II. Report of the Faculty Senate Chairperson
III. Report of the Student Senate President
IV. Report of the Graduate Student Organization
V. Report of the Administrative Officers
Vice President Eckert summarized the process taken to develop the current $60M “Soar to Greatness” capital campaign underway at Millersville. He highlighted the Arts Center and Library renovation funding priorities as final steps in completing campus-wide building renovations and six program objectives. Mr. Eckert noted that since June 2006, just under $30M has been secured towards the campaign. He requested that faculty consider making one-time or paycheck contributions to the campaign and indicated that a high percentage of participation from faculty and staff helps secure outside donors. A question was raised about renovations to Byerly Hall. Mr. Eckert responded that it would be an early priority in the next campus master plan to be developed.
Vice President of Finance & Administration
Vice President Bruszewski reported on Millersville’s Pandemic Flu Preparedness Plan. He indicated that documentation is available on the campus website. Mr. Bruszewski noted that World Health Organization guidelines were used to set up plans for addressing various levels of threat to the university community. The document outlines details about necessary responses. However, he also indicated that the document is a working draft and that faculty insights would be welcome. A question was raised regarding the pandemic terminology. Mr. Bruszewski responded that the plan should be adaptable to other possible scenarios as well and clarified that national and state authorities would be the ones to dictate warning levels.
Mr. Bruszewski also reported on a table-top exercise conducted this spring to outline options for responses to a shooter on campus. He indicated that options include a siren system that can make verbal announcements and phone system updates that would allow campus phones to project a voice announcement. Furthermore, he noted that blue safety phones are being added on campus with the hope to make one always visible and accessible. Mr. Bruszewski stressed the importance of preparedness, including necessary training, and effective communication. A question was raised about the use of low-tech security features like interior locks for classroom doors. Mr. Bruszewski responded that the Campus Police and Safety Committee are looking into these types of options.
Senator Mowrey spoke on behalf of Senators who had expressed concern regarding a decision rendered by Deans’ Council recently on a curriculum proposal from ITEC dealing with their courses and General Education. She noted that the Deans’ Council rejection of the curriculum recommendation from Faculty Senate for non-fiscal matters seemed to be inconsistent with past practice. The statement issued, rather than a referral of the matter back to Senate with suggestions for revisions and further consideration, also appeared to lack the spirit of collegiality usually shared between Deans’ Council and Faculty Senate regarding curriculum issues. Dr. Prabhu responded that there was no intention on behalf of Deans’ Council not to follow past practice and that the statement was meant as a referral to revise the proposal to apply to the individual relevant ITEC course rather than opening up an unintended hole in the General Education curriculum. He highlighted the issues raised as the ITEC proposal passed through the curriculum review process and noted the close votes at each step. He strongly expressed the desire to maintain the collegial working relationship between Faculty Senate and the Administration. Dr. Burns indicated that the Administration’s understanding is that the Industry & Technology Department and the Dean of the School of Education are working together to modify the proposal. Senator Anna commented that administrative approval of curriculum issues is generally only withheld due to fiscal restrictions that did not apply in this case. Dr. Prabhu responded that, while fiscal impact is generally the reason Deans’ Council does not endorse recommendations of the curriculum committees, in this case, they wished to see further revisions to the proposal. Dr. Anna also expressed frustration about errors in the documents referenced as being crucial to the decision made by Deans’ Council as well as inconsistencies and errors in the letter sent to ITEC and Faculty Senate regarding the action of Deans’ Council. Dr. Prabhu invited additional discussion as part of the ongoing consideration of this proposal. Dr. Börger-Greco reminded Senator Anna that he may place this matter on the Agenda for future Senate meetings.
VI. Reports of the Faculty Senate Standing Committees
Senator Sikora noted that some members of Academic Standards Committee have encountered scheduling conflicts with meeting dates for the upcoming year. Because of the intense hearing schedule this committee has, the work load becomes greater for those present if some members are absent. Discussion was held about whether members could simply recruit an alternate to step in for them, whether terms should be reduced to one year so that persons could check their availability for the meeting dates before running, or whether a pool of alternates could be elected every year to cover absences of regular members. Dr. West commented that having available alternates has worked well for Advanced Professional Studies. A Scott/White motion to modify Academic Standards Committee membership to include five elected alternates, one each from Education, Humanities, Science & Math, Social Sciences and Non-School units, to serve a one-year term was approved without dissent. It was noted that ASC should try to make hearing dates available as soon as possible so that nominees can confirm availability. Senators should contact their departments to identify nominees for election to these positions at the next Senate meeting.
Dr. Foster-Clark noted a Brown Bag Discussion on the Diversity general education label to be held October 3 at noon in Adams House. He invited any faculty interested in converting or developing a D course to attend. He also commented that he would like faculty feedback about what support they need in relation to these courses.
Senator Mowrey addressed an issue that Dr. Foster-Clark raised at the last meeting about the role of school curriculum committees in reviewing First Year Inquiry (FYI) courses. When these courses were first introduced, they were approved as part of the three G blocks and required input from the appropriate schools. However, this will no longer be true in the new General Education curriculum. In addition, it was pointed out that these courses will often cross discipline lines and may not fit only into one school. Dr. Foster-Clark also commented that FYI courses are temporary courses. Continuation of a course beyond five years requires reapproval. A Mowrey/Wallace motion to delete item 3b: School curriculum committee from the Approval process of First Year Inquiry courses (UNIV 179) outlined in the Initial and Recertification Process policy was approved without dissent.
VII. Reports of the Faculty Senate Special Committees
VIII. Proposed Courses and Programs
IX. Faculty Emeritus
X. Committee Elections
XI. Other/New Business
Meeting was adjourned after voting was completed.
Aimee L. Miller
Secretary of the Senate