Their afternoon. >> I'd like to call the meeting to order. I could our first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. I do want to make one change. However, we need to drop resolution a. That will be postponed until the April meeting that is on the masters in speech pathology need a motion to second. Second. All those in favor of amending the agenda to drop resolution a. Anybody opposed, the motion is adopted, the agenda is adopted, less. Resolution a. We need to approve the minutes from our last February fourth meeting, those in favor of adopting the resolutions. >> Were those with comments? >> Any comments on the meeting minutes from the last meeting? Those in favor of adopting the minutes and those opposed. It also passes unanimously. And now we have our remarks from the provost. >> Good afternoon. Just a few updates. I thought you might like to know about what's going on in terms of some of the work that we're doing around students, around facilities, and around leadership. First of all, our admissions office is in the throes of finalize finalizing admissions decisions on 24 thousand plus completed applications. The actually, I'm not speaking about this today, in fact, is going to be distracting. So let's take that down downward residents had been notified on a rolling basis, basis sets early January. And then on March eighth, non-resident admissions and financial aid packages were mailed. The qualifications of our honor, students admitted is the highest ever, and both the resident and non-resident application numbers, or the second highest ever. And the diversity of the classes continues to improve, both in terms of under-represented minority students as well as international students. So it's clear that our admissions office, I think, is taking a very strong leadership role in enhancing diversity. We need to be equally confident that we have the right systems in place so that we can, so that students are successful once they get here. And this will require a concerted effort on the parts of many people, including the people in this room. But we have convened actually a group, the student success and retention work group, to address this issue systematically. This is an effort that's being led by Interim Deputy Provost and artists and particular, the questions that they're addressing include an assessment at the inventory of our current efforts around student success and retention. What we have both in the way of activities, programs and support services. And they'll also be looking at our data collection needs and practices in this area. And then finally, they're going to conduct an audit of our enrollment management infrastructure. Working with an R ever on Abraham. Maggie Anderson, Jose VALS, Peggy bought Whorf micro, Gilbert Heather Kelly, land, oligarchy, John, police, go, John, sire, Incendie, shameful. So stay tuned as this work continues throughout the spring and we began to put in place again the kinds of programs, activities, and support that our students need to be successful. Another kind of FYI has that information kind of issue is our Student Government Association in November, passed a resolution in four in favor of a tobacco-free campus here at UT. This is widely supported by our students. They surveyed our students. 72% of our undergraduate supported this. They also have strong support from our graduate student organization. We've talked to our unionized workforce and they seem to be also supportive of the, of the idea. So we're working on a, on a policy right now. We welcome your input and also note that there are other universities in the area. A University of Maryland has very recently adopted a tobacco-free workplace policy. >> That was actually done by edict of the governor. >> I think ours is a little unusual in that it's largely a student-driven effort. Michigan has one in Kentucky actually was one of the very first ones. Little counter-intuitive, I think. Another thing I'd like to let you know about is that we are at the very beginning of the process of creating a master plan for the campus. We have a history of intermittent campus planning, I would say, and we've generated a good amount of information, but a lot of it is not really well coordinated or coordinated with our desires. And so we're, we're, we, we need to update some key benchmark data that will help us in terms of assessing our needs. And so this process is underway right now. What we're largely do is collecting information as the space utilization study in order to address questions like how to address request for space, how to utilize our assets more effectively? How to align our physical assets with our university strategic goals? Right now, we're largely collecting data when we began the process of strategic planning in a next year, the two efforts will be very closely allied. I'd like to give you an example of something that has are ready come up in, in the process of collecting information about space use that I think is potentially very useful to us, particularly in type Financial Times. The question came up about 15 minutes versus ten minutes in between classes. We currently have 15 minutes between classes. A lot of campuses that enough, most have ten. And so we're looking at that particular policy and considering whether a change in this policy could redirect resources from bricks and mortars. A programmatic initiatives. So that's just an example of a question that comes up that we'll be dealing with in this process of campus master planning. Also in the next few weeks, there will be, we will be sending out a survey to faculty asking, asking faculty who you collaborate with. And from this data, we will be creating a map that shows faculty interactions across campus. And the idea is that this data as well will help us to plan better