UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-EAU CLAIRE
UNIVERSITY SENATE MEETING
VOL. 39, NO. 7
December 10, 2002
Members Present:
Joey Bohl, Marcia Bollinger, Don Bredle, Ken De Meuse, Jesse Dixon, Rodd Freitag, Mitchell Freymiller, Warren Gallagher, Andrea Gapko, Marc Goulet, Susan Hafen, Betty Hanson, Susan Harrison, Tim Ho, Ann Hoffman, Larry Honl, Robert Hooper, Mary Iribarren, Rose Jadack, Richard Kark, Tim Lane, Kate Lang, Gene Leisz, Barbara Lozar, Maureen Mack, Donald Mash, Rick Mickelson, Jane Pederson, Andrew Phillips, Bobby Pitts, Cleo Powers, Connie Russell, Richard Ryberg, Ronald Satz, Nola Schmitt, Roger Selin, Nick Smiar, Alex Smith, Linda Spaeth, George Stecher, Todd Stephens, Paula Stuettgen, Kent Syverson, Dale Taylor, Jodi Thesing-Ritter, Roger Tlusty, Karen Welch, Cecilia Wendler, Sharon Westphal, Michael Wick, Jean Wilcox, Steve Zantow
Members Absent:
Ned Beach, Dick Boyum, Jack Bushnell, Linda Carpenter, Joel Duncan, Meg Dwyer, Bruce Dybvik, Jeannie Harms, Sean Hartnett, Jeremy Hein, Phil Huelsbeck, Debra King, Fred Kolb, Lisa La Salle, Barbara Mac Briar, John Melrose, Vicki Reed, Kathie Schneider, Thomas Wagener, Rebecca Wurzer
Guests:
Randy Beger, Margaret Cassidy, Patricia Christopherson, Wilma Clark, Kate Demerse, V. Thomas Dock, Bernard Duyfhuizen, Janice Morse, Donald Nielsen, Katherine Rhoades, Eric Ristau, Marilyn Skrivseth, Andrew Soll, Nathan Titus, Ted Wendt
The regular meeting of University Senate was called to order by Chair Harrison at 3:05 p.m. Tuesday, December 10, 2002 in the Tamarack Room of Davies Center
1. Without objection, minutes of November 26, 2002 meeting of University Senate approved as distributed
2. Chancellor’s Remarks – Chancellor Mash
· Proud of recognition received by CeCelia Zorn, selected as Wisconsin’s Professor of the Year, at Board of Regents meeting last week
· Two of System President Katharine Lyall’s good news items included Eau Claire
· Dr. Zorn and fact that Eau Claire campus won award four times since begun in 1993
· Reinforces notion of strong teaching and great learning environment
· This campus consistently listed in top twenty nationally for size of study-abroad program
· Also heard presentation at meeting on Citizens for Higher Education
· New organization in state sending out letter co-signed by two former governors talking about active support for public higher education in Wisconsin and need for stronger advocacy on behalf of UW-System
· Solicitation for membership costing $100 per year
· Going to be small staff organizing way to advocate for UW-System among citizenry
· Same sort of organization at work in number of other states
· No more currently known about state’s budget challenges; will not know much definitive for long time
· Governor presents budget in February and then to legislature
· May be early summer before know impact; currently contingency planning
· Work going on at System level to position university to head off major reductions and maintain reasonable support
· As mentioned in op/ed piece in Eau Claire Leader-Telegram, another serious reduction would limit access to university resulting in a smaller campus with far-reaching implications
· Also said tuition needs to be part of solution
· Clearly new leadership in legislature – taking fresh look at state government and how it operates
· Looking at how state manages resources and comes to budget reductions
· Met with chancellors of Stout and River Falls and west-central Wisconsin legislators to emphasize important role of UW-System in state
· Trying to educate legislators on implications of recent budget reduction and concerns about coming legislative session
· Will continue working at this; communicating with area legislators extremely important
· Looking for suggestions and ideas about how to position more of our people on campus to effectively communicate among neighbors as well as legislators – administration prepared to provide any necessary information for such sessions
· Governor-elect Doyle to be on campus Monday to hear suggestions on budget
· Another large commencement December 21, 2002
· Mickey Crothers, Excellence in Teaching Award recipient from Psychology Department, to be commencement speaker
· To present five or six alumni achievement awards
· Want to be sure you know administration and others appreciate strong focus on work being done here and great things continuing to happen in and out of the classroom despite continual unsettling news of budget
· Response to question from floor
· Not only other chancellors, but those outside of higher education as well, concerned about suggestions that state tap into retirement fund as part of solution to budget; UW-System has been in touch with governor’s office on that matter
· Not clear at this point whether idea has much credence
· Such talk an indication of difficult budget challenge
3. Chair and Faculty Representative Report – Chair Harrison
· Chair’s report includes review of last Board of Regents meeting
· Note correction on item #3 under Board of Regents
