Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes September 6, 2017
Faculty Senate Special QEP Meeting Minutes
September 6, 2017
Oliver Hall Room 112
Meeting called to order by Chad Parker at 4:02 pm,
There were no minutes to approve.
Parker thanked everyone for coming since it is a special meeting being called and before the first official senate meeting of the semester. He stated the first senate meeting is on Wednesday, September 20th, and there will be a Rap Session with Dr. David Danahar, Provost. Parker introduced Dean Jordan Kellman (College of Liberal Arts), who ran the remainder of the meeting.
Dean Kellman projected a document with a list of initial QEP ideas discussed by the QEP Committee.
• List in alphabetic order included:
• Advising/Mentoring
• Campus-wide learning/teacher forum
• Capstone courses
• Citizenship
• Critical thinking/Information literacy
• Center for Faculty Teaching
• Global
• Service Learning
• Undergraduate research and writing
Kellman explained how QEP is linked to the SACS accreditation process. Once a plan is established, the university must write a compliance report addressing the adequacy in fulfilling all the necessary SACS checkboxes.
SACS does have guidelines, but very loose guidelines. It is totally up to the university to establish what is wanted and implement.
Kellman stated he will provide a list of all 2016 SACS QEP approvals.
As you think of ideas, keep in mind QEP must resonate with the campus planning process already in place and practice. The QEP Committee will consider all proposed QEP ideas, in comparison with UL’s strategic plan, as the strategic plan already includes a few ideas.
The only basic SACS criteria:
• The QEP project must be a major investment of the university and the university must provide money and resources.
• Must directly benefit undergraduate students (cannot only benefit graduate students)
• University is consulted on a broad basis
• Idea must be specific enough to easily communicate
The first time UL implemented a QEP was 10 years ago. The committee generated 10 ideas, narrowed down to 7, and then sent a survey out to the faculty for final decision. It was agreed to focus on Active Classroom Learning.
President Savoie had just arrived to the university and he established teams to provide him feedback on what was working. He discovered the first-year students were not getting what was needed. As a result, UNIV 100 and the entire First Year Experience Office were created.
Kellman reiterating again that they are open to any and all ideas.
Question from Donna Gauthier: Will topics be fleshed out or generated by a committee?
Kellman: Both. We want as many as possible.
Q-Nancy Autin: So, QEP is one aspect of the whole SACS process?
Kellman: Yes. SACS has two parts and QEP is one of the two parts, Compliance Certification is the other.
Parker then added the committee has broad representation of administration but only 2 faculty members. Need to have feedback and input from faculty so it’s more inclusive. This is a chance for faculty to get involved as they always voiced they wanted. He urges for faculty to please get involved.
Kellman follows in saying he would like the faculty to generate a short list to present to the committee. Once a few ideas are received, it is even possible to have presentation of the different ideas so faculty can vote. The brainstorming is only one step in the process and the process is still in the early stages.
Q- Leslie Bary: What about ideas that involve hiring – specifically hiring of faculty and not administration or staff? More specifically, tenure track hires.
Kellman: this is one of the rare opportunities in which UL must use resources so it could be a new hire situation.
Q- Cheylon: Looking at the topics you have, there aren’t any actual resources to get anything done. If faculty or students can’t get access to paid or restricted databases, when what’s the point in generating any ideas?
Kellman responds to Cheylon saying that is a great example of taking the issue, turn around and request that any of the QEP’s selected should include the commitment of resources to fund databases, collections, etc. that will be needed to move forward.
Sheri Lazare asked about the two new positions Savoie mentioned at the State of the University address and how they fit into the QEP scenario.
Kellman stated one of the two jobs is already posted on the website, and the second one should be posted soon.
Leslie Bary: stated about 5 years ago Fabrice Leroy had a task force report that could be use as an initial blueprint for this.
Kellman agreed and stated that was exactly the type of ideas that were needed, and that the conclusion of this task force -- that we needed far greater emphasis on the international component of our educational model -- was a perfect example of a QEP, and already on the list.
Judy: suggests the idea of citizenship needs to happen now.
Kellman stated of all the various ideas listed, the topic of citizenship had the least discussion and fewest ideas for. Suggested to maybe track students to get an idea of citizenship.
Mark Smith: Requests Kellman give 2 minutes to each topic so he can get some details.
Kellman clarified none of the topics were set in stone, that he doesn’t necessarily have 2 minutes on each as the list was generated the day before as working ideas. That’s what this meeting is for. Asking you to go back to your departments, ask what people want or think is needed and submit your ideas to the QEP forum.
Donna Gauthier asked if the strategic plan addressed Graduate School and Kellman stated again that QEP must focus primarily on undergraduate.
Kellman’s final comment was the QEP list of ideas can be added to.
Parker thanked the Dean and told the group to go back to their departments and colleges and talk to people to see what you come up with.
If the final moments, someone yelled out the idea of digital citizenship, which everyone seemed equally eager about.
Meeting adjourned at 5:09 pm.
Link to recording of meeting: https://www.dropbox.com/s/klk7ab5p1k12fmt/QEP-Sept6-2017.m4a?dl=0