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:
Approval of agenda with movement of institutional requirements
to be covered first. Motion by Rob Schurrer with second from Dan
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
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 101102 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 101102 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
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.
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
Meeting adjourned at 5 p.m. Barbara Chrisman, secretary
Back to Campus Currents