DOCUMENTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY
are the minutes of the regular Faculty Council meeting of May 8, 2006.
Sue Alexander Greninger, Secretary
The General Faculty and Faculty Council
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL FACULTY COUNCIL MEETING OF
MAY 8, 2006
The eighth regular meeting of the Faculty Council for the academic year 2005-2006
was held in the Main Building, Room 212, Monday, May 8, 2006, at 2:30 p.m.
Christopher J. Bell, Susan
N. Beretvas, Gary D. Borich, Douglas C. Burger, Virginia G. Burnett, Luis A.
Caffarelli, Linda J. Carpenter, Penelope Davies, Gustavo A. De Veciana, Diana
M. DiNitto, John S. Dzienkowski, Miriam Estrin, Linda Ferreira-Buckley, Sherry
L. Field, Amy D. Forestell, Patricia K. Galloway, Linda V. Gerber, Linda L.
Golden, Michael H. Granof, Sue A. Greninger, Ian F. Hancock, Martha F. Hilley,
David M. Hillis, Lori K. Holleran, Karrol A. Kitt, Robert C. Koons, Desiderio
Kovar, Nancy P. Kwallek, Desmond F. Lawler, Raul L. Madrid, Richard P. Meier,
Julia Mickenberg, Karl H. Miller, Joan A. Mullin, John H. Murphy, Kate Nanney,
Melissa L. Olive, Jon E. Olson, Alba A. Ortiz, Cynthia Osborne Blaha, Yolanda
C. Padilla, Thomas G. Palaima, Elizabeth C. Pomeroy, Kenneth M. Ralls, John
H. Richburg, Peter J. Riley, Gretchen Ritter, Bonnie P. Rust, Berkley B. Scroggins,
Janet Staiger, Jeffrey Vaaler, Stacy Wolf, Sharon L. Wood, Paul B. Woodruff,
Kamran Ali (excused), Urton L. Anderson
(excused), Efraim P. Armendariz, Joanna M. Brooks, Lorenzo F. (Frank) Candelaria, Lisa J. Cary (excused), Marcos S. Ceniceros,
Stanislav Emelianov, Oscar Gonzalez, Edmund (Ted) Gordon, Charles R. Hale, Kenneth J. Hale (excused),
David Justin, Klaus O. Kalthoff (excused), Dominic L. Lasorsa (excused), Wayne Lesser, Randall M. Parker,
Wayne Rebhorn, Danielle R. Rugoff, Christine E. Schmidt (excused), Paul R. Shapiro, Janice S. Todd (excused),
John M. Weinstock.
| Non-Voting Members:
| Total Members:
||REPORT OF THE SECRETARY.
The written report appears in D 4783-4791.
||APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
The minutes of the Faculty Council meeting of April 17, 2006 (D
approved by voice vote.
|| COMMUNICATION WITH THE PRESIDENT.
|| Comments by the President.
President Powers announced that dean searches were not underway in the College
of Education and the School of Information as had been erroneously reported in
the Daily Texan. He reported that personnel in the McCombs School of
Business, central Information Technology unit, and senior administration had
been working diligently to address the computer security breech at the McCombs
school by notifying individuals whose information was compromised and getting
the “immediate situation well under control.” President Powers congratulated
and thanked Professor Alba Ortiz (special education) for the “terrific
job” she had done this year as chair of the Faculty Council; he described
her leadership as both “effective and influential.”
||Questions to the President – None.
||REPORT OF THE CHAIR.
Chair elect Linda Golden (marketing administration) presented Chair Ortiz with
inscribed gifts of appreciation on behalf of the Faculty Council for her outstanding
leadership, and the Faculty Council thanked Chair Ortiz with a hearty round of
applause. Chair Ortiz said she appreciated the gratitude, but the work had been
a team effort. She then thanked individually members of the Faculty Council Executive
Committee and UT administrators who meet regularly to discuss issues of importance
to the University and to determine the agendas for Faculty Council meetings.
