FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Minutes, April 9, 2009
Senate
Members: C. Bell, K. Cole, L. Dohse, B. Haas, M. Harvey, G. Heard, J. Konz,
B. Larson, A. Lanou,
M.
Moseley, L. Nelms, J. McClain, E. Pearson,
D. Pierce, L. Russell, B. Sabo, S. Wasileski,
B.
Wilson; G. Ettari; J. Fernandes.
Visitors: G. Ashburn, S. Haas, L. Friedenberg, E. Katz, K. Krumpe, L. Langrall, J. Leffe, P. McClellan,
L.
Mathews, C. Mercer, K. Peterson, A. Shope, T. Tieman.
I. Call to Order, Introductions and
Announcements
Dr. Lothar Dohse called the meeting to order at 3:17pm and
welcomed Senators and guests.
II. Executive Committee
Report
Dr. Dohse reported for the
Executive Committee.
Board of Trustee’s Assessment
of Chancellor
A number of Senators will be interviewed by former UNC-C
Chancellor James Woodward as part of the Board of Trustees’ four-year
assessment of Chancellor Ponder. The four-year
assessment of Chancellors was instituted by former UNC President Molly
Broad.
Delivering the
Curriculum Task Force
Most members of the
Executive Committee are on the Delivering the Curriculum (DTC) Task Force that
is working hard to prepare documents for the Faculty Senate’s consideration
next fall.
III.
Institutional Development
Committee and University Planning Council Reports
Dr. Betsy Wilson reported
for the Institutional Development Committee and the University Planning
Council.
·
Institutional Development Committee
Report
IDC
members on the Mission Review Task Force have prepared a draft Mission
Statement that has been circulating and they have received several comments
that will improve the statement. IDC and
Provost Fernandes have developed a process and they are midway through the
timeline. There will be a Special Board
of Trustees meeting after commencement to approve the Mission Statement. It will then be sent to the Board of
Governors for their June meeting. UNC
Asheville’s deadline is May 16, 2009.
·
University Planning Council Report
Progress of Strategic
Planning
UPC has
been looking at benchmarks for each of the major areas of the strategic
plan. Since UPC’s
last meeting the benchmarks have been essentially approved for implementation
by the various workgroups. This
represents an important step toward progress on the strategic plan.
IV. Faculty Welfare and
Development Committee Report
Dr.
Merritt Moseley reported for the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee.
Election Results
Dr.
John McClain reported that faculty are becoming comfortable using the election
website and there were far less problems reported this year. When problems arose, they were quickly
corrected. He received positive comments
from many faculty members. Dr. McClain
thanked Adam Reagan, Ken Wilson, and
Committee of Tenured
Faculty (2009-11)
Brian
Butler: Humanities
Jeanne McGlinn: Social Sciences
Faculty Senate
(2009-12)
Gary Ettari: Humanities
Kitti Reynolds:
Natural Sciences
Volker Frank: Social Sciences
At Large: Greg Boudreaux, Peg Downes,
Kevin Moorhead
(2009-10) Alternates: Chuck
Bennett, Robert Berls, Mark Sidelnick
Post Tenure Review (2009-11)
Bob Yearout: Social
Sciences
Sarah Judson: At Large
Hearings Committee (2009-11)
Gordon Wilson: Humanities
Kitti Reynolds:
Natural Sciences
William Bruce: Social Sciences
Faculty Grievance Committee (2009-11)
Robert Berls
Megan Wolfe
William Sabo
Academic Appeals Board (2009-2011)
Duane Davis
Melissa Smith
(2009-10) Alternate: Ken Betsalel
Faculty Assembly (2009-2012)
Pamela Nickless
(2009-12) Alternate: Scott Walters
Nominees for Alternate Faculty Conciliator
The
Student Government Association chooses the Alternate Faculty Conciliator from a
list of tenured faculty nominated by the Faculty Senate. After serving one year as the Alternate, the
person serves as Faculty Conciliator for one year. Mark Sidelnick is the 2009-10 Faculty
Conciliator. The Senate endorsed the
following nominees for Alternate Faculty Conciliator.
Eric
Gant Pam Laughon
Irene
Rossell Mary
Lynn Manns
Student
Rating of Instruction
Dr. Moseley referred to the recommendations of
the Task Force on Student Rating of Instruction in April 2006, and moved approval
of a Sense of the Senate Resolution. In
this resolution, the Senate would adopt an experimental form campus-wide for at
least one year, beginning in Fall 2009, to be followed by a review. The motion was seconded by Dr. Haas.
