MINUTES
Governance Committee Meeting
February 3, 2010
Present: Patricia Brennan, Gray Crouse, Yayoi Everett, Vialla Hartfield-Mendez, Donna
Maney, Elissa Marder, Julia Kjelgaard, Irene Browne, Patricia Whitten, Eric Weeks
Ex-Officio: Dean Robert A. Paul, Holly York (University Senate Faculty Council
Representative)
Absent: Peter Hoeyng, Cora MacBeth
Guests: Cristine M. Levenduski, Executive Associate Dean, ECAS, Joanne Brzinski, Sr.
Associate Dean, ECAS, Michael Giles, Chair, Financial Advisory Committee for ECAS
Administrative support: Brenda Azzarelli-Crosby
Patricia Whitten called the meeting to order.
1. Approval of Minutes
The Minutes from the January 20, 2010 meeting were unanimously approved.
2. Agenda for the February 10, 2010 faculty meeting
A presentation is scheduled for Dr. Matthew Bernstein, Chair of Film Studies, and Mr.
Wendell Reilly, member of the University Board of Trustees regarding “My Emory. Dr.
Nancy Bliwise, Chair, Curriculum Committee will give a report from the CC and open a
conversation with the faculty regarding contact hours vs. course credit hours. Joanne
Brzinski will also be present.
3. Discussion of Health and P.E. GERs
Micheal Giles began with the recommendations that the Emory College Financial
Advisory Committee has made regarding the P.E. Department. He noted that the EFAC
had gone over the planning documents of each department in Emory College, the external
reviews of selected departments, and met with the graduate school, in preparation for
recommendations to the College about the potential closing of departments.
The recommendation was made that the first department to close should be PE because it
is neither essential, nor excellent. He noted that in a zero sum budgetary environment,
giving to one department, by necessity, means taking from another. It was under these
constraining conditions that the recommendation was made.
Patricia Whitten asked about the time frame of the closing. MG responded that the
purview of the committee was to make recommendations, and it is up to the Dean’s office
to set a timetable. Eric Weeks noted that, as a member of both committees, he had carried
the information to the EFAC from GOVCOM's fall discussions regarding PE and Health.
Gray Crouse asked whether the financial impact of PE is substantially greater than other
departments? MG explained not a huge difference, but that it was a unanimous decision.
The next departments on the list under consideration have effects on majors and
curriculum. It was not simply how much money was involved. In closing PE we can
gain roughly $1 million, and without a huge effect on the liberal arts core. The
committee undertook a good faith effort to look at possibilities. All departments on the
list were in the $1.2 to $1.3 million range. While that is small relatively to the total
budget it is a necessary reduction to close the budget gap. It turns out the people most
exposed at the moment are young assistant professors, even more exposed than lecture
track faculty.
Cris Levenduski added that even before the decision was made, there had been
conversations between PE and Athletics. In benchmarking of our peers, a minority
require PE credits. The Provost’s advisory committee explored the possibility of a
merger with Athletics instead of just closing the department. Several PE faculty have
signed up for retirement. A merger could retain some faculty, and LTF positions. EW
noted that does save some money.
Dean Paul offered that most of the savings would come over time with attrition, and a
proposal is on the table to charge lab fees for many PE courses starting in summer school.
This is not being presented to necessarily eliminate a requirement for PE, but to remove
PE as a GER requirement. The conclusion of the committee, and the College decision,
was that PE is not an academic pursuit. That implies that it is not a GER, while a
graduation requirement could be retained if we like.
Gray Crouse commented that the Health requirement could be folded into PACE/FAME,
or there could be other alternatives such as folding the health component into orientation.
JB noted that the tracking of PE and health has been different from academic tracking. A
change in the PE/Health requirement would however affect the total number of credits
required for graduation. Dean Paul noted that in terms of course credit, PACE is
overseen by faculty, whereas the merger with Athletics would offer PE class credits for
courses not overseen by faculty. He also noted that the committee chaired by Micheal
Giles arrived at their own conclusions independently.
