FACULTY SENATE MINUTES Approved by Faculty …FACULTY SENATE MINUTES – Approved by Faculty Senate on November 6, 2014 In Attendance: Steve Shirley, Lenore Koczon, DeVera Bowles,

October 23, 2014

3:30 pm

Westlie Room

FACULTY SENATE MINUTES – Approved by Faculty Senate on November 6, 2014

In Attendance: Steve Shirley, Lenore Koczon, DeVera Bowles, Jane la Plante, Jean François

Mondon, Lori Willoughby, Laurie Geller, Kevin Neuharth, Aili Smith, ShaunAnne Tangney,

Harry Hoffman, Daniel Ngugi, Jacob Sowers, Scott Kast, Kathryn Kilroy (for Draza Markovic),

Cheryl Nilsen, Tom Seymour, Holly Pedersen (for Ann Beste-Guldborg), Orlene Schroeder,

Connie Geyer, Paul Markel (for Lesley Magnus), Johnna Westby, Rebecca Porter, Chelsea Geis,

Jacques Stanley (for Kevin Gilgallon)

Absent: Chris Keller, Linda Cresap, Stephen Hayton, Zeni Shabani, Linda Olson, Mikhail

Bobylev,

Guests: None

Meeting called to order at 3:32 pm by President DeVera Bowles

Agenda:

1. Opening / Attendance / Seating of Alternate Delegates

Motion to seat alternate delegates, Holly Pedersen for Ann Beste-Guldborg, Paul

Markel for Lesley Magnus, Kathryn Kilroy for Draza Markovic (Seymour/Nilsen);

motion carried.

2. Approval of minutes from October 9, 2014

Motion to approve minutes for October 9, 2014 (Seymour/Hoffman); motion

carried.

3. Agenda Updates: None

4. Announcements / Comments from the Faculty Senate President

Apology for not adding Dean Frantsvog to Admin Report

Upcoming Events

o MSU Choirs Concert – Ann Nicole Nelson Hall, Old Main, 7:30 p.m. October

27, 2014

o Mouse River Players – Plain Hearts, October 24, 25, 26

o French Foreign Film – The Intouchables, October 27 at 6:30 p.m. in Aleshire

Theater.

o Student Council for Exceptional Children – Disability Awareness Film Clip

Festival, October 29, from 4 to 5 p.m. in the Beaver Dam.

5. Administrative Reports

a. President’s Report – Dr. Steven Shirley

Acknowledged Hubbard’s Academic Hall of Fame ceremony

Athletic Hall of Fame is this weekend

Title IX visit by the Office of Civil Rights—

Thanks to Office of Civil Rights (OCR), those who facilitated the

visit, and those who helped leading up to the visit.

Dr. Shirley had an exit interview with them at the end. OCR gave

an idea of the format of the report sent to those who make the

decisions; timeframe of their decision is unknown. Opportunity to

correct facts in the report is not given.

Silver lining—MSU is improving its practices and policies.

Thanks to Wes Matthews and Lisa Dooley for their work.

Enrollment—

We are down about 500 students since the fall before the flood (fall

2010). This decline has resulted in decreased revenue due to

decreased tuition collection.

New funding model put in place by the ND Legislature in 2013

(SB2300) is tied to semester credit-hour production, as well as

academic discipline, upper/lower level courses, and some other

tweaks. The new model will result in less funds as well.

We need to get enrollments turned around. Kevin Harmon and Dr.

Shirley have had conversations to target western 2/3 of North

Dakota to get the numbers back up in those areas (e.g., MSU is

down 30% in Ward County).

Anything we can do to recruit and sell MSU is important.

Fall preview day on a Saturday in November so potential students

can come learn about offerings at MSU.

Budget—

We will not have any budget cuts this year; doing that again would

be a shot to campus morale. It will be a lean year, not much $$ for

new initiatives, but we are not going to cut.

Questions/Discussion:

The importance of individuals in recruiting was brought up.

Is MSU marketing/branding in the area to compete with other

schools? We are retargeting our areas.

Where are we going from here in with regard to vision and logo?

We, the faculty, didn’t have much to do with the previous branding

or vision when it happened. We will start a process soon.

