the following proposal was approved by apc 11

Transcription

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE of UNIVERSITY SENATE
James Kiper, Chair
Steve Wyatt, Chair-elect
University Senate Website: www.muohio.edu/senate/
February 21, 2013
TO:
Members of the 2012-2013 University Senate
FROM:
Executive Committee of Senate
2012-2013 UNIVERSITY SENATE
Monday, February 25, 2013, 3:15 p.m.
Room 111, Harrison Hall
AGENDA
1) Call to Order
2) Announcements
a) Announcements and Remarks by the Chair, Bobby Gempesaw.
3) Reports
a) Executive Committee of University Senate – James Kiper, Chair (pg. 36).
4) Approval of University Senate Minutes
a) February 11, 2013, Minutes of 2011-2012 University Senate (pg. 3).
5) Consent Calendar
a) Curriculum Report dated February 20, 2013 (pg. 32).
b) Executive Committee of University Senate (pg. 36)
c) Academic Policy Committee Minutes dated November 30, 2012, February 1, 2013, and
February 15, 2013 (pg. 38).
i) Revisions to the Miami Bulletin (Admission for Graduate Students, Non-degree Status) and
Graduate Student Handbook, Section 1.2.L, Graduate Academic Regulations, Registration,
Policy Relating to Undergraduates Taking Graduate Courses (pg. 52).
ii) Courses Offered in One Division and Carrying Departmental Prefixes (or Subject Codes) in
Another Department (pg. 54).
d) Council on Diversity and Inclusion Minutes dated September 7, 2012, November 28, 2012, and
January 25, 2013 (pg. 56).
e) Liberal Education Council Minutes dated November 27, 2012, December 4, 2012,
January 22, 2013, and January 29, 2013 (pg. 60).
6) Old Business
No Items of Old Business
Page 1 of 76
7) New Business
a) Proposed Revisions to the Miami University Policy and Information Manual, Section 12.5, and the
Enabling Act of University Senate and Faculty Assembly, Article Five, Section 3, All-University
Faculty Committee for Evaluation of Administrators – All-University Faculty Committee for
Evaluation of Administrators and Office of the Provost (pg. 64).
8) Special Report
a) Accreditation Update – Carolyn Haynes, Interim Associate Provost (pg. 68).
b) The Interactive Future, An Overview of the Interactive Degree Audit – Office of the University
Registrar: Dave Sauter, Carol Jones, and Becky Sander (pg. 72).
c) Miami 2020 Plan, Metrics – Phyllis Callahan and James Kiper, Co-Chairs.
9) Adjournment
The next scheduled meeting of University Senate: March 4, 2013.
Attachments
Page 2 of 76
UNIVERSITY SENATE
February 11, 2013
The University Senate was called to order at 3:15 p.m., in Room 111, Harrison Hall, Oxford
Campus, on Monday, February 11, 2013. Parliamentarian Rob Withers reported a quorum present
for the purpose of conducting business. Members absent: Jason Abbitt, Peter Brewer, Douglas Brooks,
Susan Ewing, Thomas Garcia, Mariah Green, James Hickey, Michael Kabbaz, Bryan Marshall,
Forrest McGuire, Doug Meikle, Sean Newsome, Donald Norris, Shan Qureshi, T. M. Rajkumar,
Maggie Reinhart, Kyle Reynolds, Ben Schwarz, and Jake Westfall.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Provost Gempesaw:
The excellence of the University begins with outstanding faculty. At the February Board of
Trustees meeting, the Board approved the recommendation for promotion and/or tenure of forty-six
faculty members, effective July 1, 2013; and approved the recommendation for promotion and/or
continuing contract for ten librarians effective July 1, 2013.
For the third year, Miami University has received a record-breaking number of applications for
the incoming class. Twenty-two thousand three hundred applications have been received for fall 2013;
the number represents an 11% increase in the number of applications received last year. The Provost
extended congratulations to the staff in offices of admission and enrollment services and to Miami’s
outstanding faculty in attracting students to our University.
For the sixth year in a row, Miami University has been recognized as one of the top universities
nationwide in producing Peace Corps volunteers.
REPORTS
3.a.
Executive Committee of University Senate – James Kiper, Chair
Professor Kiper:
The Executive Committee encourages faculty to respond no later than February 22, to the
request for 2013-2014 University Senate committee service which was distributed via email today.
The activities of the Executive Committee are reported in Attachment A.
Page 3 of 76
University Senate, February 11, 2013, Minutes
Page 2 of 29
3.b.
February 8, 2013, Meeting of the Board of Trustees.
Professor Kiper:
Actions taken at the February 8, 2013, meeting of the Board of Trustees are reported in
Attachment B.
SPECIAL REPORTS
4.a.
Debi Allison, Vice President for IT Services, and Brian Henebry, Associate Director for
Enterprise Systems and Operations.
Professor Kiper:
Professor Kiper introduced Debi Allison and Brian Henebry who presented a PowerPoint
presentation (Attachment C) regarding the Google migration that occurred over the winter break.
Responses to Senators’ questions included:
 Currently eligible institutions of higher education are limited to registering one .edu
domain name; however, the United States Department of Commerce is giving
consideration to raising the limited to two .edu domain names per institution. If the
limit is raised, then faculty and staff may continue to receive mail at the muohio.edu
address.
 Cost savings what not the only force driving the Google migration. Google enables more
collaboration tools than what was available with Outlook.
 The firewall in China (or any other country) will determine how effectively faculty
traveling may make internet connections through Google. Connections should be made
via Miami’s server.
 Receiving Google’s Web clips is an option that may be shut off via the Settings menu. A
Senator’s concern that many of the clips are inappropriate, especially in an educational
environment, will be forwarded to Google.
 Employees should contact the IT Help Desk if email is inappropriately filtered; e.g.,
students’ mail sent to Junk Mail. Google is very stringent on spam filters.
 Miami owns the email. Per the contract with Miami, Google may not data mine or run
search algorithms. Privacy was a foremost consideration in Miami’s contract with
Google. Should the relationship with Google be severed, Google must return to Miami
all its information and certify that it has deleted that information from its servers within
a defined period of time.
4.b.
Miami Plan Restructuring – John Tassoni, Director, Liberal Education.
Professor Kiper:
Professor Kiper introduced John Tassoni, Director, Liberal Education, to update Senate on the
progress of the Miami Plan Redesign Task Force (Attachment D).
Page 4 of 76
Page 3 of 29
APPROVAL of THE UNIVERSTIY SENATE MINUTES
A motion was received, seconded, and carried to approve the January 28, 2013, minutes of
University Senate.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Curriculum Report dated January 30, 2013 and the Executive Committee of University
Senate minutes dated February 4, 2013, were received on the Consent Calendar.
OLD BUSINESS
No Items of New Business
NEW BUSINESS
8.a.
Proposed Resolution for the Transfer of all Functions and Administration of the
Departments of Business Technology, Computer and Information Technology,
Engineering Technology, and Nursing, into the New Academic Division at the Regional
Locations – James Oris, Process Coordinator.
Professor Kiper:
Professor Kiper introduced James Oris, process coordinator, to present the proposal for the
transfer of departments into the new academic division on the regional locations.
Professor Oris’ PowerPoint slides are included as Attachment E.
A motion was made and seconded that University Senate adopt a resolution for the transfer of
departments into the new academic division on the regional locations; i.e.:
WHEREAS the Miami University Board of Trustees resolution R2012-29 created a new academic
division to administer the programs and degrees offered at the Regional Locations; and
WHEREAS there are four departments that offer degrees at the Regional Locations; and
WHEREAS the vast majority of students enrolled at the Regional Locations are seeking four-year
degrees; and
WHEREAS completion rates are dependent on meeting student needs and demand; and
WHEREAS the success of the regional locations depends on offering four-year degrees within the
new academic division; and
WHEREAS the existing departments with programs offered at the Regional Locations provide the
foundation for current and future four-year degree offerings;
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that University Senate endorse the transfer of all functions and
administration of the departments of business technology, computer and information
Page 5 of 76
Page 4 of 29
technology, engineering technology, and nursing into the new academic division at the regional
locations.
Professor Detloff:
What will happen to current faculty lines?
Professor Oris:
Status of faculty is not part of the resolution currently on the floor of Senate; however, faculty
within the departments to be transferred would move with the departments. Faculty tenured in the
Oxford-based departments will not move with the transferred departments but will be given the choice
whether or not to transfer.
Professor Delisio:
The budgets of the departments to be transferred have always been based on the regional
campuses. The move is an academic move; that is moving these departments from the School of
Engineering to the new academic division on the regional location. Professor Delisio commented that
faculty in two departments favor the resolution and faculty in two departments are not in favor of the
resolution.
Professor Cotugno:
Professor Cotugno inquired about graduation rates. The following points were made:
(1) graduation rates on the regional campuses (Oxford: 81%, Hamilton: 22%, Middletown: 20%);
(2) students on the regional campuses are seeking four-year degrees; (3) if no four-year degrees are
offered, students leave; and (4) completion rates should rise if Miami expands four-year degree
offerings on the regional locations. What are the graduation rates of students enrolled in the regional
campuses’ bachelor of integrative studies degree program? Does this data indicate that students
enrolled in four-year programs will have significantly higher graduation rates than those enrolled in twoyear programs?
Dean Pratt, Dean of the Regional Campuses:
Though he did not have the data, Dean Pratt could say that the number of graduates has grown
expediently each year. The students in the nursing program have always graduated to meet the
accreditation requirements. Health information technology which began January 2012 will graduate two
students in May. Data is not available for the criminal justice program which began January 2013.
Mr. Ellerbe:
In examining the support structure of the departments to be transferred, will administrative and
unclassified employees be affected by the transfer of the departments?
Dean Pratt:
Administrative and unclassified staff positions should not be adversely affected by the transfer
of department. On the regional campuses, the staff works with all students. Needed support structures
such as academic advising have been identified and will be developed.
Page 6 of 76
Page 5 of 29
Professor Delisio:
Professor Delisio would debate a conclusion that the expansion of four-year degrees on the
regional campuses will occur within the four departments proposed to be transferred. Nursing cannot
offer too many more degrees and the opportunity for more degrees with the departments of
engineering technology and computer and information technology are limited. The growth will come
from outside of three of those programs.
