December 12, 2018 Minutes

Faculty Senate Minutes

December 12th, 2018

Ballroom B

3:10- 4:30 pm

I. Call to Order

A. Meeting is called to order at 3:11pm

II. Approval of the November 28th meeting minutes

B. Christina Anderson moves to approve. Ed Dratz seconds. No discussion. None opposed. Approved.

III. Heads Up: Keely Holmes will be sending a survey to faculty senators and alternates regarding Indian Education for all (IEFA). Please respond by December 18th, 2018.

IV.  Old Business

A. Courses Approved in Faculty Senate Steering

i.  ACT 123: Bouldering

ii. ACT 160: Avalanche 1 Training

iii. BIOH 305: Human Skeletal Biology

iv. IDSN 140: Product Resourcing

v. IDSN 230: Interior Architecture CASPHSX 571: Electric Circuits and Magnetism for Teachers

vi. PHSX 572: Space Science for Elementary Teachers

vii. PHSX 573: The Science of Sound for Teachers

viii.  PHSX 574: World of Motion for Teachers

ix. PHSX 576: World of Force for Teachers

B. Workload Policy and Guidelines overview – Provost Mokwa

i. Looking at fairness in how workloads are assigned

ii. Managing the budget-providing enough resources for each department so that we are offering the appropriate amount of sections to accommodate everyone.

iii. Programs do not change at an equivalent level (compared to each other)

iv. Would like to see Benchmarks: Need a better idea of where we are at with capacity in each department and what the projected growth might be.

v. Want to identify professionals with PhDs that are good teachers but might not be into big research projects. Want them to be satisfied.

vi. Need a well thought through plan to help the Provost to evaluate and make strategic decisions on hiring, pay, etc.

a. Ad-Comp forms may not always be the best way to compensate faculty.

b. Everyone’s contract said 50, 40, 10%, but the teaching loads were all over the place.

c. Looking for a baseline to start from.

vii. Questions:

a. It is still not clear how the distinctions will be made between entities that may look very similar. How will this be done? Would like Deans to work with the departments. Departments are not all the same. We need these guidelines in place to figure out those differences so that the playing field is level. Clear and transparent document. The “pie” is not changing, so we need to do the best job we can in allocating our resources.

b. Is the intention of this document to make everything 100% equal across the board? Everything entity is very different. Respect the differences in departments. Do not want to limit growth, work, research, etc. The intention is not to make everyone the “same”, but to allow departments to figure out what it is exactly that their people “do”.

c. Capacity seems to be the metric. What goes into that? MSU’s number of faculty and amount of student credit hours compared to a large number of other institutions across the country. This is one measure. Hope that these documents will be another means of measure.

d. We do not work in a “linear” world. Provost needs your help on this.

e. Document does not explicitly say WHO within the department will create this document. Most departments have committees, some of which may be appropriate for this task. The departments will know how best to manage this for their particular unit.

C. Workload Policy

i. Requests that units craft a unit wide workload plan to describe unit activities in areas of teaching, scholarship and service

a. align with university mission/strategic plan as well as unit’s academic plan

b. reflect programmatic & curricular needs

c. Be informed by discipline-specific national performance data and identified peer units

ii. Requests that units to describe what they do in teaching, scholarship and service

iii. Unit workload plans must address the curricular needs of the programs offered in the department

a. student FTE’s and corresponding course offerings

iv. Workload Policy Status

b. Discussion of aspirational language within the introduction and purpose.

c. From Leslie Taylor: “The guidelines are not policy.  They are guidelines to be used internally in developing the actual plans.  They represent guidance on the interpretation of the policy requirements.”

d. Next steps on the Policy

1. motion to approve: Christina Anderson moves to approve Policy as it stands. Ryan Anderson seconds.

2. discussion

·  Extension is not mentioned in this document. JAGS discussed that and they are included in “all faculty” language in the document

· Is “Unit” defined? It is in the handbook. There was a big discussion on what “Unit” was when doing roll and scope documents.

