THE
university SENATE OF
Minutes of Meeting 457
5 December 2007
Synopsis:
(1) President Sloan reported that Proposal 4-08 (Revision of the Scientific Misconduct Policy) has been approved by the Administration.
(2) Proposal 8-08, Second Baccalaureate Degrees, was tabled for further clarification.
(3) Proposal 6-08 (Interdisciplinary Graduate Certificate in Nanotechnology) passed.
(4) Proposal 7-08 (Theatre and Electronic Media Performance, B. A.) passed.
(5) Proposals 11-08, Faculty Referendum on Terms of Department Chairs/School Deans, and Proposal 12-08, Faculty Referendum on Terms of Department Chairs/School Deans, were introduced.
1. CALL TO
ORDER AND ROLL CALL
President Sloan called the University Senate Meeting 457 to order at 5:30 pm on Wednesday, 5 December 2007, in Room B45 EERC.
Secretary Glime called roll. Absent were at-large Senator Barry Solomon and representatives from Army/Air Force ROTC, Library, Academic Services A, and Academic Services B. Liaisons in attendance were SherAaron Hurt (USG) and Lakshmi Krishna (GSC). Academic Services C and Auxiliaries currently have no elected representatives.
2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
Guests included Roger Held (Visual & Performing Arts), Patricia Helsel (Visual & Performing Arts), Max Seel (Dean Sciences & Arts), Lesley Lovett-Doust (Provost), Theresa Jacques (Office of Student Records & Registration), and John Jaszczak (Physics).
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
President Sloan requested modifications of the agenda. Items 6a (Proposal 1-08, Due Process for Imposition of Severe Sanctions on Tenure-Track/Tenured Faculty), 6b (Proposal 5-08, Amendment to Grievance Policy and Procedure for Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty), and 7a (Proposal 9-08, Policy for Program/Department Evaluation) have been withdrawn for further consideration. Item 6e will be moved to the first item of Old Business.
Nelson MOVED and Vable seconded the motion to approve the agenda as modified. The motion to approve PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
4. approval of minutes from meeting 456
Luck MOVED and Miller seconded the motion to approve the minutes of Meeting 456 as presented. The motion PASSED on voice vote with no dissent.
5. President’s Report
President Sloan
reported that Proposal 4-08 (Revision of the Scientific Misconduct Policy) has
been approved by the Administration.
6. old Business
a. Proposal 8-08, Second Baccalaureate Degrees,
was presented by Senator Gorman. Gorman
distinguished between Dual Degrees which are pursued in cooperation with
another university and result in a degree from both, Double Major in which a student will be awarded one diploma listing
both majors, and a second degree in which at least 25% of the credits cannot be
used for another degree. However, the terms
"dual degree" and "second degree" have been used
interchangeably on some university and departmental web pages. The Senate has not passed a proposal
regarding the second degree and the policy is currently embedded in the
catalog.
There is ambiguity surrounding
the meaning, intent, and interpretation of the 25% statement. The existing second degree declaration form
suggests (incorrectly) that ONLY 25% of the required graduation credits are
needed since there is only room for listing about 10 courses. Departments have final say in setting the
requirements and students should not assume that the minimum number of credits
is all that is needed. The new Proposal
8-08 makes it explicit that all degree requirements (for both degrees) must be
met (subject to the usual granting of course equivalencies and approved double
counting of courses by the academic advisor) and it clarifies the 25% minimum. Some departments have expressed concern about
loss of flexibility.
Gorman also stated that a
department may require a concentration for a primary degree, but the currently
used form for the second degree has no place to list a concentration. This proposal eliminates the second degree
form and instead requires a full degree audit for both of the degrees being
awarded.
Gorman MOVED and Nelson
seconded the motion to approve proposal 8-08.
Dean Seel suggested that the phrase “all coursework requirements” be changed to “the requirements,” which was accepted as an editorial change to the proposal.
Senator Kern asked if the student
is expected to go to an advisor to determine the degree requirements. Gorman responded affirmatively.
Jacques (OSRR) stated that
the student must have approval for the courses needed to earn the second degree
(second degree declaration form), but there are only a few lines for listing
courses, and also declare it on the "curriculum change
authorization form."
Secretary Glime asked what
must it be 25% of, proposing a scenario that a student goes to another school
for three years and has transferred all but one course needed to fulfill the
requirements for a major in humanities at MTU, then transfers to MTU to get a
degree in biological sciences. The
student completes the degree requirements in biological sciences but also wants
to earn a second degree in humanities.