Discussion
• Efforts are underway to have
students conduct the survey on line.
• An editorial correction by Dr. Haas
was accepted as a friendly amendment.
• Dr. Konz questioned the process, and
Senators agreed there was confusion.
• Dr. Sabo said Institutional Research
is responsible for gathering the data.
The issue the task force confronted was how the results would be
used. In the report, the task force
asked for a document from the administration that would explain the role
evaluations play in the overall assessment of faculty teaching ability and how
they would be integrated into merit evaluations. Our current practice is the data belongs to
the departments and to Academic Affairs because they are required for tenure,
promotion, and post tenure review considerations. Any information that can help faculty become
better teachers belongs to the department and its faculty. Anything that is used for evaluating
performance belongs to Academic Affairs.
• Dr. Pierce said if the resolution
passes, it needs to be disseminated across campus to faculty for fair warning,
either by the Provost or by the Senate Chair.
• Dr. Moseley agreed. There is some anxiety over changing the form
in the middle of an important period such as the pre-tenure period. The changes should be recognized across the
board.
• Dr. Sabo clarified this is not a
change in policy so much as it is endorsing an experiment that could become
policy. Faculty would use the
experimental form for two semesters.
• Two friendly amendments were accepted
to the first sentence under 1. The amended Resolution:
Sense of the Senate
Resolution
In
implementing the relevant recommendations of the Task Force on Student Rating
of Instruction, the university should
1. Adopt the revised form called Experimental Form
1 (attached), campus-wide, for at least one year, beginning in Fall 2009, to be
followed by a review, implemented by the Provost in consultation with the
Faculty Welfare and Development Committee, within one academic year. The form
should be augmented with clear instructions, as follows:
Purpose of this form: This form is
designed to 1) help your instructor improve his/her teaching in subsequent
courses by identifying strengths and weaknesses in the course; and 2) provide
the University with information on teaching effectiveness. Student evaluations
are anonymous. Instructors never see
your hand-written comments, and they do not receive any results from the rating
process until after course grades have been submitted. Please do not sign your name.
USING THIS FORM
COMPLETE THIS FORM IN
PENCIL
Mark One response per question
Make Dark Heavy Marks
Erase Completely to Change
2. Acknowledge that this form and the rating process
associated with it are summative and that the "ownership" of the
results lies outside the individual faculty member.
3. Encourage each department--or program with teaching
responsibilities--to adopt a policy on how best to use formative student ratings of instruction for improvement of instruction.
The results will belong exclusively to the affected faculty member.
4. Create a task force to include representatives of the
FWDC, the office assistants group, IT, and the assessment team to explore
whether and how evaluation can be put online while retaining assurances of
confidentiality, responsibility, adequacy of response rate, and
reliability.
The Resolution passed as amended without dissent and became
Senate Document 6209S.
First
The following document was distributed for First Reading:
FWDC 11: Revision of the process for Administering
Student Evaluations of Instruction
(Revision
of SD0308F; Faculty Handbook 3.3.3.1.1)
At Dr. Lanou’s suggestion, the sentence addressing which courses
are not ideally suitable for evaluation will be amended for clarity at second
reading.
Second
The
following document was considered for Second Reading:
FWDC 10 Revised: Revision of the Appointment process for
Faculty ILS Oversight Committee and
its
constituent committees (revision of SD8307S; SD0105F, SD0304F, SD0703F;
Faculty
Handbook Section 10.3.8)
Dr.
Sabo moved to call FWDC 10 (revised) back to the table. Dr. Moseley seconded the motion.
Dr. Moseley discussed feedback he
received on the proposal:
·
Objection
to renaming subcommittees to committees.
The rationale for that change was that service on these subcommittees is
extremely arduous and time-consuming, undoubtedly more difficult and
challenging than service on many university standing committees. FWDC did not believe the solution is to
rename the subcommittees. Instead, FWDC
encourages Chairs, Tenure Committee, Post Tenure Review Committee, and everyone
else to recognize the work required on these subcommittees.
·
At
least one of the subcommittees – the Writing Intensive – needs to be bigger
than this document proposed. Last week
FWDC amended it to increase membership: “Subcommittees will consist of a
maximum of five members, except for the Writing Intensive subcommittee, which
will have six appointed members in addition to the Director of the
o
Dr.
