jan 19 2011 minutes · president mescon: “i’m going to take just a few minutes to talk about...

Approved Minutes - 19 January 2011 Meeting began at 3:03 pm Faculty Senate Meeting 130 Schuster Center

1

Senators Present: Becky Becker, Tammy Condrey, Pat Duttera, Josh Eyler, Pat Hogan, Brenda May Ito, Rita Jones, Ellen Martin, Tom McCormack, Jacqueline Radebaugh, Neal Rogers, Kimberly Shaw, Melody Shumaker, Gary Sprayberry, Glenn Stokes, John Studstill, Troy Vidal, Jeff Zuiderveen, Dan VanKley, Dan Ross Guests present included: Nicole deVries, Gregory Domin, Interim Provost Tom Hackett, President Tim Mescon 1. Report from the President and/or Provost

President Mescon: “I’m going to take just a few minutes to talk about the budget discussions taking place at the state level, and the interpretation of those at the USG level. I attended the inauguration, where the governor initially drew the line in the sand to address the state budget in July 2011, the 2012 budget year. He described, in a polite sense, former Governor Perdue’s approach as more incremental. Governor Deal’s approach appears to be more dramatic, to deal with the current budget shortfall now, and then in FY2013, increasing appropriations. We have been talking about the coming year as being a tough one, due to the repayment of stimulus funds, which are due. The expectation is that the entire state system will belly up to offset those cuts. State revenues are tracking in a positive direction. This year’s state budget was built upon a projected increase in revenue this year. So this just keeps us even. In past years it was much worse, but the state revenues appear to be trending upward. Stimulus funds end Jun 30th. We (the University System) still have to repay 15%. K-12 still has $1.5 billion to repay, and the belief is that the whole state will contribute. The Governor wants to address graduation and performance rates in K-12, as well as HOPE shortfalls. HOPE is in debt, and Governor Deal will address that. There will be a cut in the book allowance. I expect there will be a complete restructuring of this (HOPE). Private colleges are really nervous about this right now. Technical colleges receive a huge allocation from HOPE as well (with no GPA requirement at all). It is clear that Governor Deal’s strategy will be to fix it, address it, so we don’t have to talk about it for another 16 years or so. The state is looking at a $2 billion shortfall for 2012. We have been sent a note about Texas, an energy rich state, looking to address shortfalls by closing four colleges, and this was forwarded to the President’s Cabinet. California is having grave problems as well. 30-40 thousand students have not been addressed by the funding formula. The University System has to wrestle with if or how to fund this. This year, we were asked early in the year for either 4, 6, 8% budget reduction this year. At that time, we planned for the more draconian scenario, since that is what has happened the last 2 years. We have already made the cuts to the 6% level, with the 8% as contingency. That should be adequate for this year. We aren’t expecting any last minute surprises. For institutions that only budgeted for a 4% reduction, they will have to reduce by 8% starting now to catch up. The colleges did reduce part time faculty, which proved to be very beneficial. No faculty positions were effectively eliminated. The Optional Early Retirement Plan was somewhat beneficial as well. We will begin July 1 with no less than a 35% budget reduction from where we were 3 years ago that will never be recouped. To compensate, chancellor says we need a 30% increase in tuition. That won’t happen. Charlie Christ in Florida negotiated a 75% increase over 5 years – there were fascinating issues involved there. Tomorrow there is a presidents meeting to discuss budget at system office. Tom Hackett and Tina Butcher will also be attending and will all stay to discuss our fee requests. We didn’t get our institutional fee bumped up when we got our tuition increase – we had the discussion last year, and we will have it again. We discussed it with the


