Minutes - 2/3/2000

Call to order:

President Mikkelsen called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m.

Senators present:

Aschermann, Bargar, Brandt, Brooks, Greiert, Hamzaee, Leonard, McLear, Mikkelsen,
Nelson, Reidy, Roberts, Wallner

Senators absent:

Cronk, Fowler, Wagner

Ex-officio:

Janet Murphy, president of Missouri Western State College
James Roever, vice-president for academic affairs, Missouri Western State College

Guests present:

Kathyrne Mueller, Todd Eckdahl

Meeting agenda:

The proposed agenda for today’s meeting was approved as submitted (Leonard/Wallner).

Minutes of the previous meeting:

The minutes of the January 20 meeting were approved as submitted (Roberts/Bargar).

Report from the college president:

MWSC President Murphy distributed copies of her memorandum to members of the
Senate Appropriations Committee of February 1, 2000, regarding recommendations for
2001, in which she presented a general report of MWSC’s programs, emphases, and
statistics, as well as an expression of thanks to that Committee for all they have done in
the past to enhance Missouri Western State college’s ability to improve learning
opportunities for our students (see Attachment A).





Report from the vice-president for academic affairs:

James Roever, vice-president for academic affairs, emphasized the need for preparation
for the upcoming North Central review visit. In the coming week, he will e-mail all
faculty and staff imploring them to be familiar with the MWSC mission statement, to
know the contents of the related self-study summary report (on file at the college library),
and informing them of the names of and pertinent information about each of the seven
visiting team members. In addition, he will post the plans for the team’s meeting with all
faculty and staff on Monday, February 14 at 2:00 p.m. in MC 214-216, and the meeting
with students on Tuesday, February 15 at 2:00 p.m. in MC 214-216. Other meetings will
be held with the cabinet and the deans, as well as entrance and exit interviews. He
announced that MC 209 is reserved for various documentary evidence available to the
visiting team as provided by MWSC.

Report from the faculty senate executive committee:

President Mikkelsen reported that he and vice-president Tony Wallner will attend the
Committee on Transfer and Articulation (COTA) meeting on February 9 and 10.
Mikkelsen will also be attending the Missouri Association of Faculty Senates (MAFS)
meeting on February 14. Wallner reported that he will provide senate election procedures
for review at the February 24 senate meeting. He further reported that Ken Lee has
agreed to serve on the promotion and tenure committee, replacing Susan Hinrichs.The
senate approved the replacement by consensus.

Old business:

MOTION: The chair of the faculty senate’s standing curriculum committee shall receive
three (3) credit hours of release time during the fall semester of the academic year in
which they serve as chair of the curriculum committee (Wagner/Brandt).

After some discussion, the question was called (Greiert/Leonard) and unanimously
approved. By a voice vote, the motion failed by a clear majority.

New business:

Todd Eckdahl, chair of the faculty senate salary committee, distributed a memo addressed
to the senate which recommends a change to the policy guide which would allow the
college to compete better for hiring positions in areas such as Engineering Technology,
Finance, Computer Science, Accounting, Physical Therapy Assistant, and Management
Information Systems. After a brief discussion, the following motion resulted:

MOTION: To amend the policy guide, page 119, paragraph 3: “In academic areas where
there is low availability of qualified persons for faculty positions, the Vice President for
Academic Affairs with the written agreement of the appropriate department Chairperson
and Dean may have the option of increasing the initial contract salary up to TWENTY
percent beyond the initial salary placement,” so that it reads, “In academic areas where
there is low availability of qualified persons for faculty positions, the Vice President for
Academic Affairs with the written agreement of the appropriate department Chairperson
and Dean may have the option of increasing the initial contract salary up to THIRTY
percent beyond the initial salary placement.” (The word to be changed is capitalized.)
(Greiert/McLear)

Discussion of GESC proposal:

President Mikkelsen distributed the following four documents concerning the ongoing
process of impending general education provisions changes: “GENERAL EDUCATION
STEERING COMMITTEE: DRAFT: Summary of Constituent Concerns and Committee
Responses Regarding State General Education Policy, January 14, 2000” (see Attachment
B); a document showing the original wording and the revised wording of general
education guidelines (see Attachment C, or view online at
http://cstl.semo.edu/gesc/draft2copiesindex.htm); “Comparison Chart State-Level Policy
Draft II: General Education Steering Committee: Policy Comparison Chart II:
Comparison of Current A.1 General Education Transfer Policy with Proposed General
Education Policy Revisions (September 1999 and January 2000)” (see Attachment D, or
view online at http://cstl.semo.edu/gesc/draft2copiesindex.htm); and a schedule of
meetings and activities for the upcoming COTA meeting of February 9 and 10 (see
Attachment E, or view at http://cstl.semo.edu/gesc/t&a2Kconf.htm). Discussion
followed.

