Meeting 7                                                                                             November 15, 2006




University of Central Missouri

Faculty Senate Minutes




The Faculty Senate meeting was called to order at 3:18 p.m. in Union 237A with President Odin Jurkowski presiding.




In addition to FS President Jurkowski, the following eighteen senators and four alternates were present:  Bowman, Callahan, Ciafullo, Ely, Geiger, Kidwaro, Koehn, Liu, Mandali, McKee, Miller, Popejoy, Robins, Schache, Schmidt, Thomas, Williamson, Burkett (for Zelazek), Lurker (for Washer), Wang (for Staab), and Wilson (for Strohmeyer).  Also present were Provost Y. T. Shah, Parliamentarian Riley and SGA Representative Jesska Daugherty.




A motion was made by Senator Ciafullo, seconded by Senator Kidwaro and passed unanimously to approve the minutes of meeting 6 of the 2006-2007 Faculty Senate held on October 25, 2006.




Provost Shah announced that the task forces are moving forward and there is an open forum tomorrow with the Organization Task Force. He encouraged the faculty to attend.  He plans to have the recommendations from all the task forces by next week so that the university can move forward on hiring individuals for open positions on campus.


Jurkowski stated that he attended the Policy Review Council meeting recently and Judith Siminoe, General Council, is working on revising the bidding contract approval policy.  This revising is to give the President more authority of purchases as opposed to going to the Board of Governors.  Jurkowski wanted to thank everyone who has been involved with all the SPRC task forces.  Several e-mails have been sent out, surveys have been posted, and much feedback has been discussed, so he wanted to thank everyone for their time while this has been going on.


SGA Representative, Jesska Daugherty, announced that the SGA has been busy working on their year end reports.  November 15th was SGA day. It was used to promote the SGA, let students know who they are, and to allow students to voice their concerns.  SGA has also worked on a recycling initiative, the night rider transportation program, the recreation center, which has been in the works for two years, and a committee has been formed to get a proposal ready for the Board of Governors.  They are also looking into another student activity fee increase to bring more concerts and speakers to campus.  At this time, the budget has been minimal to do this.  They also have been working on getting clocks placed across campus, a web site, and working with faculty to organize and build the public speakers area.  At their previous meeting they passed legislation to create a ďfloor leaderĒ position.  This would assist in deciding where to place legislation within the meeting and would hopefully help in making the SGA meetings move more quickly.  She wanted to thank the faculty for attending the meetings and the representatives from Faculty Senate.  Koehn asked if the reason there is no clocks now is because of cost.  Daugherty stated she is not sure.  When they investigated it originally many concerns came up such as installment and who would maintain the clocks.  She has heard that the administration might be talking about surveying the students.  Koehn also asked if they had talked about atomic clocks.  Daugherty stated they have been talking about clocks linked through a GPS system so they would all be synchronized every hour.  Geiger suggested SGA might talk to John Hart, The Bridge program director, regarding bringing people on for a larger concert.  She stated that he has contacts with promoters in the area.  Kidwaro asked how much of an increase would be necessary in the activity fee.  Daugherty stated she thought it was a small fee suggested, but the goal was to bring in an extra $100,000.  The committee has just started, so nothing is definite at this time.


SPRC Representative Koehn announced that they met last Thursday, November 9, and that meeting was divided into three parts.  The meeting began debriefing the General Faculty Meeting and talk about the concerns and questions that were raised there.  There was some disappointment expressed that not more faculty were in attendance there, although, others felt it was about an average turnout.  The second item was the chair people of the task forces gave updated reports to the SPRC.  She stated that Shah raised an issue regarding some concern as to why there are not more joint appointments for faculty.  Shah stated that some of the issues raised within the task forces have been about culture and he was surprised about the lack of joint appointments on campus.  He intends to pursue that issue further.  He believes it assists in a good healthy environment when the faculty has connections with other faculty in a different department, so they know what is going on in the other departments.  This can also help overcome barriers for faculty.  Geiger asked how faculty interested in a joint appointment would go about it.  Shah stated that the faculty should first discuss this with their chair and then the two departmentís chairs can discuss how they would like to handle it.  His opinion is that if the faculty, department chairs, and deans feel this could be of value for their departments, then he is not going to have a problem with it being done.  Koehn also announced that the task forces all have a deadline of November 30 for the final recommendations.  The SPRC will meet on December 7 to discuss the recommendations.  Shah stated that after the information is gathered his next step will be to sit down with the President and make decisions to move forward.  His hope is to have some decisions after December 7.  Koehn stated that for the SPRC the major recommendations are those that will require funding and they will spend a majority of next semester trying to align the resources behind some of the recommendations.  Lurker asked when the changes would be effective.  Shah answered that it would depend on the change.  The changes need to be such that it is the right thing to do for the long term of the university. 




