June 7, 2006

200 BRICKER HALL

JUNE 7, 2006

3:00-5:00PM

MINUTES

Present:

Professors: Lora Gingerich Dobos, Raymond Noe (Chair), Nancy Reynolds, W. Randy Smith (Vice-Chair), Harald Vaessin, George Valco, Brian Winer

Student Members: Kevin Freeman (Inter-Professional Council); Jane Evans (Council of Graduate Students).

Guests: Professors Sergio Soave, Chair, and Richard Harned, Department of Art; Professor Mark Shanda, Chair, Department of Theatre, and Professor Prabu David, Undergraduate Chair, School of Communication; and Professor Stephen Mangum, Senior Associate Dean, and Michael Camp, Academic Director, Center for Entrepreneurship, Fisher College of Business

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETNG OF May 24, 2006

• Minutes of the Meetings of May 24 and June 7, 2006, will be reviewed/acted upon at the next Council meeting.

COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR - PROFESSOR RAYMOND NOE

• The proposals to merge the Colleges of Education and Human Ecology, and to establish a School of Earth Sciences in the College of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, were approved by the University Senate on June 1, 2006.

The proposals to establish a Master of Laws (LL.M.) program in the Moritz College of Law, to establish a Ph.D. in Dance Studies, and to establish a Department of Urology, will now have to wait until a University Senate meeting in Autumn 2006.

• Smith reported that a total of five proposals approved by Council in recent weeks were submitted to the University Senate for action at its June 1, 2006 meeting, but that only two were actually forwarded for action. On May 26, he had been informed that the Program Committee had decided that the two degree proposals now needed to be reviewed by Faculty Council, although such a step had never before been required of any similar proposal. Later that same day, he and Noe, following their annual report to the Senate Steering Committee, were informed that the new department proposal also was being delayed, because it needed to be interpreted/discussed within the broader context of issues being raised by the Senate leadership about clinical faculty.

Smith had expressed, to the Senate leadership and to the Executive Vice President and Provost, his serious concerns about such steps being added to the review/approval process, without either this Council or those who submitted the proposals, being made aware of the need to do so, and that this occurred so late in the academic year, it is now delaying implementation by many months.

At the University Senate meeting on June 1, Professor Robert Bornstein, College of Medicine, and Professor Nancy Rogers, Dean, Mortiz College of Law expressed their strong displeasure that their proposals had not been acted upon, after being approved by this Council. They reiterated that no existing procedures/guidelines specify that action by the Program Committee or the Steering Committee is required before Senate action, and that they view this action as a serious breach in established process that has negative implications for the academic units that submitted the proposals.

• Vaessin, who will become Chair of the Senate Steering Committee for the 2006-07 academic year, but who had not been a part of the decisions about the Senate agenda, acknowledged that he did not understand the decision about the degree programs, but indicated that the issues about clinical faculty did need to be understood before the new department could be created. Smith indicated that many do not agree with that scenario. It is not appropriate to delay action on a specific proposal that has already been through the established review process, while a broader issue is being discussed.

Smith indicated that he, and all others in the Office of Academic Affairs, will be working with the University Senate leadership during the Summer to ensure that actions such as those that occurred within the past week, do not occur again. It is unfair to the academic units that submit proposals to be subjected to this type of action.

PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH AN UNDERGRADUATE MINOR IN STUDIO ART, DEPARTMENT OF ART – PROFESSOR HARALD VAESSIN, CHAIR, SUBCOMMITTEE A

Vaessin reported that Subcommittee A reviewed the proposal to establish an Undergraduate Minor in Studio Art in the Department of Art. The subcommittee discussed the proposal, submitted a set of questions, and was satisfied with the written responses. There were not many issues except that they required 17 hours of 200-level courses in the minor. Subcommittee A recommends approval of the proposal.

A Council member wanted to know why a concurrence letter from the Dean was not received. Subcommittee A did not insist on the concurrence letter because this is not an interdisciplinary minor and the subcommittee did not want to hold the approval process.
Smith noted that the Dean’s support was implicit – such a proposal could not have left the College without it.

DISCUSSION WITH PROFESSORS SERGIO SOAVE, CHAIR, AND RICHARD HARNED, DEPARTMENT OF ART

Soave indicated that the Minor was developed as a result of inquiry and conversations with students for the past decade. The Department and faculty see the minor as a way to extend their mission to a wider range of student population. Studio process will enable students to develop in a more comprehensive way creatively. There are students on campus who are very interested in a minor in Studio Art, and that has led to its creation.

