Minutes of the University Senate Meeting

Anderson, Cindy

Anderson, Suzanne

Baker, Mary

Bass, Gail

Benoit, Joseph

Berne, Jane

Bradley, April

Buhr, Jordan

Campbell, Katherine

Dewar, Graeme

Elbert, Dennis

Elsinga, Lillian

Erickson, Daniel

Faruque, Saleh

Ferraro, Richard

Fisher, Jay

Flom-Meland, Cynthia

Folkestad, Sara

Gallager, Robert

Gosnold, Will

Haskins, James

Heitkamp, Thomasine

Hume, Wendelin

Iiams, Michele

Iverson, Joneen

Jackson, Jon

Jeno, Sue

Jerath, Sukhvarsh

Johnson, Gary

Kelsch, Steven

Kitzes, Adam

Kupchella, Charles

LaVenture, Andrew

Lawrence, David

LeBel, Paul

Light, Steven

Lothspeich, Jason

Mahar, Patricia

Mamaghani, Iraj

Marasinghe, Kanishka

Mayzer, Roni

Moen, Jan

Munski, Douglas

Murphy, Eric

Myers, Bradley

Olsen, Glenn

Owens, Sarah

Perkins, Dexter

Perry, David

Picklo, Matthew

Poochigian, Donald

Potvin, Martha

Rakow, Lana

Rendahl, Stephen

Rex, Janet

Rice, Daniel

Rieke, Judy

Robertson, Charles

Rosenberger, Thad

Seddoh, Samuel

Smart, Kathy

Smith, Bruce

Stofferahn, Curtis

Streibel, Kent

Venhuizen, Brett

Watson, John

Weisenstein, Greg

Williams, Jim Wittgraf, Michael

Yurkovich, Eleanor

The following announcements were made:

President Kupchella made several announcements:

There will be a reception following the Senate meeting at the President’s home.
There will be a University Council meeting on May 9.
In response to the Division I move and the increased role of the President in the development, and the new capital campaign, the cabinet is considering changes in administrative structure. Currently, there are 16 who directly report to the president. The proposed changes are that the Chief Information Officer and the Conflict Resolution Center will report to the Provost. The established Senior Associate to the President will move to a vice presidential level. Affirmative Action would report to that vice president, as would Athletics. The cabinet is requesting feedback at this time. The administrative restructuring will conclude at the retreat at the end of May.
The President presented a plaque and expressed his appreciation to Doug Munski for his service as chair of Senate.

Mr. Munski requested that the Senators observe a moment of silence for colleague, Jake Wambsganss, and in remembrance of colleagues and students at Virginia Tech.

The question period was opened at 4:17 p.m.

Mr. Murphy raised a question on the formula for calculating faculty seed dollars; the point of his question being eligible unit dollars. Mr. Johnson indicated that Barry Milavetz provided the data. He indicated that he would find out the information and report back to the Senate. President Kupchella indicated that the funds are from the President’s office and only to be used as seed money where there could be benefit and potential to bring in external research grants. Mr. Munski requested that Mr. Johnson investigate and report back to the Senate listserv since this is the last meeting of the year.

Mr. Perkins raised the issue of the move to Division I. He asked when the Senate will see the plan, what the financial plan is, and how will funding be determined. Mr. Kupchella indicated that he is to have a plan from the Division I Transition Committee by mid-May. The plan is to have the costs and revenue. He also stated that appropriated dollars are already used in athletics due to its integration into the University program. He explained that work is ongoing and this is a work in progress with many unknowns. He explained that he will receive the plan in mid-May and expects to approve the plan in a few weeks following. He said that answers will not be known until after the plan is presented. The transition committee has faculty, staff, and student representatives. The decision has been made to move to Division I and we are moving forward.

The question period closed at 4:27 p.m.

The chair asked for corrections or additions to the April 5, 2007 minutes. Hearing none, the minutes were approved as distributed.

