University of Minnesota, Morris Campus Assembly Minutes January 25, 1999 The Campus Assembly met on Monday, January 25, 1999 at 4 pm in the Science Auditorium. I. Conscious of the lengthy agenda, Interim Chancellor Samuel Schuman called the meeting to order with an appropriate quote from HENRY IV. He noted that the meeting will continue on Monday, February 8 at 4 pm if necessary. II. Greg Thorson was elected to serve as parliamentarian during winter quarter while Roland Guyotte is on leave. III. The minutes of the October 12, 1998 Assembly meeting were approved as distributed. IV. Andy Lopez, chair of the Campus Resource and Planning Committee (CRPC), reviewed the proposed Strategic Three Year Plan for 1998-2001. The plan reflects two years' efforts and was drafted with input from open forums and meetings with the chancellor and vice chancellors. It is a framework whose details can be found in the budget Compact between UMM and the central administration, which was drafted by UMM's administration in consultation with the CRPC. The plan covers three years instead of five to permit reassessment after the conversion to semesters. Bert Ahern asked whether any tough choices were faced that led to omitted priorities. Lopez responded that there were no forks in the road but some controversies arose like a perception that the fund-raising goal was too low. Dimitra Gianulli wondered about adding "international" to "region, state and nation" in paragraph two of the Preamble and perhaps something about gender pay equity to item I B. Lopez noted that the concern had not surfaced during the drafting of the document but agreed to bring it up at CRPC. Jenny Nellis noted that it has been a significant issue in the U's recent history. Schuman, while acknowledging the significance of the issue, reminded the group that the plan is not comprehensive and should reflect only those items which are at the very top of UMM's priorities. Tim O'Keefe wondered about the cost of bringing UMM to the median of the Morris 14. Ted Underwood quoted a figure of close to one million dollars but Cathleen Brannen interjected that this was the amount necessary to bring UMM near the top, not the median. Roger McCannon suggested the plan sounds isolationist and wondered why it makes no mention of the mission of the entire university including outreach and research. The CRPC will consider the Assembly's suggestions before the plan returns for action. V. Jim Togeas presented the proposed roster for NCA subcommittees, which was approved. Andy Lopez spoke on behalf of the CRPC, which will be addressing the NCA five criteria (NCA5c) (as required by a special emphasis self-study plan). The NCA5c subcommittee needs more members, particularly a student, and may have to find members beyond the membership of the CRPC. VI. Mike Korth presented a revised Fall 1999 (semester) final exam schedule on behalf of the Curriculum Committee because the schedule in the transition course catalog conflicts with adopted guidelines. If approved, the proposed schedule will likely be the pattern for a spring schedule. Tim O'Keefe questioned the lack of a "dead" day between the end of classes and exams. Korth noted that unless the dates of holidays like Labor Day and Christmas change, there will indeed be no dead day. Bert Ahern wondered about assessing the calendar again in a few years and Korth responded that UMM is restricted by U of M policy. Schuman added that our first request for a variance was rejected. Ruth Thielke noted that there is a weekend study period in spring. Simon Chabel requested clarification on the exam time for classes that meet TTh at 2 pm since there is no Saturday the 17th. Thielke indicated that the correct information would be Saturday the 18th. Chabel wondered about religious conflicts and Fred Farrell responded that Friday exams would also pose religious conflict problems. Schuman added that the University provides a comprehensive report of religious observances that guides scheduling. Eric Klinger wondered why exam times don't match class times and Korth explained that exam times will rotate. Jeff Ratliff-Crain wondered when grades would be due and Thielke answered there would be the same amount of time allowed after exams to submit grades as now. Farrell supported Ahern's suggestion to re-examine the schedule in the future and expressed a wish that this item had been presented for information at this meeting and action at the next one. Peh Ng responded that the schedule is necessary for an upcoming bulletin deadline. Farrell moved to postpone and Mary Elizabeth Bezanson seconded. Korth asked why the postponement when no amendments had been suggested. Sean Lazenby supported the postponement so students could be polled concerning the discussion. Thielke explained that the addition of a study day will move finals so far into December that students may end up