University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Faculty Senate Meeting
Friday, November 7, 2003
Stella Boyle Smith Concert Hall
Minutes
Present: Al-Shukri, J. Anderson, S. Anderson, Bakr, Barrett, Beaird, Cheatham, Coleman, Dhonau, Eshleman, Faust, Guffey, Hamm (alternate: Blevins), Kosmatov, Lindquist, Lowry, Lytle, Matson, Nelson, Robertson, Runion, Smith, Tschumi, andWayne.
Absent: Bacon, Belcher, Bruhn, Buffalo, Burns, Byrne, Crawford, Curenton, Epps, Ferguson, Ford, Grable, Hardin, Harm, Leslie, Mansell, Perkins, Prince, Ramsey, Strom, Tramel, Warrick, Williams, and Yoder.
The meeting was called to order by president Pete Tschumi at 1:04 p.m.
I. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the October 3, 2003, meeting of the Faculty Senate were reviewed, and approved as distributed.
II. Announcements
President Tschumi reminded the Senate that this meeting was delayed because we knew there was University System action pending on the question of transfer credit for D’s.
III. Presentation: Robert Johnston, Member, Arkansas Team of the Southern Education Foundation
Dr. Johnston, formerly a UALR faculty member, formerly a Public Service Commission, formerly assistant director in the Arkansas Department of Education, came to speak about public education in the state. He invited faculty to attend a press conference at the State Capitol’s Old Supreme Court Chamber of Tuesday, November 18, at 12:10 p.m., for the release of the update to Miles to Go: Arkansas, the Southern Education Foundation’s report on Arkansas’s public education system. The update, Closing the Economic Gap: Education in the Arkansas Economy, includes findings that demonstrate the shortfall in Arkansas’s per capita income (about 76% of the national average) is due to the shortfall in the education of Arkansas’s citizens.
Dr. Johnston summarized the Lake View School District ruling by the Arkansas Supreme Court, and led the Senate through some of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Educational Adequacy, such as smaller classes in K-3, targeted teacher salary increases in particular disciplines and districts, and extra help for struggling students. Dr. Johnston noted that the price tag will be about $850 million.
Dr. Johnston spoke briefly about yesterday’s announcement by the Governor of a Blue Ribbon Committee for Higher Education, a fifteen-member panel to make recommendations about improving quality, funding, and accountability for the state’s system of eleven universities and twenty-two two-year colleges. Dr. Johnston noted that if we doubled the number of college graduates in the state, we would catch up on per capita state income in about ten years.
Chancellor Anderson noted that there have been indications since last spring that the Governor has given thought to making higher education the focus of another legislative session, perhaps the next regular one. He was not surprised at the Governor’s not including us along with the K-12 agenda for the December special session. He did not anticipate the appointment of a Blue Ribbon Commission on Higher Education.
IV. Report–Academic Policy Review
Pres. Tschumi reminded the Senate that academic policy review was one of the three key points in the Chancellor’s inaugural address. In the last Senate meeting, Ford raised the issue that we should not only review academic policies but also their implementation.
Tschumi described the process as involving committees within the colleges that will report back to a campuswide academic policy review VC Academic Affairs, VC for Student Services, and the officers of the Faculty Senate.
Cheatham added that the Undergrauate Council is keeping an eye open for relevant policy issues, and asking student leadership to do the same. She noted that we are operating a 21st Century university on thirty-year-old academic policies, and gave the example of our long-standing policy that the last thirty hours must be done in residence. How does that policy apply in a time when students are taking more and more on-line classes?
Tschumi encouraged all Senators to talk to the key administrative people in their colleges and units who are most likely to be confronted with problems.
V. Other Business
Tschumi told the faculty that the Senate officers have been in touch with the faculty at Fayetteville about the proposal from the Athletic Department there that the university reinstate a rule allowing transfer credit for courses in which students have made D’s. The faculty at Fayetteville overwhelmingly voted down the proposal.
The University board of trustees continues to entertain the notion, and a resolution has been put forward that would designate the chief academic officer of each four-year campus as the decision maker on requests for transfer credit. Tschumi noted that observers’ best thinking is that this proposal has majority support and will be enacted by the board.
Tschumi suggested that one issue for us to address might be the absence of any discussions with faculties other than Fayetteville’s on this question even though the policy would affect all four-year campuses, and another might be the proposed resolution itself.
Robertson said we could clearly offer a resolution on our own initiative, or we could wait to see what the trustees do, and then frame a resolution carefully pointed to the issue.
Coleman pointed out that the current proposed resolution is more difficult to respond to than we had thought might be the case, since it does not mention grades of D, but purports to deal with all transfers of credit.
Tschumi said one problem with the resolution is that it does not say clearly how or by whom the process for “administrative review by the Chief Academic Officer” will be set up.
Cheatham said the last paragraph is, however, not ambiguous, and in fact would override the mechanism by which we currently hear and act on recommendation for exceptions, our Admissions and Transfer Credit Committee. Thus, Cheatham said, we might frame a communication to the trustees by pointing out that we already have such processes, and that, indeed those process are extensive and frequently used.
Matson concurred.
Cheatham recommended that we communicate with the trustees, accepting the principles in the introductory language, and offering up our current policy and processes for handling exceptions. We might then note that perhaps the trustees didn’t know such processes existed, and perhaps they might like to talk to us before adopting a policy referring the multitude of exception requests to Provosts.
Tschumi suggested that we might more appropriately write to our chancellor and to Dr. Sugg about the existing policies we have in place, our experience with exceptions each year, and consequences we foresee of the proposed policy.
Robertson tested out language for a motion empowering the executive committee of the Senate to write such a letter to the president.
Bakr said he believes it would be wise to keep our reaction fairly low key at this point.
Matson noted that even if the policy were enacted, our provost could delegate responsibility to our existing faculty-based mechanisms.
Robertson said that while a Provost could decide we should do business as we have before, this still represents a significant change in policy. He added that we must tread carefully, since we can only advise.
Moved by Matson, seconded by Robertson, that the executive committee of the Senate write a letter to the chancellor and the president expressing our concern about the proposed resolution as distributed on November 5, 2003, specifically stating that we have existing transfer of credit policies that allow for exceptions and allow for appeal to the chief academic officer.
Robertson said the motion is intended to leave latitude for the executive committee to add points as circumstances develop over the next days.
Motion carried on unanimous voice vote.
There being no further business, the President accepted a motion to adjourn from Coleman, seconded by Runion. Motion carried, and the meeting was adjourned at 2:38 p.m.
Judith Faust, Secretary
Rev. 03 Dec 03
Faculty Senate Minutes • November 7, 2003 Page 1 of 3