Skip to Main Content

Minutes of Meeting

Faculty Association Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 12:15 PM

Location: Talon Room, Ospreys Commons, Building 16, 4th Floor

Meeting Details

Call to Order:

The meeting was called to order by President Radha Pyati at 12:15 p.m. There were approximately 95 faculty in attendance, and there was a quorum.

Meeting Minutes

  • APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES – November 2, 2017 (2 minutes)

    A motion was made to approve the minutes from November 2, 2017.
    The minutes were approved.

    Motion by Gordon Rakita: Move the agenda item, the Special Report by Rusty Dubberly, Director of the Disability Resource Center, to the end of the agenda as to provide adequate time for discussion.
    The motion was seconded by David Fenner.
    The motion was approved by majority vote. The agenda was so reordered.
  • ANNOUNCEMENTS (5 minutes)

     Faculty Award Nominations are Open
    Online nominations for the 2018 Distinguished Professor Award as well as the Awards for Faculty Scholarship, Faculty Service, and Faculty Community Engaged Scholarship are available starting December 6th and will continue to be available through Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 5:00 p.m.
  • STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS (2 minutes per report)

    Academic Programs Committee – Kim Cheek
    The committee last met this morning, December 7th, and the committee discussed12 packages. The next meeting of the committee will be February 1st.

    Academic Standards Committee – Alan Harris
    The committee last met on November 17th. The committee discussed a new proposal from Academic Affairs for a log of student complaints to meet accreditation requirements of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). The committee forwarded questions regarding the proposal to SACS Accreditation Liaison, Shawn Brayton.

    Adjunct Affairs Committee – Elizabeth Gregg
    The committee last met on November 7th. The committee discussed a range of issues on adjunct pay. The committee voted and elected David McKinnon as Co-Chair. The committee will not meet in December. The next meeting of the committee will be January 10th.

    Budget Advisory Committee –Jason Haraldsen

    The committee last net on November 16th. The committee discussed action items related to the University Strategic Planning. The committee will be meeting in January and will meet twice in February to prepare budget recommendations for the upcoming budget year.

    Campus Technology Committee – Georgette Dumont

    The committee last met on November 7th. The committee finalized criteria for evaluating Academic Technology Grants. The call for applications is active. Faculty are encouraged to submit their applications for enhancing their teaching and/or scholarship using technology. The committee will support the university in the process of reviewing the Promotion and Tenure software, Interfolio. UNF will survey faculty and administration to determine how the system is functioning. The “January” meeting of the committee was yesterday, Dec 6th. The report on this meeting will be given during the January Faculty Association meeting. The committee has not yet scheduled its February meeting.

    Faculty Affairs Committee – Gordon Rakita
    The committee last met on November 9th. The committee discussed a survey on faculty-to-faculty bullying. This issue will be discussed in the January meeting. The committee discussed the Retired and Emeritus Faculty Rights proposal and a Class Cancelation Policy. The next meeting of the committee will be on December 14th, when the committee will discuss changes to the Faculty Handbook regarding textbook selection. The committee will host Interim Provost, Pam Chally, and Director of Planning, Marianne Jaffee, during that meeting to discuss the textbook selection procedure. In its upcoming meetings, the committee will be addressing a policy on emeritus presidential status, language changes to the Faculty Enhancement Committee charge, and a potential change to the graduate teaching requirements for eligibility to receive the Outstanding Graduate Teaching Award.

    Faculty Enhancement Committee – Claudia Sealy-Potts/Raphael Crawley
    The committee met in November and continued its discussion about restructuring faculty development. There is no meeting of the committee in December. The committee will resume meeting in January.

    Nominations & Elections Committee – Heather Truelove
    The Nominations and Elections committee did not meet in November or December, but the committee will meet in January.

    Research Council – Tom Caswell
    The committee last met on November 29th. The committee discussed the summer Research Grant Proposals and sent a final ranked list to Academic Affairs. Faculty who applied for the summer grant funding should be receiving notification soon. The Council did not meet in December. The next meeting of the committee will be in January.

    Strategic Planning Advisory Committee –Paul Eason
    The committee met virtually in November to establish a list of questions for a January meeting with Interim Provost Pam Chally on differential faculty assignments. The committee will meet again in January.

