[Approved January 16, 2008]

Minutes of the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate

January 9, 2008

St. Mary’s 113 B; 12:00 PM

 

Present:  D. Biers (presiding), T. Eggemeier, P. Johnson, L. Laubach, J. O’Gorman, R. Penno, T. Stevens, R. Wells

 

J. Farrelly (Faculty Board)

 

Roll Call:  

Eight members of the Committee were present.

 

Prayer:

The meeting opened with a prayer about the seeds of kindness

 

Approval of Minutes:

December 13, 2007 approved. 

 

Announcements:

  • The date for the Stander symposium for 2009 is set for April 16.
  • HLC report is available and will be posted and made available to the University community.  D. Biers will distribute to the Executive Committee
  • NSSE report is available and will be distributed to the Executive Committee.

 

Old Business:

 

  • None of the Standing committees have met yet this year.

 

New Business:

 

Meeting dates for the Academic Senate for FY 09 and FY10 were discussed. D. Biers will discuss the schedule with the Provost Office and try to finalize it.

 

The Executive Committee spent most of the meeting reviewing agenda items for the Executive Committee and the Academic Senate as a whole.  An attempt will be made to complete a great deal of business during this academic term.  Issues for work this semester include:

1.      More active role for the Senate on diversity:  This was postponed last semester and needs priority

2.      Procedures and document handling:  P. Johnson will put focus on this

3.      University committees:  L Laubach and T. Stevens will be bringing information to ECAS in the next couple week.  J. O’Gorman and R. Penno will also bring information on the Nominating Committee.

4.      Background check:  D. Biers will remind J. Untener of the need for a report.

5.      Maternity Leave Policy:  J. Untener will be asked to attend an ECAS meeting before this is presented at the full Senate.  P. Johnson will ask women faculty to put together information.  S. Hughes has submitted a reminder of issues that were not addressed when the current policy was approved.

6.      English Department Competency courses:  Concern was expressed that the English Department is said to be moving forward on implementing changes in the competency requirement without bringing any request to the Academic Senate.  P. Benson, C. Daprano, and D. Pair will be asked to attend a meeting of ECAS to discuss this issue.

7.      Post-tenure Review:  Is in the Faculty Affairs Committee

8.      Faculty Evaluation of Teaching:  Is in the Faculty Affairs Committee.  They will be asked to try to move this forward in parallel with item #7.

9.      Revision of the Faculty Handbook:  the Provost and J. Untener will be asked to discuss this with the Executive Committee.  At the least, one version of the Handbook should be the official version with links to that version.

10.  Honor Code; No members of the Student Academic Policies Committee were present.  A report is needed on the status of this work.

11.  Class scheduling issues:  T. Westendorf will be asked about the scheduling of classes in non-traditional time slots.

12.  A document needs to be put through the Academic Senate to change the drop date for COM modules.  D. Biers will consult with D. Yoder.

 

L. Laubach and J. Farrelly reported that there is a meeting of the Elections Committee on Friday, January 11.  The Executive Committee requested that they convey the urgency of electing the University Promotion and Tenure Committee so that it can begin its work and the ad hoc committee can be disbanded.

 

T. Eggemeier reported that there are two Program Development Plans that have been approved by the Graduate Leadership Council for forwarding to the Board of Regents.  One is an MS in Bioengineering, collaboration between the School of Engineering and the College of Arts and Sciences.  The other is an MS in Engineering in Renewable and Clean Energy, a joint program with Wright State University and the Air Force Institute of Technology.   Both UD and WSU would grant degrees.  He proposed a process for directing such proposals, suggesting that once feedback from state institutions is received, if that feed back is favorable, the Academic Senate would review proposals that were in fairly final form.  If approved, these would go to the Provost and Board of Trustees.  Members of the Executive Committee questioned whether early review might be more appropriate.  T. Eggemeier was asked to bring a process proposal to the Executive Committee for further discussion.

 

Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 1:05 PM.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

Patricia A. Johnson, Secretary