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 2/27/03 (revised)

Present:

K. Skoczen, C. Wieder, J. Pang, S. DiFrancesco, R. Glinka, H. Podnar, M. Colleary, C. Coron, A. Abugri, J. Halstead, B. Achhpal, N. Marano, N. Henderson, C. Lukinbeal, T. Paddock, M. Thompson, N. Disbrow, W. Shyam, K. Swenson, J. Fields, R. Mugno, K. Burke, W. O'Brien, S. Lueder, S. Bochain, K. Gatzke, K. Buterbaugh, C. Cisero Durwin, C. Novosad, S. Selenskas, V. Breslin, J. Bloch, B. Elwood, C. Ogbaa, C. Barrett, L. Cruz, M. Heidmann, K. Mauro

I. Call to Order

Cynthia Coron called the meeting to order at 9:45 a.m.

II. Announcements

Troy Paddock invited all to a discussion about the impending war with Iraq. This discussion will be held Friday, February 28th from 1:00 - 2:30 in Engleman A120, the Rotunda.

Mark Heidmann announced that the 3rd year of the L Course writing contest will begin soon. Please discuss this invitation to submit L Course papers with your students. There will be a cash prize and papers will be published.

The THR Department production of "Little Shop of Horrors" will begin Friday.

III. Approval of Meeting Minutes

The UCF minutes from 2/13/03 were accepted pending the correction of the attendance list.

IV. Standing Committee Reports

Steering Committee

Discussion focused on today's agenda. A decision was made to bring the UCF Flow of Proposals document to the UCF body for a discussion of needed revisions, although there will be no vote taken today on proposed revisions. Lynn Kohrn, the registrar, will be invited to the April 3rd UCF meeting to discuss implementation of the new Banner module, CAPP.

Notifications Management (NMC) minutes of 12/19/02 were accepted. The minutes of 2/20/03 were accepted as amended (SOC 200 is a 4 credit course with lab). It was noted that UWIC will be looking into courses with lab credit requirements.

New Programs and Innovations (NPIC) minutes of 2/06/03 and 2/20/03 were accepted.

The committee plans to submit a proposal for interdisciplinary minors at the next meeting.

Program Review and Assessment (PRAC) held no meeting. Ellen O'Sullivan will be joining the committee at their next meeting.

University-Wide Impact (UWIC) minutes of 2/20/03 were accepted. UWIC will be looking at the impact of 4 credit courses on students.

V. UCF Flow of Proposals Discussion

The UCF was reminded that there would be no formal vote taken today on revisions to the document.

The discussion focused on approval time limits, the "pocket approvals" that are given. There were questions about when the time "clock" starts for pocket approval and it was noted that a committee must have taken one of the outlined actions.

C. Coron asked if 3 weeks is a sufficient time period. It was noted that 4 months is too long, 2 months may be better, and that 2 months should be the maximum. It is not specified in the current document whether it is calendar time or academic time. M. Heidmann noted that the intention was to use the academic calendar.

Sense of the body was that a significant majority felt that the 4 month time period needs to be reduced to 2 months.

Comments:

  • The calendar needs to be more clearly specified - is it the academic or calendar year? What happens over the summer?
  • SCCs should be given opportunity to "weigh-in" on time limits imposed.
  • It is important to keep in mind how often SCCs meet when considering a 3 week pocket approval. The process needs to allow for a little more flexibility.
  • Course revisions should be routine and therefore shouldn't require extensive discussion. There should be a distinction between minor and major revisions.
  • Some SCCs don't meet regularly (business doesn't occur very often) so it was suggested that, instead of 3 weeks, the time limit should be no longer than the 2nd meeting or a certain time limit and that the SCC should be able to at least start a discussion of a proposal within the 2nd meeting.
  • Suggestion was made to change the SCC time limit to 4 weeks, which allows for a meeting every 2 weeks, and that SCCs should be asked to meet every 2 weeks.
  • Sense of body: Although most members thought that 4 weeks is okay, there was some opposition by those who wanted to keep the time limit to 3 weeks. A general sense of body was that 3 weeks is okay.

M. Heidmann requested a discussion about putting time limits on UCF actions and noted that there is no time limit now specified.

Comments:

  • T. Paddock assumed that the time limit was intended to be true for all levels of approval.
  • B Elwood questioned if all the time limits add up to too long of a time period. He wants to avoid "dragging out" the approval process.
  • There was a suggestion to revise the NMC time limit from 4 months to 2 months, similar to the SCC revision. However, it was felt to be a non-issue because UCF accepts subcommittee minutes usually within 2 weeks. It was pointed out that the NMC minutes of 12/09/02 took 2 months to be accepted by UCF.
  • It was noted that some motions come from the floor without coming through the subcommittee process.
  • M. Heidmann recommended 4 academic months from receipt of a proposal to approval by the whole body. He pointed out that the process is interdepartmental and inter-school, and that the UCF needs sufficient time for discussion.
  • It was questioned whether or not the UCF should be putting time limits on UCF action and appeals.
  • It was noted that there are different kinds of issues: revised courses, new courses, program revisions, and motions brought directly to the floor of UCF.
  • The question was raised whether or not individuals have the power to bring proposals directly to floor. Does an individual have the power to force a vote?
  • Sense of the body - The majority would like to see a time limit on UCF action in several categories.

Other general comments:

  • Shell courses should have a separate listing of procedures in the flow of proposals.
  • There was a request to make the flow chart available to the SCCs and put it on the web site.
  • How should minor course revisions be handled? The process needs to be simplified for minor revisions. What is a "minor revision"? A suggestion was made to let the department level DCCs handle the designation that a revision is minor.
  • Some issues have gone directly to the UCF chair to be decided. Should a proposer be able to appeal directly to the UCF chair?
  • Should there be specific categories for minor revisions and a petition to the chair?
  • An editorial comment was made: There seems to be a lot of redundancy in actions that can be taken. Can there be reference back to a procedure? The wording needs to minimized so the document will be read.
  • The human diversity and L course procedure needs to be rewritten.

VI. Adjournment 10:45 a.m.