Eastern Michigan University
College of Arts & Sciences
College Advisory Council
Minutes
April 17, 2014, 3:30 – 5:00 p.m.
219 Pray-Harrold
Present: Plagens (PLSC), Vosteen (WL), Ensor (SAC), Molloy (Art), Angell (Bio), Dove (PSY), Moore
(COSC), Shen (P&A), Johnson (Chem), Kindred (CMTA), Yaya (Econ), Egge (H&P), Merrill (M&D), Ramsey
(Arts DH), Laporte (AD), Venner (Dean), Mehuron (AD), Peters (AAAS), Dumitrascu (Math), Sambrook
(Science DH), Kovacs (G&G), Dionne (Eng), Higgins (WGST, Chair)
I. Call to order at 3:33 by Chair Peter Higgins
II. Approval of Minutes (March 13, 2014)—Motion to approve; Motion passes (15-0-1)
III. Reports
A. Sciences Report (4/3/14): Motion to accept the report passed (16-0-0)
B. Arts Report (4/3/14): Motion to accept the report and the recommendations of the committee from its
special meeting just prior to the CAC meeting on 4/17 (to pass the WGST MA programs revision and
the WGST graduate certificate program revision, including the SOCL cross-listing on WGST 556 in
each, and the course revision of WGST/SOCL 456/556) passed (17-0-0)
IV. New Business
A. Discussion of EMU’s role in the EAA (Guest: Beth Kubitskey, Associate Dean, COE)
CAC asked Beth Kubitskey here to discuss EMU’s role in the EAA. Kubitskey began by giving
a brief history of EMU’s involvement in EAA. EAA was designed to pull the lowest 5% of
schools together to create a statewide district to help these schools. In order to do this, the state
needed a chartering institution to partner with because the state of Michigan cannot charter
schools on its own. About three years ago, EMU agreed to this for 15 years, though there is an
opt out option of this agreement. Dean Joseph arrived on campus one week after this agreement
was made. Then, shortly thereafter, there was a meeting held during which the faculty addressed
concerns about this agreement. Faculty found out about EMU’s involvement from a press
conference, not via any direct contact with the administration. Then, there were several meetings
afterward with Dean Joseph and Chancellor Covington in which there was brainstorming about
this relationship between the EAA and EMU. It should be noted that there is no formal
relationship or participation of faculty within the EAA. Then starting this year, the teachers
unions in local districts have decided not to take our student teachers because EMU is affiliated
with EAA. Kubitskey claims that student teachers have still been placed, but they have had to go
out further distances. Ann Arbor has officially taken a stance against EAA. Woodhaven has also
not taken our teachers. Livonia will revisit this issue in the fall and there will be a possibility that
they will not take our students either.
The COE faculty have voted to not provide professional development for the EAA (27-0 vote,
3/14 meeting). This was followed by an online vote by the department of Special Education,
which unanimously voted against providing professional development for the EAA as well. This
agreement between EMU and the EAA has also affected graduate students because they cannot
access classrooms to collect data for research projects. COE’s reputation has taken a hit.
Kubitskey expressed worry because accreditation relies on collaboration with local schools. She
noted that we may hear that local school administrations cannot legally refuse to take our student
teachers, but individual teachers can say who they want as student teachers.
Alumni have been sending nasty letters saying they want no part of Eastern now because of the
ties to the EAA. Several are worried about EMU’s future recruiting efforts. Kubitskey noted that
the COE faculty have empirically-based reasons for this opposition. She is concerned about our
ability to serve our students primarily.
Questions from CAC representatives (and other dialogue):
How does Eastern benefit from this? President Martin and Provost Schatzel gave no response to
this question during the COE Council meeting.
Can the arrangement be reworked so there is a productive relationship between EAA and our
faculty? EAA pedagogical practices do not align with what our faculty considers best practices
and what they are teaching our students in the classroom.
Dean Venner commented that there is no precedent for a statewide district, which takes away
local control of the educational system within a community. Kubitskey says this is a huge issue
with the social foundations faculty within the COE.
Kubitskey noted that Dean Joseph was placed on the EAA board as a non-voting member and
had little control over what occurred there.
Kubitskey also said that there is not precedent for asking faculty before entering into a
chartering, interlocal agreement.
M&D initiated inviting Kubitskey because Music Ed teachers are being refused placements, and
panic is starting to set in. Our students are beginning to suffer and will continue to suffer until
something is done.
Vosteen asked for all of the press on this, so Beth said she would forward all of the links and
press links that have been compiled by a COE faculty member on this issue.
Another issue of concern is that the governor is appointing some of the regents for this new EAA
board; they are not elected. EMU can appoint 3 of them. Many believe this is antithetical to the
“American” mentality about education. This leads to loss of local control and loss of
transparency.
Local teachers have only been able to fight back by targeting us and martyring our students.
Kubitskey is not worried about our teachers getting jobs. According to her, our students are
leaving job fairs with teaching contracts in their hands.
