Subcommittee on Core Curriculum Minutes 2014-10-03

all to Order

The meeting was called to order by Julia Metzker at 1pm in AS 2-51.

Attendance

Voting Members Present: Amy Sumpter, Mary Magoulick, Joe Mocnik,
Patrick Simmons, Nancy Beasley, Roberta
Gorham, Cara Meade, Julia Metzker
Non-Voting Members Present: none
Regrets: Kay Anderson, Ruth Carter, Brandon Samples
Guests: Craig Turner, Aran MacKinnon, Susan Steele

Agenda

The agenda was approved as distributed.

Minutes

Approved.

Discussion

We have a quorum.

Nancy Beasley moves to approve GC2Y Human Revolutions in Historical
Perspective. Motion seconded.

Discussion regarding faculty who can teach it. Technically restricted
to history faculty with non-Western background.

Motion unanimously approved.

Dr. MacKinnon leaves.

Discussion: Senate bylaws have not been signed by President due to concerns regarding non-Senator being able to chair committee and the phrase "teaching representative".

Suggestion: standards for committee members should be people in corps of instruction who teaches in the area of representation.

Can we clarify "teaching representative"?

"A teaching representative is a member of the corps of instruction who ______."

If we change the bylaws, it has to go through the entire Senate again.

Possible definition of teaching representative: "regularly and recently teaches courses in the area"

Possible concerns: don't make it so narrow chairs can't rotate people

"A person from the corps of instruction who has taught a course in the area of representation in the last two years."

That would make Mr. Simmons the only possible representative from Area D3. No it wouldn't because 1301 is also a D3 course, not just 1000.

Is B narrow? No, at least 30 people teach it every semester.

Suggestion: "A person from the corps of instruction who has taught a course in the represented area within the last two years."

Question: Is this an amendment to the bylaws?
Answer: No, this is a suggested compromise.

Question: What is the process for when the President vetoes a bylaw?
Answer: There isn’t a stipulated process for that event.

"It would be a conversation between the President and the Senate."

Clarification: the Senate as a whole, as a body

Motion: In order to clarify the bylaw change, a “teaching representative” is defined as follows:

"A person from the corps of instruction who has taught in the represented area in the last two years."

Motion seconded.

Motion carries unanimously.

"There will be a slight challenge in interpreting that because when does 'the past two years' start from?"

"At the beginning of the one-year term on SoCC? At the end of the term?"

Friendly amendment:

"A member of the corps of instruction who has taught a course in the represented area within two calendar years prior to the date of appointment to the subcommittee."

Suggestion: can end it after "appointment".

Suggestion: "to the subcommittee."

Motion: Vote to accept this.

Motion seconded.

Motion carries unanimously.
Final language for definition: "A member of the corps of instruction who has taught a course in the represented area within two calendar years prior to the date of appointment"

Second issue: Elected Senator having to be a chair.

We don't want to do that because being the chair of SoCC requires significant time commitment and there only three of the 15 members of the subcommittee are elected Senators, which significantly limits the pool.

In our discussions last week the committee would like to see a compromise in which all members of SoCC are eligible to share the committee.

The question was raised if this concerns rises from the SACS requirements for faculty review of curriculum and governance.

Question: Would an internal committee vote satisfy this?

The representatives from ECUS were asked to clarify the concern and indicated that the chair of a standing committee should have a constituency for whom he/she is accountable, and that really is an elected senator.

A committee member asked if the President was aware of the discussion around this issue on the floor of the senate when the bylaw change was discussed? This question went unanswered. This was followed by a discussion of the distinction between responsibilities of volunteer and senator members. The general consensus of the group was that both kinds of members carry equal obligations to represent their constituents responsibly.

Suggestion: campus-wide vote for all members of SoCC. Then we'd be elected. The general consensus was that this strategy would be difficult to implement and was more excessive than the issue requires.

A discussion of the workload for the subcommittee of the chair ensued. The representatives from ECUS indicated that senate will be getting part-time administrative assistance in 2015-2016 and that support could be used for the routing and notification process that is currently the responsibility of the SoCC chair.

"What if all the senators are assistant professors and don't feel comfortable serving as chair on this committee?" This question shifted into a discussion of allowing the possibility of secret ballot voting. An idea the subcommittee agreed to address at a future meeting.
Motion: Approve minutes from September 26th meeting.

Change Sheryl's attendance to "regrets".

Revised motion approved unanimously.

Motion: Approve minutes from September 12th.

Motion approved unanimously.

Discussion: "History of Rock and Roll"

Sense that concerns were addressed.

Motion: Approve course.

Motion approved unanimously.

For next time: A&S Dean wants to discuss why course proposals are
being routed through his office.