Approved minutes of a meeting of the Academic Senate of the University of Dayton

University of Dayton. Academic Senate

English

University of Dayton

2006-03-10 Minutes of the Academic Senate

University of DaytoneCommonsAcademic Senate Minutes Academic Senate1-7-20052005-01-07 Minutes of the Academic SenateUniversity of Dayton. Academic SenateFollow this and additional works at: http://ecommons.udayton.edu/senate_minsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Senate at eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Academic SenateMinutes by an authorized administrator of eCommons. For more information, please contact frice1@udayton.edu.Recommended CitationUniversity of Dayton. Academic Senate, "2005-01-07 Minutes of the Academic Senate" (2005). Academic Senate Minutes. Paper 61.http://ecommons.udayton.edu/senate_mins/61APPROVED  UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON DAYTON, OHIO MINUTES OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE  January 7, 2005 Kennedy Union West Ballroom   Presiding:  Dr. Fred Pestello, Provost and Senior Vice President for Educational Affairs   1. Opening Prayer:  Joe Saliba began the meeting with a prayer.   2. Roll Call:  Everyone gave self-introductions.   3. Approval of Minutes:  The minutes of December 3, 2004, were approved as written.   4. Announcements:   a. F. Pestello informed the Senate that the Constitution states the SGA VP for Academic Affairs serves as ex officio on the Academic Senate.  b. F. Pestello asked the Senators if they wanted to elect officers from the top two vote getters, and it was confirmed that this process be used.   5. Election of Executive Committee of the Academic Senate (see attachment for names).   6. Election of President, Vice President and Secretary (see attachment for names).   7. Organizational meeting of committees – After elections, each subcommittee met and selected a Chair from the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate (see attachment for names).  Each Chair established a meeting time.   The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.  Respectfully submitted:  Judy Wilson, Office of the ProvostAttachment to the January 7, 2005 Minutes of the Academic Senate    Results of the Elections:   Officers of the Academic Senate  President - David Biers (Social Sciences; Department of Psychology) Vice President - Robert Penno (Engineering; Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering) Secretary - Paul Eloe (Natural Sciences; Department of Mathematics)   Executive Committee of the Academic Senate (ECAS)  James Biddle (Education and Allied Professions; Department of Teacher Education) David Biers (Social Sciences; Department of Psychology) Nancy Buchino (Undergraduate Student; Student Government Association Vice President for Academic Affairs) Paul Eloe (Natural Sciences; Department of Mathematics) (Graduate Student) - To be determined Harry Gerla (Law) Robert Penno (Engineering; Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering) Fred Pestello (Provost and Senior Vice President for Educational Affairs) John Rapp (Business Administration; Department of Economics & Finance) Joseph Saliba (Dean; School of Engineering) Kathleen Webb (Libraries; Roesch Library) Laura Yungblut (Humanities; Department of History)   Committee Chairs  Academic Policies Committee - James Biddle (Education and Allied Professions; Department of Teacher Education)  Faculty Affairs Committee - Laura Yungblut (Humanities; Department of History)  Student Academic Policies Committee - Nancy Buchino (Undergraduate Student; Student Government Association Vice President for Academic Affairs) 

2005-01-07 Minutes of the Academic Senate

University of DaytoneCommonsAcademic Senate Minutes Academic Senate10-28-20052005-10-28 Minutes of the Academic SenateUniversity of Dayton. Academic SenateFollow this and additional works at: http://ecommons.udayton.edu/senate_minsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Senate at eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Academic SenateMinutes by an authorized administrator of eCommons. For more information, please contact frice1@udayton.edu.Recommended CitationUniversity of Dayton. Academic Senate, "2005-10-28 Minutes of the Academic Senate" (2005). Academic Senate Minutes. Paper 65.http://ecommons.udayton.edu/senate_mins/65APPROVED  UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON DAYTON, OHIO MINUTES OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE  October 28, 2005 KU West Ballroom 3:00 p.m.     Presiding:  Dr. David Biers  Senators Present:  Biddle, Biers, Chen, Courte, Darrow, DeMarco, Desmond, Doyle, Eggemeier, Eloe, Gerla, Hardie, Hileman, Ilg, John, Lasley, Meyers, O’Gorman, Penno, Pestello, Phelps, Rapp, Saliba, Singer, Strain, Thimmes, Thompson, Zoghi  Guests: Carter, Ferry, Patterson, Vanderberg   1. Opening Prayer:  Senator O’Gorman opened the meeting with a prayer.  2. Roll Call:  Twenty-eight of thirty-nine Senators were present.    3. The minutes of the September 16, 2005 meeting were approved.  4. The Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) proposal was presented and discussed.  Senator Eggemeier gave an overview of procedures.  OBR process includes review of the Program Development Plan and review of the Full Proposal.  There is an additional review due to an accreditation process.  The on campus process includes departmental and unit approval, Graduate leadership Council and Academic Senate approval, and approval from the Provost Council.  The Full Proposal will then go to the Board of Trustees.  Paul Vanderburgh presented the concept of the proposal.  Senators came to the meeting with four attachments and Dr. Vanderburgh discussed each of the four attachments.  Drs. Vanderburgh and Lasley answered questions from the floor.  The Academic Senate will vote on the Full Proposal at the December 2 meeting.  Senators will receive copies of the Full Proposal as early as possible in November.    5. Joyce Carter gave a presentation regarding the status of criminal background checks for potential UD employees.  Criminal background checks are currently and routinely given for staff positions.  There is debate over the use of criminal background checks for faculty positions.  Senator Gerla presented a report from the faculty Affairs Committee of the Academic Senate.  This committee analyzed the position of the American Association of University Professor’s position as it applies to UD.  At this point in time, the FAC does not make a clear recommendation.  6. Standing Committee Reports   FAC:  Senator Gerla indicated that the FAC is studying a constitutional issue related to the calendar for terms for Senators.   APC:  Dr. Biddle reported the APC approved two motions following input from the General Education Committee.  The first action changes the implementation of the third module of the Quantitative Reasoning Competency.  A student must pass with a grade of C- or better one of the approved courses.  The second action makes editorial changes in the General Education Policy document.  Finally, the APC discussed and will review a proposed plan, submitted by the general Education Committee to complete the review of clusters.   SAPC:   Senator Hilemon indicated that the SAPC will meet following the Academic Senate meeting and determine the reopen the discussion of the Honor Code.  7. Senator Biers closed with a report from ECAS.  An ECAS member sits on each of the Provosts subcommittees; the calendar committee is actively considering the best way to employ study days during finals or considering optimal ways to space spring and Easter breaks; there continues to be discussion on the change of class time for evening classes; cost efficient and useable forms of the University Bulletin are being considered and the conversation is led by Senator Saliba; President Curran will undergo review this year and the Board of Trustees will confer with ECAS to determine good ways to obtain faculty input.  The meeting adjourned at 4:45 P.M.  Respectfully submitted,    Paul W. Eloe      

