College Senate
Minutes of the Meeting of December 11th, 2000
Chair Gee called the meeting to order at 4:03PM.
1. Nancy Gee: We do have a quorum, so let's get started. Could I have a motion to approve the agenda, please?
Mac Nelson: I would like to move the approval of the agenda contingent upon our being sure that we get to a discussion of the upper-level CCC by no later than 5 p.m.
Nancy Gee: Is there any discussion?
So just to clarify, Mac, you are referring to "New Business" no later than 5 p.m.?
Nelson: Yes.
Gee: OK, just so everybody understands... The impact of that means that other business will come to an end at 5:00, whether it's finished or not.
OK. While we are discussing the agenda, I'd like to point out that under item 6c, I'm sorry... 5, under item 5, "the proposal for a School of Business and Political Economy, first reading," that has been removed from the agenda. It will come up later, just not in this meeting.
Is there any further discussion of the agenda as amended?
The Agenda was amended by a unanimous vote.
The Agenda was approved unanimously as amended.
2. A motion to approve the minutes was made and seconded.
Dick Reddy: Just a brief discussion. Mac Nelson indicated that there were two changes that needed to be made in the minutes of remarks that he made. On page fifteen, the phrase "and despairing of" replaces "and just sparing of," and on page nineteen, "eminently" is replaced by "imminently".
Mac Nelson: The other way around.
Reddy: Right.
Nelson: "imminently" is replaced by "eminently".
Reddy: The other way around. Right. OK.
Gee: Is there any further discussion of the minutes?
The minutes of the November 13th 2000 meeting were approved as amended by a unanimous vote.
3. Chairperson Nancy Gee (Chairperson's report): I actually have a relatively lengthy report, so please bear with me. The members of the Executive Board and I have been working with Jackie Swansinger in order to ensure a smooth transition. As part of that process, what we've been doing is attempting to identify those sorts of issues that we think will require attention in the near future. So what I would like to do is just list some of those issues for you.
First of all, bylaw revision. All of the standing committees need to examine their charges and their structure as stated in the bylaws and determine whether that still applies, or if they need to be amended. If so, they need to propose those amendments to the Governance Committee. All standing committees also need to (according to the bylaws) produce a Policies and Procedures Manual, and that should be on file with the Executive Committee. We have none of those, so those need to be produced. New members of the committees are supposed to be given these manuals.
The second item is governance in general. As you all know, elections need to occur in a timely manner. We've seen instances where committees have failed to function because of a shortage of or lack of membership. We need to look at how elections are taking place, and see if we can't improve the process, so it happens in a more timely manner, so that we can ensure consistent, timely, and stable functioning of campus governance.
Also, the use of the Governance Committee liaison members to the standing committees is stipulated in the bylaws, but has not been an effective way of providing communication among and between the standing committees. We have not been using this process for over two years, and something needs to be done to allow for communication among the standing committees.
A third is viability of committees in general. This has sort of been an ongoing process for the last couple of years. The administration has completed looking at their committees, their examination of committees, and we are just awaiting their finalized recommendations for which committees are no-longer functioning and can be removed. Our Governance Committee is also doing a similar thing. Again, we're waiting on a report for them in terms of what committees can be removed from the preference poll. The idea is that this can streamline not only the preference poll, but governance in general.
Also, another issue that will be coming up (item number 4) is a Vice Presidential review needs to be conducted according to our bylaws.
Number five. We are still looking for somebody to serve as the Secretary of the Senate. So please, ask around and see if we can't get somebody to volunteer for that position. We are also still looking for a work-study student. We had somebody, who was working with Michael, but she quit, and so we're now sort of stuck without a work study student. What we need, Michael is leaving in December, so what we need is a student who has some web experience, some experience with Microsoft Word, and the ability and willingness to listen to hours and hours of tapes, and transcribe that information. So, if you know of a student who is interested and able, please contact Jackie Swansinger.
I was also going to take this time to talk about some of our Senate accomplishments, and I realized that my report was getting way too long, so let's just say that we have conducted a record amount of business in a record number of meetings taking a record amount of time. [general laughter]
With that said, I would like to say a few thank you's. I want to thank the Senate and members of the standing committees for all of your patience and hard work and your dedication to the service of the college. Without your commitment and involvement, campus governance would not go on. So thank you very much.
