Subcommittee on Core Curriculum Minutes 2013-09-18

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order by John Swinton at 1:00 p.m. in Arts & Sciences Room 2-51.

Attendance

Voting Members Present: Scott Butler, Mary Magoulick, Cara Meade, Chavonda Mills, Amy Sumpter, Roberta Gorham, Yeprem Mehranian, Shaundra Walker,
Guests: Craig Turner, Catherine Whelan, John Sirmans
Regrets: Kay Anderson

Approval of Agenda
A motion to amend the agenda was proposed. The motion called for a discussion of the by-laws to be added to the agenda. Five voted for this motion. One opposed. Motion carried.

Approval of Minutes

The minutes from the September 11th meeting were approved as submitted.

Action Items

Approval of GC2Y Form
The committee approved the proposed GC2Y proposal form. With only minimal discussion, the committee approved the form unanimously.

Approval of GC1Y Form
The new GC1Y proposal form was presented. During discussion, concern was voiced with the content of the form, particularly wondering if it covered all required aspects of GC1Y. Committee discussed that it needs some additional revisions. Mary will revise and we will revisit this form next week.

Discussion Items

Due to recent discussions among SoCC regarding the decision to propose a revision to the Senate’s bylaws that apply to SoCC, Catherine Whelan visited to clarify the processes of the Subcommittee on Nominations and the revision of bylaws. She first wanted to clarify that this can’t be done by the end of the semester but even on the off chance that bylaws were amended mid-semester, ECUS won’t support a change in structure mid Senate year.

Catherine explained that the goal for all committees is broad representation from all colleges and the library and she explained the process by which committee appointments are made. Mary asked about the intention of having one representative from each area of the Core (under the old bylaws) and Catherine said that that couldn’t be guaranteed.

Catherine explained the process to change bylaws:
1. Submit to ECUS the proposal, in writing, with support from three senators, doesn’t matter their committee. There is an expectation for a detailed rationale for the proposed changes.
2. ECUS, if so inclined, put the proposed bylaw revision motion on the agenda for University Senate.
3. At the first US meeting where this is on the agenda, the motion is first read and possibly debated but there is no vote.
4. At the second US meeting where this motion is on the agenda, it is further debated and there is a vote that must pass by 2/3 majority.
5. If passed by US, it is then sent to the President for approval.

There was discussion regarding how soon after final approval the new bylaws will take effect. Craig clarified that as soon as new bylaws are approved (for any committee), ECUS (SCON) would attempt to comply.

Catherine had the following questions for the committee:
1. Why the ‘SACS qualified’ wording? What does that imply?
2. Why are Areas A & C split up (A1, A2, C1, C2)? Why not other areas, like D for instance?
3. Shouldn’t ‘each academic unit’ read ‘Each college and the LITC’?
4. What is the intention behind the language regarding that the majority of the committee be from A&S? She noted that she feels strongly that this will receive pushback and the Senate won’t vote for this because of that language.

Scott reported that there were mixed feelings from COHS colleagues.

Yeprem spoke to one person who “was ok” with the proposed changes.

John added that the College of Business would not support the bylaws as they are currently being presented. Catherine shared that this was also her opinion.

A question was raised, asking if all other committees require that it must be a university senator who chairs the committee. Craig presented rationale for this but said that there has, in the past years, been a rethinking of this at ECUS. Part of the issue is that a non-senator cannot vote, however, he suggested that a revision to the bylaws could suggest an adjustment to the rules that allows the chair to vote, regardless of senate rank.

A discussion of term limits clarified that Senate has revisited this often and that SoCC can include what they want regarding term limits but should be careful in the wording.

There was discussion regarding whether a minimum and/or maximum number of members need to be included in the wording.

Finally, there was a discussion regarding whether or not representation can be overlapping. Catherine suggested to be clear in the proposed bylaw revision. Don’t leave anything up to interpretation. Decide who really needs to be represented before making final decisions. Make sure that the proposal is ‘doable’, clear, and does not jeopardize the feasibility of filling committee slots each year.

After additional discussion, Mary offered to revise bylaws for the next meeting.

Next Meeting

The committee’s next meeting will be Wednesday, October 2, at 1:00 p.m. in Arts & Sciences Room 2-51.