Patricia Brennan asked if a change in the number of required credits changes tuition? JB
responded no. Patricia Whitten asked what was required by accreditation. And EW
suggested that if changes were made in the fall, they would take place in the fall of 2011.
GC offered that it might make more sense to make changes now. In his opinion there is
no reason to delay. The Dean responded that there is complexity in both the legality and
other considerations. With this merger, there will be a one-year continuation of lecturers
whose terms end this year with others coming up for renewal relatively soon. Some
faculty will be eligible for retirement, and there are tenured faculty who are retiring. JB
reminded the GOVCOM that changing the GER requires 2 meetings.
Micheal Giles noted that this is strictly a question of finances. Once you begin to look at
possible job loss it is always difficult, and so we should return to the curricular question,
which is: should PE be a part of the GER? And how best should we be enhancing the
physical fitness and well being of our students? Making PE a graduation requirement
makes it a curriculum issue. He urged us to take care of the GER requirement for PE.
Dean Paul interjected that in doing away with the GER we are not doing away with PE.
The question is what is the best way to encourage physical fitness in our students?
Discussions had already been underway to give credit for team sports and varsity sports
activities.
Yayoi Everett asked for clarification on whether the PE GER requirements would be
phased out, or a new plan would be started. JB answered that it is a question of how to
handle it. While there is no problem with getting rid of the requirement, and phasing it
out, the question is what would cause the least turmoil?
Gray Crouse suggested that it is very clear that PE does not belong in the academic
category. He suggested the GOVCOM acknowledge that and moving quickly to remove
it. Often seniors are taking their PE requirements in the last semester as it is, not
achieving the theoretical goal of instilling a lifetime fitness practice. He suggested going
swiftly ahead, so that students can plan. A question was raised about charging a lab fee
for PE courses. The Dean corrected that fees could be charged for specialty courses such
as scuba diving. The central premise is to reduce the number of required credits and that
will eventually reduce the number of faculty.
Donna Maney suggested that the conversation about the Health requirement will be easy
to track and we should have access to research for this course. JB noted that an
alternative could be offered, or the course suspended for a year. Elissa Marder noted that
she was agreeing with the removal of PE as a GER, but there was a good argument and
concern for the holistic health issues, noting that many saw some validity in this in earlier
GOVCOM discussions. GC pointed out that it does seem possible to solve this with an
on-line requirement. This could be resolved within the College. The cost of the current
health course is expensive, and the cost of development of an on-line component could be
initiated with the savings. GC noted the appeal of small group discussions that could be
integrated into orientation. JB also suggested discussions could also take place within the
residential setting.
Gray Crouse commented that Health needs more discussion, and logistically it is a
question of best delivery. JB said that continuing students could be counted one way, and
entering students another…but it might also be an opportunity to try something else.
Micheal Giles noted that once you have justified keeping people employed, and
maintaining positions, you can win politically. That led to a logistical conversation about
procedures--would an extra meeting have to be held in April? Tentatively it was decided
that the GOVCOM should place this on the agenda for March. The GOVCOM suggested
writing a proposed resolution with perhaps several outcomes, and agreed that most
students will seek out physical educational opportunities without requirements. GC noted
that that was what had struck him in his research, that Campus Life had direct access to
the Provost. He noted the gap between the College representation and CL representation
at the Provost’s level. Perhaps they should be the ones to encourage students to get
involved and be active, since the Provost’s Advisory Committee has also encouraged this
consolidation.
Julia Kjelgaard suggested that the announcement be made jointly with Athletics. JB
agreed that the College was very lucky to be working with John Ford and Tim Downes in
Campus Life. They are fully aware and supportive.
Eric Weeks commented that it is possible for us to move forward to the faculty, and we
can offer two potential solutions as a starting point.
Patricia Whitten adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted, Julia Kjelgaard, Visual Arts Department