in terms of the allocation of space. It's a very short survey and are encouraged to participate in it. And finally, the College of Engineering Dean searches underway and on schedule, the pool of candidates is being generated. Now we anticipate the semi finalists will be selected and mid April for an off-campus interview with the search committee late April. Finalists will then brought be brought to campus in May to meet with faculty, students, and administrators so that those are my updates. Questions oriented back. Yes. >> What is the target for every 3800 is our current target. >> Yes. >> King Did I say some operations that tobacco free. What does that mean? >> It is campus. And which tobacco products of any kind are not used on campus property. The particulars of the policy, use is still is still being worked out. But if we are ready, don't sell tobacco products on campus. >> But this would also mean that we don't use them on campus, injure somebody couldn't smoke outdoors. >> That's right. Not on campus property. >> Wow. >> Thank you. Because following that up with an email messenger center some months ago, I don't see what the point is. When the campus is crisscrossed by so many public streets and sidewalks where smoking would remain quite legal, right? And I must also say that, I mean, I I I I never been a smoker, right. Nobody in my family smokes. I'm not pursuing a personal agenda here. >> On the other hand, secondhand smoke doesn't really bother me. >> I know it does bother some people. I know there is a health concern about secondhand smoke, right? But I would ask the question, well, what about the exhaust? >> More cars and trucks on Delaware Avenue and the south College Avenue. >> I mean, we're breathing that stuff too, right? And it's harder to get away from there, but it is just to avoid someone smoking a cigarette. >> I think one policy at a time though. >> Can I missed that? >> Yes. Amy, I'm from the College of Health Science and I have to walk through a cloud and below we smoke. To get in to the college of health sciences, we've been raising the question of secondhand smoke years. >> We applaud this and there's a bunch of us back in. >> Well, maybe you should have a college. Maybe there should be certain a priori. >> The College of Health is everywhere. Anything else? >> Quiescence for me. >> I'm going to let that settle it outside. >> Okay. Thank you very much for the few announcements to make. >> So I'll be brief. The according committee on education is hearing having a second open hearing scheduled for next Monday at 04:00 PM in this room. Then he, Galileo will be leading that group and perhaps the tests force from the Provost Office will be talking. Not quite sure. Danny, could you tell us in 34 minutes what's the subject? >> Revise the policy in light of the transport subject is just to hear what people have to say about the revised policy, which was greatly revised according to the comments we got at the first open here. So there's no formal plan to have the taskforce speak, but could be they'd like and anyone is welcome to come and speak. >> Ok. So that's next Monday. Here, I just eight minutes ago received the request from the Undergraduate Studies Committee. Have an open hearing on March 18th at 3pm. I don't think we can get in here, Fred at 3pm. >> According to inherit we do we have an accurate data, so we might have to find another row. Okay. I think we should we should go ahead and hold the hearing. >> Alright. Any hearing is on grade forgiveness, which I understand your committee considering they started request from the student government. Could you give us three minutes with the greed policy? >> Forgiveness is, well, it's actually, I mean, it's not, student government might be in favor of it, but the policy comes more from colleges and faculty, so that there's a resolution that everyone will receive when the hearing is announced. And it basically says that if a student has earned less than a C minus in a course, that the student can read, take that course. And though the low grade will remain on the student's transcript. But if the student gets a higher grade when retaking the course, the higher grade will be used in the figuring that GPA, the, the, the mechanism is intentionally simple so that it's easy to implement. So we think it's a straightforward policy. But the reason you GS wanted to hold a hearing on this is because we think that the faculty at large would want to be aware of this and we would want to make sure that all faculty know about this before the resolution would come to the floor of the Senate, which could be as soon as the next meeting of the Senate or not, depending on what. Surfaces of the hearing. >> Okay. Well, we have two more meetings and those that are interested in the topic and want to learn more. On March 18th, either a three or four o'clock, right. Or you wanted to three at three via regardless will tell you the room. Just as a point of information, the academic calendar year has been approved by the Coordinating Committee. For those that don't remember, it was an ad hoc committee on scheduling that had approved several these calendars. The one for 2014 to 2015 was just approved. There seemed to be no particular place for this to go. So Coordinating Committee seemed to be the most appropriate committee. I would ask the rules committee to draft a simple procedure that says that this is the rule of the Senate, that when we get these from the registrar, they go to the Coordinating Committee Discussion and he had a role in the calendar or understanding why did we get the calendar then? And yes, I don't know. >> Because they really duration of about a year ago, we made it a priority to share the calendar's going looking for to make sure that other folks, the issues we can address them. But the