Faculty Senate Minutes - 3/10/2005
Missouri Western State College
Faculty Senate Minutes
March 10, 2005
SU 220
Current Senators Present: President Andrews, Vice President Hegeman, Secretary Ottinger, Past President Greiert, Senators Caldwell, Haney, Heider, Holian, Hunt, Nandan, Noynaert, Tapia, Tushaus, Voelkel, Williams
Current Senators Absent: Senator Gregory
Newly Elected Senators Present: Kathleen Andrews, Phil Mullins, Alicia de Gregorio, Shiva Nandan
Newly Elected Senators Absent: Cary Chevalier, Karen Fulton
Ex-Officio Members Present: President Scanlon, Vice President Arnold
Ex-Officio Members Absent: None
Guests Present: Members of Senate Ad Hoc Peer Review Committee, Greg Kriewitz (Chair of General Studies Committee)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call to Order: President Larry Andrews called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
Nomination of Senate Officers for 2005-2006 Academic Year
President:
Phil Mullins
Motion to Close Nominations (Noynaert/Heider)
Vice President:
Michael Ottinger
Cindy Heider
Motion to Close Nominations (Hunt/Williams)
Secretary:
Evan Noynaert
Motion to Close Nominations (Williams/Heider)
Approval of February 17th Minutes: (Haney/Holian)
Minutes were approved by unanimous voice vote.
Approval of Agenda: (Haney/Tapia)
Agenda was approved by unanimous voice vote.
Report from College President:
• Governor’s Bill signing of the school name changes may involve a fly around to the various campuses. If there is an event at Western, Dr. Scanlon will advise the campus with as much lead time as possible. If there is an event it would probably occur next week.
• The Governor’s proposed flat budget for higher education does not look like it will hold. We are to expect budget cuts this year. The exact amounts will probably not be known until May.
• Question was raised on new e-mail addresses, since mwsu.edu is not available. Dr. Scanlon said that they are looking into possibilities.
Report from Vice President for Academic & Student Affairs: None
Report from Senate President: .
• Town Hall meeting was held on March 3rd for faculty to discuss the report of the Ad Hoc Peer Review Committee’s report. About 70 faculty members attended the meeting.
• Next CGAC meeting is near the end of March. Several senate bills will be discussed at that meeting.
• Dr. Scanlon has invited current and newly elected senators to his home in May. Details will be forthcoming.
Report from Academic Regulations & Standards Committee: See Minutes Appendix A for written report. Committee Chair Ann Thorne could not attend the meeting, due to a teaching assignment. Liaison Evan Noynaert presented the report.
Motion to accept the report (Haney/Hunt).
Report from General Studies Committee: See Minutes Appendix B for written report. Committee Chair Greg Kriewitz presented the report.
This is a preliminary report because two issues need to be expedited so that they can go into the 2005-2006 Catalog. The first issue is housekeeping in that it clarifies the number of credit hours for general studies math (i.e., 3, 4, or 5 credit hours are possible). Consequently, the range of possible credit hours to be earned in general studies should reflect this variation in credit hours. The second issue is to change PHY110 from 5 to 4 credit hours and move Electricity from PHY110 to PHY111. This change has been approved by the Curriculum Committee, which is also changing PHY111 from 3 to 4 hours. Since PHY111 is not a general studies course its change will take place this year and since PHY110 and PHY111 are part of a two semester sequence it was desirable to make both changes during the same year.
(Heider/Noynaert) Moved to approve the two proposals.
(Caldwell/Heider) Motion to suspend rules to vote on this motion. Motion to suspend approved by voice vote.
Discussion: The two actions should be split into two votes. Is PHY110 really an emergency case, or is the department just making it an emergency case? This could set an undesirable precedence.
Vote on first action: Approved by voice vote.
Vote on second action: Roll Call vote: Caldwell=yes, Haney=no, Hegeman=yes, Heider=no, Holian=no, Hunt=no, Nandan=yes, Noynaert=yes, Ottinger=yes, Tapia=no, Tushaus=yes, Voelkel=yes, Williams=yes. Approved (Yes=8, No=5)
Old Business: None.
New Business:
SR-13-05 (Heider/Haney) Approve Recommendations 1 through 5 of the Senate Ad Hoc Peer Review Committee, as outlined in the 17Feb2005 report.
