OHIO NORTHERN UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Minutes, March 15, 2016
Roll: (Absentees Underlined) President Daniel DiBiaisio, VP David Crago, VP William Ballard,
VP Shannon Spencer, VP William Eilola, VP Adriane Thompson-Bradshaw, Dean Catherine
Albrecht, Dean Eric Baumgartner, Dean Steve Martin, Dean James Fenton, Dean Richard Bales,
Rev. David MacDonald, Dr. Alisa Agozzino, Dr. Khalid Al-Olimat, Dr. Joseph Blankson, Dr.
Bryan Boulanger, Dr. Joanne Brant, Dr. Tevye Celius, Dr. Mark Cruea, Dr. Natalie DiPietro,
Prof. Melissa Eddings, Dr. Kami Fox, Ms. Gina Grandillo, Dr. Dong Hyun Kim, Prof. Kelly
Kobiela, Dr. Heath LeBlanc, Dr. Jed Marquart, Dr. Michelle Musser, Dr. Erica Neely, Dr.
Lauren Newell, Dr. Ed Potkanowicz, Prof. David Savino, Dr. Kristen Sobota, Dr. Shane Tilton
Melissa Eddings, Chair of Council, called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in Dicke Room 230.
I.
Minutes of February 16, 2016 meeting were approved (with minor correction of a
name)
II.
Reports from Constitutional Committees (submitted reports are attached)
a. Budget & Appropriations: No report
b. Academic Affairs: Will be discussing agenda items later.
c. Student Activities: See report. In addition, the meeting date is now set – we are
meeting tomorrow to discuss the three student groups.
d. Personnel: Nothing additional
III.
Reports from Operational Committees
a. Athletics: Spring season has started. Three of our athletes made the national
indoor track meet, two of them made all-American by placing in the top six of the
events, so we had a good outcome there.
b. Information Technology: Life is good in IT. Julie is aware that we’ve moved our
list serves to a Google listserv where you as a recipient of the list can opt for
digest form or individual emails. The format in digest form is much more
readable than with our previous listserv.
c. Cultural & Special Events: No report
d. International Affairs: Will be meeting soon to vote on Shuhaibar scholarship
recipients.
1
e. Religious Affairs: No report
f. General Education: We have a piece of new business later on, and Julie is asking
for patience as we work through the Gen Ed. She handed out a list of Proposed
Learning Outcomes and discussed how they would work. [See attachment B] She
will have a document for us hopefully at a future meeting; we will discuss this
more when we get to new business.
Q: Is double-dipping allowed?
A: Only for outcome 10 (the diversity outcome); it may double-up with some of
the knowledge-based outcomes in 6, 7, and 8. The students would still have to
take a different course to satisfy each of the ten objectives, but the course could be
used for either one of the two possible spots. (So there is flexibility in which of
the outcomes a student uses the course to satisfy.)
IV.
Other Reports
a. Vice Presidents
i. Academic Affairs: One of the items in our strategic plan was to try to
provide budget assistance for grants. We had McAllister and Quinn on
campus today, and they met with groups form all the colleges who were
interested in grants, as well as having an open session for interested
faculty. We just had an exit session with them and they were excited –
they’ll get back to us in two or three weeks. Pretty optimistic about this.
In additional to preparing a specific grant with us, we can take advantage
of educational opportunities for our faculty so that we improve our
knowledge on how to do this.
Second item: The library project is moving forward – they’ve selected the
furniture. This project will be picking up steam over the summer, and it
should be done by fall.
Third item: Met with AICUO in Columbus to discuss budget issues
affecting private colleges involving issues such as College Credit Plus.
There’s a serious effort to allow 2-year schools to award 4-year degrees,
primarily in teacher education and nursing as well as a variety of online
programs. Both private schools and 4-year state schools have a common
interest here; we’re hoping this gets stopped. Even if that fails, there is
also a push to move from 2+2 to 3+1 so community colleges can teach
junior-level courses. There is a push by the administration to treat degrees
as a commodity and drive down costs by pushing people more into
community colleges. Our lobbying group is very concerned about all of
this.
Question: is there a process on campus as to how we select which
proposals go through with McAllister & Quinn?
2
Answer: There is not a process yet. They’ll tell us each quarter what
grants they think we’re most likely to get/most qualified for, along with
some other options. So they’ll recommend something each quarter and we
can choose this or not.
ii. Financial Affairs: No report
iii. University Advancement: Alumni association received information on
Founder’s Day and updates from the president. There are two alumni
events coming up one on 4/8 in Columbus, and one on 4/17 in Cleveland.
Branding work continues – Communications & Marketing posted
templates for internal university use; you should have received an email
about this. The Founder’s Day Challenge is 4/6. There will be a free
lunch and party in McIntosh from 11-2 from Sodexo. There will also be
free coffee from 8-2. Anyone who hasn’t yet participated in Campus
Campaign can do so on that day and count towards our totals.
iv. Admissions and Financial Aid: See report.
v. Student Affairs:
Swimming Nationals from Wednesdays thru Saturday this week will be
televised. They can be viewed in Klondike's (in McIntosh Center). ONU
students will be participating at 11 a.m. on Wed., Fri. & Sat. and finals
begin at 6 p.m. each night
There had been concern expressed about access to appointments in the
Counseling Center. We compiled data for this semester and the results
show that the majority of students were able to schedule the next day or
two days out. When it was longer than 3 days it was to accommodate the
student’s schedule. They are always able to get students in crisis in that
same day.
There is a Title IX hearing this week.
There are several upcoming Title IX Training Opportunities:
- Bringing in the Bystander - a program developed by the University of
New Hampshire to teach bystanders how they can intervene safely and
effectively in situations where sexual assault may be occurring or where
there is a high risk that it could occur. The most important message
Bringing in the Bystander provides is: “Everyone in the community has a
role to play in ending sexual violence.” This takes place March 21st &
29th: McIntosh Activities Room, March 22nd: Law College, Room 129,
7:00-8:00pm, Food will be provided!