idea was not to request Faculty Senate approval of the calendar, I think, or that have a thunderbolt about. >> We then send it to Coordinating Committee for review and reporting to the senate. And that we don't claim authority to approve it. Since if we don't approve it, we're still going to have to have an academic calendar, obviously. >> Yeah, so right now, the provost and the president approved it. But we are making a point here. It earlier with back wages, our fight, we appreciate that. >> And it should go to Coordinating Committee will draft a simple rule saying Any other questions or comments, tracking matters that are before committees. There are almost none, has just one, promotion and tenure. Here's how the Executive Committee decided to go forward with promotion and tenure. There are nine proposals. Next meeting, April first meeting of the senate will look at five of those. I don't wanna be deceptive, but I took the five easiest ones that I don't think anyone really will object to, at least on controversial political grounds. Absolutely nothing to do with workload. Now you can do with titles. These are technical glitches and we're just trying to tweak the promotion and tenure system. In deference to a comment from John Morgan last meeting, I think you need more than one week, especially when there's going to be Spring Break the week before the meeting, we're going to try to get to the actual Five resolutions within a week or two so that the senators have two full weeks to review those resolutions. Each resolution will have one paragraph describing the purpose of what the problem is, that dressing and then the resolution. The actual language have to change. The language in the handbook We're not just those on April first meeting. And if we get through those maybe on May or may meeting, we could do the other five, but the Executive Committee recommended that we have a special meeting of the faculty senate. Now I probably don't want to special meeting anymore than you do. But if it's going to take too long to discuss those other five, which are admittedly a bit more contentious, dealing with titles and the standards for promotion and tenure. We thought we would set aside Monday, April 29th for a special meeting if we need it if it looks like we can get to it at the May meeting, we'll skip this special meeting, but we ask you to put on your calendar April 29th, monday, right here, four o'clock in this room for a special meeting. And it'll be just addressing those for me for resolutions, which again, we'll get to you three to four weeks in advance. So you can read those carefully. These had been vetted by various groups. I can't say it's unanimous support from the P and T committee, support from different groups. But there's clearly people who object to some of these proposals. I don't think I recall anybody objecting to any of the first five, but we'll find out. Certainly reasonable people could go either way on any of these. In response to some questions that were asked, Senator Hastings asked me about the gen Ed committee report from Karen Stein and help Mr. extra Karen at a dinner and asked Karen, she said agenda committee is still in effect finding position. If anybody has any information they want to convey to them, they're collecting and rather than come back for a second oral reports, Karen will submit a written report on gedit initiatives, again, addressing what John Morgan said. We will try to get you any resolutions. I know I go through 25 of these consent agenda items and it takes a long time to read them. So one week wouldn't not be fair, especially if it's spring break. And then also Amy johnson suggested that we spend less time on the announcements some more in discussing the academic resolutions, which you will see is the case today. Our now our consent agenda. These are all on the consent agenda. Anybody, any senator has the authority to pull one off and discuss it there. Any that people wish to discuss separately. Do have fred is here from undergraduate studies, Mary Martin here. Oh, Mary's there. If there's any questions on any of the graduate studies proposals. If not, we can vote on as a whole, was in favor of the consent agenda, as is any opposed. Consent agenda is adopted unanimously and we had four resolutions reduced to three. But let me just explain why we pulled this one. This is the proposal for a master's program in speech pathology. I received the number of emails, people who wanted to talk extensively about this particular academic proposal. And then I got a call from the governor's office about an hour ago. They actually read our agenda. And if you remember, the question in this came up in the coordinating committee and that's why it got pulled from a prior month and pushed to this month. The question is, do we approve the academic program without any funding? The Governor's Office will not fund the program until there's an academic program that's approved. And so we put in there, I thought the language was pretty clear to me. Basically, we're adopting this provisionally if there's funding from the governor's office for five years well, the Lieutenant Governor suggested to me they can't fund for five years. They only do budgets for one year. And his understanding was a little bit different than other people in the room. Lieutenant governor was ensured that they're going to fully fund the program, which may mean we may not fully do the program or do it at all. I thought it would be better to just hold off for a month. Will think this through and maybe people will communicate with the Lieutenant Governor and also the Majority Whip was on the conversation and bring her in on that too. I think the initiative came from the two of them. And so that's why that was mysteriously pulled literal last minute. Our second