So good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to the Spring semester. Seems like January evaporated. The for those of us who teach in the winter, it's an especially busy time. So our first agenda item today is to adopt our agenda. Are there any changes to the agenda hearing? None. If you want to vote, all those in favor of adopting the agenda, raise your yellow cards. And any opposed, you'd like to raise those yellow cards. I mean, we had unanimous consent, right. According to Roberts Rules. Next order of business is to approve the minutes. There has been a minor change to the minutes at the end to clarify that a certain comment made about the fw p was made about the procedures and not about the committee. So there has been a just a slight clarification that was requested. Are there any other requested changes to the minutes? So hearing none. All those in favor, raise your yellow cards. See lots of yellow cards. Are there any opposed? So the minutes are approved. And I want to acknowledge the faculty Senate's secretary, honest silver Amun, for the outstanding job she's doing on the minutes, especially the last meeting, which was almost a two-hour meeting that was very complex and very impressed by how thorough those minutes are and the amount the amount of time that she spends and the expertise she brings to it are greatly appreciated. Next, I'd like to introduce our provost Dominican grotto for his remarks. >> Thank you, President Hofstetter, and welcome back to all of you Senators and colleagues to another exciting semester of teaching and scholarship. There's almost nothing better than entering a new class filled with eager students waiting to imbibe new knowledge and have their minds unleashed. And to help encourage their minds to soar. I am very happy to report that we have renovated Doherty Hall back to the heart of its original splendor. And I would encourage you to visit it intra-band and see what we've done there. And you'll see a lot of great students thinking about very high thoughts there that you will inspire. No doubt, this past year has seen a great deal of effort towards our Title Nine policies, with a lot of great work being done by the Faculty Senate, Faculty Senate commission on on the title light issue working with Sue graph Make sure that our campus is pursuing the best policies and procedures that we can do. In response to this, on Wednesday, there'll be a communication center, the community from myself and the President, which will identify responsibilities of everyone on campus with regard to Title Nine and the the tools that are available to you to help work around this particular issue. And all the resources all as you know, all faculty and staff are required by law to me the report any information regarding sexual assault or sexual transgressions on this campus to sue graph in the spring, the Senate's commission on sexual harassment and assault, working with the title nine office in the Office of Institutional Research will be doing a campus climate survey of undergraduate students. And in the fall, they'll be doing climate survey of faculty and staff in addition to wednesdays letter, which provides the resources and training opportunities around Title Nine detail nine offices also posting for faculty members on their website a disclaimer for inclusion on syllabi. So if you want to include some aspect of title nine responsibilities on your syllabi that will be posted on the title nine Office website. And you can down, you can just copy and paste it into your syllabus. As many of you know our director of admission, Dr. Jose avail, as is leaving for another opportunity later this semester and we have launched a search. The search is going to be co chaired by Dr. David Wilson, Professor Wilson, who is an associate professor in political science, and Melissa Stone, who's the Director of Student Financial Services. On the search committee are michael von Linne, Olga geeky, Carol Henderson, Don Thompson, Jack Maruti, Kristen bend in half, and JP Lorenzo. We've also engaged the national search firm of William Spellman, executive search, which specializes in recruiting high-quality, diverse faculty, diverse pools for administrative positions in higher education. Dr. reveal, as is leading on May first and subsequent to that departure, Doug Xander, his associate director, will be will be taking over as interim director until we find a permanent replacement tomorrow. In my spring letter to the faculty and staff and students in that welcome letter, I underscore how essential diversity and inclusion is to UD success. And I highlight some of our wonderful initiatives that are underway. Among those initiative, initiatives are voices of u dy. And I would encourage you, if you haven't already watched some of those episodes to really engage in those. It's a, it's a safe way and inclusive way to encourage participation among our community around equity and inclusion. And I would also encourage you to foster dialogue in and out of the classroom. To allow students to have a safe place to discuss these very important issues. Among other aspects of our dynamic programming for this coming semester are we have a workshop on bias and micro-aggression that's being co-sponsored by the LTL BGT Q caucus. I don't think they have Pew and their name, but maybe they will be adding it sometime soon. A keynote address by Earl Lewis of the Mellon Foundation and a three day celebration of women and excellence featuring journalists. Laura Lang, who was held, held captive in North Korea for a period of time. And a forum on hate speech or free speech, why it matters. And under the topic of strategic planning, we are on time on our new revised time scheduled for release in March, and we're very excited about how this is coming together. Last week, there was a visioning retreat that was held intra-band for one of the subgroups. They came up with a lot of great ideas and activities. They were broken down into different groups and came back with different visions of the university. And almost each group came back with the same vision of the university. And the vision was that the University of Delaware will be a learner centered, engaged research university, which includes a lot of the things that we've been talking about over many years here at this university. And it pulled it all together very nicely. And I just want to reinforce the concepts that any changes that are going to require Senate or faculty approval will indeed have that approval process undertaken in due course. But this, this strategic planning, strategic planning report is to present ideas that we will pursue to varying degrees as, as it plays out. But anything that is going to require Senate interaction will of course go to the Senate for approval. So with that, I will turn it back over to President Hofstetter. >> Thank you, Provost Grosso. I use this chair because I'm too tall if I don't. Alright. So earlier I mentioned that it seemed like January had evaporated. But when you think back on the fw p revisions in the special meeting that we all had, you realize that it actually didn't evaporate. We actually got something significant accomplished. I was grateful to all of you for attending that special meeting and participating in the debate. So all of the amendments that were made from the floor have been rendered in the document. And the revised policy now resides at the Faculty Senate website where it's linked to the charge of the fw proximity. And it also appears as a link in the faculty handbook where the fw p charge appears in the handbook. So the revision contains the following gender neutral edits. And the reason I'm showing you these is sorted to read him into the record. I'm grateful to Senator to Cal for going over these and verify that I had done it correctly. I had asked some others to look at it, but they just accepted all my edits. You learn a lot when you try to turn his, he, she, he SLS HE, when you try to turn that into gender, gender neutral language, you really learn a lot in the process. You find places where saying they or their works just fine. You find other places where you need to repeat the noun without seeming to violate grammar. But then when you look at in the Wikipedia, and I'm grateful to John Morgan for sending me this immediately after the meeting. John sent me this article in the Wiki called the singular they. It's a lengthy and it goes into how all the various dictionaries are viewing this and how the languages is adapting to it. So it's interesting to see how, how this is working its way. And I was talking with Senator Bernstein a little bit before the meeting and on the way over here, when I was thinking about this, I was thinking about how texts and say, yaw, right, it doesn't matter who you are or how many people who are y'all always works. So it seems like the Texans already have a solution, but of course, that wouldn't that wouldn't work well in technical documents. Something we might try to do though is to model this. I'm doing so in my own department now, which is working on some policies, is as new policies are being written all across the campus, try to avoid the use of he and she and use this gender neutral language. So my slides will become part of the minutes. And in that process, there will be a record of what these changes