MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL OF ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS
1:30 p.m., Monday, January 8, 2007, in Lyceum 200
PRESENT: Dr. Staton, Deans Hopkins, Eftink, Burnham, Lee, Wells, Wilder, Rholes, Sullivan-Gonzalez, Buntin, Pate, Dr. Phil Malone for Dean Reithel, Dr. Jim Stafford for Dean Chitwood, Dr. Murchison for Dr. Angle, Ms. Denise Knighton for Dr. Fant, Dr. Clark, Ms. Veena Mantena for Dr. Gates, Dr. Gispen, Dr. Canty, Ms. Harrington
ABSENT: Dr. Reithel, Dean Davis, Dean Chitwood, Dr. Donna Davis, Mr. Yuen, Mr. Putta, Dr. Angle, Dr. Fant, Mr. Monroe
1. Approval of Minutes.
The Provost announced that Chancellor Khayat has approved the minutes of the November 13 meeting without exception.
2. Reaction to Undergraduate Council Minutes of December 8, 2006
(see Attachment #1)
On a motion by Dean Eftink and a second by Dean Wells, the Council unanimously approved the Undergraduate Council minutes of December 8, 2006.
3. Prerequisite Checking: CLEP/AP Courses and Audited Courses
(see Attachment #2)
Dean Eftink discussed the treatment of CLEP/AP courses and audited courses in prerequisite checking. He indicated that in working with IT, he had made the decision that CLEP or AP credits would satisfy prerequisites requiring a C or better. At the same time, he had preliminarily determined that audit courses did not satisfy “C or better” prerequisites. There was some discussion in the Council about the treatment of audit courses: the sense of the Council being that audit courses ought not to satisfy any prerequisites. Dean Eftink indicated that he would forward to the Undergraduate Council a proposal for treatment of these issues.
There was some discussion of the impact of prerequisite checking on enrollments in the winter session. Dr. Murchison suggested that prerequisite checking had caused some enrollments in courses to be less than they would have otherwise been because students who were dropped because of prerequisite checking did not have their places filled by other students. She suggested that we needed a wait-listing aspect of registration. Veena Mantena reported that IT was looking at this problem. Dean Eftink indicated that SAP had a wait-listing module but that it was cumbersome, and that the university was therefore waiting on some other school to work through the kinks in this module. There was some sense that the university needed to press forward and not wait too long on some other institution to develop a wait-listing process.
4. Summer Pay Policy for Regular Faculty
(see Attachment #3)
Dean Eftink discussed the history of a previously proposed summer pay policy for faculty, and that it had been narrowly disapproved by the Council last year. The issue at the time centered on whether instructors were appropriately included in the policy. The group that had developed the first policy reconsidered the policy after it was disapproved by the Council and forwarded the policy currently under consideration. This policy specifically limits its application to regular faculty. Significant language in the proposed policy is “on a daily basis.” This language would permit regular faculty with access to research funds to be paid more than the traditional 3/9ths of their regular salary. The Provost again reiterated her concern that instructors not be exempted from summer course-load restrictions because of the effect of burnout on instructors from teaching too much doing the summer and intersessions. After further discussion, and on a motion by Dean Eftink and a second by Dean Hopkins, the Council unanimously approved the summer pay for regular faculty.
5. Other Business.
Dr. Murchison reported that there were more than 3,100 enrollments in wintersession, with about 300 of these being off campus. Dean Hopkins suggested that we might need to revisit how much money comes back to the colleges and schools from wintersession tuition revenues.
Dean Eftink reported that fall course evaluations were available on the web. He also discussed that the annual review of faculty by chairs would be put online (see attachment). The Council discussed whether deans should be able to respond online to chairs’ reports and whether chairs ought to have an additional response after faculty respond to their evaluation by chairs. The sense of the Council was that although deans might informally talk with chairs about the chairs’ evaluation of faculty, no formal comment by deans should be included in the online review. Furthermore, the sense of the Council was that chairs did not need an additional opportunity to respond to faculty responses to the chairs’evaluations.
6. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
All items approved by the Chancellor on February 19, 2007.