FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Minutes, October 8, 2009
Senate
Members: C. Bell, R. Berls, G. Boudreaux, L.
Dohse, G. Ettari, V. Frank, B. Haas, G. Heard, J. Konz,
B.
Larson, A. Lanou, K. Moorhead, L. Nelms, E. Pearson, D. Pierce, K. Reynolds, L.
Russell;
J. Fernandes.
Excused: M. Sidelnick.
Visitors: S. Haas, L. Langrall,
C. Mercer, R. Pente, A. Reagan, A. Shope.
I. Call to Order, Introductions and
Announcements
Dr. Dohse called the
meeting to order at 3:17 pm and welcomed Senators and guests.
II. Approval
of minutes
The
minutes of September 3, 2009, were approved with one editorial change.
III. Executive Committee Report
Dr. Lothar
Dohse reported for the Executive Committee.
Student Affairs Annual Report
Vice
Chancellor Bill Haggard‘s report on Student Affairs was distributed prior to
the meeting. It is available at: http://www3.unca.edu/facultysenate/2009-10/Student%20Affairs%20Report%20100809.htm
Dr. Haggard
responded to the following questions:
· Dr.
Dohse asked for clarification on a “student driven model of operation.”
o Moving
residential education towards a more student driven model of housing operations
will get students more involved in the ownership of the areas where they live,
in providing feedback, and in providing leadership for the repair, maintenance,
and clean up of those facilities.
Students become more responsible for those areas as opposed to a hotel
taking care of its guests.
·
Dr.
Dohse asked if the large influx of students this year caused additional
problems this semester.
o
This
is the second consecutive year where we turned students away who had paid
deposits. This summer 99 students,
mostly continuing students who did not make a reservation by the deadline, and
new student transfers, received notification that we could not accommodate
them. Our goal was to accommodate all of
our first year freshmen, and then to accommodate those transfers with fewer
than 30 hours. As a result, there were
about 100 students that we could not accommodate who had paid deposits. A committee is working on a financial model
for additional on-campus residence. The
earliest it would open would be Fall 2012.
o
About
40 transitional (temporary) spaces have been created for students to use until
space becomes available. Historically
the students have liked these spaces and do not want to move. In addition, the ground floor rooms of
Founders Hall have three students per room instead of two. These suite bathrooms have housekeeping
services as there are six students to a bathroom instead of four. About 34 students are still in transitional
housing today which means we have not had much attrition. He does not anticipate having students in
transitional spaces next semester. This
spring there will be a cap of 550 returning students to ensure room for our new
students. The cap will be first come,
first serve.
·
Dr.
Lanou said she was involved in meetings on a divestiture from Smithfield Foods
early on, but she did not know the outcome of those meetings.
o Chartwells no longer buys anything from Smithfield Foods
for this location.
· Dr.
Lanou asked for more information on efforts to engage off-campus students in
campus life.
o
We
focus a lot on our residential students but they are only about one-third of our
student population. This is an effort to
make sure that we continue to engage our off-campus students and incorporate
the activities. Each department will be
responsible for creating new programs to do that.
·
Dr.
Heard asked for the results of the feasibility study on the renovation of
o
We
learned that we could renovate
o
We
learned that we could fit 300 students on the former Facilities Management site
without it being a high-rise. There are two
or three different footprints that we could look at. A couple of the footprints encroach somewhat
on the unused upper part of the Botanical Gardens.
Dr. Haggard said several items in the report were
collaborations with faculty; he thanked those who are involved. Dr. Dohse thanked Dr. Haggard for his
report.
Status
of planned meeting with the Chair of the BOT
Dr.
Dohse reported that he has not met with the Chair of the Board of Trustees but
a meeting is being planned. Senators
were encouraged to send questions. He
will invite members of the Executive Committee to the meeting. If a member can not attend, they will be
asked to find a substitute.
New
At
the last meeting, the Senate asked that the new Mission Statement be read into
the minutes.
Dr. Dohse said with two exceptions, he judged
the changes to be editorial. The
exceptions were the elimination of 1) “Small by choice” and 2) “Liberal arts
education was once available only to a few.”
Dr.
Bell said a third significant change was adding the phrase “...and practical
experience.”
Senators
agreed that overall, the faculty response to the elimination of “Small by
choice” has been overwhelmingly negative.