have been. Agenda committee is working hard on its plan for implementing the new gen ed objectives. And I'd like you all to mark your calendars for Monday, March 23rd at 04:00 PM, right in here. And Gore 104, when we will most likely have an open hearing on this Gen Ed implementation plan. I say will most likely have it because the committee has not yet voted to hold the hearing. But we the spring is going to be very busy and we've been trying to allocate the dates for the possible hearings according to what we think might be coming up. So I asked the gin add committee to choose a date, and this is a date, so it's likely that this hearing will be held on March 23rd. Ud is working to decide which vendor will supply our new faculty activity tracking system. There are two alternatives being considered. Faculty 180, which is from a company called data 180 And activity Insight, which is a product from digital measures. The selection committee is chaired by John Sawyer and he wants to invite you to attend demonstration of activity insight. That's going to be held on Friday, February 13th at 11:00 AM in the new UD faculty comments, which is in 116 Pearson. And in that same location on Monday, February 23rd, again at 11 AM, data 180 is going to demonstrate a product called folio 180. And they will answer questions about faculty 180, which they've demonstrated here on campus previously. In folio one. Ad is a product that are Assessment Office is considering for possible use here at UD with student portfolios. And I see John Sawyer. John, would you like to add anything to what I've presented very pretty well at Harvard. >> It, we want to make sure that we get a good viewing of the options that are available to us. >> Some of you did go to the demonstration by data 1AD. The faculty wanted he System in December, so we didn't feel like we needed to do another full demo of that. However, since they are going to be on campus and the Assessment Office was interested in looking at folio 180. We've set that up in the comments and they will demonstrate foil 1AD initially, but then have lots of time for individual discussion and questions. >> So if you have more questions about faculty, if you come to the session on Friday to see the activity insights and then you want to compare specific things. >> Then please feel free to come on the 23rd and ask those questions. Do any of you have any questions or comments you'd like to make about this while John is here. Thank you. Another announcement. The our commission on sexual harassment and assault is planning to hold an open hearing like to you to mark your calendars for this one. Also. We know this one will happen. This one has been approved by the committee's This will be held on Monday, March ninth, right here at 4PM and Gore 104. And the hearing is entitled, it's an open forum on sexual harassment and assault and it's an invitation to the UD community to present issues and provide suggestions. The Commission is chaired by Michael changes and I believe Michael is was going to be here. There he is. Thank you, Michael. And Michael will say just a few words I'd like to do. >> I invite you to come. >> I'll invite you to. >> We will put out information about this and hopefully encourage students and faculty and staff to attend. Um, I'd like to thank Provost grosso for his remarks and the committee certainly working hard to collect information. We've been partnering with John Sawyer to come up with what we think is is one of the best surveys around the country. So that part of our committee is working hard and this is an opportunity to try and just get a discussion on campus. >> There's also going to be a film likely that we, CNN has put out a film called The Hunting Ground. And that is likely going to be shown on campus that week with the, I believe, director that film here. And so there'll be another opportunity, sort of Discussion on campus. Thank Wonderful. Thank you, Michael. Thank you for your leadership in this important initiative. We now have presentations. There are four on your agenda. Will we will be having three today and one due to some logistical issues. One will be rescheduled on March the second. Our first presenter is Dean Nancy target. This is a long awaited and anticipated presentation on committee on administrative searches. That was a 333 Committee on their final report. And I've temporarily just click and watch. We'll go full screen. >> Good. >> You're welcome. >> Thanks very much. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. This is a committee that grew out of a letter of understanding that was at the back of the collective bargaining agreement in an effort to try to put some clarity and recommendations and make some recommendations to the provost about academic administrative searches. The committee, as a 3.3.3 committee, had three representatives that were appointed by the IEP, three that were appointed by the Faculty Senate, and three by the provost. And I know that some of those people are here today, John Morgan, Denny Galileo, Martha below. Anybody else who was on that committee? I thank them. And all of us that work together on on this committee. That process was about a five month process. We started in December of 2013 and then turned our report and recommendations into the Provost in May of 2014. And the charge really that we had, the formal charge was to develop some recommendations for the provost that would provide for this meaningful representation of faculty and other stakeholders on Academic Administrative searches. And the idea around this was to ensure the broadest range of use. And the process that we used is to initially start on, on some discovery. And we were interested in what the current and past practices were here at the University of Delaware, we drew heavily on our HR. Tom penta, Jared app rule, as well as former provost Dan Rich came in and adjust the committee. We also looked at Pier and aspirin peer institutional practices. And I think what I can say is that in both UD practices and peer and aspirin appear practices, what we came up with was a pretty large potpourri of different practices. And when you went to the institutional sites, both here and at our Peer and aspirin peer institutions think seem to be pretty ad hoc face. So it seemed like there was a reason to have this committee to try and put some expectations and practice around this. We also looked at search firm practices. We looked at it from the perspective or vantage point of, of five or six search ads. And they ranged all the way from a search firm that believed in holy open searches to wind, advocated for holy closed searches, and everything in between. After we went through the discovery phase, we came up with a series of really key components to our recommendation. The first thing is that the course, The process itself really has to be a transparent process. Everyone should understand at the outset what that process is. And, and the other thing I do want to say is that we made the focus here. When we talk about academic administrative searches, we used any searches that had the term Dean or Provost. So associate provost, Provost Dean, assistant dean, associate dean, any of those, where is what we drew under our umbrella for discussion? And as you'll see at the end, we brought with it a little bit as well, since we already have the platform to make some comments. And of course these are seem like they're pretty common sense. It was amazing the amount of discussion we had to come to get everything distilled down to this. Of course, when you engage a group of faculty on the committee, it should be a representative group of faculty. You can't have a committee of the whole. We can't all be on every committee. And so we should really make every effort to be representative. And then the the big sticky issue was had to do with confidentiality. And where this particular committee came out and in our recommendations to the provost and we said that we understand if at the very early stages of this search, when people were putting in and there were some folks that were going to fall out right away where confidentiality might be desired. But when you got to that final shortlist of candidates, it was our recommendation that that that that from that point on, the search in typical cases not be confidential. So the outcome then was that the final short-listed candidates should be interviewed in this open and transparent manner. And that, of course, led to the primary recommendation that we gave to the provost. And that was that an open and transparent search for academic administration, a physician, academic, administrative positions is always preferred. However, we took the opportunity to acknowledge that there could be instances, rare instances when a completely confidential search might be considered. We could've stayed silent on that. We decided not to when we decided to give some guidance around that. And we said that if you if completely confidential search was being considered, that really the again, the process by which it was being considered needed to be transparent, that you needed to present the rationale for that. And then to be sure that you engaged members of the academic community in a way that allowed them to develop the context and criteria for the search so that they were engaged