I would also like to thank President Hefner and other members of the administration for their commitment to working within the process of campus governance, especially when it can be a slow one. We appreciate your patience. And I would like to offer some special "thank you"s: Ted Steinberg, for very hard work on the CCC Committee; David Ludlam, for an incredible job chairing Academic Affairs Committee. This committee has been inundated with a workload of astronomical proportions, so David you are to be commended, thank you.
I would also like to thank the members of the Executive Board of the Senate for all of the behind-the-scenes work that went on. I really appreciate that. We had a number of emergency meetings to address specific concerns and you guys were all there. It was wonderful. Thank you for your effort.
And last, but certainly not least, I would like to thank Dick Reddy, our Secretary and Parliamentarian, for his incredible commitment to campus service. I thank him for his professionalism; his hard work, which is really an understatement, given the task at hand; his advice; his preparedness; and for his seemingly unlimited knowledge of Robert's Rules. [general laughter] Thank you.
This year has been an incredible learning experience and we have gotten an incredible amount of work done. Thank you all very much. This ends my report. [general applause]
4. President Denis Hefner (President's report): I'll keep my remarks relatively short today. I know you've got a really long agenda. But I have a piece of good news that I want to announce to the campus. And the recipient of the good news, I don't see in the audience right now, I had told him that I would be announcing this today, and I said he might want to stop by. He's probably teaching a class right now, but this next Tuesday, the nineteenth of December, Dick Weist and I will be going to the Board of Trustees meeting, and at that meeting, Dick Weist will be voted in as a Distinguished Professor for the State University of New York. He will be the fifth in the history of our campus. [general applause]
Speaking of Trustees, I though you might be interested to know that we had two Trustees that were reappointed. I'm pleased to report that Pam Jacobs from Buffalo has been reappointed. I also am reporting that Candace de Russy was reappointed, so the next five years should be another interesting set of experiences for all of us.
The Natatorium is coming along very well. They're doing a great job in terms of working on the Natatorium. It does appear that it is on-line to complete the project sometime this summer so that it should be open well before the fall. There still is a possibility that we will be able to use the new entrance for commencement. It depends how much they can get done, but they are far enough along that that's even a possibility now. So that's great news.
Registration was completed last week. I don't know what you've been hearing, but I went over to Cranston several times and sat down to talk to groups of Freshman students, and for the most part, with a few little glitches here and there, but for the most part registration seemed to go fairly well. I haven't had any emails from the English Department, so I assume things went well there too. Is that correct? It seems to have gone better than it did this last fall, where there really were some difficulties. But they seem to be pretty well ironed out, and things, I think, moved along pretty well. At least that's what I'm hearing from students. I hope you're hearing the same things.
I did want to mention a program that I went to the other day. It was called The Ring of the Fettuccines. Is that how it's pronounced?
Anyway, The Ring of the Fettuccines. I went to one of the afternoon performances where there were all these little kids in the audience. And this was an hour so that they learned a little bit about opera. And they were totally quiet for a full hour, which I think is really something, and then as they're walking out, and I'm walking out with them, they're all trying to out-do each other in terms of hitting high notes. It was a great program, and I think it's a great community outreach. I was thinking to myself, I'll bet you each and every one of those kids that was there is likely to go to an opera as they get a little older. I think it really opened up an area that lots of youngsters aren't exposed to. It was a terrific program.
I also wanted to express my appreciation to Nancy Gee and to the Executive Committee for lots and lots of hard work this last year. These have been the longest meetings, I think, in the history of SUNY Fredonia, but Nancy promised that she's going to get us through in a timely fashion today, so we're going to hold you to that, Nancy. [general laughter]
I did also want to thank Shamus and the students for participating in this process. Shamus is the outgoing student body president, and I believe that you're terms switch, so this will be your last meeting, and Shamus has been an outstanding representative in the Student Association for a number of year, and did a great job. Emily Polumbos, who is sitting on his right, is the new student body president, so she will be continuing with this group next year.
And the last thing that I have on my list is to wish all of you a wonderful holiday. Get lots of rest. I know it's been a long semester, but we've got another one to go.
