of November 5, 2002
Chair Robert Cherny called the Academic Senate to order at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
|
Bartscher, Patricia Bernstein, Marian Bernard-Powers, Jane Blando, John Cherny, Robert Colvin, Caran Consoli, Andres Corrigan, Robert A. |
Daniels, Robert Edwards, James Fung, Robert Garcia, Oswaldo Garcia, Velia Gemello, John Gerson, Deborah Gill, Sam Gregory, Jan Houlberg, Rick Jerris, Scott Johnson-Brennan, Karen Kassiola, Joel |
Klironomos, Martha Luft, Sandra McKeon, Midori Meredith, David Morishita, Leroy Nichols, Amy Noble, Nancy Otero, Aina J. Pong, Wenshen Raggio, Marcia Short, Larry Smith, Brett Smith, Miriam |
Steier, Saul Stowers, Genie Strong, Rob Su, Yuli Terrell, Dawn Turitz, Mitch Vaughn, Pamela Warren, Penelope Whalen, Maureen Williams, Robert Wolfe, Bruce Yang, Nini |
| Senate Members Absent: Newt-Scott, Ronda (abs), Fielden, Ned (exc), Avila, Guadalupe (exc), Collier, James (exc) |
| Guests: Marilyn Verhey, Jaih McReynolds, Daniel Buttlaire, ShyShenq Liou, Sung Hu, Ann Hallum, Jonetta Richards, Yenbo Wu, Helen Goldsmith, Julian Randolph, Gail Whitaker, Roy Conboy, Wan-Lee Cheng, Allen Abraham |
Senate Chair Robert Cherny announced the results of the campus-wide election: for the Athletic Advisory Committee, John McWilliams, Professor of Accounting was elected; for the University Advancement Activity Advisory Committee, Martha Kilronomos, Modern Greek Studies, and Heather Sisneros, Athletics, were elected.
Senate Chair Cherny commented on the passing of Dr. Peggy Smith, Professor of the Department of Counseling and a 12-year member of the Academic Senate serving from 1980 to 1985 and from 1991 to 1997. During her 12 years of Senate service she was twice chair of the Student Affairs Committee and once chair of the Academic Policy Committee.
Senator Andres Consoli, from the Department of Counseling, added that Dr. Peggy Smith was a wonderful colleague and passionate about her work. She made a tremendous contribution to the Department of Counseling and throughout the campus. She was a mentor and role model for students and faculty, and played a significant leadership role on campus and throughout the state. The faculty and students who came in contact with her will dearly miss her.
Senate Vice Chair Penny Warren, a colleague of Dr. Smith, added that, every time one goes to the university web site to look up some policy, in some manner it is a reflection of the work that Dr. Smith did as one of the co-chairs of the Toward A User Friendly Campus work group of CUSP I. She was very dedicated to making things easier to access and to making the policy processes more open. She was a very valued colleague for that strategic planning process. She also was the founder of a clinical training program on campus that is one of the more sought after field placements for graduate students in the Department of Counseling. We have only really begun to recount some of the contribution that Dr. Smith made to this campus in the way of service.
Senator Bruce Wolfe reminded all senators and guests of the importance of today’s elections especially in regards to the educationally important proposition 46, 47, and 52.
The senate chair reminded all faculty to vote in today’s important local, state and national elections.
AGENDA ITEM #1 - APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA FOR November 5, 2002
m/s/p (Houlberg, Aaron) to approve the agenda as amended.
AGENDA ITEM #2 – APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR October 22, 2002
m/s/p (Carrington, Turitz) to approve the minutes as amended.
AGENDA ITEM #3 – ELECTION: STUDENT CENTER GOVERNING BOARD OF DIRECTORS-SENATE REPRESENTATIVE
Senate Chair Cherny announced that Larry Medcalf, Professor, Speech & Communication studies, has been unanimously nominated by the Executive Committee as candidate for the Academic Senate’s appointment to the Student Center Governing Board, F2002-S2003. This is a one-year term. He opened the election to further nominations from the floor.
m/s/p (Houlberg, Gregory) to close nomination, passed
m/s/p (Turitz, Terrell) to elect by acclimation.
Senator Rick Houlberg inquired about the limitation of just a one-year appointment to the Student Union Governing Board and asked if it could not be extended to multiple years? Senate Chair Cherny indicated that the Student Union Governing Board establishes the term of service and the Senator would have to address his inquiry to them.
