We, the Minot State University faculty, are compelled by recent events to express our deep concern regarding a number of issues, any one of which we believe threatens the health and viability of the institutions of higher education within the North Dakota University System and the North Dakota University System as a whole, and we therefore offer the following resolution:

Whereas: *We are witnessing a grievous loss of constructive conversation among the constituents of the North Dakota University System, which has a negative impact on faculty, staff, students, administrators, elected officials, and all North Dakota residents; (1,2)

Whereas: *There is now a dangerous centralization of power in theN orth Dakota University System and the Chancellor of that system, and a neglect of appropriate checks and balances designed to ensure a democratic decision­making process concerning higher education in North Dakota; [3, 4, s, 6)

Whereas: *The system wide marginalization of the role of the presidents will have catastrophic implications for the articulation and implementation of any given campus mission; (3, 7)

Whereas: *The actions and motivation of the SBHE to completely empower an individual with a track record of conflict, antagonism, and de-stabilization are extremely troubling; (B, 9)

Whereas: *Admission standards and actual procedures appearing in a Pathways FAQ document are at odds with publically stated standards and procedures, thereby threatening the accreditation of institutions throughout the North Dakota University System with a variety of accrediting agencies including the Higher Learning Commission; (10, 11, 12)

Therefore Be it Resolved: *That the Minot State University faculty stand with the NDSA in expressing

no confidence in Chancellor Shirvani's leadership of the North Dakota University System and urge the State Board of Higher Education and the North Dakota legislature to act immediately to address these concerns

Footnotes: 1Letter from Representative Mark Dosch to Lindsey Nelson February 22nct 2Editorial by Representative Bob Skarphol, March 3, 2013 Minot Daily News 3Editorial by Senator Grind berg, Senator Krebsbach, Representative Delmore, February 27, 2013 Minot Daily News 4September 26, 2012 changes to SBHE Policies 304.1 Chancellor/Commissioner of Higher Education: Authority and Responsibilities 5September 5, 2012 changes to SBHE Policies 330 Policy Introduction, Amendment, Passage

6 Summary and Recommendation Amended SBHE Policies 100.6, 304.1, 305.1, 608.2, 705.1 and 802.8 7September 26, 2012 changes to SBHE Policies 305.1 College and University Presidents' Authority and Responsibilities 8Denver Post article, October 26, 1991 9Turlock News article, November 20, 2009 10 Description of the Assumed Practices section of accreditation process from the Higher Learning Commission 11 Assumed Practices A5.c 12 Pathways FAQ from January 8, 2013

1 From: Dosch, Mark A. [mailto:mdosch@nd.gov] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 2:11 PM To: msu Subject: Vote of no confidence

Open Letter to Lindsey Nelson,

I am appalled by your actions, and view them as totally inappropriate at this time.

The Chancellor has been on the job for only about 7 months and you have already condemned~someone I bet you have only met once or twice.

This leads me to believe that from the President of Minot State on down, you have been poisoned. You have made a decision without knowing all the facts which is deplorable. ,

We, the ND House of Representatives have not even heard the budget of the University System, nor the individual campus budget requests, including Minot State. How would you like it if I have determined that the budget of Minot State should be cut by 25% without even looking at the budget or hearing all facts before I made that decision??

I am neither supporting nor condemning the new Chancellor, I'm reserving my comments until! have all the facts ... something that you and your organization should learn.

Sincerely, Rep Mark Dosch Appropriations Committee- Education and Environment Subsection

Mark A Dosch State Representative District 32- Bismarck, ND mdosch@nd.gov

1

Student vote inappropriate March 3, 2013 Minot Daily News

Rep. Bob Skarphol, Tioga

Save I Post a comment I

The absurdity of the students of the various universities within the system having a "no

confidence" vote of the chancellor in reference to the newly implemented policies and

practices of the State Board of Higher Education is beyond ridiculous at best, and totally

inappropriate.

These few students have been manipulated and cajoled by individuals within the Legislature,

and some university administrations themselves, to express a misguided opinion about

something that only stands to benefit their very status in the job market in the future. The

changes being recommended and implemented are at the direction of the State Board of

Higher Education, and only after considerable consultation with individuals and legislators

across the state. These are not the musings of an "inexperienced pseudo academic" but the

result of the recognition of what needs to happen to have an efficient and effective

"university system/ by an active State Board and a "highly qualified" chancellor who brings

to the table a great deal more experience in large system operation than anyone within our

current university system.

The intentional misinformation and distortion utilized to perpetrate the "fraud" is an aspect

that also needs to be dispelled. The office and conference room discussion regarding the IT

building at UNO was fully disclosed during the 2011 session in the House Education and

Environment section of Appropriations. It was always anticipated that there would be both

office space for visiting staff, including system office staff and a more formal conference

room in that facility. It would be absolutely ludicrous to build a facility that housed

potentially 142 employees, hosting system staff and staff from other institutions and not

have space of that nature. If the Senators do not remember that aspect of the discussion,

maybe they were not as thorough as the House.

Our "system," when Chancellor Hamid Shirvani arrived, was nothing more than a very

loosely organized hodgepodge of federated schools that had diverse policies which lent

themselves to inconsistent and often incompetent operations. The proof of that statement

lies in the many embarrassing events that have taken place over the last few years at

numerous institutions. These embarrassments occurred because they were not properly

supervised, or brought under control, because of the lack of willingness and knowledge of

how to organize the appropriate mechanism to throttle these types of activities without

inhibiting the academic freedom al)d innovative capacity of the institutions.

Chancellor Shirvani brings that ability to the table and it terrifies some people within the

institutions, and the Legislature, that a "real expert" may finally be at the helm of the ship

and the playground atmosphere at some of these campuses may have to become

accountable. I submit that there has been an organized, behind the scenes, effort to

discredit and destroy the very individual that can give the North Dakota taxpayer exactly

what they want from our "University System." I find the actions of those individuals

perpetrating this fraud absolutely reprehensible. Shirvani is a highly qualified and honorable

man who deserves the opportunity to implement and admini.ster the policies and practices

that his experience has taught him will achieve what it is we want for our "University

System."

Every person in this state should be thankful that the State Board of Higher Education

recognized the problems that existed, and chose a path that will result in the accountability

we all desire without infringing on the innovative nature of the faculty and the research

aspects of the institutions. I strongly believe that the path we have been on recently is

totally embarrassing and reprehensible. It must stop or our higher education institutions will

stagnate and continue to function at the substandard level of the past five to 10 years. They

will languish in disrespect, rather than gain the support of the Legislature and the citizenry

that is critical to their elevation and success. They will be subject to continued suspicion and

self-degradation. It is time to stop the cheap theatrics and start to treat people with the respect they deserv€1 based on the "factual" information with regard to "change" in higher

education.