Karin Peterson, chair of the WI subcommittee, said eight voting members were
needed to meet its workload. There are
three WI requirements per student and that is a huge number of applications to
review. WI is running more than six
faculty development opportunities per year.
It has an ambitious assessment project that includes collaborating with
departments to evaluate upper level writing intensive courses. The departments benefit from hearing WI’s
thoughts and they benefit for learning how writing works in their
disciplines.
·
FWDC
accepted a friendly amendment to change to Writing Intensive membership to eight
appointed members (Russell/Wasileski.)
·
Dr.
Moseley said perhaps the most contentious issue has to do with the amendment
the Senate passed at its last meeting:
“Members will serve staggered, non-consecutive three-year terms.”
o
Dr.
Leah Mathews and Dr. Peterson offered two amendments for FWDC to consider. The amendments will allow committees to
retain the institutional memory and provide the training and mentoring required
to ensure excellence in administering their programs. Specifically, these changes will allow the
development of a pool of individuals who can serve as committee leaders,
workshop facilitators and assessment coordinators while simultaneously
recruiting new members to serve on the committees.
§
Allow
members of subcommittees to serve no more than two consecutive three-year
terms.
§
Allow
for additional staggering of terms so that no more than 1/3 of the membership
on a subcommittee is replaced each year.
·
FWDC
accepted a friendly amendment by Dr. Bell that altered the wording on term
limits. After a brief discussion this amendment was withdrawn.
·
Dr.
Lanou offered an amendment: “Members will serve staggered three-year
terms. Members will serve no more than
two consecutive terms.” Dr. Konz
seconded the amendment.
o
Dr.
Moseley opposed the amendment. It is
implausible as a person can learn to be an effective member on major committees
such as Tenure, Post Tenure Review, and the Faculty Senate after which he or
she must go off. Part of the effort of
this new legislation is to assure a more frequent supply of new blood onto
these subcommittees. This amendment
stymies that effort.
o
Dr.
Sabo endorsed the basic idea of preserving institutional memory, but argued
that experience is probably more important on personnel committees such as the
Tenure Committee, and the Faculty Senate.
He strongly supported having staggered three-year terms and suggested
the WI increase its membership to nine for more continuity. Drs. Mathews/Peterson’s amendment would make
this the most unrestricted committee on campus.
It would allow the longest terms of any committee, and he was
uncomfortable with that.
o
Dr.
Mathews saw a big difference in what members do on the Tenure Committee and
what members do on the WI and on other ILS subcommittees. The Tenure Committee has a very discrete job
– to make decisions about candidates that are up for appointment,
reappointment, and tenure. It is
different on the ILS subcommittees because part of their role is faculty development
around the area in which they are working.
They work individually with faculty who may be toying with the idea of
submitting a WI application. That is
quite different from the work on the Tenure Committee and having the ability to
serve longer terms is important for these subcommittees.
o
Dr.
Heard opposed serving more than one consecutive term. The institutional memory will remain; people
will go off the committee for a year and may want to return after one
year. This allows an opportunity for
faculty who are interested in being on a subcommittee an easier passage onto
one.
o
Dr.
Peterson said there is a misconception with the way that we think about the
work of ILS. It is not primarily a
governing or policy-making body. In many
ways, it is a curricular body and could be compared to the Humanities. In most universities that have WI, a faculty
member is assigned to partially administer the program, attend national
conferences and submit to journals. ILS
is about cultivating faculty to do their teaching work better. There is only one member of the Literature
department on the subcommittee. These
are not people steeped in the knowledge of how you learn to write. If the Senate is against having consecutive
terms, consider giving WI more time to develop a larger core of faculty.
o
Dr.
Larson suggested having four-year non-consecutive terms on the subcommittees.
It would allow more time for people to work together and to develop, and it
would be useful to have more stability.
It would allow for a twenty-five percent turnover per year and would
address concerns that people have.
o
Dr.
Bell noted that there is nothing in FWDC 10 as it is currently written that
prevents FWDC from reappointing a WI subcommittee member appointed under the
old system to an appointment under the new system. If FWDC believes it is important at this
period of establishing an assessment system, there is no reason why people
currently on the committee could not be reappointed. If the Senate rejects the amendment to make
it two consecutive terms, they could be reappointed. It would be after their second term that they
could not be reappointed.
o
Dr.
