There were 40 of 40 senators present, please see Appendix A for a roster of attendees.
II. Approval of Minutes
March 9 Senate Meeting
Approved: with the additions of James Todesca and Catherine Gilbert as present at the meeting.
a. President Hampton states that employment contracts for coming academic year will include furlough language. Senator McGrath queries whether the system is responsible for the language only or the actual administration of furloughs as well. Dr. Whitford responds that the language is system mandated, the management will be relegated to university Presidents.
Upon questioning, we do not know if this change to contracts is either permanent or being inflicted on all state employees. Senator White requests clarification with regard to Senator McGrath’s original query. Dr. Whitford states that she cannot be sure, but suspects that any furlough implementation will be at the discretion of the university President, as necessary.
b. President Hampton introduces debate time limit of 2 minutes per person, for this meeting. Senator Simmons suggests postponing debate on given issues as opposed to limiting time. Parliamentarian Thomas cites Robert’s Rules of Order, indicating that time limits are acceptable. President Hampton details he will call another meeting if necessary.
Senators White and Todesca express support for Senator Simmons’ proposal to table the debate.
Senator Andrews asks for clarification regarding limit. Clarification: each speaker gets 2 minutes at a turn, not 2 minutes total.
Motion to limit debate time: approved (26 for, 11 against).
IV. Old Business
a. Bylaws second readings
Graduate Affairs Committee (App B)
Chair Hendrix states that the committee wants the language of the bylaws to revert back to there being 7 members of subcommittees, as opposed to 5, and that membership is limited to faculty at either the Associate or Full Graduate level. The committee rationale concerns the College of Education, and the insurance of adequate representation as well as with regard to matters of quorum.
A friendly amendment is passed to re-instate the language.
Bylaws are approved.
b. Electronic Evaluation (eFACE) Recommendation (App C)
Discussion topics included: changes to evaluation content (will not change), whether or not adjusting the frequency of evaluations had been considered (yes), the return rate of electronic evaluations (lower- yet content statistically comparable to print), electronic delivery as mandatory method (illegal), and particulars of electronic method and delivery (under consideration). Faculty is still permitted to perform their own internal survey as well.
Additional discussion regarded the cost of the paper vs. electronic method; specifically, the reported cost of the paper form, $60,000 to $80,000, is called into question. Dr. Whitford reports that Andy Clark states the forms alone are $20,000.
From Senator Scott:
For those concerned about eFace, please visit www.theideacenter.org to learn about a potentially new and perhaps improved way to obtain meaningful course evaluations.
Motion to adopt recommendation: approved (21 for, 15 against).
c. Part Time Faculty Recommendation (App D)
Senator White queries regarding the recommended departmental coordinators of part-time faculty. Specifically, whether any release time would be allocated for any faculty who take this role on. Chair Erney responds that the committee has considered making the position part of APAR service; however the committee cannot make official provisions. Senator Skidmore-Hess suggests the faculty handbook articulates the department head’s responsibility for supervising part time faculty STOP he part time faculty who feel disconnected from faculty life. This could be attributed in part to both their teaching schedules and the time they spend on campus.
Motion to adopt recommendation: approved (34 for, 3 abstentions).
V. New Business
a. Elections Committee Report
Chair Scott reported that the position of Senate Vice President was won by Dr. Kathryn Craven (66% of vote) and the position of Senate Secretary by Jewell Anderson (69% of vote). Additionally, Suzy Carpenter will be joining the Constitution and Bylaws Committee, Beth Childress the Committee on Committees, and Hans Georg-Erney and AndiBeth Mincer will be added to the Elections Committee roster.
The final slate of committee memberships should be out by April 30.
b. Standing Committee Year End Reports
i. Academic Standards (App E)
ii. Educational Technology (App F)
iii. Faculty Development
iv. Faculty Welfare (App G)
v. Graduate Affairs Committee (App H)
vi. Honors Advisory (App I)
viii. Interdisciplinary (App J)
ix. Library (App K)
x. Planning, Budget, Facilities (App L)
xi. Research and Scholarship
xii. Student Success (App M)
Read, as a block, into the Minutes.
VI. Approval of Graduation Candidates (App N)
VII. University Curriculum Committee (App O)
Approved on a section by section basis.
Motion to approve Section I: accepted.
To be approved on a course by course basis.
Senator Simmons moves to table this item.