Must that student take 25% of the humanities major requirements at MTU in
addition to the credits taken for biological sciences, even though 25% of the
graduation credits have been taken at MTU in fulfillment of the biological
sciences degree?
Multiple interpretations
ensued in the discussion. Senator Gregg
asked why not complete the second degree within the total credits? Others felt that the student should return to
the first institution to complete the humanities degree.
Senator Storer suggested that
in Glime's hypothetical example where the student needed just a few credits to
complete a humanities degree as part of a second degree program the student would
need to take 25% of the credits for the humanities degree from MTU, thus needing
to take extra classes. This would put students over the number of credits
needed for graduation, and, under a 25% requirement, would require more credits
at MTU than if a number of credits was specified in the proposal. For example, if the policy specified
that 32 credits from MTU are needed and the student already had 124
coming in, that student would have to complete 32 credits at MTU. If the student had 124 coming in and needed to
meet the 25% requirement, that student would have to take over 40 credits to
reach the 25% requirement. Storer therefore suggested that perhaps rather than
expressing a percentage of credits coming from MTU, we should specify a
number of credits that would have to be from MTU.
Senator Nitz stated that this
would be an appropriate dual degree rather than a second degree. Gorman responded that a dual degree is only
one degree with one diploma. Gregg
stated that the 25% requirement is Board of Control policy.
President Sloan stated that
the concerns being expressed suggested that substantive rather than editorial
changes may be needed.
Glime MOVED and Gregg
seconded the motion to table
Proposal 8-08 until clearer wording is provided. The motion to table PASSED on show-of-hands
vote of academic units with 3 in opposition.
b. John Jaszczak presented Proposal 6-08 (Interdisciplinary Graduate Certificate in Nanotechnology), stating that a certificate in nanotechnology was a means to recognize graduate students who had completed the requirements, but whose degrees were in the discipline of a particular department.
Nelson MOVED and Storer seconded the motion to approve Proposal 6-08.
Lakshmi Krishna (GSC) asked why MY4970 (Nanomaterials &
Nanofabrication) was not listed among the required courses. Jaszczak stated that the course was not
offered when the proposal was prepared and will be taught by a faculty member
who will be new next semester.
Senator Luck asked why this is not an M.S. program or minor instead
of a certificate. Jaszczak responded
that there is no graduate minor, so this recognizes proficiency in
nanotechnology. Luck asked if there are
other graduate certificates. Several
Senators responded that there are others, including one in sustainability. Jaszczak added that the program had been
modelled after Drexel and the
The motion to approve Proposal 6-08 PASSED on voice vote of academic units with no opposition.
c. Proposal 7-08 (Theatre and Electronic Media
Performance, B. A.) was introduced by Roger Held
There was no discussion.
Gorman MOVED and Nelson seconded the motion to approve Proposal 7-08. The motion to approve Proposal 7-08 PASSED on voice vote of academic units with no opposition.
7. new business
a. Proposals 11-08, Faculty Referendum on Terms
of Department Chairs/School Deans, and Proposal 12-08, Faculty Referendum on
Terms of Department Chairs/School Deans
Senator Vable presented the proposals. He stated that items on the ballot of the proposals 11-08 and 12-08 were on the original charter Proposal 5-92, which was submitted for faculty referendum. The results of the previous referendum are included with the proposals. Language on the ballot of Proposal 12-08 is similar to Proposal 11-06, which passed in the Senate twice. Voting for or against the proposal is not an indication of support or opposition to what is on the ballot. All the vote in the Senate will do is to provide a platform from which the faculty voice will be heard.
Senator Givens asked if there are approved proposals on what charters can contain.
Vable responded that there are, including Proposal 16-92.
Glime stated that members of her department were concerned that the things covered by these two proposals were already possible with existing policy and that it would be an embarrassment to the Senate to put these two proposals to a referendum. She urged Senators to find out how their departments felt about the proposals before the next meeting.
Senator Nitz added that he didn't see the point to the proposals; any department can do what the proposals require now.
Vable responded that some deans and chairs won't allow the department to add these items. Proposal 11-06 tried to fix this problem and was not approved by the Administration.
Luck asked if this is an attempt to get Proposal 11-06 passed.
Vable stated that it would permit the Senate to send these two items separately, but also would provide a different voice – that of the whole faculty. Provost Lovett-Doust asked if this was an attempt to bring back aspects of Proposal 11-06, and if these two items have been teased out to accomplish that.
Vable agreed and stated that it is also an attempt to get the faculty voice on them.
8. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 6:15 pm.
Respectfully Submitted by Janice M. Glime
Secretary of the University Senate