5. Mae Reck (VP for Academic Affairs Report):
I just have a short announcement that with regard to transfers with the general education program, Joe DeFillipo, who is the Associate Provost to Peter Sahlins is forming what I would call, I guess, a task group or ad hoc committee that will be meeting in January of "transfer experts." He's asked PACGE members if they would like to attend, and I volunteered to attend, so I will be reporting hopefully in February at our meeting then, the results of this meeting. It looks to me, a little bit of hope, a light of hope, possibly, with regard to students who we receive as transfers who do not meet the ten standards, that maybe we can have some type of situation where upper-division courses that we require in general education would count for those students. That's all.
6.a. David Ludlam (Academic Affairs Committee):
I have three things to cover. One is the proposed Anthropology Major. It's been requested now by the department that through negotiation, it be changed to a concentration, so it is a proposed Anthropology concentration. The committee had objections to it as a major. We have no objections to it as a concentration. I would like you to approve that if you would. Are there any questions on that?
Bill Graebner: How many anthropologists do we have?
Ludlam: On the staff currently? I think we have three.
Nancy Gee: I understand that three was our max at one time, but as of right now we have one and a half?
Ludlam: Yes. We have an adjunct that is filling one position. There are three positions, but they are not three full-time positions. They could not cover the courses as a major, given the staff that they have.
Nancy Boynton: For a concentration, what do we mean? Do we mean a sociology major with a...
Ludlam: Would choose anthropology as a sub-area of study. The main reason we're doing this is that, I believe the President and Vice President can help with this, is that for the SUNY viewbook, majors and concentrations show in the viewbook, and we would like students to know that we have that we have Anthropology at this college. We can't put this in as a major. We just don't have the staff and the number of upper-level courses weren't there and the frequency of the courses were very poor. These were running once every other year. You can't run a major that way, but a concentration can work quite well at that level, and it will be in the SUNY view book, so that students looking from throughout the state will see that we have Anthropology. Are there any other question?
The concentration was approved unanimously.
The next is the proposed concentration in Jazz Studies. There is one penciled-in change that the committee made, that the people from Music approved at our meeting, which was to change the word "within their major" to "in addition to their major." Other than that, we're asking your approval of the concentration in Jazz Studies for the School of Music. It seems an excellent program.
Gee: Are there any questions?
The concentration was approved unanimously.
Ludlam: Then the last is on the course repeat option. We have a sample of the transcript (for a hypothetical student by-the-way). People were asking if this is a real student. Nan would never do that to us.
Nan Bowser: It is.
Ludlam: Excuse me, it was? Oh, sorry. So please then therefore burn these minutes. If you look on the first column, where you see "Intermediate Accounting I", the E is quite well beyond where the letter grade would show, and that was your question from last meeting. You were afraid that it might be confused with a letter grade. Does anybody have any questions on that? If that does satisfy the situation, then we'd like to have you approve the change that we put through last meeting. It stands as it was in the minutes from the last meeting. There are no changes.
Gee: Could you just verbally remind everybody what the change is?
Ludlam: Let's see if I can remember... the students will come and just sign up for the new course. They won't have to do paperwork with the Registrar. There would automatically be the notation that the first course has been dropped as far as counting in their grade point average. If they need to take a second repeat, they will have to go to the Registrar and ask for approval. That approval will be granted in cases where the course is a required course to have a C or better in, such as MA201 for Education majors. The reason we tabled it in the last meeting was we wanted to see where the letter "E" would appear on the transcript.
Bill Graebner: I thought the issue last time was that the "E" was being used for two things: a letter grade, and another reference.
Ludlam: Yes, it is the reference.
Graebner: And what does it mean there at the right?
Ludlam: On the next page it explains to you that, "an "E" note to the right of the grade indicates exclusion or inclusion of the GPA."
Graebner: It means exclusion right?
Gee: Yes.
Graebner: Well all I can say is three of here were confused and thought it was an "E". All right?
Ludlam: Being out there on the...
Graebner: Yeah. Thought it was an actual "E". That is a failing grade in the course. I don't know how many other had the same quick impression.
Gee: Is there any further discussion?
Ludlam: We don't want to put it through if it's going to create problems. The committee is doing this only to help with the paperwork of students who don't fill out the paperwork for the course repeat. This is a way Banner can do it for us, but if you find this is...
Jon Kraus: Can you use an "X"? Something other than exactly the same symbols for failure?
Nan Bowser: No. I'm sorry to say it's a canned baseline process. We either adopt the process or we continue with our current practice and do it manually.
