UCF Chairperson Report - March 12, 2009

Motion

There has been a lively and thoughtful discussion over the past week regarding the motion that is currently in place for the LEP:

The Steering Committee moves that the Liberal Education Proposal, written by the General Education Task Force, be brought to the Faculty Senate for its consideration and then to the faculty for referendum vote.

Members of the UCF Steering Committee as well as members of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee have exchanged emails and had discussions regarding whether or not the motion, which I will call the move forward motion is the appropriate one to be voted on by UCF. Most individuals who participated in the exchange feel that UCF should vote to approve or not approve the LEP proposal itself and not only vote on whether the proposal should go to the Senate for faculty referendum.

Some of the points of discussion were:
• UCF is the university's curricular body. If the UCF is unable to come to a decision on the proposal, it sends an ambiguous message to the rest of the campus.
• If the proposal receives a positive vote in UCF, it makes the Senate process more expeditious in that a major faculty committee has endorsed it. This would make it less likely that lengthy discussion would be needed in the Senate before moving to a referendum.
• If the Senate receives the move forward resolution, it might be returned to UCF by the Senate for a vote on the proposal itself.

Based upon the above reasoning, the UCF Steering Committee would like to propose a substitute motion to replace the one on the table, as follows:

The Steering Committee moves that the Liberal Education Proposal, written by the General Education Task Force, be approved.

We believe this motion to be the more appropriate one, given the above deliberations. If this motion is approved, it will move on to the Senate for faculty referendum. If it is not approved, the GETF will be charged with modifying the proposal or beginning a new one. This will be decided following the vote through UCF discussion.

Meeting Guidelines

I would like to put some guidelines in place for our meeting in order to facilitate discussion. During our last meeting, we had a number of guests who were non-UCF members. Our guests were given an equal opportunity to speak as the UCF members. We would like to continue to welcome our guests, while giving priority to UCF members for speaking time, since there were many members who did not have an opportunity to speak at the last meeting.

• Therefore, at this meeting, we will request that guests sign in as guests. They will be recognized to speak only after all UCF members have been given an opportunity to speak once. Guests will be allowed to speak only once during the meeting.

Further:
• All speakers, UCF members and guests will be limited to a 2 minute commentary. This guideline will be in place to enable the discussion to move along and not digress on any one point for too long. There will be a timekeeper who will announce when 30 seconds remain in the commentary time.
• Speakers will not be recognized to speak a second time, until all others have had an opportunity to speak; second or third commentaries will be limited to 1 minute.
• Members who wish to ask a question of the GETF during their commentary should state that they cede the floor to a member of the GETF after asking the question. Their two minutes will be paused while the answer is given. GETF members are requested to keep their answers as brief as possible.

Once discussion has been exhausted, the motion will come to a vote. The other way the motion may come to a vote, is if a member of the UCF "calls the question." Since the question may be called during this meeting, I would like to clarify Robert's Rules on calling the question.

If the question is called, the Chair asks the members if anyone objects to calling the question. If no one objects, the vote on the motion is taken. If a member objects to calling the question, a vote ensues on calling the question. Members must agree by a two-thirds majority that they agree that the question should be called. If two-thirds agree, the motion comes to a vote. If the requisite two-thirds is not reached, the discussion continues.

Thanks to Bob Jirsa and Mark Heidmann, both excellent parliamentarians, who have provided assistance in outlining the above.

Deborah Weiss, UCF Chair

Undergraduate Curriculum Forum

Minutes
Adanti Student Center, Room 301A
Thursday, March 12, 2009

Present: Deborah Weiss (Chair), M. Narumanchi, K. Skoczen, R. Vaters-Carr, Y. del Amo, S. Grace, M. Das, O. Gulacar, S. Felsenfeld, I. Antonios, M. Generali, A. Abugri, N. Marano, M. McClain, C. Coron, M. Fede, D. Marino, E. Schmitt, E. West, B. Nakamura, T. Radice, J. McGinn, C. Simoneau, M. Hartog, W. O'Brien, E. Frank, R. Kustin, L. Rebeshchi, D. Flynn, R. Cain, D. Pettigrew, K. Gatzke, K. Cummings, J. O'hara, K. Marsland, J. Tait, M. Kiarie, G. Adams, M. Cameron, E. Keenan, J. Sullivan, E. Cornwell, T. Lin, J. Mielczarski, K. Barnett, G. Cochenet, S. Graves, K. Rondinone, M. Shea, D. Smith, D. Tomasko, K. Laing, D. Bentley-Drobish, A. Todaro, B. Kalk, C. Thompson

