Present:

J. Murphy, R. Timko, C. Moulton, L. Iseri, P. Junius, A. McEvoy, M. Moore, K. Verno, T. Murphy, R. Dodson-Webster, M. Renner, P. Keller, D. Monkeiwicz, R. Stanley, C. Hoy, V. Jenkins, S. Stein, G. Carson, J. Sim, D. Mason, N. Werner-Burke, L. Rashidi, W. Keeth, K. Thorne, J. Bosworth, S. Kasperek, N. Rinnert, S. Brown, L. Schankman, P. Richmond

I.

J. Murphy called the meeting to order at 4:03.

Approval of University Senate minutes of February 7, 2008
APPROVED (Hoy/Moore)

APPROVED

II.

Treasurer's Report (L. Iseri)

Currently we have $555 going to the MU scholarship fund.

To Contents

APPROVED

III.

Announcements (J. Murphy)

President Loeschke approved actions from last meeting (music courses: raising the pre-req from C- to C+).

To Contents

IV.

Committee and Other Reports

Academic Planning (M. Moore)

Meeting was further discussion of Organizational Leadership program.

B.

Administrative Affairs & Elections (K. Verno)

Send any issues you’d like addressed to Kerri for their next meeting.
Nominations for committees, etc. coming up; keep your eye out for email.

To Contents

C.

Student Affairs & Admissions (A. McEvoy, covering for Jan Purk, new chair)

SGA has moved to increase the activities available to the students in Alumni. The addition of these games and activities will offer the student body more social outlets. SGA is requesting that the hours that Alumni be increased to allow more use of the facility. The Student affairs committee supports this move. We feel more recreational activities on campus that this will aid with retention and alleviate student apathy. We support the move to Alumni Hall being open 24 hours a day. First, it would create a safe social environment. Second, it would provide an area to study in rather then the dorms.

D.

Information Technology (R. Dodson-Webster)

• Welcomes suggestions or ideas from faculty for CT.
• First Amendment rights and legal issues were discussed to suggest potential wording changes in the campus Acceptable Use Policy concerning university computers.
• Authentication and MU Library computers: Connie Beckman announced that in February, CT will begin installing network switches which will allow for required authentication (university account) to use services in the library. There are still 2 computers open to the public in view of the front desk.
• 1 card system is coming – no details of when.
• Bulk emails: There have been issues with sending messages to more than 35 -50 students (more than this are eliminated from receiving the email) -
  make sure you are using Outlook (and not Thunderbird or other option). If there is a regular large group you email, consider using Blackboard. For emails to entire student body use Daily Digest.
• Request made for consideration of more SMART technology to assist in multi-media and distance learning in campus classrooms (Smart Boards, Sympodiums, etc.).
• Dr. Dodson-Webster was recently appointed to a PASSHE Learning Management Systems considering whether we will renew our commitment with Blackboard or change to another system.

A survey will be coming, please provide your input.
Q: when will the change happen?
A: contract expires 2010. Proposals are in process.
Q: are we obliged to take lowest bid?
A: we are obliged to take what suits our needs.
MR: we will not necessarily drop Blackboard. If we don’t look around, Blackboard has no motivation to upgrade/improve. We are looking at this now so we have plenty of time to make whatever change is coming, if it is coming. It may result in a change, it may not. We want to do this in an orderly way.
BK: there are open source alternatives that are free that seem to be ignored by PASSHE.
MR: these are not really free; an open source system is an option we are exploring.
RDW: this is being discussed (open source options), especially since some faculty use these now.
BK: Will library software security measures affect usage of lab materials?
SK: the logging in/tracking is being addressed.
More discussion: Incident with Outlook being down for 26 hours: most don’t know to call campus police when the system is down after hours and over the weekend (though this time campus police were called and the officer on duty said there was no problem).
D. Murray called J. Maslar, who fixed the problem.
RDW: will bring this up at next CT meeting.
MR: we will replace Outlook Software over spring break. This should alleviate any current problems and will dramatically increase out email system capabilities.

E.

Library Advisory (T. Murphy)

No report.

First Year Committee (J. Bosworth)

No report.

G.

Provost (P. Keller)

No report.

Academic Affairs (P. Junius)

1. 1) GES vacancy approval: Appoint Cathy D’Ortona to General Education Subcommittee (vacancy due to Donna Dietz’ maternity leave)
2. GES approval: Gen Ed subcommittee approved
3. (i) Chem 1103
   (ii) AHD 2201(wellness course)

Senate already passed these, now it has Gen Ed approval too.

