Faculty Conference Minutes
Recital Hall
September 15, 2000
A motion was made, seconded, and approved to conduct
business in the absence of a quorum.
The minutes of the Faculty Conference of August 15, 2000, were approved after
spelling and typographical corrections were noted.
Because the Board of Trustees
has not met since the last Faculty Conference, Dr. Moore had nothing to report.
Most news has been communicated to the faculty in
other settings. The process of
conveying Winthrop's budget needs for next year to the Governor's office has
started. All sources indicate that next
year's new revenue will be between $100 and $150 million. Approximately $400 million is needed to
cover project rollovers from the current year.
The projections may be the result of some political posturing in light
of the upcoming elections. Regardless,
there will be little new money available for Winthrop or any other state
agency. Last year's bond bill, which
includes $2.5 million for new windows and a roof for the Rutledge Building, has
been passed but has not yet been signed by the governor. As a result, the draw down of funds for the
windows and roof will be delayed.
Dr. Wilson thanked the faculty for the class
schedule changes made to accommodate the new incoming students. The bill for the TERI Plan affects
individuals with 28 years or more of state service. Individuals approaching 28 years are also affected. The plan permits retirees to keep their jobs
while escrowing their retirement benefits for up to 60 months. More information is expected from
Columbia. At this time, the governor
has not signed the bill. New
Performance Funding benchmarks have been established to make achieving an
"exceeds" rating more difficult.
Winthrop is the only institution that has consistently received an
"exceeds" rating.
Academic Council - Dr. Will
Thacker, Chair
Academic Council presented its recommendations
related to two new general education courses and asked that they be considered
as three separate motions. There were
no objections.
The first motion was to field test two experimental
courses, GNED 101X and GNED 102X in both Spring and Fall of 2001. The motion passed without discussion.
The second motion was to approve offering up to
three sections of each course with 18 to 24 students in each section each
semester. The courses target freshmen
but will be open to sophomores and transfer students if space is
available. Computer programming will be
used to restrict enrollment during registration. Instructors will be selected from the two groups of faculty who
developed the courses. Course
effectiveness will be assessed. A job
description is being developed for an existing faculty member who will
coordinate the new courses and be responsible for assessing the courses. The faculty member will receive course
release time for the position that exists only during the field-testing
period. The motion passed.
The third motion was to approve the two courses to
count in areas III, IV, V, or VI of the students' general education requirements. The courses may be used in area IV to
fulfill explicit general education English or history requirements unless a
major or college requires English or history courses. Students who take both experimental courses must count them in
different areas of general education.
At the beginning of the discussion on the last motion, Dr. Mickey
Kennedy brought up the issue of curriculum items, such as the Council's third
motion, being excluded from the agenda that was distributed prior to the
Academic Council meeting at which it was acted on. Dr. Kennedy read the following statement on behalf of the History
Department:
“The members of the history department are disturbed by the precedent
established by Academic Council
at its last
meeting. Setting aside any discussions
regarding the merits of the proposed changes to the General Education Program,
or concerning the pilot courses themselves, Academic Council crossed a very
significant line when it presumed to determine what constitutes a history
course without consulting the department.
By allowing the pilot course to count as a history course in the general
education distribution requirements without first seeking any input from the
department, Academic Council encroached on a department's most fundamental
responsibility, that of its curriculum.
We would like to go on the record as being offended by and opposed to
such action.
We are raising this objection for reasons of principle
and not because of concern about the effects of the proposed pilot courses on enrollment in history, which we
think will be negligible. Nor is the
history department seeking special treatment.
We believe that Academic Council should have consulted all of the
departments potentially affected by the proposal to permit GNED 101X and
GNED102X to count in areas III, IV, and V of general education
requirements. We urge that in the
future Academic Council seek appropriate advice needed to make such important
decisions."
Several comments and a motion for a procedural
amendment to the Academic Council's third recommendation followed the
reading. The amendment states that
Faculty Conference directs the Academic Council to circulate, in a timely fashion,
copies of its agenda to department chairs so that the chairs can distribute
them to members of their departments.
Items pertaining to general education may not be added to the agenda
without prior notification of departments that might be affected. The amendment was revised to remove the
general education restriction and to make the amendment applicable to all
courses. The revised amendment was
seconded and passed without any discussion.
Discussion on the third motion led to several
clarifications by Dr. Thacker, Academic Council members and
faculty involved in developing the two courses. Comments and questions were made regarding
the selected general education areas.
Faculty members were concerned that the areas in which students may
receive credit, areas III, IV, V, and VI, do not correspond with the content of
the two courses. The areas for credit
were selected to encourage students from as broad a population as possible to
enroll in the courses. The developers
also wanted the two courses packaged together.
The two goals resulted in selecting areas III, IV, V, and VI because
they are broader in nature than the skill areas of II and I. The courses could not be designated only as
Area VI, the broadest area, because the area is already fully designated by
some majors. Area VI classification
would discourage several large parts of the student population from taking the
courses. If the two experimental
courses are later presented for permanent status, the areas must be
reevaluated. The courses are not
permitted to substitute for a class specifically designated by a major or
degree program nor can they substitute for the constitutional requirement. If the two experimental courses are later
presented for permanent status, the areas must be reevaluated.
A verbal vote was taken on the last motion. Dr. Moore declared that the motion was
passed. A motion for a show of hands
was offered and seconded. The motion
was supported by 67 members and not supported by 23 members.
A SACS accreditation team will be on campus from
March 19 to March 22. A draft of the
self-study report is available for faculty review. Faculty are asked to provide their input before the study is
revised and submitted to SACS in December.
There was not any old
business
VII. New
Business
There was not any new business
Margaret L. Williamson, Dean
of Enrollment Management, announced that students would be registering for their
spring classes in November using
the Internet. A representative from
the Registrar’s office will be visiting
the Colleges during the period from October 1st through October 20th.
Dr. Moore announced that the October 20th
Faculty Conference would be moved to Withers so that the Registrar may present on-line registration
to the Faculty.
IX. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 2:47pm.
Respectfully
submitted,
Michele
C. Henderson