SR-14-05 (Hegeman/Haney) Charge the Peer Review Committee to draft Policy Guide changes necessary to implement the up-or-out tenure system outlined in points 1-5 of the Peer Review Committee Report of 17Feb2005. These proposed changes shall be returned for Senate consideration when they are completed.
Motion to suspend rules (Haney/Hegeman) approved by roll call vote: Caldwell=yes, Haney=yes, Hegeman=yes, Heider=yes, Holian=yes, Hunt=yes, Nandan=yes, Noynaert=yes, Ottinger=yes, Tapia=no, Tushaus=no, Voelkel=yes, Williams=yes. (Yes=11, No=2)
Discussion: This should not be rushed. This is only empowering the committee to prepare changes which will be brought back to the senate for action.
Motion approved by voice vote.
SR-15-05 (Tapia/Caldwell) Any Policy Guide changes pertaining to “up or out tenure” and “peer evaluation” would not be implemented until the 2006-2007 academic year.
Motion to suspend rules (Heider/Nandan) carried by voice vote.
Discussion: There is only a short time for implementation if this important change were to be placed in the 2005-2006 policy guide. The peer review committee has been working for 14 months and has held open meetings.
Motion failed by Roll Call Vote: Caldwell=yes, Haney=no, Hegeman=no, Heider=no, Holian=yes, Hunt=yes, Nandan=yes, Noynaert=no, Ottinger=no, Tapia=yes, Voelkel=yes, Williams=no. (Yes=6, No=6).
SR-16-05 (Hegeman/Nandan) Charge the Peer Review Committee to collaborate with the Faculty Senate Promotion & Tenure Committee to propose any necessary Faculty Senate Bylaw changes regarding the Promotion & Tenure Committee and its work (i.e., changes such as those identified in point 7 of the Peer Review Committee Report of 17Feb2005. These proposed changes shall be returned for Senate consideration when they are completed.
Motion to suspend rules (Haney/Noynaert) carried by voice vote.
Discussion: P&T committee might not want the additional work this year. Charge to P&T does not necessarily apply to this year.
Motion passed by voice vote.
SR-17-05 (Heider/Haney) Charge the Peer Review Committee to continue study of matters related to annual evaluation as identified in point 6 of the Peer Review Committee Report of 17Feb2005. Any proposed changes and the Policy Guide wording to implement them should be reported to the Senate for consideration when they are completed.
Motion to suspend rules (Haney/Voelkel) carried by voice vote.
Discussion: Should a different committee be appointed to study this. This committee has already looked at peer review issues and may be best suited for this charge. They have asked for this charge.
Motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
SR-18-05 (Noynaert/Tapia)
The Missouri Western State College Faculty Senate extends its thanks to Dr. James Scanlon for his leadership in obtaining the legislation necessary to change the name of the institution.
The Faculty Senate also extends its thanks to Dr. Scanlon for his skillful management of difficult budget issues.
Adjournment: (Haney/Caldwell)
Senate adjourned at 5:06 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Michael B. Ottinger, PhD
Senate Secretary.
MINUTES APPENDIX A
Academic Regulations and Standards
Faculty Senate Report – March 10, 2005
Meetings:
The Committee held three formal meetings to hear appeals.
• May 26, 2004
This was a regular meeting to hear appeals of academic probation and suspension. Fifteen appeals were heard. Two appeals were approved. All members of the committee attended except for the Faculty Senate liaison who was out of town.
• November 19, 2004
This was a special meeting to hear an appeal regarding a course in which the student failed because he received a zero on an assignment due to plagiarism. All members of the committee attended. The student’s appeal was denied.
• January 12, 2005
This was a regular meeting of the committee to hear appeals of academic probation and suspension. Thirteen appeals were heard; two were approved. All members of the committee members attended. The “IP” grade appeal proposal was also reviewed at this meeting and the findings were forwarded to the Faculty Senate at that time.
The committee also held several informal meetings during the fall semester and spring semesters to discuss issues of academic integrity and establishing a new policy of academic honesty.
Special Charge and Recommendations:
The Faculty Senate gave the committee a charge to review the existing policy regarding plagiarism and academic honesty. The committee has examined the current policy and has found it in need of revision.