One faculty member told Dr. Konz that the removal of that phrase may be
one of the most significant things to happen to UNCA in the last twenty-five
years. Two student ambassadors in Dr.
Haas’ class have questioned the removal of the phrase; in their script they are
to say that part of the experience here is small. Dr. Haas moved the following Sense of the
Senate Resolution, seconded by Dr. Pierce:
Sense of the Senate
Resolution
The Faculty Senate wishes to
understand the rationale of the Board of Trustees in changing the
Faculty Senate Draft
of Mission Statement with revisions by the
As revised and Approved by the Board of Trustees – June 19,
2009
(Previous draft approved by
Faculty Senate – May 5, 2009)
Accepted by University Planning Council – July 23, 2009
Vision
UNC Asheville students, within a diverse and inclusive
community, experience liberal arts education at its best.
UNC Asheville is distinctive in the UNC system as its
designated liberal arts university. Our
practice of the liberal arts emphasizes the centrality of learning and
discovery through exemplary teaching, innovative scholarship, creative
expression, co-curricular activities, [undergraduate research,] and
engaged service, [and practical experience]. Small by choice, and Primarily
undergraduate, UNC Asheville delivers [offers] a liberal arts
education characterized by high quality student-faculty [faculty-student]
interaction. Liberal arts education
was once available only to a few. We
offer this challenging educational experience to all promising students who are
committed to liberal learning and personal growth.
Our [liberal arts] educational approach emphasizes
life skills including critical thinking, clear and thoughtful expression, and
honest and open inquiry. Students
undertake concentrated study in one area while simultaneously developing an
understanding of the connections among disciplines. We encourage students to clarify, develop,
and live their own values while respecting the views and beliefs of
others. In addition, we cultivate an
understanding of the dimensions of human diversity while recognizing the common
humanity of all. Taken together,
these skills and attributes enable [We believe a quality liberal arts
education enables] our graduates to be lifelong learners and to lead
successful, flourishing lives as leaders and contributors to their communities.
At UNC Asheville, we respond to the conditions and concerns
of the contemporary world both as individuals and as a university. We incorporate economic, social, and environmental
sustainability into our institutional practices and curriculum. Through a range
of associated centers, [partnerships,] and initiatives, we fulfill our
public responsibility to address the needs of the [our] community
through the liberal arts [a continuum of learning]. We develop a
commitment to continuing service characterized by an informed, responsible, and
creative engagement with the
Comparative
Data on Centers
Dr.
Dohse is working on comparative data on the Centers and will deliver the report
when it is complete.
SGA
meetings
Dr. Dohse
said attending the Student Government Association meetings has been an educational
experience. He will continue to attend
meetings on a regular basis and will share the responsibility.
Second
The
following document was considered for Second Reading:
EC
1: Recommended Guidelines: Delivering
the Curriculum
Dr.
Dohse suggested that the Senate endorse the guidelines in this proposal and
pass it to the Provost. This document is
not intended to go into the Faculty Handbook at this point. This is an opportunity for the faculty to
step forward before General Administration forces action.
· Senators questioned how reassigned time was
calculated (for faculty who are full-time administrators, for department
chairs, for program directors, for scholarships) and whether this was factored
into General Administration’s calculations.
Some questioned our deficiency considering that we are a small
campus. Another question was whether the
push in this document for accountability was due to increased competition for
reassigned time. Some Senators felt the
categories and calculations by the BOG and the expectations are inequitable and
not appropriate.
· Dr. Dohse said that reassigned time was not
factored into General Administration’s calculations. That was one reason for this document. There are no guidelines for reassigned time
and the number of hours reassigned have accumulated. The average workload is 18 hours; many
faculty work less than 18 hours.
There are three important measures
and reassigned time is the least of our concerns. We have flexibility in reassigned time. The more important measures are: How many
courses faculty are teaching and how many students faculty are teaching. It does not matter if the courses are one or
two hours, or whether they are laboratories or lectures. The university should average four courses
per faculty member. The number of
students that faculty are teaching depends on departments category. UNCA’s student
enrollment growth requirement for a Category I department is 532 students
credit hours per year per faculty member.
Higher categories have lower requirements.
· Dr. Fernandes said the level of concern over
UNC Asheville not complying with the Board of Governors standard is extremely
high. We need to do everything possible
to meet the BOG standard. Initially she
thought about making the workload five and five. That proved to be a disastrous approach. She is now trying to gain more control over
the information and how faculty are assigned work, and to make it more
equitable.
