November 17, 2009
4:00 – 5:45
SPNA Department Meeting
302E DeVos
Facilitator:
Mark Hoffman
Recorder:
Attendees:
Dan Balfour, Margaret Schulte, Mike Payne, Rich Jelier, Donijo Robbins, Al Lyons, Pricilla Kimboko, Sherry
Moyer, Steve Borders, Bruce Nanzer, Ramya Ramanath
Mark Hoffman
Minutes
Agenda item:
MHA CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
Discussion:
The object of the revamping of the MHA curriculum is to achieve CAHME accreditation. One of
the obstacles is the dearth of Health-related content in classes shared with the MPA. Of concern
are PA612 (Human Resource Management), PA614 Organization Theory, and PA619 (Capstone
Management Seminar.) Creating MHA versions of these classes creates scheduling and
resource problems. Steve Borders presented an alternative plan:
Teach a generic version of these courses for 6 weeks, with 45-50 students. An instructor would
get 1.5 credits toward their teaching workload.
Follow that with 3 9-week, field-specific (health, government, nonprofit) sections with10-20
students. These sections would be taught by regular faculty. They would meet three times and the
remaining content would be delivered on-line. Meeting times would rotate so that sections met on
different days and thus all three sections could occupy the same classroom. Each of the three
instructors would get 1.5 credits toward their teaching workload.
Dan suggested this could be achieved more simply by having three instructors team teaching
these classes. Dan also believes that PA614 is appropriate as a generic org theory course and
would not need this approach.
Ramya pointed out that this is a more challenging, but better, approach because the instructors
would need to communicate more.
Mark believes this approach will worsen the faculty resource issue. By drawing regular faculty into
classes currently covered by our best adjuncts, holes will be created in other areas of curriculum
delivery. These areas may be harder to find good adjuncts.
In an attempt to monitor future teaching obligations in the revised curriculum, Mark has created
the following spreadsheet: http://faculty.gvsu.edu/hoffmanm/spnha.pdf
Actions:
A co-teaching approach to PA619 or PA612 will be attempted in future, as yet undetermined
semester.
Agenda item:
MASTERS IN PHILANTHROPY AND NONPROFIT
LEADERSHIP CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
Discussion:
Tne Nonprofit Masters is moving toward its final plan. Ramya Ramath presented the proposed
curriculum :
Core credits: 30
The following courses will be offered once a year:
PA520: Foundations in Public Service (name change)
PA611: Research Methods I: Quantitative Research Methods
PAXXX: Research Methods II: Qualitative Research Methods (new course)
PA660: Nonprofit Sector: History and Ethics
PA661: Nonprofit Management Practices
PA662: Nonprofit Resource and Financial Management
PA663: Nonprofit Management and Public Policy
PA670: Management of International Nongovernmental Organizations
PA680: Program Evaluation (new course)
PAXXX: Capstone experience in Philanthropy and Nonprofit leadership (new course)
Internship credits: 3
required for pre career students
Elective credits: 9
The remaining 9 credits will entail elective courses (including 3 and 1 credit courses) that are
currently offered as part of the MPA program. The choice of these electives will be determined
through conversations between the student and the advisor and will therefore be tailored to suit
the career interests of each student. The availability of faculty (both adjunct and full-time) will
help determine the range of electives that we offer.
Total credits: 42
These classes could change given Steve’s team teaching proposal.
Rich suggested that the electives should be grouped or themed in such a way that guidance is
provided to students.
Ramya said that there is hope of developing a “grantsmanship” elective series (grant writing,
grant making and grant & contract management.)
Donijo wanted PA520 returned to strictly government-centered content rather than rebadged as
“Public Service.” (And therefore dropped from the new masters), Mark argued that the strength of
the SPNA programs is the recognition that the reality of the two sectors is that they are
increasingly intertwined and siloing them in the curriculum would be a step backward.
Some faculty thought that 9 credits of research methods was too much (qualitative, quantitative
and program evaluation)
Actions:
The final plan must be submitted by January 11.
2
Agenda item:
SUSTAINABILITY CERTIFICATE
Discussion:
A Graduate Certificate in Sustainability is being developed by Bruce Nazer, working with the support
of Continuing Education.
See: http://faculty.gvsu.edu/hoffmanm/sus_curriculum.pdf
Actions:
The plan for the Certificate program would require a trail period supported by a visiting faculty person.
If the program proved successful, the visiting faculty position could be made regular faculty.
The certificate program would follow a self-contained cohort model. MPA students would not be able
to sign up for the certificate courses (without a permit) and Certificate students would not be able to
take MPA classes (without a permit). However, in-person versions of these classes could be brought
into the MPA program at a future date if that became desirable.
Bruce noted that the latest suggestion from CE is a 12 credit program (3 on-line courses, 3 in-person
workshops)
Rich thought that there is not enough content for a 12-credit certificate. Also, there was overlap with
his PA620 and PA641 courses.
Mark argued that the certificate program would help the university increase its market, help the
department ensure its sustainability, and would not compromise any current programs.
Dan thought that a three-year trial period would be needed.
Al thought that there was ample material for the certificate with a civil society angle.
Agenda item:
FACULTY PARTICIPATION IN ANNUAL REVIEWS
Discussion:
Each year we need to vote on the faculty role in the annual faculty review process. According to the
faculty handbook: "Every member of a unit will be given the opportunity to evaluate his/her colleagues
based on the evaluation criteria unless a two-thirds majority of the faculty vote each year to waive that
option. This decision must be communicated in writing to the appointing officer." We need to take this
vote prior to the start of the annual faculty review process in Winter semester.
Mark argued that the faculty loses some of its power to make tenure and promotion decisions if it
does not participate in the annual review process. Mark believes that tenure and promotion decisions
can be appealed and overturned based on annual reviews.
Mark also believes that forthcoming changes in the annual review, workplan and tenure and
promotion process will eventual force faculty participation. It would be better to start now than have to
jump in all at once.
Mark believes the work plans are key to the evaluation process. (Did you meet the goals mutually
agreed upon?) Dan believed that evaluation is based on the work done, regardless of the work plan.
(Did you do good work?)
Rich felt that faculty participation in the annual review process would be a detriment to collegiality and
was beyond the expected preview of faculty members.
Actions:
The faculty voted 7-2 to make the director solely responsible for the annual performance reviews.
3