COUNCIL OF FACULTY DELEGATES
MINUTES
3rd Meeting

November 6, 1995

Present:  Professors C. Chancey, R. Colon, S. Conners, M. Dobberstein, R. Evans, J. Hack, D. Kark, D. Kirkpatrick, S. Lerner, T. Moffitt, L. Mura, D. Niedner (Sergeant at Arms), B. Pai, D. Pick, L. Rittenmeyer, W. Robinson, (President), W. Ting, C. Torres-Robles, C. Sekhar, M. Vermaat, J. Walker, Vice Chancellor L. Bryant, Vice Chancellor G. Newsom, Chancellor J. Yackel, M. Dakich (Parliamentarian), J. Wermuth (Secretary),

Absent:  Professors K. Corey, E. Jennings, S. Tickoo, M. Zahraee, Vice Chancellor S. Singer.

I. The meeting was called to order by Professor Robinson.

II. Professor Lerner moved the approval of the minutes of the October 2, 1995, meeting.  Professor Torres-Robles seconded the motion. The motion to approve the minutes of the October 2, 1995, meeting passed.

III. Professor Hack moved the acceptance of the agenda for the November 6, 1995, meeting.  Professor Lerner seconded the motion.  The motion to accept the agenda passed.

IV. Chancellor's Report

Chancellor Yackel reviewed recent developments in the south Lake County initiative.  He said the proposal presented to the Indiana Commission for Higher Education on October 12 was subjected to a series of new conditions that Purdue University considered outside the purview of the Commission and not in the university's best interests.  For these reasons, Purdue University withdrew the proposal.  He said there will be no further attempt to move a proposal through the Commission, but noted that there is still an unmet higher education need in the I-65/Rte 30 area and that Purdue University will continue to explore opportunities.

Chancellor Yackel said that the litigation over the vacation of 171st Street has ended.  He said that Purdue University Calumet will request of the Board of Trustees on November 17 formal approval to engage a landscape architect to develop plans for the Founders Plaza.  He said groundbreaking for the project, for which funds are being raised, will take place toward the end of the 1995-96 academic year.

Chancellor Yackel said Purdue University was developing its plans for the 1996 General Assembly short session.  He said there are indications the state will have a $2 billion surplus by January 1997.  He said there are indications that the budget will be opened in 1996 to provide tax cuts, but not to authorize new spending.  He said it is hoped that the date of the building project can be moved up.

At the Chancellor's request, Dean Moore addressed the 1996 summer session.  He said the deans will approve selected off-schedule courses, that student need will be the primary criterion for approval, and the Resource Center will not be involved in approving off-schedule courses.

V. Special Business of the Day

- Council Document 95-19 (Revised)  University General Education Requirements: A. Basic Skills. Research and Educational Policy Committee. For Action.

Professor Kark moved approval of Council Document 95-19 (Revised).  Professor Chancey seconded the motion.  Professor Kark spoke in support of the document and requested permission from the Council for members of the General Education Task Force to have voice as needed.  The Council so agreed.

Professor Torres-Robles moved to amend Council Document 95-19 (Revised) Section 2. Oral Expression, opening paragraph, second sentence to read " The advanced-level speaking requirement may be met by an integrative course or course sequence (in English or another language), or by a capstone course in a student's major area (or a closely related area)."  Professor Chancey seconded the motion.  Both Professor Torres-Robles and Chancey spoke in support of the amendment, and no member spoke against.  The motion to amend passed.

Professor Torres-Robles moved to amend Council Document 95-19 (Revised) A. Basic Skills, preamble by adding at the end of the preamble the following sentence: "In addition, although not a specific general education requirement, the study of a foreign language is recommended."  Professor Chancey seconded the motion.  Both Professor Torres-Robles and Chancey spoke in support of the amendment, and no member spoke against it.  The motion to amend passed without dissent.

Professor Ting raised a question about how the Department of Biological Sciences' one-credit seminar would meet the advanced-level speaking-intensive courses mentioned in Section 2 Oral Expression of the Document.  A general discussion followed over the role and procedures of the yet-to-be-established General Education Oversight Committee.

