Oakland University Senate

Sixth Meeting
Thursday, 13 March 1997

Minutes

Members present: Alber, K. Andrews, S. Andrews, Awbrey, Briggs-Bunting, Buffard- O'Shea, Cole, Connellan, Dillon, Downing, Frankie, Gilroy, Goslin, Hahn, Haskell, Herold, Hildebrand, Hovanesian, Keane, Landsberg, Liboff, Lilliston, Long, Meuser, Moran, Olson, Otto, Purcell, Reynolds, Rice, Rozek, Russi, Schelienbach, Schochetman, R. Schwartz, Sen, Speer, Wood

Members absent (or who didn't sign the roster): Benson, Blume, Brieger, Burke, Fliedner, Gardner, Gordon, Jarski, Kazarian, Kheir, Kleckner, Mahamwal, Meehan, Miller, Moore, Pettengill, Polis, Reddy, Riley, Sahu, H. Schwartz, Sevilla, Talbert, Tower, Wharton

Summary of actions.

1. Approval of minutes. (Mr. Andrews, Mr. Downing) Approved
2.    Information items.
3. Motion to fill vacancies on the Honorary Degree Committee. (Mr. Andrews, Mr. Keane) Approved.
4.    Motion to recommend to the President and Board the approval of a Master of  Arts degree in Training and Development. (Mr. Goslin, Mr. Keane) First reading. Motion to waive second reading (Mr. Schwartz) was not approved
5.     Motion to recommend to the President and Board university that students in SEHS receive endorsed administrative certification. (Mr. Goslin, Mr. Keane)   Approved following the approval of a motion to waive second reading (Mr. Moran, Mr. Olson)
6. Motion to recommend that the Turtle Island Learning Circle be chartered. (Mr. Dillon, Mr. Downing) Approved following the approval of a motion to waive second reading (Mr. Dillon)
7. Motion to recommend that the Lucy Craft Laney Institute of Learning not be chartered.(Mr. Dillon, Mr. Keane) First reading. Motion to waive second reading (Mr. Dillon, Mr. Moran) was not approved.

After convening the Senate at 3:10 Mr. Connellan called for approval of the January Senate minutes. Mr. Andrews so moved, Mr. Downing seconded and the minutes were approved as distributed. Taking things slightly out of order in order to accommodate Mr. Andrew's need to leave early, Mr. Connellan moved to the first item of new business, a procedural motion to staff the newly formed Honorary Degree Committee. Mr. Andrews moved that the individuals listed in the agenda be appointed to the Committee for the terms specified. Mr. Keane seconded the motion which was then approved by the Senate.

Returning to information items, Mr. Connellan reported to the Senate the establishment of the Center for Biomedical Research in the College of Arts and Sciences, adding that while it does not require Senate action, the Senate Planning and Budget Committees were both consulted. Mr. Downing noted that this is an item mentioned in the Strategic Plan that has come to fruition. He also provided a brief update on the VPAA search and encouraged people to attend the public presentations and receptions. He pointed out that this is a chance to get to know the candidates and to- allow them to get acquainted with us. As a final information item, Mr. Connellan reminded everyone that appointments to Senate Committees will be done soon and reiterated the need for volunteers.

Mr. Goslin moved the second item of new business, a motion that the University Senate recommend to the President and the Board of Trustees the approval of a Master of Arts Degree in Training and Development. Following Mr. Keane's second, Mr. Minor, chair of the department, spoke in favor of the program, noting that the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Graduate Education had given it top priority. He added that the proposal was developed carefully and thoughtfully by the School, that it is closely related to the School's mission and that the proposal has been given high marks by external reviewers. There is a need; a large number of individuals have been asking for this graduate program and there is currently a waiting list of 70 prospective students. The program will operate as an incentive program so the cost to the university should be minimal. And finally, he stated that the faculty and staff of HRD are committed to providing a quality program.

Ms. Awbrey also spoke in favor of the program. She stated that it has been 20 years since the HRD program was inaugurated at Oakland and it is now a thriving department of 570 students. The masters program is strongly supported by the students and alumni. She emphasized that there is virtually no financial risk to the university since the program can be discontinued after one year if enrollments do not materialize. External reviewers of the program have been positive and OU has been commended for developing a program focusing on developing research skills rather than technical skills. She stressed the importance of the program to the prospective students, to employers and to the faculty.

Mr. R. Schwartz moved to waive second reading. Mr. Moran spoke against waiving the second reading and pointed out that the documents requested by the SBRC had not been supplied. Mr. Connellan replied that the Steering Committee had received and reviewed the materials requested. Mr. Moran also reminded the Senate that a three quarters vote is needed to waive a second reading. Mr. Schwartz stated that the masters program in a professional school like SEHS is based on using inquiry to  promote theory and practice; that the HRD masters program will promote professional knowledge and development. Mr. Keane explained that there's a need to move forward with this proposal in order for it to be implemented in the fall and that the burden of proof should be on why we shouldn't approve this program. In response to a query about  missing appendices, Mr. Connellan indicated that complete copies of the proposal are available in the VPAA's office and the School of Education. Mr. Liboff stated that requests were made by the SPRC for additional information and that the materials haven't been supplied to that committee. Mr. Moran reiterated his concern about the SBRC's request for materials and their not being supplied in time. The motion to waive second reading was then defeated and the main motion will carry over to the April meeting.

