University Senate Meeting

NOTE: Resolutions passed at this meeting immediately follow the minutes. Full committee reports are available for review in the Senate Office.

Attendees: Jim Abbott, Pat Alexy-Stoll, David Applebaum, Bryan Appleby-Wineberg, Lorin Arnold, Joe Bierman, Greg Biren, Lori Block, Larry Butler, Carl Calliari, William Carrigan, Bruce Caswell, Julia Chang, Eric Constans, Steve Crites, Joanne Damminger, Roberta DiHoff, Gini Doolittle, Richard Earl, Bob Fleming, Tom Fusco, John Gallagher, Dorie Gilchrist, Jim Haugh, Judy Holmes, Gabriela Hristescu, Olcay Ilicasu, Ihsan Isik, Martin Itzkowitz, Frances Johnson, David Klassen, Lee Kress, Kristyn Kuhlman, Denyse Lemaire, Phillip Lewis, Janet Lindman, Mary Marino, Mark Matalucci, Jeff Maxson, Robin McBee, Ellen Miller, Eric Milou, Janet Moss, Pat Mosto, Esther Mummert, James Newell, Joe Orlins, Julie Peterson, Anne Phillips, Robi Polikar, Kathy Small, Edward Smith, Sonia Spencer, Robert Sterner, Don Stoll, Eileen Stutzbach, Skeff Thomas, Sandy Tweedie, Cindy Vitto, Mary Beth Walpole, Barbara Williams, Tricia Yurak, Faye Zhu

Not in Attendance/Represented by Alternate: Joe Coulombe represented by Cindy Vitto, Diane Hughes represented by Ihsan Isik, Terry O’Brien represented by Cristina Iftode, Charles Schultz represented by Bob NewlandNot in Attendance: Herb Appelson, Jay Chaskes, Joe Davey, Kathy Ganske, Karlton Hughes, Stuart McGee, Bela Mukhoti, Michael Weiss

Motion to approve the agenda, seconded and carried.Motion to approve minutes of April 19, 2004, seconded and carried.Open Period: Donald J. Farish
1. The President praised Cindy for her leadership of the Senate.
2. The President addressed the issue of background checks on custodial workers employed by Pritchard Industries. A preliminary investigation revealed that the report made at the last Senate meeting was not accurate. One example is that the records indicate that 174 reports of theft on campus were reported to Public Safety in 2003. From this number, 58 occurred in buildings serviced by Pritchard; the other 115 were in buildings serviced by Rowan employees. For the year 2004, there have been 55 reports of theft to date involving 14 in buildings serviced by Pritchard employees, 41 in buildings serviced by Rowan employees. This does not indicate a high rate of crime reports involving buildings serviced by Pritchard. The background check situation is more complicated. Records dating back to 1996 indicate that the individuals employed by Pritchard have had background checks, but these checks focused on incidents in New Jersey (explaining why we hired one individual with an outstanding arrest warrant from Texas). Consequently, the University will be instituting a new background check system in the fall of 2004 with the new custodial contractor that will begin in the fall. Included with this will be a fingerprint analysis covering all 50 states. Overall, there were more warrants issued for Rowan employees than for Pritchard employees. Those issued for Pritchard employees were mostly for non-violent charges. (One was for burglary and three for drug-related offenses, but the majority were for nonpayment of child support, court costs, fines, and other offenses not considered safety issues.) A thorough report will be issued during the summer months, and the President assured the Senate that efforts will be made to ensure a safe campus.

3. The President stated that the Budget & Planning Committee will work during the summer to ascertain the priority level of full funding for one-semester sabbaticals. The return of one-hundred percent funding is not likely for this fiscal year, and possibly not the next fiscal year. One of the reasons is that the University is moving toward redefining faculty workload, and there may be costs associated with this. It is difficult to plan a year ahead without knowledge of the budget situation at that time. We will have to know with a high level of certainty that the money will be consistently available before we commit to fully funded sabbaticals so that we avoid having to make this decision on a year-by-year basis. There may, however, be changes in the State budget next fall that will be advantageous to the University.

4. The workload issue is continuing to progress, and administration and AFT are close to finalizing language on an agreement. We are still hopeful that the adjusted workload can be implemented for the Fall 2005 semester.

5. A preliminary report from the Diversity Task Force is expected to be ready by the end of the summer.

 
Committee Reports:
Awards–Julie Peterson
-Dr. Catherine Parrish acted as MC for this year’s banquet. Issued this year were 82 Medallion Awards, 2 Lawson J. Brown Senior Scholarship Awards.
-There was 1 new medallion established this year, 3 existing medallions were renamed, and 4 existing medallions were not offered. 
-The Medallion application packet was made available on the Senate web page by Eileen Stutzbach.
-It was suggested that Medallion Award information be publicized in the Whit newspaper.University Scholarship –Pat Alexy-Stoll reporting for Nancy Tinkham
-This year 93 scholarships were issued, ranging from $250 to $2,500, and were awarded at the Scholarship Banquet on April 22, 2004. Library –Lee Kress reporting for Judith Lancioni
-The Library Committee met 4 times this past year.
-The committee has been addressing the issue of renovating the 5th floor of the Campbell Library for the expansion of the Stewart Collection. The committee’s information and comments have been forwarded to the administration, and the committee should continue to look into this.
-A media center needs to be established in the library so that students will have access for class assignments, etc. Because the committee was informed that funds are available for the project, and that a particular area has been designated for this purpose, we hope that the media center can be completed next year. 
-The committee has been working on the issue of library parking for those with disabilities. After reviewing several options to solve the problem, the committee suggested that additional parking be made available on the side of the library (loading dock area), which would require some alterations.
-It was suggested that the committee forward its recommendations to the Campus Master Plan Committee.
-see Library Resolution #040512-1 - increased funding
-see Library Resolution #040512-2 – improving parking access for those with disabilitiesWorld Education –Edward Smith
-The committee held eight meetings this year, approved a charter, and organized several activities, working with the Office of International Student Services, the International Studies Concentration, the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences, the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures and Radio/TV/Film, and the International Honor Society Phi Beta Delta.
-The committee co-sponsored lectures on the Peach Corps, Iceland, Turkey, Argentina, poetry of the Italian American Experience, the international impact of global warming, and visa requirements for international students and scholars.
-The committee supported a student conference on Iraq, a Study Abroad and Exchange Program Fair, and an International Film Series. The committee also played a role in convincing the student cafeteria to sponsor several ethnic food nights with music and entertainment.
-The committee is suggesting the following:
-that they continue to work as a focal point and resource for International Education by encouraging members to reach out to various segments of the Rowan community to help support the initiatives of individuals and organizations.
-that they be reconfigured (perhaps with staggered membership terms of two or more years) to assume the function of an advisory board for the International Affairs Center (IAC), as described in the final report of the Task Force on International Initiatives. An Interim Director for the IAC should be named soon. The Center will help to develop and coordinate international programs, and will pursue connections with overseas institutions in order to facilitate the creation of exchange relationships. 
-that the committee be charged with working with the Directors of the International Affairs Center and the Office for International Student Services. It should have the task of reviewing the focus and direction of international initiatives, thereby providing the Senate with an opportunity to guide these endeavors.
-that faculty, staff and students have a voice on this committee
-that they encourage the recruitment of international students through various means, including University participation in overseas college fairs, contacts with international alumni, and financial incentives for qualified applicants.Bookstore –Larry Litwin
-The committee has established a major objective, which is a brochure to be developed by the middle of next year to answer faculty questions about ordering textbooks through the University Bookstore. Members of the student PR firm, PRaction, will conduct the research, prepare the strategic copy, and design and produce the three-panel brochure.
-With five abstentions, the Senate voted its approval to have this initiative move forward.Chairs Council -Pat Mosto
-Introduced a resolution to accept the Chairs Council Coordinator as an ex-officio of the Senate Executive Committee.
-see Chairs Council resolution #040512-3 Pat Mosto introduced a resolution: Commending Presidential Leadership of Cindy Vitto
-see Resolution #040512-4