Kraus: It has to be an "E"?
Bowser: It has to be an "E" or and "I" for include in some unusual cases that we will have, but it's written into the baseline.
Joe Chilberg: With the past procedure, if a student took a retake option, they had to file a form of some kind. Was the failed course kept on the transcript after they passed the second time around?
Bowser: Yes, the course is there, except that it has an "R" grade.
Chilberg: So you'd have an "R".
Bowser: "R" would actually replace the grade. In the case of Banner, if we adopt this, and this needs to be clear, Banner will not replace the grade with an "R". The original grade earned will remain on the transcript and the "E" is to indicate that that grade is being excluded. Just so you know, again for those of you who weren't here last time, this was incorporated into baseline Banner at the request of medical schools and law schools, who wanted to know the information on the grade students previously earned. We often get inquiries from such schools asking us to report the initial grade, which we can do. We can continue with the current practice. I submitted it to Academic Affairs initially because it's an option that wasn't previously afforded to us, and felt it should be considered. It wasn't my decision whether to implement it or not.
Arlene Hibschweiler: It seems like Banner is envisioning that failing grades are something other than an "E".
Bowser: Yes, "E" is unusual.
Hibschweiler: Is that something we can change?
Bowser: Not without serious modification. I would not ask the technical staff to modify the baseline product in that way.
David Ludlam: Which do you mean? Changing the "E" or changing...
Bowser: By changing the "E" to something else like an "EX" or...
Ludlam: No, the letter grade.
Bowser: We would then have to manually go in and do it anyway. It would no longer be an automatic process. I have asked every school in the United States through our listserv if anyone does it, and no one does it.
Ludlam: No. What about not having an "E" any longer as failing; having an "F" as a failing grade. Can Banner do that?
Bowser: The difficulty with that is that we actually do have pass/fail. That means something different at Fredonia. As we've interpreted it at this college, and as we explain to people who receive our transcripts, it means that the student elected to take the course in a different way. Pass/fail does mean something distinct from an "E".
Ted Schwalbe: I agree with you, Nan, that it does in a passing case, but really what's the difference if a student fails a course and took it pass/fail or fails a course taking it in the more traditional method? If you had an "F" mean both things, why would that really be a problem?
Bowser: Right now it suggests that the student took the course pass/fail. The result is the same; you're absolutely right.
Joe Chilberg: The same result.
Bowser: The same result. I'm not exactly sure how we would combine earlier grades that students took. Presumably we cannot change an earned "E" from a previous semester. If this were to go into effect in fall of 2001, it would mean a different grading scale beginning in fall of 2001. It might be somewhat confusing to graduate schools and employers to see some "E's" and some "F's". I would not retroactively go back and apply a change of this magnitude.
Gee: Any further discussion?
Chuck Telly: Is it that big a magnitude if we do it? So, for three years it's difficult, but after that at least we've got something that makes a little bit more sense?
Bowser: I think if you're going to change the grading scale, that might require a recommendation. I don't know.
Ludlam: Academic Affairs is for our next meeting, that's one of the things that's going to be on our agenda, considering changing an "E" to an "F". Because of the things that have come up through the discussion here, we've been talking about doing that. So if that's something you want to direct us to do, then we definitely will.
Michael Grady: A fail in pass/fail is still not included in the GPA?
Bowser: It is. It is include in the GPA calculation. Yes it is.
Grady: It is?
Bowser: As a zero.
Ziya Arnavut: What about just to say from this year on... After three years, we won't run into this problem.
Chuck Telly: Otherwise we'll never get it done.
Arnavut: Exactly.
Karen Mills-Courts: Can we simply send this proposal again back to your committee until they make a decision on what they're going to do about changing "E" to "F"?
David Ludlam: Sure.
Bowser: We can wait and do this in the next catalog. There's no problem.
Ludlam: So then could I just have, for my own benefit for the committee, may we please have a show of hands of how many people would tentatively be in favor of switching from "E" to an "F"? OK.
Gee: So we do need to vote on whether to send it back to committee.
Ludlam: Right.
The proposal was sent back to committee by a unanimous vote.
Gee: It goes back to committee. Are you done?
Ludlam: Yes.
Gee: OK. Thank you.
