University Senate Minutes
The University Senate met on
Members absent: Ambrose, Anderman,
Anderson, Bacon, Baldwin, Baxter*, Blandford*, Brunn, Butler, Byars, Carr, Cibulka, Cohen, Davis*, DeLuca, DeSimone, Duffy*, Duke*, Dwyer*, Fink*, Flournoy,
Garen, Garkovich, Gassenheimer*, Gentry, Hanson, Hardy*, Haven, Hazard*,
Hensley*, Hoffman, Isaacs*, Jackson*, Jefferies*, Jeng*,
Kovarik, Lesnaw, Leser, Lewin, Marchant*,
Martin, Mazur, McCormick, Mobley, Mohney, Perry,
Purdue*, Ray, Roberts, Robinson, Roland*, Schomaker,
Shaw, Shay, Smith, Smith, Storm, Sudharshan, Swetnam, Terrell, Todd, Vasconez*,
Vestal, Wade, Waldhart*, Walker, Watts, Weis, White,
Williams, Williams, Wilson.
*Excused absence.
The Chair called the meeting
to order at
The Chair announced the
agenda had to changes. He reported Dr.
Nash’s presentation on the IRIS project will be postponed until the March
Senate meeting. He relayed Dr. Nash’s
message that the IRIS web site is operational and the on-campus vendor
demonstrations from SAP and Peoplesoft are happening
soon. The dates of the vendor visits are
available on the web site.
1. Honorary Degree Candidates
Dean Blackwell presented the
Honorary Degree Candidates. She
introduced the members of the Honorary Degree Committee and thanked them for
their service. Blackwell presented brief
biographical sketches of the nominees and highlighted some of their
achievements, honors and awards.
Blackwell said the candidates have been approved by the Graduate Faculty
and are before the Senate for its consideration.
After brief discussion the
Senate voted unanimously to approve the Honorary Degree Candidates. The nominees will be forwarded to the
President.
2.
GRE
Proposal, Change to SR 4.2.5
The Chair provided the
background on this item, including its origins within the
Grossman asked why the
Senate Council removed the approval of the College Dean in the appeal process
required of programs wishing to substitute another exam for the GRE or waive
the GRE requirement for admission to the program. Jones replied that this was a matter of
educational policy rather than management, and that the faculty bodies approve
such an appeal. He added that the Dean
serves as the transmitter of the appeal to the next higher level.
Deem asked for clarification
of the wording pertaining to the possibility of waiving all standardized tests
for admission to programs. Blackwell
replied that programs could require no test whatsoever, require replacement
tests or a various option of tests. She
added the admissions requirements would become part of the bulletin and that
such requirements would be enforced by the
Albisetti asked which programs were interested in waiving the
GRE for their students. Blackwell
replied that some science and engineering programs had originally started the
discussion. Grossman said the ability to
waive the GRE requirement on a programmatic level would benefit some of the
programs which often attracted professionals from the field, like architects,
who shouldn’t be made to take a standardized test. He also noted the financial burden the GRE
posed to international students for whom the GRE was not necessarily a
predictor of academic success.
Peffer asked if programs which currently require an
examination other than the GRE would be required to petition. Blackwell suggested that perhaps those
programs in question could be approved at the first Graduate Council meeting as
a group.
The Chair called for a
vote. The motion passed without
dissent. The item will be sent to the
Rules Committee for codification.
3.
The Chair provided
background for this item, including the rationale for the proposal as submitted
by the Arts Administration program.
Ferrier noted the Admissions and Academic Affairs Committee, which he
chairs, had tabled the item until the committee could learn more about the task
force on Selective Admissions’ recommendations.
He reported that the committee had voted unanimously to support the
proposal.
Dean Hoch
of Arts and Sciences expressed concern about students who did not gain
admission to this program who might transfer to a new degree program. He suggested that if Arts Administration
wished to reduce its enrollment they should first consider the financial
implications which would result from students transferring to there colleges.
Braun said the proposal
would reduce the number of students by fifteen or twenty. He said the quality issue has arisen because
the program had reached a cap in terms of how many students it was capable of
serving, due to the increased popularity of the program.