Family Leave Policy—

Dr. Shirley is hesitant to move forward on the policy until 1) we

know more about the costs associated with it; and 2) how the

proposed policy matches up with current policy

Daniel Ngugi, member of the family leave ad hoc committee,

indicated the committee examined the policies on other campuses.

He added that MSU does not have a formal policy that stands on

its feet that could be followed in a particular situation. Also, some

of the work needed to investigate the policy further goes beyond

the abilities of the committee.

DeVera Bowles indicated the issue will go to FSE next week.

b. VPAA’s Report – Dr. Lenore Koczon

Offered sympathy to Canadians after the tragic shooting in Ottawa

yesterday

North Dakota Academic and Student Affairs Committee has approved

distance delivery of MSU’s B.S. in Communication Disorders program to

Bismarck State College; awaiting final approval

Prioritization workshops to write reports have been scheduled – see email

from Warren Gamas

Higher Learning Commission – we will work on quality initiative

(prioritization); we need to send team of folks to spring semester HLC

meeting

Still taking applications for the Assistant Dean of Graduate School.

Soliciting applications for an interim Dean of Education and Health

Sciences for spring 2015.

6. Report by SGA Representative

a. Added activities in Wellness Center for mid-terms

b. Measure 3 – resolution they do not approve of the measure

c. MSU’s Student Government Association will host North Dakota Student

Association on campus Friday and Saturday, October 24 and 25

7. Report by Staff Senate Representative – Rebecca Porter

a. Need more recipes for the Staff Senate cookbook

b. Staff Senate has formed an ad hoc Accessibility Committee. Students, faculty and

staff members who are interested in serving on the committee should contact

[email protected].

8. Report from Human Resources – Title IX Director, Wes Matthews

a. Three pronged campus climate assessment survey will be administered.

b. MSU did its part during the OCR visit earlier this week; the process is working

and some issues have been reported.

9. Report from CCF Representative – Ernst Pijning

a. Measure 3 statement – Ernst Pijning

ND CCF resolution on Measure 3 (see handout) made a statement of its

concerns, most are related to our accreditation. The document is being

reviewed to see if it can be distributed.

Brought forward for Faculty Senate to consider.

10. Report from Faculty Athletic Representative – Dean Frantsvog

a. Faculty should know: 1) early alert system is working well for athletics; 2)

institutional self-study for NCAA compliance going on in athletics (happens once

every 7 years); and 3) about 300 student-athletes on campus.

b. Compliance handout distributed with graduation rate data and GPA data by sport.

c. Question was raised about the Faculty Senate Athletic Policies committee. Dean

Frantsvog said he was willing to look at the charge of the other committee and see

how they compare to their committee. One faculty member brought up the

requirement that student-athletes spend 1.5 hours per week with the faculty

members teaching their classes. Dean will look into 1.5 hour requirement.

11. New Business

a. Study Abroad Courses as Related to Gen Ed – Libby Claerbout

Faculty-led programs – faculty from MSU take students abroad; XXX 496

is designated for these

Individual student study abroad program – INT 496 (tuition paid to host

institution) or INT 497 (exchange program), taken to hold credits until

other courses taken abroad are transferred

Review process for faculty-let programs—Libby reviews proposal and

required info including a dept- and college-approved syllabus; then

international advisory committee reviews and approves; then gets approval

Review process for individual student study abroad programs—follows a

similar approval process but without the dean approval

Motion: Cheryl Nilsen moved the issue be sent to Gen Ed committee to

bring back a recommendation to Faculty Senate for a uniform process to

approve study abroad courses; Seymour seconded.

Discussion revolved around catalog numbers and the pros and cons

of automatically approving all 496/497 courses in the Gen Ed IP2

category.

Motion approved.

b. Gen Ed Developmental Content Policy – Rebecca Porter

Motion: If a student transfers to MSU and is considered complete in

his/her general education requirements under one of MSU’s agreements,

the student will be considered to have met the requirements for the

Required Core, Foundational Content, and Developmental Content

(Tangney/Sowers); motion approved.

Motion: The above stated policy is effective retroactive commencing at

the beginning of fall semester 2014 (Markel/Tangney); motion approved.

Motion: Extend the 24-credit minimum waiver for INT 110 to current

students who want to move to the new catalog (Neuharth/Nilsen); motion

approved.

