University of Minnesota, Morris

Campus Assembly Minutes

 

March 3, 2004

 

 

The Campus Assembly met on Wednesday, March 3 at 4:30 p.m. in the Science Auditorium. 

 

I.          Chancellorıs Remarks.

 

Perspective from St. Paul

Both good and bad news.  Bad‹mood is either prudent or penurious depending on oneıs perspective.  Good‹there is substantial will not to hurt the University.  Biomass seems viable, but not a sure thing.  The budget forecast is on the good side. 

 

The University

It is his understanding that compensation pools will increase 2.5% for all classes of employees.  There will probably be a 10-11% tuition increase and fees to will raise to $800.  We will probably not get to keep all or perhaps even most of this and will have to fund raises internally.  He added we have suffered proportionately to other units, we just feel it more because weıre smaller.

 

Budget Task Force

The task force is charged with reducing our budget by $750K for two years and they have functioned responsibly and thoroughly and openly.  He will weigh their suggestions carefully and perhaps tweak a bit.  He will notify the campus in a week or two.

 

Admissions

Applications are virtually the same as last year; offers and acceptances are down slightly; quality is up a bit.  The Admissions office is working as hard as possible.

 

Big Idea

Chancellor Schuman:  ³I still think it is a good idea‹different, exciting, in tune with our mission and speaks to our first priority‹heightened visibility.  It does require wide, deep community support‹thatıs why it only came to the Campus Assembly last April after moving through discussions in the International Programs Committee, Vice chancellor group, Administration group, MCSA, CRPC, Consultative Committee, Alumni, Central Administration, and the Admissions Office.  Good academic leadership lies in building consensus not goading a campus to do what it really doesnıt want to do or go where it really doesnıt want to go.  Even if I could imagine how to do it, I would not want to force UMM to try something this daring and innovative and substantial.  There are no guarantees regarding money, I would guess odds on raising all funds for the Big Idea at 40/60.  The campus would not revote again until it was time to recruit students for the full plan‹fall 2006.  All this is by way of saying‹vote yes and I will push forward with zeal, vigor and enthusiasm; vote no, and I wonıt be angry, vindictive or retributive.  There is plenty to keep me busy with or without the Big Idea for the rest of my career here.  I do want to say, without partisanship but with passion, that we know the way to come through hard times is not through withdrawal and retreat.  This may not be the right time for the Big Idea, but it is the very best moment for big ideas, and the very worst for paralysis and timidity.  Letıs be cautious but letıs not pretend we can overcome adversity only by not doing things.  UMM became a powerful and distinctive and great college by daring.  Opening a vigorous public liberal arts college in west central Minnesota in 1960 was not without monumental risk.  A shared universal international experience may or may not be the risk we are willing to take today, but I would remind us that the opposite of risk in dangerous times is not safety, but can be decline and morbidity.  Having said that, it is my goal not to participate further in the Big Idea debate later, unless asked questions.  Hereıs a visual image to guide me and to help all of us as we cope with these many vexing issues and work together to make the right decisions here, and in the coming months.  Like most of Vermeerıs best work, ³ Woman Holding a Balance² seems an enclosed, almost claustrophobic domestic scene.  But it opens into a much wider world of allegory and meaning.  Notice, for example, that there is a picture of the ³Last Judgment² on the wall behind the woman weighing pearls.  What I would hold up for our emulation of this painting today is the contemplative care in which Vermeerıs silent object does her weighing.  To find the right balance we, too, need to be peaceful and reflective.  Good weighing is done with quiet, thoughtful, meditative, introspective discipline, and maybe even for those so inclined, with reverence.  Letıs seek the inward calm Vermeer pictures as we make todayıs and tomorrowıs and the next dayıs balanced decisions.  If we weigh our options and choices with this kind of tender care, I know our collective choices will be the right ones, and certainly better than I, or anyone, could make alone.²

 

II.        Minutes from November 10, 2003 approved as presented.

 

III.       From the Function & Awards Committee.  Scholars of the College nominations approved as presented.

 

IV.       From the Deanıs Office.  Academic Personnel Plan.

 