Professor Russo:
What will be the competitive advantage for transferring departments?
Professor Oris:
Even though considerable overlap exists among the programs offered by other institutions and
the programs offered by Miami’s regional campuses, Miami’s competitive advantage on the regional
campus can be the offering of four-year degrees.
Dean Pratt:
All faculty on the regional campuses has studied possible programs that could be successfully
marketed within commuting distances of the regional campuses. This study has resulted in three letters
of intent which have been forwarded to the Provost for review. Creating an academic division will
establish a structure that will enable the regional campuses to develop degrees in existing programs and
across disciplines.
Professor Russo:
The State Share of Instruction is the primary way by which the Ohio Board of Regents allocates
money to state-funded institutions of higher education. Last Friday, the Board announced that the
Oxford Campus’s share will be increased approximately 1.8%; the Middletown Campus’s share would be
reduced approximately 10%; and little change in the Hamilton Campus’s share. Additionally, in the
future, the funding formula will be tied to graduation rates. If the regional campus academic division is
not developed, where will the subvention come?
Provost Gempesaw:
As Professor Oris stated, the University is not taking this matter lightly. Developing a strong
foundation within the new academic division at the regional locations is vital as the state begins to look
at all of Miami’s campuses as one unit in terms of completion rates.
Professor Detloff:
The per-credit-hour tuition for courses taken on Miami’s regional campuses is considerably
higher than the per-credit-hour tuition for courses taken at Sinclair or Cincinnati State; therefore, the
assumption is being made that students are willing to pay a higher tuition in order to have a degree
from Miami University. How have enrollments been on the regional campuses?
Professor Oris:
Middletown’s enrollment has been declining for the past five to six years. Hamilton’s
enrollment numbers experienced a steep increase from 2008-2010; however, the increase has been
followed by an almost equal decrease in enrollment numbers. If that trend continues, Hamilton’s
enrollment numbers will be lower than the numbers were in 2008.
Page 7 of 76
Page 6 of 29
Professor Delisio:
The three departments in the School of Engineering which are proposed to be transferred have
always offered bachelor degrees; therefore, these three departments are not advantaged by moving to
the new academic division at the regional locations. They are proposed to be moved to give the new
academic division some creditability. The departments were not given a vote as were the departments
of botany, zoology, and microbiology with the creation of the department of biology. Professor Delisio
does not dispute the need for an academic division at the regional campuses; however, she is opposed
to moving academic departments for non-academic reasons.
Dean Dollár, School of Engineering and Applied Science:
No other academic division at Miami University will be affected more than the School of
Engineering and Applied Science. We are talking about three of the seven departments that constitute
our School. When Professor Oris says that he has friends on the regional campuses and that this has not
been an easy task for him, you can imagine how challenging it is for me to speak on behalf of this
resolution when we will lose three departments. Engineering technology is incredibly close to
mechanical and manufacturing engineering and to electrical and computer engineering.
You cannot overestimate the needs between computer and information technology and computer
science and software engineering (once called computer science and systems analysis). I am in a difficult
position to comment; none-the-less, if I focus on the academics it is very difficult for me to say without
hesitation that the proposed transfer of departments from the School of Engineering to the new
academic division at the regional locations will benefit engineering technology and computer and
information technology. Nursing, is part of the School of Engineering because it is an applied science, is
a very different issue because discipline-wise nursing is not close to the other departments. In the short
term I have a hard time arguing that the move is best for engineering technology and computer and
information technology; non-the-less, knowing the reality for the regional campuses and wishing the
new division well the establishment of the new division is a necessary step; we have to do it. If we
establish a new division, besides these departments, what is left? So what I would say, and what I have
been consistently saying, siding with the departments and everything that Professor Delisio has said is
true. Having attended the meetings, we know what the outcome of the vote will be. Providing for the
academic division is critical. I say very reluctantly that it is in the best interest of the new academic
division and the future of the regional campuses as a whole to transition these departments. I am now
speaking in support of the resolution but with three provisions, the first two which Professor Oris has
already addressed:
1. Ensuring that support structures for the departments to be transferred are in place.
2. The bridges that have been built over the years between Oxford-based departments and
departments to be transferred are not destroyed.
3. The faculty members to be transferred with the transfer of departments be grandfathered
in terms of promotion and tenure and that they be given the option to be tenured in either
the new division or the existing structure. Dean Dollar will make an unequivocal
commitment to support these members of faculty and oversee their progress should they
choose.
Interim Dean Gorman, Farmers School of Business:
Transferring business technology to the new academic division is different situation than what
has been described with the transfer of departments for the School of Engineering and Applied Science.
Page 8 of 76
Page 7 of 29
Business technology is quite separate from other departments within the Farmer School of Business. If
located within the academic division at the regional locations, the department can better control its own
destiny and propose degrees within its program.
Dean Pratt:
Being dean of an academic division that does not yet exist has been very difficult. The regional
campuses have had conversations about what may take place if departments are transferred while at
the same time not making commitments that cannot be committed to until a division is established.
Dean Pratt has met with the chairs of the departments that are proposed to be transferred to address
matters highlighted in Appendix 4 of the Regional Campus Implementation Committee’s Final Report,
December 2012.
Professor Oris:
As co-chair of the Implementation Committee, Professor Oris noted that after the Final Report
was issued, Provost Gempesaw met with Dean Pratt and the Committee to thoroughly discuss the
report, section by section. A significant amount of time was spent discussing the necessary support
services needed for the departments in the new academic division at the regional locations.
Professor Oris understands that the Provost delivered a memo to the deans that went well beyond
what was considered in a number of areas. The memo identified a timeline for each task.
Professor Detloff:
Professor Detloff proposed an amendment to the motion that Dean Dollár’s provision relating
the faculty be included in the Senate resolution.
Dean Dollár restated the provision; i.e., Existing faculty members in the departments to be
transferred will be given a choice to be tenured and promoted within the new academic division at the
regional locations or within their current academic divisional home.
The amendment, which was received as a friendly amendment, was seconded.
Professor Kiper called for a voice vote on the friendly amendment. The friendly amendment
was endorsed by voice vote.
Professor Kiper:
Professor Kiper accepted a friendly amendment to revise the wording “…University Senate
endorse…” to “…University Senate recommends to the Provost…” This amendment is within the
provisions of SR 08-09, Guide for the Consolidation, Partition, Transfer, or Elimination of Academic
Divisions, Departments, or Programs, Step 6, which states University Senate makes “a recommendation
to the Provost.”
Professor Kiper called for a roll-call vote on SR 13-07 as stated below:
SR 13-07
WHEREAS the Miami University Board of Trustees resolution R2012-29 created a new academic
division to administer the programs and degrees offered at the Regional Locations; and
WHEREAS there are four departments that offer degrees at the Regional Locations; and
Page 9 of 76
Page 8 of 29
WHEREAS the vast majority of students enrolled at the Regional Locations are seeking four-year
degrees; and
WHEREAS completion rates are dependent on meeting student needs and demand; and
WHEREAS the success of the Regional Locations depends on offering four-year degrees within
the new academic division; and
WHEREAS the existing departments with programs offered at the Regional Locations provide the
foundation for current and future four-year degree offerings; and
FURTHERMORE, existing faculty members in the departments to be transferred will be given a
choice to be tenured and promoted within the new academic division at the regional locations
or within their current academic divisional home;
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that University Senate endorse recommends to the Provost the
transfer of all functions and administration of the departments of Business Technology,
Computer and Information Technology, Engineering Technology, and Nursing into the new
academic division at the Regional Locations.
Name
Constituency
Yes
Abbitt, Jason
Alexander, Stephen
Bazeley, Jennifer
EDL+EDP+FSW
Bazeley, Joseph
Brehm, Susan
Brewer, Peter
Brinkman, Bo
Brooks, Douglas
Cayton, Mary
Presidential Appointee
Cotugno, Marianne
Currie, Brian
Cybulski, Mark
Delisio, Diane
Detloff, Madelyn
Dixon, Linda
Faculty-at-Large - ENG - MC
Dougherty, Peter
Ellerbe, Glenn
Ewing, Susan
Figueroa, Nathan
Garcia, Thomas
Granderson, Gerald
Student-at-Large
Green, Mariah
Guichard, Julia
Harding, Paul
Heinrich, Christy
Hickey, R. James
Horn, Thelma
Student-at-Large
No
Abstain
Absent
X
GEO + GLG + PHY
University Libraries
COM + SPA
X
X
X
X
X
ACC+DSC&MIS+FIN
X
CSE +CPE
X
Teacher Education
Faculty-at-Large - HST
GEO + GLG + PHY
CHM
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Faculty-at-Large - ENG/WGS
X
X
UPAC
X
X
Graduate Student
X
MUS
X
ECO
X
X
ARC + THE
X
Middletown
X
CPAC
X
Faculty-at-Large – BOT
X
KNH
Page 10 of 76
Page 9 of 29
Name
Constituency
Yes
jegede, dele
Johnson, Joseph
Kabbaz, Michael
Kenworthy, Scott
Kiper, James
Lippmann, Stephen
Art
SGA + ANT
X
Liu, Wenxi
Marshall, Bryan
Massie, Pascal
Maxfield, Gillian
McGuire, Forrest
Meikle, Doug
Middletown
X
Miller, Nick
Newsome, Sean
Noe, Douglas
Norris, Donald
Qureshi, Shan
Rajkumar, T. M.
