Senate Council Minutes - May 2, 2005
The Senate Council met on Monday, May 2, 2005 from 3 to 5 in room 103 Main Building and took the following actions.
1. Approval of the Minutes from April 25, 2005
The Vice Chair called the meeting to order and asked if there were any changes to the minutes. Tagavi noted that one of his suggestions had been omitted. Ms. Scott that said upon revisiting the audio recording and consulting with the Chair that particular suggestion had been rejected . There being no further changes, the minutes were approved.
Moore announced that the approval of the new basketball practice facility would likely appear on the next Board of Trustees agenda. He said that he and Kennedy were considering voting against the construction of the new facility, noting that it shouldn't be a high priority for the University. He added that while voting against the item wouldn't likely change the outcome, it was important to stand on principle. Kennedy said he would also vote against the item. The Chair asked if the Senate Council members would like to indicate their support of the two faculty trustees.
Lesnaw made a motion that the Senate Council support the faculty trustees regarding their negative view on this topic. Grossman seconded the motion. Cibull spoke against the motion, noting that the faculty trustees could still express their displeasure without the endorsement of the Senate Council. Moore said that he had approached the Senate Council for its help and hoped to find support. The motion passed with one Senate Council member opposed (Cibull).
The Chair announced that three Senate Council members were ending their terms at this meeting. The Chair recognized Kaalund, Kennedy and Bailey for their hard work and years of service. He thanked them profusely and noted that the Senate Council would be poorer for their absence.
Saunier arrived at this point.
Kennedy asked if this was the last Senate Council meeting of the year. The Chair replied that there may be another meeting sometime in late June or early July, which would be followed by the annual Senate Council retreat.
Jones asked Bailey for an update on the Provost search. Bailey said the committee had met once. He reported that the President is in the process of writing a job description for the position of Provost. The next steps will be to advertise the job and select a head-hunting agency. He suspected those steps would be completed by the end of June and that candidates would most likely be on campus during the Fall semester. Bailey added that while it is possible that a new Provost may be in place by January, the President didn't want to extend the process beyond July 2006 at the absolute latest. He concluded by saying that the committee stressed the need to hire a Provost with both academic and leadership experience.
3. Graduate Certificate in Health Administration
Graduate Certificate in Health Administration (PDF)
Thelin arrived at this point.
The Chair outlined the issues discussed at the previous meeting and thanked Jennings for attending to address those issues. Tagavi asked Jennings if current MHA students could obtain the certificate after completing the requisite courses. Jennings said that while it hadn't been considered before, he also didn't think it would benefit the MHA students to receive a certificate in a field in which they were already receiving a higher degree.
Grossman made a motion that the Program Committee recommendation to approve the proposal with a positive recommendation be taken off the table and reconsidered. Kaalund seconded the motion, which passed without dissent.
Tagavi suggested the word "program" be omitted from the proposal. Ms. Scott noted that had already been addressed at Graduate Council. Tagavi suggested that change be more plainly visible. Tagavi added that Jennings should name the faculty associated with the program, according to Graduate School rules. Jennings said the MHA program faculty would be teaching the graduate certificate courses.
Tagavi made the amendment of dropping the word "program" from the proposal, including a section titled "associate faculty", and changing the pertinent sentence in the last paragraph to be "...recommended by the Director of Graduate Studies and certified by the Dean of the Graduate School". Kennedy suggested including the word "certification" in some places, as appropriate, so the sentences would still make sense. Grossman accepted the amendment as friendly.
Jones suggested changing the word "admission" since the items listed were actually requirements for receipt of the certificate. Grossman agreed.
Cibull asked if the certificate had been discussed with other health colleges to see if they'd like to participate as well. Jennings said that only Nursing was involved with this particular proposal as part of a forthcoming reciprocal Graduate Certificate in Nursing proposal, but that he would be open to discussions with other colleges.
Grossman asked if students other than those enrolled in the program could take MHA classes. Jennings replied that MHA students are given the opportunity to enroll in the classes they need and then any remaining seats are distributed to wait-listed students. Grossman asked if those students who were external to the program could receive the certificate if they managed to get into the appropriate classes. Jennings replied that that possibility had not been addressed by the program faculty and suspected that eliminating the requirement of enrollment in the MSN program would significantly increase the number of students who requested admission to the classes in question.
Blackwell noted that there are several graduate certificates that are limited to enrolling specific cohorts of students. She said that while some limitations were imposed as part of enrollment management efforts, others were restricted by grant funding or due to allegiances with particular professional constituencies off campus. She added that some certificates begin very small and then produce revised proposals if they wish to expand later.