She also thanked members of the Faculty Council for their dedication and support
during the past year and gave special recognition to personnel in the Office
of the General Faculty and Faculty Council for their behind-the-scenes work.
||REPORT OF THE CHAIR ELECT.
||Report on election results from the special 2006-2007 Faculty Council meeting.
Chair elect Linda Golden thanked all of the candidates for their willingness
to serve in a leadership capacity for next year’s Faculty Council and announced
the election results. Professor Douglas C. Burger (computer sciences) will serve
as chair elect of the Faculty Council in 2006-2007. Members of the Faculty Council
Executive Committee will include Professor Cynthia Osborne Blaha (public affairs),
representing the Faculty Advisory Committee on Budgets; Professor David M. Hillis
(integrative biology), representing the Educational Policy Committee; and Professor
Martha F. Hilley (music), representing the Faculty Welfare Committee.
|| Revised motion from the Educational Policy Committee to change
the definition of University Honors (D
Professor Robert C. Koons (philosophy and committee member) presented a revised
motion allowing students to qualify for University Honors in their final semester
before graduation when they need to enroll for fewer than eleven credit hours
to graduate. For eligibility under this provision, students must (1) have a cumulative
in-residence grade point average (GPA) of 3.5 or greater in all courses taken
prior to the current semester, (2) earned a GPA of at least 3.5 in
|| courses completed in residence in the current semester, and
(3) have no incomplete grades (symbol X) in any course
taken in residence.
Professor Larry Abraham (curriculum & instruction) said the
revised motion was an improvement, but he questioned why a student
who did not need to take a full load in the final semester would
be held to a standard of cumulative performance across his or her
entire program of study when University Honors is generally awarded
on a semester-by-semester basis. Professor Koons responded that
the committee was trying to avoid the situation where a student
could qualify for honors in the final semester before graduation
by taking only one easy course and earning an A in it.
He said committee members thought the most natural criteria would
be the cumulative GPA and the GPA of that semester. Professor Abraham
said he disagreed and proposed an amendment to replace the wording “have
a cumulative in-residence GPA of 3.5 or greater in all courses
taken prior to the current semester” with the following new
wording: “earned University Honors in the immediately preceding
two long semesters.” Questions raised by Mr. Mike Allen (interim registrar)
and Professor Karl Miller (history) provided Professor Abraham
with the opportunity to clarify that the two semesters did not
have to be contiguous. Chair Ortiz called for the vote and the
motion as amended by Professor Abraham passed by voice vote.
|| Report of the Task Force on Curricular Reform.
||Summary of feedback.
Chair Ortiz reported that Chair elect Golden and her teaching
assistant, Sandra Dunn, had summarized feedback from the
University and college/school forums and concluded the
task was difficult because much of the feedback pertained
to issues specific to each respective institutional unit.
Chair Ortiz then reported that the following general themes
had emerged across the various forums:
|| Attention needs to be focused on the entire undergraduate
curriculum and not just on the
|| Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, it is
important to look for a variety of proposals that
meet the goals of curricular reform and allow for
flexibility, particularly with regard to transfer
students, students who have earned advanced placement
credit, and faculty in colleges and schools where
participation in the core requirements would be restricted
due to commitment overload and limited resources.
|| A “common educational experience” for
undergraduates needs to be defined and used to develop
specific reform recommendations; some faculty members
feel that a common experience of large signature
classes is not what the task force meant.
|| Examination of curricular reform at comparable
institutions is needed to learn what has worked and
to help avoid the problems other institutions have
|| Strong sentiment exists for conducting an inventory
of programs and resources on campus and building
on existing endeavors, such as Connexus, the Bridging
Disciplines Program, and Freshman Interest Groups.
|| Incentives need to be developed to encourage faculty
participation in enhancing the undergraduate experience,
such as increasing teaching load credit for courses
taught in the core curriculum, providing summer support
for course development, and enhancing faculty skills
for creating signature courses.
|| Since faculty in colleges/schools that will be
greatly affected by reform measures supported the
minority report included with the task force’s
report, careful consideration should be given to
the recommendations included in the minority report.