Jurkowski presented Motion 2006-2007-8 regarding the Faculty Senate reporting structure again to the Senate.  This motion had been brought forward to the Faculty Senate at the last meeting and tabled due to some confusion of when the Senate votes on changing the constitution of the Faculty Senate.  After further investigation, it was found that the Faculty Senate should vote on the changes, then it will be brought before the entire faculty body during the spring elections, and then to the administration after that.  A vote was taken as follows:


The Faculty Senate ultimately reports to the University President and the Board of Governors. However, the structure of the reporting process should ideally reflect the role of the Provost in academics and overall governance. Therefore, the Faculty Senate makes the following changes to the Academic Policy and Procedure whereby the Faculty Senate reports directly to the Provost who will in turn report recommendations to the University President:




Under the provision of the revised Faculty Senate Constitution approved by the Board of Governors, the Faculty Senate serves as the representative body of the faculty. The Senate may initiate deliberations on those issues provided for in the Constitution or respond to requests for its deliberation. Elections are conducted annually to fill vacancies. Senate resolutions are forwarded to the Provost and the University President as recommendations for adoption by the University President.



Article II - Functions

Section I. Collegial Relationship of the Faculty Senate and Administration


c. The Faculty Senate President shall report directly to the Provost and the University President, those recommendations made by the Faculty Senate as a result of the Faculty Senate's consideration of matters of concern initiated within the faculty under Article I, Section b, 3. The University President shall report to the Faculty Senate in person or through a selected representative, the action taken on these matters.


-PASSED-   Unanimous                                                                                   (2006-2007-8)