· Performing arts major is affected by three-month moratorium on all new academic planning not theatre program as stated
· Next meeting of Faculty Representatives on January 31, 2003
· Chancellor signed motions
· Establishing minors in International Business and Teaching English as a Foreign Language
· Changing language for Faculty Status Eligibility
· Changing Bylaws for filling vacancies for terms of different lengths
· Talks have resumed and tentative agreement appears to have been made with some unions regarding classified pay plans – some hope that things will happen after last couple years with no new contract
4. Academic Staff Representative Report – Senator Wilcox
· Next meeting will be teleconference on December 19, 2002
5. Unfinished Business
A. Academic Policies Committee – Second Reading – CRMJ Prefix in GE III G (Interdisciplinary Social Sciences)
Continued Debate on Previously Amended Motion
· Concern about trying to force CRMJ courses into just one GE category addressed by College of Arts & Sciences Curriculum Committee in motion passed by 7 to 0 vote on December 5, 2002
· GE-C (interdisciplinary studies – communications);
· GEII-F (interdisciplinary studies – natural sciences);
· GEIII-G (interdisciplinary studies – social sciences);
· GEIV-E (interdisciplinary studies – humanities); or
· GEV
MOVED by Senator Smith and seconded to include the criminal justice prefix courses that meet the general education criteria in GEI-C (Interdisciplinary Studies – Communication) , GEII-F (Interdisciplinary Studies – Natural Sciences), GEIII-G (Interdisciplinary Studies – Social Sciences), GEIV-E (International Studies – Humanities), or GEV
Discussion
· Arts & Sciences Curriculum Committee heard examples of courses that in future, if proposed, might fit into any one of those categories, such as
· Against amendment – original wording indicates courses which cross GE categories and courses offered by Colleges of Professional Studies and Business, except courses with IDIS prefix, will be listed under General Education V category
· Also possibility of courses within a GE category that are interdisciplinary in nature
· If are criminal justice courses, are already interdisciplinary
· Could have course developed with criminal justice nature within particular category
· Was understanding when Category V passed that courses which cross boundaries be put in that category
· Topic has not been discussed by University General Education Committee; that committee believes recommendations for particular categories rests with curriculum committees of individual schools/colleges
· University GE Committee has presented Category V for catalogue copy as courses coming from professional schools or courses that include more than one GE area as previously indicated
Vote on Amendment 39-AP-06-a2: In opinion of chair, amendment DEFEATED by University Faculty Senators
Vote on Motion 39-AP-06: Motion PASSED without dissention by University Faculty Senators
TEXT OF AMENDED MOTION
That any course with the CRMJ prefix that meets General Education criteria will be included in General Education Category III-G (Interdisciplinary Studies – Social Sciences) or Category V
B. Academic Policies Committee – Second Reading – University General Education Committee membership and function details
Vote on Motion 39-AP-07: Motion PASSED without dissention by University Faculty Senators
TEXT OF MOTION
1)
The University
General Education Committee be established as a University Faculty Committee;
2)
Staggered
three-year terms for current members begin August 2003 with the first faculty
members being replaced in 2004; and
3)
The following language
be inserted in Chapter 3 of the Faculty and Academic Staff Handbook, The
Constitution of the University Faculty and the University Academic Staff,
Article One: University Faculty, Section G – University Faculty Committees:
6. University
General Education Committee
a.
Membership: The committee includes six faculty
representatives from the College of Arts and Sciences, two faculty
representatives from the College of Business, and one faculty representative
from each of the three Schools of the College of Professional Studies. These
representatives will be chosen by existing shared governance processes
established through the bylaws of the respective schools or colleges. One
student, with at least junior standing, will be appointed by the Student Senate
President in accordance with customary procedures. Faculty serve staggered
three-year terms with approximately one-third of the representatives from each
College being elected each year.
b. Function: The University General Education Committee is responsible for recommending criteria for General Education courses. The criteria will be forwarded to the University Senate Academic Policies Committee and the University Senate for approval. The Committee approves courses for inclusion in the General Education Program, periodically reviewing existing general education courses for reapproval.