Chair Ortiz then outlined the following specific recommendations that emerged
from the various forums:
||The concept of signature courses was generally supported but not as described
in the task
force’s report; major concerns were the proposed large lecture class format,
heavy reliance on teaching assistant support, and high implementation costs.
||Signature course recommendations included defining the features or criteria for
such courses and finding ways to broaden the definition so that a variety of
||qualify. Another idea was that signature courses should be offered but not mandated,
especially if courses within colleges/schools met the intended content as defined
by the signature course concept.
||The concepts of flags and strands received
support and were the least controversial among
the reform recommendations; feedback dealt
primarily with the areas that should be flagged
and the number of required flags for each area,
with the area of science and technology receiving
limited discussion and delineation.
||Requiring deferral of major declaration to
sophomore year was not supported, primarily
due to concern about losing top students to
other institutions that do not impose suc
||Deferral alternatives that were generally supported included (1) providing specific
support for students who have not yet declared their majors and (2) allowing
students to hold “dual citizenship;” this would allow students to
declare their majors but still utilize the services provided by an entity like
||Although there is a strong consensus that student advising needs to be improved,
there is a division on how to best accomplish this; a recurring recommendation
is to review the history of the Undergraduate Advising Center to assess if such
a unit needs to be re-established or to determine if increasing the number of
advisors in the colleges/schools would better serve student needs.
||Advising related to the core curriculum and advising within colleges/schools
needs to be coordinated to prevent confusing and conflicting advice; guidance,
however is needed throughout a student’s entire program of study.
|| With regard to the organizational structure,
establishing a guardian of the core curriculum
and providing a support system for undeclared
majors were both perceived as being important;
however, the University College concept was
not widely seen as an appropriate structure
to meet these needs.
|| There appears to be a good deal of interest
in the possible establishment of a vice provost
and dean of undergraduate studies that would
be comparable to the positions that provide
oversight for graduate studies here at UT Austin.
However, there is some concern that such a
position needs to be responsible for oversight
of both the core curriculum and major requirements
within colleges/schools for reform measures
to be effective.
|| There is little debate regarding the need
for increased resources, but there is strong
feedback that realistic cost estimates need
to be developed and considered in making decisions
about each of the specific reform proposals.
|| There is strong sentiment that the top priority
be given to hiring additional faculty in order
to decrease the faculty/student ratio and to
enhance the undergraduate experience; considerable
feedback was received about insufficient faculty
and teaching assistant support for currently
existing curricular needs within many departments.
Chair Ortiz reported that the Faculty Council Executive Committee has charged
the Educational Policy Committee through its chair, Professor Archie Holmes
(electrical and computer engineering) to accomplish the following over the
|| Review the available feedback, and obtain additional information in
order to develop specific legislative recommendations regarding curricular
reform for consideration by the Faculty Council.
|| Provide feedback regarding the administrative and organizational recommendations
contained in the task force’s proposal since curriculum implementation
will be influenced by structural issues.
Although the Faculty Council does not have authority regarding the administrative
and organizational proposals recommended in the task force’s report, Chair
Ortiz said the Faculty Council Executive Committee had agreed to serve as a working
group this summer to review the recommendations and feedback regarding way-finding/advising,
University College, and resources. She said the Executive Committee’s intent
was to either endorse the
|| recommendations or provide
alternative proposals for Faculty Council debate so that
a clear set of faculty perspectives could be provided to
administrators as they make those decisions.
Chair Ortiz reported efforts this summer on behalf of the
Faculty Council would be coordinated with the Deans’ Working
Committee on Curricular Reform, which is chaired by Dean
Steve W. Leslie (pharmacy). She then introduced Dean Leslie
and asked him to talk about the purpose and plans of his
committee. Dean Leslie said that there had been an effective,
efficient, and engaging transitional process occurring in
Deans’ Council meetings with President Powers and Provost
Ekland-Olson regarding curricular reform. He reported that
in the first two of three meetings of the Deans’ Council
since the new president was named the group had discussed
issues and begun to frame ideas and concepts about how to
move forward with curricular reform. In the third meeting,
the deans unanimously recommended the establishment of the
Deans’ Working Committee on Curricular Reform, which President
Powers and Provost Ekland-Olson then initiated. He said he
was delighted to chair the committee, whose purpose was to
identify and prepare an inventory and assessment of available
courses and resources within colleges/schools for potential
interdisciplinary signature courses, strands, and flags.
