Skip to Content

Sept 24, 1997 Minutes

Present: Bechtol, Bible, Bourgeois, Conroy, Deduck-Evans, Hays, Hunter, Irvin,
McGee, Oliver, Pascoe, Sawey, Simpson, Stimmel and Winek.

Absent: None

Guests: AVP Susan Griffith, Grady Early (CS), Lance Moore and Jason
Stoddard (ASG), Mike Moore.


Chair Bible called the meeting to order at 4 p.m.


AVP Griffith presented an overview of the strategic planning cycle, linking it
to past cycles and explaining how the process has been streamlined by
consolidating some goals and objectives, which are, in turn, delineated in the
Mission, Vision, Core Values and Quality Statements. She stressed that the
desire was for each department to develop appropriate mission, vision, and goal
statements for FY 1999 - FY 2004 by asking how they already fulfill University
statements and developing strategies for improving areas that need development.

A time line for departmental plans to be articulated and meshed into the school
and vice-presidential plans was outlined. She noted that the academic plans
were developed first so that departments could plan for optimal support of
their plans. Plans are expected to be approved by March, 1998; they will be
used to develop budgets and will be monitored and updated approximately
biannually. This planning process and the issue of how well we are achieving
our stated goals will be an important part of the SACS review process.

Sen. Pascoe wondered if upper administration groups such as CAD and UPC were
pursuing their strategic plans. The response was that only the university
departments were involved in the process. Committees take their charges from
these plans. Sen. Hunter commented that the list of strengths seems to be
drawn from many sources and she was pleased to see the ever-elusive teaching
component listed among them. Sen. Bourgeois asked if departments could list
goals other than those listed as university goals. He was assured that
departments were encouraged to be innovative in their planning process but that
there was a format that could be used to help organize the final product.

Sen. Sawey was curious as to how information was going to be processed for the
computerized automated monitoring system. Dr. Griffith replied that what could
be consolidated and reduced to numbers would be so that things like anticipated
costs could be used to generate budgets and develop annual reports. Sen. Pascoe
observed that this planning process seemed to be "bottom" driven so as to give
faculty an opportunity to influence the university system in a real way. His
positive outlook was an encouragement to us all.


Dr. Early discussed ongoing problems with registration and advising, noting
that transcript evaluation continues to be a problem in that courses listed as
elna and eladv are not consistently processed, degree outline software is
available only in the dean's offices, and the final exam schedule continues to
be a shambles. Sen. Hays commented that the drop/add period is problematic in
that the "add" period ends before many classes first meet. Students in classes
that do not "make" but have not yet met have to be shifted into classes that
have been meeting or they cannot carry a full load of classes. Dr. Early
suggested that CATS allow students to continue dropping and adding throughout
the entire registration period (beginning with advanced registration) so that
they could take advantage of the constantly changing class enrollment

Senators noted that extending the add window would permit students to enter
classes having missed critical materials. Sen. Sawey mentioned how difficult
it is to have Labs out of sync with classes, caused primarily by the university
starting classes in the middle of a week. Sen. Simpson added that
administrative changes made after the 12th day are not counted by the state and
cost the university funds even though the student has paid tuition. Sen. Conroy
was concerned that students have an excessively long time to decide to withdraw
from a course. It seems to require little commitment from students.

Sen. Simpson mentioned that Dean Beck chairs a committtee working on degree
outlines and Sen. Hays commented on the new centralized advising centers being
established. Both of these groups may be preparing solutions to the advising


As noted in last week's minutes, Prof. Folse has resigned as chair of the
Faculty Research Committee. After discussion the Senate voted to ask Profs. Ed
Seifert (Ed.) and Joseph Yick (Lib. Arts), who in January were to become,
respectively, the new chair and Liberal Arts representative, to assume those
positions immediately. The Senate also expressed thanks for the long and able
service given by Prof. Folse; finally, it charged Sen. Irvin, as Group Chair of
that committee, to become more actively involved in guiding the FRC in its work
and in ensuring a productive relationship between the FRC and ORSP.


RTA'd until the next meeting.


Sen. McGee, responding to questions from his school, wondered if an explanation
of duties might be included with our various election ballots so that newer
faculty might make more informed choices. The senate will consider ways to
improve the balloting process.

Sen. Sawey presented a list of salary "equity" adjustments and, while not
questioning their need, casually wondered exactly how these award amounts were


The Senate reviewed last week's PAAG meeting with Drs. Supple and Gratz. The
discussion centered on two points. First, there was concern that REG money has
been lumped into the general budget. It seems that absent a clear admini-
strative commitment to the program, this money could disappear. Discussion
about this problem ensued but no conclusions were drawn.

Secondly, several Senators expressed concern about the tenor of the meeting and
some of what was said. In sum, it seems that the administration either does
not appreciate the magnitude of and/or has not provided satisfactory solutions
to some problems which, the Senate has repeatedly stressed, are very real and
long-standing: faculty morale, continuing problems in a particular department,
and how bonus and merit money were allocated were three problems named. It was
noted that the Senate has enjoyed a fruitful relationship with this
administration, and discussion focused on how to continue this relationship but
also drive home the point that our concerns appear to receive short shrift in
some instances. The Senate is willing to aggressively pursue those things that
it perceives are vital to the well-being of the faculty but it deplores
unnecessary polarization. This discussion will continue in a future meeting
and solutions to the problem will be actively sought.

The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m.