    Support Services Committee – Maria Atilano
    The committee last met on Nov 9th, where the invited speaker was Senior Director of the International Center, Ruth Lopez. The International Center serves international students who would like to study at UNF, and the Center serves faculty in planning study abroad and research abroad activities (link to website). The committee will not be meeting in December, and the January meeting is yet to be scheduled.

    Executive Committee – David Fenner
    In February, the Faculty Association meeting usually is scheduled for Feb 1st, but the meeting has been moved to Feb 8th for the full Faculty Association meeting. This change is to accommodate the UNF President Search process.
  • SPECIAL REPORTS (10 minutes)

    President John Delaney
    The President’s report was submitted as a written statement and read by FA President Radha Pyati.

    “We have submitted our data to the Board of Governors, which has accepted our numbers. It shows an approximate 27-point jump to 85 points. That is the biggest single-year jump since the plan was introduced five years ago. Only one other time has a school had a higher point total (the University of Florida), so historically this score would finish first or second in the performance metrics of the State University System. Our graduation rate continues a 15-year climb to the highest ever for UNF. It is one of the biggest graduation rate increases in the country over that time-period. No one person or even set of people could bring about such a change and I want to thank everyone on campus who has contributed to this.”

    Academic Affairs Provost & Vice President – Pam Chally
    The numbers submitted to the Board of Governors for our performance metrics are impressive. Thanks to Associate Provost, Jay Coleman for helping us organize and submit those numbers. Many people in the room are responsible for making this happen. The real reason this has happened is because of our commitment to our students and to their success toward graduation.

    We have submitted a budget request proposal, along with University of West Florida and Florida Gulf Coast, for 10 million annually to identify programs of special emphasis. There is a sponsor for the bill. Our Legislative Liaison, Janet Owen, will be updating us on this proposal as it moves forward.

    Associate Vice President for Research, John Kantner, and I have been working on plans for improvement of the Institutional Review Board (IRB). An additional half-time person is on board to help with the backlog. We are looking at the website and recruiting more individuals to serve on the IRB.

    I recently attended a Southern Association of Colleges and Schools-Commission on Colleges (SACS-COC) conference. SACS has passed additional guidelines for colleges and schools to follow. Special thanks is given to Shawn Brayton, SACSCOC Accreditation Liaison, for helping us get prepared for our upcoming accreditation review.

    I would like to recognize Marianne Jaffee, Executive Assistant to the Provost and Director of Planning. I have enjoyed strong administrative support in the past. Marianne, the amount of work you handle, the attention to detail, and your ability to remember details is incredible. Thank you.

     

     

    Legislative Liaison Report - Janet Owen
    Janet Owen was in Tallahassee and was not able to attend the meeting.


    United Faculty of Florida – Mark Ari for Rebecca Marcon
    We had a bargaining session on December 1st. It was our second and final bargaining session of the semester. The United Faculty of Florida (UFF) team has placed two full packets before the Board of Trustees (BOT) bargaining team. We did receive a package of proposals from the BOT team, and were told that it was incomplete and subject to change, which leaves us in the same position as when President Delaney announced that there would be salary increases in August. On the UNF-UFF website (Link), you can read the proposals forwarded by UFF line-by-line. In addition, each article has a lead sheet and lists proposed changes as well as our reasons for proposing those changes. You also can see the complete proposal by the Administration team. I urge you to take a look. We have posted on the UNF-UFF website (Link) videos of the September and the December bargaining session. I encourage you to watch the video from the first bargaining session first, as it provides a context for the second bargaining session. For the second bargaining session, I encourage you to view Part 2 of the December bargaining session. You can draw your own conclusions. The members of the UFF bargaining team are doing our best to work with the administration to better the situation for faculty and, consequently, for the university and for our students. We were told that in January we will receive a complete set of proposals from the BOT bargaining team. We are looking forward to seeing these proposals.

    Disability Resource Services – Rusty Dubberly
    Rusty Dubberly, Director of Disability Resource Center (DRC), discussed the flexible attendance policy for the purpose of accommodation. Previous cases regarding this issue have been addressed by the Office of Civil Rights. The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not specify which accommodations need to be applied but indicates that all necessary accommodations should be applied. The guidelines indicate that we must “make a concerted effort” and that the teaching must “make efforts” to help the student make up needed work. These terms require interpretation and are difficult to interpret in different cases. I proposed that we have a guideline or policy related to these issues to help clarify responsibilities and requirements for complying with the ADA in regards to flexible attendance. If there is a lack of clarity, it could lead to students making a claim of discrimination based on disability. I have received much input on these guidelines as we have gone through the process, and not all reactions have been positive. Some people say it is too specific, and other people would like more specificity. It is my belief that some guidance is better than no guidance.

