Draft to be approved 5/08/13
Metropolitan State University of Denver
Wednesday, April 24th, 2013
3:20pm – 4:50pm
Tivoli 320 A, B & C
Attendees: Bagwell, Bahl, Balogh, Bernhardt, Beery, Butler, Butnor, Carnes, Collette, Cook, Corash, Davinroy, Davis, Denn. Doe, Dormer, Duburguet, Dyhr, Evans, Flemon, Forgash, Ghosh, Gibson, Giordano, Glatz, Grady-Willis, Gurka, Gurley, Haga, Hagen, Hasley, Hathorn, Hernandez-Julian, Hill, Holloway, Huang, Hutto, Izurieta, Jackson, Jacobs, Jiang, Johnson, KingG, Kleinfeld, Klimek, Komodore, Krasner, Krugman, Lamb, Londen, Lubinski, Lyons, Matthews, Medina, Monico, Mowder, Murphy, Odell, Ortiz, Pantos, Preuhs, Pytlinski, Reid, Rogers, Ropp, Rother, Rucki, Sahami, Sauer, Saxe, Schatz, Sgoutas, Shopp, Sidelko, Simpson, Tollefson, Toubia, Wagner, Wanberg, Weber, Worster, Yeh, Zajdowicz, Zhu Guests: Ayesse
I. The Senate was Called to Order at 3:34:10 pm
II. Approval of Previous Meetings Minutes (at Senate Website), VOTE.
A Vote was called to approve the minutes of 5/10/13.
The Minutes were approved with a vote of 52 to1.
- The Senate Reps to the On-line Task Force will be Senator T. Rodgers and the VA Task Force will be Senator Komodore.
- The Space Planning Allocation and Resources Committee needs one Faculty Senate Representative. Senator Lamb has served on the committee for the past three years. President Sahami thanked him for his service.
- The Spring Commencement needs Faculty Marshals announcement received a correction from an unnamed senator from the floor and needs had been met.
- The Distinguished Service Awards Committee were still taking nominations.
- Dates have been announced for the VP-FinADMIN finalist. The Senate rep is Senator Lamb.
Senator Jackson, HTE, Budget Committee Chair, announced the search was completed for a replacement of Natalie Lutes, VPFinance. Three viable candidates have been identified.
There are three separate dates the candidates will be visiting the campus. An open Town Hall meeting will be held on Thursday, May 2nd from 11:00-12:00 noon. Additionally, Dr. Jordan has arranged for the Faculty Senate members to meet with candidates on Thursday, May 2nd from 3:30-4:30 for Candidate #1; Monday, May 6th from 9:45-10:45 a.m. for Candidate #2; and Wednesday, May 8th from 9:45-10:45 a.m. for Candidate #3. Senator Lamb will follow up with an email with the times and dates for the separate Town Hall meetings.
- ASSET Bill/Undocumented Student Tuition - Guest: Deputy Provost L. Torres
Dr. Luis Torres thanked the Senate for the opportunity to speak concerning the in-state tuition bill for undocumented students. He wanted to pay a debt of gratitude to the Senate for its long-term support. In recognition of Metro’s support over the past ten years, Governor Hickenlooper would sign the ASSET into law on Monday, April 29th at 1pm on the first floor of the Student Success Building. He recounted significant milestones in the history of this achievement and the impact of the Faculty Senate’s continued support of undocumented students when no one else would.
- RTP Committee Report
Senator Holloway, Management, RTP Committee Chair, began his report with listing the members of the committee:
YEAR AND NUMBER OF FACULTY EVALUATED
He reported that the committee reviewed 80 dossiers or approximately 15% of all Tenure-Track faculty members at Metro. The positions applied for, and the number of candidates applying for them, were as follows:
1….for Retention, the Committee evaluated 40 Third Year candidates. Two of which the committee did not feel should be retained.
2….for Tenure only, the Committee evaluated 1 candidate.
3….for Tenure and Promotion, the Committee evaluated 23 candidates, with an additional two pending. One candidate was not given tenure even though the committee thought that they were qualified to receive it.
4….for Early Tenure and Promotion, the Committee evaluated 8 candidates. All received Early Tenure.
5….and for Promotion to Full Professor, the committee evaluated 6 candidates. Two received the promotion while the Committee felt that three had earned that honor.
QUALITY OF THE CANDIDATES
Again citing from an earlier report, the Committee was very impressed with the quality of the overwhelming majority of the candidates in each area. Of the 80 candidates there were only three, or 3.75%, which the Committee had some concerns. Two of the candidates the Committee could not support for retention and the other chose to withdraw from candidacy for promotion to Full Professor. He stated that in so many areas Metro faculty members were not only the best within the state of Colorado but the best in the nation. The MSU Denver faculty that the Committee reviewed exhibited a strong sense of responsibility and pride in their profession that carries over into their teaching, scholarly activities and advising and service.