2

Regents, and the legislative delegation. We have been able to grow faculty positions over the past few years, but biggest growth is from enrollment and from tuition increases. It is clear the only real flex that universities can find is from growth in enrollment. There is a slightly greater benefit from graduate enrollment increases than from undergraduate enrollment increases. Currently, growing our numbers is the only way to improve the budget. As we are reducing the appropriation, we need to increase enrollment incrementally or it puts an incredibly onerous burden on us operationally. Every release I get, PowerPoint or talking point, from the governor’s planning and budget is immediately transmitted to cabinet, including the Executive Officer of the Faculty Senate, the Head of Staff Council, and the Head of Academic Council. There are no secrets about any of this, it’s a fluid process. We made some very tough decisions last summer that serves us well, along with about 3% growth in enrollment. We think this will be the last of the rough rough years. Interim Provost Hackett: The ultimate question in light of the budget talk is what does this mean for us? I look at this in light of my school administrator career in Alabama. There, we typically found out in February that we were going to be pro-rated. Here, however, we think we have a pretty good idea of what next year will bring. When the news came from the governor's office last week, Tom Helton and I looked at the budget, with an eye towards “what do I tell the deans?” I and Tom and Tina and Usha will meet in Atlanta tomorrow about our fee structure. We will soon have preliminary numbers for next year. We have requests from colleges for new faculty lines, and we hope in the next week or so to have a ballpark idea of what we can do. We don’t really want to talk about tuition at this point, it’s an out-there, iffy thing. Essentially, what it means for us this year is clearly understood. That same 8% cut, plus an additional 2% will roll into next year – we think. We have met with several of the deans, and discussed faculty lines being requested, as well as other program issues. In the next couple weeks, we hope the picture will be more clear, and we will share with chairs, academic council. In the long run, it is good to know this early so we can be strategic and plan. When you think about a 35% reduction over 3 years, that’s a tremendous amount. For us as a state university, not a research or regional university, that’s a significant portion of the budget. That’s gone forever, and it’s a national trend. You can read the tea leaves about state funding for higher education. A few thoughts – what’s going to replace that funding? A change in orientation – we are uniquely poised, for a number reasons. I’m an eternal optimist. There are funds out there. One area I think we could do well: what creative things can we sell to the community for foundation money, to solicit donor money? Given that the area’s economy has changed, the high tech emphasis at Ft Benning, some of the new industry? Those initiatives from faculty will be important. Also, we can do a much better job in recruiting. Someone asked, what is the real plan in recruiting? We need to discuss this as a university, be able to articulate how to grow, what kind of students we want to see. We may move away from the access mission. That will be decided for us by state regulations. President Mescon – The access mission (Augusta State, Savannah State and CSU have this) we have requires to a great extent we have to accept anybody who has graduated from high school. The technical college system has announced that beginning in fall, all of that system will convert form quarters to semesters. Pending SACS approval, Columbus Tech will begin offering Associate of Science and Associate of Arts degrees. This will happen. At some point, this will put us out of the access business. Because of cost and retention of HOPE issues, students will migrate to technical/junior colleges. We have a meeting at the system office with these technical colleges to discuss the fact that 10% of our enrollment is devoted to the access


3

mission. This is not an intentional strategy on our part, but USG has said they will not fight it. For us, it is a substantial component of our enrollment. We are glad to answer questions about this, but everywhere this happens, there is a mass exodus. Sorry for interrupting you, Dr Hackett. Question: In the long run, won’t this help our retention? Response: Yes, but after three years of budget cuts it is hard to see good news in any enrollment cut. Graduation rate of these students is 13%. Dr. Domin: Good news. In December, we asked you to endorse devolving grant money back to the colleges. We ask the Senate to endorse this, to get funds to colleges for development, and for other projects. The total is roughly $48k. Divided evenly, this will mean approximately $12k per college. Question: Are the numbers of faculty equal in each college? Response: No. I asked guidance from Mr. Helton. It’s such a small amount of money, it was decided to give same amounts to each college. Comment: There are a disproportionate number of faculty of COLS and COEHP as compared to COA and COB. But those faculty also have the lowest salaries, so it is a double whammy to them. Response: I can take your recommendation and use it as a compromise. Question: How were those allocated in the past? I don’t think COB has had significant amounts in the past? Response: The point is we aren’t talking about a large sum – dividing on cost production would change the amount distributed by hundreds of dollars only. Senator Jones moved, and Senator Duttera seconded the motion to endorse this request. Motion passes.