motion, motion B, is the four-plus one program in public policy and masters in historic preservation. So anybody have any questions or comments? Mary Martin would certainly explain to us what the this is just a standard for plus one program added in putting these two degrees together. Can I just ask you a question? We typically double count. We said 69 credits in most four plus 41 programs between the undergraduate courses taken. Graduate, very, very Program to some masters program have higher number of credit requirements than others. So the probation of the credit based on app that typically six to nine being counted essentially as both the masters and the undergraduates because he's got to be boarded. >> Apparently, they're sharing credit until you can't walk away with the undergraduate degree. >> You have to wait till you get to answer any questions. >> State for Fred if we look at this. >> Yes, we did. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You must have looked at the undergraduate side. >> Yeah. >> I didn't say in the recommendations. >> I thought when there was a four plus wanted included undergrad Committee as well. >> So I just want to make sure that all those in favor of this four plus one program. >> Are there any unopposed The Resolution V passes unanimously to see the degree in medical diagnostics major. It's just an honors degree attached to an existing program or any questions that are raised. It's not those in favor of adopting this honors degree in medical diagnostics. Any opposed, unanimous. And D is the resolution little tricky to word, but this adds a numbering system to the faculty handbook, which as anybody knows who's used it. If you try to find something, you once on a handbook is no way to find that. There's now a simple numbering system added. In order to pass a resolution, we have to show the existing handbook and how it was changed. This is how it was changed. It's kinda hard to compare one to one, but somebody was not willing to even give us access to this. We had to go through a code and password. But everybody should have at least looked to see that this is an improvement and the numbering system. This was done by John Madison, our former president of the Senate. Any questions about this? This will only go long line if it's passed by the Faculty Senate sector more or less, which is what will happen in the future if somebody wants to add a new section, for example, between 4.4.74.8, that will make things more complicated. Sure. 4.4 settings, you want to say that no, no, no, that's a disaster. If you do that. Is r cross referencing didn't mess though, right? >> So it has to be some additional system letters or something like that. >> In addition to numbers, you would just add a subsection here, a and b, so that the written above the same numbered paragraph. You don't want to start numbering friend. >> So I am not a senator. >> So I need to ask you certainly. >> Well, so I don't see as search function here. And one of the handy tools and the current version of the handbook as the search. So I would ask that we should have a search function inherent that should be able to find things by key word agree. >> We certainly don't want to make it worse than it is. Yeah, that's it. That is an important feature. If you plug in the keyword adjunct professor, find all this section only straightforward? I think so, but not technique, technical dagger. >> Pretty sure we should have a third upper right yet, but I think that's the whole university WEB. >> Yeah. >> Which often gives you a lot of results you don't want. >> I don't see a search opportunity here, but that's a good point for user comments on the newly improved, we hope faculty handbook. >> Those in favor of ending the numbering system or anybody opposed because unanimous have no unfinished business. >> Introduction of introduction of new business. >> And this be an appropriate place to just mention a couple of the issues that would be good to have addressed at when we next have our Senate meeting about the proposed speech pathology program? >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. I spent many hours this weekend going through the attached documentation and even going a bit further because there's a reference to a governor's task force on license speech language pathologists from 2008, which I think was not one of the attachments, but you can find it by googling online. And there was a task force set up in 2 thousand and bindings with a number of constituencies from all over the state to address the issue about the shortage of licensed speech pathologists, particularly in the Delaware public schools. And one of the issues that was identified is that these professionals who have to be licensed, they need a master's degree, that need to pass a licensing exam, and all that were not being paid competitive salaries with what was being offered. For example, in nearby states such as Pennsylvania. One of the people who testified before this task force was our former provost, Dan rich. And I'd like to just read what he is reported as telling the taskforce in March of 2007. This is what it says. >> I'm quoting directly. >> Provost rich urged the task force to recommend a multi-dimensional solution because the shortage problem itself multidimensional. He speculated that having a master's program in Delaware would not necessarily solved the shortage problem because graduates would be free to leave the state to practice in locations that offered better pay or more attractive working conditions. He suggested that there may be other mechanisms by which Delaware residents could more readily access or graduate level coursework, such as online courses and partnerships with other universities. And I therefore think it's very important when we are discussing this issue