EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

 

Present:          Alloway, Beck, Hoffman, Moeller, Peterson, Rapkin, Scholz, Shea

 

Absent:           Alexander, Bolin, Fech, Flowers, Stock

           

Date:               Wednesday, January 11, 2006         

 

Location:        201 Canfield Administration Building

 

Note:   These are not verbatim minutes.  They are a summary of the discussions at the Executive Committee meeting as corrected by those participating.

______________________________________________________________________   

1.0       Call to Order

            Beck called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.

 

2.0       Interview with Candidate for Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs

The Committee met and interviewed Dr. Don Aripoli from Missouri State University who is one of the final candidates for Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs.

           

3.0       Announcements

            3.1       Special Fees Committee

Beck reported that she, Alloway, and Hoffman went together to review the on-line requests for special fees.  She stated that a handout of guidelines was distributed to each committee member and it outlines what fees can and cannot be considered.  She noted that justifications for the fees must be included with the request.  She reported that they denied some of the requests and this is precipitating a meeting in February of the entire committee. 

 

Beck pointed out that she was glad to review the applications with a group of people rather than doing it individually as the committee has been operating.  Hoffman stated that some questions about the applications may not have been raised if they were reviewed by an individual.  Beck pointed out that some courses were charging high special fees.  Alloway noted that there were some small classes that had special fees of $250.

 

3.2       Letter from Professor Crawford, Chair of the Intercollegiate Committee

Alloway noted that he received a letter from Professor Crawford regarding a student athlete and his/her ability to attend class.  He pointed out that the letter has been slightly revised this semester and reflects the discussion between Professor Crawford and the Executive Committee on November 9th.

 

 

 

 

3.3       Meeting with ASUN Students

Beck reported that the Task Force on the Reductions in Force Procedures will be meeting with students from ASUN to discuss the proposed revisions to the procedures.  She stated that she will report to the Committee on the meeting.

 

3.4       UNOPA and UAAD

Beck stated that she wants to schedule a meeting with the officers of UNOPA and UAAD.  She questioned whether the Executive Committee should meet with the officers.  Peterson noted that in the past only the officers have met with UNOPA and UAAD officers.  Griffin stated that she will schedule a meeting with the officers of each organization.

 

4.0       Approval of 1/4/06 Minutes

Peterson moved and Moeller seconded approval of the minutes as amended.  Motion approved.

 

5.0       Unfinished Business

            5.1       Quality Indicators Survey

Beck reported that she called the accreditation board of business colleges to ask them if special journal lists are used for giving accreditation to business colleges in the country.  She stated that she was told that no special lists are used although they do want to see faculty members in colleges publish in high quality and legitimate journals.  She noted that in particular, they do not mandate any kind of list for evaluating individual faculty members.  She reported that she looked at the board’s website and only formulas were given as an example for accreditation but no specific journal lists are mentioned. 

 

Peterson noted that one of the Chancellor’s comments on the survey was about the survey being biased toward negative responses.  Peterson pointed out that the Committee received complaints about the lists from faculty members and the Chancellor was the one who suggested that the Senate survey the faculty on this issue.  Peterson noted that one of the early concerns of faculty members were that the lists would be used for individual faculty evaluations although the Chancellor and former SVCAA Edwards assured the committee during several meetings that the lists would not be used this way.  Beck pointed out that the questions were not formulated in a negative way and just asked for a response from faculty members. 

 

6.0       New Business

6.1       Question Regarding the 15th Week Policy

Griffin reported that she received a phone call from a professor who thought he might be in violation of the 15th week policy because he gives a take home final.  The Committee stated that because the professor has the due date of the take home final as the time when an in-class final would have been given and since the professor clearly states in the syllabus the final exam and the due date, there is no violation of the policy. 

 

 

 

6.2       Senate Structure

Beck stated that she would like the Committee to review the structure of the Senate to see if it should be converted back to a Faculty Senate rather than an Academic Senate. 

Hoffman asked if the main difference between an Academic Senate and a Faculty Senate is that there are no administrators on a Faculty Senate.  Beck stated that this is correct.  Alloway asked if chairs would be included in a Faculty Senate.  Beck stated that she believes they would be included.  Hoffman asked about unit directors.  Shea noted that not all unit heads have 100% FTE in administration.  Peterson stated that many heads have substantial administrative appointments.  He noted that this issue will need to be resolved if the structure is changed.

