I. Faculty Senate President David Wyld called the meeting to order at
II. Senators absent were Ahn, Armenta, Bancroft, Bonnette, Bouton, Coxe, Diaz, Dranguet, Gibson, Koss, Shwalb, and Valentino.
Minutes from the
A. President Wyld noted that, at the previous meeting, an SGA guest reported student fees for Student Government at $45 per semester, whereas they were $45 per year.
B. Senator Wyld informed Senators that this mistake had been changed in the posted minutes.
IV. President Wyld announced that Steve Leon, Director of Auxiliary Services, who had been on the agenda for purposes of providing a new student housing update and for discussing printer networking, was unable to attend the meeting. He then introduced invited guests, Aime Anderson, Director of Student Housing, and her assistant, Robin Parker, for purposes of updating Senators on the new student housing project. Senator Wyld said that Mr. Leon would be invited back to the March meeting to discuss the printing issue.
A. Ms. Anderson provided Senators with a color brochure, and also presented a map of the construction project.
B. She said that
1. Approximately 350 students are now occupying these facilities. The students share a small common area that has a kitchen-style space and a shared bathroom. The students have private bedrooms, their own Internet and telephone lines, and basic cable (services that will be available in all of the new buildings). They are also equipped with new furniture.
2. She noted an upcoming open house where Senators could view the new facilities (actually held on February 4th).
C. Ms. Anderson added that Lee Hall is scheduled for demolition during this semester, probably during March.
D. She said that construction is underway for four buildings, including a building close to the library that will also house Campus Police and Campus Housing Offices beginning in the Fall semester.
E. There will be a majority of double occupancy in the four buildings opening in the Fall; there will also be some private facilities.
F. Tangipahoa and Hammond Halls are the double facilities that are similar to private facilities, except that two students share the entire space together.
G. Students, across campus, will not share a bathroom with more than one person in the new housing units.
H. When the new buildings opened a few weeks ago, a few rooms had not been completed, and were held pending completion. But, of those rooms available for occupancy, we are now at 100 percent occupancy.
I. Taylor Hall is still open as well, and it is at about 50% occupancy.
J. We do still have property (
K. Ms. Parker added that the
open houses would be at both
L. Senator Wyld thanked the guests for their update, and added that the new student housing looked so nice, his young sons had remarked that the buildings looked like hotels…so a great compliment to the progress on campus and to the work of their office.
V. Old Business:
A. President Wyld noted that the reorganization of colleges would have ramifications on existing Senate seats, and asked Senator Ply to provide an update on this issue.
1. Senator Ply provided a
revised handout of seat issues that will need to be addressed with the
reorganization of the colleges. For example, there is currently a seat on the
University Planning Council held by Mike Beauvais, and he will no longer be in
2. Senator Titard said that the Bylaws would also need revision in the Fall relative to the two new colleges and the appropriate number of representatives. In the meantime, Senator Titard said that the proposal by Senator Ply would take care of the problem temporarily, until we know for sure how many people should be on the committees from each of the colleges. Senator Titard requested approval to use Senator Ply’s document as a guide for contacting Department Heads.
3. Senator Ply moved approval of this request…with the addition of the Faculty Grievance Committee solution being to raise Ken Li up to full membership, and later elect two alternates. Senator Titard seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Senator Root said that the Professional Rights and Responsibilities Committee had met and reviewed the flow chart provided by Milas Love, and that they were continuing to examine the issues and processes involved with reporting student plagiarism.
1. Senator Wyld noted that the Executive Council was still in ongoing discussion regarding issues of student plagiarism, including how those issues are processed, and how the communication occurred between various parties. The two issues specifically discussed at Executive Council were the need for flexibility, while moving forward from the current process of having to create documentation from scratch; and the need for faculty members to ultimately be informed of the disposition of cases that they reported.
2. Senator Slawson presented, as an FYI to Senators, a routing form that the English Academic Integrity Committee (Natasha Whitton, main author; Richard Louth, Committee Chair) had recently put together as a guide for English faculty involved with issues of student plagiarism. (See Addendum B)
3. Senator Prescott said that she had an appointment with Milas Love to work on a routing system whereby faculty members might be notified of outcomes of plagiarism cases they filed.
