Back to Campus Currents

Minutes of the October faculty senate meeting

Minutes of the Oct. 20, 1999, faculty senate meeting, Jonas 110 at 3:15 p.m.

Members present: Tim Steckline, Charles Lamb, Barb Chrisman, Steve Babbitt, Don Chastain, Tom Hills, Rena Faye Norby, Rob Schurrer, Dan Peterson (proxy vote for Tim Martinez). Student: Scott Biggin

Approval of agenda with movement of institutional requirements to be covered first. Motion by Rob Schurrer with second from Dan Peterson.

Motion to approve the minutes of Oct. 6, 1999, by Tom Hills with second by Rob Schurrer.

Passed with changes in spelling of Scott's name. Insertion of verb in paragraph 3.

Discussion of institutional requirements as forward by general education committee began with motion by Rob Schurrer and second by Tom Hills. President Steckline indicated that he would recognize the guests present for their presentations related to the institutional requirements. Dr. Ron Theisz used transparencies to show his concerns for the loss of hours in the humanities department. He wanted to have literature courses as stand alone three hours to be taken by everyone. He was opposed to having Hist 121-122 Western Civilization courses in goal three. He was also concerned about the loss of three hours in human community area which supported his area. He wanted to have the goal description numbered as five be moved to the number first spot on list. He felt that would show the intent of the goal to have literature to be taken by all students. Dr. Theisz also showed a list of courses he wished to have included as options for this goal. They are: ENG 115; ENG 211; ENG 213; ENG 214; ENG 314; ENG 320; and ENG 411. These would replace the “Any English Literature Class 300 or above” option in proposal. He also wanted to add HUM 399 to the list of courses in Goal 3.

Kathleen Parrow responded to the proposal by Dr. Theisz saying that HIST 121-122 were moved to the Humanities area by the South Dakota Board of Regents not by the general-education committee. She also indicated that she was in disagreement with his position in general. She felt that literary works were currently being used in the English 101–102 courses. Also, she indicated that students were reading and writing across the curriculum.

David Joplin responded to Kathleen Parrow indicating that literary works were used in English 101–102 but they were not discussed as literature. He was very concerned about the loss of coursework in the liberal arts.

Jan Golliher explained the position of the General Education Committee. She spoke about the issues being raised by Dr. Theisz. She indicated that the committee had tried to look at the various scenerios and how the various areas of the university would be affected. She told those present that the committee felt that the approach taken would be the least harmful. She indicated that the committee was aware that it would now be possible for students to graduate without exposure to all areas of the liberal arts as well as other areas which were considered to be essential.

Amy Fuqua asked questions concerning the reduction in hours. She said that she had not been aware of the full impact of the changes. She suggested that we commit to doing whatever would be necessary to expand the liberal arts offerings required of our students in the future.

Riley Chrisman said that he felt that all of the departmental areas were equally mistreated. We might take comfort in that.

In response to Dr. Theisz and his feeling that the fine arts should ask for more hours, Janeen Larsen indicated that she did not feel she should take a position in opposition to the general-education committee since she had served on the committee and was aware of their efforts to be fair. She indicated that her department could accommodate only a certain number of students in fine arts courses each semester due to staffing.

Tim Steckline provided copies of proposals he had received from faculty who did not attend the meeting. One was from Susan Hove-Pabst and the other from Brian Smith. Both had suggestions of how the institutional requirements might be changed. After a brief reading and discussion the senate moved on to the completion of the item. (Copies of these suggestions are appended to the minutes in the secretary's book.)

Dan Peterson called the question. He withdrew his motion because of the desire of the senate to make some changes in the document as presented. Rob Schurrer moved that an amendment be made to the document to change the English course offerings to those recommended by Dr. Theisz. This would change “English any 300 or above” to include ENG 115, ENG 211, ENG 213, ENG 214, ENG 314, ENG 320, ENG 411. HUM 399 was also added to Goal 3 since it had been included previously in general-education coursework. The amendment to the original motion was approved. Tom Hills and Rena Faye Norby moved and seconded the approval of the institutional requirements as amended. The vote for approval was unanimous. [Copy of final institutional requirements document is attached]

Tim Steckline moved on to the next order of business that was curriculum committee recommendations. A discussion was held on ED 101 with explanation being provided by Rena Faye Norby, one of those involved in course development and instruction. A brief review of the course proposals was made and Tom Hills and Rob Schurrer moved the approval of the committee recommendations. Motion passed.

It was announced that the curriculum changes required by College of Education will be forthcoming. The state department of education has made rule changes which will impact upon our program. So changes must be made to accommodate these.

Rob Schurrer suggested that the faculty senate should be supportive of the work of their committees. It was suggested that the senate might do a better job of working with the committees as their work progresses. If we are not satisfied with the committee structure and organization we should do something about it.

Meeting adjourned at 5 p.m. Barbara Chrisman, secretary

Back to Campus Currents