GEORGETOWNCOLLEGE

February 19, 2009

11:00 AM

AsherScienceCenter 112

Brad Hadaway, Faculty Chair, called the meeting to order. There was a quorum.

Shelia Klopfer led in prayer.

Minutes of the Previous Faculty Meeting

A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the January 22, 2009 meeting.Motion passed.

Standing Committees

Academic Policy Committee: Scott Takacs, on behalf of the Academic Policy Committee, movedacceptance of their report.

Curriculum Committee: Juilee Decker, on behalf of the Curriculum Committee, moved acceptance of the following new courses/revisions:

  • Revision to the Music/Keyboard major - motion passed.
  • New Course –ENG296- motion passed.
  • New Course –ENG298 - motion passed.
  • Revision to a minor - Creative Writing Emphasis
  • Revision to a major - English and English Creative Writing Emphasis
  • New Course –HIS302 - motion passed.
  • New Course –HIS356- motion passed.
  • New Course –HIS409- motion passed.
  • New Course – PSY363- motion passed.

Juilee Decker, on behalf of the Curriculum Committee and the Academic Policy Committees, moved acceptance of the following motion:

No morethan one area of emphasis within a major may be noted onthetranscript.

Rationale: The APC and the Curriculum Committee consideredthe restriction on morethan one area of emphasis inthe majorto be analogoustothe already-existing restrictionthatrestricts receiving morethan one major inthe same department. As with students in other majors, indication of areas of particular concentration should be noted in letters of recommendation and/or application.

The motion was voted on. Motionpassed.

Juilee Decker, on behalf of the Curriculum Committee, moved acceptance of the recommendation of the Synthesis GERC (see attached documentation). Since this is a policy change, the motion will be tabled until the next meeting.

Brad Hadaway, Faculty Chair, described the process for reflection, deliberation, and voting on the recommendations and information about the next faculty meeting on March 26, 2009.

The Amendment Process and Final Discussion

1. Amendments to the main motion must be submitted in writing (even any that might be presented from the floor of the faculty meeting). This is for the sake of clarity and in the case of amendments submitted in advance,to give us a better shot at adequate evaluation of those amendments.

2. Please consider submitting in advance amendments, rationales for those amendments (include in the same document as the amendment itself, please), and arguments for or against the main motion. All such materials can be submitted to the Provost's office. They will be added to the faculty meeting website, andfaculty memberswill be periodically informed that new materials have been added. Any materials submitted by Friday, March 13thcould be included in an informal forum/discussion on March 24th in the Hall of Fame Room at 11a.m.

3. If you have questions of clarification (e.g., "Have you thought about how this new program would affect transfers?" or "Is it true that all writing intensive courses have to be taken outside of your major?", etc.) or other concerns (e.g. "What evidence do we have that we have staffing to cover the freshman core?", etc.), please send an email or note (if you desire to preserve anonymity) to some member of the Synthesis GERC or the Task Force so that, if possible,we can address those issues in advance of the faculty meeting itself.

SomeInformation regarding the Faculty Meeting, March 26th

1. Chris Leverenz will be serving as the faculty chair during our deliberation about the general education recommendation.

2. To maintain fairness and order,we willstrive to be a bit more intentional about following Robert's Rules (though not inflexibly). What this will amount to in practice will be [a] people will generally not be permitted to speak for or against a motion more than once until all others who would like to speak have been heard, and[b] comments should be directed to the chair and not to other members of the body. Questions of clarification may be directed to other members of the body, but we're hoping to get as many of those answered prior to the meeting as possible.

3. As approved by a supermajority at our Feb. 19th meeting, amendments to the main general education revision motion can only be approved with a 3/5ths majority of those casting votes (this excludes abstentions).

4.To givefair and advanced warning, someone willmove tocall the question on the main motion once we have settledall the amendments which were submitted in advance of the meeting. This will be done to encourage submission of materials in advance so that we are not writing amendments and making changesfrom the floor (somethingthat hasn'tgone especially well in the past).Butsince this motion tocall the question requires a 2/3rds majority,debate andchances for consideration of further amendments caneasily be extended by rejecting this motion to call the question.

5. As approved by a supermajority at our Feb. 19th meeting, the main general education revision proposal with any amendments can only be approved with a 3/5ths majority of those casting votes (this excludes abstentions).

6. It's quite likely that we will not finish all of our business on the general education revision by 12 noon.Please make advance plans to attend an extension of the meeting beginning at 4:30p.m. on March 26th.In the faculty handbook, our by-laws state that "The [faculty] meeting shall recess at 12:00 noon and resume at 4:30 PM if there is additional business to be take care of." (51) Ifwe lack a quorum at 4:30p.m., we can conduct no business.

Faculty Committee: Harold Tallant, on behalf of the Faculty Committee, moved acceptance of the following motion:

Under Section VIII, By-Laws of the Faculty, Article VII, Committees and Directorships, Section 5, Program Directors and Advisory Boards, Paragraph 6, Institutional Review Board:

The Institutional Review Board provides on-going review and oversight of research projects involving human subjects conducted by members of the college community. The IRB has the authority to approve, require modification in, or disapprove research proposals. Members of the college community must secure approval from the IRB before data collection commences. The board is comprised of a minimum of six members. Board composition must include: one male member, one female member, one member from scientific disciplines, one member from nonscientific disciplines, one member from Graduate Education, and one qualified member who is not otherwise affiliated with the institution. At least three of the members of the IRB must have experience with scientific methodology. The chair of the IRB must have previous experience with a committee of this nature. The Director of Student Wellness will serve as a voting ex-officio member of the board.

Rationale for Proposed Change to the Institutional Review Board

A few years ago, we revised the Master of Arts in Education Program to include a 6-hour research block. In the first of the two research courses, students are required to develop a research proposal and to submit that proposal for IRB approval. Thus, the vast majority of research proposals that are reviewed by the IRB have been from Graduate Education, and unfortunately, given the sheer number of proposals from our graduate students, IRB members have often been overwhelmed with requests. We have attempted to alleviate some of the difficulties by communicating with members of the IRB in an attempt to assist them in the review process; however, we feel that having a faculty member from Graduate Education on the IRB would facilitate communication and would perhaps help us find ways to streamline the process.

The motion was voted on. Motion passed.

Old Business

Scott Takacs, on behalf of the Academic Policy Committee, movedto remove from the table the following motion:

The Academic makes the following motion thatthe faculty adoptthe following academic policy, to be included in the 2009-10 college catalogue:
All students must be enrolled in either ENG 111 or ENG 112 until they have successfully completed the freshman writing sequence. For a studentto drop ENG 111, the drop slip must be signed by either the chair of the English Department or the Writing Program Coordinator. The chair of the English Department or the Writing Program Coordinator may waive this continuous enrollment policy as appropriate.

The motion to remove from the table was seconded and voted on. Motionpassed.

A motion was made to call the question. Motion passed.

The motion was voted on. Motion passed.

New Business

Bill Stevens, on behalf of the General Education Task Force moved acceptance of the following motions:

The General Education Task Force moves that when the General Education Revision recommendation comes off the table, the proposal can only be approved by a 3/5ths majority (60%) of those casting votes (this does not include abstentions).

The motion was voted on. Motionpassed.

The General Education Task Force moves that when the General Education Revision recommendation comes off the table,anyamendments to theproposal can only be approved by a 3/5ths majority (60%) of those casting votes (this does not include abstentions).

The motion was voted on. Motionpassed.

Adjournment

After several announcements, the meeting was adjourned at 12:00p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Andrea Peach, Faculty Secretary

1