D R A K E U N I V E R S I T Y Minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting January 24, 2001 The regular meeting of the 2000-2001 Faculty Senate was called to order by President Lou Ann Simpson. The following Senators were present for all or part of the meeting: Bartschat, Cairns, Gillespie, Kleiner, Lovell, McCrickerd, Parsa, Phillips , Rankin, Reed, Sanders, Simpson, Symonds, Torgerson, Wright Absent: Allen, DeLaet, Pomeroy, Reynolds, Walker Minutes of the previous meetings in November and December were distributed and will be considered for approval at the February 2001 meeting. Remarks from President Maxwell The Program Review: Report of the President was made public approximately 10 days ago. President Maxwell hoped that faculty, staff and all interested persons would take the time to carefully review the introduction as well as the items pertaining to individual academic and administrative programs. He stated that there is much work yet to be done. The Provost has the bulk of the projects and task forces (19) delegated to his administration. President Maxwell indicated that he looks forward to Drake moving forward. Angela Voos, Ron Troyer and President Maxwell recently participated in a workshop at the annual meeting of Society of College and University Planners. He felt they were able to showcase what Drake has accomplished in the process of Program Review. There were many positive comments received towards the process and the personnel involved. President Maxwell commended Provost Troyer for his handling of the recent events concerning the 2.0 gpa participation policy. Remarks from Provost Troyer The Provost has had only a few volunteers for the various task forces named in the Program Review document. He will soon begin to recruit persons to serve on the various task forces and work groups. The Deans Council has begun addressing the sabbatical review process. There is currently a disparity between what is written in the Faculty Manual and the actual process being used in some units. The Provost announced that April 24th will be the Annual Spring Faculty/Staff Recognition Program. He hoped that general faculty attendance would be higher this year than in the past and this is a chance to honor and reward those who serve the University. He announced that some troubling data has come to light from three separate reports. This indicates some effort will need to be focused on improvements in the overlapping areas of graduation rates, student satisfaction and outcome based learning. The University wide four, five and six year graduation rates have declined in recent years. Sue Wright has released the compiled data of the recent Student Satisfaction Survey and there is a dismaying set of indicators concerning the upper division student’s dissatisfaction. Also there is a national report on outcomes and learning for first year students and upper division students. Concerning the 2.0 participation policy and the recent legal decision, Provost Troyer indicated this is not a case of one side winning. He stated that both sides lost and he was sad the University had been in this position. Senator Rankin asked for a status report concerning any faculty or staff who would be loosing their positions due to program review. Provost Troyer replied that Barbara Decker and legal staff have worked out severance packages for those involved. An outside company is being made available to these persons at the University’s expense and each person is being handled on an individual basis. For faculty positions, the University must wait until there is official Board of Trustee action and employment offers have been made through May 2002, even for non-tenured persons. The Deans have a February 15th deadline to have a plan submitted to close out programs. Senator Lovell asked for the administration to elaborate on why the University should not have been in the situation with the 2.0 participation policy. Provost Troyer replied that there is a serious issue of the review of a transcript from a junior college before admission and secondly what should be the role of academic support for athletes and other students. How does the institution address monitoring what students are doing and not interfere with the faculty or the student. Provost Troyer indicated that there would not be a solely academic support unit in the Athletic Department. Remarks from President Simpson The Academic Charter with changes in draft form was distributed. The goal is to present the Charter as one motion at the February meeting. President Simpson requested the Senators review the document and the cover memo. Unfinished Business: None presented New Business: Senator Reed moved and Symonds seconded motion 01-15: Students earning a second undergraduate degree need not satisfy the Drake Curriculum requirements. This policy applies to the student who has earned a Drake undergraduate degree prior to the implementation of the Drake curriculum as well as to the student who has earned an undergraduate degree from another accredited college or university Senator Reed, a member of the Educational Policies & Issues Committee (EPI) explained that the purpose of the motion was to clarify how the Drake Curriculum (DC) should be applied to a certain set of transfer students and provide for equity as to how the Drake Curriculum should be applied by the various schools/colleges. President Simpson and Senator Reed provided examples of how a student might need to take more than the 30 residence credits, because of the DC. Senator Sanders offered an example also of how a person with a bachelors from a more technical school could receive a Drake degree without perhaps meeting the current outcomes. Senator McCrickerd indicated a concern about the application of this being specific to the DC and should it not have a wider base. President Maxwell agreed that a Drake degree should mean something and that something includes the whole range of outcomes as described by the DC. It was noted that the General Education Committee (GEC) had supported the motion and submitted it to EPI for discussion. The motion failed with a show of hands vote. (4 in favor, 10 opposed, one abstention) The Senate continued with a discussion of how the incoming students wanting a second bachelors and their previously earned credits should be reviewed. The concern was to either differentiate between the various previous institutions by creating certain categories or perhaps separating the Drake graduate from the non-Drake graduate. Senator Torgerson indicated he did not see it as much different than evaluating any transfer students credits, on an individual basis. President Maxwell noted that this discussion might reveal a fundamental gap in our DC; the institution talks of outcomes but still measures the DC in credit hours. President Simpson will share with both the EPI and GEC chairs the sense of the senate on this issue. Senator Phillips moved and Parsa seconded motion 01-17: RPAC will continue to serve in an advisory capacity to the President for the remainder of the Spring 2001 term The question was asked if a person can resigned from RPAC. It was agreed that persons, faculty or staff have the right to resign at anytime from this committee or any other committee. President Maxwell offered that there are some major issues still in front the university and this group have a vast knowledge which can be of great service in an advisory capacity. He hopes that RPAC and Senate Executive Committee can help forge a long range planning group that will be good for the University. There are Program Review implementation issues which RPAC can assist with, also. Senator Symonds indicated that she and, she believed other members are willing to continue to serve on the committee. RPAC Chair Lon Larsen was announced as present and available for questions; none were raised. The motion passed. Senator Torgerson moved and McCrickerd seconded motion 01-18: The President of the Faculty Senate shall be elected by the faculty at large to serve a year as President-Elect and then a year as President of the Faculty Senate with full rights as a member of the Senate. The election process shall begin with faculty who are eligible to serve on the Faculty Senate being nominated (including self-nomination) for election. Faculty who accept the nomination and agree to have their names placed on the ballot will provide a brief statement stating their willingness to serve as President of the Senate and why. If a present member of the Faculty Senate is elected, that person’s position will be filled through normal procedures. The four years of consecutive service rule does not apply. A faculty member may serve as President only once in ten years. The President of the Faculty Senate will receive a one course reduction. After nominations are received, the traditional voting procedures will be used to reduce the final ballot to two candidates. The final ballot will consist of the two faculty members receiving the most votes. The Faculty member receiving the majority of votes cast on the final ballot shall be the next President-Elect and the President. Senator Torgerson indicated that this motion is not reflection on the current President, current Vice-President or former Presidents. He indicated he has consulted past President Dan Spencer on the topic and believes that the rationale speaks for itself. Senator Phillips indicated that there is a concern about whether or not a college/school with fewer faculty would have a disadvantage in the at-large elections. Senator Parsa indicated a concern about an unknown person leading the faculty. Upon proper motion the matter was tabled. The text of the motion will be electronically sent to all senators. The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.