Minutes of the Special Meeting of the

Southeastern Louisiana University

Faculty Senate

Wednesday, April 28, 2004

Alumni Center

 

I.          The meeting was called to order at 3:32 p.m. (note: This additional meeting was called to take up the many issues that had been deferred from earlier meetings; the later meeting time was intended to accommodate the Arts and Sciences Convocation).              Senator Ply called roll:  senators absent: Ahn, Andrus, Bancroft, Blanchard, Brocato, Bush, Coats, Corbello, B. Brown, DePoy, Diez, Dranguet, Echols, Guendouzi, Hathorn, Hoover, Knutson, Lew, Neuerburg, Oliver, Root, Rossano, Schulte, Stewart, Vidrine, and Weaver.

 

II.         The minutes of the April 7, 2004, Senate meeting were unanimously approved.

 

III.       Old Business

A.        Online Elections (Constitutions and Bylaws Committee):  Since committee chair Corbello was not present, Sen. President Wyld handed out copies of the resolution to anyone needing a copy and noted that the version of the Resolution handed out this afternoon differs slightly from the version originally posted on the Senate website in section C. Electioneering (See attachments).  It was moved and seconded that the resolution be approved.  Discussion:

1.         Sen. Ply asked to change the term “electioneering” to “campaigning,” since it has a better connotation.  Her suggestion was accepted as a friendly amendment.

2.         With no further discussion, the measure was brought to a vote and unanimously approved.

B.         Intellectual Property Rights Draft Policy (Professional Rights and Responsibilities Committee): Sen. Guendouzi was not able to attend the senate meeting, so asked Senate President Wyld to speak for her and to present their resolution (see attachments).

1.         Sen. Wyld explained that the committee identified five areas in Southeastern’s “Intellectual Property Policy” needing clarification, and these were listed in the resolution.  Because Sen. Joe Burns worked on the Intellectual Property Committee creating the policy, Wyld asked Burns to speak on these concerns.

2.         Sen. Burns thought the resolution’s requested clarifications indicated the Professional Rights and Responsibilities Committee approached the Intellectual Property Policy as if it were a copyright document with set percentages of shared profits; however, the Policy depends on the employee self-reporting on a form the employee would bring the university.  Thus, if one wanted to patent a work, he or she could bring this form to the university committee and the committee would determine any splitting of profits, while the employee could discuss any disagreements.  Thus, each situation would be unique to that employee, with no set percentages.

3.         Sen. Wyld noted that the fifth item requests clarification on the division of profits among the creator, university, and department; he asked Burns if the Intellectual Property Committee had discussed giving departments a share in the profits.  Burns responded that though some large universities specify percentages to all parties involved, their committee did not.

4.         When asked to clarify this point, Dr. Crain added that there is place in this policy for negotiation.  Louisiana System’s attorneys have suggested that most patent situations will involve negotiations between institutions and individuals on the percentage of profits.  Because each situation is unique, each case will involve negotiations.

5.         Senator Burns offered another “Whereas” for the resolution:

Whereas the Intellectual Property Policy allows for a professor to self-report a possible profit generating project to the university in order to define an equitable distribution of profits,

Sen. Wyld asked if the Senate would accept this addition as a friendly amendment to the Resolution; senators agreed.  This issue will be voted upon at the May 5 meeting.

 

C.        Copyright Draft Policy (Professional Rights and Responsibilities):  again, Sen. Wyld spoke for chair Jackie Guendouzi and presented their resolution (see attachments)

                        1.         Approval of the resolution was moved and seconded.

                        2.         With no discussion, the resolution was unanimously approved.

           

D.        Sabbatical Leave (Faculty Welfare): Speaking for Sen. Bancroft, Sen. Schwab said work on the resolution continues and the resolution will be presented at the May 5 meeting.

 

E.         Commencement  Changes (Faculty Welfare): Sen. Schwab again spoke for the committee and presented their resolution (see attachments).