4. Senator Gonzalez-Perez said that faculty members in her department had filed plagiarism reports and often not heard back. They would like to be informed of the outcome of a filed complaint of plagiarism.
5. Senator Root said that there were a couple of levels to consider: The Academic Integrity Issue: If a complaint did not get referred by a Dean, Milas Love would not act on it; and the Behavioral Aspect, whereby a faculty member could report an issue directly to Milas Love’s office. She recommended, as an Academic Integrity concern, it seemed that, not only should Milas Love’s office be working on the issue, but also Deans or Departmental Heads as well.
6. Senator Wyld asked Senators to provide additional feedback to Terri Root at email@example.com as her committee continued to examine this issue.
C. Senator Wyld called on Senator Nelson, Chair of the Faculty Welfare Committee, for an update on the issue of streamlining the Internal Grant Processes. Senator Nelson said that he had nothing new to report at this time. He is still waiting to hear from Tena Golding after her meetings with appropriate committees.
D. Senator Wyld then turned the floor over to Senator Root, Chair of the Professional Rights and Responsibilities Committee, for a report on the issue of application requirements in employment searches.
1. The committee, having investigated for the possibility of greater flexibility in what was required from a potential employee in the initial application packet, had drafted a resolution. (See Addendum C)
2. Senator Root made a motion to pass the resolution as presented. Senator White seconded the motion. The Senator voted unanimously to adopt this resolution (Senate Resolution #4).
E. Senator Wyld recognized Senator Budden to provide a report, in Senator Coxe’s absence due to illness, of the Constitutional and Bylaws changes.
1. Senator Budden said that there was nothing new to report at this time, but that the Constitution and Bylaws Committee was continuing to meet and would have a report at next month’s Senate meeting.
2. Senator Wyld thanked Senator Budden, and wished Senator Coxe a speedy recovery.
F. Senator Nelson, Chair of the Faculty Welfare Committee, was asked to provide an update on the Search Committee composition issue. He said that his department was trying to develop some written guidelines, and that the Faculty Welfare Committee would most likely come forward soon with a resolution suggesting that each department should have written guidelines to avoid problems in the composition of search committees.
VI. New Business:
A. Senator Wyld recognized Senator Ply to present the issue of correspondence that transfer students receive from the university.
1. A letter was distributed to the Senators that Sam Domiano had forwarded which contained information currently sent out to transfer students. (See Addendum D) Senator Ply said that she had sent Mr. Domiano a list of possible items that might be included in the letter currently sent to transfer students in an effort to alert students that they were required to be advised prior to registering, and that it was in their interests to bring an unofficial copy of old transcripts and course descriptions to advisors. Senator Ply said that doing such would streamline and expedite the process.
2. Senator Ply said that there are often problems when transfer students try to register for classes. Advisors and department heads and departmental secretaries are often exposed to the wrath and frustration of transfer students whose courses have not been evaluated and entered into the computer. Senator Ply recommended that the acceptance letter contain information that would reduce some of the stress for all parties.
3. If the acceptance letter is explicit about bringing the appropriate documentation so as to be advised and/or authorized into courses, and then the student fails to comply, then the student will have to bear the responsibility for any effects on his/her ability to register. Senator Ply added that if the students are prepared to be advised and to register, then perhaps there will be fewer tirades directed at departmental staff and at transfer admissions staff.
4. Senator Ply said it was her understanding that the suggestions she had sent over were in the process of being evaluated by Sam Domiano and Steve Soutullo and, thus, moved that the Senate authorize the Executive Committee to continue the work of refining the language of this proposal. Senator Yeargain seconded this motion.
5. Senator Wyld, having recently been in conversation with Sam Domiano, said that Mr. Domiano and Mr. Soutullo had been working on the issue, and there might possibly be a change in the correspondence as early as this summer. The Senate voted unanimously to send the issue to the Executive Council.