in that process. And and again, that as I said just a few minutes ago, that the process itself was a transparent one. So the recommendations that we gave then are two fold. One is that the preferred alternative is always to be transparent, open, and non confidential, except in that very early stage of the search. So for the short-listed candidates, however, to acknowledge that occasionally to keep the flexibility, we might have to be confidential. If we are. And it should be a really clear process to how that criteria and contexts are delivered. Again, we were only asked to comment on the academic administrative positions. But we noted, as you'll see here, that we thought it was important even on the non-academic side, because there is so much connection and crossover to maintain that spirit of inclusion and transparency. And the one other comment that we made is that when there are new administrative positions that aren't developed, it would be a good idea to consult with the appropriate units so people at least knew what the expectations were and knew why the positions were being created. And so that is the extent of the recommendations that we made. There's anybody have any questions? You might committee members who are here have any comments? >> John? >> I'll just say that there were spirited discussions at times, but I was very pleased that we achieved a consensus not only on the document as a whole book, on every recommendation within the dark gray. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Good. Thank you, Fred. >> Thank you, Dean target, our next speaker, needs little introduction to the Senate because he's a past president that many of you know. Well, I referred to Dr. Amy Johnson, who's a professor of nursing and is also deputy director of the Institute for Global Studies. >> Very strange coming back to Senate. >> Thank you for having me. >> Good afternoon. >> As soon as you might be aware, IGS has expanded all across campus. We have a lot of program changes. And so what I'm bringing you were the things that you need to take back to faculty. So the things that are important to faculty, we're working with faculty engagement, trying to support faculty program development. And hopefully you'll, you're feeling it because we are expanding programs. So I'll start with student updates so that you're well aware of what we're doing. We launched an undergraduate global survey, went out the beginning of December. We're now doing data analysis with 2450 undergraduate students have responded to it. What we're doing is we're, we want to use it to glow to guide our global offerings. This includes study abroad, semester abroad, but also global internships, research opportunities, and service learning. So what we, what we're asking is that they tell us what they're looking for. Part of what we've heard already is keep the cost down. So we need a little bit more information to go wellness. We have committed degeneration study abroad this past April to increase our numbers in five years. I went all out on the limb and said we dub alum I think that might be a little bit, a little bit too far along. At any rate, our study abroad programs are going gang busters. We have started doing study abroad fairs at Rabban, the students come, they get all of the information on the various study abroad and financial aid type packages. We're now working with student financial services so that parents when their go to pay our bills, when they go to see what tuition and what program expenses are. It has a separate tab that says travel programs are it almost says that we're still in the process, but parents and students get that bill up front. They're able to pay over time without having to incur any kind of interest, any kind of extra expenses. So we thought that was a when. The other things we're doing is we now have drop-ins, study abroad advisement every Wednesday at Elliot Hall from one to four. So students that aren't sure which program fits or will it ever fed, whether they want to do semester or whether they want to do short-term can come in for this. In the same way. I'm working with faculty one-on-one, want to do study abroad programs, but don't know where to start. So we've had a great turnout with that. I'm happy to tell you that in this coming year, we've increased our study abroad programs by almost 20%. We have new faculty. We have 18 new faculty doing short-term programs, and we have eight. We've been on hiatus for longer than four years that are coming back. So I'm I'm really excited about it. And part of it that we have a lot of different programs. So you'll see global internship opportunities. We had a lot of hype on this because we want to be able to send students abroad, particularly in the summer time to get their internship needs filled. Were working. I worked with the College of Health Sciences. I want to explain why, but I worked over the summer to change our approach to some of these internships. I'm happy to say that we have students, health science students that will be working as interns for Operation Smile. Interns that will be going to India, that will be working in hospitals from Australia to India and places in between. And we have almost a 100. Our goal was a 100. We have almost a 100 brand new interns going off this coming summer. So we're pretty excited about this. And that relied on a different approach. I have come around to various colleges at your meetings, but it seemed like agendas were ridiculously full. So I asked to speak here so that you know that if you want to set up internship programs out of your college, contact me. I'll be happy to come in or if it's your department. The other thing that comes out of us eyes, the alternate breaks, you might know them as you dab It's more than you dab are alternate break groups. Most the time it's spring break, but we have some winter session and summer session as well. This particular alternate breaks has increased by almost 25% this past year, from last year's numbers to this year's number and the year before, it was up 15%. So it's a growing need. We had our very first international, you dab, traveled to Nicaragua over this past winter. These are student-led programs there are very exciting for all of us. So you will see that it comes out of IGS. Now, the faculty updates that you might be wanting to know more about is Fulbright opportunities. The cork catalog has just opened. You can find it on our website. We have Scholar Program possibilities from short-term two to six weeks to a full year under Fulbright. There are two workshops. I posted them up here or there will be another one in April. I just it just seemed like too far to commit, but there will be another one if this doesn't work for you. All of these are in Elliot Hall. I talked to you already about the developing the study abroad programs or travel. If you wanted to go and do research, we can help you with this last but not least, and this is really important. There's a change to our funding. We used to have Travel Awards and we used to have research awards. Now it's all called Globe x funding opportunities for faculty and staff. It can be outbound activities where you're doing your research, you're collaborating, you're going someplace to set up a relationship partnership. It can be inbound. You want to bring somebody in, delete a conference, you want to bring in visiting scholar or a lecture series. So any of those can be funded through this. We do seed funds as well. We ask that you only fish in our pond every two years. That was a joke. Come on. >> Only two people. Got it. >> Okay, so fish in our pound every two years. We if you go on our website, you will see plenty of information of what you need to do for your proposal. Proposals that get funded, our proposals that have cost sharing. So you need to talk to your chair or your dean and have a little bit of help from their department to but lots of information on the web. High-impact projects is what we're looking at. Salzburg Fellows. In the coming weeks, you will see the announcement for our four brand new Salzburg Fellows. This began in 1947. It's the purpose of Salzburg is to challenge current and future leaders to solve issues of global concern. And I'm happy to tell you that two of our faculty, Dr. Martha Buhl and Dr. Rena Hallam, were invited to come as national experts on early childhood development. And this is, this invitation is a very Herbert indeed, so I'm really pleased. Congratulations. Only Martha, SIR, for the congratulations, but it's a big deal. It's a really big deal. Dr. Barrett, mic lack is going to do. He's comes from sociology and he's going to a session on health in Sociology. And then Dr. Michael O'Neill is going, comes from geological sciences and he's one of two globally that's going in for this particular one, the search for new balance, America's changing role in the world. It's a really exciting time. If you've never considered putting in for Salzburg, you might look at what the opportunities are funded between IGS and the provost's office. You need to come up with your travel, how to fly to Salzberg, the rest of it, you'd become a fellow for life. So it's a really, it's a really neat opportunity. Last but not least, what most of you missed by looking at your faces is some of the UD travel that we're now doing out of IGS, we