2005-10-28 Minutes of the Academic Senate

University of DaytoneCommonsAcademic Senate Minutes Academic Senate4-20-20072007-04-20 Minutes of the Academic SenateUniversity of Dayton. Academic SenateFollow this and additional works at: http://ecommons.udayton.edu/senate_minsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Senate at eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Academic SenateMinutes by an authorized administrator of eCommons. For more information, please contact frice1@udayton.edu.Recommended CitationUniversity of Dayton. Academic Senate, "2007-04-20 Minutes of the Academic Senate" (2007). Academic Senate Minutes. Paper 76.http://ecommons.udayton.edu/senate_mins/76[Approved September 13, 2007] UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON DAYTON, OHIO MINUTES OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE April 20, 2007 KU West Ballroom, 3:00 P. M.   Senators Present: A. Abueida, D. Biers (presiding), C. Chen, D. Courte, D. Darrow, G. DeMarco, G. Doyle, C. Duncan, T. Eggemeier, E. Elam, J. Farrelly, A. Fist, R. Hardie, B. John, P. Johnson, L. Kloppenberg, T. Lasley, M. Lofton, W. Luckett, J. O'Gorman, R. Penno, F. Pestello, C. Phelps, D. Poe, A. Seielstad, R. Wells   Senators Excused: J. Biddle, M. Brill, L. Brislin, A. Crow, E. Gustafson, C. Letavec, P. Meyers, I. Morgan, M. Morton, J. Saliba, L. Simmons, B. Turk   Guests: D. Bickford, P. Donnelly, L. Leming, J. Perry (Human Resources), D. Schroeder (Advancement), J. Untener  New Members of the 2007-2008 Academic Senate: C. Bowman, L. Cook, W. Diestelkamp, R. Frasca, A Jipson, R. Kearns, L. Laubach, R. Marek, M. Patterson, Y. Raffoul, D. Sink, L. Snyder  1. Opening Prayer: Senator Darrow opened the meeting with prayer.  2. Roll Call: Twenty-six of thirty-nine Senators were present.   3. Minutes:  March 2, 2007: Moved and seconded, minutes were approved as written.  4. Doc-06-10 University Promotion and Tenure Policy Carolyn Phelps introduced the document and opened the floor for discussion. The following points were discussed and comments made:  The distinction between substantive consideration and procedural considerations may need further clarification in the document.   It was suggested that while the document is better than the initial version of the document, the history of what has precipitated this document makes it disadvantageous for faculty. Removal of the Board of Trustees does not benefit faculty. It places faculty in an inappropriate role. Moreover, further study of departmental and unit processes is needed before bringing work on this document to completion.   In response, it was suggested that this is a faculty-friendly document that will result in fairer processes across units and will put procedural safeguards in place. While it is difficult to separate substantive and procedural issues, the Faculty Affairs Committee has tried to keep the substantive issues as close to a faculty member’s University home as possible.   It was noted that the Board of Trustees still remains the court of last resort for tenure appeals.   It was suggested the this is an unprecedented move on the part of the Board, and faculty “would be stupid” not to take advantage of this possibility.   The question was raised as to why the committee does not have a name. It was noted that in I. B. 2 of the document the name of the committee is specified as University Promotion and Tenure Committee.   A question was raised as to whether or not there might be unforeseen consequences that could lead to the loss of autonomy by the units. The example of dual tracks for tenure potentially being imposed on all units was given. It was noted that the document provides a check to solve difficulties by requiring these to come to the Academic Senate.   Questions were raised about the scope of the President’s decision-making as specified in II. B. 8. what does “administrative authority” mean. It was noted that in law this expression has a meaning that does not apply in this document and so the expression is used appropriately and does not exclude review by the President.   It was asked if I.B. 2. allows for a unit document to preclude the appointment, by the dean, of up to two additional members on a unit promotion and tenure committee. This is the case and the reason for saying a unit “may” allow for this in its procedures.   The question was raised about what would constitute a quorum for the University Promotion and Tenure Committee. It was agreed that the document did not need to address this issue.   Two points of discussion resulted in amendments to the document:  It was suggested that II.A.1. be more specific as to what materials should be shared with a candidate at the time of hire and who should provide these materials. It was moved and seconded that this section be amended to read, “The approved University, unit, and departmental criteria and procedures will be shared with the candidate at the time of hire by the Office of the Provost.” Motion passed with 25 in favor.   The question was raised about the meaning of “to promote balance” in section I. B. 2. After discussion, it was moved by O’Gorman and seconded by Wells that the phrase “to promote balance” be deleted. And after calling the question with a vote of 25 in favor, a vote was taken on the motion. The vote resulted in a tie. The Provost voted to strike the phrase.   T. Lasley moved to call the question. M. Lofton seconded the motion. The vote was 23 yes, 2 no, and 0 abstentions. A vote was then taken on Doc 06-10 with the two amendments. The vote was 23 yes, 2 no, and 0 abstentions.  6. Committee Reports:   Academic Policies Committee: David Darrow submitted the following report of the activities of the standing committee for the 2006-2007 academic year. The bulk of the APC’s work this year revolved around the Provost’s charge to review the Habits of Inquiry report. In the Fall, the committee resolved to handle the review in two phases. Phase one was to consist of a review of the learning outcomes in sections I-V of the document to determine if they captured the ideals of a university education in the Catholic and Marianist traditions. Concluding that the report had met these criteria, the committee appointed a subcommittee of Darrow, Duncan, O’Gorman and Penno to determine whether or not the university community as a whole agreed. After conducting a series of open forums and individual presentations, the subcommittee presented its findings to the APC, which then reported them to the Senate on 30 November 2006 (Appendix A). Anticipating approval during the Phase I review process, the APC began developing a series of guidelines for Phase II—the review of the recommendations section of the HIR document. For this purpose, the committee designed a system of working groups to review individual sections of the document recommendations with the goal of fulfilling its charge to “generate a set of recommendations regarding specific programs, infrastructure, faculty development, and resources necessary to realize the educational aims and learning outcomes.” The committee devised a draft charge to the working groups (for the latest version see Appendix B). Originally, the committee proposed the creation of five working groups that divided the task of review into the following categories: Working Group #1 First Year Seminar, Humanities Base, & General Education Working Group #2 Service & Experiential Learning, Multi/Interdisciplinary Programs Working Group #3 Intercultural and Global Learning Working Group #4 Student Scholarship and Culminating Experiences Working Group #5 Faculty Development, Communication, &Pedagogy Each of the working groups was to be chaired by one or more members of the APC. Initial discussions in the winter term resulted in a decision to postpone the convocation of the fifth working group until the APC had processed interim reports from the other WGs. The original draft charge to the WGs contained certain recommendations connected to their membership. It was with these recommendations in mind that the APC began assembling lists of faculty and staff to be invited to serve as WG members in the Winter term. This proved to be a rather drawn out process, as the preliminary lists required amendment after the initial round of invitations failed to yield adequate representation from each of the divisions of the university. There was also some question as to the wording of the charges to the WGs. As such, the process has moved at a disappointingly slow pace. To date, only WG #1 has met. Discussions in the working group are headed in the direction of first, trying to determine what students should get out of a first year seminar. The following questions were raised: What is the purpose (or what ought to be the purpose) of the seminar? Are students’ educational and developmental needs best addressed through a seminar, or would they be best served by a quilt or tapestry of experiences to accomplish these goals? The WG will pick up with these questions in the fall. Hopefully, each of the other WGs will be able to have at least an electronic organizational meeting (e.g., circulation and submission of F 07 availability) before May 15. In addition to this work, the APC reviewed and commented on the draft of an ENG department proposal to revise the current writing course sequence to make it more consistent with student developmental needs. Rather than frontloading the writing into the first year, the proposal would spread the two required semesters over the first year and sophomore year. This would also address the well-documented issue of the dramatic dip in student writing that occurs on campus between the first year and junior/senior years. The Committee also worked with the calendar committee on the next round of academic calendars. Discussions produced a consensus to work with the registrar over the long term to increase the length of the break between fall and winter term, when possible. The calendar discussion also raised the need to continue to exam the general exam period guidelines to ensure an adequate distribution of the study days throughout the exam period. Much of the committee’s work was hampered, in both semesters, by the difficulty of raising a quorum. We urge the Senate to consider policy changes that will ensure either the replacement of faculty on leave or who resign and that will provide a mechanism for conducting routine business when a quorum cannot be assembled because of conflicting schedules.  A question was raised as to the process for APCAS consulting on the English proposal. It was noted that the proposal should have come to the Executive Committee to be assigned to a standing committee.  Faculty Affairs Committee: Carolyn Phelps submitted the following report of the activities of the standing committee for the 2006-2007 academic year. Due to the term extensions created with the change in election times, this report covers activities from January 2006 until April 2007 The FACAS primarily worked on three issues this term: the change in time of elections, the faculty background check policy, and the University promotion and tenure policy. Constitutional amendment to change the timing of elections. It was decided that it would be beneficial to the Senate to bring terms of office for faculty representatives in line with the academic calendar, thus improving continuity and productivity of the Academic Senate throughout the academic year. This amendment to the Senate Constitution passed in April 2006. Faculty background checks. In August of 2005, UD implemented a pre-employment background check policy that applies to all non-faculty employees and contractors. The effort to provide the same for our faculty members followed. The FACAS acted in consultation with the Provost’s office to development of a pre-employment background check policy and a set of procedures applicable to new faculty hires. This document was brought before the Senate in December 2006 for legislative concurrence which was supported. University promotion and tenure policy. This academic year, much of the FACAS efforts have been aimed at developing the University Promotion and Tenure Policy. This policy establishes general guidelines that govern University-wide procedures for promotion and tenure review. These guidelines and procedures are designed to ensure communication, fairness, and due process throughout the review process. This policy includes opportunities to respond in the event of disagreements over promotion and tenure recommendations and provides an appeals procedure. Several open meeting have been held throughout campus to discuss this document and elicit feedback which would strengthen the document or assist in its adaptation across the units on the University. A sense of the Senate vote taken in March of this year was supportive of continued development of the current document, and the document will come forward for vote in the Senate today (4/20/07).  Student Academic Policies Committee: Wade Luckett submitted the following report of the activities of the standing committee for the 2006-2007 academic year. Student Honor Code: The committee’s focus this year was primarily on development of a proposed university honor code and the establishment of an honor board.  A statement of purpose for the code was drafted first and approved by committee members. Attention then turned to the proposal for a university honor board, the appeals procedure and punitive issues. Legal questions concerning punitive measures were discussed with a representative of the Legal Affairs office. In order to assess the impact of the proposal on current policies and procedures, as well as to assess the level of support within the units, members volunteered to discuss the proposal with, and solicit input from, their respective Deans. That input was then discussed and some changes were introduced into the current draft.  The current draft of the proposal will be provided to the incoming committee, along with summaries of the Deans’ comments and a status report detailing outstanding issues. Input to Other Committees: The committee participated in the review of the Habit of Inquiry and Reflection document (Doc-06-09), and approved comments were forwarded to the Academic Policies Committee. The committee participated in the review of the University Promotion and Tenure Policy document (Doc-06-10), and approved comments were forwarded to the Faculty Affairs Committee. NCA Self Study Review: Members of the committee were assigned chapters of the self study to review, and were encouraged to provide comments via the self study web site.  7. Adjournment: Moved and seconded, the meeting adjourned at 4:15 PM.    The first meeting of the 2007-2008 Academic Senate was convened by F. Pestello, Provost, immediately following the adjournment of the final meeting of the 2006-2007 Academic Senate. The purpose of the meeting was to elect representatives to the Executive Committee, elect the officers of the Academic Senate, and organize the standing committees. Results of this organizational work are as follows:  Members of the Executive Committee:  David Biers (Social Science representative elected for a two year term) President Robert Penno (School of Engineering representative elected for a two year term) Vice-President Patricia Johnson (Humanities representative in second year of term) Secretary Thomas Eggemeier (representing the deans; elected to a one-year term to complete the remainder of a two-year term) Robert Kearns (Natural Science representative elected to a one-year term to complete the remainder of a two-year term) Lloyd Laubach (School of Education representative elected to a two year term) Jack O’Gorman (University Libraries representative) Fred Pestello (Provost) Andrea Seislstad (School of Law representative) Rebecca Wells (School of Business representative in second year of term)  Academic Policies Committee Dean, college of Arts and Sciences Connie Bowman David Darrow, Chairperson Wiebke Diestelkamp Christopher Duncan Thomas Eggemeier Ralph Frasca Arthur Jipson Patricia Meyers Jack O’Gorman Mark Patterson Robert Penno Joseph Saliba Andrea Seielsstad  Faculty Affairs Committee David Biers George Doyle, Chairperson Elizabeth Gustafson Patricia Johnson Thomas Lasley Lloyd Laubach Craig Letavec Youssef Raffoul Damon Sink Linda Snyder Rebecca Wells  Student Academic Policies Committee Amanda Brian Mark Brill Lauren Cook George DeMarco , Co-Chairperson Andrew Fist, Co-Chairperson Robert Kearns Jessalyn King Lisa Kloppenberg Rebecca Marek Danielle Poe  Respectfully submitted,   Patricia A. Johnson   

