Skip to Content

Faculty Senate Minutes 4-6-11

ROGER WILLIAMS UNIVERSITY

FACULTY SENATE

MINUTES

 

April 6, 2011

2:00 – 4:30 P.M.

Library Seminar Room

 

Meeting was called to order at 2:07 p.m.

 

Attendance: Peter Alfieri, Susan Bosco, Jim Brunnhoeffer, Robert Dermody, Kathleen Dunn, Gail Fenske, Diane Harvey, France Hunter, Hasan-Uddin Khan, Rebecca Leuchak, John Madritch, David Melchar, David Moskowitz, Cliff Murphy, Nancy Nester, Lou Procaccini,  Joseph Roberts, Scott Rutherford, Mark Sawoski, John Schlinke, Ferd Schroth, Tom Sorger, June Speakman, Michael Swanson, Minoo Tehrani, Cliff Timpson, Laura Turner, Paul Webb, Min Zhou

 

Absent: Kelly Donnell, Anthony Hollingsworth, Josh Stein (leave), Rom Woodruff (leave), Dorisa Boggs (does not meet attendance standards)

 

  1. Approval of Minutes of March 2, 2011

 

President Bosco – The missing motion will be added as well as noting the attendance of Senator Rutherford and Senator Webb

 

Website Committee – Senator Schroth – we have a vendor. We have not been asked to all of the meetings, we believe.

 

President Bosco we will start the at-large elections sometime next week.

 

 

  1. Executive Committee Meeting Report from March  8 – Vice President Alfieri

 

Vice President Alfieri – the report was sent to you. Are there any questions?

 

The motion on the FYS concerning the rejection of the FYS was not brought to the President’s attention.

 

President Bosco we generally bring forward motions that require the President to take some action.

 

The three faculty lines that the Provost said were hired in support of the Gen Ed program. Were those faculty hired to support specific Gen Ed courses?

 

President Bosco they were hired to support the Gen Ed without specific courses noted.

 

The chair of the Gen Ed Committee from the Faculty Senate motion was to be a faculty member, why was there a change to having the Associate Provost chair the committee?

 

President Bosco the administrative support needed for the Gen Ed would require an administrator to be the chair of the committee.

 

[Reading back the rough copy of the March 2, 2011 meeting of the Faculty Senate]

 

Motion: The Senate instructs the Faculty Senate Executive Committee to inform the President at the next Executive Committee meeting of the vote on Motion 2 from the Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee minutes of November 11, 2010 from the March 2, 2010 meeting of the Senate.(Speakman/Sawoski) – Passed unanimously.

 

Motion referenced in the above motion from the March 2 Faculty Senate Meeting:

To approve the First Year Seminar portion of the Petition for a New Undergraduate General Education Program to begin in the fall 2012 semester. (Hollingsworth/Speakman) –Motion fails – 4-18-4

 

President Champagne – I would like to let the Faculty Senate know that I have received the motion.

 

Discussion of the General Education Committee which was presented to the President and the Provost during the Executive Committee Meeting.

 

 

Motion: The election for the General Education Committee will be conducted within schools/divisions (Speakman/Stevens) – Motion passed 27-1-3

 

Discussion of the composition, structure, etc. of the Gen Ed Committee

 

Would we be electing faculty with the votes of all faculty or votes within that school or division?

 

Three year terms or two year terms?

 

Answer – Two year terms.

 

But that would make half the committee change over after the first year. Perhaps having staggered three year terms.

 

I will speak against the motion because the General Education Committee could be making decisions about the work of faculty who teach in the Gen Ed, while the committee may not be teaching in the Gen Ed program.

 

We do not have a program to have faculty currently teaching in the program.

 

In terms of Gen Ed, I thought that anyone of the faculty could teach in Gen Ed. If all can teach in Gen Ed, it seems to be a premature conversation to state the credentials that a person should have in order to be elected to the committee.

 

Perhaps we should have a change in name of the committee so that we have a Gen Ed Planning Committee, a Gen Ed Transition Committee… etc?

 

What happens to the committee that has been working on the Gen Ed proposal?

