November 17, 2009 3:30 pm SU2592
Agenda
|
Call to Order and Roll Call Approve minutes from Nov 3 meeting (Scroll down for Draft Minutes) |
3:30 |
|
Reports and Committee Business:
|
3:40 |
New Business
|
4:40 |
|
Announcements Adjournment |
5:00 |
|
DRAFT Arts and Sciences Council Minutes of November 3, 2009 Call to Order: 3:30 pm, Room 2592, Student Union. Present: Hottell, Thompson-Casado, A. Pryor, Monsos, B. Pryor, Dowd, Rouillard, Deb Davis, Wikander, Barlowe, Benjamin, Kistner, Best (for Schuller), Miner, Ashburner, Leaman, Plenefisch, Schmidt, Sucheck, Ronning, Tucker, Patrick, Keith, Black, Schneider, Siegel, Phillips, Stierman, Nemeth, Lawrence, Schwarz, Odenthal, Wolff, Johanson, Marchionni, Blatz, Chandar, Ellingson, David Davis, Caruso, Christman, Haase, Ashton, Hey Absent: Anderson-Huang, Putney, Geiger, Lepeley, Beatty-Medina, Ingham, Khare, Nelson, Brash Minutes: The minutes of the Oct. 20, 2009 meeting were distributed by email. Minutes were approved as distributed. Executive Report: Brian Anse Patrick, Chair
Reports:
I. The CAS Roundtable Fall of 2008 and Spring of 2009 Report Dated February 9, 2009 A. Identified CAS is Integrative Hub: B. Identified 5 Key Challenges Definitions of scholarship Curriculum addressed to evolving Learning Needs Teaching, learning, and advising modalities Use of space Strengthen graduate education C. Provided benchmarking data for UT and peer sets (Ohio Delaware Study, “Aspirational”, and Extended) “As participants in the special roundtables convened to address questions of the College’s future, we affirm the need for the faculty members throughout the College to work collectively in addressing a changed environment and setting clear goals to ensure that CAS reaches its full potential.” From Report 2/9/09 II. The CAS Extended Roundtable Met May 2, 2009 at Lake Erie Research Center and held breakout sessions on each of the five areas. Reports were subsequently constructed and sent to the Roundtable Steering Committee, the Extended Roundtable Committee Members, and the A and S Executive Committee. A. Curriculum B. Learning Modalities C. Scholarship D. Space E. Graduate Education III. CAS Roundtable Implementation Committee Met September 30 Report can be found at http://www.epsilen.com/grp/092926 Reviewed Roundtable I and Reports from Extended Round Table Established sub committees to generate recommendations for next meeting 3 weeks hence. Met October 28 Report can be found at http://www.epsilen.com/grp/092926 Midpoint in developing an Implementation Plan (may have a different conceptualization of what form this will take) Overall objective is to “raise UT to first-tier level” and to “raise the profile and stature and visibility” of CAS Discussion of individual group reports. Concluded: Need to Synthesize the five reports for common themes andprovide a draft of the implementation plan for the full committee to be edited, polished and completed. Prioritize action steps and establish timelines to accompany these steps. Draft from Lawrence Anderson, Charlene Gilbert Renee Heberle, Ben Pryor and Jim Benjamin to be completed by November 30. Draft to be circulated to full committee prior to December 2 meeting. Feedback will be needed from ASC and from Chairs Council on the Implementation Plan.
A vote to temporarily rescind the Student Attendance Policy in light of H1N1 flu was passed. Students must still notify instructors of their absence in advance, but will not be required to provide doctor’s notes. Assessment of administrators was discussed. Dr. Jacobs presented three possibilities: 1. Evaluate the Deans as per last year 2. Board is already in process on an evaluation of the President – Faculty Senate may collect data for this evaluation as well. 3. Hire an outside firm ($35,000 estimate) to conduct an assessment of 25 administrators. Dr. Jacobs brought a sample proposal for a company which opened with: "In collaboration with Faculty Senate Executive Committee, we propose...etc." FS Exec had never seen the document before and objected to its circulation. It was withdrawn. Chair Patrick suggested that the report from Constitution and Rules be moved back in the agenda to after the address from Dean McClelland. No opposition.