    To this point in time at the University of North Florida, flexible attendance has not been defined. Flexible attendance accommodations do not represent the majority of accommodations with which the DRC addresses. Currently the DRC has over 1200 students registered with a disability. Of that number, only about 10% require flexible attendance. Flexible attendance is required for some students who have a chronic medical conditions (e.g., cancer, Crohn’s Disease, diabetes) or mental health conditions such as anxiety disorders. I would like your feedback so that we can have something that is solid to which students and faculty can refer. We will need to demonstrate that we are making appropriate accommodations.

    David Hoppey, Associate Professor in the Department of Exceptional, Deaf, and Interpreter Education, noted that students often do not notify the professor of these accommodations. It would benefit faculty if the policy addressed the responsibility of the student to inform faculty.

    Campbell McDermid, Associate Professor in the Department of Exceptional, Deaf, and Interpreter Education, noted that there are different types of assessments, those focused on content and those focused on process. For process assignments, for example, if a student is doing a lab with peers and the process needs to be supervised throughout, or as part of a group project where students need to work together, it seems possible that the assignment could be compromised based on a student’s flexible attendance. Perhaps what is needed is for the policy to address exemplars across these different assignment types and address what aspects would need to change.

    Rusty Dubberly noted that this issue comes up in online courses as well, where students are expected to participate in online discussions around a timeframe. There are always cases who do not fit within example approaches. We need to be able to respond to the needs of the individual student while still having general guidelines to follow in most cases.

    David Courtwright, Presidential Professor in the Department of History, cautioned against using specific numbers, as specificity can lead to complications for courses that have different configurations.
    Dan Richard, FA Secretary, noted that assessments can vary across courses, and that giving specific numbers can cause confusion when course assessments differ from standard assessments.

    Clare Liddon, Assistant Professor from Special Education, asked about missing assignments wondering whether a student missing 10 classes can make up 2 assignments.
    Rusty Dubberly answered, “yes,” and noted that for some assignments, make-ups are not possible. What we would like to avoid is the situation where students and faculty have not guidance and assume that any change is discrimination. The best possible situation is for the faculty and the student to have conversations about the accommodations at the beginning of the semester. This usually clears things up between the student and the faculty member so that when incidents of non-attendance occur, both parties are aware and prepared for what is to happen next.
    Clare Liddon asked for clarification, for assignments that are turned in late, can a point deduction apply to assignments that are turned in after the deadline, as stated in the syllabus.
    Rusty Dubberly answered, “no,” and explained that if the late work occurred as a consequence of the student’s disability, then there should not be a point deduction, within reason.

    Hannah R. Malcolm, Assistant Professor in Chemistry asked what documentation should be provided? For students without a disability, faculty typically ask for documentation when work is turned in late or for absences.
    Rusty Dubberly answered that documentation regarding a student disability could be provided to the DRC, but perhaps not to the professor.
    Andrea Adams-Manning, Assistant Dean of Students, noted that not all issues will have specific documentation, such as when a student has a panic attack.
    Rusty Dubberly noted that students who have test anxiety, for example, might miss several exams. The goal is not to make work for the faculty member but to ensure that each student has the necessary accommodations.

    Brian Flynn, Assistant Professor in the Department of Management, asked a question regarding in-class assignments to track student participation and attendance. He wondered if providing students with a flexible attendance accommodation to make-up in-class assignments, whether he would be disadvantaging other students that have other hardships without a DRC accommodation, such as students who are sick just that day.
    Rusty Dubberly noted that there are no easy answers, and the intention is to not disadvantage other students but to ensure accommodations for disability are addressed properly.

    Brian Knuckley, Asspcoate Professor in Chemistry, asked why was a uniform policy needed.
    Rusty Dubberly noted that the intention for such a policy is to provide clarity, support students, and avoid litigation. If the Office of Civil Rights is alerted to a lack of accommodation being provided at the University of North Florida, one of the first questions they will ask is what information is available on the website regarding these issues. Therefore, having something in writing allows us to be clear and to make that information public.

