University of Minnesota, Morris Campus Assembly Minutes December 6, 1999 The Campus Assembly met on Monday, December 6, 1999, at 4:30 pm in the Science Auditorium. I. The chancellor made no introductory remarks. II. The minutes of the November 9, 1999 Assembly meeting were approved as distributed. III. After reviewing the accreditation activities to date, Jim Togeas submitted the NCA Steering Committee's Special Emphasis Self-Study Summary for acceptance by the Assembly. The selected conclusions were drawn from various sources of input. The Steering Committee seeks Assembly acceptance, not endorsement, in keeping with a timeline driven by the NCA's upcoming visit. Harold Hinds asked about contradictions concerning the library; survey results suggest students and staff are satisfied yet the recommendations suggest otherwise. Togeas responded that as a COPLAC facility, the library is average in staffing and below average in other measures including fraction of the operating budget designated. The collection is adequate for undergraduate instruction but insufficient for faculty or undergraduate research; satisfaction levels among students drop as students progress in their studies. More information will be included in the final draft of the self-study including a stronger balance of positive and negative points. At this point, Roland Guyotte moved acceptance of the report and was seconded by Mary Elizabeth Bezanson. Bert Ahern raised two concerns. He found the summary too sanguine in addressing physical plant concerns, particularly library facilities and instructional space. Togeas explained that the report addressed the campus building by building, not as a general response to plant concerns. Ahern also asked what procedural changes could address students leaving UMM because of difficulty succeeding here. Togeas responded that this concern is not addressed beyond consideration of advising. Jim Cotter mentioned a frequently quoted statistic that suggests many of our potentially successful students transfer to schools with different academic offerings and then succeed there. Ruth Thielke mentioned that UMM is very honest in reporting enrollment data, including students admitted with transfer intentions. Ahern wondered about students of color and Vicky Demos responded that Brenda Boever and Karla Klinger of the Advising Office focused on this issue throughout the accreditation process. Schuman noted that our data is limited to students who transfer to other campuses of the University and our success rate among students of color is not statistically different from our overall rate. Togeas added that graduation and retention were concerns during the 1990 accreditation process and have improved dramatically in the last 10 years. Chaz Rice said the course scheduling recommendation seemed vague and should address this concern more specifically in some way to ensure an adequate number of spots in courses. Togeas responded that Steve Granger's student opinion survey a few years ago noted chronic complaints in this area under the quarter system; the impact of semesters is still being studied. Ruth Thielke added that the Registrar's Office is monitoring waiting lists and faculty are responding well to student appeals; UMM has been very proactive in responding to this concern. Roger McCannon wondered if Student Evaluation of Teaching results had been reviewed to substantiate the Granger survey results. Togeas responded that the Steering Committee formulated its own survey, which drew 449 responses, and reviewed the Assessment of Student Learning survey from 1998 as well. Bert Ahern asked about technological faculty development concerns, specially new technology for learning and instructional developments. Harold Hinds agreed that faculty seem to feel left behind in these areas according to faculty development surveys. Togeas responded that the study discusses the need for additional staffing in Computing Services to assist faculty. Nancy Carpenter worried that the summary is lacking as a planning document because items are missing; UMM will suffer during the compact (budgeting) process if planning documents don't consistently reflect our needs. Togeas replied that the three highest recommendations address the quality of student academic life and the document can only be considered advisory, not a planning document, since it is being submitted for acceptance only, not endorsement. Jim Cotter reminded the Assembly that the subcommittees were guided by the self-study concerns, not all areas of interest. Vicky Demos added that Cecilia Lopez recommended creating a useful document, not an accreditation-seeker. The report is an opening document, not a concluding one. Hinds wondered about professional revitalization, specifically research. Togeas reminded him that research is addressed as a scholarly activity related to teaching since the document focuses on quality of student academic life. The question was called and the Assembly voted to accept the report. Sam Schuman thanked Jim Togeas and his colleagues for all their work. IV. The Scholastic Committee policies governing withdrawal and cancel/add policies under semesters were approved. V. The following items from the Curriculum Committee were approved. o Music 1310, 1220/3220, 1340 regular approval. o Music 3400 credit change. (repeated to 4 credits, not 8... CC vote 9-0-0) VI. A motion to suspend the rules was passed to permit an addition to the agenda. Peter Whelan explained material from the Functions and Awards Committee (F&A) concerning Scholars of the College (SC) which sought to increase inclusiveness among previously disenfranchised disciplines and address semester timeline issues. Bert Ahern reminded the F&A of the need to be aware of the diverse levels of involvement among students participating in conferences, forums and presentations. Jenny Nellis mentioned the prohibition against undergraduate students participating in one-person exhibits and wondered about a prior history of interdisciplinary activity among SC recipients. Schuman mentioned not noticing such a trend in recent banquet programs. Whelan explained that the phrasing "might include" makes it possible for exceptions to typical criteria and emphasized that the committee will rely on faculty to make the case for nominees. Schuman asked why "individual" had to modify "art show" and Nellis requested a friendly amendment eliminating the word. At this point Roland Guyotte requested clarification of the activity before the Assembly. Schuman responded that only the italicized material in Whelan's hand-out is new; the Assembly is being asked to endorse the F&A's intention to interpret criteria more broadly and to approve the suggested timeline. Eric Klinger requested language permitting students to get the award after the dates indicated; the award can be noted on the transcript if the deadline for program inclusion is missed. Keith Brugger added that if students fail to make post-graduation presentations (at conferences that occur after graduation), they shouldn't get the award. Whelan responded that the F&A wrestled with this issue, a complex task in this transition year, and recommends that awards in such cases be made the following year instead. Hinds suggested permitting performing arts faculty to assist in drafting F&A language concerning SC and insisted that students must be allowed to receive the award post-graduation under the semester calendar. Dimitra Giannuli suggested separating the time-line issue from the criteria issue to avoid hasty, inadequate resolution of the criteria issue. Jess Larson suggested that in 1992 the award was interdisciplinary, reflecting the liberal arts nature of the institution, and has since evolved into a creativity/research award. Ahern responded that interdisciplinarianism was never a criteria and the nominators should bear the burden of making the case; scheduling is a more pressing issue. A motion to extend for 10 minutes failed and Sam Schuman ended the meeting by instructing the F&A to use the schedule presented today and re-visit the criteria and post-graduation receipt issues for discussion at a future meeting. The Assembly adjourned at 6:00 pm. Rebecca Webb