1.         Sen. Schwab went through a few suggested changes discussed by his committee, but not approved for the final resolution, like restricting the number of invitations or only having students with honors walk on stage with all other students receiving degrees en masse.

2.         Approval of the resolution was moved and seconded.  Discussion:

a.         Sen. Simoneaux mentioned that summer commencement was brought up because of the number of foreign students who must leave at the end of the summer and cannot return for December graduation.

b.         FAC/BOS Rep. Bostick suggested that the fourth “Whereas” of the resolution might be offensive to previous speakers, so we might need to eliminate it.  A motion was made and seconded to remove the fourth “Whereas”; the motion passed with one senator opposed.

c.         The proxy for Sen. Beauboeuf thought we might have trouble getting faculty to attend summer commencement.  Sen. Ramsey suggested that, as in his department, faculty could be required to attend one of the commencements; this would just add a choice.

d.         Sen. Higginbotham asked about the cost of adding an additional  commencement.   Sen. Wyld replied that it would definitely cost more and this would have to be a factor in the decision-making process.

e.         Sen. Ply thought we should add a phrase to the summer commencement suggestion that faculty would only be required to attend one commencement.

f.          Sen. Schwab asked how many students would be involved in a summer commencement.  Sen. Wyld anticipated several hundred—never as many as in the fall and spring commencements, but a significant number.

g.         Sen. Dassau suggested that if we decided instead on a graduate ceremony, the graduate faculty should perhaps do that in addition to a regular commencement; Beauboeuf’s proxy agreed, that graduate faculty should do one in addition to a graduate ceremony.

h.         Sen. Mitchell commented that if students in a graduate ceremony are actually going to be hooded, the professor who hoods the students would have to be there, and others could attend the graduate ceremony at their discretion.  She also asked we change the word “sanctity” in the resolution to “dignity,” since a commencement is not “holy.”  Her suggestion was accepted as a friendly amendment.

i.          Sen. Ramsey thought we should add a separate “resolved” as a fourth bullet to specify that faculty can only be required to attend one commencement per year and so moved.  Ply seconded; the amendment was approved.

j.          Sen. Nelson asked if breaking the commencement up into colleges was considered.  An unidentified committee member responded that the subcommittee did discuss this possibility, but some colleges already have a hooding ceremony prior to the university’s commencement; also cost, locations, and times of the day for each college would be a problem.  Nelson moved that commencement by colleges be added as a fifth bullet; Sen. Mitchell seconded.  Discussion:

i.          Sen. Ramsey thought the issue was getting too complicated—he facetiously asked why not just have five stages set up in the assembly center and take turns graduating colleges? Sen. Higginbotham then replied that this was the way it had been done at the University of Georgia when he graduated.

ii.          Sen. Mitchell countered that the fifth bullet was just a suggestion:  why not give the Administration a chance to consider it? 

iii.         The wording was clarified to suggest having smaller commencements with individual or groups of colleges.  Though the vote was not unanimous, the amendment was not passed.

k.         Sen. Ply offered an editorial change to add an apostrophe to “students” and “guests” in the third “whereas.”

l.          Sen. Ramsey asked why we don’t  choose the commencement speaker based on his or her oratorical abilities. Sen. Wyld responded that this had been tried at Gettysburg, and that the speaker on that occasion with the lesser skills had in fact carried the day.

m.        The entire amended resolution came to a vote: it passed with some nays.

            F.         On-Campus Daycare (Facilities and Planning):

1.         Sen. Gonzalez-Perez, chair, recapped the actions of her committee on investigating the feasibility of on-campus daycare, including a survey of all faculty.  Their resolution suggests three actions to the Administration, all having advantages and disadvantages and legal questions to consider.  She moved passage of the resolution (see attachments).  Sen. Burns seconded.

2.         With no discussion, the resolution passed unanimously.  Sen. Wyld gave a copy to Sen. Mirando to offer to the Daily Star. The Executive Council hoped that such publicity on the issue might help spur an entrepreneur to create such a center near the campus.