2007-04-20 Minutes of the Academic Senate

University of DaytoneCommonsAcademic Senate Minutes Academic Senate12-1-20062006-12-01 Minutes of the Academic SenateUniversity of Dayton. Academic SenateFollow this and additional works at: http://ecommons.udayton.edu/senate_minsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Senate at eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Academic SenateMinutes by an authorized administrator of eCommons. For more information, please contact frice1@udayton.edu.Recommended CitationUniversity of Dayton. Academic Senate, "2006-12-01 Minutes of the Academic Senate" (2006). Academic Senate Minutes. Paper 73.http://ecommons.udayton.edu/senate_mins/73[Approved February 9, 2007] UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON DAYTON, OHIO MINUTES OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE December 1, 2006 Sears Auditorium, 3:00 p. m.   Senators Present: A. Abueida, J. Biddle, D. Biers (presiding), M. Brill, D. Courte, D. Darrow, G. Doyle, C. Duncan, E. Elam, J. Farrelly, A. Fist, E. Gustafson, R. Hardie, B. John, P. Johnson, W. Luckett, P. Meyers, I. Morgan, M. Morton, J. O'Gorman, D. Parker, R. Penno, C. Phelps, D. Poe, M. Schmitz, A. Seielstad, B. Turk   Senators Excused: L. Brislin, C. Chen, A. Crow, G. DeMarco, T. Eggemeier, L. Kloppenberg, T. Lasley, C. Letavec, F. Pestello, J. Saliba, L. Simmons, R. Wells   Guests: J. Carter, P. Bernal-Olson, M. Patterson, J. Untener, T. Washington, K. Webb  1. Opening Prayer: Senator Farrelly opened the meeting with a prayer to St. Joseph.  2. Roll Call: Twenty-seven of thirty-nine Senators were present.   3. Minutes:  October 13, 2006: Moved and seconded, minutes were approved as written.  4. Announcements: D. Biers announced that the Calendar Committee has made recommendation, through the Academic Policies Committee and the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate, to the Provost Council that the start of the 2007-2008 academic year will be with Monday only, 4:30 and later classes. All other classes will begin on Tuesday.  5. Election of representative to ECAS from SOEAP: J. Biddle is on sabbatical in the winter term 2007 and will remain on the Academic Senate but not on the Executive Committee or as chairperson of the Academic Policies Committee. There is a need to elect a representative to the Executive Committee. D. Biers announced that G. DeMarco was the only representative from the School of Education and Allied Profession’s willing to serve. It was moved and seconded that he be the representative to the Executive Committee beginning in January 2007 to complete J. Biddle’s term. Motion carried.  6. DOC I -06-12 Faculty Background Checks: C. Phelps, chairperson of the Faculty Affairs Committee introduced the document which is put forward for consultation under Art. II. 3. c. of the Constitution of the Academic Senate. She reviewed the process of consultation for the background check policy for both full and part-time faculty. Many changes have been made in the course of this consultation. It has been clarified that a third party company will conduct the checks to ensure confidentiality and that the report will be received in the academic division, the Provost Office. Decisions and judgments will be made in the academic areas. Judgments will be grounded in Catholic and Marianist principles. The process for disputing reports has been articulated. Funding for these checks will be the responsibility of Human Resources. A question regarding the Ohio law and the requirement of finger printing was raised. J. Carter assured the Academic Senate that Senate Bill 38 does not affect the UD population, so finger printing is not required for all faculty. It was moved and seconded that this document be approved as an Academic Senate action of consultation. 23 Senators voted in favor of the motion and 3 senators opposed the motion. Motion carried.  7. Committee Reports:  C. Roecker-Phelps reported for the Faculty Affairs Committee. In addition to the Background Check Policy, the Committee is working on the Promotion and Tenure Policy ad-hoc committee proposal that has been brought forward through the Provost Council. A subcommittee of the Faculty Affairs Committee is working on changes in the document based on input from hearings and reports from the standing committees. The committee has also sent a report to the Academic Policies committee on Doc 06-09.   J. Biddle reported for the Academic Policies Committee. He submitted the following report: During this term, the APCAS had 3 primary agenda items: academic calendar, competencies, and Habits of Inquiry and Reflection. 1. The Calendar Committee has forwarded a proposal for examinations and study days that the APCAS would review in next term. 2. The General Education Committee forwarded the examination of “Competencies” that APCAS requested. The APCAS will review this report in the next term. 3. E. Gustafson and J. Biddle will meet next week to help clarify the roles of the calendar committees (University and “Select”). This will probably be an agenda item for both ECAS and APCAS for next term. 4. APCAS accepted and supports the report and recommendation from the Subcommittee for Habits of Inquiry and Reflection.  Early in the Fall 2006, ECAS identified the APCAS as the lead Standing Committee to determine appropriate actions to take on the Habits of Inquiry and Reflection. In its work, APCAS followed these GUIDING PROFESSIONAL PRINCIPLES:  Doing the work of the curriculum is a faculty responsibility.  Neither the Provost nor the Deans have the level of responsibility for the curriculum as does the faculty.  Neither ECAS nor APCAS has the responsibility for doing the work of curriculum design, revision, or development as does the faculty.  The goal of the HIR review process is to move the work to the faculty as soon as possible.  APCAS devised a two phase process for its work: PHASE 1: In order to determine if the HIR captured the ideals of a university education in the Catholic and Marianist traditions, a subcommittee (C. Duncan and D. Darrow as co-chairs with J. O’Gorman and R, Penno) was formed to hold open forums during the Fall term. If they determined there was wide-spread support for the philosophy section of HIR, then  PHASE 2: The APCAS should take appropriate action to generate a set of recommendations regarding specific programs, infrastructure, faculty development, and resources necessary to realize the educational aims and learning outcomes.  The subcommittee’s timeline for a report was by November 29, 2006 to enable APCAS to consider it at its November 30th meeting and present elements of the report at this meeting. The only glitch was that the subcommittee couldn’t schedule a meeting with student government leaders until Sunday evening, December 3. Therefore, the subcommittee will present the results of that meeting to APCAS on Monday, December 4.   In its meeting on November 30, 2006, the APCAS voted to accept and support the report.   The subcommittee presented the HIR review:  and plan of action to the Academic Senate, with open invitation to other faculty, on Oct 13;   to two widely-advertised open forums on Oct 31, and Nov 15;   to a full faculty meeting of the School of Business Administration on Oct 20;  to a meeting of the Library faculty on November 16;  to a meeting of the College’s chairs and program directors (CCPD) on Nov 8;   at the fall Humanities Base faculty meeting on November 1 (approximately 20-25 regular faculty were in attendance).   The School of Engineering forwarded its comments from a full faculty discussion last year as its contribution to this process.   The Dean of the School of Education and Allied Professions (SOEAP) encouraged the faculty to attend one of the forums. In addition, the SOEAP Dean had each department chair share the document with his or her department and be certain their members understood the document and its implications. SOEAP will also use Habits to review the conceptual framework of the unit in preparation for our accreditation visit.   