 

The committee will no longer exist.

 

Friendly amendment (John Madritch)

Further friendly amendment (Joseph Roberts)

 

Question – for whom does the faculty work?

 

President Bosco – curriculum flows from the Gen Ed Committee to the Faculty Senate Curriculum Commitee to the Faculty Senate.

 

In what time frame are the committee members working under? When would Gen Ed start?

 

President Bosco – Provost would you like to answer that?

 

Provost de Abruna – there are issues which still need to be resolved. It would be nice to think of 2012 as a kick-off goal, but we can revise.

 

There was conversation concerning the charge of this new committee. It seems as they will be working from scratch. The motion indicates that the committee will be working on the final draft of the Gen Ed proposal. Is there a final draft of this program?

 

President Bosco – not yet.

 

Senator Speakman – I wrote that motion concerning the committee charge, the committee would be working on the final draft because certain issues remain with the proposal.

 

President Champagne – this is getting to look more and more like making sausage. As I understand it the new program has been worked on in a wide and consensual way. The FSCC took it and its report was accepted. You should know that this went to the Board as a concept, a conceptual product. The Board understood and adopted the concept with the caveat that there were problems left to be resolved. The Board would like to see the program up and running by 2012. This committee is to resolve the questions that need to be resolved and implement the program. The Provost and I are not going to launch the program until it is ready. We will need to market the program. The program will make us look unique compared to our peers. The incoming President will understand this. He shares our core values. There is still a lot of work to be done on the proposal, and if we need more time then we will not launch the program in 2012.

 

 

Discussion

 

This should have never gone to the Board without the faculty buying into the program. At least in the Social Sciences, we are not buying in yet. I do not know how many other faculty support the program.

 

Did we approve this program, the number of houses, the courses, etc?

 

President Champagne – the conceptual framework was approved by the Faculty Senate.

 

The proposal was approved with 6 pending items that needed addressing. To go forward with the proposal to the Board as being approved in concept by the Faculty Senate does not speak to how divided the vote on the Faculty Senate was: 14-10-4.

 

 

I worry that people who were never part of the conversation will be developing a new curriculum for the Gen Ed. We need to make a stronger point than simply indicating that the faculty member serving on the committee will teach in the Gen Ed program.

 

I don’t feel that we have approved the final draft. And from my viewpoint it was premature to go to the Board. What is the response from the committee working on Gen Ed to the recommendations of the FSCC?

 

President Bosco – they have not reported back yet.

 

There is a serious problem in reading through the rubrics when they were first presented. We need final approval before the program gets sent to the Board.

 

This discussion indicates how divided we are on this program. Are we in a position as the Faculty Senate to go back and review what we have done? I don’t think that we can do that. I agree that we are trying to put on the committee those who are in favor of the proposal. I do not like either option before us.

 

Perhaps we are trying to solve a problem that does not have an answer or does not exist? . Two questions,

does the Board require our approval before moving forward?

 

 

President Bosco – No they don’t.

 

Question can we define consensus: what percentage, 80, 70, 60 would indicate consensus of the faculty?

 

I would be in favor of ensuring that members of the committee are committed to the goal of having a product than can be presented to the parents.

 

The Board can write curriculum, but who would teach the curriculum once the Board creates it is another issue. The Board probably would not rewrite the curriculum for Chemistry 101.

 

 

President Champagne – the Board is concerned that a major initiative be drawn to closure. When I became President of Xavier, they had been working on Gen Ed for ten years. The Board (at Xavier) wanted the work done. The curriculum then, not by a unanimous vote, was approved and moved on to the Faculty Senate who gave their approval (not unanimous), and the proposal went to a committee to be implemented so that any problems could be ironed out. Our Board is looking for the problems to be addressed by the Gen Ed Committee, since the conceptual framework was approved.

 

Discussion

 

I am not suggesting that we constrain the committee in any way. Only that we give them the charge that we voted upon (23-3-2) that they use the primary text – the proposal draft – and move forward from that point, not start the process anew.