do a Udi wellness program. It comes from the wellness people. It's just before spring semester begins each year. So mark on your calendar for next February because it's very, very inexpensive. It's a total package. And the people that went, the 44 that went across campus loved it. They networked. They had themselves a good old time. Some did the wellness activities, Other made up things that they thought were wellness activities? Drinking juice with things in it. I don't know if it was wellness or not, but they loved it and they wanted to go back to this particular saw it. So please look for it and support the UD wellness. It's to build a sense of community across campus. And it seemed to have. The other one that you'll see are the signature spring and summer programs. We've changed names on it a couple times, but you need to know that we started with 84 who went to programs to Paris last year. This coming year, we have a 126 that are traveling and they are going to in fast their way into Italy. So between Rome, Florence in no way, and Paris, the a 126 will be there in 2015. In 2016, Doctor, oh, wait, I'm gonna blow this. John Cox is leading a group to Peru the beginning of June, and it's an adventure towards, so it's including the Amazon mosquito tests. Just see you now. And the other one will be Florence and the Amalfi Coast. And that'll be spring break. And spring break this coming year lands over all of those spring holidays. That makes it rather difficult. If your faculty and your interested in leading one of these programs were all ears. You need to make an appointment, send me an email, come see me, tell me where you want to lead one, we did a survey of a lot of alumni, 32 thousand people went out to so that we could get some ideas of programs. So we have programs figured out. We need faculty leaders Any questions? Can I count on all of you to come to San Juan next year? I'm telling you it was more fun. Okay. Thank you, johnson. >> So our next presentation may be one of the most strategic ever given here at the faculty senate because UD is about to launch its new fundraising campaign, although it may be underway already. Robins going to explain that. It's my pleasure to introduce the campaign director, Robin Ray, but thank you. >> Good afternoon. Thank you for having me here today to see all of you. I want to echo what she said about alumni travel. Yes, we would love for alumni travel to get up and running. So want that to work too. >> Yeah. >> We thought we would give you a little update on the campaign that you probably hear about in different ways, But I know very little about. First of all, I wanted to tell you, we are calling this campaign. It is a comprehensive campaign in just a little terminology. It's comprehensive because many people's terminology is a capital campaign. But this, this is a more than just bricks-and-mortar campaign. It's professorship, scholarships, all kinds of programs. So it is called a comprehensive campaign. And the definition of a comprehensive campaign is an intense effort to raise funds from the private sector, primarily through multi-year pledge commitments within a specific period of time. And those are my underlines for emphasis, but those are the key elements to a campaign in higher education. We are doing this a little bit of history about higher ed fundraising campaigns in the early days of the Ivies, when the clergy were a lot of reasons that universities got established. Universities got named for the big donors at the time. And then in the 19th century, it was the robber barons and the Industrial Revolution that named many institutions. But in the 20th century, we can't find any institution that is primarily responsible for starting this comprehensive campaign concept except to say that it's this like snowball effects, like a rolling effect of everything from land grant, the moral act, through the Industrial Revolution. The effect of the GI Bill was huge, and therefore the middle-class and it's great desire for education. All of that leading to a demand for support of this great enterprise. The role part of and hence campaigns were, were born. Our first campaign here at the University of Delaware was 1997 to 2005. It's called the Campaign for Delaware, and many of you were probably here a part of it. And it raised 430 million. The second campaign is the one that we're in right now, as Fred was alluding to, we started it in 2010, or what it means is we started counting in 2010 and we expect to end in 2018. We will working goal of 550 million and we've raised 298 million of it to date. And what you to know that there's several deans here that in the process of developing the priorities for the campaign, we asked the colleges what you want, what you need We came up with $1.4 billion worth of need. The fact that it's 550 million is what we're addressing as priorities is a reflection of the fact that our constituency is very new to philanthropy and we didn't have an infrastructure built up here at Delaware to support it $1.4 billion effort. For example, you need 85 gift officers in order to run a campaign of that size. And we expect, we hope to get to somewhere between 4050 gift officers. So we're not able to scale up quake To the degree, but we do know that there is a greater need than what this campaign is. Priority, priority wise addressing. This is just a pie chart to describe the differences in the different units and what their goals are. And then here they are by areas of support, 29% for financial aid for undergraduates and graduate students, 22% is for faculty, et cetera. As you probably know, I mean, it's not rocket science, but capital campaigns are all tied to strategic plans. So path to prominence in delaware will shine are absolutely the energy that this campaign is using a living on because it's enabling what the delaware will shine comes out with, which were very eager to see all those results. As eager as us, as everybody else. Here is, there's four phases of a campaign. There's a planning and silent phase, and that's the phase that we've been in for the last few years where we gather all these large commitments, there's not a public announcement and we try and raise at least 50% of the total before you do go public. The public phase, of course, you do say you trumpet the RIN, this process and you talk about the large gifts that had been raised already. And then in the final phase, you go back to the people who in 2010, we asked for the large gifts who committed, and we asked them to make a second gift to take us over the, over the top. And we asked the entire university community to give and be a part of it, make a stretch gift. And then we'd definitely celebrate how great it was. And immediately, as soon as it's over, you analyze how it went and you plan for your next campaign. It just it in higher ed nowadays and never ends. So here are our dates now. 2010 to 2015 is the silent and then 2015 to 2018 is public. I don't think it's Regulatory to say that campaigns are not all about the money there really are about moving all of our constituents, our, all of our stakeholders in one vision, one direction. And we have a lot of stakeholders and a lot of people to message with and partner with. And so this is one of the primary purpose then I think for, for the University of Deller, it's a key element for this campaign. So here we have, instead of read all this language, we have a lot of non-financial goals, as they say. And if you look at all the big words that I highlighted there all about engagement and connection and volunteerism and, and getting involved in the life of the university. And it's from all of our constituents, its parents, its faculty and staff, and volunteers and students, and everybody. We want to be a part of the University of Delaware now and forever. We are part of a campaign is that we put together a case for support document, which is basically stating why we deserve and need this money. And we wrote an institution wide one, and we've now gone out and tested it around the country with our top donors. The content in this document, it's organized around these four areas are students, faculty, campus, and programs. And now we're going to starting to write unit versions for the colleges, for athletics, for the provost's office. And they're all organized around those same four areas. In the central case for support, they make the case. And we make the point that the University of Delaware has relied on a few corporations for, for philanthropy. But those days are over. I don't need to tell you in this room that the days of MBNA and the kind of DuPont support that we relied on in the past. Those days are over. And we're now relying and looking to our alumni and parents, faculty, friends to to help us with growing our private support going forward. And the reason we believe that and that it's realistic and doable is because we are tracking against our peers, not only in higher education, but other nonprofits around the country and in America today, out of the 300 plus billion dollars given contributions, 85% of it comes from individuals. Whereas when the path to prominence started, only 15% of UD contributions were coming from individuals. So we have spent a lot of effort these last seven years working with individuals to try and get them to rise to the top and