|
D R A K E U
N I V E R S I T Y
Minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting
April 17, 2002
The regular meeting of the 2001-2002
Faculty Senate was called to order at 3:30 p.m. by President Charles Phillips. The
following senators were present for all or part of the meeting: Cairns, Gillespie,
Hunter, King, Klugman, Parsa, Phillips, Pomeroy, Rankin, Reed, A. Sanders, B. Sanders,
Simpson, Spencer, David Wright, Dean Wright,
Absent: Allen, Clapham, Lovell
The body moved into Executive Session to consider the nominees for Drake Medal and
Honorary Degrees.
Once back in regular session, the minutes of the March 2002 meeting were accepted
as presented.
Report of President Maxwell
Senator Spencer asked about the
status of Helmick Commons. The reply was that sod has been ordered and is expected
to be set yet this month.
Senator Hunter asked about the expected down time for the air conditioning tower
problem which has affected various buildings on the east side of campus. The reply
was that the broken part will need to be machined. There was a stated belief that
the month long down time allowed for contingency repair efforts and the problem will
in reality be fixed before the announced date.
Report from Provost Troyer
Senator Rankin expressed a concern
that the library serials budget has decreased. Provost Troyer indicated that he will
take this comment into consideration but many tough issues have to be critically
reviewed in the budgeting.
Report from President Phillips
Unfinished Business - none
presented
New Business
Senator A. Sanders moved and Parsa seconded Motion 02-20
To accept Guidelines for Awarding Academic Credit to the
Center for Special and Professional Studies (CSPS) Offerings
In order to maintain the integrity of academic credit at Drake, courses offered by
the CSPS that seek to award academic credit must provide the following for review
by the appropriate Department/College Curriculum Committees:
1. A syllabus with course description, course objectives, course content outline,
course requirements, and methods of assessment;
2. A description of how the combination of ìseat timeî and ìassignment
timeî will match the 15 clock hour = 1 credit hour paradigm that is used for
regularly scheduled courses;
3. A curriculum vitae (not a résumé) from each instructor which
validates her/his credentials and qualifications to teach the course; and
4. An annotated course calendar that denotes deadlines for completion of assignments.
These materials must be provided to the Department/College Curriculum Committees
and approved prior to solicitation of student interest in the course. A minimum of
four weeks prior to the marketing of any course to the general public is offered
as a guideline.
If the course to be approved is scheduled as a summer offering, the respective Curriculum
Committees must receive the above materials no later than April 15th nor the Monday
closest to April 15th should that date fall on a weekend day.
If an opportunity arises for a unique course to be offered by the CSPS during the
summer months when the respective Departmental/College Curriculum Committees are
not in session, then the Provost will convene a panel of faculty that have expertise
in the content area to evaluate the materials and to make a recommendation for the
awarding of academic credit.
With no discussion the motion carried on a voice vote.
The Senate then opened a general discussion on the draft motion on Committee Reorganization.
The motion is an expected agenda item for the May 2002 meeting. President Phillips
reminded the body that this draft came out of the January 2002 Senate meetingís
discussion of the entire committee structure. This draft was written by the Executive
Council and sent to all Faculty Senators, Deanís Council, Council of Assistant
and Associate Deans, and the Presidentís Cabinet for comment.
President Phillips presented a summary of the set of comments that he had received
electronically. These comments addressed concerns of the collapsing of the committees
rather than expanding the role of some of the other groups and whether the role of
the University Curriculum Committee (UCC) is going to have an undue role of control
over the college/schoolís individual curriculum bodies.
Senator A. Sanders indicated that he was originally in favor of the UCC taking over
the role of Drake Curriculum (DC) Committee, but he is no longer sure that is appropriate.
The work of the DC may be complex enough for a unit by itself. The Outcomes Committee
(OC) could still be dissolved into the DC. Senator Sanders stated he was not clear
yet what the University wanted the UCC to handle.
Senator Simpson offered that the DC could be a model for the UCC. She sees value
in one committee addressing all of these issues as she has known of times when the
Educational Policies & Issues (EPI) Committee struggled with the lack of a University
wide group to address curricular questions.
President Phillips asked the body whether the draft motion should be kept for a motion
in May 2002. Senator A. Sanders asked that persons who might vote against the motion
at this time express what their basis for discontent, so that those concerns can
be addressed.
Senator McKnight offered that the proposed UCC seemed to have a lot of power in their
charge and he is concerned whenever he sees one group with many responsibilities.
Senator Simpson offered that from her experience, that is not a concern. The UCC
will be more of a consolidation and cooperation committee.
Senator Hunter was in favor of a broad based group to review cross-unit matters but
not to dictate to the individual college/schools curriculum offerings. He continued
by reminding the body that the more divided up into smaller groups a body is; the
less power any one group has. Senator Parsa stated his view was that generally the
faculty will not like the motion. There is the continued concern that some group
outside the college/school will have some say in the college/schoolís curriculum.