The highlights of their findings are:  At the end of each of the open forums and the presentations to the other groups the audience was asked to indicate by a show of hands whether or not it believed that sections I-V of HIR captured the ideals of a university education in the Catholic and Marianist traditions. The membership of the CCPD gave sections I-V near unanimous approval.1[1] The SBA faculty also gave sections I-V near unanimous approval.2[2] The Library faculty fully supported the document. The results of the Humanities Base presentation discussion were inconclusive.                                                             1[1] The president of the Academic Senate believed that registering a vote at the CCPD meeting would be inappropriate given his Senate position and abstained. 2[2] Two faculty members answered, “We don’t know,” which can be interpreted as abstention. Most significantly, in each case there were no participants who registered a “no” vote (i.e., did not agree that sections I-V captured the ideals of a university education in the Catholic and Marianist traditions). Each of the events produced a rich conversation about the report and its place in the Catholic intellectual tradition. In general, there was much curiosity about HIR and its role as an extension of the UD mission statement, the Vision of Excellence, Characteristics of Marianist Education, and other key documents. The presentation prompted several inquiries into what was meant by Catholic social teaching. Indeed many of the questions seemed to be as connected to an exploration of what UD is all about as much as to the document itself. The fact that many faculty were eager to move on to a discussion of the recommendations also seemed to indicate that the document has already done much to stimulate thought about current and future curricula.  Concerns about the document expressed at the each of the meetings centered on three issues: scholarship, sacramentality and process.3[3] The question on scholarship emerged in the discussions with the SBA, where several faculty members simply wanted to know more precisely what constituted scholarship as defined by the document. The resultant discussion seemed to satisfy their curiosity. Some Humanities Base faculty expressed concern that the document, in their reading, did not say more to promote academic rigor. One department suggested that, although the document was certainly a good Catholic and Marianist document, it was a substantial departure from the direction UD had been heading over the last decade.4[4] There were also some concerns and confusion about the process by which the document came to and was being processed by the Senate. The most frequent and pointed concern, however, was over the term sacramentality. For some faculty the term was too Catholic. For others, the way the term is used in the document is not Catholic enough. Some faculty noted that the explanatory paragraph and subsequent discussion provided an adequate explanation of what was meant by “seeks knowledge in a sacramental spirit.” They also indicated that they understood and agreed with the intent of the term. They were concerned, however, that as the phrase would not always be accompanied by the explanatory paragraph that people would come to view “sacramental” in the same context as the Seven Sacraments. Some faculty also expressed the concern that using the term would make UD appear less inclusive to the outside world. At the same time, none of the participants in the discussion was able to provide an alternative term. The subcommittee recognizes these concerns and concludes that, given the fairly even split between those concerned that the use of the term was too Catholic and those who believed that the way the term is used is not Catholic enough, that perhaps the document did, in fact, use the term “just right.”  APCAS’s RESPONSE The APCAS would have been bitterly disappointed if faculty members hadn’t challenged and debated elements of HIR. We fully expected substantive questions; our plan was and is that these issues need to be openly placed on the table and thoroughly discussed by the appropriate WGs during Phase 2 which begins in January 2007.  The recommendation, slightly modified by APCAS, is:                                                           3[3] Three units, HST, PHL and SAPAS, submitted individual comments. 4[4] See the attached response from the Department of History. After the many campus conversations, the subcommittee concludes that the preponderance of the university community believes that HIR captured the ideals of a university education in the Catholic and Marianist traditions. As such, the subcommittee recommends that the APC endorse sections I-V of the document as having captured the ideals of a university education in the Catholic and Marianist traditions, communicate this to the Senate, and proceed with an examination and discussion of the recommendations in the concluding sections of the document.  PHASE 2 Plan Although the APCAS has designed a two-phase process regarding HIR, the goal is to engage in an integrative and holistic study. The Catholic and Marianist Tradition provides UD not only the ground for these recommendations, but also the generative culture for ongoing exploration. As the report states on p. 9: As well as reflecting the discussions initiated by the Working Group, these recommendations draw upon other work on the curriculum being done by the First Year Team, the Humanities Base Committee, the Cluster Coordinating Committee, the Committee on General Education and Competencies, and faculty involved in various academic excellence initiatives funded by the provost. These recommendations are also designed to advance the seven strategic goals set out in A Vision of Excellence.  CHARGES FOR THE WORKING GROUPS  NOTE—although the specific charge for each WG is drawn from the HIR recommendation section, the following are charges common to all WGs.  Determine appropriate working relationships with existing UD teams/committees/working groups.  Determine an efficient and effective size and structure for the WG.  Determine appropriate membership beyond the core established by APCAS.  Identify critical connections/overlaps with other WGs and/or recommendations. These interrelationships should be forwarded to the HIR Steering Committee on a regular basis.  Identify educational infrastructure issues to be forwarded to the HIR Steering Committee on a regular basis.   MEMBERSHIP  Each WG will be chaired by a member of APCAS. The core membership of each WG will be determined by the APCAS.  Other Senators can volunteer for the WG or their choice.  Other Senators can nominate non-Senate members (nominations to be sent to WG chair).  Each WG should invite members from key stakeholder groups.  TIMELINE An Interim Report is due from each WG by May 1, 2007. The HIR Steering Committee’s report will include any changes in the charges for the WGs as well as more specific guidelines for the final report due in December 2007.  OVERSIGHT        The HIR Strategic Task Force Steering Committee, led by APCAS members with representatives from Student Development and Campus Ministry, will monitor the necessary steps to encourage holistic and integrated work across the Working Groups; it will also monitor the “infrastructure and implication” issues identified by the Working Groups. Finally, this committee will make any revisions to HIR pp. 1-8 required as a result of the recommendations of the WGs; the goal, once again, is an integrated and holistic presentation of the philosophy and programmatic recommendations of HIR.  Questions were raised concerning the inclusion of global issues related to economics, energy, and politics in any considerations of curricular revision.. A number of senators indicated that concerns about internationalization and global issues need to be included in considerations of curricular change.   D. Courte and W. Luckett reported for the Student Academic Policies committee of the Academic Senate. The Committee continues to work on the Honor Code, statement of purposes, and the proposal for an Honor’s Board. They forwarded comments to the other standing committees on Doc I-06-09 and DOC -06-10   8. Adjournment: Moved and seconded, the meeting adjourned at 3:30 PM.   Respectfully submitted,   Patricia A. Johnson     

