[Approved February 20, 2008]

Minutes of the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate

February 13, 2008

St. Mary’s 113 B; 12:00 PM

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

J. Farrelly (Faculty Board)

Roll Call:

Ten members of the Committee were present.

Prayer:

The meeting opened with L. Laubach reading a prayer from St. Theresa.

Approval of Minutes:

February 6, 2008 approved. P. Johnson was asked to send a copy of the minutes to the chairperson of the Academic Policies Committee.

Announcements:

• P. Johnson has posted a first draft of a processes and procedures document for the academic Senate. Please provide her with responses.
• L. Laubach asks for any additional response on the issues of University Committees. D. Biers will consult with the Provost about who will serve as liaison from the Provost Office on this issue.

New Business:

• A. Seielstad presented information for discussion in relationship to the role of the Academic Senate in fostering diversity. She noted that the word “diversity’ can be defined and conceptualized in a range of ways. One issue for the Senate is how to define the term and how to set the scope of the Senate role in fostering diversity. It is clear that many of the policies acted on by the Academic Senate have an impact on diversity. The Senate acts on issues that relate to hiring and retention, to what and how we teach, and that impact the campus climate. We need to be sure that we are building an inclusive, fair, and participatory community. If we review some of the more recent actions by the Academic Senate, it seems to be clear that reviewing documents with a lens that identifies and examines issues of diversity would be beneficial. The Academic Senate could appoint a committee or advisory group that would work with the Academic Senate as issues are addressed in the various standing committees and by the Executive Committee. This might help the Senate insure that all voices can be heard and that its processes are inclusive and transparent. If this direction were to be taken, decisions would have to be made as to what the charge of the group would be, how members would be selected.
• Members of the Executive Committee raised questions and contributed suggestions including:
• If a committee or advisory group were to be formed, members should have expertise and a desire to be involved. An application process might be used.
• Such a group would need to define the lens appropriate to the work of the Academic Senate.
• Developing a charge might include reviewing and advising the Senate on issues before it, making recommendations to the Senate on its processes, working with other initiative across campus to be sure that various endeavors are connected and can build on each other.
• Anything the academic Senate does should have some direct link to existing positions and groups that have responsibility for issues of diversity.
• The Higher Learning Commission report does include a summary of diversity initiatives which should be consulted.
• A. Seielstad agreed to draft the beginning of a proposal for consideration in March.
• At the end of the meeting R. Wells raised a concern about the need for consultation with departments when new administrators are hired from outside the University and so awarded tenure and rank in a specific department at UD.

Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 1:20 PM.

Respectfully Submitted,

Patricia A. Johnson, Secretary