Committee Meetings Throughout Summer 2020

The Steering Committee (TSC), Faculty Senate (FS) and University Council (UC) met throughout the summer 2020, via Zoom.  TSC convened on June 9 and July 7. FS convened on June 23, July 21 and August 11. Univesity Council convened on July 21.

The Schedule of Meeting Dates for 2020-2021 can be found by clicking on the link below and by clicking on the black tab to the lef of the website, under Shcedule of Meeting Dates.

Schedule of Meeting Dates for 2020-2021


October 12, 2004

You are here

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version

Approved 11-9-04



October 12, 2004

Present: Abeles, Harrow, Larabee, McCoy, Melnick, Morash, Newman, Prasad, Schechter, Sticklen, Dan Weber, Dick Weber; Others: Banks, Harrison, Simon, Wright, Anderson (News Bulletin), McNulty (State News)

Absent: Nair, Ogundimu, Probst, Wei

Chairperson Sticklen called the meeting to order at 3:15 p.m. with a quorum being present.

The agenda was amended adding 2 items: #17 UCAP Referral to Consider SOCT and #18 Governance Response to AAUP letter. The amended agenda was approved.

The minutes for September 14, 2004 were approved as distributed.

Chairperson’s Remarks:
Professor Sticklen, Chairperson, had no comments.

Provost’s Remarks:
The Provost acknowledged the receipt of the list of nominees for the Search and Rating Committee for the Provost. The Provost and Dr. Banks are looking over the list and will reach a conclusion this week. The Provost thanked the ECAC for their work.

Proposal for the Merger of the Department of Advertising and the Merchandising Management Program:
Provost Simon reported the Deans of the Colleges of Communication Arts and Sciences (CAS) and Human Ecology (CHE) have requested that the Merchandising Management Program currently housed in the Department of Human Environment and Design in CHE be merged with the Department of Advertising in CAS. It is also requested that the expanded Department be administered solely in the CAS and that its name be changed to the “Department of Advertising, Public Relations and Retailing” to reflect this action. Following a series of conversations by the faculty in the various Colleges and the Departments of Advertising and Merchandise Management Program an enormous amount of synergy in program activities and points of view were identified. The Proposal was developed and received approval by the appropriate Departmental and College Advisory Councils and there was a sign off by the College of Business on the use of the term retailing to describe the program. Representatives from the various units were present, Acting Dean Song, Professor and faculty members from the programs. All spoke favorably to the proposal. The question before ECAC was what governance committees at the University level should be consulted for this proposal? A motion to refer the proposal to UGC and UCAP was passed.

Draft NCAA Certification Self-Study Report:
Kathy Lindahl, Chairperson for the NCAA Certification Self-Study Committee at MSU, described the NCAA Certification Self-Study and all that it entails. The purpose of the Certification is to ensure compliance with NCAA operating principles by validating the integrity of an athletic program through a self-study and peer review process that occurs on a ten-year cycle. There are 38 members on the Steering Committee with representation from faculty, staff, alumni, coaches and athletic administration. An important part of the process, after the Steering Committee is nearing the final report, is to provide an opportunity for public feedback and comment on the draft. Ms. Lindahl wanted ECAC to be informed of the process and of the public feedback period which will be November 1, 2004 through November 26, 2004. The final report will be submitted to the NCAA in January, 2005. Following some discussion it was noted that the faculty liaison to Athletic Council needed to be formalized this year and appointed. This should be on the ECAC agenda for the next meeting. A motion passed to refer the NCAA Certification self-study draft report to UCSA and UCAP, having Kathy Lindahl meet with the committees in early November, and respond back to ECAC November 9th.

UCSA Feedback re: Amendments to Code of Teaching Responsibility:
Vinay Prasad, Chairperson of UCSA, reported the committee reviewed the UCAP changes to the Teaching Code and provided feedback on two issues. A special meeting was held with Professor Ogundimu, UCAP Chairperson present to answer questions. The UCSA first issue focused on changes to sections: 1, 2, 4 and 7 that centered on the issue of creating a formal articulation for providing syllabi and content therein. The second issue was on Section 3 focusing on student concerns about upholding the integrity of examinations. UCSA supports the changes to sections 1, 2, 4, and 7 and suggests a small addition in Section 4 adding a bullet stating “Office Hours”.

A majority of the UCSA members support the proposed changes to Section 3, there were a few dissenters. This will now go on to Academic Council.