G.        Academic Integrity Resolution/High-Tech Cheating Issues (Academic Committee): Because Sen. Neuerburg could not attend the meeting with the recent death of his father in California, Sen. Ramsey spoke on the issues.

1.         Sen. Ramsey presented the Resolution (attachments) and moved approval; Sen. Djamba seconded.  The resolution was unanimously approved.

2.         Ramsey then presented the High-Tech Cheating Resolution (see attachments) that requests the university to subscribe to an anti-plagiarism service.  He moved approval, an unidentified proxy seconded.  Discussion:

a.   Sen. Schwab asked for an explanation of what the service did. Sen. Ramsey and Sen. Wyld filled him in on how the service can detect plagiarism in a submitted electronic version of a student paper by checking a databank of sources.

b.         Bostic asked how far back would the databank go—would only recent sources be checked?  Sen. Wyld responded that only those sources in electronic format could be used to check, so obviously older sources would not be in the database.

c.       Sen. Schwab asked for an explanation of what the service did. Sen. Ramsey and Sen. Wyld filled him in on how the service can detect plagiarism in a submitted electronic version of a student paper by checking a databank of sources. Wyld called Senators’ attention to the example attached to the resolution from Turnitin.com, where the service provided a sample report, showing the comparison of a student paper side-by-side with the Internet page from where he or she drew the material, highlighting the passages that were directly copied.

d.      Sen. Simoneaux commented that three professors called her in the library today to ask how to find evidence of plagiarism that they could not find on Google.

c.             

e.   Sen. Higgenbotham would like to see students try this on their own to see that they do plagiarize.  Also, they could see how a paper they bought from a paper mill could get them kicked out of school.

f.    The resolution was unanimously passed. Sen. Ply called the Senate’s attention to an ABC news special airing the next night on the whole issue of plagiarism and high-tech cheating (link to the program is at: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Primetime/US/cheating_040429-1.html)

 

H.        Add/Drop Issues (Academic Committee): Sen. Ramsey gave the floor to Sen. Prescott since she worked so hard on the resolution (see attachments).

1.         Sen. Prescott commented that much confusion reigned during drop/add period, but since her committee wrote the resolution, she has found out that the late registration date will be changed in the new catalogue, so we might want to look at that. 

2.         The committee considered charging fees, but some students don’t pay for classes anyway, so they suggest only two days of drop/add, then students would have to see an advisor to make changes.  This step would create more trouble for advisors, but it would force the students to consider whether their action is a good idea.  Sen. Prescott moved approval; Sen. Willis seconded.  Discussion:

a.         Sen. Gillan mentioned that he spends lots of time advising students as it is, and to have to see every student who wants to drop or add is difficult.  Students are adults and should make their own decisions if their situations have changed.

b.         Bostic asked if these students wouldn’t go to the new proposed Advising Center instead of to the departments.  Edwards responded that the committee did not intend to give faculty more work but to empower the students to make decisions.

c.         Sen. Ply imagined chaos with the second point suggested on the resolution.  She thought the first point was enough and the second should be eliminated, and so moved.  Sen. Yeargain seconded.  Ply thought two days are plenty for drop/add; extending the period might make students miss valuable class time.

 d.        Sen. Simoneaux added that, for half-semester classes like Library Science, missing two days is one-fourth of the course.

e.         Sen. Dassau asked about those students with Thursday night classes—they will not be able to see their classes before making a decision.  Sen. Simoneaux countered, “What’s wrong with students making a decision before going to class?  What’s wrong with making a student responsible for a decision?”

f.          Sen. Prescott added that, if we reduce drop/add to two days only, Records and Registration would tack on an extra day, as it does now.

g.         Bostic, in response to Simoneaux’s comments, said that there are instructors who recommend to their students on the first day of class that 60% in the class should drop because they will fail.  Simoneaux responded that people like that should not be teaching at this university.  Every student who drops costs our university.  Students come here ready to “shop around.”  Bostic agreed, but thought some students have no intention of dropping until they do see that first class and the impossible situation.