Fritz Schwaller reported that in the spring of 2001, the University of Minnesota revised the University-wide Academic Personnel Plan in effect for all faculty appointments.  At that time, Vice President Carol Carrier asked that each coordinate campus study the University-wide plan, consult widely, and modify the plan in accord with campus needs.  Because this occurred at a period of transition in the Deanıs Office, that study, consultation, and modification was not completed at UMM.  The plan is now being submitted to Campus Assembly as an informational item.  After discussions with the Vice Chancellors and Division chairs, the plan was presented to appropriate campus committees.  The Consultative Committee and the Campus Resources and Planning Committees scrutinized the plan and suggested modifications.  Both Committees endorsed the plan.  Sarah Buchanan inquired why adjunct faculty terminology would not be used at UMM.  Schwaller responded that adjunct is now being defined as a professional in their field brought in to teach that one specific area.  Bert Ahern gave a brief history about the background of policy that emerged out of Senate Affairs and SCEP.  John Bowers asked for an explanation between categories 7 and 8.  Kathy Benson asked if changes in terminology would nullify existing contracts.  Schwaller said existing contracts remain the same.  He added that if anyone had additional questions, to contact him or Sarah Mattson.

 

V.        From the Executive Committee.  The Big Idea.

 

Nancy Carpenter spoke on behalf of the Executive Committee clarifying that the following motion comes from the Executive Committee not the International Programs Committee.  The motion is as follows:  ³A proposal to table further expenditures of resources (time and money) on the ³Big Idea² due to the current fiscal climate.  This would effectively amount to a moratorium on all progress toward the implementation of the Big Idea, including fundraising and pilot programs.²  Mary Elizabeth Bezanson seconded the motion.  Paula OıLoughlin made a motion to limit the debate to 20 minute and that paper ballots be used.   Second made to that motion by Bezanson.  Sarah Buchanan asked if there could be two motions, one about the time limit and the other balloting.  Dave Roberts wondered why a time limitation would be put on something as important as this issue.  Paula OıLoughlin said there have been discussions about this for two years; assembly voted last year and there have been electronic discussions available to people to come forward with their views.  Bert Ahern supported the 20 minute limitation and moved to impose it.   A member called the question.  Motion passed.  Paula OıLoughlin made a motion that paper ballots be done and counted by member of the Executive Committee.  Second by Sarah Buchanan.  A member called the question.   Motion passed.  Roland Guyotte said the motion is ill-drawn and that proposals to table a program are not done and added that resource items are not discussed on the floor of assembly.   He said the word ³table² should be replaced with ³postpone indefinitely.²   The Executive Committee accepted the friendly rewording.  Bart Finzel asked for a point of information and wondered why this is coming back to assembly.  Paula OıLoughlin said the issue came up at the last Executive Committee meeting.  LeAnn Dean said it was driven by budget tensions on campus.  Bart Finzel asked if the International Programs Committee had a role in this discussion.  Cyrus Bina asked why not.  Nancy Carpenter said the Executive Committee discussed this at great length and decided that the International Programs Committee had not been involved with the development with the Big Idea.  Margaret Kuchenreuther asked for a point of information and wondered what happens to the three courses that were recently approved.  Henry Fulda asked if this comes from the Executive Committee with or without prejudice.  Nancy Carpenter said without prejudice.  Bert Ahern wanted to speak to the process.  He is concerned that the Task Force and International Programs Committee should be allowed to speak before assembly does.  Historically, resource issues are never brought before assembly; the administration takes care of those issues.   Eric Klinger said he was under the impression that resources would not be drawn away from existing programs and asked for a clarification of the financing for the Big Idea and questioned the 40/60 comment made earlier by Chancellor Schuman.  Sam Schuman said he believed the odds on raising the funds for the Big Idea were 40/60.   Maddy Maxeiner explained that during the campaign, several donors gifts were given for strategic initiatives and that there was money there to use to the pilot program.  Peter Wyckoff asked if there is someone specific in mind for size of donation that we will need for the complex program.  Maddy Maxeiner said that ultimately the program could run up to the $20M mark and that would be an enormous gift in any context.   She added that we do not have a specific person in mind at this point and that this isnıt the ordinary kind of funding raising thatıs usually done.  Roland Guyotte moved to extend the discussion an additional 20 minutes.  Second by Bezanson.  Motion passed.  Tammy Berberi said she was insulted that the International Programs Committee was not consulted about the proposal to postpone.  Pieranna Garavaso asked when the Task Force did the surveys and posted the data on the web, if there was faculty support for the program.   Jen Cushman said there is faculty support to run the pilot program and at the end of the pilot, the Task Force will do another survey.   Greg Thorson said he does not like the way this was handled and felt it was disrespectful to assembly members because they do not discuss resource issues, the administration does.  Bert Ahern made a motion to refer this back to the International Programs Committee to speak to this issue.  Second by Fritz Schwaller.   Tap Payne agrees that assembly has already voted and made a decision.  If this is a matter of fiscal concern, does the Executive Committee plan to bring other fiscal matters to assembly?   Jim Mootz said the Admissions staff has been talking about this to the freshman class and the response has been very positive by high school counselors, prospective students, and parents.  Tom Mahoney called point of order to take an accurate count of members present.   Bert Ahern reminded assembly members that if a there is not a quorum, all subsequent business ceases.   A count was taken: 105 members present, 4 visitors.  Nancy Carpenter reminded members that a motion had been made to refer back to International Programs Committee.  Roland Guyotte moved to extend the debate for an additional 10 minutes.   Seconded.   Motion passed.  Mary Elizabeth Bezanson asked for point of personal privilege and asked when assembly meetings typically end.   The answer is usually 6:00 p.m.  Nancy Carpenter said assembly would now vote on the motion to refer this back to the International Programs Committee.  Voice vote was too close to call.   Motion failed by show of hands.  An assembly member called the question.  Nancy Carpenter clarified the motion that was brought forward:  a yes means you wish to postpone, a no means the pilot program goes forward.   Motion failed:  54 no, 50 yes.