My most recent conversations with the public members of the State Board of Higher

Education indicate to me that they are 100 percent in support of Shirvani and the new

policies and procedures they hav·e implemented. It takes great courage and conviction to

weather the type of storm that has been surrounding higher education. If allowed to move

forward, I believe the future will be bright for higher education students in North Dakota.

Changes will lead to failure February 27, 2013 Minot Daily News

Save I Comments_l9l I Post a comment I

Sen. Tony Grindberg, R-Fargo; Sen. Karen Krebsbach, R-Minot; Rep. Lois Delmore, D-Grand Forks

Last fall, the State Board of Higher Education approved chancellor-sponsored policy changes that go well beyond the boundaries of good governance. The new policies turn university and

college presidents into underlings who risk termination with 30 days notice for no reason at

all.

In a single package, the revisions:

- Require presidents to confer with the chancellor on all undefined "decisions of mutual

interest" before making or announcing a decision;

- Assign presidents the role of "implementation and operational control" to "manage their

institution on a day to day operational basis;"

-Make 10 major functions "system-level services," again undefined but potentially

centralizing all of these functions and personnel at the system level;

-Give the chancellor license to conduct presidential searches any way he wants to;

-Allow the chancellor to present only one presidential candidate for board approval; and

- Allow for a three-year contract for new presidents but only year-to-year contracts after

that, including "written notice of not less than 30 days of termination of the appointment" (in effect, a 30-day contract).

The policy changes treat highly competent, entrepreneurial and dedicated leaders as robots. They deprive each institution of the leadership it requires. They prevent the presidents from

being partners in providing leadership for state and local issues. They set the stage for

arbitrary and capricious actions that will derail or destroy the careers of highly competent

professionals. Anecdotes suggest that the attitude in these policies is evident on a daily

basis. Seek new presidents for NDUS campuses under t~ese policies and we will not attract

anyone who even aspires to be a leader, let alone anyone with leadership experience.

The structure of the State Board of Higher Education and the University System itself are

quite comparable to most other public university systems. The problem is not the structure.

Most current members of the SBHE have less than two years of experience on the board. It

appears that the board has not taken governance education seriously members may not

realize that governance has best practices, pitfalls, grave responsibilities, and tools with

which to undertake those responsibilities effectively.

The board has a fiduciary responsibility to hold the colleges and universities in trust for the

people of North Dakota. That requires a strong and effective board, chancellor, and

presidents working in concert and all driven by the best interests of students and the state.

The system does not generate a single credit hour it is meaningless without strong

institutions. The system is the institutions. And the institutions are too complex and diverse

to be run unilaterally by one person. The role of the system office is to support, challenge,

and engage the campuses in their mutual endeavors and to ensure effective leadership at

the campus level. The current course is a road to failure and does not represent the views of

thousands of North Dakotans who expect nothing but the best for our students.

The board needs to take immediate decisive action to reverse recent policy changes and

appoint a chancellor who has a solid proven record of effective trusted and respected

leadership.

Save 1 Comments (9} I Post a comment I

2/26/13

Campus Employment

.9P..P.~.~~!:.i.\i.~-~ ...................................... . NDUS Office Openings and

-~-~9~.~-~~~.f?.r .. ~r.'?.r.~.~-~-~~ .................... . Policies and Procedures

Broadband Job Classifications

SBHE Policies

Proposed SBHE Policies

NDUS Procedures

IT Policies

NDUS Human Resource Policy Manual

Articulation and Transfer

g_~~!:.\g.~.Y.~!~P..~~-~-~ ........................... . ~??~.~-~!!!:.9 .. ~~-~-~~! .. ~.~~ .. F.?.r.~~ ....... . -~-~.P.~.r:!i.~fl .. F.~~-~-~ ................................. . Academic Calendar

::::vou ARE HERE

NDUS Home 1 Employees 1 Policies and Procedures 1 SBHE Policies

SBHE Policies

I« return I

SUBJECT: 300s: Governance and Organization EFFECTIVE: September 26, 2012

Section: 304.1 Chancellor/Commissioner of Higher Education: Authority and Responsibilities

1. The terms 'Commissioner' and 'Chancellor' shall be used interchangeably throughout this manual.

2. Consistent with Policy 1 00.6, the Chancellor serves as the chief executive officer of the Board and North Dakota University System (NDUS). The Chancellor is empowered to execute all documents and exercise all powers necessary to the discharge of that office. Operating under the overall direction and policy control of the Board, the Chancellor:

a. Provides vision and overall leadership for the NDUS and a single focus of accountability to the state and its citizens.

b. Shall be the chief executive and administrative authority for the NDUS

c. Serves as the primary link between the Board's responsibilities for policy and the presidents' responsibilities for operations.

d. Promotes and preserves the overall mission and goals of the NDUS by working with each institution president to plan, build, and sustain appropriate academic and co-curricular programs and initiatives that minimize duplication and link NDUS resources to state, regional, and national needs.

e. Working in conjunction with the presidents, proposes to the Board short- and long-term planning goals, policies, and actions which serve the best interests of the NDUS.

f. Working in conjunction with the presidents, promulgates guidelines and regulations for the consistent interpretation and application of Board policies.

g. Monitors and evaluates the performance of the presidents and the institutions in pursuit of their established missions and goals.

h. Serves as the "voice" of the NDUS to the citizens, governor, state legislature, and the Board regarding the capacity of the NDUS in rneeting the priorities of the state and other matters not reserved to the Board.

i. Communicates the needs of the state to the NDUS community.

j. Serves as a "shield" against outside interference in NDUS and institutional matters.

k. Working in conjunction with the presidents, develops inter-institution cooperative academic and operational programs and services designed to reduce cost while improving efficiencies and accountability.

I. Ensures that the office of the Chancellor can meet NDUS responsibilities that include academic policy, "planning, and quality assessment; capital planning and construction; budgeting; human resources policy and compliance; institutional research; risk management; auditing; legal services; information technology systerns and services shared among the institutions; and legislative and community relations.

ndus.edu/makers/procedures/sbhe/default.asp?PID= 113&SID=4 1/3

2/26/13 North Dakota University System: Policies and Procedures : SBHE Policies

m. ::;erves as tne cnannel ot commumcat1on between tne l:loaro a no all suooro~nate aom~n1strat1ve officers and personnel, including presidents.

n. May consult with each institution's constituency groups through the presidents on matters which the Chancellor deems appropriate for constituency involvement.

o. Administers the academic, financial, and other functions of the NDUS in a manner which assures support for the approved mission of each campus.

p. Directs the activities of the presidents in a manner which promotes the general welfare of the NDUS while, at the same time, ensuring support for the approved mission of each institution.

q. Evaluates the performances of the presidents on an annual basis.

r. Balances the sometimes competing interests of the institutions.