2. Announcements from the Senate Executive Officer Yield time to Cindy Henning. Distributing announcements, attached at the end of the minutes. Dates for Tower Day, Academic Week of Excellence should be publicized widely. We are also publicizing efforts to increase Undergraduate Research, including grants for students (due Feb 4); Tower Day (apply Mar 12); and students can also publish an abstract or a paper. Student can submit an abstract, and we will bind the sum of these and use for assessment, as well as to publicize to donors and the community the work that our students do. All abstract submission is online. The Undergraduate Research Journal has a group of students working on it this semester. Two of those students are on Arden’s board, so we anticipate no conflict in submissions. This is intended to be a multidisciplinary journal. Finally, let me make another plug for Tower Day: everything online already. And we already have funding for conference brochures for Tower Day.

3. Old Business

a. Promotion and Tenure Policy faculty vote As a Senate, we recently approved the policy. Last year, we decided the whole faculty would vote on this policy as well. Provost Hackett: What do you think about having a faculty meeting – approved by majority of those present. The Senate would tally the vote. Question: Just one meeting? Response: It could be more, perhaps in a couple locations? We could handle this with a faculty checklist, in order to ensure that there is no duplicate voting. Comment: On a technical note – we must have a quorum of the faculty, as it affects the bylaws. It must be approved by 2/3 of those present.


4

Question: What if we have 2 locations and an Internet link between them? With facilitators at each site? Question: Could you explain the link? Response: We would get UITS figure it out – do a distance learning type of thing with a video screen, camera, and audio, like a giant version of Skype? Response from Mr. George: We don’t have point-to-point videoconference now. Question: What about Wimba? It would not allow for video, but has polling. However, all faculty would need to be logged on, and votes would not be anonymous. Question: How many faculty do we have? Response: Roughly 300. Comment: We are 15 minutes apart, not 300. Why not gather on Friday afternoon at 3? Response: Because some teach then. Question: What date do you have in mind? What if we made it one location, during a certain # of hours? Perhaps during student meeting hours, no classes. Response: But if you teach downtown till 1215, there is still trouble. And music doesn’t adhere to that. Question: Can it be 4 college meetings? The intent is to have the opportunity to talk to their colleagues. If I am passionate, I don’t have the chance to convince others in this scenario. Question: Is there a way to have a proxy vote for those who have class/lab? Try to pick the time that is least intrusive. Any time is going to have problem. Suggest that we vote at lunch. Provide the lunch and they will come. Senator Zuiderveen moved that there should be one faculty meeting to vote on the new promotion and tenure guidelines. Senator Jones seconded. Motion passes.

b. Alternate Dispute Resolution

Laurie Jones, Todd Myrick and Tim Howard presented this program last time. Any questions about the proposal. Motion to accept the proposal by Senator Shaw, seconded by Senator Jones. Motion passes.

c. Academic Standards Committee report – approval vote Barbara Hunt presented at the December 2010 Senate meeting a package of tools for people to navigate through the appeals process. At Chairs Assembly, they wanted one sentence on the 1st page changed, because as originally worded it sounds as though only change of grade can be an academic grievance. This is not the case – anything can be. The new wording for the 1st paragraph under "1. Academic Grievance" should read: "This kind of appeal involves matters internal to a course, to include perceptions of unfair or inaccurate grades, failure of the teacher to follow policy, and so on." Motion from Committee. Motion passes. President Mescon commented “Nice work, Barbara”. Dr. Hunt replied that all this is an assembly of current policy in one spot.

4. New Business a. UITS – report on standards related to copyright and downloading media files

PowerPoint presentation saved as pdf file, posted to Senate minutes page separately. Only comments not covered in that file are listed here. Mr. George expressed his thanks to all from UITS for their patience during transition over the semester break.