Student-at-Large
Reinhart, Maggie
Reynolds, Kyle
Ridilla, Andrea
Russo, Philip
Sauter, Dave
Schwarz, Ben
Student-at-Large
Senff, Sarah
Sloan, Kay
Stefanski, John
Stevens, Hank
Subedi, Shubhasree
Trivelli, Michael
Student – Graduate Student
Student-at-Large
X
X
X
X
X
X
Van Gundy-Yoder, Alana
Vaughn, Susan
Walsh, David
Ward, Rose Marie
Warren, Max
Weems, Lisa
Hamilton
X
Westfall, Jake
Wyatt, Steve
Yousef, Saleh
Zhou, Qihou
To Be Named
Student-at-Large
No
Abstain
Absent
X
X
PSY
X
X
AMS + HST + REL
X
Faculty-at-Large - CSE
X
POL
CLS + PHL + FRE
Student – Middletown
X
X
X
X
X
X
Student-at-Large
ZOO
EDL + EDP + FSW
X
MTH + STA
MKT
X
Student- Hamilton
X
X
X
X
ACC+DSC&MIS+FIN
Student-at-Large
Faculty-at-Large - MUS
Faculty-at-Large – POL
X
X
X
X
Student-at-Large
ENG + JRN + WCP
Student – ASG President
BOT + MBI
Hamilton
X
X
X
X
MGT
Faculty-at-Large
Student-at-Large
X
Faculty-at-Large – EDL
X
X
X
Faculty-at-Large –FIN
SPO + POR + GREAL
X
ECE + MME
ENG + JRN + WCP
Page 11 of 76
Page 10 of 29
SR 13-07 carried by a roll-call vote of: Yes: 38; No: 1; Abstain: 8; Absent: 20.
A motion was received, seconded, and carried to adjourn the meeting of University Senate at
5:00 p.m.
__________________________________
Marcia C. Weller, Recording Secretary
__________________________________
Carolyn Haynes, Acting Secretary
Page 12 of 76
Attachment A.
Executive Committee of University Senate Report
Page 11 of 29
Executive Committee of University Senate
February 4, 2013, Minutes
Discussions
1. Debi Allison, Vice President for IT Services, and Brian Henebry, Associate Director for Enterprise Systems
& Operations, have requested to address University Senate on February 11, 2013. Confirmation will be
sent.
2. Proposed Revision to the Student Handbook, Section 1.1.F.2, Intra-Campus Relocation and
corresponding changes to the Miami Bulletin (Admission for Undergraduate Students). Proposed
revision to the credit hour requirement for relocation, 2016 hours. Proposed revision to be sent to the
Academic Policy Committee for consideration.
3. Degree Audit Report and u.Direct . An invitation will be sent to Dave Sauter, University Registrar, to
present a report to University Senate.
4. Reviewed the Academic Policy Committee November 2012, minutes. Several items are still under
consideration by the Committee; therefore, the Committee’s recommendations will be placed on a
Senate agenda later in the spring semester.
5. In response to the Governance Committee’s January 29, recommendations to its charge to review the
composition of several Senate committees, Executive Committee reviewed the representation of each
Senate committee. A follow-up letter will be sent to Kate Rousmaniere, Chair, Governance Committee,
summarizing Executive Committee’s discussion and responding to the Committee’s questions and
recommendations.
6. Committee Membership.
a. Discussed a vacancy on the International Education Committee, Academic Program Review
Committee and, Information Technology Policy Committee.
b. Endorsed Lena Lee (EDT) appointment to the Liberal Education Council replacing Rose Marie
Ward.
7. Endorsed the proposed revisions to the Enabling Act of University Senate and Faculty Assembly, Article
Five, Section 3, and the Miami University Policy and Information Manual, Section 12.5, All-University
Faculty Committee for Evaluation of Administrators. This will be an item of New Business, February 11,
2013, Senate agenda.
8. Jim Kiper reported Ohio Faculty Council January inquiry regarding STRS investments in retirement funds.
9. The Task Force for the Prevention of Sexual Assault will be asked to present a report at a meeting of
Senate.
Page 13 of 76
Attachment A.
Executive Committee of University Senate Report
Page 12 of 29
10. A call-for-volunteers letter will be sent to members of the faculty informing them of the vacancies on
2013-2014 committees of University Senate.
11. Executive Committee set the agenda for the February 11, meeting.
February 11, 2013
o Report: Board of Trustees February 8, 2013, meeting
o Special Report
 Debra Allison and Brian Henebry – g-mail migration update
 Miami Plan Restructuring – John Tassoni, Director, Liberal Education
 Accreditation – Carolyn Haynes
o New Business
 Oris – Transfer of Programs on Regional Campus
 MUPIM – 12.5 All-University Evaluation of Administrator
Page 14 of 76
University February 11, 2013, Minutes
Attachment B.
Report – Board of Trustees February 8, 2013, Meeting
Page 13 of 29
Report of the February 8, 2013, Meeting of the Board of Trustees
The Board of Trustees Heard Reports from:
 President David Hodge
 Sharon Mitchell, Chair, Board of Trustees
 James Kiper and Phyllis Callahan, Co-Chairs, Coordinating Team, Miami University 2020 Plan
 James Kiper, Chair, University Senate Executive Committee
 Sue Henry, Chair, Academic/Student Affairs Committee
 Bobby Gempesaw, Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs
 C. Michael Armstrong, Finance and Audit Committee
 David Creamer, Ordinances & Resolutions
 John Stefanski, President, ASG
 Lot Kwarteng and Arianne Wilt, Student Trustees
The Board approved the recommendations for promotion and/or tenure conferral of forty-six faculty
members, effective July 1, 2013; and approved the recommendation for promotion and/or continuing
contract for ten librarians effective July 1, 2013.
The Board approved individuals for the ranks of professor emerita/emeritus and administrator
emerita/emeritus.
The Board passed resolutions to authorize award of contracts for: FY 2013 Campus Walks and Drives, FY
2013 Roof Replacement and Repairs, FY 2013 Summer Residence Hall Renovations, MET Quad Site
Improvements, East Quad Renovations Planning and Design, Maplestreet Station and Etheridge Hall
Change Order Authority, and MacCracken Quad Tunnel Top Replacements Project.
The Board appointed members of the following Board committees for the calendar year 2013:
o Academic and Student Affairs Committee
 Sue Henry, Chair
 Don Crain
 Dennis Lieberman
 Sharon Mitchell
 Bob Shroder
 Harry Wilks
o Finance and Audit Committee
 Mike Armstrong, Chair
 Jagdish Bhati
 David Budig
 Mike Gooden
 Sharon Mitchell
 Mark Ridenour
Page 15 of 76
Attachment C.
Gone Google – PowerPoint Slides
Page 14 of 29
Gone Google
Miami University transition from Exchange
to Google Apps for Education
Why did we start...
Between FY09 and FY13, IT Services received $4M in budget reductions and
$1.8M in increment/benefit funding and new investments resulting in a net
reduction of $2.2M.
The Support Services Implementation Program that resulted from the Strategic
Priorities Task Force recommendations are planned to reduce the budget
by an additional $1.7M by FY17.
 $640K of this reduction is expected to come from eliminating redundant
applications and finding more cost effective ways to provide services.
 Replacing the Microsoft Exchange e-mail/calendaring system with
Google Apps allows us to realize savings of $175,000 over 5 years
while providing new features, functionality and growth opportunities.
And...
It's all about solving the
collaboration puzzle!
Google Apps for Education
Exchange
Email, Contacts and Calendar
Email, Contacts and Calendar
+Plus+
Drive, Chat, Google+, Sites, Groups, Vault
and dozens more.
Page 16 of 76
Attachment C.
Page 15 of 29
How?
Migration, Migration, Migration
With three months of planning and two months of data migration we moved
Exchange and @muohio.edu to Google.
We moved a lot of stuff!
62,700 Email and Calendar Accounts
193,130,000 Email Messages (20 TB)
608,000 Calendar Events
3,718,000 Contacts
640,000 Documents (12.7 TB)
What's Next?
Address issues:
i. Slow mail delivery @muohio.edu - resolved
ii. Migration related issues - trending down (IT Helpdesk calls at
normal term levels)
iii. Group permissions - in process (end of February)
iv. Password sync and related account management issues - in
process (end of February)
Next Steps:
i. Additional training for faculty and staff through webinars,
knowledge bases and Lynda.com modules - February and On
Going
ii. Handle incoming feature requests - On Going
iii. Office 365 - By October
iv. Look for more opportunities in features, functionality and
savings
Section 508 Compliance
Google's approach to accessibility:
Google’s mission to make the world’s information more accessible applies to all users, including
people with disabilities, such as blindness, visual impairment, color deficiency, deafness, hearing
loss and limited dexterity.
Specifically, Google attempts to achieve this goal by:
Building in accessibility into key Google products
Developing accessibility APIs and services for Google Android and ChromeOS platforms
Supporting open standards to ensure that the greater Web is accessible through all adaptive
technologies.
•
•
•
Google has published a compliancy matrix: http://www.google.com/sites/accessibility.html
Google has published a guide for users and administrators on how to enable and use accessibility
features and tools within and with other third party applications:
http://support.google.com/a/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2821355
Page 17 of 76
Attachment C.
Page 16 of 29
Helpful Tips
Gmail Search and Other Topics
http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?h
l=en&answer=7190
or
Google search keywords: support & gmail
or
Http://www.miamioh.edu/ithelp
Comments & Questions
Debra Allison
Vice President for Information Technology & Chief Information Officer
[email protected]
Brian Henebry
Associate Director, Enterprise Systems & Operations
[email protected]
Page 18 of 76
Attachment D.
Miami Plan Restructuring – PowerPoint Slides
Page 17 of 29
First Miami Plan
• No internet, no room with access to the
internet, no Prezi, no Skype, no Howe Center
for Writing Excellence, no ACE program, no
Interactive Media Studies,. . .
• Commitment to first-year seminar experience,
commitment to extending liberal education
beyond first years of study . . .
Some Plans for a New Plan
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Use Process to Establish Buy-In
Take Advantage of New Technologies
Signature Features
Opportunities for Faculty/Student/Staff Interaction
Articulate Relevance to Majors
Intersect with 2020
Foreground Competencies or Themes/Resist Checkmarks
Not Just exposure, but Aspire to Deep Competencies
Reduce Overall Credits/Keep Simple
Models with Effective, Efficient, Meaningful Assessments
Compatible with State Mandates
State Mandate:
Transfer Module
The Transfer Module includes 36-40 semester hours of course credit,
including these 24 prescribed hours:
 English Composition (3 semester hours)
 Mathematics, Statistics, and Formal/Symbolic logic (3 semester
hours);
 Arts/Humanities (6 semester hours);
 Social and Behavioral Sciences (6 semester hours);
 Natural Sciences (6 semester hours, including lab).
Courses for the Transfer Module should be 100- and 200-level general
education courses, and should provide a basic understanding of the
modes of inquiry common to the disciplines within each area.