The committee has developed a working draft of proposed changes. A copy of this draft is attached. However, the committee suggests that extensive faculty, student, and administrative input should be considered before any final decision is made. Therefore, the Academic Regulations and Standards Committee recommends that an ad-hoc committee be formed to obtain input from faculty, students, and administration and then finalize the policy. The committee also recommends that the new policy establish an Academic Honesty Committee to hear complaints of violations of academic honesty.
The committee also recommends that a trial one-year subscription be obtained with a plagiarism-detection software company. The cost would be approximately $5000.
DRAFT PROPOSAL
Academic Honesty and Due Process
Academic honesty is required in all classrooms and laboratories. Violations of academic honesty include any instance of plagiarism, cheating, seeking credit for another’s work, falsifying documents or academic records, or any other fraudulent classroom activity.
Violations of academic honesty may result in a failing grade on the assignment plagiarized, failure in the course, or expulsion from school.
All violations of academic honesty will be reported to the Vice-President for Academic and Student Affairs or his designated representative.
Violations of Academic Honesty
Violations of academic honesty include, but are not limited to, the following activities:
1. Copying another student’s work and claiming it as your own;
2. Using the work of a group of students when the assignment requires individual work;
3. Looking at or attempting to look at an examination before it is administered;
4. Using materials during an examination that are not permitted;
5. Allowing another student to take your exam for you;
6. Intentionally impeding the academic work of others;
7. Using any electronic device to transmit portions of questions or answers on an examination to other students;
8. Using any electronic device to improperly store information for an exam;
9. Assisting other students in any of the acts listed above.
Definition of Plagiarism
Plagiarism is a specific kind of academic dishonesty in which you take another’s ideas or words and claim them as your own. When you draw on someone else’s work, you must indicate the source of that material, whether you are repeating another’s words, argument or thought. Even if you paraphrase another’s work and are not using the exact wording, you are still required to indicate the source of the material. This material must be clearly identified with appropriate citations. If you do not do that, you have plagiarized those materials. Any time you copy and paste any writing that is not your own for an assignment, you must use quotation marks and give the source of that material. If you cut and paste without noting what you have done, you will be guilty of plagiarism. Even if the writing is your own, if it has been used for a previous assignment that should be indicated.
Student Due Process Procedure
A student accused of academic dishonesty will first meet with the faculty member who made the determination of academic dishonesty. If the faculty member decides academic dishonesty occurred, he or she may give the student a zero on the assignment, ask the student to rewrite the assignment, or fail the student in the course. If the student disagrees with the faculty member’s decision, the student may appeal that decision within five college working days to the department chairperson, or in the event there is no assigned chairperson, to the divisional dean. The chairperson’s decision shall be provided in writing to the student and faculty member within five working days. Should the student or faculty member disagree with the chairperson’s decision, a written request may be made within five working days to the dean of the appropriate division to present the case to the Academic Honesty Committee. This Committee’s decision is final. If it is determined that no violation of academic honesty has occurred, the student’s alleged violation will be removed from his or her record.
Any student who has been found guilty of violating the academic honesty policy a second time will be reported to the College Hearing Panel for disciplinary action by the Vice-President of Academic and Student Affairs.
MINUTES APPENDIX B
ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE GENERAL STUDIES COMMITTEE
Please accept the following amendments passed by the General Studies Committee. We ask for these actions to go into affect Fall 2005 pending approval of Faculty Senate and C.G.A.C.
ACTION #1
Please show the exact wording for the 2005-2006 catalog.
CATEGORY ONE: BASIC SKILLS (12-14 credits)
1. MAT 110, 112, 116 (or 130, 137, 147, 167) (3-5 hours)
or any higher level mathematic course of 3 or more credits
(excluding MAT 127 and 132).
2. Show range of total General Studies hours to be 42-46
** Please note the hours will now read 12-14 hours for Category One: Basic Skills. Subcategory 1. will now read 3-5 hours. In addition, the total hour range for General Studies will be 42-46 to accurately reflect these changes.
ACTION #2
Change in existing course: Move the topic of Electricity from PHY 110 to PHY 111 and decrease PHY 110 from 5 credit hours to 4.
EXACT CATALOG WORDING: PHY 110 College Physics I (4) F, Sp. Classical treatment of mechanics, energy waves and heat. Three hours lecture, three hours lab. Prerequisite: MAT 116. (Not open to students with credit in PHY 210).
Respectfully submitted,
Greg Kriewitz, Chair
|
