Minutes of the University Senate Meeting

Anderson, Ernest

Anderson, Julie

Anderson, Suzanne

Antonova, Slavka

Baker, Mary

Bonner, Kelly

Bonner Melissa

Bowman, Frank

Brekke, Alice

Campbell, Kate

Casler, James

Doze, Van

Drewes, Mary

Dunlevy, Jane

El-Rewini, Hesham

Fershee, Kendra

Flower, Ann

Francis, Clare

Gerbert, Shane

Gonsalez-Smith Suzanne

Guy, Mark

Heitkamp, Thomasine

Iiams, Michele

Jackson, Jon

Jeno, Sue

Keengwe, Jared

Kelley, Robert

Kenville, Kimberly

Kistner, Brian

Kitzes, Adam

Kubatova, Alena

Laguette, Soizik

LeBel, Paul

Liepold, Loren

Mayzer, Roni

McBride, Rosanne

Moen, Joseph

Mosher, Sarah

Munski, Doug

Murphy, Eric

Rakow, Lana

Reesor, Lori

Schauer, Roger

Semke, William

Smart, Kathy

Smith, Wesley

Stofferahn, Curt

Stone, Jan

Sturges, Denyse

Suleiman, Nabil

Swartz, Kristi

Tiemann, Kathleen

Tyree, Elizabeth

Ullrich, Gary

Watson, William

Young, William

The following announcements were made:

a. Mr. LeBel announced that the Academic Leadership Forum will be held at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 29,2011 in the Baker Courtroom in the Law School.

b. Mr. LeBel reported that the next regional accreditation full visit will be in the 2013-14 academic year. There is a two-year self study process for the visit. There will be data gathering in 2011-2012 and drafting of the report in 2012-2013. There will be slight editing following that with the goal to have the report completed in summer 2013. The self study process will be led by Joan Hawthorne, as director, and Donna Pearson from EHD and Patrick O’Neill from BPA as faculty co-chairs. There will be ten additional members of the steering committee who will be co-chairs of the five criteria subcommittees. There will be working groups and an advisory group established for each criteria.

c. Mr. LeBel indicated that there have been questions on tuition revenue allocation. He indicated that there have been adjustments to revenue allocations in 2010-2011. He explained that the general fund appropriation and base tuition revenue fund the base appropriated budgets for the colleges. There are two tuition models: the online model and base tuition model. Basically, the tuition funding is not able to cover the required instructional expenses. He explained that some of the increase of online revenue is at the expense of base tuition. A portion of the online revenue from both the DCE portion and the college portion were restricted to provide needed revenues for funding the base.

Ms. Smart asked for corrections or additions to the minutes of the February 3, 2011 meeting; hearing none, the minutes were approved as distributed.

The question period was opened at 4:23 p.m.

Mr. Stofferahn moved to recognize Tom Petros. The motion was approved. Mr. Petros asked for clarification on the source of the problem for the general fund shortage. Mr. LeBel indicated that when the online enrollment decreased the general tuition, the funding had to be rebalanced. The two tuition models are competing and need to be complementary. Mr. Petros asked what will be done to correct this. Ms. Brekke indicated that in planning conversations for ramping up the online education, this possibility was raised and that there might need to be adjustments made to the model. That is under discussion.
Mr. Gerbert asked if reduction of the online funds is related to HB 1003. Mr. LeBel indicated anything in HB 1003 is for the next two fiscal years, beginning in July 2011, so it is not.
Mr. Semke asked about the numbers that are used for this. Ms. Brekke indicated that overall enrollment is up. In reality, the net tuition collection has been impacted by the residence rate for online as well as enrollment numbers. The consensus was that the model needs adjustment. Mr. LeBel commented on the 60/40 model and which programs followed that model.
Mr. Jackson moved to recognize Jeff Weatherly. The motion was approved. Mr. Weatherly asked about the established budgets for the online programs. Ms. Brekke indicated that she can identify all online or mixed students. Mr. LeBel indicated that the deans have a choice on how to allocate or reallocate the funds.
Ms. Kenville indicated that CCF had discussed this since the concern is at all campuses. Mr. LeBel indicated that there are two approaches to fixing it: fix the tuition and fee structure and rates at system level or by campus. The system agreed to hold off until UND and NDSU can study the effects of the various tuition models that have been proposed. When tuition revenue streams are fixed and predictable, then we will be in a better position to have the campus-level conversation about how to go forward with a careful study of various allocation models. He wants to gather a group to identify and discuss realistic options for the academic funding model.
Mr. Jackson moved to recognize Mark Grabe. The motion was approved. Mr. Grabe shared that it was unfair that the deans are responsible to make adjustments when the department is acting on budgets approved by the Provost; furthermore, this late in the year, departments do not have funds. Mr. LeBel explained the thinking involved in the decisions that were made. The decisions seemed to be the least harmful way to address the revenue issue.
Mr. Murphy asked a question from faculty in SMHS regarding consolidation of the basic sciences departments. The question was “what is the procedure to consolidate departments.” The President indicated that the process for reorganization for SMHS is first an internal matter for the college. Then after the decisions are made by the Vice President for Health Affairs, it goes to the President and finally to the Chancellor. He stated that this is a faculty matter for SMHS.

