University of Minnesota, Morris
Campus Assembly Minutes
November 10, 2003
The Campus Assembly met on Monday, November 10 at 4:30 p.m. in the Science Auditorium.
I. Chancellor's Remarks.
Update on Search Committee
Jim VanAlstine reported that the search process of the Associate Vice Chancellor for Enrollment is going smoothly and the committee discussions have been excellent. A total of 34 applications were received and the committee hopes to bring candidates to campus sometime during the last two weeks of the semester.
Update on enrollment
Schuman reported on the following enrollment figures:
Total number of new first time first year students for fall 2003 412
New PSEO students 32
# and percentage of students of color 56 13.6%
ACT Scores 24.785
Class Rank 77.8%
Even though those are good numbers, they are clearly less than we had projected for this year. This will leave us with budget challenges for the current fiscal year and the next year. Schuman has decided to reconvene the Budget Task Force and has asked the Consultative Committee, CRPC, and the Administrative group to either appoint or reappoint members to serve on the Task Force. Lowell Rasmussen will serve as chair again this year. Schuman mentioned that some of the senior administrators have volunteered to take an unpaid leave of absence, varying from 1-2 days to 1-2 weeks, to help with the budget dilemma. He also mentioned that the Senate Investment Committee visited campus last week and the House Higher Ed Committee is scheduled to visit in two weeks. He is planning to meet with Senator Dallas Sams and Representative Torrey Westrom and several other legislators. Our request for a college/community facility with the Biomass heating and cooling plant will be carefully monitored and researched. He mentioned the football field that will be shared by us and the high school teams. Bart Finzel asked if Schuman knew the number of applications for next year. Schuman said at this point we have received 211 applications. Last year at this time we had received 160 applications. We have 98 offers this year vs. 6 offers last year. Paula O'Loughlin asked what our expected shortfall would be for this fiscal year. Schuman said over $100,000 and under $500,000. Bert Ahern asked what our target number was for new students. Schwaller responded between 475-485. Ahern asked what steps have been taken to determine what went wrong. Schuman said he has been trying to pay more attention to fixing the problem than trying to figure out what went wrong. He added that reports have been made to CRPC and the Consultative Committee; however, he was uncomfortable talking about this at this time.
II. Minutes from September 30, 2003 assembly were approved as presented.
III. From the Executive Committee. Committee replacements.
Phang Du replaces Mike Miller on Minority Experience Committee
IV. From the United Staff Association. Committee replacements.
Shirley Miller replaces Heather Aagesen-Huebner on Minority Experience Committee
Jean Sasek replaces Heather Aagesen-Huebner on Campus Assembly
Joyce Amborn replaces Nancy Helsper on Consultative Committee
V. From the Curriculum Committee. Spring 2004 Curriculum Changes were approved as presented.
1 Revised Course
Geog 2001 (was 1001) Problems of Geography
1 Revised Course
Pol 3201 (was 4201) Legislative Process
1 Revised Course
Psy 3403 Developmental Psy III
New catalog description and GER change
VI. From the Scholastic Committee. Revision of the Student Academic Integrity Brochure.
On behalf of the Scholastic Committee, Barry McQuarrie presented the following revision of the Student Academic Integrity Brochure. He added the essence of the policy was not changed, the committee added what academic honest was and clarified the roles of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The committee also tried to make the language not so focused on guilt. The policy also clarifies that the violation report be submitted at the Vice Chancellor level, not Division Chairs. Turner asked if the committee discussed the honor code. Meek said the committee did discuss this but felt it was not necessary at UMM. It was suggested that a FAQ website be created for faculty and students. Meek added that additional comments or suggestions should be forwarded to the Scholastic Committee.
STUDENT ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Scholastic honesty is of fundamental importance to the functioning of any community of scholars. Although the pursuit of knowledge is always a communal project, individual academic achievement must be the result of a personšs own efforts and abilities. Members of an academic community are responsible for their own personal and academic development and for fostering an academic climate in which all members draw from and give back to the community. The University is charged with implementing those policies which will help bring about such an academic climate. However, the ultimate responsibility for creating a community of scholars, in which mutual self-respect flourishes, lies with the individual members of the community. Each member must, therefore, act according to the highest standards of academic honesty.