step up. And indeed we're almost at 60% now. So we are making some headway in engaging individuals in the philanthropy question. At you day. One of the other points we make in the case for support is that the state appropriation is not expected to grow, that the provision for our capital needs is only three to 4 million a year, which is nothing not only next to what we need, but compared to what other medium to large sized public universities are getting from their states. And that, of course, tuition cannot fill in the gap for growth, as I'm sure not news to any of you. Again, the unit cases that all affect your colleges, your units are in process. We expect them to roll out around April 30th. And here are the units that we'll be getting their own case for support. So before we roll out this campaign publicly, I wanted to just give you a little back of what we've been doing. So we began by recruiting the top volunteer, the tough volunteers, the university, the President's Leadership Council, who I'll make a gift of 250 thousand or more to that during the campaign. And then we'd have a lot of training for gift office, a lot of engagement with our academic leadership and our volunteer leadership. All these things where we got our prospects ready, we got our strategic planning ready, gutter stewardship program ready, set up a reunion program. All this stuff has been pre public launch >> And MD, That's how we got to 298 million so far is all of these efforts were simultaneous while we are asking for gifts and then the big roll out of the campaign. We expect to do it in a series of small events that culminate in Alumni Weekend of 2016. So Parent Family Weekend, Homecoming, faculty and staff, et cetera, will have a major donor reception. All these pieces will come together in one big event though next June during alumni weekend, definitely students be involved too. So my question to you all then are questions that I've gotten actually from other faculty is what is the faculty's role with this campaign? So we definitely need you as advocates and ambassadors for connectivity with our alumni parents, students. Of course, the campaign information that you're going to get will be provided through your gift officers and through your deans about priorities and the dollar goals and things like that. >> We need you to help spread Judy's brand. >> You'd he's reputation wearing little things like where your gear, where your Pins where, you know, tell people you're from the University of Delaware. If you're speaking at a conference, anytime you can spread the brand, raise awareness, it always helps. And then when we have a Faculty Staff Campaign, which we do every April, May, June. I hope you'll participate each and every year as a donor. Any amount counts. If you can do presentations in your departments and colleges to raise awareness and if you'd ever volunteered assigned fundraising appeals, we welcome it. Your department will set goals, build Avik, see, inspire everybody to jump on the bandwagon. I have I my colleague here, Dave Morris. Raise your hand. Dave. Dave is the manager of the Faculty Staff Campaign. So he is the one who would help you with volunteer role or any questions you might have about, about that process. And then we need help with mythbusting. So we've gotten this back from focus groups. A lot of people don't understand that. Yes, to any designation, there's 4400 choices of places to give at the University of Delaware. And they all count. They all count for the campaign. They all count for. So wherever your passion is, we want you to give to that. We're very data-centric and the Delaware diamond society, this was another myth we uncovered that people thought that there were only selected places that you could give and still count in that. And that's not the case indeed. Anything you give to across the university and course of one year, the totals that $1000 or more, you're in the Deller diamond society and then always, always, always partnering with your director of development in the unit and the college. >> Really important, they are there to help you strategize to further your programs and they want to be your partners. >> So if you take nothing away from what I've said today, I hope you will realize that this campaign is for our faculty and for our students, and that we are making it a priority to grow culture philanthropy because we had decades of not making that a priority. And that the development alumni office, we are here to partner with you to rho, U D. That's it. Does anybody have any questions? >> Awesome. >> So how could faculty help beyond what she presented? Do you have ideas? >> Roadways faculty could help in addition to what she showed, one thing that I think you have that I hope you will share is relationships with alumni. Because if you have alumni relationships for your research or free departments or whatever, we can help you find ways to turn that into gifts to your programs. >> And yes, I just throw out an idea. Many years ago I was a postdoc and a junior faculty member at Princeton, which of course has been very successful in many respects. And at Princeton, at least when I was there, and I think it's still the case that the graduation and the alumni reunion are combined. And this has many advantages. One of the advantages is that if graduating seniors are still looking for a job, they get to interact with the alumni from praised and many of whom are no word for major companies are hedge funds or whatever, right? Opportunities to hire. And just sort of wondering if some thought might be given to shifting the schedules of graduation and alumni weekend. >> You don't need to necessarily occur on a weekend and sort of do more like what princeton does. >> Because I don't think you need, if you want to get contributions from alumni, it's really good if they have well-paying jobs. >> Yes. >> Turkle. >> Thank you. The question thoughts? >> So these donations are tax deductible. So there's apps, again, reduction in actual dollars that you give because it's all tax deductible. I was planning to wear a different suit today, but when I tried to move my diamond to the other suit, it would not remove this one. So I need to give some feedback on how the mechanism works. But we have staff here at UD who are so dedicated that they are Delaware. And I would like to encourage all faculty also to become Delaware diamonds. So it's something to think about. I became a diamond when Jack Biruni asks me, why aren't you time? And it made me realize the power of colleague to colleague solicitation, if you will. But we have a great institution. This is a great funding campaign that's underway and I think we all should pitch in and support it. I'm impressed that when Robin was planning this presentation and I and I went over and toward the development office, which is amazing what's been built over there, that we were 20 or $30 million less than where we are now. So there's been some significant giving over the summer. So Oh, that's terrific. So I would like so bottom line, I would like to encourage all of you to become a diamond as I did when Jack asked v, how about becoming a dime? And when you realize it's tax deductible, right, this is the time of the year. It really reduces how much that is. So Thank You. Were not solicit, right? This has not been a solicitation. >> Thank you, Rob. >> So next, a little learning about a consent agenda. Some of you may not be, if you're a new senator, you may not be That's familiar with what a consent agenda is. So I was asked by our parliamentarian to explain what it is. And I thought I would see if Roberts, my general, robert himself, might have a good explanation of it. And sure enough, Robert's rules as a couple of paragraphs that I'm going to go through here with you that explain this pretty well, but Robert calls it a consent calendar. And perhaps that's to avoid confusion on your agenda versus this special construct of a consent list. So we may want to think about beginning to call it a consent calendar, which is what Robert Roberts Rules calls it. So to quote legislature's city, town or county councils, or other assemblies which have a heavy workload, including a large number of routine or noncontroversial matters, may find a consent calendar a useful tool for disposing of such items of business. So there are some phrases here that resonate well with the Senate, right? Like a large workload. We definitely have that. And non-controversial, right? Definitely we resonate. They're being facetious. Of course, the matters listed are taken up in order unless objected to. And I will shortly asked if any of you object to any of the items on our consent agenda. So the matters listed are taken up in order unless objected to, in which case they are restored to the ordinary process by which they are placed inline for consideration on the regular agenda. The special rules of order establishing a consent calendar may provide that when the matters on the calendar are called up, they may be considered in gross, which is how we do it or without debate or amendment. So we consider them in gross. So I I ask you now if anyone objects or wants to discuss any of the items on the consent agenda, that we would pull them off and we would after voting on the items that remain in gross, I would think of them on mass, but