ASCRC Minutes 2/17/09

Members Present: T. Brockman, I. Crummy, J. Dempersmier, S. Lodmell, J. Luckowski, M. Nielsen, P. Silverman S. Smillie, H. Thompson, E. Uchimoto, K. Unger, R. Vanita, G. Weix, K. Zoellner, D. Zolnikov

Members Absent/Excused: J. Bergman A. Walker-Andrews, D. Micus

Ex-Officio Present: S. O'Hare

Chair Weix called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m.

The minutes from 2//10/09 were approved.

Communication

• Chair Weix provided an update of the Faculty Senate meeting. Both the curriculum consent agenda and the pending general education course review were approved. There was a brief discussion regarding symbolic systems. It was suggested that the program will need some tweaks after initial implementation.

• The University Faculty Association has proposed language to the administration that would provide for two course releases per semester for faculty governance representatives.

• The Strategic Planning Committee is considering a second undergraduate education town hall meeting on due to the poor attendance at the first meeting.

• Chair Weix recommends that ASCRC be informed of the changing role of the College of Technology at a future meeting.

• Chair Weix would still like the committee to meet the staff of the Registrar's Office.

Business Items:

• The following Dormant Course Policy was approved. The Registrar's Office will be consulted regarding any difficulties with implementation
  
  A course will be considered dormant if it has not been offered for three calendar years. Each year, as part of the catalogue preparation process, the registrar's office will notify departments of any dormant courses in their offerings and inform those departments that these courses will be deleted from the catalogue. Departments may request that dormant courses remain in the catalogue for one additional year by providing a rationale to the registrar. The registrar's office will notify ASCRC of the deleted courses.
• ASCRC discussed the proposed bylaw change that would give the Writing Committee permanent status. It was questioned whether the committee should be independent of ASCRC and whether there was coordination with the General Education Committee. Professor Zoellner will communicate ASCRC's concerns to the Writing Committee Chair (see response below).

ASCRC Response to Writing Committee's proposed bylaws Amendment

February 17, 2009 - Kate Zoellner's Notes

Overall - ASCRC wants a richer rationale for the need for standing committee status for the Writing Committee, as well as answers to several questions, listed below. ASCRC thinks that the bylaw amendment draft needs to better connect the role of the Committee with General Education and provide more details/clarity on committee processes and roles.

The role of the Committee as an "advocate" was questioned. Yet, this language is included in the bylaws for the General Education Committee... The evaluation of writing courses and writing course criteria - outside of W designation courses - was questioned. Camie clarified that this was part of the regular 3-year-cylce of General Education course reviews.

Writing Committee Charge Questions:

Writing Committee Bylaw Amendment Draft Questions, in addition to those related to the Committee charge above:

• Committee membership: ASCRC recommends that the COT Committee member be from Writing Studies
• How does the Committee advocate for the writing program?
• What will be the appointment process for Committee members? And, the term of service?
• What will be the meeting requirements (i.e., frequency)?

• Several changes were made to the list of departments under subcommittees (appended below). Chair Weix would like to formalize the procedures for subcommittee membership so that members serve three year terms and the chair must be a member of ASCRC. It was suggested that interdisciplinary minors and other courses that do not have clear academic homes be identified so that procedures for review can be clarified. Professor Silverman was charged with providing a list of interdisciplinary minors.
  
  Chair Weix asked whether it was necessary for interdisciplinary programs to be reviewed by more than one subcommittee. The Committee responded that this was necessary.
• Another issue that will need to be considered is the reference to professional schools in Senate procedures. There have been a number of title changes from professional schools to colleges.
• Professors Neilson and Thompson volunteered to serve on the search committee for the new registrar.
• The General Education Workgroup hopes to have a revised draft of catalog language and conversion guidelines for ASCRC to review next week.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:10.

ASCRC Curriculum Subcommittees