Discussion of presidential search issues:

President Mikkelsen shared excerpts from a document distributed at the presidential
search committee meeting outlining protocol of confidentiality and communication.
Mikkelsen said that committee members are prohibited from discussing the work and
activities of the committee, but members may solicit recommendations or statements
from constituents concerning the search. (see Attachment F).

Adjournment:

The meeting was adjourned at 5:12 p.m. (Roberts/Wallner).

Respectfully submitted:



G. Barry Nelson, secretary






Faculty Senate Minutes
February 3, 2000
Attachment A

MEMORANDUM

TO: Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee
FROM: Janet G. Murphy
DATE: February 1, 000
RE: 2001 Recommendations

I want to acknowledge the support of the Coordinating Board for Higher Education staff
in processing their year 2001 recommendations. The Coordinating Board staff
recommended an increase of 8.9 percent over 1999-2000 appropriations. If approved, this
would increase the budget from $21,455,587 to $22,926,506.

Missouri Western State College offers one-year certificate and two- and four-year
programs and has grown from 3,930 students in the fall of 1986 to 5,200 students this
past fall. This is an increase of 32 percent over the last 13 years. Missouri Western's
primary mission is a baccalaureate institution in which highly qualified and certified
faculty's main duties are teaching and advising students. Each classroom at Missouri
Western has a qualified teacher; we do not use graduate students.

In an effort to better balance access and quality, we have tightened the requirements for a
student to continue his or her higher educational career at Missouri Western State
College. For instance, students with ACT composites of 17 or below are restricted to the
number of credits they may take their first semester. Some departments, such as
education, now require ACT scores of at least 22 before a student may declare a major,
while others require grade points averages of 2.5 and our nursing program a 3.0 prior to
being accepted into the major. In addition, we have limited the number of times a student
may repeat a class; only two enrollments are allowed. In addition, students who take
developmental courses in English and mathematics must pay an additional $10 per credit
hour. We are also pleased that the Honors Program at Missouri Western continues to
grow. Over the past three years, the number of students applying for admission to MWSC
with a 30 or higher on the ACT has doubled. And, the number of Bright Flight
scholarships awarded continues to grow.

In FY2000 faculty and staff members were provided with a three percent cost of living
and some limited salary increases based upon merit. A computer replacement fund was
established and two support positions were added to our Instructional Media Center and
Computer Center staffs. We also provided a 2 percent operating cost increase, funded an
employee heath insurance increase and added more than $100,000 to our institutional
scholarship awards.

Our budget for FY2001 is in the preliminary stages. It is our intent to provide salary
increases for faculty and staff and to increase funds available for scholarships. We must
also provide funding to meet an increase in employee health insurance premiums. Two
custodial positions will be required because of the addition of 70,000 square feet to the
Eder Building. The Governor's recommendation of 2.1 percent increase in the operating
fund will not cover these expenditures.

Missouri Western is in its last year of mission enhancement funding. Our mission
enhancement is referred to as Access Plus. Access Plus is an innovative program
designed to enhance the Missouri Western State College mission of open access. The
program has a variety of components, all designed to enhance student learning, increase
student retention and ultimately increase graduation rates. The program continues to be
highly successful and has received several national awards.

Access Plus was awarded the National Retention Excellence Award by the USA Group
Noel-Levitz at the 1999 National Conference on Student Retention in San Francisco.
Access Plus was named one of 100 outstanding programs by the American Association of
Colleges and Universities. I was pleased to be presented with the Pacesetter Award by the
National Academic Advising Association, an annual award presented to one higher
education administrator who demonstrates a commitment to academic advising. This was
presented at their annual conference in Denver. I was also invited to lead a roundtable
discussion on successful retention programs for the Association of Governing Boards of
Universities and Colleges in Seattle, Washington. In addition, I have been asked to make
a presentation at the annual conference of the American Association of Higher Education
in Anaheim, California, this Spring.