Questions:

• How many students do you expect? About 100 students focused in Studio Art are expected, given the number of students taking the General Education Curriculum (GEC) courses.

• Who will advise these students? Students will be advised by the Department advising office and also by the faculty teaching the courses given that they teach small studio classes.

• Do you expect a total of 100 students or 100 students in the first year? They expect a total of 100 students with 50 students in the first year. Soave indicated that there are students graduating in Spring waiting for this minor to be approved. They have already taken courses required in the minor on their own.

• The proposal notes that “Admission to certain upper level classes that require special skills will require permission of instructor”. Which classes fall into this category and is there a risk that students in the minor program will not qualify to get into these classes? Students in the minor will receive permission if they have enough background to make up for the prerequisite.

• The proposal indicates that the students completing this minor would otherwise meet the threshold for applying to be part of the portfolio review – will this be made an option to them, or will there be some other manner of presentation in which they can take part? It is under review. Currently, only students pursuing a B.A. degree are required to submit a portfolio for faculty to assess their success in a course.

• What is the assessment plan for the minor other than portfolio requirement? 160 portfolios are evaluated by the faculty. They are looking at other models such as a faculty panel. New assessment data is being gathered for the GEC courses this year. Currently, besides course work, a portfolio is used in the assessment.

Subcommittee A moved approval. Evans seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.

PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH AN INTERDISCIPLINARY UNDERGRADUATE MINOR IN MEDIA PRODUCTION AND ANALYSIS – PROFESSOR HARALD VAESSIN, CHAIR, SUBCOMMITTEE A

Vaessin reported that Subcommittee A discussed the proposal and submitted a set of questions and was satisfied with the response. Subcommittee A recommends approval of the proposal.

• Who is the target audience?

• Some of the courses in the minor have “minor declaration” as the prerequisite although the Registrar’s prerequisite is “enrollment in the major.” Since the minor declaration does not happen until graduation, what is the process to register for these courses?

• Communication 221/221A titles are different in proposal and in the syllabus. Which one is correct?

DISCUSSION WITH PROFESSOR MARK SHANDA, CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF THEATRE, AND PROFESSOR PRABU DAVID, UNDERGRADUATE CHAIR, SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION

Shanda gave the rationale to establish an Interdisciplinary Undergraduate Minor in Media Production and Analysis. We are one of the few institutions that does not offer some facility for students to investigate and study both the critical side and the production side of television. Based on a request from the Office of Academic Affairs, the Department of Theatre and the School of Communication, together determined a manageable opportunity for students to engage in the study of television production/media analysis. Courses offered and resources available on the production-side were evaluated. There seemed to be a great deal of student demand for such a minor.

• Who is the target audience? Are they Communication students or Theatre students? Students from both the programs are the target audience.

• Given that these students could not count courses in the major towards the minor, does that mean that for a Communication student all the minor courses will be from Theatre and vice versa? Communication students cannot double count major courses in the minor. However, they can take Communication courses beyond their required courses in the major.

• Prerequisite for some of the minor courses is “minor declaration”. However the Registrar’s prerequisite is “enrollment in the major.” How will registration be managed? Students will be able to petition to waive the prerequisite and register through their advisor. Is this manageable? Yes. Although the demand for this minor is high from students who have had a media production element at the high school level, with proper resource management it is possible for students interested in the courses to get in.

• Comm 221/221A is titled differently in the materials. Is it “Reporting and Editing for the News Media” (as it is listed on page 13) or “Reporting and Editing for Mass Media” (as it is listed in page 11)? The correct title is “Reporting and Editing for Mass Media.”

• Comm 683. Internship in Journalism or Communication. It is described in the Course Bulletin as a course that provides “on-the-job internships in communication practice or research conducted under the supervision of internship coordinator through the undergraduate advising office”. There is no mention of the field study related in any way to media production or analysis. As a field study course, is Theatre 689 more appropriate given that it is directly related to media production (theatre, cinema, and video)? Comm 683 is the internship listing. Students take this course to get practical training at a television or radio station. Some students intern at Buckeye TV or at the WOSU station as part of this course.

• Theatre 367.03 is listed as “Media Criticism” in the proposal, but as “Criticizing Television” in the syllabus. Which title is correct? The correct title should be “Criticizing Television.”