Course modifications: ENGL 4/5650 – New title: African American Literature to 1920, new course description. ENGL 4/5660 – New title: African American Literature after 1920, new course description. ENGL 4/5850 – New title: Studies in the Work of a Single Author All curriculum items passed. Old Business:
Chair Patrick said many names had been submitted for this panel. Panel will consist of Gene Chang, Lee Heritage, Jiquan Chen and Ruth Hottell, pending their acceptances. Chair Patrick suggested that the handbook changes proposal from Elections be moved back in the agenda to after the address from Dean McClelland. No opposition. New Business: Dean McClelland addressed Council, speaking to a list of topics from A&S Exec. Confucius Institute (CI): Favors it, and sees it as a good opportunity for the University, though not a “done deal”. Opportunity for improved learning of Chinese language and culture. There is funding that comes with it, which could provide much needed travel funds for visiting scholars in this area, which has been a need for some time. Structure of board: 7 members, initially 3 from China partner and 4 from UT – need for our appointments to match the status of the Chinese appointments, so all UT appointments currently are administrators, which is a point of contention from Asian Studies members. Members of the Asian community have also expressed reservations. A meeting was held last week to discuss issues, advisory committee to the board suggested, but no changes in board appointments possible now, though that will change in the future. Opening ceremony is planned for Dec. 2, and invitation list is currently in development. Dean McClelland feels that if it isn’t wanted here, another university should be given the opportunity to have the program. Assoc. Dean Heritage, who is serving as the first CI board chair, added that the Dept. of Foreign Languages is involved in the development, but staffing shortages there mean that Dept. cannot take on the direct oversight at this point, perhaps in future. R. Hottell added that space limitations in her department make it impossible for FL to physically house the Institute at this time. Council members urged to go online to learn more about CI, as much information is available there. Question – is there no way to provide staffing to FL to make this happen? Not under current economic constraints. What exactly are the reservations about this project? Lack of Asian Studies/community appointments to the Board – lack of inclusion. Council’s resolution concerning the Dean: Dean McClelland feels that much of the charge in the resolution is beyond the Dean’s ability. Promised to be fully supportive of every aspect of the search process, and to continue to be a strong representative for the college. Faculty hiring: No news at this point, too much uncertainly re state funding. More cuts may be coming. When there is news, it will be shared. Chair/department authority: Dean sees a need to return authority to chairs. While this is a key issue, chairs also need to demonstrate that they can manage well in order for that to happen. Recent sabbatical submissions pointed to as example of poor management on the part of some chairs. M. Dowd pointed out that chairs currently are not given the information they need in a timely way in order to manage. Discussion of last year’s workload process, and why Provost took on a process that has always been a college decision. Dean McClelland then read a memo from the provost announcing that Dr. Jacobs would be interviewing each tenure candidate (A&S has 4 this year.) She hopes that this will be a way for the President to get to know our strong and talented faculty. Concern expressed re the legality, given the contract. Suggested that President consult the university attorney before implementing, as previous attempts to introduce such an interview in the tenure process were stopped by Legal. Suggested that President meet with faculty members, but under less intimidating circumstances. She had three additional requests/announcements: 1. Council needs to appoint 2 people to the College Assessment Committee 2. Need for 1 or 2 reps from each college to help identify new clients for incubator programs, and provide comments and feedback. 3. A competitive grant to modify Bowman-Oddy had been submitted, and accepted for the next round. One negative comment regarding the initial proposal was that nothing specifically addressed access for underprivileged or disabled students. Dean McClelland would appreciate ideas for improving the submission in this area. Return to previous Agenda:
Report on changes needed to the elections handbook to allow for electronic voting were distributed by email. Discussion: College staff who will need to work with this process are supportive, though it will fall particularly to College Information Specialist Terry Romer to implement and oversee. Paper ballots would still be available upon request. Clarification – Vote will be on whether to accept or reject the report. Accepting the report will mean acceptance of the new electronic voting process. Call for acceptance of the Elections Committee report, Report accepted. Approved new text proposed for elections handbook – will replace old language in each section: Section 4. Balloting Procedure For both nomination and election balloting the Committee on Elections shall send ballots electronically to each eligible voter to participate in filling the respective elective offices, in accordance with the rules hereinafter provided for each office. Paper ballots also will be made available upon request. Those paper ballots will include small envelopes and a larger envelope pre-addressed for each voter. Election returns will not be tallied until after the deadline for voting has passed. Section 7. Counting of Ballots Following the close of the voting periods for nominations and elections, the Committee on Elections, with a majority of its members present, will collaborate with College Office staff to tally the online votes and the paper ballots that were submitted within the prescribed time limits. The number of votes cast for each person in each contest shall be listed in rank order of the votes received, and the number of invalid ballots not counted shall be noted. The nominees or winners for each office shall be determined by the largest pluralities in the numbers hereinafter provided. If there is a tie among the nominees for the last position on an election ballot, the names of all persons so tied shall be placed on the ballot. Ties in results of the final elections shall be broken by lot by the Committee.
Committee proposes a petition process for nomination for At-large Council members, CCAP members and Grad Council members. Resolution from committee: Resolved that the Election Handbook be amended to read: Section 5. Nominations Nominations to the various offices under the elective supervision of the Council shall be conducted by the Committee on Elections each year during the last week of February and the first week of March. They shall be by petition. A potential nominee or his or her supporters shall submit a petition for the particular office signed by [eight] faculty members of the College. In addition the petition must include a statement by the candidate that he or she is willing to serve. It shall be delivered to the Committee on Elections by the deadline set. Discussion: Committee considered and rejected suggestion from previous Council meeting to allow self-nomination. This proposal requires a petition with 8 signatures, same process for Council At-Large members, Graduate Council reps and CCAP. Question – is there a problem with the current system? May be difficult to accommodate old system in electronic voting. Disagreement voiced. If no complaints, why change it? Which system would be more of an impediment to participation? For the resolution: Current system favors administrators. Against: No, favors those who have worked hard and made a name and reputation for themselves. For: It would not be hard to obtain the required signatures. Also, since candidates will have already agreed to be nominated, it reduces the need for Elections committee to obtain acceptances, and reduces the possibility of multiple corrected ballots. B. Pryor called the question, seconded by several. Vote to call the question: Passed. Vote on committee resolution: Failed. Announcements:
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 5:02 pm. Submitted by: Holly Monsos, secretary | |