Ad Hoc University-Wide Governance Committee
October 15, 2004
Minutes
Present:
J. Acker, R. Bangert-Drowns, B. Carlson, P. Eppard, T. Hoff, L. Schell, G. Singh,
B. Via
Minutes:
The Minutes of September 24, 2004 were approved.
Summary of Discussion on Graduate Curriculum:
Following appropriate notice, Schools and Colleges shall have the authority to approve new
graduate courses and approve changes to existing graduate courses. (This motion passed 13-0-0)
(NOTE: accompanying rationale should explain the committee recommendation about requiring
advance, electronic distribution of all proposals for the creation, modification, or deletion of
graduate courses. The distribution of such notice would be more effective if accompanied by a
requirement to use a form identifying similar courses offered within the University, and
identifying potential impact of the course action on programs outside of the School or College.
Adoption of this recommendation would require replacement of Senate Charter SX.4.6.2
(amended May 2004), which presently reads: "The committee [on Curriculum and Instruction]
shall review new graduate courses and substantive changes to existing graduate courses, as
approved within the schools and colleges, subject to final review by the Council.")
Senate Charter SX.4.4 should be reaffirmed in its entirety. SX.4.4 reads: "The Council as a
whole shall review all proposals for new graduate programs. It shall submit recommended
program approvals to the University Senate for consideration." (This motion passed 11Yes-1No-
0 Abstention, with votes reflecting the previously expressed views of absent members.)
Senate Charter SX4.6.1 should be amended as follows: "The Council or a designated committee
shall consider all major revisions to existing graduate degree programs and final approval of all
such revisions shall be made by the Council." (At present, SX.4.6.1 reads: "The committee [on
Curriculum and Instruction] shall consider all revisions to existing graduate degree programs and
shall submit all recommended changes to the Council for final approval.") (This motion passed
by vote of 8 Yes-3 No-0 Abstain, including the votes of absent members.) (NOTE: the rationale
should explain that only "major" program revisions require the review and approval of the GAC
or a committee; that the GAC should define "major" program revisions; that relevant
considerations to defining "major" program revisions are likely to include (1) how fundamentally
the revisions alter the educational content of a program; (2) the potential impact of the revisions
on other units; (3) the likelihood that the revisions require further review and approval by
external bodies such as the State Dept. of Education; (4) such other factors as GAC may deem
relevant.)
We have begun discussion of but have not yet voted on proposals that would affect the
continuation of graduate programs. One motion was made and seconded: "Decisions regarding
the dissolution of graduate programs initiated by action taken within the involved School or
College shall occur at the School or College level." This motion is meant to distinguish between
actions taken to terminate a program that originate OUTSIDE of the relevant school or college,
and those actions taken to terminate a program that originate WITHIN the relevant school or
college. The present Senate Charter SX.4.5 reads: "The Council as a whole shall review
proposals that would affect the continuation of graduate programs.
SX 4.5.1 - It shall consider assessment reports pertaining to graduate programs including those
from the Council on Academic Assessment and shall recommend changes it deems desirable.
SX.4.5.2 - After due consideration, the Council may bring a recommendation to suspend or
discontinue of [sic] a program to the Senate."
At the October 22nd meeting, we will plan on beginning with a resumption of considering the
issue of "continuation of" graduate programs.
Minutes prepared by James Acker.
