EPAG Minutes

September 18, 2006

2:45-4:15, Campus Center 205

 

Kendrick Brown, Beth Cleary, Cheryl Contant (guest, ACE fellow)  Ellen Guyer, Diane Michelfelder, Jayne Niemi, Joan Ostrove, Michael Schneider,  Jacob Wartman, Peter Weisensel (co-chair), Karl Wirth (co-chair)

 

  1. The minutes from the meeting of September 11 were approved.
  2. Student representatives are Jacob Wartman (MCSC rep) and Natalia Espejo (at-large rep).  Natalia’s appointment still needs to be approved by MCSG.
  3. For GES subcommittee heads, Karl distributed the language of the requirements as approved by the faculty, as well as examples of approval forms.    Jayne hopes that the first section of the form will be consistent across the requirements.  The role of department chairs was discussed, and we determined that the chair would submit all the requests.  Diane will add this to the agenda of the upcoming chairs meeting.    Karl will talk to Sara Suelflow about web possibilities for completing and routing the form to interested parties and approvers.
  4. Realizing a missed step, we reminded ourselves who we are.
  5. We discussed and re-prioritized the potential, known agenda items for the coming year.  Joan will update the list for us.
    1. September/October:  FPC continues to work on the appeals process and we will work with them.  The request for a hire without a national search will be considered today.  Changes to the study away process that were suggested last year can be implemented, although at least one needs to be approved by the faculty (addition of at-large faculty member to SARC).  The IGC’s work on a certificate program continues – send any questions to Peter.  He might find it useful as he helps the IGC steering committee as the EPAG rep.   The GES subcommittee work is ongoing. 
    2. November:  Course evaluation work will continue.  Peter will distribute the EXCO document to us.  Perhaps this can move up to October.  We hope to review and possibly change allocations procedure and process with the goal of making it a more forward-looking, long-term consideration.  We need to consider a proposed change in the daily class schedule to accommodate a different faculty meeting time as well as longer course meeting times for some types of courses.
    3. December:  Consider the relationship of EPAG to admissions, as listed as one of our duties in the handbook (develop formal advisory group, perhaps).  It’s time to review the EPAG structure, and whether it is working as effectively as it was hoped when the faculty committee structure was changed.
    4. Other things to do before spring:  review and approve the 07-08 calendar (Jayne initiates this) and consider a Middle East Studies concentration proposal when it is received.
    5. Spring semester:  There may be professional development needs that come out of GES work.    Grade inflation continues to be of interest to faculty.   Conversations about honor code, dean’s list, and grading by students are still of interest to us.  We may consider revision of divisional requirements, analogous to GES.   There could be a review of the new academic structure (departments, majors, minors, concentrations, possible certificates).  For reference, see the green document from late last spring. (This might need to be done earlier; in the fall & move EPAG structure review to spring).  We want to review the requirements for departmental reviews.  ALLOCATIONS!

 

6.     Discussion turned to the request from the Political Science for a hire without a national search.  There is a process outlined in the handbook.  We asked that it include a request for data supporting the stated needs.  Several of the group expressed concern that granting such requests might set precedents which could result in “growing” departments out of sync with the regular allocations process.   We discussed the particulars of the proposal.  Karl will request a list of potential courses & cross-listings from the department.

 

Adjourned 4:24 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Jayne Niemi, Registrar