Absent: R. Glinka, L. Foss, J. Irving, J. Fields, A. Marsoobian, Q. Bright
Guests: R. Gilliland, L. Lancor, N. Henderson, B. Johnson, J. Jones, C. Stretch

I. The meeting was called to order at 9:35am

II. Announcements
• Announcements were skipped to save time.

III. Approval of UCF minutes of February 25, 2009
• Pending revisions all approved with no abstentions.

IV. Standing committee reports (minutes and committee motions)

a. NPIC - minutes received

MOTION: NPIC moves that UCF accept and approve the new minor program in Forensic Science. Motion was approved unanimously in NPIC. Please see the proposal attached to the minutes and/or posted on the UCF website.

• All approved minor with one abstention.
b. NMC - minutes received
• Motion to approve the following:
New Course Proposals

SOC 288 - Economic Sociology
ANT 442 - Advanced Forensic Anthropology
ACC 380 - Fraud and Forensic Accounting

Revised Course Proposals

ECO 440 - Regional Economic Integration
HIS 409 - Ethnic Groups and Ethnic Conflict: An International Perspective
HIS 410 - U.S. Social and Intellectual History
HIS 438 - The Evolution of Science to 1900
PSC 244 - Research Methods in Political Science
PSC 345 - Quantitative Analysis of Political Data

Revised Program Proposal

B.S. Anthropology: Concentration - Biological
B.S. Business: Concentration - Accounting
B.S. Business Administration: Concentration - Management of Information Systems
B.A. Mathematics
B.A. Political Science
B.S. Political Science
B.S. Political Science (7-12)

• All approved the above motions with one abstention.
c. WACC - minutes received
• Motion to approve the following:

Course: EXS 394, Elementary School Physical Education  Faculty: Daniel Swartz
Course: MGT 385, Human Resources Management   Faculty: Ellen Frank
Course: MGT 430, Managing the Multinational Corporation, Faculty: Ellen Frank
Course: Soc 100, Introduction to Sociology     Faculty: Shirley A. Jackson
Course: ENG 316, Business and Professional Writing   Faculty: Judy D. Tarbox
Course: PCH 358, Health Policy      Faculty:   Stanley H. Bernard
• All approved motions with no abstentions.
d. PRAC - minutes received, motions to be voted on at next meeting.
e. UWIC - minutes received
• Motion brought to UCF:
UWIC moves that the UCF approve a three-person committee to explore the desirability of creating a General Studies Program at Southern Connecticut State University. The UCF steering committee shall select the committee from volunteers representing the following constituencies: Office of Academic Affairs, the Dean of Arts and Sciences Office, and the faculty at large. The committee will report its findings to UWIC before the end of Fall 2009.
• To be tabled until next meeting to allow for more discussion.
V. Ad hoc reports (per committee request)
• General Education Task Force - asked that the members of UCF read the misconceptions report and is hoping that UCF will work quickly to decide the outcome of the Liberal Education Proposal.

VI. Old Business - Liberal Education Proposal
• At the end of the last meeting, the motion was on the table as follows:

• After the Steering Committee met, they offered a substitute motion to replace the one on the table:

The Steering Committee moves that the Liberal Education Proposal, written by the General Education Task Force, be approved.