Professor Ting referred to the Impact Statement, and said that the Basic Skills Document would have a major impact on the Department of Biological Science's medical technology program.  She asked that Professor Dougherty be given permission to address the Council, and the Council granted this permission.  Professor Dougherty repeated Professor Ting's assertion.  He said that medical technology is a 3+1 program with no room for the addition of courses to it.  He said the program cannot be adjusted to meet the basic skill requirements in computer utilization and wellness.  A general discussion of the Impact Statements followed, in which it was noted that the Impact Statements were prepared with the academic department heads' knowledge of their own programs.  After Professor Chancey spoke to the desire for flexibility on the part of the General Education Oversight Committee, concern was expressed that the Oversight Committee might be too flexible and dilute the general education philosophy in actual cases.  Professor Moore, Chair of the General Education Task Force, noted that the philosophy and objectives had already been approved by the Council.  He said the Task Force had taken particular care to ensure there would be minimal impact on academic departments and programs.  He said there were already courses in place that meet the general education requirements.  He asked that the faculty consider how best to meet the spirit of the general education philosophy.  Professor Colon said that, since the proposed requirements would add upwards of fifteen credit hours to education programs, that there would be difficulty with the various accrediting agencies, and since no one knows how the enforcement machinery will work; he could not support the document.

Professor Lerner moved to amend Council Document 95-19 (Revised) Section 4, criterion one to read "- the course(s) will encourage and facilitate the use of computers in gathering and organizing information, and how they can be used in interpreting and/or presenting information." and criterion two to read "- the course(s) will...."  Professor Chancey seconded the motion.  Professor Lerner spoke to his motion; and with no further discussion and with vote by the Council, the motion to amend passed.

Professor Dobberstein asked the Task Force to clarify whether requirements equated one to one with courses, and if not one to one, what limit there was. Professor Moore said the requirements do not equate one to one with specific courses, and said there was no limit stated.  Professor Dobberstein then expressed concern about the potential for the serious dilution of the general education effort, and suggested that the Oversight Committee generate guidelines to protect against dilution.

Professor Robinson noted that thirty-three members of the faculty had petitioned to request a vote by the faculty on all the general education documents.  He said the petition seemed to request the vote prior to Council action.  He said it was his and the parliamentarian's opinion, based on the Articles of Organization and the Bylaws, that it was not possible to do what the petitioners requested.  He said the Council enabling documents did provide other avenues to meet the request of the petitioners.

With no further debate, Professor Robinson requested that the Council vote on the issue.  Upon completion of the voice vote, Professor Robinson asked the Secretary to conduct a roll call vote of those present.  The Secretary so did, with the support of the Parliamentarian, and reported the vote to the President, who then announced to the members that Council Document 95-19 (Revised) as amended had passed with a vote of 14 Ayes, 7 Noes, and 1 Present.  The following members voted Aye: Professors Chancey, Conners, Evans, Hack, Kark, Kirkpatrick, Mura, Niedner, Rittenmeyer, Sekhar, Vermaat, Walker; and Vice Chancellors Bryant and Newsom.  The following members voted No: Professors Colon, Dobberstein, Pai, Pick, Ting, Torres-Robles, and Mr. Moffitt.  Professor Lerner voted Present.

- Council Document 95-20 (Revised)  University General Education Requirements: B. Collegiate Knowledge. Research and Educational Policy Committee.  For Action.

Professor Kark moved the adoption of Council Document 95-20 (Revised).  Professor Chancey seconded the motion.  Members of the General Education Task Force were given the privilege of the floor by the Council.  At the request of Professor Kirkpatrick, Professor Chancey reviewed the revisions to Council Document 95-20.

Professor Torres-Robles moved to amend Council Document 95-20 (Revised) Section 2a , first sentence of statement by adding "languages" to the list in parentheses, so the sentence would now read "....aspects of human societies (e.g. languages, politics, economics.....).  Professor Chancey seconded the motion.  The motion to amend passed.

Professor Ting moved to amend Council Document 95-20 (Revised) to separate section 1 into two sections; one each for natural science and technology; and to renumber the items in the document accordingly.  Mr. Moffitt seconded the motion.  Professor Ting spoke in support of the motion.  It was noted that other items in the document would need to be changed to make the document consistent with the proposed amendment.  The motion to amend failed.

Mr. Moffitt spoke in support of Professor Ting's concerns as did Professor Chancey.

Professor Sekhar expressed concern about Section 3 Wellness Issues, and asked for a definition of fitness.  Professor Hack said that Mr. Bobalik and Professor Friend, in attendance, would address the issue if the Council wished it.