3
- Title IX - Sexual Violence and Harassment Prevention Program
Monday, April 4, 2016 - 1:00pm-4:00pm in the Dicke Forum
1:00-1:50 p.m. Title IX—Sexual Violence and Harassment: How do we
recognize them? What resources and options are available? Kelly Jennings
Yeoman, Partner at Vorys
2:00-2:50 p.m. Title IX—Through the Eyes of a Victim: Why do they
stay? Why don’t they report? Muriel Black, Prevention Coordinator Open
Arms Domestic Violence and Rape Crisis Services
3:00-3:50 p.m. Title IX—Consent and Sexual Assault: Breaking through
the Myths. Michael Tarbet, Prevention Coordinator Crime Victim Services
The topic for the Cultural Conversation Hour this month will be equity in
pay. It will be held on March 22nd. The discussion leaders will be
Omega Hollies and Rosie Edmond. The program was moved to the fourth
Tuesday this month in an effort to avoid conflicts with faculty meetings.
Good Neighbor meetings were held last week for students planning to live
off campus next year. The Housing Lottery for on campus housing will
begin soon.
Six applications were received for the NetVUE Vocation mini-grants.
Although the deadline has passed, if there are still members of the
community who have grant ideas late applications will be accepted until
Friday.
The Rev. Charles Yost will be the speaker at this year’s Baccalaureate
Service. Rev. Yoost is a member of the ONU Board of Trustees and
senior pastor of the Church of the Savior in Cleveland, Ohio.
Kelsey Timmerman’s (author of the book that was used as the common
reading this past fall and will be used again this coming fall – Where are
you wearing?) will visit campus on April 6th. The visit is being
coordinated by Multicultural Development and Academic Affairs and will
include classroom time, a session with faculty and a keynote address at 7
p.m.
The Multicultural Fair will take place on April 8th this year and will be in
the Field House in King Horn, as it has outgrown the McIntosh Center
Activities room.
b. Deans
4
i. Arts & Sciences: Our Keiser Distinguished Lecturer is here – he gave a
public talk last night and is giving a talk tonight. District Science Day is
Saturday; they are still looking for volunteers to be judges. The Student
Research Colloquium is 4/22. The application deadline was last Friday,
but we could probably still take applications tomorrow we have over 90
presentations scheduled. The 2016 Kritzler Lectureship in Chemistry
Guest Speaker: James McCusker will occur on 4/7 at 7:30 p.m. in the
Dicke Forum The spring musical also starts on 4/7 – it is How to Succeed
in Business Without Really Trying and will be playing through 4/10. We
will be celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Freed Center in April –
everyone should attend something and see what they are up to!
ii. Engineering: No report.
iii. Pharmacy: The Student Business Plan team is among the top 3 in the
state again this year – they will be in the finalist competition in Columbus
coming up in April. The ONU chapter of the Student National
Pharmaceutical Association was a regional winner; they will be going to
nationals in July. The ONU Healthwise residency program received a
grant to expand residence to 2 residents. We will be hosting the Ohio
Pharmacy Residency Conference in May.
iv. Business Administration: No report
v. Law: No report
c. Student Senate: Andrew Huff has been elected new student senate president.
d. Health Services Advisory Committee: No report
V.
Chair/Faculty Comments: None
VI.
President Comments/Questions:
As an addendum to the information on the Founder’s Day Challenge – there are also
buttons available! Addendum to Adriane’s report – on Saturday Klondike’s had two
races our students were involved with; we got to watch them with students and there
were a lot of people watching.
The provost search has been ongoing for this year. To give an update: we had our
two interviews last week. He was able to meet with search committee on Monday
afternoon. There will be a communication forthcoming – hopefully by the end of the
week.
5
On the Dean of Business College search: it is not as far along, but it is moving –
we’ve started identifying time for semi-finalist interviews. So, some progress is
being made.
In April we will be celebrating the naming of an academic department in the sciences:
the Donald Bettinger Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry. Donald was a
longtime chair of the department; during his tenure he had the assignment of
receiving the accreditation of ACS and succeeded – we have had it for a long time
now. His son, Walter, grew up in Ada has served on our Board. He is currently
President and CEO of Charles Schwab and is likely to be reengaging with the
university. We are happy to honor Donald and reengage with Walt. The chemistry
department and college will have a small dedication ceremony in the middle of April.
On the subject of our affiliation with the general board of higher education ministries
of the Methodist Church – we received final word. No surprise, but we are going to
be affiliated with the Methodist Church for the next 10 years; we don’t have to do
anything between now and then for them.
VII.
Unfinished Business
a. From Academic Affairs Committee, proposed Handbook 3.31 change. [see
Attachment C]. Pretty much the same as last month except corrected a minor
grammatical change.
Question: in part 4, where it says that the matter will go to the Associate Dean:
does it matter that not every college has an associate dean?
Answer: No – it will go to next level down. Basically it just means that we won’t
go all the way to the Dean.
After discussion, a friendly amendment was accepted to change the wording to
Associate or Assistant Dean (in part 4).
This passed – see voting record [Attachment A]
b. From Academic Affairs Committee, New Appendix (Appendix 32). [see
Attachment D]
There was a question from last time about how to determine teaching load – we
added in that it’s determined in consultation with their dean and department chair.
Everything else is the same.
Question: for department chair pg 1, item 2 – if they already have administrative
leave, the normal load is used in calculating how many courses to buy out. Does
this mean the chair should have extra buyout? i.e., if the chair is reduced from 8
courses to 6, this would still allow 4 courses to be bought out, not 3.
6
After much discussion, this seems to be correct, but the course release for being
chair is counted towards that. So 4 can be bought out in total. 2 of those are
being used as a release for being chair, and that leaves 2 remaining that could be
bought out on a grant. The chair, therefore, actually has less buyout it appears.
Passed – see voting record [Attachment A]
VIII.
a.
New Business
From Academic Affairs Committee, Appendix 5 [see Attachments E & F] Note:
If approved, Program Review would be an operational committee and we would
want to modify the list of operational committees in Bylaw 5. The attachments
therefore also include the draft of the composition and term limits for that
operational committee.
This Appendix deals with program review and creation/deletion. If approved, it
creates a new operational committee which needs to be updated in Bylaw 5, hence
why there are both of these.
Dean Albrecht: recommends we set aside time at future meeting to discuss
further, since we’re 45 minutes into a 60 minute meeting and won’t be able to
discuss this much now.
