DRAFT
- NOT YET APPROVED
NORTHEASTERN
STATE UNIVERSITY
Minutes
of Faculty Council Meeting
Friday, October 2, 2009
A. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by
President Denise Deason-Toyne at 3:02 p.m. in
SL129. There was ITV access at Muskogee (SYNR141), Broken Arrow (B226)
and Tahlequah.
Council Members in attendance: Ernst
Bekkering (Business & Technology), Susan Frusher (substitute for Ron Cambiano
- Education), Kristopher Copeland (Liberal Arts), Isaac DiIanni
(Business & Technology), Denis Vordchenko
(substitute for Jennifer Edwards - Liberal Arts), Harriett Hobbs, (substitute for
Sarah Brick Archer-Library), Brandon Oberg (Library), Rick Matzen (substitute for John Diamantopoulos – Mathematics), Amberdayn Moore
(substitute for Lallie Scott - Liberal Arts), Dan Sisk (Science & Health
Professions).
Council Members in attendance in
Broken Arrow: Paul Cooper (Education), Anita Ede (Education), Pamela Louderback (Secretary/Treasurer), Elizabeth Rabe (for P.J. Gorden-Business
& Technology).
Council Members in attendance in
Muskogee: none
Council Officers in
attendance: Denise Deason-Toyne (President),
Dan Savage (Vice President), Pamela Louderback (Secretary/Treasurer).
Guests: Tahlequah: James Brittain, Martin Venneman, Janet
Bahr, Ahmet Ozturk, Jeff Lowenthal; Broken Arrow: Julia Kwok, Tom Rink
Invited Presentations
[Council will set aside time at the
first of each meeting to visit with Administrative Officers should they be able
to attend.]
Dr. Janet Bahr, Interim V.P. A.A. and
Dr. Martin Venneman, Dean College of Science &
Health Professions – Introduction of the Academic Prioritization Process (APP)
Dr. Martin Venneman
– Status on Provost/V.P. A.A. search
Donna Agee- Student Affairs – Policy
regarding Students with Disabilities
·
Dr. J. Bahr provided an introduction of the
Academic Prioritization Process (APP)
J. Bahr stressed that it is not a
process for automatic cuts but will help instruct Administration decisions if
resources are minimal. The APP process
and accompanying documentation is based on Dickinson book and Milliken college
document. The rationale behind taking
part in the rigorous prioritization/decision-making process is to maintain and
enhance the quality of our academic programs; we must focus on efficiency and
effectiveness. The APP process will be set up to communicate and be inclusive
in decision-making. However, Bahr
emphasized the importance of leadership to drive the process where colleges and
department chairs partner in the process.
Bahr also underscored the reality that this process is ongoing.
Dr. M. Venneman,
Chair of the APP Subcommittee provided a brief presentation of the substance of
the APP fundamental process. A full
report of the distributed report will be made available via the website. M. Venneman, having
been through three previous APP processes at other institutions, pointed out
those processes is usually based on Dickinson book philosophy. However, M. Venneman
indicated that the viewpoint/focus on “deletion of the bottom 20 programs to
feed the top 20 programs” is not being viewed as such at NSU. Rather, we consider the utilization of the
APP process as a comprehensive management tool to look at programs that can be
strengthened and considered for modified based on faculty, council, etc.
input. There is a five step process for
all 56 programs; the process begins with a self study report with a timeline of
one semester to accommodate the process.
Significant data will be provided by department faculty, deans, directors;
data will then be analyzed for strengths so that each department/program will
most effectively be able to “put their best foot forward”.
