October 18, 2011

You are here

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version

Approved 1-24-11




Tuesday, October 18, 2011

3:15 p.m., 115 International Center

Provost Wilcox, G. Aben, W. Anderson, T. Summerhill (for M. Baba), M. Becker, J. Voughman, L. Brooks, F. Fear (for D. Buhler), D. Campbell, S. Carter, M. Chavez, K. Cheruvelil, R. Coffey, T. Curry, E. Cushman, W. Davidson II, L. Dillon, J. Dunn, S. Esquith, J. Foss, C. Frillingos, J.I. Gray, C. Haka, M. Halloran, H. Harley, S. Hawthorne, C. Alsup (for J. Howarth), H. Hughes, L. Jackson, C. Jackson-Elmoore, L. Jezierski, M. Kaplowitz, R.J. Kirkpatrick, K. Klomparens, Y. Komori, J. Wagner (for S. Lenway), T. Levine, K. Lovell, L. Mak, D. Maybank, C. McClean, A. Meisel, H. Melakeberhan, D. Moriarty, M. Mundt, M. Noel, D. Pathak, H. Perlstadt, V. Poltavets, J. Powell, S. Pratt, R. Putnam, S. Sousa (for M. Rappley), J. Riedinger, G. Stone (for D. Rovner), C. Schotten, C. Scales, L. Selanders, D. Sheridan, S. Spees (for E. Simmons), W. Strampel, B. Syzek, S. Tekalur, L. Udpa, C. Vermeesch, S. Watts, P. Whitten, J. Wright, D. Prestel (for K. Wurst), E. Yakura, J. Youatt

ABSENT:  President Simon, K. Ames, C. Brown, S. Carey, E. Charles, C. Coursaris, H. Dunningan, D. Estry, A. Findlay, M. Fillmore, H. Fitzgerald, S. Fletcher, R. Floden, J. Forger, S. Garnett, C. Gelbke, D. Gift, J. Goddeeris, M. Grieshop, L. Gut, S. Hassan, J. Hoehn, M. Holt, R. Jones, L. Jordan, J. Joyce, M. Kasavana, M. Kolkmeyer, M. Lawrence, R. Mabokela, S. Marino, P. Menchik, W. Miller, R. Ofoli, N.B. Olivier, F. Ravitch, J. Rechtien, N. Rovig, K. Schoonover, M. Shapiro, A.J. Singh, L. Stanford, R. Taggart, Z. Taylor, S. Udpa, J. Washington, B. Wernette, D. Wilson

The meeting began at 3:25 p.m. with a quorum.

Approval of Agenda:
The agenda was amended adding the item IRB Update. The agenda was approved as amended.

Public Comments:
There were no public comments.

Approval of Minutes:
The minutes of September 20, 2011 were approved as distributed. 

Provost’s Remarks:
Provost Wilcox announced that the President was attending the meeting of the Association of American Universities in Washington, DC.  The Provost also noted that the President is now on the Executive Committee of the National Athletic Collegiate Association.

Provost Wilcox commented on some of the recent activities on campus.  The State News published an open letter to the University from President Simon commenting on a recent string of racial incidents, largely derogatory comments and racial slurs in the last two weeks.  Everyone from student leaders to staff members to faculty members have been working to identify the issues, identify the perpetrators  and equally or more importantly help those who feel offended.

Our response can be as or more powerful than the incidents themselves.  The provost asked everyone to read the letter from the President  and to the extent possible to be engaged and sensitive.

Provost Wilcox reported the motions on amending the Bylaws and the recommendations on adding three new Departments in CHM were approved at the last meeting of the Board of Trustees.

The Steering Committee Chairperson’s Remarks:
Professor Powell provided follow-up on several issues.  He reported that the Task Force, established at the end of Spring, is to look at the University Research Organization (URO) concept, and will be reporting back to Governance in November.   The Task Force looking at the Changes to the Code of Teaching Responsibility and Integrity of Scholarships and Grades have been working, and have submitted their report to the Governance committees for response.  A detailed discussion will take place early in the Spring.  The Task Force dealing with the issues regarding the ADP and the revised Department of Education Regulations Re: Sexual Harassment have worked on the University’s policy, and will be distributing to the Steering Committee and other Committees for review.