in the future. We know what the Delaware legislature has done or has not done to make the salaries that will be paid to speech pathologists and the Delaware public schools competitive with those of nearby states such as pennsylvania. Because otherwise we could spend a lot of money and resources setting up a program here that does a great job of training very well qualified people who will get jobs in other states, which is, of course, not what the taskforce was trying to accomplish here. >> Thank you, everybody on a task force that wants to respond and not on the task poison. >> I'll respond to that. That is a conversation that we are having with legislators that are interested in this program. And we've made that point back to them very clearly, that the program alone will not solve the problem if the working conditions, including the salaries of 35. So that conversation is ongoing and we're not ignoring that. >> We're not ignoring the work that's got revenue. I'm not concerned about university ignored about the other foot doctor view. I just have a question because I'm computing this is a question that process. So and it is about the speech pathology pregnant. So the why, what makes a difference between classes that get created provisionally or otherwise? And maybe it's because there is provisional that were part of this speech language proposed program that make it so that they don't appear on the consent agenda for approval or did they appear on a consent agenda for approval at a previous meeting? >> There two courses in that brain to soak up. >> So there's a challenge list that they appeared on, but then why do some like we all voted and approved all the changes composed on the consent agenda. >> Those are new courses, so they don't appear anarchism. >> But what makes the difference between a paradigm that needs to be approved as part of the consent agenda and one that just has to get created and put up on the challenge, welfare challenge week. >> If there's simply the niche name change of a course or a new course that's put on the consent agenda here. It's a whole process that has been approved by the Board of Trustees. And so we need resolutions we don't approve. Recommended whose trustees? And in the Trustees approval. I thought your point was, why don't we also have to prove the courses separately? >> Whoa, whoa. What makes it so? That of course, has to show up on the consent agenda as if a Christian life on earth, those programs. >> Ok. >> So this is just creating a whole new him and that needs that's what a master's program that's completely new worried apartment or changing the name of an existing apartment requires a resolution recommendation from the Senate, which goes to the Board of Trustees for final approval. The consent agenda is just the challenge agenda. Something differently, GetString has been adjusted correctly. >> Course do not go on to the consent agenda. The courses go through the course Challenge Stoke the principle that determines whether an item goes on the consent agenda or the resolutions is whether the item requires a resolution or not. So if the if the Item requires a resolution, then it goes in the section under resolutions. But if but and those are those resolutions, then go onto the board of trustees. Because the Board of Trustees ultimately approves, the faculty senate is just recommending that the board approve them. >> If there's an existing master's program that changes the name, of course are the requirements for the degree that's not required resolution. >> It goes to trust me. Navi answer her question though. Any course that is either a part of a program that is either on the consent agenda or the resolutions has to be on the challenge list or be it already approved course. >> So there's no shortcuts to getting that course. And we'd, at least at the undergraduate level, we check that at the undergraduate studies committee, if they are going to propose a new major and there was a course in there. We check to make sure it's on the challenge list if it's, if it's a new course. >> Thank you. >> We can obviously have to talk about this master's program if it makes it onto the agenda next month. So those that want to make comments next month would be the appropriate time. There being any other new business introduce, We have a meeting of the general faculty scheduled at 330 April first, we did discover there was a class in this room. President Harker is going to be here to speak, so we're going to have to resolve that. But if we start ten minutes late, we'll go tenants late. We can't force a class added here. I said the regular meeting will be scheduled right after the President's speech at 330. >> Is John gradually pursuant to that, I'd like to suggest that it would be good if the general faculty meeting were Hill, in a large enough auditory and then so that more than just the senators could attend. >> It used to be nothing. >> Yeah, that's right. >> And there are surely there are other classrooms like large bathrooms in Smith that that could be used if we walk back over here for our meeting that well, it used to be held on a separate day. >> We used to have the children stay tough. >> Karen, let's think about that. >> We have to give the senators you notice that we're in a different room, right? >> Well, I think what we notice is sufficient now, but I just pasted JPEGs. The room was just a week's notice, a sufficient right. It's harder to change the date or the time. >> I want to make a decision, right? I'm standing here because there could be some technical reasons. So let's assume we're in this room unless you hear otherwise, you look points to adjourn Second own favorite German back April first
2012-2013/facsen-20130304.mp3
From Joseph Dombroski May 06, 2020
0 plays
0
0 comments
0
You unliked the media.