Minutes of the Campus Assembly April 12, 2011

Approved
April 26, 2011

CAMPUS ASSEMBLY MEETING MINUTES
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
2:00 p.m. Kirby Ballroom

• CALL TO ORDER
Regina Zona, vice chair, Executive Committee of the Campus Assembly, called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.

Issued a reminder to pick up voting cards and sign the attendance sheet.

• APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes were approved as corrected.

• FOR INFORMATION
Below are highlights of each standing committee’s activity. For more detailed information, the reports are available in the Library.

Executive Committee: Regina Zona, vice chair
An on-line budget survey was created to capture campus community input on budgetary reductions and possible revenue streams. Information will be distributed to campus.

Budget Committee: Eileen Zeitz, chair
The members developed budget principles and recommendations for the FY12 budget cycle. These were provided to the Chancellor for guidance and input.

Student Affairs Committee: Hannah Mumm, chair
An initiative will be to review the Student Life Creed in order to gather students’ opinions as well as the vision, mission, and values from the strategic planning initiative. Researching the zip car for campus.

Athletic Committee: Rebecca Katz Harwood, chair
UMD Athletics received outstanding recognitions: Coach Bob Nielson received the Liberty Mutual Coach of the Year and the American Football Association DII Coach of the Year. Sports team recognitions included: Football National Championship, NCAA Men’s Hockey Final Four, Women’s Hockey Regional, and Volleyball Regional. Three students were selected as NCAA post graduate winners from fall semester.

Physical Facilities Committee: Bob Krumwiede, chair
The members identified two elements that should be addressed in space protocol: 1) Make information on potential capital projects more easily accessible, including the project outline (what information is needed in making a capital request), possible funding source and rationale for the request; 2) develop building principles similar to a mission statement that includes pedagogical guidelines for construction and renovation of space.

Educational Policy Committee: Michael Mullins, chair
Discussion on the academic calendar included moving spring session up one week earlier, ending one week earlier, extending May session from three weeks to four weeks, and moving the start of fall semester one week earlier. This issue will also be discussed by the Executive Committee of the Campus Assembly and the Chancellor’s Cabinet.

• FOR ACTION
Four academic policies will be presented for the Campus Assembly approval.

ACADEMIC STANDING
Good Academic Standing: Students who have a minimum cumulative University of Minnesota GPA of 2.0 or higher are in good academic standing in the University.

David Schimpf requested clarification of the intent of “minimum and of 2.0 or higher.”
Bilin Tsai stated that the meaning is a student needs a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.0 or another way to state is a GPA of 2.0 or higher. They mean the same.

David Schimpf made a motion to remove “or higher”
Amendment 1 is as follows:
Good Academic Standing: Students who have a minimum cumulative University of Minnesota GPA of 2.0 are in good academic standing in the University.
A motion for approval of Amendment 1 was made and not passed.

Frank Guldbrandsen made a motion to strike “minimum” and keep in “or higher”
Amendment 2 is as follows:
Good Academic Standing: Students who have a cumulative University of Minnesota GPA of 2.0 or higher are in good academic standing in the University.
A motion for approval of Amendment 2 was made and passed.

Academic Dismissal: Students who fail to achieve a cumulative University of Minnesota GPA of 2.0 during the probationary semester …
Jonathan Lundberg made a motion to strike “fail to achieve” and replace with “fail to make progress towards”
This motion was not seconded.

Penny Morton made a comment on the above motion that “subject to dismissal from the University” does not mean “dismissed.”

A motion for approval of the Academic Standing Policy with Amendment 2 was made and seconded. Passed.

COURSE NUMBERING
Barry James initiated the discussion by discussing the 5xxx: Course content designed for graduate students; advanced undergraduate students may enroll in such courses. 5xxx courses should not be required courses in undergraduate programs. Why change now? We (Math and Statistics) have required 5xxx courses in undergraduate programs. If we were to covert our 5xxx to a 4xxx level course we would be at a competitive disadvantage with the Twin Cities campus. I would like to strike the last sentence beginning with 5xxx courses should …..

Bilin Tsai, Associate Vice Chancellor, stated that the intent is to clarify for students that 5xxx courses are designed for graduate students. It is a disadvantage to the graduate students to have an undergraduate student takes a 5xxx course as they are not prepared and the instructor would need to make adjustments to accommodate the undergraduate students.

Barry James referenced the Dual-listed courses (page 3). This discusses 4xxx and 5xxxx courses being offered together. Under the present financial situation to force faculty to redesign major, offer both 4xxx and 5xxx students together requires separate syllabi and possible requirements is much for overloaded faculty. Simultaneously 4xxx and 5xxxx courses together will create a teaching issue.