The At-Large members of the Steering Committee will be holding a Faculty Forum October 25, 2011 at the Communication Arts Building.  A notice will be sent out to all faculty.  Professor Powell also announced that the At-Large members will be meeting with all College Advisory Committees this year to discuss communication lines and some of the goals and objectives of the Governance system.

Update on the Proposed Revision in IRB Requirements:
A motion was passed to give Professor Haywood voice.  Professor Haywood  presented the following update on ORA’s progress with obtaining input on the advance notice of proposed rule making, “Human Subjects Research Protections: Enhancing Protections for Research Subjects and Reducing Burden, Delay, and Ambiguity for Investigators.” Over the past several weeks and months, ORA has sought to gather input on this advance notice using a variety of mechanisms.  

  • An ORA website was created that summarized the advance notice and solicited feedback from faculty and others on the proposed changes.
  • Individuals were encouraged to email any written feedback they had on the proposed changes.
  • In-person sessions and a teleconference webinar were conducted this week to obtain input.
  • Information has been presented at several university group sessions requesting input and encouraging responses (the Council of Research Deans, Steering Committee of Academic Governance).
  • Emails have been sent to Deans, the Council of Research Deans, and principal investigators on actively approved IRB projects providing information about the advance notice and encouraging individuals to participate in the process by submitting written comments or attending in-person sessions.
  • Information about the advance notice and ORA’s request for feedback was included in Gray’s Matters, a publication by the Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies.

Professor Haywood indicated ORA is in the process of synthesizing the comments received from faculty and others and drafting a response to the notice that represents the institutional perspective.  He  emphasized that even after a response is submitted, there will be another opportunity for comment before a final rule is issued.  Professor Haywood noted that in the future input would be obtained  from faculty and others once a proposed rule is published.

Academic Program Review:
Provost Wilcox noted that four years ago, as part of the effort to consider and revise the Bylaws for Academic Governance, one of the initiatives that the predecessor of this body undertook was the commencement of  a program of Academic Program Review.  The guidelines were that every Program would be reviewed comprehensively at least once every seven years.  After deciding on the parameters for implementation, that task was assigned to the Office of the Provost.  The Office of the Provost has put in a system whereby Programs are reviewed.  Part of the original charge was that the Provost would report back to Academic Governance annually.  To date this has been done by meeting with the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for the Steering Committee (ECAC) and the Secretary for Academic Governance.  This year at the meeting there was discussion of the value of reporting more broadly and it was decided the report should be given at the University Council annually.

A motion was passed to give voice to Kelly Funk, Director of Assessment, Academic Program Review and Accreditation.  Kelly presented an overview of the process.  The purpose of the Program Review is to provide a means of purposeful reflection for academic programs and to assist the unit in improving and assist the Dean in advancing the College.  The heart of the review process is centered on a self-study.  The self-study has six questions that include:

  • What is it that we do?
  • Why do we do it?
  • How well do we do it and who thinks so?
  • What difference does it make whether we do it or not?
  • Given our present Status, how do we intend to change in ways that help us?
  • How will we evaluate our future progress and successes?

The questions are very broad and the self-study report is 12 to 15 pages.  The study is focused on data, analysis and action.  It is not a narrative statement.  Once a self-study is written it is forwarded to a College Advisory Committee and the Dean, who then provides commentary to the Program before it is sent to the Provost’s Office.   The entire process takes about a year.  Provost Wilcox emphasized there is no right answer, every self-study is different depending on the issues.

The Provost’s Report for the Academic Program Review for 2010-11 was distributed and summarized for the members.

New Business:
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,


Jacqueline Wright
Secretary for Academic Governance


Tapes of complete meetings of the Academic Council are available for review in the office of the Secretary for Academic Governance, W32 Owen Graduate Hall, 355-2337.

Committee Meeting Date: 
Tuesday, October 18, 2011 - 3:15pm
Committee Type: 
Minutes Status :