Members Present: Kevin Cassel (MMAE), Warren Edelstein(AMAT), Ruthanna Gordon (PSYC), Bill Grimshaw (SOC), Joyce Hopkins (PSYC), Andy Howard (BCPS), Sanjiv Kapoor (CS), Kevin Cassel (MMAE) ( Robert Krawczyk (ARCH), Vijay Kumar (ID), William Newman (MSED), Phil Troyk (BME), Geoff Williamson (ECE), Ruthanna Gordon (PSYC)
Members Absent: David Sharpe (ARCH),
Howard Chapman (Kent), Ralph Brill (Kent), Joel Goldhar (SGSB),
Ganesh Raman (MMAE), Glenn Broadhead (HUM)
Visitors: Don Ucci (ECE /
Assoc. Provost), Jack
Snapper (HUM/UG College)
The minutes were approved by acclamation with one correction noted; this correction is being effected on the website.
The provost has asked for rapid action to fill three additional
slots on the University Committee on Promotion and Tenure to replace
Profs. Raju, Schmaus, and Tourk. The Psychology Institute has submitted
the name of Prof. Roya
Ayman to fill one of those positions. After some discussion the UniFC
nominated Professors Robert Ladenson (Humanities) and Goldhar (SGSB)
for the other positions. The Council agreed by acclamation to these
nominations, and directed the Chair and the Secretary to invite these
individuals to join UCoPT. [Secretary's note: Profs. Ayman and Goldhar
have accepted appointment following the meeting. Prof. Ladenson is
already on CamCoPT is is accordingly ineligible to serve on UCoPT. An
effort to find the final member is underway.]
Phil proposed that we appoint chairs for each committee and
encourage the chair to find two other members for his or her committee.
Typically one of the recruits will be from within UniFC and the other
from outside.
Phil will send out a list of UniFC members that are already serving on
committees to facilitate this process. The following committee chairs
and members were put forth, either during the meeting or beforehand:
Phil will send an e-mail to the UniFC emphasizing the importance of
fulfilling
these functions. The Sabbatical Leaves committee will become
time-critical at one point during the academic year. The committee
labeled as "Financial A" above is involved in data gathering and
reportage back to UniFC; "Financial B" is associated with financial
prioritization and communications to the faculty as a whole.
The UniFC has not elected an Academic Senate Chair in the last two
years. Last year there was an effort to elect a Senate Chair, but it
was not fully implemented. The Faculty Handbook says that an election
should be conducted, but it does not specify the format of the
election. The plan last year was to have a simple e-mail balloting
system, in spite of the less-than-complete anonymity that such a system
provides.
The UniFC agreed by acclamation to elect a chair in this way this year.
Phil asked that we seek nominations, both from our own thoughts and
from our academic units. Bill Grimshaw recommended Peter Beltemacchi;
other names suggested were those of Michael Young (PSYC) and David
Williams (MMAE).
Phil will ask these individuals whether they would be willing to stand
for election and will issue a call for further nominations from the
Academic Units.
On 22 April 2004 the Undergraduate Studies Committee approved a resolution recommending that the University-wide IPro requirement be reduced from six semester-hours to three. In late spring the UniFC received that resolution and decided that it should appoint a committee to review the issue, but delayed appointment of that committee until the beginning of the new academic year in order to enable the newly-constituted UniFC to develop its membership. The UniFC accordingly discussed the IPro resolution as a whole--not just in terms of constructing that committee, but in a broader sense. Bill Grimshaw asked whether student reaction had been adequately sampled, and Jack Snapper argued that it had. It was suggested that the University administration believes that the dissatisfaction with the current IPro requirement centers on a few disgruntled faculty rather than being a widespread malaise. Jack Snapper argued that the UGSC did consider all aspects of the issue, even though it did not forward to UniFC the details of its deliberations. Kevin Cassel argued that that UniFC does need a summary of those deliberations in order to avoid rehashing the issues that the Undergraduate Studies Committee has already discussed. Kevin suggested that appointment of an additional committee is inappropriate, and that seeking a fuller explanation from UG Studies makes more sense. Don Ucci said he had assured both Faculty Councils (Main Campus and University) in the spring that indeed all the issues were brought up at UGSC. Phil lamented the fact that the discussion we had in May was focused on economics, not on the academics. Geoff Williamson argued that the UniFC's task is to express our informed opinion and pass it onward (or not), rather than pushing it back to UGSC or an independent committee. Jack and Don pointed out that UniFC could pass the UG Studies Committee's recommendation on to the faculty as a whole without our specifically taking a position for or against it--we can put it forward without prejudice. Jack also observed that drafting an articulation of the UGSC's discussion would not be a trivial task; it could delay bringing the issue before the full faculty by about two months. After considerable additional discussion the UniFC agreed by acclamation that we would charge UGSC with assembling a report describing the content of its discussion, and that we would defer action on the resolution until we received that.
Kevin Cassel asked how effective the liasons between the Studies
Committees and the UniFC are. Geoff Williamson and others suggested
that this question ties in with the more general question of the real
role of the University Faculty Council itself: to what degree is the
UniFC charged with taking independent action, and to what degree is it
simply a deliberative body that passes all issues of substance on to
the faculty as a whole. Based on the language in Appendix P of the
Faculty Handbook, we run the risk of simply duplicating the work of
committees like the Studies Committees. Phil argued that UniFC can
solicit comments any way we like, and that we have discretion on most
issues as to whether they need to be brought before the faculty as a
whole. Curricular issues are the exceptions to this rule of discretion.
Joyce Hopkins observed that in some ways the UniFC is more
representative than
the faculty as a whole is.
Phil argued that the general roles of the Studies Committees and the
Faculty Council constitute a good issue for reconsideration, even if
that means making changes to the Faculty Handbook.
The discussion returned to the question of liasons between the Studies Committees and the Council. Don Ucci asked whether there is an official liason to Undergraduate Studies, and Phil said, "not yet." Don suggested that even an unofficial one would be good. Undergraduate Studies meets from 11:45-12:45 on the second Thursday of each month. Phil recommended that Ganesh Raman act as UGSC liason and Glenn Broadhead as GSC liason, with Kevin Cassel as backup. Andy Howard noted that a taskforce to discuss the boundaries around the responsibilities of the Studies Committees was appointed last year. This taskforce was to consist of John Callend, Joe Locicero, and Michael Young. Geoff pointed out that representation on the UGSC is set up at the level of programs, not academic units. He agreed to be an additional liason.
Joyce Hopkins asked whether we could get lunch for these meetings. Phil agreed to look into this.
The meeting was adjourned about 1:49 pm.