Page 19 of 76
Attachment D.
Page 18 of 29
Principal Goals?
Student develop competencies in:
•
•
•
•
•
•
“Integrative and Applied Learning”
“Critical and Creative Thinking”
“Problem Posing and Solving”
“Communication”
“Intercultural and Global Competence”
“Breadth of Learning & Methods of Inquiry”
Textual and
Visual
Literacies
Lifelong
Learning
Technological
Literacy
Teamwork
Quantitative
Literacy
Information
Literacy
Design Ideas
Competency
Based?
E-Portfolios/
Folios?
Liberal Education
Seminars?
Experiential
Credits?
Clusters/Cohorts?
Page 20 of 76
Attachment D.
Page 19 of 29
New Designs
Task Force is currently drafting 4 models to
progress the conversation:
•
•
•
•
Badges/Certificates
Theme Clusters
Cohorts
Common Curriculum
Goals for Spring
February: Develop Models for Discussion
March: University-Wide Discussion of Models
April: Recommendations for Next Steps-– Revise/Combine Models based on Feedback?
– Formation of Implementation Team/LEC to develop lead
model based on feedback and shepherd through approval
process?
– AAC&U Summer Institute?
Page 21 of 76
Attachment E.
Transfer of Departments into the New Academic Division at the Regional Locations– PowerPoint Slides
Page 20 of 29
Regional Division Implementation
Transfer of Departments
Presentation to University Senate
February 11, 2013
Jim Oris
Process Coordinator
Associate Provost, Research and Scholarship
Dean of the Graduate School
[email protected]
Addressing Senate Resolution 08-09
Process Coordinator:
• Inform Senate of intent to transfer existing
departments and programs to new division.
• Evaluate issues related to transfer of Departments.
• Presentation to Senate on outcome of evaluations
and recommendations for action under Senate 08-09.
Page 22 of 76
Attachment E.
Page 21 of 29
SR 08-09: Transfer of Departments
• Departments slated for transfer
– Business Technology
– Computer and Information Technology
– Engineering Technology
– Nursing
Issues Related to Transfer of
Departments
• In order to make recommendations whether to transfer
departments to the new division, issues related to the
success of programs at the regional locations were
examined.
– External factors:
• Competitive profile of nearby regional campuses and 2-year colleges
• Changing nature of higher education in Ohio
• Meeting student needs and demands
– Internal factors:
• Organizational design
• Support structures and identity
Page 23 of 76
Attachment E.
Page 22 of 29
External Factors
ohiohighered.org
External Factors
– Competitive profile of nearby 2-year, on-line,
and non-degree offerings has expanded
rapidly.
– 35 other public or private community or
technical college locations in the CincinnatiDayton corridor.
Page 24 of 76
Attachment E.
Page 23 of 29
MU Regionals –
Comparison to Nearby Community Colleges/Technical Schools
Miami†
Sinclair†
Cinci State†
4-yr degrees
5
0
0
2-yr degrees
10
135
69
Certificates
1
134
41
Transfer Agreements
5
>100
27
-4.4%
+15%
+20%
Ohio resident
$233/cr
$140/cr
$142/cr
Non-resident
$593/cr
$266/cr
$284/cr
Cost per FTE
$9,565
$7,785
$7,618
Enrollment Trend*
† all
locations combined and averaged
enrollments fall 2012 relative to fall 2010
MU Institutional Research
Ohio Board of Regents
Cinci State, Sinclair CC
*total
Page 25 of 76
Attachment E.
Page 24 of 29
Miami University Graduation Rates
Oxford
MUH
MUM
Graduation Rate†
State Rank†
State Rank†
(150%)
(all OH publics)
(OH regionals)
81%
22%
20%
1
22
25
1
11
13
• Students at the Regionals are seeking 4-year degrees (87%)
<5% relocate to Oxford
If no 4-year degrees offered, students leave  low completion rates
• Changes in funding formula may affect OBOR allocation to Miami
University based on the combined Oxford-Regional completion rate.
• Completion rates should rise if Miami expands 4-year degree offerings on
the Regional Locations.
†Chronicle
of Higher Education - 2010 Data
External Factors
• Success of new division, its locations, and the
university as a whole will require an aggressive
expansion of 4-year degree offerings.
• The departments and programs offered at regional
locations are the foundations of this expansion.
Page 26 of 76
Attachment E.
Page 25 of 29
Internal Factors
©Miami University
©John Heyda
Internal Factors
Organizational Design –
•
Areas of responsibility of the regional locations prior to new division
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
•
Budget
Position control
Recruiting
Admissions
Administration
Faculty/staff workload allocations
Physical facility management
With the creation of the new division, departments with programs offered
at regional locations will be fully assigned to the new division.
Page 27 of 76
Attachment E.
Page 26 of 29
Internal Factors
• Accreditation
University/Division/Department accreditation (HLC):
1. Mission – mission statements aligned, diversity, commitment to broad public interests
2. Integrity – ethical policies, governing board, responsible conduct in research and teaching
3. Academic Programs: Quality, Resources & Support – general education, teaching
and learning support, faculty qualifications, productivity and roles
4. Academic Programs: Evaluation & Improvement – outcomes for all majors, fullcycle assessment, student persistence and retention
5. Resources & Planning – financial & strategic planning, effective leadership and
governance
http://www.ncahlc.org/Information-for-Institutions/criteria-and-core-components.html
Internal Factors
• Accreditation
Engineering Technology accreditation requirements (ABET-ETAC):
1. Students – quality, performance, policies and procedures
2. Program Educational Objectives – consistent w/ mission of university, students, ABET
3. Student Outcomes – ability to attain educational objectives
4. Continuous Improvement – program review and evaluation
5. Curriculum – specific for each engineering technology program
6. Faculty – expertise and experience
7. Facilities – adequate facilities to meet educational objectives
8. Institutional Support – adequate to ensure quality and continuity of the program
http://www.abet.org/DisplayTemplates/DocsHandbook.aspx?id=3150
Page 28 of 76
Attachment E.
Page 27 of 29
Internal Factors
• Accreditation
Nursing accreditation requirements (CCNE):
1.
2.
3.
4.
Mission and Governance
Institutional Commitment and Resources
Curriculum and Teaching-Learning Practices
Aggregate Student and Faculty Outcomes
• With the support of the Provost, Deans Dollár and Pratt
are working together to ensure accreditation and
institutional support needs are met for ENT & NSG.
http://www.aacn.nche.edu/ccne-accreditation/standards09.pdf
Internal Factors
• Support Structures
With input from Provost, deans, chairs, faculty and staff, support
structure needs have been identified.
•
•
•
•
•
Curriculum
Accreditation
Advising
Website
DARS and petitions
•
•
•
•
•
Grievance
Administrative evaluation
Relationship of regional campus to new division
Faculty identity and culture
Miami Plan courses
• Course evaluations
• Administrative functions and tenure home of dean and associate dean(s)
• Graduation Ceremony
• Program assessments
• Promotion & Tenure
• Coordinatorships
• Communication/education of faculty, staff, and community
• Reporting lines for department chairs
With the support of the Provost, Deans Gorman, Dollár and
Pratt will collaborate to develop plans to ensure these support
structures are in place if departments and programs are
transferred to the new division.
Page 29 of 76
Attachment E.
Page 28 of 29
Internal Factors
• Disciplinary Collaborations & Cultural Identity
Deans Dollár and Pratt will form a joint SEAS/Regional
committee of faculty and staff to ensure lines of collaboration
and sense of identity remain strong.
Internal Factors
•
•
•
•
•
Organizational Design
Accreditation
Support Structures
Disciplinary Collaborations
Department Cultural Identity
Internal issues related to the success of the departments if
moved to the new division will be managed through a
collaborative partnership between Oxford-based divisions and
the new division for the Regional Locations.
Page 30 of 76
Attachment E.
Page 29 of 29
Summary
With increasing student demand for four-year
degrees, changes in the OBOR funding formula,
and the need to maintain a competitive profile
at the Regional Locations, these four
departments will provide the foundation, and
are critical for the success, of the new division.
With the support of the Provost, the Deans will
collaborate to ensure support structures and
needed resources will be in place .
Recommendations to Senate
1. Departments with programs offered at the
regional locations, but are currently housed
in Oxford-based divisions (i.e., BTE, CIT, ENT,
NSG) will be transferred to the new division.
2. In addition to the degrees already offered,
these programs should be expected to
pursue an aggressive strategy and timeline
to develop additional competitive, 4-year
degrees.
Page 31 of 76
University Senate, February 25, 2013
Agenda Item 5.a.
UNDERGRADUATE and GRADUATE
Curriculum Changes
As of February 13, 2013 for the February 25, 2013 Meeting
New Courses:
ACC 458 Advanced Auditing Topics and Research (3)
This course will cover advanced auditing topics including risk assessment, internal control testing and the
situational and dispositional factors affecting auditor judgment and decision making. To examine these
topics students will read a mix of popular press articles, technical guidance from both the AICPA and
PCAOB, and academic journal articles. Recommended prerequisite: ACC 453.
Letter grade; Lecture
CIT 281 Enterprise Network Infrastructure (3)
Introduces the design and implementation of enterprise networks using industry-standard infrastructure
operating systems. Topics will include selection of routing protocols, router configuration, advanced
topics in network addressing, LAN switch configuration, VLAN configuration, inter-VLAN routing, port
security, and enterprise wireless design. Prerequisite: CIT 157.
CIT 284 Enterprise Server Installation and Configuration (3)
Covers the installation and configuration of industry-standard server solutions. Students will use virtual
machines, and explore virtual networking. Topics will include client and server operating system
selection, installation, management and troubleshooting; design and implementation of a directory
services model; user-creation and management; and implementation of a variety of server-based
applications and services. Prerequisite: CIT 157.
EGM/MGT 411/511 Leading and Managing Projects (3)
Addresses fundamental aspects of leading and managing complex projects including: organizational
leadership, strategic planning and project selection, project life cycle planning, estimating project
schedule and cost, planning, organizing, directing and monitoring resources, analyzing and managing
risk, team building and conflict management, assessing progress and performance, project audit and
closure, and related topics. Prerequisites: EGM/MGT 411: junior standing and STA 368 or STA 301 or
ECE 345 or ISA 205 or STA 261 or equivalent; EGM/MGT 511: graduate standing.