    Heather Truelove, Associate Professor in Psychology, asked whether a student providing health-related documentation for missing an assignment would violate HIPPA laws.
    Cheryl Gonzalez responded that the biggest issue is to have an expectation of all of our students that attendance is expected for all students. When it comes to reasonable accommodations, we need to raise the expectations for all students about completing assignments irrespective of their disability.

    Radha Pyati, FA President, noted that we likely need to find a balance between specificity and generality for the guidelines. Faculty work individually with students to find a mutually acceptable solution. For large courses, one with 230 students, for example, minimum requirements can help faculty understand how to provide these accommodations at scale.
    Rusty Dubberly noted that although faculty often want to make grand accommodations to support students, faculty are required by law to make reasonable accommodations.

    TJ Mullen, Associate Professor in Chemistry, asked whether the current language represents a policy.
    Rusty Dubberly answered, “no,” that the current language is more of a guideline and a recognition that we need to have flexible attendance accommodations. There are suggestions that come about.

    Corey Causey, Associate Professor in Chemistry, wanted clarification as to whether providing these accommodations to students with a DRC letter and not providing these accommodations to students who miss exams for other medical reason (without a letter from the DRC) would put students with a DRC letter at an advantage over other students.
    Rusty Dubberly indicated that the guidelines are just for people who have an identified accommodation related to a disability. Students also receive information about these guidelines related to accommodations.
    More information can be obtained from the DRC website (link).

  • QUESTIONS & RESPONSES (10 minutes)

    Q1: Anonymous Question to FA President Radha Pyati and UNF President John Delaney:
    The UNF Faculty Association considers itself “a vital part of UNF’s shared governance structure” (UNF-FA webpage). Principles of shared governance are found in the UNF Constitution (Article III, Section 1) and shared governance is part of UNF’s new Strategic Plan (Goal III, Strategy 3). Thus it was shocking to hear an administration lawyer call it “objectionable” and a “foolish thing” that UNF-UFF proposed to include shared governance in the new collective bargaining agreement. See video: https://youtu.be/CPzuixBpq78 (at 11:00). Shared governance is included in the collective bargaining agreements of other universities in Florida and at universities around the country.
    Why are the President and administration not supporting the inclusion of shared governance in the new collective bargaining agreement? What can be done through the UNF-FA to insure shared governance at UNF?
    FA President Radha Pyati will work with others to provide an answer to this question.

    Q2: Anonymous Question to FA President Radha Pyati:

    Many UNF employees have much of the retirement savings in TIAA (which now owns the Jacksonville-based bank EverBank). Several recent news stories, especially in the New York Times, have shown that TIAA's operations may not be as stellar as their reputation (e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/your-money/tiaa-403b.html ). Has UNF or the SUS been keeping track of the performance of the TIAA accounts commonly held by employees and comparing their past performance and predicted performance to other possible retirement investments? If there are concerns, would UNF consider more options for employee flexibility in how our retirement savings are invested?
    FA President Radha Pyati will forward this question for an answer.

    Q3: Question from the floor by Curtis Phills to FA President Radha Pyati:
    As a faculty member at UNF, one of my great passions is working with and supporting our students. As we all know, it is exam week and our students are hard at work studying and completing our exams. Last week was world aids day and our LGBT center was handing out condoms. Someone not part of our community came on campus and started targeting and intimidating our students during this stressful period.
    He was specifically targeting individual students and saying hateful things based on gender and sexual orientation. For instance, he targeted individual female students who were wearing yoga pants and told them that they would be going to hell. He also targeted individual LGBTQ students and also told them that they were going to hell. Members of the University Police Department (UPD) were present while our students were harassed and intimidated, and they did not intervene.
    I have been told by General Counsel that targeting individual students, as this individual did, is a violation of UNF policy for outside groups exercising free speech on campus. Students who were targeted reported not being able to concentrate and take their exams to the best of their abilities. Some even reported skipping class or going home. Their ability to participate in educational activities is restricted by being individually targeted by this individual.
    What advice does the FA President have faculty to support students targeted by an individual in this way? What can we do when these students come to our offices or classrooms, upset and looking for support? What should we expect UPD to do in support of our students?