Discussion about INT 110: First-Year Experience INT 110 courses will

start being listed with the prefix UNIV throughout the NDUS system.

Students who transfer to MSU need to have their courses reviewed for

equivalencies. We do not automatically equate first-year seminars from

other institutions to our INT 110. At present, there is no chair is being

asked to sign off on transfers for this course.

c. Assessment Committee need for Student Sample Work – Jean-Francois

Mondon

Jean-Francois Mondon has been visiting chair meetings in each college,

and it came up that student work be submitted with assessment results.

Student work is required on the assessment forms to be filled out for each

developmental content area (see Faculty Senate meeting minutes forApril

17, 2014).

The group agreed that samples of student work would be collected as

indicated on the forms.

12. Old Business

a. Resolution of Scantron Issues for New Forms

50/50 split on paper or electronic from the deans; hopefully we will have a

formal recommendation for spring at next Deans Council meeting that can

be brought forward to Faculty Senate.

b. CCF representative request for state car travel issues from faculty

DeVera will follow up with chairs about this issue

c. Other: Faculty Senate President will let the Gen Ed Chair know that materials

need to be brought forward to Faculty Senate.

13. Closure

Motion to adjourn (Nilsen/) at 5:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Laurie Geller, Ed.D.

FS Secretary

Council of College Faculties

Statement on North Dakota House 2013 Concurrent Resolution 3047

(HCR3047 or Measure 3)

Though the Council of College Faculties (CCF) cannot formally express an opinion on a

legislative or initiated measure, we can certainly express surprise at the legislature putting forth

an initiated measure that appears to us to be vague and potentially dangerous to our

institution’s accreditation.

Our constituents have raised the following concerns regarding North Dakota House 2013

Concurrent Resolution 3047, commonly referred to as Measure 3. We hope that supporters of

this measure will explain how its implementation would address these concerns.

The CCF finds that Measure 3 lacks sufficient information for the electorate to make an

informed decision with regards to a vote for or a vote against this Measure. We find this

Measure to be vague on many levels and that the public may be confused with regards to the

proposed changes in governance structure for higher education within the State of North

Dakota. What is not difficult to assess is the potential, perhaps unintended, consequences of

this Measure.

Similar to CCF, the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) also found this Measure to be vague

with regards to implementation. An HLC report noted that the Advisory Visit Team found that

“consideration of this resolution was particularly challenging due to the lack of detail regarding

exactly how NDUS would operate under full implementation of the measure. …..the team is

concerned that there are many details related to the implementation of the Measure that, if not

handled properly, could place the system’s accreditation status at risk.”.

What is at stake if accreditation is loss? What is accreditation? Many individuals have

commented about the issue of accreditation, but few have noted what the loss of accreditation

would mean for the 11 institutions comprising the NDUS and for our students. The accrediting

body for NDUS institutions is the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), a commission of the

North Central Association located in Chicago, Illinois. The HLC is one of six regional accrediting

organizations that are required to accredit institutions of higher education on behalf of the U.S.

Department of Education. Accreditation ensures that students at NDUS institutions are

receiving an education that meets the standards of the HLC. In other words, it is the body that

ensures that an institution is providing a quality education and that the institution has a

governing body that oversees its function. Often this is a board of trustees that has fiduciary

responsibility for an institution’s governance. In North Dakota, this fiduciary oversight is

provided by the State Board of Higher Education (SBHE).

What does this mean to our students and to their families? More importantly, to receive

Federal funding, an institution must be accredited. Title IV funding, the common forms of

Federal financial aid used in higher education, requires that institutions be accredited. In the

2012-2103 academic year, 50,516 NDUS students received $46,471,152 in Federal aid in the

form of Pell Grants, Perkin Loans, Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant

(FSEOG), and work study.

What is the impact of accreditation? Loss of accreditation means our students would not be

eligible for this student aid. To make matters worse, over the same time period, 23,112 NDUS

students received $224,072,899 in Federal subsidized, unsubsidized, Parent PLUS, and

Graduate PLUS loans. This is a staggering amount of financial aid when combined, comprising

almost $270 million dollars in one academic year.

