Eastern Mennonite University

Eastern Mennonite University
Undergraduate Council
October 15, 2007
#4
CC350

Present: Marie Morris, Kim Brenneman, Spencer Cowles, Vi Dutcher, Cathy Smeltzer Erb, Joan Griffing, Cyndi Gusler, Doug Graber Neufeld, Nancy Heisey, Elroy Miller, Patrick Reynolds, Gloria Rhodes, Deirdre Smeltzer, Arlene Wiens, Lester Zook
Student Rep: Sara Roth
Absent: Mary Sprunger, Lindsey Grosh

1. Spencer made copies of Psalm 146, and the group together recited it as a prayer.

2. Approval of October 8th minutes
Nancy reviewed the motions from the Oct. 8th meeting. Regarding the motion for VACA to assume responsibilities for the speech requirement, an amendment was added.
Amendment: The phrase, including providing a rationale for such a course, will be added to the assignment given to VACA and GVCC.
Amendment passed.

Beth Aracena noted that while GVCC accepts the Oct. 8 th motions the timeline is problematic, simply because of competing issues for GVCC’s attention. With no other comments, by consensus the minutes were approved with the above amendment.

3. Announcements

Marie made the following announcements:

4. Unfinished agenda items from 10/8 meeting

The council felt it was difficult to make a formal statement when the job descriptions for these positions have not been created. It was recommended by ASTF that the Associate Provost oversee a Center for Teaching and Learning, which has yet to be developed. The search for a new provost is in the beginning stages. It was noted that the job description for the provost seems to be redefining the role as that of a chief academic officer rather than a “chief operating officer,” therefore it is premature to move forward with new positions.

By consensus, the Undergraduate Council formally makes the following statement:

The Undergraduate Council urges the president’s cabinet to delay a search for an associate provost for a Teaching and Learning Center, and other administrative positions, including a Graduate Dean, until a clear planning process can be put into place that includes faculty input. In a time of reduction, faculty are especially concerned about allocating more resources to new administrative positions and want to be part of any ongoing process.

Cyndi referred to a poll taken in April 2003 and found that it might be productive to take a similar poll now to determine what faculty believe the needs are in a speech requirement. It had been suggested in 2003 that we develop a rubric for oral presentations.

Beth noted that GVCC will seek students’ viewpoints on curriculum revision. It was suggested that perhaps GVCC should speak with departments that already have courses that address speech requirement issues.

It needs to be determined what kind of courses students need, oratory, rhetoric and/or interpersonal communication.

A year ago four departments collaborated together on an interpersonal communications course (i.e. Psychology, JPCS, Social Work, & Nursing). This experiment was not as successful as hoped but it may be worth revisiting this past model. The model consisted of a 2SH course that students in all the participating departments took and then a 1 SH discipline-specific supplemental section.

It is clear that whatever we might have in the way of oral/speech communication must reflect EMU’s distinctives.

Motion: That we proceed as planned with our speech recommendation in the Implementation Plan. The current proposal offers 0 SH in the “low” column and 6 SH in the “high.” Without more work on this area it is impossible to predict specific FTE savings.
Approved.

GVCC’s foremost concern is with the legal responsibilities to students who matriculated this year and even those who will matriculate next year. GVCC is also concerned with SACS response to program revisions. Marie outlined that the compliance audit will take place in fall of 2009. In the spring of 2010, a team visit for the QEP will be held which SACS must approve before implementing. EMU will then have five years to carry out the plan. It is expected that a revised FYS will begin in fall of 2008, and then work on a distributive model and senior capstone will follow. It was noted that changes can be made in stages, and Marie feels it is acceptable to be in the midst of the changes during the accreditation phase. Marie and GVCC would like to set a timeline for each phase. Some feel the current timeline is ambitious and that faculty are currently too overwhelmed with teaching responsibilities, along with working through prioritization recommendations, to be effective in working on details of the needed changes to GVC. Faculty’s voice must be heard concerning GVCC, as mandated by SACS.

The following statement will be submitted to the President’s Cabinet:

The Undergraduate Council has given the responsibility to Marie Morris, vice president & undergraduate academic dean, and Beth Aracena, associate dean for curriculum, to map out a timeline for GVC revision. It was noted that everyone must be willing to meet these expectations. Departments will be expected to achieve the Implementation Plan recommendations, apart from the GVC recommendations, by Fall 2009.

It was suggested that EMU should admit that the changes to GVC are in part due to financial stress; to omit this fact would untruthful.

Each department chair was polled as to whether they support submission of the Implementation Plan, as is, knowing the 11.49 FTE goal is not met or whether they support additional work now to achieve the full reduction. While some feel council could, or should, do more, others felt that any further cuts would involve eliminating an entire program with personnel implications. The consensus was to submit the plan as is. It was noted, however, that if the plan is not acceptable to President’s Cabinet, and Cabinet wishes to recommend elimination of any programs, this should be referenced with Undergraduate Council.

Marie stated that she, Ron Piper, Beryl Brubaker, Deirdre Smeltzer, Nancy Heisey, and Spencer Cowles will meet to have further conversation regarding how hours are counted towards the undergraduate faculty/student ratio. The goal of this meeting is to come to a mutual understanding regarding FTE and ratio calculations.

Recorder,
Cheryl Doss