ACADEMIC SENATE MINUTES

 

 

DATE:            February 1, 2007

 

PRESENT:     Agnes Samples                                     Mark Hardt

                        Audrey ConnerRosberg                        Johanna Mitchell

                        Keith Edgerton                                     Gershon Bulgatz

                        Noreen Lee                                          Matt Redinger 

                        Tedee Cuomo (student)                        Tasneem Khaleel (ex-officio)

                        Mary Susan Fishbaugh (ex-officio)

 

ABSENT:       Rakesh Sah

                        Sandie Rietz – excused                         Lorrie Steerey – excused

                        Bruce Brumley – excused                     Craig McKenzie – excused

                        Dave Decker (student)

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

                        Karen Heikel (ex-officio)                      John Cech (ex-officio)

                        George White (ex-officio)                     Terrie Iverson (ex-officio)

                        Stacy Klippenstein (ex-officio)

 

PRESIDING: Audrey ConnerRosberg, Chair

 

 

Audrey ConnerRosberg called the meeting to order at 3:46 p.m. in the Bridger room.

 

The minutes of January 25 were accepted as presented.

 

I           ITEMS FOR INFORMATION

 

Item 57  Emeritus Policy.  Revising dates to coordinate with Board of Regents meeting schedule changes.  For information.

 

Ž Motion by Noreen Lee, seconded by Keith Edgerton to accept Item 57 for information.

 

It was noted that the only change to the policy is the dates.

 

Ž Motion carried.

 

Item 40  AAS in Medical Assistant.  Modification of an existing program.

Item 40.a  Certificate of AS in Medical Coding and Insurance Billing.  Modification of an existing program.

 

Item 41  AAS in Diesel Technology.  Modification of an existing program.

Item 41.a  Certificate of AS in Diesel Technology.  Modification of an existing program.

Item 41.b  DIES 112 Introduction to Hydraulics.  Delete course.

Item 41.c  DIES 113 Introduction to Hydraulics.  New course.

Item 41.d  DIES 114 Introduction to Hydraulics Lab.  New course.

 

Item 43  CTBU 105 Integrated General Ledger Accounting.  Change prerequisites.

Item 43.a  CTBU 106 QuickBooks.  Change prerequisites.

Item 43.b  CTBU 113 Transcription.  Change prerequisites.

 

Item 44  CTCM 292 College Success Class (Seminar).  Delete course.

 

Ž Motion by Keith Edgerton, seconded by Mark Hardt to accept Items 40, 40.a, 41, 41.a, 41.b, 41.c, 41.d, 43, 43.a, 43.b, and 44.

 

Ž Motion carried.

 

II.         DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS

 

A.  CQI Steering Committee Report:  Deans Fishbaugh and Khaleel, Co-Chairs

 

Dr. Fishbaugh distributed a copy of the draft core purpose, mission, vision, core values and University strategic initiatives.  These have been revised to be shorter and more concise.  Last year the departments made an annual report using the many goals in the academic master plan.  The departments will be reporting how they met those goals.  Dr. Khaleel noted that we will also have annual department reports next year, so that we will have three years’ worth of reports for our accreditation visit in Fall 2008.  We will not have to rush at the last minute to prepare departmental reports because they will already be done.

 

Dr. Fishbaugh stated that Provost White has outlined and set up four “Partners for Change” committees, which are currently running.  They are focused on eLearning, Advising, Recruitment, and Retention.  The Provost is also considering three more on Financial Aid, Student Services in general, and Program Quality Review.  Dr. Fishbaugh has suggested that we don’t need another committee for Program Quality Review, because that is essentially a function of the Senate.  The Senate can work with the CQI Steering Committee to review and provide feedback on all the departmental annual reports, of which there will be 30 to 40.  Dr. Khaleel noted that the Senate could review those reports to look at the quality of the program from the data they provide in the report.  This is not meant to penalize anyone.  Having the Senate review the reports would give balance to the Steering Committee, which is mostly staff/administrators.

 

Dr. Fishbaugh noted that this summer we will begin putting together exhibits for our accreditation, in preparation for the mock visit this fall.  Most likely the Senate would receive the departmental reports in September.  Dr. Khaleel cited that it would be most helpful if the Senate could review the reports before the mock accreditation visit in October.

 

It was suggested that we draft a letter to Provost White stating that the Senate will volunteer to be the “Partners for Change” committee for program review, because program review is an ongoing function of the Senate.

 

Dr. Khaleel noted that they would be happy to come update the Senate on the activities of the CQI Steering Committee whenever needed.

 

B.  Senate Policy on New Program Proposals to the BOR

 

It was noted that it would be nice to ask the Provost at a Senate meeting where the funding and staffing are coming from for new programs proposed to the BOR.  It was noted that there is a budget in the proposals sent the the BOR.

 

It was noted that Provost White would not sign off on the new Outdoor Adventure Leadership proposal (sent to the BOR in January, 2007) if there was any money required for it.  The department returned it with a zero budget and the Provost signed off on it.  It was cited that no budget ultimately means a low quality program.

 

It was noted that if new programs can only be submitted to the BOR in January and July, there should be plenty of time to get them to the Senate for review.  It was noted that the proposals are not sent in January.  For instance, the deadline to send proposals for this past January meeting was in December, and the Dean, Provost, and Chancellor must also have a few weeks to review the proposals before they are sent to Bozeman.  It was noted that the BOR is only giving us authorization to develop a program.  The Senate has every right to send new curriculum back to the department if it is not up to standards.  It was cited that if the administration takes a program to the BOR that the Senate is concerned about, we can forward our concerns to the BOR or the Commissioner.

 

It was agreed that the Senate will agree to let the Provost propose programs to the BOR for authorization before the curriculum is approved by the Senate.

 

C.  Educational Testing Service (ETS) & Academic Freedom

 

It was noted that the concern with using ETS may result in what is already happening (as a result of No Child Left Behind) in the elementary and secondary schools:  teaching to the test.

 

It was cited that the Montana University System has formed a committee on general education and they are looking at a general education test to ease transferability, but the test they are considering is from ACT, not ETS.

 

It was stated the national testing services are dictating American education for their own profit.  However, assessment has become a necessary part of education, and we have to be proactive so we are not stuck with something at the last minute.

 

D.  Fees

 

Dr. ConnerRosberg noted that the Provost Council has been discussing some new fees and fee increases.  They were sent off to the BOR and Regent Hamilton was not pleased with our increased fees and asked for proof that we had student involvement in the proposed increases.  Dr. Khaleel noted that we are requesting that the Library fee be combined with an assessment fee so that students can keep an electronic portfolio on campus.

 

 

The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

 

rjrm