Hoch noted that all colleges were short on resources, and
added that Arts and Sciences did not have a cap on its enrollment and suspected
that many of the students who did not meet selective admissions requirements in
Engineering, B&E, Communications and Fine Arts would relocate to Arts and
Sciences. Hoch
said he was uncomfortable supporting such a proposal without knowing the
broader financial implications.
Grossman agreed that
Agriculture and Arts and Science have been and will continue to be burdened
with the students from other colleges who can’t meet the selective admissions
requirements.
The Chair noted that many
other colleges have selective admission requirements. Grossman suggested that perhaps A&S
should adopt selective admission criteria of its own.
Braun reminded the Senate
that the proposal was being submitted for the second time so that it might
conform to the recommendations of the Selective Admissions task force. He said he shared concerns about the merits
of employing selective admissions criteria but suggested that the larger issue
be decided apart from the merit of the proposal at hand.
Gesund noted the presence of
two different issues. The first was the
issue of fund allocation, which was an administrative matter for the Provost
and the President. The second was the
ability of the students who are admitted to complete the degree
requirements. He noted Engineering’s
selective admission policy was based on the second criteria so that Engineering
might admit only those students who they were reasonably certain would
graduate.
Albisetti asked if the Dean of Fine Arts could reallocate
resources within the college to assist the program with its financial
concerns. The Dean of Fine Arts was not
present to comment.
The Provost suggested that
this sort of situation might be alleviated by the employment of a differential
tuition rates for upper division classes.
He offered to outline how such resources might be reallocated during his
upcoming annual presentation to the Senate.
He informed the Senate that the vast majority of students coming into
Braun requested again that
perhaps the broader issue should be considered separately from the proposal at
hand, noting that he had followed all of the appropriate procedures and rules
in submitting the proposal. Debski asked how accurate of a predictor the proposed GPA
requirement would be in determining a student’s success. Braun said he did not have quantitative
evidence but said he was informed by his interactions with the students in the
required classes.
Ferrier reported that the
Academic Affairs Committee had considered this issue carefully and had
determined that ‘academic integrity’ was open to interpretation and noted that
the committee had concluded that resources and enrollment ratios were “drivers
of academic integrity and quality”.
There being no further
discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Forty-four voted in favor of the motion with twelve opposed. The motion passed. Senate Rule 4.2.2.14
will be forwarded the Rules Committee for codification.
Grossman requested that the
Admissions and Academic Affairs Committee revisit the issue of selective
admissions for all of the colleges to examine the effect of such policies on
other colleges. He also requested the
committee examine the issue of resources as related to enrollment so that it
might develop a formal that would address the issue of resource
reallocation. The Chair said this
request will be discussed at a future Senate Council meeting so that a more
formal charge to the committee could be developed.
Announcements:
The Chair announced that he
had received an e-mail from Board of Trustees Chair Steve Reed requesting
information regarding the Senate’s position on the LCC issue. The Chair read a portion of Chair Reed’s
request. The Chair said he broached this
topic as a discussion item only. He also
apologized that his e-mail about this subject was only sent to select members
of the Senate rather than the whole Senate.
The Chair provided some
background on this item. He said the
Senate Council had drafted a letter in conjunction with the Staff Senate in
response to the Board of Regents resolution regarding the transfer of LCC to
KCTCS. He added that it seemed unlikely
that the Senate was going to have an opportunity to formally comment on the
possible transfer given the perception of time limitations. The Chair said much has happened since the
January Academic Affairs Committee (AAC) meeting at which LCC was
discussed. He said the AAC voted this
morning to approve a resolution that would transfer LCC to KCTCS. The Chair said he would ask Kennedy to
comment on the numerous amendments to that resolution in just a few
minutes. He reported on the previous
week’s Senate Council meeting at which
Gesund suggested that the
Senate should support the wishes of the LCC faculty. He added that the faculty of LCC should
decide what is best for LCC.
