Senate
College of Liberal Arts
December 15, 2014
QUINN 308
2:30-4:00
MINUTES
1. Approval of Agenda
The Moderator noted that a proposal was added to the agenda just before the meeting.
The agenda was approved unanimously with the noted addition.
2. Approval of the minutes from November 17, 2014
The minutes were approved unanimously.
3. Moderator’s Report:

The first spring CLA Senate meeting will be held in February.

If the departments will be switching Senators in spring, please let the Moderator know.

A suggestion was made to review the voting procedure in the context of Majors, Honors,
Individual Majors, and Special Programs proposal. The practice in the past has been to invite the person in charge of the proposal to the CLA Senate meeting. The concern came up that there might be a pressure to vote a certain way with the person present.
One way to amend the procedure would be to ask the person presenting a proposal to leave before the voting takes place; one foreseeable complication with this amendment is that many proposals are presented by Senators, and they wouldn’t be asked to leave. An alternative would be to vote by secret ballot. A discussion ensued.
A motion was made to vote on trying out the following procedure: have a secret ballot for significant changes or new proposals from Majors, Honors, Individual Majors, and
Special Programs, and at Moderator’s discretion for any topic that may become contentious.
The Senators also always have the option of sending the Moderator an email before the meeting, requesting a vote for a course or program proposal to be taken by secret ballot.
Their identity will remain anonymous.
4.
The SEC will prepare a sheet of paper with voting options in advance so as to facilitate the process. This motion passed and will begin at the February 2015 meeting.
Dean’s Report:

Budget: the Provost guaranteed to send the budget by next week (staff allocation decisions, such as requests for additional TAs for Spring, etc., are part of this budget).


Travel and Research fund: decisions will be made in early January.

Meeting with the Union regarding 2:2: College will meet with the Union to see if there are any persistent issues, especially regarding accountability, with 2:2. Technically, the course load is still 3:3, and the College is granting an extra course for research. From the
Dean’s perspective, the move to the 2:2 hasn’t seemed to produce a significant problem with faculty productivity that would require new mechanisms of accountability beyond the regular personnel reviews and PMYR processes. The Dean will be meeting with the
Union in the spring.

The Dean’s office is enhancing communication efforts. These include: Department
Administrative Managers’ meetings, CLA only GPD (Graduate Program Directors) meetings; CLA Newsletter (the first issue is scheduled for January); and, Dean’s twitter account (social media).

Personnel cases: 15 tenure cases (College Personnel Committee is still in the process of completing the tenure reviews; the Dean’s letter should be out by mid-January); 12 fourth-year reviews (those might get delayed under the weight of tenure cases).

Space: Expecting to hear from Anita Miller regarding faculty needing office space for spring semester.
5. Motions from the Academic Affairs Committee to approve the following New courses:

HIST 435 The Invention of Tropical Disease
Was approved unanimously.

POLISCI 367 Immigration Politics in Comparative Perspective
Was approved unanimously.

THRART 115 Makeup Artistry
6.
Was approved unanimously.
A question was raised regarding prerequisites and distinctions in expectations for 100, 200,
300, 400-level courses. Prerequisites are the purview of individual departments, and can vary. 100 and 200 levels are meant to be more introductory and/or survey-type courses; 300, more intensive reading/writing; 400, capstone and research.
Motions from the Majors, Honors, and Special Programs Committee to approve the following:
2


Approval of the Major in International Relations (Dept. of Political Science)
The co-author of the proposal, Paul Kowert, introduced the new major: The aspiration was to create the major that’s interdisciplinary; incorporates courses from many departments; the list of courses may not be inclusive; have spoken to the MLLC (Modern
Languages, Literatures, and Cultures) and LAIS (Latin American and Iberian Studies) departments regarding the foreign language component of the major.
The proposal was unanimously approved.

Approval of the Music Minor
The Senator explained that the minor goes with the course proposal that was passed last month; until then the department did not have enough required courses at 300-level for the minor.
The proposal was approved unanimously.

Approval of the History proposal
The Senator explained that the proposal was first brought up in Spring 2013 (there is some confusion on whether it was passed conditionally or unconditionally). Currently, part of the proposal—to allow 100-level classes count as electives for the major—still holds, while the other—having to do with “global south”—will need to be revisited. The
Senator asked if it would be possible to only vote on one aspect of the proposal: on changing the elective level from what it is now, above 100-level, to the proposed 100 or above.
A concern was expressed that voting only on part may be a cause for more confusion moving forward. It was suggested to send the SEC the proposal with only the part that the department wants the Senate to vote on. A motion was made to allow the SEC to vote on this portion of the proposal. The motion was unanimously approved.
It was noted that 100-level courses becoming electives for reasons of popularity/enrollment numbers signals an issue with 2:2, that, in other words, to accommodate the shift, elective courses may be losing some in rigor.
7. Discussion of Senate Procedural Review
At the last meeting, the question of reviewing the governance processes was raised. The
Moderator tried to expedite the process by sending an e-mail to see if anyone would be interested in serving on a committee that would take on this task. The SEC considered the matter and decided that we should first discuss if the review of the processes is something that the Senators want to pursue. A discussion ensued.
The following were some of the points/questions raised: the problems owing to the One
Form and how these can be reduced (e.g., through workshops on filling out the form,
3

8. inclusion of an estimate/how long the process takes on average to channel expectations, a more substantial revision of the form that is still on-going, etc.); how are courses passed at other institutions, such as Tufts and UMass Amherst, including whether or not these processes are deemed satisfactory by faculty teaching at these institutions; data about current processes at UMass Boston, for instance, what are the necessary steps to pass a course and what is the point of having these steps – are they superfluous or do they matter; how long does it take to pass a course and what would greater expediency entail in terms of governance; the issue of misinformation, and what can be done to provide more training/information on how to complete the necessary steps.
The discussion suggested interest in pursuing these questions by constituting a committee. The goals and objectives of the committee were discussed. A committee tasked with reviewing the current processes and with making recommendations would need to have a balanced composition (e.g., the number of faculty representing humanities and social sciences for the 19 departments currently in the CLA, etc.). The Committee’s recommendations would not automatically change the process – the Senate would first need to vote on what recommendations it wants to approve. An alternative would be to form an “Exploratory Committee” that would be more informative in nature; it would be tasked to investigate how things are done in our own and other institutions, without making recommendations. The Senate would then review their findings and decide whether a follow-up committee needs to be formed to make recommendations on the existing processes based on the findings.
A motion was made to constitute an “exploratory” committee that would be tasked to inform the Senate about other models. Their report would be expected by the time of the second or third CLA Senate meeting in spring. After receiving the report, the Senate could decide if it wants to constitute another committee that would come up with recommendations. The motion was approved unanimously. The following committee was constituted:
The Exploratory Task Force on Governance:
Veronique Helenon (Africana Studies)
Alexander Des Forges (Modern Languages)
David Pruett (Performing Arts)
Mary Oleskiewicz (Performing Arts)
Tim Hacsi (History)
Follow-up Discussion of 2:2
The discussion was tabled due to lack of time.
New Business 9.
Meeting adjourned at 4:00.
Minutes taken by Nino Kebadze
4