Oakland University Senate

Seventh Meeting
Thursday, March 18, 1976
3:15 p.m.
128-130 Oakland Center

MINUTES

Members Present:  Alt, Atlas, Barnard, Barron, Burke, Cherno, Coffman, Felton, Freeman, Karasch, Hamilton, Hampton, Hetenyi, Hovanesian, Johnson, Karasch, Keegan, Keelin, Ketchum, Klein, Liboff, Matthews, McKinley, Moberg, Obear, O'Dowd, Pogany, Russell I, Scherer, Schluckebier, Shantz, Sponseller, Strauss, Swanson, Torch, Tower and White
Members Absent: Beardman, Bertocci, DeMont, Doane, Evarts, Gardiner, Genyea, Hammerle, Heubel, Hitchingham, McKay, Moeller, Paslay, Riley, Ruscio, Schuldenberg, Schwartz, Seeber, Shacklett, Swartz, Tucker, Voight and Williamson

Mr. O'Dowd presided.

Mr. O'Dowd's preliminary comments concerned the development by the fiscal agency of the Michigan Senate of a new method for arriving at levels of appropriated support for higher education in the State. Not yet officially adopted, some revision of this method is likely to be used in the future. This method involves an intricate appropriations formula driven by an ascribed cost per credit hour per department or unit per level. While strict formula budgeting implies tighter controls over institutions and will probably have impact upon our academic offerings, still the new method does admit that for about ten years there has been a "shortfall" in the state's funding of higher education. That this should be conceded is a hopeful sign. Mr. O'Dowd reported a somewhat changed atmosphere in Lansing at this time, less pessimistic end a bit more hopeful for the future.

The meeting was called to order at 3:45 p.m.

Upon motion of Mr. Hetenyi, seconded by Mr. Alt the minutes of the meeting of February 26, 1976, were approved by voice vote as distributed. Attention was then directed to the formal agenda.

A. Reports from Standing Committees

1. Athletics Committee

Mr. DeMent reported for the Committee to the effect that the Committee had reviewed the policy statement on eligibility of athletes and discussed the new golf course. Mr. DeMent then commented upon the Committee's lack of activity. He pointed out that the last time the Senate had discussed intercollegiate athletics was at the time of the great basketball scandal some ten years ago. Since then the Athletics Committee has done very little and the Senate less. In Mr. DeMent's view a faculty committee charged to advise and recommend has little time or energy to familiarize itself with the problems. Mr. Dement suggested that perhaps the NCAA or the Great Lakes representative on the Committee might be asked to chair. In any case, he felt the function, charge and membership of the Committee ought to be reviewed. Mr. DeMent wished to make clear that nothing in his remarks should be interpreted as criticism of the University's athletic staff.

2. Financial Aids Committee

Ms. White stated that the Financial Aids Committee had broken some sort of record: it had not had a single meeting in the entire academic year. She had tried, upon appointment as chairperson in October to get the membership together, but with the exception of one student member and the Director of Financial Aids, Ms. White has been unable to elicit even responses to inquiries as to time and place from the rest. Ms. White has studied the situation of the Committee, has read the task force report of previous committees and has arrived at the conclusion that the Committee which has not considered policy nor heard a single appeal in the entire year, should either be reconstituted or disbanded.

3. Teaching and Learning Committee

Mr. Wozny reported considerable activity on the part of his Committee, a fact that alleviated the Senate's despondent mood somewhat. Organized in four subcommittees, the Teaching and Learning Committee has sponsored two workshops on teaching, has developed an inventory of the University's holdings in film, has been studying the problem of colleague evaluation of teaching and the related but different question of student perception of teaching effectiveness. In addition the Committee has been probing the concept of the Educational Development Fund, a teaching counterpart to the highly successful Research Development Fund. Mr. O'Dowd, in the name of the Senate, thanked the three Chairpersons for the candor and intelligence of their reports and the membership of the Teaching and Learning Committee for Its valuable contribution.

B. Old Business:

None

C. New Business:

1. Presentation of a Proposal for a Unified Undergraduate Advising System at Oakland University from the Academic and Career Advising Committee.

Ms. Burdick presented the Proposal in lively and informative style. Ms. Burdick asked for questions and Mr. McKinley led off to ask what would constitute an "acceptable plan?"  Ms. Burdick said that what was meant was an inventory of completed requirements toward a degree. Mr. Strauss inquired whether the Committee had considered alternative plans. Ms. Burdick indicated that the present Proposal is an amalgam of several ideas. Mr. Strauss expressing unhappiness, felt the Proposal  should have been addressed to the College of Arts and Sciences not to the Senate and that the Proposal was too general and toothless since it did not provide for sanctions. Mr. Liboff spoke a word of defense, pointing out that Ms. Burdick had appeared before the Chairpersons of Arts and Sciences. It would seem the great problem is not so much advising of majors, but the large number of undecided students. Mr. Burke wished to know how many were undecided; Mr. Beardslee stated that about 25-30% of incoming FTIACs listed "undecided" upon admission. He pointed out that next year there would be none since the category was being eliminated from the admissions procedure (laughter).

Mr. Coffman defended the central procedures in advising advocated in the Proposal. Mr. Shantz wanted to know what it would cost. Ms. Burdick responded that it could be done within present resources. Mr. Coffman doubted this; Mr. Beardslee pointed out it would cost more in faculty time. Mr. Hetenyi wanted to know if the advising systems in the professional schools could be accommodated to the proposed scheme and was assured they could. Mr. Alt, upon invitation of Ms. Burdick, spoke in favor. Ms. Burdick stressed the need for the Senate to approve in order to show faculty commitment to advising.

Upon motion of Mr. Tower seconded by Mr. Hetenyi, it was then moved that:

THE SENATE APPROVE THE PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN THE PROPOSAL OF THE ACADEMIC AND  CAREER ADVISING COMMITTEE DATED MARCH 18, 1976 AND RECOMMEND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

2. Motion 2. from the Academic Policy Committee:

Mr. Fullmer introduced the motion which Mr. Strauss moved, seconded by Mr. Tower.

Mr. Obear inquired whether one result of this measure would be to make undergraduate and graduate grading systems the same? Mr. Fullmer replied affirmatively.

3.  Motion 3. from the Academic Policy Committee:

Mr. Fullmer introduced the motion which was moved by Mr. Tower and seconded by Mr. Torch.

* 4. Motion from the Assembly of the School of Education to amend in part the School's Constitution.

Mr. Hetenyi so moved, seconded by Mr. Torch. Mr. Hetenyi explained the amendments had mostly to do with "housekeeping" elements, required by the growth of the School. Mr. Russell wanted to know what happens after the Senate approves? Mr. O'Dowd replied that he assumed the measures would then go to the Board for approval. Mr. Obear wanted to be assured that reference to departments in plural did not imply there was more than one department in the School. Mr. Hetenyi replied it did not.

Mr. Hetenyi moved, seconded by Mr. Hovanesian that the Senate proceed directly to second reading of this measure at this meeting. By voice vote the motion to dispense with second reading was approved, upon which the Main Motion unamended was approved by voice vote.

Meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m. upon proper motion, duly seconded.

Office of the Provost/j
3/22/76
*Motions passed at this meeting.