Browsing the archives for the Minutes category.

Approved minutes, 2 October 2012

Comments Off on Approved minutes, 2 October 2012

Approved minutes, 4 September 2012

Comments Off on Approved minutes, 4 September 2012

Approved minutes, 18 September 2012

Comments Off on Approved minutes, 18 September 2012

Approved minutes, 16 October 2012

Comments Off on Approved minutes, 16 October 2012

5-1-12 Minutes


Minutes | download as PDF

Faculty Senate, May 1, 2012

Plaza Room, Administrative Center, 3 p.m.

Continue Reading »

Comments Off on 5-1-12 Minutes

4-17-12 Minutes


Minutes Approved | download as PDF

Faculty Senate, April 17, 2012

New Health Sciences Building, room 4306, 3 p.m.

Continue Reading »

Comments Off on 4-17-12 Minutes

4-3-12 Minutes


Approved Minutes  | download as pdf

All Faculty meeting

April 3, 2012

Thompson Courtroom, Law School, 500 E. 52nd St., 3 p.m.

 Present: Ebersole, Ward-Smith, McArthur, Stancel, Burnett, Wyckoff, Plamann, Taylor, Ellinghausen, Sherburn, Holt, O’Brien, Luppino, Sykes Berry, Gerkovich, Kumar, Igwe, Butner

 Excused: McDaniels, Sohraby, Nickel, Stanley

 Absent: Gardner, Durig, Peng, Lyne, Thiagarajan, Madison-Cannon, Odom, Alleman, Hermanns, Krantz, Bethman

 Guests: Linda Plamann and Tom Stroik (co-chairs of General Education Oversight Committee); all other faculty from campus.

 Welcome and Informational Items

The next Faculty Senate meeting is on the Health Sciences campus and it will be in the new Health Sciences building, room 4306, on the 4th floor at 3pm.

 Approval of Agenda

Senator Taylor offered a motion to approve the agenda and Senator Wyckoff seconded the motion.  All approved

 Approval of Minutes

Senator Wyckoff offered a motion to approve the minutes of the March 20th meeting and Senator Sykes Berry seconded the motion.  All approved. 

 Budget Report:  Cathleen Burnett

The Faculty Senate was given $10,000 this year to cover the expenses of hosting the Board of Curators breakfasts on this campus. As of today, our balance is $12,888. We had two breakfasts this year and they are not yet reflected in our balance.  Other expenses included in the budget are for travel to IFC meetings and to pay a student assistant.  Chair Ebersole explained that hosting the breakfast is an excellent way to present to the Curators the great things we are doing on this campus. 

 Motion to Approve Revisions to the Standing Operating Procedures (SOP): Peggy Ward-Smith

See the Faculty Senate website for the new SOP

Vice Chair Ward-Smith pointed out the changes that have been proposed:

  • The Nominations Committee will be a subcommittee of the Administrative Issues Committee.
  • The second change is to have the administrator review every other year, based on the academic calendar of August to May.
  • Re-locating the Undergraduate Curriculum committee in the SOP
  • Blackboard will be the method of voting instead of paper voting. This is a secure method that insures confidentiality.  The administrators can see when faculty voted but not how they voted.
  • The Academic Grievance Hearing Panel has been under a pilot program for the last 2 ½ years but now it is an official process that is in the Collected Rules and Regulations.  The SOP merely refer to that link.

There was some confusion and discussion about the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee.  In the future some other committee may be proposed to handle the General Education Curriculum that is being formulated, however the current change in the SOP is merely to move the standing committee to its appropriate place with the other standing Faculty Senate committees. 

All approved the changes to the SOP.

 Report from the General Education Oversight Committee: Linda Plamann and Tom Stroik

The General Education Oversight Committee has been developing models for the General Education curriculum.  Previously the Senate approved the notion of 30 shared hours. The committee has been getting feedback from other units around the campus. Their hope is that the Senate is ready for a motion to approve the Model. 