Several senators support the motion to table, and present the following rationale:
1. we cannot be sure what the USG is going to dictate with regard to the core curriculum
2. the proposed course should be filtered through the Interdisciplinary Studies Committee
3. the proposed course overlaps content with extant LLP courses (Ethics 2000)
4. the course catalog designates Area F as the area for major specific courses
Explores the interaction among ethical, philosophical and educational theories. Examines legislative actions that have shaped public educational policy in the United States. Explains why school aged children in the United States are guaranteed a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) regardless of race, creed, color, religion, social station, gender, or ability.
HLPR 2020Health Care Ethics
Interdisciplinary examination of the relation between ethical theory and moral practice in health care.
Duplicates Ethics 2000
Ethics 2000: Interdisciplinary Ethics and Values (from the course description).
An interdisciplinary examination of the relation between ethical theory and moral practice in specific areas of our society... Ethics 2000 satisfies the interdisciplinary needs of the Core Area B by addressing ethical concerns in specific disciplines while maintaining a general ethics education character.
Do the sponsors of HLPR 2020 and EDUC 2000 believe that Ethics 2000 failing to satisfy a core area B need? If so, how?
HLPR 2020 and EDUC 2000 may be too discipline specific for the core.
Insofar as the courses then attempt to distinguish themselves from Ethics 2000 by focusing on discipline specific material, they appear better suited to the Education/Health Care curriculum, not the core curriculum.
It seems reasonable to ask, would these courses have general appeal (core curriculum courses), or would they be of interest primarily to the education/health care professions majors?
Conclusion: Given the availability of Ethics 2000, which can simultaneously accommodate the interdisciplinary and discipline specific goals of HLPR 2020 and EDUC 2000 while remaining thoroughly aligned with the general educational principles of the core curriculum, and the likelihood of a core revision in the near future, we recommend the senate table these courses until we take up the question of the entire core area B, at which time a discussion of the area’s mission may be debated.
Observation on Ethics 2000
Note the diversity of departments represented, and the inclusion of faculty in Education.
Note that there is plenty of room for more faculty from the AASU departments. We are regularly forced to employ adjunct faculty when we cannot find full-time faculty to staff the class. We would always prefer to have full-time faculty.
ETHICS 2000 STAFFING FROM 2005-2009__________________________Spring 2009
Jack Simmons – LLP – Ethical Theory
Bill Dawers – LLP – journalism
Myron Fields – adjunct - religion
Mike Mahan/Marylin Hutchinson –Education – education
HLPR 2020 and EDUC 2000 will also make Ethics 2000 harder to staff.
Erik Nordenhaug, Jack Simmons and David Wheeler struggle to find faculty to teach Ethics 2000. In particular we have sought faculty from Education and Health Professions.
Erik Nordenhaug and I would welcome more participation from Education and Health Professions in Ethics 2000.
If those departments produce courses, this will further reduce the number of faculty available to staff Ethics 2000.
Loosing Ethics 2000 (130 students per semester) will greatly reduce the availability of Ethics classes in core area B to students, even with the addition of HLPR 2020 and EDUC 2000.
