 |
Youngstown State University Youngstown, Ohio 44555 |
 |
|
|
Youngstown State University Youngstown, Ohio 44555 |
|
February 7, 2001
Note 1: Please
submit agenda items and cover sheets for the March 7 Senate meeting to Bege
Bowers, English Department, by noon on Friday, February 23. Provide both
a hard copy and a disk copy of your report and cover sheet in Word or rich text
format. A downloadable cover sheet is available at the Academic Senate web site:
Note 2: If you want to read or print the pdf version of these minutes and don’t have Adobe Acrobat Reader, you may download the program at the following link: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.
To save paper, use the Acrobat Reader menus or toolbar to print the file, not the menus or toolbar in your web browser.
Click on the links in the table to go directly to a specific section of the minutes.
Major topics presented/discussed: Global Awareness Committee; General Education Committee's proposal concerning choosing old versus new general education requirements; whether to reduce the oral communication intensive requirement from two courses to one; address by President David Sweet on university planning, building the administrative team, and labor-management relations.
Call to Order:
Jim Morrison, chair of the Academic Senate, called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m.
Minutes of the Previous Meeting:
Minutes of the 6 December 2000 meeting were approved as posted.
To view the December minutes, click here; click your “Back” button as necessary to return to the February minutes.
Senate Executive Committee / Report from the Chair: Jim Morrison reported on the following Senate Executive Committee (SEC) actions:
Morrison deferred discussion of other SEC actions until later in the meeting.
Ohio Faculty Council Report: Tom Shipka, our elected representative to the OFC, reported that the January meeting of the OFC was canceled. The OFC will meet Friday, February 9, and Shipka will report at the March Senate meeting.
Shipka reminded us that links to the web sites for the OFC, OBOR, and the National Higher Education Report Card appear on our Academic Senate homepage. The links to the OFC and OBOR are particularly helpful to keep you informed about developments at the state level, including positions taken by the OFC and, currently, the budget of the Ohio Board of Regents as proposed to the governor.
Charter and Bylaws Committee: No report.
Elections and Balloting Committee: No report. Louise Aurilio, chair of the committee, noted that names of new senators for this semester will be reported at the next Senate meeting.
The next meeting of the ASC will be February 19 at noon.
Academic Programs Committee: No report. Jim Morrison noted that Kathylynn Feld, chair of the committee, who was off campus for a presentation, told him the Academic Programs Committee has been processing proposals for minors as they come in; some proposals are circulating now; she urges departments who want official minors to get the forms in very soon. (Asked when "very soon" is, Morrison noted that he doesn't know.)
University Curriculum
Committee:
Tammy
King, chair of the committee,
reported that two packets of course proposals have been circulated without
objections. Therefore, the courses listed in the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee's
attachment to the agenda for the February 7 Senate meeting are officially approved.
Academic Planning Committee: No report.
General Education Committee: Bill Jenkins, chair of the General Education Committee (GEC), reported on four matters: the need to turn in general education syllabi; old versus new general education requirements for various types of students; oral communication intensive courses; and recently approved general education courses.
In regard to matter 1, the GEC is asking departments to forward to the committee the syllabi for general education courses being taught this semester. The committee will review those syllabi in preparation for a follow-up report to the North Central Association later this spring. Please get the syllabi in as soon as possible.
In regard to matter 2, Jenkins summarized and highlighted items in Choosing Old or New General Education Requirements, Appendix I of the General Education Committee's attachment to the agenda for the February 7 Senate meeting. He reported that the items have been presented to the Senate, academic advisors, the Deans' Council, the Academic Senate Executive Committee, the Academic Standards Committee, etc., and they are the result of collaboration and compromise. If they are passed by the Senate, he noted, he will continue to work with advisors, the Deans' Council, the Senate Executive Committee, the Academic Standards Committee, and the GEC to provide for liberal granting of credit for general education courses already completed under other systems. The desire is to encourage enrollment, not discourage it, for students attempting to enroll at YSU—and not to "harm" students already enrolled.
