Undergraduate Curriculum Forum (UCF)
Minutes 11/11/04 (amended)
Present
B. Horn, C. LaDousa, B. Phelan, M. Bills, J. Feng, G. Kowalczyk, G. DeJarnette, R. Glinka, S. DiFrancesco, H. Podnar, K. Barrett, T. Fleming, A. Abugri, B. Achhpal, N. Henderson, M. Shea, E. Schmitt, L. Yacher, N. Chissidis, W. Shyam, L. Bier, J. Fields, R. Mugno, K. Burke, C. Dellinger-Pate, R. Kustin, S. Bochain, K. Gatzke, K. Cummings, C. Novosad, M. Vancour, R. Hunter, J. Tolis, J. Tait, W. O'Brien, C. Kim, P. Whelan, J. Mielczarski, L. Kohrn, K. Laing, K. Mauro, K. Buterbaugh
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9:45 a.m.
II. Announcements
No announcements.
III. Approval of UCF Minutes of 10/28/04
The UCF minutes of 10/28/04 were approved.
IV. Reception of Standing Committee Minutes and Approval of Standing Committee Motions
Steering Committee
No report.
Notifications Management (NMC)
Minutes of 10/28/04 received.
Motion: to approve the following:
Changes to Minors in English.
FLA 403
FLA program revision.
PCH 430 (approved pending correction to prerequisite)
SOC 490 (approved pending change to prerequisite)
SOC 495 (approved pending change to prerequisite)
SOC 497 (approved pending change to prerequisite)
Motion passes. Unanimous.
New Programs and Innovations (NPIC)
The NPIC minutes of 10/28/04 were received.
NPIC is in the process of discussing the change to the Communication Disorders Program.
Program Review and Assessment (PRAC)
The PRAC minutes of 10/28/04 were received.
PRAC discussed Dr. Wright's presentation on assessment, as well as faculty responses to assessment. PRAC will develop a grant proposal for a semester-long sequence of assessment workshops for faculty.
University-Wide Impact Committee (UWIC)
UWIC minutes of 10/28/03 were received.
UWIC discussed their charge to consider enfranchising new programs and concluded that it was not within their role. They referred the issue to the steering committee.
Writing Across the Curriculum (WACC)
No report.
V. Chair's Comments
The chair commented on the following issues:
· Although there has been some confusion, alternates, as well as representatives, are expected to serve on subcommittees.
· Members should try to arrive earlier, so we can start our meetings on time.
· There has been some difficulty scheduling steering committee meeting times and the chair asked steering committee members to stay afterwards to discuss this.
· Recently, some subcommittees have been reluctant to take up issues they are charged to discuss. The chair feels strongly that it is more efficient for subcommittees, rather than the UCF body, to begin the discussion of certain issues.
· At our last meeting, we did not necessarily treat our guest speaker with the respect due to an invited speaker.
VI. Discussion concerning faculty referendum standards for approving the Gen Ed Task Force proposal
The chair returned us to the issue about constitutional change regarding the criteria for passing changes to the General Education program. He explained that our previous vote, in the spring, resulted in no change to the existing policy, which didn't appear to satisfy the wishes of the UCF body, who were split between two options for change and were, therefore, unable to pass either.
Karen Cummings explained that the existing policy requires approval by 50% of the entire faculty, an impossibility considering poor voter turnout. She suggested we review the two alternatives between which we were split last time.
Mike Shea asked new members who might not be familiar with the discussion to raise their hands and urged them to ask questions to clarify. At least three members raised their hands.
There was some concern about attempting to vote on a constitutional change while our new constitution is still under review. It was pointed out that the constitution approval process is moving forward and that we can go ahead and vote on change before the constitution is approved.
Mike Shea explained that in the past, under UCIC, the bar for approving Gen Ed program changes was only 50% of the faculty voting. He pointed out that, regardless of what some see as a low bar, in the 34 years of the current Gen Ed program, there have been only two changes approved. Because of this, he doesn't think faculty should be concerned with a lower bar and he recommends that we return to the 50% of faculty voting bar.
Jim Tait did some research to see the bar required by the Senate in comparable situations. In one case, the Senate requires a majority of faculty voting with no quorum, the same described by Mike Shea. In the other case, a quorum is set for 50% + one to turn out for voting, and of this quorum, a simple majority is required. In another example, 2/3 of those voting is required. The last example requires 25% of full-time faculty votes in favor or 50% + one of those voting, whichever is greater. This last one was enacted several years ago because they felt their bar was too high, and they deliberately lowered the bar to what they felt was reasonable.
Mike Shea presented the following motion:
Motion -That we change Article I, item D to the following: major changes to all university requirements shall be ratified by a simple majority of the full-time faculty voting with the referendum to be conducted by the Senate Elections committee.
In favor 22
Opposed 10
Abstentions 1
Motion fails.
Kim Laing presented an alternative motion, a simple majority, as long as 50% plus one of the full-time faculty vote.
Mike Shea said he's in favor of the spirit of this motion, but worries about the problem to pin that number down, that it depends on something external to determine that number. Wes O'Brien said the Senate has admitted having trouble figuring out that number. Jim Tait said an advantage of giving the task to the SEC is that the number will need to be updated and it is best if one body does this. Ray Mugno wondered why there is such a problem in getting the number, considering ballots need to be sent out. He wondered why they don't just count the ballots to determine the number.
Motion: that we change Article I, item D to the following: major changes to all university requirements shall be ratified by a simple majority as long as 50% plus one of the full-time faculty vote, with the referendum to be conducted by the Senate Elections Committee.
In favor 32
Opposed 1
Abstentions 1
Motion passes.
VII. Registrar's Office
Lynn Kohrn and Kim Laing explained that there is some confusion with the repeat policy in terms of banner and presented this motion:
Motion - That we change the repeat policy in the catalog to read that we will count the highest grade for earned credit.
Motion passes. Unanimous.
VIII. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:53 a.m.
Minutes recorded by Nicole Henderson, Secretary for UCF