• Comm 221/221A, besides the correct title of the course, the larger question is the appropriateness of this course as an elective for the minor. The course on the School’s website is listed as “News Media” and is described as “Introduction to and instruction and practice in news writing, reporting, and editing for the news media taught in a laboratory setting. How does this course pertain to the proposed minor? News writing is an integral part of media production and analysis. Shanda added that this course has direct relation to Buckeye-TV program.

Noe moved to approve the proposal. Dobos seconded the motion and it carried with one abstention.

PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH AN INTERDISCIPLINARY UNDERGRADUATE MINOR IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP – PROFESSOR GEORGE VALCO, SUBCOMMITTEE C

In Paskett’s absence, Valco and Dobos reported that Subcommittee C evaluated a proposal from the Fisher College of Business to establish an Interdisciplinary Undergraduate Minor in Entrepreneurship. The proposal is for a five course, 20-hour minor. Two of those required classes will be taught by faculty in the Fisher College of Business and rest will be offered by other participating Colleges. The subcommittee submitted questions on the proposal to Professor Steve Mangum. He addressed those comments to the satisfaction of the subcommittee. A revised proposal was submitted. The subcommittee recommends approval of this proposal.

• What is the difference between interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary? Smith suggested that currently we tend to use them interchangeably. The Colleges of the Arts and Sciences has been using the term “interdisciplinary” for proposals that it develops.

DISCUSSION WITH PROFESSOR STEPHEN MANGUM, SENIOR ASSOCIATE DEAN, AND MICHAEL CAMP, ACADEMIC DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP, FISHER COLLEGE OF BUSINESS.

Mangum summarized the rationale to establish an Interdisciplinary Undergraduate Minor in Entrepreneurship. They are proposing a minor in the field of Entrepreneurship to deliver in an interdisciplinary fashion, with wide variety of applications across the campus, and with a large number of faculty who do research, teach, and think in entrepreneurial terms. They want to develop a format that would not be specific to a college, but that will give room to the richness of experience running across many colleges. Camp has taken the lead in making this happen. The Minor consists of two required courses and three groupings consistent with the entrepreneurship process model. Students will take two courses in the minor taught by five faculty from the Fisher College of Business, and three other courses offered by participating colleges.

• Will students have access to the Business Builder’s Club? Yes. A large number of students belonging to this club are from outside the College of Business. Camp also indicated that the Center for Entrepreneurship has raised funds to design and offer the two core courses and to design and administer the proposed program. The Center plans to bring guest lecturers from industry, and provide internship opportunities for students for real world experience. The Center will also facilitate work and competition-type programs. Currently the Fisher College of Business has a Fisher Business Plan Competition program with a $130,000 award for the finalist. It is open to the whole University. This year’s winner is a student from Hospitality Management. Camp also added that they do not emphasize that students start a business, but from a curricular point of view, they focus on entrepreneurial leadership, and manage in an entrepreneurial fashion in their career choices.

Noe moved approval of the proposal; Freeman seconded the motion; and it carried unanimously.

ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR FOR 2006-2007

Smith explained the process for electing officers, noting that typically the Chair is chosen from among third-year members, and the Vice Chair has always been the Provost’s designee to the Council. Valco and Winer are the two third-year faculty members next year and Smith will continue as the Provost’s designee.
Noe interacted with both Valco and Winer to discuss the Chair position. Valco and Winer themselves discussed it, and decided that Winer’s name should be put in nomination.
Valco nominated Winer for Chair. Dobos seconded the motion. No other nominations were made, and the motion carried unanimously. Winer will be Chair, effective October 2006.
Noe nominated Smith for Vice Chair. Freeman seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Smith noted that four faculty members – McMahon, Noe, Pasektt, and Vaessin – will rotate off Council this Summer. Two will be replaced by the University Senate, and two will be presidential appointees. Once identified, the new members are welcome to attend Summer meetings to get oriented.

SUMMER MEETINGS
Three summer meetings are now scheduled:
Thursday, July 6, 1-3, 200 Bricker
Thursday, July 20, 2-4, 200 Bricker
Wednesday, August 23, 10-12, 200 Bricker
.
COMMENTS FROM THE VICE-CHAIR, PROFESSOR W. RANDY SMITH

• Smith indicated that he and Dutta would like to change the way proposals are distributed. Dutta asked the Council if they would have objection to receiving proposals electronically. The advantages and disadvantages of electronic distribution were outlined, and it was decided to continue this discussion at a future meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 4:30 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

W. Randy Smith

Lakshmi Dutta