23 February 2001
|27 February||Executive Committee||South 209||12:50 p.m.|
|27 February||SAC||South 110||4:00 p.m.|
|27 February||FAC||Welles 111||4:00 p.m.|
|13 March||College Senate/All College Meeting||Newton 204||4:00 p.m.|
Correspondence: Christopher C. Leary, Department of Mathematics, South 324D
E-mail: email@example.com Phone: 245-5383
Comments from the Chair
Call for Nominations
2000–2001 Richard Roark Award
Follow-up to Resolution
Faculty Affairs Committee--13 February 2001
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee--13 February 2001
College Senate--20 February 2001
Comments from the Chair
2000–2001 Richard Roark Award
Shortly after Richard Roark's untimely death in 1970, a group of his friends established an award to honor his memory. Richard's friends described him this way: "Richard was a special kind of human being who valued the humane and ethical above all else. He was a scholar and intellectual who treasured learning and especially books with which, he thought, every person could access the accumulated knowledge of all previous civilizations."
The Richard Roark Award is given to a graduating senior whose scholarship and community service exemplify the qualities that were so important to Richard. The recipient is given a stipend to purchase books, and the recipient's name will be inscribed on a plaque displayed in the MacVittie College Union. Please submit nominations by April 13 to Chris Leary, Department of Mathematics, South 324D.
Follow-up to Resolution
The Senate adopted the proposed Resolution on General Education at its meeting of 20 February. I have been informed by Rose Rudnitski, the convener of the Campus Governance Leaders, that the following campuses have also adopted similar resolutions calling for an end to course-by-course review of General Education programs and majority faculty representation with a faculty co-chair on the Provost's Advisory Council on General Education:
Albany, Alfred, Binghamton, Brockport, Cortland, Empire State, Maritime, New Paltz, Purchase, Oswego, Stony Brook
Other campuses will (in all likelihood) consider the proposal in the near future.
The Executive Committee is in the process of reviewing proposals for amendments to the Constitution and By-Laws of the Faculty. Anyone who has an idea for an amendment is encouraged to send the idea to me (South 324D, email firstname.lastname@example.org) as soon as possible.
In my neverending attempt to stay ahead of the curve, let me inform you of the timetable for the Spring Election, and draw attention to a little problem that I have created.
The important upcoming dates are:
March 13—All College Meeting, including presentation of the slates of candidates for Senate Officers, Senators-at-Large, and a bunch of elected committees, as well as the presentation of proposed amendments to the Constitution.
6 April—Distribution of Ballots and start of balloting.
13 April—Close of balloting.
The balloting will take place electronically, in a manner similar to the Fall Election.
Now, about the problem. The Constitution demands that the Spring Elections be held prior to April 15 (no problem) and that the slate of candidates be presented to the Faculty at an All-College meeting (no problem). Furthermore, amendments to the Constitution must be presented to the Faculty at an open meeting (no problem). And the presentation of the slate of candidates and the amendments must take place at least a month before the election (problem).
Having informed you of the problem, I feel it incumbent upon me to suggest a solution. In fact, I have two possible solutions. My favorite is for the Chair and the rest of the Executive Committee to be removed from office for reasons of gross incompetence (By-Laws, Article IV, Section 1). If that is not to your liking, we can always go with the second solution, which is to wink our eyes and note that April 13 is one month after March 13, so people who would like a full month to think about their votes will have the opportunity to do so.
In a related manner, I am pleased to announce that I will take a leave of absence for the next two years in order to accept a job as a consultant to the Florida Board of Elections.
PRESENT: J. Ballard, P. Case, C. Faulkner, K. Hahn, T. Hon, J. Koch, M. Lima [Chair], S. McKenna, J. McLean, P. Schacht, E. Spilman
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER: 4:05 PM
The FAC committee discussed the wording of a resolution to be brought forth to Senate regarding the foundation of a task force to review current methods of faculty evaluation. Based on our discussion Paul Schacht will redraft the charge. This will then be shared with FAC members via email.
ANNNOUNCEMENT: Our next meeting is scheduled for February 27, 4:00 PM in Welles 111.
MEETING ADJOURNED: 5:15 PM.
Respectfully submitted by, Susan McKenna
Members present: B. Brennan, J. Curran, D. Hill, H. Howe, J. Kirkwood, A. Kline, A. Martucci, J. Morse, K. Nichols, O. Nicodemi, B. O'Donnell, A. Snyder, M. Stolee
Visitors: S. Bailey, D. Showers,
Meeting was called to order by T. Bazzett at 4:03.
A motion for acceptance of the minutes from 11/28/2000 as written was seconded and unanimously approved.
T. Bazzett explained that all SOE proposals listed on the agenda were not yet approved by the SOE. Because of this, the UCC could not act formally on these items. Instead the meeting was to be used to offer constructive comments to SOE representatives that they could present to their faculty and use in the final drafting of these proposals for submission to Senate. S. Bailey also pointed out that two art education course proposals have been submitted in the absence of a program proposal for art education. J. Morse acknowledged this and told the committee that an art education program proposal had previously been approved by the Art Department and the SOE and will be forthcoming to the Dean's office.
J. Morse briefly summarized the proposals and the logic used to integrate changes into the program to meet State requirements. She noted in particular the difficulty of meeting these requirements without adding too many additional courses to the already heavy load. The Committee offered several suggestions for editorial changes to the proposals.
O. Nicodemi expressed some concern about the structure of the proposed art education program. In particular, she noted that proposed courses in this program seemed more "topic" oriented rather than containing content to prepare students to teach. J. Morse agreed, but noted that each program had different requirements and course offerings that the SOE had to work with. M. Stolee also agreed and pointed out that development of each program was a "compromise" between what would be ideal, and what could be done within reason. O. Nicodemi questioned whether consideration had been given to reducing the number of required credits, noting for example that EDUC 204 and INTD 302 might have significant overlap that could justify reducing credit requirements for one or the other of these courses. J. Morse and D. Showers both noted that these courses address related but separate issues. They also noted that the SOE would like to find ways to reduce required program credits, and that a near future program evaluation needed for accreditation will force them to consider such issues.
There was general discussion about how new State requirements would be met under the new program. D. Showers and J. Morse explained that much of the process for meeting requirements included incorporating knowledge gained from last year's submission of the elementary education proposals. They also noted that other colleges had shared relevant information on what was expected and considered acceptable by the State, and what was considered unacceptable.
Meeting was adjourned at 5:00 P.M.