The meeting began at 12:12 pm in Siegel Hall room 308. Andy Howard agreed to take minutes. The numbers below correspond to the numbering on the agenda as distributed.
The work of this committee is almost done; its main goal was to change only the things related to switch from a 2-campus system to a 1-campus system, but in the course of effecting those revisions the committee found that it useful to correct a number of other items. The proposed faculty handbook will be put up on the web, and the University Faculty Council will get hard copies. The formal review system consists of an approval from UFC followed by approval by the entire faculty. Mike Young presented two options for the sequencing of these events: either (1) waiting until the UFC has reviewed it before bringing it before the full faculty; or (2) making it available to the entire faculty at the same time that UFC sees it. Ken Schug moved, with a second from Joel Goldhar, to release the document to the entire faculty over the web at the same time that UFC sees it. Discussion ensued; Phil Troyk argued that the faculty as a whole might find the changes in the document somewhat confusing, and that it would be useful for the faculty to see a summary of the changes along with the new document itself. Mike said the summary of changes already exists, in a document drafted by the revision committee itself. Accordingly the authors of the motion put forth a substitute motion, under which the UFC would examine the new handbook for about two weeks in advance of its release to the general faculty. The revised motion passed unanimously. The plan is that the UFC will vote on the new handbook at its first meeting after it is ready.
Provost Myerson would prefer to talk to UFC only but he will appear in front of the campus-specific faculty councils if necessary. Phil Troyk pointed out that when an issue arises that only depends on one council, it might remain useful for Myerson to appear before the relevant body. Myerson says he will leave it to the Councils to decide whether he will need to appear before the campus-specific bodies.
Now the undergraduate college is primarily an administrative entity, and Don Ucci is ithe interim dean of the undergraduate college; he's also the associate provost for academic affairs. The college offices are occupied by Ucci, Snapper as associate dean, and some staff. It does not include non-educational activities, such as sports and student organizations: those are under Vice President Borowoski. Communication across the Curriculum is still in the undergraduate college, so there are some academic programs still under its control. So of the former functions of the undergraduate college, the only ones that have been transferred are the three mentioned above--IPro, EnPro, and Leadership.
The disposition of these programs is connected to a recent hire. The provost has recruited Dennis Roberson to be Vice Provost for New Initiatives and Director of Undergraduate Business Programs. An entity called IBus (Institute for Business) is being created as an overarching administrative entity--not as an academic unit. Myerson has obtained authority from the Trustees to start a new academic unit as well: a Department of Undergraduate Business. In the short run this department will report directly to him, but eventually will become attached to a college. Mr. Roberson will not be a faculty member, at least initially; instead, a new hire will be chair of the new department. It is likely that one faculty member will move from the Stuart School to the new department. Students in the new department will be encouraged to take leading roles in IPros and EnPros.
Myerson explained why the new department will not simply be affiliated with the Stuart School itself. Fundamentally, there is a concern that, while the new undergraduate program is getting off the ground, its lack of maturity could imperil the accreditation of the Stuart School by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). As long as the new program has a disjoint faculty roster and a separate administration, the AACSB's accreditation of Stuart will not be called into question. Eventually, IIT will seek accreditation for the undergraduate program as well. It will be permissible for Stuart School faculty to teach within the program, but they cannot be members of the new department without deleting their affiliation with the Stuart School.
The faculty in the new department will initially be small--perhaps only two. Allan recognizes the need for academic oversight of the new department, so he has set up a committee composed primarily of teaching faculty: Zia Hassan (Stuart), Nassrin Khalili (Stuart), John Twombly (clinical - Stuart), Ben Stark (BCPS), John O'Leary (CAE), and Ophir Frieder (CS). Jay Fisher and Dennis Roberson, in their administrative roles, will also attend committee meetings. The committee will be empowered to make decisions about departmental organization; decisions that would require approval by tenure-track faculty will be voted on only by tenure-track faculty members.
A revised curriculum for the new program will be presented to the undergraduate studies committee this month. The program has already been approved by that body. A discussion ensued about what the committee has really approved. The meeting minutes describe the approval as having been of the concept of an undergraduate business program; Allan argued strongly that the program itself was approved, albeit with some known vagueness about some details in the curriculum. The degrees offered in the program will be a BS in business administration and another, more technological, degree. Allan emphasized that the issues still to be resolved are minor.
Peter Lykos voiced a concern about the absence of new bulletin, which contains the contract between each student and the institution. Allan argued that there is a mechanism for enabling programs in between releases of the bulletin, so that new programs like this are not negatively affected (see item d below). The new department will report through its oversight committee (see above) up through the academic chain to Allan's office.
Allan then explained how this new department connects with the administration of the IPro, EnPro, and Leadership programs. The new administrative entity, IBUS, will be headed by Dennis Roberson, and Jay Fisher will report to him. Allan described the arrangement as a double reporting structure, in which the academic reporting system for the new department will work as described above. At the same time, an effort will be made to involve students from this new department in the out-of-the-classroom activities across the undergraduate population, viz. EnPros, and, to a lesser extent, IPros. There is also a plan to market the new major along with with the EnPros and IPros, particularly in seeking industry contributions. Allan drew an analogy between this dual structure and the situtation that pertains in a research center: faculty and students become involved in activities that are separate from their academic roles, but are nonetheless an important part of the university's vitality.
Phil Troyk stated that the original concept of the IPro is being altered somewhat as it becomes associated with IBus. He argued that this would not necessarily bad, but that we should recognize that, because IPros and EnPros are a part of the general education requirement, the management of them, as practiced by Tom Jacobius (Ipros) and Jay Fisher (EnPros) ought to be subject to faculty scrutiny. There is faculty involvement already because the courses are taught by faculty, but there ought to be oversight by faculty as well. Phil raised a concern that the new structures will preserve the entrepreneurial and teamwork emphases of these programs, but will not necessarily preserve their interdisciplinarity.
Phil further argued that the new structure makes considerable sense for EnPros; he is less confident that IPros, particularly technologically sophisticated IPros, will benefit from this new structure. Tom Jacobius and Jay Fisher will report to Roberson in the new arrangement. Allan agreed with the sense of the UFC that there will be a need for standing faculty oversight over the IPro/EnPro process, for which inconsistent grading and a shortage of standards have been problems.
Phil suggested that the relationship between new UG business unit and the IPro concept is synergistic rather than structural. Allan reiterated that we will need a standing faculty committee to provide oversight. Some UFC members expressed concern that Jay Fisher's and Tom Jacobius's reportage to Roberson complicates the degree to which the committee can really direct their activities.
Joel Goldhar argued that administering this new undergraduate business department with these other programs may in fact hurt the undergraduate business program. He affirmed that IPros and EnPros, as currently constituted, could generally benefit from some business experience on the part of the participants. The benefit may not accrue in the other direction, though.
Allan said that he will let the UFC know when the department has actually been established, and that he intends to pursue faculty oversight of the academic aspects of IPros. He will see to it that the business department will contain the proper mix of category I and category II faculty.
Phil Troyk said that he will include a discussion of these issues on the agenda for the 24 October Main Campus Faculty Council meeting. He asked whether Allan wanted to be there to explain the situation; Allan said he believed that Phil could describe it accurately.
The provost then departed, and the Council moved on to other business.
Glenn Broahead attends Undergraduate Studies Committee meetings in his capacity as director of the Communication Across the Curriculum program. He intends to ask his departmental representative on that committee to propose that UG Studies create a standing review committee for his program.