OBJECTIVE ROLE OF THE COMMITTEE
The Faculty Senate RTP Committee represents the fifth level of review for candidates following the review of the Departmental Committee, Departmental Chair, School and Dean. The earlier committees are closer to the candidates in that they often see and know more about the personality of the candidate. This more intimate knowledge of the candidates by these earlier reviewers has in the past sometimes led to biased evaluations of the candidates, sometimes in their favor and sometimes against them. It is the responsibility of the Faculty Senate RTP Committee to be an impartial reviewer giving an objective evaluation of all candidates. On several occasions during the past two academic years this role was invaluable to several candidates.
As the switch from the former dossier evaluation system to a portfolio evaluation system encouraged the majority of the candidates to organize their materials using the Digital Measures Program which allowed the candidates to present their portfolios in a systematic way and permitted the reviewers to easily access their information via computer instead of locking themselves in closed rooms pouring over cumbersome tomes.
Since the Faculty Senate RTP Committee now uses evaluative measures, the portfolio system, and for the majority of the faculty a new program to help organize their data, Digital Measures, the Committee had to develop some new rubrics for reviewing the candidates. They are as follows:
TEACHING INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING AREAS:
General Curriculum Development,
New Course Development,
Direct Student Learning
SCHOLARLY ACTIVITIES INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING AREAS:
Peer reviewed and refereed exhibits,
Recitals, Competitive awards
Local and external Grants
Other forms of recognition that is departmentally specific
SERVICE INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING AREAS:
Department, School, University, Profession, Community
The Committee would not expect a candidate to be exemplary in all five areas but strong in three of five and also exhibiting leadership qualities
NUMBER OF RECONCILIATIONS
There were four reconciliation meetings. Two involved candidates who were seeking promotion to full professor and one was for a candidate seeking tenure. All three were denied.
Thanks from President Sahami for the tremendous amount of work the RTP Committee had done for the year.
IV. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION and VOTE: Appendix A and Related Protocols. -FS Welfare Committee (Document Attached as: HiringRank_Change_Form.doc, MinRequirementsforAppointment.docx, ProtocolsforHiringFaculty.docx)
Senator Matthews, Music, Welfare Committee Chair, the goal of the committee was to create a fair and transparent procedure for anytime departments wished to change the minimum qualifications of new faculty when hired. When Appendix A was a part of the Handbook there was a level of transparency with oversight and now that it has been taken out of the Handbook, the Welfare Committee had tried to create something that still provided faculty the opportunity to know what was happening and to be able to have input as it progresses. This was created and modeled after the Curriculum process. Changes originate in the department and are voted on by all Category I faculty. With a majority approval, then the department chair will sign and pass on to the dean to review and then on to the Academic Policies Committee. This was where the similarities to the Curriculum process were most pronounced. If the Academic Policies Committee reviewed it and it was unanimously approved, it will be presented to the Faculty Senate, and if there was no debate, it would be passed and forwarded to the Provost. The Welfare Committee believed that this procedure provided the protection for the process. Protocols for Hiring Faculty was the newer document/policy developed as a result of this process.
Discussion was called. There was none.
A vote was called.
With a vote of 74 to 8 the motion passed.
President Sahami thanked and commended the committee for all their hard work in adding all the protections and transparency.
V. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION and VOTE: Handbook Language for SRIs. -FS Rules Committee (Document Attached as: HandbookChangeSRI.docx)
Senator Ropp took the podium.
A discussion was opened for the topic.
President Sahami commented on the document that was sent out with the agenda and that the reference to SRIs in this document specified numerical results of SRIs.
Senator Odell, Human Performance, supported this proposal and believed that in the future there needed to be a quantitative opportunity for students to formally assess basic teaching obligations, i.e., punctuality, returning assignments and exams timely.
Senator Hernandez, Economics, echoed Senator Odell’s point. He had met with students in his office that mentioned that they had teachers who did not come to class for five consecutive dates and did not feel comfortable in following his advice to report it to the chair.
Senator Balogh, Engineering Technology, was very supportive of this proposal and commented on the earlier two statements that SRI narratives should be used as a faculty assessment tool. She reported that this was not a reasonable approach to address a faculty who did not show up for five consecutive classes because the faculty member would have already been re-hired for the next semester. SRI feedback results are received the next semester and were too late to make any impact in that type of scenario. Through her work with the RTP it was determined that many faculty were hurt by the comments more than supported and faculty should be able to decide if they are shared or not.
Senator Worster, Music, had three points he wanted to make. He asked if the committee had fulfilled the request for a survey of the research in this area; he would like to know where it was codified in the proposal that the written comments would go to the chair and the dean; and he suggested that where the language allowed for the optional inclusion of student comments by faculty the word ‘all’ should be added. If the faculty chose any, they should include all of them.
Senator Weber, English, agreed with Senator Worster that ‘cherry picking’ should not be allowed.
Senator Ropp addressed Senator Worster’s comment about the research that was available. She reported that information was found to be conflicting about whether it should be used to evaluate professors. There was a lot of doubt as to the validity of them in terms of the measurement of teaching effectiveness. There was much debate with a lot of the evidence to suggest that they were not rating teaching effectiveness.
Senator Hathorn, Psychology, had a student that had just done an online study on this topic where it compared statistics in social psychology in men and women and in every single case men were rated higher than women where the only information they had was the name. Senator Ropp added that that was consistent with a lot of other research: white people tended to score higher and men tended to score higher. There were biases that already showed up in society were showing up in the SRIs.
Senator Ptylinski, Art, was looking for more information. She asked that if this proposal did not go through and the requirement to use all of the SRIs in portfolios remained, had a plan been resolved about how using comments in portfolios would be implemented. That would generate a tremendous amount of work to be shifted through.
Senator Holloway, Management, remembered one of the things that faculty were told repeatedly when the transfer was made to the portfolio system was that the system would allow faculty to put their best foot forward. If these irrelevant comments could not be edited out by faculty, students would use the opportunity to ‘zing’ faculty even if they, the students, contributed significantly to their difficulty because of a lack of preparedness.
Senator Dyhr, Math and Computer Science, thought the spirit of the additional materials in the new portfolios was to allow faculty to present themselves favorably and they were not supposed to be restrictions on how they could be used. He did not believe in ‘cherry picking’ but he did not believe that putting restrictions on what faculty included in their additional materials was the answer so he did not agree with the sentiments of the senators that spoke earlier on.
Senator Lubinski, Theatre, agreed with a lot of the dialog in terms of the inclusions but since he had brought the issue to his faculty as written, he felt that they should have a reasonable voice to make the decision whether the “all or nothing” inclusion was voted on. He understood the time limit issue but he believed it was crucial that department faculty feedback on this.
Senator Worster proposed an amendment that if a faculty member included students comments it would be from all. He supported this proposal that there be no mandatory inclusion at that level as long as the comments are sent to the dean and the chair. If a comment was included from one student, then all students from the particular section, the particular semester –whatever parameter faculty chose but it would be all from that parameter.
President Sahami asked Senator Worster to specify if he was making a ‘friendly or floor amendment’. The motion was seconded by Senator Hernandez. There was discussion of the exact language of the amendment and Senator Worster settled on “from the particular section”.
President Sahami outlined the process to vote on the amendment rules.
Discussion was opened on the amendment. There was none.
The vote was called to accept the modification to the SRI language.
With a vote of 39 to 38 the amendment language was approved.
An offer to continue discussion was made.
Senator Hernandez, Economics, asked if a chair or dean saw something terrible in the students comments were they able to site that issue in their letter or would that be in violation of the spirit of this rule.
Senator Dyhr, Math and Computer Science, found the recent amendment disappointing and confirmed that if there was a concise comment from a particular student he wished to include in his portfolio, he would have to use all comments from that section.
Senator Weber, English, responded that it was up to faculty how they presented their additional materials.
A call for the question was made.
The vote on the floor was to approve the document with the modified language to the Handbook Committee.
The Vote was called.
The Senate approved the new Handbook language by a vote of 60 to 20.
VI. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION and VOTE: Administrative Drop Policy. -FS Academic Policies Committee (Document Attached as: AdministrativeDropPolicyProposal.docx)
Senator Izurieta, Modern Languages, Academic Policies Committee Chair reviewed the materials and the proposed language. He emphasized that the adoption of this language was not mandatory and summarized the process.
A discussion was opened for the general assembly.
Senator Denn, Physics, supported the proposal and made three points about students that did not attend class, were in self-paced classes, and that this was a department option.
Senator Klimek, History, asked how this drop would appear on the transcript and how would this work when Item X on the agenda restricted class registration after the seventh calendar day.
Senator Schatz, Psychology, asked if this policy was new language and if there was not a rule that the Senate did not vote on language when first it is introduced.
Senator Izurieta continued the summary of the components of the policy.
Senator Schatz was asking about the financial aid language and if a faculty member can decide if they will adopt it or not. He believed it was a very confusing policy.
Senator Hathorn, Psychology, admitted that this was already done in her department. The student handbook outlines that attendance during the first week of class is required. She does administrative drops every semester.
Senator Gibson, Music, member of the Academic Policies Committee, reiterated that the financial aid repercussions stated were informational for the student and they were they the same for dropping any class and financial aid could be impacted.