    Partial answer from the Floor by FA President Radha Pyati
    My advice for faculty would be to provide the most supportive environment for students so that they feel that they are in a safe space. I can discuss this issue with Tom VanShoor, Dean of Students, and representatives of the UPD to determine what can be expected of the UPD and student conduct code in such circumstances. The Faculty Association can provide a short version for faculty regarding the limitations of the conduct code so that we can express to students what is expected in this situation. The provision of a supportive environment is an expectation that we need to fill for our students. I will follow-up a more complete answer and provide a summary regarding these policies to which faculty can refer.

    Partial answer from the Floor by Interim Provost, Pam Chally

    In situations like this, we should lean on our Counseling Center. They are open every day and can provide support for our students in these situations.
  • CONSENT AGENDA

    There is no consent agenda.
  • LEGISLATIVE ITEMS (5 minutes to reorder list) (20 minutes to act immediately on or remove item)

    Agenda Item# 1 - FA 17-57: Submitted by the Academic Programs Committee
    COAS (Undergraduate) – (Biology, Chemistry, English, Physics, Political Science & Public Administration, & School of Music): New Courses, Courses Changes, Courses Terminations, & Programs of Study Changes & Termination (15 packages)

    This agenda item contains 15 packages proposed by units in the College of Arts & Sciences (COAS) Undergraduate programs including Biology, Chemistry, Physics, English, School of Music, and Political Science & Public Administration. Packages include proposals for new courses, course changes, course cancelations, programs of study changes, and the terminations of one concentration.
    The motion was approved by majority vote.


    Agenda Item# 2 - FA 17-58: Submitted by the Academic Programs Committee
    COAS (Graduate) – (English, History, Political Science & Public Administration, School of Music, & Sociology, Anthropology, & Social Work): New Courses, Courses Changes, Courses Terminations, & Programs of Study Changes & Termination (12 packages)
    This agenda item contains 12 packages proposed by units in the College of Arts & Sciences (COAS) Graduate programs including English, History, School of Music, Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work, as well as Political Science & Public Administration. Packages include proposals for new courses, course changes, course terminations, programs of study changes, and the terminations of concentrations.
    The motion was approved by majority vote.

     

    Agenda Item# 3 - FA 17-59: Submitted by the Academic Programs Committee
    CCB (Undergraduate) – (Marketing & Logistics): New Courses, Courses Changes, & Programs of Study Changes (5 packages)
    This agenda item contains 5 packages proposed by Marketing & Logistics to Graduate programs in the Coggin College of Business (CCB). Packages include proposals for new courses, course changes, an addition of two minors, adjustments to programs of study.
    The motion was approved by majority vote.

     

    Agenda Item# 4 - FA 17-60: Submitted by the Academic Programs Committee
    CCB (Graduate) – (Marketing & Logistics): New Course (1 package)
    This agenda item contains 1 package proposed by Marketing & Logistics to one Graduate program in the Coggin College of Business (CCB). The package proposes a new course.
    The motion was approved by majority vote.

     

    Agenda Item# 5 - FA 17-61: Submitted by the Academic Programs Committee
    CCEC (Undergraduate) – (School of Computing and School of Engineering/Civil Engineering): New Courses, Courses Changes, & Programs of Study Changes (7 packages)
    This agenda item contains 7 packages proposed by units in the College of Computing Engineering & Construction (CCEC) Undergraduate programs including the School of Computing and the School of Engineering. Packages include proposals for new courses, course changes, and programs of study changes.
    The motion was approved by majority vote.

     

    Agenda Item# 6 - FA 17-62: Submitted by the Academic Programs Committee
    CCEC (Graduate) – (School of Computing): New Course and Programs of Study Changes (4 packages)
    This agenda item contains 4 packages proposed by the School of Computing in the College of Computing Engineering & Construction (CCEC) Graduate programs. Packages include proposals for a new course and programs of study changes.
    The motion was approved by majority vote.


    Agenda Item# 7 - FA 17-63: Submitted by the Academic Programs Committee
    COEHS (Graduate) – (Leadership, School Counseling, & Sport Management): New Courses, Courses Changes, & Programs of Study Changes (3 packages)
    This agenda item contains 3 packages proposed by the Department of Leadership, School Counseling, and Sports Management in the College of Education and Human Services (COEHS) Graduate programs. Packages include proposals for new courses, course changes, programs of study changes, and the creation of a new degree program.
    The motion was approved by majority vote.


