Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Chairs and Provost: 3:30
Deans and Administrators to Arrive: 4:00
The Academic Council functions as the primary organizational group for department chairs and deans. The Council functions in an advisory capacity to the Provost/Chief Learning Officer for Academic Affairs. The Council recommends actions to the Provost who either responds or directs the recommendations to the proper person or organization within the university governance structure. These recommendations will indicate the Council's majority opinion on an issue or a call for action. The recommendations will be in writing and will contain the appropriate individual or group to receive the recommendation.
I. Approval of Minutes from January 13, 2015
- Motion to approve by Dawna Butterfield
- Seconded by Greg Streich
- Unanimously approved.
II. Department Chair Discussion with Provost (3:30 - 4:00)
A. Technology Hardware Inventory 2015
- The State does not care about inventory of technology under $5000.
- Campus has hundreds of items under $5000 that cannot be found.
- OT will be sending Chairs a list of technology items under $5000 with date of purchase for inventory.
- This list is coming straight to the department level from OT
- Chairs will have the responsibility for completing this inventory survey, not OT.
- If you have dedicated techs, they need to be engaged in this process.
- Barcodes are only a helpful tool; you don’t have to scan if you have your own system.
- If an item on the list is missing, we will write it off as a loss.
- Don’t spend a lot of time looking for lost items, especially if they are several years old.
- Trying to find the missing pieces is not a good use of OT time.
- This is an opportunity to reset the inventory with a clean slate.
- OT will better monitor technology items in the future.
- Perhaps we need to no longer assign technology to a position number, but to a person.
- When employees leave, they can turn in their technology.
- Perhaps a similar system as what we use with access control and the keys across campus.
- OT has not conducted official inventory in two years, but some departments have more recently.
- Provost Curtis will ask OT if they have looked into any technology that would make inventory more effective in the future?
- Procurement permission issue raised: If cardholders make a mistake, the cardholder gets dinged. Dings never go away and three dings results in revoked card privileges.
- This is OT’s rule. Procurement cannot re-issue a card unless OT forgives the dings.
- Faculty have similar issues with T-cards and many are in fear of using T-cards.
- Send specific examples of cards being dinged or revoked to Provost Curtis so she can discuss with OT and report back.
III. Information Items
A. Undergraduate Research & External Scholarships (Jennifer Carson)
- The handout from Jennifer Carson’s presentation can be found here.
- Undergraduate Research and External Scholarships is housed within the honor’s college, but the symposium and scholarships are not just for honor’s students.
- Submissions to the Scholars Symposium do not have to be papers, for example, a student could submit a dance.
- Encourage students who travel with faculty to apply for a grant.
- One student per state is awarded the Truman Scholarship.
- This year, UCM has at least one confirmed finalist for Fulbright.
- Fulbright is one of the few scholarships that is eligible to alumni, because it is awarded for a post-graduate year.
- Any student can come to information sessions, but won’t be selected until Junior year.
B. Predatory Journals (Mollie Dinwiddie)
- Be alert to the possibility of predatory publishers. Many of them sound legitimate and the scholar needs to be wary about where submitting.
- Repeated emails asking you to submit, fees tied to submissions, and requests for you to be on an editorial board are red flags.
- Jeffrey Beall at the University of Colorado, Denver has been dedicated to exposing predatory journals and you can subscribe to Beall’s list.
- Janice Putnam hopes to take an active role in educating people and the Library will try to be knowledgeable as well.
C. TK20 (Brian Long)
- UCM established a team of IT, IR staff, and assessment coordinators from each college to talk weekly with experienced TK20 representatives.
- Most work has focused on technical issues to match data from Banner to TK20, which must be exact or there will be corrupt data in TK20. Slow process to get it right.
- First data transfer will be completed by the end of February.
- Starting with three functions that are needed immediately by the College of Education
1. Accreditation Management - streamlines and enhances self studies for accreditation.
2. Field Experience - allows remote users to evaluate students.
3. Application's Process-streamlines student admission process to academic programs.
- The next two functions will be:
1. Document room. Departments can customize a storage space for documents with restricted access as needed.
2. Planning Function - allows users to associate already uploaded student artifacts with learning outcomes.
- All five hope to be completed by the end of spring semester.