2006-12-01 Minutes of the Academic Senate

University of DaytoneCommonsAcademic Senate Minutes Academic Senate9-16-20052005-09-16 Minutes of the Academic SenateUniversity of Dayton. Academic SenateFollow this and additional works at: http://ecommons.udayton.edu/senate_minsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Senate at eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Academic SenateMinutes by an authorized administrator of eCommons. For more information, please contact frice1@udayton.edu.Recommended CitationUniversity of Dayton. Academic Senate, "2005-09-16 Minutes of the Academic Senate" (2005). Academic Senate Minutes. Paper 64.http://ecommons.udayton.edu/senate_mins/64[Approved October 28, 2005] UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON DAYTON, OHIO MINUTES OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE  September 16, 2005 SC 3:30 p.m.     Presiding:  Dr. David Biers  Senators Present:  Biddle, Biers, Brill, Chen, Courte, Dandaneau, Darrow, DeMarco, Desmond, Doenges, Doyle, Eloe, Gerla, Hardie, Hausmann, Hileman, Huacuja, Huelsman, John, Letavec, O’Gorman, Penno, Pestello, Phelps, Rapp, Singer, Strain, Thompson, Turk, Wells  Guests: Benson, Trick, Untener   1. Opening Prayer:  Dr. Biers opened the meeting with a prayer.  2. Roll Call:  Thirty of thirty-nine Senators were present.  Not all student representatives have been elected at the time of the first meeting; in particular the Humanities Student Senator had not yet been appointed.  3. Dr. Biers announced changes in personnel to the Academic Senate.  Senator Grunenwald accepted a full-time appointment to the University and relinquished his position on the Academic Senate as representative for Adjunct Faculty.  Senator Craig Letavec will fill that position until January, 2006.  Senator Youngblut accepted a position in the Office of the Dean, College of Arts & Sciences and relinquished both her positions on the Academic Senate as representative for the Humanities and her position on ECAS.  The standard guidelines for replacement as set forth by the Constitution of the Academic Senate can not be implemented in this case since all possibilities for replacement have been exhausted and the position is unfilled.  According to the Constitution, the responsibility to select the choice of replacement belongs to ECAS with final approval given by the full Academic Senate.  ECAS proposed to replace Senator Youngblut with Dr. Peggy Strain.  Dr. Biers called for a motion; it was seconded.  The Academic Senate unanimously approved the appointment of Senator Strain.  The appointment is valid until January 2006.  Similarly, guidelines to replace Senator Youngblut on ECAS could not be administered.  ECAS recommended the appointment of Senator Thompson, faculty representative of Humanities, to serve as Senator Youngblut’s replacement on ECAS until January 2006.  Dr. Biers called for a motion; it was seconded.  The Academic Senate unanimously approves the appointment of Senator Thompson to ECAS.   4. Approval of Minutes:  The minutes of the April 15, 2005 meeting of the Academic Senate were approved.  5. Marianist Education Information:  Dr. Benson provided a presentation on the purpose and status of the Marianist Education Working Group.  He based his comments on a two-page document he distributed.  He introduced the working group by name and division, stated its mission, summarized the work in progress, and discussed lessons learned at the AAC&U Institute on General Education.  6. North Central:  Dr. Kim Trick, as a member of the University’s organizing committee for the North Central Evaluation Process, updated the Senate on preliminary preparations.  Faculty members have already received preliminary materials through campus mail.  7. Financial Impact of High Enrollment:  Dr. Pestello accepted an invitation from ECAS to discuss the financial impact due to the large number of first year students.  The Provost has provided the units additional resources to deliver the curriculum to first-year students.  The Provost will provide resources to academic support units and nonacademic units to ensure that these students have a first-rate experience beyond the classroom as well.  The question was posed, why not resources for upper class students.  In response to the large number of first year students, the Provost is committing the extra resources to support the first-year students.  Appropriate resources will be allocated each year as this class makes its way through a four year program.   The meeting adjourned at 4:40 P.M.  Respectfully submitted,    Paul W. Eloe       