traveling on Christmas. The vote to postpone failed and the schedule was accepted by vocal vote. VII. Bezanson reported on the proposed constitutional edits to update our governance documents for semesters. Five items requiring judgment calls were forwarded to the Executive Committee. This item will return to the Assembly for action at its next meeting. Edith Borchardt requested clarification of III 1 B, was a number missing to indicate how many credits? It was explained that the item referred to the need to be enrolled in on-campus courses to be eligible for Assembly service. VIII. Jim Carlson reported on the Academic Support Services Committee's exploration of the bookstore space issue. The committee met twice and was addressed by Marlys Buntje, Lowell Rasmussen and Gary Strei. There will be a gain in floor space but a loss of storage space (due to mechanical needs) which may prevent buying non-textbook items (sweatshirts, mugs, etc.) in bulk and therefore increasing costs. An ad hoc committee will meet with the architects to seek a solution to this problem. IX. The motion to label courses designed or expected to use undergraduate teaching assistants in charge of classroom, discussion or laboratory instruction had been referred back to the Curriculum Committee. Korth reported that the committee reviewed that motion, amended it and then defeated it. Schuman noted that, while labels therefore will not be mandatory, they certainly are not forbidden and can be included voluntarily. X. Concerning course designations, Korth explained that courses can have only one GER designation, not one Expanding Perspectives designation. Tom Johnson recommended removing the words "be proposed" from the text of the item. Jim Cotter wondered if students will have difficulty fulfilling the GER requirements when some categories offer so few courses. Kristin Kaster wondered how this will impact petitions brought to the Scholastic Committee and Farrell wondered if the categorizations should be revisited as sparseness in some of them is indeed worrisome. Ahern suggested that we have a few years to work out the bugs in the system . XI. Korth reported that the requested assessment information for Math/Mgmt 3501-02 has been completed. Ahern asked that it be put on the Assessment homepage. XII. The following curricular changes were approved. ¥Mgmt 2896 Internship 2 cr to 1-4 cr, max 2 to major or minor ¥Chem 1005 new S99 quarter course ¥IS 3405 new S99 quarter and new semester course. ¥Hist 3159 Honors topics designation ¥Psy 1203 4 cr Fall 99 ¥IS 1001 title change. XIII. Some corrections were offered as friendly amendments to the Computing and Writing Statements in Majors. Jenny Nellis pointed out that studio art develops skills in digital imaging, not imagining. Ahern expressed concern that the program was stepping back from its vision of dialog across curriculum. The material was approved. XIV. Korth reminded the Assembly that students graduating with quarter-based GER credits may need a semester C2 or W course. The following corrections were made to the material forwarded by the Curriculum Committee. ¥Mus 2401 should not be listed as a W course. ¥Psy 4610 under W should be Empirical Investigations in Cognitive Psychology. ¥Psy 4610 under C2 should be Empirical Investigations in Cognitive Psychology. ¥Econ 4132 needs to be included with an Honors designation. The material was approved. XV. The Curriculum Committee motion allowing students graduating after semester conversion (but under the quarter GER requirements) to fulfill the P7 requirement with semester courses numbered 2xxx, 3xxx or 4xxx outside the division of the major was approved. XVI. The Curriculum Committee proposed that the Honors adjunct committee be deleted from the UMM By-laws and that the director of Honors, MAP and UROP form an advisory group to assist in conducting Honors programs; policy issues would be referred to the Curriculum Committee. Andy Lopez asked why the Honors director should be responsible for MAP and UROP and Korth replied that he is already. Jim Cotter questioned this, suggesting that Honors is more curricular than the co-curricular MAP and UROP programs. Schuman countered that all three represent instructional opportunities beyond the regular curriculum. Cotter noted that he has served on the UROP selection committee for 10 years and wondered why it is necessary to fix what isn't broken. Fred Farrell wondered if the honors director would officially become the UROP chair and Mary Elizabeth Bezanson wondered if the advisory committee would be a constitutional committee. Korth responded no, the advisory committee would not be a constitutional organization like Assembly and Adjunct committees. Bezanson said it defeats the purpose of reducing committee work to delete constitutional committees and replace them with advisory groups. Ahern agreed that efforts made