Skip to main content
Scenes from Faculty Senate

Faculty Senate Executive Committee Meeting

Minute

Meeting #24

March 16, 2004

1. The meeting was called to order at 10:35 a.m. on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 in the third floor conference room in Green Hall, Chairperson Beckman presiding. All members were present except Senator Grubman-Black

2. The minutes of Executive Committee Meeting #23, March 2, 2004 were approved as revised.

3. Announcements/Correspondence

a. The Executive Committee discussed President Carothers' disapproval of Bill #03-04--19. As part of the discussion, they reviewed section 10.3 of the Faculty Senate By-Laws:

10.3 When an action of the Senate has been disapproved by the President, the Executive Committee shall resubmit the action to the Senate. The Senate shall decide whether to take no further action, to confirm, to suspend, to rescind, to amend, to refer to committee, or to confirm and direct the statement. If, after transmittal to the President of the Senate's response to his/her disapproval, agreement between the Senate and the President is not reached, either party may elect to submit the matter to the Board of Governors. Such transmittal from the Senate shall be by way of the President.

After discussion, the Executive Committee agreed to recommend at the March 25 meeting that the Senate confirm its approval of Senate Bill #03-04--19 "The Four Hundred and Twenty-First Report of the Curricular Affairs Committee" with the addition of the following statement:

Students transferring from one program (or college) within or outside the University to another program (or college) within the University may apply 100-level English Communications writing (ECw) courses taken as part of the general education requirements in the original program (or college) to the English Communication writing (ECw) general education requirements in the program or college to which they transfer.

b. Copies of a response from the Director of Health Services to Professor Wenisch's letter with regard to Health Services' position on verification of student illness were distributed for information.

c. The Executive Committee discussed an e-mail request from Senator Rollo-Koster that they look into the change in policy with regard to conferring excellence awards. It was agreed to discuss the matter with Provost Swan.

4. The Executive Committee met with Provost Swan from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. Before considering the regular agenda items, the Executive Committee and the Provost discussed the Executive Committee's recommendation to the Faculty Senate in response to President Carothers' disapproval of Senate Bill #03-04--19.

After that discussion, the following matters were considered:

a. Outcomes Assessment: Provost Swan distributed copies of a memorandum on Student Outcomes Assessment from Associate Commissioner Carriuolo to the members of the Academic and Student Affairs Committee of the Board of Governors. She noted for members of the Executive Committee who might be unfamiliar with the term that outcomes assessment pertained to the university and its programs deciding goals: what it is that we want students to know, and then developing ways to determine whether the goals are met.

She said that although the deadlines proposed in the memorandum were very demanding, it was clear that the Board expected the three institutions to move ahead on outcomes assessment. She said that most professional schools had been working on outcomes assessment for several years in response to accreditation requirements. She also reported that the College of the Environment and Life Sciences had received a grant to develop guidelines for outcomes assessment for the college, which were currently under consideration. She explained that the development of outcome goals for the University was likely to take some time, especially for programs that don't usually take them into consideration.

Provost Swan announced that Interim Vice Provost Swift and Ms. Grossman-Garber from CELS had submitted a grant for working on outcomes assessment in the Social Sciences. She noted that some faculty members would attend a conference on outcomes assessment in late spring. She also reported that the Office of Higher Education would be sponsoring a program on outcomes assessment for chairs of science departments on April 16 at the Narragansett Bay Campus.

The Executive Committee and Provost Swan considered the possibility of establishing a standing Senate Committee on Outcomes Assessment. They agreed that as a preliminary step, the Provost should set up a task force in consultation with the Senate.

b. Mid-semester Grades: Provost Swan reported that her office was disappointed in the low number of mid-semester grades for freshmen that had been submitted by the faculty by the previous day's deadline. It was suggested that since the deadline was the Monday after spring break, some faculty might not have realized they were due that soon and Tuesday might have been better. It was also suggested that graduate teaching assistants and per course lecturers might not all realize that the freshman grades were due. They also suggested that a letter be sent to all faculty who are teaching freshman classes to alert them that they should submit grades.

c. PeopleSoft Advising Module: Provost Swan said that she was pleased to report that progress was being made on the advising module and Enrollment Services hoped it would be in place this spring.

d. Excellence Awards: The Executive Committee discussed with the Provost the concern raised by Professor Rollo-Koster that programs who graduate less than ten students had been informed that they could not select an Excellence Award winner from among their graduates.

Provost Swan said that this matter had recently been brought to her attention. She explained that the Office of the Provost had traditionally taken responsibility for the awards, but they were the President's Excellence Awards. She said that former Vice Provost Lord had developed some guidelines for smaller programs that she hadn't been aware of until recently.

During discussion, it was agreed that ten students appeared to be a somewhat arbitrary cutoff point. A suggested compromise was that programs graduating less than five students be asked to provide some justification as to why their selected student was excellent.

Provost Swan left the meeting at noon and the Executive Committee resumed its regular order of business.

5. The draft Agenda for Faculty Senate Meeting #7, March 25, 2004, was approved in final form.

6. Copies of a statement from the CBUM Committee with regard to college authority in situations where two affected colleges disagree were distributed. After discussion, it was agreed that the statement should be attached to the Minutes of the meeting (see below).

In addition, the CBUM Committee's response to procedural and parliamentary questions raised by the chair of the Biological Sciences Department was circulated for information.

7. The Executive Committee discussed possible topics for their meeting with President Carothers on March 23 and asked Chairperson Beckman to inform the President that they would like to devote the next meeting time to discuss how the Executive Committee can work within the JSPC to provide input to the budget decision-making process.

The Executive Committee also agreed that it would be important to pursue with the President the future of JSPC as an experiment extending beyond the current academic year. Included in this discussion should be a consideration whether the JSPC will continue having a meeting schedule similar to the present one with provision for summer payment and academic year release time support for members of the FSEC

8. The Executive Committee agreed to postpone until March 30 a discussion of their report to the Faculty Senate on their observations of the first year on the JSPC.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sheila Black Grubman



STATEMENT BY CBUM COMMITTEE

It is a long-standing tradition in higher education that colleges, similar to "faculties" at European universities, which historically have provided the model for American higher education, are considered as units in many respects autonomous and self-governing. At URI, this is recognized by various University Manual regulations governing colleges and college faculties, and concerning jurisdiction the General Faculty has delegated to college faculties (see University Manual provisions 4.32.10-11, 4.50.10-13, 8.81.10, 8.85.13-14, and others). Even though many decisions made by colleges need to be ratified by bodies beyond the colleges, there are decisions on significant matters which colleges dispose of internally (see, for example, University Manual provision 8.36.20), and even with regard to matters that colleges cannot finalize on their own, the rules in force at URI clearly specify that a proposal concerning a matter administered by a college must be approved by that college according to procedures established by that unit prior to submission to the bodies/persons having the authority for final approval (see, for example, University Manual provision 8.81.10).

Thus, a college cannot consider a proposal for a change to an academic venture currently administered by a home college until the proposal for the change has been approved by that home college.