Mr. Robertson moved and Mr. Jackson seconded to accept the Senate committee annual reports from the Standing Committee on Faculty Rights, the General Education Requirements Committee, the Conflict of Interest/Scientific Misconduct Committee, the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee, the Scholarly Activities Committee, and the Curriculum Committee. The motion was approved.

Ms. Smart, chair of the Committee on Committees, thanked the senators for stepping forward to have their names placed on the election ballot. Senators were asked to indicate their approval of the Senate Committee nominations by signing their ballot. The committee nominations were approved unanimously. Senators were also asked to vote for a Council of College Faculties member on a separate ballot. Mr. Munski thanked the Committee on Committees for their work throughout the year.

Ms. Anderson presented the candidates for degrees and certificates for May 12, 2007. Ms. Heitkamp moved and Ms. Smart seconded approval of the candidates. The candidates for degrees and certificates for May 12, 2007, were approved unanimously.

10.

It was moved and seconded that the Curriculum Committee report be approved. The motion was passed unanimously.

11.

Mr. Jackson presented the Conflict of Interest Committee proposal regarding the hearing process. The proposal requested that the Committee be able to draw on the Special Review Committee Pool in cases where members must recuse themselves from the hearing. Mr. Murphy moved, and Mr. Poochigian seconded, to approve the proposal. The proposal was approved with a vote of 59 in favor and 2 abstentions.

12.

Mr. Light presented the General Education Task Force proposal and made a motion to accept the recommendations of the Task Force concerning changes to UND’s general education requirements in toto and without amendment. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rice. Mr. Gosnold was recognized. He indicated that he had a petition signed by 72 faculty members to vote against the proposal due to: 1) the lateness of the final proposal; 2) the reduction of math/science/technology requirements, especially when the World is moving more in that direction; and 3) the need for more dialog before a final vote.

Mr. Rice indicated that since the proposal is complicated and complex, the Task Force requests that if there is not sufficient support, the proposal be returned to the Task Force rather than amending or trying to write General Education policy on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. Jerath presented an amendment to restore the 12 credit math/science/technology requirement and delete the capstone. The amendment was seconded by Ms. Moen. Mr. Robertson recommended adopting the Task Force proposal and “tweaking” it as necessary after approval. There was discussion and explanation from the Task Force on the decision on the math/science/technology reduction. There was clarification on why the requirement was 9 versus 10 credits. There was discussion of the amendment to eliminate the capstone which was intended as an opportunity to integrate learning. It was clarified that the intent of the amendment was to move the capstone to the department for integration. There was comment on what the reduction in math/science/technology may convey to others. Some senators commented that they felt rushed to decide and others cited the various ways over the past two years that information was disseminated and gathered from the community. A vote was called for on the amendment and the amendment was defeated with 4 in favor, 56 against, and 1 abstention.

The Senate then took up the main motion. Mr. Munski requested that Anne Kelsch and Tom Steen, co-chairs of the General Education Task Force, speak to the motion. They encouraged approval of the motion, enumerated the communication regarding the proposal, and explained the next steps that would start this summer and the “cost” of delay. Ms. Kelsch indicated that there will also be planning with the Provost for infrastructure to better support general education by having someone oversee general education and by having the program undergo evaluation and addressing areas of deficiency regularly.

13.

Mr. Buhr moved to extend the meeting to 6:00 p.m., Mr. Jackson seconded. The motion was approved with a vote of 40 in favor, 10 against and 2 abstentions.

14.

There was further discussion of approval of the Task Force proposal versus delay. Several senators felt areas were omitted from the general education plan. There was discussion of the plan perceived by some as too prescriptive and others as not prescriptive enough. The final comments indicated that the North Dakota GERTA agreement limited the Task Force. A vote was called for on the motion, and the motion passed with a vote of 45 for and 15 against.

15.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m.

Suzanne Anderson

Secretary to the Senate