From Dr. Erik Nordenhaug, College of Liberal Arts:
I support the recommendation/motion to table the course additions of EDUC 2000 Ethics and Values in Public Education and HLPR 2020 Health Care Ethics. Two of my reasons are the following:
1. The term “ethics” designates a specific academic field of study which has moral theory as its subject matter in much the same way that biology has life as its subject matter. Study of these moral theories and the philosophical arguments for them is the primary content of any ethics course. The proliferation of Ethics courses in area B1 that now focus primarily on discussion of “moral issues and dilemmas” in specific fields is NOT the primary focus of what is meant by the academic field called “Ethics”. Because it appears now that departments all over the campus are qualified to teach the academic field called “ethics”, I am left to conclude that either (a) faculty from all over the campus are well trained in ethical theory (and they all have 18 graduate credit hours in the field) or (b) that the majority of faculty (and most certainly students) have come to think of “ethics” as something radically different than what it is—namely the study of ethical theories and the philosophical foundations for such theories. Not even “APPLIED ETHICS” can occur until one first knows what ethical theories are and the arguments supporting them. My reason for tabling and for wanting further examination of CORE AREA B1 is that WE THE FACULTY APPEAR TO BE REINFORCING THE CULTURAL (AND CERTAINLY STUDENT) PERCEPTION THAT “ETHICS” IS PRIMARILY A SUBJECTIVE AND RELATIVE TERM THAT AMOUNTS TO SIMPLY DISCUSSING MORAL ISSUES AND DILEMMAS THAT OCCUR WITHIN SPECIFIC DISCIPLINES. THE TERM “ETHICS” IS BECOMING A BANDWAGON TERM THAT LOOKS GOOD IN COURSE TITLES AND IS PLEASING TO
OUR CULTURE WHICH APPEARS TO THINK THE TEACHING OF ETHICS ACTUALLY MAKES PEOPLE ETHICAL, WHICH IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF ETHICS ANY MORE THAN THE TEACHING OF BIOLOGY ACTUALLY MAKES PEOPLE BIOLOGICAL. We are not serving the academic discipline of ethics or our students by suggesting to them that the term “ethics” primarily means the discussion of moral issues and dilemmas within individual professional academic fields where frequently professional standards, policies, codes, rules, regulations, and even law are being taught as the final arbiter of what “ethics” is. The teaching of ethics is not reducible to teaching students how to follow rules, regulations, policies, standards, codes, or the law. These approaches misconstrue the nature of ethics and the all too simple course descriptions, rationales, and sample syllabi which are passing through the university curriculum committee do not, without further review, ameliorate my fear and concern that the objective meaning of the word “ethics” as an academic discipline is becoming so diluted as to be meaningless.
2. My second reason in favor of tabling these course additions is that ACCORDING TO APPENDIX J SECTION M (page 18 of your current agenda), the Interdisciplinary Studies Committee has been rethinking its mission and has the currently proposed charge of “encouraging, promoting, and coordinating interdisciplinary studies at Armstrong Atlantic State University”. As stated in the duties there “The committee will serve as an advisory group that will monitor and advocate for the development and effectiveness of interdisciplinary courses and programs.”
I propose tabling these two course additions until this Interdisciplinary Committee has performed its stated duty to monitor development and effectiveness in CORE AREA B1 ETHICS COURSES which are OBVIOUSLY INTERDISCIPLINARY and spreading like cultural jargon often does—without foundation in the academic disciplines from which such bandwagon jargon springs.
From Dr. Joyce Bergin, College of Education:
From the Board of Regents Academic Affairs Handbook, Section 2.04.01:
General Education in the University System of Georgia
From the origins of intellectual study to the present, general education has been a key to a fulfilling life of self-knowledge, self-reflection, critical awareness, and lifelong learning. General education has traditionally focused on oral and written communication, quantitative reasoning and mathematics, studies in culture and society, scientific reasoning, and aesthetic appreciation. Today, general education also assists students in their understanding of technology, information literacy, diversity, and global awareness. In meeting all of these needs, general education provides college students with their best opportunity to experience the breadth of human knowledge and the ways that knowledge in various disciplines is interrelated.
In the University System of Georgia, general education programs consist of a group of courses known as the Core Curriculum as well as other courses and co-curricular experiences specific to each institution. The attainment of general education learning outcomes prepares responsible, reflective citizens who adapt constructively to change. General education programs impart knowledge, values, skills, and behaviors related to critical thinking and logical problem-solving. General education includes opportunities for interdisciplinary learning and experiences that increase intellectual curiosity, providing the basis for advanced study in the variety of fields offered by today's colleges and universities.
Vote to call the question on tabling: approved.
Motion to table: denied (14 for, 21 against).
Discussion remains on the floor.
Vote to call the question on the motion to approve the course: approved (22 for, 4 against).
Motion to accept courses: approved (17 for, 13 against).
Called meeting, Apr 24th.
Appendix A Senators present Ex-Officio members present
Whitford, Ellen – VPAA
Murphy, Dennis – Assoc. VP
Wachholz, Patricia – Dean, COE
Bergin, Joyce – Asst. Dean, COE
Conroy, Shelley – Dean, COHP
Finlay, Mark – Interim Dean, COLA
Howells, Beth – Asst. Dean, COLA
Shields, George – Dean, COST
Jodis, Steve – Asst. Dean, COST
Hendrix, Christopher – Chair, Grad Aff. Com.
Appendix B Graduate Affairs Committee
The Graduate Affairs Committee, serving as the official representative of the Graduate Faculty, will exercise jurisdiction over all matters related to graduate-level programming at Armstrong Atlantic State University.