- Once functions are established, they will be available to anyone who has received training.
- A training format has not been established. Will get recommendations from TK20 about online training or face-to-face. Your suggestions are welcomed.
- Trying to facilitate relationships with others already using TK20. Have already identified another nursing program that uses it, so we can see how it works for them.
- The biggest mistake other programs using TK20 faced, was trying to do too much too soon.
- Your input is helpful to decide which functions to pursue after these first five.
IV. Discussion Items
A. Dashboard (Skip Crooker)
- All tuition money will go to academic departments after overhead has been taken out (electricity, library, etc).
- Departments will receive 100% tuition from their own majors that take their classes.
- When majors take classes outside of their major department, 50% goes to the major department and 50% goes to the department generating the credit hour.
- Could this hurt departments that don’t have many majors, but have many gen eds?
- Courses that are not majors or gen eds (for example, AE) would get 50%.
- Allows programs to outsource; majors can require outside department classes, which gives the major a free 50% tuition and gives the department that generates those hours 50% as well.
- Concerns were raised about outsourcing.
- State appropriations go directly to departments and is exactly what the student is billed.
- State gives departments get 34% of money from credit hours generated.
- After factoring 100% state appropriation and income after overhead is taken out, departments would potentially get 60-70% of tuition.
- Funds from CSC will not go to departments; we cannot match CSC expenses to departments - however, we hope to get this resolved in the very near future.
- Departments will not be charged for Red and Black scholarships.
- Concerns were raised that this model will spur competition between departments for majors.
- After reviewing many scenarios with five multiple sliding scales, 100 and 50/50 model is most balanced.
- Other options favored departments that had a balance of majors and gen eds.
- Chairs called for consideration of minors, since they are not actively a part of this model.
- For undeclared majors, 50% goes to the department generating the credit hours and 50% sits in escrow. Several chairs are unhappy with that proposal.
- Difference between academic dashboard and sram dashboard; want them to stay separate.
- Direction we are going away from data packs and get it on demand.
- Only report that updates only once a year is expenses, because we don’t have that finalized until the end of the year.
- If you notice problems, email Skip and put “data pack” in the subject line.
- Not sure if we will put TK20 on dashboards. Since TK20 is purchased, if it doesn’t work out, we will have to go back to an in-house process.
- Only type of productivity measured is teaching activity. If your faculty have other types of productivity, please suggest ways to measure, so it can be included in dashboard.
B. Final Exam Schedule (Laura Miller, Teri Bowman)
Option 1 - similar to our current schedule (2 hour final with an hour between) with a more extensive definition of which classes meet during the timeslot with a timeslot for any that do not meet on the standard schedule
Option 2 - beginning at 7:30 AM, 90 minute timeslots for each final with a half-hour break between. Includes time each day for any that do not meet on the standard schedule.
Option 3 - beginning at 7:30 AM, 90 minute timeslots for each final with a half an hour break between. Includes a day for any that do not meet on the standard schedule.
- A 4th option was offered, because some finals require a minimum of 120 minutes - Keep the schedule as we have now, but have 30 minutes between finals instead of an hour. Include a time slot each day for off-schedule finals. Only 2 finals scheduled on Friday.
- Fewer finals on Friday fits well with the new commencement schedule.
- Perhaps we can change the policy that says if a student has 3 or more finals in a day, one should be moved.
- Mixing MWF with TR classes in the finals schedule may minimize the likelihood of a student having finals all on the same day.
- After discussion, we are leaning toward option 4. If you have comments, get them to your AC Exec rep for discussion.
V. Action Item
VI. Future Agenda Items
B. Readmission of Students and Catalog Issues
Thank you to Dean Joseph Lewandowski and the Honor’s College for providing the snacks and refreshments for our meeting today
Remaining Schedule for 2014-2015
February 10 2015 3:30 Union 237B
March 10 2015 3:30 Union 238
April 14 2015 3:30 Union 237B
May 12 2015 3:00 * Union 237A
June 9 2015 3:00 * WDE 2401