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 January 30, 2003 (amended)

Present:

J. Manzella, C. Wieder, J. Pang, G. Kowalczyk, S. DiFrancesco, H. Podnar, J. Tait, C. Coron, J. Halstead, B. Achhpal, N. Marano, N. Wilder, D. Soneson, C. Lukinbeal, T. Paddock, M. Thompson, W. Shyam, J. Fields, R. Mugno, K. Burke, W. O'Brien, R. Page, T. Gemme, S. Bochain, K. Buterbaugh, C. Durwin, C. Novosad, S. Selenskas, V. Breslin, J. Bloch, E. Johnston, E. Elwood, C. Barrett, J. DeMarco, R. Amenta, M. Heidmann, K. Mauro

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order by Jim Tait at 9:45

II. Announcements

Please arrive promptly at 9:35.

Christine and baby are doing well. Email photos of baby Stanton are available. Susan Tiso has generously agreed to help UCF continue to function while Christine recovers. Susan received a vote of appreciation for her efforts.

III. Approval of Meeting Minutes

UCF Minutes of 12/12/02 were sent back for further revision. Some offhand commentary of the NMC meeting of 12/5/02 needs to be deleted.

IV. Standing Committee Reports

Notifications Management (NMC) minutes of 12/19/02 were tabled.

There was some confusion over why the MDS 350 course was withdrawn. Some committee members had the impression that it would be resubmitted after further discussion with the Music Department, while others had the impression that it would not be resubmitted, and was withdrawn for a variety of reasons beyond the Music Department. Consequently a proposal was made to add the qualifier "may" to the phrase concerning resubmission of the course proposal.

Another controversy arose of an anthropology course which had been sent back to the School Curriculum Committee (SCC). Troy Paddock challenged this development as procedurally incorrect and creating ill will. Paddock said that the SCC had reviewed the course proposal twice, and asked for contradictory revisions - the first version had an inadequately short rationale, and the second version was rejected for a rationale that was too long and comprehensive. In circumstances such as this, Troy argued, the UCF serves as an appeals board, and can overrule the SCC. The SCC should be notified of any substantial changes, but they lose their veto power. Some NMC members were surprised by this information, and asserted that had they known, the process would have been different. NMC chair Bloch insisted that this information had been shared during the meeting, and that the proposal was sent back to the SCC because it appeared they were deliberately and needlessly bypassed, and they have a right to know. At this point UCF chair Tait noted that there were serious procedural issues that need to be addressed, and requested a motion to table the minutes, pending clarification. The motion was seconded and approved.

New Programs and Innovations (NPIC) did not meet.

Program Review and Assessment (PRAC) did not meet.

University-Wide Impact (UWIC) did not meet.

Steering Committee did not meet.

 

V. Discussion

Constitution

Chair Tait explained that the revised UCF constitution is being evaluated by the Senate Rules committee, which then makes a recommendation to the Full Senate, who vote to approve or reject it. The Rules committee has some concerns, and the UCF has some options to consider concerning an appropriate response:

  • gnore their concerns, and simply move on to the full senate
  • Address their concerns, and revise the new constitution
  • Have the UCF chair and the Rules Committee chair meet and work it out
  • Have a UCF committee or subcommittee meet with the Rules Committee
  • Discuss Rules Committee recommendations as a general body

Jim Tait summarized the feedback as a call to return to the language of the original constitution, and to make revisions based on that template. While original instructions from the Senate suggested the old constitution was a temporary document in need of significant revision, the new feedback suggested that old constitution was an official, permanent document that is merely subject to revision. The Rules Committee requested amendments to the old constitution, not a significantly different new constitution.

Some UCF members suggested that we opt not to make any further changes to the constitution. Jim noted the risk of this approach was the consequences of a Senate rejection vote - we would be back to square one, and the UCF must have a constitution.

UCF members were unanimous in their need for clarification. J. Tait and others will meet with Senate Rules Committee to determine specifically the revisions the committee suggests.

Procedural Issues

The procedure for appealing a decision by a SCC is outlined in the UCF Flow of Proposals document. This document needs updating and this will be done by the steering committee.

Assessment

Cooperation between PRAC and administration is very poor, must improve. They have a meeting with Ellen O'Sullivan tomorrow. Troy Paddock noted that progress must include some element of commitment and accountability from the administration.

Writing Board

Review the items for further discussion, and they will be discussed next time..

Troy moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:40, seconded.

 

VI. Items for Further Discussion

The need and goals for the WACC, the appointment process, and the committee composition have already been voted on and approved. Some issues remain:

  • What policy should govern the participation of non-voting volunteer observers attending WACC?
  • How should the departmental template process be monitored and evaluated?
  • Do we certify courses or instructors? There are three options:
  1. Once a course is certified, both course requirements and instructors can be changed at will, even if they do not meet writing standards. (current situation)
  2. Once a course is certified, any instructor can teach the course so long as he or she follows the content and outline of the approved course syllabus.
  3. Only certified instructors can teach writing intensive courses.
  • What should a re-certification process involve?
  • Are forms necessary, or should instructors merely receive a checklist, and have the option of including approvals, notification information, etc. in other formats?
  • Should the UCF insist on a monitoring and evaluation function to assess writing course effectiveness?
  • What is the process for submitting ongoing feedback about the writing program?