He said each dean had assigned an individual with a comprehensive
understanding of the undergraduate curriculum in his or her
respective college/school to the working committee. In most
cases, the representative is an associate dean of either
academic or undergraduate affairs or a department chair.
He said, although his committee was not certain what the
Faculty Council would ultimately recommend, he thought it
was important for his committee to partner with the Faculty
Council as recommendations regarding curricular reform were
being developed. He said his committee had not been formed
to engage in policy or structure decisions, but he hoped
the committee would provide good ideas about what might be
possible in terms of implementation and what should be avoided.
He said the idea was to form a partnership between the administration
and the Faculty Council, and for his committee to provide
useful content knowledge for fundamental decisions as the
process develops and to identify potential pilot courses
that could be implemented. Dean Leslie said he did not think
the process should be rushed, but it should be purposeful
and attempt to accomplish a good deal of work over the summer.
He said he was looking forward to working with the Faculty
Council this summer and during the following year.
Chair Ortiz said Provost Ekland-Olson had worked closely with
Faculty Council officers and provided input in how to proceed
with the recommendations. She said that the intent was for
all the groups to coordinate efforts and to build on the work
of the Task Force on Curricular Reform. She then thanked Dean
Leslie and said she was looking forward to working with him
as the process moves forward.
||REPORTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY, COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS,
||Clarification of the affiliated studies coursework and residency requirements
in the University chapter in the Undergraduate Catalog, 2006-2008 (D
Professor Jacqueline Woolley (psychology and chair of the Committee on Undergraduate
Degree Program Review) presented the motion from her committee to clarify requirements
regarding coursework and residency for the affiliated studies program. She asked
that Mr. John Sunnygard, director of the Center for Global Educational Opportunities
in the International Office, be allowed to answer questions regarding the proposed
catalog wording about the proposed requirements. Mr. Mike Allen questioned
whether the breadth of the phrase, “approved affiliated study abroad credit
toward all other residency requirements” in the proposal would conflict
with the tuition rebate program that requires a student be a Texas resident at
the time of enrollment in order to qualify for the rebate. Saying he did not
believe colleges have purview over allowing affiliated studies to meet the tuition
rebate residency requirements, Mr. Allen urged that the
proposal’s wording be modified. Director
Sunnygard said that course equivalency and University
approval of study abroad courses are determined
by the appropriate academic units and not by his
center. He emphasized that the center was primarily
concerned that students not be discouraged or discriminated
against for having studied abroad while enrolled
at UT. In addition, the center wanted to have residency
requirements treated consistently as though they
are completed here at UT regardless of the country
in which the study abroad experience occurred.
He said a fair amount of overlap occurred between
universities such that coursework in an affiliated
or exchange program could actually be identical.
In addition, he said some institutions, such as
the London School of Economics, will only allow
UT to operate with an affiliate status basis, which
can result in a student falling behind according
to some residency requirements. In order to encourage
study abroad enrollment, Director Sunnygard said
it was important that programs approved for credit
by UT be considered as completed in residence for
degree requirements and the requirements be consistent
throughout the process.
Mr. Allen said
he agreed with Mr. Sunnygard to the extent that
academic units have control over residency requirements;
however, he said he understood academic units could
not remove the state’s legal requirement
that coursework be taken as a Texas resident in
order to qualify for the tuition rebate. Mr. Allen
said a specific situation had arisen that dealt
with this issue, and he felt the current wording
was too broad and needed to be clarified. Professor
Larry Abraham commented that he thought whether
a person is considered a Texas resident is a separate
issue from whether the course he or she is taking
is in residence. When he recommended that the proposal
might need to be sent back to the committee, Chair
Ortiz said that action was needed on the proposal
at the present time due to the undergraduate catalog
deadline and gave permission to Vice Provost Lucia
Gilbert to address the Council. Vice Provost Gilbert
recommended that the following words be eliminated
from section two of the requirements: “the
appropriate academic units have the discretion
to determine applicability of University-approved
affiliated study abroad credit toward all college-
and school-specific requirements for coursework
Mr. Allen said he thought the problem was that affiliated
studies coursework is recorded as transfer work,
Vice Provost Gilbert said she thought some affiliate
coursework comes in as transfer credit and some comes
in as a grade. In the latter case, she said students
generally gain permission in advance regarding course
equivalency, and the course then gets a UT course
number and is assigned a grade. Mr. Sunnygard said
the interpretations of Vice Provost Gilbert and Mr.
