Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
April 3, 2013
Professor Burke called the meeting to order at 2:36 PM
Present: Professor Barlow Burke, Candice Nelson, Jim Girard, Sheila Bedford, John Douglass,
Todd Eisenstadt, Artur Elezi, Bryan Fantie, Mary Hansen, John Heywood, Bob Jernigan,
Gwanhoo Lee, John Nolan, Gemma Puglisi, Jerzy Sapieyevski, John Smith, Patricia West, Lacey
Wootton, Elizabeth Worden, Provost Scott Bass and Dean Phyllis Peres
Welcome and Minutes Approval – Barlow Burke
Professor Burke welcomed everyone to the meeting. He stated that the minutes from February 6,
2013, were ready for approval and asked if there were any changes or concerns. He stated that he
had received an email from Daniel Abramson that stated he abstained from the vote on the
honors program and would like for this to be corrected in the February 6 minutes.
Professor Sapieyevski stated that he had noted the short time to discuss the budget. He noted
further that he had asked VP Don Myers at the February 6 meeting if he could address some
questions about the budget in writing. VP Myers replied that he would be happy to answer any
questions and looked forward to hearing from Professor Sapieyevski. Professor Burke stated that
the responses from VP Myers would be new items to be addressed when received, but did not
consider them corrections to the February minutes. The Senators VOTED and the minutes were
approved unanimously.
Chairs Report – Barlow Burke
Professor Burke stated that the MOOC’s Committee was supposed to report to the Senate at
today’s meeting but that was not going to happen. He stated that they would be reporting at the
May meeting. They have had two meetings and extensive email threads, so that he thought that a
report will then be ready and that the MOOCs moratorium lifted.
Provost Bass stated that the moratorium will stay until the there is a policy in place for the
university. The policy will be reviewed and finalized with the BOT’s approval.
Prof. Burke stated that the MOOC's committee has been discussing proposing a period of
experimentation in areas not competing with existing curricular offerings and potential conflicts
between the faculty’s employment contracts and such experimentation. He asked that anyone
with concerns or questions for the committee should contact its chair, Melissa Becher.
Prof. Burke stated that the Committee on Information Services (CIS) has proposed changes to
the Senate By-Laws in the description of the committee charge in order to include a more precise
list duties and of committees and departments the CIS will collaborate with. He stated that he
Faculty Senate • April 3, 2013 Minutes
Page 1 of 6
had received e-mail correspondence from Nancy Davenport who suggested that changing the
word “computer” to “technology” in the proposed changes.
Prof. Wootton stated that SPExS should be added into the formation of the membership of the
committee which will change the total membership from 10 to 11.
Prof. Girard stated that there are students on the committee as well as resource members and
those needed to be identified as well.
With those three changes, the senate VOTED and the changes to the CIS charge were approved
unanimously.
New Honors and General Education Program Proposal – Lyn Stallings
IVP for Undergraduate Curriculum Lyn Stallings proposed changes to the General Education
Committee (GEC), changes to the current language in the Senate By-Laws, to include the
selection process for its Chair and membership. She proposed that the selection of the Chair and
the membership come from a list of nominees presented by the Associate Deans and that the
GEC be selected by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee and the Vice Provost for
Undergraduate Studies, with the collaboration of either the GEC’s current or outgoing Chair.
Professor Hansen stated that accompanying changes to the Undergraduate Curriculum
Committee (UGCC) charge might be necessary because the current UGC charge includes both
General Education and Honors.
IVP Stallings stated that the UGCC can review the honors curriculum and make suggestions to
the existing curriculum, just as it can for the General Education (GE) program; that the GE
committee (GEC) reviews new GE courses and at any point thereafter the UGCC can look at the
overall curriculum and make suggestions. It is the GEC that reviews courses that are anchored in
GE. If they are anchored in an academic unit, they are reviewed by the UGCC.
Professor Hansen stated that she would like further clarification of who reviews what curriculum
proposals; that it should be clearer in the By-Laws of the Senate, as now it is not; and that this is
a task that she would like accomplished over the coming summer.
Professor Sapieyevski stated that he feels that the current GE $500 stipend is very low for the
amount of work expected.