6. Reports of Committees
¨ Executive Committee – Chair Harrison
¨ Faculty Personnel Committee – Senator Wick
· Periodic review of faculty
· Complaint and grievance policies
· University-wide and departmental search and screen policies
¨ Academic Staff Personnel Committee – Senator Wilcox
· To continue work and elect Academic Staff Representative for July 2003 to July 2005
· Contemplate going into closed session to consider appointments for Search and Screen Committee for Director of Teaching and Learning Technology Development Center
¨ Academic Policies Committee – Senator Syverson
· College of Arts & Sciences initiatives, one to approve name change of Department of Art
· University General Education Committee recommendations
¨ Budget Committee
· Discussing budget planning process; to continue at next meeting on January 21, 2003
¨ Compensation Committee – Senator Gapko
· UW – Eau Claire pay plan, previously approved by this body, will be sent to System again for approval
¨ Physical Plant Planning Committee – Senator Stuettgen
· Committee heard report from Gary Bartlett on parking and transportation services
· No parking rate increase planned for 2003-2004
· Bus service numbers indicate more people riding buses – 33,086 students and faculty rode student transit system during October
· Also heard report from Interim Athletic Director Tim Peterman regarding ongoing discussion on condition of Carson Park field
· Next meeting January 31, 2003
¨ Nominating Committee – Senator Taylor
· Since all Senate Committees full; Nominating Committee has not met
¨ Technology Committee – Senator Lang
· Began discussion of intellectual property issue; will continue next semester
7. Special Reports – None
8. Miscellaneous Business
A. Executive Committee – First Reading
2004-2005
Academic Calendar Report –
Vice Chair Gapko
· Administrative Officer Jan Morse brought some calendar options to Executive Committee for consideration
· Committee reached consensus to revise spring semester of Draft 2 to match Draft 1
· Only difference between two drafts, included as blue sheets in meeting packet, is when fall classes begin
· Draft 1 has classes beginning before Labor Day on September 2, 2004
· Draft 2 has classes beginning after Labor Day on September 7th
· Draft 1 has 41 MWF classes and 28 TTh classes; Draft 2 has 40 MWF classes and 27 TTh classes in fall
· In spring semester, on both drafts, there are 43 MWF classes and 29 TTh classes
· After much discussion, Executive Committee decided by split vote to recommend Draft 2, but to bring both drafts forward to full Senate for input
· Response to questions for clarification on content of report
· No fall break – difficult to add to this particular calendar with short time period between Labor Day and Christmas
· Lose many days of teaching early in September; hard for sciences to work around that kind of schedule
· Winterim meets guideline requiring minimum of 14 days of classes
Moved and seconded by Executive Committee (8-4) that
the proposed University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire calendar for 2004-2005 with
Winterim be approved as follows
Fall Semester 2004:
Aug
23 – First Day of Faculty Contractual Period
Aug
30-Sept 3 – Advising and Registration
Sept
6 – Labor Day Holiday
Nov
24 – Thanksgiving Recess begins at 5 p.m.