Allen both were correct. He clarified that courses
are evaluated and can be awarded a UT course equivalent.
In the case of affiliate programs, the courses come
in as transfer credit, and the grade appearing on
the transcript is not included in the student’s
GPA. If the student has participated in an exchange
program or a faculty-led program aboard, the course
grade appears on the transcript and is calculated
in the GPA. For affiliated courses, the grade posting
is done by the Graduate and International Admissions
Center; for exchange courses, the posting is done
by the registrar’s office. Saying that the
wording was awkward in the state legislation regarding
the tuition rebate, Mr. Sunnygard said he believed
the legislation required Texas residency so funds
would not be returned to non-Texans. He said he thought
the primary issue of concern was a student’s
residency status within the University, and he did
not want the tuition rebate issue to hold up every
other student participating in a study abroad program.
Mr. Allen said he fully supported the concept of
affiliated courses meeting degree and graduation
requirements with respect to being defined as resident
courses; however, his understanding of the rebate
requirement was that the student must have attempted
all coursework at a Texas public institution of higher
education. Therefore, he thought the fact that affiliated
coursework was recorded as transfer credit rather
than being taken at a Texas public education institution
would cause a problem. When Vice President Patti
Ohlendorf (institutional relations and legal affairs)
asked Mr. Allen if the wording “college and
school specific requirements for coursework in residence” were
substituted for “other residency requirements” would
solve the problem, Mr. Allen said yes. Chair Ortiz
clarified that the last paragraph of the motion would
read as follows:
Additional requirements imposed by a college or school, if any, are given in the college’s chapter of this catalog. Many degree plans include residence
rules in addition to
the above University-wide requirements; the appropriate
academic units have the discretion to determine applicability
of University-approved affiliated study abroad credit
toward all college- and school-specific requirements
for coursework in residence. Course equivalency and
University approval of study abroad courses are determined
by the appropriate academic units.
When Professor Desmond Lawler (civil, architectural,
environmental engineering) asked why Vice Provost
Gilbert’s suggestion to delete the part of
the sentence following the semi-colon would not
work just as well, Vice President Ohlendorf replied
that either could work. She said if few questions
were asked in the future about college and school
requirements, Vice Provost Gilbert’s suggestion
to eliminate the wording after the semi-colon would
be fine. However, if a number of questions were
anticipated in the future, Vice President Ohlendorf
said it would be better to have language similar
to her own suggested wording.
Lawler asked for permission for Ms. Heather Thompson,
program coordinator of the Center for Global Educational
Opportunities, to address the Council. Ms. Thompson
said the lack of specific wording had been an issue
for personnel in the colleges/schools for some time
and the inclusion of the specific wording recommended
by Vice President Ohlendorf would solve the problem.
Professor Lawler moved that the original motion be
amended by substituting “college and school
specific requirements for coursework in residence” for “other
residency requirements” as recommended by Vice
President Ohlendorf. Professor Martha Hilley (music)
seconded the motion. There being no further questions
or discussion, Chair Ortiz called for the vote, and
the amendment passed by voice vote. She then called
for the vote on the main motion as amended and the
motion passed by voice vote.
|| Addition of an International Nutrition Option
to the Bachelor of Science in Nutrition in the College
of Natural Sciences Chapter of the Undergraduate
Catalog, 2006-2008 (D
Professor Jeanne Freeland-Graves (human ecology)
presented the rationale underlying the need for the
addition of an international nutrition option to
the Bachelor of Science in Nutrition because a protest
had been filed against the proposal by College of
Natural Sciences (CNS) Associate Dean for Academic
Affairs Jack Gilbert (chemistry and biochemistry).
