FACULTY SENATE

September 7, 2016 Strand Union - BALLROOM B

3:10 PM – 4:30 PM

MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY-BOZEMAN, MONTANA

Minutes

 

Members Present: Adams (Art), C. Z. Anderson (Film & Photo), R. Anderson (ChBE), Babbitt (Physics), Babcock (Chair), Berry (CE), Bolte (Music), Belasco (Ag Econ), Brown (JJCBE), Burrows (Ext), Greenwood (Math), Haggerty (Earth Sci), Lu (PSPP), Lux (Ed), Martin (Mod Lang), Olson for Mosley (ARS), Perry (Ag Ed), Reidy (Hist & Phil), Repasky (ECE), Running (Nursing), J. Smith(Psych), A. Smith (HHD), Sterman (Library),       Wilmer (Chair-elect), Yamaguchi (Soc/Anthro), Young (Library)

 

Others Present: Larry Carucci, Abigail Richards, Chris Fastnow, David Singel, Renee Reijo-Pera, Chris Kearns

 

Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 3:10 pm, and a quorum was present. Faculty Senators introduced themselves.

Announcements – Chair Babcock/Senator Jessi Smith

  • The President’s Commission on the Status of University Women needs a Faculty Senate
  • Mission statement of the Commission: In an advisory capacity, the Commission evaluates and works to improve issues related to gender equity and diversity on Montana State University's four campuses.

It is the Commission's pledge to facilitate the creation and sustainability of an environment of accountability, integrity, and optimism through collaboration between and among the MSU campuses, ensuring an atmosphere of equity, support, and balance. Through its continued efforts, the Commission will work toward the discovery and elimination of institutional barriers to the success of women and inspire women to become leaders, problem solvers, and innovators making meaningful contributions to MSU, the state of Montana, and society at large.

  • Regular meetings of the Commission are held once a semester on dates to be announced by the chair. In addition, Executive Committee meetings shall be held each month. The standing and ad-hoc committees shall meet as
  • Interested FS members please contact Chair

Faculty Senate Steering Committee Report - Chair-elect Wilmer

  • Election of Steering Committee members:
    • Dean Adams (Art & Architecture)
    • Chair Michael Babcock (L&S)
    • Bill Brown (JJCBE)
    • Robb Larson (Engineering)
  • Alice Running (Nursing)
  • Adina Smith (Education)
  • Leila Sterman (Library)
  • Chair-elect Franke Wilmer (L&S)
  • Motion to acceptàsecondedàall in favoràunanimously
  • Review of Procedure for Nominating Honorary Degree Candidates (Honorary Degree Policy approved in Faculty Senate, April 2014)
    • The Honorary Degree Committee reviews the nominations and provides a list of potential nominees to the President. If approved by the President, the nominees are voted on by Faculty Senate in a closed session subsequent to the nomination deadline. The names of honorary degree candidates will remain confidential until approved by the Board of Regents. The Faculty Senate recommendation is forwarded by the President to the Montana Commissioner of Higher Education and the Montana Board of Regents for final approval. To protect the privacy of nominees, all persons involved in the process must maintain complete confidentiality at every step of the nomination and approval process. The President will contact the successful nominees after the Board of Regents has approved the
    • Pursuant to the August 31, 2016 Faculty Senate meeting and senate’s desire to have the Steering Committee review the honorary degree candidate and vote, Wilmer reported that the honorary degree candidate was thoroughly vetted and unanimously recommended by all
    • Where do we go from here?
      • Follow procedure voted on by Faculty Senate in 2014;
      • Clarify whether FS is to approve a slate of potential candidates (aka “nominees”) or a subgroup of the slate; and,
      • Determine at which FS meeting each year/semester this is likely to occur in order to forward the names to the BOR in a timely manner, i.e. so the President can contact candidates well in advance of graduation date.

New Courses and Programs – Chair-elect Wilmer

  • After the Curriculum & Programs Committee (CPC) approves undergraduate courses, they will be posted on the Faculty Senate web site and announced in senate. Comments or concerns about the courses will be directed to Chair Babcock/Chair- elect Wilmer. If there are no comments/concerns, Chair Babcock/Chair-elect Wilmer will announce, again, in senate that SC will be voting on the courses. Results of the vote will be brought to the next senate
    • Courses faculty have comments/concerns about will be brought back to senate.
  • Undergraduate courses are reviewed by
  • Graduate courses are reviewed by Graduate Council and then come to Faculty
  • All programs will be presented and voted on in Faculty
  • Two new centers and one existing center that is changing its name, will be voted on in the September 21, 2016 FS meeting:
    • Center for Wildlife Health and Disease Ecology (existing Center, name change to reflect current faculty interests)
    • Pollinator Health Center (proposed new Center)
  • Western Lands and Peoples Center (proposed new Center)