Reports will be submitted to the Chair and
with consultation with Deans, administration will read and evaluate for the
three “indicators” of (1) potential. (2) quality, and
(3) value of the program. The UPG
recommended two of these values be quantified as potential indicators. The self study will frame the entire
program. Thus, there are six potential
indicators, five value indicators, and six quality indicators. These categories are presented in the
aforementioned distributed report made available via the web, and criteria (a
comprehensive listing of examples is provided) under each value are
provided. Such a process provides a more
subjective evaluations and rank order quantification. Pre-determined listings based on hard data
will be provided. Each potentials,
values, and quality for average indicator value are then summed. Averaging helps ameliorate extremes when
determining ranges. The information will
then be shared with the deans and academic council to understand relevant
rankings; this method provides an equitable, open, and fair process. Venneman
illustrated and explained the “University PQV Matrix” table; it visually
represents average values through plotting to provide a visual picture of how
all programs “stack up” to each other.
In closing, Venneman stated that it is one of
the most clean constructive positive methods he has ever seen. However, he stressed the need for a
collective wisdom of the entire campus community. Venneman also
pointed out that the UPG was requested to create and adopt this APP process
document.
Questions addressed:
1. Student quality by major is listed on Appendix II quality – please clarify – is a high GPA considered a high or a low score? M. Venneman pointed out that such factors should be defined on the list. However, it is still not a full list so it may not be addressed at this time. Dr. Bahr pointed out this is a complicated manner since there is overlap – the value is not just considered representative of cost (unlike other models); in this APP, we consider more factors. Bahr, Deason-Toyne, and Venneman encouraged faculty to read the report and accompanying documents extensively and to provide feedback to Bahr, Deason-Toyne, or Venneman. Deason-Toyne stressed that one of the benefits for faculty is the critical role we play and the ability to assess our programs; going through the process allows us to get a heads up – to take a look at our programs and revamp anything that requires it, or, in some cases, to consider retraining ourselves in another area. The APP provides an opportunity for us to know what is going on.
2. R. Matzen asked
whether the primary reason for this APP process is cost savings. J. Bahr responded that administration is just
trying to put things into perspective;
final reports will better inform and instruct us on what programs need
additional monies, which programs we need to maintain, or those programs we may
have to look at as a “phase out” candidate.
Overall, the data will allow us to examine programs to see where they
are in relationship to each other.
Department chairs will be disseminating the report and documentation in
a “roll out phase” soon; Bahr reiterated to necessity for faculty input.
· Dr. Martin Venneman discussed the status on the Provost/V.P. A.A. search.
Final Tier I candidates for the Provost/VPAA
position have been chosen; candidate credentials are now available and
accessible on the Human Resources webpage.
The RiverHawk erroneously listed on four
individuals but this oversight should be corrected soon. Open forum dates information is also
available. Feedback sheets will be
provided; M. Venneman urged everyone in attendance to
please fill out sheets and return sheets to the committee. Candidates will be on campus for two days for
various interviews, student forum opportunities, etc… This has been an arduous process where over
100 candidates were narrowed down to the final six individuals. M. Venneman and
President Deason-Toyne strongly encouraged faculty
members to read posted candidate information and to consider attending forums
to assess candidates. Participation in
this process will be beneficial to all involved.
· Donna Agee, Student Affairs Administrative Assistant -- Policy regarding Students with Disabilities
Mrs. Agee stated that on the Tahlequah
campus, Student Affairs (SA) provided a packet of forms that students have to
fill out. Agee pointed out the
differences between test results from those gathered from a child versus an
adult instrument. If students were
originally tested using an adult instrument, the results are good for three
years. If students were assessed using a
child test, SA requests the student be retested using an adult instrument. Questions concerning whether the student is
on medication and/or if treatment is involved was discussed. SA attempts to provide as much information to
let faculty know as much as possible.
Agee indicated if faculty have concerns with
the testing aspect of the process, the student must let SA know in advance of
testing. Attachments are available and
provided to students for general information for the parents. If any concerns of late notifications are
brought up, SA points out the syllabus statement to students. Agee stressed that any time SA gets information
on a student; Agree processes the information within 24 hours.
Several faculty
articulated to Agee that they were pleased with the process and thanked Agee
for quality work.