Vince Magnuson, Vice Chancellor Academic Administration, stated that the language states “should not” not must not or will not. The concept was that a graduate level course should have a higher expectation. Your program was not specifically considered and no one was going to ask you to change. In the future you may be asked to demonstrate how you delineate in terms of undergraduate and graduate students in your course.

Barry James referred to past EPC minutes of 12/15/10. In regard to course numbering comments if was asked if courses will be grandfathered in at their current level. It was stated that only minor revisions will be presented and departments will be expected to adhere to this policy.

Krista Twu, English department affirmed with Barry James. The policy would also affect the English department.

Rich Maclin, Computer Science also affirms with Barry James. Two separate notions about the 4xxx and 5xxx courses is confusing. It is appropriate to require a course for the senior level student that is at the 5xxx level.

Bilin Tsai, Associate Vice Chancellor, restated that the intent is to make the course expectations clear to students as well as to instructors.

Beth Bartlett, Women’s Studies commended EPC in regard to the cross listed courses section and encouraged the campus assembly to support. It will assist interdisciplinary studies in being more transparent and more helpful for students.

Carmen Latterell, Department of Math and Statistics made a motion to strike the last sentence dealing with 5xxx courses. 5xxx courses should not be required courses in undergraduate programs.

Amendment 1 is as follows:
5xxx Course content designed for graduate students; advanced undergraduate students may enroll in such courses.

John Greene, Math and Statistics, stated that this issue has not been brought before the College of Science and Engineering (CSE) Curriculum Committee which it should have been. Math is possibly different from other areas in that we offer a wide variety of courses at the 5xxx level that are acceptable to undergraduate and graduate students. One should not limit things in any way for students.

Jim Klug, Art and Design, offered a historical reference. Since the early 90’s the graduate school has been advocating that 5xxx are predominately populated by grad students; 4xxx level are predominately populated by undergrad students. This proposal reinforces the U of M policy since the early 1990s.

Zhuangyi Liu, Math and Statistics, stated that currently we have no 4xxx level stat courses.

Vince Magnuson, Vice Chancellor Academic Administration, stated that we are focusing on the wording “should not be required.” Dual listing accomplishes what the Math Department is trying to do with the 4xxx and 5xxx level courses.

Dick Greene, Math and Statistics, agrees with Amendment 1. The statement “5xxx courses should not be required courses in undergraduate programs” is not clarifying but obscuring

A motion for approval of Amendment 1 striking the last sentence so it will read as “5xxx Course content designed for graduate students; advanced undergraduate students may enroll in such courses.”
The motion for approval of Amendment 1 was rejected.
A motion for approval of the Policy was made and seconded. Passed.

CREDIT STANDARDS FOR INSTRUCTION AND STUDENT WORK
No discussion.
A motion for approval of the Policy was made and seconded. Passed.

TRANSFER OF UNDERGRADUATE CREDIT
Janelle Wilson, Sociology/Anthropology, recommended changing the D to a C for coursework
(sentence 4).
Bilin Tsai, Associate Vice Chancellor, stated that the University of Minnesota Duluth accepts D work as passing. Transfer students are also made aware that some programs require higher than a D grade. Course transferring in does not automatically mean that course is accepted.
A motion for approval of the Policy was made and seconded. Passed.

Michael Mullins, chair, Educational Policy Committee, thanked Chancellor Black for encouraging the campus community to engage in dialogue. Also thanked the faculty at large for their input and the colleagues on EPC for their engagement and collaboration on the committee.

• FOR INFORMATION
Chancellor Black introduced the strategic plan that will be discussed further on April 26, 2011, at a special Campus Assembly meeting. Chancellor will be seeking the Assembly’s endorsement of the strategic plan.

The process began in September with a 35 member committee with broad representation of the UMD community. The 35 member committee was subdivided into a 13 member Executive Committee. Eleven Vision Committees were formed that included 130 students, faculty and staff. These committees met an average of 5 times each for discussion on the vision, goals, and action steps for the strategic plan.

There were 1100 responses to the SWAT analysis and ongoing responses to the plan on the website. Two campus forums were held on 2/8/11 and 3/29/11; following these forums revisions to the plan were made based on feedback from the campus community. What you will see is a brief description of the plan, followed by an introduction of a new vision, a statement of core values, mission, vision, and 6 campus goals. The Steering Committee (35 people) unanimously recommended the endorsement of this modified plan.

6. FOR INFORMATION
The campus Constitution and Bylaws are not in compliance with the Board of Regents in regard to certain language regarding administrators. A mail ballot will be distributed following this meeting.

7. NEW BUSINESS
No new business.

8. ADJOURNMENT
3:15 p.m.