This ongoing interest in Access Plus stems from the well-documented success that we are
experiencing. The packets you have been given contain our latest research on Access
Plus. They also contain the First Year Experience Newsletter, a national publication,
published by the University of South Carolina, which has a feature article on Missouri
Western's Access Plus program. The folders have been created for students to use in
keeping track of their important documents--hence the title: Student Success Portfolio.
Each incoming student receives one of these portfolios during orientation. You will also
find some recent press releases focusing on Access Plus. We continue to receive
numerous requests for information on this program. Just this past week, for example, we
were contacted by the City University of New York and the University of Guelph in
Ontario.

Results from the first 3 1/2 years of Access Plus funding are impressive. Thus far we
have documented:

A 10 percent increase in freshman to sophomore retention which translates into 100
additional students at Missouri Western.

A 21 percent increase in the retention of students initially considered at-risk.

A 12 percent increase in our student success rate (students achieving 24 credit hours with
a GPA of 2.0 or better in two semesters) which brings us nearly to the Coordinating
Board goal of 55 percent.

A 13 percent decrease in the number of freshman on probation after one semester.

A 6 percent decrease in the number of freshmen suspended after two semesters.

A 30 percent decrease in the percentage of at-risk students placed on probation.

Our research indicates that 72 percent of the fall 1998 entering freshmen are enrolled at
either Missouri Western or another institution in the fall of 1999 (this was determined
through extensive phone calls and mailings to non-returning students)

Programs initiated during the first three years of Access Plus were: A Freshman Year
Experience office--which has now become the Student Success Programs Office; an
intrusive freshman advising program; redesigned Introduction to Professional Studies
courses; enhanced orientation programs; creation of Freshman Interest Groups (FIGs)
with additional faculty necessary to staff them; added faculty for Developmental English
and Mathematics; expansion of the Center for Academic Support; the creation of a Unity
Services Office; a Center for Excellence in Teaching; and a coordinator for Special
Needs Students.

During this last year of Access Plus expenditures included funding for: the dissemination
of information on Access Plus; an additional advisor (particularly to work with students
in transition); a mentoring program; enhanced summer orientation including the
implementation of writing portfolios for student placement in English composition
classes; added faculty in Chemistry and Legal Studies to support the Freshman Interest
Groups; support for a web specialist; and a high school outreach program. Funds
provided for the high school outreach program have already brought representatives from
over 25 school districts onto our campus to meet with faculty from their respective
departments, all in an effort to ensure greater articulation of our programs.

In addition to the previously reported four cooperative agreements with Missouri Western
State College and vocational schools, Missouri Western has signed a cooperative
agreement with the Metropolitan Community Colleges allowing union apprenticeship
students to take courses at Missouri Western which will lead to an AAS degree in
Industrial Technologies from MCC. The agreement calls for the students to be dually
enrolled for a portion of the coursework at Missouri Western.

The new Manufacturing Engineering Technology (MET) AAS program has surpassed
expectations for new students, and now has approximately 25 students in the program.
Faculty from Hillyard and Missouri Western are team teaching the MET laboratory
courses at Hillyard. During the spring semester of 2000, two MET classes will be offered
in the KCI area. One will be at the Northland Career Center's welding facility. The other,
a Computer Numerical Control (CNC) class, will be at Tiffany Springs in a classroom
provided by Central Michigan University. Faculty development funds now support two
Hillyard faculty members as they work towards a degree at Missouri Western.

These are just some of the examples of Missouri Western's enhanced efforts to make sure
that we graduate students who are capable of performing very well in the work force after
they complete their associate or baccalaureate degrees, even though Missouri Western
continues to be an open-admission institution. In order to assist area high schools in
preparing students for higher education, we offer 45 dual credit courses in English, math,
and history being taught for college credit.

Missouri Western brokers with other institutions to offer graduate courses and programs
through a combination of on-site delivery and distance education. These programs
include a master's in health administration and master's in human resources, which are
offered through Central Michigan University. The Coordinating Board for Higher
Education has recently approved a master's in social work degree through the University
of Missouri to be offered at Missouri Western. The degree would come from UMC. We
continue to offer graduate programs, including a master's in engineering from Kansas
State University and courses leading to a master's in nursing from the University of
Missouri-Kansas City. The MBA, master's in counseling, psychology, and master's in
school guidance and counseling are offered from Northwest Missouri State University. It
is also possible to receive a master's in criminal justice from Central Missouri State
University on the Missouri Western campus.