Professor Freeland-Graves reported that the intent
of the degree option was to increase knowledge-related
programs and government standards as well as health
care research issues in countries outside the U.S.
and to prepare students who are seeking to focus
their education on the global aspects of nutrition.
She said the coursework included in the proposal
had not been protested. She thought this was because
the coursework provided a firm foundation in nutrition
education that was grounded in the natural sciences,
knowledge of the international dimensions of nutrition
and specialization in a major world region/second
language, and additional international grounding
through support courses.
Professor Freeland-Graves said the essential component
that had been protested was the requirement that
students go to an international location as part
of the program of study. Pointing out that other
programs, including international business and European
studies, have such a requirement, she said the international
field experience was needed so students could learn
first-hand about nutrition in other societies. She
said she understood that eliminating the required
travel would make the degree option less expensive
and therefore available to more students. Although
she thought it possible to use UT’s resources
(libraries, internet, international faculty members
and students), she said such learning experiences
would not provide students the same level of contact
and experience in meeting people from other countries
and learning how they act and feel. She said travel
abroad allows students to learn that their assumptions
are not always valid about other cultures. In addition,
she said going to another country provides students
with opportunities for maturation and encourages
them to recognize that they are citizens of the world.
the additional costs, Professor Freeland-Graves noted
that different rates of tuition and fees are charged
for different programs across campus. In addition,
she said the initial program for
this summer had funding for scholarships from
three sources: the CNS dean and the UT provost,
tuition funds, and the University Co-op. She
said ten of the thirteen enrollees were receiving
financial aid and others would receive parental
support. In the future, she said the CNS dean
would actively search for an endowment to help
support the program.
Gilbert said he had not focused that much on
the financial aspects in his protest and felt
study abroad had great value for students.
However, he said his reasons for protesting
pertained to the educational substance of the
program and the proposed coursework. Saying
he thought the University committee had reviewed
an incorrect version of the proposed course
layout, Associate Dean Gilbert said his primary
concern was that the proposed study-abroad
field experience did not have sufficient prerequisites
both from within the major and from ancillary
supportive courses outside the CNS to adequately
prepare students. He said he felt the proposal
had not been well thought out and had been
rushed through the review process in order
to make the catalog deadline.
said there had been one nutrition faculty member
who protested the proposal. As a result, a
two and one half hour meeting of the nutrition
faculty was held on Friday afternoon before
the Committee on Undergraduate Degree Program
Review (CUDPR) met the following Monday morning.
She reported that the nutrition faculty vote
on the proposal had been twelve in favor, one
against, and one abstention. She said there
had been an error regarding the prerequisites
for Nutrition 360 (International Nutrition)
in an initial document, but it had been corrected
with the help of CNS Associate Dean for Undergraduate
Studies David Laudeand his staff. She said
that all enrollees in this summer’s initial
study abroad program will have completed (1)
Nutrition 311 (Introduction to Nutrition) and
(2) Nutrition 360 (International Nutrition)
or will have completed instructor-provided
readings that are comparable to those required
in Nutrition 360. In addition, Professor Freeland-Graves
said she was planning to administer an oral
exam on the first day of the study abroad course
this summer. When Associate Dean Gilbert asked
if the proposal voted on by the nutrition faculty
had been approved by the departmental curriculum
committee and the chairman of the Department
of Human Ecology before being sent to the CNS,
Professor Freeland-Graves replied that the
chair of the departmental curriculum committee
had been present at the nutrition faculty meeting.
Laude asked Chair Ortiz if he could address
the Faculty Council, and permission was granted.
He said the international nutrition option
had proceeded through appropriate procedures
up to the CNS’s course and curriculum
committee. Following a vote in human ecology,
he said Professor Freeland-Graves had given
a presentation on the proposal to the CNS’s
course and curriculum committee where it was
met with numerous questions regarding access
and substance regarding the international experience.
