Present:

Present: C. Burns, P. Savoye, K. Carico, P. Welch, P. Keller, V. Jenkins, M. Zelkowitz, J. Tan, H. Pieper, N. Werner-Burke, T. Murphy, K.Thorne, J. Bosworth, A. Johnson, M. Materese, A. McAvoy, D. Dietz,
D. Crowder, I. Newman, S. Thornsley, J. Mansfield, S. Brown, M. Moore, J.Floyd, D.Murray, L. Wright, K. Thorne, C. Bloom, R. Stender

I.

C. Burns called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Minutes of April 7, 2005 were approved as corrected by Michelle Moore. (Correction: Michelle was not present at the previous meeting.)

APPROVED

II.

Treasurer's Report (D. Dietz)

The current account balance is $202.56.

To Contents

APPROVED

III.

Announcements

1. A. Welcome to new senators and officers.
2. Senate is in need of a parliamentarian. See Celeste after the meeting.
   
   

To Contents

IV.

Committee Reports

Academic Affairs (J. Floyd)

Motions from AAC.
#1: Motion to approve carried.
#2: Motion carried.
#3-14 Motions combined b/c they are all just number changes. Motion carried.
#15: Motion carried.
#16: Motion carried.
#17: Question on pre-requisite. Four pre-requisite courses are the four foundation courses. Motion carried.
#18: Question: dual-level listing 4446/5546, but they are also listed as separate courses. Mardi: All studio courses are cross-listed. Three different levels of students in one class. They are appearing separately because the graduate courses had to go to graduate council for approval. Question: What about the differing numbers: 4446 in #18; 3346 in #19? Response from Mardi: The difference is in the number of credits; graduates may take it for variable number of credits. Motion carried.
#19: Motion carried.
#20: Motion carried.
#21: Motion carried.
#22: Motion carried.
#23: Question : Is this a change to the course or the program? Mardi: It was a change to the course. (It was not a gen ed course previously for the Art Ed. Students.) Motion carried.
#24: Motion carried.
#25: Senate had referred the code back to AAC for further discussion.

Discussion:

• Question: Regarding items that do not relate to honor, e.g. Is “not attending class regularly” is a violation of an honor code? Suggestion: Add such items to the catalog for behavior but dissociate them from the honor code. Suggestion: Leave off “All faculty members are expected to…”
• Question: The terms are not concretized enough. What is fairness? What is honesty? These are abstractions that are unenforceable.
  Response: What are aspirational and what are enforceable? Provides a point for dialogue between professors and students. If we start to define them, we get into a long document.
• Question: Does this proposed policy move us forward?
  Response: Yes, but that doesn’t mean it’s set in concrete. Has been revised a dozen times, and it is important to move forward.
• Question “All faculty members are expected to…” Apparently, we can’t violate this. If we’re subject to this, we should be able to be charged.
  Response: From an aspirational perspective, these are values. If we “charge” people, we will not pass this document. The contract defines the code for faculty. Knows of no university that has gone to an enforceable code for faculty outside of contract. That would violate the contract, which IS our code.
• Question: The way it’s written it seems that the most minor violations have to be reported, e.g. attendance.
  Response: Even in strict professional codes of ethics, violators are not always hauled up in front of the ethics committee. It’s a set of standards that allow us to speak to our students, promoting a rich and important dialogue about honor and responsible behavior and integrity. Doesn’t threaten anyone; only provides sanctions for particularly egregious behaviors (not attendance). Allows faculty to say “This is important and why…” The Honor Code supports the Academic Integrity Statement we already have. The current documents only list what the consequences are. For example, “a student submits work that has been done in previous courses. This specificity was not there last time. In the Password, the word plagiarism doesn’t exist. This document allows us to have an understandable list of glaring issues and begin the process of identifying expectations.
• Suggestion: Put basic expectations in a separate document. Including all in an Honor Code weakens the document. Good expectations, but they don’t belong here.
• Question: Confusion seems to be that we have the Honor Code, then we have statements such as “faculty report instances of academic integrity.” What is here is academic integrity policy, not the Honor Code. If it’s going to be Honor Code, it should say it all the way through. Suggestion: How about “Academic Integrity and Honor Code?”
  Response: Not punitive, but emphasizing the positive. If we take out the expectations, it goes from a statement of virtues to a statement of the vices.
• Question: What is the Honor Code? The document begins to reference itself, but what is the Honor Code? And all of the specifics ARE negative. We don’t say “Honor the work of others by writing your own work.”
• Question: A person can attend class, complete their assignments, treat their professor with respect and be dishonest. Not that these things aren’t things they need to do, but they may still do these things and be honest. Integrity and responsibility aren’t the same thing. We’re not separating out the person of integrity. Making an assumption that the person who does these things IS honest.
• Concern from committee member: Two years have been spent on this work and that if it isn’t passed, the member will resign from the committee.

Michelle Z. called the question. Motion to call the question carried with one opposed.

Vote taken: Approving the Honor Code as distributed: 11; Opposed to approving the Honor Code as distributed: 12

Burns noted that she will put it on the agenda for the very first Academic Affairs Committee work. She thanked the committee for the work on this.

B.

Academic Planning (P. Savoye)

Being briefed by Brian Barden on next week’s class. Very successful recruiting season. Phil is going to continue as chair.

To Contents

C.

Administrative Affairs & Elections

No report.

D.

Student Affairs & Admissions

No report.

E.

Information Technology

No report.

F.

Library Advisory

No report.

Provost (M. Renner)

There is a lot of work being done on a new First Year Program. There is going to be a new training program for those involved. We look forward to what that’s going to mean.

V.

Old Business

1. The President has accepted the recommendation of the Senate regarding the MU Attendance Policy. It will be accepted and entered on the web page.

VI.

New Business

1. Reminder of Commencement: Saturday, May 7th at 11:00. Faculty should have received a message from Mary Lou Stroud.
2. Any remarks for the good of the order? C. Burns thanked the returning senators for their hard work. A lot of work has been done and has moved the university forward.
   
   

VII.

Remarks for the Good of the Order

• Announcement—new library director will begin the end of June.
• Announcement—Verdi Requiem 4/9 in Steadman, 4/10 in Corning.

VIII.

C. Burns adjourned the meeting at 4:35.

Respectfully submitted,
Kathleen Carico
Interim Secretary