· Dr. Larson said UNCA was the only school in the
UNC system that failed to meet the BOG’s course load
standard. That catches the attention of
state legislators, Board of Governors, and the President of the university
system. According to UNC Policy Manual
400.3.4 our standard annual course load is eight courses per year. The Legislature has told the universities to
measure course load by using “organized class sections” which is part of the
Delaware Study. Humanities courses (a 4
credit course) count as two organized course sections. That is one way that
we have chosen to work this semester so that we might be better recognized for
our work. We are working to find ways to meet the expectations to bring financial
resources to the university that will enable us to teach our students well and
to have a thriving academic life as well.
This proposal tries to present it in a way that was logical and
clear.
· Dr. Frank expressed profound concern about
the document, particularly its apologetic tone in comparison to earlier
manifestations of delivering the curriculum (Sept and Oct 2008.) The focus is on two concerns: 1) respond to
external pressure, and 2) eliminate the inequities on campus. What is missing, and perhaps most important,
is 3) can we become the UNCA that we strive to be? Do we get there with the kinds of documents
that we are approving?
· Dr. Frank gave examples of reports a
different spirit than the document under consideration:
o
In the report of September 2008 brought to the
Senate in October 2008, the challenge of delivering a liberal arts curriculum that emphasizes
student learning at a state funded institution is complex. Its dimensions
include:
·
Offering
a curriculum in general education and majors that enables students to progress
toward graduation,
·
Providing
students a closely-supervised individual experience entailing advising,
undergraduate research, independent studies, internships and/or practica,
·
Organizing
faculty time so as to reserve time for individual scholarship, creativity and
service, and
·
Meeting
expectations of the state with regard to student credit hours generated.
o
Phase
I of UNC Tomorrow, page 2:
·
“Not
enough people understand who we are and what we do. Just as important is the need to help voters,
legislators, educators and business leaders understand the value of a liberal
arts education to our communities and our economy. New
Program: We will lead the
national conversation…”
·
We need to present evidence (page 3) in relation to
student learning outcomes and making the case for deliberate interdisciplinary learning to
demonstrate our success and effectiveness (Action 3). In same paragraph: We believe our mission is credible enough to
warrant some revision of these teaching load expectations to better match
faculty expectations of our peer institutions.
·
Dr. Dohse agreed with Dr. Frank, but he
also saw a huge problem: we have big ideals and we do not have the resources to
follow through. When the state is rich,
we can get away with it. But when the
state begins to run out of money, it does not look at the extra work we do – it
looks at the nuts and the bolts. When we
are not in compliance we are in trouble.
We are doing a tremendous amount of work, yet in the BOG’s
measurements we fall short. This
highlights what UNCA has been very poor at addressing -- matching our ideals to
our resources. We, as a faculty, need to
realize that.
· Dr.
Frank agreed. Let us make sure that we
do not become a victim of memory loss so that at some point we can revisit
these issues that speak to the characteristic of what our institution is and
can do.
· Dr.
Fernandes said this will sound ironic, but when she started to work on this and
set up on the committee to develop this proposal, the motivation for doing that
was exactly what Dr. Frank was saying.
The reason why we developed the proposal is because we are under attack
and we need to put up a defense so that we when we are not under attack we can
come out in charge of our own destiny.
If we do not do this, the other options are what will rob us of being
who we want to be.
· Dr. Pierce said the language when reassigned time may be granted
(page 7) is so vague that he feared it would compound inequity across
campus.
· Dr.
Fernandes said this document will help us gain clarity about why people get reassigned
time and it will be equitable.
· Dr.
Moorhead noted that we have a current Reassigned Time Policy in the Faculty
Handbook that lists responsibilities for which reassigned time may be
granted. It also says that each academic
program will be equivalent to three credit-hours for each full-time faculty
position occupied by a faculty on a continuing contract. In essence, the Chair is going to get enough
reassigned time that everyone would have a chance at it. He would not want more detail than this. The weakness in our system is how we account
for activity. We need to do a better job
in our annual faculty records explaining how we used our reassigned time. The Handbook also addresses scholarship: a
faculty members’ minimum effort needs to be that I demonstrate effort at
professional self-development through teaching improvement and keeping abreast
of the state of the art in my field. He
considered that to be “routinely expected.”
· Dr.
Lanou asked if this document would supersede this section of the Faculty
Handbook.
o
Dr.