In essence, it is important for the citizens of North Dakota to understand and appreciate the

magnitude of what accreditation means to the students of our institutions. The lack of Federal

student aid will undoubtedly place an undue burden on NDUS students and their families. This

impacts not only students from North Dakota, but those from throughout the United States. This

does not take into account the impact on other forms of student aid such as those used by our

veterans to finance their education at NDUS institutions. Hence, accreditation is very crucial for

our students to fund their higher education in North Dakota.

How does the three member compensated commission proposed in Measure 3 impact

the accreditation of NDUS institutions? This is a critical question and is focused on the

inherent lack of details provided by the legislature in the Measure. One important requirement

is that any governing body has sufficient size to provide meaningful oversight of all NDUS

institutions. This raises the question as to whether a three member commission has sufficient

size and breadth to meet the HLC’s Assumed Practices A.8 and A.9? Further, in the Measure,

the terms “overseeing” and “administering” are used to describe the commission’s functions.

However, do these terms indicate an autonomous commission with the full authority to fulfill its

role as the governance body as required by HLC Core component 5.B., Subcomponent 2?

Further, the process by which the commissioners would be appointed appears to be legislatively

dominated as illustrated by confirmation by the North Dakota Senate. HLC Core Component

2.C requires that a governing board have autonomy in the matters of institutional governance,

providing for a strong potential conflict between the commission and the HLC accreditation

requirements.

How does the threat of impeachment by the legislative assembly impact the decision

making of the commission? This autonomy is further impacted by the impeachment provision

provided in this Measure. Will compensated commission members be opposed to the will of the

legislature when it is in the best interests of the institutions that it is overseeing to do so? In

other words, will this commission act in a manner that is autonomous and carry out its fiduciary

responsibility for higher education in the State of North Dakota?

The lack of information in this Measure is a concern. In the HLC Advisory Visit Team’s

observations on Measure 3 it noted “Can a paid, three-member commission completely and

competently fulfill all required governance responsibilities for eleven state-supported colleges

and universities distributed across the state of North Dakota and in so doing, also fulfill HLC

Assumed Practices A.8 and A.9?” Further, “Will a governing body, developed per the

requirement of Measure 3, command or be given sufficient autonomy to meet the intention of

the HLC Core Component 5.B, Subcomponent 2?” More importantly, the HLC Advisory Visit

Team noted that a commission as described in Measure 3 appears to position North Dakota as

an outlier with regards to the governance practices used broadly in the U.S. to govern a variety

of organizations, including businesses, hospitals, non-profit agencies, public and private higher

education.

Hence, the CCF is concerned that public may not perceive the many nuances that are left to the

imagination in Measure 3. Many of these nuances are critical as to how the proposed

governance structure of higher education in North Dakota is perceived. If perceived incorrectly,

these nuances could have dramatic consequences, resulting in the potential loss of

accreditation. While these consequences associated with the loss of accreditation are more

than likely not intended by those who champion this Measure, certainly these consequences are

dire if indeed accreditation is lost.

At the present, the SBHE fulfills all of the requirements to maintain accreditation of all 11

institutions, while the lack of details in Measure 3 bring into question the ability to maintain

accreditation. Clearly the choice is the electorates to make this November. However, the duty

of the Council of College Faculties is to alert the citizens of North Dakota to potential issues

regarding Measure 3 and its implementation. The choice is clearly in the hands of the citizens

and our duty to inform has been done.

Sixty-third Legislative Assembly of North Dakota In Regular Session Commencing Tuesday, January 8, 2013

SENATE BILL NO. 2200(Senators Flakoll, Holmberg, O'Connell)(Representatives Nathe, Sanford, Boe)

AN ACT to create and enact chapter 15-18.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the determination of funding for institutions of higher education; to provide an appropriation; to provide for a legislative management study; to provide for legislative intent; and to provide an expiration date.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF NORTH DAKOTA:

SECTION 1. Chapter 15-18.1 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:

15 - 18.1 - 01. Credit-hours - Determination.

1. For each institution under its control, the state board of higher education shall determine the number of credit - hours completed by students during the two - year period ending June thirtieth of each odd-numbered year.

2. For purposes of this section, a completed credit - hour is one for which a student met all institutional requirements and obtained a passing grade.

15 - 18.1 - 02. Weighted credit-hours - Determination - Instructional program classification factors - Submission to legislative management.

