Millersville University, Faculty Senate
FACULTY SENATE MEETING
25 February 1997
...| Gen Ed Review task force
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
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
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"
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
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
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
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
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.
Marvin Margolis, Secretary
...| Gen Ed Review task force
Return to Faculty Senate Home Page
Return to MU Home Page