 

VI.       From the Curriculum Committee.  Spring 2004 Curriculum Changes.

 

The following courses were approved.

 

Humanities (11 revised courses)

ArtH 4901  Capstone  Assessment of Student Experience in Art History

Mus 1045  Class Guitar

Mus 1300  Concert Band

Mus 1310  University Choir

Mus 1320  Concert Choir

Mus 1330  Jazz Ensemble

Mus 1340  Orchestra

Mus 1401  English, Italian, German, and French Diction for Singers

Span 1052  Variable Topics in Associated Languages:  Beginning Nahuatl I

Span 1053  Variable Topics in Associated Languages:  Beginning Nahuatl II

Th 1070 Performance Experience

 

Education (1 new course)

Ed 2201  Perspectives on Young Adult Literature:  Schooling, Society and Culture

 

Science and  Math (12 course revisions)

Chem 3909  Chemistry Seminar I

Chem 2302 Organic Chemistry II

Chem 3701 Inorganic Chemistry

Chem 3801 History of Chemistry

Chem 3811 Macromolecules

Chem 4351 Bioorganic Chemistry

Chem 4352 Synthesis

Chem 4551 Theoretical Chemistry

Chem 4552 Molecular Spectroscopy

Chem 4751 Advanced Inorganic Chemistry

Chem 4901 Chemistry Seminar II

Chem 4902 Chemistry Seminar II

Biol 1053 CE:  Introduction to Insect Biology

CSci 4454 Systems:  Robotics

CSci 4509 Theory:  Cryptographic Protocols

CSci 4608 Programming and Languages:  Principles of Web Programming

CSci 4646 Programming and Languages:  Human-Computer Interaction and Interface Design

 

Social Sciences (6 new courses)

Hist 3032 Gender, Family and Sexuality in Medieval Europe

Hist 3359 Native Strategies for Survival 1880-1920

Hist 3462 Strange Harvest:  A History of Rural America

Psy 3451  Cultural and Cross-Cultural Psychology ­ held over for CC discussion

Anth 3203/Soc 3203 Indigenous Peoples of the World:  A Cultural Perspective

 

Rich Heyman asked if the Art History course would be simply be added to the faculty workload and expressed concern about the practice of adding more work.  Joel Eisinger responded that this course will take very little time on the part of faculty and the work has to be done one way or another.   Roland Guyotte moved to extend meeting additional 5 minutes.  Second by Mary Elizabeth Bezanson.  Motion passed.  Roland Guyotte moved to withdraw the course for separate consideration and vote on the other courses.  Second by Mary Elizabeth Bezanson.  Motion passed.    Greg Thorson asked if workload impact should be addressed.    Sarah Buchanan moved to approve the Art  History course.  Motion seconded.  Motion passed.  Roland Guyotte called the question.  Second by Mary Elizabeth Bezanson.    Motion passed.

 

Adjourned at 6:25 p.m.