Senate President’s Report –Cindy Vitto
What Has Been Accomplished in the Past Two Years, and Where Do We Go Next?
When I assumed the responsibility of Senate President, I knew very little about the presidency or the workings of the campus. I was dimly aware of the five divisions in the university, the three campus unions, the concerns of professional staff and support staff, or the function of the SGA. I have gained a tremendous education in the last two years, and probably the most important thing I have learned is that teamwork and unity give power to the Senate. I have been very fortunate to have wonderful Senate Executive Committees who have stood with me, and we have accomplished many things together. The Committee attended many special sessions and emergency meetings throughout the last two years. It has been wonderful to see how much people care about the University, and coming together with that passion for Rowan, we can make a difference. This is one of the most important things I have learned as Senate President. Several initiatives started over the past two years. As we have pursued ways to foster shared governance, new groups have been formed, such as the President’s Advisory Council, the Campus Master Plan Committee, and the Diversity Task Force; in addition, the work of the University Budget & Planning Committee has changed significantly. We have held various small-group and large-group discussions; the Senate Executive Committee has met with the Cabinet and with Deans; and this year we arranged for four special working sessions of the Senate to include senators, President Farish and his Cabinet, Deans and other selected administrators, and SGA officers. President Farish has made every effort to attend and speak at the Senate meetings, which is a good indication that shared governance is working. Now that the Senate has accomplished so much, where do we go from here? There are issues that I hope the Senate will press on with. One in particular is the 360 review for managers. All administrators, including the President, should be evaluated not just by those to whom they answer, but by those that answer to them. I believe we should also pursue a University-wide ethics policy and an academic code of honor. Finally, the Senate Constitution Review Committee continues to meet and discuss questions that may change the way we do business.As the elections are about to take place for Senate officers, committee chairs, and Senate Exec at Large members, keep in mind that the individuals elected will be the people who will determine the Senate’s relationship with other constituencies on campus. I have found the Senate’s voice to be most listened to when we are the most reasonable, when we have the conviction of the majority, and when we remain inclusive. A reminder to all senators is that you represent others. The administration needs assurance that the Senate is speaking for their constituents, not from personal bias. The more representative the Senate can be, the stronger it can be. Research & Technological Resources –Gabriela Hristescu
Announcement of proposed change to Senate bylaws: That the Research & Technological Committee be divided into two committees, one for research and research services, and the other for technological resources. This will be voted on in the fall semester. The Senate approved the idea of electing a co-chair for now, with the understanding that we may need to elect a co-chair in the fall if this change to the bylaws is passed. The co-chairs will then work to create two committees, probably before the end of the fall semester.
Candidates for Senate President - Presentations:
Bruce Caswell 
I have had the privilege of having a “front row” seat as to what is happening with the Senate and to observe Cindy’s leadership. As you know, we have a full agenda for next year. We have a policy agenda and a governance agenda. The President of the Senate does not control the agenda, but rather presides over a body of peers. 
If we are going to implement the redefined workload during Fall 2005, the entire process has to be complete by November 2004. The Senate will be part of the due process. This will require a tremendous amount of work and efficiency to accomplish this in a fair and equitable manner without compromising academic standards. There will also be a lot of work in General Education review and other areas. One area is the honor code and the ethics policy, and I hope we have time to get to those during the year. It is important that all the decisions that get made during the next year have the imprint of our professional academic values and experiences. 
As a former city planner, I have been very impressed with the contributions that members of the Senate have made to the planning process, especially through the Campus Master Plan Committee. They have improved some decisions that the administration was intending to make. We have to bring that kind of expertise to as many administrative decisions as possible on this campus. 
We also have a governance agenda this year. Cindy has covered many areas of governance, and I think we have come a long way toward reestablishing an atmosphere in which shared governance is possible on this campus. If you listen carefully to what Cindy said, and what the President said, almost all the things that have been accomplished in the last two years are informal. At some point, these have to be put in writing, and they have to be institutionalized on campus, and have to be presented to the Board of Trustees. One way to do that is through the Constitution, and there are possibly other ways. As the President said, “Presidents come and go,” but much of what we have accomplished has been at his pleasure. We have to institutionalize all these wonderful things that have happened in this last year.
I believe that I have much to offer from my experiences in my 14+ years here on campus, serving on almost every committee. Over the last couple of years, first on my own, and later in an official capacity, I have familiarized myself with the history of shared governance at this institution, in New Jersey, and around the country. I believe that I have some contributions to make. Over the last 2 ½ years, coinciding exactly with Cindy’s term, I have been vice-president of the AFT, which required me to attend the Board of Trustee meetings and allowed me to see the workings of the Board. I have also been intimately involved with negotiations. On this campus, I have spent more time last year involved with negotiations than anyone else, mostly in Trenton. 
Finally, another area of experience that has been very valuable to me that will come to bear here is that I am at the end of my second, 6-year term on the Board of Trustees of the Community College of Philadelphia. At the community college, I have served on every Board committee and have also been involved in lobbying in Harrisburg and Washington. At the Community College of Philadelphia, in the 11+ years I have been there, utilizing the master plan that we developed, we have gone from 1 full-service campus and 25 delivery sites plan to 4 full-service campuses and 55 delivery sites. I have learned a great deal about higher education policy through that process.
In closing, I am very excited about the possibilities that the Senate has as a body next year, and in the next couple of years, to influence the future of this institution. It is very rare that the Senate is at this point, where you can influence curriculum, new hires, buildings, etc. I think that I am well prepared to preside over this body of experts who, along with the Campus Master Plan Committee, will give their expertise to the administration to make the best possible decisions for the institution. If not elected, I still expect to be fully involved. You all know that I will still be excited and optimistic about the possibilities regardless if I win or lose. Sanford Tweedie
A couple of years ago, the Senate Executive Committee and the administration gathered to discuss shared governance. I showed up with large photos of Jim McGreevey sewed onto my shirt, each one cut into large strips. When asked why I was doing this, I replied, “I am sorry. I thought this was a meeting on shredded government.” At the time, McGreevey did not need me to shred him, because he was doing a pretty good job himself. As I stand before you today, I want to reexamine this slippage of language. When it comes to governance, it is a small step from shared to shredded. I believe that the Senate has, over the past few years, done a tremendous job in building a rapport with the administration, one that helps to advance our agenda through an open exchange of ideas. But facilitating communication with multiple constituencies will always remain fragile. Like any relationship, maintaining it requires much effort.
For the future of the university’s progress, the Senate leadership--and I include all the officers when I say this--must provide the dedication and the discernment to keep this relationship banded. Besides leadership, one must understand the issues of the Senate, and all faculty and staff of the university, and present these to the administration in a way that makes the dialogue progress. I believe that the channels for doing this require open discussion and negotiation. I do not believe that contentiousness is a way to make this happen. I see accusatory rhetoric as a last resort, and not as a normal way of making progress. Our administration is not hell bent on killing the geese that make their eggs golden. Can they can be short-sighted, unilateral in their decision making, quick to impose their views, not consultative, distrustful of faculty and professional staff? Absolutely. There are some people in attendance here who can attest to my willingness to tangle with administrators when I believe they are misguided. 