Wasileski said under the newly proposed system, she would be a senior member on
WI next year who would encourage the overlap and the development of the new
subcommittee members. Even after serving
for two years on the subcommittee, she did not feel qualified to conduct an
assessment of student writing and upper level courses that were not Chemistry
and she would not feel qualified to undertake what has been developed by WI
over the last several years in terms of assessment or by leading workshops for
other faculty.
o
Dr.
Lanou noted that checks and balances have been written into the document. If there is good reason FWDC may consider
allowing some members of these subcommittees to serve a second term.
o
Dr.
Konz asked: if someone is motivated and understands how writing classes work,
what is the problem with reappointing someone?
This document has FWDC doing the staffing and has the ability to make
sure that new opportunities are acknowledged and new people are brought into
the group.
o
Dr.
Sabo argued that committee term limits have been put in place to broaden the
appeal and to involve more people. If
one of the arguments is that we need to train people to be able to administer
and to teach these programs, then we need a constant inflow of new
individuals. If ILS is indeed “owned” by
the faculty then broadened participation is essential. The more-people-involved argument was, for
example, used to expand the Faculty Senate.
Making it possible for people to get involved also increases
institutional memory. More people become
familiar with the policies and it becomes less the purview of a small select
group. Finally the limit gives people a
break and allows for fresh ideas.
o
Dr.
Harvey agreed with Dr. Sabo but added that it is difficult to staff
committees. If someone wants to serve on
a committee he would support them.
o
Dr.
Sabo said that is where our culture is declining and it is a serious
problem. If nothing else, maybe it will
force members of committees to recruit people, to find people who have an
interest in serving. Dr. Moseley agreed
that staffing committees has been a problem, but it has not led to a removal of
term limits. We have to find people who
are willing to do the work.
o
Dr.
Russell said she understands this is a particularly challenging time for the
members of these subcommittees because they are developing assessment
tools. The need to have longer terms is
probably most acute now, and if there were a way to have longer terms so they
can do their best work now, she would support it.
o
Dr.
Peterson was not opposed to Dr. Larson’s suggestion to have members serve one
four-year non-consecutive term. That
would make a significant difference. Do
not think of the subcommittee in terms of a governing body with a lot of power,
but as a body that is committed and wants to refresh its chairs and other
leaders.
o
Dr.
Bell referred to Dr. Lanou’s suggestion to have no
more than two non-consecutive terms.
That does not mean that FWDC has to appoint people twice in a row and
there is still the possibility of adding new people who are interested in
serving on the subcommittee. Someone may
not be reappointed to make room for someone new.
o
Dr.
Moseley argued that this flies in the face of everything that Dr. Peterson just
said. She said it takes more than three
years to do this job well. To not
reappoint a member for a second term would be in violation of the spirit of the
amendment. He noted that ILS belongs to
every faculty member on campus. Everyone
here has every reason to care who is on ILS subcommittees and who is on ILSOC.
§
Dr.
Sabo called the question on the amendment:
“Members will serve staggered three-year terms. Members will serve no more than two
consecutive terms.” This removes the
phrase “non-consecutive” and adds a sentence.
This was seconded by Dr. Konz. The
amendment failed by a vote of 6 to11.
§
Dr.
Larson moved an amendment to read: “Members will serve staggered four-year
non-consecutive terms.” Dr. Bell
seconded the motion. The amendment
passed.
FWDC
10 Revised passed as amended and became Senate Document 6309S.
V. Academic
Policies Committee Report
Dr.
First
APC 65: Remove Psychology and History courses from
K-6 licensure requirements
APC 66: Require a Study Abroad experience for the INTS major;
Remove
foreign language as an option for fulfilling international experience
requirement
APC 67: Update requirements for areas of emphasis in INTS major
APC 68: Change credits hours and descriptions for INTS 361 and 362
APC 69: Allow other courses as option to INTS 499 for major
APC 70: Remove “Choosing an Area of Emphasis” in INTS minor;
Add
ECON 250 as an introductory course option in INTS minor
APC 71: Add three new Dance classes: DAN 131, 132, 133
APC 72: Change prerequisites for DAN 230, 237, 238, 310, 335, 337, 338
APC 73: Change title and description for DAN 231; Change description for
DAN 235
APC 74: Delete DAN 331; Add new course, DAN 330
APC 75: Change requirements for Minor in Dance
APC 76: Addition of new courses to the HWP
curriculum: HWP 260,
284, 290, 292, 333, 335, 345, 350,
355, 360, 480
APC 77: Change course description
for HWP 380
APC 78: Edit requirements for minor
in Health Promotion; Delete minor in Sports Medicine
APC 79: Add course descriptions
for Health and Wellness activity classes
APC 80: Delete HWP 182 as a
required course for HWP majors;
Change
required courses for the major in HWP
APC 81: Add new courses, INTS 325, 345, and 350 as options for INTS concentration;
Add ECON 355 as option for INTS
APC 82: Change foreign language
requirement for INTS major
APC 83: Edit required courses for INTS major; Edit competency requirements
for INTS major
Senators were asked to carefully
review several proposals:
·
International
Studies (substantial curricular changes and adds three hours of foreign language
to the major).