In response to a question posed by Cibull, Jennings said there were no licensures associated with the certificate.
Grossman offered the friendly amendment of striking requirement number 1, which required the students to be enrolled in the MSN program. Jennings said he could not agree to such an amendment without first consulting the program faculty. Grossman said he would not pursue the amendment but encouraged Jennings to consult the faculty about that possibility.
The motion on the floor from the Academic Programs Committee to approve the proposal and forward it to the Senate with a positive recommendation passed without dissent. The Chair thanked Jennings for attending and he departed.
4. Master of Arts in Teaching World Languages
Master of Arts in Teaching World Languages (PDF)
The Chair reported having contacted Dean Cibulka in the College of Education (COE) regarding the need to post the item centrally. When he received no reply he pressed the issue and Cibulka circulated the item for the college faculty's review. Ms. Scott reported that three e-mail responses had been received as a result, one of which suggested an additional course for inclusion as fulfilling the COE portion of the requirements. One was from a faculty member who said he'd prefer not to comment since it wasn't his area of expertise, but suggested it should go to the college's curriculum committee for a full hearing. The third was from a faculty member who thought the item should be circulated for a full ten days among the college faculty.
Thelin reiterated his position that the faculty of the COE should have been consulted, weren't consulted, and should be. He added that the certification portion of the program could not be disassociated from the COE under state law. He noted that while the new program originated in Arts and Sciences it impacted an existing program in the COE and, therefore, the faculty should have been consulted. Thelin recommended that the proposal be sent to the full COE faculty and go through normal channels toward approval. He expressed surprise that the Senate Council would be willing to skip this important step in faculty governance. He asked that the COE curriculum committee and the college faculty be given the opportunity to fully comment. Tagavi asked if the COE faculty should be consulted as a courtesy or if Thelin thought they should actually approve the proposal. Thelin said that a curricular item with such potential for impact on the faculty should need to have the approval of that faculty.
Cibull asked when the program planned to begin admitting students. Blackwell replied students were waiting to be admitted for the upcoming 4-week session. Blackwell added, speaking as the former chair of German, that when the program was originally conceived there was a high degree of collaboration and consultation with the COE faculty associated with the MIC in Foreign Language program. She added that the MIC faculty had been instrumental in helping move the proposal through the state standards board, which has already approved the proposal. Blackwell noted that she assumed the proposal had moved beyond those faculty members to the COE committee that vets such proposals. Thelin reiterated that the proposal was never heard by the curriculum committee, which is why he raised his objection.
Blackwell said that while she was unsure of the internal policies of the COE, the proposal had been approved by Arts and Sciences and forwarded on through the channels. She regretted that a misunderstanding had occurred, but assured the Senate Council members that the perceived slight to the COE faculty was unintentional. She added that the foreign language component of the existing MIC program had not admitted new students for roughly four years and suspected that the COE faculty would send forth a proposal to eliminate that track, once there were no more students enrolled in the program. Thelin suggested that the proposal to eliminate the track should come forward simultaneously, or else the CPE may say the MATWL program is a duplicate program. Blackwell replied that the reason no students had been admitted to the MIC foreign language track was that there weren't faculty in the college to teach the required courses.
Cibull asked if the Senate Council could approve the proposal with the provision that the COE faculty be given time to review and approve the proposal before the next Senate meeting. Thelin said that to ask the faculty to act in that time frame would be discourteous and unreasonable.
Grossman noted that while the whole COE faculty was not consulted, the faculty most closely associated with the proposal from the college had been involved. He made a motion to reaffirm the Senate Council's previous approval and positive recommendation to the Senate, adding that whoever was responsible for vetting the proposal through the appropriate COE channels should receive a reprimand for not having done so. Kaalund seconded the motion.
Thelin noted that the proposal that goes to the Senate should include the friendly amendment from the first vote on the topic, adding that the list of courses that had been specified would be included as well. Ms. Scott offered assurance that the appropriate changes had already been incorporated.
Jones suggested this item should be given ample time for discussion at the Senate meeting. The Chair agreed.
Cibull asked Thelin if he would be more comfortable if the proposal went to the Senate with no recommendation in an effort to determine how important the issue was to Thelin. Thelin replied that the faculty governance of the involved unit was very important, but added that his objection had received a thorough vetting. The motion to reaffirm the Senate Council's previous action to approve and forward to the Senate with a positive recommendation passed with one Senate Council member opposed (Thelin).