If there is one thing I have learned sitting alongside Cindy Vitto this past year, it is that shared governance does not have a chance without keeping the lines of communication open. A few people have asked me why I have not campaigned for this position. That is not my style. I prefer to let my record speak for itself. For those of you who don’t know me, I would like to give you a brief overview of how I have participated in governance processes here at the university over the past few years.
I completed my first decade at Rowan, and almost twenty years now of teaching at the college level. My service began with the Senate in 1996. In addition to serving on the Recruitment/Admissions/Retention Committee, I have chaired both Student Relations and Academic Policies & Procedures. This year I co-chaired Budget & Finance. Co-chairing the committee seemed easy this year after having spent the previous two years on the committee as we went through State budget reductions and had the unenviable task of prioritizing budget cuts. Each year, though, the committee has made good strides toward shared governance. In addition, I have served as Senate Parliamentarian this past year, which allowed me the opportunity to attend, along with the other Senate officers, monthly meetings with each of the Vice-Presidents and the President, and to better understand their positions on issues and how they function as people.
I also served on the campus Master Plan Committee, and as part of this I chaired the Academic Facilities sub-committee, and served on the Steering Committee, where I helped develop the guiding principles documented over the past year and a half. Also last year, I faced perhaps the greatest challenge I had yet seen here at Rowan, chairing the University Mission Statement Committee. In 2001, I served as the coordinator of the writing program in the Department of Composition and Rhetoric, which meant I was responsible for scheduling 80 to 100 sections per semester, hiring, orienting, and advising more than 30 adjuncts, and completing numerous other chair-like duties. Perhaps the most relevant to this position, I facilitate dialogue and find solutions to problems when students and teachers come to me seeking intervention. 
Finally, I bring with me these qualities: dedication, energy, experience, and understanding of how the Senate and the University operate. I am committed to open dialogue, exchange of ideas, and a desire to see the success of University governance.
Candidates for Senate Vice-President - Presentations:
Phillip Lewis
I have been with the university for 11 years. During those first years I served on four committees per year, and also served under two Presidents, four Provosts, and three department chairs, so I know the real constants on this campus are the Senate and the students who still continue to come and be energized by the prospect of having a college education. 
Prior to coming here, I spent another dozen years, first working as professional staff at Wilmington College in Wilmington, Ohio, where I coordinated an off-campus program set inside a medium security prison, which was exactly the same as the four-year program on the main campus. I also advised inmates about the prospects of starting their own business. 
I learned the challenges of being professional staff, and the challenge of advising students. After that I spent a couple of years as a full-time temporary instructor for Indiana University, at its branch campus. At Ohio State University, I taught twenty-three courses out of twenty-four quarters, with an average class size of sixty. My first semester at Rowan, when I taught four sections with a total of seventy-two students, I thought I had come to heaven. 
Looking at the next year, we know about some things coming forward, particularly curricular. One is that the new general education model will hopefully be moved forward. The second is an information literacy proposal. The third is a proposal coming out of the Enrollment Management Committee, that Rowan Seminar be required of all students in all programs. Currently there about thirty sections, but we need sixty in order to meet that recommendation. We also have the College of Education revising their entire undergraduate curriculum, and hoping to have their proposals in by July 1st to be implemented in the fall of 2005 so they can prepare for their accreditation in 2006. 
With all that, and hoping to have an adjusted workload starting in the fall of 2005, I think I can help the Senate to be able to deal with these issues, as well as with the unexpected. Skeff Thomas
For those of you who don’t know me, I am Skeff Thomas, Chair of the Art Department. I started at Rowan University in 1997 and started serving as assistant chair of the Art Department in 1998. I have just been elected to my second term as chair of the Art Department, and in the three years I have been here, I have made an effort to get involved with campus-wide committees, and get involved with service for the entire university. I have served with Bruce Caswell and the University Scheduling Committee, which has now finished its second round as an ad hoc committee. I have also worked on the search committee for the director of construction. The first time on that committee, it was my first exposure to all of the potential that Rowan is going to be facing in the next ten to fifteen years, however long it takes to implement what we are talking about now in the master plan. 
I have also worked on the Master Plan Committee. With my election last year as chair of the Campus Aesthetics & Environmental Concerns Committee of the Senate, I became a member of the Master Plan Steering Committee and also chaired the Landscaping and Campus Image subcommittee. I have developed a relationship with various campus constituencies. Working with the folks in planning and construction, members of the administration, and members of the faculty, I feel I have a lot to contribute to what is happening with the Senate. 
The idea of shared governance is something that I am strongly behind. For those of you who know me, I am not really a talkative person, but willing to speak my mind at a meeting and able to express my points. As we think about master planning, my thought is that the facilities should be driven by what is happening academically and with personnel. Sometimes I go to the all-University events and we hear about new buildings and driveways, but we cannot forget we are here for academics--the academic initiatives, the academic priorities. 
To talk about a couple of things I have been involved with, one of which is campus aesthetics, if you go outside into the courtyard between the Student Center and the Library you will see some new pavers being put in. The Landscaping and Campus Image Subcommittee met with Russ Seagren, Glen Brewer and Tom Gallia, looking at what is happening with the fountain out front and the sculpture in front of the Recreation Center. 
I have also chaired the archive committee for the library. I have a personal interest in the Stewart Collection and helped to organize a show of glassware this past March. I have a vision of how things should be and will work for that vision if elected.Officer Election Results:
Senate President Election Results: Bruce Caswell, President
Senate Vice-President Election Results: Phillip Lewis, Vice-President
Recording Secretary: Dorie Gilchrist
Parlimentarian: will be chosen by the newly elected Senate PresidentStanding Committee Chair Election Results:
Curriculum: Eric Milou
Tenure & Recontracting: Jim Newell
Promotion: Pat Mosto
Academic Policies & Procedures: Lorin Arnold
Campus Aesthetics & Environment: Skeff Thomas
Career Development: Lee Kress
Committee on Committees: Frances Johnson
Intercollegiate Athletics: Bob Stern, Co-Chair
Learning Outcomes Assessment: Don Stoll
Professional Ethics & Welfare: Barbara Williams
Recruitment/Admissions/Retention: Joanne Damminger
Research & Technological Resources: Gabriela Hristescu, Co-Chair
-other co-chair pending
Sabbatical Leave: John Gallagher
Student Relations: Lorin Block
University Budget & Planning: Bob FlemingAt-Large Members of the Senate Executive Committee: Sanford Tweedie
Kathie Small
-
Scheduling Committee–Bruce Caswell
-The committee was called upon again this year by the Provost and asked to make a recommendation on the possibility of a second open period. We received ideas from departments and the SGA, considered the suggestions that people made, and analyzed data. We concluded that the only feasible open period at this time is Wednesday, at 10:50 AM, which is the mirror of the Monday schedule. The committee would like to see the revised schedule introduced in fall of 2005 and asks for official Senate endorsement. 
-see Resolution #040512-05 Campus Master Plan Committee –Joe Orlins
-The committee has completed a set of guiding principles with input from the broad campus community. These have been placed on the Master Plan web site, and we have received many positive comments. As members are given the opportunity to rotate off the committee, vacancies will be filled through the process used originally, involving the Committee on Committees to solicit volunteers. 
-The committee has worked on environmental initiatives, and has worked closely with the Campus Aesthetics & Environmental Concerns Committee. The committee continues to look at solutions for housing and parking, and will continue to work over the summer months. 
-Groundbreaking for the technology park is expected to take place in the fall. Based on input from the committee, the site of the first building has been modified to meet some environmental considerations and good planning practices.
