January 29, 2008
4:30-6:00, CC 214
Kendrick Brown (chair), Ellen Guyer, Pete Ferderer, Dan Keyser, Paul Maitland-McKinley, David Martyn, Diane Michelfelder, Jayne Niemi, Peter Weisensel, Eric Wiertelak, Karl Wirth
- The minutes from last year were recalled as perfect and therefore approved.
- Kendrick and the group reviewed potential agenda items which included but was probably not limited to the following: academic structure, allocations, handbook revisions, clarity on class attendance policy as it relates to athletic competitions, educational studies program restructure, a possible change to drop/add deadline, joint committee on strategic positions, CNS developments, constitutional amendment re voting members, issues with incompletes re academic standing, GES subcommittees and their assessment responsibilities, getting a brief report on course evaluations, grade inflation, possible changes to grades & grading options.
- We were reminded of the upcoming deadline (Feb 4 at 8 a.m.) for submission of spring semester 2008 courses for GE designations.
- Kendrick anticipates that our month of March *might* include Tuesday as well as Thursday meetings.
- A one-meeting subcommittee was created to draft the CST job description – Kendrick, Diane, Ellen, and 2 volunteers – Pete and Dan. Diane distributed two articles that might be relevant. Jan Peterson will set up the meeting time.
- The remainder of the meeting was used to discuss issues of administrative structure (departments and programs and such things) and program structure (majors, minors, concentrations and the like) and all gray areas that surround them. There are issues about naming conventions, staffing resources, program budget resources, the transition of a successful concentration into a major, the sunset clause –why it’s there and what criteria it uses. What about interdisciplinary minors? Can we separate ourselves from the past? Should we separate the “administrative unit” from “majors & minors”? How do we handle this whole subject? Let’s think about the purpose of things first, rather than the administrative structure. Do we want simplicity? Do we want something to serve as an incubator for new programs? What would we do if we started a college curriculum from scratch? These things signal to students and faculty and the world what the college is about. Since we are full of questions, our homework is to answer the first one: What is the purpose of the interdepartmental program? Come up with language that describes the purpose of the interdepartmental program. Look at the first paragraphs of the current academic structure and what the purpose is of each of them.
Adjourned at 6:05
Jayne Niemi, Registrar