Nov
29 – Classes Resume
Dec
13-17 – Final Examinations Week
Dec
18 – Commencement
Winterim
2005:
Jan
3 – Classes Begin
Jan
17 – Martin Luther King Holiday
Jan
21 – Last Day of Classes
Spring
Semester 2005:
Jan
24-25 – Advising and Registration
Jan
26 – Classes Begin
Mar
21-28 – Spring Break
Mar 29 – Classes
Resume
May 16-20 – Final Examinations Week
May
21 – Commencement
May
22 – Last Day of Faculty Contractual Period
3-Week
Summer Session 2005:
May
23 – Classes Begin
June 10 – Final Day of Classes
8-Week
Summer Session 2005:
June 13 – Classes Begin
July
4 – Independence Day Holiday
Aug
5 – Final Day of Classes
Aug
6 – Commencement
Debate
· Jan Morse confirmed calendar must be to System in mid-January; requires vote on issue today
· Seems fall break successful, especially for first-year students; think should be considered
· Break excluded because of unevenness of semesters – so few class days in fall semester compared to spring; imbalance was major concern
· Speak against proposal in favor of alternate draft
· Since on campus, have never seen as few as 40 MWF classes in a semester; has been as high as 46
· Classes start on Tuesday; if have labs on Tuesdays, difficult to have first class be a lab
· Is possible to propose third draft; can also amend Draft 2 if desired
· Draft 2 is whole week less compared to what we have now; lose too many classes
· Student Senate Academic Affairs Commission, at meeting last week, reached consensus to approve Draft 2 for following reasons
· No need for students to come to classes two days, then travel back home, then return for next week of classes
· If start classes on Thursday, would also be Thursday labs with same situation as previously brought up for starting on Tuesday
· Allows students to move in over weekend without need for parents to take off work
· Allows more days for registration of international and other students
· Troubled and disappointed that when talk about calendars like this, first thing to go is time for education; at an institution of higher education, should be most important issue
· To start after Labor Day would in many science classes with labs eliminate whole week because would not have met with students prior to first scheduled lab
· Draft 2 has basically 13-week fall semester; would have to deal with 14 weeks of coursework in 13 weeks
· Administrative Officer Morse also talked to students from Student Life and Diversity Commission; primarily agreed with start after Labor Day
· Rationale much like related here in addition to child care and employment concerns
· Draft 1 gives students an extra week of classes free
· Calendar different than any previous calendar in way Winterim ends; will be two day break before second semester begins – on both drafts
MOTION by Senator Syverson that rules be suspended to allow item to be voted on today seconded and PASSED
Amendment 36-SE-03-a1
Moved by Senator Ho and seconded to add the 13th and 14th of December to the fall semester as teaching days and start finals on December 15th
Debate on Amendment
· Finals would be split, December 15th, 16th, 17th, 20th and 21st; commencement would be in middle of finals
· Have had this pattern before; not well received by parents to come to commencement when students haven’t actually passed their exams
· Thing that seems to upset students most is when commencement in middle of finals; really object to that
· Could hold commencement after finals during the next week
· Would seem to be issue for parents and commuters; believe only graduations in System not on Saturday, are on Sunday
· Support amendment only because desperately need more class days
· Encourage administrators to work with legislature to have constraint of starting after September 2nd removed
· Not enough days to do good job of teaching
· Is state statute that classes do not start until after September 1st
· Administration has been trying to change for years; will take very loud voice to do so
· To split finals into two different weeks would be very tough, especially with commencement issues
· Again would be moving during week
Vote on Amendment 39-SE-03-a1: Amendment DEFEATED
Vote on Motion 39-SE-03: Motion PASSED by vote of 32 for, 17 against
B. Faculty Personnel Committee – First Reading
Report on
Functional Equivalents of DPCs and Promotion Subcommittees – Senator Wick
· Asked by number of sources to clarify language regarding operation of ‘functional equivalents’ when DPCs or promotion subcommittees cannot be formed due to lack of sufficient membership
· Tried to come up with formalization of current practice in most departments
· Tried to develop language to clarify what functional equivalent means and role it would play in overall process of personnel recommendations
· Since this published, have had feedback, so would ask that we not suspend rules to vote on this today
MOVED and seconded by the Faculty
Personnel Committee (6-0) that the following changes be made to the University
Handbook, Chapter 5.
Page 5.9 (Departmental Personnel Committees)
Organization
In order to formally organize and make recommendations, a
Department Personnel Committee must have three or more members. If the
Department Personnel Committee cannot be formed because of insufficient numbers
of eligible members, then the Department Chair in consultation with those
faculty eligible for membership on the committee shall initiate those
recommendations which the committee would normally have submitted to the Chair.
Consultation with the eligible members shall include notification of the
decisions reached and shall provide the opportunity for the eligible members to
attach written comments to be included with the recommendations forwarded
through the administrative channels.
Each eligible faculty member has a responsibility to
serve on the Department Personnel Committee, and there is no provision for
resignation from this committee. An individual may must decline
to participate in certain decisions of this committee when there is a danger of
conflict of interest. If However, the failure of an individual
faculty member to participate in this committee's actions reduces the number
of participating members to fewer than three, then for the purpose of those
actions, the functional equivalent (see below) shall replace the
committee. does not negate the
procedures of the Department Personnel Committee nor does it necessitate the
less formal consultation (authorized when no Department Personnel Committee can
be constituted). In fact, the use of the consultation procedure is
inappropriate in such instances. (US 3/89)
If the Department Personnel Committee cannot
be formed because of insufficient numbers of eligible members, then the
Department Chair in consultation with those faculty eligible for membership on
the committee shall operate as the functional equivalent of the Department
Personnel Committee. Consultation with the eligible
members must include notification of the decisions reached and must provide the
opportunity for the eligible members to attach written comments to be included
with the recommendations forwarded through the administrative channels.