on behalf of an advisory group should be recognized. Matt Senior explained that combining Honors, MAP and UROP makes student access to these programs easier and prevents duplication (students participating in more than one program). Greg Thorson wondered why remove adjunct status from the group and Korth responded that management is not the work of a governance committee; the Curriculum Committee can provide adequate policy oversight. Jim Cotter suggested that work for money shouldn't be blended with work for credit (i.e. Honors shouldn't pay). Sam Schuman noted that this item can return for action on February 8 but Michael O'Reilly pointed out that a continuation of the agenda of a current meeting is not the same thing as a new meeting. Action may be taken at the first meeting of spring quarter. XVII. The Assembly turned to Intersession and action was taken to extend the meeting to 6:00 pm. Tap Payne noted that we're ahead of the game since a docket circulated the previous spring. Tom Mahoney asked about P&A status and compensation during Intersession: Will B term P&A be handled like B term faculty and would B term P&A get overload for working during Intersession? Schuman responded "no" to the first question and "yes" to the second and said such concerns should be addressed in an implementation package, not a policy document. Jeff Ratliff-Crain asked about course load... could someone take an Intersession course and a summer session course? Payne responded that Intersession is meant to be a full-time endeavor so such enrollment would be discouraged. Edith Borchardt asked about overlapping dates. Payne replied that Intersession dates have not been solidified yet but it should commence the Monday after graduation and could run concurrently but be different from Summer Session. The three-week length was determined by SCEP. Simon Chabel asked when Intersession incompletes must be finished and Ruth Thielke explained that students will have a full year as with any other course. Jack Imholte recommended aggressive advertising of UMM Intersession courses on other campuses. Ahern asked whether a variable credit plan wouldn't make taking multiple courses possible. Payne acknowledged that it would. Ahern asked why variable crediting was proposed and Payne responded so that courses of fewer than four credits could still be viable Intersession courses. The Intersession Policy and Procedures were approved. XVIII. Margaret Kuchenreuther reported on the P&A issue and explained that discussion at the meeting would determine the next course of action, if further action is desired. The Executive Committee examined the status of P&A in the Assembly, the Consultative Committee, and concerning voting rights. John Bowers and Bert Ahern presented data to the Executive Committee and comparisons were made of membership figures and numbers of personnel within ranks. The Executive Committee reached the following conclusions. ¥ In 1984, constitutional discussion clearly put P&A under Academic Staff. Academic Staff including P&A are entitled to membership on the Consultative Committee. ¥ Assembly membership grew as indicated below, where N = total membership, F = faculty, P = Academic Professionals, A = Academic Administrators, CS/USA equals civil service/USA staff, and S = Students. N F P A CS/USA S %P&A Fall 1983 134 99 4 7 8 16 8% Fall 1998 190 116 25 25 5 19 26% The large increase in P is in part the result of the conversion of coaches from faculty to professional staff in light of the lack of tenure opportunities for coaches. Kuchenreuther explained that the discussions in 1984 seemed to suggest that not all P&A were envisioned to be Assembly members but the Executive Committee does not want to now sort through and determine who should be removed. A straw poll, a non-binding recommendation, will be taken at the February 8 meeting to determine whether the Executive Committee should proceed (with further deliberations or the drafting of constitutional amendments) or leave things as they are (with all P&A belonging to the Assembly and being eligible for membership on the Consultative Committee). Schuman added that all current Assembly members will be eligible to vote in the straw poll. Final comments were received. Ahern added that the numbers were also affected when staff were given the choice to become P&A, thus positions like admissions counselors and the assistant director of Residential Life became Assembly members. He stressed the need to be sure that faculty issues are determined by faculty voters. Jim Gremmels suggested using the Senate's definition of faculty membership. Dimitra Gianulli expressed concern that a presentation consisting primarily of figures might reflect partiality and requested more layers of history about the issue. The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 pm to reconvene on February 8. Rebecca Webb