Professor Ting moved to amend Council Document 95-20 (Revised) to separate section 1 into two sections, one each for natural science and technology, and to assign six credits to natural science and three credits to technology.  After some discussion, Professor Robinson declared the amendment out of order and called a two minute recess.

With the Council being called to order again, Professor Ting moved to amend Council Document 95-20 (Revised) Item B as follows:

Change Item 1a. Natural Science to 1. Natural Science.

Insert the following immediately after 1. Natural Science: Successful completion of 6 credit hours in natural sciences will support objective 4.

Change Item 1b. Technology to 2. Technology.

Insert the following immediately after 2. Technology: Successful completion of 3 credit hours in technology will support objective 7.

Renumber following items appropriately.

Mr. Moffitt seconded the motion.  Professor Ting spoke in support of the motion.  Professor Rittenmeyer said the Council did not have time to consider the amendment and asked why the Task Force included the two items together originally.  On behalf of the General Education Task Force, Professor Chancey explained the circumstances leading to the combination of the science and technology areas.  Professor Lerner's motion to delete the word "laboratory" from item 1a. died for lack of a second.  Discussion followed.  Professor Robinson noted language dissonance.  Upon vote, the amendment failed.

Mr. Moffitt moved to amend Council Document 95-20 (Revised) to  change, in Item B1, the sentence "The laboratory sciences emphasize..." to "The natural sciences emphasize....".  Professor Chancey seconded the motion.  Professor Lerner moved to amend the amendment by changing, in the first criterion for a course in the natural sciences, "...includes..." to "...may include...".  Professor Chancey, as seconder of the motion, did not approve of the amendment to the amendment; and the amendment to the amendment failed for lack of a second.  Upon vote, the amendment to Council Document 95-20 (Revised) passed.

Professor Vermaat moved to amend Council Document 95-20 (Revised) Item 3, first criterion to read as it had in Council Document 95-20.  There was a second to the motion.  Discussion followed.  Professor Vermaat maintained that all areas were important.  Professor Kirkpatrick said that there was concern that therapy-based courses are inappropriate as part of a collegiate curriculum, and that therapies tend to be fad-prone.  The motion to amend failed.

With no further discussion, Council Document 95-20 (Revised) as amended was voted on and passed with a large number of Ayes.

VI. Unfinished Business

There was no unfinished business.

VII. Reports of Committees

Note: Because time became a pressing matter for many of the Council Members present, Professor Robinson asked the Standing Committee Chairs to submit their reports to the Secretary of the Council for inclusion in the minutes.

Agenda Committee:  Professor Hack reported that the Agenda Committee had met on October 16 and heard a south Lake County initiative recap by Chancellor Yackel.  She reported that the Committee had reviewed the revised General Education Core documents and listened to Standing Committee projects in process.  She said the Committee prepared the agenda for the November 6 meeting and is scheduled to meet next on November 20.

Faculty Affairs Committee:  Professor Niedner reported that the Faculty Affairs Committee is requesting the attachment of the information paper Results of the Survey of Faculty Opinion regarding Off-Campus Instruction to the November minutes.  She reported that the Committee discussed following up on the faculty audit, and discussed the following items in that regard: the value of an outside auditor, an internally developed survey, and meeting with senior administrators.  She said it was agreed that each member of the committee will consult with his/her departmental faculty in order to determine which issues are most important regarding the interaction of faculty and administration, and what type of working relationship is most desired.

Nominating Committee:  Professor Corey reported that there were no issues before the Nominating Committee at this time.

Research and Educational Policy Committee:  Professor Kark reported that the Committee continued to work with the General Education Task Force on the general education documents.

Resources and Planning Committee:  There was no report from the Resources and Planning Committee.

Student Affairs Committee:  Professor Hack reported that the Student Affairs Committee had met on October 12 and discussed a student activities space allocation problem that caused difficulty between Student Government and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Student Services.  She reported that the next meeting is scheduled for November 14.

Intercampus Faculty Council:  Professor Hack reported that the Intercampus Faculty Council has set November 14 for their fall meeting in West Lafayette.

Student Government:  There was no report from Student Government.

VIII. Other New Business

There was no Other New Business.

IX. Adjournment

Professor Robinson called for a motion to adjourn.  Professor Pai so moved.  Professor Chancey seconded the motion.  The motion to adjourn passed.