-The committee also worked with Facilities Planning to improve campus lighting standards. Upcoming projects include working with developers for Rowan Boulevard and possibly a new hotel complex that would anchor one end of the boulevard.
-Because the existing master plan is a few years old and created without broad input, the University will be soliciting requests for proposals from a variety of master plan firms this summer.
-In response to a question, Joe indicated that there are no immediate plans to provide a permanent residence in Glassboro for the President.
-Because the originally submitted design for the Performing Arts Center turned out to be very expensive, this project is being looked at again. The committee is also awaiting input from the Provost about academic priorities, information that she indicated she would deliver to the committee by the end of the summer.
-Historic buildings on campus need to be taken into account. Esther DeEugenio indicated that Hollybush Mansion, Bunce Hall, Sangree Greenhouse, the Carriage House, Laurel Hall, and Oak Hall have already been recognized by the Glassboro Historic Preservation Commission as having significant historical integrity.Constitution Review Committee –Bruce Caswell (Bruce Caswell and Karen Siefring, co-chairs)
-The constitution review process currently involves about thirty people. Our schedule is to have something on paper in the fall for discussion purposes. We are not envisioning a radically different document. There is enough consensus on some changes that can be mentioned now, such as some representation of other constituents on campus. We would like to include all the bargaining units, and the students. There are also some technical items to be presented. 
-The constitution requires that more than half of the unit members vote on constitutional changes. Then the constitution changes are required to be presented to the Board of Trustees. We would like to have the vote scheduled for the spring semester if things go well.General Education Review –Phillip Lewis (Phillip Lewis and David Klassen, co-chairs)
-The committee met eight times this semester and formulated a set of recommendations entitled the Rowan Plan for General Education 2004. It is a draft to be considered by the larger university community and adopted or rejected during the fall of 2004. Basically, the plan sets minimums so that programs can then expand the model as needed. We need to have a consistent basic model so that assessment (mandated by Middle States) is possible. The committee plans to have informational hearings in June, formal open hearings in September, and a final plan ready for Senate action in early fall, if possible, so that the new general education model could be implemented as early as Fall 2005.
-The Rowan Plan 2004 
-General Education Requirements*
Minimum of 42 sh covering 8 areas of study (note that the committee has tentatively relabeled general education banks): 
1.First Year Experience Bank
2. Communication Skills Bank
3. Scientific & Quantitative Reasoning Skills Bank
4. Aesthetics Awareness Bank
5. Historical & Cultural Perspective Bank
6. Social & Behavioral Understanding Bank
7. Diversity of Human Culture Bank
8. Non-Program Electives Bank (not limited to courses within the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences)
*General Education: The purpose of the general education program is to provide Rowan students with the tools necessary to critically examine the world around them. Courses are designed to create a broad liberal arts education and to promote lifelong learning.-Major Requirements
Course & activity requirements specified for the program of study
Directed electives within a major program of study that help in achieving the programmatic
learning objectives.
B.A. 30-39 sh (minimum-maximum)
B.S. 60-64 sh (minimum-maximum)
Specialized Programs -variable-Free Electives
B.A. 21-30 sh (minimum-maximum)
B.S. 6 sh minimum
Specialized Programs 0 sh minimum-The complete Rowan Plan for Undergraduate Education 2004 can be viewed/downloaded from the Senate web page.Research & Technological Resources –Gabriela Hristescu
-The committee met six times this year but had time to deal with only technological issues:
-suggested revisions to the web policy document – compliments to Jen Bell for working closely with the committee on this effort
-submitted recommendations to the Web Oversight Committee; the Google search engine has already been adopted by Rowan
-solved problems with the 24-hour Mimosa computer lab and new computer configurations on campus; two computers in the Mimosa lab now have traditional disk drives to accommodate students who cannot use the CD or USB drives
-discussed various problems with the Groupwise system; there are plans to move to Outlook during the summer.
-Because senators had not received the most recent revision of the Web Policy, the Senate was not able to vote to approve the policy. This vote will occur in early fall. -see resolution #040512-6 - for sufficient full-time personnel for the function of web developmentAcademic Policies & Procedures –Martin Itzkowitz
The committee met four times this year. Issues discussed are as follows:
-a uniform policy regarding D grades must be applied within departments; i.e., if D’s are 
accepted (or not) by a department, transfer and native students must be treated the same. 
-pass/no credit changes – resolution passed at previous Senate meeting: Students enrolled in
courses with a P/NC grading option must declare their choice of this option by the end of the drop/add period and make this declaration to the registrar rather than the instructor. The registrar shall designate those students who take the P/NC option on all rosters generated after the ten-day period.
-automatic withdrawal from courses for non-attendance – the committee discussed automatic withdrawal for non-attendance and seemed to be in general agreement that it should be done. There was no consensus about penalties, if any, that might be applied to the student. This matter should be revisited by next year’s committee
-discussion of policy regarding designation of distance learning for on-line courses
-discussion of policy for emeritus designation
-reconciling grade grievance and change of grade policies – thanks to Robi Polikar for discussing this with the Senate Executive Committee so that a vote can be taken today-see Resolution #040512-7 – change of grade and grade dispute policyCindy Vitto introduced two items that would ordinarily have come before the Academic Policies and Procedures Committee but were directed to her shortly before today’s meeting:(1)The Senate approved Provost Helen Giles-Gee’s written request for approval to begin implementing in Spring 2005 increased grade-point average requirements under the Academic Dismissal, Suspension, and Probation Policy. The increased requirements were approved by the Senate on May 11, 1999, but were not implemented at that time due to concerns regarding mid-year notification on grade reports and mid-year dismissals. Although the dismissal process still takes place only in the spring semester, Rowan has, for the past two years, provided mid-year warnings on grade reports.
Below is a summary of the Academic Dismissal, Suspension, and Probation Policy. 
Academic Dismissal
Dismissal occurs if, after attempting:12-24 credits, the cumulative GPA is below 1.5 [currently, below 1.2 for 24 credits]
25-59 credits, the cumulative GPA is below 1.7 [currently, below 1.5 for 58 credits]
60+ credits, the cumulative GPA is below 1.9 [currently, below 1.8 for 90 credits]After attempting 24 semester hours or more, students whose cumulative number of semester hour credits of withdrawal exceed 25% of the semester hours attempted may be dismissed from the University. (This is exclusive of medical withdrawals.)Academic Suspension
All students must meet the basic skills requirements by the time they have attempted 30 semester hours at the university. Freshmen and transfer students who enter with fewer than 30 hours must complete the computer competency test or the computer literacy course by the time they have attempted 45 hours at the university. Transfer students who enter with 30 hours or more must complete the computer competency test or the computer literacy course by the end of their second semester at the university. Failure to meet these deadlines will result in suspension. Exceptions may be made for special programs (e.g. EOF, Specialized Services).Students who are not removed from academic suspension after one academic year are automatically dismissed from the University.Academic Probation
Students are placed on academic probation after attempting:12-24 credits, the cumulative GPA is at least 1.5 but below 2.00
[currently, 1.2 but below 1.6 for 24 credits]25-59 credits, the cumulative GPA is at least 1.7 but below 2.00
[currently, at least 1.5 but below 1.8 for 58 credits]
60+ credits, the cumulative GPA is at least 1.9 but below 2.00
[currently, at least 1.8 but below 2.0 for 90 credits]Students who are not removed from academic probation after one academic year are automatically dismissed from the University.(2) The Senate did not approve a request from Drew Calandrella, Vice President for Student Affairs, for new catalog language intended to clarify the distinction between student withdrawal and leave of absence. Because there were questions about whether this was actually a change in language or a change in policy, the Senate approved a motion that the matter be referred to next year’s Academic Policies and Procedures Committee. Comments included concern that exceptions would need to be made if a student were in crisis and needed a leave of absence after a student had begun attending classes; the need to clarify, in the final paragraph, that students are “currently enrolled and attending classes” since a student could be enrolled in a class before the semester begins; the question of whether students who withdraw completely and wish to re-enroll in the next semester are currently required to complete an Admissions Reapplication form. Curriculum -Phillip Lewis