it says in gross and Roberts Rules That we would discuss those individually. So are there any items which for any reason a senator would like to have hold from the consent agenda. So hearing none, I would therefore like to ask for a show of yellow cards. How many of you are in favor of approving the consent agenda? I'm seeing a large number of yellow cards, practically all of them. Are there any opposed? So that motion carries overwhelmingly. Consent agenda is thereby approved. Our regular agenda today has four resolutions. The first one has to do with common exams. The second one has to do with voting in the Faculty Senate. And the last two are requests for extensions of PSP arts, which are the program views academic programs. Resolution number one regarding common exams resolves that the policy and the faculty handbook in section 3.1.4 be modified to refer readers to the registrar's website for exam scheduling information. And it further results that if the conflict is with a laboratory and a common examination, the instructor administering the common exam will provide an alternate examination option or we'll treat the students absence from the exam as excused. This comes moved. And second, is there any discussion, Senator Bellamy, whether it was from our inattentiveness or something else. This policy was pushed through committee without consultation with the Department of Mathematical Sciences, which is probably the most heavily affected department. Well, I can document that, but I think it is and we believe that we should have access to to convert to further discussion on the committee on armed with on this motion before it is acted on by the Senate. And it does, since we have, I believe, 4,500 students who are active, who are in sections with on only the final exams, but all their tests during the term given in common, having maybe a dozen students or fewer with conflicts would essentially double the workload, making out pair a pair exams to be administered to them. And so I would like to move that this B Return to committee for if you've ever fail to seek input from the Department of Mathematical Sciences or any other effective departments. So I so 1 second. So it's been moved. And second to that, the resolution on common exams be refined to committee. I did have a lengthy conversation with the chair of the mathematical sciences department, that's Lu Rossi. And I asked him if he would follow up with a few bullet points that might summarize the position department. This pretty much supports what senator Bell and honest from Nashville Medical Sciences has presented here. I was at first asked to pull this from the agenda, which would have involved modifying the agenda at the beginning of the meeting, we would've needed to vote or replacement agenda. The reason I decided to let this flow is because I thought this is an opportunity to get some input from all of you senators from all across the campus and all these different departments. If there are other issues that need to be considered that you'd like the Committee to and I believe the UCS Chair, Steve Hastings, IDA, I would take issue with the term push through that. That sounds like the recent agenda here and now. And I don't think there was and I i when it was looked at by U gs and man has a representative anew gs. So I hate to say that math wasn't contacted. I don't think it's quite correct. I cannot, meaning it twists the knife. We also invited a mathematics faculty member to serve on coordinating, but we're not meeting the twists the knife about that. We need to get this right. It seems that there's a genuine problem that's caused here. And the, the impact of it could be quite serious in math. They, they may not be able to teach all the courses they do and serve all the students they serve. If this gets enacted as proposed, Yes. >> We're on a much smaller scale factor of a few, but the physics department, I think essentially builds the same way. Again, I'm not saying it's more problem, that's probably our failure not being aware of it. But also to note that a criticism. But my experience personally with students is that very occasionally they have to enroll in a, in a lab class in some other thing because there's a problem. And it seems like this always has been accommodated without having to excuse them from an exam which represents a very major part of the class activities. We hope that you'll consider in committee further. >> So in my conversation with chairperson Rossi, he maintained that there that with better software we could avoid the number of conflicts that happens. So I think that's something we need to look into. Is there better software that we should have? And if so, should we build that infrastructure to try and minimize the number of students that become impacted by this as President Galilean? Yes. Thank you. President Hofstetter, who was my understanding that if a student is taking a lab and there's a common exam that shows up as a conflict in the in the in the in the registrar's scheduling as it is now. And that has to be manually overridden to allow that student to be able to take both things that result in the conflict. So I'm not sure the problem is needing better software. And also I'd like to emphasize that there are some lab courses that, let's say in biology, that require preparations are living things. And moving a student into an alternate section may or may not be possible. And this may the proposal on the agenda may not be the best thing too. Resolve that, but there there should I think there should be some sort of a policy when it's a matter of a student not being able to do a lab that can't be made up and someone giving them an alternate exam. It seems to me that giving them an alternate exam is easier than Cree, recreating a lab or not allowing them to take a lab. So there's both. There's two sides to this issue, and the software may not be the problem. There evidently are people making changes in student registrations who have the power to make the changes and they may not be seeing those overrides. That was another issue that came up. So so we need we I think we also need to look at who has the ability to, to make these changes and should they be making these changes? That that was another point made by chairperson Rossi? >> Yes. >> Yes. Of course. >> The actual bench Lang and I'm an associate Gerald math APOC. >> Yes. Thank you. Children, every year, it's a very small number of people that students that are affected by this CPU policy is going to disrupt. But they've been doing, which is very important to us than a majorly, I think it's be ill advised pass this policy now without further discussion on the consequences and remedies could be put in place to fix this problem. Thank you. Yes. >> Send reveal cable right now. Contemporary kindness to the committee. So we're just right now discussing whether or not we super kind if yes. >> Yeah. I thought when I was thinking through how this would play out, I thought this was a good way to get around the force disgusted and I believe that reasonable and return this to committee. I don't think I've ever seen a motion to return to committee that's been defeated by this. So it seems to be that we we want to make sure all things are considered before we enact things. Deputy Provost for house. How the question question has been called. We clarify what Committee this is. >> Going back to. >> That's a very good clarification. Normally that you'd normally that would be out of work, but it's a very good question. Actually, a point of order is not out-of-order. So what Committee is this going backwards the fashion from the undergraduate study? Yes, from undergraduate studies fact Jiang De graduate and go back to undergrad. And then it will come through coordinating an exact I mean, this did go through coordinating and exact and everyone thought it looked reasonable along the way through. We didn't have someone from the math department on coordinating or or on exec and then you GS I think this was presented mainly as a registrar issue. So that may be why didn't the math member, WGS didn't pick up on it. So the question's been called. All those in favor of calling the vote, raise your yellow cards. I'm seeing a large number of yellow cards. I'm going to judge that as being more than two-thirds. Are there any opposed to calling the question? So the question has been called. All those in favor of returning this committee to committee, please raise your yellow cards. So I'm seeing the vast majority of yellow cards. Are there any opposed? There is no 1 first. Thank you. So this so this resolution number one has returned to huge. Yes. And thank you for your comments in and feedback. Now, the second resolution has to do with voting in the Faculty Senate. It's resolved that votes in the Senate for regular business should be decided by a simple majority of those voting yes or no. And for emotion to change, the bylaws, which requires a two-thirds vote. Changes requiring two thirds are decided by a two-thirds majority of those voting yes or no. And it's further resolved that in the bylaws and regulations of the university faculty senate. Word present, which is used twice, and a phrase that says of those present will be changed to voting yes or no to make the phrase so the phrase that currently says of those present will