Q: Looking at the statement for standard 3, it says to consult with institutional
research. Are we only looking at ONU then or outside sources as well?
Crago: Ruffalo Noel Levitz are helping us look at programs that have growth
potential etc.; they are doing an analysis of 6 states around us. So it won’t just
based be ONU’s demand – it’ll be what the demand is based on a set of guidelines
given to Omar and updated as we go along. (i.e., in the future we should be able
to create the reports RNL is creating now.) So we should have info beyond ONU.
LeBlanc: section 6, item c: procedure for deletion – 3 months seems like an
aggressive timeline to prepare a self-study, bring it to the dean, etc. What do
people think?
Crago: note that this doesn’t apply to recommendations coming out of the
program review process. This would apply if it came up some other way – that’s
when the three month timeline kicks in.
LeBlanc: that’s why it seems too fast – with periodic review, you know it’s
coming up; this could be a blindsiding thing.
Kobiela: the committee wanted to put a timeline in because there currently isn’t
one. But we didn’t know what it should be. Is there a suggestion?
LeBlanc: 6 months, maybe?
7
Albrecht: It’s not clear that the deadline should count the summer months, either,
since we might not have human resources on campus to make the case.
Al-Olimat: If a program might be deleted, won’t its faculty be motivated to get it
done in 3 months?
Hurtig: Keep in mind that it’s a 12-page document – it’s not too long.
LeBlanc: But such a program will want to make as strong a case as possible, so
might want longer.
At this point the general consensus seemed to be to consider this issue further.
Albrecht: Any faculty member, administrator, etc. can bring forward a
recommendation of program deletion – that’s a pretty wide net to cast.
Answer: That is current language, although goes to the Provost first to see if it’s
worth considering. The provost is the gatekeeper.
Albrecht: In the early sections where there is a definition of program, major, etc.:
for A&S should we handling it by program, by department, or what? Do you
want a separate cycle/document for each program inside a department?
Kobiela: haven’t come up with a schedule about when things would be done.
This sounds logical, but the program review committee would be creating that
schedule.
Crago: each program has to stand on its own two feet. When the schedule is
developed, there will be 70 programs to evaluate on roughly a 7 year schedule.
We can be cognizant of how the programs relate, but to be efficacious, we should
make it clear that each program stands on its own two feet. There may be
departments where some programs are very strong and others need some guidance
to become stronger. He thinks that doing it at a programmatic level (not a
departmental one) is probably most effective. We want to avoid blurring
programs within departments.
Q: What happens if we delete a program that has students in it? Do we continue it
until they are done?
A: yes, we are under contract to finish them up in their program.
Q: will they stay in that kind of situation?
Crago: Many have stayed in the past. We are required to teach them out – we
cannot stop in the middle. Note that the intent of program review isn’t to get rid
of programs; it’s to make them stronger and more successful. Yes, it’s possible to
get rid of programs (particularly if the world changes and a program is no longer
relevant), but that’s not the general intent.
8
LeBlanc: is it the intention of the academic affairs committee that (once this
review committee is created) the programs within a department would tend to be
reviewed at the same time (to make it easier on department chairs)?
Kobiela: We didn’t really discuss this yet – we would need to think about how
this would work, how it would relate to outside accreditation etc.
Hurtig: So we are doing the reviews at least every 7 years but it could be more
frequent to sync with external reviews. We are trying to pick something that
works for people. (There was a note that we might need to see how it fits with
pharmacy accreditation, which is every 8 years.)
Crago: even on a 7 year schedule, there are 10 a year – this is a lot of work.
Albrecht: On the matter of the composition of the program review committee –
given the breadth of disciplines represented in A&S, I recommend more than one
representative from A&S on the committee; its current composition doesn’t seem
sufficiently broad. Would like committee to look at that.
A: Sure, we can take a look at that.
b.
From the Personnel Committee, changes to the Faculty Handbook [see
Attachment G]
Brant: As you can see, the Personnel Committee has been busy – it has produced
a bunch of material that is all integrated and interrelated. Unfortunately, that
meant we couldn’t really bring it to the Council piecemeal; we have brought it all
together so you can evaluate the connections and relationships among the various
sections.
Kobiela: for the section on post-tenure review – it currently excludes librarians: I
don’t think librarians should be excluded from this.
Brant: There was debate on this – the director of Heterick requested it. We are
continuing this debate. (It came up because elements of the evaluation involved
teaching and might not be applicable.)
In discussion, everyone seemed to agree this should be discussed and conform
with whatever the sense of the library is.
Clarification from Crago about tenure in the library vs. tenure in the university –
the former doesn’t involve teaching responsibilities, hence why it is inappropriate
to include teaching in tenure reviews. (All but one librarian on campus has this
kind of tenure.)
9
Albrecht: would like both this and program review to be scheduled for future
discussion.
Eddings: Sure
Celius: The terminology “compensation adjustments” – was this defined?
seems like new language relative to old section.
It
Crago: the notion is that annual reviews can be used in considering person’s
compensations. So adjustments can take these into account.
Celius: do we need to specify this?
Crago: “Compensation” seems like an all-encompassing term.
Albrecht: complaints about the inconsistent timing of first and second year
reviews has come up – that wasn’t something you looked at right?
Brant: no, we didn’t.
Albrecht: you might want to look at this in the future.
Celius: Under Appendix 18, 2.F, pertaining to pieces of scholarship – what you do
with an unfunded grant? It says that unfunded grants can be included with referee
evidence of merit. But I’ve had lots of conversations with people on campus as to
whether they count and it’s not clear.
Brant: The answer is yes
Celius: what do we need to provide to show merit?
Crago: you get comments back on grants – you would include those with grant
application as evidence.
Celius: with some grants you get nothing back – what do you do for them?
Crago: It’s not that it wouldn’t count in that case, but it would be more difficult to
argue the merit of the grant. In such a case I would recommend that you have the
dean or the chair (in their recommendation) comment on the merits of your grant
and make a point of explaining why it was particularly meritorious; this should
help provide evidence if you don’t have something back from an external
reviewer.
Celius: Having served as a reviewer, different panels have had different standards
of “meritorious”. How do we deal with this?
