Present: Judy Fynewever, Dennis Lynch, Dallas Bates, Mark R. Plichta, Mary Durfee, Willliam Bulleit, Sheryl Sorby, David Olson, Margaret Balachowski, William Kennedy, Steven Seidel, Patrick Joyce, Leonard Bohmann, Tom Synder, Robert Weidman, Stephen Bowen (chair), Helene Hiner

Visitors: Patricia Sotirin

Absent: Bette Sellars, Joe Heyman, Anant Godbole, Bruce Seely, David Poplawski, Peck Cho, Theresa S. Spence, Bonnie Gorman, Carl Nesbitt, Edward Fisher, Komar Kawatra, Francis Otuonye, Heidi Vizina, Margaret Gale, Bill Rose, Megin Agostinelli, Fritz Erickson, Leroy Oberto

 The meeting opened at 8:10 AM. Steve Bowen asked for comments and feedback from the Engineering Council or other faculty to the latest version of the General Education Proposal.

Plichta: We did not review the proposal, just the diagram plan. It was well received and people felt it would fit into the Engineering plan being developed.

Bulleit: The Engineering faculty may not realize the number of faculty required to teach the Freshman Seminar. But they were happy with how it fits into the proposed Engineering plan.

Durfee: Our department calmed down about the World Culture course. The Institutions course caused no concern.

Balachowski: The Graduate Council meets with less members than usual in the summer but the GSC President backs the plan. The president was in a First Year Seminar in undergraduate school and was much impressed by it. Other members received it well.

Lynch: Informal contacts fall along the same lines. There is some concern regarding the World Cultures course but faculty are excited by the possibilities.

Plichta: There is a concern that formal communication education is reduced. There are some that feel this should be increased.

Durfee: Two faculty agree with that in Social Sciences.

Bowen: Feedback from Deans Seel and Warrington have been very positive. Max Seel is coming up with ideas on implementation issues. Provost Dobney is very positive. He has a concern with the 60+ recitations needed in Freshman Seminar, especially if the legislature turns the wrong way. He would like us to say they 'will be taught in small sections with a target size of 20 students per section.'

An overhead of the newest version of the General Education plan was shown.

There was general agreement that this is it, with a recommendation that a footnote on the Distribution courses be added.

Bowen: Are there any "bumps" we need to flatten? (in the final report).

Minor editorial changes were noted on the report for revision.

A. Is the goal of algorithmic reasoning in computer science only satisfied by programming in a course?

Seidel: No. There are lots of ways to achieve this.

Bowen: I have a question on removing the goal 'Time Management'. We did not address it and I wonder if it is more co-curricular?

A. This is an important goal and I would like to see it addressed.

Bowen: Our Student Services professionals give workshops on this topic.

B. Faculty in the dorms deal with this as well.

C. Wasn't there to be a handbook for the Freshman Seminar and this was to be included?

Several: We did talk about a handbook for the Freshman Seminar but not specifically 'time management' being in it.

D. Students need it.

Bowen: It distracts from the 'Perspectives' focus of the course.

Discussion on whether it should be included or is remedial followed.

A. "Perspectives" faculty could tie in with Student Affairs and make active referrals as needed. This course has sufficient reading and writing that students having difficulty would be noticed.

B. I consider 'time management' as a professional skill. Why not list it under item seven? (Skills, page 10 of proposal). This suggestion was broadly supported.

D. The Communications Subcommittee description contains two faculty from Humanities.

E. For communication it is expected that the chair is the Director of Writing and another Humanities faculty is also on the committee. Imagine being the chair given the charge - there will be a lot of assessment to do which is beyond one person's capabilities.

F. Do you want five members - four persons plus the chair (Director of Writing)?

G. That would be fine.

Bowen: The proposal then reads 'five faculty on the Communications Subcommittee; two from Humanities, one of which is the Writing Director (Page 19. C. iii.)

H. Physical Education as co-curricular would still be assessed?

Several: Yes.

Seidel: How will voting be handled and presentation of the proposal. Will there be no revision before voting? It is essential for a period of discussion and then this group would meet and address issues. Otherwise, it may go down and it will be much harder.

Bowen: That was not planned for. As a result of discussion with Deans, the Provost and the Senate we are charged with an open process. We come up with the proposal; it is voted up or down, but not picked apart. At other institutions the process of rewriting to satisfy individual constituencies resulted in the proposal all its integrity. And still, few were completely satisfied with the final plan.

J. I know and agree but since this is being finished in the summer and has been out for a month, there will be faculty who felt they missed their opportunity to comment.

K. Will there be any forums?

L. Yes, as soon as the proposal is amended, it will be published and presented to the Senate, Academic Forum, and the USG. Invitations from departments to discuss it will be sought. That will be the hardest as we envision this program for the whole university, not necessarily specifically for one department.

M. What if feedback indicates we are going down in flames - will we let it?

N. I suggest we consider revision is possible.

O. We might say we will meet again and consider comments. Not saying that we will rewrite it completely.

Bowen: The question is, is a single change enough to get things out of balance?

P. Should we stay silent on the issue?

Bowen: If we are too silent, it will be the first thing that is asked.

Discussion continued on possible amendments.

Q. The U.S. Constitution almost went down in flames but survived by promising they would address issues as soon as it was in place.

Bowen: That's an interesting idea, encouraging the commitment of the faculty, knowing that things can be changed. So many things are potentially held up by the General Education program - this idea has merit.

R. Let's expand p. 19 c. ii. to reflect this.

S. The council is not a strong autonomous seat as opposed to the Senate. We should amend the Senate to have the General Education Council as a subcommittee.

T. That sounds right.

U. Do all committees need to be filled by Senators?

General: No.

Bowen: We are getting into an interesting area. In the past, the General Education Committee was only administrative and did not set policy.

V. The Council can propose policy to the Senate.

Bowen: The Council would need a dual University/Senate designation since Senate committees do not have executive roles so far as I know.

W. The Senate is the only official body to change curricula. We got fast track authority this time.

Discussion ensued on Senate curricular policy.

Bowen: Let's say the Council has responsibility for amending and recommending those amendments to the Senate. Would this address your concerns Steve?

Seidel: Yes.

Bowen: Are there other comments on the draft? (None voiced.) If not, all in favor of presenting the amended proposal to our colleagues, please vote:

Ayes: 13

Nays: 0

Abstain: 1

Meeting adjourned at 9:05 AM.