2005-09-16 Minutes of the Academic Senate

University of DaytoneCommonsAcademic Senate Minutes Academic Senate2-10-20062006-02-10 Minutes of the Academic SenateUniversity of Dayton. Academic SenateFollow this and additional works at: http://ecommons.udayton.edu/senate_minsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Senate at eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Academic SenateMinutes by an authorized administrator of eCommons. For more information, please contact frice1@udayton.edu.Recommended CitationUniversity of Dayton. Academic Senate, "2006-02-10 Minutes of the Academic Senate" (2006). Academic Senate Minutes. Paper 68.http://ecommons.udayton.edu/senate_mins/68[Approved March 10, 2006] UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON DAYTON, OHIO MINUTES OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE February 10, 2006 KU West Ballroom, 3:00 p.m.   Senators Present: Abueida, Biddle, Biers, Brill, Chen, Conniff, Courte, Doyle, C. Duncan, Eggemeier, Gudaitis, Gustafson, Hardie, Hileman, Johnson, Lasley, Meyers, Morton, Simmons, O'Gorman, Penno, Pestello, Poe, Phelps, Thimmes, R. Wells,   Senators Excused: Bullinger, DeMarco, Desmond, Doenges, Hausmann, Kloppenberg, Letavec, Mullins, J. Saliba, Seielstad, Singer, Turk, Wolff  Guests: A. Anderson, Bickford, B. Duncan, Farrelly, Pair, Patterson, Peñas-Bermejo, Untener, Westendorf   1. Opening Prayer: Senator Poe opened the meeting with a prayer sent by Monalisa Mullins who could not be present. The Senate contemplated the role of servant leadership.  2. Roll Call: Twenty-six of thirty-nine Senators were present.   3. Minutes: December 2, 2005: Moved and seconded, minutes were approved as written. January 6, 2006: Moved and seconded, minutes were approved with the correction of the date.  4. Announcements:   Senator Biers announced that Senator Seielstad has agreed to serve as parliamentarian for the Academic Senate.  The Senate welcomed Brad Duncan as a guest from Leadership UD.  Senator Johnson announced a process for distribution of information about the work of the Senate. Academic Senate minutes will be posted to the website <http://academic.udayton.edu/senate> in unapproved form as soon as they are ready. They will be replaced by approved minutes as they become available. This will be clearly indicated. Approved and unapproved minutes will be widely distributed to the University community as required by the Constitution of the Academic Senate. Approved sub-committee minutes will be posted and distributed to the members of the Senate. Unapproved minutes of sub-committees should be sent to the members of that sub-committee and to Senators Johnson and Biers.   5. Approval of Standing Committee Membership: Moved and seconded, the membership on the standing committees was approved as follows:  Academic Policies: Dr. James Biddle (Chairperson), Dr. Brian Conniff (WI06) for Dr. David Darrow, Dr. Christopher Duncan, Ms. Donna Gudaitis, Dean Patricia Meyers, Dean Mary Morton, Mr. Jack O'Gorman, Dr. Robert P. Penno, Dr. Joseph Saliba, Dr. Andrea Seielstad, Dr. Llewellyn Simmons, Dr. Sanford Singer, Dr. Rebecca Wells, Mr. Dean Wolff, Dr. Deborah Bickford (ex officio) Faculty Affairs: Dr. Atif Abueida, Dr. David Biers, Dr. George Doyle, Dr. Elizabeth Gustafson, Ms. Lauren Hausmann, Dr. Patricia Johnson, Dean Lisa Kloppenberg, Dean Tom Lasley, Dr. Monalisa Mullins, Dr. Carolyn Roecker Phelps (Chairperson), Dr. Pamela Thimmes, Mr. Brian Turk, Prof. Joe Untener (ex officio) Student Academic Policies: Dr. Mark Brill, Mr. Kevin Bullinger, Dr. Carl Chen, Dr. Dale Courte (Co-Chairperson), Dr. George DeMarco, Mr. Josh Desmond, Mr. Michael Doenges, Dean F. Thomas Eggemeier, Dr. Russell Hardie, Mr. Steven Hileman (Co-Chairperson), Mr. Craig Letavec, Dr. Danielle Poe, Dr. Tom Skill (ex officio)  6. DOC I-06-01: Sense of the Senate Discussion for Change in the Timing of Election for Faculty Representatives to the Senate and Election of Officers of the Senate. Senator Biers introduced the discussion, indicating that the Senate would be doing a number of “Sense of the Senate” discussions this semester in order to provide opportunity for discussion about issues before they come to the Senate for decision. He reviewed the rational statement provided in the document under discussion at this meeting. The question is whether or not to change the timing of the election of faculty members to the Academic Senate so that their terms follow the academic year rather than the calendar year. The current process of electing faculty Senators in the Fall term to begin service in the Winter term began in order to allow continuity of Senate members in the budget discussions.  Senator Wells began the discussion by articulating the two issues that need to be balanced in the course of making this decision. The terms should facilitate the business of the Senate itself so that the Senate can be effective. The terms should not preclude faculty from taking a responsible and influential role, as partners in the governance of the institution, in the budgeting process.  A number of Senators spoke to both of these issues. Senator Doyle noted that student terms are currently for the academic year, and that having students and faculty on the same calendar might facilitate the work of the Senate. Senator Biers suggested that the current structure results in a mid-year lull in the work of the Senate as it reorganizes with new members. The Senate might be more effective with the continuity of the academic year. On the issue of the impact of the Senate on the budgetary process, Senator Doyle indicated that he believed that the Senate had had little impact in the 1990s, but Senator Wells indicated that in the 1980s the Senate had a strong voice in deliberations through participation of the Executive Committee on the ELC (Educational Leadership Council). Senator Gustafson asked about the current process of involvement of Senate officers in the budgetary process. Senator Biers said that in his capacity as President of the Senate he attends the meetings of the Provost Council. He indicated that the budget cycle is now on a summer-Fall-winter rotation. The vision and goals are discussed in the summer; in the Fall, each unit presents “wish list;” and in the Winter, budget decisions are finalized and announced. He indicated that he believed that he had little ability to influence the process. Senator Pestello, Provost, summarized the operation of the ELC and indicated that the budget presentations that used to take place there now take place in the Provost Council. Senator Biers remarked that the Provost was open to discussions about how the Executive Committee could be more fully included in these discussions. Given the current budget cycle and the benefits of continuity of the Senate members over the academic year, Senator Wells suggested that the change would be a “win-win” situation.  Senator Biers asked for a “sense of the Senate.” Twenty-three members indicated that they favored moving the elections to the Winter term. No Senators opposed this.  The Senate then discussed whether the terms of current Senators should be extended or shortened to facilitate this transition. Senator Lasley suggested that for the sake of continuity and the understanding of the issues by the faculty members, lengthening terms seemed best. Senator O’Gorman suggested that half of the terms could be extended and half shortened. Senator Brill replied that shortening terms might be unconstitutional. Senator Duncan noted that it is difficult to find faculty willing to commit the time to serve on the Senate, so lengthening terms of those who are willing would be well-advised.  Senator Biers asked for a “sense of the Senate.” Twenty-three Senators indicated support for lengthening terms and no Senators indicated support for shortening terms.  The Senate then discussed when the new members of the Senate should take office and when the officers should be elected. Senator Hileman reported that the student elections take place such that the new members are in place April 1. Senator Biers noted that there is often much important business at the April meeting of the Senate, so new Senators should not take office until that work is completed. Senator O’Gorman suggested that there could be an early May meeting to convene the new Senate. Senator Duncan suggested that this meeting be convened immediately after the close of the final April meeting of the current Senate. Senator Biddle suggested that however this meeting was timed, it should be at the end of the Winter term and not at the beginning of the Fall term. Senator Hileman suggested that this could be an electronic vote. Senator Duncan noted that several ballots could be necessary for each office, so that an electronic process could be very drawn out. He also suggested that individuals might want to speak to their candidacy.  Senator Biers called for a “sense of the Senate.” Twenty-four Senators indicated that they preferred the new Senate convene immediately after the April meeting or at an additional meeting shortly thereafter. New officers should be elected at that meeting. No Senators opposed this process.  This issue is returned to the Faculty Affairs Committee for formulation for a vote of the Senate. Any proposal affirmed by the Senate will have to go to a vote of the faculty.  