

 

Failed to pass the UCC 4/14/04

Item 48  Human Resource Management Essentials Certificate.  Modify and existing program.

Item 48.a  AS Degree Program of Study in Human Resources – General Applied Emphasis.  Modify and existing program.

Item 48.b  AS Degree Program of Study in Human Resources – College of Business Articulated Emphasis.  Modify and existing program.

Item 48.c  Human Resource Management Certificate.  Modify and existing program.

Item 48.d  HR 284 Field Experience.  Delete course.

 

It was noted that these proposals have several problems, but the UCC objected to the Field Experience course being deleted from these programs in favor of a collective bargaining course.

 

John Cech, Dean of the COT, noted that the proposal does have some problems and needs to be re-worked before going forward.

 

Ž Motion by Lorrie Steerey, seconded by Matt Redinger to remand Items 48, 48.a, 48.b, 48.c, and 48.d back to the Business & Industry Center of Excellence at the COT for revision.

 

Ž Motion carried.

 

IV.       ELECTION OF OFFICERS

 

The following officers were elected:

Secretary:         Mark Hardt

 

Vice Chairs:      Randall Gloege

                        Lorrie Steerey

                        Audrey ConnerRosberg

 

V.        Commendation for Rita Rabe Meduna, Academic Senate Administrative Assistant

 

To:           Chancellor Ron Sexton

From:       Keith Edgerton, Chair, Academic Senate

 

Dear Chancellor Sexton:

 

As I have done the last two years, on behalf of the Academic Senate I would like to take the opportunity to alert you again to the outstanding effort put forth this year by Ms. Rita Rabe Meduna, who divides her time as the Academic Senate’s, UCC’s, and General Education Committee’s secretary, responsibilities in your office, and the office of the Provost.  Her work this year for the Academic Senate has continued to be truly exceptional and is worthy of special commendation and recognition.

 

Rita is one of the most consistently upbeat and positive staff members I have ever been associated with, not only here at MSU-Billings, but throughout the Montana University System.  She is unfazed by the myriad complexities and personalities she encounters on a daily basis and she unfailingly provides superior information and service to everyone.  Rita deserves to be recognized by us on the Academic Senate and we hope you will convey to her our utmost gratitude for her outstanding performance this past year serving us.  As I stated last year, whatever we are paying her isn’t nearly enough.  She’s a fabulous campus representative and an invaluable member of our institution.

 

 

The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.

 

rjrm