Minutes of the CHAS Senate
September 30, 2013
3:30 p.m., Dean’s Conference Room, CAC
Members present: Bohnenkamp (Communication Sciences & Disorders), Brand (Communication
Studies), Doely (Art), Glockner (Theatre), Haack (Dean), Heinzel (Earth Science), Hill (Philosophy &
World Religions), Morgan (Physics and Science Education), Tamplin (Biology), Vanderwall
(Languages & Literatures), Weeks (Chemistry & Biochemistry), Wood (Mathematics), Zhang
(Technology)
Chair Heinzel called the meeting to order at 3:32 p.m.
1. Welcome
2. Announcements
a. Dean Haack explained changes to the cabinet, which previously consisted of people who
reported directly to the President. It has been expanded to now include leadership from
the faculty and other staff organizations, as well as the deans. President Ruud envisions
this as a decision-making body. The previous cabinet is now referred to as the executive
cabinet.
b. Dean Haack reported that the Saturday open house turned out to be a successful event.
c. Dean Haack announced that the CHAS fall faculty meeting is next Monday, October 7;
Haack solicits suggestions for discussion at the meeting, and encourages email
suggestions. Vanderwall suggested some discussion about President Ruud’s academic
vision for the university. Hill suggests some presentation of activities CHAS is engaged
in for recruiting, and perhaps retention.
d. Heinzel discussed the suggestion from regional coordinator James Hoelscher that each
department have a student (or students) responsible for doing promotion at area STEM
events.
3. Vanderwall moved to accept the September 9 minutes; Weeks seconded. The motion passed
unanimously.
4. New business
a. Proposed CHAS Commencement Resolution: Martie Reineke was present to speak to
a resolution she submitted for senate consideration, encouraging increased faculty
representation at commencement ceremonies. Heinzel commented that he received
positive feedback, but is unsure how an initiative of this nature would be enforced.
Glockner suggested that the observed decline may be faculty “speaking out” against
actions of the administration. Reineke responded that while this was perhaps the case
two years ago with pending program closures, this behavior should not continue, and
commencement should be about celebrating our students and their accomplishments.
Vanderwall expressed his opinion that this should be addressed at the department level.
Weeks stated that Chemistry and Biochemistry hosts a reception for graduates and
families, and colleagues thought mandating commencement attendance might diminish
participation in the department event. Vanderwall and Hill suggested that we could pass
a resolution encouraging departmental conversations about commencement
attendance. Vanderwall also suggested that we could investigate the reason(s) why
faculty are (in large) not attending commencement ceremonies. Wood stated that a
question about “adequate representation” would arise – how many from each
department should attend? Reineke commented that 3 from smaller departments and 5
from larger departments would be adequate and get us to about 50 attendees. Hill
commented that part of attendance is PR, and a message is sent to commencement
attendees. Wood and Brand noted that they come to UNI from institutions where
participation is expected.
Wood questioned what our course of action should be; Hill suggested that the resolution
be brought to department meetings for discussion. Heinzel suggested that we should
discuss the resolution with departments and prepare to continue the conversation at
the October 21 meeting.
b. CHAS Strategic Plan: Heinzel distributed the document, which has undergone editing
since the Fall of 2011. Haack noted that the action is being pushed by an internal audit
of the CHAS office. Previously, the plan was written by the dean and/or department
heads. Haack pushed faculty involvement at the senate level in authorship and
ownership. Haack also stated that at present it’s unclear what role strategic plans will
play going forward, but that it is an important document in guiding the work of the
dean’s office.
Vanderwall moved that the CHAS senate accept the draft of the strategic plan; Glockner
seconded the motion. Weeks proposed a friendly amendment that allowed for future
amendments after a senate vote of acceptance. Weeks questioned the urgency of a vote,
when action is only required by December. Heinzel stated that his intent was to take the
document to departments for discussion.
Vanderwall amended the original motion to state that the senate accepted receipt of the
draft document; Glockner maintained his second. The amended motion passed
unanimously.
Hill commented that she was frustrated with the current format – how do we assess the
achievement of goals? If the strategic plan is to be a document that will allow us to check
our progress, the plan needs to contain more specific metrics.
Vanderwall stated that, in his view, the document is to serve as a guide for the dean’s
office. Glockner asked Haack for his views. Haack stated that Hill’s proposal would add
specifics, including increased duties for the department heads and faculty, and he would
be personally delighted with such initiative from stakeholders in driving the actions of
the college. Haack also commented that the university is doing this, and find interaction
with the office tasked to check follow-through somewhat bothersome.
Hill stated that her intent is not for the senate (or other CHAS stakeholders) to take on
significant amounts of new work, but adding numerical targets to some goals would
provide clarity. Vanderwall suggested that the senate could choose certain items for
annual focus; Hill agreed. Weeks questioned whether we might spend time considering
individual goals rather than doing extensive wordsmithing of the document. Wood
commented that, given the current number of items, might mean certain goals are only
emphasized every 6-7 years – a very long time frame. Vanderwall noted that not all
goals would be likely to receive regular attention. Brand noted that the broad framing
doesn’t seem to prohibit any actions.
Heinzel encouraged senators to continue the discussion with individual departments,
including the proposed idea of choosing a subset of goals for emphasis in any given year.
c. Nomination process for faculty awards: Heinzel stated that he needed to do more
research on the current process, and he is unaware of a document outlining procedures
governing such. Currently, there are two awards selected by the Dean’s Student
Advisory Committee; the senate should consider whether other awards should be
implemented/resurrected. Previously, CNS had three separate awards for teaching,
scholarship, and service; CHFA had one faculty award encompassing all three areas.
Haack stated that CHAS has yet to formalize a structure of the combined college.
d. Bachelor of Science degree discussion: Morgan pointed out that the current
university catalog requires completion of a 3000-level (previously 100-level) cognate
course in another department for a B.S. degree; physics will propose elimination of this
requirement, but seeks advice from affected departments.
5. Vanderwall moved to adjourn; Wood seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
The senate adjourned at 4:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeff Morgan
CHAS Senate Secretary