The functional equivalent shall be treated
as the Department Personnel Committee in all respects and must adhere to the
normal policies and procedures (including meeting announcement procedures) that
govern the operation of the Department Personnel Committee except in those
cases where the normal policies and procedures:
In those cases where the Department Chair is the sole member of the
functional equivalent, the normal meeting announcement procedures do not apply.
Page 5.24 (Promotion Subcommittees)
Organization
There normally will be three such subcommittees in each
department, to be known as (department name) Professorship Subcommittee,
(department name) Associate Professorship Subcommittee, and (department name)
Assistant Professorship Subcommittee. In order to formally organize and make
recommendations, a promotion subcommittee must have three or more members. If
any of the promotion subcommittees cannot be formed because of insufficient
numbers of eligible members, then the Department Chair in consultation with
those faculty eligible for membership on the subcommittee shall initiate those
recommendations which the subcommittee would normally have submitted to the
Chair. Consultation with the eligible members shall include notification of the
decisions reached and shall provide the opportunity for the eligible members to
attach written comments to be included with the recommendations forwarded
through the administrative channels.
Each
eligible faculty member has a responsibility to serve on the appropriate
promotion subcommittee. Moreover, there is no provision for resignation from
this committee. An individual may must decline to participate in
certain decisions of this committee when there is a danger of conflict of
interest. If However, the failure of an individual faculty member
to participate in this committee's actions reduces the number of
participating members to fewer than three, then for the purpose of those
actions, the functional equivalent (see below) shall replace the committee.
does not negate the procedures of the promotion subcommittee, nor does it
necessitate the less formal consultation (authorized when no promotion
subcommittee can be constituted). In fact, the use of the consultation
procedure is inappropriate in such instances. (US 3/89)
If any of the promotion
subcommittees cannot be formed because of insufficient numbers of eligible
members, then the Department Chair in consultation with those faculty eligible
for membership on the subcommittee shall operate as the functional equivalent
of the promotion subcommittee. Consultation with the eligible members must
include notification of the decisions reached and must provide the opportunity
for the eligible members to attach written comments to be included with the
recommendations forwarded through the administrative channels.
The functional equivalent shall be treated
as the promotion subcommittee in all respects and must adhere to the normal
policies and procedures (including meeting announcement procedures) that govern
the operation of the promotion subcommittee except that recommendations for
promotion shall be initiated by the functional equivalent and shall be
submitted directly to the Dean.
The normal policies and procedures call for
a recommendation to be submitted from the promotion subcommittee to the Chair.
In this situation, the functional equivalent shall operate as the promotion
subcommittee and the recommendation shall be submitted directly to the Dean.
In those cases where the Department Chair is
the sole member of the functional equivalent, the normal meeting announcement
procedures do not apply.
