Site style: Default | Large Text | Text Only
COEHP College Council Minutes
11/5/08 GRAD 325
Present: Merry Moiseichik (Chair), Fran Hagstrom (Chair-Elect), William McComas (At-Large), John Pijanowski. (At-Large), Kit Kacirek (RHRC), Angie Smith-Nix (HPER), Gary Ritter (Ed Reform), Laura Kent (CIED)
Absent: Ellen Odell (NURS)
Administration Present: Associate Dean Barbara Hinton
1. Merry called the meeting to order.
2. Agenda
a. Dean is in Little Rock for a meeting so couldn’t be here today.
b. The agenda was approved.
3. Minutes accepted as stand.
a. Angie asked that wording in the minutes of the October 1 meeting (point 3.a) be corrected to read that ‘the faculty’ rather than ‘a faculty person’.
b. Bill McComas asked that minutes be sent as attachments rather than just be placed on the council website.
4. Old Business
a. Honor’s Council Request for catalog change. The Honors Council requested that it be recommended to the dean that the section of the undergraduate catalog that states students can graduate with honors if they are not in the Honors Program be removed. After looking at the catalog entry for the Honor College and that of COEHP, it was recommended that the wording for our college be brought into line with that of the Honors College. This states that only students graduating from an Honors Program can graduate with honors and the Latin designations. Merry asked that "graduation with distinction" be retained in some form. The wording of other colleges was reviewed. The College Council recommended that in addition to the above change, that with wording from the Walton Business College that allows for "graduation with distinction" be used for students who graduate in the top 10% of the college's graduating class. This recommendation will be forwarded to the Dean.
b. Course substitutions and grade changes. The initial request brought forward at the October 1 meeting and the response of the Dean’s Office brought forward at the October 15 meeting were reviewed. The paper trail of governance documents presented at the October 15 meeting was provided by Dr. Hinton for distribution to Council members prior to this meeting to facilitate discussion. In response to a request for reiteration, Angie stated that faculty have reported that when substitutions have been returned with the request for evidence of program support for the change and they have then, in response, done this, the substitutions were still rejected. They feel that there is no faculty representation in this process at the level of the Dean’s office. Angie further stated that the lack of a mechanism for faculty input is the concern that has been expressed by members of her department. This led to the request that such changes become part of a consent agenda for the College Program Committee. The governance documents dated 4-4-07 that were presented by Dr. Hinton state that departments should have a committee to review program modifications, course substitutions, and grade changes, which was the mechanism to be used rather than the consent agenda that had been in place. While recognizing the need for faculty input, Merry introduced discussion about levels of bureaucracy if additional committees were added to the present process. Dr. Hinton suggested that faculty members attend the review meetings on substitutions that take place every two weeks. From the faculty side, when administration administers the changes, the timing is so off that students have already passed the point of being able to change out whatever they were advised to take. The following suggestions were made:
i. Publish when the substitution committee meets
ii. Make it known when your substitution will be on the agenda
iii. Program faculty can come to this meeting to be part of the process
iv. Change the form so there is a program coordinator signature
5. Point system document. Council members, some but not all, brought back comments from faculty in their departments. Merry said that HKRD voted not to give input as they want to wait until the new dean is in place prior to considering changes. Some RHRC faculty expressed similar opinions. There was no report at this time from NURS. There appeared to be little consensus at this time across college faculty at this time. Bill McComas stated that it is the faculty’s evaluation, not the dean’s evaluation. Merry indicated that the goal at this time is to modify the documents so they are inclusive of the things done by the faculty. To get what faculty ‘do’ on the documents, faculty need to read and revise what is presently there. It was suggested that this effort be continued so faculty have something to look at and make a choice about. The ultimate goal is to have a document on which the faculty will vote. Bill indicated that if this is the goal, that there be a charge to look at faculty evaluation that would ensure representation of actual work done. Institutional memory about this process was contributed by Dr. Hinton to indicate how far the college has come. When she first became a department chair, a chalkboard and names were used.
6. Raise information from the Dean. Bill McComas had requested for the council various information about raises this past year. Dr. Hinton stated that is in the works.
7. Meeting ended at 3:45 p.m.
Page last updated: 11/11/2008 16:42
College of Education and Health Professions | University of Arkansas | Graduate Education Building | Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Tel: 479-575-3208 | Fax: 479-575-3119 | E-mail us | RSS
© College of Education and Health Professions