h.         Sen. Prescott mentioned that those two days after drop/add are intended to make the students see an advisor to educate them about the seriousness of dropping.

i.          Sen. Nelson suggested letting one extra day for adding classes only; then students could have the opportunity to fill the seats that have opened up the first two days of drop/add. He offered it as a friendly amendment, but Sen. Ply preferred to let her original motion to drop the second suggestion stand alone.  The vote approved Ply’s amendment, though not unanimously.

j.          Ply then moved Sen. Nelson’s suggestion, restricting the third day of drop/add period to adds only; her motion was seconded.  Discussion:

i.          One senator asked about using a “W” as deterrent for dropping classes.  Since that was off the present discussion, attention was called back to the motion.

            ii.          The motion was unanimously approved.

                        3.         The entire resolution was approved unanimously.

 

I.          Multiple Catalogues: because this issue was accidentally left off the agenda, Sen. Wyld requested input as to whether the issue should be taken up at that time. The consensus was that we add it at next week’s regular senate meeting.

J.          Sen. Ramsey asked if we could question the power outages that threw campus  into chaos this week.  Sen. Wyld thought perhaps President Moffett could address that issue at our regular meeting next Wednesday. 

 

IV.       New Business:  None

 

V.        Announcements

A.        Annual Conference of LA Colleges and Universities: Sen. Wyld reported on this conference. It was before Gov. Blanco advocated pay raises for statewide officials, so she was warmly received. The conference coincided with the announcement that LSU Chancellor Emmert had resigned, so interesting talk in that regard.

B.         SGA Report:  no report

C.        BOS/FAC Report: Dr. Bostic (see attached).  Five items concern Southeastern directly.

1.         Sen. Mirando asked what will happen to the Police Department while their building is being demolished.  Bostic replied they will be temporarily housed until their new building is built.

2.         Bostic added that an item in her report explains “rolling contracts” for “temporary” tenure status, but this is not a formal decision.

  1. Sen. Ramsey mentioned that a previously discussed resolution about how to classify “Undecided Majors” was tabled since the Administration withdrew its suggested policy.  Also, Sen. Ramsey informed senators about a proposed increase to LSU to solidify its flagship status, as reported by the the Times-Picayune.  He objected to the proposal because it (1) takes money which was earned by people in our region (and all other regions of the state) and gives it to one institution so that the Board of Regents has no latitude to spend the money where it would be most effective, (2) fails to recognize that UT-Austin is not alone but shares the Texas oil-and-gas revenue with the Texas A&M system so that the two systems both improve from competition, and (3) ignores Louisiana's paramount contemporary need to build accessible community colleges (Texas has over 200).  The bills proposing this are #1529 and #1621 on the Legislature website. 

The link to the article in the Times-Picayune is below:

http://www.nola.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1082885554107450.xml?nola

Scroll down to "Raising the flagship." 

 

A link to the article in the Morning Advocate from Sen. Wyld is below:

http://2theadvocate.com/stories/042604/new_futrell001.shtml

E.         Sen. Ply announced that she would send Recording Secretary Faust to append to the minutes a list of elected and reelected senators for next year, and that she is working on a ballot for the University Standing Committees:  Grievance, Tenure and Promotion, and Planning Council. (See attachments)

VI.       The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.  Next regular meeting:  Wednesday, May 5, 2004, 3:00 p.m., Alumni Center.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Joan Faust,

Recording Secretary

 

 

Faculty Senate Resolution 2003-2004-18

Bylaws Amendment to Allow Electronic Voting

 

 

Whereas faculty schedules often make it difficult to conduct departmental senate elections, and

 

Whereas the Nominations and Elections Committee has been assured that on-campus electronic voting is secure, and

 

Whereas the occasion may arise where the use of a ballot box would be the desired method of voting,