7. Standing Committee Reports: Academic Policies Senator Biddle reported that the Committee has met with ARSIC (Advising Report and Student Information Committee) and will be bringing forward a proposal for the vote of the Senate at the March meeting to change the late withdrawal policy for non-academic reasons. The change would delete the option of “change of career objectives” as an accepted reason and add the notation that documentation may be required. ARSIC has also asked that the Committee consider a proposal to not use academic rank for students. The Committee will consider this at its next meeting. They are also discussing the proposed University-wide promotion and tenure committee and may receive a proposal from the Calendar Committee about a change in the study day schedule. Faculty Affairs Senator Phelps reported that the Committee had discussed the election of faculty to the Senate and requested the “Sense of the Senate” discussion at today’s meeting. They are continuing to review the proposal concerning background checks for faculty hires. They will discuss a new draft of the proposed policy soon and may bring something to the March meeting of the full Senate. They are also continuing to review other possible constitutional changes and are currently reviewing section II... B., which deals with the three types of authority of the Senate. These are legislative, legislative concurrence, and consultation. Student Academic Policies Senator Hileman reported that the Committee is working on an honor pledge that they hope to bring to the Senate in March. They will then begin work on updating the academic dishonestly policy, which has not been revised since 1978, and so does not address issues of the use of electronic technologies.   8. Provost Committee Reports: Senator Pestello reviewed the rationale for the constitution of these committees. He identified a number of foundational issues that had been unaddressed for some time and appointed a series of committees to look at these issues. Each committee is chaired by a member of the Provost Council and each has a Senator as a member. The committees that are addressing promotion and tenure and peer review were requested by the Board of Trustees.  Catholic and Marianist Mission and Identity Senator Morton reported that the purpose of this Committee is to review the various committees, topics, and programs that address this topic and to identify what is lacking and where there is overlap. The Rector’s Council is currently completing a Marianist Interest Inventory. She is working with Kathleen Norman on this. This Committee met last year, but has not met this year. It was noted that the work of this Committee is completely separate from the Marianist Education working Group.  Department Finances—Summer Returns Associate Provost Untener reported that the work of this Committee has been completed. The purpose of the Committee was to design a process for tracking Summer income and for reimbursing the various constituencies. The Committee recommended that income and expenses be tracked by department and College or School. Excess revenue after expenses and overhead will be returned with 50% going to the department generating the returns and 50% going to the dean of that unit. This will begin with the closeout that will take place in Fall 06.  Faculty Grants and Sponsored Research Senator Biers reported for Mickey McCabe. The charge of the Committee is five-fold:  Address appropriate goals for faculty research  Discuss incentives and infrastructure to support these goals  Sustain current collaborations in the sciences and engineering  Promote research collaborations and increase research/scholarship in the arts, humanities, social sciences, business and law,   Increase RI research in areas outside of defense The work of this Committee is subordinate to that of others and so has not moved very quickly. Senator Pestello noted that because of changes at the State level, there is now aggressive movement on some of these issues.  Evaluation of Faculty Teaching Senator Biers reported for Steve Wilhoit. The Senate approved the policy that student evaluations may not be used as the sole means of evaluating teaching. The charge to this Committee was to review research on evaluation of faculty teaching and to develop an evaluation policy which does not solely rely on student evaluation of teaching (assumption: reliance on student evaluations affects academic rigor). The Committee has recommended separate sub-committees for the revision of student course evaluation and policy and to develop a set of guidelines governing faculty teaching for developmental purposes. They have redefined their charge to develop a University policy on evaluating faculty teaching for administrative Purposes (promotions, tenure, and merit). For Promotion and tenure they recommend:  Student course evaluations for every class   At least two peer reviews of classroom teaching and course materials  At least one (1) chair or administrator evaluation   At least one (1) self-evaluation   Faculty-provided evidence of the quality of student learning  Guidelines for merit are more difficult. This discussion is on-going.  Grade Migration and Rigor Senator Biers reported that the charge of the Committee was to review the literature on grade migration, examine UD historical data on grade migration, and engage in conversations on how to best address the issue of academic rigor. The Committee has developed a preliminary conceptual model and reviewed literature on the issue. They have examined the UD data that is available which is from 1972-1989 and since 2004. They note that the data in 1972-89 period was fairly consistent with A grades accounting for 30-35% of all grades. In the 2004 data, A grades account for over 40% of all grades. They are also looking at data about the change in average GPA in each unit over time. In addition to examining this data they will look at information on this year’s graduating class who are the first cohort with +/- system throughout their four years. They also will be conducting a study to link grades to student evaluations of faculty.  International Strategy Associate Provost Bickford reported that the International Strategy Team was formed in January of 2005 and charged to develop a comprehensive plan for internationalization that has the support of faculty, staff, students, and administrators and that the University is able to support. The Committee has given priority to three goals: Increasing the recruitment of international students, faculty, and post-docs; increasing the number of faculty and students who have a transformative educational experience abroad; and internationalizing the curriculum. Three working groups have been formed to focus on internationalizing the curriculum, recruitment, and education abroad. A draft plan should be complete to share with the Academic Senate in the Fall of 2006.  Post-Tenure Review Senator Meyers reported that the Committee has been meeting for a year and has representation from all of the schools and the Academic Senate. The immediate need for the Committee is that there is a policy that requires a post-tenure review every six years. This policy has not been widely implemented. The Committee is looking at other institutions and identifying best practices. They have developed a document that has been reviewed by the Provost Council and that should be sent to the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate by February 24, 2006. They would like to have a “sense of the Senate” discussion at the March meeting.  Teaching Loads, Workload, and Faculty Mix Senator Biers reported that the background for this Committee includes the fact that there is no clear articulation of strategic rationale for use of faculty time by department or unit. In planning for future allocation of resources, the University needs explicit agreements for each department and unit’s faculty workload, including course and student loads. In addition tenure-track faculty need to be provided with clear expectations for tenure and promotion. The charge to the Committee is to review the workload policies developed at other universities; develop university-wide policy on faculty teaching loads and workload; oversee the development of Unit and Department guidelines and expectations for standards of teaching, research, and service; and to examine the mix of full- and part-time faculty. Senator Wells asked if the Committee anticipated a single, University-wide process or if the policy would allow for differences between disciplines and units. Senator Biers indicated that the Committee expected to develop a general framework that would then be used to further develop specific policies that recognize justified differences.  University-Wide Tenure and Promotion Policy Senator Lasley reported that this Committee began as a very small group in the Fall of 2005. That group developed an initial draft document. The working group has now been expanded and has developed thirteen questions that need to be addressed. He is hopeful that there will be a draft for Senate review before the end of this semester. Senator Pestello noted that this Committee and the Committee considering post-tenure review were formed at the request of the Board of Trustees. The Board has the responsibility of approving each tenure and promotion decision. They would like to delegate this authority, and retain the authority to hear appeals. They want to be assured, before delegating this authority, that there are consistent and rigorous standards across the College and the Schools.   Academic Identity Senator O’Gorman reported for Associate Provost Skill. The charge of the Committee is to develop recommendations for how best to communicate what we do to a wide range of constituents. He used the example of the Princeton Review. While they note that UD has an alcohol issue, they also present UD in some very positive ways.   9. Adjournment: Moved and seconded, the meeting adjourned at 4:50 PM.  Respectfully submitted,   Patricia A. Johnson Secretary   