The committee will:
act on behalf of the Graduate Faculty except as specified elsewhere in the Bylaws;
develop, review, and keep current all polices and procedures affecting graduate-level recruitment, admissions, progression through programs, retention, and graduation;
approve the list of graduate students for fall and spring commencements;
receive reports from the Graduate Student Coordinating Council;
establish and maintain the following subcommittees, and receive and act upon their recommendations:
report to the Senate regarding all matters related to graduate school programming;
Regularly scheduled meetings will convene during fall and spring semesters at least once per month from August through April. Special meetings may be called by the Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, or the Chair of the committee in consultation with the membership.
Upon approval of the minutes from each meeting, the committee will report its actions to the Senate, including all actions originating from its various subcommittees.
The committee will be composed of one graduate faculty member with associate or full graduate faculty status from each of the following graduate programs: early childhood education, middle grades and secondary education, adult education, special education, communication sciences and disorders, health services administration, public health, sports medicine, nursing, physical therapy, criminal justice, history, liberal and professional studies, and computer science.
In addition, two additional at-large member will be included from disciplines not
otherwise represented on this committee. The chief officer of the School of
Graduate Studies, Academic Deans (or their designees), and the Advisor to the
Graduate Student Coordinating Council serve as ex-officio, non-voting members
of the committee.
Graduate Faculty Status Subcommittee Charge: The Graduate Faculty Status Subcommittee will make recommendations to the Graduate Affairs Committee regarding the granting of graduate faculty status.
Duties: The subcommittee will review and submit recommendations concerning proposals for categories of graduate faculty status, appointment criteria in each category, procedures whereby graduate faculty applications are reviewed by the subcommittee, and graduate faculty applications submitted in accordance with adopted policies and procedures.
Meetings: This subcommittee will meet monthly (August through April) unless otherwise specified or required.
Reports: All subcommittee recommendations are reported to the Graduate Affairs Committee for approval.
Membership: The subcommittee will be composed of seven members as approved by the Graduate Affairs Committee, all members will have associate or full graduate faculty status. A chair of this subcommittee will be determined at the first Graduate Affairs Committee meeting of the academic year.
Graduate Student Appeals Subcommittee Charge: The Graduate Student Appeals Subcommittee will make recommendations to the Graduate Affairs Committee involving graduate student academic appeals issues.
Duties: The subcommittee will develop and submit recommendations to the Graduate Affairs Committee concerning policies and procedures for graduate student appeals. The subcommittee will supervise the formal adjudication of any such appeals, and may serve in an advisory capacity to the Academic Standards Committee of the Faculty Senate.
Meetings: As needed or requested by the Chair of Graduate Affairs Committee
Reports: All subcommittee recommendations are reported to the Graduate Affairs Committee.
Membership: The subcommittee will be composed of seven members as approved by the Graduate Affairs Committee, members will have associate or full graduate faculty status. A chair of this subcommittee will be determined at the first Graduate Affairs Committee meeting of the academic year.
Graduate Curriculum Subcommittee Charge: The Graduate Curriculum Subcommittee will make recommendations to the Graduate Affairs Committee involving graduate curricula issues
Duties: The subcommittee will make recommendations concerning general curricular policies and procedures, consider all proposals for new graduate degrees, programs, majors, and courses, and review all actions of college and university curriculum committees pertinent to graduate education.
Meetings: This subcommittee will meet monthly (August through April) unless otherwise specified or required.
Reports: All subcommittee recommendations are reported to the Graduate Affairs Committee for approval.
Membership: The subcommittee will be composed of seven members as approved by the Graduate Affairs Committee, members will have associate or full graduate faculty status. Subcommittee membership will be structured as follows: one member from the College of Health Professions, one member from the College of Liberal Arts, one member from the College of Science and Technology, one member from the College of Education, and one at-large member. A chair of this subcommittee will be determined at the first Graduate Affairs Committee meeting of the academic year.
Appendix C The members of the Faculty Welfare Committee make the following recommendation concerning eFACE (electronic Faculty Evaluation).
