volume 37, number 1
Temple UniversityFaculty Herald


University Faculty Senate, December 8, 2006


1. Call to Order:

The meeting was called to order at 1:50 PM.


2. Approval of Minutes:

Minutes from the Nov. 15, 2006 meeting were approved as distributed.


3. Report from the chairperson of EPPC (Mary Ann Gaffney):

EPPC has been meeting every other week discussing the implementation of Gen Ed. The most recent discussions have centered around two issues:


i) "Free electives":

The "Gen Ed Document" does not define a specific number of free electives. Different programs have widely varying requirements. Recognizing this, the EPPC passed a motion that the number of "free electives" for any particular program should be determined by its school or college, in keeping with the national standards discerned for that discipline. This motion was sent to the GEEC, who returned it to EPPC saying that such decisions were the responsibility of EPPC. The motions was informally endorsed by the FSSC. Gaffney will meet with the provost next Tuesday for further discussion of this issue.


ii) Transfer students and Gen Ed:

A subcommittee consisting of members of GEEC, EPPC and administrators is meeting to work out the problems of transfer students, articulation agreements, and advanced placement credit.


Chein (CST) suggested that it is necessary to work out what the lines of responsibility are with respect to EPPC, GEEC, FSSC, and the Provost's office. He then proposed the following motion:

"That the University Senate endorse the EPPC's 'Free Electives' motion"

This motion was seconded.


Considerable discussion followed regarding the conflicting needs of individual disciplines to conform to the requirements of their accrediting agencies vs. the need for students to have choice and exposure to different ways of thinking.


There was also concern that, as the text of the EPPC motion was not distributed in advance, the Senate did not really know what it was voting for. The Parlamentarian gave his opinion that this motion would need a second reading unless 2/3 of those voting agreed to consider it now. Discussion continued about the meaning of the word "free" in this context. Ultimately a motion was made to place the issue on the table. This motion carried.


4. Investiture:

It was announced that there would be a two day Investiture Celebration during the upcoming semester. The first day will see a conference/symposium looking at the Urban University from various points of view. The second day will conclude with a formal ceremony complete with speakers and performances by the Temple Orchestra and Choirs.


5. Report from the GEEC chairperson (Terry Halbert):

The GEEC has been making progress towards resolving the transfer credit issues. They are still accepting Gen Ed course proposals.


Question- how many courses will be approved in any category?

Answer-The cap is off. New courses in all categories can be brought to the GEEC.


A Gen Ed implementation committee will begin to meet next week. It will consist of associate deans and advisors. A Gen Ed summit is forthcoming which will include area coordinators, administrators, and EPPC.


Question- Will waivers include AP waivers? Can there be multiple waivers for AP credits?

Answer- yes and yes.


Evans asked that decisions of the GEEC and EPPC will need to come to the Senate for approval.

Answer- This should be resolved in the Gen Ed summit.


6. President’s Report:

The FSSC and Administration continue to work closely. They have been looking at the changes in the P&T guidelines and the workload document. They have also been working to form committee structures to facilitate the upcoming Middle-States review.


The FSSC has also had considerable discussion of Gen Ed issues. They are very aware of the governance issues with respect to the relationship of EPPC, GEEC, and the FSSC/Senate.

The FSSC remains committed to bringing new people into our standing committees.


The Provost search is well underway. President Hart hopes to have a new Provost by April.


We are pleased to announce a new Editor of the Faculty Herald, Lewis Gordon, philosopher and "dangerous man."


7. Vice-President’s Report:

Turner asked that more faculty become involved in university committee work. "If you want a new committee, bring a proposal to the FSSC."


All chairs of Senate committees have been asked to provide brief written reports of this fall's activities. A few have been received. Several openings still exist on various committees. Visit the Senate web site for more details. If you are interested in serving, send Turner a brief bio and statement of interest, and she will forward them to the FSSC for approval.


8. Old Business:

Discussion of the FSSC motion with respect to changes to the Faculty Senate by-laws and constitution about membership in the Faculty Senate.


Discussion began with comments form Evans about how best to vote on the various parts of the motion, when it comes to a vote at our next meeting? Should various components be considered sequentially? The parliamentarian eventually concluded that this decision was

in the hands of the person chairing the meeting.


Next Evans made a clarification of the term "ex officio." Robert's states that ex officio members, those who are members as a result of their office or position, are presumed to be voting members unless an organizations by-laws or constitution specifically say otherwise.


The rest of the discussion centered around two issues:


i) If we offer membership to full time non-tenure track faculty, should it be immediately on being hired, or should there be a waiting time of (say) five years. On this issue, no clear consensus developed.


ii) Should "administrators" (a term yet to be well defined, but generally agreed to include those with faculty appointments who are currently serving as the University President, Provost, members of the Provost's staff, Deans, and Assistant/Associate Deans) be voting members of the University Senate.


After considerable discussion, Chein (CST mathematics) made the following motion:

"That ex-officio members of the University Senate should not have voting rights." The motion was seconded.


After much (enthusiastic) discussion, the motion failed.

Discussion continued about the basic question of membership for non-tenure track faculty. Evans announced that at the next meeting the vote would be for "proposal a" vs. "proposal b".


9. New Business:

There was no new business.


10. Adjournment:

The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 PM.


Respectfully submitted,


Paul S. LaFollette, Jr.