Crago: each college would have to determine what makes something meritorious
– what the standards are etc. We can’t get a single standard. But, whatever the
standard is, no college can say that unfunded grants don’t count. (So they can
give guidance as to how to think about the grants, but they cannot exclude
unfunded grants from counting.)
10
Brant: the goal of this was to provide generic standards that provides a floor – the
level of granularity and detail needed to fully address some of these concerns
would have to be addressed by colleges and departments.
Albrecht: In this timeline, we have only a month for both departmental and
college committees to consider things – this doesn’t seem long enough. Would
like to see a little more time (9/15-10/15 is awfully short) – but of course this
would impact other dates.
Crago: The thinking in the committee, even by the A&S rep, was to avoid having
any of this carry over Christmas.
Albrecht: I understand that, but if a department has 2 or 3 candidates and a college
committee has 5-8 people to review, that’s a lot of reviewing in a short time.
Al-Olimat: could we start on 9/1 instead?
Brant: We have already pushed back the dates back some – we wanted to avoid
having negative reactions reach people right over the holidays, as it seemed cruel.
We can certainly look into whether we should push things back; she appreciates
these concerns and will take it back to the committee.
c.
Approve the slate of for at-large committee and University Council positions.
The slate will be distributed at the meeting.
Julie Hurtig passed out the slate. [See Attachment H] She reassured us that it
meets all the requirements for number of candidates etc. Motion to approve was
passed by acclamation.
d.
Request from the General Education Committee to have a special University
Council meeting between now and April 19. Possible dates would be March 29
or April 5 to remain on Tuesday evenings. This would permit the committee to
conclude its work on a proposed revision for the general education program, as
the committee receives feedback from the College of Arts and Sciences on March
15. A draft would be sent immediately to the Academic Affairs Committee.
Assuming approval, it would then go before Council for its first and second
readings prior to the last University Faculty meeting on April 26.
Julie Hurtig noted that items of business have a two reading minimum before they
can be approved. This kind of general education change would have to go to the
University Faculty. She is asking for an additional Council meeting to allow us a
chance to be heard twice before the final University Faculty meeting of the
academic year. Obviously that doesn’t mean that we guarantee approval or
anything, but it gives a chance.
Our parliamentarian noted that this doesn’t require a vote – we can call an
additional meeting with reasonable notice, but we have to put things on an agenda
and can only talk about what is on the agenda. After brief discussion it was
decided that the extra meeting will be April 12th.
11
VIII.
Announcements:
None
IX.
Adjournment, 7:01 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Erica L. Neely
Secretary of University Council
12
Submitted Reports
II.c Student Activities Committee
Student Activities Committee is scheduled to meet in McIntosh on Wednesday, March 16 from
3-3:50PM to take action on the following proposed student organizations: Merge, 4 Paws, and
College Democrats.
IV.a.iv Admissions & Financial Aid
Enrollment report:
 Admissions Weekly Application Report – March 11
o Total First-year applications for Fall 2016 total 3697 compared to 2872 Fall 2015
o Total deposits at 247 compared to 234 in 2015
 Recruitment Outreach
o Ongoing yield email campaign – Next steps, Return on Investment
o Orange and Black Accepted Student Day – April 2 – 185 RSVP’s to date
 Polar Preview Days – March 12 and April 6
 Initial financial aid packages have been sent.
 Pharmacy students calling accepted and deposited students this month
13
Attachment A
Present
President Daniel DiBiaisio
VP David Crago
VP William Ballard
VP Shannon Spencer
VP William Eilola
VP Adriane Thompson-Bradshaw
Dean Catherine Albrecht
Dean Eric Baumgartner
Dean Steve Martin
Dean James Fenton
Dean Richard Bales
Rev. David MacDonald
Dr. Alisa Agozzino
Dr. Khalid Al-Olimat
Dr. Joseph Blankson
Dr. Bryan Boulanger
Dr. Joanne Brant
Dr. Tevye Celius
Dr. Mark Cruea
Dr. Natalie DiPietro
Dr. Kami Fox
Ms. Gina Grandillo
Dr. Dong Hyun Kim
Prof. Kelly Kobiela
Dr. Heath LeBlanc
Dr. Jed Marquart
Dr. Michelle Musser
Dr. Erica Neely
Dr. Lauren Newell
Dr. Ed Potkanowicz
Prof. David Savino
Dr. Kristen Sobota
Dr. Shane Tilton
Prof. Melissa Eddings
Handbook 3.31
Yes
No
Abstain
Appendix 32
Yes No Abstain
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Shading indicates a non-voting member.
14
Attachment B
Proposed Learning Outcomes – 3/15/2016
1. Effective written communication.
Students demonstrate the written, oral and visual communication skills necessary to communicate professionally and
effectively as responsible members of their organizations and their communities. (Met by passing ENGL 1221 course and the
senior capstone course. An additional artifact will be generated for written communication in the diversity seminar course,
outcome 10 below.)
2. Effective spoken communication.
Students will be able to demonstrate the oral communication skills necessary to develop and deliver an original prepared,
purposeful presentation designed to increase knowledge, to foster understanding, or to promote change in the listeners'
attitudes, values, beliefs, or behaviors. (Met by passing CAMS courses that instruct students on speeches, debates,
presentations, etc.)
3. Critical and creative thinking.
Students will be able to explore, synthesize, and analyze information and ideas and formulate effective solutions in imaginative
or innovative ways. (Met by passing a Transitions Experience course and the capstone course.)
4. Knowledge of physical and natural world.
Students will demonstrate an understanding of the scientific process and the basic principles and applications of the life or
physical sciences. (Met by passing one course in CHEM/PHYS/BIOL/GEOL.)
5. Knowledge of mathematics and statistics.
Students have the ability to express mathematical concepts and solve quantitative problems. (Met by passing one course in
MATH/STAT.)
6. Knowledge of human thought and culture.
Students will demonstrate a knowledge of ideas and ways of understanding and interpreting the human experiences. (Met by
passing one course from a list including PHIL, RELG, ENGL, HIST. Similar to A&S Humanities attribute in Banner.)