ENG 374 English Renaissance Drama (3)
Survey of drama from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; includes plays by Christopher Marlowe,
Ben Jonson, Thomas Middleton, Thomas Dekker, Francis Beaumont, John Fletcher, John Marston, John
Ford, and others.
Letter grade; Discussion
ESP 101 Entrepreneurship Foundations (1)
This sprint course will provide a hands-on approach to understanding entrepreneurship in start-up, social,
and corporate settings. The course will analyze and investigate the current trends and opportunities in
entrepreneurship. Students will meet with and learn from successful entrepreneurs about their lives and
Page 32 of 76
Agenda Item 5.a.
work as entrepreneurs. The course will focus on the skills and tactics necessary to succeed in various
entrepreneurial settings, and discuss how students can apply these skills to their personal and
professional passions and interests. By collaborating with like-minded peers and award winning faculty,
students will learn what it takes to turn "possibilities" into "probabilities".
Letter grade; Lecture, Discussion
ESP 102 Startup Bootcamp: Inception to Prototype (1)
This course immerses students in the methods and practices of starting a business. In a fast-paced
environment, for the duration of one weekend, students learn how to build companies, teams and insight.
Over the course of the weekend, students will present ideas, form teams, and create a business model
canvas. They will pitch their business concepts to real investors and practitioners, who will provide
mentorship, coaching and feedback. The course is designed to integrate decision making, critical
thinking, problem solving, and leadership skills in an environment similar to that of the startup business
world. The course will provide an understanding of the tools necessary to succeed in any business
venture.
Credit/no-credit ONLY; Lecture, Discussion
ISA 414 Managing Big Data (3)
This course provides an introduction to the storage, retrieval and analysis of unstructured and big data.
Topics include web analytics, text processing, text analytics such as sentiment analysis, and trend
detection in unstructured data. The course will cover and use frameworks that use distributed computing,
cloud-based systems for analyzing business information data that contain both structured and
unstructured data. Managing big data in organizations, and visualizing big data is introduced.
Prerequisites: ISA 245 and one of (ISA 404, ISA 491 or STA 402) or permission of instructor.
PHL 420/520 Seminar in Twentieth Century Philosophy (3)
Examination of one or more twentieth century philosophical figure (e.g., Heidegger, Wittgenstein,
Foucault) and/or study of key philosophical issues of the twentieth century (such as being, language,
power, action).
Letter grade; Lecture, Discussion, Seminar
PLW 101 – Exploring Careers in Law (1)
Explores the various areas of legal practice and helps students considering a career in the legal
profession develop an appreciation for the diversity of the legal field, the various career options available
upon graduation from law school, what is required to prepare for admission to law school, and the core
competencies required for law school success.
Credit/no-credit only; Lecture, Discussion, Recitation
Significant change to an existing course:
BOT/MBI/ZOO 333 (changes to BIO/MBI for 201410) Field Ecology (2)
Change in credit hours from 2 to 3
Rationale: We seek to increase credit hours from 2 to 3 to permit longer periods for classroom interaction
and particularly for lab/field exercises. With 1.5 credit hours of Lab we will have a longer lab period (160
minutes), which will enable us to be more comprehensive in the field exercises, adding some methods
that can't fit into shorter periods, as well as to engage the students more in the process of choosing and
Page 33 of 76
Agenda Item 5.a.
refining methods. With 1.5 credit hours of lecture, we will have a 75 minute enabling more thorough
discussions of content and concepts.
CIT 286 Network Administration and Security (3)
Change in learning outcomes and course description
Rationale: This course is part of the Networking concentration for an Associate in Applied Science, major
in Computer and Information Technology. That concentration is being updated and revised, including the
development of new courses which are new prerequisites to this course. This course is being revised as
part of that overall effort, and changes in name and course outcomes are needed due to redistribution of
topics between this and the prerequisite courses.
CLS 232 Great Discoveries of Archaeology (3)
Change course number to 300-level. New course number CLS 323.
Rationale: Change of course number from 200 to 300 and revised learning outcomes.
PHL 450/550 Seminar in Contemporary Philosophy (3)
Change in course description
th
Rationale: The current description for this course is focused on 20 century philosophy, which is no
th
longer contemporary. We will also be adding a course on 20 century philosophy to fill that curricular
need.
POL 355 Public Opinion and Political Behavior (3)
Change in title, learning outcomes and course description
Course description dates to previous faculty; this is an update to the course with more focus on public
opinion and its role in American politics.
Revisions to an existing Major:
BUS – MBA – Name change
The MBA Program Major of "Managing the Extended Enterprise" was developed and approved for the
accelerated full time MBA program that was launched in 2004. When the Professional MBA (part time
MBA @ VOALC) was launched in 2009 we were not allowed to create a separate program major, so the
existing name was maintained. In 2012 the full time MBA program was suspended, so there is currently
no connection to the existing program name and the program that we are offering. This creates confusion
among applicants and with employers.
CIT - Associate in Applied Science, Computer and Information Technology
Rationale: The last review and revision of the Associate Degree program was in 2007. The field of
Computer and Information Technology undergoes constant change due to advances and changes in
technology, and it is important for our programs to remain relevant. Examination of our current Associate
Degree majors shows low enrollment for one of our concentrations (IT Support) and extremely low
enrollment for another (Visual Media Technology). After review of the curriculums of those
concentrations, we believe that the coursework is technically outdated and not currently adequate to
prepare students for intended positions. Graduates hired for IT Support positions often have a wide
variety of technical degrees – we believe that either the Software Development and Support or
Networking concentration can currently provide a better foundation for students seeking positions in IT
Support, than does the IT Support concentration.
Page 34 of 76
Agenda Item 5.a.
CPE – Bioengineering
Rationale: To create a uniform first year curriculum for students enrolled in all four concentration areas
(Bioinformatics, Biomedical, Bioprocessing, Premed). With this change, the curriculum in the premed
concentration is now aligned with the one recommended in the newly created premed co-major. An
additional engineering course requirement in the premed concentration is added in order to comply with
ABET requirements for engineering credit hours. We have revised a CPE course to include additional
topics (CPE 219 is now 4 credit hours with enhanced prerequisites) which has eliminated the need for
several MME courses. A change in courses in the ECE department required a change in a required ECE
course in the biomed concentration. Since topics in MME 360 are being covered in CPE 417, the need
for the former is now unnecessary.
EDL - Instructional Design & Technology (M.Ed.)
Rationale: The reason for this revision is to help distinguish the difference between our MEd. program
and our MA program. The focus of our MEd. program is P12 education and will now include the
Educational Technology Coach Endorsement, a state endorsement for teachers with licensure. Changes
in this program will satisfy requirements for this state endorsement. This change will also help
differentiate the MEd. program in Educational Technology from the MA program in Instructional Design &
Technology.
EGR – General Engineering
Rationale: The General Engineering major leads to a Bachelor of Science in Engineering degree, and can
currently be completed by taking only 31 hours within the School of Engineering and Applied Science
(SEAS) and does not require a SEAS capstone project. The other majors in the School of Engineering
and Applied Science that lead to a Bachelor of Science in Engineering degree require a minimum of 48
hours within SEAS and require a SEAS capstone project. This inconsistency within the same degree is
unusual and undesirable, and has resulted in General Engineering graduates needing to take postgraduation coursework to "fill in the gaps" in their education. The revisions detailed below strengthen the
credentials of graduates with majors in General Engineering and will generate better consistency among
the requirements of the majors that terminate in the Bachelor of Science in Engineering degree. With this
change, General Engineering majors will now be required to take a minimum of 38 hours of SEAS
courses.
Revisions to an existing Minor:
BUS- Business Analytics
Rationale: When the DSC Minor was merged into the Business Analytics Minor as the Qualitative
Methods Track, the new track required one less class that the other two tracks. This change is to bring
the new track in line with the other two in number of credit hours. We feel this strengthens the
Quantitative Methods Track as well as reduces confusion caused by the unequal number of hours in the
tracks. We have developed a new course ISA 414 Managing Big Data and would like to add that course
as an elective in the Business Analytics Minor
Page 35 of 76
Agenda Item 5.b.
Minutes, February 18, 2013
Discussions
1. MUPIM 12.5 Evaluations of Administrators – Jim Kiper to follow up.
2. Understanding the process in Executive Committee’s role when delivering a charge to Senate
Committees.
3. Review of Academic Policy Committee, February 1, and February 15, Minutes
a. Proposed Policy Changes
i. Undergraduate taking graduate courses - Item for 2/25/2013, Consent
Calendar.
ii. Courses offered in one division and carrying departmental prefixes (or subject
codes) in another division – Item for 2/25/2013, Consent Calendar.
iii. Student Handbook – winter term language - must be reviewed by COAD.
iv. Dual Enrollment - must be reviewed by COAD.
4. Revised Charge to the Governance Committee.
5. Faculty Welfare Committee informed Executive Committee that it has received data it had
requested to compile a report; however, the report may not be completed this academic year.
6. Committee Membership.
a. International Education – Senate Liaison and MUDEC representative. Noted vacancy on
Senate yet to be filled; Committee chair has been emailed regarding MUDEC and
student representatives.
b. Confirmed: Academic Policy Committee – Graduate Student, Megan Peters.
c. Academic Program Review – the Committee will not meet spring 2013; therefore, it is
not necessary to replace vacancies that have occurred on this Committee.
d. Senate Committee Nominations, 2013-2014 academic year – Marcia to set meeting
date.
7. Special Reports
a. February 25, 2013, Senate
i. Accreditation Update – Carolyn Haynes, Interim Associate Provost.
ii. Degree Audit Report and u.Direct - Dave Sauter, Carol Jones, Becky Sander.
iii. Miami 2020 Plan – Metrics – Phyllis Callahan and Jim Kiper.
b. Possible Reports during Spring Semester
i. Regional Campus Implementation Committee – Jim Oris.
ii. Oxford Pathway Program.
iii. Benefits Committee – Chair and Director of Benefits have been asked if they will
have a report.
iv. Partnership Plans with Columbus State and Sinclair.