B. Senator Wyld turned the floor over to Senator Ramsey to discuss the DROP program.
1. Senator Ramsey provided Senators with a Bar Chart dealing with the DROP program. Senator Ramsey noted the following:
a. Inflation in the United States had been 3.1 percent per annum for the last 60 years. Thus, one has to be at a 3.1 percent growth rate just to break even;
b. The DROP portfolio had averaged 7.75 percent per annum as the historical return on investment (ROI) per year;
c. DROP went through a couple of bad years; and
d. Senator Ramsey believed that the Legislature had overreacted by introducing LaDROP in which everyone entering after January 1, 2004, is at a money market rate, rather than the historical growth rate; the money market rate is at a historical 3.5 percent as displayed in the bar graph. Senator Ramsey told Senators that, over the last year, the rate had not been that good, actually less than 1 percent after the 0.25 administrative fees were taken out.
e. Senator Ramsey said that TRSL’s portfolio last year (2004) gained over 18 percent, which stands in stark contrast to the <1% ROI in LaDROP.
2. LaDROP, not DROP, is ironically the risky program from the member’s perspective, Senator Ramsey said. It is risky in the sense of denied opportunity with the investment confined to a snail’s pace that may or may not keep up with inflation. Over time, nothing beats common stocks as investment vehicles, Senator Ramsey added. Yet, because of two bad years, Senator Ramsey said that the legislature voted to deny future drop participants all opportunity by offering only LaDROP.
3. Senator Ramsey stated his preference that participants be offered a choice or a mix of funds since it is their money. He then moved to send the issue to committee. Senator Norris seconded the motion.
4. Senator Wyld opened up the floor for discussion.
a. Senator Dassau asked if this was a legislative issue, what the Senate could do to address it.
b. Senator Wyld said about the only thing we could do was to write a letter on behalf of the Senate.
c. Senator Yeargain said it might be helpful to read the statute. For three years that you are in the program, you get no interest on your income and the interest rate should be ignored initially because it does not belong to you for three years. Once you come out of DROP, it starts accruing at the different rates, but the legislation provides the option of rolling it over into a tax-sheltered vehicle which you can self invest.
5. After further discussion, a majority voted to send the issue to the Budget Committee for further study and evaluation.
A. Senator Davis announced that Pride Day is on March 17th.
1. Students are being sought for faculty nomination for the Pride of Southeastern Award. These students will be those who do something above and beyond the average student populations. Winners will be recognized in the classroom.
2. Additionally, Pride Day will be a time of raising student awareness of various departments by having students to attend different activities going on in different departments. Under consideration is a program where students attending an activity featured by a department could obtain a raffle ticket for a prize.
3. Senator Davis presented handouts providing more information on these activities. (Addendums E and F)
B. Senator Wyld announced that Dr. Crain’s office had contacted him about nominating at least two people to represent the Senate for each of the President’s Awards Review Committees (the Artistic Award, Teaching Award, Professional Activity Award, and Service Award). He sent around a sheet where Senators could indicate their interests, and told Senators that they did not need to be tenured or to have a certain rank in order to serve.
C. Senator Wyld announced that Dr. Crain had distributed an email regarding an issue that the Faculty Senate had put forward last year regarding online office hours. This issue, it appears, will be addressed at the UL System level, and our institutional policy on this matter will then comply with System policy.
1. Senator White wondered if this was a system policy or a university policy issue.
2. Senator K. Mitchell asked if the ten-hour rule was still a requirement for those teaching reduced loads.
3. Dr. Crain said that full time faculty members are required to keep ten office hours each week.
D. President Wyld then turned the floor to Senators Stahr and Hite to provided an SGA report. They noted that some new student Senators had attended the last meeting.