·
Health
and Wellness (substantial changes; increased presence of faculty who can teach
these classes).
·
APC
65 Rationale (includes a table from the Education Department that shows the
substantial changes we can expect to see next year that have been mandated by
the Department of Public Instruction).
·
Hardcopy
of APC 80 (significant changes in part two which alters the HWP curriculum and
gives an idea of the direction the major is taking with its staff).
·
APC
members review the rationale of 82 and 83 for edits.
Second
The following documents were
considered for Second Reading:
APC 48: Change Course Name and Description for MGMT 398
APC 48 passed without dissent and
became Senate Document 6409S.
APC 49: Add new course, MGMT 401, International
Marketing;
Add
MGMT 401 to the Management Concentrations
APC 49 passed without dissent and
became Senate Document 6509S.
APC 51: Increase
Course Credit Available for Special Topics Courses in Education
APC 51 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 6609S.
APC 52: Allow Art History minor for the Studio Art major
APC 52 passed without dissent and
became Senate Document 6709S.
APC 53: Delete PSYC 215, 320 and 325; Replace above courses with PSYC 216,
321 and 322
APC 53 passed without dissent and
became Senate Document 6809S.
APC 54: Delete PSYC 335, 409 and 435
APC 54 passed without dissent and
became Senate Document 6909S.
APC 55: Addition of new POLS courses: 247, 343, 349, 351,357, and 362
APC 55 passed without dissent and
became Senate Document 7009S.
APC 56: Change POLS 281, 366, 369, 380, 384 from 3 to 4-credit hours
APC 56 passed without dissent and
became Senate Document 7109S.
APC 57: Change credit hours for POLS 400; Add POLS 401
APC 57 passed without dissent and
became Senate Document 7209S.
APC 58: Change in the Capstone Requirement in Psychology
APC 58 passed without dissent and
became Senate Document 7309S.
APC 59: Editorial changes required by curriculum changes in Psychology
APC 59 passed without dissent and
became Senate Document 7409S.
APC 60: Change in Credit Hours for POLS 460
APC 60 passed without dissent and
became Senate Document 7509S.
APC 61: Change requirements for POLS major and minor
APC 61 passed without dissent and
became Senate Document 7609S.
APC 62: Change Advanced Placement Equivalencies for POLS 220 and 281
APC 62 passed without dissent and
became Senate Document 7709S.
APC 63: Delete POLS 334 and 335; Add new course, POLS 235
APC 63 passed without dissent and
became Senate Document 7809S.
APC
64: Replace POLS 334 and 335 with POLS
235 as an option in the Legal Studies Minor
APC 64 passed without dissent and
became Senate Document 7909S.
MINOR [considered minor proposal by APC]
APC 50: Reduce credit hours and change semester offered for DRAM 144;
Reduce
credit hours for major in Drama
APC 50 passed without dissent and
became Senate Document 8009S.
Provost’s
proposal for Developing University-wide Learning Outcomes
Dr. Sabo
asked Senators to carefully scrutinize the Provost’s plan for the Development
of University-wide Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)
about which the Provost will speak more.
While the Senate does not need to act on this document, APC thinks it is
the Senate’s responsibility to approve any final learning outcomes. The Committee therefore asked the Provost to
submit the document in order to establish a process which insures Senate
review. The Provost graciously complied
and APC discussed her ideas with her.
She then crafted this new document which clarifies her objectives and
plans. APC members think the Provost should
be complemented for incorporating IDC’s guidelines for assessment which the
Senate approved in November, and for being precise about her plans, the process
to be followed, and the time line. This
can only make the decision process more effective and legitimate.