Jenkins also summarized changes and additions to related material concerning transfer credit and additional majors and degrees (see Appendix I of the General Education Committee's attachment to the agenda for the February 7 Senate meeting).
He noted that the GEC has presented the items in language that is intended to go into the Undergraduate Bulletin. Thus, the Senate will be approving some new policy statements and re-approving some existing ones.
Jenkins moved that we adopt the policies in Appendix I of the General Education Committee's attachment to the agenda for the February 7 Senate meeting. The motion was seconded, and discussion followed. Morrison noted that anyone, senator or not, is welcome to speak to business on the floor. He reminded speakers to go to a microphone, identify themselves, and limit their remarks to three minutes. Only senators can vote.
Phillip Chan, Art Department: My question refers to item 5 in Appendix 1. My concern is the student who has been out for three semesters or so and completed all but one or two general education courses. Will such students be forced to take all of the new courses?
Jenkins: That's not the purpose of what we are trying to do. We would try to develop guidelines to take a student's prior completion of courses into account and not unduly create additional requirements for that student. The intent is to grant as much credit as possible for such students.
Tammy King, Criminal Justice: What about students who transfer in as seniors or upperclassmen without having taken writing-, critical thinking–, and oral communication–intensive courses?
Jenkins: We would have to work out the details. The intent would be to "prorate" requirements so that students at advanced points in their career would not have to complete the full range of intensive courses.
Charles Singler, Geology: Martha Pallante of the Academic Standards Committee indicated that you made a presentation to the ASC and they recommended that you bring the procedures to the Senate for discussion. But when I look through the document on the agenda and listen to your explanation, I hear a number of places where something is considered to be a new policy statement (item 2, item 6, etc.). I am concerned about the procedural aspect. If the ASC is supposed to look at policies related to general university requirements, has the ASC looked at these, and why is the ASC not making these recommendations?
Jenkins: I can’t speak for the ASC and its individual members, but the GEC has been authorized to create policy. The ASC’s job is to review policy in terms of general standards. Their job, essentially, is to make sure that anything we bring forward would not contradict or cause a problem with the general academic standards of the university. My understanding is that, as a committee, the ASC found no problem and agreed with these policies.
As for who brings forward the motion, the Senate Charter and Bylaws do not state which committee must bring forward the motion. The Bylaws do include language for two committees in regard to general education matters. I discussed the issue with Jim Morrison and with Martha Pallante, and we felt it was best if the GEC presented the material, because the GEC had developed the material and discussed it with all the different groups. Also, we felt I would be the most knowledgeable about the general education material.
Singler: I see a lot of these as being a good approach and perhaps beneficial to students, but I’m still concerned about procedures. The Bylaws do say that the responsibilities of the Academic Standards Committee include "making recommendations concerned with University general requirements."
Jenkins: They say the same thing about the General Education Committee.
Singler: And I see within the language of the document some potential conflicts, and I wonder if they have been addressed. For example, the Undergraduate Bulletin says that students are obligated to the catalog under which they entered; another place in the Bulletin says that if students change majors, they are obligated to the requirements in effect at the time they make the change. There are a whole range of policies in the Bulletin stating that if a student returns or makes a change, he or she is obligated to follow the new catalog or any subsequent one. I'm not sure the language here is not in conflict with that.
Jenkins: Why is it in conflict?
Singler: The language here says under item 6, "students taking the goal-driven general education model will finish whatever portion of those requirements remains" as opposed to being obligated to change to the new requirements. I'm not saying that what you have proposed isn't to the benefit of the students; I just want to make sure that the implications have been addressed and that there's not a contradiction where students or advisors will have to ask, "which one should be followed?"
Jenkins: I will be more than happy to make a note of this; I'll be one of the people responsible for working with the general education material in the Bulletin and working with advisors on getting that as clear as possible.
Singler: One other question: Within the language here, you've indicated in a number of places that the advisor makes a certain determination. Would you explain to us what is meant by "advisor"? Any faculty member, the college advisors—who is the advisor who makes the determination, and then is the university obligated to that advice?