E. Senator Wyld adjourned the meeting at 3:52 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for March 2, 2005.
UNIVERSITY STANDING COMMITTEES (ELECTED) 2005-2006
Proposal (accepted by Faculty Senate 2/2/05)
Mike Beauvais (Bus/Tech) 2004-2006 *** (declare seat vacant elect a new BUS)
Alan Cannon (A&S) 2004-2006 (can remain and rep SCI/TECH)
Cindy Elliott (E&HD) 2003-2005 (elect a new E&HD person)
Cindy Logan (N&HS) 2003-2005 (elect a new N&HS)
Debbie Longman (GS/LIB) 2004-2006 (can remain)
Richard Louth (A&S) 2003-2005 (elect a new person from HUMS)
William Parkinson (A&S) 2003-2005 (leave seat vacant until we find out what the split in the two colleges is in the fall and decide who gets this one seat—or give each half a new seat, bringing elected total to 8) [I suspect HUM will be still very large.]
David Wyld (FacSen) 2004-2005
UNIVERSITY TENURE AND PROMOTION COMMITTEE
Harold Blackwell 2003-2006 (remain for NURS/HS)
Ramesh Bettagere 2004-2007 (remain for NURS/HS)
Paul Carruth 2004-2007 (remain for BUS)
Al Dranguet 2003-2005 (elect someone from SCI/TECH so that it will have two and HUM will have three)
Chris Eleser 2002-2005 (elect new from GENS)
Tom Fick 2003-2006 (remain for HUM)
Beth Gray 2002-2005 (elect new from SCI/TECH)
Paul Haschak 2003-2006 (remain for LIB)
Margaret Marshall 2004-2007 (remain for HUM)
Ann Nauman 2002-2005 (elect new from E&HD)
Dale Parent 2004-2007 (remain for HUM)
Beth Wadlington 2004-2007 (remain for E&HD)
John Yeargain 2003-2006 (remain for BUS)
FACULTY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE
Cheryll Javaherian 2003-2006 (remain for HUM)
Karen Jung 2003-2006 (remain for library/GENS)
Elizabeth Partridge 2002-2005 (elect new E&HD)
Matt Rossano 2004-2007 (remain for HUM)
Mary Sue Ply 2002-2005 (put Ken Li in this seat)
Jean Urick 2002-2005 (elect new NURS/HS)
John Yeargain 2003-2006 (remain for BUS)
Janie Branham 2003-2006 (remain for LIB/GENS)
Sonya Carr 2002-2005 (elect new E&HD)
Kurt Corbello 2003-2006 (remain for HUM)
Wynn Gillan 2002-2005 (elect new for NURS&HS)
Ken Li 2004-2007 (raise to member for SCI/TECH—and elect new alternate for SCI/TECH—2005-2007)
Sandra McKay 2003-2006 (remain for BUS)
Stephen Rushing 2002-2005 (elect new HUM alternate—2005-2007)
English Department Notice of Plagiarism
Title of Assignment
Date of Meeting
The following evidence suggests that an act of plagiarism has been committed and I am recommending the following consequences:
In accordance with the SLU General Catalogue in the section on Academic Integrity, you are hereby notified of this alleged violation and its consequences. You have ten working days to appeal this decision in writing to the Head of the English Department. Following the response of the Department Head, you may appeal to the Dean of Arts and Science in writing within ten days of that response. If they do not dissent with my conclusion, then the consequences will be those that I have already outlined. If you choose not to meet with me to discuss this alleged violation of the Academic Integrity policy then my recommended action will be adopted.
The student chose not to meet with the instructor.
The student met with the instructor and chose to appeal.
The student met with the instructor and agreed to the recommended action.
Department Head’s Signature
Whereas materials required with initial applications vary from institution to institution in the University of Louisiana System, and these are dependent upon the needs of the individual department,
Whereas different disciplines have specific information needs, and that materials required in the initial application phase could differ without compromising the search process from the university’s standpoint,
Whereas The Office of Human Resources indicates there could be more flexibility given to departments on materials that applicants are required to submit at the initial application stage,
Whereas flexible requirements in the initial stage of application could help reduce the amount of paper departments must keep on file,
Whereas individual applicants actively on the job market send out a number of applications, streamlining the contents of the initial application packet could work to attract applicants to Southeastern, and
Be it therefore resolved that Southeastern’s hiring policies be modified to allow departments to individually determine what the required contents of initial faculty application packets should be.