The following curriculum proposals were announced to the Senate:COLLEGE OF BUSINESS
SCC#03-04-109 Management/MIS Management Information Systems A U change prerequisites
SCC#03-04-110 Management/MIS Supervised Internship in MIS A U new non gen-ed
SCC#03-04-111 Accounting & Finance Managerial Finance A G change prerequisites
SCC#03-04-112 Accounting & Finance Eliminate Bus Perspec from Acct Bus Core A U minor curr chng-non-gen-ed
SCC#03-04-113 Accounting & Finance Entrepreneurial Accounting A U new non gen-ed
SCC#03-04-114 Accounting & Finance Finance Specialization:add bus electives A U non-gen-ed requirements
SCC#03-04-115 Management/MIS Strategic Project Based Experience A G new non gen-ed
SCC#03-04-116 Management/MIS Graduate Entrepreneurship & Innova Crse A G new non gen-ed
SCC#03-04-117 Management/MIS Corp Entrepreneurship & New Venture Dev A G new non gen-ed
SCC#03-04-118 Management/MIS Entrepreneurship & Innovation Course B U Gen Ed Bank
SCC#03-04-119 Marketing Senior Standing as a Business Major A U major
SCC#03-04-120 Marketing Marketing Specialization-Bus Perspectives A U change requirements
SCC#03-04-121 Marketing Sophomore Standing as a Business Major A U major
SCC#03-04-122 Management/MIS BS in Business Administration A U remove Core:Bus PerspectivesCOLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
SCC#03-04-407 Civil/Environ Engin Civil & Environmental Engineering A G change prerequi-description
SCC#03-04-408 Civil/Environ Engin Civil & Environmental Engineering A U change prerequisites
SCC#03-04-409 Civil/Environ Engin Engin Properties-Soils & Pavement-for Sr A U new non-gen-ed
SCC#03-04-410 Civil/Environ Engin Engin Properties-Soils & Pavement Mat A G new non-gen-ed
SCC#03-04-411 Mechanical Engineering Advanced Mechatronics A G new non-gen-ed
SCC#03-04-412 Chemical Engineering Unit Operations Laboratory A U chng prerequisite-non-gen-ed
SCC#03-04-413 Chemical Engineering Engineering Process Anyl & Exp Design A G chng advisor status-non-gen-ed
SCC#03-04-414 Chemical Engineering Fundamentals-Engin Process Anyl&Exp A U chng advisor status-non-gen-edCOLLEGE OF FINE & PERFORMING ARTS
SCC#03-04-500 Music Pedagogy IV for Music Education Majors A U pre-requisite for this course
SCC#03-04-501 Theatre/Dance Dance Competition A U change hegis #
SCC#03-04-502 Theatre/Dance Choreography A U change hegis #COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS & SCIENCES
SCC#03-04-710 Law/Justice Group Dynamics A G new non-gen-ed
SCC#03-04-711 Law/Justice Seminar in Violence A G new non-gen-ed
SCC#03-04-712 Law/Justice Community Relations in Admin of Justice A G new non-gen-ed
SCC#03-04-713 Law/Justice Seminar in Rehabilitation & Resocialization A G new non-gen-ed
SCC#03-04-716 Law/Justice Computer Applications-Criminal Justice Mgt A U new non-gen-ed
SCC#03-04-717 Law/Justice Human Resource Development A U new non-gen-ed
SCC#03-04-718 Law/Justice Seminar in Criminal Justice Planning A U new non-gen-ed
SCC#03-04-719 Geography/Anthropology Intro to Mapping Sciences A U name/hegis change
SCC#03-04-720 Geography/Anthropology Advanced Geographical Info Systems A U name/prerequisites change
SCC#03-04-721 Geography/Anthropology Intro Geographical Information Systems A U name/prerequisites change
SCC#03-04-722 Geography/Anthropology Geographic Info Systems-GIS-Topic/Appli A G new non-gen-ed
SCC#03-04-723 Law/Justice Making Seminar in Law-Writing Intensive B U minor curr chng/writing inten
SCC#03-04-724 Geography/Anthropology Intro to Geography & Earth Studies B U new for Gen Ed BankSCC#03-04-808 Chemistry/Bio Chem Biochemistry A U change hegis #
SCC#03-04-809 Biological Science Natural Resources to Intro Environ Issues B U change course name
SCC#03-04-810 Computer Science TCP/IP & Internet Protocols & Tech A G new non-gen-ed
SCC#03-04-811 Physics/Astronomy Quantum Mechanics I A U change prerequisites
SCC#03-04-812 Physics/Astronomy Quantum Mechanics I (3 sh to 4 sh) A U change credit hours
SCC#03-04-813 Physics/Astronomy Mechanics A U change credit hours
SCC#03-04-814 Physics/Astronomy Analytical Mechanics (1902.315) A U change credit hours
SCC#03-04-815 Physics/Astronomy Electricity & Magnetism I (1902.430) A U change prerequisites
SCC#03-04-816 Physics/Astronomy Mathematical Physics A U not required for BS-Physics
SCC#03-04-817 Physics/Astronomy Electricity & Magnetism I (1902.430) A U change credit hours
SCC#03-04-818 Physics/Astronomy Electricity & Magnetism I (1902.528) A U change credit hours
SCC#03-04-819 Physics/Astronomy Electricity & Magnetism I (1902.528) A U change prerequisites
SCC#03-04-820 Physics/Astronomy Electricity & Magnetism II (1902.528) A U change credit hours
SCC#03-04-821 Physics/Astronomy Quantum Mechanics I (1902.541) A U change credit hours
SCC#03-04-822 Physics/Astronomy Quantum Mechanics I (1902.541) A U change prerequisites
SCC#03-04-823 Physics/Astronomy Quantum Mechanics II (1902.541) A U change credit hours
SCC#03-04-824 Physics/Astronomy Electricity & Magnetism II (1902.431) A U change credit hours
SCC#03-04-825 Physics/Astronomy Quantum Mechanics II (1902.402) A U change credit hours
SCC#03-04-826 Biological Science Development Biology A U new non-gen-ed
SCC#03-04-829 Computer Science TCP/IP & Internet Protocols & Tech A U new non-gen-edINTERDISCIPLINARY
SCC#03-04-910 Interdisciplinary Rowan Seminar: The Leadership of Ideas B U multiple courses
The following curriculum proposals were voted upon and approved by the Senate. The vote for SCC#03-04-916 was 23 in favor, 2 opposed, 14 abstentions. INTERDISCIPLINARY
SCC#03-04-912 Interdisciplinary M.Ed in Advanced Studies-Stand Base Prac C G new degree program
SCC#03-04-913 Interdisciplinary Certificate of Grad Study:Teachng & Learng C G new certificate-grad study-COGS
SCC#03-04-916 College of Education Elementary Coordinate Majors C U change elem coord majorsThe following resolutions were discussed and approved.
-see Resolution #040512-8 - Quasi-Curricular Proposal –program delivery at new sites, with partner institutions, and/or utilizing new delivery methods-see Resolution #040512-9 -Letters of Consultation –for new program and quasi-curricular proposals (process C) – passed with 2 opposed, 3 abstentionsThe Curriculum Committee processed 146 proposals this year and held 20 meetings (6 at the University level and 14 at the College level)Recruitment/Admissions/Retention –Joanne Damminger for Jay Chaskes
-Committee reviewed the Action Plan adopted by the 2002-2003 committee, and reordered the plan’s priorities to include gathering retention data for minorities and the Camden campus, meeting admissions diversity goals, and addressing issues of transfer admissions.
-Planned to review freshman retention and 6-year graduation data.
-Reviewed plan to provide first preference for Rowan Seminars to all undeclared students in the fall of 2004, and to create additional Rowan Seminars to provide access to all freshman by Fall 2005. The number of Rowan seminars will probably double for Fall 2005.
-Reviewed university’s new procedures for accepting, advising, and registering transfer students, beginning with fall of 2004 admissions.
-Heard reports from Vice President of Student Affairs and Director of Admissions on the new Rowan Seminar access plans, and addressing diversity issues of recruiting a more diverse student and faculty population.
-Suggestions for next year: (1) assure some continuity of representation on the committee; (2) discuss the idea of having incoming freshmen remain non-majors during their first four semesters (some comments about the practical difficulties of this situation were offered from the floor); (3) reconsideration of the restricted major policy. It is recommended that next year’s committee focus on one or two key issues.Learning Outcomes Assessment –Anne Phillips
-The committee approached its charge with four objectives:
1. assessment should be an established, continuous, and embedded part of the academic process at Rowan University
2. assessment should contribute directly to student learning
3. campus-wide outcome assessment should take full advantage of existing processes and offices
4. assessment should be driven at the programmatic level by the individual working directly with students
-In the fall, the committee approached departments and Deans to ask that assessment results be reported to the Deans, with Deans reporting data to the Provost for inclusion in the Middle States Periodic Review Report. With the Provost’s support, the committee now recommends setting up a policy that would formalize a permanent assessment process that would be faculty-controlled and faculty-owned. Toward that end, the committee would like to refer its recommendations to next year’s Academic Policies and Procedures Committee.-Several suggestions were made from the Senate floor to rephrase wording of the LOAC’s recommendations:
-Recommendation #1 – clarify that the position of Coordinator of Assessment, but not necessarily the individual holding that position, would become permanent; also, underline the final bulleted item to make it clear that this sentence is an addition to the original document.
-Recommendation #2 – stagger terms for members of the Faculty Core Group
-Recommendation #6 – Rephrase to “Advise the Faculty Center to elevate the status of assessment . . .”; in the second bulleted item, rephrase to “With budgetary allowance for this purpose, consider having the Faculty Center partly subsidize memberships . . .”
-Recommendation #7 – Rephrase to “Encourage departments and colleges to reward assessment work . . .”
-Recommendation #8 – Rephrase to “Between faculty and administration, develop a shared strategy for continuous improved of the assessment process . . .”