The question period closed at 4:44 p.m.

Mr. Stofferahn moved approval of the annual reports from the Senate Student Academic Standards Committee and the Senate Administrative Procedures Committee. Mr. Gerbert seconded the motion. The two reports were approved.

Ms. Campbell presented the Curriculum Committee report and moved approval. Mr. Munski seconded and, following discussion, the motion and the report were approved unanimously.

Mr. Stofferahn moved to add a resolution from the Legislative Affairs Committee to the business calendar. Mr. Munski seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.

10.

Ms. Flower presented the ballot of nominations for Senate committees for 2011-2012. She explained the process to establish the ballot for committees. She then went through each committee calling for nominations from the floor. Ms. Flower then indicated that the senators were to vote on the committees as they were addressed. The ballots were completed and senators were requested to sign the ballot and turn it in at the end of the meeting.

11.

Mr. Stofferahn presented a change to the Senate Bylaws for a first reading and vote at the next meeting. The change is to add wording to the section on Officers, adding a new sentence after the third line: “Unless otherwise elected as a Senator, the Senate term of the Senate Chairperson will be extended for the year of service as Chair.” Mr. Murphy indicated that by adding a person who was not elected, it changes the composition of the Senate. Mr. Stofferahn shared discussion from the Senate Executive Committee members and indicated that this approach was the simplest and easiest because other approaches were so complex and convoluted. Mr. Kitzes shared that the amendment clarified the implied language from the prior sentence. Mr. Liepold shared that this is the approach that has been followed in similar circumstances for the staff senates across the state. Mr. Murphy suggested adding a sentence indicating a reduction in the at-large senators. Mr. Jackson indicated that it might be approved as is and then the wording adjusted as needed.

12.

Mr. LeBel presented an addition to the Faculty Handbook titled “Promotion of Special Appointment Faculty.” The policy requires that standards be in place for promotion. Additionally, the policy follows a different process. There was a motion to approve by Mr. Murphy and a second by Mr. Jackson. Ms. Jeno asked about the appeal process. Mr. LeBel indicated that the process for appeal does not change. The motion was approved with a vote of 49 for and 1 abstention.

13.

Mr. Gerbert moved to recognize Brad Myers. The motion was approved. Mr. Myers shared the history of the current Scientific Misconduct policy that was approved by President Kupchella. He then presented the Ethical Conduct in Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity Policy for discussion. Following discussion, Mr. Ullrich moved approval. The motion was seconded by Mr. Jackson and approved with a vote of 40 for, 2 against, and 5 abstentions.

14.

A resolution drafted by the Senate Legislative Affairs Committee was presented by Mr. Stofferahn. He moved approval of the resolution which endorsed a Council of College Faculties (CCF) resolution presented to the State Board of Higher Education regarding the legislative process and higher education. The motion was seconded by Mr. Munski. Mr. Stofferahn moved to recognize Mr. Petros and Mr. Poochigian, representing CCF and the Legislative Affairs Committee respectively. The motion was approved. Mr. Petros described the CCF resolution presented to the State Board of Higher Education. Mr. Poochigian reported on the Legislative Affairs Committee’s support for the resolution. Discussion ensued. Mr. Stofferahn called the question. The motion was approved with a vote of 44 for and 1 abstention.

15.

Ms. Smart announced that the logo resolution had been distributed to North Dakota senators on March 2, 2010.

16.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:26 p.m.

Suzanne Anderson, Secretary to the Senate