The college spends approximately $3.4 million on academic scholarships, which come
from the college, the Foundation and the Alumni Association. Missouri Western State
College does not just rely upon state funding plus tuition and fees. In the last 12 years,
the MWSC Foundation has raised $23 million to increase scholarship dollars, provide
academic equipment, including computers and telecommunication equipment and for
faculty/student research projects.

Thank you for all you have done in the past to enhance Missouri Western State College's
ability to improve learning opportunities for our students.














Faculty Senate Minutes
February 3, 2000
Attachment B

DRAFT

Summary of Constituent Concerns and Committee Responses
Regarding State General Education Policy

January 14, 2000

Throughout the 1999-2000 academic year, the General Education Steering Committee
(GESC) has solicited feedback from many Missouri higher education constituencies
regarding changes in state general education policy proposed by the GESC. Following is
a summary of the major areas of concerns expressed by constituent groups and the
corresponding ways the GESC has attempted to respond to these concerns and
incorporate them in revisions made to its draft proposed policy.

Concern #1

Some have argued that enumerating specific student outcomes at the competency, level
will have the effect of mandating a statewide, competency-based curriculum that
diminishes institutional autonomy in curriculum design and delivery and may reduce
opportunities to set high academic standards. It appears from constituent comments that
the eight general curricular goals described in the policy are acceptable to most
constituencies, but that the more specific competencies have not achieved general
acceptance.

Response: The committee has revised and clarified the draft policy to make clear that
institutions have the responsibility to document how their general education programs are
designed to accomplish the eight prescriptive curricular goals, but that the competencies
associated with each goal are illustrative of the student outcomes, not prescriptive.
Institutions may substitute student competencies that more specifically reflect
institutional intentions and curricula in response to statewide goals.

Concern #2

Some have argued that a number of the competency statements contained in the draft
policy miss the mark and need to be redrafted based upon input from specific disciplines
and other constituencies.

Response: The committee has solicited input from a variety of discipline-based and other
constituencies to try to improve acceptance of the competency statements. The committee
has also reviewed the competencies to ensure that they reflect the state's Show Me
Standards. Based upon these multiple-sources of sometimes mutually exclusive input, the
committee has substantially revised a number of the competency statements contained in
the proposed policy.

Concern #3

Some have argued that the peer review process threatens institutional autonomy in
determining college and university general education programs, creates an unnecessary
and burdensome workload for faculty and academic administrators in the review and
approval of these programs, and represents a damaging intrusion of state bureaucracy into
institutional curricular processes.

Response: The committee has clarified that institutional faculty, administration, and
governing boards have the ultimate responsibility for the approval of their general
education programs. Rather than seek approval of a state board, institutions are asked to
document that their general education programs meet state policy guidelines. Rather than
create a wholly new, peer review process, the committee has suggested that the existing
appeals process contained in the Credit Transfer Policy is sufficient to ensure institutional
compliance with the proposed general education policy.

Concern #4

Some have argued that 45 semester credit hours of lower-division general education may
not be representative of practice in most general education programs in public and
signatory colleges and universities in the state, and, therefore, may require many
institutions to revise their current general education programs and practices substantially.

Response: The committee resurveyed institutions throughout the state regarding the
number of required general education semester hours and their distribution at the
lower-and upper-division and confirmed that the median number of semester credit hours
required at the lower division is approximately 45(?) semester credit hours. However,
examination also revealed that there is considerable variation among institutions. To
accommodate this variation, the committee has revised the policy to reduce the minimum
number of required general education semester credit hours from 45 to 42, and
institutions may, at their discretion, include upper-division credit hours to meet this
minimum requirement. Also, to accommodate institutional variation, the committee has
revised the policy and dropped its focus on a block of credit hours that meets all
lower-division general education requirements at any institution. In its place, the
committee has substituted the concept of institutions' defining equivalent blocks of 42
semester hours of general education credit that transfer interchangeably among
institutions. This concept allows institutions to require transfer students to complete more
than the minimum 42 semester credit hours if these are also required of all native
students. The committee believes that taken together these adjustments will accommodate
both those institutions that exceed the median number of required general education
credits and those who require fewer general education credits.