AGENDA ITEM #4 – REPORT FROM PROFESSOR JOHNETTA RICHARDS, S.F.S.U. REPRESENTATIVE TO THE C.S.U. ACADEMIC COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS
Johnetta Richards distributed to all Senators a packet of information
that outlined opportunities for faculty to participate in international programs.
She encouraged faculty to encourage students to apply to the various openings
for study abroad, and to apply themselves for the several open positions of
Resident Directors and the special international studies programs available
through CSU Partnerships. She mentions that many of these opportunities for
faculty to serve as resident directors are in such places as
AGENDA ITEM #5 – REPORT FROM ACTING ASSOCIATE DEAN HELEN GOLDSMITH, ON THE CAMPUS IMPLEMENTATION OF S.B. 2042
Report from Acting Associate Dean Helen Goldsmith on campus implementation of SB 2042 (teacher preparation). The following are her remarks to the Senate:
First of all, I’d like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss our progress so far. I know I’m giving a lot of information and would be happy to talk to any of you individually. Teacher preparation in CA is complicated and sometimes overwhelming. At the same time, it is one of our most important missions. We are in the midst of major revisions to undergraduate and credential programs and are attempting to maintain the quality and integrity of these programs while still demonstrating to the CA Commission on Teacher Credentialing that we meet the new standards.
History: Senate Bill 2042 was passed by the state Senate in 1998. This legislation called for the development of multiple pathways to earning a teaching credential in California. One of the goals of the legislation was to diminish the divide between subject matter and education faculty and coursework. This has indeed happened on our campus. In response to SB 2042, over the past few years, SFSU has approved the minor in Education and created blended/integrated multiple subject teacher education programs (the Liberal Studies Integrated Teacher Education/LSITE program for first-time freshmen and the CAD blended program for transfer students). Our first class of LSITE students will be graduating in May 2003 and completing their credentials in fall 2003.
What’s happening right now: Currently our campus is in the midst of major curricular revisions for our multiple and single subject credential programs as well as our undergraduate subject matter preparation programs in Liberal Studies and Child & Adolescent Development. All program revisions are due to the CCTC by August 1, 2003, and must be in place by Spring 2004. Unfortunately, this means that all of these programs will be implemented in the middle of the academic year. In Spring 2003, the undergraduate programs will be coming to CRAC and the Senate for approval of revisions to the majors. The Elementary and Secondary Education departments have submitted new course proposals and currently are going through the College of Education’s review and approval process. All programs will go to the Teacher Credentialing Committee and All-University Teacher Education Committee for approval. I want to comment on the collegiality of the process so far. I have been heartened by the amount of care and time that departments and colleges have spent documenting existing courses or revising or creating courses where necessary. I know that everyone has more on their plate than is humanly possible and am extremely grateful to everyone for responding to my pleas for assistance. As many of you know, the new subject matter standards are far more detailed and prescriptive than ever before. A few examples of how our colleagues have responded: the History department has revised HIST 120 to extend the time covered to Reconstruction; the College of Science and Engineering has developed new courses in life and physical science that will better prepare future teachers in the sciences; the Colleges of Science, Ethnic Studies, and Humanities are developing exciting new emphases for the Liberal Studies major.
What’s next/still to come: At the same time that subject matter programs are being revised, the subject matter examinations are being revised as well so that the subject matter knowledge that is taught and tested aligns with the K-12 content standards and state curriculum frameworks. Beginning Spring 2003, the PRAXIS/SSAT and MSAT will be replaced by the CSET (California Subject Matter Examinations for Teachers) for multiple subjects, Science, Math, English and Social Science. Last week, our campus served as a field test site for these tests and approximately 120 students turned out to try the exams. For secondary education, the subject matter standards in the core areas of Science, Math, English and Social Science are currently in draft form. You can respond to these standards at the CCTC website (www.ctc.ca.gov) until November 15. The standards are scheduled to be reviewed and approved by the commission at its December 5 meeting. Once approved, the commission anticipates an 18-month window for campuses to revise their programs to meet the newly approved standards. New programs will likely need to be in place no later than spring or Fall 2005. The CCTC intends to begin the second phase (Art, Music, PE, Languages other than English, and preliminary Educational Technology) early in 2003 with an 18-month period to develop the new standards for review. They will be developed under the auspices of NES. The new standards for these subjects will probably be available for review in Fall 2004. A third phase will be implemented sometime in the future: including Agriculture, Business, Health Science, Home Economics, and Industrial & Technology Education. Single subject faculty who would like to become involved in the process have several opportunities: for example, they may assist in the development of phase 2 subject area standards or serve as readers for other campus programs.