Page 36 of 76
Agenda Item 5.b.
v. Task Force for the Prevention of Sexual Assault.
1. March 4
2. Presenters: Kenya Ash, Rebecca Baudry (Director of Student Wellness),
and Sally Lloyd (Professor EDL/WGS – Co-chair, EDT).
vi. Restructuring of International Education – Cheryl Young.
1. Request March 18
vii. e-Learning – Carine Feyten and Cheryl Young.
1. Request April 1 or April 8
viii. Miami Plan Restructuring Update – John Tassoni.
1. Request April 22
ix. Fiscal Priorities and Budget Planning – Rebecca Luzadis.
1. Request April 22 request 45 minutes.
8. Proposed Revisions to SR 08-09, Guide for the Consolidation, Partition, Transfer, or Elimination
of Academic Divisions, Departments, or Programs – to be reviewed at the next Executive
Committee meeting – Invite John Weigand and Jim Oris.
Executive Committee set the agenda for the February 25, 2013, meeting.
o Special Reports
 Accreditation – Carolyn Haynes (From February 11 meeting)
 Degree Audit and u.direct – Dave Sauter, Carol Jones, Becky Sander.
 Miami 2020 Metrics – Phyllis Callahan and Jim Kiper
o New Business
 MUPIM – 12.5 All-University Evaluation of Administrators (From February 11 meeting)
o Consent Calendar
 Undergraduate taking graduate courses - Item for 2/25/2013, Consent Calendar.
 Courses offered in one division and carrying departmental prefixes (or subject codes) in
another division – Item for 2/25/2013, Consent Calendar.
Page 37 of 76
Agenda Item 5.c.
Academic Policy Committee - Meeting on 11/30/12, 9:00 am – 10:00 am
Attending: James Kelly (Chair), Bryan Ashenbaum, Carolyn Haynes, Joshua Kiger, Nick Miller, Brenda
Mitchell, Valerie Robinson, David Sauter
THE FOLLOWING PROPOSALS WERE APPROVED BY APC 11/30/12:
A. Issue 1: Proposed Policy Change for Adding and Dropping a Course
1.2.C.1 Changes of Registration. Courses may be changed only in the prescribed time stated in the
University academic calendar. Forms for reporting such changes may be obtained from the Oxford Office
of the Registrar, Regional/Campus Records and Registration Offices, VOALC Student Services Office, or
online at http://www.units.muohio.edu/reg/forms/index.php. No change is official until the change-ofschedule form or registration transaction is received by those offices.
Adding a Course. In the academic year, no student may enter a course (class or laboratory) after the close
of the first week of instruction. The instructor may make exceptions with the approval of the department
chair. Any instructor may refuse to accept a student after the opening of any course if, in his or her
judgment, too much subject matter has already been covered.
Dropping a Course. Dropping a course is a formal administrative procedure; merely ceasing to attend
class is not the same as dropping a course. Before dropping a course, a student should consult with his or
her instructor and academic adviser. A student may drop a course during the first 20 percent of the course,
in which case no grade or other designation will appear on the student’s official record. Students should
refer to the Academic Calendar on the Office of the Registrar website
(http://www.units.muohio.edu/reg/calendars/) for specific academic deadline dates. Students are strongly
encouraged to contact their lenders and insurance agents to determine continued eligibility for loan
deferments and insurance coverage before taking an action that will change their enrollment status to less
than full time.
Proposed Changes to Policy
Below are our recommended revised policies for adding and dropping a course so that they are better
aligned with the faculty recommendations regarding the timing of dropping and adding courses and the
new calendar changes.
Adding a Course. Students may add, without a signature of acknowledgement from the instructor,
courses that have open seats during the first two full-term days of the fall, winter, spring and summer
terms or the first two days of any sprint part of term. Following these first two full-term days of the term,
the instructor may approve a student to add the course. An instructor may also refuse to accept a student
after these first two full-term days of any course if, in his or her judgment, too much subject matter has
already been covered.
Page 38 of 76
Agenda Item 5.c.
(The following has been approved in principle with the recognition that changes may be and made
and considered at the next APC meeting.)
Dropping a Course. During the first two full-term days of the fall, winter, spring and summer terms of
the course, or the first two days of any sprint part of term the instructor will not be notified of a student
dropping the course. After Following these first two-full-term days of the course, the instructor will
receive electronic notification of the student dropping the course. Before dropping a course, a student is
encouraged to consult with his or her instructor. Students are also strongly encouraged to contact their
lenders and insurance agents to determine continued eligibility for loan deferments and insurance
coverage before taking an action that will change their enrollment status to less than full time or a lesser
increment of part-time. Dropping a course is a formal administrative procedure; merely ceasing to attend
class is not the same as dropping a course. A student may drop a course after the first week of the class up
to the first 20 percent of the course, in which case no grade or other designation will appear on the
student’s official record. Students should refer to the Academic Calendar
(http://www.units.muohio.edu/reg/calendars/) for specific academic deadline dates
B. Issue 2: Proposed Revisions to Student Handbook 2013-14 --- Winter
Term Addition Ramifications
CHAPTER 1. ADMISSION
1.1.B.1 Open Admission. The regional campuses have an open admission policy for first-time college
students. Open admission is granted to individuals who have earned a high school diploma from a
secondary program accredited by state departments of education or are recipients of the General
Education Diploma (GED) of High School Equivalency. Alternatively educated students who have not
earned the GED can demonstrate equivalent levels of academic achievement by submitting a description
of the curriculum and educational resources used over the last four years and information necessary to
assess the academic achievement and ability of the applicant. Admission is for fall or spring terms;
however, students have the option of early enrollment to the preceding summer or winter term.
**
1.1.B.2 Selective Admission. Miami’s Oxford campus typically receives more applications for admission
than its state-established enrollment limitation can accommodate. Therefore, admission to the Oxford
campus is selective. The review process is individualized and holistic. Admission is based on academic
performance (strength of curriculum, class rank, and grade point average), test scores (ACT and/or SAT),
secondary school experience and community activities, personal essay, and recommendations of the high
school. In making admission decisions, Miami also considers the diversity of the student body and
applicants’ special abilities, talents, and achievements. Miami believes that the diversity of the student
body enhances the quality of the education students receive. Therefore, diversity may include
socioeconomic factors, under-enrolled minority group membership, career interest, artistic ability,
geographical background, and other special characteristics of the population. Admission is for fall or
spring terms; however, students have the option of early enrollment to the preceding summer or winter
term.
**
English proficiency.
Page 39 of 76
Agenda Item 5.c.
A student who is admitted through the American Culture and English (ACE) Program is conditionally
admitted to Miami University. For a student’s status to be changed from conditional admission to regular
enrollment, the student must complete the ACE core curriculum with a B- or higher in each of the
required English language classes (currently ACE 199A and ACE 199B) and with a passing grade (D- or
higher) in AMS/ACE 205. If a student does not achieve a grade of B- or higher in both ACE 199A and
ACE 199B or fails AMS/ACE 205 in the first term, the student’s enrollment status will remain
conditional, and the student will be required to retake the pertinent course(s) during the second term,
excluding winter term. If the student does not earn a grade of B- or higher in ACE 199A and ACE 199B
and does not pass AMS/ACE 205 at the conclusion of second term, that student has not met the
requirements of conditional admission and will not be allowed further enrollment at any Miami
University campus.
Undergraduate international students, like all Miami undergraduates, must satisfy the freshman English
requirement. If accepted, the student may be required to take a Department of English placement
examination before registering for classes. Students will be placed in the appropriate English courses
based on test scores or other English proof of proficiency received at the time of admission. Consult the
Miami Bulletin-General Edition.
**
1.1.C Transfer Students If the average is 2.50 or higher, the student is eligible for admission
consideration.
Acceptance of qualified transfer students will depend on the availability of facilities. Transfer credit for
new transfer students will be posted to fall or spring terms. Admission is for fall or spring terms; however,
students have the option of early enrollment to the preceding summer or winter term.
1.1.E Re-enrollment of Former Students
Former students may apply online (http://www.units.muohio.edu/reg/) for re-enrollment at the University
for any term. Applications should be submitted at least one month prior to the beginning of the term.
Once re-enrolled, students register for courses online through BannerWeb. Registration must be
completed by the end of the first week of classes of the re-enrollment term.
THE FOLLOWING PROPOSAL WAS APPROVED BY APC 11/30/12: PENDING FINAL
RECOMMENDATION BY REGISTRAR
Fresh Start. The Fresh Start Policy is designed to help Miami University students return to good
academic standing after an absence of at least two calendar years. Students who have been academically
suspended or dismissed are eligible for Fresh Start for fall or spring terms. Other students who left the
University without being suspended or dismissed and who have a cumulative GPA below 2.0 may
petition their divisional committee of advisers for Fresh Start after a two-year absence if they believe their
past academic record suffered due to extenuating circumstances.
THE FOLLOWING PROPOSAL WAS APPROVED BY APC 11/30/12: PENDING FINAL
RECOMMENDATION BY SHS
Page 40 of 76
Agenda Item 5.c.
1.1.G
Physical Examinations and Immunizations
Miami University requires that all entering students must meet the following requirements (exemptions
from these requirements will be considered for certain medical conditions and documented religious
convictions; requests for exemptions should be submitted in writing to the Medical Director of the
Student Health Service). Failure to meet the requirements will result in students being prevented from
registering for classes.
All students who are accepted for entrance into the University are required to submit a completed medical
history to the Medical Director of the Student Health Service before final enrollment can be approved.
Non-immigrant foreign students are required to submit a medical report on the medical questionnaire for
foreign students. This shall not be a requirement for admission to summer school or a regional campus,
except in the nursing program. Failure to comply with the above requirements will result in cancellation
of registration for the next term of student registration.
THE FOLLOWING PROPOSALS WERE APPROVED BY APC 11/30/12:
CHAPTER 2. REGISTRATION
1.2.A Credit Hour Loads
A full-time undergraduate student must be actively enrolled for at least 12 credit hours of academic work
in a term and shall be subject to all the rules, regulations, and fees governing regular Miami University
students. Effective fall 2011, A full-time graduate student must be actively enrolled for at least 9 credit
hours of academic work in a term. Students are strongly encouraged to contact their lenders and insurance
agents to determine continued eligibility for loan deferments and insurance coverage before taking an
action that will change their enrollment status to less than full time.