BK: if you don’t have the GES approval can it still come to senate? There is a problem of lack of clarification of line of approval.
JM: A course can be offered as a non Gen Ed, then be considered later for Gen Ed status. It is not the senate’s decision whether it is retroactive or not.
BK: this is confusing. Can we straighten out the procedure?
JM: are you speaking against this?
BK: We should not let this by in senate without going through proper channels.
JM: is this a motion Prema?
PJ: this was already approved by AAC. Both were course changes and the request was approved by senate a couple years ago. After it was approved it went for Gen Ed status (document has been inactive in a mailbox for some time).
TM: we have never had to approve the status of a Gen Ed course. It was always intended that AAC and GES approves whether something is Gen Ed or not. This is not a senate issue.
AM: (from Constitution): The GE Subcommittee (GES) oversees the General Education Program. It leads the assessment of the GE Program and the GE Program Review. GES considers changes to the program and forwards program changes to AAC, just as any other academic department would.
SK: Request more information to make an informed decision
JM: suggests sending it to CAN, and doing this whenever a course changes for something that didn’t have GenEd status to something that does have GenEd.
VJ: but it was on the form when it 1st went through the CAN.
LR: when she was on GES it did go through the proper channels, but lines were deleted. Suggests that something not be voted on unless it has been approved by
GenEd, then AAC, then Senate. Originally all this was up on CAN
PJ: can send an e-copy to all senate members and we can look at it again.
VJ: are we following the current process…? do we not know the current process…? are we changing it? Which interpretation are we going to follow?
JM: Motion: to accept these as GenEd courses.
Not Approved (3 abstain) – goes back to AAC
MR: not necessarily. It goes to President
BK: Motion: to send back to AAC to clarify procedure and why we should approve it (2nd Rashidi).
AM: don’t understand the procedure that needs to be clarified
JM: clarify the constitution before a motion comes to senate; clarification of process.
RT: don’t think a motion can be made after it was tabled.
MR: how can senate ask a committee to clarify constitution?
TM: we just don’t have enough information.
AM: all courses that come before GES should be CANed?
JM: things go to CAN before they go to AAC, not GES.
AM: after we review and accept (or not), then on to AAC. If it not approved does it still go on to CAN?
BT: the appropriate forum for all this discussion is Faculty Assembly, not senate. It is a duty of the assembly. The assembly sends its recommendations out to everyone, not just senate.
JM: this takes a long time. In the mean time we need an interpretation. It’s easy to kill the whole process… Senate exec needs to sit down… we can’t wait until assembly (assuming it arrives at a consensus). Some may be disappointed at how exec committee interprets, but we must do this.
NR: didn’t we already address this by the lines we deleted in senate? All we’re looking for here is more information… and new courses need to go through Gen Ed.
MR: can tell registrar to freeze (no changes for) GenEd until the President acts… unless an action is made, if this proposal comes back, is clarified and senate approves.
JM: a valid motion is still on table to send back to committee for clarification of details of these 2 courses (rather than a “no” that goes on to president). Bill do you want to keep the motion to send back to committee?

Motion to send back to AAC so they can bring it before us properly. (T. Murphy/Moore)
AM: define properly… with syllabus?
JM: and CAN
PASSED (2 abstained)

Organizational Leadership program:

1. New Program Proposal: M.A. Organizational Leadership
   Motion to approve M.A. in Organizational Leadership and ORL 5501, ORL 5510, ORL 5520, ORL 5530, ORL 5540, ORL 5550, ORL 5571, ORL 5572, ORL 5590, and COM 5545 noting an expectation that the Program Director will bring the course syllabi and distance education course approval forms through AAC at the appropriate time.

PJ: AAC voted and approved, noting that director will bring syllabus later for this totally on line course.
BK: There is a conflict on forms regarding new library resources needed for the program. Some say ‘no’, other courses say ‘yes’.
DM: there may be typos, but assures that forms were signed by a librarian. Not sure where it is. He knows the library is committed to this program.
JM: it is the committee chairs job to make sure all paperwork is in order; will personally make sure that all forms and signatures are in order.
PJ: has not signed this yet. Has not seen the on-line papers. As a chair does not know what she is signing.
JB: AAC discussed this at length; although it is an on-line program, for any course there is a separate form, incl. syllabus. We approve new courses for program, but this will have to be approved again for an on-line course. These on-line courses do not go through senate.
MR: the proposal is for a curriculum. The senate job is to act on this particular curriculum.
TM: but if we approve this, then we are saying we approve this as real courses, then later on there is another process for on-line.
JM: it looks the same in the catalogue whether it’s on-line or not.
MR: the question is whether we want to offer this as a course or not.
BK: do we have staffing whether on line or not?
TM: Move to table the motion (Keeth)
Yes 11
Opposed 6
Motion tabled

V.

Old Business

None.

VI.

New Business

None.

VII.

V. Adjourned: (Moore/Kasperek)

Minutes respectfully submitted,
Christine Moulton, Senate Secretary