Some Challenges ahead for us at SFSU include:
Additional info: Contact person for single subject: Phil Fitch for the 4 core subjects; Helen Hawley for all (hhawley@ctc.ca.gov), www.cset.nesinc.com: website showing current development status
Julian Randolph indicated that the presentation was very important and well done, however, it was a lot of information to digest. He was encouraged by the presentation and believed that this important work would go a long way to relive the critical shortage of teachers in California. Senator David Meredith asked Goldsmith to comment on the details that might be coming in the multiple subject credential requirements. Goldsmith indicated that there would not be a blended program in the same way that they were structured in the most recent past. She indicated that what we might see is a teacher-training program that looks more like the programs that were developed in the 1970s. One of the big changes dictated by the new standards is in the specificity with which we are communicating to students about what they need to take in the lower division GE courses. Students preparing to be teachers will be required to take specific GE courses and not allowed to select randomly from the entire list of GE courses offered. Senator Jane Bernard-Powers, chair of Secondary Education, acknowledged that the work accomplished so far had been remarkable. She indicated that the changes in courses were most daunting, with the putting in place of the elementary teaching performance expectation and the assessment for evaluation that will be in place starting with the new teacher’s first semester. She acknowledged all faculty involved for their dedication and hard work in implementing these new standards. Senator Bruce Wolfe raised the concern that the new more restrictive GE requirements might be a barrier to for many students. He asked if the committee was looking at this issue? Goldsmith indicated that the new program requirements limit the choice within the overall GE selection. She emphasized that they are working on making sure that information gets out to the students. Senator Bruce Wolfe asked when would the new exam, the CEST, be made public. Goldsmith indicated that the exam was field tested last week and would be tested again soon. Senate Chair Cherny added that the single subject areas of history, English, math, and since are all being discussed. The faculty of the CSU got involved in the discussion and sent some 80 email messages to Sacramento with suggestion for improvement. This was the most input that Sacramento has received from CSU faculty members and they were quite impressed. He emphasized that when additional standards come up for discussion that it will again be an opportunity for CSU faculty to get involved.
AGENDA ITEM #6 –RECOMMENDATION FROM THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: PROPOSED POLICY ON THE TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS, 2ND READING
Senate Chair Robert Cherny introduced the revised proposed policy on the temporary suspension of academic programs. He indicated that the new revisions came from recommendations made during the Senate’s discussion of the proposed policy two weeks ago. It now returns to the Senate in 2nd reading. Senator Sam Gill asked why did the policy refer to six semesters and not just say three years. Senator Bruce Wolf, in answer to this question, indicated that it might be because the University is heading toward year round operations. Senate Chair Cherny indicated that, by using semester language then a department could start or stop the process in the middle of the year rather than waiting for the beginning and end of the year, the proposed policy gives more flexibility to the department faculty.
The motion passed unanimously
Senate Chair Cherny acknowledge the dedication and hard work of the former senate chair Pamela Vaughn, who in turn also acknowledged the contributions of Richard Giardina, Associate Vice President of Planning and Assessment, and Gail Whitaker, Associate Vice President of Academic Affairs.
AGENDA ITEM #7—RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CURRICULUM REVIEW AND APPROVAL COMMITTEE: APPROVAL OF CHANGES IN THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE B.A. DEGREE PROGRAM IN DRAMA, 1ST AND 2ND READINGS, AS A CONSENT ITEM—TIME CERTAIN.
Senator Amy Nichols, chair of the Curriculum Review and Approval committee introduced the revision in Bachelor of Arts in Drama/Core Courses. This proposal comes forward as a consent item following two reviews from CRAC. The Theater Arts Department proposes to make the revisions based on accreditation review recommendations, ongoing student feedback, and faculty availability. There are two changes to the program: first change is that, in addition to THA 340 Principles of Directing, they would like to add THA 341--History of Directing, THA 460--Play Development Workshop, and THA 531--Understanding and Performing Shakespeare as additional choices to meet the core requirement. The second change is to require only THA 515--Stage Management due to the lack of faculty expertise and the ability of THA 519/520 to complement THA 515. Present to answer questions about the proposal were Roy Conboy, Chair of Theater Arts, and Wan-Lee Cheng, Associate Dean College of Creative Arts.
m/s/p (Nichols, Carrington) to second reading
Senator Joel Kassiola asked for clarification on the elimination of one course but the addition of four courses as electives. Senator Nichols indicated that the four are not required, and that only one from the four would be required by advisement.
m/s/p (Houlberg, Wolfe) to vote
The motion passed.
