Oakland University Senate
Second Meeting
October 16, 1997
Minutes
Present: Andrews, Connellan, Dillon, Doane, Eberwein, Gilroy, Goslin, Grossman, Halsted, Haskell, Herold, Hildebrand, Hovanesian, Jarski, Keane, Landau, Lombard, Longan, Mabee, Mahamwal,McNair, Miller, Mukherji, Olson, Otto, Papazian, Patterson, Riley, Rozek, R. Schwartz, Sen, Sieloff, Simon, Speer, Sudol, Weng, Wood
Absent: Alber, Barnett, Belanger, Benson, Berger, Bertocci, Blanks, Blume, Boddy, Brieger, Cronn, Downing, Frankie, Gardner, Johnson, Liboff, Lilliston, Long, Moore, Moudgil, Polis, Reynolds, Rush, H. Schwartz
Summary of actions:
1. Approval of minutes as corrected. (Keane, Gilroy) Approved
2. Motion to staff senate committees (Dillon, Eberwein) Approved.
3. Motion to staff the Police Oversight Committee (Dillon, Papazian)
Calling the meeting to order at 3:15, Mr. Andrews noted that he had been asked to chair the meeting since the Provost is out of town. He called for approval of the September 18, 1997 Senate minutes; Mr. Keane so moved, Ms.Gilroy provided the second and the following corrections to the minutes were made:
1. all references to the Vice President for Information Technology should be changed to the Vice Provost for Information Technology;
2. on page 3, 2d full paragraph the phrase "core values of a university education" should be changed to read: "core values of their institutions".
3. Mr. Patterson who was listed as absent at the meeting stated that he was indeed there.
With no further emendations, the minutes were approved as corrected.
Turning next to committee reports, one page summaries of the reports of the University Committee for Undergraduate Education, the Admissions and Financial Aid Committee and the Academic and Career Advising Committee were considered by the Senate and an opportunity to ask questions of the chairs was provided. Regarding the UCUI report, Ms. Eberwein wondered what level of change, if any, there had been in petitions of exception. Ms. Gilroy replied that they hadn’t done an analysis of these but that based on her experience, there was nothing out the ordinary this year. With no further questions forthcoming, Mr. Andrews thanked the Chairs for their reports and for making themselves available for questions. He reminded the Senate that the full reports are available in the Provost’s office.
He then announced that the North Central report would be postponed and rescheduled at a future meeting and turned to the first item of new business, the ongoing process of staffing senate committees. Mr. Dillon moved that the individuals listed in the agenda be elected to the Senate committees for the terms specified, Ms. Eberwein seconded the motion, and the Senate approved the motion. Moving on to the next agenda item, a motion to elect the individuals listed in the agenda to the Police Oversight Committee was moved by Mr. Dillon, seconded by Ms. Papazian and approved.
Having completed the business of the day, attention was turned to good and welfare items. Mr. Riley asked for clarification of the Task Forces that are being created, commenting that participation seems to be limited to individuals from businesses and university administration/staff. Since these Task Forces are to improve the education available at this university, he wondered about the apparent lack of faculty involvement in the process and asked whether the Deans could provide some comment given that Dr. Cronn is out of town. Ms. Otto stated that while she doesn’t have an official answer, she can attest to the fact that the SEHS Task Force will have faculty participation. Ms. Speer commented that she hadn’t heard that the Task Forces would include faculty and staff. It is her impression that the Task Forces are to be comprised of CEOs, chief financial officers, and other leaders in the community who care about Oakland University and who can provide advice as to how we can make this an exceptional university. It is an opportunity for us to make friends in the community and to build bridges she averred. Then, when the university has a need, it can look to these friends in business and industry for help. For example, in the School of Nursing, she noted, they are looking at ways of linking the faculty and the business people to improve communication and to share ideas.
Mr. Connellan commented that when the President met with the deans, the question of faculty and student participation had been discussed and that this is an area that needs to be clarified by the President. Mr. Dillon expressed disappointment that the first he heard about this venture was in the student newspaper. Mr. Landau concurred, noting that he first read about it in the Oakland Press, said it sounds like the Oakland administration and the business leaders are going to get together and decide Oakland’s future and then tell the faculty what it’s going to be. Ms. Speer disagreed and stated that the intent is to make friends and build relationships; that the outside community isn’t aware enough of Oakland’s resources, its faculty and their expertise. The business community will provide guidance as to what we need to do to build an exceptional university and it will also provide resources to help the university get what it needs. She sees it is a very positive move for the university and that there isn’t a single negative aspect to it.
After distributing a memo that had been sent to the Board of Trustees, Mr. Mahamwal read part of it to the Senate. The memo stated the students’ desire to increase the number of students on the Athletic Committee, so that the student representation would be the same as the number of faculty on the committee, e.g. two. However, last month the Senate approved a motion which, although it increased the number of students on the committee to two, also increased the number of faculty to four. Mr. Mahamwal noted that it is the students who will be most significantly affected by Div. I athletics, that the motivation behind the move to Div. I is to improve student life. Given the student investment in the athletics’ programs, he stated that the Senate’s action last month completely undermined the intent of students to have equal representation with the faculty on this committee. There was no discussion and Mr. Andrews entertained a motion to adjourn.
Submitted by,
Linda L. Hildebrand