Faculty Senate Minutes
September 13, 1999
Senators present:
D. Bowe, H. Bruce, T. Cooney, D. Edwards, C. Hale, B. Haltom, S.
Holland, K. Hummel-Berry, C. Kline, E. Nahm, H. Ostrom, D. Sousa, K.
Ward, P. Wimberger
Visitors present:
B. Barry, K. Bartanen, D. Cannon, D. Droge, J. Kerrick, S. Neshyba, C.
Washburn,
A quorum was reached and the meeting called to order at 4:05 p.m.
Minutes: Cooney noted a “loose L” in the minutes. Haltom agreed to ask Senator Wood to edit.
The minutes of May 3, 1999 were then approved.
Haltom introduced new senators Kline, Bruce, Ward, Wimberger, Sousa and Nahm and noted
that Senators Holland, Ostrom, and Edwards would arrive following the dismissal of their classes.
Election: Following nominations and election Heather Bruce was elected vice-chair; Connie Hale
was elected secretary
Report: Senators reviewed charges to standing committees as follows:
Curriculum Committee:
Neshyba, chair of the CC, expressed concern that the fallow year review of core classes would
be a wasted effort as the faculty revises core requirements.
Cooney reminded CC members that the University will reach another fallow year before a new
core would go into effect, if in fact a new core is voted in.
Cannon remarked that the faculty thinks the core is going to be revised.
Ostrom noted that some core requirements (e.g., fine arts) will probably stay the same while
others may change a lot (e.g., writing and rhetoric) and still others may disappear altogether.
nd
Barry suggested that it would only be the 2 time the CC completes a fallow year review so there
is no established process for how the review needs to be conducted. The process of review could
provide a way to rethink the core, to prioritize and recognize what needs the most attention.
Bartanen reminded that there are two purposes to the fallow year core review: 1) to look at core
syllabi in light of the core rubrics and 2) to look at core rubrics to see if they are still meaningful
with an eye toward ways they might be improved.
Sousa acknowledged that the work was worth it if useful, short term information could be gleaned
from the process.
Neshyba wanted to know if the CC had the freedom to be forward looking and to make
recommendations on the rubric guidelines for every core category.
Cooney reminded that accreditation issues needed to be examined; what objectives are set out
for students in the core syllabi and in what ways do professors describe and measure student
outcomes.
Barry suggested that in order for the fallow year to be productive for the future, the committee
would need to attend to the current core.
Haltom reminded that CC has the freedom to determine how it will meet the senate charges.
Cooney moved that charge 2 be amended to read: Review the guidelines and courses in the core
curriculum and develop, encourage, or promote methods for assessing the core. M/S/P
Academic Standards Committee:
Cooney suggested that charges 1 and 3 were inappropriate and moved to remove charges 1 and
3. Discussion:
Bowe asked that a wider range of people be consulted about the Natural World prerequisites for
Science in Context courses. Haltom responded that ASUPS did have a member on the ASC.
Ward suggested that the curriculum committee be charged with ASC’s charges 1 and 3. Barry
said that he would let the CC know that it had come under discussion. M/S/P 2 abstentions.
Ostrom moved to commit ASCs # 1 and 3 to the curriculum committee. M/S/P 2 abstentions.
Diversity Committee:
Droge asked that the senate charge the diversity committee with rethinking goals for diversity.
Cooney said it was the committee’s place to recommend new goals.
Haltom suggested that the diversity committee pitch at the senate what it would like to do—to
prioritize its issues of concern.
Droge asked that Kim Bobby be invited to the meeting when the Senate invites the Diversity
committee. M/S/P
Institutional Review Board:
Wimberger stated that all animal research at the university is in violation of NSF and NIH
th
guidelines and not in compliance with national standards. He suggested that the 4 charge to the
IRB be to examine animal use policies at other institutions and make certain we are in
compliance with NSF and NIH guidelines
Cooney said that would be changing the platform and function of IRB, which is to address
research with human subjects.
Haltom agreed to ask the IRB to examine whether they were the appropriate body to examine
guidelines for animal research and if hot to suggest how we should proceed.
IRB charges M/S/P.
Library, Media, Academic Computing Committee
Sousa suggested that to a large degree LMACC might just as well disband as a standing
committee.
Ward moved deletion of charges 1 and 4 and focus on the use of technology in teaching,
learning, and research.
Bartanen argued for retention of charge 1.
Bartanen amended Ward’s motion to keep charges 1, 2, 3 and eliminate 4. M/S/P 2 abstentions.
Haltom suggested that charges to the Professional Standards Committee and to Student Life
Committee be addressed at the next meeting.
Next meeting set for September 27. Meeting adjourned at 5:35.
Respectfully submitted,
Heather Bruce