5

Discussion underway to create a digital repository, like Digital Commons. Will meet Teach Act requirements. But Digital Commons initial cost was $100k. We are instead working internally to develop framework behind CougarNet portal. UITS encourages use of P drive, for protected work in the interim. We can give access to P drive, or create a portal through My tech tab, for those who need access. Pont of contact for questions/concerns: Jackie Radebaugh, Dee Spivey. Question: Is this (copyright information) covered in orientation with incoming freshman? Response: No, but that’s a good suggestion. Currently I get 5 minutes to speak. I will work with them.

b. Online student evaluation report Nicole deVries. Distributed handout to facilitate conversation, included below. This semester faculty could have course evaluation reports automatically sent – raw data and summary sheet, which includes some demographic class. For some classes, this meant that individual student responses became identifiable. In these circumstances can anonymity be guaranteed? Some classes have one student. However, some people (faculty) are doing studies on how they appealed to different groups, and wish to use the data to inform changes in their teaching. Are we ok with collecting this demographic information? Should we collect none? Data was always available before via ad hoc reporting in Digital Measures, but was little known or used. Staff Council would like formal input if we move forward with paper evaluations in future. Question: Can the demographics data be disconnected from past evaluations? Response: Evaluations were done centrally. Question: Is there any way you can eliminate small classes from this? Response: Ad hoc reporting is all or nothing, typically. Comment: Since we don’t get these data until grades are out, what’s the big deal? Comment: The issue is with students who take more classes from same instructor. Comment: There is also an issue with legality. Question: Should we eliminate connecting this data? All demographics? Comment: If we are using this to determine if we have raises, fine, remove it. If using it formatively, we may be eliminating useful data. Response: But in terms of student anonymity, we have certain responsibilities. A student in a class of 1 will know their evaluation isn’t anonymous. Comment: if anonymity is assured, eliminate all demographics. If any evaluation we give cannot assure anonymity, we should not do any evaluation. Question: How would anonymity be assured? Comment: in terms of faculty eval, we will guarantee anonymity. Response: We still have the problem of operationalizing anonymity. Question: Why do they need to be anon? Response: I get 20-30 students a semester asking for a guarantee that it is anonymous. Motion presented “that we not collect demographic data when students do faculty evaluations” by Senator VanKley, seconded by Senator Martin. Question: Can we ask if they can remove demographic data (motion is retroactive if possible). How much additional work with this create?


6

Response: I will submit a request, and they will do it for us, if possible. No additional work beyond the request. Vote: One opposed. Motion passes.

c. Women’s Issues Committee report Yvonne Ellis, Chair began by stating a brief definition of her committee’s purpose. The process of trying to broaden perspective to both university and community. At present, they are trying to develop procedures on how to address problems brought to them. We also have special task forces. For example, a couple females were found last semester trying to breast feed babies in their cars, demonstrating the need for a lactation room on campus. Also, have developed a web page and facebook page allowing us to expand communication throughout campus and the world. Quarterly/monthly updates, like for Breast Cancer Month, Women’s History month. Also on their agenda is establishing a mentor program of female faculty and staff with students. They want to work to retain students, too, and are also establishing student chapter of AAUW. Question: What does it mean to involve students with staff in mentoring? Response: People that female students can go to in order to discuss problems. Question: When talking about setting up policy/procedures? Response: If students have problems, can you refer students to already existing entities where appropriate? Yes. The website and other resources allow more to voice their problems. Comment: I would be concerned about staff as mentors. If a student has an academic problem, staff might not be the best mentor for a student. Response: They don’t necessarily need to talk to faculty about anything. Comment: I think staff need to be properly trained, to direct them to counseling or writing center or appropriate resource? Response: Why is a faculty member best? Comment: It seems to me that we are creating a group of people to counsel others without training may be a legal issue. If someone came to me with a domestic violence problem, we should provide them with access to proper resources, but not act as the resource themselves. Shouldn’t there be training for these mentors? Response: Yes, which is why there would be a match process. Student will tell you where they want help. Comment: But the question is, the people who are matching the staff people, so that they can make the correct directions. Comment: You might find staff with a PhD. Sometimes staff are more capable than faculty. Question: Is this formal/informal? Response: Informal mentoring only. This is already happening on campus. We are not putting out specific expertise. Comment: Informal process alleviates concerns about training. Look at some of your secretaries – they already do this. Look at who students go to among faculty. You are not starting something new. Many times, students go to academic advising. We want to bring/promote awareness that you can use this to get issues resolved.

d. Academic Advising Committee report Fonda Carter, Chair. We generally look at issues, make recommendations, and work with professional development, etc. Tina Butcher is in charge of this. We also review the Academic Advising handbook, available on the website. The mission statement is online as well. We are also