AGENDA ITEM #8—RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CURRICULUM REVIEW AND APPROVAL COMMITTEE: APPROVAL OF MASTER PLAN PROJECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION FOR A NEW B.S. DEGREE PROGRAM IN COMPUTER ENGINEERING, 1ST AND 2ND READINGS, AS A CONSENT ITEM
Senator Amy Nichols, Chair of the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee, introduced the proposed new curriculum. She indicated that on the advice of the Chancellor's Office, this proposal to create BS in Computer Engineering at SFSU had been prepared as a single document that will serve two purposes. This proposal is both a Master Plan Projection and, if the Board of Trustees at their meeting in March approves it, it is an Implementation Plan to be sent out concurrently for external review. Senate approval constitutes endorsement of both the Master Plan Projection and Implementation Plan phases of this process. Once there is Board of Trustee approval and a completed external review, the proposal will return to SFSU for the development of the actual program that will then to go through our approval process. Senate approval constitutes endorsement of both the Master Plan and the tentative Implementation Plan phase of this process. Sung Hu, the Associate Dean of the College of Science and Engineering, was present to answer any questions.
m/s/p (Nichols, Vaughn) to approve the proposed new curriculum, in 1st reading.
Richard Giardina, Associate Vice President of Planning and Assessment, representing Gail Whitaker, Associate Vice President Academic Affairs, suggested that if the Senate is willing to approve this proposal in a “fast track” approval process then the proposal would not come back before the Senate but would go directly to implementation. Senator Joel Kassiola suggested that he saw no need to “fast track” this proposal and that the proposal, if approved, should come back before the senate for approval after it is placed on the master plan. Senator Amy Nichols indicated that during their committee deliberation that it was not made clear that this was a “fast track” recommendation and that the committee did not review it as a “fast track” proposal. Associate Dean Sung Hu indicated that this new program proposal is a result of three years of development by the School of Engineering and is now before the Senate with the strong support of the Dean, faculty, and students. He indicated that the proposal would have been before the Senate in previous years if it were not for the extended search for a new dean. Senator Joel Kassiola asked if CRAC wanted to reconsider its position. Senate Chair Cherny ruled that we would need to have an amendment to agenda item 8 if the proposal is to be approved both for transmission to the Chancellor’s Office and for final implementation on campus, however, we were not in second reading and therefore any amendment would be out of order. Senator Saul Steier asked if the proposed requirement for 134 units did not exceed the general requirement that all degree strive to limit their degrees to 120 units. Associate Dean Sung Hu indicated that it is normal for engineering degrees to exceed 130 units; CSU Sacramento has a similar degree that requires 137 and San Jose State degree requires 134. Senator Scott Jerris asked about the requirement to have in excess of 61 units in the major alone and would that not adversely impact GE and electives. Associate Dean Sung Hu indicated that the CSU system allows for a maximum of 78 units in a BS degree that requires 132 units. Senator Yu-Charn Chen indicated that he was impressed with the overall quality and work done on the proposal and suggested that the Senate approve it for “fast track” consideration. Senator Wenshen Pong supported the “fast track” consideration of the proposal and indicated that this is a great opportunity for the college to establish itself as a leader in this field. There are a lot of students waiting to enroll in this degree program.
m/s/p (Daniels, Houlberg) to extend debate by 10 minutes
Dan Buttlaire, Dean of Undergraduate Education, indicated that student demand for the proposed program is very high, and he has over the past few years found great interest by students to enroll in this degree program.