 

I understand what you have said and agree that the work of the committee should start where the initial committee has left off. I am in agreement with how the committee will be elected – the three year staggered terms, from the schools/divisions, etc. I am going on faith that the committee will do its work from the last draft of the proposal.

 

I would like the faculty to receive a copy of the proposal that was presented to the Board.

 

Provost de Abruna – a copy will be sent out to all faculty.

 

 

If people think that the newly elected Gen Ed  committee is going to undo the work done on Gen Ed proposal, I don’t know who would have the intention for doing so?

 

 

Motion to move the question (Hunter/Murphy) – Motion passed 29-0-1

 

Motion: Representatives will be elected to the General Education Committee for a 3-year term.  In the first year terms will be randomly assigned with 1/3 serving a one-year term, 1/3 serving a two-year term, and 1/3 serving a three-year term. Those elected will agree to teach in the program. (Speakman/Moskowitz) – Motion passed 24-0-6.

 

(3:22 p.m.)

 

 

 

Motion to reorder the agenda to allow the Student Senators to do their presentation (Alfieri/Moskowitz) – Passed unanimously.

 

 

 

  1. Dev Lewis and the Student Senate Presentation on Internships (3:25 – 3:36)

 

Question & Answer Period

 

Would this be a requirement added to the major?

 

Dev – we would like departments to adopt internships which work with each individual departments/programs’ needs.

 

We have internships in our CIS program and it is one of the best things that a student can do. But I don’t think that we should require internships of all students.

 

 

In your research did you find programs that had an experiential learning component as part of their general education program?

 

Dev – We looked at Bryant for internship programs but not programs in their general education program.

 

There are more programs that require internships than those on your list. This would add support for your resolution.

 

What precludes a student now from pursuing an internship?

 

Dev – nothing, just that faculty  might not encourage internships.

 

Is there something in your discussions in the Student Senate which would help the faculty in getting more students more interested in internships?

 

Dev – perhaps discussions earlier in the student’s academic career, this way the internship is not sprung upon them and they only have a few months to find an internship.

 

Would these internships be for credit or for pay?

 

We want students made aware of internships in general, whether paid or not.

 

 

Motion to move the question (Sawoski/Moskowitz) – Passed unanimously.

 

 

Motion: That Senators share the resolution from the Student Senate with their colleagues and consider the recommendation that internships be incorporated into their majors (Speakman/Stevens) – Passed unanimously

 

(3:58)

 

 

 

Standing Committee Reports

 

 

  1. Admissions and Enrollment–  Senator Donnell

 

President Bosco: Senator Donnell could not be here and would like to announce that Rupayan Gupta has joined the committee.

 

 

  1. Curriculum –Senator Hollingsworth (absent)

Senator Schlinke (presenting)

 

 

Discussion:

 

There is a Security course being proposed (SEC 220) which is very similar to a CIS course on databases. Has that been worked out yet?

 

Senator Schlinke- several solutions – that it will be one course, that the course will be co-listed or that the course will dedicated separately for each major.

 

Question about a single adjunct professor being credentialed to teach a course in Education?

 

Answer – this has not been resolved yet.

 

What about the MATH/BIO course?

 

Senator Schlinke – the registrar did not want there to be new prefixes.

 

It was supposed to be a cross-listed course?

 

Senator Schlinke – you should see Senator Hollingsworth about that.

 

 

Can we vote for minutes when there is no resolution to a course that maybe taught by another program?

 

Shouldn’t all FSCC proposals be labeled “pending” until the Faculty Senate has the final say on the curriculum?

 

Why do we approve minutes from the committees if the committee had already passed their motions?

 

We should make it clear to the Provost that we have an issue with the process.

 

Can we approve  everything but the offending course?

 

President Bosco – Yes we can.

 

Motion to accept the report of the Curriculum Committee of March 23 and addendum with the exception of the SJS proposal #9 for the new course SEC220 (Schlinke/Alfieri) – Motion passed 27-0-2.