2006-02-10 Minutes of the Academic Senate

University of DaytoneCommonsAcademic Senate Minutes Academic Senate12-2-20052005-12-02 Minutes of the Academic SenateUniversity of Dayton. Academic SenateFollow this and additional works at: http://ecommons.udayton.edu/senate_minsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Senate at eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Academic SenateMinutes by an authorized administrator of eCommons. For more information, please contact frice1@udayton.edu.Recommended CitationUniversity of Dayton. Academic Senate, "2005-12-02 Minutes of the Academic Senate" (2005). Academic Senate Minutes. Paper 66.http://ecommons.udayton.edu/senate_mins/66[Approved February 10, 2006] UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON DAYTON, OHIO MINUTES OF THE ACADEMIC SENATE  December 2, 2005 KU West Ballroom 3:00 p.m.   Presiding: Dr. David Biers  Senators Present: Biddle, Biers, Brill, Chen, Courte, Darrow, Desmond, Doenges, Doyle, Eggemeier, Eloe, Gerla, Hardie, Hausmann, Hileman, Ilg, John, Lasley, Meyers, O’Gorman, Penno, Pestello, Phelps, Rapp, Saliba, Singer, Strain, Thompson, Turk, Wells  Guests: Farrelly, Gustafson, Johnson, Mullins, Patterson, Seielstad, Simmons, Untener, Vanderburgh  Excused: DeMarco   1. Opening Prayer: Senator Phelps opened the meeting with a prayer.  2. Roll Call: Thirty of thirty-nine Senators were present.   3. Announcements: Dr. Biers thanked the outgoing Senators and welcomed the newly elected Senators who had been invited to attend. Dr. Biers also announced that the Board of Trustees will evaluate President Curran in the fourth year of his five year contract. Mr. Sadlier, President of the Board of Trustees, will meet with the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate to develop a strategy for the Board of Trustees to obtain information from the faculty and from the student body.  4. Document I-05-03, a recommendation for change in the QRC Module 3 retake requirement was moved and seconded. Discussion followed. Discussion focused primarily on fairness and implementation issues. The motion carried with a vote of 18 for and 7 against.  5. Document I-05-04, a recommendation to support the Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) proposal was moved and seconded. Senator Lasley offered a correction that support from the SOEAP was almost unanimous, not unanimous. There was a question concerning the credentials of the program faculty and some clarification was given. The motion carried with a vote of 24 for and one abstention.   6. Standing Committee Reports   FAC: Senator Gerla reported that the FAC has submitted a response to Joe Untener concerning the criminal background check. The FAC has not endorsed the proposed concept to require criminal background checks on all new hires.   APC: Dr. Biddle reported that the APC was considering three separate issues, a policy concerning canceling graduate classes during the Stander Symposium, the assessment of clusters and the role of the Academic Senate in the oversight of General Education Committee, and the university policy with respect to withdrawal from a course.    SAPC: Senator Hilemon reported that the SAPC has revisited the Honor Code issue. The focus has changed and the committee is working to bring forward a Statement or Pledge that students will be asked to sign when submitting a test, paper or other form of assessment..  7. Senator Biers closed with a report from ECAS. Dean Saliba continues to work on a strategy concerning the on-line bulletin. The North Central report requested dialogue on the Senate. There have been preliminary discussions to determine a strategy to develop this dialogue.  8. The minutes of the October 28, 2005 meeting of the Academic Senate were approved.  The meeting adjourned at 3:50 P.M.  Respectfully submitted,    Paul W. Eloe       

2005-12-02 Minutes of the Academic Senate

https://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1075&amp;context=senate_mins

2006-03-10 Minutes of the Academic Senate

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Dayton

University of Dayton

University of Dayton

University of Dayton

University of Dayton

University of Dayton

University of Dayton

University of Dayton