WSU FACULTY SENATE MEETING
April 23, 2001

Senators Present: Beckry Abdel-Magid, Sara Barbor, Matt Bosworth, David Bratt, Marianna Byman, Narayan Debnath, Darrell Downs, Shirley Eiken, Mark Engen, Pat Ferden, Matthew Hyle, Mary Kesler (Sabbatical), Vernon Leighton, Peter Miene, Bill Ng, Holly Shi, Dean Feller, Susanne Smith, Cathy Summa, Bruce Svingen, Kerry Williams, Paul Vance, Alex Yard.

Senators Absent: Ron Elcombe, Colette Hyman, Frances Ragsdale, and Jo Stejskal.

Others Present: Kelly Herold, Nancy Peterson, Dawn Anderson, Joe Mount, Jim Reineke, Doug Callahan, Lane Hermanson, Andy Welder, Chris Samp.

1. Call to Order

Alex Yard called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.

2. Approval of Minutes of April 9, 2001.

B. Svingen/D. Downs moved to approve the April 9 minutes as written.

Motion Carried.

3. Agenda Additions and Approval

ADD:

1. COM-G: Faculty Association Technology Committee

2. COM-H: Treasurer’s Report

3. NB-J: Displaced Minne Faculty

Motion Carried.

4. President’s Report

1. At the IFO Dinner, everything that was said about Alex was true!

2. Had a recent meeting on curriculum meeting with Cc's/TC’s. Communications continue but generally nothing   
       decisive was done.

3. TC’s now offering some Gen. Ed. on their own are destined to become CC’s.

4. Best regards to Dave Kesler and good luck on his quick recovery.

S. Smith/D. Bratt moved to officially thank Alex Yard for his two terms of excellence service.

Motion Carried. (Unanimous!)

5. Review of Meet and Confer Notes

April 16, 2001 notes included in packet.

6. Committees

1. A2C2 (Com A, distributed at Senate Meeting)

A2C2 Chair Kelly Herold reported on the following and requested Faculty Senate approval:

I. Course / Program Proposals

A. New/Revised Course Proposals

1. PER 280 Psychology of Physical Activities
2. PER 402 Organization & Administration of Physical Ed
3. N 423 Role Development III
4. N 433 Role Development III Seminar
5. N 474 Role Development IV
6. N 484 Role Development IV Seminar


B. Revised Program Proposals

1. PER - Coaching Minor
2. B.S. Nursing - Approved

C. University Studies Course Approvals

1. Humanities
a. Philosophy 240

2. Critical Analysis
a. Philosophy 250
b. Women’s Studies 373
c. Geoscience 240

3. Science and Social Policy
a. Computer Science 210
b. Biology 269
c. Geoscience 103

4. Contemp Citizenship

a. Statistics 350
b. Economics 420

5. Multicultural Perspectives

a. Women’s Studies 220
b. Mathematics 410

6. Global Perspectives

a. Political Science & Pub. Admin. 205
b. Global Studies 200
c. History 165

Motion Carried.

2. Graduate Council

No Report.

3. Government Relations Committee

Darrell Downs briefly reported the following:

1. Legislative Update for MnSCU The base is $1,141,567; the following amounts represent increases on the base:

House total 108,580.

Senate total 127,005.

Governor total 47,000

(Subject to change over the next few days)

2. The transfer language is not in the House bill; The Senate language allows transfers from MN Transfer Curriculum courses to any college or university in the systemY"pursuant to an established process with significant faculty involvement."

3. The Pell Pass Through is likely to face difficulty in the Senate again, in part because the Senate's HESO funding proposal already commits savings to other areas of financial aid spending.

4. Personnel Policies and Grievance Committee

No Report.

5. Committee on Committees

Committee on Committees makes the following recommendations to Faculty Senate: Appointments to Faculty Association Committees

Personnel, Policies and Grievances
Tom Sherman - Rochester

Faculty Development (Bush Grant)
Russ Dennison - Non-teaching

Appointments for faculty representatives to the strategy session "WSU Reaching out: Designing Lifelong Learning for Your Organization."