He said Professor Freeland-Graves had worked
on the proposal, met with committees in human
ecology, and then presented the proposal again
to the CNS’s course and curriculum committee
where it received a unanimous vote of approval.
The proposal was then approved by Dean Mary
Ann Rankin, who supports the option but could
not attend the Faculty Council meeting because
she was out of town. Associate Dean Laude said,
as a chemist, he felt he should defer the
determination of what constitutes a first-rate
nutrition degree to the
department and nutrition division faculty,
and he thought the twelve to one faculty vote
indicated this was a “fine
Dean Gilbert said he though his past experience
as interim chair of the Department of
Human Ecology allowed him to assess the pre-study
abroad coursework required of students in the
proposed option, which he pointed out was not
really a degree but an option within a degree.
He said he thought his experience allowed him
to compare the proposed requirements to those
of the UTeach program or the nutrition internship
included in the coordinated program in dietetics.
He said he thought there were a good many other
courses in the nutritional science division that
could (1) augment the two prerequisites for the
study abroad field experience and (2) provide
students a firm scientific background that would
enhance the study abroad experience. He said
the proposed option would be setting a precedent
in the CNS regarding study abroad programs, and
he thought it was important for the option to
be well thought out.
||Associate Dean Laude reiterated that he felt
the nutrition faculty should ultimately make
the decision regarding the background required
before a student enrolls in the field experience.
He said the science background required for
this degree option was first rate since it
included calculus, a year and one half of biology,
and a year of each of the following: chemistry, organic chemistry, and biochemistry.
He said these requirements, plus the nutrition coursework and the field experience,
would provide a well-rounded set of experiences for students in the new option.
Professor Freeland-Graves said flexibility with regard to the study abroad experience
was a goal since it would be good if students could go to multiple locations
during their program of study. Following discussion by the two associate deans
about the number of semesters required in organic chemistry within the proposed
degree option, it was determined two semesters were required as indicated in
the proposal distributed to Council members. Associate Dean Laude said that fitting
the international field experience into a student’s program of study would
be a challenge given all of the other requirements. He concluded by saying he
believed the flexibility offered in the option’s course plan was essential.
After the question was called, a motion to stop discussion of the issue was approved
by voice vote. Chair Ortiz then called for the vote on the proposal to add an
international nutrition option to the Bachelor of Science in Nutrition degree.
Following questions from Council members, Chair Ortiz clarified that the proposal
under consideration for the vote was the version submitted to Council members
as part of the meeting agenda and posted on the Faculty Council Web site. The
motion passed by voice vote.
|| Cancellation of summer meetings of the Faculty
Chair Ortiz presented a motion to cancel Faculty Council meetings scheduled during
the summer months. The motion passed by voice vote.
|| Approval of meeting dates 2006-2007 (D
The motion passed by voice vote.
for Intercollegiate Athletics Councils (D
Chair Ortiz moved that the following
panels of faculty members nominated by
the Faculty Council Executive Committee
for appointment by President Powers in
2006 to the Intercollegiate Athletics Councils
be approved. The Intercollegiate Athletics
Council for Men nominees are the following:
John C. (Jack) Gilbert, professor, chemistry and biochemistry
Edmund (Ted) Gordon, associate professor, anthropology
Karrol A. Kitt, associate professor, human ecology
Michael L. Lauderdale, professor, social work
Janet Staiger, professor, radio-television-film
The Intercollegiate Athletics Council for Women nominees are the following:
Isabella Cunningham, professor, advertising
Paula C. Murray, professor, information, risk and operations
Linda E. Reichl, professor, physics
Brian E. Roberts, professor, government
Helena Woodard, associate professor, English
||The motion passed by voice vote.
||ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMENTS.
||QUESTIONS TO THE CHAIR —None.
Chair Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 3:57 p.m.
Distributed through the Faculty
Council Web site
on June 28, 2006. Transcripts of the Faculty Council
meetings and copies of these minutes are available on request from
the Office of the General Faculty, WMB 2.102, F9500.