-The Senate approved a motion to accept the report of the LOAC and to refer its goals and recommendations to the Academic Policies and Procedures Committee for further discussion.See attached goals and recommendations of the LOAC.Sabbatical Leave –Janet Lindman
-Nineteen candidates applied for sabbatical leave for the academic year of 2004-05 and for the chronological year of 2005. With 24 semesters of sabbatical leave available, requests for 25 semesters of leave were submitted this year. One candidate withdrew his application, which meant there were an adequate number of semesters available for the 18 remaining candidates.
-This situation was complicated by the deferral of sabbatical leave by last year’s candidates, who could take 13 semesters from the 24 semesters of the current year. This left 11 semesters available for 18 candidates.
-The administration resolved this situation by increasing funding so that those who deferred last year could choose to take their sabbatical leave next year without affecting this year’s candidates. About half of those who deferred will be taking a sabbatical next year.
-Candidates were informed of their ranking by letter during the week of January 12, 2004, and the committee’s final report was submitted to Dr. Farish on Friday, January 16, 2004.
-The committee suggests that we need to discuss whether indefinite deferral of sabbatical leave is realistic and whether reapplication would be necessary after a given amount of time in order to insure the validity of the original sabbatical project.
-The committee’s recommendations have already been sent to Stan Urban and Nick DiObilda of the AFT Local.
-The charge of the Sabbatical Leave Committee, as recorded in the Senate Office, has been revised as follows to comply with contractual language: The Sabbatical Leave Committee shall conduct its review of applications for sabbatical leave, and make its recommendations to the President in accordance with the current contractual agreement.
-The Senate approved that the following resolutions be forwarded to the bargaining agent for consideration in drawing up next year’s agreement for awarding sabbatical leave.
-see Resolution #040512-10 – revision to process
-see Resolution #040512-11 – notification of intent to apply for sabbatical leaveTenure & Recontracting –Jim Newell
-The Tenure & Recontracting Committee conducted detailed reviews of 43 packets.
-The committee held hearings, and passed complete recommendations to the Provost.
-Jim Newell participated in two workshops for tenure and recontracting candidates (in cooperation with the Faculty Center for Teaching Excellence), and met individually with several departments and department committees to discuss the process. Next year workshops will be offered as well for department T & R committee chairs.
-The committee has proposed a change in the process, and has vetted the proposed change with the Senate, union and Chairs Council. The proposal is that untenured faculty would submit their materials in the spring of the third year (for fifth-year recontracting) for Senate review. This would provide for Senate review in the fall of year two, spring of year three, and fall of year five for tenure. The additional review (for the Tenure and Recontracting Committee, not an additional review for the candidate), eighteen months after the first Senate review and eighteen months before the tenure review, would give candidates time to show improvement in any areas of concern from the first review and time for feedback and further improvement before the tenure decision. 
-see Resolution #040512-12 – change in process for 5th-year recontracting for faculty
-Jim discussed a few issues that need to be addressed:
(1) ongoing problems with the multiyear recontracting system for professional staff (deadlines are not enforced and letters are not specific; he is working with the professional staff T & R committee on this)
(2) making sure that department chairs and full-time temporary faculty members realize that, for purposes of T & R, full-time temporary faculty should be treated as if tenure-track. (Full-time temporary faculty who are then hired into tenure-track lines have their years of temporary employment counted toward tenure, by statewide mandate.)
(3) the possibility of putting the T & R and promotion processes on a parallel trackPromotion –John Gallagher
-The committee held two workshops in the fall for promotion applicants in an effort to assist applicants interpreting the promotion process.
-The committee approved an agreement-driven checklist used to assess each applicant’s portfolio, and determine whether to certify or not to certify the candidate’s application to the Provost.
-The committee reviewed 38 promotion portfolios:
College of Business-3 (2 to associate, 1 to full)
College of Communication-6 (2 to associate, 4 to full)
College of Education-8 (6 to associate, 4 to full)
College of Engineering-8 (6 to associate, 2 to full)
College of Fine & Performing Arts-11 (6 to associate, 5 to full)
College of Liberal & Science-11 (6 to associate, 5 to full)
-The committee reported the following to the Provost:
-23 applicants were certified
-10 applicants were certified with qualifications
-5 applicants were not certified
-A letter was given to each candidate, detailing the voting decisions of the committee. Candidate portfolios were delivered to the Provost on April 2, 1004.-see Resolution #040512-13 – recommend to bargaining agent that next year’s promotion agreement eliminate the requirement for “chair elect” for the University-level promotion committee.
The committee also recommends including a front page explaining changes from the previous year’s agreement and bolding those changes within the document. This would enable candidates who work on promotion files during the summer, using the previous year’s agreed-upon procedures, to see quickly what changes need to be made to have their files conform to the new agreement.Due to time constraints, the Senate agreed to accept the following reports in written form within the meeting minutes.Campus Aesthetics & Environmental Concerns –Skeffington Thomas
-This year a working relationship was established with the Campus Master Plan Committee. Feedback was provided for the Stream-Bank Stabilization Project of Joe Orlins. 
-The committee toured the north part of campus with Russ Seagren and Glenn Brewer.
-The committee addressed a campus environmental resolution proposed by David Clowney, which was reviewed, revised, and passed for Senate consideration (#040322-1).
-Standards for external lighting under the leadership of David Klassen were addressed. The committee is working with Facilities Planning to adopt a new standard.
-The committee discussed two pieces of campus art, met as a sub-committee on-site, and recommended completing Machinshky as part of infrastructure 3 project, and to discuss Saganic fountain with presentation of options.
-The committee addressed the issue of signage on campus.
-The committee received an update on campus recycling.Career Development –Sonia Spencer
-At its first organizational meeting, Bob Zazzali charged the committee and presented a list of professional staff eligible for funding as part of the multi-year review process. He informed the members of the $40,000 available for Career Development and explained the funding priority categories. 
-Two subsequent meetings were held for candidate folder evaluation, and allocation of the available funding. 
-The committee members made suggestions at the final meeting for improving the process and noted various issues.Committee on Committees –Julie Peterson
-The committee chair attended an initial meeting with the incoming Senate Executive Committee to review and appoint individuals as committee members.
-The committee held two meetings with SGA to secure representation to various committees.
-There was an appointment of a non-voting member on the Campus Aesthetics & Environmental Concerns Committee; recruitment of a librarian to the Career Development Committee.
-A meeting was held to assist the Dean of Liberal Arts & Sciences in composing a search committee for an Interim Director of the newly created International Affairs Center. 
-One general committee meeting was held during the second semester.