 

Be it therefore resolved that the Southeastern Faculty Senate recommend the acceptance of an amendment to the Faculty Senate Bylaws, Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 3 to read:

 

 

When the election for a Senator has more than one candidate, the Nominations and Elections Committee shall designate one of its members, or any other Senator whose term is not up for renewal, to facilitate voting by faculty of an academic department.  Voting will occur via one of the following methods, to be determined by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, in consultation with the Nominations and Elections Committee:

 

A.     Web-Based Voting

1.       Web-Based voting will occur, at a clearly designated time, through secure and anonymous web-based software approved by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, in consultation with the Nominations and Elections Committee.

 

B.     Ballot Box

1.       At a clearly designated time and place, a Ballot Box will be provided in each department.  The Ballot Box will be closed, except for a slot used to place ballots inside.  The box will be clearly marked “Ballot Box.”

2.       Numbered anonymous ballots will be provided to all eligible voters in a department.  The anonymous ballots will include only the names of the candidates, the office for which all are running, and a box or line marked “FOR” preceding each candidate’s name.

3.       Near the Ballot Box, a sign-in sheet will list the names of all eligible voters in the department.  In the presence of the person facilitating the election in each department, eligible voters must sign their name to the sign-in sheet, and then deposit their completed ballot into the Ballot Box.

4.       Proxy votes are allowed, but only if a Faculty Senate proxy form is deposited into the ballot box.  The proxy voter must also sign-in with their own signature, clearly indicating for whom they are casting the ballot.

5.       The person facilitating the voting will then count the ballots and report the results to the Nominations and Elections Committee.

 

C.     Campaigning

When the election for a Senator has more than one nominee, each nominee shall have the option of presenting his/her goals and plans to the faculty of the academic department. The method of presentation may be by email, hardcopy in faculty departmental mail boxes, and by meetings individually or as a group.

Existing constitutional wording:

Article IV. Elections.

Section 1. Nominations for Senators. A candidate for the Senate must submit or have submitted to the Nominations and Elections Committee of the Senate a nomination petition which shall include a declaration of his/her willingness to serve. All nominations must be received by the Nominations and Elections Committee of the Senate at least two weeks prior to an election.

Section 2.Election of Senators. All members of the General Faculty, as defined in Article IV. Section 2 of the Constitution, are legal voters. In cases in which voters have affiliation with more than one academic department, voting shall take place in only one department.

The Nominations and Elections Committee of the Senate shall supervise elections of Senators in each academic department and shall certify the election of each Senator.

When the election for a Senator has more than one candidate the Nominations and Elections Committee shall designate one of its members or any other Senator whose term is not up for renewal to call a meeting of the voting faculty of the academic department. At the election meeting each candidate shall be given five minutes to present his/her goals, philosophy, etc. and to respond to questions from the electors. At the end of the presentations the supervising senator shall distribute ballots which shall only contain the names of the candidates and a box marked "For" preceding each candidate's name. The ballots shall be cast at that time and returned to the supervising senator for immediate counting. The results shall be announced at the conclusion of the tabulating. The Nominations and Elections Committee shall certify the election of each senator. [Amended May 1994]

Section 3. Election of Officers. The Nominations and Elections Committee shall at the April meeting of the Senate, submit at least one name for each office of the Senate and, after other nominations have been called for from the floor, the vote shall be taken in accordance with Article VIII Section 2 of the Constitution. [Amended September 1985.]