Questions/Comments:
- Bekkering suggested the need for leveling the playing field but to balance it at the same time. He suggested faculty receive emails about students w/special needs – whether SA could send faculty more information referring to any limiting factors present that they needed to be aware of. Agee responded that she usually sends bullet points but may let student talk to the faculty about such background information. Agee offered that at any time, she would welcome faculty contact her for additional information. If the situation is a conduct issues – please send the student to a conduct officer.
- D. Sisk asked Agee to clarify situations when students may not come to faculty in reference to Agee’s email. In these cases, should a faculty member accommodate the student? Agee’s response was negative – the student needs to contact the faculty.
Agee mentioned there are SA NSUBA counterparts
who may be contacted – Dr. Melissa Mahan and Kristi Arnold
A.
Committees and Standing Reports
1.
Review/Approval
of Minutes of the September 11, 2009 meeting (available online)
http://arapaho.nsuok.edu/~faculty_council/minutessept2009.html
Minutes of the September meeting was reviewed. No
corrections were made. Hobbs moved to approve the minutes; it was
seconded by Salmon. The motion carried.
2. Financial Report
The expenditure for
the recurring telephone fee issue continues to be investigated. President Deason-Toyne
emailed Christy Landsaw and Barbara Burnett to
examine and confirm the incorrect charges
3.
Inclement
Weather Committee Report
D. Savage
represented the Inclement Weather Taskforce.
A report of the inclement weather committee was discussed. The committee provided a copy of the report
via email to all faculty council members.
To generate the report, committee members took various problems brought
up and put each concern into resolutions.
Each resolution was presented for discussion, thoughts, and
consideration of passage.
Questions/Comments:
- Bekkering pointed out a concern over resolution #3 – (officials at each campus be designated to make independent decisions regarding cancelations on their respective campuses based on road conditions) clarification of Interim Dean Jenlink as the official at the NSUBA campus was determined.
- The need for timely postings, especially during times of power outages was of paramount concern.
- Hobbs brought up the occurrence of inconsistencies with the library not closing when the rest of the campus is closed – Hobbs requested clarification be made of whether when the campus is closed, the library would be closed as well. The question of whether the library is considered “essential services” needs to be made clear.
- Other institutions provide electronic services where students may Log in to get updates via text message (OSU); according to J. Brittain, CTL is trying to secure funding for similar capability at NSU.
President Deason-Toyne
queried the Council on the next step in relation to the proposals. I. DiIanni moved to accept the proposal as a
formal resolution and to present it to Administration. However, first we must adopt with
clarification of what units are considered essential (i.e., the library) Bekkering seconded the motion. R. Madsen had concerns over the last sentence
in the last bulleted point (letter to be sent by the responsible administrative
authority to the head of the physical plant) – is it within their purview? Several faculty members voiced experiencing
problems getting to the buildings (Ede, Kwok).
It was suggested the removal of the words “to the head of the physical
plant” would be sufficient. R. Madsen
offered the Council move for an amendment to rephrase the sentence and extend
the resolution’s terminology to include all campuses. It was suggested to have Administration work
out procedural details with the physical plant – especially if lack of de-icing
is a resource allocation issue. I. DiIanni seconded the
motion. The motion was carried.
B. Old Business
1. Enrollment in online classes – Update
from J. Brittain
Brittain continued
discussion on enrollment in online classes.
Sixteen classes existed with enrollments of 40 or more individuals. Some of these courses (in the Health and
Science, Criminal Justice, and History subjects) have multiple classes of a
number of sections. These courses may
have been split further to accommodate students and insure effective class
loads for faculty. Brittain
proposed that student evaluations of those classes be examined and compared
with data on the old form. Assessment of
data to compare student satisfaction to online courses in general will be
performed. President Deason-Toyne
will forward a copy to Administration.
Questions/Concerns:
- An inquiry was put forward about how many courses are distance education courses. Brittain responded that CTL does not distinguish between those courses delivered via distance in dorms or those delivered to sites across the state. However, he is working between now and the Higher Learning Commission visit to design a best practices process/infrastructure at NSU for online versus traditional courses.