Jurkowski then presented three motions from the Faculty Senate University Assessment Council, 2006-2007-10 regarding a recommendation that the general education criterion for graduation be changed, 2006-2007-11 regarding a recommendation that a hold be placed on a student who has passed 15 hours of general education courses by has not passed the C-Base test, and 2006-2007-12 regarding a recommendation that a hold be placed on a student who has exceeded 90 hours of courses by has not passed the C-Base test.  Mike Grelle was presented to speak on behalf of the Counsel regarding these motions.  Grelle stated that some of the members of the Academic Counsel have met with advising and other offices since the motions were submitted and at this time he would like to withdraw motions 2006-2007-11 & 12.  There were no objections within the Senate.  Grelle then gave some background on the motion 2006-2007-10.  This is a motion that came from the Faculty Senate several years ago and presented to President Patton.  Patton amended the motion to include that students can meet a graduation requirement by scoring a 235 in all for subtests or by getting a grade C or better in a particular area in which they did not receive a 235.  For example if a student did not receive a 235 in Social Studies, they could meet the graduation requirement if they got a C or higher in all of the Social Studies classes in the general education section.  At that time some spoke against this addition to the motion because although it sounds like it can help some students, it can in the end hurt them because students do not always take the general education courses in the first two to three years.  Many times the general education requirements are being completed in their last or senior year.  They began tracking students and found that there were some not passing the C-Base and they were counting on getting the C in a class.  Last spring there were 17 students who came to the Testing office in the last two weeks before graduation, three on the day before they graduated, who had not passed the C-Base and learned that they were receiving a D or F in the general education course and then the Office of Assessment and Testing had to either not enforce the policy or withhold graduation on the student.  Grelle believes it will be better for the students to have 235 in all four of the subtests of the C-Base test.  He pointed out that from July 2005 through June 2006 Testing Services administered approximately 1,384 general education tests.  In all, 87% passed the science the first time, 86% passed the math the first time, 83% passed social studies the first time, and 81% passed English the first time.  These numbers should go up if this motion is passed, due to those students taking the test and knowing it did not matter what score they received at this time.  Ely asked how the number of 235 was arrived.  Grelle answered that the committee looked over the available instruments in general education that is standardized.  They then had students and faculty look at the exam and take it.  They felt the C-Base more closely matched our curriculum than the others.  The 235 was arrived at because the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education in Missouri requires passing the C-Base with scores of 235 as a condition for admission in Teacher Education.  To make things less complicated at Central, the 235 was then selected to be used throughout and this is 20-28 percentile rank.  Missouri Western uses 265 for their Teacher Education students.  Geiger asked how many students are currently choosing to use the C option.  Grelle stated that the student doesnít actually choose to use that option, but it is used as a default.  Cindy Bertalott, Assistant Director of Assessment and Testing, stated that it would be hard to know how many use the C option because many will take the test and decide to use the option after they receive their scores.  Grelle stated the administrators do not ask them, so when they receive their scores, they only tell them their options.  Geiger stated that if they donít know how many are deciding to use this option then how do they know the student can graduate.  Does it go through the Registrar?  Grelle explained that it is tracked on the DARS and Student reports.  Koehn stated that she can understand the concern about the students waiting until the last minute, but has there been any consideration about allowing the C or better with the condition that this grade can not be earned in the final semester.  Grelle stated that it would be difficult to force students to finish all general education courses by a certain time.  Koehn stated they would only have to do that if they plan to use the C option for the C-Base test.  Grelle explained that it would be hard to track that and advise students of that option.  Part of the concern is accurate and timely advisement also.  The problem is making sure all students understand the policy.  Grelle stated he would be willing to bring that option back to the committee if the Faculty Senate would like, but the committee felt it would add more levels of conflict and make it more difficult to administer.  Ely asked about transfer students.  Grelle stated there are exceptions for transfer students.  They are still held to the same standard of passing the test; however they are asked to take the test as soon as possible.  Callahan asked what the liability is to the university if a student has a C and can not use this option.  Grelle stated that he has spoken with Judith Siminoe, General Counsel, and legally we should be fine.  Ethically, Grelle believes if the students can get Bs and Cs in the classes and can not pass this exam, then both need to be looked over closely.  Callahan stated that grades around the campus are mostly As and Bs.  Grelle agreed.  Geiger stated that an issue with this motion is that some students are not good at tests but they do have an understanding of the material.  She stated that it might be a disservice to the students who feel uncomfortable taking tests.  Grelle stated that there are alternative tests available and accommodations available such as extended time, private setting, etc. for those students who need it.  There is remediation available to students also.  He also explained that they do not know how many students actually used this option for graduation.  Also, an alternative test available is an essay test instead of multiple choice.  Grelle explained that the reason the Assessment Council is doing this is not about getting the grade, but more about the retention of the information.  Bertalott stated that the people taking the alternative exams are the students who wait a year before checking into taking the C-Base and they donít have time to retake the test.  This will make improvements by getting the information out there in a timelier manner.  Students taking the alternative tests usually do not get their results back in time for graduation.  Lurker asked if other schools in the state and nationally using this or some sort of test in order to graduate.  Grelle stated that nationally yes; however, in the state we are the only school that has this as a graduation requirement.  A number of schools do use this as an entrance requirement into programs.  The College of Business and the Nursing program are two areas that require this as admission into the programs.  Lurker stated that if he were a student and he had passed all his classes but could not pass the C-Base, he would be rather upset that he would not be allowed to graduate.  He stressed that some students do not test well.  Grelle stated the test should be an opportunity to demonstrate what a person does know, not to show what they donít understand or canít understand.  There will always be alternative assessments available.  Lurker stated that some students would be too proud to ask for help.  Grelle stated that after the first time the student does not pass the test they are brought in for advisement.  Thomas asked if the alternative options are not standardized tests, who are they established by.  Grelle answered that the faculty here established the tests and they are scored by our faculty as well.  Callahan stated that some students who have Ds and Fs in her class have already taken the C-Base test and passed it the first time, so in her mind it canít be terribly difficult to pass.  Grelle stated that the Teacher Education students have to take the test and pass before they are admitted into the program.  They also have to take a writing component as well as the English section and 95% passed the writing the first time around.  Ciafullo stated that the obvious impact is on the students so he asked the SGA representative if they have discussed this issue and what feedback has been received and if not, what her thoughts on this are.  Daugherty stated that it has not been discussed within the SGA.  She stated she wasnít sure about the C option.  Grelle stated that the Council has not brought this before the SGA this semester; however, it has been brought to them previously.  SGA previously asked for a higher score and Daugherty stated she felt they might ask for a higher score again.  Grelle stated the last time they spoke with the SGA they asked for 250 instead of 235.  Schache asked if a student takes the C-Base test prior to taking the general education course for that area if the student can then receive credit for the course.  Grelle stated that students do not qualify to take the C-Base until after they have completed their general education.  Kidwaro motioned to call to question.  McKee seconded.  A vote was taken and resulted in 20 for, 1 against, and 1 abstain.  A vote was taken as follows:


The FSUAC recommends that the general education criterion for graduation be changed to the following:  As a condition for graduation, all students are required to score 235 in all four of the subject tests (English, Mathematics, Science and Social Studies) of the College-BASE General Education Assessment or an alternative test(s) approved and scored by the faculty.


-PASSED-   For: 17          Against:  3              Abstain:  2                    (2006-2007-10)


With nothing further the meeting was adjourned at 4:08 p.m.


Julia Kerr

Faculty Senate Office Professional