A part-time undergraduate student, i.e., carrying fewer than 6 credit hours in winter term or 12 credit
hours in fall, spring, or summer term, must be a resident of Oxford or must commute from his or her
home
The maximum credit-hour limit for an undergraduate student is based upon courses taken at all
locations of Miami University and is limited to 20 credit hours in a fall or spring term; The limit for all
summer terms combined is 16 credit hours or 1.3 credit hours per week for overlapping summer classes
sessions. The limit for the winter term is 6 credit hours. A student who needs to exceed the maximum
credit-hour limits must obtain permission from the dean of his or her division.
1.2.D.1 Official Withdrawal.
Kriss Cassano will need to check on medical withdrawal and tuition credit verbiage
Officially withdrawing from the University is a formal administrative procedure; merely ceasing to attend
classes will not be considered an official withdrawal from the University. A student withdrawing from the
University is expected to file a withdrawal form in the Oxford Office of the Registrar or Regional Records
and Registration Office. The withdrawal form must be signed by the student’s divisional adviser or the
proper University official as indicated on the withdrawal form. An international student on a nonimmigrant student visa must also obtain the signature of the International Student Adviser on the
withdrawal form. The withdrawal deadline is 5:00 p.m. on the last Friday of the term’s classes preceding
Page 41 of 76
Agenda Item 5.c.
final exam week. As winter and summer terms do not have final exam week, the deadline is 5:00 p.m. of
the last day of the class. Official withdrawals are noted on a student’s academic record (transcript).
Refunds follow University policy, available via the Office of the Bursar website at
http://www.units.muohio.edu/bur/.
Students should refer to the Academic Calendar on the Office of the Registrar website
(http://www.units.muohio.edu/reg/calendars/) for specific academic deadline dates. Students considering
withdrawal from the University are strongly encouraged to contact their lenders and insurance agents to
determine continued eligibility for loan deferments and insurance coverage.
a. If a student officially withdraws during the first 20 percent of any term, accelerated course or summer
term, no grades will be recorded excluding sprint courses completed or not yet begun prior to the date
of withdrawal from the University. Courses in which a final grade has been assigned remain on the
academic record.
b. If a student officially withdraws from the University at any point after 20 percent and through the last
class day of a term, accelerated course or summer term, the Office of the Registrar shall assign a grade
of W in each course for which the student is registered, excluding accelerated sprint courses
completed or not yet begun prior to the date of withdrawal from the University. Courses in which a
final grade has been assigned remain on the academic record.
c. If a student officially withdraws from the University after 60 percent of a term excluding winter term,
accelerated course or summer term, and if the student wishes to re-enroll, the student must submit a
petition for re-enrollment to the Interdivisional Committee of Advisers. The petition must include a
description of the extenuating circumstances (extraordinary circumstances usually beyond the
student’s control) that form the grounds of the petition.
d. If a student obtains a medical withdrawal certified by the Medical Director of the Student Health
Service or Director of the Student Counseling Service, the student will be allowed to withdraw from
the University without grades (see Part 4, Voluntary Medical Withdrawal). If a student obtains a
military withdrawal, the provisions of Section 1.2.E apply.
**
For Bursar consideration of all refunding for winter.
Refund Policies
Instructional Fee, General Fee, Out-of-State Tuition, Miami Metro, Off-Campus Information Services
Fee, and Residence Hall Fee: If the withdrawal occurs during the term and if the fees have been paid, a
100 percent refund will be given. If fees have not been paid or if other miscellaneous charges have not
been paid, the amount of the refund will be reduced by the amount outstanding.
Meal Plan Fees: If the withdrawal occurs during the term and if the fees have been paid, a prorated refund
will be given. Proration is calculated on a daily basis for the period after the effective withdrawal date. If
fees have not been paid or if other miscellaneous charges have not been paid, the amount of the refund
will be reduced by the amount outstanding.
Notes. It is the student’s responsibility to initiate the withdrawal at the Office of the Registrar and to
provide documentation of the call to active duty in the armed services. The effective date of withdrawal
will be the date the student submits the withdrawal form to the Office of the Registrar. The University
may be required to provide any refunds to a funding agent other than the student, such as student financial
aid programs. Grades will be recorded in accordance with the current academic policy or deadlines (W
grades). A notation of official withdrawal will be recorded on the student’s academic record. Under
certain conditions a student may receive credit for courses being taken at the time of his or her withdrawal
Page 42 of 76
Agenda Item 5.c.
if 80 percent of the term has elapsed. Students interested in this provision should consult the Office of the
Registrar.
The concept for a refund policy involving students called to active duty in the armed forces was presented
to the Board of Trustees in September of 1990; the document can be reviewed by contacting the Office of
the President.
**
Removal of Incompletes (grades of I, IG, IGY, IU, and IUY). Until removed, a grade of I will remain
as an I and be calculated as an F. A change of an incomplete grade requires only the instructor’s signature.
Grades of IG, IGY, IU, and IUY will not be calculated in grade point averages. Incompletes not removed
by either of the following options will be changed to an F on the last day of classes of the following term,
excluding winter or summer terns for undergraduate courses. Options for removal of I, IG, IGY, IU, and
IUY are as follows:
Incomplete grades may be removed by completing the course requirements. This must be done by the last
day of classes of the next term, excluding winter or summer terms for undergraduate courses. Incomplete
grades may be removed during periods of non-enrollment including academic suspension and dismissal
(see Restrictions for Students under Academic Suspension or Dismissal). Incomplete grades may not be
removed during periods of non-academic suspension or non-academic dismissal.
**
Academic Action and Incomplete Grades. When there has been no instructor grade change by the last
class day of the term following the assignment of the incomplete, the incomplete grade is administratively
changed to the grade of F and calculates in both the term and cumulative grade point average. Winter and
summer terms are is excluded for undergraduate students.
**
1.10.D Application Fee and Filing Deadlines for Graduation
Applications for Graduation.
Students may graduate following all four academic terms. Associate, baccalaureate, and graduate degreeseeking students are strongly encouraged to submit an online application the term prior to the one in
which they plan to graduate in order that graduation requirements can be checked by the Office of the
Registrar and the appropriate division. By filing the applications early, students will be notified of any
problems so appropriate corrective action can be taken. Department and divisional requirements should be
checked by the student in conjunction with his or her academic adviser. An application fee for graduation
for those receiving an associate, baccalaureate, master’s, specialist, or doctorate degree must be paid
regardless of attendance at commencement exercises. Paid applications must be received no later than 30
working days prior to commencement to be included in publications. In the event a student does not meet
requirements and is deleted from the graduation list, a new application fee must be submitted to be
considered for a future graduation date commencement.
Deadlines published in the academic calendar should be observed for the filing of graduation applications.
END WINTER TERM COMMITTEE TOPIC REVIEW
Page 43 of 76
Agenda Item 5.c.
Attending: James Kelly (Chair), Bryan Ashenbaum, Nazan Buutista, Carolyn Haynes, Joshua Kiger, Nick
Miller, Brenda Mitchell, Valerie Robinson, David Sauter
THE FOLLOWING PROPOSALS (A-C) WERE APPROVED BY APC:
A. DIGITAL EVALUATION IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS, 12/05/12
1. Evaluation “resets.”
Background.
There have been cases where, after completing an evaluation, students have requested that their evaluation
be "reset." Almost always, this request has been linked to the claim that they had misread (reversed) the
evaluation scale, and thus inappropriately penalized a faculty member.
Recommendation.
The ad hoc committee’s recommendation is to not allow “resets.” However, if the technology
allows, students will be allowed to withdraw their evaluation.
Rationale.
The reset option is not currently available with paper. Moreover, student motivation for requesting a reset
can never be determined. The committee believes that the proposed solution will (i) allow errors to be
eliminated by omission, but (ii) prevent students from changing their minds for undetermined reasons
after submitting an initial evaluation.
2. Full implementation.
Background.
In fall 2012, COAD voted to require full implementation – every department, course and faculty member
– no later than fall semester 2013.
Recommendation.
The committee defers to COAD.
Rationale.
Fall 2013 has been the expected full implementation date since the start of the project. Paper evaluations
have a large fixed cost component, so much of the saving associated with the switch to digital is realized
only after the complete transition away from paper.
3. Plans for spring semester, 2013 (to be adopted for spring, 2013).
Background.
Many of the problems encountered in the pilot thus far have been related to inaccurate or incomplete CRN
submissions from departments.
Recommendation.
Page 44 of 76
Agenda Item 5.c.
The committee recommends that departments be required to “opt out” rather than “opt in” for
spring 2013. Thus, every eligible course would be evaluated digitally unless an explicit exemption
was requested by a department for some/all courses.
Rationale.
Courses inadvertently excluded from the digital system create much more of a problem than courses
inadvertently included; these latter courses can still be evaluated using paper, and students can be
instructed to ignore the digital evaluation (in fact, the students enrolled in the course, and perhaps the
course itself, can be deleted from the digital platform). The opt-out rule would also serve as a clarion call
to campus that full implementation will occur in fall 2013. All eligible MU CRNs would be included in
the system for spring 2013, unless departments submit by a specific (and well communicated) date the
CRNs of courses (in a common template) that are not to be digitally evaluated.
4. Minimum class size.
Background.
The former committee on online course evaluations routinely excluded courses of fewer than five students
and Individual Studies experiences from the digital evaluation process because of potential anonymity
concerns. MUPIM 7.2.C. currently requires:
All faculty are required to have all classes* evaluated by students in some formal manner that is
appropriate to the specific type of course.
*Independent studies and other such courses, as well as classes with enrollments of fewer than five (5),
are generally exempt.
Recommendation.
The committee endorses the current practices of not evaluating:
(i) Individual Studies experiences (which are often quite different from typical courses, and
usually small enough to be evaluated "interactively") and
(ii) Any course with fewer than 5 students.
Rationale.
Mostly, this is an issue of confidentiality, especially with uncertain response rates.
5. Number of, and redundancy in, evaluation questions.
Background.