say of those voting yes or no. Now that the, this motion was inspired by our parliamentarian john job and it resonated with me or maybe from Denny, our past president. So from the executive committee, it has emerged and it reminds me of something I've, I've, I've always pointed out to people that if you don't vote, it counts as a no, and people don't realize that that That if you're saying it's a vote of all those present than if you abstain, you're voting no. So I'm not going to. So I see some people shaking their heads and their, and their quantitative, they're members of the quantitative faculty here. It's actually true the way it works out. And that's why Robert's Rules states that voting requirements based on the number of members present are generally under undesirable, since an abstention in such cases has the same effect as a negative vote. So if you abstain under our current rules OR voting no, and you may not be meaning to vote no, that may not be your intention. You might want to abstain in a close vote. This could really matter. And so that's why this is coming before you today from the committee. Is there discussion? Yes. I said it or McKnight has called the question. Senator Hastings, the question has been called. So is it a point of order? It's gotta be something in order unless the color of the question wants to temporarily revoke the call of the question. >> I don't know. >> Look, I give my parliamentarian to see how that plays AR, neutral, that biased. And I'm staying with when this isn't bad. But today, you can't today if you had. So this is a good, a good example on this vote that we're about to take. If you abstain, you are voting no. Your vote counts as a No because our rules require that we count those present. So if your present you got a yellow card and you don't vote, you're voting? No. That's why Roberts says that these votes are undesirable. Voting requirements based on the number of members present are undesirable. Since an abstention in such cases has the same effect as a negative vote. Center of you felt the way is currently it's mostly just a reflection of the number of girls who are actually well, I don't think that's true because if you're not, I mean, I have known people, for example, back when we were doing the power plant, but I knew people who didn't vote because they hit, they had, because of associations. They had people who worked in certain industries that, and they felt that there could be conflict. Or back when we did the financial services analytics and there was some concern about JP Morgan. There, there were some faculty who did not vote because of spousal relationships with financial companies. And in those cases, those, those abstentions, they may have been in favor of it. But they chose to abstain due to conflict ventures. But since they were present in the body, their vote counted as a no. So that's why this motion comes before you today. I told the question has been called again and I'm going to ask how many of you are in favor of calling the question on this vote? I'd like to see a show of yellow cards to see whether we're ready to vote. It looks like two-thirds to meet. John. Any opposed to voting, and of course, all of you who aren't raising your cards, you just voted no, but we still have the required two-thirds. So I will therefore call the boat on the main question. All those in favor of this resolution number to voting in the Senate, please raise your cards. So I'm seeing a large number of cards. It's it's well more than two thirds, although this doesn't require a two-thirds vote and any opposed, so making this rule change. Okay. So there are no cards raised indicating that they're opposed. So this resolution therefore passes. Fired me write stuff and there's not much point in calling, for instance. >> Alright, thank you. >> Our last two resolutions are perhaps a little more routine. These have to do with PSP are extensions. Ps PR is the permanent status program review. This is held for programs when they come up to their five-year or seven year period where they need to be reviewed for permanent status. And in this case, this resolution number three is resolving that the Faculty Senate recommends granting a two-year extension or submitting the ps PR for the Master of Science and bio informatics and computational biology is comes moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Guesses? >> So who did? >> Who makes the decision to celebrate? When we recommend? >> Well, when the Faculty Senate recommends things, I believe those are recommendations to the board, to the board of trustees, because the board actually does look at these, the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board actually gets these notices of these motions. So those of us who attend the board meetings, we see these come through so many of the resolutions of the Senate end up on the board of trustees. Hudgens, guest editor, that is, I guess a point of information or maybe it's not relevant information Seems so non-controversial. Why wasn't it on the consent agenda? Well, it's actually not controversial, but that's a very good question. You're asking though, is how do you decide what goes on the consent agenda? And that's been debated, like are we hiding something in the consent agenda that I mean, it's been questioned and sometimes well, what was the vote on something? How did it get on the I mean, there have been things on the consent agenda which had been turned out to be so controversial that it was question whether the people that put it together, we're trying to hide something. And there it is important to look at the items. Consent agenda. By the way, in this case, they're there. The argument on this was why are we giving a two-year extension be normally, these extensions are for one year and Y in this case, are we giving two years? So there could be argument about that, senator, since you asked whether or not anyone objects to something being only consented agenda, then you can bury anything into they can because we can object and have it taken out. Yes, that's true. So this is another problem. But as Robert said, and I could go back to the slide, you're you're you're assuming that I mean, the pretense is that what you're putting on the consent agenda is routine come through committee endlessly voted on. It's it's routine business and committees wanted to play some games, they actually could put something in there that wasn't quite routine. It could it could be done, yes. >> Moderate center side sciences hangers. There seems to be consensus that this has nine controversial. >> Therefore I call the question so the question has been called base on the basis that this is not controversial. So all those in favor of voting on this, please raise your yellow cards. So there's a vast majority of yellow cards. It's anyone opposed voting on this, so we're going to vote on all those in favor of passing resolution. Number three, please raise your cards. Vast number of yellow cards are being raised. Are there any opposed? They're not unopposed. So resolution number three passes. One would assume that the argument we just did on resolution number three would carry forward to resolution number four, which comes from the same department. It's the same kind of deal. It's recommending the granting of a two-year extension for submitting the PSP are for the professional science masters in bioinformatics centered McKnight and move. We use the same logic. We just call the quest rice Senator Mike, not as called. The question. All those in favor of voting, please raise your yellow cards. There's a large number of yellow cards being raised. Are there any opposed to voting? There's one opposed to voting, and the eyes habit on calling the question. So I will call the main vote. All those in favor of passing resolution number four, as stated, please raise your yellow cards. Vast majority of yellow cards are being raised. Any opposed, there is one Bose. Thank you very much. And we move now to the introduction of new business. Is there a senator who wants to raise with business? Yes. The senator for foreign languages, linguistics, cognitive science, also a cognitive problem. Yes. So I just wanted to know if I presenters aware. But President Harker, who witness op-ed that appeared in the 12th and choir last week. And I wanted to raise this issue because for me when I read the the op-ed, he's talking about the future of universities isn't the general intra-firm 2D referring to for profit higher education companies, one of which isn't on the board of and I when I read it, I felt like it was the arguing for city planning process. Now at our university, I don't know how much of this he has spoken with faculty about through that process over? I thought that the issue said he was raising wire of significant concern to me. >> That is something that perhaps the faculty should have a chance to talk to him about directly. >> Now I know there is, it's an opportunity for that, for example, at the next faculties, general faculty meeting, I guess before this next meeting. But usually when he comes and talks, he's he takes the whole 30 minutes to talk and has very little time for questions. So I'd like to try to find a way in which the faculty can engage the President on the issues he raised in his op-ed in a more direct manner, either