- President Deason-Toyne received an email regarding online education where the faculty member considered themselves as s “glorified typists” where data entry and maintenance issues took a great deal of time. Considering this occurrence, what is the possibility for release time from face-to-face classes to devote more time to data entry/maintenance of online courses?
- A further consideration dealt with what kinds of relief might faculty receive?
It was suggested that general feelings
from those who have engaged in these projects be collected. Additionally, the possibility of securing
further institutional resources to fund instructional support, (upper level
classmate/graduate assistants (GA), or adjuncts) to assist in teaching courses
should be investigated. Brittain was not sure how many individuals who participated
in the project were able to receive instructional assistance – hard data on
degrees of satisfaction (student/faculty) needs to be gathered. Also, solutions must be identified to assist
in the process(es) of how to
convert traditional classes into online classes. Brittain stressed
the necessity for the process(es)
established to be based on the data collected.
President Deason-Toyne queried the Council on
the next step in relation to the issues raised.
The Council further discussed what it might take to move this process
forward and what additional steps would be necessary to accomplish this
task. Supplementary charges/fees may be
required for these modified courses.
President Deason-Toyne queried the Council on whether to put forward a
recommendation for gathering data. An
institutional commitment for support is necessary. Further investigation of online courses as it
relates to the high number and institutional is required. R. Matzen moved to
recommend that the Council establish a process of online teaching as we go
forward (as it relates to class size in particular) and to provide a process
that allows for appropriate instructional support. I. DiIanni seconded the motion. The motion carried. Brittain offered to
have CTL establish a task force.
2. Use of SSNs on Various Forms
There exists an
extraordinarily lax policy at NSU which requires students to divulge their
social security numbers to numerous persons in order to register for classes,
check materials out of the library, etc…
This process must be updated to meet with federal standards.
B.
New Business
1.
Lack of Faculty
raises while increasing size of administration
Louderback received an email from a faculty
member requesting the Council consider the lack of faculty raises over a three
year period occurring in light of a reorganization of administrative duties
while keeping faculty members on staff in other capacities and creating
additional top administrative positions.
Bekkering questioned whether there merely
existed a perception of certain areas such as Student Services where additional
administrative positions with higher pay rates were created. It was suggested to compare the growth of
faculty and administrative positions/pay rates.
Additionally, Bekkering questioned whether
anyone else heard other staff voice similar concerns. In 2003, an Academic reorganization took
place. Bekkering
questioned whether NSU has had an administrative reorganization and/or a review
of administrative jobs and procedures.
Several council members inquired about access to the annual budget to
verify pay scales. Louderback indicated
that the NSU Broken Arrow library provides access to the annual reports. They are located in the Reserve section on
the second floor. Hobbs was unsure
whether a current copy of the annual report was available at the John Vaughan
Library.
2.
Louderback received a request via email from a faculty
member asking for clarification of the faculty tenure policy and process. NSU, through the Faculty Handbook, has
policies in place to maintain highly qualified professional faculty
members. Committees are charged with
reviewing faculty members’ portfolios; those faculty members who are not
granted tenure generally do not have their contracts renewed beyond an
additional year (extremely rare, see
§3.525). However, inconsistencies in
procedure occurred allowing an individual to continue employment beyond the
seven year maximum probationary period defined in the Faculty Handbook
(§3.524). There exists a lack of clarity
and consistency in the process as it relates to this tenure issue; the tenure
policy and procedure is not being followed when individuals denied tenure are
being retained. Discussion took place
over whether this inconsistency was a college wide or a campus wide
concern. Additionally, questions were
raised regarding whether the individual underwent all prescribed steps as
stated in the Faculty Handbook.
Louderback will notify the faculty member who contacted her via email to
gather additional information and report back to the Council next month.
C. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 5:02 p.m.
Submitted by Pamela Louderback, Secretary-Treasurer
10/12/09
--------------------------------------------------------------