IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE
EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING MINUTES
October 26, 2004
Present: S. Agarwal
(FS President); B Allen (Provost); C. Baldwin (FS President-Elect);
S. Carlson (Assoc. Provost); S. Crase (FDAR Council Chair); A.M. Fiore
(Family and Consumer Sciences Caucus Chair); J. Girton (Past-President
& RPA Chair); C. Heising (Engineering Caucus Chair); D. Holger
(Assoc. Provost); J. Maves (Design Caucus Chair); G. Palermo (Academic
Affairs Council Chair); G. Phye (Education Caucus Chair); B. Robinson
(Judiciary and Appeals Council Chair); E. Thacker (Vet Med Caucus
Chair); D. Vrchota (Governance Council Chair); M. Wortman (Past President);
T. Zanish-Belcher (FS Secretary)
Absent: A. Van
Der Valk (Liberal Arts and Sciences Caucus Chair);
Guests: W. Dillon
(Ames Tribune); M. Mendelson for ISU Comm; D. Roberts for ISU Comm
I. Call
to Order - 3:10 p.m.
Agarwal called
the meeting to order at 3:15 p.m.
II. Consent
Agenda - 3:10 p.m.
A. Agenda
B. Minutes, Executive Board, September 28, 2004
Girton moved,
Heising seconded, and the consent agenda was approved.
III.
Announcements and Remarks - 3:15 p.m.
A. President
There were no
announcements from Agarwal.
B. President-Elect
Baldwin updated the Executive
Board on the proposed college merger. The Task Force distributed a
survey to FCS and Ed faculty, and apparently, the Planning Committee
was unaware the survey would be distributed. The Board discussed the
perceptions of the faculty.
Two issues for feedback by
the Board, relating to its oversight of the Task Force, and what is
the structure for monitoring the process and providing evaluation
and assessment.
The Board determined
that the planning committee needs to work with oversight committee
over the use of these types of survey instruments. While a note was
sent from the Provost Office, distinguishing between the actual vote
and the survey, there was some confusion.
C. Provost
The Provost noted
that this reorganization process would teach us a great deal about
developing these types of procedures.
IV. Old Business
A. ISUComm Proposal
M. Mendelson gave an update
on ISU Comm.
LAS Representative Assembly—consensus
with LAS administration and selected faculty, had the following issues:
1. Sample size of the comparison
was too small to draw firm conclusions--Mendelson has agreed to take
this off the table.
2. The remaining assessment
information is valid and corresponds to the Senate’s charge.
Sitcom has drafted a white
paper, to be attached to the Senate’s electronic packet. Mendelson
will also be meeting with the various groups of the LAS Assembly.
Is there enough information for the Senate to make a decision? Mendelson
feels they have met the requirement, and the discussion needs to be
looked at in the context of proposal.
Agarwal raised the issue
of money and funding. While possible additional resources from the
departments might be available (in terms of commitment and energy),
ISU Comm is currently supported financially by the Provost, and no
cost is being borne by English or LAS. The catalog change does not
require departments to make any new expenditures.
The Board also discussed
the new administrative structure depicted in the report. This organization
chart was collaboratively developed by the Provost Office, Deans in
the College of LAS, Chair of the English Dept., and Mendelson. It
was also discussed with the Senate officers.
Palermo currently noted current
motions to approve/endorse the concepts and the catalog changes, as
opposed to the specific results of the report.
Vrchota questioned the 3
motions, asked Agarwal to considering taking time to discuss each
motions and then vote. The options are:
1. endorse the report prepared
by the TS
2. Approve the curricular concept
3. Approve the proposal catalog language, incorporating the basic
principles (already passed)
Robinson moved the first
motion be set aside as it will make the discussion easier in the Senate.
Phye suggested continuing
the assessment for another period of year. Mendelson responded the
program has been assessed for several years now. Palermo noted the
report has been received by the Senate in fulfillment of the committee’s
charge. While this policy set by Senate, the development of an operation
process/implementation is elsewhere.
Vrchota seconded Robinson’s
motion.
The motion was voted on and
was passed by the Executive Board.
Agarwal asked
if the Provost Office would support more testing, the Provost said
no, would not be useful. More testing has been done on this than any
other curricular change. It is continuing to be assessed.
C. ISU Strategic Plan
The Provost went over what
he had reported on what he had articulated at the last FS meeting.
Among the additions, changes, and revisions were the following areas:
commitment to broad based university; the land grant concept; diversity;
goals (patents); and global perspectives.
The second draft is still
short, and metrics have been added. Numerous objectives are required
by the Board of Regents.
Palermo raised the following
issues
1. certain unique professional degree programs—feels that this has
been left out (i.e. Education—higher education administration). These
represent a unique institutional element.
2. humanities and social sciences—symbiotic with intellectual discourse,
science and technology, weaving together
The Provost responded
that they were trying to keep named specific programs out of the plan.
We will focus on the strategies which will list out the specifics.
Palermo still feels need the need for highlighting of professional
programs.
V. New Business
Proposed Combination of the Colleges of Education and FCS
While the report was received
from the Planning Committee, as of yet, voting has not yet happened.
Agarwal would like to present to Senate on November 9 (by which time
the vote will have been taken), for voting in December.
Palermo asked what specifically
the Senate is voting on? Our position on the merger, or the reorganization
process? Girton said we would be voting on the specific proposal for
the merger, based on the Provost’s recommendation.
Girton noted that our vote
is considered advice from the Senate. The Board should place this
as a motion to recommend to the President that he accept the plan.
(in December).
Girton moved that we recommend
the Senate approve the college plan of merger report contingent on
our review of the supporting evidence. (The Board does need the Task
Force report, faculty vote, and precise wording).
This topic will be discussed
at the next Board meeting, so recommendations can be readied for the
December meeting.
Yang seconded.
The motion was passed.
Carlson also distributed information related to the recommended name.
Girton moved,
Heising seconded, and the Senate meeting agenda was approved.
VI. Council
Reports
A. Academic Affairs
Palermo raised the issue
of catalog revision, and the issue of the by-laws being suspended
for the Senate meeting. How will we do the catalog review and accept
the changes? While we can introduce the changes at the November 9th
meeting, we will not be able to introduce the catalog copy will not
be available until mid to late November. Can the Senate approve report
to the Regents on behalf of the university (courses, resources, summary
of Colleges in relation to the strategic plan).
Girton felt there would be
great objection. He recommends December introduction with a January
vote. Crase felt we should follow November and December deadlines,
Girton noted the difficulty of having not having the changes there.
This also needs to also be
examined by Academic Affairs and the Executive Board.
Vrchota recommended that
Palermo contact the Parliamentarian and ask his opinion.
The remaining
Council reports were deferred.
VII.
Adjourn - 5:00 p.m.
The meeting was
adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
NEXT
MEETING
November 30, 2004 3:10 -5:00
107 Labs of Mechanics