7

monitoring progress of Degree Works. It is not yet approved by system, but there was a meeting about it today. We can take up any issues you want to charge us with. Can email with questions if they have it. Additional business: One of our committees is the Human Subjects Committee. CSU is looking to expand its scope to make it in line with how other institutions deal with these issues. As a doctoral granting institution, we need to be in federal compliance as well. A task force was appointed in fall, and a new committee as created by the Committee on Committees, to begin work. The Committee on Committees proposes that the membership of the new Institutional Review Board (IRB) be as follows: Donna Pasco, Chair, Tom Loughman, Mike Mangum, Robert Murry, Clayton Nicks, April Phillips, Iris Saltiel, David Schwimmer, Kim Shaw, Jeff Zuiderveen, Greg Domin (ex officio). Senator Duttera moves, and Senator Ito seconds, that the Senate replace the Human Subjects Committee with IRB, which will carry on as before plus meet federal guidelines. Motion passes. Meeting adjourned at 4:55 pm. Handouts attached below:


8

Faculty Senate Evaluation Discussion Spring 2011

Abbreviated Digital Measures (DM) History

Spring 2009 DM Evaluations began Fall 2010 DM gave option to email faculty result reports Faculty concern on demographic items brought to light

Demographic Items Collected

• Gender • Ethnicity • Degree • Major

Evaluation Considerations

• Demographic Data can be used to connect some students to responses in small or diverse groups

• Demographic Data can be utilized by faculty to study response habits and how

they fair in different groups

Do We:

1. Keep all Demographic Data? 2. Collect less demographic items? 3. Collect no demographic items? 4. Make no decision?* * If we are moving to paper, and stopping DM electronic evaluations, no decision needs to be made. Paper method does not collect demographic data with responses. Staff Council also would like to be in the loop if we make a formal move this way.


9

Celebration of Academic Excellence April 11-16, 2011

Tower Day.....................................................Tuesday, Apr 12 Celebration of Student Writing ....................... Thursday, Apr 14 Scholastic Honors Convocation ............................Friday, Apr 15 Kaleidoscope Concert .....................................Saturday, Apr 16

Supporting Undergraduate Research & Creative Endeavors PREPARE

Undergraduate Research and Scholarly Activity Grants http://aa.colstate.edu/UndergradResearchProposalCall.asp Due: February 4, 2011

PRESENT CSU Tower Day http://honors.colstate.edu/towerday.asp Resources Available Online Today

Applications (Due: March 12, 2011) Fliers How to Prepare Posters 2010 Award winning abstracts 2010 Abstracts by Discipline Tentative Schedule

PUBLISH

An Abstract Annual • Collection of all undergraduate research & creative endeavors in

the form of abstracts during the academic year. Activities include conference presentations and publications.

• Tower Day accepted presentations will be automatically included if students give permission

• Tentatively due: March 12, 2011

Journal of Undergraduate Research & Scholarship (Tentative) Cross-disciplinary, student edited

Call TBA by February 1, 2011 (Tentative) Submission due: March 1, 2011 (Tentative)


10

CSU Tower Day April 12, 2011

Showcasing Undergraduate Research & Creative Scholarship

Sponsored by the CSU Honors Program

(706) 507-8771 http://honors.colstate.edu

Tentative Schedule 8:00am - 9:00am Registration & Breakfast Schuster Lobby & Room 130 Poster Set-Up Davidson Center 9:00am - 10:00am Plenary Session Schuster 130

Provost’s Welcome An Alumni Perspective: The Impact of Undergraduate Research A Mentor’s Perspective: Engaging Students in the Discipline

10:00am - 12:00noon Concurrent Sessions Schuster Center Poster Judging Davidson Center 11:00am - 12:30pm Light Lunch Schuster 130 12:30pm - 1:30pm Group Panel Presentations Schuster 130 12:00 noon - 2:00pm Poster Session Davidson Center 1:30 – 5:00 Concurrent Sessions Schuster Center

jan 19 2011 minutes · president mescon: “i’m going to take just a few minutes to talk about...

Documents