Executive Committee Minutes - June 22, 2005






Present:          Beck, Bolin, Flowers, Hoffman, Peterson, Shea, Signal, Stock


Absent:           Alexander, Fech, Moeller, Rapkin, Scholz


Date:               Wednesday, June 22, 2005


Location:        Academic Senate Office, 420 University Terrace


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 2:36 p.m.


2.0       Announcements

            2.1       Meeting with SVCAA Couture on General Education

Peterson reported that the team that went to the national general education conference met with SVCAA Couture.  He noted that the Chancellor may address revising the general education program in his state of the university address. 


Peterson stated that SVCAA Couture would like to see the general education program revised over a two year period.  He stated that this summer the team will gather assessment data on the current program. 


Peterson reported that the revised program will be based on outcomes and will be designed around these outcomes.  He pointed out that this will be a good topic for the Senate to discuss. 


3.0       Approval of 6/8/05 Minutes

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


4.0       Unfinished Business

            4.1       Ad Hoc Committee Report on Senate Reapportionment

Beck reported that she reviewed the four different proposals suggested by the ad hoc committee and the effect each one would have on the current apportionment of Senate seats.  Hoffman pointed out that the basic item is whether to give each unit a representative to the Senate or to have departments and units combined for representation.  He noted that the issue is colleges with departments versus colleges without departments.  He stated that deciding how colleges and units should be represented will have an effect on which proposal appears to fit the best. 


Flowers stated that proposal number 3 which would give each faculty member a representative vote in the Senate has many problems associated with it.  He noted that this system could be problematical for departments that are not finely structured with regularly scheduled department meetings.


Peterson stated that two of the members of the ad hoc committee are in favor of number 3 because each faculty member would have equal weight in voting on Senate motions.  He noted that the College of Journalism and Mass Communications currently has three Senators yet the college’s entire number of faculty members is less than some departments who have only one senator.  


Hoffman suggested that one possibility is to have a Senator for each 10 faculty members.  He stated that another idea is to have representation based on location rather than department.  Peterson stated that he believed having representation at the department level is still more logical.  Stock stated that he would support a plan that has representation at the department level.  He pointed out that there is plenty of diversity even within departments. 


Flowers stated that consideration needs to be made for colleges that have no departments.  He noted that whatever proposal is suggested it should include language that gives consideration to colleges without departments.  Shea stated that having a minimum number of Senators from colleges without departments would assure that the college is fairly represented on the Senate. 


Peterson moved that every department/unit should have one representative, regardless of size, and colleges without departments should have a minimum of two representatives.  The cutoff for number of Senators would otherwise remain the same.  Stock seconded the motion.  Signal asked if colleges without departments have more than 50 faculty members would then have three representatives.  Shea stated that they should have three representatives if the colleges have more than 50 faculty members.  Motion approved.


Beck stated that the ad hoc committee also recommended that the language “The President and President-Elect shall not belong to an Assembly constituency in the same college” under section 3.3.9 Election of Officers in the Senate Rules. 


Signal suggested that a provision should be included in case there is difficulty in getting nominations for these positions.  Peterson pointed out that efforts are made to get diversity amongst the Executive Committee members.  He stated that he did not think the language needed to be included.  Hoffman suggested including a policy statement that states that efforts are made to get a broad representation of faculty members to serve as Officers and Executive Committee members.  Shea stated that although he had not heard of complaints about having both Officers from the same college, he could see how it could be viewed as potentially polarizing. 


Flowers asked if any member of the Senate can run for the Executive Committee or for one of the officer positions.  Griffin stated that this is correct.  They must be a member of the Senate. 


Peterson stated that it is a good idea to be sensitive to the concerns of the faculty but he has not heard of any problems with both Officers being from the same college.  He suggested that the Committee should think about the matter and discuss it at the next meeting.


4.2       Drafting Resolution for the Senate on Surveying the Faculty

Peterson pointed out that the mechanism for gathering faculty input would be separate from the survey on faculty governance that the Committee would like to conduct in the fall. 


Shea stated that the Senate needs to be able to get feedback from the faculty-at-large easily.  He noted that the Committee is frequently asked by administrators and others about how the faculty think or feel on particular issues. 


Beck noted that a secure website where people can confidentially respond will be needed.  Flowers pointed out that the Committee might not always want to use the same method of gathering information. 


The Committee agreed to try and schedule a meeting with Professor Lee of the Physics Department about an educational software program that could be developed as a secure website for faculty members. 


Peterson stated that before the resolution can be drafted the Committee needs to decide what kind of mechanism it plans to use.  The Committee agreed to discuss the issue at its next meeting. 


6.0              <![endif]>New Business

No new business was discussed.


The meeting was adjourned at 3:42 p.m.  The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, July 6th at 2:30 pm.  The meeting will be held in 201 Canfield Administration Building.  The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator and Pat Shea, Secretary.