Academic honesty entails producing original work, accurately attributing authorship, and acknowledging the work of others, including the work of collaborators, when appropriate. Academic honesty extends to behavior that supports the academic honesty of others. The integrity of an academic community demands that students and faculty alike display honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility.
Recognizing its responsibility to assist in the attainment of such a climate, the Board of Regents adopted a ŗStatement of Standards of Student Conduct Enforceable by University Agencies.˛ The Regents accepted the principle that the University has a vital interest in establishing and maintaining suitable standards of academic conduct. Section IV of the Statement lists 16 offenses which are punishable by the University. Two of them speak directly about academic integrity:
1. SCHOLASTIC DISHONESTY. Scholastic dishonesty means plagiarizing; cheating on assignments or examinations; engaging in unauthorized collaboration on academic work; taking, acquiring, or using test materials without faculty permission; fabrication or falsification of data, research procedures, or data analysis; submitting false or incomplete records of academic achievement; acting alone or in cooperation with another to falsify records or to obtain dishonestly grades, honors, awards, or professional endorsement; or altering, forging, or misusing a University academic record.
16. PERSISTENT VIOLATIONS Persistent violations mean engaging in repeated conduct or action in violation of this policy.
This same Statement charges each college of the University with responsibility for establishing specific policies and procedures to ensure academic integrity.
The maintenance of academic integrity is a joint student and faculty responsibility. The policies in this statement apply to all academic work pursued at the University, including work submitted to fulfill course requirements (both in- and out-of-class work), as well as independent academic endeavors. These include but are not limited to in-class examinations, quizzes, tests, laboratory tests, reports, laboratory reports, "take-home" examinations, research projects, papers, art work, internships, and assistantships.
It is incumbent upon course instructors assigning work to be submitted in fulfillment of course requirements to explain, either verbally or in the course syllabus, what constitutes academic dishonesty and plagiarism. Any special conventions regarding quotation, paraphrasing, footnoting, use of outside materials, collaboration, and related matters shall be carefully explained by the instructor.
The following sections specify procedures for addressing academic integrity violations, including securing evidence of violations, reporting violations, and adjudicating disputes about academic integrity. These procedures are designed to secure both the rights of students to due process, as well as the authority of faculty members and university administrators to enforce standards of academic integrity.
1.1. Should academic dishonesty be evident to the proctor during the course of an in-class examination, quiz, test, or laboratory tests, it shall be the prerogative of the instructor or proctor to remove the papers of those students giving or receiving aid and also to confiscate as evidence any device or devices designed to supply relevant information which are in the possession of students. Actions taken by proctors who are not the instructor shall be limited to the confiscation of papers and/ or the confiscation of the above described devices. Only the course instructor may take any substantive action.
1.2. A student may become aware that another student is violating academic integrity. Any such incidents shall be reported immediately to the instructor as soon as possible.
1.3. Student proctors should maintain the highest possible level of integrity. Students who believe that student proctors are not fulfilling their responsibilities should discuss the matter with the course instructor. Should the course instructor or student(s) feel that the situation warrants, he or she may refer the matter to the Committee on Academic Integrity for review and possible action.
1.4. The decision whether to proctor or not shall be left to the discretion of the individual instructor, although a student may request proctoring. The proctor may be (1) the instructor with or without the assistance of others, or (2) a person or persons chosen by the instructor. As a general rule, proctoring shall not be wholly delegated except in the case of the unavoidable absence of the instructor from the campus.
1.5. Where there is evidence of academic dishonesty and, in particular, plagiarism on work done out of class, the instructor shall confiscate, as evidence, any appropriate materials.
1.6. Where there is evidence of academic dishonesty on work completed outside of a course setting, including but not limited to independent study/research, creative projects, internships, and collaborative projects, the supervisor shall confiscate, as evidence, any appropriate materials.
2.1. Questions of academic dishonesty should be settled directly by the instructor and student(s) involved. The instructor should meet with the student(s) involved and, after informing the student(s) of the allegation and supporting evidence, attempt, in a timely manner, to reach agreement regarding the veracity of the charges and whether a penalty is to be levied. If a decision is reached, the instructor will prepare and submit a written report to the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs within two weeks, presenting the details of the incident, evidence, and penalties imposed. The Vice Chancellor will provide the student with a copy of the report. The student is considered guilty if he/she does not contest the instructor's accusations. These reports will be maintained in a confidential University file. Through this process, repeat offenders will be identified.
