DATE: September 18, 1998

 CALL TO ORDER: Dr. Beheruz Sethna, President, called the meeting to order at 3:00 P.M. in the Lecture Hall, Richards College of Business.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Sheila Abraham, Ozzie Binion, Susan Boes, Jim Burton, Jack Charlesworth, Swarma Dutt, Lynne Gaskin, Kathryn Grams, Bob Hilliard, Chris Huff, Farooq Khan, Cecilia Lee, Will Lloyd, Magdy Metry, Gwen McAlpine, Mark McManus, Marc Miller, Elena Mustakova-Possardt, John Myers, David Osborn, James Taylor, Gary Wenzel, Ara Volkan, John Fuller for Ray Crook.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the May 29, 1998 meeting were approved (Volkan).


I. Committee on Undergraduate Academic Programs, Committee #1
(Chairperson: Mark McManus)

Mr. McManus submitted the following for information only:

    1. The UAPC approved
      1. New Courses—ECED 3223, ECED 4222
      2. Modification—ECED 3222
      3. Standardized form, "Course Addition, Modification, or Deletion"
      4. Policy that new programs be submitted in compliance with Board of Regents’ "Preliminary Program Proposal"
    1. By Monday, September 21, Microsoft Word or Word Perfect texts of "Course Addition, Modification, or Deletion" forms and Board of Regents’ "Preliminary Program Proposal" will be sent to every department head and Dean’s office.
II. Committee on Faculty and Administrative Staff Personnel, Committee #3 (Chairperson: Sheila Abraham)
 Dr. Abraham moved that the Senate accept modifications in the Post-Tenure Review policy (see attached):
    1. Revise the last two lines of Section 104.0202. Strike the words "Prior to implementation." Substitute: "by 30 days prior to the end of each Spring term."
    2. The motion passed unanimously.

    3. Revise the first sentence of Section 104.0203 by inserting the word "decision" following the phrase, "…since their last career review decision (tenure and/or promotion) … "
    4. The motion passed unanimously.

    5. In Section 104.0206A, remove "(excluding administrators above the level of the department chair)" and change Section 104.0206B to read: "Even if the faculty of a given unit (college or library) decides that department chairs or unit supervisors can serve on Post-Tenure Review Advisory committees (for example, at the University-wide Appeals Committee advisory level), under no circumstances shall anyone who serves in a supervisory role to the individual being reviewed be permitted to serve on a Post-Tenure Review Advisory committee reviewing that individual."
    6. Discussion centered on the possibility of department chairs serving on Post-Tenure Review Advisory committees. Dr. Hynes said that the passage of this policy contradicts at least one college personnel policy. Ann Richards pointed out that Post-Tenure Review is supposed to be faculty-driven. Department chairs already have input during annual evaluations. The FASP Committee felt that the language of the original policy is unclear as to whether a chair can serve on a Post-Tenure Review committee or not.

      David Osborn asked if university or college documents take precedence. Dr. Sethna said that if the university document specifically prohibits an action, then a college cannot allow that action, but if a university document permits an action, then the college document can be more demanding.

      Dr. Hynes mentioned the problem of local autonomy, which the FASP Committee is attempting to address with this proposal. Dr. Taylor pointed out that many small departments need for the chair to serve. He said that he believes that department chairs are better members of Post-Tenure Review Advisory committees than persons outside the department. Dr. Richards said that the proposed policy would serve as an audit of the department chair’s evaluations.

      Cecilia Lee asked if chairs could appoint the committee. Dr. Sethna responded that he has seen nothing that permits a department chair to simply handpick a committee. Mark McManus pointed out that each department chooses how it will select its committee, and Dr. Sethna reiterated the faculty’s strong role in Post-Tenure Review. Magdy Metry expressed a need for a general policy for every department. Dr. Abraham explained that surveys have shown that each department wants to make its own policies. Ara Volkan said that the College of Business does not have departmental committees. Instead, there is one college committee with departmental representatives.

      Dr. Sethna summarized the discussion. The current policy allows department chairs to serve on Post-Tenure Review Advisory committees, if they are elected or selected by their departments. The proposal, if passed, will disallow that practice.

      Drs. Hynes and Richards reminded the Senate of the contradictory phrases in the current document. In the past, interpretations have favored local autonomy. Dr. Sethna added that FASP could change the language of the document.

      Will Lloyd questioned changing the policy while dossiers are currently being prepared. Dr. Hynes responded that, because of legal ramifications, changes in policy would not go into effect until next year.

      The question was called and the motion passed (15 yes, 7 no, 1 abstain).

    7. In Section 104.0206A, replace the last sentence with the following: "Each college and/or the library, as well as the University-wide Appeals Committee for Post-Tenure Review, shall establish a process for removing a faculty member from the Post-Tenure Review Advisory Committee(s) and shall establish criteria for assessing the credibility of claims of bias if a person being reviewed has reason to believe that another individual could not judge his or her case fairly."
    8. The motion passed (22 yes, 1 no).

