ACADEMIC SENATE MINUTES

 

 

DATE:            December 7, 2006

 

PRESENT:     Agnes Samples                                     Sandie Rietz

                        Bruce Brumley                                      Audrey ConnerRosberg

                        Johanna Mitchell                                   Keith Edgerton

                        Gershon Bulgatz                                   Noreen Lee

                        Craig McKenzie                                   Janii Pedersen (student)

                        Alicia Esteves (student)                         Tasneem Khaleel (ex-officio)

                        Mary Susan Fishbaugh (ex-officio)        John Cech (ex-officio)

                        Valerie Martinez (ex-officio)                 George White (ex-officio)

 

ABSENT:       Mark Hardt – excused                         Rakesh Sah – excused

                        Lorrie Steerey – excused                      Matt Redinger – excused

                        David Garloff (ex-officio)                      Gary Young (ex-officio)           

                        Karen Heikel (ex-officio)                      Terrie Iverson (ex-officio)

                        Stacy Klippenstein (ex-officio)

 

GUEST:          Steve Eliason

 

PRESIDING: Audrey ConnerRosberg, Chair

 

Audrey ConnerRosberg called the meeting to order at 3:44 p.m. in room B57 of the College of Technology.

 

The minutes of November 30 were accepted as presented.

 

I           ITEMS FOR INFORMATION

 

Item 28  ENGL 390 Peer Tutoring.  Change prerequisites and course description.

 

Item 33  BS Major in Health Administration.  Modification of an existing program.

Item 33.a  HADM 210 Introduction to Health Care.  Change title to Healthcare Mega Trends and change course description.

Item 33.b  HADM 435 Health Law.  Change title to Health Law and Ethics, change number to 335 and change course description and prerequisites. (online only course)

Item 33.c  HADM 455 Rural/Frontier Health Care Delivery.  Change course number to 355 and change course description.

Item 33.d  HADM 460 Long Term Delivery.  Change title to Long-Term Care Management, change course number to 360, and change course description. (online only course)

Item 33.e  HADM 496 Cooperative Education/Internship.  Change credits, prerequisites, and course description.

Item 33.f  HADM 290 Internship.  Delete course.

Item 33.g  HADM 291 Independent Study.  Delete course.

Item 33.h  HADM 292 Seminar.  Delete course.

Item 33.i  HADM 296 Cooperative Education/Internship.  Delete course.

Item 33.j  HADM 310 Health Care Administration.  Delete course.

Item 33.k  HADM 307 Health Informatics.  New course. (online only course)

Item 33.L  HADM 405 Evidence in Research and Evaluation.  New course.  (online only course)

Item 33.m  HADM 409 Aging in America and Long-Term Care.  New course.  (online only course)

Item 33.n  HADM 422 Operations, Outcomes, and Quality.  New course.  (online only course)

Item 33.o  HADM 425 Financial Management and Budgeting in Healthcare.  New course.  (online only course)

Item 33.p  HADM 440 Managerial Epidemiology and the Public’s Health.  New course.  (online only course)

Item 33.Q  HADM 445 Managing Healthcare Organizations.  New course.  (online only course)

Item 33.r  HADM 452 Case Management.  New course.  (online only course)

Item 33.s  HADM 462 Supervision in Healthcare.  New course.  (online only course)

Item 33.t  HADM 497 Capstone.  New course.  (online only course)

 

Ž Motion by Keith Edgerton, seconded by Agnes Samples to accept Items 28, 33, 33.a, 33.b, 33.c, 33.d, 33.e, 33.f, 33.g, 33.h, 33.i, 33.j, 33.k, 33.L, 33.m, 33.n, 33.o, 33.p, 33.Q, 33.r, 33.s, and 33.t for information.

 

It was noted that HADM 409 (Item 33.m) may already be covered by content in a Psychology course.  More information is needed on this HADM course.

 

It was noted that the health administration courses will be taught by Sheila McGinnis, Diane Duin, and eight adjuncts.

 

Ž Keith Edgerton amended his motion, and Bruce Brumley seconded, to exclude Item 33.m.

 

Ž Motion carried.

 

Item 33.m will be discussed at the first meeting in January and a representative will be requested to attend.

 

II.         ITEMS FOR RECONSIDERATION

 

Item 18  CRIM/SOCL 226 Introduction to Probation.  New course.

Item 18.a  CRIM/SOCL 227 Introduction to Policing.  New course.

Item 18.b  CRIM/SOCL 325 Sociology of Deviance.  New course.

Item 18.c  CRIM/SOCL 413 Administration of Law Enforcement.  New course.

Item 18.d  CRIM/SOCL 421 Criminal Justice Ethics. New course.

Item 18.i  BS Degree Major in Criminal Justice.  New program.

Item 18.L  CRIM/SOCL 228 Race, Class, Gender and Crime.  New course.

 

Ž Motion by Craig McKenzie, seconded by Bruce Brumley to review Items 18, 18.a, 18.b, 18.c, 18.d, 18.i, and 18.L.

