[Approved February 8, 2008]
MINUTES
OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE
December
14, 2007
KU
331, 3:00 P. M.
Senators Present: P. Benson, D. Biers (presiding), C. Bowman,
L. Cook, D. Darrow, G. DeMarco, W. Diestelkamp, G. Doyle, C. Duncan, T.
Eggemeier, A. Fist, E. Gustafson, A. Jipson, P. Johnson, R. Kearns, J. King, R. Larson, T.
Lasley, L. Laubach, C. Letevac, J. O'Gorman, M. Patterson, R. Penno, F.
Pestello, D. Poe, J. Saliba, A. Seielstad, D. Sink, L. Snyder, T. Stevens, R.
Wells
Senators Excused: A. Brian, R. Crum, R. Frasca,
L. Kloppenberg, R. Marak, M. Moss, Y. Raffoul, T. Sutter,
Guests: D. Bickford, J.
Untener, K. Webb, J. Farrelly, D. Polzella, E. Mykytka, K. Shoenberger
1. Opening Prayer: Senator Duncan opened the meeting with prayer.
2. Roll Call: Thirty-one of
thirty-nine Senators were present, several arriving after voting on Doc-07-02
and Doc-07-03.
3. Minutes: October 26, 2007:
Moved and seconded, minutes were approved.
4. Announcements: D. Biers announced that the
University Promotion and Tenure Policy was approved by the Board of Trustees on
December 4, 2007. The Executive
Committee will move forward with implementation. Elections for the required committee will be
held in January.
5. Doc-07-02
D. Darrow, Chairperson of the Academic
Policies Committee, introduced the document.
It was sent to the Academic Senate by the Assessment Committee and
Office of the Provost. It is presented
for legislative concurrence. Academic Policies
considered the document and discussed it with Associate Provost Untener. The Committee recommends approval. They believe that the plan will streamline
the assessment process by taking advantage of assessment that is done for
accreditation purposes in various units and by encouraging units to focus on a
limited number of goals each year, rather than focusing on all goals every
year. There will be emphasis on the
response to assessment information and actions taken. The Committee notes that the plan makes use
of learning outcomes from Habits of
Inquiry and Reflection. These are
part of a larger Senate process that has not concluded, and these goals may
change. If they do, the goals in the
assessment plan will be changed. It was
noted that not every program would be expected to meet all seven learning
outcomes.
The Academic Senate voted using
legislative concurrence as set out in Article II. B. 2. of
the Constitution of the Academic Senate.
The vote was 26 for, 0 against, with no abstentions.
6. Doc-07-03 Guidelines for Developing
Course-Based Graduate Certificate Programs
D. Darrow, Chairperson of the
Academic Policies Committee, introduced the document. It was sent to the Academic Senate by the
Graduate Leadership Council and the
The Academic Senate voted using
legislative concurrence as set out in Article II. B. 2. of the Constitution of
the Academic Senate. The vote was 27
for, 0 against, with no abstentions.
7. Committee Reports:
Faculty Affairs Committee: G. Doyle reported for the Faculty Affairs Committee. The Committee presented a Post-tenure Review philosophy to the Academic Senate on October 26, 2007, which suggests a peer consultation for tenured faculty members, aligned with the sabbatical schedule, every 6 to 7 years. Several senators had serious reservations concerning a post-tenure review policy. The Committee has discussed the reservations and believes it is necessary to pursue a Peer Consultation Policy for the following reasons.
· There is already a Peer Evaluation System “on the books,” approved by the faculty in April 1976. The purpose of the Committee's work is to develop an implementation plan for this policy that has some uniformity across departments.
· The Board of Trustees has been asking the administration for several years to implement a Post-tenure Review procedure. The administration feels it is best that the Academic Senate develop this procedure. The Committee believes that the faculty, represented by the Academic Senate, should develop the philosophy and implementation of this policy.
· There are government agencies that are using post-tenure review systems to compare state universities. While UD is not presently obligated to comply with these agencies, it is a measure that can be used. It is also a measure that parents may use to compare UD to state universities.
· As professionals we have an obligation to consult with each other to review accomplishments and to contribute to the enhancement of the future careers of our colleagues.
· The post-tenure review will demonstrate faculty accountability.
The goal of the Committee is to develop a Peer Consultation that is meaningful, developmental, and will minimize the work load on the faculty.
Academic Policies Committee: D. Darrow reported for the Academic Policies
Committee. In addition to the two
documents considered at this meeting, the Committee has received reports from
D. Pair, chairperson of the sub-committee charged with working on curricular
recommendations. The sub-committee is now
called the Sub-Committee on a Common Academic Program. While the committee will not begin meeting
until the Winter semester, they have gathered a list
of on-going initiatives related to curriculum.
They also recognize the need to consult widely with members of the
University community once they do begin meeting.
Executive Committee: D. Biers reported for the Executive Committee. Playing Christmas music with his tie, he suggested that members of the Academic Senate read the minutes of the Executive committee as posted on the Senate website.
8. F. Pestello thanked members of the Academic Senate for their work this year, especially on the Tenure and Promotion Policy.
9. Adjournment: Moved and
seconded, the meeting adjourned at 3:23 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia A. Johnson