MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL OF ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS
1:30 p.m., Monday, November 14, 2005, in Lyceum 200
PRESENT: Dr. Staton, Deans Hopkins, Reithel, Eftink, Burnham, Davis, Lee, Wells, Stocks,
Chitwood, Sullivan-Gonzalez, Buntin, and Pate, Ms. Herrera for Dean Rholes,
Dr. Sumrall, Ms. Piazza, Dr. Murchison for Dr. Angle, Dr. Hall, Dr. Clark,
Dr. Gispen, Dr. Canty, and Ms. Puckett
ABSENT: Dean Rholes, Mr. Putta, Dr. Angle, Dr. Fant, Dr. Hallam, Dr. Gates, and
1. Approval of Minutes. The Provost announced that Chancellor Khayat has approved the minutes of the September 12 and October 10 meetings without exception.
2. Reaction to Undergraduate Council Minutes of October 7 and November 4.
Dean Sullivan-Gonzalez moved and Dean Chitwood seconded that the minutes of the Undergraduate Council meeting for October 7, 2005, be approved. The Council discussed at some length the proposed academic calendar for 2006-2007. Dean Sullivan-Gonzalez suggested that the problem of there being extra days in the spring term should be resolved. After further discussion, and on a motion by Dean Chitwood and a second by Dean Stocks, the Council unanimously amended the original motion to provide that the extended advising period would begin in the spring of 2006 on the Wednesday before spring break. As amended, the motion carried unanimously.
Dean Hopkins moved and Dean Eftink seconded that the minutes of the Undergraduate Council meeting for November 4, 2005, be approved except for the proposed grading system. Dean Hopkins noted that a change in the grading system would affect a variety of other catalog matters, such as courses for which there was a particular grade prerequisite. Dean Eftink informed the Council that the Graduate Council had taken a straw vote on this issue, and that, according to this vote, a majority of the Council was not in favor of a change to the graduate grading scale. Dean Eftink further noted that both undergraduates and graduate students might take 500-level courses. Thus, a change of the grading scale for undergraduates might affect the graduate school. He did note that he had spoken with Dr. Kathy Gates and had been informed by her that it was technically feasible to provide separate grading scales for graduate and undergraduate students in course grade reports. Dr. Gispen noted that the points raised by Dean Hopkins and Dean Eftink mostly had to do with implementation issues rather than the underlying policy issue. Dean Hopkins reiterated that he was not opposed to the new grading system, but that he thought it was wise that chairs have a chance to discuss the proposed grading scale before it is implemented. Dean Sullivan-Gonzalez inquired as to whether the Undergraduate Council had considered including an A+ in the scale. The secretary noted that the sense of the Undergraduate Council was that it would not be helpful to include a numerical grade of above 4.0. Dean Eftink argued that grades would go down because of the lack of an A+. But Dean Hopkins suggested that there would be fewer 4.0 students under the proposed scale, but that the number of F’s would go down. Elizabeth Piazza questioned why we should not adopt a straight 100 numerical scale, and some members of the Council suggested that not all faculty were comfortable grading on that scale. After further discussion, Dr. Gispen moved and Dean Sullivan-Gonzalez seconded to approve the policy recommended by the Undergraduate Council and to appoint an implementation committee to formulate a plan for implementing the grading policy within one year. Dean Reithel expressed his opposition to this proposal because he preferred to see the plan implemented by fall of 2006. Dr. Murchison questioned whether it would be appropriate to phase the grading policy in for only freshmen at first. Dean Reithel suggested that this would be difficult since many classes contained both freshmen and upperclassmen and that it would be difficult to apply two different grading scales to these two different populations of students. Ms. Piazza suggested that some students were opposed to the proposed grading policy and that a student should be on the implementation committee. After further discussion and on a motion by Dean Reithel and a second by Dean Burnham, the issue of the proposed grading system was tabled until the January meeting of the Council. It is expected that deans will solicit comment from their chairs concerning the policy and that Dr. Sumrall will inform the Faculty Senate of the proposed policy in the interim.
3. Faculty Senate Motion Regarding Administrative Review (see Attachment #1).
On a motion by Dr. Sumrall and a second by Dean Sullivan-Gonzalez, the proposed policy regarding administrative reviews unanimously carried.
4. Additional Matters.
Dean Sullivan-Gonzalez raised the issue that UPD was apparently ticketing faculty who parked in other than faculty lots and that this represented a change from previous policy that had not been widely made public. The Provost suggested that the issue should be referred to Dr. Thomas Wallace.
Dean Eftink informed the Council that prerequisite checking would be turned on on December 5, 2005. He also mentioned that IT was exploring the possibility of adding a waiting list feature to registration in SAP.
Ms. Piazza indicated that the ASB was preparing proposed revisions to the M-Book procedure for grade appeals. The ASB is also considering proposals concerning a requirement concerning the return of grades.
Dean Eftink indicated that course evaluations had been turned on and that new specific questions had been developed for particular schools within the university.
5. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m.
APPROVED by Chancellor Khayat on January 3, 2006.