Higgins asked why individual teachers are boycotting Eastern teachers, since it harms the
students to no apparent end other than symbolic protest of the EAA. Kubitskey said that if EMU
was not part of this agreement, EAA could not exist at this time. However, if upcoming
legislation is passed, Eastern will no longer be necessary to the EAA’s continuance. But as of
now, we are the only thing local teachers can target to express their dissatisfaction with EMU’s
involvement in the EAA.
Kubitskey pointed out that there is an opt out portion of the agreement but there are differences
of opinion on whether or not we would have to find a replacement for us if we were to bow out.
Provost Schatzel is now on a fact finding mission to go into EAA schools and walk around and
look at the schools and figure out what is going on there.
Discussion ensued about whether the CAS Council should write a letter to the regents urging
them to withdraw EMU from the EAA as soon as is legally possible. Kovacs asked if this is
within our role. Chair Higgins stated that (a) nothing in our constituting document stops us from
doing so if we wish, even though CAC is advisory to the Dean only, and (b) CAC is the
representative body of CAS faculty, and that CAS appears to be being harmed by EMU’s
affliation with the EAA, since many of our departments have education programs.
Dumitrascu noted that Faculty Senate already passed a resolution supporting the COE’s stance
on this.
CAC formed an ad hoc committee to respond to EMU’s position within the EAA, from the
perspective of CAS, in the fall if such an action is still necessary by then. This consists of Ryan
Molloy (Art), Terra Merrill (M&D), Gabriela Dumitrascu (MATH), and Natalie Dove (PSYC).
B. URSLC election: Two candidates were nominated (Gregg Barak (SAC) and Michael Scoville (H&P).
By a vote of 13-5, the Council elected Barak to the URSLC.
V. Old Business
A. Proposal to re-classify ECON as a “Science” in the Input Document: discussion and vote
SAC prepared a statement presenting some considerations regarding this move, and this was
distributed. There was data presented within this statement that showed that ECON is more closely
aligned with Arts departments, and there was also data showing that this shift may increase the
workload of the Sciences committee. The ECON department succinctly responded to these
objections with a statement of their own. Representative Yaya fielded many questions from various
departments about this switch. It was then moved and seconded that we consider this amendment to
the input document. If the motion to consider is approved by CAC, the proposal will be put to a vote
of all CAS faculty, per the Input Document. CAC voted to approve the motion to consider the
amendment by a vote of 10-7-1. Chair Higgins and the Dean’s Office will provide an opportunity for
college faculty to vote on this.
B. Update: Liberal Arts Major for Elementary Education program revision—This program revision was
approved at the Provost’s Office level after the COE included a program modification that included a
compromise. Dean Venner agreed to this compromise, and, as such, the proposed changes to this
curriculum will stand. The compromise involved cutting the Dance and the Chemistry courses from the
program. (See the Arts and the Sciences committee minutes of 10-10-13 for the original discussion of
the program revision.)
C. Update: Reading Minor and Language Arts Minor program revisions –This objection has been
resolved. The Arts committee had rejected this proposal for two reasons (see the Arts minutes of 12-1213), but both were addressed.
D. Provost’s rationale for approval of LEGL 211, SOFD 250—Dean Venner reported that Associate
Provost Longworth stated that our input regarding these two courses was taken into consideration.
Venner reported that Longworth stated that the course title and catalog description for LEGL 211 were
changed and updated before they went into the catalog. Chair Higgins noted that the approval form
indicates a change to the catalog description, but not to the course title. Chair Higgins also noted that
this response does not appear to apply to SOFD, the objection to which is that PHIL was not consulted
about impacts to three of its courses. Dean Venner will get back to us about SOFD 250.
E. Proposal review timeline—Rhonda Longworth and Dean Venner have talked about various ways to
manage the course and program proposal review timeline, but it is different for every college and every
program, so this makes it difficult to implement overarching changes. If we do something too drastic, it
could even affect accreditation of some programs in some cases. But, if CAC committees ask, we can
get a 30 day extension on any proposal we are asked to review.
VI. Dean’s remarks
Associate Dean Laporte presented an update on the summer instructional budget model. This model
assumed that we would have flat enrollment as a college from one summer to the next, but enrollment is
sluggish across all departments for online and on campus courses; for CAS, it’s down 15%, or 4000
credit hours. Data was presented regarding section “overages.” Department heads should do what they
can to meet the targets, which could mean recruiting more students or canceling sections.
Dean Venner wishes everyone a happy spring and summer, and he looks forward to working with
everyone again in the fall.
VII. Chair’s remarks
We need nominations for EPEO Advisory Council (two 2-year terms, 2014-2016, beginning 9/22/14);
meets six times per year on Mondays from 3:30 to 5pm. Please have nominations for first Fall meeting
of CAC.
VIII. Faculty remarks: None
Meeting was adjourned at 5:09pm by Chair Higgins
Respectfully submitted by Natalie Dove, CAC Secretary 2014-2015