Members Present:
Andy Howard (BCPS),
Robert Krawczyk (ARCH),
Catherine Wetzel (ARCH),
Jeff Budiman (CAE),
Geoff Williamson (ECE).
Chris White (BCPS).
John Snapper (Hum),
Bill Grimshaw (SocSci),
Warren Edelstein (AMAT),
Art Lubin (AMAT),
Javad Abbasian (ChBE),
Phil Troyk (BME)
William Newman (MSED),
Patricia Bach (Psyc),
Sanjiv Kapoor (CS),
Ganesh Raman (MMAE),
Members Absent: Pat Corrigan (Psyc), Joel Goldhar (SGSB), Vijay Kumar (ID), Boris Pervan (MMAE), David Rudstein (Kent), Howard Chapman (Kent), Ali Emadi (ECE), Victor Pérez-Luna (ChEE),
Student Representative Present: Caitlin Hubbard.
Faculty and Staff Visitors: Mary Anne Smith (General Counsel), Scott Peters (Soc Sci), Katie Spink (BCPS).
The meeting was called to order about 12:35pm on Friday 4 May 2007 in the ballroom of the McCormick / Tribune campus center after lunch. The minutes of the 13 April meeting were approved.
The Council discussed the hard work of the Search Committee. After some discussion, Jack Snapper proposed the following motion:
As announced, UniFC was to elect officers for AY 07-08 at this meeting. Jack Snapper, Joel Goldhar, and others have been meeting to discuss whether a different approach to officers' terms would provide for more effective governance.
Chair: Phil Troyk explained recent discussions regarding the Chair and Vice-chair's positions during 2007-08. Chris White will be on sabbatical during fall 2007; he will be able to attend all Council meetings, but he will be away from campus for extended periods between meetings, since his research has taken him and his family to Berkeley for fall. The proposed solution is that Phil Troyk will remain in the chair's position through May 2008 and Chris will be vice-chair for this academic year, but with the explicit intention that Phil will hand off the task of running the meetings to Chris as of the beginning of spring semester. Phil moved for acceptance of this arrangement for 2007-08, and Andy Howard seconded; it was passed unanimously.
Faculty Senate Chair: Phil reminded the Council that it needs to elect a Chair for the Faculty Senate. Jack Snapper nominated himself, and Chris White seconded the nomination; his election was approved by general consent.
Vice-chair: Phil then explicitly nominated Chris for the position of Vice-chair; Andy seconded, and that was approved by general consent.
Secretary: Andy Howard noted that his term as UniFC representative from BCPS expires this spring and he has not been explicitly reappointed. Phil moved for Andy's reelection as Secretary, contingent on his reappointment to the Council. This appointment was approved by general consent. Secretary's note: BCPS did reappoint Andy to the UniFC at its May faculty meeting, so his election as secretary was confirmed.
Scott Peters appeared to represent a Masters in Public Administration and a Certificate in Public Management. Jack Snapper said that these constitute minor changes to the existing MPA and Certificate programs and should not require UniFC aproval. Phil explained the context of Jack's remarks. Scott said that the MPA is a specialization within an existing degree, and approval of certificate programs stops at the UniFC level. Geoff asked whether the name of this program will appear on the student's diploma: Scott said yes. Geoff said he would like UniFC approval on that basis. Mary Anne Smith noted that some items come before he Board of Trustees specifically so that they can appear in the University minutes. Art Lubin asked whether, if we do consider this program to be significant, we would need to give the full faculty 30 days' notice of the new program. Katie Spink said that becomes important only if the Council chooses to declare it signifiant. Phil asked for a vote on whether this program could be regarded as non-significant. This assertion was approved unanimously, so no further approvals of the MPA and Certificate will be required.
Caitlin Hubbard said that the Student Government Association is offering a proposal is to maintain an archive of midterms and other exams for IIT courses at Galvin library. Chris White asked whether the SGA itself could maintain the archive. Caitlin said this more formal approach gives the instructor more control over the process. Chris noted that if a professor supplies an exam to this archive, it effectively becomes a public document. Caitlin noted that part of the point of the proposal is to raise awareness of how public these exams already are. Catherine Wetzel asked Caitlin what the SGA wants the UniFC to do. Caitlin said the SGA wants the UniFC's opinion on the arrangement. Phil asked what the motivation was for this proposal. Caitlin said that the intention is to level the playing field, e.g. to eliminate a competitive advantage that students in the Greek system currently have. Katie Spink noted that junior faculty might feel pressure to comply; she also said the library archive would not only partially address the competitive advantage of Greek-system students, and she also showed concerns that providing answers on old exams might discourage students from thinking for themselves. Art Lubin said that a bigger issue is determining what constitutes cheating. In the extensive discussion that followed, Phil noted that posting questions and posting answers are very different. Geoff spoke in favor of the proposal, noting that it could improve students' understanding and discourage facluty members from reusing exam questions. Phil asked if there was an action item; Chris said this should be dealt with at the Academic Unit level. Jack Snapper moved that the UniFC express its appreciation for the SGA's efforts regarding management of old exams.
Appendix S is the defining document for the status of the Center for Professional Develpoment. The version about to be considered by the Board of Trustees is here; the alteration proposed by Fred Hickernell is here. The altered version passed at the April UniFC meeting; Jack Snapper argues for restoring the original language, So Jack moved adoption of his version, specifying five tenured faculty members on the oversight committee for each program, and it was seconded by an unrecorded member; the proposal was approved by a vote of 10-2. Phil noted that we will need to prepare a course of action for implementation of Appendix S in the fall.
Phil noted that the course evaluation process functions poorly currrently. The UniFC should take a stand on how to improve it.
Andy recommended that the question of drafting UCoPT guidelines be referred to a subcommittee. Phil said that the Council should hold an open discussion. Andy recommended that the wordsmithing portion of the task be farmed ot to a committee. Sanjiv noted that we need to clarify what we are trying to address. Jack Snapper noted that the UCoPT document is already out of date; a new subcommittee could resolve that issue. Geoff offered his own perspective on the initial purpose of the UCoPT guidelines. The issue then was uniformity of treatment from one academic unit to another. The hope is that the Council could define a requirement for the AuCoPTs to be more formal in how they evaluate teaching and in the way that external letters work. Jack also argued that the membership of UCoPT should be assembled at the beginning of each academic year, rather than several weeks into the first semester.