Dohse said this will not change the Faculty Handbook.
·
Dr. Konz referred to page 4 (responsibilities
of department Chairs) and the references made to department goals and to
individual performance. We need to be
careful about how we devolve from a university metric down to departments and
individuals in measuring course preparations per faculty member and student
credit hours generated without paying attention to differences across
departments (not just by funding categories) and differences between
individuals. Student credit hours differ
greatly by the activity that we are doing.
Leading undergraduate research or leading a senior research seminar are
very different activities from teaching a principles section, and the credit
hours generated require a different level of work load.
· Ms.
Nelms reiterated Dr. Pierce’s question:
What are we going to do with this document? Where will the document go? What will be the follow up to this document,
and when could we expect that?
o
Dr.
Fernandes said the proposal was written as an internal document. If the Senate endorses the concepts, she will
lead the process to take each section and translate it into policy or practice. Any changes in the Faculty Handbook would go
through FWDC and the Senate. There could
also be administrative changes such as mechanisms in Academic Affairs for
tracking and reviewing reassigned time.
This would likely take the rest of the academic year.
· Ms. Nelms found this to be very helpful. She asked that the bullets from the September 2008 task
force recommendations that Dr. Frank referred to be appended to this proposal
so that nothing goes through without looking at the core values that we aspire
to. It reads:
The challenge of delivering a liberal
arts curriculum that emphasizes student learning at a state funded institution
is complex. Its dimensions include:
·
Offering a curriculum in general
education and majors that enables students to progress toward graduation,
·
Providing students a closely-supervised
individual experience entailing advising, undergraduate research, independent
studies, internships and/or practica,
·
Organizing faculty time so as to
reserve time for individual scholarship, creativity and service, and
·
Meeting expectations of the state
with regard to student credit hours generated.
· Dr. Haas said he would be willing to pass EC 1 now with the
stipulation that it return to the Senate for a vote. Then the Senate could see that the items Dr.
Frank referred to were included.
· Dr.
Pierce asked for clarification. He
understood that reassigned time is only going to be allocated in certain
special situations.
·
Dr. Moorhead read the policy in the Handbook that says every department will
be given reassigned based on the number of faculty. That is current policy.
·
Dr.
Dohse clarified that when this proposal was written the group assumed every
full time faculty member would receive three credit hours. They were aiming towards 21 hours; three
credit hours could easily be documented as additional work – research or
service.
·
It
was apparent that several Senators had misunderstood the reassigned time
policy. Dr. Pierce said there is a lot
of misunderstanding about this on campus.
Faculty were under the impression this was changing reassigned time and
that faculty would have to compete for it.
·
Dr.
Lanou asked for clarification. If a department has several people who
receive reassigned time, does that mean there would be one reassigned time per
faculty on average? If it is in a small
department would no one receive reassigned time?
·
Dr. Dohse said that should not be. The idea is, in addition to what you normally
get, how do you get additional reassigned
time. There will be a process that requires
more accountability. Currently there is
no cohesive rule for how this is allocated.
· Dr. Konz said most of the concerns are about
how we position ourselves and how we view ourselves. There have not been significant objections to
the specific policies other than the clarity on reassigned time. That suggests that we can move forward on the
specific policies that are articulated about adjunct usage and equivalent
credit hours.
· Dr. Pierce preferred more specificity regarding the program
directors.
· A
friendly amendment was accepted: the
word “ranked” was added to the sentence on page 7: It should be noted that the Faculty
Senate Constitution defines, for senate service and voting purposes, a full
time ranked faculty member who
teaches at least 6 contact hours per semester.
Dr. Haas moved that EC 1 move forward, that
the bulleted points that Dr. Frank referred to be incorporated in subsequent
documents, and that as the policy is created it will come back to the Faculty
Senate for review and approval. The
motion was seconded by Dr. Lanou. A
friendly amendment was accepted to add to subsequent documents: “This document is clarifying how we implement
the reassigned time guidelines that currently exist in the Faculty
Handbook.” EC 1 passed as amended without
dissent and became Senate Document 0609F.
IV. Faculty Welfare and
Development Committee Report
Dr.
George Heard reported for the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee.
·
FWDC has completed revisions of the Phased Retirement
section in the Faculty Handbook per Code 600, and will present them to the
Senate in November.
·
They are reading the annual committee reports that
were submitted using the new on-line system.
