Faculty Senate Meeting Notes – November 13, 2002
Rollcall: Excused: Braender, Konzal, Li, Preti, Strassman, Vandegrift, Wolz, Wright
-Crofts introduced Caroline Miller, Director of Records and Registration
-Miller said that student services is increasingly web-driven and getting more IT support
-More faculty are using SOCS (75% currently use it)
-Miller said that Records & Registration would like to have faculty input on their opinions of SOCS
-Said that ARTIE is a means of keeping SIS alive as long as possible
-Recognized that faculty sometimes have problems staying logged on to ARTIE
-Said that a new student information system has been selected (Peoplesoft) but we still have 2-3 years to live with the current system
-TESS now offers searchable schedules instead of looking for classes course by course
-Mentioned that Records & Registration has ceased printing paper schedules as a result of budget cuts; realize that it might have been an unpopular move; reason for this is because paper schedules age dramatically whereas a PDF file can be updated regularly
-Miller mentioned that the December exam schedule is now out
-Edelbach brought to Miller’s attention that the column headings are incorrect
-Miller said that R&R now has a library of control sheets; mentioned the history department’s piloted online control sheet, which may be the wave of the future
-Miller claims that an online control sheet would be a good tool for double majors and education majors, since students often do not seek advisement from multiple departments
-Said they would also like to have shared drives for departments to access information from other departments
-Edelbach asked what kind of information is on the IR site; Miller said that enrollment, profile of student travels through the college, and other such information is available; they are taking it to the department level to get better information on students
-Edelbach asked if the faculty are included as well; Miller said that they are not there yet but will get there
-Lovett asked when information about different departments will be there; Miller said that some are there now but it is being enlarged periodically
-Miller pointed out that as the courses get transformed, the system will be changed and will begin documenting the student system algorithmically
-They will start to explore what the structure needs to look like, identifying things that are sacred (for example, the Wednesday meeting block); do we want to keep the Monday-Thursday/ Tuesday-Friday schedule of classes? R&R is asking faculty for input
-Miller mentioned the need to create new curriculum control sheets, which have to be given out to faculty to react to; said our current control sheets are horrible and need to be revamped
-Miller said that there are a lot of transitional support needs and the faculty needs to be heard from; said that the worst thing we can do is extend the amount of time that it takes students to graduate
-Clifford asked Miller why Records & Registration does not schedule more mass final exams; Miller said that mass exams end up being a headache because there are few rooms big enough on campus, additional proctors are needed, and there are always schedule conflicts with mass exams
-Clifford then asked why there are only four times for mass exams; Miller said that her office has to compile a final exam schedule that fits into four days
-Miller said that she thinks the exam schedule goes out far too late
-Edelbach suggested not having a designated exam period, which used to be done years ago; said it is taboo to not give a final exam but it would solve the problem if professors could prove that they give another cumulative assessment instead. Miller agreed that many courses did not in fact require exams but that few professors ever ask to avoid having an exam schedules
-Miller said, in response to a question on transcripts, that R&R will have to put on transcripts in the future that TCNJ changed from a credit system to a course system
-Knobler suggested that R&R ask on SOCS if a professor needs an exam time
-Knobler asked if it is possible to make information available to advisors regarding transfer credits equivalencies problems; Miller said that it is already on the web
-Lovett asked if it is possible to have more groups registering for classes more times during the day to avoid the system shutting down; Miller noted that the system is doing better than it used to but agreed to consider more differentiation if problems continue to arise. Lovett also objected to starting registration at 6 a.m., rather than waiting until R&R and department offices were open at 8:30
-Lovett also asked about the possibility of having electronic waiting lists because upper-classmen are holding spots for other people who register later; Miller said that there is a waiting list system but students will hate it because it automatically moves you into spots; it is not smart enough yet
-Behre mentioned that department chairs often do not even know who the staff will be for the following semester when they send information to R&R
-Karsnitz asked if there is any way to have the schedule checked for conflicts in other departments for education majors; Miller said that it’s possible; on the J drive you can see what other faculty have proposed
-Behre said that there should be a way to indicate data parameters, to insure that a certain course does not conflict with others
-Miller said that R&R is working on a way to enable students with special circumstances to register on the web instead of through paper notes brought to the office
-Crofts introduced document on course approval
-Discussion was moved by Fradella; seconded by Venturo
-Kamber said that the last two paragraphs of the document are premature
-Karsnitz said that the senate suggestion on procedure is premature
-Curtis suggested phrasing it more as a suggestion
-Lovett suggested including a review process in the document to see if it meets guidelines; Crofts said that this is item #6 on the agenda and will be addressed later
-Morrison talked about giving testimony to CAP
-Venturo shared information from the graduate coordinators meeting; mentioned that Suzanne Pasch anticipated a more administrator based approval process; emphasized that faculty curriculum committees should keep their current rights of review
-Crofts said that we need to find a way to create a role for curriculum committees
-Conjura said that there is no harm in having the senate give a recommendation; proposed that the senate doesn’t vote on it today in order to get more information from stakeholders
-Clifford said that Briggs wants the deans to stay away from the content of the course; this contradicts what Pasch says
-O’Connell asked if this would be a significant departure from the current system; did not like sentence, “In most instances course approval at the department level would be the end of the matter
-Crofts asked for a move to strike the sentence; moved by Fradella, seconded by Venturo
-Rice said that the second paragraph implies that the dean has the right to veto; Crofts said that the Dean only could ask the curriculum committee to look at a course
-Kamber suggested an amendment saying that “the dean has the right to accept the department’s course”
-Kobrynowicz suggested that “the dean has the choice either to accept the department’s approval of a course as submitted, or to refer it to a Schoolwide Curriculum Committee for final consideration.”
-Karsnitz said that they will butt heads with the provost on this; said it is more appropriate to suggest what happens if the dean doesn’t like it
-Crofts clarified that the dean does not have a veto
-Edelbach said that the ultimate authority is the Board of Trustees; they have to give a reason for rejection
-Crofts said that the faculty clearly had indicated that it wanted to have the final say
-Fradella called the question on an amendment to put off the matter until next month or to remove the last two paragraphs; moved by Conjura, seconded by Rice
-Venturo said that the senate should go forward with this now
-Fradella called the question on the Conjura motion to table this issue for a month (11 were in favor, 14 opposed)
-Kamber made a motion to divide the question; seconded by Fradella
-Voted on a move to separate the motion into two motions, one sent to the Provost and the other to CAP (21 in favor, 7 opposed)
-Lovett made a motion to include a review of courses; the motion was not seconded
-Voted on the main motion as amended (19 in favor, 7 abstained); the document passes
-Kamber noted as the meeting ended that CAP would extend its timetable; the first week of March will be the deadline for the final Gen Ed recommendation; the draft proposal would be announced in early December
-Crofts noted as meeting ended that item #6 on the agenda had not been touched; agreed with Lovett that this is something the Senate should address
Meeting adjourned 4:55 pm