6.b. Charlie Davis (Governance Committee):
I have a couple of things. First of all, we finished our research into the viability of committees and this has to be written up so that it can be forwarded by the end of the week to the Executive Committee as something to deal with next semester in terms of committees to keep and committees to either adjust or do away with.
Second, has to do with the various elections. We've gone through the preference list that was sent out in the middle of October and then followed up on that. And to make a long story short, there are a lot of committees open where there aren't any interested people to fill, including the Senate.
As Nancy has already mentioned, we also need a senator, I've called past... a secretary rather. I've called past secretaries to see if they would serve, and didn't get a positive response about that. Dick has done it four times now in his tenure here. He asked me if I was arm twisting, and I tried really hard through the phone, but it is an awful lot of work and that's a very, very important position.
We've done our best in terms of going through the preference list. A call for nominations went out last week to take one last shot at coming up with candidates, and I've finished calling back people who were nominated to make sure they're on the slate.
There will be web voting that probably should be getting to everybody. It's planned on getting out on Wednesday afternoon. And I went through that myself and tested it. It only takes about a minute and a half to two minutes to vote, assuming your password works this time. The first time we did it, the computer timed out, so that created some problems, because about sixty people got mixed information. So, we've gone away, and to me this is a little bit funny, and I'll be quick about it. We've eliminated O's and 1's and with a binary system, which is based on that, so people who thought zeros were O's, or O's were zeros, and people though that ones were L's. Those are now eliminated. So, we have a simpler way to enter passwords in case you don't know how to cut and paste. That will be out on Wednesday afternoon. We are going to hold the elections through next Monday, which should be more than enough time.
This still leaves a lot of committees that are lacking. We'll have to deal with that next semester. I've done my best in terms of trying to beat the bushes after the preference list and after call for nominations to get people to serve on committees, and that's held up the elections in many cases, because I was under the assumption last year... We sent out calls for nominations, not to nominate people without their permission, and assumed that was done. That was an assumption I won't... I've had to call all of the people who were nominated to make sure that they would be willing to serve. We've done all of that, so we will be voting next Wednesday afternoon through next Monday.
Gee: Are there any questions, comments? OK.
6.c. Len Faulk (GCP Committee):
I would like to continue the theme of a short string of thanks. Thanks to Nancy and the Executive Committee. Thanks for the hard work of the GCP Committee. And thanks to those who when called on to service say, "yes," and that thanks is to Ted Steinberg. When I summoned him in a café in France and said we've got a tough job to do, he said, "Yes." Indeed, a tough job and a good job was done. Our guidelines on the new CCC have been implemented. The committee has been meeting and reviewing proposals, and Ted has given us his wisdom and guidance, and we are moving through those. So, Ted thank you very much. [general applause]
There is more work left to be done, and I'm sending out an announcement that we need a new GCP director and I'm summoning you and those of you who help recruit a new GCP director--a faculty development position starting in the spring semester. So you will see that call and so we hope that we'll get responses to that call.
I've handed out a GCC... GCP... CCC... [general laughter]--who knows?--report, and in our discussion, I'm not going to get into that now, but in our discussion of strategies for upper-level courses, one suggestion is that we might be able to give us some more time by stating in the catalog that there is going to be an upper-level capstone, the details of which would be announced in May 2002 after a year. Incoming freshman would be expected to meet that requirement, and that that would be detailed at that point. Just to leave it as a possible strategy to give us additional time as we're considering what to do with an upper-level requirement.
The next task is to present the bylaw proposed change. And to kind of summarize that change, the proposal is to have a committee of eight individuals, six of which will be elected from breakdowns of our divisions. Now we elect representatives, two representatives, three representatives from Natural and Social Sciences and Professional Studies and two representatives from Arts and Humanities. The suggestion has been that it would be wise to split this down a little more, so there is always someone from the Arts, always someone from Natural Sciences, always someone from Social Sciences, someone from Professional Studies.
So that's the recommendation. Also to include a person from the Interdisciplinary Studies that has not been represented on this committee per se. And that person would be elected by the directors and coordinators of the interdisciplinary programs. Continue with a representative of Academic Affairs, but that person as nominated would be an ex officio member of that committee. OK. That's a change from now, in which it is a regular member. And then finally a representative of the students.