«LetterPrintedDT» University ID: «ID»
«City», «State» «Postal»
Congratulations! After evaluating your application, it has been determined that you have met Southeastern’s admission requirements and have been accepted to Southeastern Louisiana University for the «AdmitTermDE1» term. We are looking forward to having you on our campus and are confident that you will find your experiences at Southeastern both enjoyable and rewarding.
After the evaluation of your college transcripts is completed, you will receive information on how to obtain a copy of your transfer credit summary. In addition, you will receive information on registration, which will be your first official activity as a student at Southeastern. Advising may be required before you can register for classes. Please check with the department of your major for advising requirements.
Until then, if we can assist you in any way, please contact us at (985) 549-2062 or 1-800-222-SELU (7358); or stop by the Office of Admissions. Again, congratulations on your acceptance to Southeastern!
Office of Admissions
PRIDE OF SOUTHEASTERN AWARD
The PRIDE OF SOUTHEASTERN AWARD is given by Southeastern’s CLAWS/PRIDE committee. It is intended to recognize students who, by their actions, have brought pride to the Southeastern community. It is also designed to target “unsung heroes” who have demonstrated extraordinary service/performance at Southeastern and/or within the community.
Criteria for the PRIDE OF SOUTHEASTERN AWARD are as follows: (a) must have good academic standing; (b) may be an undergraduate or graduate student; (c) must have demonstrated extraordinary service/performance beyond traditional academic or athletic expectations. (Examples of a good candidate include someone who has: performed exemplary humanitarian service, published work in an outside publication, was a contributing member of a national sports team, or has surmounted considerable obstacles to achieve success.)
The PRIDE OF SOUTHEASTERN AWARD is given in an unusual format. The student receives a surprise visit in one of his/her classes. The University President, Roomie the Lion, and a number of members of the CLAWS/PRIDE committee enter the classroom with some fanfare (balloons, music, etc.) The President calls the student to the front of the room to be honored. Subsequently, the student receives a package of prizes and recognition in Southeastern media.
Any faculty or staff member may nominate a deserving student for the PRIDE OF SOUTHEASTERN AWARD. Students may approach faculty/staff members to request that a peer be nominated. The award will be given 7 times per year: 3 times during the fall semester (September, October, November), 3 times during the spring semester (February, March, April), and 1 time during the summer session (July). To nominate a student, a faculty/staff member should submit a one-page letter explaining the basis for the nomination, and attach any supporting documentation. Once a nomination is received, it will be considered in the nomination pool for each award throughout that calendar year as long as the individual remains a student at Southeastern. Nominations should be forwarded to Mr. Jim McHodgkins, Assistant Dean of Student Development and chair of CLAWS/PRIDE, Student Union Room 202, Box 10346 Hammond, LA 70402, 985-549-3792, firstname.lastname@example.org.
Pride of Southeastern Award
Name of person recommending the student_________________________________
Name of Nominee_________________________ W#_______________________
1. How do you know the student?
2. How long have you known the student?
3. What has been your most memorable encounter (s) with this student?
4. How does this student exude “Pride” at the University?
5. How has the student contributed to the community at large (i.e. service, donations)?
6. Is this student involved with any campus or departmental organizations? If yes, please list.
7. Is there anyone else you know of that we may contact to get additional information on this student?
PRIDE DAY CELEBRATION
The CLAWS/PRIDE Committee is working on a special Pride Day Celebration set for March 17th. One of our objectives is to raise students’ awareness of the different academic departments on campus. We are looking for departments who would be willing to put on some kind of special activity for students for approximately two hours that day. This could be the same as/similar to your Rock ‘N Roar activity. Students would come to your department, participate in the activity, and receive a ticket. All of the tickets will go into a drawing for a valuable prize. The more an individual participates, the higher his/her chances of winning.
This is one way to give students an understanding of this university outside their own ordinary circles of experience. If your department would consider participating in the Pride Day Celebration, please email Heather Lawrence at email@example.com. We hope to have you on board.