2.2. If a satisfactory resolution between the student(s) and the instructor cannot be reached, or if the student contests the accusation and/or action of the instructor, the matter may be referred by any of the parties to the Committee on Academic Integrity for resolution. All referrals shall be in the form of a written report submitted to the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs within two weeks. Reports shall include the date of the violation, the class in which the alleged violation occurred, the nature of the alleged violation, the name(s) of student(s), instructor(s), and proctor(s) involved. All reports from either instructors or students shall carefully specify why the matter is being referred to the Committee on Academic Integrity, including the nature of the disagreement regarding any action taken or contemplated. The Committee shall provide instructors with a copy of reports from students, and instructors may, if they wish, submit to the Committee a written statement regarding their position on the matter. The Committee shall provide students with a copy of the reports from instructors, and students may, if they wish, submit to the Committee a written statement regarding their position on the matter. All such written statements, whether from instructors or students, shall be maintained with the original reports.
2.3. The Committee shall review the report or reports brought before it, collect evidence bearing on the case, interview witnesses, summon all persons who are parties to the case, hear views from all sides, and determine all facts relevant to the case. The hearings of the Committee shall follow standard University procedures designed to guarantee the rights of the accused to a fair and impartial hearing and to prompt action leading to a disposition of the alleged violations. If requested to determine the guilt of or innocence of students charged with violations of academic integrity, the Committee shall in closed deliberative session attempt to make such a determination. After a determination has been made, the Committee will recommend an appropriate course of action to the instructor and the student. The decisions of the Committee are recommendations to the instructor. Nevertheless, it is expected that the recommendation will be honored. The Committee may recommend sanctions as defined in the Student Conduct Code. The Committee shall report all decisions to the Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs and the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs is responsible for ensuring timely action on the matter.
2.4. A student who is identified as a repeat offender shall be summoned to appear before the Committee on Academic Integrity. A repeat offender is defined as any student who is guilty of two or more violations of academic integrity while a student at UMM. The student is considered guilty if he/she does not contest the instructor's accusations or if the Committee finds him/her in breach of academic integrity. The Committee shall collect all available evidence bearing upon the violations of this student and may recommend sanctions as defined in the Student Conduct Code to the Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs.
3.1. After a recommendation is made by the Committee on Academic Integrity with regard to any matter brought before it, any party to that matter may appeal the recommendation or action taken. Appeals shall be made within 30 school days to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, or his/her designate, who shall review the matter and report back to all parties involved. Should 30 school days not remain in the regular academic year, then the 30-day period shall begin with the first school day of the immediately following fall semester. There shall be no appeals beyond the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.
VII. Senators' Reports.
VIII. Old Business.
IX. New Business.
Bert Ahern said that reflecting on the enrollment figures we heard earlier, he wondered if CRPC is looking into the reason for the shortfall. Fritz Schwaller said we knew about the problem a year ago and conducted a lengthy investigation. He credits the Admissions staff to bringing us up to where we are now. Ahern thought it would be useful for Campus Assembly to have CRPC report on the glitches that were made. Andy Lopez said that mistakes were made. Schuman said he would rather see our recruiters actually out recruiting students rather than reporting to committees. Ahern said we should be mindful of the event in the fall of 1978 which led to UMM putting together a task force which directly led to the success in the 80's and 90's. He wondered if the problem was systematic or isolated. Lopez responded that we will need to be patient and that in 1978 we didnšt know until a year later whether the task force was successful. Jim Cotter said we should divorce ourselves from this issue and start focusing on the importance of Admissions. He believes it's time to get proactive. Randy Kidd said that faculty are very passionate about UMM and love to talk about Morris, and given the opportunity, most would like to be more involved or help in any way they can. Schuman said that was an excellent idea, but one group on campus that could do even more, is our current students because they are the most believable source of information about a college. Lopez added that a way to counteract this is to improve retention and faculty could be very involved with this. Tammy Berberi asked how our retention compares to our peer institutions. Schuman said that compared to private, liberal arts colleges, we lag behind. In relation to COPLAC institutions, UMM is in the middle. He added that we have the highest retention rate among the three coordinate campuses.
Adjourned at 5:20 p.m.