                    Patrick Paulson - Business
                    Mary Jane Wiseman - Education
                    Joy Kliber - Liberal Arts
                    Kathy Sullivan - Library
                    Pat Hartkopf or Jo Stejskal - Nursing/HHP
                    Dan Rand - Science and Engineering

Appointments to All-University Committees

Long Range Planning and Assessment
Susan Hatfield (current Chair)
Ed Reilly - Liberal Arts
Jean Leicester - Education
Christine Pilon-Kacir (will represent either Nursing/HHP or Rochester)
Tom Nalli - Science/Engineering

Other

The Committee on Committees recommends that the All University Lyceum Committee's membership be increased by adding two slots for at-large faculty representation (currently faculty membership is composed of one faculty from each college plus non-teaching).

F. Negotiations/Action

Matt Hyle reported the following:

1. May 14-16 meetings coming up.

2. 120M new dollars.

M. Hyle/M. Kesler moved to give thanks to Vice President Susanne Smith for her two excellent terms of service.

Motion Carried. (Unanimous!)

G. Faculty Association Technology Committee (Jim Reineke - 4:15 p.m.)

              Three documents were given to Faculty Senate. Jim Reineke spoke to the three documents.

Document 1: Faculty Assoc. Tech Committee on: Laptop Configuration, Tech at WSU Document, Web support document, Communication Issues, Newsletter, and Technology Handbook.

Document 2: Discussions on an Articulated Plan for Supporting Faculty Web pages, sites, and development, A Transition Plan, A Training Plan, and A plan to repair broken sites. Some of these recommendations were made before the death of the Course1 Server. So some are defunct but some have been improved.

Document 3: Information Technology at WSU - A Vision for the Future. (11 pages)

          Comments:

1. MnSCU kept a big chunk of the legislatively appropriated money.

2. A new background mailer is being considered. It is supposed to work without affecting other mailers, except Lotus Notes.

                 The Fac Assoc. Tech Committee requests Faculty Senate for approval of the above documents.

     Motion Carried

3^rd quarter D. Downs presented report. We should stay below $7500 at the end of year.

                            S. Sloan/M. Bosworth moved to accept the report.

                            Motion Carried.

                            M. Kesler/M. Hyle moved to give thanks for Darrell Downs’ hard work this year.

1. Old Business

1. IRB Revisions (Nancy Peterson/Dawn Anderson, 3:15 p.m.) [Refer to lengthy IRB document contained in the Senate Packet for the April 9 meeting]

The administration forwarded a document on "Institutional Review Board Update" at the April 9 Senate Meeting. It informed the Faculty Senate changes in the Board’s Charge, Policies and Procedures, and Protocol Form. These changes will be effective on July 1, 2001. Any concerns should be brought to the attention of the IRB.

The changes bring the policy up to date, incorporating: 1) changes in the Board’s appointment and procedure processes approved by the Senate last October, 2) information on the federal requirement for completion of a human subjects education module, 3) revisions to the Protocol Form to include a newly required section on financial conflicts or interests, and 4) general updates to the policies and form in line with federal guidelines.

Nancy Peterson/Dawn Anderson spoke to the following:

DRAFT POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR USE OF HUMAN SUBJECTS IN RESEARCH

& WSU IRB REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PROTOCOL FORMS

PRESENTATION TO FACULTY SENATE B April 23, 2001

1. Do we have to have a Federal wide Assurance on file with HHS to apply for federal funds?

Yes. WSU just filed one. We have faculty who have indicated an intent to apply to NIH next fall. The OHRP Office may request a copy of our policy and procedures and negotiate changes in it prior to awarding funds. (The Assurance is applicable to 16 federal agencies.)

2. Does the Assurance cover all research regardless of source of supporting funds?

Yes. WSU agreed to that provision in the Assurance. For institutional liability purposes, most institutions, including WSU, make it a common practice to apply federal research regulations to all activities. Not doing so would establish a double standard regarding the level of protection afforded human subjects based solely on where financial support originated.

3. What are the appointment requirements?

Faculty Senate agreed to a new appointment process for two federal regulatory boards last fall. The IRB needs five members including a scientist, a non-scientist and a community member. (Note: The WSU President, Chair and IRB administrator/contact person had to complete an OHRP education program, and all IRB members must complete the institution's required education program.)

4. Do IRB members have to be employees of WSU?

No. The President could appoint an external IRB or one made up entirely of non-WSU employees.

5. What are the criteria the IRB uses in reviewing requests to conduct research?

Reviews are based on the Belmont Report principles of justice (selection of subjects), beneficence (benefits must outweigh risks) and respect (informed consent). Other criteria include confidentiality, privacy, and possible financial conflicts of interest. The criteria are established by the federal regulations, not the IRB.