· There is a statement specifically about “flexibility” in the document. Was meant to allow faculty to change their appointment over time.

· Would like to see something about WHO should participate in making this plan. It could be worded as an expectation and not specific person or position. “Expectation is that the plan will be developed with a collaboration of faculty within the department.” –Susan Cohen’s comment.

Ø  Amendment: The expectation is that the development of the unit workload plan will be a collaborative effort between faculty and unit administration.

Ø  Could we mirror this language into the section on changes? “The expectations is that the changes of the unit workload plan will be a collaborative effort between faculty and unit administration.”

·  Who is supposed to send in changes?  It is not stated.

·  Once a plan is developed does it stay in play forever? Reviewed at a minimum every seven years but can be reviewed at any time if there are changes or if it is found that it is not working. Language is in the doc.

3. vote

·  Could vote with the condition that certain language is added.

·  Amendment was added.

· Voting to amend the motion to approve the policy. Moves to approve Amy Thomas seconds. No discussion. None opposed. No abstentions. Approved.

· Terminology is changing from Research to Scholarship.

· Last sentence of introductions does not separate the guidelines from the policy. Should that be amended as well? The guidelines “accompany” the policy. They are not the same. Would like to clean up the language. Does not need to be a formal vote to amend.

· Vote on Policy: None opposed. No abstentions. Approved.

D. Workload Plan Guidelines

i. Acknowledge that disciplines address areas of Teaching, Scholarship & Service in different ways

ii. General Examples are provided

a. Teaching-could be

1. Involvement in graduate education

2. Advising of undergraduate students

3. Laboratories, practica, field experience, studios…

4. Supervision of undergraduate research, experiential learning, service learning

5. Course/curriculum development

6. Innovative teaching (time intensive prep)

7. Involvement in traditional lecture-based course

8. 40% Teaching ≅ two 3-credit courses each semester if and only if the faculty does not do any of the other items listed on the previous slide

9. Further adjustments to this metric possible and include:

·  Undergrad/Grad level

·  Enrollment

·  relationship between student faculty effort

b. Scholarship

c.  Service

iii. Changing POE

a. “A workload plan should provide role assignments that encourage and incentivize faculty performance.  The university supports the university-wide development of workload plans to enhance workplace equity and productivity, thereby enhancing scholarship and learning on campus.”

b. “While recognizing that faculty Percentages of Effort (POE) necessarily differ across academic units, disciplines, and even individual contracts, the unit workload plans should allow faculty across campus to make different, but equally valuable, contributions based upon their interests and skills, and the needs of the department.”

c. “The Workload Policy and these Guidelines are meant to create a common understanding of workload so that faculty who are fully engaged make contributions identified as important within their units and across the university.”

iv. Joint appointments

v. Discussion on Guidelines:

V.  New Business

A. New Courses

i. M 021: Co-Requisite Support for M121Q College Algebra

ii. GEO 585: Minerology for Science Teachers

iii. MSSE 518: Master Teaching Strategies for Science Teachers

iv. NASX 542; Research Praxis in Native American Studies

B. (Closed Session) Honorary Degree Candidates

i. Bridget Kevane presenting: Kevin Amende moves to approve both nominees. Seconds by Jason Bolte. No discussion. None opposed. No abstentions. Approved.

C. (Closed Session) Conferring Degrees

i. Kandi Gresswell presenting: moves to approve. Leila seconds. None opposed. Approved

VI. Public Comment

A. No public comment

VII. Adjournment

B. Michael Brody moves to adjourn. Ed Dratz seconds. Approved. Meeting was adjourned at 4:30pm

Please stay for a holiday reception upon meeting adjournment

Next Faculty Senate Meeting January 16, 2019 SUB 233 from 3:10-4:30pm

 A downloadable PDF of this information can be found here.