3. Among other duties and responsibilities, the Chancellor shall:

a. Execute and administer the policies, decisions, and rules of the Board;

b. Prepare policy recommendations for the Board's consideration.

c. Exercise administrative control, consonant with Board policy, over inter-institutional matters including, but not limited to, those pertaining to budgets, curriculum, research, and public service, and extension activities.

d. Appoint, determine the composition of and delegate duties to such committees or councils as the chancellor deems advisable.

e. Subject to applicable Board policies, make recommendations to the Board concerning appointment and compensation and other terms of employment for institution presidents.

f. Provide for the administration and staffing of the NDUS office.

g. Following recommendations of the college or university president, make recommendations to the Board regarding tenure.

h. Review and approve or refuse to approve dismissal or termination of an appointment of an institution's chief finance officer or internal auditor.

i. Serve as the official representative of the Board and the institutions and entities it governs to the legislature, to the Governor, to the executive branch, and to other governmental entities.

j. Serve as the channel of communications between the Board and all NDUS administrative officers and personnel. In this connection, the Chancellor shall have direct access to the Board and, in conjunction with the presidents, inform and advise the Board with respect to operations of the NDUS and its institutions.

k. Act on behalf of the Board during the interim between meetings provided that the Chancellor shall promptly inform the Board President and report and request ratification of the action taken at the next Board meeting.

I. Act on behalf of the Board as the sole authority authorized to request opinions from the Attorney General's office and coordinate all legal services of the institutions and entities governed by the Board.

m. Exercise such other authority and perform such other responsibilities as may be assigned by the Board.

4. In exercising this authority and carrying out these responsibilities, the chancellor shall at all times conform to and advocate the Board's beliefs and core values.

5. The Chancellor shall establish a process or forum enabling presidents to provide advice to the Chancellor regarding matters affecting the university system. The Chancellor shall ensure that NDUS institutions cooperate to improve academic offerings, expand access to education, promote faculty development, improve support services, reduce unnecessary duplication and enhance efficiency.

6. The Chancellor serves at the pleasure of the Board. The Chancellor shall have a written contractfor a term not to exceed three years. The Board shall annually evaluate the Chancellor's performance as provided in Policy 604.2. Subject to satisfactory performance, the Board may each year extend the Chancellor's contract for an additional term of not more than three years. The Board may, based on its annual evaluation of Chancellor. performance and in its discretion, decide to not extend the term of a contract or give notice that a contract will not be renewed beyond the end of a current term.

7. The Board may dismiss the Chancellor for just cause during a contract term, following written notice of its intent to do so and an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing. The board may appoint a hearing officer or administrative law judge to conduct the hearing before the Board.

8. A tenured faculty member at an NDUS-governed institution who is appointed Chancellor may retain the tenured status at that institution during the term as Chancellor. The Board, at the time of initial appointment or thereafter and commensurate with qualifications, may award a tenured full professorship to an individual appointed Chancellor if the individual has had a tenured full professorship appointment at another institution prior to or at the time of the appointment.

AMENDS OR REPEALS: Article I, Section 7 .A., portion of Article I, Section 7 .B

Reference: NDUS Procedure- ;?Q1

ndus.edu/makers/procedures/sbhe/default.asp?PID= 113&SID=4 2/3

2/26/13

Campus Employment

.9J?.P.~.~~~.i.t.i.~.~ ...................................... . NDUS Office Openings and

.13.e.'l~.~~!~.f?.r .. ~r.C?.P.~.~.':l.~~ .................... . Policies and Procedures

Broadband Job Classifications

SBHE Policies

Proposed SBHE Policies

NDUS Procedures

IT Policies

NDUS Human Resource Policy Manual

Articulation and Transfer ................................................................ .~!.~~~.~.~.Y.~!~J?.~~.~.! ........................... . ~~~~.~.~!!~.\1 .. ~~.~.~~.~ .. ~.~~ .. ~?.~~ ....... . .13.~.P.~.~~~~ .. ~~~.~.~ ................................. . Academic Calendar

~YOU ARE HERE

NDUS Home I Employees 1 Policies and Procedures I SBHE Policies

SBHE Policies

SUBJECT: 300s: Governance and Organization EFFECTIVE: September 5, 2012

Section: 330 Policy Introduction, Amendment, Passa11e

1. New policies or policy amendments may be proposed by the Chancellor, a Board member, or the faculty or staff adviser. All new policies or amendments shall be submitted to the Board legal counsel for drafting in the approved style.

2. Upon request of the Chancellor, a Board member, or the faculty or staff adviser, a new policy or amendment shall be placed on the agenda of the appropriate Board committee.

3. A brief explanation or summary of the new policy or amendment shall be presented to the appropriate Board committee. The committee shall vote on a motion to recommend the policy or amendment to the Board, not recommend the policy or amendment, forward the policy or amendment for Board consideration without recommendation, postpone discussion or consideration to a subsequent meeting, or refer the policy or amendment to the Chancellor for study and a recommendation to the committee.

4. A committee may amend a proposed policy or amendment at any time before final committee action.

5. A policy or amendment recommended by a Board committee shall be placed on the agenda of the next regular Board meeting, excluding meetings for which a notice and agenda were posted and distributed prior to committee action. Upon determining circumstances exist calling for expeditious Board action, a committee may forward a committee recommendation to the Board for Board action at a meeting immediately or soon following the committee meeting, including a regular meeting for which notice and agenda were posted and distributed prior to committee action. The Board may at any time amend a meeting agenda to add a committee recommendation.

6. The Chancellor, a Board member, or the faculty or staff adviser may propose, and the board may approve, addition of a new policy or amendment to a Board agenda, without prior review or absent a favorable recommendation by a Board committee.

7. Interested parties and the public shall have an opportunity to comment on a new policy or amendment at committee meetings and prior to final Board action.

8. Absent a different effective date stated in the Board motion adopting a new policy or amendment, the new policy or amendment takes effect immediately upon Board adoption of the Board motion.

History: New Policy, February 19, 1982. Amendment SBHE Minutes, December 9, 1993, page 6417 Amendment SBHE Minutes, October 28, 1999 Amendment SBHE Minutes, September 5, 2012

ndus.edu/makers/procedures/sbhe/def au1t.asp?PID= 117 &SID=4 112

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION AMENDED SB HE POLICIES 100.6, 304.1, 305.1, 608.2, 705.1 and 802.8

Summary

SBHE Policy 100.6 summarizes SBHE guiding principles and responsibility. Proposed amendments to this policy update and clarify the university system's governance structure, SBHE responsibilities, and roles ofthe Chancellor and institution presidents.

Policy 304.1 delegates authority and responsibilities to the Chancellor; Policy 305.1 delegates authority and responsibilities to institution presidents. Consistent with revised language in Policy 1 00.6, language in these two policies is updated.