Faculty Affairs - Larry Carucci, Chair

  • Faculty Affairs is a smaller subcommittee of Faculty Senate comprised of a representative from each college. The committee considers matters of policy relating to promotion, tenure, leave, standards of performance, professional ethics, faculty rights and responsibilities, academic freedom, affirmative action, faculty compensation and
  • Serves at the Faculty Senate’s discretion at whatever policy is being discussedàpens the senate’s input and language that might improve the policyàbrings to FS for discussionàgoes back to FA for refinementàback to senate to either accept, or not, and goes forward to
  • Currently, FA is working on the new Faculty Handbook with the J(oint) A(cademic) G(roup) S(teering) Committee and Faculty Senate. Chair Carucci also serves on JAGS, the Faculty Senate Steering Committee and UPTC, representing all

Curriculum & Programs Committee (CPC) - Dr. Abigail Richards, Chair

  • Chair Babcock will be featuring, during each senate meeting, a new committeewhich interacts with
  • Chair Babcock introduced Dr. Abigail Richards, Chair of the
  • The committee’s charge:
    • The committee shall reviews proposals for all undergraduate programs (proposals for new majors, minors, degrees, certificates, programs, centers, institutes, the CORE curriculum) and courses, request for changes, additions, or deletions of courses and programs on a continuing basis. The committee shall consider such aspects as academic soundness, impact on library and other institutional resources, impacts on existing programs, fiscal soundness, duplication of effort, conflicts of academic interest, and fit within the University's strategic plan and academic strategic
  • Current status:
    • Membership includes one participant from each colleges; L&S has two – one for Letters and one for Science. A member, each, from the Library and student population is needed.
    • Ex-officio non-voting members include Ron Larsen (Associate Provost) and Diane Donnelly, Director of MEd of University Studies and Academic Advising Center ;ex-officio voting member includes the Chair-elect of faculty Senate, Franke
  • Approval process:
    • Usually proposed courses/programs originate from their departments and are signed off by the department head. They progress to the college level where they are reviewed by a college curriculum and programs committee before coming to the university
    • Generally, the CPC representative from the college where the proposal came from assumes ownership of the course and may contact the proposer to understand why the course has been proposed within their college curriculum context, how it will benefit students, etc. before presenting to the entire CPC for
    • The Academic Programs Working Group (APWG) is an important liaison between CPC and Faculty Senate. The group examines larger proposals: certificates, minors, new degree programs. CPC usually scrutinizes first and asks APWG to further investigate specific issues.
  • After APWG and CPC agree on the proposal, the courses advances to Faculty Senate where they are approved and progress to receive common course numbering.

Policy Discussion – Chair Babcock

  • Historical highlights
    • Faculty had their own Faculty Handbook from 1970’s – 2011
    • Faculty unionized and the handbook morphed into the tenure-track Collective Bargaining
    • When faculty were no longer in the union, an Interim Handbook was crafted by the Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education (OCHE) and has been in effect from 2013 to the present. Faculty had no input into this
    • After discussions amongst OCHE and administration, faculty were charged with helping to produce a new Faculty
  • Academic Policy Review Process
    • Anyone may propose a new policy, and a concept draft policy then moves toà
    • The Joint Academic Governance Steering Committee (JAGS)à
    • Once JAGS has reviewed the proposed policy it may, or may not, progress to a Working Group for further refinement. Once the Working Group has approved the policy it goes back to JAGS for preliminary approval and then moves forward as a new policy to Faculty Senate/Deans Council (simultaneously)àIf there is feedback, the policy may go into a “feedback loop” and it could go back to JAGS. At any juncture there might be a feedback loop and will start the review process over from JAGS. From JAGS, the policy may come back to FS/Deans Council. Once approved in these arenas, it will move onward to the ProvostàPresidentà
    • Some new handbook policies have been approved by the President and some have not. Those that have not been approved are closely tied to other policies not yet
  • Workflow and updates (Chair Babcock)
    • Timeline for the RTP Implementation
      • Deans Council and Faculty Senate: November 2016
      • President: Nov 2016 – Dec 2016
      • OCHE: Jan 2017 – March 2017
      • Colleges Role and Scopes: May 2017
      • Departments Role and Scopes: Dec 2017
      • UPTC Review of Role and Scopes: May 2018
      • Implementation of Role and Scope docs: July 2018
    • Retention, Tenure, and Promotion Review- Definitions
      • If faculty agree on the definitions of teaching, scholarship and integration, it will help to frame the policies of retention, promotion and tenure going forward.
        • Teaching goes beyond what faculty do in the classroom. It also includes:
  • “….thesis and professional project assistance, mentoring, and participation in student projects, theses, and dissertations; academic and career advising of undergraduate and graduate students; supervision of student teachers, graduate teaching and research assistants, student interns; and any valuable contributions to the university’s instructional enterprise.”
  • Scholarship – Presented in four (4) sections:
    • Original intellectual work of faculty that includes:

“The discovery, application, and/or assimilation of new knowledge and the dissemination of that knowledge. This work includes conducting research projects; securing and administering grants and contracts; writing/editing books, articles, and other research based materials representing one's original or collaborative research; developing new clinical practice models; presentations at scholarly conferences.”

  • “The generation of new knowledge in pedagogy and the dissemination and putting into practice of that knowledge. This work includes creation, development, implementation, MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY FACULTY HANDBOOK Retention, Tenure, and Promotion Review – Definitions 2 study, and publishing of pedagogical innovations (including textbooks, peer reviewed articles and publications); documented studies of curricular and pedagogical issues; and pedagogically-oriented research; innovation in community engagement.”
  • “The generation of new aesthetic experiences through composition, design, production, direction, performance, exhibition, synthesis, or discovery and the presentation of that experience. This work includes creating and presenting new works of art, film, theater, music, and architecture; public performance and exhibiting creative ”
  • “The creation of partnerships, programs, and plans through Extension that leverage the knowledge and resources of the university and the public/private sector to enhance learning, discovery, and engagement; educate and engage citizens; strengthen communities; address locally identified issues and problems; apply and disseminate knowledge; and contribute to the public ”
  • Integration
    • “..the creation of synergistic relationships among the teaching, scholarship, and service contributions of faculty, such as bringing new discoveries into the classroom, fostering student learning in the lab, field, and studio, engaging the wider community with scholarly products or innovations in teaching, or the fostering of engagement to address community ”
      • The word “of” should be inserted between “fostering” and “engagement.”
  • A frequently asked question from faculty is how, when teaching something in their department that is not related to their research field, to integrate such activities. Babcock noted that all faculty do is integrated.
  • Wilmer noted that each department will have their own role and scope documents that will allow faculty to adapt to their specific
  • Discussions about “definitions” ensued:
    • Senator views faculty hired in two (2) different ways: Those who have might have 50% research; 40%teaching; 10% service, where the scholarship component is obvious; and those with 70% teaching; 25% research; 5% service scenario which presents a challenge in how a faculty member’s dossier for tenure be composed for scholarship and how it will be judged. Babbitt stated that the departmental Role & Scope documents should address how different faculty with different percentages are evaluated in their academic
    • In the first section of “Scholarship” with respect to the word “original” Adams noted that in the School of Arts & Architecture much discussion has transpired about what original is, since so much of what is produced has been done before us and a word that is being avoided in the creative
    • Extension under scholarship would allow Extension to talk about their specific kind of scholarship as it applies to their community- based interactions. Could the definition also apply to those departments not in Extension, as the Psychology Department engages in community based interactions, as well? Babcock noted that language should attest to that concept and might include “or other community-based participatory research….”
    • If a faculty member produces a research paper with a grad student that is considered
    • Senator noted that the only difference in the “Accomplishment” and “Excellence” are the words “commendable” and “distinguished” respectively and should, themselves, be defined. Babbitt noted that it is up to the departments to come up with their own definitions and concepts of the two
    • Babbitt suggested senators review the definitions in context with the other RPT
  • Retention, Tenure, and Promotion Review- Role and Scope
    • There is a mechanism that allows UPTC to communicate back to the academic unit their recommendations for improvement, clarification or other revisions that help faculty in the RPT
    • Bolte, in reference to R&S, 3.a. is there a reason why only tenured faculty review and approve the R&S documents? Singel noted that it was discussed that tenured faculty, who had already been through the process, would be more familiar with it. A balance is struck by having all faculty provide input, but the actual approval would involved tenure-track Babbitt noted that in 4. All faculty in an academic unit may participate in making  any changes to the R&S documents.
  • Faculty Senate will discuss, and possibly vote, on “Definitions” and “Role and Scope” documents on September 21, 2016.

 

Public Comment – Chair Babcock

  • There was no public

 

The meeting adjourned at 5:00 pm.

 

Michael Babcock, Chair Franke Wilmer, Chair-elect

 

A printable PDF of this information can be found here.