m/s/p (Carrington, Meredith) to second reading
Senate Vice Chair Penny Warren asked members of CRAC if their deliberation would have be any different if they were to known that it was a single review process. Senator Amy Nichols, chair of CRAC, indicated that the review process would have been very different since the committee did not know that it was reviewing the proposal for fast track consideration. Senator Gregory was concerned that, since CRAC did not know that it was a fast track curriculum, maybe there is less detail in this proposal than what is normally required. Senator Nichols agreed with Senator Gregory, that the proposal is very timely and important, however, her suggestion is that they should have the proposal come back to the committee with the actual programs delineated in the proposal so we can evaluate it like other proposal. Senator Pamela Vaughn indicated that as a member of the committee that she would like a second look at it.
m/s/p (Kassiola, Steier) to refer the proposal back to committee, passed unanimously
AGENDA ITEM #9—RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CURRICULUM REVIEW AND APPROVAL COMMITTEE: APPROVAL OF CHANGES IN THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE B.S. DEGREE PROGRAM IN KINESIOLOGY, CONCENTRATIONS IN HUMAN MOVEMENT STUDIES AND IN EXERCISE SCIENCE AND FITNESS, 1ST AND 2ND READINGS, AS A CONSENT ITEM.
Senator Amy Nichols, chair of the Curriculum Review and Approval Committee, recommended approval of the changes to the requirements for the B.S. degree program in Kinesiology, concentrations in Human Movement Studies and in Exercise Science and Fitness. This proposal comes forward as a consent item following two reviews from CRAC. These changes represent an attempt to better incorporate faculty strengths within the curriculum, infuse the psychological and cultural bases of performance within the degree, and provide students with more options and better-delineated career paths. In both cases, the core BS degree remains unchanged and the changes occur only within the concentration requirement. The changes are based on recommendations from the last program review completed in 1999. Allen Abraham was present to answer any questions regarding the proposed changes.
m/s (Nichols, Houlberg)
m/s/p (Vaughn, Steier) to second reading, passed unanimously.
The motion passed unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM #10—RECOMMENDATION FROM THE EDUCATIONAL POLICIES COUNCIL: APPROVAL OF DISCONTINUANCE OF THE B.A. DEGREE PROGRAM IN SCIENCE, CONCENTRATION IN METEOROLOGY, 1ST AND 2ND READINGS, AS A CONSENT ITEM. TIME CERTAIN: No Later Than 3:15 p.m.
Midori McKeon, chair of the Educational Policies Council, indicated that her committee unanimously recommended approval of the discontinuation of the B.A. degree program in Science, concentration in Meteorology. A new B.S. major degree program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences was approved in spring 2001 with the understanding that it would replace the B.A. degree program in Science, concentration in Meteorology. The new program is a more rigorous program that will better prepare students either for employment as a professional meteorologist or for graduate school.
m/s McKeon, Nichols
m/s/p (McKeon, Steier) to second reading
The motion passed unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM #11—RECOMMENDATION FROM THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: AMENDMENTS TO THE POLICY ON THE ALL-UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS, POLICY #S87-151, 1ST AND 2ND READINGS.
Senator Jim Edwards, Chair of the Committee on Committee, introduced the proposed amendments to Policy #S87. The Executive Committee unanimously recommends the changes in the policy on the All-University Committee on International Programs. There are two significant changes in the policy. At the request of AUCIP, a representative from the College of Extended Learning is added and the specification that the representatives from colleges are to faculty members and that they are to be elected. The full policy can be read at #S87-151.
m/s (Edwards, Smith) Senate Chair Cherny indicated that there is a correction on line 5 and asked senators to insert the words teaching faculty and to delete the “s” from the word selected so that it would read elected. Senator Andres Consoli noted for correction of an error in editing on line 14. Senator Miriam Smith, chair of the All-University Committee on International Programs indicated that the amendment meets the need to have a representative from the College of Extended learning. She also indicated that she did not want to change in the policy to adversely affect the representatives from staff that now serve on the committee. Senator Yu-Charn Chen noted that line 2 has been mislabeled as line 20. Senator Bruce Wolfe asked how many international programs are available in the College of Extended Learning. Senator Miriam Smith indicated that they did not have an exact number of international programs offered through Extended Learning. Yenbo Wu, Director of International Programs, indicate that there are approximately 400 students enrolled in international Extended Learning courses. Senator Bruce Wolfe expressed some concern that international programs would be better served if they were offered in the regular university programs. Senator Miriam Smith indicated that the objective of including a representative from Extended Learning was to have a representative that could speak for the international programs in that college. She indicated that changing line 5 changing back to the original language would be best from her perspective. Senator Pamela Vaughn asked if that would mean that each college would select and not elect their representatives. She stressed that it is important for the representatives to be elected by each college and not selected.
m/s/p (Meredith, Steier) to return to committee
AGENDA ITEM #12—RECOMMENDATION FROM THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: AMENDMENT TO THE POLICY ON THE ALL-UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON HONORARY DEGREES, POLICY #S91-171, 1ST AND 2ND READINGS, AS A CONSENT ITEM.