7. Knowledge of human society and the interactions between society and individuals.
Students will describe how historical, economic, political, social, and spatial relationships and identities develop, persist, and
change. (Met by passing one course from a list of courses taken from CAMS/PLSC/PSYC/SOC/Economics. Similar to A&S
Social Science attribute in Banner.)
8. Knowledge of the principles of aesthetics.
Students will demonstrate knowledge of the principles of beauty as expressed by the arts. (Met by passing one 2 or more
credit course from a list of courses such as those from MUSC/ART/theatre, ENGL 2xx1 courses.)
9. Knowledge of the principles of civics or ethics on a professional, community, or global level.
Students will understand the principles of ethical reasoning or civic responsibilities. (Met by passing one course from a list of
courses including areas such as PHIL, PLSC, etc.)
10. An understanding of diverse cultures.
Students will encounter elements of diverse cultures or societies. (Met by passing one course “tagged” for this outcome that
is in a seminar style, high-impact learning, 18 person enrollment limit, required substantive written assignment with revision.
Faculty involved in this course will belong to a steering group to provide creative support and ideas and to set a common rigor
of expectations.)
Note: A course is 3 credits or more, unless otherwise noted.
7
Attachment C
3.31
Student Grade Appeals Procedure (9/1/87) (9/1/05) (proposed changes in yellow and strikethrough)
1. A student has the right to appeal a final course grade which the student feels is unfairly or erroneously
assigned. The student must first discuss the grade with the faculty member(s) who assigned the grade no later than
the fifth (5th)/second (2nd)* class day** after the final grade for the course was assigned/posted. If the student is still
convinced that the grade is an unfair evaluation of the student's performance in the course, the student may appeal
the grade. The appeal must be made in writing within two (2) class days to the department chair or dean of the
college offering the course where no departments exist. A response will be provided to the student within two (2)
class days. If the matter has not been resolved by the department chair to the student's satisfaction, the student must
appeal within two (2) class days to the dean of the college in which the course is offered. Upon receipt of the
written appeal, the dean will inform the Grade Appeals Committee that a grade appeal procedure has been initiated.
2. The Grade Appeals Committee shall be elected in each college at the beginning of each academic year and
shall be composed of the following members: Four faculty members of the College, and one Student Senate
member of the College or Student Advisory Board member for the College of Arts and Science. one person selected
from the Faculty or student body by the appealing student, and one Faculty member from the department involved or
college where no departments exist. The proceedings for the appealing process will include the following nonvoting advocates: the student who is appealing the grade or one person selected from the faculty or student body by
the appealing student and the faculty member who assigned the grade or one faculty member selected from the
department involved by the faculty member that issued the disputed grade.
3. Grade appeals shall be handled only by the college in which the course is offered. The committee will review
the written statements of the student and information supplied by the faculty member, department chair and dean,
determine if the grade was assigned unfairly or erroneously and the committee chair will make a recommendation to
the faculty member within four (4)/two (2)* class days. When the committee makes a recommendation, the
recommendation is to the faculty member, not the student. All discussions and written statements concerning the
circumstances of the grade appeal are to be kept confidential by all of the persons involved in the appeals process.
Notice of the appeal and the action taken need not be treated confidentially.
4. The faculty member has the sole responsibility to determine the final grade for the course. The department chair,
dean or the Grade Appeals Committee may only make recommendations to the faculty member. The faculty
member must inform the student of his/her decision relative to the recommendation of the Grade Appeals
Committee within two (2) class days. In the event that the faculty member does not follow the recommendation of
the Grade Appeals Committee, the committee chair Grade Appeals Committee shall issue a letter to the student
giving the findings of the Grade Appeals Committee. When the committee chair notifies the student, they also
notify the Registrar and Associate Dean of the college involved. The Registrar shall place the letter issued by the
Committee in the student’s permanent records file, and make publicly available at the written request of the affected
student. The Grade Appeals Committee does not share the decision made by the committee with the student unless
the faculty member does not follow the recommendation of the committee.
5. The student has the responsibility to promptly initiate the appeals procedure at each step so that any appeal
requested be completed within the timeframe set forth above.
6.
This procedure does not apply to the College of Law.
*time periods apply to the College of Pharmacy module courses
**class day refers to days the university is open for class instruction
Attachment D
APPENDIX 32
EXTERNAL GRANT-FUNDED COURSE RELEASE
I.
Purpose
Larger external grants which support research or other faculty activity occasionally provide
funds to enable faculty to buyout of a portion of their teaching responsibilities in order that they
might devote more time to the grant activity. At Ohio Northern, a faculty member's primary
responsibility is teaching, and the concern for keeping highly-qualified faculty in teaching roles
naturally limits the amount of permissible course release time.
Faculty workload expectations already include time for scholarly pursuits, but these expectations
vary by college and department. Thus the amount of time that can be reasonably devoted to such
pursuits before requiring relief from teaching responsibilities will vary accordingly. The
difficulty of finding suitably qualified adjuncts or rebalancing department teaching
responsibilities also varies by department and specialty. Based on these factors, the course
release application will be submitted through the department chair and dean, giving each an
opportunity to comment before final determination is made by the provost.
This policy provides a mechanism for applying for a course release and a procedure for
evaluating the application.
II.
Course Release Limits, Grant Requirements, and Faculty Expectations
1.
Course release may be sought for a maximum of 50% of a faculty's annual teaching load
as determined in consultation with the dean and department chair. For example, one with a 3-3
(six course) load may buyout of a maximum three courses during the year. The faculty member
will, based on the requirements of the grant, submit a recommendation to the chair and dean as to
the timing of the released courses (how many courses are released in which semester). The chair
and dean will make a decision after considering teaching needs.
2.
The grant must explicitly provide funds for the course buyout. The grant will be charged
a percentage of the faculty salary, including benefits, equivalent to the requested percentage of
the faculty's teaching load. For example, a faculty member teaching eight courses per year would
need to charge 12.5% of her salary and benefits for one course. The appropriate buyout funding
will be determined by the dean and provost for faculty whose teaching load is not chiefly
quantified by a number of courses. If the faculty member already has an administrative course
release, such as a department chair, the normal (not reduced) departmental load for that person
will be used in the calculation.
3.
If the grant is approved, albeit with some lesser amount of course release funds, the
faculty member will only be released from the number of courses which remain fully funded by
the grant. Faculty may petition the provost for exceptions to this requirement.
4.
Faculty taking grant-funded course buyouts are expected to meet the usual standards of
quality for their other teaching obligations and for service as outlined in the faculty handbook.
5.
Faculty will not necessarily be able to select which course(s) from which they will be
relieved. Faculty preferences will be respected where possible, but this matter will be negotiated
between the faculty and department chair. This will be agreed upon and documented at the time
of course release application.
6.
Faculty applying for renewal of a grant for which release time had previously been
awarded must also reapply for any release time potentially supported by the grant renewal.
III. Application Procedures and Guidelines
1.
Any faculty member applying for a grant toward which sufficient time is pledged so as to
make it impractical for him or her to maintain a full teaching load while carrying out the
promised grant activities should combine the grant application with an application for course
release. Faculty should discuss the possibility of anticipated course release with their department
chair and dean early in the proposal development process so as not to delay approval.
2.
The applicant shall indicate and quantify the request for release time on the
"Authorization to Seek Off-Campus Funding" <convert to hyperlink> form available from the
Office of Proposal Development.
3.
After review of the application, the department chair shall submit a recommendation and
impact statement to the dean.
4.
After review of the application and department chair recommendation, the dean shall
submit a recommendation to the provost.
5.
The provost will notify the applicant of the final decision.
6.
All course releases which become effective shall be published among all faculty to
promote equity and uniformity.
Attachment E
APPENDIX 5
GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES FOR PROGRAM REVIEW
AND THE ADDITION OR DELETION OF PROGRAMS
(9/1/84) (11/09)(3/16)
I.
DEFINITIONS
A. A “major” shall comprise a minimum of 30 hours of coursework.
a. All courses required for a major that are in the major subject area shall be termed “Major
Courses” and count toward the major GPA and major hours.
b. All courses required for a major, including but not limited to course prerequisites and
corequisites, which are outside of the major subject area, if any, shall be termed “Other
Required Courses” and listed in the catalog adjacent to “Major Courses.”
B. A “minor” shall comprise a minimum of 18 hours of coursework within a specified discipline outside
of the student’s major or majors.
C. An “option” shall comprise a minimum of 18 hours of coursework and shall consist of courses that a
department or college shall choose that a) are external to the student’s major, and b) enhance the
student’s major. The department or college that constructs the option shall control and administer the
option.
D. A specialization within a major shall be termed a “concentration.” A concentration shall comprise a
minimum of 18 hours of coursework within the major.
E. A program is any major, minor, option, or other coherent curriculum of degree credit courses.
II. PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE
Ohio Northern University recognizes the need for continued revision of academic programs. Program review
establishes a baseline understanding of opportunities and challenges in academic programs. All academic programs
will engage in the program review process at least every seven years to ensure that programs are maintained at the
highest level of quality possible; the review will contribute to an institutional perspective for planning and budgetary
decision-making. The selected program undergoing program review must generate a self-study report, which
describes the academic program using a common set of institutionally determined standards. The Program Review
Committee is responsible for evaluating the self-study report generated by the selected programs.
The Program Review Committee shall be composed of an elected member from each college, a representative from
the University library, and two at-large members.
The Program Review Committee will assess the self-study reports, utilizing the guidelines for addition and deletion
of programs in Section IV. The program review committee will also create an order and schedule for when each
program is reviewed.
The program review committee shall prepare and maintain a record of its activities.
III. PROCEDURE FOR PROGRAM REVIEW
Academic Program Review is the process by which each program is comprehensively evaluated on its quality and
currency in relation to the university as a whole. The full evaluation of a program will happen on a cycle not to
exceed seven years. The evaluation shall be based on a self-study prepared in accordance with the requirements of
Section VII of this Appendix and for programs without an external accrediting body, an optional external review. In
preparing the self-study, the program may obtain information from the Offices of Admissions, Financial Affairs,
Institutional Research, or other sources having applicable information. The self-study should completely describe
the program in question, including but not limited to uniqueness, quality, opportunities, and drawbacks of the
program.
Once the program has conducted the review, all material will be sent to the Program Review Committee, who will
evaluate this submission based on a rubric. The Committee will then make a recommendation to the Provost for
Continuation, Conditional Continuation, or Deletion. The Provost will make the final determination and notify the
program of their outcome via a letter that specifically outlines the details of why the decision was made
1
A Conditional Continuation outcome will include specific improvements to be made before a secondary review two
years after the initial review.
A Deletion outcome will be forwarded to the academic program department and the dean(s) of the college(s) in
which students or faculty or both will be affected by the program. After consultation with the academic dean(s), the
Provost will forward a recommendation to the President with the complete file of self-study materials and actions.
A copy of the statement by the Provost will be sent to the dean(s) of the colleges and the academic program
department. If the President supports the recommendation to delete the program, the program deletion will be
reported to the Board of Trustees at its next meeting. If the President does not support the recommendation to delete
the program, the President should convey a response in writing to the Provost who should in turn send it to the deans
and to the academic program department.
IV. GUIDELINES FOR ADDITION OR DELETION OF PROGRAMS
A. The following guidelines list basic considerations to justify any proposed addition or deletion of programs
offered by the University. Initiation of new programs sustains the effectiveness of the University in time of
changing societal needs and student demand. Deletion of existing programs is a corollary process to preserve
efficient use of the resources of the University.
The numbering of the guidelines does not indicate any priorities; the numbers are for reference only.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The program has a clear and publicly stated purpose that contributes to the mission of the University.
The program is of high quality.
There is demand for the program.
The program uses an identified plan for systematic evaluation and assessment of goals and purposes.
The program accomplishes effectively its educational and related purposes.
B.
All programs need not carry strong support based on the consideration of each of the above guidelines.
However, weakness based on consideration of one or more of the guidelines should be weighed against strength
based on others. A program to be added should carry strong support from most considerations, and a program to be
deleted would not carry such support. The consideration of addition or deletion of programs should take into
account that societal needs and student demand for programs may be cyclical, temporary, or continuing.
V.
PROCEDURE FOR ADDITION OF PROGRAMS
A. Any faculty member or group of faculty members, administrator or administrators may initiate a
recommendation to add a program.
