Eastern Michigan University
College of Arts & Sciences
Minutes
College Advisory Council
Minutes
January 9, 2014, 3:30 – 5:00 p.m.
219 Pray-Harrold
Present: Dove (PSY), Higgins (Chair/WGST), Vosteen (WL), Ensor (SAC), Plagens (PLSC), Molloy
(Art), Kovacs (G&G), Angell (Bio), Haynes (COSC), Shen (P&A), Johnson (Chem), Dionne (English),
Saunoris (Econ), Mehuron (AD), Laporte (AD), Venner (Dean), Dumitrascu (Math), Egge (H&P),
Merrill (M&D), Sambrook (DH Sci)
Absent: Hammill (CMTA), Peters (AAAS), Ramsey (Arts DH)
I. Call to order at 3:33 by Chair Higgins
II. Approval of Minutes
A. November 14, 2013—Motion to approve (13-0-2); Minutes approved
B. November 21, 2013 (special meeting)—Motion to approve (12-0-3); Minutes approved
III. Reports
A. Sciences Report (December 12, 2014)—Chair Johnson noted that all new programs and
courses, along with all program and course revisions, were approved. This report was
approved unanimously (15-0-0)
B. Arts Report (December 12, 2014)—Chair Vosteen noted that all new programs and revisions,
along with all courses and revisions, were passed with the exception of the proposed changes
to the language arts minor. The language on this motion was confusing and it was moved that
two revisions be made. This report was then approved unanimously (15-0-0).
IV. Old Business (none)
V. New Business
• Committee action on proposals from other colleges (Brad Ensor)—Rep. Ensor collected
some data on whether the Arts subcommittee tends to disproportionately table or not pass
proposals put forth from other colleges. He provided a handout on this issue to the entire
committee. This handout provided data that demonstrated that the majority of proposals are
approved, regardless of college of origin. However, compared to CAS proposals, higher
percentages of proposals from other colleges are not being passed. Rep. Ensor made some
suggestions based upon this data regarding how these pass rates could be improved. AD Laporte
explained that the process is not that every proposal goes out to every college. The provost’s
office decides what proposals are relevant to which colleges and the forms are distributed
accordingly, thereby creating an expedited process. Rep. Haynes stated that many other college
review boards do not check the proposals as thoroughly as CAS does, and many proposals are
not finished or reasonably completed. AD Mehuron said that an electronic form that minimizes
errors in completing the forms is coming down the pipeline. It was also asked whether our
feedback actually matters. What happens when CAS does not recommend approval of a
proposal? Chair Higgins stated that he would like to be able to report back to us regarding this
matter. Dean Venner then asked whether we would like this information communicated to the
provost. The question was then raised regarding whether, before communication with the provost
occurs, it would make sense to have parallel data from the Science subcommittee. There was
some more discussion about the quality of proposal review from other colleges. Is there a
perception within other colleges that input at the college level does not matter to the
administration anyway? There was then a lively discussion about whether course overlap tends
to cause us to reject proposals and whether we want said overlap. Sometimes we will reject
proposals when there are no support letters from departments that teach courses where there is
overlap. Chair Higgins suggested that Assoc Provost Longworth could let someone in the Dean’s
office know if she decides against our input regarding a course or a program. The Dean’s office
representatives stated that this is a fair and reasonable request that will be communicated.
VI. Dean’s remarks
A. Dean Venner—There are two things that he wants to ensure that department heads were
aware of and heard again. He needs full time lecturer requests shortly. He also needs full time
faculty requests by February 14, 2014. That will give him a week to make recommendations
to the Provost’s office regarding this. Existing faculty should let department heads know what
types of faculty members are needed and a rationale for each. All previous requests should be
resubmitted for consideration.
He also asked for comments regarding his statement to the CoT about Computer Science
moving to that college. Computer Science Rep. Haynes stated that Computer Science is
appreciative of the Dean’s support. He has sent his response to the Provost and so has CoT
Dean Tornquist. The provost will receive input from the Faculty Senate next and give her
decision on or about March 5th.
B. Kate Mehuron—Assessment plans are due from programs between January 20th and
February 14th. She wanted to thank everyone for the work they have done on this so far. The
request is not different from last year. They are hoping to collect two years worth of data to
have a solid picture of the programs being assessed.
C. Marianne Laporte—Gave a brief update on Winter enrollment. Enrollment is down 1%
across the college, but this is a small number of credit hours. Budget was built assuming a 2%
increase for the year but we were flat for fall enrollment and slightly decreased for Winter
term thus far. Hopefully the budget decrease will not trickle down to the department level.
There was a question about whether we know how much of this has been influenced by
FTIAC advising that occurred, and in short, we do not know the answer to this question. AD
Laporte answered questions about the trends that were viewed in the data.
VII. Chair’s remarks: None.
VIII. Faculty remarks: None.
Meeting was adjourned by Chair Higgins at 4:27.
Respectfully submitted by Natalie Dove, CAC Secretary 2013-2014