Minutes of the Faculty Senate Meeting

February 27, 2002

 

http://www.scsu.ctstateu.edu/organizations/facultysenate

 

The tenth meeting of the 2001-2002 year was called to order at 12:15 PM.

 

Members Present:

Brownell (Art), Lavin (Art), Puerschner (Chemistry), Ullian (Communication), Coburn-Enquist (Communication), Jirsa (ComDisorder/MFT), DaPonte (Computer Science), Fullmer (Earth Science), Corbett (Education), Thorson (Econ/Finance), Petrie (English), Hood (English), Johnson (English), Mee (Exercise Science), Rinehardt (Exercise Science), Verplaetse (Foreign Language), Hernandez (Foreign Language), Judd (History), Sakalowsky (Geography), Dunklee (Jounalism), Petto (History), Bielefield (Library Science), Schofield-Bodt (Library Services), Prince (Marketing), Bennett (Math), Brin (Math), Wallace (Nursing), Prince (Part-time faculty), Dobbins (Part-time faculty), Young (Part-time faculty), Volkman (Philosophy), Broadbridge (Physics), Paulson (Political Science), Sherman (Psychology), Grants (Recreation/Leisure), Cusato (Science Ed/Env Stud), Dripchak (Social Work), Skoczen (Soc & Anthro), Brucker (Special Ed/Reading), Major (Special Ed/Reading), Watts (Theatre)

 

Members Absent:

(Accounting), Maloney (Athletics), Martinelli (Biology), Lawler (Counseling), Nwachuku (Couns/SchPsych), (Education), Cairns (Ed Leadership), Wu (Library Services), Nodoushani (Management), Moss (Music), Jexey Jack (Part-time faculty), Kahlbaugh (Psychology), Bulmer (Public Health), Haymes (Social Work)

 

Visitors

James Tait (UCF)

 

The minutes of February 13, 2002 were approved as amended.

 

UCF Update:

J. Tait reported that the UCF continues to work on its Constitution. He invited faculty comments and suggestions.

 

R. Jirsa moved that the agenda be changed so that the Academic Policy Committee’s suggestion regarding the Senate’s advice to the SCSU administration regarding the creation of a new “Media Studies Departement” would be the first item of business. The motion passed on a voice vote.

 

Standing Committee Reports:

1. Rules: No report.

 

2. Personnel Policy:

·      The committee is working on revising the P&T calendar with respect to the four day rebuttal period.

·      The committee is drafting a checklist for the P&T process, with recommended practices outlined.

·      The labor board has ruled in favor of AAUP on the scoping issues, including the part-time cap.

 

3. Student Policy: No report.

 

4. Technology:
• There are resolutions on the Agenda that we probably will not get to today. The resolutions are attached to the Agenda. They concern maintenance and support of high-tech classrooms.
• The current round of upgrades to faculty computers is scheduled for an April and May rollout.
• In response to a question from the floor, C. Petto reported that the scope of the Technology Committee could include specific technology issues in departments, and not just university-wide issues.

 

5. Academic Policy: Our suggestions regarding creation of a Media Studies Department will be the first item of business today.

 

6. Elections: No report.

 

7. Finance: There is currently about $3000 in the full-time travel account, and about $948 in the part-time account. An additional $9000 may be transferred from the faculty retraining account. The secretary will check the minutes to determine whether or not the Senate had already decided that some portion of this transfer should go to the part-time account.

 

Regarding the Creation of a New “Media Studies Department”

Since the Academic Policy Committee is working on this, the floor was turned to J. Fullmer, Chair.

 

The following is the Academic Policy Committee’s suggestion:

 

The APC suggests that the Senate advise the administration to reject the proposal that

“The Media Studies Specialization currently offered under the B.A. Communication Degree will be moved to a newly created Media Studies Department in the School of Arts and Sciences.”

 

The APC suggests that the Senate advise the administration to reject the creation of a new Media Studies Department.

 

Fullmer reported that the Committee was unanimous in its opposition to the current proposal. The committee’s rationale is attached.

The discussion began with some general comments from W. O’Brien and C. Dupe, members of the Communications Department who would be members of the proposed Media Studies Department:

 

• W. O’Brien: The Media Studies curriculum already exists and has been approved by UCF and the Department DCC, but this program cannot flourish under the current circumstances. Disagreements among those in the Communications Department over this issues—stemming from deep pedagogical and philosophical differences—have led to a breakdown in collegiality, and this can only be resolved by splitting off the Media Studies program from the Communications Department. The differences in pedagogy underlie any personality conflicts. This is a pedagogical issue, not a personnel issue.
• C. Dupe: Media Studies is not a nebulous discipline, but it is interdisciplinary and distinct from what our colleagues in the Communications Department do. On other campuses, Media Studies programs are often housed in their own departments, or they can be housed in Cultural Studies programs. It is not unusual that a Media Studies department would be distinct from the Communications Department.
• J. Ullian, chair of the Communications Department, added that the Media Studies program involves a very different point of view than the rest of the department, and in his judgment the department is too “thinly spread” to adequately service this program. He did not believe the change would impact current majors, and that it was in the best interests of those involved.

 

Questions from the Floor:

 

• It was noted that other programs (e.g., advertising) are currently in limbo, awaiting the resolution of this matter.
• Why wasn’t a Major in this area developed before the request for a new department, as in other disciplines (e.g., Anthropology)? Proponents of the Media Studies Department explained that the current circumstances do not provide them with sufficient support to develop a Major.
• Has the Media Studies curriculum run before? Were there problems? Proponents of the split explained that the courses ran, but they were not sufficiently supported by the Communications Department. Electives were “killed” and additional sections were denied. J. Ullian explained that the Department was not offering greater support for these programs precisely because of the philosophical differences cited above. R. Conway, who would be a member of the Media Studies Department if the proposal is accepted, illustrated the pedagogical differences at stake by explaining how the curriculum was working at cross-purposes; a technical course taught by one member of the current Communications Department would be a theory course if taught by another.
• Does the Senate have to decide today? No. But we should decide soon. Some members of the APC noted that the creation of a Media Studies Department might not be a bad idea in itself, but that the current proposal was unacceptable. Some Senators expressed uneasiness about blocking or accepting this move without seeing the proposal itself.

 

R. Volkman moved to amend the APC’s suggestion to read as follows:

 

The APC suggests that the Senate advise the administration to reject the proposal that

 

“The Media Studies Specialization currently offered under the B.A. Communication Degree will be moved to a newly created Media Studies Department in the School of Arts and Sciences.”

 

The APC suggests that the Senate advise the administration against the proposal for the

creation of a new Media Studies Department, as that proposal currently stands.

 

Volkman explained that this language makes it clear that the Senate was uncomfortable about the current proposal, but not necessarily opposed to the idea of splitting the Department.

 

R. Jirsa seconded the motion.

 

Opponents of the amendment noted that it was not the Senate’s place to tinker with concrete content of the proposal, but to simply advise on whether or not is should be accepted as it stands. They added that the amendment unnecessarily weakened the Senate’s advice.

 

The amendment was defeated by a show of hands.

 

G. Puerschner moved that this issue be the first item of business at the next Senate meeting. The motion was accepted without objection.

 

President’s Report: (Attached)

 

Announcements: No Announcements

Meeting was adjourned at 1:50 PM.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Richard Volkman

Secretary of the Senate

 

Resolutions Passed: