Millersville University, Faculty Senate


...| Gen Ed Review task force |

Chairperson D. Eidam called the special meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. in Chryst Hall, Room 210. All departmental senators except those from the Art, Educational Foundations, History, Music, Nursing, Political Science, and Sociology and Anthropology Departments attended.


Report of the Task Force on the General Education Curriculum and Academic Resources

The only business of today's special meeting concerned the report of the Task Force on the General Education Curriculum and Academic Resources (see Attachment A of the 19 November 1996 minutes, pages 4122-4126). Senate's General Education Review Committee reported on the Task Force's report at the 4 and 18 February 1997 senate meetings (see Attachment A, pages 4155-4156, of the 4 February 1997 senate minutes and Attachment B of the 18 February 1997 senate minutes). At the 18 February 1997 senate meeting, chairperson D. Eidam recognized senator J. McCade. McCade placed on the table in Chryst 210 four written motions regarding the report of the General Education Review Task Force (see Attachment A of the 18 February 1997 senate meeting). He asked to make the motions one at a time at that meeting.

At the 18 February meeting, senate passed McCade's first and second motions but defeated his third motion. Before it voted on the fourth motion, it decided to vote on six motions from the GERC report (Attachment A of the 4 February 1997 senate minutes). Senate approved motions 1 and 2.and an amended motion 3 from the GERC report. It postponed debate on motion 4 until today's special meeting.

Senate resumed debate on the GERC's motion 4: "That items in group 2 (The minor changes group: items 1, 2, and 6 under phase 1) be sent to the GERC for rewriting and clarification, in consultation with members of the task force, after which they will be brought back to senate for approval or disapproval as individual items. That we recommend that these items not be included in the package to be approved or disapproved as a whole by the entire faculty."

Chairperson D. Eidam recognized senator C. Stameshkin, chairperson of the GERC committee, to discuss motion 4. Stameshkin discussed the "Write to Learn" handout from B. Duncan (see Attachment A of today's minutes). She said the "Write to Learn" proposal might be a replacement for item 6 ("Keep the four W requirement without the 10-page revised prose requirement. Etc."). While not approved by the English Department, the "Write to Learn" proposal has been discussed there.

Senator M. Rosenthal said the English Department did discuss the proposal at its last meeting. She said the English Department was not so concerned with the specifics as with the continued ability and responsibility of instructors teaching W courses to carry out the intent. The Department would prefer this statement, "In principle, the Department supports the original intent and the original enrollment figures for W labeled courses." She said the English Department had not approved the "Write to Learn" document.

Senator D. Hutchens said several people he knew discussed motion 4 and its rationale. They proposed the following: Return the items back to the task force and senate will simply vote on them. Senator C. Stameshkin said her committee had made editorial changes to the items. The task force does not adequately describe the rationale for items 1 and 2. If the faculty is to vote on it, the rationales needs to be expanded for everyone to see.

Parliamentarian C. Scharnberger pointed out that we have an odd situation if senate passes the motion. The administration (and APSCUF leadership) bilaterally made two changes in general education. They reduced the number of required Perspectives courses from two to one and removed the ten pages of revised prose W requirement. Would the faculty endorse the changes? The changes are in items 1, 2, and 6. The task force added other things along the way. The core issue the process was supposed to deal with was whether the faculty as a whole was or was not endorsing the APSCUF and administration's action with regard to P and W courses. Senate short circuits the whole process if it does not submit the changes to the faculty.

After considerable additional discussion, senate defeated motion 4. Senate began discussion of motion 5. Senator C. Stameshkin said she was withdrawing motion 5 given the defeat of motion 4. Finally, senate agreed that motion 6 was not on the floor.

