Date Nov. 11, 2008
HSB Council Meeting
11:30 am to 1pm
Location MV 313
Meeting called by:
Joe Larkin
Start Time:
11:40 am
Facilitator/Chair:
Joe Larkin
Secretary:
Ginny Miori
Website:
http://www.sju.edu/hsb/hsbcouncil
Please read:
36 faculty attendees
Minutes
Agenda item:
Reflection
Presenter:
Fr. Bidinger
Agenda item:
Approval of Oct 2008 Minutes
Presenter:
Joe Larkin
Amendments:
Attach resolution to amended minutes for October – our resolution was voted down by faculty
senate 15-5
Motion:
Ira Yermish
Accepted:
(by voice)
In Favor:
36
Agenda item:
Second: Vipul Gupta
Opposed:
0
Abstained:
0
Presenter:
DSS MS BI GMAT waiver
Rick Herschel
Discussion:
Slides are posted.
The graduate programs committee unanimously approved the DSS department’s request to allow
acceptance professional certifications in lieu of taking GMAT.
The DSS department Initially considered certifications from vendors, but withdrew and only accept
certifications from distinguished organizations. All certificates under consideration are offered by independent third
parties, germane to program.
The certifications are not meant to be equivalent to the GMAT, rather they are indicators of potential
success in the MS BI. None of the certifications require less proficiency than GMAT for proficiency in completion.
There are no AACSB issues, the principal is to provide a benchmark to predict success in graduate program.
A number of potential students already have these certifications, therefore the use of certifications would
appeal to these students who would otherwise seek entry into the program (without GMAT). The certificates reflect
professional experience, and provide a demonstration of discipline related success.
Applicants may still take the GMAT, and many will be required (less than 5 years experience in industry) to
take the GMAT. This waiver only applies to the MS BI because they are domain specific.
Motion:
Allow DSS department to accept seven specific professional certifications in addition to those that
already exist (CPA, CFP) in lieu of GMAT for entry into MSBI.
Motion: Rick Herschel Second: Joe Larkin
Accepted:
In Favor:
36
Opposed:
0
Abstained:
0
1
Agenda item:
Arrupe Center Update and Opportunities
Presenter:
David Steingard
Discussion:
Slides are posted.
The current types of fellowships are Research, Teaching and Case Writing. Case writing is the newest
option. Faculty members with any cases that deal with ethics within their discipline may get assistance in
formulating them for publication.
To date there has been great penetration of faculty with many repeat offenders. Growth will come from
new faculty participation. The strongest area is professional development with strong participation in Ethics Across
the Curriculum.
Princeton review stated that SJU is known for being “ethics intense.”
Joe DiAngelo has requested creation of a monograph of published research from Arrupe fellowships.
There are approximately 10 papers either directly generated by research fellowships or from faculty participating in
ethics across the curriculum. Joe hopes to see monograph late spring to early summer, in order to have it available
for AACSB accreditation.
The graduate business-ethics paper competition has been generating better and better papers from
graduate students. 522 students have been exposed to executive lecture series where people come into class and
talk about ethics related issues. Students participation better in part time program than some of those in full time
programs - 18 students took up offer to attend ethics conference at Wharton
One million dollars in funding is coming in next week. Arrupe Cneter is finding creative ways to keep the
center going. Training with the development department has been established to go out and talk to people about
giving money. With additional funds, the center can demonstrate to primary donor that we have additional
contributors that will assist them in trying to establish endowment.
Agenda item:
Management minor and international business minor
Presenter:
Elizabeth Doherty
Discussion:
Slides are posted.
The management department reintroduced the management minor and introduced an International
Business minor. The management minor was first introduced last spring. It was sent to the undergraduate
committee for review, it went to all the chairs and deans, but the department didn’t start at the top. They were
supposed to go to university council first. The reintroduction is part of following standard procedures for putting the
minor through the system.
The management minor provides more in depth study for business students and a concentrated study of
business for CAS majors. Courses cross over with CAS and all departments (POL, PSY, SOC, IBU) have approved
the use of their courses in the management minor.
The International business minor also has 6 courses and is most suitable for business school students.
There are three levels within this minor: 1-international foundation, exposure (language, globalization topics from
liberal arts, international exposure – study abroad), 2 – international mgmt and 3 – global strategic planning
capstone course. Three courses must be taken in two different areas. The management department also spoke
with CAS to confirm use of courses in the IN minor.
A procedural question by John Lord was posed to ensure approved. A report from curriculum committee
must be submitted to justify approval of the minors. This was completed last year for the management proposal,
now the IB proposal has been added. This is acceptable to university council; their primary interest is in a
documentation flow. Both minors are on the university council agenda for next week
What is the mechanism to decided international exposure? A business course study tour, study abroad
taking one preapproved courses which has international exposure, internship abroad, (or with multi national
company) Alfredo Mauri is the chair of IB minor and makes call as to whether exposure is valid prior to any
international exposure.