1. In order to determine the weighted credit - hours for each institution under its control, the state board of higher education shall multiply each of an institution's completed credit - hours, as determined under section 15 - 18.1 - 01, by an instructional program classification factor, as set forth in this section.

a. The factors for credits completed in agriculture are:

(1) 1.9 for lower division credits;

(2) 3.8 for upper division credits;

(3) 5.7 for professional level credits; and

(4) 7.6 for graduate level credits.

b. The factors for credits completed in architecture are:





c. The factors for credits completed in aviation are:



S. B. NO. 2200 - PAGE 2



d. The factors for credits completed in the biological and physical sciences are:





e. The factors for credits completed in business are:





f. The factors for credits completed in education are:





g. The factors for credits completed in engineering are:





h. The factors for credits completed in the health sciences are:



(3) 9.0 for professional level credits;

(4) 12.0 for graduate level credits; and

(5) 38.0 for medical school credits.

i. The factors for credits completed in legal studies are:



S. B. NO. 2200 - PAGE 3



j. The factors for credits completed in the core disciplines are:





k. The factor for credits completed in career and technical education is 2.0.

l. The factor for completed remedial credits is 2.3.

2. a. The state board of higher education shall ensure that all delineations in this section reflect the requirements of a nationally recognized and standardized instructional program classification system.

b. Before adopting any changes to the delineations implemented in accordance with this section, the state board of higher education shall present the proposed changes to and receive the approval of the legislative management.

15 - 18.1 - 03. Credit completion factor - Determination.

1. For each institution under its control, the state board of higher education shall multiply the product determined under section 15 - 18.1 - 02 by a factor of:

a. 1.00 if the number of credit-hours is at least 100,000;

b. 1.05 if the number of credit-hours is at least 95,000 but less than 100,000;

c. 1.10 if the number of credit-hours is at least 90,000 but less than 95,000;

d. 1.15 if the number of credit-hours is at least 85,000 but less than 90,000;

e. 1.20 if the number of credit-hours is at least 80,000 but less than 85,000;

f. 1.25 if the number of credit-hours is at least 75,000 but less than 80,000;

g. 1.30 if the number of credit-hours is at least 70,000 but less than 75,000;

h. 1.35 if the number of credit-hours is at least 65,000 but less than 70,000;

i. 1.40 if the number of credit-hours is at least 60,000 but less than 65,000;

j. 1.45 if the number of credit-hours is at least 55,000 but less than 60,000;

k. 1.50 if the number of credit-hours is at least 50,000 but less than 55,000;

l. 1.55 if the number of credit-hours is at least 45,000 but less than 50,000;

m. 1.60 if the number of credit-hours is at least 40,000 but less than 45,000;

n. 1.65 if the number of credit-hours is at least 35,000 but less than 40,000;

o. 1.70 if the number of credit-hours is at least 30,000 but less than 35,000;

S. B. NO. 2200 - PAGE 4

p. 1.75 if the number of credit-hours is at least 25,000 but less than 30,000;

q. 1.80 if the number of credit-hours is at least 20,000 but less than 25,000;

r. 1.85 if the number of credit-hours is at least 15,000 but less than 20,000;

s. 1.90 if the number of credit-hours is at least 10,000 but less than 15,000;

t. 1.95 if the number of credit-hours is at least 5,000 but less than 10,000; and

u. 2.00 if the number of credit-hours is less than 5,000.

2. For purposes of this section, the number of credit - hours must be those determined by the state board of higher education in accordance with section 15 - 18.1 - 01.

15 - 18.1 - 04. Institutional size factor - Determination.

1. For each institution under its control, the state board of higher education shall multiply the product determined under section 15 - 18.1 - 03 by a size factor of:

a. 1.0 if the square footage of the institution, when divided by the institution's weighted credit-hours results in a quotient of less than 5.00; or

b. 1.8 if the square footage of the institution, when divided by the institution's weighted credit-hours results in a quotient of 5.00 or more.

2. For purposes of this section, an institution's square footage:

a. Includes all real property owned by the state within an institution's perimeter, except for agricultural experiment stations, agricultural research extension centers, technology parks, and state agencies; and

b. Is determined as of June thirtieth in each odd - numbered year.

15 - 18.1 - 05. Base funding - Determination of state aid.

