REGULAR MEETING OF THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
May 4, 1992 and
May 11, 1992
MINUTES
Senator not in attendance at the May 4 meeting: Alfred Wedel
Senators excused from the May 4 meeting: David Bellamy, Kenneth Biederman,
Costel Denson, Alexander Doberenz,
Robert Knecht, Frank Murray, Larry
Peterson, John Pikulski, David P.
Roselle, Carolyn Thoroughgood
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
The Senate adopted the Agenda with slight changes in wording as
presented by President Taggart.
II. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Senate Larry Peterson was excused from the last meeting rather than
absent. The Senate approved the Minutes of April 6, 1992 with this
change.
III. REMARKS BY PROVOST PIPES
Provost Pipes shared statistics about admissions and the 1992 entering
class, announcing a projected class of 3100 entering students with
higher SAT scores and more African-American students. He also announced
a $300,000 scholarship pool offered to the top 10% of admitted students.
IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS
President Taggart reminded Senate Committee Chairpersons that Annual
Reports are due, that there will be an open hearing May 24 on the
request for approval of name and location change for the Existing Master
of Instruction in Economic Education degree which is being changed to
Master of Arts in Economics for Educators in the College of Business and
Economics. He also thanked committee chairpersons for their work this
year.
V. NEW BUSINESS
Item A. Election of Senate Officers, carried on during the beginning of
the Faculty Senate meeting resulted in the election of the following
Senate Officers:
President-Elect Bonnie K. Scott (English)
Vice President David Sperry (Life & Health
Sciences)
Secretary Judith Roof (English)
The Senate also elected Frank Dilley to the Committee on Committees and
Nominations, and Arthur Sloane, David Haslett, and Bilian Cicin-Sain to
the Committee on Rules.
Item B. A slate of persons nominated for committee positions by the
Committee on Committees and Nominations was approved by the full Faculty
Senate. (Copy of the Committee appointments is attached.)
Item C. Recommendation from the Committee on Undergraduate Studies
(M.Keefe, Chairperson), with the concurrence of the Coordinating
Committee on Education (K. Lomax, Chairperson), for approval of a new
Honors Baccalaureate Degree in Food Science. After questions about the
Honors status of 600-level courses and the grade-point requirement, the
Faculty Senate approved the following resolution:
RESOLVED, that the Faculty Senate approves the establishment of
a new Honors Baccalaureate Degree in Food Science,
effective immediately.
Item D. Recommendation from the Committee on Graduate Studies (R.
Dalrymple, Chairperson), with the concurrence of the Coordinating
Committee on Education (K. Lomax, Chairperson), for provisional approval
of the Coursework option in the Master of Mechanical Engineering Degree.
The Faculty Senate passed the following resolution:
RESOLVED, that the Faculty Senate approves provisionally, for
four years, the Coursework (non-thesis) option in the
Master of Mechanical Engineering, effective
immediately.
Item E. Recommendation from the Committee on Undergraduate Studies (M.
Keefe, Chairperson), with the concurrence of the Coordinating Committee
on Education (K. Lomax, Chairperson), to specify that Reading Day is
intended as a day set aside for studying. After establishing that the
resolution would take effect in the Autumn, and after discussion about
the potential loss of faculty and student flexibility, and pressures on
students who would like exams when scheduled, the Faculty Senate
approved the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the purpose of a University-wide Reading Day is to
give students a day free of exams and allow them to
review for upcoming finals and to complete projects,
therefore be it
RESOLVED, that no exams may be given on Reading Day and that
this statement be inserted in the Faculty Handbook,
Section II, as paragraph 4 under II.2. "Examinations
and Tests," page II-3.
Item F. Recommendations from the Committee on Academic Appeals (E. N.
Simons, Chairperson), with the concurrence of the Committee on Graduate
Studies (R. Dalrymple, Chairperson), and the Committee on Undergraduate
Studies (M. Keefe, Chairperson), to revise Step 3 and Step 4 of the
Student Grievance Procedure. The first resolution proposed that one
procedure be utilized by all Step 3 hearing committees. After a minor
change in the text and passage of a motion to strike the words
"whichever comes first," from the proposed rule, the Faculty Senate
approved the following resolution (with changes):
RESOLUTION ONE
WHEREAS, there has not been a clearly defined, consistent
procedure for different departments and colleges to
use in conducting Step 3 hearings, and
WHEREAS, it has become clear that different students have
received different treatments in different departments
by not having any consistent procedure used for Step 3
hearings, therefore be it
RESOLVED, that one procedure be utilized by all Step 3 hearing
committees to better insure that all students receive
similar treatment. (The following recommendations for
Step 3 Procedures would be added to Section II,
paragraph 4. "Student Grievance Procedure," page II-5,
of the Faculty Handbook:)
Step 3) A student or faculty member who is not satisfied with the decision
reached in Step 2 may appeal to the concerned college Dean. This
appeal to Step 3 must be made no more than three weeks (within a
regular Fall or Spring semester) after Step 2 has been completed.