Debate
· Issues raised concern role of department chair and clarification of consulting process
· Also are faculty on campus that do not have recommendations submitted directly to deans
· As stated, if you do not have three members for DPC, then DPC does not exist and functional equivalent takes over
· If have at least three members, then DPC does exist even if someone withdraws themselves from a particular action; so need clarification that functional equivalent takes over in these cases also
· Suggest specific language changes be forwarded to committee to come back in package form for next meeting
· Chair does not lose level of approval on those personnel actions; chair still forwards recommendation, but done with consultation
· Important to clarify this motion essentially formalizing what we already do
· Major change is in second paragraph where previously if someone withdrew from deliberation for conflict of interest and that withdrawal dropped number on committee from three to two, the two left acted as the DPC; Faculty Personnel Committee preferred functional equivalent model be used in all cases where fewer than three people participating
· Rest is clarification of current policy and practice
· Confusing to create impression chairs are going to meet as committee with other eligible members when they are really not; when say going to be functional equivalent of personnel committee, suggests following set procedures that personnel committee would follow
· That would be change from somewhat informal consultation currently done
· Committee believes when that kind of consultation occurs, ought not to be behind-the-scenes consultation that no one knows about; is in fact evidentiary meeting and should be open
· Believe this to be original intent as best could understand
· Seems changing nature of whole enterprise because now have personnel committee acting independently of chair; proposal now brings those two things together and tries to formalize it in a manner that substantially changes the relationship
· Current policy indicates when DPC can’t be formed, chair makes recommendation in consultation with eligible members of committee that can’t be formed, not changing that
· Committee concerned about degree of informality in situation that does not occur when formal DPC existed; could be problematic if aren’t minutes and records as to evidentiary knowledge brought to meeting
· Thought should fix that
· Language in Chapter 5 of Faculty and Academic Staff Handbook recognizing and operationalizing distinctive role of department chair seems to conflict with changes
· Language on membership of DPC explicitly excludes department chair
· Language saying in all personnel matters, department chair is responsible for conducting his/her own review
· Would like to have all this language considered
· Second paragraph is not talking about abstentions, but when someone formally withdraws, not participating in meetings and not voting
· Current policy provides opportunity for faculty who are eligible to submit minority reports; probably not current practice
· Strictly a consultation with minutes and then chair would write up his/her report
· Current policy is when can’t form DPC, department chair makes evaluation and recommendation in consultation with faculty members who could have served on committee had it been formed
· Proposal calls for opportunity for people who would have had a chance to vote to be informed as to what department chair will recommend, to provide input, and to attach a report that they agree or disagree
· There is single person making evaluation - the department chair
· However, being forced to hear opinions of those who would have been eligible for committee if one could be formed
· Puts lot of power into one person’s hands
· Committee believes checks and balances in place up administrative channels outweigh possible side effect of having one person make recommendation
· Current policy precludes practice of using individuals from related disciplines or from off campus when DPC cannot be formed
· Not allowed under current policy; not changing that
· Existing language is actually clearer; creation of concept of functional equivalent of DPC confusing
· Especially where says functional equivalent shall be treated as DPC in all respects and must adhere to those policies and procedures
· There is no vote, it is not forwarded to chair; that’s really ambiguous
· Seems informing people of and enforcing current language would be clearer
· Agree with previous speaker
· Reason why language has been changed is remainder of Chapter 5 refers to what governs operation of DPC
· Confusing as to whether applies when no DPC, for instance, language about appeals refers to what to do with DPC, but there is no DPC, so that language doesn’t apply in some instances
· Certainly not intent of document; tried to add some formality to clarify
· With changes, if talking about something that governs operation of DPCs and you don’t have one, then you are dealing with functional equivalent and policy applies
· Seems way to fix that is to add phrase DPC or source of original recommendation
· Committee looked at that – found so many places in language that would become convoluted with that phrase; thought better to separate out and put in beginning
· Adding phrase certainly would be an option
Without objection, continued debate and vote on motion will take place at next meeting
C. Academic Policies Committee – First Reading
Report on
Final Exam Policy Revisions
– Senator Syverson
· Motion originally brought forth by Dr. Wilma Clark from Associate Deans Group
· Later withdrew her support, deciding status quo better
· Members of APC felt still some merit in what presented so continued to work on document
· Considerable agreement that current final exam policy too inflexible
· May be some cases where faculty members think appropriate to give final exam early, but forbidden under current policy
· Also some students have three exams on last day of finals; in that case under current regulations, student would have to take final on commencement or take incomplete; felt it may be more appropriate to take that final early
· Students participating in NCAA sanctioned post-season tournaments now required to take incomplete
· Allows faculty members flexibility to give early exam above board instead of under cover
· Some faculty believe instructor alone should control when final exam given; others wanted check of assistant/associate dean so they become the fall guy
· Decided list of extraordinary circumstances may be beneficial, but because could not make it exhaustive, felt perhaps better to leave out
· Pros of recommendation
· Allows more flexibility and at least consideration of early final exams
· Removes some wording about incompletes because that policy detailed elsewhere
· Allows faculty to come out of cover of darkness and offer early finals legally
· Cons
· May lead to increase in requests for rescheduling of final exams
· Some faculty may feel more pressure to reschedule exams although this policy does reserve their right to say no; also reserves right of deans office to say no
· Response to questions on content of report
· Recommendation does not use word early, but does not limit it to later
· Cannot, however, reschedule for before finals week
· Does not change requirement that classes meet during regularly scheduled final exam time
· Does not allow for students with exams on Monday, or those leaving before beginning of finals week, to take exams earlier
· In APC were concerned about students with three exams on Friday having same flexibility as students with three exams on Monday
Moved and seconded by Academic Policies Committee (7-1) that
the final examination policy as stated below be substituted for the “Change of
Schedule by Student Request” section under “Final Examinations” on page 7.10 of
the 20th edition of the Faculty and Academic Staff Handbook
No student will be permitted to reschedule a
final examination unless there are In the event a course is concluded with a final examination, no
student will be permitted to take it before the regularly scheduled examination
time for the course involved; and no student will be permitted to postpone a
final examination unless for illness, death in the family, or other
extraordinary circumstances over which the student has no control. Make-up
examinations must be arranged by the student with the instructor and must be
completed by the 11th week of the following semester except under extraordinary
circumstances approved by the Dean of the College in which the student is enrolled.