through perhaps an open hearing or perhaps you can come to speak to the Faculty Senate directly, like we had earlier announcements. So is there discussion about this sort of, yeah, let's have the arctic was pretty much the same thing. That was journal article, which is pretty much what he discussed with us at the beginning of the year, which is also pretty much further that the thought leaders, I think I've got that right presentation. >> This is all almost exactly the same material other discussion about this. So senator bill, so so those are there then it is. Was there really a chance to ask questions? Because it's I mean, there were some pretty interesting points that were made that if that's the case and true if he is suffering from them, we really need some kind of proactive way to address that and to understand really where the problems lie with with our, I guess business problem. Okay. But it's not true that there wasn't discussion, but not for the government. >> And I believe that you were spending we were sitting right in front of me during the First Lady. Yes. >> Hi, how far an artist? And I'm thinking that discussion is a good thing. So I would agree with Senator Heinz that having some kind of venue for those who would like to engage in conversation would be a good idea. I mean, I read the op-ed and I thought, wow, this is pretty radical. And I was, I participated and heard his earlier statements as well. But I thought I bet a lot of people are going to want to have a say in this, have an understanding of what's actually being discussed in real terms, in terms of how they impact one's day-to-day engagement at the university. So I would encourage us to not shut down dialogue, but welcome dialog and conversation. >> So possibilities would be to ask the president to address this on March second during the general faculty meeting. Although that agenda is tight, the executive committee perhaps can discuss this. Another possibility would be to schedule a discussion about right here. I'm sure he would accept invitation. No, there is a framework behind this, right? I mean, he's recommended that we all should read Zim skis checklist for change. And if you read that book, you see the framework that's behind some of that. In another part of it is informed by delaware will shine strategic planning. We'd been doing if you, if you read the 25 papers that are now in the new American Research University section of delaware will shine. You see a lot of these ideas are there too. And then there's a question of how much of the enterprise is he talking about? How much of our, how much is, is to be changed and, and how much can remain the way it is. So there's a scope issue. There's a question of scope that needs to be asked and I think he would welcome an opportunity to talk with us about it. So past president Galileo, yes. Thank you. I read the op-ed to knows a little bit surprised because I heard some of the things you said and maybe it just didn't strike me at that time if he was saying it the same way that he did here, but I mean, he more or less indicted the fact that the, that the, the curriculum design is left of the faculty here, and I mean, it's in black and white. And I mean, that seems like something that's worth us discussing that really is that a really big problem here? Curriculum design is left to the, to the faculty, right? I mean, we were given more or less that responsibility by the board so that it really is a big problem that we ought to be discussing that. And of course, any, any of those changes are going to route through the Senate as I've explained to a few people. I mean, there's been a lot of discussion about this. The words you write are interpreted in the minds of the people who read them. So it depends on how much you know about the context in which those words were written. And I guess that's why you would need to have a discussion because I don't think there's any question here. And there certainly isn't in a way that all of this has to come through the Senate. This idea of teacher-centered versus learner centered. The idea that UD becomes learner centered is a major theme that's coming out of the Delaware will shine strategic planning initiative. And that's something we also need to discuss because we're not talking about the Lerner College taking over the entire camp, even though Dean can't help from smile, and that's not what we're talking about. >> He thought it was a typo. >> And I've had people object to it being learner-centered because they, they, they view learner-centered as, as a specific community learners. And then they worry that they're being excluded from the plan because the learners they work with or in some other contexts. And that's not at all what learner-centered means. It has to do with pedagogy. It's the approach that you're taking to organizing and delivering your curriculum. So there's a lot of understanding that needs to be worked out here in terms of what these words mean. Senator view. >> So see, you're talking about learner centric fav, friends, friends do. And ten is the words and the paper's due to tackle. And I really feel like a faculty orientation towards our learning environment is, is to be supported. I'm not sure that a student centric approach to making sure that students don't take anything that they don't want to shake or that they think that they don't want to take, I don't think that's necessarily a good idea and they don't know, we really should think about our customers. I think you have to be able to tell that they don't want to, just like our physicians, like they just hear things as if they were absolutely, there's, there's actually a lot of research about how people learn. >> So this idea of learners centered, I mean, in our knowledge base that we work with in education. And there's a couple of thousand pages. So research that's been done in the last decade that informs these ideas in the words really mean something different than, than they're being heard as me. And so that's why I think we need more discussion about this. >> So yes, I think I would like to have more discussion about this and I don't know what the best way to do that is. If it's better to have them be sound directly or have an open hearing. >> We're all the faculty come, but I don't think the 30 minutes at the beginning of the next session is going to provide the right kind of venue to have the conversation. >> But I do think that the conditions valuable, especially now since we're going through the strategic planning process. And so I'm hearing now from you that the some of the themes that are in that op. >> Ed are present in the 25 documents. But some of them are some of them are. >> But I do think the op-ed was yeah, I thought it was a little radical and I thought it was going to that dot, that's the precedence. >> University is going to be saying those things than it does have an impact on me as a faculty member. >> And others are spoken to about how they feel about the leadership they're getting from this from the President. And I think, you know, we talk about and he needs to hear our point of view. >> But those who disagree with the kind of things from that op-ed with our faculty who agree with that, then we should hear from them too. But the conversation is going to be important. >> Well, I mean, I think he would welcome the conversation and I think he should welcome the conversation, but I I truly think he would welcome the constant term that discussion. So the Executive Committee meets tomorrow. The Executive Committee could talk about the best way to make this happen. And perhaps we invite the President to, to moderate an open hearing about is there any other discussion on this point of the of the op-ed? And I will recognize past senator and Professor of Physics John Morgan. Yeah. Thank you. I'm very glad that you raised the issue about what belongs on a consent agenda because this issue arose about a year ago, and it turned out that one of the motions on the consent agenda had just barely been approved, coordinating. And I have noticed that in the Delaware legislature, when a bill is reported out of committee, numerical vote is given. And I would like to suggest that going forward, it would be a good idea for when proposals are being put on the consent agenda, that at least if they don't have a unanimous vote, that the actual vote be recorded. Thank you. So senators can then quickly identify which ones were controversial within community. And I would just add that yes, senators should look at all those attachments, but how many senators look at 20 different motions on the consent agenda, each of which has 20 or 30 pages of attachments. >> Thank you, Joe. >> Yeah. I mean, there is there is the assumption and the trust is that these matters are routine, and I agree that we should not be putting something on the consent agenda that had a very close vote in committee. So I think we are more sensitive to that after this happened. So I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Imu. Thank you all for an excellent meeting and we'll we'll meet again on March second. March second, it will be at 330 for the general faculty meeting followed by that exact listen. Thank you all.
2014-2015/facsen-20150209.mp3
From Joseph Dombroski May 06, 2020
0 plays
0
0 comments
0
You unliked the media.