5. Academic Organization and Structure recommendations
PhD (PDF) and MS (PDF) in Mining Engineering name change: Bailey introduced the item and conveyed the rationale from the proposal. He noted that the proposal was missing a routing sheet, but relayed the committee's wish that the proposal be approved with the caveat that the routing sheet be produced before the Senate meeting.
Grossman suggested that Geology be consulted for an opinion, since the word "minerals" is part of the new degree title. Bailey said he had already contacted Frank Ettensohn, who will consult with the department faculty and reply by Wednesday. The motion on the floor from the committee to approve and send to the Senate with a positive recommendation passed without dissent. It will appear on the Senate agenda for the May 9 meeting, assuming receipt of the routing sheet.
Department of Family Practice and Community Medicine (PDF): Bailey said the proposal requested a name change to Department of Family and Community Medicine to make the name more consistent with comparable departments while also drawing more attention to the scholarly activity of the department faculty. He added that the proposal was very complete, included a routing sheet, and received the full recommendation of the committee. The motion on the floor from the committee to approve and send to the Senate with a positive recommendation passed without dissent.
Center for Women's Health (PDF): Bailey outlined the Center's request to change its name to the Center for Advancement of Women's Health. He said that while the routing sheet was initially missing, the committee was still inclined to view the proposal favorably. He added that Crawford had been hard at work to pull materials together for the routing sheet and that the committee was satisfied with the results. Bailey said the other part of the proposal was the change in the reporting structure, in which the Center would report to the Dean of the College of Medicine. He concluded by saying that the committee approved the latter too and recommended approval of the proposal.
Duke asked if the change in reporting structure had been discussed among the other health colleges besides the College of Medicine. Crawford replied that she had e-mailed the other deans, having received replies from most of them, but knew that they were aware of the change and were generally supportive. She suggested that the other colleges were eager to ensure that they will continue to have relationships with the Center, and that the future and how those relationships will continue will be the topic of an upcoming deans' meeting. Crawford said the discussion at the meeting will focus on the Center's broad interest in working with anybody who would like to participate in the Center's activities. The motion on the floor from the committee to approve and send to the Senate with a positive recommendation passed without dissent.
BHS in Health Administration (PDF): Bailey said the proposed name change to BHS in Clinical Leadership Management more accurately reflected the scope of the program's offerings. He added that Gary Hanson had been contacted regarding the similarity in name to the Community Leadership Development program. Hanson is contacting the department faculty and will respond within the week, but Bailey suggested there wasn't any indication that the name change would prove controversial.
Tagavi asked if a new feasibility statement would be required to reactivate the program. Ms. Scott replied she had investigated and a new statement was not required since it was never formally removed from CPE's registry.
In response to a question from Cibull regarding the nature of the program offerings, Gonzalez explained that the bachelors program would serve as a sort of intermediary stepping stone between those students who had received an associate and were working in labs as certified lab technicians and who wanted to climb a particular career ladder in a lab environment. She also suggested that students who graduate from the bachelor's program might seek admission to the MPH or MHA programs, or could elect to seek a Masters in Clinical Laboratory Science. The motion on the floor from the committee to approve and send to the Senate with a positive recommendation passed without dissent.
Bailey noted the need for better communication with the colleges and programs regarding what sort of information should be included in the routing sheet in addition to making it clearer earlier in the process that the sheet should be included. He added that the people with whom he interacts are always quite willing to provide information, but are often confused about the process.
6. Curricular Items for approval
The Chair noted that some items had been received too late to be circulated via the web site and were included on the agenda instead.
BHS in Clinical Leadership and Management (PDF): Cibull asked for a clarification of how the program offerings differed from those of the Martin School. Ms. Scott noted that the primary difference was undergraduate versus graduate instruction. Gonzalez added that there may be some similarity in the topics that were covered but that the content and emphasis of the courses were different. She said that students in the bachelor's program were required to work in a clinical setting for a year and would study topics such as human resources, budget, finance and quality assurance in a lab setting.
Bailey noted that instead of BHS in Health Administration the current name should be listed as Health Services Management. Ms. Scott replied that Health Administration was the degree title on record with the CPE, which is why it was being used in the name change proposal. Gonzalez added that when the department of Health Services Management was removed from the College of Health Sciences and moved to the College of Public Health the College of Health Sciences retained the undergraduate degree as part of that arrangement since the College of Public Health intended to focus on graduate education. Blackwell added that during that transition the Martin School had not been opposed to the undergraduate program remaining in the College of Health Sciences.