Concern #5

Some have argued that the model makes the transfer of general education courses for
students who have completed neither an associate's of arts degree nor a 45 semester credit
hour, lower-division general education program much more complex than under the
current policy by inviting the attempt to articulate competencies and goals rather than
courses. They argue that this will dramatically increase advisor, registrar and student
services workload.

Response: The committee believes that the proposed policy will increase the number of
students completing coherent general education programs at a single institution by
providing substantial incentives for students to do so, that is, guaranteed acceptance of a
significant block of general education credit. Students who do not complete a general
education block will have their transcripts evaluated by receiving institutions, usually on
the basis of course equivalencies and articulation agreements--in the same way that they
are evaluated under existing policy. The committee has furthered clarified that the
proposed policy does not obligate institutions to review student transcripts on the basis of
goal or competency completion and may elect to make no change in existing practice.

Concern #6

Some have argued that important general education curricular goals have been left out of
the model, specifically that health and wellness needs to be included as a statewide
general education goal.

Response: Although the committee acknowledges the persuasive case that has been made
for the inclusion of a health and wellness general education goal it is also confronted with
the reality that as many institutions across the state do not include health and wellness in
their general education goals as do. Rather than require an additional general education
goal of several institutions, the committee suggests that institutions may include health
and wellness-related competencies within the eight prescribed statewide goals. Also, by
reducing the number required general -education credit hours from 45 to 42 and allowing
institutions to impose additional general education requirements on students if they do so
for all students, the committee believes that it has provided opportunities to accommodate
those institutions who wish to include health and wellness among its institutional general
education requirements.

Concern #7

Some have argued that the current policy works well enough and that the proposed
changes in the policy are unnecessary and likely to create more problems than they solve.

Response. The committee has reviewed the basis of its decision, made over a year ago,
that section A. 1, "Prescribed General Education Curriculum," contained in the current
Credit Transfer Policy is outdated, inadequate to accommodate current student mobility,
and needs to be revised. Substantial evidence has documented that there are significant
problems with the current policy and that section A. 1, as currently written, does not
adequately ensure the transfer of general education credit among institutions in the state.
The committee reasserts that the proposed policy is specifically designed to improve and
assist the transfer of general education credit, while at the same time improving general
education practice.







Faculty Senate Minutes
February 3, 2000
Attachment F

Selections from: Theodore J. Marchese, The Search Committee Handbook: A Guide to
Recruiting Administrators, 2nd printing (American Association for Higher Education,
1989), pp. 12-15.

Confidentiality

“Matters of confidentiality prove troublesome to virtually every search committee. The
ethic of academe urges free and open communication, the sharing and testing with others
of ideas and information. With most other campus committees, member report back to
colleagues are an expectation; committee doings, indeed, become a staple for campus
gossip.

“It is against strong winds, then, that search committees must insist upon totally different
norms: no open sharing, no private reporting, no snippet, even, of gossip. The overriding
needs are to protect the integrity and candor of member-to-member discussion, and to
protect the identity of people who have allowed you to consider their names in candidacy.
. . .

“[S]tories . . . from search-committee lore underscore two points:

“First, an essence of good recruitment and personnel practice is that candidates know the
extent to which the privacy of their application will be protected. . . .

“Second, members owe a duty to one another to protect absolutely the freest expression
of opinion in committee deliberations. Especially in discussing individual candidates,
every remark must be taken as privileged.

“In sum: in accepting committee membership, each member assumes a responsibility not
to mention any candidate’s name or status, or the content of any committee conversation,
to any non-committee person within or outside the institution. Members serve on behalf
of the institution, not as constituent representatives, and therefore do not engage in
private reporting back to their home office or department. All public representations
about the search are made by the chair; these will concern process, never people by name.
. .

Communication

“To forestall political problems, encourage positive regard for its process, and to build a
climate off acceptance for the eventual appointment, the committee needs to think . . .
about what, how, and to whom it will communicate during the search. . . .

“The highest level of regular reporting is to the appointing officer, the final constituent
for the committee’s work. With his or her concurrence, certain other senior officers may
receive periodic briefings.

“For faculty, students, or staff at large, the committee may want to share explanations and
updates in campus-wide periodicals, schedule an open meeting or forum, or have the
chair appear at a Senate or other meetings. Who is most concerned about the
appointment? Keep those people informed about how things are going. Make sure they
understand early, for example, about your needs for confidentiality, in the process. . . .”