The exact date is published in the Schedule Bulletin [Class Schedule] each
semester." (FS 7/70) Administrative policy permits students to request the
change of an individual examination time for any of the following reasons:
three or more examinations scheduled for one day; conflict with a military
obligation; conflict with an employment commitment, if such commitment existed
prior to the publication of the examination schedule. Verification of the
circumstances must be furnished by the student. Approval must be obtained
through whatever procedure has been established by the College which offers the
course involved. Changes are not allowed
for reasons such as an already purchased plane ticket, leaving campus early, a
family vacation, or conflict with employment, unless such work commitment
existed prior to the publication of the examination schedule.
A request for a change in the time of an individual final
examination must be approved by the instructor, the department chair and the
assistant/associate dean of the school or college in which the course is
offered. Make-up examinations must be scheduled during finals week or later and
must be arranged by the student with the instructor.
Moved by Senator Syverson and seconded that the
following wording be inserted into first paragraph after the second
sentence: A student with three or
more examinations scheduled for one day may request the change of an individual
examination time.
Debate on Amendment
· Because no list of dire circumstances for which exam time may be changed, concerned that three exams in one day rationale might be lost
· Current language does include this
Vote on Amendment 39-AP-10-a1: Amendment PASSED without dissention by University Faculty Senators
Debate on Main Motion as Amended
· Would like to hear rationale for originally not allowing finals to be changed to earlier
· Understand it was attempting to preclude requests for students to get out of here early because they wanted to extend break by a few days
· Also concern about exam being out early for courses with multiple sections
· Still concern for NCAA athletes going on national championship trip; language that pertains to that hasn’t changed
· Remains circumstances over which student has no control – in past, have been occasions where professors have determined an NCAA championship was within the students control, i.e., they could either go to that or they could take finals
· Would like to see after no control a reference to authorized absences in Handbook which speaks to illness and serious injury as well as university sanctioned events, like NCAA athletic events
Amendment 39-AP-10-a2
Moved by Senator
Bredle and seconded to insert (see Authorized Absences in the
Faculty and Academic Staff Handbook) after first sentence
Debate
· Believe taking out phrase that no exam can be given early will solve problem; generally faculty have been very cooperative about NCAA events
· Phrase about authorized absences would open floodgates for requests from students because are many activities on campus that are authorized; afraid would invite people to think permissible to change final exams all around
· Only happens for athletes in spring; will happen again this spring because finals start May 12th
· National golf championship and national softball tournament held that week
· Fortunately we have qualified one out of the eight national teams in each event
· Every year, athletic director has students in office anguished because faculty member reads in handbook “only in cases of three exams, conflict with military or employment, or extraordinary circumstances out of their control”
· Taking list out might be helpful as will being more permissive about solving conflicts
· Current motion does; Athletics can live with either authorized absences phrase or not
· Point about NCAA tournaments is that calendar is made by people outside university; calendars for many authorized activities lie within control of people here
· Against amendment; APC tried to come up with list and it kept getting longer and longer
· Determined best to have no list; doesn’t preclude any student from making a request, but allows instructor, chair and dean to make final judgment
Vote on Amendment 39-AP-10-a2: Amendment DEFEATED by University Faculty Senators
Continued Discussion on the Main Motion as Previously Amended
· Suggest don’t suspend rules and vote today
· Encourage every senator to talk to entire constituency about issue so body can hear those opinions before vote
Without objection, continued debate and vote on this motion postponed to next Senate meeting
9. Announcements – None
Meeting adjourned at 4:43 p.m. without objection
Wanda Schulner
Secretary to the University Senate