At the request of the Chair,
Kennedy reported on the nature of the resolution and amendments passed by the
AAC earlier in the day. Kennedy outlined
the various highlights of the resolution along with the basic elements of his
amendments. He said it was important to
reassure LCC people that their ties with
Staten asked if LCC faculty
will have the same options as the faculty who transferred to KCTCS in
1998. Kennedy replied that they would,
but hastened to add that the AAC will make its recommendation to the Board,
which will in turn make a recommendation to the legislature since this
reorganization would require a revision to House Bill 1.
The Chair asked for
elaboration on the position he’d heard expressed at the AAC meeting that SACS
had no preference as to which change occurred so long as things did not stay as
they currently are. Kerley agreed that
SACS does not have a preference and added that during the conference call with
SACS last Friday SACS indicated their willingness to allow time for changes to
occur. He noted that “we’re not totally
boxed in like we thought we were”.
Kerley expressed concern that the administration does not want LCC to
have the necessary autonomy within
The Chair asked Saunier to explain why the majority of the Task Force would
have preferred Option One (separate accreditation within
Womack expressed her support
of Saunier’s statement and noted that during the Task
Force’s deliberations it seemed as if the nature of the time-dependent issues
narrowed the variety of options seriously considered by the Task Force. Womack added that she “heard the clock
ticking in the task force process” and felt that the option of maintaining
separate accreditation within
Kennedy rebutted the idea
that SACS has no preference regarding this decision. He noted that SACS has specific requirements
if LCC were to remain part of
Nietzel said SACS would give extra time for reorganization,
but noted that SACS was not interested in giving more time to the
decision-making process. He noted that
either option will take years to implement, but that SACS needed a decision.
Yates expressed confusion
about the issue involved. He noted great
unrest among the LCC faculty and expressed the need to make sure the faculty
were treated well. He asked to hear
Kennedy’s argument as to why he felt that Option Three was the only viable
option.
Kennedy read a portion of an
e-mail he sent to the Senate Council and the AAC in which he reported on the
phone call with SACS. He said the most
important thing he learned was that moving LCC to KCTCS would only necessitate
a substantive change committee and that the issue of autonomy would be addressed. A special committee would assess changes to
the administrative structure if Option One were undertaken. This special committee would then make a
recommendation to the 77-member committee which would decide if sufficient
autonomy had been gained, which represented a risk to LCC’s accreditation. He suggested that if both presidents reported
to the Board then autonomy would no longer be an issue, but then realized that
LCC wouldn’t be part of
Cibull asked if LCC will be
autonomous from KCTCS. Kennedy responded
that SACS wants to see either a free-standing institution or a part of a
system. Cibull asked if we currently
have a system. Kennedy replied that
Durant asked Kerley to speak
to the issue of LCC’s preference since time constraints have been relaxed. Kerley said that LCC’s faculty, staff and
students had all passed resolutions stating their strong preference for Option
One. He said that around 86% of the
faculty and staff preferred to stay with
Durant asked if LCC supports
the action recommended by the AAC earlier in the day. Kerley replied that all constituents at LCC
were firmly against AACR1. He noted that
3,500 student had signed a petition to that effect. He expressed concern about the five-year
provision for the use of the campus. He
said the AAC had done a great job in trying to dissect the information they’d
received to make a decision and he thanked them for doing so. He noted that this decision was not an easy
one.
Grossman asked if KCTCS’s Board of Regents had changed its position that all
parts of LCC would transfer to KCTCS and immediately fall under their
system. Siemer
said he had a lengthy conversation with KCTCS President McCall who expressed
that the BoR resolution was an expression of their
preference but was not a requirement. Siemer added that they’ve agreed to make the transfer just
as it was made for the other community colleges during the formation of KCTCS.