·
Gary Ettari will represent FWDC in assisting the Provost
in selecting a new director of the Center for Teaching and Learning.
·
Jeff Wilcox has been appointed to the
Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (2009-2011.)
·
The Senate approved the following committee
appointments:
o
Rodger Payne to replace Scott Walters on the
University Research Council (2009-2010.)
o
Linda Cornett to replace Don Lisnerski
on the University Research Council (2009-2011.)
Second
The
following document was considered for Second Reading:
FWDC 1: Revision to
Post-Tenure Review Policy (revision of SD0208F; Faculty Handbook 3.7)
Two
editorial corrections were made to FWDC 1:
the effective date was changed to Fall 2010; the word “note” was changed
to “not.” FWDC 1 passed as amended without
dissent and became Senate Document 0709F.
V. Institutional Development
Committee/University Planning Council Reports
Ms.
IDC Report
· The Chancellor discussed the
requirements from General Administration to reduce the number of administrators
who had the words Chancellor, Provost, or Dean in their title back to a level
that is commensurate with an appropriate growth figure set by GA. As a result, a number of positions have been
re-titled, there have been some reassignments, there have been two vacancies
lost, and regrettably, one position lost that had an individual in it from
Alumni and Development. There was no
desire to reduce academics or student activities. These changes might not have been necessary
except that the measurement of administrative growth was based on a date that
did not represent customary staffing.
· Discussed
sacrifices that have been made due to the current work load.
· Briefly
revisited IDC’s role regarding UPC and the planning process.
UPC Report
· Discussed the changes required by
General Administration to reduce what they have termed “administrative
bloat”.
· Revisited
the Dashboard, the device that will measure our progress towards some of the
goals set as a result of the Strategic Plan.
Some goals are still missing. UPC
is reminding people that at present these will be internal, experimental
measures, but they need to be established in order for their validity to be
determined.
· UPC
addressed cost savings items under the purview of Vice Chancellor John
Pierce.
VI. Academic Policies Committee
Report
Dr.
APC
has begun its review of the major curricular changes and of the General
Education program. It met last week with
Dr. Sabo, a principle author of the charge under which it is conducting the
review.
APC
completed its review of the ILSOC annual report and liked the trajectory of the
reports. The current report was created
using a highly useful template; future reports will be comparable to the past
and similar questions will be addressed.
The template also makes it easier to compare different components of
ILS. The annual report is useful for a
number of reasons: it is inspirational
as the Subcommittees see what other Subcommittees are doing; it identifies
lagging ILS Subcommittees; and it will help ILSOC address weaknesses and
formulate goals for the coming year.
APC
thanked Dr. Alan Hantz, who is the principle author of the template. It is a great service to APC, to ILSOC, and
ultimately to our students.
APC
will encourage ILSOC to complete next year’s template early this year so it can
serve a formative purpose: the Subcommittees will know what information is
needed to complete the template in the spring.
Dr.
Bell noted that our culture of evidence that will involve a lot of
assessment. APC is concerned about the
time requirements as well as the competence of its assessment unless it gets
significant support from the administration in creating and administering
appropriate assessment tools. APC will
meet with Dr.
VII. Administrative Reports
Academic Affairs
Report from
Institutional Review Board (IRB)
Dr. Bob Yearout reported on changes the Institutional Review Board
(IRB) is making to ensure that the reporting process is timely and
organized. The Office of Sponsored Scholarships
and Programs (OSSP) is now the record-keeper for the IRB and will provide
continuity as IRB committee members rotate.
The IRB wants
to ensure that we adhere to the Federal Institutional Review Board guidelines.
In the event of an interaction with human subjects in an international
environment, international statutes require host country approval before IRB
can act on a request. These changes are
intended to protect human subjects as well as our faculty and students. For example, a student may no longer be a
principle investigator (PI) where human subjects are used. Students may conduct the research, but the PI
has to be the advisor or the instructor.
IRB will help faculty through the
process. A new homepage with
instructions will be posted soon. The
proposal submission process includes:
· Email
proposals (prefer pdf files) to Louis Toms (ltoms@unca.edu) in OSSP and send him one hard
copy with original signature via campus mail at CPO 2260.
· The
IRB will meet the first and third Tuesdays of every month to discuss
submissions. It hopes to be on a two
week cycle and will notify faculty if there is a problem with the
proposal.
· OSSP
will track proposals to ensure the principal investigators’ submit final
reports.