Some of the changes from the current program are that we currently have a representative of professional staff on the committee, and the committee felt those contributions have been very great there, that it was more important on this committee that was focusing in on academic work, that at this point that was not necessary to have that representative. Again, there was a representative of the chairs appointed by the chairs. We've had wonderful work by our chair of chairs Peter Schoenbach, but we felt that again that wasn't necessarily a position that we needed on kind of a streamlined committee for the new CCC Committee. That's kind of a thumbnail sketch of the proposal. Are there any question?
Mac Nelson: Yes. A question and a comment. The member of the academic administration will be appointed. I assume that means as ex officio?
Faulk: Yes.
M. Nelson: OK. That isn't what it says, and to me, ex officio means by virtue of holding a specific office, and I don't think that's correct since it will not be by virtue of holding a specific office, it will be appointed by the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Do you mean to say that that person would be on the committee, but not a voting member of the committee?
Faulk: Right.
M. Nelson: Then I think you should specify that. I think it should be amended to say, "appointed by the Vice President for Academic Affairs as a non-voting representative."
Faulk: I can take that as a friendly amendment.
Nancy Gee: Any further discussion or questions?
Faulk: Any further discussion?
Ted Schwalbe: I'll pose a question. On the area that you brought up, to have a representative from interdisciplinary programs, approximately how many faculty would be in that pool?
Faulk: Approximately with the minors and majors about thirteen or so... twelve or thirteen.
Jon Kraus: How do you determine that pool? There must be a lot of people teaching in interdisciplinary programs.
Nancy Gee: Just the coordinators.
Faulk: It was those who were serving in leadership roles. That's coordinators, directors... Kraus: I see.
Faulk: The intent there was that those would have very close understanding and interest in. Not that faculty who don't teach in that do not, but just as a way of kind of separating that out.
Gee: Any further discussion?
Paul Schwartz: You need a paren after Social Work.
Mae Reck: A paren.
Schwartz: You need to close that parentheses.
Reck: Close parentheses after Social Work.
Gee: Right.
Faulk: Certainly.
Gee: OK. We do need to vote on this. After we vote on it, if it's passed, then it has to be voted on by the entire voting faculty since it is a bylaw amendment. So, if there is no further discussion, we will move to a vote.
The bylaw amendment was approved by a unanimous vote.
Gee: The amendment passes; it now needs to go to a vote of the entire voting faculty. Charlie is saying that's going to happen on Wednesday. Electronic vote.
Peter Schoenbach: That's great.
Gee: So we are now on to new business. Should we wait fifteen minutes? OK, let's start with the first proposal. Roger Byrne and Bill Graebner. We do need to have that moved and seconded.
7.a. The motion was moved and seconded.
Roger Byrne: I would like to, at this point, introduce an amendment to that motion. Would that be possible? Do we have to vote on that first?
Nancy Gee: Well, since we just....
Dick Reddy: Just one moment. Mac was wondering what the motion was. OK. The motion in this particular instance is listed under "proposal offered by Roger Byrne and Bill Graebner to amend the previously adopted proposal" and then it has three items. It's in the agenda, the third to the last page I believe.
Gee: So now you can propose your amendment. Since it has been moved and seconded, now you can amend it.
Byrne: OK. Now I'd like to propose an amendment to the motion. The amendment is in the handout that you received on the way in under the title, "Compromise Proposal, CCC Upper-Level Requirements." It expands upon, but is not beyond the scope of the original proposal. But for clarity, it's written as a separate motion, and I crave indulgence that it be considered. Although it's an amendment, it's really more of a substitute motion in effect.
Reddy: That's not a problem.
The substitute motion was seconded.
Gee: Now we can discuss the substitute motion, which means that, if the substitute motion passes, the first motion is moot.
Minda Rae Amiran: Just a question of order. The GCP Committee had a proposal that we didn't discuss.
Gee: The bylaw amendment?
Amiran: No. Not the amendment to the bylaws, but the "for discussion," an alternate. The handout. Was that to have been discussed?
Gee: Are you talking about under new business? We're on the first item under...
Patrick Jones: It was on the table when we came in.
Gee: Oh, Len mentioned the report. Yes, he already discussed that.
Amiran: But he didn't want discussion of it?
Len Faulk: Yeah, I think this was part for discussion, yes. This was, I think, for information. The committee said that we should present this not as a formal vote per se or a motion, but something that we should discuss.