• During the discussion on the new motion, several members were concerned that the new motion was different from what they discussed at their last department meeting and with their colleagues.
• All approved changing the motion with one abstention.
• The discussion turned to whether or not UCF approves the motion.
• D. Pettigrew voiced his concerns about resources needed to teach the courses, and that the technological fluency and critical thinking had not been defined in the LEP. He views Tier 1 as the 13th year (high school) and proposed that the alternate proposals could be used as an interim measure until a different proposal was presented.
• W. O'Brien wished to restate that he felt that the alternate proposals should be discussed and considered, but it was not his intention to imply that the alternate proposals did not have merit.
• K. Cummings felt that it is time to bring the LEP to the general faculty vote. She felt that the LEP is well-thought out and the faculty deserve a chance to vote on it. We owe it to GETF and the entire faculty to allow a broader voice. The plans for modifications and the three-year phase in are good for the UCF to continue to debate and update the LEP.
• D. Weiss reminded UCF that if the LEP does not pass, then the Senate will not bring it forward for the faculty to vote on it.
• K. Skoczen felt that she is in a difficult position. The new amendment is not what she discussed with her department and she feels that the general faculty views an endorsement from UCF as holding a great deal of weight.
• R. Vaters-Carr said that her department decisively changed their vote when it was to approve. They felt the ideas were great, but the model was not something they could get behind.
• M. Shea (ceded to K. Cummings). She asked if we could separate the two, forward the motion and then vote on approval. D. Weiss said that we already voted on amending the vote to approve the LEP.
• M. Shea discussed calling the question. UCF would need a 2/3 majority to call the question and there may not be that many that support calling the question. He also said that the Steering committee did not intend to pull an "end-run" on the vote.
• M. Narumanchi suggested that we put a timeline on the LEP that after 5 years we have an outside agency assess whether or not it is working.
• K. Gatzke asked the Senate President the process for the vote.
• B. Johnson (Senate president) - the Senate is the implementer of the referendum and does not vote to approve or not approve, they just send the proposal on to a faculty vote.
• D. Smith said that her small department is excited about the LEP. They usually get students after their first two years so they are thrilled that Tier 1 will be a scaffold for the students so when they take their W-courses, they are more prepared. They also like that the Tier 1 courses are packaged in a creative and exciting manner.
• M. Fede supports the LEP - their department is embracing the chance to create Tier 1 and Tier 2 courses that will support and promote a fit life for Southern students.
• J. Tait reminded us that our mission as a university is access for all students and the global economy will need students with college degrees and we need to provide our students with intellectual empowerment and an in-depth understanding of problem solving.
• J. McGinn's department, Library Science, also supports the LEP. They already have a lot of technology courses that would help meet the Technological Fluency course and are excited to prepare them for the new model.
• Several other departments announced their support as well: M. Hartog (Math), T. Lin (Women's Studies), M. Karie (Special Education).
• A. Abugri felt that this is the right time to move the LEP forward. He felt that the two motions were very similar and that UCF should not hold back the vote because they are concerned about approving the LEP.
• D. Bentley-Drobish said that the GETF went to a student group and said that the students who were shown the LEP were very enthusiastic about the program.
• R. Gilliland hopes that the body votes down the LEP. He feels that there are 4 misconceptions about the program: the non-disciplinary nature of the Tier 2 courses, the possible lack of oversight of these courses, the concern about creating courses out of thin air, the worry that the new program will be extremely overwhelming to enact, and the process of adjusting all of the Gen Ed courses at once that will be onerous to the faculty.
• L. Lancor (GETF) is concerned that if the LEP does not pass that we will have to assess our university using a 1983 document that has no goals and no objectives. She reminded us that Harvard started a 'critical skills course' very similar to our LEP.
• N. Henderson said that FYE is still trying to find itself, but that they could not have brought to UCF the 'perfect course' and that FYE was trusted to create and continue to build the course. She feels that the LEP will also develop and that it is time to move forward. She also reminded UCF that they will be voting to approve all new courses and if they are weak, we will be able to address that.
• C. Stretch has been advising 80 FYE students in every discipline and undeclared students. When she shows them the new proposal, they understand why they need general education courses. Rather than their view now, that taking a lot of courses will make them a well-rounded person, they see the LEP as a coherent process that will give them new insights into their world and the world around them.
• S. Graves supports the LEP and sees us as change agents that honor our past and prepare students for their future.
• R. Kustin called the question.
• D. Pettigrew objected to calling the question.
• D. Weiss held the vote to see if the body was ready to vote on the motion. There was a 2/3 majority, 33 approved the calling the question, 4 voted nay, and 2 abstained from voting.
• The motion was put forward via secret ballot. The secretary (Kathleen Rondinone) passed out the envelopes and then the UCF secretary (Sophia Myers) collected the ballots. After the votes were cast, the two secretaries counted the votes.
• They handed a folded paper with the final vote to D. Weiss who read off the final vote.
• The final vote: 35 for, 10 against and no abstentions. The motion has passed.

VII. New Business - after the LEP motion passed, the body had time for new business to be suggested.

• D. Pettigrew suggested that we look into how reassigned time is being given for assessment and ensure that it is fair for all departments.
• D. Weiss said that a detailed list will be available to the chairs by next week.
• K. Cummings asked that we ask the UCF to discuss the impact of combining FYE with ENG 111.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:00am
These minutes respectfully submitted by Kathleen Rondinone.
These minutes were updated on April 7, 2009.