 

 

 

  1. Diversity– Senator Swanson

 

The National Coalition Building Institute will have workshops on the day before graduation. An email was sent to all deans (associate, and assistant). I would be very happy, pleased, gratified and full of joy, if you all went back to your areas and see who would be interested in the workshops and I will send an invitation to them.

 

(4:22 p.m.)

 

Academic Standards and Policies  – Senator Dermody

 

Brief report, a set of minutes with a motion contained therein. We have been working with Associate Provost Koritz on a policy for what happens if a student has breached academic integrity. We are also looking at the 18 credit rule.

 

Motion to accept the report of the Academic Standards and Policies Committee of March 7 (Dermody/Alfieri) – Motion passed  27-0-2

 

Motion: The Academic Standards and Polices committee recommends/requests that no catalog copy regarding academic integrity procedures and policy be changed prior to completion of discussion of potential policy changes with Faculty Senate. (Dermody/Procaccini) – Motion passed 28-0-1.

 

Note: Assoc. Provost informed the committee that no catalog changes will be made on this policy until there is agreement.

 

Motion: to extend for 10 minutes (Moskowitz/Alfieri)….Motion passed (28-0-1)

 

 

(4:27 p.m.)

 

 

  1. University Life –  Senator Roberts

 

Motion to accept minutes of the University Life Committee of March 9 (Moskowitz/Alfieri) – Motion passed 28-0-1

 

Motion: The University Life Committee and the Faculty Senate encourage the university to install unsecured kiosks in key locations around campus in addition to the bulletin boards already proposed and shown in the December 15, 2010 University Life Committee Minutes. The unsecured kiosks should be installed in the several locations including, but not limited to, both entrances to the University Commons and the northern entrance to FCAS (Roberts/Alfieri)  Motion passed 28-0-1.

 

 

 

  1. Steering – Senator Sorger

 

Update – the new course evaluation survey developed two years ago and  approved in October was submitted to the Provost. The Provost asked that it be approved by the RWUFA.

 

8. Faculty Development –

Senator Murphy

 

Minutes were sent with a copy of the revised call for nominations for excellence in teaching.

 

Motion to accept the minutes of the Faculty Development Committee of March 23 (Murphy/Moskowitz) – Motion passed 28-0-1

 

Report on adjunct hiring practices. There is no motion contained in the report.

 

 

Discussion:

 

The report was mainly about hiring in performing arts and adjunct faculty. Were the other departments which make use of adjunct faculty surveyed?

 

Senator Murphy – a member of the committee was from the performing arts. We were looking at how the dean handles recommendations from the faculty in hiring adjuncts. There was a wide spectrum of faculty involvement and dean involvement across campus.

 

Provost de Abruna– I am all for hiring adjuncts who don’t have PhDs. Often, accrediting bodies have their own requirements. I would want to know from NEASC what their recommendations are and if we are in line with those guidelines.

 

Discussion

 

Have all departments been solicited? In my departments there are adjuncts hired who teach pre-requisites to my courses. The faculty do not know who is teaching as an adjunct.

 

Senator Murphy – there is wide variability in how adjuncts are hired as outlined in the report. In some departments it is based upon the relationship between the dean and the department chair.  We were charged with looking at best practices and so our focus turned outward.

 

In the visual arts the terminal degree is the MFA. Exceptions are made based upon their level of performance. There must be a high level of performance.

 

Motion to accept the Report on Adjunct Hiring Practices (Murphy/Alfieri) – Motion passed 26-0-2.

 

(4:38)

  1. New Business

 

Motion regarding General Education – Senator Speakman

 

Motion: The Faculty Senate recommends that no portion of the General Education proposal be implemented until the proposal has received a majority vote of the full faculty. (Speakman/Schroth)

 

 

Discussion

 

I think that this is over-reaching. The Board can institute a Gen Ed program as they wish. We should have a vote by the faculty on the Gen Ed program.

 

Friendly amendment to the motion.

 

Motion to extend for five minutes (Sorger/Tait) – Motion passed 23-1-1

 

Motion is withdrawn.

 

Motion to adjourn.

 

 

Meeting Adjourned at 4:44.

This entry was posted in Minutes (SEN), Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.