Amendments to Policy 304.1 include language requiring the Chancellor's review prior to dismissal or termination of an institution's chief finance officer or internal auditor. Language in Policy 304.1 permitting one year notice oftermination without cause and language in Policy 705.1 permitting notice oftermination without cause with 30 days' notice and payment ofup to 12 months' compensation is deleted. In place ofthe deleted language, amended Policy 304.1 states the Chancellor shall have a contract not to exceed three years, which the SBHE each year may extend for an additional term of three years.

Amended Policy 305.1 replaces language removed from Policies 305.1 and 705.1 governing presidents' contract terms. The amended policy permits an initial appointment not to exceed three years. In addition, the SBHE may award tenure to university presidents and, if an appointment is terminated without cause, a university president is entitled to a tenured faculty position, instead of a severance payment. The SBHE would not grant tenure to community college presidents but those presidents would be entitled to payment of up to 12 months' compensation if the SBHE terminates an appointment without cause within the initial three-year term.

Policy 608.2 governs non-renewals and dismissals of employees who are excluded from the NDUS broadbanding system. The broadbanding system is the NDUS version of an employee classification system. A separate set of policies establish employment terms of broadbanded employees. Faculty are excluded from the broadbanding system and faculty employment terms are governed by other policies. In addition to faculty, executives and designated administrators and professional staff also are excluded from the broadbanding system. One amendment to Policy 608.2 reduces the notice requirement for without cause termination of an appointment of a non-faculty employee excluded from the broad banding system with two or more years of service from 12 to 6 months. Other amendments add clarity to language explaining application of the policy.

Deletion of language governing Chancellor and presidents' contract terms (which is replaced by revised language added to Policies 304.1 and 305.1) is the only substantive amendment to Policy 705.1.

2/26/13

Campus Employment

.<?P..P.~.~~~.i.t.i~.~ ...................................... . NDUS Office Openings and

.~.~.q~.~.~~~.~?.r .. ~r.?.P.~.~.~.!~ .................... . Policies and Procedures

Broadband Job Classifications

SBHE Policies

Proposed S BH E Policies

NDUS Procedures

IT Policies

NDUS Human Resource Policy Manual

Articulation and Transfer

.c;?.\~~~g.~.Y.~!~P.~~.~.! ........................... . ~~~~.uD~!~.~ .. ~~.~.~~.1 •• ~.~~ •• F.?.r.~~ ....... .

. ~.~.P.~.~.~~ .. F.~~·~·~·································· Academic Calendar

~YOU ARE HERE

NDUS Home I Employees 1 Policies and Procedures 1 SBHE Policies

SBHE Policies

SUBJECT: 300s: Governance and Organization EFFECTIVE: September 26, 2012

Section: 305.1 College and University Presidents' Authority and Responsibilities

1. The president is the chief executive officer of the institution and a member of the Chancellor's executive staff. The president reports and is responsible to the Chancellor for all matters concerning the institution and is an advisor to the Chancellor in matters of interinstitutional policy and administration.

2. The Board delegates to the president of each institution full authority and responsibility to administer the affairs of the institution in accordance with Board policies, plans, budgets, and standards, including the management and expenditure of all institutional funds, within budgetary and other limitations imposed by law or by the Board .

3. Presidents have the authority to manage their institution on a day to day operational basis. Presidents shall consult with the Chancellor on decisions of mutual interest before those decisions are made or announced. Subject to Board policies, system procedures and Board and Chancellor directives, presidents:

a. Are responsible for carrying out approved policies, guidelines, and regulations governing the management of academic, business, and student affairs, delegating execution to administrative aids and heads of appropriate functional areas.

b. Have primary responsibility for the internal organization of the institution's administration, including academic, administrative, and student affairs, and the development and management of the physical plant and auxiliary services.

c. Ensure the assets of the institution are continually directed toward maintaining and sustaining the quality of teaching, research, and service that comprise the mission and goals of the institution.

d. Are responsible for consensus building; facilitation of quality scholarship; careful management of resources; recruitment and retention of outstanding faculty, staff, and students; problem solving; ' and promoting the intellectual, physical, and fiscal health of the institution.

e. Work with the Chancellor to develop, shape, and sustain the mission of their institution.

f. Provide the necessary leadership and management skills, including planning and policy development, for the institution to achieve its mission and goals.

g. Have primary responsibility for the day-to-day operational leadership and control of their institutions.

h. Ensure excellence in the institution's teaching, research, and service missions while maintaining the strength of the institution's academic and co-curricular programs and furthering the recruitment and retention of outstanding teachers, scholars, staff, and students.

i. Maintain a productive relationship with faculty, students, staff, and alumni.

j. Ensure a fair and appropriate distribution of resources to support and sustain the institution's academic, research, and service assets.

ndus.edu/makers/procedures/sbhe/defauit.asp?PID= 114&SID=4 1/3

2/26113 North Dakota University System: Policies and Procedures: SBHE Policies

K. uevelop and mamtam ettect1ve and productive re1at1onsn1ps w1tn tne ms11tut1on·s adJOining communities, business, and government agencies by building strong town-gown partnerships.

I. Articulate to the institution community the Board's and Chancellor's goals and assigned mission of the institution.

m. Secure grants, gifts, and contracts from private, state, and federal sources that further the mission and goals of the institution.

n. Appoint academic and non-academic employees within the limitation of powers delegated by the Board and Chancellor.

o. Assume primary responsibility for fund-raising and alumni relations.

p. Shall have an annual performance review by the Chancellor based upon a statement of goals for the year of evaluation which were previously formulated by the President and approved by the Chancellor.

4. Each president shall:

a. Ensure effective and broad-based participation in the decision-making process from faculty, staff, students, and others in those areas in which their interests are affected.

b. Develop and approve or recommend to the Chancellor and the Board, in consultation with appropriate committees or members of the institution, such policies, plans, budgets, programs, and standards affecting the institution as deemed necessary, advisable or as required by the Board.

c. Make recommendations to the Chancellor concerning all requests for tenure.

d. Approve all personnel actions, except the award or change in tenure status, involving all faculty members and other institution employees.

e. Explain dismissal or termination of the insUtution's chief finance .officer or internal auditor.

f. Review and evaluate all recommendations transmitted to the Chancellor or the Board from the insUtution.

g. Define the scope of authority offaculties, councils, committees and administrative officers of the insUtution.

h. Establish a process for adoption and implementation of institution policies and procedures that includes: (1) the president's approval before a policy takes effect; and (2) authority for the president to adopt interim policies and procedures concerning matters for which legislative authority is delegated to campus legislative bodies. Adoption of an interim policy or procedure must include notice to the faculty senate or other legislative body prior to or at the time the policy or procedure takes effect. Not later than six months of its effective date, the president shall present the interim policy or procedure to the appropriate legislative body for review and its decision, subject to the president's approval or veto, concerning whether the policy or procedure should be adopted, revised or discontinued.

i. Assume responsibility for the establishment of guidelines for student conduct which set forth prohibited conduct and provide for appropriate disciplinary procedures and sanctions for violation of institutional rules, consistent with standards of procedural fairness.

j. Maintain good relations and effective communication with the Chancellor and Chancellor's staff, the Board and other North Dakota institutions of higher education and cooperate with other NDUS institutions to improve academic offerings, expand access to higher education, promote faculty development, improve support services, reduce unnecessary duplication and enhance efficiency.

k. Inform and advise the Chancellor and Board regarding significant issues at the institution.