 

 

Faculty Senate Resolution 2003-2004

Intellectual Property Policy

 

 

 

WHEREAS faculty may create, author or develop materials, products, educational/ business programs, and artifacts (including works of art, music or staged performances) within the course of their duties (both professional and educational) for Southeastern Louisiana University, and

 

WHEREAS faculty may utilize materials, equipment, facilities or services (including student/ graduate assistant labor) provided by Southeastern Louisiana University in the development or production of the above, and

 

WHEREAS faculty may develop the aforementioned products during time periods that are part of their academic schedules or duties, and

 

WHEREAS since these activities may have commercial potential and may generate income or incentives, there is a need for clear guidance and description relating to the “ownership” of intellectual property, and

 

WHEREAS all parties need to be very clear about what constitutes “incidental usage” of Southeastern’s facilities, time and materials, and

 

WHEREAS we are aware that, if Southeastern’s facilities, materials, reputation or time have been used in the creation of above mentioned products and services, it is right and proper for both parties to benefit from any potential income generated, and

 

Whereas the Intellectual Property Policy contains a form that a professor may use in order to bring a possible profit-generating concept to the attention of the Intellectual Property Committee, with the goal of creating an acceptable distribution of profits and/or fees,

 

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Faculty Senate recommend adoption of the draft “Intellectual Property Policy.”

 

 

 

Faculty Senate Resolution 2003-2004-19

Copyright Policy

 

 

 

Whereas there is a need for faculty to be aware of copyright laws and policies in regards to materials used in teaching, research and scholarly activities, and

 

Whereas there is a need for faculty to have access to a detailed and comprehensive document outlining copyright laws and procedures for use of copyright documents, and

 

Whereas the Senate’s Professional Rights and Responsibilities Committee has read, reviewed and discussed the draft of such a copyright policy document,

 

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT the Southeastern Faculty Senate recommend that the administration adopt the aforementioned copyright policy in its present form.

 

 

 

Faculty Senate Resolution 2003-2004-20

Commencement Changes 

 

 

 

WHEREAS Southeastern’s commencement exercise has become excessively long, often running well-beyond two hours in length, and

 

Whereas the number of graduates and the number of family members and guests accompanying them is beginning to exceed the seating capacity of the University Center, and

 

Whereas over time, the students’ and guests’ respect for the dignity of the ceremony has declined, evidenced by the rowdiness of the graduates and the declining number of family members and guests remaining for the entire ceremony, and

 

Be it therefore resolved that, in order to streamline the graduation process, while providing for a ceremony that will maximize the emotional enjoyment for all involved, the administration consider the following changes to the commencement ceremony:

*    Having graduate students hooded and graduate at a separate “Graduate School Commencement”;

*    Adding a summer commencement ceremony; 

*    Following the trend at other universities by eliminating the commencement speaker, with Southeastern’s President delivering an appropriate and brief address instead;

*    Whatever changes are made to the number of commencement ceremonies held on campus, each faculty member should continue to be required to attend no more than one commencement ceremony per year.

 


 

Faculty Senate Resolution 2003-2004-23

Anti-Plagiarism Resolution

 

 

 

WHEREAS the academic community relies on a high standard of integrity in the relations among it members, and

 

WHEREAS, to the extent that this standard is not maintained, the good of the community suffers, and

 

WHEREAS advances in technology continue to allow for new violations of this standard, and

 

WHEREAS it has been shown that these same advances in technology can be used to effectively combat such violations, and

 

WHEREAS there are two major US-based anti-plagiarism web sites:

1.     www.mydropbox.com

 

 

 

2.     www.turnitin.com

 

 

WHEREAS, based upon an enrollment of 15,000 students, Southeastern can subscribe to www.turnitin.com for $8825 per year or to www.mydropbox.com for $6500 per year:

 

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Faculty Senate of Southeastern Louisiana University recommend that the administration pursue a site license for faculty and students to have access to use a plagiarism-detection web site.