Proposal for the Organizational Realignment of the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition:
Professor Ogundimu, Chairperson of UCAP was not present. Professor Sticklen referred to the memorandum of October 5, 2004 provided by the UCAP Chairperson. There was some discussion and clarification. UCAP members made four recommendations regarding the proposal as delineated in the October 5, 2005 memorandum. Professor Morash, UGC Chairperson, referred to a memorandum, October 12 from UGC indicating the proposal was well thought out and had faculty support. ECAC concluded that no further advice was warranted.

College of Osteopathic Medicine Proposed Class Size Changes:
Professor Morash, Chairperson of UGC, reported the committee discussion resulted in four recommendations as well as several suggestions. (See Memorandum of October 12, 2004). Most of the UGC members favored encouraging faculty from COM, CHM, and CNS to consider a detailed feasibility or capacity assessment and come forth with recommendations. Professor Morash noted an emphasized theme was that there is a need for a mechanism for faculty to have input into plans early and the input also needs to be across colleges. In a memorandum dated October 5, 2004, Professor Ogundimu, UCAP Chairperson, indicated that the opinion of UCAP members was that there was lack of possession of sufficient information to merit an informed deliberation on this matter. The Provost noted the two different approaches used in teaching by CHM and COM. It is anticipated that there will be greater clarity based on the implementation of the committee’s report. This issue will come back to ECAC after further discussions occur.

CIC Faculty Leadership Conference:
Professor Sticklen noted at this time he was the only one going to the conference as Professor Wright was unable to attend. Professor Sticklen asked if any members could attend and to contact him if interested.

Report on Law College Elections:
Professor Wright reported on the communications with the Law College during the summer related to their participation in Academic Governance. Law College faculty are now on all Standing Committees at this time.

Discussion re: Invitation to the Board of Trustees to Visit Academic Council:
The Chairperson of the Board of Trustees indicated interest in being more visible and involved in the governance system. Professor Sticklen would like to invite members to come to Academic Council. The ECAC members were supportive to such invitations and a motion passed to extend an invitation.

Delineating Charge to UCAP/UGC/UCC – Possible Referral to UCAG:
Professor Sticklen indicated there have been questions related to the Bylaws and the delineation of the charge to UCAP, UGC and UCC regarding graduate professional students. After some discussion, it was determined the question does not involve UCC. The request is for UCAG to examine the Bylaws and clarify the charge to UGC and UCAP regarding graduate professional students. The Provost noted that the Bylaws as they are written direct graduate professional education to UCAP. Dean Klomparens position is that in every comparable university the DVM, MD, DO, and Law are treated as graduate programs and not as undergraduate programs. The current Bylaws need to be revised. This issue will be referred to UCAG.

Discussion of Reports from Standing Committees to Academic Council and Faculty Council:
Professor Sticklen reminded members of the plan to have Standing Committee Chairpersons give a brief summary of the committee’s activities, which include the “hot button” issues, in Council meetings. UCFA and UCFT should report to Faculty Council.

Setting of the Faculty Council Agenda for October 19, 2004:
Since there were no pressing issues for the Faculty Council on October 19, 2004, a motion was passed to cancel the meeting.

Setting of the Academic Council Agenda for October 26, 2004:
The agenda for the Academic Council meeting on October 26, 2004 is as follows:

  • University Curriculum Report – Action Item
  • Proposed Amendments to the Code of Teaching Responsibility – Action Item
  • Report from the Task Force on Integrative Studies – Information Item
  • Report from the Task Force on Quantitative Literacy – Information Item

UCAP Referral to Consider SOCT:
Professor Weber raised some questions regarding the SOCT that will be on line instead of being collected in the classroom. There was some further discussion related to how the information from SOCT was being used. A motion was passed to refer the issue of the use and collection of SOCT to UCAP to review.

Governance Response to AAUP Letter:
Professor Sticklen noted the letter written by the National AAUP criticizing MSU on the Selection of the President, the move of the Medical School and the Liberal Arts reorganization asserting that there was minimal faculty involvement in all three issues. The AAUP did acknowledge the Medical School Oversight Committee, the CCR and the development of the Faculty Voice Committee. Professor Sticklen stated the issue: Should the members-at-large collectively form a response to the letter and send a response? Professor Sticklen indicated his view that a response should be sent. Professor Weber expressed that in his view a public response would draw more attention to the letter and therefore was not in favor of sending a response. There was question as to where the letter was sent. It apparently was addressed to the President and the Board of Trustees Chairperson and indicating faculty-at-large were copied. The Chairperson of the Board of Trustees has responded. Professor Abeles also expressed no need to respond. The consensus was not to respond.

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,


Jacqueline Wright
Secretary for Academic Governance

Committee Meeting Date: 
Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 3:15pm
Committee Type: 
Minutes Status :