Jenkins: Under the present system, advisement varies by college. In some instances, the college requires the student to see an advisor in the dean's office; in other instances, we have departmental advising; in others, we have open-ended faculty advising. The intent is that whichever level of advisor is operative in any college would be the person making determinations, in conjunction with the General Education Coordinator.
Morrison: Does anyone else wish to address this matter?
Barbara Brothers, Dean of Arts and Sciences: I’m not sure what the next step would be. There’s been a motion. Yet Martha Pallante made it clear that the ASC did not approve any policy changes. I move to table this motion. It’s a long, complex piece, and Pallante’s remarks make clear that her committee did not approve policy changes, and those need to be carefully considered. Advisors’ concerns have not been met. I recommend that we move on to the President’s address.
Jenkins: I disagree with the statement that the advisors' concerns have not been met. We need to provide information for the upcoming Undergraduate Bulletin.
Brothers: For example, whether students can choose or not is a major departure.
Morrison: Is there a second to Dr. Brothers's motion?
Singler: I second the motion.
A vote was taken, and the motion to table Jenkins's motion failed.
Tom Shipka, Philosophy and Religious Studies: I call the question.
A vote was taken, and Jenkins's motion (to adopt the policies in Appendix I of the General Education Committee's attachment to the agenda for the February 7 Senate meeting) carried.
We have worked on the intensive components with various departments. The writing and critical thinking intensive courses have been moving forward; the oral communication intensive courses have been lagging. We have met with Dan O'Neill and other department chairs and held discussions about whether we can realistically have the oral communication components. Part of the problem is that students will make presentations in class. Many faculty feel a conflict between covering material central to the course and in addition developing the skill of speaking.
We have indicated that there can be multiple types of presentations. In addition, we are encouraging departments to offer us some alternatives, perhaps spreading the component over several courses. However, the overall requirement appears to be too much for many people. Therefore, we have decided it would be appropriate to reduce the oral communication requirement to one course instead of two. We will take this matter to the ASC at its next meeting. I entertain questions or comments.
J-C. Smith, Philosophy and Religious Studies: Would that mean the one course was a Communication & Theater Department course?
Jenkins: No. We are not talking about the required speech course. We are talking about the intensive requirement only.
Smith: As you know, I am now incorporating an oral communications intensive component into an engineering ethics course. At first, I had thought it would take up too much time and be very difficult, but I have found that it meshes with the course material very well. Students had asked for this oral communications component as I surveyed them over a couple of terms; I encourage people not to withdraw from the requirement too quickly. It might just be a matter of working through the details.
Jenkins: Students do need to have experiences to learn to speak effectively in public. We need to encourage departments and majors to find ways to help students develop these skills. Accrediting agencies, employment agencies, etc. call for these skills; a student who can communicate well has a better chance of getting a job and performing well in it.
Integrated Technologies Committee, University Outreach Committee, Library Committee, Academic Research Committee, Student Academic Affairs Committee, Student Academic Grievance Committee, Honors Committee, and Academic Events Committee: No reports.
Address by President David Sweet: Morrison welcomed President Sweet. After encouraging those present to participate in the blood drive next week, Sweet made the address that appears in Attachment 1. After viewing the address, click the “Back” button in your browser or close the Acrobat window to return to the minutes.
President Sweet's address was followed by a question-and-answer session:
J-C. Smith, Philosophy and Religious Studies: I chair the Distance Learning Review Committee for the university; there's precious little distance learning going on here. I noted in the last Jambar a quite-nice ad from Ohio University for online course instruction. Do you have thoughts about the direction and the speed with which we should move in this regard?
Sweet: I would be eager to hear what your committee has suggested or recommended. I know in terms of some of the consultation that we're doing on campus—looking at where there might be links for growth opportunities—distance learning is playing an integral role. We have been exploring a number of links between YSU and some of the community colleges, between YSU and Cleveland State University. I have initiated a discussion with Case Western Reserve University about distance learning in some of the degree programs. So I am open to suggestions and committed to seeing distance learning as a part of our future. It takes motivated faculty as well as facilities. I think we have facilities, and I'm sure we have some motivated faculty. I'd be happy to discuss the matter further in terms of priorities you would recommend.
