MSU FACULTY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES October 22, 2003 Members Present: Marlow for Gipp, Stringam for Weaver, Giroux, Johns for Kommers, Schlotzhauer, Leech, Taylor, Howard, Christopher, Seymour, Jones, Yoo, Becker, Wells for Conant, Bradley, Taper, Ashley, Levy, Cherry, Pratt, Neeley, Lynes-Hayes, Prawedzienski, Coon. Members Absent: Ag Econ, McDermott, Schmidt, Jackson, Monaco, Chem, Lansverk, Bond, Kevane, Idzerda, Lynch, Knight, Hoffman. Other's Present: Dooley, McLeod. The regularly-scheduled meeting was called to order by Chair Warren Jones at 4:10 PM. A quorum was present. The minutes of the October 15, 2003, Faculty Council meeting were approved with the following correction: UGC Nominating Committee Report, second bullet, the name should be spelled "Richard Wolff". Chair's report - Warren Jones. - The Board of Regents will hold a special meeting in Helena tomorrow. The published agenda is general in nature. Chair Jones will attend on behalf of all Montana University System faculty representatives. - Chair Jones is still requesting input on the issue of students with high GPAs who may not be connecting with faculty or fellow students and so are leaving. How might faculty work with these students to keep them in school? An immediate goal is to increase fall-spring retention. - There appears to be some misconception regarding the Short-term Professional Development Program. It is in addition to sabbaticals, BEST, and other faculty development opportunities, not in place of them. If a need for additional funding of sabbaticals and other programs is demonstrated, a request to increase funding will be made to UPBAC. - Regent Richard Roehm has been invited to attend Faculty Council October 29 to discuss some of the vision of the Board and issues regents are working on. - Don Mathre, Chair of the MSU Benefits Committee, will attend University Governance Council November 12 to discuss questions that have come up regarding benefits. UGC Nominating Committee report - None. Faculty Affairs Committee report - None. Faculty Council review of new academic programs. - The issue was brought up at last week's Faculty Council meeting. Background and three proposals were presented at that time (mailed to members absent). - The impetus for discussing the issue at this time is that: - Some major new academic programs have recently been forwarded to the Provost and to the Board of Regents and have moved through the system with little review from Faculty Council, the representative faculty body; - To do long-term strategic planning, the university needs to be able to identify quality and needs of the university as a whole, and the faculty need to be involved; and - According to the Faculty Council Constitution, Faculty Council has the power to develop plans for and/or review and make recommendations on proposed administrative actions dealing with courses and curricula as well as degree requirements. - Although Faculty Council has been more involved in approval of new academic programs at some times during the past, without a formal mechanism in place, there is no consistency in the method of making recommendations. The issue is not review of every course change but review of the programs that have major effects university-wide, such as Core 2.0 and the Liberal Studies Degree. - Does Faculty Council want more input into the approval process? An argument can be made that faculty are adequately represented in the process by departmental and college approvals and Undergraduate Studies Committee (USC)/Graduate Council (GC). However, Faculty Council can provide review that is more global in nature, rather than focusing on the quality of a given proposal. Although USC/GC have representation from each college, Faculty Council is the representative group for all academic departments and the faculty that own the curriculum. - It was suggested the role of the Faculty Council/USC and Faculty Council/GC liaisons be clarified and that a regular reporting mechanism from the liaisons be implemented. - If Faculty Council chooses to be more involved in the review process for new academic programs, possible methods for doing so range from an Academic Affairs Committee, similar to Faculty Affairs Committee, which would review all proposals for major curricular changes to submitting major program changes to Faculty Council for review from a more global viewpoint (Does the program fit into the curriculum as a whole, are resources available without negatively affecting other parts of the university? Etc.). - Provost Dooley stated that he is in favor of Faculty Council taking on some type of formal role subject to university-wide issues, but only if Faculty Council is willing to follow through. A short discussion followed by a straw vote is meaningless. A formal role will result in a significant additional amount of work for Faculty Council. - The curriculum defines an institution and its direction, and new programs impact this direction. Should Faculty Council know where the curriculum is leading the institution? - Rich Howard moved Faculty Council take an increased role in the review of new academic programs. The motion was seconded. - Further discussion, for and against the motion, took placed. A hand vote was taken, and the motion passed, 14 for and 6 against. - Defining Faculty Council's role in the review process will be discussed further at the November 5 Faculty Council meeting. As there was no further business, the meeting adjourned a 5:10 PM. Joann Amend, Secretary Warren Jones, Chair