Intercollegiate Athletics Committee –Rob Sterner
-Discussions and tentative plans for faculty nights out at different athletic events throughout the academic year. It was suggested that this would promote faculty awareness and support for the athletic program.
-Discussed academic scheduling for athletes. This was brought to the committee’s attention by Joy Solomen, Athletic Director, regarding courses not able to be taken by athletes due to time conflicts.
-Athletic Department’s Academic Performance:
-Maintains 70% graduation rate which is 20% higher than university average
-Out of 400 athletes only 32 academically ineligible
-140 athletes carried a 3.0 or higher GPA
-Overall, athletes carried a mean GPA of 2.87
-Discussed athletic department’s future facility needs: the current facilities are not within the standards of other NJAC universities; it has been suggested that Rowan’s tradition of athletic excellence may be lost due to poor facilitiesProfessional Ethics & Welfare Committee –Barbara Williams
-Met with Rowan administration to discuss/clarify procedures for the university’s outside employment report form. The report was provided to the Senate in fall of 2003.
-Discussion with Human Resource Office regarding clarification of reporting incidents of harassment. The report provided to the Senate.
-Informal discussion with individual faculty members regarding ethics issues (potential committee reviews).
-Discussion with committee, and then with University President and Cabinet, regarding the possibility of developing a general code of ethics for the university and an academic code of honor.Student Relations –Lorin Arnold
-The committee considered several issues in the 2003-2004 year, which included:
-proposed resolution submitted by Janet Lindman regarding faculty and student 
political or other off-campus activities
-mold in campus apartments
-discrimination and hate flyers on campus
-concerns about campus dance parties
-the P/NC policy
-withdrawal/leave of absence policy
-free speech policy
-Based on discussions, the committee made recommendations to Janet Lindman regarding her proposal. We also submitted ideas regarding changes and clarifications of the withdrawal/leave of absence policy to Drew Calandrella.
-The committee proposed a Free Speech and Peaceful Assembly Policy, which was forwarded to the Senate and approved in April 2004.Budget & Planning –Sanford Tweedie
-The committee looked at requests for budget increases from the various division heads.
-The committee established a process for considering requests by categorizing them as “top,” “high,” and “moderate” priority. The initial list was updated, and the completed rankings forwarded to President Farish.
-The President and the committee agreed to the following approach for considering the committee’s recommendations:
1. recommendations have been made and will be given serious consideration
2. division heads can ask the committee to reconsider the priorities that it assigned to a few of their requests
3. if there is still disagreement between the division heads and committee, the division heads can make their case to the President
4. if the President finds the division head’s argument persuasive, he will review the argument with the committee
5. once the committee has reacted to the division head’s argument as presented by the President, the President will make the final budgetary decisions.
-The committee stewarded comments concerning the Five-Year Strategic Plan as it went through its annual evaluation and updating by the campus community.Announcements:
-The Senate 35th Anniversary Celebration will be held on May 17th in the Rowan Hall Atrium, with an informal reception at 10:00 AM, highlights of Senate history, lunch at 12:00 PM, and breakout sessions at 1:45 PM.
-Committee chairs for 2004-2005 will meet in Campbell Library, room 126 at 10:00 AM on Tuesday, May 18th. At this time, committees will be organized and lunch will be served at 12:15 PM. Orientation of newly elected senators will be at 1:00 PM.
-Transitional meetings will be scheduled during the summer. Approved Resolutions:#040512-1 Library: Increased Funding
Increase funding for staffing and collection development. This would include hiring an archivist and support staff for the periodicals and circulation departments.
#040512-2 Library: Handicap Parking
Improve access to the Library for persons with disabilities. The alternative favored by the committee would be to remodel the loading dock area, where parking spaces already exist.
#040512-3 Chairs Council: Coordinator be ex-officio on Senate Executive Committee
Whereas, the Chairs Council has been approved as an all-University committee reporting to the University Senate;Whereas, the primary purpose of the Council is to provide a channel through which department chairs may readily communicate and share information with other chairs;Be it resolved that, to maximize shared governance, the Chairs Council Coordinator will sit ex-officio (as a liaison) on the Senate Executive Committee.
#040512-4 Commendation: Cindy Vitto
Whereas Cindy Vitto assumed the role of Rowan University Senate President just as state budgetary and administrative cuts hit the University and capably led us through these difficult times;Whereas President Vitto’s emphasis on shared governance during her two and a half year tenure has adeptly moved the Senate agenda forward;Whereas President Vitto has performed admirably by establishing multiple forums of inclusive participation for the Senate and University community at large;Whereas President Vitto’s fairness, insight, creative problem-solving and vision should serve as a model not only for all Senators but for the University Community at large;Be it resolved that the Rowan University Senate heartily commends and thanks Cindy Vitto for her service as Senate President and wishes her much luck in her future endeavors.
#040512-5 Scheduling: Second Open Period
Resolved that the Senate concurs with the following recommendation of the Ad Hoc Scheduling Committee, to be implemented Fall 2005: 
1. A second open period be added on Wednesdays, from 10:50-12:05.
2. The “Schedule of Courses” be amended to reflect the open period as 10:50-12:05 rather than as 11:00-12:00 as it currently appears.
3. The Monday open period be considered the contracted open period for the business of the union and the Senate, and the union and the Senate will have first rights to the use of the Monday open period.#040512-6 Technology: full-time personnel for Web Development
Whereas there are over a quarter of a million unique web visitors (e.g., potential and existing students, faculty, administrators, donors, corporate partners, staff members, and legislators) to the Rowan University home page each month and many people form their first (and often their final) impression of Rowan University from the Rowan University web site;Whereas Rowan University continues to invest in programs designed to improve the overall appearance, character, and identity of the University (e.g., landscaping, facilities renovations, new construction, painting, lighting improvements, design of the Rowan logo);Whereas Rowan University strives to improve name recognition, marketing, and public relations;Whereas Rowan University continues to invest in on-line applications designed to improve service offerings (such as on-line registration, on-line application for admissions, on-line grade submissions, on-line budgetary information, on-line support services);Whereas Rowan University encourages faculty to interact with students and to provide on-line access to lecture notes and other course-related materials, (e.g., webCT, faculty web pages);Whereas the Campbell Library continues to increase the quantity and quality of subscription services to electronic databases and other on-line resources;Whereas Rowan University frequently updates the Rowan University Web with current events and news and successful web sites exhibit consistency, professionalism, and reliability;Whereas the implementation of the SCT Banner system will increase student, faculty, staff, and administration’s reliance on the web;Whereas Rowan University strives to protect the rights, freedoms, and vulnerabilities of all persons through established diversity policies, procedures and audits, and by accommodating and reaching out to persons with disabilities using enabling-technological designs and solutions;Whereas Rowan University seeks to minimize legal liabilities and to protect the rights of intellectual property owners through established plagiarism and copyright disclaimers, policies, and audits;Whereas Rowan University strives to balance freedom of speech issues with tolerance considerations (e.g., slander, vulgar, sexual, discriminatory, hateful content) through policies, procedures, and audits;Whereas Rowan University to provide equal access to the web for individuals possessing various skill levels through training and support;Whereas the Office of the Web Coordinator is responsible for developing, updating, and supporting the Web infrastructure as well as overseeing, designing, developing, and support Web applications and content consisting of hundreds of thousands of files organized into thousands of Web pages;Be it resolved that the function of Web development be provided with sufficient full-time personnel to correct and/or improve Web development, support, training, and content management such that the University can establish and maintain accurate, timely, and up-to-date content and a consistent look and feel among the colleges and divisions. Furthermore, appropriate disclaimers, policies, and oversight must demonstrate due diligence intended to support diversity initiatives, reduce legal liabilities, and provide accessible solutions.#040512-7 Academic Policies & Procedures - Changes of Grade and Disputed GradesResolved: That the change of grade and disputed grade policies be amended as indicated.Resolved: That as soon as feasible the policies regarding incompletes, change of grade, and disputed grades appear sequentially in all appropriate university documents, print or electronic, and that they be preceded by the preamble indicated.
Grades are subject to change under the following conditions:INCOMPLETES:1. A grade of incomplete (IN) may be changed to a letter grade.ERRORS 2. A grade calculated or recorded erroneously may be changed to the grade actually earned.DISPUTES3. A disputed grade may be changed if the student appeals it successfully. A disputed grade differs from a grade recorded in error in that disagreement over evaluation or application of criteria rather than miscalculation or clerical mistake is involved.The policies for these three conditions differ substantially. Students are advised to read each policy carefully, paying particular attention to the respective time lines.
[The policies are then presented in the order listed above. There is no change proposed for the Incomplete Grade policy.]
Change of Grade Policy A request for change of grade is appropriate only when an error has been made by the professor in calculating or recording a student's grade or when an "Incomplete" has turned into an "F" and the student has met all requirements for the course. In cases of a need to change a final grade assigned for a course, the time limit for confirmed contact of the professor who awarded the grade is twenty (20) business days, not including summer, into the semester following the one in which the grade was recorded. If the professor is unavailable or fails to respond by the 30th business day of the semester, students have an additional ten (10) business days to contact the department chair. Where the department chair and the instructor are one and the same, twenty (20) business days suffice before the student can move on to the next step. Students should retain evidence of their attempts to reach either party. In extraordinary, rare, and compelling circumstances beyond the control of the student, these limits may be extended, and changes may be made only with the written approval of the course instructor, when available, the department chair, and the dean. . . . 
Grade Dispute Policy It is the responsibility of the classroom instructor to evaluate each student's work and to assign a grade which is a fair and valid measure of the student's achievement in the course. In the event of a dispute over an assigned grade, the student will document in writing the rationale for the grade dispute. The student must provide a copy of his or her perception of the dispute to the instructor and the department chair. It will then become part of the permanent record concerning the dispute. This document must be signed and the date of the transmittal to the instructor and the department chair noted on the document. The time limit for initial confirmed contact of the professor who awarded the grade is twenty (20) business days, not including summer, into the semester following the one in which the grade was recorded. If the professor is unavailable or fails to respond by the 30th business day of the semester, students have an additional ten (10) business days to contact the department chair. Where the department chair and the instructor are one and the same, twenty (20) business days suffice before the student can move on to the next step. 6.5.1 Department Level: a) The student and the instructor will meet to attempt resolution of the disputed grade. If the instructor is no longer accessible for any reason (e.g., prolonged illness, no longer at Rowan), the student may continue the process as noted in this policy by first meeting with the department chair (see 6.5.1 b). b) If the matter is not resolved, the student and the instructor will then meet with the department chair, who will act as a facilitator, to determine if resolution is possible. If the dispute cannot be resolved informally, faculty will continue to be available to assist in the resolution of the dispute. . . .
2. If the issue is not resolved at the department level, within ten (10) business days from the time the department chair is informed of the dispute, the student shall schedule a meeting with the appropriate academic dean within five (5) business days of the departmental decision and will provide, in writing, the rationale…. … The academic dean will attempt to effect a reconciliation between the two parties within ten (10) business days of receiving the student’s written rationale….3. If the matter is still unresolved, ten (10) business days after the meeting with the academic dean……
#040512-08 Curriculum: Quasi-Curricular Proposal:
Program Delivery at New Sites, with Partner Institutions, 
And/or Utilizing New Delivery MethodsResolved, that a quasi-curricular proposal be submitted to the University Curriculum Committee for program or course delivery at new sites, with partner institutions, and/or utilizing new delivery methods. 