· Principal
Investigators involved in human subjects will be required to be certified by
August 2010.
· Note:
any activity that falls within medical IRB’s
(anything invasive, such as drawing blood) is not conducted at UNC
Asheville. Approval will have to be
received from an institution with a medical IRB (
Follow up: Closing Mossbauer Data
Effect Center and the Environmental Quality Institute
Dr. Fernandes said at the last Senate meeting an issue
related to Policy 101 was brought to our attention. She acknowledged that as Provost, and as an
administrator, she should know our policies and she should follow them. She did not follow Policy 101. She asked that the policy be included in the
minutes. We would be better served if
all policies related to faculty are in the Faculty Handbook; this is where most
of us look for Academic Affairs guidance.
FWDC will bring the necessary document to the Senate. In the meantime,
Policy 101: Administration of Institutional Centers at
UNC
Dr.
Konz noted that elements in the Faculty Handbook have been superseded by UNC
Code. Should FWDC be in charge of the
Faculty Handbook in total, or should Academic Affairs? Dr. Fernandes said as Provost, it is her
responsibility to work with FWDC.
Dr.
Heard said that Dr. Fernandes asked him if there was a policy for closing
Centers. He searched the UNCA website
for “Policy Centers” and it did not bring up Policy 101. The policy page is poorly organized. Archaic language is being reviewed as FWDC
puts Code 600 into the Faculty Handbook.
FWDC will address why policies, such as Tenure, are in multiple sections
of the Handbook.
Student Government
Mr. Stephen Haas reported for the Student Government
Association.
SGA Senate Bill 044:
Standardization of Course Grades
The Senate
discussed SGA Senate Bill 044: Standardization of Course Grades. Ms. Nelms did not believe this was possible
-- even if faculty use the same rubric, they still grade differently.
Mr. Haas said SGA’s intent was not to judge the way that professors chose
to grade. The bill speaks to the unfairness
of professors using different grade scales for the same course. For example, one student received a B in a
course for a 91. Another student taking
the same course number with a different professor also had a 91 but received an
A in the course because the professors used different grade scales. This was not because of the work done or the
way they graded.
Ms. Nelms
asked if it was the same test. Mr. Haas
said it was the same course. Dr. Bell,
Dr. Berls and Dr. Haas spoke against the bill. Faculty who teach humanities do not give the
same tests even for the same class.
Professors include the grading scale in the course syllabi so students
are not surprised.
Dr. Dohse said
a high percentage of the faculty would not endorse this bill because the
requirements are so different. He
appreciated the document but fortunately the Faculty Senate does not have to
endorse it or vote on it. It is good
that we have a system where student concerns are brought to the Senate’s
attention.
Mr. Haas said
many faculty do not post syllabi on-line.
Dr. Fernandes explained that faculty are not required to post syllabi
on-line. GA determined that syllabi are
the intellectual property of the individual faculty member and each individual
would decide whether or not to post the syllabi on-line. This would not be a matter of standard
policy.
SGA Senate Bill 045: Keeping Free
Periods Free
This bill resolves that the scheduling of mandatory events
for classes be forbidden in order to keep the free periods open for student
organizations.
Dr. Heard
asked Mr. Haas to clarify the bill.
Faculty are unable to schedule a class on a Tuesday or Thursday during
the free period and he would be concerned if people were not observing the
rule.
Mr. Haas said
lab courses in the sciences have been scheduled during the free period. There are also lectures on campus during the
free period that course instructors require students to attend.
Dr. Lanou
acknowledged that she had done this when there is a cross-course activity where
four different courses need to meet twice over the course of the semester. She did not understand that this time was
specifically for student organization meetings.
She thought it was time when over kinds of curricular or co-curricular activities
could take place.
Dr. Ettari and
Dr. Konz agreed with Dr. Lanou. The
original idea was that at least one of those two days could be used; there was
a distinction made between departmental activities and campus-wide activities. One of those days may be an appropriate time
for co-curricular and required activities.
Dr. Haas said
it would help if a specification was given; one day for co-curricular/required
activities and the other day for student meetings. It would be a reasonable compromise. Senators agreed that this needs to be
clarified.
IX. Old Business
There was no Old Business.
X. New Business
There
was no New Business.
XI. Adjourn
Dr.
Dohse adjourned the meeting at 5:35 pm.
Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely
Executive
Committee