Grossman noted that much of
the conversation was the same as when the last transfer occurred. He noted that now, much like then, much of
the issue was fear of the unknown. He
asked how much of LCC’s hesitance to move was related to KCTCS and how much was
related to LCC’s interest in maintaining the status quo. Kerley replied that LCC’s people were not
afraid of anything and said academics was the key issue. He said LCC’s enrollment has grown by 3,000 students
since the formation of KCTCS and that its minority faculty and student
populations had grown. Kerley said he
could provide numerous reasons why LCC should stay with
Gesund suggested the Senate
should back the faculty, students and staff at LCC in whatever they want since
they were the people who would have to live with the decision. The Chair reminded the Senate that since this
was not an official action item only a straw poll could be taken. He added that the Governing Regulations say
the Board relies on the President and the Senate regarding changes in academic
organizational structure. He reiterated
the need to provide Chair Reed with a Senate opinion.
Yates asked if one side of
the coin was to back the LCC contingent was the other side, then, to back the
President and the Board? Berger asked for clarification on which
obstacles to Option One were deemed infeasible.
Kennedy said that LCC and
Hardwick asked Kerley to
describe the two models of
Berger reiterated his
request to know which changes could not be accomplished. Kennedy noted that in the
The Provost interjected that
Kerley noted that SACS said
the creation of a system was not necessary, that such a change could be
accomplished within
The Chair reminded the
Senate that it had not been given the opportunity to present its opinion due to
the timing. He reminded the Senate of
the Board meeting scheduled for the following afternoon and asked the Senate
what response he should forward to Chair Reed.
Gesund reminded the Chair
that he already had a suggestion on the floor.
Cibull spoke against the suggestion, and asked if instead the Senate
could say it had not been given enough information to form an opinion. Cibull added he’d like to know if Kerley or
the Provost were correct. He added that
if Kerley was correct he’d support Option One, but that if the Provost were
correct then he didn’t see how such an arrangement could work. Cibull concluded by saying that the Senate
could not make a judgment until this important question was answered.
Yanarella noted the
incredible influx of information on this topic over the course of the past week. He said he did not support Gesund’s
suggestion because it missed the basic issue.
He said the current debate was “a day late and a dollar short” because
of the recent information that there was more room to maneuver than previously
thought. Yanarella suggested that the
process had been influenced by the perception that SACS had been the overriding
problem and that the time line had been such that other options could not be
considered. He reminded the Senate that
only a week had passed since
Ferrier asked if the sense
of the Senate could be that the Board should table the discussion and the
decision until Yanarella’s suggestion could be accomplished. The Chair replied that the Board relied on
the advice of the Senate and that the Senate could put forth whatever advice it
felt was appropriate.
Albisetti said that it
struck him as odd in 1997 that just one community college
stayed with
Abel said the concerns of
the faculty were not just related to personnel issues. She said that the proximity of LCC to
Kennedy suggested Abel might
have interpreted the part of the resolution regarding the use of the buildings
incorrectly. He said the LCC buildings
and grounds will be guaranteed for five years and added
Noonan suspected that most
people would like to maintain the current relationship. The Provost replied that for two years
adjustments had been made to try to keep the current relationship, but the SACS
consultant hired by LCC said the adjustments fell far short of SACS
expectations. He added “part of what
makes us work so well together is part of what they object to”.
The Chair asked if the
majority of the Senators felt they had enough information to form an
opinion. Tagavi suggested the Senate
should decline to give an opinion on the grounds that it did not have enough
information to make a strong opinion on either side. Durant disagreed, noting the Senate had a
chance to have input on an important measure.
He suggested asking the Board for a new time line to see if LCC’s
preference could be implemented.
Grossman said he thought
that much deliberation by knowledgeable people had already occurred and that a
better conclusion has already been reached than the Senate could reach in half
an hour. He expressed his belief that
Kennedy, Nietzel, Kerley, Jones and President Todd
would reach a consensus to present to the Board. Grossman supported Tagavi’s statement.
The Chair asked for a straw vote, noting the Senate
could always provide an expedited set of Minutes to the Board so it could get
the sense of the Senate. A majority of
Senators voted against the suggestion.
Yanarella said he’d be
willing to support Tagavi’s suggestion if it included some illusion to the fact
that the process was biased by misperception of SACS position and had the
effect of unduly constraining the range of discussion and amount of information
that would have allowed the Senate to make a recommendation to the Board.
