Millersville University, Faculty Senate
Attachment B
Faculty Senate Minutes
18 February 1997
General Education Review Committee
Motions for the Senate's Consideration
Procedural Motions:
Motion #1. Divide the 11 items under phase 1 and phase 2 of the task force
recommendations into three groups: 1. Outcomes assessment group,
items 1 and 2 under phase 2; 2. Minor changes group, items 1, 2 and
6 under phase 1; and 3. Major changes group, items 3, 4, and 5
under phase 1 and items 3 and 4 under phase 2.
Rationale: Itmes in group 1. recommended a
procedure
that has already begun, and, is not really in question because it is
mandated by our administration and the SSHE, and previously approved by
faculty senate, except for some details. It is our contention that these 2
items do not require a vote by the whole faculty, nor even the senate, at
least at this time, and to include them as part of a package that could be
voted down would create a lot of unnecessary confusion and uncertainty.
Separation of these items would allow senate to discuss them on their own
merits, if we so desire, or simply allow the process to continue as at
present. Items in group 2. need to be revised to make it clearer
exactly what they are trying to do, and why, (especially the second part
of item 1 and all of item 6) but it is our committee's contention that,
especially if presented as ad hoc changes rather than as formal, premanent
changes, these should be construed as minor changes of the curriculum.
Such minor changes can and should be made by the faculty senate, and do
not need to be presented to the entire faculty for ratification. Indeed,
as with 1. above, presenting these changes as part of a total package
which might be rejected could be counter-productive because rejection of
the package could make it difficult to put through any part of the package
later. Items in group 3. It is our committee's contention that
these all represent major changes and would require a faculty vote to
approve. These are also the most controversial items.
Motion #2. Senate should first discuss group 1, then group 2, then group 3
(assuming Motion #1 has passed.)
Rationale: If senate begins with the least controversial,
we
can probably move very quickly on these. This would also allow us to
schedule the most contested items for specific later meetings, which would
allow individuals and departments who wish to testify regarding specific
items to know approximately when they need to be present. It would also
give the task force a chance to meet prior to discussions of the more
contested items and withdraw any item they wished to prior to
discussion.
Motion #3. That we not submit items in group 1. to the faculty as part of
the task force recommendations package, but instead discuss and resolve
this issue within faculty senate.
Motion #4. That items in group 2 be sent to the GERC for rewriting and
clarification, in consultation with members of the task force, after which
they will be brought back to senate for approval or disapproval as
individual items. That we recommend that these items not be included in
the package to be approved or disapproved as a whole by the entire
faculty.
Rationale for #3 and #4: See rationale for Motion
#1
Motion #5 That we discuss items #3 and 4 under phase 1 and item #4 under
phase 2 together.
Rationale: all relate to the abolition of
labels.
Substantive Motions (More to follow)
Motion #6. That senate recommend to the task force that it withdraw item 3
from the package.
Rationale: see the English Department's
arguments.
Return to Faculty Senate Home Page
Return to MU Home Page