Senator Schatz clarified that the vote was not to accept the financial aid policy. It already existed and the vote was whether to inform the students about it.
A Vote was called to approve the Administrative Drop Policy.
The language was approved with a vote of 71 to 8.
VII. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION and VOTE: Majoring and Minoring in Different Disciplines in the Same Department. -FS Academic Policies Committee (Document Attached as: Majoring&MinoringinDiffDisciplines.docx)
Senator Izurieta, Modern Languages, Academic Policies Committee Chair, explained that the committee was not introducing new language but suggesting deletion of confusing language.
A discussion was opened for the general assembly. There was none.
The Vote was called to approve the removal of the highlighted paragraph.
The Senate approved the language removal with a vote of 74 to1.
VIII. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION and VOTE: Purple Book Revisions. -FS Curriculum Committee (Document Attached as: SectionVDProposal.doc, CurriculumGuidelinesPoliciesProcedures.pdf and Proposed Section VD-G.pdf )
Senator Hernandez, Economics, Curriculum Committee Chair, introduced the same content that was presented at last Senate meeting. He received questions by email from faculty that he answered to their satisfaction.
A discussion was called.
To allow the change of language as presented.
A Vote for Motion #1 was called.
The Senate voted unanimously to accept the language change as presented.
To allow any academic unit to replace the words ‘cooperative education’ with the word ‘internship’ or comparable language in course catalogs or syllabi without a substantive curriculum change.
A Vote was called for Motion #2.
Motion #2 passed with a vote of 69 to1.
IX. PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION and VOTE (if ready): Handbook Language for Chapter XII: Restoration of Tenure Rights. - K. Sahami and Guest: R. Ruderman (Document Attached as: taskforcedraft2CCdocx) Vice President Ortiz will chair the session.
Rene Ruderman, English, Vice President of the Metro State Faculty Federation, spoke to the Senate in praise of the language to restore tenure that the Taskforce and Administration have worked for almost two years to define. She asked the Senate for their support of Chapter XII: Restoration of Tenure Rights.
President Sahami acknowledged and commended all the other members of the committee. He mentioned additional things that have been covered beyond restoring tenure such as Due Process and Cause, Insubordination, Moral Turpitude, and more. After three years of working on this document, it was good to see it being presented to the Senate for a vote.
Discussion was opened for the general assembly.
Senator Worster, Music, agreed with the comments that had been made. This was a monumental accomplishment. The Music Department bought up three points that could be clarified in the document. Joe Goldhammer responded to the Music Departments’ points that two of the items were non-controversial. Senator Worster requested that the non-controversial items be added. When asked by Vice-President Ortiz if he was making an amendment, he replied that they be ‘friendly’ amendments.
President Sahami asked Dr. Ruderman for the Response from the Attorney.
Dr. Rene Ruderman responded to Senator Worster’s points with Joe Goldhammer’s written response and read it into the record.
President Sahami asked Senator Worster if he was withdrawing the amendments because they were implied and implicit.
Senator Worster made two formal amendments that the comments be included in the document.
There was a 2nd to the motion from the floor.
A discussion was called for the amendment.
Senator Svonkin, English, did not think the changes were significant enough to stop what had taken two years of work to format. He agreed with Senator Worster’s suggestion but wanted to let the Handbook Committee make the decision. He encouraged faculty to join the union and vote.
Secretary Rucki, Political Sciences, pointed out that this was negotiated language and that an amendment could set back an agreement that had already been reached. The decision was not would it be nice to say this, it was do we want to jeopardize an agreement that had already been reached to say a nice thing.
Senator Worster withdrew his amendments and asked the senator that seconded it to withdraw their second.
Discussion was closed.
A vote was opened to approve Chapter XII: Restoration of Tenure Rights.
The Senate approved the language with a vote of 65 to1.
Senator Hagen, History, echoed Senator Svonkin’s comments and recounted the many services that the Union made available to faculty when tenure rights were taken away. She urged senators to join.
The Senate podium was turned back over to President Sahami.
X. PRESENTATION and DISCUSSION: Modification of the timeframe to add a course during the first week of classes. -FS Academic Policies Committee (Document Attached as: ChangeAddDeadline.docx)
Senator Izurieta, Modern Languages, Academic Policies Committee Chair, commented on Senator Klimek’s earlier question and believed that students will still be able to have an Add Slip signed by a faculty member to enroll in a class.
President Sahami asked senators to take this discussion up in their departments. He clarified that students could still add until the third week with a faculty signature but only automatically add online by themselves with this policy change.
Senator Izurieta emphasized that the administrative drop must be done by the seventh calendar day.
Discussion was called. There was none.
A vote was called for Adjournment.
The Senate adjourned at 5:04:07 pm.