Howard Mettee, Chemistry: [The Senate tape is not audible at this point; the next two paragraphs are based on my typed notes.] Thank you for your comments on the need for civility on campus. I've worked in the Chemistry Department for a little over 30 years. I have been an Academic Senator and in the union. Things were pretty divergent last fall semester in spite of the accomplishments you mentioned. So I hope people will welcome your remarks and receive them in the way in which I think they were intended.
Another item, though, that bothers me is that I'm trying to understand our relationship with Kent State University. I believe they impact our enrollment. They are competitors, but we are cooperating with them. How do you see our relationship with Kent and some of the branch campuses?
Sweet: I could say "all-out war," but I'll try to avoid that in the context of being civil. I have engaged in conversations and just wrote a letter to a bank chairman in Trumbull County who took me to task as the result of an editorial in the Tribune that said I was trying to promote YSU to the detriment of Kent State-Trumbull. I had sent out 3,000 letters with an attachment regarding the Ohio Board of Regents' performance report, which shows and showcases YSU in a very positive light. I highlighted a number of data that I thought were important for readers to look at: for example, 44% of our freshmen encounter a full-time senior faculty member; only 22% at Kent-Trumbull and other universities do so. This was in a table straight out of the report. The Tribune wrote an editorial saying that I was disparaging Kent State-Trumbull. So I sent a letter to the banker—with a copy of the letter to David Allen and the editor of the Tribune—saying I would like to engage in a conversation, because I think there's enough work for both of us here in the Valley.
But what I am deeply concerned about is "mission-creep" on the part of the branch campuses of Kent State University. You look at the web page of Kent State-Trumbull, and there's a listing of baccalaureate degrees; we have even identified masters' and even one doctoral student taking coursework at Kent State-Trumbull. I firmly believe the branch campuses were intended for workforce development, for the first two years of a baccalaureate degree, and for associate degrees. So I agree with the premise of your question. If mission-creep continues on the part of the Kent State branch campuses that surround us, they will emerge into four-year institutions, and I object to that as a taxpayer—not just as president of this university. I think it is a dissipation of our state's resources. So I'm going to engage in a constructive conversation to see what we can do about it. I think we will get some support, but the current chancellor of the Ohio Board of Regents is a free-market economist who wants to take off all the lids and let competition reign. I think taxpayers and some of us in other institutions will bear the price of that.
Brendan Minogue, Philosophy and Religious Studies: Can you describe the "collaborative procedures" you used in reducing summer teaching for the faculty for the coming summer?
Sweet: I think, if you've seen my statement, that this a great illustration of the rumors that abound on this campus. I had a meeting with the Deans' Council in which we were discussing how we can grow the summer program. All of a sudden, it became a fait accompli that I was shutting down the summer program. We are looking at how to grow the summer program. The deans have been asked to come forward with proposals that relate to student needs. Hear me carefully—that relate to student needs. As long as we can identify programs that are relating to student needs and that will generate sufficient revenue to cover their cost, we will be growing our summer program. The rumors of the demise of the summer session are greatly exaggerated.
February 23 is when we will enter the next phase of looking at what we can put together for the summer session.
Are there additional questions? Thank you for the opportunity of speaking with you. I look forward to further discussions.
Morrison: The Senate Executive Committee will meet on February 21 and take up some of the invitations that President Sweet has given us. As part of the context for that, let me say that we have posted on the Senate web site YSU’s Statement of Ethical Principles, developed by this body and subsequently endorsed by the Board of Trustees.
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 5:14 p.m.
Attachment 1: President Sweet's Address (separate pdf file)
(Click the “Back” button in your browser or close the Acrobat window to return to these minutes.)
For further information, e-mail Bege Bowers.