Faculty Senate

February 14, 2008                                                                                                                          Robert C. Voight Faculty Senate Chambers

Vol. 42, No. 10                                                                                                                              325 Graff Main Hall – 3:30 p.m.

I.   Roll Call.

Present:  R. Ahmed, M. Anderson, S. Brokaw, V. Crank, S. Crutchfield, L. Dickmeyer, J. Heim, K. Hoar, D. Hoskins, K. Hunt, S. Kelly, R. Knox, A. Loh, J. Miskowski, C. Miller, P. Miller, A. Olson, S. Senger, S. Smith, G. Straker, R. Sullivan, B. Udermann, C. Wilson

II. The minutes of January 31, 2008 meeting were approved.

 Mike Abler should have been marked excused for that meeting. 

III.   Reports.

            A.   Chair’s Report

SEC Activities

Articles & Bylaws Ad Hoc Committee

The Provost’s office is convening an ad hoc committee to develop some standard components for departmental bylaws.  The SEC was asked to provide names of three department chairs (or faculty members with bylaw experience) to sit on the committee, one from each college.  The faculty representatives will be Mike Winfrey, Gwen Achenreiner, and Kim Vogt.  If you have any feedback or ideas, please feel free to contact any of the committee members.

Senate Elections

Senate nomination petitions for the 43-45 Senate have been sent out.  Please encourage your colleagues to run.  Forms are due in the Senate office by 4:00 p.m. Friday, February 22.

B.     Chancellor

No report.

C.     Faculty Representative’s Report

No report.

            D.  Student Association Representative’s Report

Student allocated fees will add $1.39 to cover a few new expenses.

IV. River Architects:  Virtual Tour of Academic Building and request for feedback

River Architects presented current plans of the Academic Building.

• Three million is budgeted for technology for the academic building.
• So far only white boards and no chalk boards will be used.
• Classrooms are on floors 1 through 3.  Floor 3 contains the largest number on classrooms.
• There will be forty-six flexible classrooms: seven 40-seat classrooms, sixteen 48-50-seat classrooms and thirteen 64-seat classrooms.
• There will be six fixed classrooms: four will be 70-seat classrooms and two will be 250-seat auditorium style rooms.
• There will be four innovation classrooms.
• There will be a large Hall of Nations that can be used to hold 350 people for presentations.  There will also be a serving kitchen located in this building and the Hall of Nations can be used for banquets.
• Most rooms will have some natural light.  The only classroom spaces without natural light will be the four case rooms and the two auditoriums.  Sixty percent of the rooms will have north-south light.
• The plan is to carpet all classrooms.
• Faculty offices will be located on fourth floor.  Other offices will be located on the first and second floor. 
• There will be four innovative class rooms.
• High ceilings will allow projection screens to stay above white boards.
• A faculty/staff lounge will be located on fourth floor.

The following feedback was given:

• Faculty need screens above the white boards so that both can be used. 
• Some rooms with desk/chair combinations and some with tables are desired.
• It would be nice for students to have testing spaces.
• There was concern about the bottom level of white board for rooms with 60 students.  Much of the bottom of those boards may not be usable unless the boards can be raised.
• It would be nice to have space for faculty to meet with small groups of students.
• Faculty supported both some U-shaped and some open table innovation rooms.
• There should be some faculty/staff only space.  This space should include places to use lap tops.  Open areas were preferred.  Having printers and copiers available would help.  There was also the desire to have space for lunch.

V.   General Education Assessment Proposal

Motion from Senate Executive Committee: 

Create a Faculty Senate ad hoc Assessment Committee for a period of three years.  Committee membership will consist of 2 SAH, 2 CLS and 1 CBA faculty and/or instructional academic staff members.  With the expectation of summer work, there is a possibility of a stipend from the Provost's Office.  At the end of a three-year period, the ad hoc committee will make recommendations to the Faculty Senate on the need for a standing assessment committee. 

M\S\P to approve changes to motion shown in bold

Create a Faculty Senate ad hoc Assessment Committee for a period of three years.  Committee membership will consist of 2 SAH, 2 CLS and 1 CBA faculty and/or instructional academic staff members.  The General Education Committee will make recommendations to Senate concerning the division of assessment between the two committees.  With the expectation of summer work, there is a possibility of a stipend from the Provost's Office.  At the end of a three-year period, the General Education Committee will make recommendations to the Faculty Senate on the need for a standing assessment committee. 

M\S\P

Strike the line “With the expectation of summer work, there is a possibility of a stipend from the Provost's Office. “

M\S\P committee name change in first line as shown in bold

Create a Faculty Senate ad hoc University Core/General Education Curriculum Assessment Committee for a period of three years. 

M\S\P

Create a Faculty Senate ad hoc University Core/General Education Curriculum Assessment Committee for a period of three years.  Committee membership will consist of 2 SAH, 2 CLS and 1 CBA faculty and/or instructional academic staff members.  The General Education Committee will make recommendations to Senate concerning the division of assessment between the two committees.  At the end of a three-year period, the General Education Committee will make recommendations to the Faculty Senate on the need for a standing assessment committee. 

The Provost plans to hire an assessment coordinator.

M\S

Accept the Assessment Task Force Proposal.

The General Education Committee did not fully support the document.  They agree with much of the document, but not all details.  Some Senators felt the need to look more carefully at the document.  Others wished to delete the assessment coordinator from the document.  This could change the nature of the document. 

M\P

Motion to postpone the Assessment Proposal

VI. Old Business 

VII. New Business

VII. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Susan Kelly