The Committee recommends the adoption of eFACE with reservations. The committee is concerned about the lower student response rates seen in the pilot run of eFACE, and recommends we consider following the Gainesville State College model and use a survey add-on to Banner in which the students are asked to complete an anonymous evaluation before they can view their grades. Students can choose to opt out of the evaluation and still see their grades, but this method resulted in a 72% completion rate during the fall of 2008. Another concern is the disconnect that may occur between the student and class if the evaluation does not occur during the class period. With these reservations noted, the committee acknowledges the benefits of switching to eFACE. First, the eFACE pilot study committee estimated that $25 to $30 thousand dollars per year is spent to operate FACE as it currently exists (for forms and personnel time cost), offering a potentially large savings in money and time by switching to eFACE. Second, eFACE affords increased security of the forms and rapid data return. Currently, many people handle the forms (including students) and the data normally doesn’t get returned to the faculty member before the start of the next semester; automating the process would alleviate both of these concerns. This, in combination with the lack of statistical difference in the evaluations faculty received on eFACE vs. FACE in the pilot study, leads the committee to recommend the adoption of eFACE. The committee recommends coordination with CIS for development of a timeline for phasing in of eFACE. The committee recommends considering using the model of Gainesville State College (Highest response rate of schools surveyed), and considering the formation of an eFACE ad hoc committee.
Appendix D Faculty Welfare Committee
Recommendations Regarding Part-Time Faculty ÿ Have a Full-Time Faculty designee from each academic department serve as the Part-Time Faculty Coordinator/Mentor for their Department.
This faculty designee would help to provide the Part-Time Faculty in their department with both the Departmental & University information & tools needed to do their job.
An evening point of contact person for Part-Timers questions would also be helpful .
ÿ Ask all academic departments to ensure Part-Time Faculty have access to the same information & tools as Full-Time F aculty
Examples of needs include:
Provide an Evening CIS Tech nical Support contact
Access to Departmental AV equipment after hours. Provide key to storage rooms
Functional office spaces with updated, networked computers & phone access
ÿ Creation of a Part-Time Faculty Webpage
Part-Time Faculty webpage should contain critical information for Part-Timer faculty teaching needs / responsibilities, as well as include a compilation of informational resources and links to campus-wide resources.
Include specific contact information for Enrollment Services staff with areas of responsibility.
A prominent link to this page will be critical so that Part-Time Faculty may find it. One suggestion would be to place under the AASU homepage “Faculty/Staff” links.
ÿ Promote a University “Perks Package” for Part-Time Faculty to encourage them to spend time on campus and foster a sense of belonging.
Such a package could include:
Free Faculty/Staff Parking Pass
University Faculty ID Card provides access to many benefits, such as:
Art, Music, Theatre events
Free admission to University athletic events
Library check-out privileges & access to wealth of online resources
Membership to Recreation Center at Faculty/Staff rate
Appendix E End of Year Report: Academic Standards Committee
The Academic Standards Committee met five times throughout the past academic year. Two of those meetings were for determining appeals and three meetings dealt with bylaw revisions. The committee voted on a total of 70 appeals with the following breakdown: 50 for admission. 20 for readmission. Of the 50 admits, 8 were admitted without restriction, 22 were denied admission, and 20 were granted limited admission. Of the 20 readmits, 2 were granted readmission, 16 were denied readmission, and 2 were granted limited readmission. The bylaws were revised to create to subcommittees: the Academic Appeals sub-committee, and the Student Conduct Subcommittee. There will be student representation on the Student Conduct Subcommittee, but not the Academic Appeals Subcommittee. The University Appeals Officer will be permanent chair, ex-officio. There are two more meeting scheduled for the semester: one in April, and one on June 1st.
Appendix F Spring 2009 Report from the Educational Technology Committee
Linda Wright, Chair
Nancy Luke, Secretary
Jane Barnard, Lei He, Richard Horah, Wayne Johnson, Nancy Luke, Wendy Marshall, and Linda Wright
This committee met Fall: 8/13/08, 9/17/08, 11/21/08; Spring: 2/16/09
The Bylaws for this new Senate Committee were approved by the Senate. This will require an adjustment to the membership of the committee to include 2 student members to the subcommittee on Student Technology Voice
We have begun to implement our charge, by communicating with AASU committees with responsibilities for the technology available at AASU. The ETC has begun to gather information on:
access to educational technology for students and faculty in classrooms, computer labs, library and online.
university policies governing the use of technology and changes in the technology infrastructure of the University, in collaboration with the Committee on Information Technology;
student and faculty development use of technology tools, specifically the changeover occurring in the Faculty Development Committee and Teaching and Learning Center
the current list of approved online courses, and current policies and procedures for online and web-enhanced programs and courses, from the ACDOL committee
An online space in the AASU domain be granted for a web page to contain links to the whole spectrum of educational technology resources at AASU. This is not intended to replace existing resources, but to add a comprehensive site with links to CIS, ACDOL, CIT, and Faculty Development committees, and the Online Teaching Community, Student Services, Help Desk, and Teaching and Learning Center activities and resources. Reciprocal links from these sites will also be requested.
