skip to main content ISU bar University Faculty Senate Approved November 16, 2006 November 09, 2006 Minutes Indiana State University Faculty Senate 2005-06 GC#8 Present: W. Barratt, D. Collier, B. Corcoran, H. Chait, B. Frank (Senate Liaison), A. Gilberti, M. Haque, J. Kuhlman (Interim Graduate Dean), C. MacDonald, C. Mayer, L. O’Laughlin, L. Romero Absent: M. Boyer Ex Officio: S. Powers (Ed), T. Siefert (SOGS) Guests: Call to Order: C. MacDonald called the meeting to order at 9:02. Agenda was adopted by consensus. Minutes for 11.02.06 approved by consensus. Mayer moves approval; Gilberti seconds. Minutes approved unanimously [8-0-0] Unfinished/Ongoing Business Program Prioritization (timeline and final report distributed via email) Joint subcommittee of CAAC and GC put together a statement about the charge from Senate Executive Committee to address PP. Joint statement approves of work done, suggests that recommendations be acted upon. Final paragraph of statement addresses the form to be sent out to each Category IV program. This form sent to programs facing elimination, allows programs to agree with the elimination or show describe what is being done in response to the prospect of elimination. Others (Provost/Dean/Dept.) will be involved if there is some question or disagreement with elimination. CAAC and GC should not try to redo PP. Statement needs to be forwarded by Nov. 17. Programs facing elimination have only seen initial report. Consternation is expressed over the absence of communication from the PP Taskforce to programs facing elimination after such programs submitted their responses. PP Taskforce took into consideration the responses and made decisions without explaining such decisions to programs. No communication was sent back to the departments. There is some question about the appropriate person from whom feedback should come. But, there is general consensus that some response from the administration should have been or should be forthcoming rather than just incorporation of the departments’ responses into the final report. Discussion of the form to be sent to programs facing elimination. This form asks: what are the department’s plans? If programs don’t respond by Nov. 17, then they are tacitly agreeing to elimination. This form will allow for the collection of information, which will then be forwarded to the Senate Executive Committee. This form is trying to get information only; this is fast-track for programs that are ready to go. There is concern that the routing of the form might cause problems. It is recommended that the Chair and Dean sign this form to indicate that they have seen it. Discussion of GC role in process. Our role is not to look at the detailed overlapping of programs. However, GC should advocate for programs that are slated for elimination. We don’t approve or prevent elimination, but we can advocate programs that need to be looked at again. Ultimately, this is about courses (160-170 courses that will not be taught somewhere; these courses make up $2.5 million); elimination of programs suggests elimination of courses but not in every case. And this is where the GC can act as advocate. 90% of students are in 50% of programs; many programs end up being enrolled in small programs that risk being cut. Desire for advocacy is complicated because we will be looking at very limited amount of information; we have been asked to comment on process (narrative presented in CAAC/GC statement) and collect data to send on to Senate and Provost regarding programs that are in agreement with recommendations. There exists real concern in the GC that there is a rubber-stamp approval of the elimination of programs without full information. Also, there exists concern that graduate programs are being looked at in the same way as undergraduate programs. The GC should look at these programs in light of graduate education needs, which are distinct from undergraduate. The question remains as to how many programs are willing to be terminated. Many teaching programs with old standards. Chait moves approval of Joint Statement and Form; O’Laughlin seconds. Discussion of Form: There should also be an added check box for programs contesting their candidacy for elimination. Also, it may expedite things to have separate forms sent to Chair and Dean. Discussion of Joint Statement: it is recommended that PP Taskforce offers some response to those programs who have contested their elimination. Taskforce has only seen the responses; Provost said he will look at report—and there is some possibility of changes. To be added to the first paragraph: a statement that departments that have contested elimination have not received feedback from their rebuttals; the GC strongly urges that feedback be sent to them. Chait calls to question the revision of draft Joint Statement and Form. Documents are approved [5-0-3]. New Business PSY 568: there is a question about whether the new enrollment limits it will potentially exclude students; yes, this is possible because it is a graduate (MA) level course. Barratt moves to approve; Haque seconds. GC approves the motion [6-0-2]. HIST 596: there is a question about enrollment being capped. Discussion centers on the question of quality of instruction in classes of certain sizes. Concern is expressed that if such limits are generalized across the university we will have enrollment problems. Are these limits out of line with the university? 20 is the university average and economic breakpoint; if more than 25 sign up, a new section will be opened. A GC member is concerned with setting such a hypothetical limit. The response is that enrollment is based on the demands of the course. Barratt moves to approve; O’Laughlin seconds. GC approves the motion [6-0-2]. ENG 692 and 699: Barratt moves to approve; Mayer seconds. GC approves the motion [8-0-0]. Reports Chairperson Covered in meeting. Faculty Senate Liaison Pay stubs will be sent electronically. Consideration of doing away with printed schedule. We need a more user-friendly interface to enhance advising (PDF possible). Administrative (none) Graduate Student Representative Collier: Graduate student are concerned with library opening hours on weekends, especially Sunday. 12:00 would be helpful. College of Business has had various thefts on weekends and as a consequence the buildings are locked. Students in College of Business with offices can get keys to building. Romero: needs further graduate representatives from College of Technology and Nursing; at least one representative from each of the other colleges is present. Nov. 27 is the next Graduate Student Association meeting. Adjournment—10:15 am Respectfully submitted, Brendan Corcoran Secretary Last modified: March 03, 2009  Copyright © 2009 by Indiana State University.