Present: Anderson, Bible, Conroy, Gillis, Gordon, Hays, Irwin, McGee, Pascoe,
Renick, Sawey, Skerpan, Stimmel, and Winek.
Absent: None
Guests: VPAA Gratz, Rodolfo Rocha (ACE Fellow), Lauri Celli (Soc. Intern), and
Mike Moore.
PPS 8.02 Faculty Developmental Leaves
Admissions Standards Committee
Parking Appeals Committee
Academic Program Review PPS
Senate Goals
New Business
Minutes of 9-2-98
Chair Bible called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
PPS 8.02 FACULTY DEVELOPMENT LEAVES
The Senate returned to its discussion of proposed changes to PPS 8.02. Sen.
Irvin pointed out that the Regents Rules citations do not conform to the
numbering in the most recent version of the Rules. Since the Rules can be
accessed on the university web page, Sen. Sawey suggested that this document
also be posted and that hypertext links be established that allow readers to
move to the section of the Rules cited. Senators expressed concern that the
wording for Paragraph 18 proposed by Dr. Cassidy regarding intellectual
property ownership needs additional work to be more easily understood and to
address the list of items which are exempted from university claims in the
Rules. Chair Bible will draft another version of Paragraph 18 and distribute it
to senators for comment. RTA
ADMISSIONS STANDARDS COMMITTEE
The Senate unanimously endorsed the appointment of Prof. William Jackson,
Physics, to replace Prof. Ernest Ratliff on the Admissions Standards Committee.
PARKING APPEALS COMMITTEE
The Senate appointed Profs. Laurie Apple (FCS), Mike Boone (EAPS), Jackie
Moczygemba (HIM), Bobby Patton (HPER), Floyd Ploeger (CIS) and Sam Tarsitano
(Bio.) to this committee. Profs. Patti Barrett and John Spellman were
appointed as alternate members of the committee.
ACADEMIC PROGRAM PPS
VPAA Gratz introduced his draft PPS establishing an Academic Program Review
process for SWT. The document is modelled on the policy established at UCLA
and several other institutions. Although many academic programs have conducted
self-studies through an external accreditation process, Dr. Gratz cited the
need for a comprehensive review program that answers to the internal needs and
goals of the university. Dr. Gratz assured the Senate that the aim of this
program is to develop programs and assure their effectiveness and compliance
with the purposes of the university, not to eliminate progams. This review
process is initiated in response to a recommendation from the last SACS review
ten years ago.
Sen. Stimmel distributed a memo listing three concerns with the draft policy:
problems with the calendar for conducting the process, unidentified funding for
the review, and lack of inclusion of faculty's scholarly and creative work in
the review. Dr. Gratz agreed that the timeline in the draft needs revision so
that departments are notified by the VPAA in October (not April) that they will
conduct a review the following academic year. The order of department reviews
will be established by the VPAA in consultation with the Deans and Chairs,
taking into account external review processes (to avoid double work).
Supplemental guidelines will be generated out of departmental discussions.
Dr. Gratz identified Strategic Initiatives money as the funding source for this
process. Since Pres. Supple had informed the Senate the week before that this
money is also the source of funding of the new VP for Information Technology
position, Sen. Sawey asked that an explanation of the amount and uses of this
money be placed on a future PAAG agenda.
The Senate looked at Paragraph 11, a and b, of the draft and asked for examples
of how these compliances could be demonstrated. Sen. Skerpan suggested that a
web page posting of the final document be constructed with links to illustrative
examples of required information.
In the discussion that followed Dr. Gratz's presentation, the Senate expressed
concern about whether the enormous amount of time and effort this process will
require across campus will actually result in substantive changes. (How would
the faculty at UCLA, for example, rate the value of their review program?)
Unless resources are available to follow through on review findings, this could
be a very frustrating process for everyone. It was also noted that this
on-going review process could facilitate and make the work load lighter at the
time of future SACS reviews.
Senators will forward any additional concerns with the draft APR document to
Chair Bible who will compile comments to forward to the VPAA and the deans.
SENATE GOALS
Sen. Pascoe asked fellow senators to consider mapping out goals for the year
to enable the Senate to be proactive in the issues to which we dedicate our
efforts, not merely reactive to issues that arise. Sen. Gordon suggested a
comprehensive survey of the faculty that would serve as a basis for making
decisions on issues to persue. The upcoming meeting with the newly elected
liasions typically serves to canvass colleagues on their concerns.
The discussion then centered on ways the Senate can encourage and foster
community among the faculty.
Sen. Renick suggested that the Senate become aligned with the quality
initiatives. Specific suggestions were to ask to have a role in the selection
of the new VP for Technology Information, to review the grievance process to
make it more effective and to increase communication and contact with Senate
committee chairs. Ways mentioned to assist and engage chairs were to have each
make an annual report to the Senate, to create a standardized orientation packet
(that includes the committee charge, members and their terms, and any pertinent
documents) for new chairs, and to host a Senate social occasion to express
appreciation for the chairs'contributions to the work of shared governance.
NEW BUSINESS
Faculty Research Committee
Prof. Joy Boone will be asked to represent the School of Health Professions on
the FRC until January when an appointment will be made to fill a full 3 year
term.
Piper Professor Selection
Sen. Anderson asked whether, under Senate Standing Rules Article VI, faculty on
modified retirement are eligible for nomination as Piper Professor. It does
not, and the Senate chose not to amend the rule.
Dean and Chair Evaluation Committee
Chair Bible will pursue getting this committee to meet and complete its charge.
Minutes
The minutes of the September 2, 1998 meeting were approved.
The Senate adjourned at 6:17 p.m.New Business