Mr. Goslin moved, and Mr. Keane seconded that the Senate recommend to the President and the Board of Trustees that students in the School of Education and Human Services receive university endorsed administrative certification if they meet the same academic requirements formerly maintained by the State of Michigan for a certificate as principal, central office administrator or superintendent of schools. There was no discussion. Mr. Moran moved to waive second reading, Mr. Olson seconded and the motion to waive second reading was approved. The main motion was then also approved.

Mr. Dillon then moved that the Senate recommend to the President and Board that the Turtle Island Learning Circle be chartered. Following Mr. Downing's second, Mr. Dillon noted that summaries of the school's plans were attached to the agenda and the relevant SPRC and SBRC memos were distributed to the Senate. Mr. Dillon moved to waive second reading, the motion was seconded and approved. The main motion was then approved.

Mr. Dillon moved that the Senate recommend to the President and the Board that the Lucy Craft Laney Institute of Learning not be chartered. Mr. Keane seconded the motion. Mr. Dillon then moved to waive second reading with Mr. Moran providing the second. Mr. Olson remarked that there is a committee to review these applications and, since it was brought forward, he presumes the committee considered it charterable. He wondered if the review committee would have the chance to address these concerns or whether the concerns were considered irremediable, adding that it appears some of the concerns deal with not giving enough information rather than who is doing it. Mr. Moran replied that the SPRC was also concerned about who was involved. Ms. Melhado responded that the concerns expressed by the SPRC could be addressed and that the issues could be resolved if the Senate is willing to go forward and waive the second reading. She indicated that the applicant does have several social service agencies supporting her.

Stating that since these issues have been raised and since there is not sufficient information available today to answer the concerns, Mr. Keane suggested that the proposal should be looked at when the information is available. Mr. Liboff  commented that the SPRC was sympathetic towards the intent of the school; however, the applications are getting better and more sophisticated and this particular application didn't seem equal to some of the earlier ones that were approved. It was lacking in both construction and content. Mr. Downing opined that he would feel more informed if the responses to the concerns expressed by the SPRC and SBRC were available.

Ms. Melhado attempted to address some of the issues raised. She reported that she has letters from several organizations who are concerned about pregnant teens and who report a need for this kind of educational program. The discrepancy between the number of students and the number of children needing day care is because not all mothers would need day care. The day care would be provided by the students themselves on a rotational basis. Also, there will be an advisory board appointed and there is a plan to add a prevention program to discourage additional pregnancies. Mr. Moran asked whether payment for child care services was based on FIA rates and whether the child care would be on site; Ms. Melhado replied no to the first query and yes to the second. Mr. Moran noted that information relating to the composition of initial board is still missing as are details of exactly what is meant by OU's participation in this project. Ms. Melhado explained that as the oversight administrator she would definitely be participating and that there are others on campus who will be involved. Also the school is willing to pay OU consulting fees for assistance and added that some OU programs, such as those related to early childhood education, might be tapped for assistance. Mr. Downing indicated that there is also the possibility of involving other academic units, noting, for example, that Women's Studies is interested in this project.

Mr. Moran pointed out that the motion on the floor is to waive the second reading. Since we seem to have some good responses to the questions, it would make sense to postpone the final vote so that the requested information could be provided to the Senate and provide a stronger case for chartering the school. Mr. Liboff stated that he doesn't believe programs should be structured in that Senate, that the answers to these questions should have been answered before it got to the Senate floor. Mr. Dillon noted that the SPRC recommendation is based on the proposal the committee received and the information presented to it. He encouraged Senate members to review the proposal and see if they feel comfortable chartering the institution. The SPRC has some serious concerns about the lack of experience of the proposer and others involved; also the lack of any information about what other organizations or individuals would be involved. Mr. Dillon concluded by addressing the question of second reading; if we do not take action on it today, he noted, it is the equivalent of not taking action because it is his understanding that the proposal will be going to the Board of Trustees at its next meeting. Thus, this is the Senate's only opportunity to have some input into the process unless we call a special meeting before the Board meets.

Ms. Alber felt that the proposal is too important to delay approval. She spoke of the need for this kind of school to address the issue of social justice. Mr. Olson asked for clarification; is it correct that if the Senate does not recommend anything because we are awaiting a second reading, the Board will take action anyway? Mr. Connellan explained that he didn't know; there is a state imposed time frame in which we are operating and we are trying to fit into this time frame. When the review guidelines for charter schools were first set up, commented Ms. Otto, they did not allow time for review by the full Senate and as a result, we are pressed for time. She added that we have to have Board approval and then take it to the state for chartering within the state's time limit. Mr. Dillon's comments are accurate unless the Board and/or state can be convinced to adjust the time frame and grant us some flexibility. She stated that this is a proposal that certainly deserves support and merits some extra effort to ensure its approval.