 

Shea stated that changing the name of the Senate is a good idea.  He noted that there are differences that can be implied in the purview of the Senate based on the name such as some administrators may feel the need to discuss certain issues with the Senate because it is an Academic Senate.  Peterson pointed out that most other institutions have a Faculty Senate, not an Academic Senate.

 

Due to lack of time the issue will be discussed further next week.

 

6.3       Review Revisions to APC’s Academic Program Review Guidelines

Beck reported that the APC is working on revising the academic program review guidelines in part to coincide more with department and college accreditation processes so there is not a duplication of work. 

 

Beck stated that she would like to have a section inserted into the procedures that relates to the governance structure within departments.  She noted that the governance structure would need to be defined within units.  She pointed out that the suggested insert is written generically so it will not conflict with the cultures within departments and colleges.  Peterson asked if the units would have to describe their governance structure.  Beck stated that this is correct.  She pointed out that some departments, such as Sociology, have excellent governance while others are not very good.  She stated that there needs to be a governance process in place in units that is fair to everyone in the department.  She pointed out that there are some departments where the same people are appointed to committees while other department members are ignored. 

 

Peterson noted that currently the APRs do not address governance in the departments although he thinks they should.  The Committee agreed.  Beck pointed out that the faculty can raise issues privately to the chair of the APR review committee but she thinks concerns regarding department governance should be public.

 

Peterson asked if the APR guidelines are being revised quickly.  Beck stated that the APC has been working on the guidelines for awhile and they want to get input quickly so they can get the changes made.  Shea asked when the process was first started.  Beck stated that she does not know but the APC has been working on it for some time.  She noted that the revisions are being made in part to bring the APRs in line with the CSREES procedures used by IANR. 

 

Beck reported that another objective of the revisions is to make the APRs more accessible for review.  She pointed out that APRs conducted in the past have been filed and are rarely reviewed to see if improvements have been made within departments.  Rapkin stated that some deans do refer to the APRs.  He noted that in Arts & Sciences if a request to hire is made the dean will check to see if the need is consistent with recommendations made in the APR.  Beck stated that APRs in the future are supposed to be posted on Blackboard which will hopefully make them more accessible.  Alloway pointed out that the human and economic capital that is needed for APRs shouldn’t be invested if they are not going to be used in the future.  Peterson stated that there have been some bad APRs in the past but ones that are done well can be very useful. 

 

Shea stated that one area he is concerned with in the guidelines is the language that states “The Review Team is asked to keep in mind that many recommendations that would improve a given unit might not be feasible because of the expense involved and the requirements of other units with the University.  Therefore, the team is encouraged to focus their recommendation upon what can and should be done within existing resources, unless expressly asked to do otherwise.”  He pointed out that the review committee should not be restricted from making objective recommendations because of resources.  Peterson noted that the current talk on campus is about strategic planning.  He questioned how APRs fit when strategic plans are calling for more resources.  Moeller noted that the guidelines do discuss this.

 

Beck reported that an issue came up with IANR Academic Senators regarding APR’s.  She pointed out that there are now four research and extension centers.  In the past it was very clear about who was leading each program but since the mergers and elimination of one of the centers things have changed.  She stated that the suggestion was made by the Senators that there should be one APR for extension rather than having four separate teams to come in for each center.  She noted that it makes sense to treat the extension centers as a full unit.  She stated that she will draft language for the guidelines on this issue. 

 

Scholz asked if there is a major theme to the revisions of the guidelines or whether the revisions are mostly housecleaning.  Beck reported that she believes the main theme is to make the city campus APRs more inline with the CREES process in IANR.  Scholz asked if the revisions were initiated by the APC.  Beck stated that she believes this is correct. 

 

6.4       Other Issues

Layman Awards

Hoffman reported that applications for Layman Awards must show how the award would apply to the strategic plan of the unit. 

 

Future Agenda Items

Beck stated that she would like to discuss the remissions program that the Chancellor mentioned at the Senate meeting when the Executive Committee meets with him on January 25th.   She noted that she would like to revisit the Museum program situation as well.  She suggested that former faculty members in the Museum could be asked to attend a meeting to get an update on what is happening with the collections. 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.  The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, January 18th at 3:00 pm.  The meeting will be held in 201 Canfield Administration Building.  The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator and Pat Shea, Secretary.