Search
Southern Home PageAbout Southern Connecticut State UniversityAcademicsAdmissionsStudent LifeResearchAthleticsHuman Resources at Southern
Southern Connecticut State University LibraryMySCSUSouthern DirectoryCalendar of EventsTechnologyContact Us
Department Banner

Undergraduate Curriculum Forum (UCF)


Minutes 11/29/01

Present: C. Wieder, G. Puerschner, P. Cascella, B. Farley-Lucas, S. DiFrancesco, H. Podnar, J. Fopiano, J. Tait, C. Coron, J. Mills, B. Achhpal, M. Macomber, M. Shea, J. Yang, D. Soneson, C. Lukinbeal, T. Paddock, M. Thompson, F. Harris, N. Disbrow, W. Shyam, J. Fields, M. Hartog,R. Page, T. Gemme, D. Pettigrew, B. Gelbach, J. Critzer, C. Durwin, P. Hawley, P. Gallup, J. Bloch, V. Breslin, C. Mindell, B. Heinisch, B. Elwood, L. Rebeschi, L. Lancor, G. Puerschner, C. Barrett, N. DeCrosta, J. DeMarco, R. Gerber, M. Heidmann, K. Mauro
Guest: D. Walsh

I. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order by J.Tait at 9:40 am.

II. Announcements:

  • A writing workshop will be offered January 10 and January 11, 2002, sign-up is still open via e-mail

III. Approval of Meeting Minutes: The minutes of the previous UCF meeting (11/08/01) were accepted with an amended attendance list. Paperwork today included:

  • UCF Agenda 11/29/01
  • NPIC Minutes 11/15/01
  • NMC Minutes, 11/15/01
  • PRAC Minutes, 11/08/01
  • UWIC Minutes, 11/15/01

IV. Committee Reports:

Steering: The Steering Committee passed on it's Standing Committee Report.

Program Review & Assessment: (see Minutes, 11 /08/01). C. Coron (Chair) reported on the NEASC site-visit and the positive feedback the committee heard in its update. Monetary support is recommended by the committee for the ongoing assessment of the Score Program. The PRAC Minutes of 11/08/01 were accepted.

New Programs and Innovations: (See Minutes of 11/15/01) T. Paddock (Chair) reported that the committee recommends that departments include special topic shell courses in their catalogue descriptions. NPIC Minutes of 11//15/01 were accepted.

Notifications Management: (See Minutes, 11/15/01). J. Bloch (Chair) indicated that three courses were approved by the committee submitted from Exercise Science. Minutes of 11/15/01 were distributed at the general meeting of the UCF 11/29/01. It was noted that acceptance of the minutes equals acceptance of the courses. The minutes were accepted.

University Wide Impact: (see Minutes, 11/15/01). F. Harris (Chair) suggested that should the Writing Program not become approved, L Course responsibility will likely return to UWIC. A summarization of the minutes was provided and a discussion of the minutes followed with commentary by the UCF body. The mention in the UWIC Minutes of "first- and second-year faculty" can be amended if incorrect, stated the Chair.

A response from T. Paddock to UWIC minutes of 11-15-01 is included as an appendix to these minutes.

There followed a vote on calling the question. The question was called. The UWIC Minutes were accepted.

V. Comments by the UCF Membership on the Writing Board Proposal : The UCF heard further commentary and discussion regarding the proposal submitted by the Writing Board to establish the Southern Writing Program. Significant opinions and discussion followed with contributions made by both UCF members and guests. J. Tait gave priority in the discussion to those had not yet had an opportunity to present on this issue.

A vote was taken as to whether the committee was prepared at this time to proceed with a vote to accept the Writing Program Proposal.

9 - not ready to vote
17 - ready to vote

It was noted that amendments can be made to the proposal that was submitted. Given that understanding, the committee voted again as to whether it was prepared to move forward to consider the Writing Program.