Dr.
Fernandes said this is a plan to try to agree on university-wide student
learning outcomes in time for our accreditation process. The plan is to work with the programs’ and
departments’ assessment liaisons. A
small number of liaisons will be selected to work on a final version of the
student learning outcomes. Dr. Larson,
who serves on FWDC and the Senate, has agreed to be the conduit between the
group, FWDC, and the Faculty Senate. She
believes this will be a smooth process, as the assessment officers already know
what the departments’ learning objectives are.
The timeline is ambitious, but we should try to meet it.
VI. Administrative
Reports
Academic
Affairs: Provost Jane Fernandes
Proposed UNC
Provost Fernandes
introduced the latest draft of the UNC Asheville Mission Statement. The proposal has not been formally adopted;
it is a rough draft to enable Senators to send feedback. Several members of the
Mission Statement Review Committee are present today (Jane Fernandes, Betsy
Wilson,
Change in Academic Calendar
Dr.
Fernandes outlined proposed changes to the 2009-10 and 2010-11 academic
calendars. She does not propose these
changes lightly, but the budget situation is not getting better. We have had to make some serious decisions
about how to manage the university and the people who work here. She decided it was more important to put
aside her discomfort with doing something she does not agree with for the good
of the university. She was optimistic
that the Senate will do what is right for the university.
She
proposed for 2009-10:
· Classes
next year would begin and end one day earlier starting on Monday, August 17,
2009 and ending on Friday, December 4, 2009.
· Reading
days will be limited to just two and occur on Saturday and Sunday, December
5-6, 2009.
· Finals
will be administered Monday through Friday, December 7-11, 2009.
· Commencement
will take place as originally scheduled on Saturday, December 19, 2009.
· The
proposal maintains all instructional days.
· A similar
pattern of changes are proposed for 2010-11.
These changes will result in
significant savings to the University in board charges, and will enable us to
support core functions in a time of overall reduction.
Dr.
Fernandes asked for the Senate’s endorsement of the 2009-10 proposed academic
calendar. The same model would be used
for the 2010-11 academic year. In the
meantime, a committee will review other types of changes for the calendar long
term. Dr. Pierce moved that the Senate
support the proposed changes to the 2009-10 and 2010-11 academic
calendars. The motion was seconded by
Dr. Cole. Dr. Sabo proposed a Sense of
the Senate Resolution. Dr. Bell seconded
the resolution.
Sense of the Senate Resolution
The Faculty Senate endorses the
Provost’s proposed alternate schedule for the AY 2009-2010. Any changes beyond 2009-2010 must be
submitted to the Senate in Fall 2009, to insure more deliberation.
The Senate discussed what many
considered to be positive changes: exams end on a Friday and senior grades are
due the following Monday; Commencement is held the following Saturday. Dr. Wilson said for the first time in her
long career here, senior grades would not have to be turned in before final
exams and seniors can take exams along with everyone else. And no instructional days are lost in the
proposal.
Dr. Fernandes summarized the mechanics
of how this would work. We pay for a
minimum of 217 days to food services – anything over 217 costs $10,000 per
day. She tried to cut ten days but
settled for five and one-half days to ensure no instructional days were
lost.
Dr. Wasileski said snow days can be an
issue in the spring and teaching labs have to be made up. She had no problem holding these labs on
Saturday, but we could get some resistance from students. She asked if holding exams five days in a row
with no reading days would be a problem.
Dr. Moseley replied that exams were given back to back for years. Senators agreed this was an advantage to
those who teach humanities.
Dr. Fernandes said there are costs
associated with this proposal: if we start class on Monday, OneStop
staff will have to be on campus to register and process payments. In the balance, it is better to try
this. The Sense of the Senate
Resolution passed without dissent and became Senate Document 8109S.
Student Government Association
Steven
Haas reported on recent SGA elections.
New
student body president Cortland Mercer introduced himself. He encouraged Senators, when reviewing the new
Mission Statement, to consider the strategic plan’s sustainability: economic,
social, and environmental.
Mr.
Mercer said he was unclear on the resolution that the Faculty Senate just
passed and its affect on students; he would like to review it before making any
conclusions.
VII. Old
Business
There was
no Old Business.
VIII. New Business
There was no New
Business.
Dr.
Respectfully submitted by:
Executive
Committee