 

Steve Eliason, Sociology, stated that the new courses in the Criminal Justice major will be taught by both full-time and adjunct faculty.  Two of the six new courses will be taught by Dr. Eliason and Dr. Honea.  The other four new courses will be taught by part-time and adjunct faculty.  Dr. Eliason noted that in order to teach all the courses, they will have to be on a yearly rotation.  This rotation and the implementation of the Criminal Justice program will not impact the quality of the Sociology majors.

 

Dean Khaleel noted that there are two open lines in the College of Arts and Sciences:  the Master of Public Administration line and the Native American Studies line.  Both of these positions, once filled, will be able to service the Criminal Justice program as well.

 

Provost George White noted that Michael Barber is building a cohort in Banner to find out where the new Criminal Justice majors are coming from.  The problem with Banner is that it only tells you the current situation.  We may have 100 new majors, but 90% of them are probably not new students, just students switching majors.  The cohort will be able to tell us where the students came from which will help us in our staffing allocations.

 

The question was raised as to whether there is a staffing plan for the whole University.  Provost White stated that the Deans have brought forward their recommendations.  When we propose a new faculty line for a new program, we better know that students will come to that program to support that faculty line.  We’ve had many new programs proposed lately that are supposed to reach a certain level of students in so many years, and it has not happened.  The Provost Council is currently trying to find funding for five programs at the COT that are growing but their grants will be running out next year.

 

The question was raised as to whether students could double major in Sociology and Criminal Justice.  Dr. Eliason stated that the Department does not allow double counting of courses in the Sociology majors, so students cannot double major.  Dean Tasneem Khaleel stated that technically students can double major in Sociology and Criminal Justice.

 

It was noted that the previous Provost sold the Senate on new programs by saying we need the new FTE from the program or we will die.  Those programs are not generating new FTE.  We need to concentrate on what we do well.  At some point we have to say no to a new program because we do not have the resources.  Dean John Cech noted that if we do not grow, especially the COT, the University will die.  It was cited that the new growth in any college is often at the expense of our traditional programs.

 

It was cited that these same issues have come up and been debated in Provost Council, so the faculty’s concerns are not being ignored.

 

Provost White noted that we start new programs in many ways, including piggy-backing on current programs or external grants.  We need to find a balance.  We also have to try to predict the future and what the next “hot” major will be to attract students.  Just like an investment portfolio, we have to diversify.

 

It was noted that we can’t ruin our new programs by over-using part-time instructors.  Provost White observed that last year the student members of the Academic Senate stated that some of the best instructors they have had are part-time.  We have good and bad instructors that are full-time and part-time.

 

Ž Motion by Keith Edgerton, seconded by Craig McKenzie to accept Items Items 18, 18.a, 18.b, 18.c, 18.d, 18.i, and 18.L for information.

 

Ž Motion carried.

 

III.       DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS

 

A.  Report from November BOR Meeting – Audrey ConnerRosberg

 

Dr. ConnerRosberg handed out a document regarding retirement.  It will be discussed at the next meeting.

 

B.  Faculty Representatives for Curriculum:  To invite or not to invite?

 

The Senate agreed that faculty will not be required to attend Senate meetings to explain their curriculum changes.  If a Senator has a question, the items will be tabled until the next meeting, and a representative will be asked to attend.

 

C.  The Role of Senate in Program Evaluation:  Discussion with Provost White

 

It was noted that the Board of Regents are receiving new program proposals before the Academic Senate.

 

Provost White cited that it takes so long to get a new program to the BOR because they only accept them in January and July.  Last year he and past-chair Keith Edgerton discussed and piloted a new tandem proposal structure.  New academic programs would go to the BOR and notice of those new programs would go to the Senate at the same time.

 

It was noted that the proposals should come to the Senate when there is time for the Senate to have input.  If not, there is not a lot of point to submitting the program to the Senate.  The Senate needs time to reflect on a new proposal and say something about it.

 

Provost White noted that the BOR is only giving authorization to develop a program if the campus bodies approve it.  It was cited that the BOR only reviews a shell of a program, and it is more about planning for the future than the actual curriculum.

 

Provost White cited that the Deputy Commissioner of Academic Affairs has now begun giving the Commissioner’s Office verdict on each and every new academic program.  If the Commissioner’s Office doesn’t like a program, it can get brutal.  Also, the other units of the Montana University System are getting very territorial because they too are feeling the financial pinch of fewer students.

 

It was noted that we have all bought into the FTE model:  a successful program is one that generates new FTE.  Faculty don’t see it that way.  Programs can be successful in all kinds of ways.  Provost White noted that this is what Program Review is about.  How do we show (1) what students should learn, (2) how we teach it, and (3) how we show the students have learned?  In this way we have to define quality.  MSU-Billings, through the Academic Senate and Academic Foundations Committee, has created the most unique and fitting assessment of our general education.  It is built by faculty and it does what we need to in order to prove to accrediting bodies, the federal government, and anyone else that our students are learning.

 

Ž Motion by Keith Edgerton, seconded by Craig McKenzie to continue the discussion of Program Review at the next Senate meeting in January.

 

Provost White noted that the BOR has a policy that though their program review, any program in the bottom third (of majors, graduates, FTE generation, etc.) has to have a remediation plan in place, which is ridiculous.

 

Ž Motion carried.

 

 

The meeting adjourned at 5:12 p.m.

 

rjrm