Purpose of resolution:The resolution is intended to provide a mechanism for reviewing any plan that involves the delivery of an existing program (individual courses or complete programs of study) in a new way. Such plans might include delivery of a program or course(s) at a new site, utilizing a partner institution in the delivery of the program or course(s), or using an alternative teaching/delivery system (e.g., distance learning). As a quasi-curricular proposal, the University Senate Executive Committee can decide on the disposition of the proposal. However, the submission of a proposal will insure that those responsible for the program are aware of their responsibilities and that the University community is aware of the nature of the planned program.Proposal format:I. Existing Programs or Courses To Be Offered At New Sites, Including New Branch Campuses

Details
a. Nature of planned program or course(s)
b. Sponsor(s) Rationale
a. Goals of planned program or course(s). How do the goals of the planned program or course(s) differ from the existing program or course(s)?
b. Statement of curricular effect. If the program or course(s) already exists at Rowan University, how will the curriculum of the planned program or course(s) differ from the existing program or course(s)?
c. Responses to the consultation lettersCurricular Effect
a. Adequacy of present staff, resources, space needs, and other additional requirements for implementation.
b. Recommended Library Resources: Provide a list of resources required to implement the program or course(s) and any predicted resources for future needs. If resources are not adequate, please specify how this issue will be addressed. The department's library liaison should be consulted. Letters of Consultation
a. List of all parties consulted, including those identified faculty and staff responsible for the “assurance of learning” for the program or course(s) as it currently exists and for the planned program or course(s).
b. Attach evidence, in writing, of consultation results.II. Partnering With Other Institutions To Deliver Programming or CoursesDetails
a. Nature of planned program or course(s)
b. Name of partnering institution
c. Sponsor(s) Rationale
a. Goals of planned program or course(s).
b. Statement of curricular effect. What is the role of the partnering institution in the delivery of the program or course(s)? How will the role of the partnering institution impact the delivery of the program or course(s)? What is Rowan University’s role in assuring the quality of learning in the planned program or course(s)?
d. Details of faculty/staff/administration coordinator for the program or course(s) with the partnering institution. Who will be responsible for coordinating the program or course(s) with the partnering institution?Curricular Effect
a. Adequacy of present staff, resources, space needs, and other additional requirements for implementation.
b. Recommended Library Resources: Provide a list of resources required to implement the program or course(s) and any predicted resources for future needs. If resources are not adequate please specify how this issue will be addressed. The department's library liaison should be consulted. Letters of Consultation
a. List of all parties consulted, including those faculty and staff responsible for the “assurance and equivalence of learning” for the program or course(s) as it currently exists and for the planned program or course(s).
b. Attach evidence, in writing, of consultation results.
III. Delivery Of Existing Programs Or Course(s) With Alternative Delivery SystemsDetails
a. Nature of planned program or course(s). What is the alternative delivery system (e.g., distance learning, accelerated learning, online learning, correspondence programs)?
b. Sponsor(s) Rationale
a. Statement of need for the alternative delivery system.
b. Statement of curricular effect. What is the impact of the alternative delivery system on contact hours, student/faculty interaction, the nature of course assignments? What is the method for achieving equivalency of learning between the multiple methods of delivery?Curricular Effect
a. Adequacy of present staff, resources, space needs, and other additional requirements for implementation.
b. Recommended Library Resources: Provide a list of resources required to implement the program or course(s) and any predicted resources for future needs. If resources are not adequate please specify how this issue will be addressed. The department's library liaison should be consulted. Letters of Consultation
a. List of all parties consulted, including those faculty and staff responsible for the “assurance and equivalence of learning” for the program or course(s) as it currently exists and for the planned program or course(s).
b. Attach evidence, in writing, of consultation results.IV. Senate ReviewAs with many quasi-curricular proposals, the University Senate Executive Committee will decide on the disposition of the proposal. The Committee can choose to hold an open hearing for the proposal and vote on its merits, direct any committee of the University Senate to hold an open hearing and vote on the merits of the proposal, or have the proposal presented, discussed, and voted on at a scheduled University Senate Meeting.
#040512-09 Curriculum: Letters of Consultation for new program
and quasi-curricular proposals (Process C)Resolved, that letters of consultation, including vote tabulations, be submitted from affected departments for proposals for new programs or for quasi-curricular proposals. Purpose of ResolutionThe resolution is intended to insure that there has been adequate review of proposals by members of departments affected by proposed new programs or quasi-curricular change (re-organized, eliminated, or merged departments). In addition to the signature of the departmental curriculum chair, such proposals would have to include a letter of consultation from affected departments including the date, nature, and results of voting in support of the proposal. An affected department is any department that is required to utilize resources in the delivery of a program or that is involved in the proposed change to a department.To be added to the instructions for Major Program Proposals (Process C) Letters of Consultation
a. For proposals for new programs or for quasi-curricular proposals, letters of consultation from affected departments including vote tabulations in support of the proposed action.#040512-10 Sabbatical Leave: revision to process
Be it resolved that the Senate recommends to the bargaining agent that the current application process for sabbatical leave be revised to include the following requirements:
1. all applications will be accompanied by a current curriculum vitae
2. all letters of support submitted with applications must be current
(Note: A definition of “current” that specifies a particular length of time would be helpful.)
#040512-11 Sabbatical Leave: notification of intent to apply
Be it resolved that the Senate recommends to the bargaining agent that a system be implemented to notify the Sabbatical Leave Committee, department chairs, and Deans of the pool of candidates for sabbatical leave by requiring the following:
1. applicants will sign a form in the Senate office stating their intention of applying for sabbatical leave
2. this form will be signed at least two weeks prior to the application deadline in November
3. concurrently, applicants will give written notification of their intent to apply for sabbatical leave to their department chairs and Deans 
#040512-12 Promotion
Resolved, that the Senate recommends the bargaining agent change the Promotion agreement by removing the requirement for a “chair elect” at the University-level promotion committee.
#040512-13 Tenure & Recontracting: Change in process for fifth-year recontracting 
Resolved, that the Senate recommends to the bargaining agent, in concurrence with the All-University Tenure and Recontracting Committee, that the request for fifth-year recontracting (submitted during the spring of the third year) follow the same procedures and format as the requests for years 3-4 (submitted in the fall of the second year) and year 6 with tenure (submitted in the fall of the fifth year). Rationale: Currently, candidates pass through the All-University committee during the fall of their second year and the fall of their fifth. At the first recontracting, the candidates have only one year of teaching experience and data regarding their effectiveness. Most candidates have limited scholarship beyond publishing from their dissertation. The All-University Committee does not see these candidates again until the final tenure decision must be made. Numerous candidates and departmental committees have reported that the feedback between these two submissions is often insufficient for the candidate to fully understand where they are relative to expectations and what remedial actions, if any, should be taken to address weaknesses. By making the spring of Year 3 review pass through the Senate, the candidate will receive detailed feedback while having time left to address areas of weakness. Moreover, each tenure submission would follow the same format, allowing the candidate to maintain a living tenure document that can be revised continuously instead of essentially starting over at tenure. The additional work to the candidate is minimal, but the potential value of the intermediate feedback is great.LOAC Goals and Recommendations
May 5, 2004I ntroductionThe Learning Outcomes Assessment Committee is a University Senate Standing Committee charged with instituting on-going, campus-wide, programmatic outcomes assessment at Rowan University. The LOAC approached this charge with four objectives in mind:§ Assessment should be an established, continuous, and embedded part of the academic process at Rowan.§ Assessment should contribute directly to student learning.§ Campus-wide outcome assessment should take full advantage of existing processes and offices.§ Assessment should be driven at the programmatic level by the individuals working directly with students.

Achieving the first objective, institutionalizing outcomes assessment, involves reversing the historical trend at Rowan where outcomes assessment has been a little seasonal - it comes and goes. Having experienced the painstaking development of procedures and programs to achieve certain goals and then watched the results molder on a shelf when administrative priorities changed, the committee made the conscious effort to assure the procedures would naturally evolve out of existing practices and smoothly become habit.

To reach the second objective, members of the committee investigated current research on student learning with the intention of blending it with the university's goal of creating life-long learners. Perhaps the most powerful aspect of this research is that students must master managing their own learning - they cannot be permitted to leave the responsibility for learning up to the teacher. The committee sought to design feedback loops to keep student learning at the center of the assessment process.

The third and fourth objectives also require specific interventions. While the committee finds it essential that assessment begin and end at the programmatic level, it recognizes there must be an organizational structure to initiate, facilitate and follow through on the enactment of the process. To this end, the committee has structured the proposed process to make use of existing offices on campus, including the academic administration, the University Senate, and the Faculty Center.