Senate returned to senator J. McCade's Motion #4 "(That senate) discuss the specific recommendations one (group) by one (group), limit the discussion of each to no more than 30 minutes and entertain motions on concept at no later than the 25 minute mark." Chairperson D. Eidam recognized senator J. McCade to speak to the motion. McCade said senate needed to create limits and provide structure for its discussion. The most productive approach is to start with a motion and deal with it. If senate says it has only X number of hours, it will not get to the important issues. Senator D. Hutchens said senate needed a plan to proceed. Eidam reminded senate that it had already agreed to discuss the items in three groups.

J. McCade/S. Peters moved motion 4. There would be three groups and each would cover 30 minutes. Senate would complete the discussion of all groups in no more than 90 minutes. Parliamentarian C. Scharnberger interpreted the motion to mean senate was limiting debate. A motion to limit debate requires a two-thirds majority vote. McCade said he wanted senate to vote on the outstanding motions at the end of the time limit. Senator C. Stameshkin said there were really only two groups (2 and 3) not three. She asked that senators be allowed to make motions any time during the allotted minutes. The original motion was amended to discuss two groups in two forty-five minute periods. The motion to amend passed. The amended original motion passed also.

Parliamentarian C. Scharnberger said he was uncomfortable with a procedure that left motions "hanging in the air" until a last minute vote. Scharnberger said deliberative bodies deal with motions one at a time as a basic principle of parliamentary procedure. No new motion should be introduced unless an older motion was disposed of in some way. Senate voted to approve the Scharnberger interpretation.

Senate proceeded to discuss Group 2 (items 1,2, and 6 of Phase 1). Chairperson D. Eidam said the 45 minute clock was starting. Senator R. Wismer spoke to item 6 of phase 1. He said he did not object at all to B. Duncan's proposal. However, the proposal was not the intent of what the task force was after. The task force's intent for Phase 1 was to say the changes were interim measures. The idea was to plug current holes with interim measures.

W. Dorman moved that senate request the task force to express the interim nature of Phase 1, item 6, in their final report. The motion carried. A J. McCade/W. Dorman motion to request the task force to include the language of B. Duncan in her "Write to Learn" document with regard to Phase 1, item 6, carried. A D. Hutchens/J. McCade motion to request the task force to include information about the history and/or historical nature of item 6 also passed.

Senators C. Stameshkin and R. Kerper said that item 2, Phase 1, was unclear. Kerper wanted a clarification of the G4 part of the liberal arts core. A R. Kerper/C. McLeod motion to recommend that the task force clarify the difference between the liberal arts core and other similar terms such as the general education curriculum passed. The motion's intent is for the task force to suggest some appropriate language to senate.

Senate then began to discuss item 1 of Phase 1. Senator R. Kerper discussed problems the School of Education has with item 1. M. Warmkessel/D. Hutchens moved to request that the task force eliminate part a of the rationale for item 1 of Phase 1. A motion to amend the Warmkessel/Hutchens motion by replacing the word "eliminate" with "clarify" passed. Senate then passed the amended motion.

Senate began the discussion of Group 3, the major change group that includes items 3, 4, and 5 under Phase 1 and items 3 and 4 under Phase 2. Senator D. Hutchens said that the Computer Science Department opposes item 4 of phase 1 (Drop the QARC label but require that every student take at least one MATH or CSCI course). He said the CS Department does not want CS101 flooded by students avoiding a mathematics course.

At this point senate agreed to stop the clock and stopped further discussion of group 3 items. Instead it heard a presentation that included an example of the linkage between a statement of institutional purpose, departmental/program intended outcomes/objectives, and assessment criteria at MU (see Attachment B). When senate meets on Tuesday, 4 March 1997, it will resume discussion of group 3 items with 40 minutes remaining on the clock.

Administrative Approvals (See Attachment C).

Senate adjourned
at 5:45 PM. The next meeting will be Tuesday, 4 March 1997, from 4:05 - 5:45 p.m. in Chryst 210.

Respectfully submitted,

Marvin Margolis, Secretary
Faculty Senate

...| Gen Ed Review task force |

Return to Faculty Senate Home Page
Return to MU Home Page