I. Maintain good relations with the public by:

1. Developing sound relationships between the institution and the community and region in which it is located and the public it serves,

2. Establishing and administering a development program with alumni and other institutional supporters,

3. Interpreting the institution and its mission to the public, and

4. Developing good relationships with legislators and with other public policy makers in coordination with the Chancellor.

rn. Be accountable for all funds, property, equipment, and other facilities assigned or provided to the institution.

n. Implement and enforce the provisions of N.D.C.C. sec. 15-10-17.1 regarding the conduct of students, staff, faculty, and visitors to the campus.

o. Consistently suspport and adhere to, and require responsible institution officers and employees to support and adhere to, Board beliefs and core values, Board policies and NDUS procedures, and Board and Chancellor directives and guidelines.

p. Exercise such other authority and perform such other responsibilities as may be assigned by the Chancellor or the Board.

ndus.edu/makers/procedures/sbhe/default.asp?PID= ll4&SID=4 2/3

2/26/13

COPYRIGHT 2013 NDUS

North Dakota University System: Policies and Procedures : SBHE Policies

6. In exercising this authority and carrying out these responsibilities, a president shall strive at all times to conform to and advocate the Board's beliefs and core values.

7. Presidents are hired by and shall serve at the pleasure of the Board. Presidents shall have a written contract. The Chancellor shall annually evaluate a president's performance as provided in Policy 604.1.

a. University presidents shall have an initial appointment of three years. Subjectto review and recommendation of the Chancellor, the appointment shall continue thereafter on an annual basis. A tenured faculty member at an NDUS-governed institution who is appointed president at that institution may retain the tenured status during the term as president. The Board, at the time of initial appointment as president or thereafter and commensurate with qualifications, may award a tenured full professorship to an individual appointed president if the individual has had

a tenured full professorship appointment at another institution prior to or at the time of the appointment. The Chancellor may recommend and the Board may elect to provide written notice of not less than 30 days of termination of the appointment. Upon termination of an appointment without cause by the Board, a university president is entitled to "retreat rights" at a salary commensurate with prevailing salaries in the department. "Retreat rights" means the president has a right to revert to a tenured faculty position in the department in which the president has received tenure.

b. College (two-year institution) presidents shall be appointed to an initial term of three years, without a tenured faculty appointment. Subject to review and recommendation of the Chancellor, the appointment shall continue thereafter on an annual basis. The Chancellor may recommend and the Board may elect to provide written notice of not less than 30 days of termination of the appointment. Upon termination of an appointment without cause by the Board within the initial three-year term, a college president is entitled to payment of an amount equal to current salary plus retirement plan contributions for the remaining term of the contract, not to exceed an amount equal to salary and retirement plan contributions for 12 months.

8. In consultation with the Board, the Chancellor may initiate dismissal of a president for just cause during the contract term and shall provide a written notice of intent to do so and an opportunity for a hearing conducted by the Chancellor. The Chancellor shall provide not less than five days for a response by the president following delivery of notice of intent, prior to a dismissal decision. The Chancellor may suspend a president with pay and benefits or reassign a president to other duties pending a decision. The hearing may be limited to Chancellor review of the president's written response to the notice and opportunity to submit additional information or, in the Chancellor's discretion, may include an opportunity for an informal meeting with the Chancellor. Following the hearing conducted by the Chancellor, the Chancellor may recommend dismissal or other appropriate action by the Board. Following a dismissal decision or imposition of other discipline by the Board, a president may, within 1 o days of notice of the Board's decision, file with the Board secretary or general counsel a written appeal and request for evidentiary hearing, which must be accompanied by a specification of reasons for the request. The Board shall then conduct or arrange for a hearing. The Board may appoint a hearing officer or administrative law judge to conduct the hearing and make findings of fact, conclusions of law and a recommendation to the Board, which shall then make a final decision based on the hearing record.

9. A tenured faculty member at a NDUS institution who is appointed president shall retain that status during the term as president.

Reference: NDUS Procedure -1Qi

History: See SBHE Minutes, February 19, 1982, page 5003. Amendment SBHE Minutes, March 14, 1989, page 5800. Amendment SBHE Minutes, May 24-25, 1990, page 6003. Amendment SBHE Minutes, January 20, 1994, page 6427. AmendmentSBHE Minutes, May 21, 1998, page 6889. AmendmentSBHE Minutes, February 17-18,2000. Amendment SBHE Minutes, April15, 2004. Amendment SBHE Minutes, May 5, 2005. Amendment SBHE Minutes, April12, 2012. Amendment SBHE Minutes, September 26,2012.

NQSU lM) \W/

DESIGN & Pt<OGRAf,M~It\IG BY ODNEY

Contact Us 1 Privacy Policy 1 Disclaimer 1 Accessibility 1 Security Policy

ndus.edu/makers/proc~dures/sbhe/def ault.asp?PID= 114&SID=4 3/3

4 The Denver Post october 26, 1991 Author: J. sebastian Sinisi; Denver Post staff writer Page: 4B

The architecture faculty at the university of colorado at Denver will heal its internal rifts and restore the program to good standing with a national accrediting panel soon, officials vowed yesterday. The National Architectural Accrediting Board put UCD's master's degree program in architecture on an 18-month probation last July. The school lost an appeal earlier this month, becoming the first UCD program to face such action. "We have no intention of having an unaccredited program within the school of Architecture and will take all necessary steps to correct the board's concerns," said Mark Emmert, associate vice chancellor for academic affairs at UCD. "It's not as though we're being asked to rebuild the entire program and start from scratch," Emmert said. "The board's report affirms that the academic quality of the program is basically sound. It's concerned with internal dissension, and we're confident things can be corrected within the time limit." Emmert's boss, vice chancellor Georgia Lesh-Laurie, assured students in a prepared statement that "although the program is on probation it remains accredited." The NARAB report, based on vist to UCD last December, said the program has been weakened by internal dissent and political infighting since the May 1990 resignation of Dean Hamid shirvani and the appointment of Peter schneider as acting dean. Repeated efforts to reach schneider and shirvani yesterday were unsuccessful. shirvani 's resignation "under duress," was caused by his own actions, which placed him "in an adversarial relationship" with some faculty members and the university administration, according to the report. After a sabbatical, shirvani returned as a tenured faculty member. But his continued presence on campus created "turmoil between shirvani supporters and

non-supporters, which creates a difficult atmosphere for Acting Dean schneider," the report said. since the last NARAB visit in March 1988, the report said, nearly half the program's faculty members had left, creating a climate of instability. Part of the political sniping involved anonymous letters sent to faculty members, charging that schneider had falsified some of his credentials. "Those letters reflect the kind of infighting the board's report was concerned about," said Emmert. "They contained spurious comments, and we don't give much credence to anonymous charges." The probation extends only to the school's 3 1/2-year masters program. Copyright 1991 The Denver Post corp.