B. Whatever the source, the originating party is responsible for providing written justification to add a program
according to the GUIDELINES FOR ADDITION OR DELETION OF PROGRAMS.
C. In order for a proposal to add a program to receive proper consideration, the proposal should include a program
self-study report prepared by the proposed program’s academic home department.
D. A recommendation for addition of a program will be forwarded to the Provost. A recommendation for addition
of a program will be forwarded to the dean(s) of the college(s) in which students or faculty or both will be affected
by the program and to the Provost. After action by the college(s), the Provost should receive the results of action(s)
by the college(s), the appraisals by the college dean(s), and the required study. The Program Review Committee
will review the program self-study report and send their findings to the Provost. The Provost will review the selfstudy and the college and Program Review Committee reports and forward a recommendation to the President with
the complete file of materials and actions. A copy of the statement by the Provost will be sent to the deans of the
colleges and the originating party. If the President supports the recommendation to add the program, the program
addition will be reported to the Board of Trustees at its next meeting. If the President does not support the
recommendation to add the program, the President should convey a response in writing to the Provost who should in
turn send it to the dean(s) and to the originating party.
2
VI.
PROCEDURE FOR DELETION OF PROGRAMS
This section does not apply to the situation of a Program Review Committee recommendation for deletion. See
Section III above.
A. Any faculty member or group of faculty members, administrator or group of administrators may initiate a
proposal to delete a program.
B. Whatever the source, the originating party is responsible for providing written justification to delete a program
according to the GUIDELINES FOR ADDITION OR DELETION OF PROGRAMS.
C. A proposal for deletion of a program will be forwarded to the Provost. If the Provost finds probable cause in
this proposal, the Provost will forward the proposal to the dean(s) of the college(s) in which students or faculty or
both will be affected by the program. The identified program should prepare a program self-study report. After
action by the college(s), the Provost should receive the results of the action(s) by the college(s) and the appraisals by
the college dean(s) and the program self-study report. No more than three months should elapse from the time the
Provost sent the department the recommendation to delete the program and the submission of the required program
self-study report.
D. The Program Review Committee will review the program self-study report and send their findings to the
Provost. After consultation with the academic dean(s), the Provost will forward a recommendation to the President
with the complete file of materials and actions. A copy of the statement by the Provost will be sent to the deans of
the colleges and the originating party. If the President supports the recommendation to delete the program, the
program deletion will be reported to the Board of Trustees at its next meeting. If the President does not support the
recommendation to delete the program, the President should convey a response in writing to the Provost who should
in turn send it to the deans and to the originating party.
VII.
PROGRAM SELF-STUDY REPORT
The self-study report should not exceed 12 pages (not including appendices). Please provide all the relevant
information for the program under review. Any section that does not apply to the program in question can be
marked “N/A”. If the program under review has an external accreditation, that evaluation may be included. If the
program under review does not have an external accreditation, an external evaluation (not including a site visit) may
be requested if desired, which would be funded by the University.
A: General Information/Introduction/Overview
Name of program
Majors, minors, concentrations under review, or state this is a review for addition or deletion of a program
College in which the program is located
Chair of the program
Dean of the academic unit
Briefly describe the following:
History of the program
Description of its present status
Address previous program review findings
Learning outcomes and mission of the program
Unique and distinguishing characteristics
B: Standards and Criteria
Each program will be reviewed by the five standards. Each standard is supported by multiple criteria. Please
provide specific examples for each criterion to demonstrate the extent to which the program meets each standard and
criterion. Any section that does not apply to the program in question can be marked “N/A”. Please include data in
the appendices.
3
Standard 1: The program has a clear and publicly stated purpose that contributes to the mission of the
University.
The program contributes to the mission of the University, the College/School and department by:
A. Stating how the program is aligned with the vision, mission, and strategic plan of the College and
University.
B. Supporting research and creative activities that generate new knowledge and understanding; and enrich the
intellectual environment for students, staff, and faculty
C. Engaging in relevant application of new knowledge to contemporary problems through teaching,
scholarship, creative activities, service, and outreach.
D. Evaluating and changing curricula or delivery of curriculum to students
E. Preparing students for productive, responsible, and creative lives.
F. Additional program-specific indicators of alignment with the mission.
Standard 2: The program is of high quality.
The program quality is evidenced by:
A. Faculty
1. The Program faculty are qualified to teach the curriculum, as indicated by earned academic
degrees and professional certifications. [Faculty demographic information will be included
from IR]
2. The program invests in the professional and scholarly development of its faculty, including the
mentoring and guidance of junior faculty members.
B. Resources - The program has adequate faculty, support staff, library resources, equipment, and facilities to
accomplish its purpose. [Faculty workload will be included from IR]
C. Reputation
1. The program is well regarded, as evidenced by external rankings and assessments by external
reviewers of students, faculty, resources, and productivity.
2. The program attracts and retains excellent students as evidenced by admission qualifications,
performance on standardized examinations, etc. [Student Profile will be included from IR]
D. Faculty performance – Faculty demonstrate effectiveness in teaching and student advising, scholarship, and
service, as evidenced by evaluations, awards, honors, grants, research contributions, publications, citations,
and service endeavors.
E. Student performance – Students demonstrate mastery of knowledge by means of formative and summative
assessments, performance in the field, professional achievements, and performance on professional
licensure exams. Program graduates succeed in finding jobs and progress well in their chosen careers;
alumni are satisfied with the program. Undergraduates produce creative works, publications, and receive
grant awards. [Student graduation and placement rates will be included from IR]
F. Benchmarks – The program reflects “best practices” and compares well to relevant performance standards
from comparable institutions and/or accrediting agencies and/or other authoritative sources. The program
demonstrates leadership in its performances relative to appropriate external benchmarks.
G. Advising – Program faculty provide excellent academic advising per student evaluations and other
appropriate indicators.
H. Extramural Funding – Success in attracting extramural funding that contributes to the Program’s long-term
stability. [Specific grants and amounts can be included as an appendix]
I. Extra-University collaborations such as articulation agreements, jointly administered programs, students
internships, practica, or field-based projects with outside organizations, ONU courses taught at high
schools, 3+3 programs with graduate schools, etc.