5 - were not ready to vote
26 - ready to vote

G. Puerschner suggested a friendly amendment that the word "autonomous" be deleted from the Writing Proposal submitted.

The motion to accept the Writing Program Proposal with the word "autonomous" deleted was seconded and no objection was given to agree to accept this amendment.

It was asked if the motion was approved whether there is still room for flexibility within the structure of the Writing Board. Discussion followed and the consensus was that there would still be room for flexibility.

Call the Question:

1 abstention
0 opposed
30 accepted

It was noted that the vote to follow would not involve approving a specific structure for the Writing Program.

Motion was read by the secretary, J. Fopiano:

"Whereas the Pilot Southern Writing Program has met the criteria established by the UCF and also has created a program that fits within national mainstream standards, we present to the UCF the following recommendation in the form of a Motion:

The UCF hereby establishes the Southern Writing Program to build a culture of writing across Southern Connecticut State University and particularly to support faculty and students engaged in Writing Intensive courses. The program shall be coordinated by the Southern Writing Board, which shall be a permanent standing committee of the UCF."

Call the Question, P. Cascella

5 opposed
1 abstention
25 in favor

The motion passed as amended

25 in favor
4 opposed
2 abstentions

VI. Adjournment
1. A motion to adjourn the meeting was made, seconded and passed unanimously.
2. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 am.

Minutes recorded by:

Joy E. Fopiano
Department of Counseling and School Psychology

 

As per the UCF Chair's request, I have provided a written form of my comments. I tried not to include anything that I did not say at the meeting.

The University Wide Impact Committee (UWIC) minutes from their November 15, 2001 meeting contains the following section:

Various Impressions from Nov. 8 UCF Meeting:

  • Focus of discussion seems to have shifted from what is best for students to what is best for faculty.
  • Lack of trust of fellow faculty/Southern Writing Board members.
  • Critical writing got lost in the discussion. Wondered whether people are looking at two different guidelines.
  • Surprised at the passion and anguish displayed by some against the proposal
  • Those in opposition seem to be first- and second-year faculty prompted by senior faculty. They are arriving from a place of less bureaucracy to one of more bureaucracy here at Southern.

I readily grant that all members of the committee have a right to their impressions and opinion, and that UWIC can put whatever its members want in the minutes. However, minutes of a meeting are a public document and I am compelled to respond to UWIC's minutes because there are factual errors and because they do not provide a balanced account of the November 8, 2001 meeting.

1. It is factually wrong. The 5 people that I remember speaking out against the program, including myself, but not including Professors Walsh and Pettigrew, were all 4th year people, not first and second. At least some members of UWIC knew this. Moreover, to claim that they are merely pawns of senior faculty is insulting. It is possible for younger faculty to have opinions of their own, and those opinions may differ from the faculty on UWIC.

2. I also object to the term passion. Not because people were not passionate...they were, on both sides. I object to the singling out of one side as passionate, because the implicit counterpoint is that the other side was rational. By noting "surprise" at the passion, it is an attempt to discredit one side. Both sides were passionate, and both sides had reasonable positions.

3. Lack of trust of fellow faculty/Southern Writing Board members. Instead of answering the question of what problems do the opponents have with the SWP they are forced to answer the question why they do not trust the board. That was not the issue. Instead they should be asking why there appears to be a lack of trust. Is it based on actions or intentions, or is it simply a matter of misunderstanding and miscommunication (on both sides)?

4. Focus of discussion seems to have shifted from what is best for students to what is best for faculty. This kind of framing of the question is prejudicial. It implies that the faculty members opposing the program are selfish. Not only does it shift the focus of the debate from the discussion to the presenters, but it also presumes a dichotomy that I will not accept. Things do not have to be either better for the students OR better for the faculty. One could easily argue that what is best for faculty is best for students, because the more time that faculty have to concentrate on their main function, teaching, the more the students can benefit.

Regardless of what side of the debate the members of the UCF were on, I think this provides a more balanced view of the discussion. Dissent is a vital aspect of any discussion. It does all parties a disservice to present a prejudicial account.

Troy Paddock

Assistant Professor of History