 

 

 

 

SAMPLE PLAGIARISM SCREENING REPORTS ATTACHED FROM:

 

 

1.   www.mydropbox.com

 

 

 

2.   www.turnitin.com, and

 

 


 

 

FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTION 2003-2004-24

Schedule Changes Made During the Drop/Add Period

 

 

 

Whereas the current policy at Southeastern does not limit the changes students can make to their schedules during the dedicated Drop/Add time, and

 

Whereas the most recent statistical data available from Records and Registration show that, in the Spring 2004 semester, 3400 students changed their schedules (making 10,400 changes in the roll during the first 4 official days of class), and

 

Whereas the resulting confusion and instability cause considerable difficulty in classes which require students to work in teams or groups, by making group work impossible until rolls are stable, and

 

Whereas such confusion and instability caused by these changes in class rolls hinders effective teaching by interfering with administrative needs, such as taking an accurate roll, and

 

Whereas the confusion and instability facilitate students’ misperception that “class doesn’t really start until after the first week of the semester,” thereby encouraging excessive absences during the first week of the semester, and

 

Whereas Southeastern’s policy of not limiting the number of times in which students can (for any reason) make changes in their course schedules, actually encourages students to divert necessary energy from supporting classes in which they are enrolled, into searching and selecting other classes that may or may not apply to their curriculum—a behavior which ultimately and consequently affects graduation rates, and

 

Whereas this policy as written accommodates and consequently seems to encourage this activity:

 

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT THE Faculty Senate respectfully request the Provost to appoint a committee to study policy mechanisms that would allow for a change in the Drop/Add Policy which would discourage students from abusing this privilege, by means such as, but not limited to, the following revisions of Southeastern’s Drop/Add criteria:

    1. Offering a minimized Drop/Add time from the original 4 days down to 2 days, offered as a free-with-no-penalty time, handled in the same way as in previous semesters,
    2. Restricting a third day of activity to be for Adds only, being free-with-no-penalty, and
    3. By closely adhering to the published registration deadlines and therefore not accepting late registration beyond the second day of class.

FACULTY ELECTED TO SERVE IN THE SENATE 2004-2006

 

[R = Re-Elect; N = New]

 

ACCOUNTING

Titard  R

BIOLOGY

Bancroft  R

White  N

CHEMISTRY/PHYSICS

[Elections not held yet.]

COMMUNICATION SCIENCES AND DISORDERS

Guendouzi  R

COMMUNICATIONS

Burns  R

COMPUTER SCIENCE

Higginbotham  R

EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP/TECHNICAL FOUNDATIONS

Armenta  N

ENGLISH

Faust  R

Hite  N

K. Mitchell  N

FOREIGN LANGUAGES

Bornier  R

GENERAL BUSINESS

Ramsey  R

[Note:  King has also been elected to fill the second year of GBBT’s other senate seat.]

HISTORY/POLITICAL SCIENCE

Saeki  N

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

Compton  N

Williams  R 

JUNIOR DIVISION

C. Budden  N

KINESIOLOGY/HEALTH STUDIES

Gilbson  N

Jeansonne  N

LIBRARY

Stahr  N

MANAGEMENT

Yeargain  R

MARKETING/FINANCE

Root  R

MATHEMATICS

Kirkpatrick  N

Neuerburg  R

MUSIC/DRAMATIC ARTS

Johansen  N

NURSING

Billings  R

PSYCHOLOGY

Holt-Ochsner  N

SOCIOLOGY/CRIMINAL JUSTICE

[No election held yet.]

TEACHING/LEARNING

[No election held yet.]

VISUAL ARTS

Valentino  N

 

 

FAC/BOS Reports

To: Faculty Senate

From: Louise Bostic, FAC  representative

Re: Report of April 22, 23, 2004  FAC and BOS meetings

 

The FAC met at 4:30 in the Claiburn Building, Baton Rouge, with six

representatives present, UL-Lafayette, McNeese, Southeastern, Grambling,

Northwestern and Northwestern's Faculty Senate president, Dr Rushing.

 

Three items were discussed in the FAC meeting.

 

1.  Reviewing removal-for-cause procedures & financial-exigency guidelines.

This issue, postponed by the BOS in March in consideration of a very heavy

agenda for the board, has been postponed indefinitely due to major changes

in the board since March. Dr Clausen has taken a 6 weeks leave and Dr

Falcon has resigned to accept the position of Provost at Nichols State

University. FAC discussion (in summary) was from two points of view: Two

members of the group felt that for the board to have a written policy

encouraged them to use their discretion to propose discontinuance. They

were opposed to a written policy and suggested that we should ignore the

whole issue in hopes it would go away in the absence of Clausen and Falcon.