Staben asked if supporting
AACR1 was the alternative. Cibull said
the Senate could decide to support the resolution. Staben said he would like to do that in a
straw poll. He said it made sense for a
community college to belong to a community college system.
Nelda Wyatt, an LCC faculty
member, said that LCC was unique from the other community colleges due to its
geography and the way in which it was created.
She said she did not care if
Cibull spoke against
AACR1. He noted LCC’s longstanding
special relationship with
Staben requested that a straw vote be taken on his
suggestion to support AACR1. Fifteen
voted in favor of it and thirty-four voted against it. Five abstained.
Staten said there was no
solution for the Senate to offer and expressed her concern for the LCC
faculty. She suggested the Senate should
express that much thought has gone into this issue, and that it was very good
though, but that the Senate remained concerned for LCC faculty.
Finney, a faculty member
from LCC, suggested that if the goal of the Senate was to support the student,
faculty and staff voice of LCC the Senate could refer to the various polls and
resolutions produced by LCC, all of which indicate LCC’s wish to stay with
Kaalund suggested forwarding to the Board the
expedited Senate Minutes with a statement that the Senate is of divided opinion
and that no consensus can be reached. He said there was not enough time to obtain
the information desired by the Senate. Kaalund suggested providing Chair Reed with the Senate’s
lack of a majority opinion. The Chair said
he would endeavor to be fair-minded when reconstructing for Chair Reed the
various opinions presented and that he would forward a cover letter with Ms.
Scott’s Minutes.
Noonan said no division of
opinion exists. “We want it to be like
it is now and we can’t have that. We’d
like it to stay like it is.”
4. Winter
Intersession Proposal
The Chair requested the
Senate vote on this item so the Registrar’s Office could finalize the
calendar. He provided some background,
including the Provost’s initial discussion of the idea with the Senate Council,
the proposal itself and the subsequent follow-up meeting in early January. The Chair reported the item was on the floor
with a positive recommendation from the Senate Council.
The Provost provided a brief
overview of the proposal, saying about a dozen courses would be offered, some
of which would be experimental courses and some of which would be offered to
help students stay on progress to degrees.
He said the departments would suggest which courses to offer.
The Chair showed an example
calendar prepared by the Registrar’s Office.
The Provost noted assignments could be made during the holiday
break. He said the syllabi would be posted
on the web in advance so students would be aware of the expectations. Students would be limited to enrollment in
only one course.
Yates asked if the usual
number of students needed for a class to occur would hold. He also asked if the Winter Session would be
revenue neutral or if it would make money.
The Provost replied that he thinks it will make money because that is
what has occurred at other institutions, but said that at the very least it
must be revenue neutral.
Arthur said that the usual
Winter Sessions are presented in three consecutive weeks rather than having a
break in the middle. Greasley
said he knew of 32 schools offering the proposed schedule including such
notable institutions as Centre College, MIT, Ohio University, Oklahoma State,
Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Hartford, Maryland, Miami and Montana, to name
a few. He noted that some schools
offered even shorter sessions. The
Provost said he wanted to avoid moving the start and end dates of the Spring semester, which is partially why he preferred this
arrangement.
Grossman asked how this
proposal would impact faculty DOE’s and if courses
would be taught via overload assignment or if additional compensation would be
available. The Provost replied that some
payment would be made to the faculty for teaching the course, but added he could
foresee situations in which faculty and their chairs might negotiate in-load
assignments.
Michael asked for
clarification as to precisely what the Senate was being asked to approve. The Chair replied the Senate would vote on
the pilot proposal, the change in the calendar and the waiver of Senate Rule
5.2.1. Tagavi spoke in favor of the
proposal. Blackwell wondered if SACS
would object to the concentration of hours.
Griesley said SACS has no minimum time
limit.
Staben asked how the success
of this pilot would be evaluated. The
Chair replied that faculty would be asked to provide the method by which they
would evaluate the course when they submitted their proposal to teach a
course.
The Chair called for a
vote. The item passed without dissent.
Due to the lateness of the
hour, the meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted by Jeffrey
Dembo
Chair, University Senate Council
Prepared
by Rebecca Scott on