A separate wiki or blog has been proposed to house specific reports on educational technology tools for use in classes. This site would be developed by this committee in conjunction with interested students and faculty.
If a new residency requirement is implemented at AASU, this should specifically exclude students enrolled in the online programs. In addition, resident students must not be excluded from taking online classes.
Linda Wright, Ph.D.
Faculty Welfare Committee Report 2008-2009
Chair: Hans-Georg Erney
Secretary: Rochelle Lee
Committee Members: Maya Clark, Alexander Collier, Elizabeth Crawford, Ann Fuller, John Jensen (Senator), Clifford Padgett, Regina Rahimi
The Faculty Welfare Committee (henceforth abbreviated to FWC) met seven times in the 2008-2009 academic year. Our primary goals were 1) revising the bylaws for the newly enlarged committee, 2) working towards child care at AASU, and 3) representing the faculty’s interests during the current budgetary crisis. For those interested in a more detailed record of the committee’s work, minutes of individual meetings are available online at http://facultysenate.armstrong.edu/minutes/faculty_welfare_committee.html As part of our university’s transition to a Faculty Senate, the FWC has absorbed both the Faculty Activities Committee and the Evaluation Committee. The new FWC revised the bylaws suggested by the old committee in an attempt to prevent its expanded purview from resulting in an unwieldy and impractical body. The new bylaws were further revised at the suggestion of the Senate Bylaws Committee. They are available online at http://facultysenate.armstrong.edu/committees/faculty_welfare_bylaws.html Like many people before, this year’s FWC decided to tackle the perennial issue of child care at AASU. Building on previous surveys, original research, and plain good sense, the committee determined that there exists a high demand for affordable on-campus child care among faculty, staff, and students, and that the absence thereof is somewhat of an embarrassment to this institution, especially in comparison with similar schools. Near the end of this academic year, we are cautiously optimistic about starting an early education pilot program with the help of a grant from the U.S. Department of Education grant in the foreseeable future. (An earlier report on the child care issue is available online at http://facultysenate.armstrong.edu/minutes/fwc/FWC_Child_Care_Summary_11-17-08.doc Other FWC activities during 08-09 include a resolution urging the Teachers Retirement System Board against changing their policy regarding Cost of Living Annual Increases (see App. G of the November 10, 2008 Faculty Senate minutes), a recommendation concerning the interests of part-time faculty, a continuation of last year’s salary study, and a recommendation concerning electronic Faculty and Course Evaluations (FACE). Many of these issues will likely continue to occupy the attention of the FWC as well as the Senate. Indeed, it stands to reason that this committee’s importance will increase during a time when budgetary pressures make vigilance about the faculty’s interests more necessary than ever.
Suggested Directions for 2009-2010
1) Continue efforts to provide child care for members of the AASU community.
2) Continue FACE review .
3) Continue salary study .
Graduate Affairs Committee Report–2008-2009
Necessarily in this first year operating under the university’s new governance system, many of the GAC’s activities in 2008-2009 have dealt with figuring out how to function in its new role as a semi-autonomous committee and its relationship to the Faculty Senate. Not surprisingly, therefore, much of the committee’s work focused on reviewing its bylaws from its days as the Graduate Council. Ultimately, it chose to scrap those bylaws in favor of an entirely new document. In this effort, certain details remain to be worked out, but that work should be completed by the end of the spring term. Similarly, questions about the best way for the GAC’s subcommittees to function will also be worked out after completing this transitional year.
In addition to its normal activities overseeing the School of Graduate Studies (in terms of curriculum, programs, Graduate Faculty status, etc., the GAC spent the academic year focused on reviewing and making recommendations on how to improve graduate admission procedures. The GAC devoted a great deal of time working with Jill Bell, Director of Graduate Enrollment Services, Russell Watjen, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, and members of the ad hoc Graduate Review Group (chaired by Joe Weaver) discussing current admission policies and ways of better using out-of-state tuition waivers as recruiting tools. This work will continue next year. Other topics needing to be addressed next year include a discussion of the role and status of members of the Graduate Faculty and the leadership structure of the School of Graduate Studies.
Minutes of the GAC meetings can be found on the committee’s web page at http://gs.armstrong.edu/graduateaffairscommittee.html. Respectfully submitted,
Christopher E. Hendricks
April 6, 2009
Communicative Disorders–Donna Brooks
Computer Science–Ray Hashemi
Criminal Justice–Becky da Cruz, Vice Chair
Adult Education–Patricia Coberly
Early Education–Elizabeth Crawford
Middle Grades Education–Patrick Thomas
Curriculum and Instruction–Ed Strauser
Health Services Administration–Joey Crosby
History–Christopher Hendricks, Chair
Liberal And Professional Studies–John Kraft
Physical Therapy–Anne Thompson
Public Health–Michael Mink
Sports Medicine–Bob Lefavi
Jose da Cruz
Nonvoting, Ex Officio Members:
Annual Report, 2009 Academic Year
Honors Advisory Committee Members:
Chris Baker — Senator
David Lake - Chair
Kristin Stout - Secretary
Jonathan Roberts — Director, Honors Program
Business of the Committee
We had two meetings of the officers and Honors Director to discuss bylaws and one meeting of the full committee on this issue.
Officers have been regularly attending Honors Student Meetings and each officer has participated in at least one volunteer activity of the Honors Students
New bylaws approved by Senate
Spring business of a policy change and awarding scholarships will be done by email to committee members later in the Spring Semester.
Friday, March 27, 2009 Members: Teresa Winterhalter (Chair). Bill Daugherty, Priya Gosser Zaphon Wilson, Josh Smith
The committee met regularly throughout the Fall 2008 and Spring 2009 semesters to discuss its bylaws and policies and procedure that have an impact on IDS programs.
Although earlier iterations of the committee’s Bylaws, which we agreed upon in our October meeting, had been approved by the IDS committee, The Senate Bylaws Committee, and passed first and second readings on the floor of The Senate, the last meeting of the committee in March 2009 was devoted to rethinking the duties and mission outlined in those Bylaws. After discussion of Dr. Whitford’s observations about the unique profile of our committee, the committee agreed to revisit some of the issues that gave her concern. In this meeting the committee revised the language in the description of its duties as per the advice of Dr. Whitford. The committee forwarded this revised document to Dr. Whitford, asking that she fold its editorial changes into her version of our bylaws before she makes her final decisions about approving them.
The final language for the Bylaws that was forwarded to Dr. Whitford reads as follows:
SECTION M: Interdisciplinary Studies Committee Charge
The Interdisciplinary Studies Committee will establish and maintain liaisons with departments in all schools and colleges for the purposes of encouraging, promoting, and coordinating interdisciplinary studies at Armstrong Atlantic State University.
The committee will (1) serve as an advisory group that will monitor and advocate for the development and effectiveness of interdisciplinary courses and programs and (2) assume ad hoc responsibilities as they arise.
The committee shall be composed of six faculty members, including three coordinators of interdisciplinary majors and three faculty representing interdisciplinary minors or certificates.
Throughout the 2008-2009 meetings, the committee also discussed the importance of establishing university policies governing IDS programs. Because these programs are so numerous on our campus and promise to continue growing, the committee feels that establishing policies to oversee these programs is imperative. To address this urgency and to follow up on a suggestion made by Dr. Whitford to establish university policies for IDS programs in the Faculty Handbook, rather than under the charge of the IDS committee, Bill Daugherty volunteered to examine the organization and style of the Faculty Handbook to see where we might make suggestions for establishing policies for IDS university-wide. The committee is currently discussing his findings. It plans to make recommendations to Dr. Whitford for how to establish IDS policies at a university-wide level by Fall 2009.
Here is a summary of Bill Daughtery’s findings:
There is nothing in the handbook by-laws dealing with interdisciplinary studies or joint appointments.
The faculty handbook on-line was last amended in October 2006; a revision to reflect changes involving the Faculty Senate and so forth should be on someone's agenda for the near future, and those changes should include inserting necessary items for interdisciplinary issues.
Article VII covers the committees of the faculty, and obviously the IDS committee’s Bylaws must be inserted into this section when revised.
