Faculty Senate Minutes
October 25, 1999
Present: Bartanen, Bowe, Bruce, Cooney, Edwards, Haltom (Chair), Holland, Kline, Nahm,
Ostrom, Sousa, Ward, Wimberger
Guests: Tillett, Cummings
Haltom called the meeting to order at 4:15. An editorial correction of the minutes of the previous
meeting was offered and approved.
Haltom reported on the fall meeting with the Board of Trustees, describing Cooney’s presentation
on faculty work and the possible goal of hiring additional faculty over the decade. No particular
discussion of the 3/2 model was held nor was there discussion of possible solutions.
Bartanen reviewed the Student Integrity Code and the issue of off-campus student incidents. In
providing background, she stated that the University has always had the right to discipline
students, noting that the issue has merely been clarified as can be seen in comparing the
“Neighbor to Neighbor” documents for 1998-1999 and for 1999-2000 (distributed to the Senators).
She stated that the University was not interested in invading the privacy of students, nor are
rumors of a “hit list” true. The document merely sets out the means by which the University would
respond if complaints were received. She noted, citing page 15, the features of notification
including the encouragement of students to talk to their neighbors. Bartanen added that the major
focus of the University would be to help people resolve situations. If, in spite of repeated efforts to
resolve a situation, an especially offensive or chronically offensive problem remained, the
situation could then be dealt with under the Student Integrity Code.
Bartanen reported that a task force had been selected, meeting weekly, which has as its charge
the development of guidelines for situations in which off-campus complaints are addressed
through the Integrity Code process.
Bowe stated that the ASUPS, through its off-campus student committee, is working on various
issues including assistance to students in neighborhoods.
Wimberger asked if neighbors, when they complained, were encouraged to talk to students first.
Bartanen replied that Marilyn Bailey takes all calls and encourages complainants to talk to
students.
Sousa asked what problems the university is trying to solve. Are we trying to satisfy people in the
neighborhood through the use of the Integrity Code? Have we run into student situations in the
past that require the code? Bartanen replied that the university was trying to do a little of both.
She added that the number of students involved in chronic situations is very small.
Bowe offered his belief that students should be good neighbors, but added that the University’s
primary focus should be on responding to student issues—what was occurring to students in
neighborhoods and the ways in which the university could assist.
Bartanen replied that there exists a coalition of three concerns: parking for major events; offcampus student behavior; and what services and support to provide off-campus students. She
stated that the University is working on all three and that the Integrity Code is but one part of what
the University is addressing.
Two student guests, Tillett and Cummings, were introduced. As chair of, Freak Out, Tillett gave a
short report on her proposal (distributed to the Senators) for a student resource guide for course
selection which would be based on student evaluations of professors’ classes. After providing
information and reviewing the proposal, Tillett asked for informal input from Senators and invited
future responses from all faculty members.
Holland asked how the data was to be collected, whether it was to be by professor or by course,
and also asked the means by which volunteers would be sought. Tillett answered that the
evaluations would cover all courses.
Ward asked about the ultimate goal of the project—and if it was indeed intended to match a
student’s learning style with a professor’s teaching style--that variables be considered: for
example, an array of classroom styles might exist within one course; also, the styles of one
professor might vary according to class size or course level.
Sousa expressed concern about the enormity of the undertaking. He added that he had no
difficulty with the nature of the project but believed that the task was a gigantic one . He asked
how the committee members planned to sample students for each course and how the data
would be collected, collated, and analyzed. Noting the challenge of collecting and collating
student evaluations within departments, he suggested that students might want to contact several
departments about the substance and challenge of such a project.
Cooney stated that it would be important to elicit the nature and scope of student involvement in
the course, e.g. what did the student do to prepare for class? Did the student go every day? Did
the student do the course readings and assignments?
Ostrom asked how the project would be funded, whether it might be sold or subsidized by a grant.
Tillett said that options were currently being explored.
Holland asked if there might exist the possibility for collaboration with other efforts, for example,
the existing faculty evaluations.
Cooney noted that, except for the process of faculty evaluation, only the individual faculty
member could make public his or her student evaluations. The evaluations are in essence the
property of the faculty member except in the evaluation process.
Haltom thanked the students for attending the meeting.
OLD BUSINESS
Haltom announced that Tomlin and Cannon would present a refined motion about the Core
Curriculum at the next faculty meeting. Parliamentary procedures regarding the presentation of
that motion were discussed.
Haltom asked the Senators for initial suggestions regarding objectives and issues for the Senate
to address during the year. Among the suggestions were: revisitation of the Natural World
requirement and the post-retirement medical plan. Also, among the issues considered (currently
being addressed by faculty committees) were the common hour and the calendar issue of fall
break. In response to a query about the 3/2 issue, Cooney stated that this issue needed full
faculty discussion. Holland suggested that another faculty conversation might be held and the
possibility was discussed.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:30.
Respectfully submitted,
Christine Kline