IVP Stallings replied that the stipend has been constant for some time without complaints.
The Senate VOTED and the General Education Proposal was approved unanimously.
Professor Burke requested that the Senators take a look at the Honors Advisory Proposal and
asked for questions or comments.
Professor Jernigan asked why representation from CAS was so small.
Faculty Senate • April 3, 2013 Minutes
Page 2 of 6
IVP Stallings stated that it was done to try to keep the committee small and easy to convene and
was just an attempt at streamlining, nothing more.
Provost Bass stated that he felt it was important to have representation from CAS’s Arts &
Humanities and Science areas in order to make sure that the structure is a solid representation of
the University’s several intellectual traditions.
Professor Puglisi stated that previously the Senate discussed that in the future departments could
devise have their own honors programs.
IVP Stallings stated that such developments need to be discussed more before going further; that
there need to substantive discussions about honors, what the criteria for entry should be, and
what qualifications should be required for continuing students entering programs – that all this
needs more discussion by the University community, by deans, associate deans, and
departmental chairs.
Professor Burke stated that the Senate might request that three members from CAS be on the
Honors Committee: one each from the Arts & the Humanities, Social Science, and Natural
Science. The Senate agreed this to be a friendly amendment.
Professor West asked where the title of Honors Librarian came from.
IVP Stallings stated that the University Librarian requested that there be such a title for the
university librarian on the Committee.
Professor Burke called the vote for the new Honors Advisory Committee structure. The Senate
VOTED and the resolution was passed unanimously in favor.
Professor Burke then asked the senators to review the process for selection of the Honors
Advisory Committee.
Professor Sapieyevski stated that he was certain that the Senate voted to accept the honors
program on the condition that it was understood that a structure be put in place for revision and
oversight of the content of the honors program.
IVP Stallings stated that the University Honors program was accepted and that indeed there
needed to be committee oversight of it; that further review of other programs that were proposed;
and those other programs were the upper division honors programs. She stated that they are on
hold, subject to further community discussion.
Professor Hansen stated that she felt that it was unclear what the February motion on the Honors
Program was from the minutes. She stated that she had a conversation with Professor Burke in
February about this and stated she is still unclear. She stated that she voted against it and that in
conversations she had about what had happened, she asked what people thought they had voted
Faculty Senate • April 3, 2013 Minutes
Page 3 of 6
on and had received differing responses. Professor Hansen also stated that the email she sent
earlier that day was asking that clarification be made by the Senate.
Professor Burke stated that his question to the senate body was in that the first paragraph of the
document presented and asked if this did not clarify the charge of the committee. He asked
Professor Hansen if this was the charge she was referring to.
Professor Hansen stated no, that she was referring to what happened before this document. She is
asking about what aspects of the original document for the University Honors Program (UHP)
was approved at the February meeting.
IVP Stallings stated that issue that the Senate had was whether or not to hold up the program for
a year. Those were the choices – to delay or not. Not to delay the University Honors Program
meant that we needed to move forward with getting the courses together, getting the faculty
together, and getting a committee together to review the courses. IVP Stallings stated that as she
understood that the Senate agreed not to delay the UHP, with the condition that there be a Senate
committee overseeing that curriculum and that this is the proposal now brought before the
Senate. She said that she thought that this was a valid concern, one to bring before the Chairs and
Directors, so that they would understand the AU Honors program and so they would also
understand that the other programs would be discussed at a later time, after a time to consider
what their structure and criteria should be.
Professor Eisenstadt stated that the question that he sees is what kind of role the central honors
program will have in deciding on how to create standards for the other honors programs. He said
that the IVP’s statement implied that there are already other honors programs on the table and
that he felt that it would be nice for the Senate committee to have some review of the procedures
used to evaluate how those would be implemented at the department and division levels.
IVP Stallings stated that in the original document that body had the authority to review academic
unit level honors programs.
Professor Eisenstadt stated that it is not clear that it retained that. He stated that current the
documents states that “the AU Honors program will review the assessment report for all other
honors programs.” He felt that it would be better to say “will review the procedures used to
establish and implement the other honors programs.