Senator Dawn Terrell introduced the amendment to the policy and indicated that the Executive Committee had unanimously recommended changes in the policy on the Honorary Degree Committee. She indicated that since the Staff Council no longer exists, the language of the policy must be changed so that a staff representative can serve on the committee. Additionally, the Senate as part of a constitutional amendment previously approved this language. The faculty has not yet approved this constitutional amendment. The full policy can be read at #S91-171.
m/s Terrell, Houlberg
m/s/p (Steier, Carrington) to second reading
The motion passed unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM #13—RECOMMENDATION FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: RESOLUTION ON INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION, 1ST AND 2ND READINGS.
Senator Debra Gerson, chair of the Student Affairs Committee introduced the resolution and asked for senate support.
m/s (Gerson, Otero) to accept the resolution
Senator Midori McKeon noted that the resolution calls for a celebration during the second week of November, however, the national celebration actually falls on during the third week. Senator Gerson indicated that it should read the third week.
m/s/p (Aaron, Wolfe) second reading
The motion passed unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM #14—RECOMMENDATION FROM THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: AMENDMENTS TO THE POLICY ON THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS, POLICY #4H, 1ST AND 2ND READINGS.
Senator Caran Colvin, chair of the Faculty Affairs committee introduced proposed changes in the policy and indicated that the Executive Committee had unanimously recommended the changes in the policy on the protection of human subjects. The changes come in response to the floor discussion that took place several weeks ago and returns to the Senate in first reading. The full policy can be read at 4H .
m/s (Colvin, Oswaldo Garcia)
m/s/p (Colvin, O. Garcia) to second reading.
Senator Steier indicated that there might be some confusion around the listing of so many different types of people and asked if the committee had to have one individual of each type or could one individual with multiple types be a combined representative. Senator Jane Bernard-Powers asked what determines a “non-scientific” member of the committee. Senate Chair Robert Cherny indicated that both the designations for “different types” and “non-scientific” were taken directly for the Federal guidelines. Senator Robert Williams asked for clarification on line 18 regarding additional numbers from HSS. Bruce Macher, Assistant Vice President for Research and Sponsored Programs, indicated that federal and other protocols required that the committee have individuals that have certain expertise. The committee then seeks the individual with the appropriate expertise and adds them to the committee deliberations for those protocols only. This would be under temporary and special circumstances. Senator Genie Stowers indicated that the committee should have more than one person from outside the sciences.
m/s (Stowers, Kassiola) to change line 7 so That it would read to include at least three members from outside the sciences.
Senator David Meredith asked for clarification on the language; specifically what is the definition of “science” as indicated in the policy. Bruce Macher indicated that the language is taken directly form the federal guidelines. Senator Christopher Carrington, speaking against the amendment, indicated that he does not support the expansion of the committee. Senator Mitch Turitz asked what exactly will be the membership of the committee-- 10 persons or seven? Senator Genie Stowers spoke in support of the amendment and indicated that it would allow for the widest representation so that proposal may be properly reviewed. Senator Bruce Wolfe spoke in favor of the motion and indicated that many proposals from students go through the committee and it is very important that as much diversity as possible is represented on the panel. Senator Rick Houlberg did not support the amendment and felt that the additional requirements would hobble the committee efforts to move forward. Senator Pamela Vaughn indicated that she is in favor of a diverse committee, but added, however, that there are not a lot of people interested in serving on our committee. She does feel that language defining the sciences could be included in the language. Senator Robert Williams asked what is the usual composition of this committee. Bruce Macher indicated that is difficult to say what the normal composition because it changes each year and with different proposals. The committee has various requirements that are set by federal guidelines. One of those requirements is that the committee is includes a minimum of seven members. Senator Robert Williams indicated that he does not support the amendment and prefers the original language.
m/s/p (Colvin, Steier) to close debate on the amendment
The amendment failed.
The main motion passed unanimously
Respectfully submitted,
James Edwards
Secretary to the Faculty
…………