|
 |
Minutes for November 12, 2003
A meeting of the University Senate was held at 4:15 p.m. on Wednesday, 12 November 2003, in Maxwell Auditorium.
Present were: Vice Chancellor Freund; Senators: Alcoff, Andersen, Apjohn, Baden, Bain, Behm, Bennett, Bhatia, Biklen (D.), Biklen (S.), Braveman, Breese, Brenner, Brown (A.), Burdick, Caine, Caldwell, Cavanagh, Chander, Cihon, Cooke, Crowston, de Berly, Diaz, DiGennaro, Dimon, Dixon, Donovan, Druger, Dudczak, Elin, Ellison, Faiola, Floyd, Flusche, Gensemer, Gilman, Graham, Greenberg, Griffin, Hamilton, Harding, Himley, Hogan, Hollenback, Horwitz, Hovendick, Kelly, Kenn, Klamon, Kornfilt, Kosar, Kutcher, LeGay, Landau, Lantier, Lederman, Legaspi, Letterman (M.), Letterman (R.), Levine, MacInnes, Marcoccia, Mason, McGee, McKay, Mercer, Meyer, Middlemiss, Misztal, Morris, Morroni, Mosher, Mulconry, Murphy, Newler, Newton, Nordenstam, Nwosu, Olson, O'Rourke, Panetta, Peck, Pellow, Penza, Phillips, Potter, Read, Rosenzweig, Russell, Saleh, Sanford, Schell, Schiff, Schneid, Sen, Sherman, Simonds, Smith (D.), Smith (S.), Spencer, Strodel, Thomson, Tinney, Torres-Sallant, Toth, Trento, Tucker, Tussing, Urz, Van Gulick, Vidali, Wadley, Ware (B.), Wasylenko, Watson, Weaver, Wells, Wilbur, Williams, Wolf, Yao
Presiding Officer: Vice Chancellor Deborah Freund
The Vice Chancellor called the meeting to order, and proposed that the minutes of the October 15th meeting be approved as distributed. They were approved. She then called Prof. Nahmin Horwitz to present the report of the Agenda Committee. Prof. Horwitz began by saying that Public Safety Director Marlene Hall had been asked to report to the Senate at the December 3rd meeting, about what her department recommended re: Peace Officer status for SU Public Safety officers, and why, and to respond to senators's questions. He asked senators to give the matter some thought prior to the December meeting.
Horwitz drew the body's attention to the letter from Chancellor Shaw, outlining the timeline for deciding on a new class schedule paradigm, which had been included in the packet. He then asked Vice Chancellor Freund to make a brief statement before the debate began, about how graduate courses fit into the new class schedule paradigm. Prof. Horwitz then made a motion that called for ending debate on the motion at 5:30, if the body had not already done so, and a vote taken at that time. The motion carried.
Vice Chancellor Freund then reminded the body that the motion on the floor was as follows:
In order to use more effectively the full 5-day academic schedule, and in order to provide improved access to courses for our undergraduate students, the University Senate recommends adoption of the proposal presented by Prof. Ernest Hemphill. The Senate prefers this option to the alternative of a reasonably strict enforcement of the traditional MWF-TuTh paradigm.
The Vice Chancellor then invited Prof. Bob Van Gulick to present the following amendment, that had been distributed in the packet [amended parts in bold]:
In order to use more effectively the full five-day academic schedule and in order to provide improved access to courses for our undergraduate students, the Senate recommends adoption of a revised schedule of the general sort proposed by the Student Association and Prof. Van Gulick (Alternative A, appended) that does the following:
- adds 80-minutes time slots on Monday and Wednesday afternoons,
- enforces reasonably strict compliance with the revised grid (allowing exceptions as needed and approved for purposes such as labs., studios and seminars), and
- retains the current day-matching of TWF, TuTh and (MW-p.m. only).
The Senate prefers this option to the alternative of a reasonably strict enforcement of the current schedule or the proposal presented by Professor Ernest Hemphill.
The motion to amend was seconded. After some clarification of the intent of the motion the following comments were made and questions raised:
- that Friday was not fully used as a class day;
- a senator expressed opposition to strict enforcement of current schedule if that meant that a faculty member would have to teach MWF in alternate years, as the Vice Chancellor had suggested at a previous meeting.
- senator asked what the Vice Chancellor intended to do about exceptions, if the amendment passed [she said she would leave enforcement to departments, that she intended to set principles rather than micro-manage];
- senator asked what the difference was between the Thomson proposal and the Van Gulick one [Van Gulick: community time the only real difference];
- senator expressed concern that art students be able to get out and take academic courses, that giving up the middle of the week block would lessen those opportunities;
- senator pointed out that hardly any mention had been made of the new paradigm's effect on students, whereas a lot had been said about inconvenience to faculty;
- senator expressed concern that adjunct and part-time faculty had not been taken into account, wondered how many would be affected.
After several more people had spoken in favor of the amendment, a senator made a motion to call the question. The motion was seconded and approved. The motion on the amendment carried. The Vice Chancellor told the body that the amended motion was now before the body for debate. In the discussion, a senator raised the question of how graduate courses would fit into the new paradigm, since TAs would need to comply with whatever paradigm was chosen. A senator proposed an amendment, changing the wording of the amended motion to read:
MWF 55-minute classes scheduled in the afternoon rather than the morning, and additional 80-minute classes to be scheduled in the morning rather
than the afternoon.
The motion was seconded, and lost. A senator raised the question of not enough classroom space, and the Vice Chancellor referred to the Academic Space Plan, that would be adding about 30 more classrooms in the next couple years, thus leaving SU about 15 classrooms down. After several senators had spoken to the amended motion, a senator made a motion to call the question, which was seconded and approved. The vote on the amended motion was affirmative.
The Vice Chancellor then called Prof. Louise Phelps, who presented the report of the Committee on Academic Affairs, which included a report of its 2002-3 work, and a motion to approve revision of the membership of the SU Scholar Selection Committee, as follows:
The Academic Affairs committee recommends that the SU Scholar Selection Committee include a tenured or tenure-track faculty representative from each undergraduate school or college as well as the College of Law. The normal expectation for appointment to the committee would be a three-year renewable term. Appointment of new members should be made in the spring for the following year. The Chair of the Academic Affairs committee will contact the dean's office of each eligible school or college in the spring to confirm continuing memberships or request the appointment of new members. Two undergraduates will be appointed to the Committee for a one-year term.
The motion carried.
The Vice Chancellor called Prof. Eric Schiff, who presented the report of the Committee on Budget and Fiscal Affairs, which included the fall budget revision. In the discussion, a senator asked if more detail could be included in the 5-year budget forecast, so that senators could get a sense of the overall scope of the budget. Another senator asked about the potential shortfall in the Athletic Department, and another asked what principles would be used for reallocations. A senator asked if there were any plans to break out the numbers of PTIs and adjuncts in the total salary budget in January. The Chairman said that he wasn't sure how it could be accomplished, but that it certainly could be considered.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Teresa Gilman
University Senate Recorder
|