In order to determine the state aid payment to which each institution under its control is entitled, the state board of higher education shall multiply the product determined under section 15 - 18.1 - 04 by a base amount of:

1. $66.35 in the case of North Dakota state university and the university of North Dakota;

2. $95.57 in the case of Dickinson state university, Mayville state university, and Valley City state university;

3. $98.75 in the case of Minot state university;

4. $101.73 in the case of Bismarck state college, Dakota college at Bottineau, Lake Region state college, and North Dakota state college of science; and

5. $104.88 in the case of Williston state college.

15 - 18.1 - 06. Base funding - Minimum amount payable.

Notwithstanding any calculations required by this chapter, during each fiscal year, beginning with 2014 - 15, an institution may not receive less than ninety - six percent of the state aid to which the institution was entitled under this chapter during the previous fiscal year.

S. B. NO. 2200 - PAGE 5

15 - 18.1 - 07. Funding - Distribution.

The state aid to which each institution is entitled under this chapter must be forwarded at the time and in the manner agreed to by the institution and the office of management and budget.

SECTION 2. LEGISLATIVE INTENT. In order to maintain the integrity of the funding formula established under this chapter, it is the intent of the legislative assembly that any proposed increases in the funding of institutions be achieved through the amendment of section 15-18.1-05.

SECTION 3. LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT STUDY - HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING. During the 2013-14 interim, the legislative management shall appoint an interim committee to study higher education funding methods.

1. The committee shall review higher education funding methods and recommend for the North Dakota university system a new funding method that is not based on existing levels of funding.

2. The committee shall consult with representatives of the state board of higher education, the North Dakota university system office, higher education institutions, and other appropriate entities.

3. The committee shall consider:

a. The inclusion of tuition revenue as a component of the funding method;

b. The level of nonresident tuition rates, including whether the rates charged should provide for the entire cost of a student's education and whether state funding should be provided to offset the educational costs of nonresident students;

c. Options to address unique institution needs due to program facility requirements, local costs of goods and labor, and other extraordinary needs;

d. The appropriateness of including remedial education and dual-credit course completions in the funding method and which entity should be responsible for paying course costs;

e. Facilities required to meet an institution's mission, including the utilization of existing institution facilities and additional facilities needs as identified in the university system campus master plan and space utilization study;

f. Administrative costs at institutions, including the appropriateness of providing separate funding allocations to institutions for instructional and administrative costs;

g. Options to provide enhanced funding for programs that address state priorities and workforce needs;

h. Options to provide performance funding distributions to campuses for meeting specified goals such as on-time graduation rates and job placements; and

i. Any other issues the committee deems appropriate.

4. The legislative management shall report its findings and recommendations, together with any legislation required to implement the recommendations, to the sixty-fourth legislative assembly.

SECTION 4. APPROPRIATION. There is appropriated out of any moneys in the general fund in the state treasury, not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $150,000, or so much of the sum as may be necessary, to the legislative council for the purpose of defraying expenses associated with the study of higher education funding as provided for in section 3 of this Act, for the biennium beginning July 1, 2013, and ending June 30, 2015.

S. B. NO. 2200 - PAGE 6

SECTION 5. EXPIRATION DATE. Section 15-18.1-06 of this Act is effective through June 30, 2017, and after that date is ineffective.

S. B. NO. 2200 - PAGE 7

____________________________ ____________________________President of the Senate Speaker of the House

____________________________ ____________________________Secretary of the Senate Chief Clerk of the House

This certifies that the within bill originated in the Senate of the Sixty-third Legislative Assembly of North Dakota and is known on the records of that body as Senate Bill No. 2200.

Senate Vote: Yeas 41 Nays 1 Absent 5

House Vote: Yeas 91 Nays 0 Absent 3

____________________________Secretary of the Senate

Received by the Governor at ________M. on _____________________________________, 2013.

Approved at ________M. on __________________________________________________, 2013.

____________________________Governor

Filed in this office this ___________day of _______________________________________, 2013,

at ________ o’clock ________M.

____________________________Secretary of State

Documents

FACULTY SENATE MINUTES Approved by Faculty …FACULTY SENATE MINUTES – Approved by Faculty Senate on November 6, 2014 In Attendance: Steve Shirley, Lenore Koczon, DeVera Bowles,