Grossman made a motion to approve the reactivation and program changes and to the forward to the Senate with a positive recommendation. Bailey seconded the motion, which passed without dissent.
Cibull made a motion to approve the associated courses, with a second from Grossman. The Chair noted that the course description for CLM 405 was the same as the course description for CSC 605. Tagavi said that a 400-level and 600-level course should not have the same course description. Schulman offered to submit a revised course description for CLM 405. The Chair noted that such a change would require another review of the course by Undergraduate Council.
After further discussion Thelin suggested including the phrase "...as appropriate for an upper division undergraduate course" to distinguish the undergraduate level course from the graduate course. Schulman agreed to that solution. Tagavi said that even if such a change is made the new and correct course description should be brought forward as soon as possible to address the problem.
There being no further discussion a vote was taken. The motion to approve and forward the courses to the Senate with a positive recommendation passed without dissent.
7. Proposed change to Senate Rules from the ad hoc ACMC Review Committee
Proposed change to Senate Rules (DOC)
Dembo provided a brief overview of the proposed rules, noting that what was intended was a more concrete compilation of the committee's recommendations. He added that he had attempted to divide the rule into a similar structure as the rules pertaining to the Graduate and Undergraduate Councils.
Grossman offered the editorial change of changing the word "insure" to "ensure" throughout the document. Tagavi noted that the word "are" should be changed to "is" under section 18.104.22.168.B.
Dembo asked the Senate Council to consider the section on limitation of authority. Tagavi suggested eliminating A and C but keeping B. Jones spoke in favor of eliminating C as well. Kaalund proposed an amendment to eliminate A and C. Grossman seconded the amendment.
Blackwell agreed that the proposed rules changes reflected the spirit of the proposal that had been produced by the ad hoc committee. She expressed support for the motion, though, noting that items over which there was any jurisdictional debate should come forward to the Senate Council.
The amendment to strike A and C passed without dissent.
Cibull suggested that examples of the types of items approved solely by the HCCC be provided in more detail. Blackwell suggested "these courses are principally those at the 800 and 900-levels that address requirements toward a professional degree". Dembo agreed.
Tagavi suggested that when the HCCC members' terms began should be part of the rule. Dembo said that the terms currently begin September 1 and suggested leaving that "as is" but stating it specifically. Tagavi suggested including the date under section 22.214.171.124. Dembo agreed.
Tagavi also suggested changing the wording to solve the problem of how many HCCC members constituted a quorum. He and Jones suggested changing the language to reflect the need for six elected voting members. Dembo agreed.
Cibull made a motion to approve the proposed changes to Senate Rules as amended, and to forward to the Senate with a positive recommendation. Kaalund seconded the motion, which passed without dissent.
Jones asked when the change would be effective, in light of the change in leadership that would occur if the changed rules were approved. Blackwell suggested that July 1 may be a convenient date for the change. Tagavi made a motion that, if approved by the Senate, the proposed changes will be effective July 1, 2005. Duke seconded the motion, which passed without dissent.
8. Remaining Curricular Items
The Senate Council members requested to address the three remaining courses as a group. Grossman made a motion to approve CPH 920, EDS 651 and EDDS 652 to forward the courses to the Senate with a positive recommendation. Kaalund seconded the motion, which passed without dissent.
9. University Senate Agenda
May 9, 2005 Agenda (DOC)
Jones and Tagavi suggested placing the ACMC issue higher on the agenda. There being no objections, the agenda will be rearranged accordingly. Duke and Cibull suggested implementing time limits. Duke noted, though, that additional time should be allocated for the MATWL issue, since significant discussion may occur.
Dembo asked what efforts were being made to ensure a quorum. The Chair replied that he would correspond with the Senate to underscore the importance of attending.
Various members of the Senate Council made a motion to approve the agenda with the modifications mentioned above, which was seconded by almost the same number of Senate Council members. The motion passed without dissent and the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted by
Ernie Yanarella, Chair
Members present: Bailey, Cibull, Dembo, Duke, Grossman, Jones, Kaalund, Kennedy, Lesnaw, Moore, Tagavi, Thelin, Yanarella.
Liaisons present: Greissman, Saunier.
Guests present: Blackwell, Crawford, Gonzalez, Jennings, Schulman, Skaff.
Prepared by Rebecca Scott on May 3, 2005.