November 1, 2017 Minutes

Faculty Senate Minutes

November 1, 2017 3:10 – 4:30 pm

Sub 235

I.  Call to Order

II.  Approval of October 18th, 2017 meeting minutes: Minutes approved.

III.  Announcements-­‐ Chair Babcock

IV.  New Courses and Programs-­‐ Chair-­‐Elect Richards

Courses approved by Faculty Senate Steering

•  ETEC 245: Digital Electronics

•  PLTT 202: Laser Systems and Applications

•  PLTT 298: Internship/Cooperative Education

•  SOCI 420: Violence in America

•  MSSE 506: Crime Scene Investigators: Forensic Science for Teachers

•  PSPP 547: Biomimicry for Teachers

•  HSTR 105: Making Our World in Ten Events

•  PSYX 443: Collective Memory

•  ERTH 519: Watershed Hydrology for Teachers

•  ESOF 523: Software Testing and Analysis

•  M 507: Mathematical Optimization

•  MB 533: Current Topics in Microbiology for Teachers

•  PSPP 549: Plants, People, Health for Teachers

•  LRES 585: Water Quality in the Classroom

•  LRES 584: Twelve Principles of Soil Science

•  LRES 583: The Dirt on Soil Science for Elementary Teachers

V.  Center for Regulation and Applied Economic Analysis (CRAEA) Chair Babcock/Chair Elect Richards

•  Eric Belsco: AgEcon/Econ: Five fellows at MSU, as faculty fellows they service on committees for grants.  Committee rates on established criteria, incorporate under grad research.  Incorporate NIH scale.  All grants submitted are reviewed by faculty members.  On search committee for faculty member in unit.  Hiring process is similar as in other capacities.

•  Leila Sterman: Library: What specifically would a center designation add to the work that is already being done?

•  Wendy Stock: AgEcon: Have a cohesive unit of scholars to be working in a variety of capacities and added prestige to conference other activities.

•  Leila Sterman: Library: Are there criteria on dollar amounts awarded for future submissions to the Koch Foundation?

•  Wendy Stock: No criteria from Koch Foundation.  Need to do what they said they would do.

•  Jessi Smith: Psychology: Comments related to conflict of interest and perception of enhance.  What processes are in place to ensure no undue influence in hiring?

•  Mike Babcock: Safeguards are regularly put in place.  Not on hiring committees, not on committee hires, not looking to review research.

•  Jessi Smith: Need to take lessons from other intuitions with Koch Foundation funding. Fear of intimidation of students and faculty.

•  Kevin Repasky: Civil Engineering: Concern, why is the center coming up now, why was it not approved before?  Is the agreement available for review? Has there already been influence on hiring’s? What role does the funding play in academics? Concerns of conflict of interest, integrity of having such a center on campus.

•  Mike Babcock: Started with an Intent to Plan and can not be looked at that was not a proposal yet.

•  Abbie Richards: A center may exist in spirit in research being done. The grant has been awarded and are being asked to approve center designation.

•  Eric Belsco: Encourage senators to review website on grants that have been applied for and proposals that have been put forward.

•  Jason Bolte: Music: Intent to plan is still available online.

•  Scott Creel: Ecology: Two PI’s not on hiring committees, has there been any criteria outlined?

•  Eric Belsco: Two faculty members in the discipline two faculty in department for current search.

•  Clem Izireta: CS: Does current publications require acknowledgment of Koch Foundation and how many are contrary to Koch Foundation ideology?

•  Wendy Stock; AgEcon: Do not ask scholars to add funding.  Publication count is r4elativly small.

•  Robb Larson: MIE: Continued funding supported by an endowment or MSU?

•  Mike Babcock: No obligation for continued funding from MSU.

•  Bob Mokwa: Same tenure process and reviews.  Positions as individuals are not continent on funding but work being done.  Decisions would need to be made by department/college. Faculty hired under this process are as secure as other faculty hired under MSU tenure process.

•  Teresa Slye: GC: Now did the connection between the Koch Foundation and MSU come about?

•  Wendy Stock: An unsolicited proposal was submitted to the Koch Foundation.

•  Lelia Sterman: Library: In the proposal there was discussion on now the geographical location would help Center?

•  Wendy Stock: Geography important to build on faculty. Ag Research appointments for example.

•  Susan Dana: JJCEB: Business faculty have found the relationship beneficial to their research interests and opportunities. Can the Koch Foundation redraw funding on 15 days notice?

•  Julie Haggerty: Is there an external advisory board and to what degree does that reflect involvement? Does an assessment board exist?

•  Wendy Stock: Internal advisory board comprised of deans, department heads and external faculty. An assessment board does not exist.

•  Mike Berry: Civil Engineering: What happens if faculty does not endorse a Center? Will funding continue?

•  Mike Babcock: If faculty senate does not endorse the center proposal, it is very unlikely that it would be presented to BOR.  Funding would not be returned.

•  Jessi Smith: “Donors can remove funding within 30 days and MSU have 15 days to return funding.”

•  Susan Dana: Donor have the right has the sole discretion to remove funding under three criteria.

•  Eric Austin: PS: Influence happens in what research is conducted. Can you tell more about the content of the renewal process?

•  Eric Belsco: Content is left somewhat open.

•  Colter Ellis: Is the proposal similar to others in Foundation funding?

•  Mike Babcock, Abbie Richards: Metrics are set and not achieved funding does not continue in several government funding proposals.

•  Wendy Stock: Other experience with other foundations, this grant operating in much the same way.

•  Tomomni….: What will happen at the next meeting?

•  Mike Babcock: A motion must be proposal by a faculty member and vote called for.

•  Tomas Gegaon: Similar to other grants he has worked with. Concerned with influence in future years.

VI.  Public Comment

•  Lelia Sterman: Looking at a Center and asking what is being published are two different things.

•  Jim Gates: Attorney: Sensitive about academic freedom.  Can the Koch Foundation exert influence? The contract says at there discretion they can terminate funding. Koch Foundation mission is counter to academic freedom. References to publication “Dark Money”. Contract means they can terminate on 30 days if Center mission not being meet. Contract calls for funding two positions. Respective submit that this is a tainted grant and it will taint the University.

•  Sarah Rushing: Point of clarification re funding. Is there criteria for approving centers?

•  Abbie Richards: BOR approves Centers.  Faculty Senate endorses.

•  Greg Gilpin: AgEcon DH: A lot of pressure has been placed on the department and the committees for the two positions being searched for were comprised by him and he has received no communications from Koch Foundation.

•  Garret Egnew: Student proposal being forward to BOR for non-­‐approval of the Center and sever all associations with the Koch Foundation.

•  Drew Desken: Reading a letter on behalf of Haley Cox requesting rejection of the establishment of the Center.

•  Connor Hoffman: Advocate for the legislature to increase state revenue to ensure no raise in student tuition.

•  Sarah Rushing: It is really important to separate the Center and research issues. Advocates for larger advisory committee.

•  Joy LeClair: Public Affairs Radio: Urge reading “Democracy in Chains” and consider that this issue is far bigger than what happens at MSU.

•  Steve Kirchhoff: NTT Instructor: Agree with objection to Center. Encourage reading of grant agreement.

•  Emma Body: Grad Student: Examine the publications that being proposed.  Public Univiertsy has greater responsibility in funding.

•  Nancy Austly: Concerned on funding and encourage non-­‐endorsement of proposal.

VII.  Adjournment

A printable PDF of this information can be found here.