Faculty has 'no

COnfidence' (Retrieved March 4, 2013 from: http://www .turlockjournal.com/archives/2022/)

inCSU Stanislaus president

By Alex Cantatoreacantatore@turlock journal.com209-634-9141, ext. 2005 POSTED November 20.2009 9:34p.m.

The votes have been tallied and the results are in: the. General Faculty of California State University, Stanislaus voted overwhelmingly Friday to express no confidence in the performance and leadership of CSU Stanislaus President Hamid Shirvani. The weeklong balloting process drew responses from 264 eligible faculty members, approximately 90 percent of the 300 total ballots that were distributed. A total of 240 votes, or 91 percent of those received, expressed no confidence in Shirvani. "The turnout was incredibly high," said Steven Filling, professor of Accounting and speaker of the Academic Senate. "It demonstrates a strong campus consensus that something has to change." Twenty-three voters expressed confidence in Shirvani, comprising 9 percent of the vote total, while one voter abstained. Six ballots were not counted as they lacked a signature on the envelope and could not be verified; of those, one expressed confidence while five did not. The ballot of no confidence was approved by a 42-3 vote on Nov. 10 in the Academic Senate, in response to concerns regarding Shirvani 's leadership. All full-time General Faculty, a body comprised of professors, librarians, counselors, coaches, and academic administrators -including Shirvani himself - were entitled to cast votes. A call for comment was not returned directly by Shirvani, but the landslide vote of no confidence came as no shock to Russell Giambelluca, CSU Stanislaus vice president of Business and Finance. "I'm not surprised," Giambelluca said. "There's some difficulty in recognizing what has to be done to survive a 15 percent budget cut. Change is hard. Big change is harder." Giambelluca characterized faculty around the CSU system as "quick to make judgments" in the current, difficult budgetary time. He stated that votes of no confidence in CSU presidents have not been uncommon over the past year, with Sonoma, Sacramento and Humboldt State all either passing votes of no confidence or being in the process of doing so. Members of the Academic Senate have stated that the vote of no confidence was in no way related to recent cuts, "Unfortunately, the timing of this decision may cause those outside of the University to assume it's a reaction to budgetary pressures or the decision to end Winter Term," said Lynn Johnson, professor of Accounting and past speaker of the Academic Senate. "In fact, our lack of confidence in Shirvani has been discussed among the faculty since at least 2007 ." The ballot, they said, was made inevitable by Shirvani 's abandonment of the shared governance process, the deteriorating working relationship between Shirvani and faculty, and Shirvani's seeming lack of understanding of the mission of the CSU system. Shirvani "won't even talk" to faculty, when he's supposed to listen to faculty directly except when there's a clear reason not to, said Economics Professor Elaine Peterson. "Faculty are ready to work and to sacrifice on behalf of the university, we've demonstrated that consistently here for 50 years," said John Garcia, professor of Social Work. "It will take some time to re-develop trust and good faith in the office of the president, and we await his efforts in that direction."

Giambelluca stated that Shirvani 's interest lies in communicating with the entire campus community, and that the president tries to reach out to everyone at CSU Stanislaus. He cited several open forums hosted by Shirvani over the past year to improve dialogue within the campus community. "He (Shirvani) is always interested in working together with groups and moving the University forward," Giambelluca said. "I think what needs to happen is people need to be able to come forward and have meaningful discussions." The vote of no confidence is not a legally binding vote, but could undermine the president's authority and lead to his eventual departure. Faculty also expressed hope that the vote might either inspire Shirvani to change his approach to governance, or force the CSU leadership to step in. "We hope that the (CSU) Chancellor (Charles Reed) and the Board (of Trustees) will encourage the president to do the right thing," said Paul O'Brien, professor of Sociology. According to Claudia Keith, CSU assistant vice chancellor, the Chancellor's Office remains in support of Shirvani despite the results of today's vote, though they have "been aware of a lot of difficulties that the president and the campus have been working through." Keith stated the Chancellor's Office did not find merit in faculty claims that Shirvani 's leadership has impaired students' education and hamstrung the efforts of instructors. "That's certainly their perspective and I think we would disagree with that perspective," Keith said. The California State Student Association has voted Shirvani CSU President of the Year twice in the past three years, in 2007 and 2009. Keith also referred to widespread business and community support for Shirvani, and lamented the vote, which she attributed to displeasure over recent budget cuts. "These type of votes are unfortunate, and unfortunately distract from the mission of what the campus is supposed to be doing," Keith said. "The (CSU) Board (of Trustees) and the chancellor still have full confidence in the president, and these types of votes don't help the students any." Friday's vote of no confidence is not the first time Shirvani 's leadership has come under fire. In May I 990, Shirvani resigned from his post as Dean of the University of Colorado, Denver School of Architecture and Planning "under duress," according to a National Architectural Accrediting Board report cited in a I 99I Denver Post article. Shirvani 's resignation, "was caused by his own actions, which placed him 'in an adversarial relationship' with some faculty members and the university administration," according to the article. Shirvani took the post of dean in I 986. In three years, the article states that nearly half of the program's faculty members had left. The article goes on to state that the UCD architecture master's degree program's accreditation was put on probation in response to "internal dissent and political infighting" that arose following Shirvani's departure. When Shirvani returned to UCD as a tenured faculty member in I 991 , his presence on campus created, "turmoil between Shirvani supporters and non­supporters," according to the NARAB report. To contact Alex Cantatore, e-mail acantatore@turlockjournal.com or call 634-9141 ext. 2005.

The Assumed Practices Higher education functions within a community marked by shared practices among colleges and universities, practices that have developed out of shared experience, are basic to higher education in the United States, and have been tested over time. Institutional accreditation evolved within these shared practices and it relies upon the assumption that institutions follow them.

The Assumed Practices are foundational to the Criteria for Accreditation. Unlike the Criteria and Core Components, they are generally matters to be determined as facts, rather than matters requiring professional judgment, and they are unlikely to vary by institutional mission or context.

Because accredited institutions engage in these Assumed Practices as a matter of course, the Commission does not ask that an accredited institution explicitly address them in an evaluation process except where specifically required to do so to ensure continuing conformity. Such circumstances include when an institution is undergoing a Change of Control, Structure, or Organization, and when an institution is in the process of removal from probation or an order of show-cause.