IVP Stallings stated that she would be happy to include that language. This was in the original
draft of the Honors Program document.
Provost Bass stated that we have, first, an honors program (for which the Senate has approved a
structure), and second, for which we are now developing the guidelines and governance; that one
or two schools are interested in a school based honors program. They need to meet the same
interdisciplinary demands and provide the same coverage offered in the liberal arts honors
program; the Deans of those schools have heard me say that this is challenging; and that a faculty
group must review and insure that high standards for these programs are met. The University
now must have an honors program with higher standards then we have used in the past.
Faculty Senate • April 3, 2013 Minutes
Page 4 of 6
Provost Bass stated that this program is going to be more selective, requiring written essays, and
candidates selected for a truly enriched program for extremely talented students. He stated he can
see this occurring in a school as well, but he has reservations that everyone is able to be offered
an honors program, as not every student is an honors student. There can be enriched programs, or
intensive programs, rewards and distinctions, but honors programs must have a special status,
only for those students who can take advantage of a curriculum that challenges them.
Professor Burke asked Professor Eisenstadt if he wanted to amend the proposal.
Professor Eisenstadt stated that he wanted to make sure that faculty will be part of the review
process for any new honors programs and the procedure. That would be his amendment.
IVP Stallings stated that she would add such language.
Professor Burke along with IVP Stallings and other members of the Senate clarified the language
to be placed in the document.
Professor Jernigan stated that he still wants to stand up for the Sciences but he stated that he is
wondering what happens to someone who truly shines in mathematics. Who is going to have
oversight over the “other awards” for those students that faculty want to recognize as exceptional
in their field.
Provost Bass stated that unit’s schools, colleges, department and divisions have controlled
awards that have been given and at this time he has no response.
Professor Burke asked for a motion to vote as amended. The senate VOTED: the motion passed
17 in favor, 0 opposed and 3 abstentions.
Provost Bass stated that he hoped that the issue of grade inflation would be taken up by the next
Chair of the Senate and a Senate committee.
Committee on Faculty Grievances (CFG) – Scott Parker
Professor Parker stated that the CFG was proposing small changes to the Faculty Manual. He
explained that when someone files a grievance, the manual does not state that a copy of the
documentation should be submitted along with the CFG’s report. This is now the CFG’s practice
and the FGC felt that it needs to be codified for future reference. To this effect, changes will be
inserted in 18.b.6 and 19.d.iv. A second item is to add to 19.d.iv a statement that the grievant has
one week to respond to the CFG’s report sent to the President or the Provost. This again has been
the GFG’s practice and it was requesting that it be added to the manual as well.
There being no discussion of these matters, Professor Burke asked for a motion to vote on these
changes to the Faculty Manual. Once moved and seconded, the Senate VOTED: the CFG’s
proposal was approved unanimously.
Faculty Senate • April 3, 2013 Minutes
Page 5 of 6
Committee on Faculty Actions AY 2013-2014 Guidelines – Pat Aufderheide
Professor Aufderheide stated that the guidelines are finally becoming clearer after much input on
unclear areas. She listed this year’s changes to the document, as follows:
•
The dates for review of files have moved back a week to accommodate the holidays and
allow the committee enough time to review efficiently.
•
Clarification has been added as to who can put information in the file and when. This is
to clarify when and only when information can be placed in the file.
•
A word limit has been specified for the candidate’s narrative; in addition, a word count,
type size, double space and margin size has been established.
•
There is now no need to use Adobe Pro for portfolios, as the file for PDF’s has changed.
•
When the vote is taken the letter now requests the rationale for dissenting votes.
Professor Lee asked about version control, stating that there might be different copies of the
document being reviewed.
Professor Aufderheide said that is a good question to direct to one’s unit. What comes to the
CFA is the only version that it has. If we find issues with the file we request that a new one be
submitted, take down the old version, and replace it with the new one. Professor Aufderheide
requested that information about the CFA’s open meeting in April be forwarded to members of
the school or college whom it might affect.
Professor Burke asked if there was anything for the good of the order.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 PM
Faculty Senate • April 3, 2013 Minutes
Page 6 of 6