Senator Gillespie reminded the Senate that there are committees now without power
and that is not working. She was in favor of a set of fewer committees that really
did proceed and get some actions accomplished.
Senator Hunter believed that his schoolís curriculum committee did need to
continue to decide what was taught in the school but he did not see language in this
motion which would take control from his school, rather added possibilities of collaboration.
Senator David Wright offered that the UCC would act as a clearinghouse of communication
which is why he believed the DC has worked so well this year. He stated that he considers
this motion the single best piece of legislation to come before Senate this year.
President Maxwell reminded the body that from Review & Planning Advisory Council
(RPAC) discussions there was never a look at control or power; but a desire for a
level of discourse and questioning that was not happening at this University currently.
Senator Reed offered that as the Senators share their various reactions to the motion,
perhaps it is the title of the UCC which causes undue concern. She offered that perhaps
the motion should list more detail duties which the consolidated committee is expected
to do.
David Skidmore, Director of the Drake Curriculum, was invited to comment. He stated
that he was unclear on how the structure and access would be for the DC Director
to this group. He now has direct access to a hard working group. He hopes to begin
work on an assessment of the DC and the senior capstone courses. These are just two
issues which he would be worried about since the DC would become simply one of several
items which the UCC would be addressing. The Outcomes Committee or some group will
need to continue with on going review of AOI course proposals. His main issue was
the relationship of the DC Director to the UCC. He would prefer to keep the DC committee
distinct. If this does not happen, he requested to have clearer wording as to the
role of the DC Director. Senator Klugman reminded the group that there is flexibility
to have task oriented committees which would complete a task and dissolve. He noted
that a small Advisory DC Board might be of use to the program and its director.
President Phillips reviewed what he believed to be the concerns about this motion
as
1) clarify the charge,
2) what certain activities would fall to UCC from former committee charges
3) what about the DC being a part of the UCC or leave as a separate body
and 4) if the DC is left as a part of the UCC, then spell out the DC Directorís
role
Senator Simpson stated that communication and coordination are worthy reasons to
take this bold step. Senator Spencer noted that the Drake Curriculum Director has
had the flexibility for bouncing ideas and pulling the group together as was needed.
He wondered if that access would be maintained. Senator Cairns noted that the Honors
Program is not mentioned and should it be addressed. Senator Spencer offered that
this motion does have some appeal to him as the motion eliminates five committees.
This is a significant first step even though there are some questions.
President Phillips plans to send the next draft to all faculty & staff.
Senator Cairns reminded the body that the Faculty Senate should be considered for
review, also.
Vice President Vicky Payseur was present and made a University budget presentation.
She distributed two handouts which would be presented to the Board of Trustees this
weekend titled Fiscal Year 02 Budget Status at Feb 28, 2002 and Finances at a glance
for the Board of Trustees. She noted that there is the effort to get the budget and
audited financial statements in line with the new GAAP format. The key items to note
are the in the FY02 budget & 3rd quarter columns. She offered caution concerning
the surplus at the end of the 3rd quarter as most of the revenue has been collected
for this year but there are three months of expenses yet to be paid.
Senator Spencer asked what the target draw down from the endowment would be for use
for operation expenses. Ms Payseur replied that the FY98 percentage was 11% and the
movement is towards a 5% usage in FY06.
Ms. Payseur referenced the five year budget model emphasizing that a very conservative
set of numbers were used in the model. That is, very conservative rates of increase
for the discount, tuition, enrollments and salaries. There is accommodation of the
Noel Levitt plan which manages the discount rate and income yield from tuition.
With proper motion and second the assembly voted to suspend the rules and continue
the meeting past five oíclock.
Many of the original projections made during the Spring 2001 semester have been adjusted
due to September 11, 2001 considerations. Both, Ms Payseur and President Maxwell
noted the salary increase projections were used at 2%, but stressed that these are
very conservative and expected to be higher. The effect of Campaign Drake has also
been placed on the five year budget very conservatively.
Senator Spencer indicated he appreciated Vice President Payseurís efforts
in preparing and presenting todayís discussion item. Provost Troyer repeated
the earlier statement that the five year budget has been built on quite conservative
assumptions and projections. President Maxwell repeated an earlier stated position
that he and all of central administration are concerned with the salary percentages
which exist in this budget and have been presented to faculty and staff in recent
years
Senator Simpson moved and Gillespie seconded motion 02ó21
Move to Strike: "and university-wide planning and budgeting."
from Article XIV of the Academic Charter.
Senator Simpson noted the Charter language was not representative of the Provostís
budget responsibilities. The Vice President of Business and Finance is charged with
University wide budgeting. Procedurally, the motion will be addressed in May 2002.
The agenda item from EPI concerning athletic practice times will be held over to
May 2002 meeting
The meeting adjourned at 5:10pm
Submitted by Secretary, Nancy Geiger