Roger Byrne: So in essence, Len, this discussion is not a final discussion on upper-level, but rather one more step along the way in discussion about the upper-level requirement?
Faulk: It's a way of suggesting that we could take some more time to define the categories by saying... what's been driving this is this catalog and this need to come to some kind of final resolution. What this is suggesting is to say that we just deal with the catalog by saying that we are having an upper-level capstone and that the details of which we will present, you know, within the first year with the new freshman.
Chuck Telly: But if we pass this option, that makes that moot.
Nancy Gee: It's not up for a vote though. Are you referring to the report from the committee? The recommendation?
Telly: The compromise proposal.
Gee: Yeah, that's what's on the floor.
Roger Byrne: If we pass this, then we would not pass mine.
Gee: Yes, that's correct.
Faulk: Yeah, essentially it's delaying....
Telly: Which is "this"?
Gee: The motion that's on the floor is the compromise motion. That's what's on the floor. If we pass that, then the recommendation from the GCP Committee is really moot because we've already made the decision.
Roger Byrne: Is that really the case though? Because the GCP Committee is recommending that it may not enter into the catalog. Is there going to be insufficient time to get it into the catalog at this point?
Gee: I can't answer that.
Len Faulk: I think there is at this point. If a decision was made, "this is what we want specifically," there would be enough time. I guess the question is in terms of developing the upper-level capstone. What is being developed is on kind of an interim kind of basis. We're going to have this upper-level forever. I suspect that we'll want to define and develop a capstone with perhaps more thematic, more focused elements. So I guess that our suggestion is, is to give some more time to do that.
Byrne: So I guess what's the point of putting this forward at all, if...
Dick Reddy: Essentially, there is a recommendation from the General College Program Committee that affords an option. It's a delaying option. On the other hand, the Senate is in a position, if it wishes, to take action on this proposal on this point and that will be our recommendation. That will be our program. Now, anything that we approve may subsequently be re-examined, and there may be changes, but essentially, because Len did not bring up that proposal for a vote or for a discussion, it simply remains at this time an option for us to consider. It might be reasonable should all of these motions be defeated that are on the agenda to go back to Len's motion and to say, "Well we're going to hold off and we're just going to put this language into the catalog for the time being." But if we approve whatever any of these options that are here, then that's the way it is for the time being.
Gee: Just to clarify, Len did not make a motion.
Reddy: Right. He did not; he suggested a...
Gee: It's sort of a recommendation.
Karen Mills-Courts: We may also choose to table these options may we not?
Gee: Yes.
Roger Byrne: If we choose to table the options, does that mean that the motion passed at the November meeting becomes the recommendation of the Senate?
Gee: That is what stands as of right now. That's true. This body can make a recommendation to the GCP Committee to go forward and investigate the issue.
Ted Schwalbe: If in fact nothing gets decided at this meeting, gets tabled or whatever, then, and if the wording that Len has here regarding what we put in the catalog copy is put in, does that preclude the possibility of this body deciding not to recommend something, because within the catalog that says there will be some upper-level requirement? What happens if the decision is made not to adopt any kind of requirement?
Gee: Well as of right now, there is no upper-level requirement. We would have to vote that in, for that to go into the catalog.
Dennis Hefner: I just wanted to take just a minute. I will admit I'm partial to what the GCP Committee has recommended. (tape change) I have a youngster. He's thirty-three now, so he's no longer a youngster. He'll be thirty-three next month. He got to the end and at the end what they had was a capstone that was very subject focused, and the one that he selected to take was one that related to Watergate.
For a whole semester, every time I talked to him on the phone all he could talk about was that one tremendous, exciting class. He was writing papers all the time. He was reading like crazy. He was doing all of this stuff, but the capstone really captured his imagination.
I think that our campus can put together a capstone. Whether it one course or two courses... whatever we come up with. I think we can come up with a capstone that will really capture the imagination of youngsters. I don't think we can do it by the time the catalog has to go to bed. I think it's something we need to talk about and think about, but I would love to see us put something in place that really is going to make our general education program stand out in the minds of our students.
And as I read these proposals, and they are very sincere proposals, they are nice proposals. I'm not sure they're going to capture the imagination of students as they're written now. I'd like to see something that has had more time and more campus-wide input before it goes forward. So I'm just speaking in favor of the GCP suggestion. And I know it has