When it discovers that an accredited institution is not following an Assumed Practice, the Commission initiates a review, in accordance with its policy and procedure, to determine whether the institution remains in compliance with the Criteria for Accreditation. The Commission also requires that the institution take action to bring its practice into conformity with the Assumed Practices. An accredited institution that finds through its own processes that its practice is departing from the Assumed Practices should take immediate steps to correct the deficiency; it is not required to disclose its finding to the Commission provided that it moves quickly to initiate a remedy.

An institution seeking Candidacy must explicitly demonstrate conformity with the Assumed Practices. An institution seeking initial accreditation must again explicitly demonstrate conformity with these Practices as it addresses the Criteria for Accreditation. Institutional conformity with the Assumed Practices is necessary but only partial evidence of fulfillment of the Criteria for Accreditation. Commission decisions regarding accreditation status, while considering conformity with the Assumed Practices, will ultimately be based on a finding of fulfillment of the requirements for Candidacy for an institution seeking Candidacy or the Criteria for Accreditation for an institution seeking accreditation.

(retrieved March 4, 2013 from: httpJLwww.hlcommission.org/lnformation-for-Institutionsjnew-criteria-for­accreditation.html?highlight= WyJhc3 N 1 b WVkliwicHJh Y3 Rp Y2VzliwiYXN zdW11ZCB wcmF19JillZXMiXQ==)

3/!1!3 Assumed Practices: New Crir.eria for Accredit:•lion I l.nfonnation for lmtittuiuns

F'olides ,'\c Statement'; Document Library

( T~~i~';~~eplaces Minimum Expectations) ~ ~ .... .,.....-.~~

Founci1ifiofia1 foihe' Criteria and Core Components is a set of practices shared by institutions of higher education in the United States. Unlike Criteria and Core Components, these Assumed Practices are (1) generally matters to be determined as facts, rather than matters requiring professional judgment and (2) unlikely to vary by institutional mission or context.

A. Integrity: Ethical and Responsible Conduct 1. The institution has a conflict of interest policy that ensures that the governing board and the senior administrative personnel act in the best interest of the institution.

2. The institution has ethics policies for faculty and staff regarding conflict of interest, nepotism, recruitment and admissions, financial aid, privacy of personal information, and contracting.

3. The institution provides its students, administrators, faculty, and staff with policies and procedures informing them of their rights and responsibilities within the institution.

4. The institution provides clear information regarding its procedures for receiving complaints and grievances from students and other constituencies, responds to them in a timely manner, and analyzes them to improve its ~cesses.

Whe institution makes readily available to students and to the general public clear and complete information including:

a. statements of mission, vision, and values

b. full descriptions of the requirements for its programs, including all pre-requisite courses

Grequirements for admission both to the institution and to particular programs or majors

d. policies on acceptance of transfer credit, including how credit is applied to degree requirements. (Except for courses articulated through transfer policies or institutional agreements, the institution makes no promises to prospective students regarding the acceptance of credit awarded by examination, credit for prior learning, or credit for transfer until an evaluation has been conducted.)

e. all student costs, including tuition, fees, training, and incidentals; its financial aid policies, practices, and requirements; and its policy on refunds

f. policies regarding academic good standing, probation, and dismissal; residency or enrollment requirements (if any)

g. a full list of its instructors and their academic credentials

h. its relationship with any parent organization (corporation, hospital, church, or other entity that owns the

institution) and any external providers of its instruction.

6. The institution assures that all data it makes public are accurate and complete, including those reporting on student achievement of learning and student persistence, retention, and completion.

7. The institution portrays clearly and accurately to the public its current status with the Higher Learning Commission and with specialized, national, and professional accreditation agencies.

a. An institution offering programs that require specialized accreditation or recognition in order for its students to be certified or to sit for licensing examinations either has the appropriate accreditation or discloses publicly and clearly the consequences to the students of the lack thereof. The institution makes clear to students the distinction between regional and specialized or program accreditation and the relationships between licensure and the various types of accreditation.

b. An institution offering programs eligible for specialized accreditation at multiple locations discloses the accreditation status of the program at each location.

c. An institution that advertises a program as preparation for a licensure examination publicly discloses its licensure pass rate on that examination, unless such information is not available to the institution.

8. The governing board and its executive committee, if it has one, include some "public" members. Public members have no significant administrative position or any ownership interest in any of the following: the institution itself a company that does substantial business with the institution; a company or organization with which the institution has a substantial partnership; a parent, ultimate parent, affiliate, or subsidiary corporation; an investment group or firm substantially involved with one of the above organizations. All publicly-elected members or members appointed by publicly-elected individuals or bodies (governors, elected legislative bodies) are public members.1

9. The governing board has the authority to approve the annual budget and to engage and dismiss the chief executive officer. 1

\\'WW .ncahfc .org/Inforl'i\ation-for- f lJStitutions/aSSlllllCd- practices .html

Assumed Practices: New Criteria for Accreditation

More about the Criteria

gujding Values

Criteria for Accred~alion Effective January 1, 2013

Assumed Practices Effective January 1, 2013

Obligations of Affi!iali.:ln Eflective January 1, 2013

hnolementation Schedule

All of these sections are available in the New

Criteria Baoktet.

Information about the Old Criteria

Old Criteria for Accreditation Effc'Ctive until

December 2012

MiillnilliL~mllilillkmiLI\:ilhiL\..tilll.Qri!mia.fQ[ Accreditation Effective until Decrmtber 2012

Questions? 800.621.7440

1/3

Pathways Meeting

January 8 -1-Sptn

Horizon Conference Room

I. Review of Pathways Decision Points to date

II. Pathways FAQ's

Admission Score Matrix

1. Using the online formula, how do students get an accurate admission index if the high school or student does not provide all of the components of the index [e.g. GPA]?

If elements are missing, the Admissions Office should proceed to can)' out its normal "back room" assessment of students' uedentials.

2. Are additional points given for Advanced Placement or Dual Credit courses?

Additional points are not given in the calculator but the admissions office can certainly give weight to these elements in its "back room" assessment of students who do not make the automatic admission cutoff score.

3. How will the new admission requirements affect/impact our specific populations? a. Pathway Program

A student that may not qualify for automatic admission may begin theit· courseworl< at a community college or in a transfer program. Upon the completion of 30 credits with a 2.5 GPA, or completion of an Associate degree and a 2.0 GPA they may smoothly transfer to a 4 year institution.

b. GED or non-traditional students

GED and Non-traditional students arc treated in the same manner they have always been treated by the Admissions Office.

c. Collaborative program agreements

Pathways should have no impact on collaborative agreements. The current collaborative procedure is being worked on to continue to assist with easing the campuses while continuing to make this seamless for the students.

d. Refugee and permanent resident students: Do ESL courses and Developmental course count toward the core courses?

ESL courses and Developmental courses do not count toward the core courses.

e. Athletes

Athletes should be treated the same as all other students with the exception of how they are counted in the tuition waiver.

f. Students with disabilities

Pathways has no impact on the admission of students with disabilities. Such student applicants should be evaluated like everyone else and any special accommodation extended to them should occur following admission.