A video about the model is still in production.  Senator Taylor brought up the negative reaction from the Bloch School and Senator Madison-Cannon spoke about the challenges faced by the Performance students in the Conservatory, using the term ‘devastating’.  Part of the problem may be the requirement that some of the courses are ‘linked,’ i.e., taken together. 

The negative comments were that the model was unrealistic i.e. the faculty working together in some of the courses and the other issue was complexity of the model and concern for student understanding.  Linda Plamann replied that in presenting the model to the student body leadership they understood it in 20 minutes. It doesn’t seem to be such a big problem.

Other feedback:

There was a concern that Arts and Sciences would be doing all the teaching and it was pointed out that the model will give an opportunity to the other units to participate.  Some units have asked if it is required that they participate at all in the General Education curriculum?  It is not mandatory that all the units create new courses for General Education, although that occurrence would be a loss for the students.

Another concern was expressed for start-up funds for on-going summer work. Nothing is committed by the Provost as of yet.

 Executive Committee Reports

Secretary Cathleen Burnett

Burnett reminded the group of the issue of privacy in the classroom that occurred this year.   There is now, in the student code, a statement that requires faculty to give permission for tape recording and requests permission from all the students for tape recording. The rules are for everyone’s protection and they will be in writing.

Secondly, Burnett reminded the audience of the conversations with Interim Vice Chancellor Bonewald about issues regarding research in the campus and of the two consultants who came to campus. Chair Ebersole added that opening that consultant’s meeting to all interested faculty was pursued as a matter of shared governance.  There are many questions remaining so this topic will be an ongoing discussion.

IFC Representative Carol McArthur

McArthur spoke about the Domestic Partner Benefit [DPB] discussions and movement toward policy acceptance.  For 10 years or so the university system has been pressured to adopt a DPB.  The report is being considered by the new System President and the Board of Curators.  There is support from all the Chancellors and Deans.  She explained that implementing such a policy will hardly make any difference in the budget since it is estimated that there are less than 500 people on all the four campuses and only 1% are likely to claim the benefits.

Vice Chair Ward-Smith

Ward-Smith spoke about her committee’s work to standardize and expand the definition the definition of voting faculty on our campus.

IFC Representative Nancy Stancel

Stancel discussed the work done to affirm the non-tenure track faculty designation of Librarians on all campuses. 

Chair Gary Ebersole

Ebersole introduced the need for establishing a campus wide Undergraduate General Education committee under the authority of the Faculty Senate that would implement and approve the courses for the new Gen Ed curriculum.  At the moment there is not a constitutionally established committee to serve as a central clearing house committee.

 Question and Answer Session

A question was raised about what issues/matters NTT faculty, who now have the right to vote in campus wide elections, are or are not able to vote on.  This matter will be taken up by the executive committee in the future.

Another question was raised about one of the departments in the College concerning shared governance and rules of procedure.  Chair Ebersole responded that the Senate generally deals with issues that are of campus wide concern.  This particular matter should be discussed with the department and/or dean.  Perhaps the Ombudsperson, Nancy Day, would be helpful also. 

 American Association of University Professors (AAUP)

Roger Pick explained that some people think the AAUP is a faculty union but that its main purpose is advocacy for faculty governance and academic freedom. The strength of the AAUP comes from numbers, more members means more power. There are a lot of threats to academic freedom coming from outside the university and it is important to be vigilant. I encourage you all to join this organization.

 The meeting adjourned.

Comments Off on 4-3-12 Minutes

3-20-12 Minutes


Minutes — Approved  | download as pdf

Faculty Senate, March 20, 2012

Plaza Room, Administrative Center, 3 p.m.

Continue Reading »

Comments Off on 3-20-12 Minutes

3-6-12 Minutes


Minutes –Approved  | download as pdf

Faculty Senate, March 6, 2012

Plaza Room, Administrative Center, 3 p.m.

Continue Reading »

Comments Off on 3-6-12 Minutes

2-21-12 Minutes


Faculty Senate Minutes –  | download as pdf

Tuesday February 21, 2012

Plaza Room, Administrative Center, 3 p.m.

Continue Reading »

Comments Off on 2-21-12 Minutes
« Older Posts