6. Does the IRB pass judgment on the quality of the proposed research?

No. Only to the extent that the design, methodology or informed consent process might violate the Belmont principles and the other criteria cited above. The IRB does not judge the quality of the project nor the likelihood that the research will yield valid results.

7. What is the status of the IRB?

The IRB is an agent of the institution, the administrative responsibilities of which are specified in the regulations. The primary responsibility is the review of protocols according to the federal criteria. A request disapproved by the IRB may not be approved by the President. (See attached documentation.)

8. What is the authority of the IRB?

The IRB reports to the President and operates under his authority. In cases of non-compliance, appropriate supervisory personnel are notified. (The WSU IRB has dealt with situations on "both sides" -- the conduct of unapproved research which was confirmed and reported to supervisors, and an allegation that unapproved research was being conducted which was not confirmed.)

9. If the President cannot overturn an IRB disapproval, what is the appeal process?

There are no provisions for appeals in the federal regulations. In cases of disapproval, the researcher may present additional arguments to the IRB or modify and re-submit the request. I know of nothing that would prevent a researcher from filing a grievance against the President if s/he disagreed with a final determination of the IRB. If the assumption behind such a grievance was that the only acceptable remedy was approval of the research as originally proposed, the grievance process could involve an outside mediator. If an outside mediator documented the IRB disapproval was unmerited, s/he could provide direction as to how to resolve the situation and still remain in compliance with the federal regulations.

Comments related to the above document:

1. All languages in Policy and Procedure are Fed language.

2. This language must be applied to all forms of research in order that WSU is in compliance, whether or not faculty applies for grants.

3. The Animal Research Committee is similar to the IRB.

4. The IRB policies are similar to the IACUC.

5. External mediation could be a last step in resolving a dispute between IRB/IACUC/Administration and the researcher.

6. It's not completely clear if there is an Appeal process or that the Fed's will not approve an appeal process.

7. Can/Should there be a super IRB or super IACUC?

8. Perhaps a sample protocol could be posted to facilitate smoother approvals.

K. Williams/P. Vance moved to approve the IRB Revisions from the April 9 Senate Meeting.

Amendment: S. Smith/M. Hyle moved to ask the IRB to come up with an appeal process.

Amendment failed.

Vote on Williams/Vance motion to approve IRB Revisions from April 9.

Motion Carried.

B. Calendar for 2002-2004 (OB-B)

Proposed calendar is essentially Cal A (15 week-semester) with new starting class date after Labor Day and a Commencement that is in the same week as SMU but on Friday, which would not conflict with SMU’s on Saturday.

D. Downs/M. Hyman moved to approve the Calendar.

Motion Carried.

 

The Senate (on April 9) took the position that the individual contracts would have to have 5 lines for allocation of non-class duty days, one line for each of the 5 areas of performance/evaluation in the contract. (The reasoning for including a line for teaching was to capture potential activity related to preparation of teaching materials, assessment, grading and etc.) In our view, to limit the lines to 2 would amount to "closure." Senators, however, understood the university interest in the research and service categories and would so inform faculty members. One senator also suggested "mapping" or relating each of the 5 to one of the allocation model columns. (Why, for example, would costs of advising --a category 4 activity-- not be legitimately put in the community service category of the allocation model?)

The Senate also took the position that the Senate would want to guarantee that the policy would not create new problems for faculty n esp. in the event that a new administration with a time-clock mentality takes over things. One idea discussed was to make the arrangement revocable by either the assn. or admin.

The Senate Motion reads: Agreement to a final policy will be contingent upon the implementation and accountability processes that are developed.

Administration Responses on April 16:

1. Approve one year at a time and review in the spring of each year.

2. Agree to expand the allocation to each of 5 areas of performance/evaluation, to be chosen by individual faculty.

3. Contract assignments might be starting this coming year.

4. This past year's non-class duty days has been loaded to research to get the money from MnSCU.

D. Downs/C. Summa moved to approve the five areas of allocation and the annual review.

Motion Carried.

S. Sloan/M. Hyle moved to approve the contract assignment starting this fall provided there is a well-informed informational campaign designed to inform faculty about the situation.

Motion Carried.

1. New Business

A. Election Results (NB-A)