2
Motion:
Approve management minor
Motion: Ira Yermishl Second: Joe Regan
Accepted:
In Favor:
Motion:
Approve international business minor
Motion: Ira Yermishl Second: Joe Regan
Accepted:
In Favor:
Agenda item:
36
36
Opposed:
Opposed:
Faculty Senate Proposal on Advising
0
0
Abstained:
0
Abstained:
0
Presenter:
Rasmi Malholtra
Regina Robson
Discussion:
Slides are posted.
The history of the advising mandate was presented by Rashmi Malholtra. Updates reflecting progress this
year was presented by Regina Robson.
Plan 2010 called for comprehensive review of advising, looking at current procedures and see how they
can be improved. The committee was chartered with looking at best practices in advising. HSB advising is
considered to be a best practice. Rashmi Malholtra collected and analyzed data to evaluate effectiveness of HSB
advising.
Based on analysis, the followed was proposed:



freshman seminar
SJU advising center
o HSB
o Advising director
o HSB and CAS advising centers
Academic advising and blackboard
The idea of separate centers was not considered ideal. They wanted to exploit economies of scale with a
unified administration of the advising center. They considered one director with 2 centers. The proposal from CAS
was for a single location. It would be helpful to students (based on survey of students) and make it easier for faculty
by having a single repository of information. In May, committee concluded a single physical location was beyond
purview of committee. They could suggest pooling resources, but couldn’t suggest physical pooling of centers. The
proposal was revised to state that the director of SJU advising would suggest appropriate way to set up. There
would also be no interruption of HSB advising. The committee is looking at the language now to present to
university council at this month.
Creation a is director of advising position was suggested, specific names were identified because of
success of the HSB advising.
Joe DiAngelo asked how can we be lacking a member on the specific committee when we are the only
ones with an advising center. CAS came to HSB because of success in HSB. Originally the advising center was
turned down because it was viewed as a way to avoid faculty advising, Father Lannon was convinced that it was
additional support and approved what has become very successful. We do not want to turn it over to someone else,
which would be giving back our advising center when it has become an integral part of everything we do. A
voluntary giveback was requested but faculty senate doesn’t have the right to take something away from us without
our approval. The surveys and work have shown that this is a wonderful thing, and now they want to close it down
based on an uninformed discussion. Neither Joe nor Pat O’Brien was consulted.
Regina Robson stated that they have looked at models in other Jesuit schools with unitary system of
advising, but the train hasn’t left the station. We could support CAS providing experience and resources to help
them without changing anything at HSB.
Pat O’Brien discussed frustration with no research having been done by committee. The HSB advising
center was based on extensive business student focused research. Additional research should be done on CAS
population to determine needs before adopting a single advising center. Students are less likely to go to central
locations, but students will go to centers in the physical areas in which they study. Some universities have
consolidated advising centers and found a lack of success, eventually going back to separate centers.
John Lord stated that within the executive committee there is already some disaffection in CAS. They feel
that the report went beyond the mandate by discussing centers, directors and new administrative structure. We also
3
need a unified position that will ensure that we do not become a subsidiary of CAS.
Rick Herschel asked whether going beyond the scope of the mandate would provide a procedural reason to
table to vote. The general concensus was to instead to accept a resolution to support our position.
Motion: We support arts and sciences’ desire for an advising center. However we are opposed to any
action that would compromise or undermine the independence and documented effectiveness of the haub advising
center.
Motion: Bill McDevitt
Second: Ron Klimberg
Approve 36 opposed 0
abstain 1
Joe Larkin will deliver this resolution to university council
We support arts and sciences’ desire for an advising center. However we are opposed to any
Motion:
action that would compromise or undermine the independence and documented effectiveness of
the haub advising center.
Motion: Bill McDevitt Second: Ron Klimberg
Accepted:
Agenda item:
In Favor:
35
Opposed:
AOL
0
Abstained:
1
Presenter:
Ron Klimberg
Discussion:
Ron Klimberg reminded everyone that the next AOL meeting will be held on 1/15/09 from 9:00 am – 2:00
pm in Mandeville 313. Examples of continuous improvement will be presented by departments and the day will
include breakout sessions for each department.
Ron introduced a contest to name the new AOL newsletter. The winner will receive 4 tickets to an SJU
basketball game. Send suggestions to Ron Klimberg by December 1.
Ron also requested that faculty respond to the survey on laptops that his honor’s class created.
Agenda item:
Old business, new business
Presenter:
John Lord is the chair of fund raising for faculty and staff. The Laehy family has agreed to have Bill Leahy’s name
placed on the advising center. A wonderful tribute to Bill Laehy would be to pledge to annual fund in his name. We
need to raise $50,000.
Rick Herschel – ETS has been approved by the president for a new student evaluation procedure. The rollout has
been delayed until fall 2009. The evaluations will probably be done online.
AJ Stagliano announced two research presentations Thursday in finance conference.
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by: Kenny Kury
Seconded by: Diane Phillips
Time: 1:00 pm
4