The rest of the group felt that a written policy allowed campuses to refer

to a tangible element in case of discontinuance proposals if fair

procedures were not followed by the BOS, or their chair. Having a written

policy reduced the vagueness and speculation where possible discontinuance

might occur.  No action was taken by FAC.

 

2.  There was some discussion of the Regents' proposal at their Wednesday

meeting of Rolling Contracts to replace or substitute for Tenure.

Professors would have a guaranteed 3 year contract with annual review. Each annual review which was satisfactory would "tack on a year" making the 3 year contract continue until an unfavorable review reduced the contract to 2 years or subsequently 1 year, etc.   The same method would be applied to Associate Professors only with 2 year contracts and Assistant Professors,

one year.  This was to address the tenure issue at the 2-year colleges

and technical schools.  The plan was received with moderate opposition.

The concern at our meeting was whether we were looking at future proposals for the four-year institutions as we have already been mandated policies of post-tenure review and removal for cause procedures. No conclusions or action was taken by FAC.

 

3. Faculty governance, faculty input in budget planning, and family leave

policies were compared by the FAC members present. It was determined that policies and procedures were pretty much the same on the campuses

represented. Faculty governance was an important issue on each campus, but

was dependent on the particular administration from department chair up.

Faculty input in budget planning was virtually non existent until

appropriations were announced at the departmental level. Family leave

policies allowed sick leave substitutions for family emergencies on most

campuses, but whether the faculty member would be paid was at the

discretion of the faculty member's supervisor(s). Most campuses allowed

paid family leave. Nothing was proposed to bring before the BOS regarding

these issues.

 

Respectfully,

 

Louise Bostic, FAC

 

BOS Report: 

Several important items relative to Southeastern directly or indirectly were

on Friday's agenda.

 

* Southeastern's request for approval of the BS degree in Occupational

Safety, Health, and Environment was approved.

 

* Southeastern's request to sell 200 acres of land near the Hammond Airport

(former Agriculture Experimental facility) was approved with the

stipulation that the proceeds be designated for Capital improvements.

 

* Southeastern's request for approval to demolish the Stock Pavilion

building and the University Police station (No malice intended here) in

order to provide temporary parking while the residential halls are being

built was approved.  Once these new buildings are complete, the plan is for

the University Police to be housed in one of them. The planning committee

felt that temporary offices for the police could be provided and some

relief could be provided for the parking needs till the construction is

done.

 

* Southeastern's request to name the University Athletic Building, the

Dugas Athletic Building in honor of the Dugas family (football revivalists)

was approved.

 

* Southeastern's request to appoint Dr Diane Allen as Dean of the College

of Education and Human Development, effective June 27, was approved. Dr

Allen is a graduate of Oklahoma State University and was an assistant dean

at North Texas University, Denton.

 

* Dr Carroll Falcon's appointment to the office of provost at Nichols State

was approved. As second in command at the Board of Supervisors office, this change is significant to all the state universities. This position will

have to be filled and is very critical.

 

* Two other important items were approved by the BOS: The Louisiana Online Network Initiative, LONI, the research facility based at LSU; and the

articulation matrix still being developed but partially on line at the BOS

website for student use. This matrix allows a student attending a community

college (or any other post secondary institution in Louisiana) to "plug in"

their school and course number and to be told which courses (by number) the course will fullfill at the target institution. The demonstration showed

the matrix to be very user friendly and should reduce the time spent on

four year campuses in evaluating transcripts.  The board expressed its

desire that uniform course numbering also be developed and it was pointed

out that time and budgetary restraints have delayed and surely will

continue to delay this happening in the near future.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Louise Bostic, FAC representative