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