    Agenda Item# 8 - FA 17-64: Submitted by the Academic Programs Committee
    BCH (Undergraduate) – (Clinical & Applied Movement Sciences, Nutrition & Dietetics, & School of Nursing); New Courses and Programs of Study Changes (4 packages)
    This agenda item contains 4 packages proposed by units in the Brooks College of Health (BCH) Undergraduate programs including School of Nursing, Nutrition and Dietetics, and Clinical and Applied Movement Sciences. Packages include proposals for new courses, and programs of study changes.
    The motion was approved by majority vote.


    Agenda Item# 9 - FA 17-65: Submitted by the Academic Programs Committee
    BCH (Graduate) – (Nutrition & Dietetics): New Courses, Courses Changes, & Programs of Study Changes (2 packages)
    This agenda item contains 2 packages proposed by the Nutrition and Dietetics in the Brooks College of Health (BCH) Graduate programs. Packages include proposals for new courses, changes to existing courses, and programs of study changes.
    The motion was approved by majority vote.

     

    Agenda Item# 10 - FA 17-66: Submitted by the Academic Programs Committee
    BCH (Doctoral) – (Nutrition & Dietetics): New Courses & Program of Study Change (1 package)
    This agenda item contains 1 package proposed by the Nutrition and Dietetics in the Brooks College of Health (BCH) Doctoral programs. The package includes a proposal for new courses, and programs of study changes.
    The motion was approved by majority vote.


    Agenda Item# 11 - FA 17-67: Submitted by the Academic Standards Committee
    Update to Student Attendance Policy
    This item came by way of the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee. It is an update to the Student Attendance Policy. Athletes who attend a university sponsored event and who miss an exam were required by professors who had a make-up exam policy in which students could drop missed exams from their grade were not allowed to take missed exams, which affected the grades of athletes. Athletes are allowed by the current policy to make-up exams. The committee worked with the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee on the language for clarification, and the following statement was added to the policy, “This applies even of the professor’s policy is to drop the lowest score.”
    Discussion from the Floor:
    Hannah R. Malcolm, Assistant Professor in Chemistry asked, “The policy as stated seems to privilege some students, athletes, over other students who must abide by the professor’s course-specific policy of dropping lowest grades for missed exams. Why should athletes receive this benefit when other students do not have this benefit? If so, would the exam need to be different.”
    Alan Harris, Chair of the Academic Standards Committee responded: It is possible that the student taking the makeup exam might do worse on the makeup exam than had the student used an average grade from previous exams. The need to take an exam will not always be a benefit in all cases. As far as the professor needing to create another exam, that would be at the discretion of the professor.
    TJ Mullen, Associate Professor in Chemistry asked, “When would the make-up exam be given? Could the exam be given at the end of the semester?
    Alan Harris responded: The timing of the make-up exam is not addressed by the policy.
    Jennifer Kane, Associate Dean, College of Education and Human Services, noted that students should have the opportunity to demonstrate mastery on the material and choose to drop a low score if allowed. Requiring them to drop the missed exam because of an athletic event prevents them from having the opportunity to take the exam as other students have that opportunity. If the goal is the make sure students are studying the content for the exam and preparing well for mastery of the material, then the exam should be given as close to the time they are mastering that content for the class, not necessarily at the end of the semester.
    Alan Harris noted that the policy would apply to graded assignments as well as exams, and that timing might vary based on assignment.
    Mark Tumeo, Dean of the College of Computing, Engineering, and Construction, noted that these issues have always been at the discretion of the faculty instructor. Adding additional language to the policy might not add clarity.
    Radha Pyati, FA President, noted that the policy does not allow faculty to avoid dealing with the issue of make-up exams by asking student athletes to drop a missed exam when other students have the opportunity to take all exams. The way the policy is written, it gives the faculty member the ability to make the arrangements with students.
    Sherif Elfayoumy, Director of the School of Computing, noted that the practice of requiring student athletes to drop a grade for attending a sporting event seems in conflict with the stated policy because students would not have the “opportunity” to make up the work.
    Motion from the Floor:
    Motion from TJ Mullen: Send the proposal back to committee for more specificity.
    Mark Tumeo, seconded the motion.
    Motion to return to committee failed by majority vote.
    The original motion to approve the policy change was approved by majority vote.

  • INFORMATION ITEMS

    1. Exemption to Course Attendance Policy Accommodation
    2. Result of Election for the Nominations and Elections Committee
    3. Mobile Web Conferencing System
  • ADJOURNMENT

    The meeting adjourned at 1:40 p.m