The College Dean will establish a hearing panel within two weeks of
receipt of an appeal or if that is too close to the end of a regular
Semester, by one month after the beginning of the next regular
Semester (Fall or Spring). The college hearing panel will hear the
appeal during a regular semester. Typically the panel will include
three faculty members with one (only) of them coming from the
involved department and the other two drawn from other departments
within that college, or, where necessary from other colleges when
the concerned college has few or no departmental divisions. There
should be two undergraduate student members for an undergraduate
appeal or two graduate student members for a graduate appeal and
neither of the student members should come from the department
involved. (These students may be drawn from other colleges, also.)
Where feasible, the student and professor concerned must both be
present at any/all hearing/s when evidence is being presented.
The procedures utilized by colleges relating to the student
grievance procedure at Step 3 should conform to the general
principles of due process. To satisfy this standard, the hearing
process should, at least:
A. Fully inform the student and faculty member in writing of the
procedures to be used so that they are aware of them in advance
of the hearing.
B. Make available to the student and faculty member, at least
three working days prior to the hearing, all material which
has been furnished to the college hearing panel that will be
presented as evidence and the names of any witnesses who are
scheduled to give testimony.
C. Allow the student and faculty member to:
1. Hear all testimony and examine all evidence presented on
behalf of the other;
2. question witnesses and/or each other about their testimony
or evidence presented;
3. be assisted by an advisor of his or her choice from among
the members of the University community. The advisor may
help prepare the case, raise questions during the hearing,
and, if appropriate, help prepare an appeal to Step 4. A
department Chairperson who has mediated or attempted
mediation at Step 2 would not be permitted to serve as
advisor to either party beyond Step 2.
4. Make a summary statement at the conclusion of the hearing.
There must be a decision made at Step 3 before an appeal can be made
to Step 4.
It is recommended that all hearings be tape recorded and those tape
recordings be secured for no less than one year by the concerned
college Dean's office.
It is recommended that a copy of the written report of the decision
be filed with the appointing Dean's office at the time it is sent to
the student and professor involved.
The second resolution set time limits within which Step 4 Hearings must
be held. After discussion about the possibility of exceptions, what is
necessary to make an appeal, and Senate approval of a motion to change
the language of the rule, the Faculty Senate approved the following
resolution (with changes):
RESOLUTION TWO
WHEREAS, there has been no time limits set for appeals to the
final Step 4 level of academic appeals and some have
arrived more than two years after the grievable
incident, therefore be it
RESOLVED, that an appeal must be initiated within 30 days of the
Step 3 appeal being issued. (This change to Step 4
would be added to the "Student Grievance Procedure" in
the Faculty Handbook, Section II, middle of page II-
5.)
Step 4) A student or faculty member who is not satisfied with the fairness
or thoroughness of the procedures used in Step 3 may appeal to the
Academic Appeals Committee of the University Faculty Senate. This
appeal must be made to Step 4 no more than one month (within a
regular Fall or Spring semester) after a Step 3 decision is issued.
This Committee, on reviewing the case, may uphold the decision of
the college committee without a hearing, or it may decide the appeal
should be heard.
For purposes of a hearing, the Chairperson of the Academic Appeals
Committee may . .
..
Item G. Recommendation from the Committee on Student Life (R. Bennett,
Chairperson), for revisions to the Academic Dishonesty Policy.
The Faculty Senate discussed the wisdom of the proposed Policy's
shift of responsibility for prosecution and penalty of cases of
academic dishonesty to faculty members, argued whether the
proposed Policy's apparently greater leniency was desirable,
discussed the mechanics of the proposed procedures, debated the
merits of the Proposed Policy's greater flexibility, considered
whether the proposed Policy provides sufficient fairness and
consistency, and after defeat of a motion to return the proposed
Policy to the Committee, the Faculty Senate approved the
following Resolution:
WHEREAS, the Dean of Student's Office has received complaints
from faculty and students about the current academic
dishonesty procedures and sanctions, and
WHEREAS, the complaints have centered on the laborious nature
of the due process system and the inflexibility of the
current system, and
WHEREAS, the number of academic dishonesty cases has diminished
sharply from 69 two years ago to 32 last year,
therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the current policies and procedures concerning
academic dishonesty in The Official Student Handbook
1991-1992 be amended as indicated in Attachment 6 of
the Agenda.
The first meeting of the May session was adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Judith Roof
Senate Secretary
rg
Attachment