4
Standard 3: There is demand for the program.
There is demand for the program as evidenced by:
A. External demand based on local, regional, national, and global trends and forecasts for persons with
particular types and level of education. [Enrollment trends and Student market will be included from the
IR]
B. Internal demand as reflected by both student enrollment in the program and the scope of service teaching
for students from other programs.
C. Competitive environment - other universities offering the same program, draw for specific program,
opportunities for new or more competitive market.
D. Job placement demand - evidence of immediate job placement (or graduate school) after graduation.
E. Intra-College and Intra-University academic connections/program collaborations, such as joint faculty
appointments, dual degrees, interdisciplinary programs, research collaborations, etc.
F. Fiscal sustainability analysis. Discuss annual operating expenses including accreditation expenses, faculty
and staff salary expenses (including benefits), additional necessary investments in facilities or equipment,
and annual tuition revenue generated.
Standard 4: The program uses an identified plan for systematic evaluation and assessment of goals and
purposes.
If the program has filed a University Assessment report, please include the last completed report in the appendices.
Otherwise, please address the following.
The program has quality control processes that are used to:
A. Evaluate how well the program is achieving its learning outcomes.
B. Monitor on an ongoing basis the design and delivery of the curriculum/curricula as informed by student
outcomes.
C. Complete ongoing evaluation of student outcomes. This includes but is not limited to formative and
summative assessments of student learning. As appropriate, other outcomes should include academic or
professional achievements; job placement and career progression; alumni satisfaction with the program;
employer satisfaction with program graduates' performance; graduates' performance on professional
licensure exams; publications, grant awards, and creative works of undergraduate and graduate students,
etc.
D. Monitor the quality of student advising.
E. Determine needed changes in tactics, policies, curriculum, and course contents.
F. Implement the self-determined changes in a timely manner.
Standard 5: The program accomplishes effectively its educational and related purposes.
The effectiveness of the program is reflected by:
A. Improvements in the design and delivery of the curriculum based on assessments of new knowledge in the
discipline, student outcomes, societal need and demand for the program.
B. Programmatic features that foster an appreciation of cultural and intellectual diversity.
C. Current and anticipated educational style.
C: Analysis & Prospective
This section should present a brief summary of the teaching, research, and scholarly enterprise and review how the
program meets each criterion. The meaning and implications of the evidence presented should be explained. The
narrative should specifically identify the Program’s progress since its last review, its strengths, difficulties,
directions for needed improvement, and opportunities.
5
The prospectus should present a vision for the Program grounded in the Program’s strategic goals and a balanced
assessment of opportunities and resources needed. It should include a discussion of new scholarly directions,
research plans, curricular or degree program changes, and plans for maintaining and enhancing excellence and
diversity of faculty and students over the next seven years. Given the persistence of budgetary constraints, the
discussion should include ways in which the unit can be strengthened without receiving additional resources.
D: Appendices
Office of Institutional Research Data
Faculty - name, rank, length of service
Number of course hours offered
Faculty workload
Percent of instruction offered by full-time faculty
Tuition income generated
External grants
Retention rates
Graduation rates
Placement rates
Enrollment trends
Student markets
Student profile
Geographic
ACT
GPA
Other Appendices
6
Attachment F
Addition to Operational Committees list in Bylaw 5
N. Program Review Committee
(1) Membership.
a. One elected faculty member from each college
b. A faculty member from the University Library.
c. Two faculty elected at-large.
(2) Selection
Faculty members will serve two-year terms and follow the Constitutional Committee election
schedule with A&S, Engineering, and Pharmacy representatives elected in even-numbered years
and Law, Library, and Business representatives in odd-numbered years. Initially, Law, Library,
and Business representatives will serve three-years.
(3) Area of Responsibility
Coordinate the campus program review schedule and review program self-study reports.
(4) Administrative Coordinator or Liaison:
Provost
Attachment G
Attachment H
Faculty At-Large Positions, April 2016 Elections
University Council
Chair
(1 position, one-year term)
Jeff Allison
Melissa Eddings
At-large member
Dennis De Luca
Jessica Hinson
Jean-Marie Kamatali
Laurie Laird
John Lomax
Jay Mager
Lindsey Peters
Terry Sheridan
(2 positions, two-year term)
Other Committees
Committee on Athletics
Russ Crawford
Mark Cruea
Todd France
David Johnstone
Jennifer Kline Grundy
Lauren Newell
Mark Olah
David Rouch
Brian Sage
Jinjing Wang
(2 positions, three-year term)
Religious Affairs Committee
Kristen Finley Sobota
Kathie Fleck
Bruce Frohnen
Firas Hassan
Kristie McHugh
Steve Veltri
Jimmy Wilson
(1 position, three-year term)
Undergraduate Faculty Promotion and Tenure (2 positions, two-year term)
Appeals Committee
Eyob Adane
Natalie DiPietro Mager
Jason Pinkney
David Savino
Jon Smalley
Faculty Grievance Committee
Brian Anderson
Alexandra Coman
Mark Cruea
Michelle Musser
Yousif Rojeab
Brian Sage
Hui Shen
Jenny Walton
(3 positions, two-year term)
Review Committee on Dismissal of Faculty
Ahmed Abdel-Mohti
Alisa Agozzino
Becky Casey
Jill Christopher
Kevin Hill
David Koh
Jay Mager
Rich Miller
Dee Dee Myers
Brian Sage
(5 positions, two-year term)
Hearing Committee on Dismissal of Faculty
Laurie Bell
Joanne Brant
Mark Cruea
Randy Ewing
Jay Mager
Jason Pinkney
Yousif Rojeab
Amy Stockert
Srinivasa Vemuru
Jenny Walton
J-D Yoder
(5 positions, two-year term)
University Board of Appeals
Mano D’Souza
David Kinder
Kofi Nsia-Pepra
David Raack
Fan Ye
Ziad Youssfi
(2 positions, one-year term)
Tuition Exchange Selection Committee
Sophocles Chrissobolis
Cigdem Kochan
Laurie Laird
David Mikesell
Kristie Payment
Karen Powell
Jenelle Sobotka
Bill Theisen
(1 position, two-year term)