D R A K E U N I V E R S I T Y Minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting February 20, 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: Allen, Cairns, Clapham, Gillespie, Klugman, Lovell, McKnight, Phillips, Pomeroy, Rankin, Reed, A. Sanders, B. Sanders, Simpson, Spencer, Symonds, Wright, Dean Absent: Hunter, King, Parsa, Wright David The January minutes will be presented for consideration at the March 2002 meeting. President Maxwell was not in attendance due to Campaign Drake commitments. He sent his regrets. Report from Provost Troyer: President Maxwell is presently traveling doing fundraising in preparation for the finish of Campaign Drake. The technology fee dollars collected were greater than originally budgeted and the Deans Council is in the process of submitting proposals for use of these funds. The upgrade of Meredith room 101 will be funded although no time frame was offered for that effort. The director of the DULAP center has been hired. Although her duties begin during this summer, she will be on campus for a various meetings in April. The faculty transitional leave program revisions will not be available until late March. Report from President Phillips: There will be presentations from the administration concerning Campaign Drake and Drake’s budget. These may happen at a Senate meeting or in open campus forums. The Academic Charter revisions which were divided from the February 2001 Faculty Senate vote will come back to a later Senate meeting. The Executive Committee has begun to discuss the proposed Senate committee restructuring. There is a rough draft of the All University Curriculum and All University Tenure & Promotion Committees. Unfinished Business: Motion 02-7 was brought to the floor by Senators Allen and Spencer. Senator Spencer gave background comments regarding meeting held concerning wording changes since the last Senate presentation. Noting that during the October Senate meeting there was a great deal of concern about student privacy, the document has been reviewed by University Counsel. The objections circulated today, he continued, center around faculty freedoms and that interpretation he and Senator Allen disagree. Senator Allen explained the handout presented to Senators which was a sample of what the aggregate data would look like. Thirteen student records were presented separated into courses taken for their major, their general education and courses taken as electives. Clarifications were shared concerning a) if more than one person took the same course (the information would be listed more than once) b) whether any current undergraduate students were listed (none) and c) the roster chosen was for one year but all courses taken in several years were presented for the students on that roster. It was further noted that any University recognized group could be selected for study. The roster chosen was an athletic team. Senator Allen noted that in her current position on the Board of Governors Student Life Committee, she has begun to believe that recognized social groups could be used as study units. Senator Allen spoke of the desire to look at and look for patterns of faculty advising and faculty grading for a particular set of students. She emphasized that the intent is not to identify any one student or any one faculty person but to look for trends. Senator Clapham asked what would be the remedy, if a pattern were to be found. Senator Allen did not have prescribed remedy indicating that presenting this information publicly would be apart of the remedy. This data is neither new nor different than is what already available but is offered in a new format and input group. Senator Lovell had a concern about unforeseeable situations that may happen with external disclosure such as investigation of more than one group which would have a common student. The careful selection of more than one examination group might reveal a single student’s courses and maybe even their grades. He did not have an issue with internal disclosure. There was a discussion of faculty accountability when some data is available outside the University and how effective that data is by itself in producing direct action included such questions as:. does stating a course gpa give knowledge of the thoughtfulness and rigor of the course and the particular students in that course for a given semester and does the existence of the course gpas have been on reserve at Cowles Library for several years and has that brought about accountability to an individual faculty or a given department? Statements were made by several senators in favor of the motion and several against the motion. Senator Rankin suggested that more faculty be given the chance to see the sample report and more faculty discussion across colleges be engaged. Senator Simpson moved and Symonds seconded to table the motion with an open forum on the topic to be held this spring. Motion to table passed. Discussion Item: Guidelines for Awarding Academic Credit to the Center for Special and Professional Studies (CSPS) Offerings Jim Reynolds headed faculty group which helped write the proposed guidelines. Senators Reed and B Sanders were also on that committee. Conner Sanderson, the Director of the Center for Special and Professional Studies was present to answer any questions. Senator Spencer asked how the Curriculum vitae would be reviewed. Senator B Sanders indicated that would happen in the college/school as current part-time instructor reviews are handled. Senator Klugman asked if there would be follow-up consistent with curriculum in a department. Ms Sanderson indicated that each session includes an evaluation by the participants. This would be available to the academic unit. Provost Troyer indicated that in the third paragraph wording "Provost will retain the right to approve or disapprove" sounds like an override by the Provost of a particular unit’s curriculum committee. Is this what was wanted by the authoring body? The Faculty Senate agreed that that paragraph should be deleted. The CPSS was established for corporation development type programs and the credit wording dealt with in this document means graduate credit. It is meant to be offered in cooperation with the college/schools, not in competition. Not all programs offered by the CPSS offer credit. Discussion Item: Policy on Media in the Classroom The Senators received a handout of the newest draft of this policy. In order to protect the integrity of the learning process, avoid unnecessary disruption, and balance the instructor’s academic freedom with the students’ right to privacy at private university, Drake University has adopted the following policy. All media requests to enter classrooms must be approved by the course instructor who will inform the dean of the relevant college and the Marketing and Communications Office. If media are allowed in the classroom, then, prior to any taping or other recording, students should be advised they have the right to withhold their image and/or speech from recording, including the right to wait outside the classroom while the media are present with no grade penalty. President Phillips shared comments which had been received from Herb Strentz. The comments were: is it really needed? Or is what is needed a policy on classroom visitors? He saw the policy as a conflict to the current practice of seeking inclusion of the Des Moines community into Drake’s community. Mr. Strentz offered that the wording of the current records policy should be reviewed. Senator Klugman offered that the policy addresses when the media makes a request not when an instructor invites the media into the classroom. Senator Spencer expressed a concern about the last part of the sentence which would protect the student’s grading. Senator Brian Sanders shared a concern that this wording addressing taping and recording methods but may not include the print media. Senator Art Sanders expressed concern that other classroom visitors are not addressed in a policy and what he believed should prevail is the faculty being in charge of their classroom. Senator Allen doubted that a specific policy was needed. Provost Troyer said when instructors ask administrators about what they should do; Drake should have some statement to give the instructor about how they control of their classroom. It is an impression as to how Drake behaves; but not stated anywhere. There is a concern that a dean could say no to such a visit and this policy outlines who should be notified, not who is in charge. He continued that faculty need to have the responsibility for their classroom, following AAUP guidelines. Senator Clapham indicated he did not see a problem with the policy. Senator Art Sanders indicated that he has students who are reporting internships who are enrolled in his classes, so would he need to follow this policy for each class meeting? He doubted that he has total control of what notes persons are taking in his class. He also questioned why Marketing & Communications needed to be informed? Senator Sanders shared that the Marketing and Communications department has been helpful to him in the past but this policy obligates him to tell them of each visit or possible visit. Provost Troyer replied that Marketing and Communications is charged with keeping a record when media are in the classroom. The policy statement of informing the Dean is courteous and general information sharing. Senator Simpson believed there were two issues: the faculty control of the classroom and student rights in a private university setting. She expressed hope that a middle ground could be reached. Adjourned at 5:00pm Submitted by Secretary, Nancy Geiger