    9. In Section 104.0206B, put the last sentence into bold print ("A Post-Tenure Review Advisory Committee or Post-Tenure Review Advisory Committees consisting of at least three tenured faculty colleagues, selected by whatever means the faculty members so determine, shall be established annually at the department, unit and/or college level(s) in accordance with these votes.")

      Dr. Taylor said that his department has a handbook and wants a standing policy. He questioned the need of the word "annually" in the document. Dr. Sethna suggested that Dr. Taylor’s department endorse the same policy each year to avoid changing its handbook.   Dr. Kahn asked if this motion contradicts the third motion of this committee (see C). Mr. McManus responded that it only conflicts in unusual cases. He also said that individual departments must be bound by the rules.   The question was called and the vote in favor of the motion was unanimous.
III. Committee on Graduate Studies, Committee #10 (Chairperson: Jack Jenkins)
    1. Dr. Jenkins presented the proposal for Ed.D. in School Reform and Excellence (approved by the Graduate Studies Committee on September 9, 1998) (see attached).
    2. Jim Burton asked if a Ph.D. had been considered instead of an Ed.D. Dr. Sethna responded that only Ph.D. programs in research universities are being accepted.

      Dr. Lloyd asked if the degree is unique and said that the title "School Reform and Excellence" is pretentious and meaningless. Dr. Jenkins responded that the program is unique and will train experts to help schools undergoing change.

      Dr. Metry asked if the proposed degree is academic. Dr. Jenkins said that it is a solid Ed.D. degree that focuses on school reform and excellence. Dean Angela Lumpkin added that the degree is innovative and interdisciplinary.

      Dr. Lloyd again questioned the name of the degree, and Dean Lumpkin responded that the name had been chosen after input from professionals across Georgia. It is a technology-based degree created to prepare leaders for today. In addition, the faculty is conversant in the literature in the field. The national norm for the name for similar programs is "Curriculum and Instruction." Seeing the need for an innovative program, the College of Education selected the name, "School Reform and Excellence." Dr. Lloyd stressed the importance of content.

      Dr. Taylor suggested dropping "and Excellence." Dean Lumpkin said that "Reform" is the key word. Dr. Sethna said that he understood the name as "School (Reform and Excellence)." Dr. Lee suggested substituting "Improvement" for "Excellence." Dean Jenkins defended the use of the word "Excellence" as a proper designation of schools. Chris Huff asked what "Excellence" means to a student who presents it to someone else. Dr. Richards and Dr. Wenzel explained that "Excellence" has a specific meaning in schools of education.

      Dr. Lloyd stated that the adoption of the first doctoral degree shows a shift in the nature of the State University of West Georgia from an emphasis on four-year programs. Dean Jenkins pointed out that the Graduate School is the fourth largest in the University System and has the seventh largest number of graduate students receiving degrees in education in the country.

      Dr. Kahn asked if graduates in this program would be able to make reforms in chemistry and other subject areas. Dean Lumpkin responded that the program was developed not to prepare better chemistry teachers, but to prepare experts to get the chemistry teachers together and to lead them to reform. Dr. Sethna pointed out that, although teaching content is important, the program focuses on leadership. He read from page 2 of the proposal: "The focus of this unique doctoral program will be to prepare individuals who through an understanding of the sociological, cultural, technological, legal, political, and economic issues impacting schools will provide leadership in restructuring curriculum and school and district policy to guarantee every child equitable access to learning opportunities."

      Dr. Taylor asked if jobs are available for graduates in this program. Dr. Lumpkin said that most students would already be employed.

      Dr. Sethna warned the Senate that there might be difficulty in passing the proposal because, up to this point, only two regional universities have been allowed to offer doctorates. For approval, West Georgia will have to show a great need (in addition to demand).

      Elena Mustakova-Possardt asked how the program differed from others. Dean Lumpkin explained that the program focuses on curriculum rather than leadership. There is a similar degree in New Jersey. The program proposed at West Georgia is unique because it is interdisciplinary, emphasizes technology, and includes interface of schools.

      Marc Miller asked how the GRE score requirement (minimum of 450 on the verbal and 450 on either the quantitative or analytical, for a total of at least 1000) compared with other schools. Dean Lumpkin stated that the requirement at the University of Georgia is also 1000. Raising the score to 1200 would limit the number of students. It is expected that standards will rise as the program grows.

      The question was called and the motion passed (19 yes, 1 no, 3 abstain).

    3. Dean Jenkins presented for information
    1. Minutes of the April 29, 1998, and May 20, 1998 meetings of the Committee on Graduate Studies.
    2. List of members of the 1998-1999 Committee on Graduate Studies.



I. Change of June 11, 1999 Faculty Senate Meeting to June 18, 1999.

II. Dr. Lee announced that the Office of Sponsored Operations would sponsor a survey on job satisfaction and attitude. Dr. Hynes explained that the survey is part of a large national study being conducted at UCLA.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 4:10 P.M.

Diane H. Sharp

Executive Secretary of the Faculty Senate