4. How will students be accommodated who require remedial coursework?

Students who require remedial/developmental coursework should also be taking ,·cgular coursework as well. If your student is in need of remedial/development courscwork ~ you need to question whether the student really belongs at your institution. That student would likely be the most successful having their higher educational beginnings in the community college setting. (Albeit that may be in a Pathways or Launch program).

5. Will there be a cut off score for admission? Will there be a bottom line at which point students will not being accepted?

Each tier has a hidden "cut-off'' score which is based on the tier's best assessment of its student success profiles. Institutions are not prevented from admitting students below that score. However, the lack of success of those students combined with the impact of performance-based budgeting which uses retention and graduation rates as benchmarks for funding make such choices problematic at best.

6. What will the matrix will be for those students who will fall under individual review? What will be considered in the review?

Students who do not meet the automatic admission score should be reviewed using whatever criteria the Admissions Office has chosen in assessing such applications. Pathways does not intrude into that campus process.

7. Can a student appeal a denial of admission? If so, what information is needed for the appeal process?

Yes. Whatever the Admissions Office of the institution normally expects from an applicant who chooses to appeal.

8. Would the recommendation be to use a regular GPA scale or weighted GPA scale for admission?

The regular GPA scale is used in the calculator; the Admissions Office is free to usc a weighted GPA scale for its own "back room" assessments. It should additionally be noted that theE-Transcript work is based on a regular GP A scale.

9. Could a student be denied admittance to an institution within a Carnegie Classification tier then be admitted to another institution within the same tier?

Yes.

Transfer Students 1. How are transfer students being defined?

These students are defined based on their academic qualifications. When meeting the proper admission criteria, a student may transfer at any time deemed reasonable by the receiving institution. If, however a student did not meet the admission criteria and are seeldng to gain the qualifications needed to apply, they would move to the 30 credits w/ a 2.5 GP A model or the Associate degree with 2.0 GP A model.

2. What are transfer students' admission requirements? See above

3. Could a student transfer from one research institution to another or comprehensive to another with less than 30 credit hours since they already had been admitted to a research institution? Yes.

Technology 1. Will computer systems be ready to accommodate these changes?

Yes, we have every expectation that they will be read to accommodate the changes.

Timeline 1. Will all of the details be finalized and available by the end of April to accommodate publications

for the following year which need to be printed in the spring?

The colleges and universities should have enough information on Pathways to accommodate their publications. Remember, however, that Pathways is an evolving plan that is expected to change over time due in no small part to the fact specific exemptions have been given to some institutions as they start out.

2. What exactly is the admission timeline?

The implementation impacts those students that will be beginning their courses Fall 2014.

3. Whose responsibility will it be to communicate the final Pathways message?

The Chancellor

4. When will a final Pathways document be determined?

Pathways is a multi-step plan that will evolve over time.

Remedial

1. Creation of a timeline for implementation toward our remedial admission goal is needed.

This goal will necessarily vary among the institutions. Some are already able to implement; others will require a more incremental approach due to the number of students requiring some level of developmental/remedial support. Campuses need to regularly apprise the VCAA of their progress.

2. What is the relationship between the Pathways initiative and SBHE policies and procedures on placement into remedial courses in English and Math? The SBHE policies and procedures on placement into remedial courses in English and Math are being revised to conform with the Pathways plan.

3. If a student is part of the 5% or 20% (regional/comprehensive) exemption for remedial coursework, can the student still be admitted to attend that institution or is the student only allowed to take the remedial courses?

All such students should be expected to take a combination of regular and remedial coursework. If a student is only allowed to take remedial courses upon entering an institution we question whether the student has been admitted into the right tier institution. The statistics for the success of such students is not encouraging.

4. Who will offer the remedial courses for each institution? Will it be through a collaborative process? Has there been progress on refining the collaborative procedure to clearly define the home institution and how that will work?

All remedial courses are to be offered by the community colleges. Some of these courses will be taught as stand-along; others can be designed as components to a regular English or Math course. The research suggests that the latter type of structure has the greater success provided the student's needs are not too great.

5. Is there plausibility behind an option for outsourcing remedial instruction to providers delivering modular, self-paced, and specifically tailored on-line programs (ie. Blackboard)?

Yes. Research suggests that these modular programs can be helpful. As noted above, there is evidence that modules built as add-ons to an existing English or Math course can be very successful.

6. The Pathways documents states that the remedial courses will be offered on site, but that limited offerings of online developmental coursework will be allowed. Who will determine what threshold will be used to determine the number of online offerings?

We anticipate that on-line developmental/remedial coursework will eventually migrate into the offerings, especially in the form of components added to regular English and/or Math courses. In this initial phase, however, we expect most remedial courses to be offered on-site by a community college as free-standing

courses. Because the online delivery of remedial courses is already in place at many institutions, the utilization of the online delivery will also be available when need requires.

7. Are the 5% current exemption number and the 5% remedial number independent of one another?

Yes.

8. If you have to take a remedial course, will you be enrolled at your home institution and placed into those courses taught by whomever, or will you just be enrolled wherever the remedial courses are being taught?

Considering the fact that the student has been accepted into one of the tier institutions, he/she will be considered enrolled in that home institution and taking additional coursework from a community college.

9. When con-sidering those admitted within the 5% remedial allowance, will it be based on those who applied the earliest, or the 5% with the better scores? Will there be a cutoff date for applications- how will this be decided?

Other

It is expected that each institution will admit only those students whose profile best fits that of a student who will be retained and graduate in a reasonable time period. This will require the institution to assess carefully each applicant and to make a reasoned judgment on his/her potential success. The timeline for such decisions is wholly within the purview of the institution.

1. What does the Adult Learner project mean to campuses that don't have the resources to support this initiative?

We are hoping that the Legislature will help us address the needs of the adult learner. Addressing the needs of the Adult Learner will look different on each campus. What works at one may not be the best practice for another.

2. The Pathways document states that community colleges and 4-year regional campuses will have the responsibility for the delivery of dual credit courses. Does that mean that a local student (from the Grand Forks or Fargo areas) could not enroll at either institution to take a course (while still in high school) that might further enhance their educational growth/learning?

No. Every institution has the option of enrolling high school students in a particular course for which the high school principal and the university agree can be of value to the student. This is not considered a dual credit course but an "early entry."

3. How will the tuition waivers for undergraduate students change from the way in which they are awarded in the current process?

This question must be directed to the VC of Finance.

4. If there are different tuition rates based on majors for some institutions, how will institutions account for undeclared students?

This particular issue is being addressed by the use of the course prefix.

5. Will more students enter as undeclared to avoid various program fees?

See # 4 above.

6. Define the roles of the 2 year institutions- tech/vocational education vs. true community with a strong academic driven mission. Pathways has evolved the mission of the community college to additionally serve the developmental student.