To address the issues that will be deleted from the IDS committee’s original duties section in the Bylaws, the committee suggests that we look at Article VIII College and School Faculties. This article has two sections, A and B. Section A discusses full time faculty assignments and B covers college committees.
These sections offer two possibilities for revision:
1. Under section A create sub-section A.1 or whatever it would be, and use that sub-section to deal with IDS needs and issues.
2. Create a new, third section for IDS faculty issues, either Section C or make the new material Section B and re-label the old section B on college committees to be a new section C. This may be the best solution because sections A and B deal with faculty issues and C with committees.
The committee also met in its November 2008 meeting to discuss the curricular approval process for IDS courses that are not housed within discipline-specific programs. The committee recommends that the following policy be followed in these instances: if a course has an application to an interdisciplinary program within one of the colleges, then the interdisciplinary committee should review the proposed course before it enters the standard curricular review process. If, however, the course has applications to interdisciplinary programs across the colleges, then the course should be reviewed by the curriculum committee in the college in which the proposed course is generated, then it should be forwarded to the interdisciplinary committee, and that committee will forward the course proposal to the University Curriculum Committee
In that same meeting the committee reviewed and accepted the proposal for the European Union Studies Courses. The committee recommended the proposal be sent to the University Curriculum Committee.
The Library Committee met five times this academic year. In those meetings, the members accomplished the following tasks:
I. Revised the committee’s bylaws for Senate consideration
II. Reviewed two versions of the Lane Library’s mission statement for SACS and offered suggestions
III. Established adding an amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding for the Ben Lee Memorial Scholarship to repurpose funds for book purchasing
IV. Revised Brockmeier-associated documents to help simplify the nomination and evaluation process
V. Reviewed application packages for the Brockmeier Faculty Award and collectively decided on the winner for 2008-2009
Membership: David Wheeler (chair, Liberal Arts), Suzy Carpenter (Science and Technology), Suzanne Edenfield (Health Professions), Sean Eastman (Science and Technology, Senate representative), Doug Frazier (Library), Michael Mahan (Education), Michael Mink (Health Professions), Stephen Primatic (Liberal Arts). Ex Officio Members: David Carson, Michael Donahue, Shelley Conroy, Kam Lau, Vickie McNeil, Ellen Whitford.
Bylaws: The committee held seven meetings—August 13, September 5, September 19, October 10, February 6, March 6, and April 10. Minutes for all of these meetings are available on the Senate website. Like most Senate committees, PBF spent its first several meetings writing its bylaws and addressing requests from the Senate for revisions. The committee’s bylaws were formally approved by the Faculty Senate on November 10. Although our approved bylaws call for one undergraduate student member and one graduate student member, no student was ever appointed to our committee. Whether the initiative for selecting student members comes from the respective student organizations, from the Faculty Senate, or from the committee itself, the issue of selecting student members must be resolved by early 2009-10. The committee felt that including the large number of ex-officio members would facilitate informed and open discussion of budgetary matters.
The committee’s two primary aims for 2008-09 were to improve transparency of the budget and budget-making process and, in keeping with our mission, insure faculty participation in the construction, and, for this year at least, the reduction of the university’s budget. In these efforts, our success was limited. We acknowledge that, for many reasons, 2008-09 may have been an atypical year: the new Senate and committee structure, a new VP for Business and Finance (Carson), other new personnel involved in the budget (Clark and Carroll), the announcement of President Jones’s stepping down, the necessity for a large budget clean-up process, fiscal uncertainty and budget reductions from the Board of Regents. We believe, nevertheless, that transparency and faculty participation must be regular features of university budget operations.
Transparency: At our two September meetings, budget officials promised the imminent posting online of the current (FY 2009) departmental operating budgets and the imminent posting online of the timetable for constructing the FY 2010 budget. The timetable became available online in October, though, because of budget cuts, it has not been followed by the Board of Regents. Again, on February 6, the committee was told that the current departmental budgets were ready to be put online. Delays at the Board of Regents in purchasing software, however, have postponed making this possible.
On October 10, VP Carson briefed fully the committee on the current year’s entire budget and, at the committee’s arrangement, delivered a similar budget briefing to a meeting of the Faculty Senate on January 12. On both occasions, he candidly fielded questions. The entire FY09 budget, in print version, is available on Library Reserve.