The university has adopted six common questions. Some divisions and departments currently have forms
with over thirty questions. Most students will have at least 5 evaluations to complete in a two week
period, often outside of class. The (unfinished) evaluations within the digital evaluation platform are
presented to students in alphabetical order. The CELTUA committee studied this issue in spring 2012
and recommended that division, departments and instructors be limited to no more than 5 questions each.
Note: Questions related to other course attributes (e.g. honors, Miami Plan, top-25, etc.) raise similar
issues/concerns.
Recommendation.
The committee recommends that divisions, departments and instructors be considerate of the issues
raised by long course evaluations; at each level, there should be a target of 5-7 evaluation questions.
In addition, divisions, departments and instructors are urged to carefully review their respective
questions for redundancy across levels.
Rationale.
Page 45 of 76
Agenda Item 5.c.
The committee strongly supports the CELTUA committee's desire to limit questions and eliminate
redundancy. The committee cannot, however, precisely measure the point at which the marginal benefit
of additional information drops below the marginal cost of lower and poorer responses that may occur due
to “longer” evaluations. Thus, the committee trusts our colleagues to make this determination on a case
by case basis, in light of the concerns expressed here. Certainly, at a minimum, all redundant questions
should be identified and eliminated.
6. Order of questions on the evaluation form (to be adopted for spring, 2013).
Background.
Currently, the evaluation questions appear to students in the following order: university, divisional,
departmental, instructor. This order was determined by the platform, and not a preference expressed by
the university.
Recommendation.
The committee recommends that the evaluation questions appear in the following order:
departmental questions, divisional questions, university questions, instructor questions.
Rationale.
An argument can be made that the most important use of course evaluation data is at the departmental
level. Moreover, with digital evaluations, students may be completing multiple evaluations in a single
sitting, outside of the context of a classroom. Thus, having the first few questions linked to the
department/subject may provide useful context.
7. Number of evaluation sessions.
Background.
Much of the cost associated with digital evaluations is related to setting up and executing an evaluation
session.
Recommendation.
The committee recommends that two evaluation periods be used in the fall, spring and summer
terms, and one evaluation period in the winter term.
Rationale.
Under the new calendar, there will be only three official end dates for courses (corresponding to the end
of, respectively, first-half sprints, eight-week sprints, and full term courses). Over 95% of all courses are
expected to end with either first half sprints or at the end of term. Courses that end with eight week
sprints can be evaluated early (with “session 1” courses), or after final grades have been determined (with
“session 2” courses). The (relatively) small number of courses for which this creates a problem could, for
example, choose to evaluate the course though a Qualtrics survey.
8. Evaluation timing.
Background.
In the fall 2011 pilot, the evaluation period for the end of term included the last week of class and finals
week. In spring 2012, the end of term evaluation period excluded finals week, and ran over the last two
weeks of class; the latter schedule was retained for fall 2012. In faculty surveys, contrasting strong
feelings were expressed about whether the evaluation period should include finals week. On one hand,
final exams are “part of the class,” as, in a sense, are final grades. On the other hand, student reactions to
final exams or grades might temporarily distort their overall view of a course or instructor.
Page 46 of 76
Agenda Item 5.c.
Recommendation.
The committee endorses the current practice of closing the course evaluation response period
before the start of finals.
Rationale.
This issue reminds the committee that, ideally, digitally course evaluations would allow faculty the
flexibility to set their own evaluation period (within certain parameters). The committee will continue to
push CollegeNet for greater individual customization. In the meantime, no university-wide course
evaluation platform that we know about offers this kind of functionality.
B. DROP/ADD PROPOSAL
C. 1.2.C REGISTRATION PROCEDURES
PROPOSED CHANGES TO POLICY
Below are our recommended revised policies for adding and dropping a course so that they are better
aligned with the faculty recommendations regarding the timing of dropping and adding courses and the
new calendar changes.
Adding a Course. Students may add, without a signature of acknowledgement from the instructor,
courses that have open seats during the first two full-term days of the fall, winter, spring and summer
terms or the first two days of any sprint part of term. Following these first two full-term days of the term,
the instructor may approve a student to add the course. An instructor may also refuse to accept a student
after these first two full-term days of any course if, in his or her judgment, too much subject matter has
already been covered.
Dropping a Course. Prior to the start of the term or sprint course through the first two full-term days of
the fall, winter, spring and summer terms of the course, or the first two days of any sprint part of term
students may use the on-line process to drop a course. Instructors should verify course enrollments during
this period via the online course roster. The instructor will not be notified of a student dropping the
course. After Following these first two-full-term days of the course, the student will must contact the
instructor about dropping the course.(DELETE THIS NEXT SENTENCE-the instructor will receive
electronic notification of the student wishing to dropping the course.) The instructor will drop the student
using the drop icon on the on-line photo roster drop icon on the photo roster located in myMiami, and the
student and instructor will be notified via email once the drop is processed. Before dropping a course, a
student is encouraged to consult with his or her instructor. Students are also strongly encouraged to
contact their lenders and insurance agents to determine continued eligibility for loan deferments and
insurance coverage before taking an action that will change their enrollment status to less than full time or
a lesser increment of part-time.
***
PROPOSAL – Repeated from above, Clean Version
Dropping a Course. Prior to the start of the term or sprint course through the first two full-term days of
the fall, winter, spring and summer terms or the first two days of any sprint part of term students may use
the on-line process to drop a course. Instructors should verify course enrollments during this period via
the online course roster. Following these first two days, the student must contact the instructor about
dropping the course. The instructor will drop the student using the drop icon on the on-line photo roster,
and the student and instructor will be notified via email once the drop is processed. Before dropping a
Page 47 of 76
Agenda Item 5.c.
course, a student is encouraged to consult with his or her instructor. Students are also strongly encouraged
to contact their lenders and insurance agents to determine continued eligibility for loan deferments and
insurance coverage before taking an action that will change their enrollment status to less than full time or
a lesser increment of part-time.
Rationale for changes: Faculty members teaching one-day a week courses may assign group work for
the second class meeting and need to be aware as early as possible if a student assigned to a group has
dropped. Given the ability of the online roster to reflect changes nearly as they occur, instructors can
become aware of changes in a timely fashion. Also, faculty members at times reach out to students prior
to the first class and knowing that a student has dropped may avoid confusion; again the online roster can
be used by instructors to become aware of changes prior to the start of classes.
C. PROPOSED POLICY CHANGE (APPROVED BY EMAIL ON 2/6 /2013)
Student Handbook
1.1.F.2 Intra-Campus Relocation
Regional Campus Students may take course work at Hamilton, Middletown, and Voice of
America Learning Center to begin a bachelor’s degree in most majors. Specific four-year bachelor
degrees offered only on the regional campuses can be completed in NSG, ENT, or BIS on the
regional campuses. Students seeking to complete other Miami bachelor’s degrees may apply to
relocate to the Oxford Campus with at least a 2.00 cumulative grade point average, an acceptable
conduct record, and after earning at least 20 16 hours of Miami University college-level course
work (not including developmental 00_classes, CLEP, AP and PSEOP credit). Regional campus
students must complete the relocation form and contact the regional campus advising office. These
requirements will be verified as of the start of the approved relocation term by the Regional
Registrar and Regional Advising Office. Students wishing to relocate to the Oxford Campus with
exceptions to these requirements must contact the Oxford Campus divisional office in consultation
with the student’s regional campus advising office.
Miami Bulletin
A beginning freshman or transfer student admitted to a regional campus may apply to relocate
(take the majority of credit hours in Oxford) as a matriculated Miami University student on the
Oxford Campus after earning with at least 20 16 hours of earned Miami University college-level
course work (not including developmental 00_classes, CLEP, AP and PSEOP credit), at least a
2.00 cumulative grade point average, and an acceptable conduct record. These requirements will
be verified as of the start of the approved relocation term. Students wishing to relocate to the
Oxford Campus with exceptions to these requirements must contact the Oxford Campus divisional
office.
This change is advisable for these reasons:
1) Regional campus students would be encouraged to relocate to the Oxford campus earlier, thus
hopefully increasing the numbers of relocation students on the Oxford campus, the diversity of the
Oxford student body, and the revenues generated for the institution.
2) Because a recommended course load for the fall or spring term is sixteen credits, full-time regional
students with good academic records would have the opportunity to move to the Oxford campus
after one term, thus increasing their ability to complete their degree in a timely manner.
D. APC CONSIDERED THE DUAL ENROLLMENT POLICY PROPOSAL
We will return to this issue at the next APC meeting.
Page 48 of 76
Agenda Item 5.c.
Attending: James Kelly (Chair), Nazan Buutista, Marianne Cotugno, Diane Delisio, Carolyn Haynes,
Brenda Mitchell, Megan Peters, Valerie Robinson
Academic Policy Committee approved the following proposals (sent to Executive Committee under
separate cover):
1. Dual Enrollment PSEO Proposal
With regard to the Dual Enrollment Policy Proposal, the only sections that raised concerns were the
admission requirements for entrance into the Dual Enrollment PSEO program. The state, at least at one
point, stated:
“College admission requirements
(R.C. 3365.03(B))
Under current law, the decision whether to admit a student to a college course under PSEO is left to the
discretion of the participating higher education institution.
The bill retains that discretion but it also prohibits an institution from imposing on PSEO students
entrance requirements that are more stringent than those imposed on other entering first-year
undergraduate students. It also specifies that an institution may not require a PSEO student to complete
the entire Ohio Core high school curriculum as a prerequisite to enrolling in a college course.
Nevertheless, the institution may require completion of a particular high school course as a prerequisite
for a particular college course, if the institution determines that completion of the high school course is
necessary for successful completion of the college course.”
Academic Policy Committee takes it that the intention behind the program is to provide worthy students
the opportunity to participate and that the interpretation of ‘worthy’ not be overly restrictive.
One version of the proposal considered was that there be different entrance requirements for the Oxford
and Regional campus. For the Regional campus the operative requirements, given this version of the
proposal, would be: students must have a minimum cumulative GPA of 3.25 on a 4.0 scale and must place
"college ready" in at least two out of three areas (one being reading) of the COMPASS English, Math and
Reading assessment program. College ready math placement is defined at MTH 125—pre calculus or
higher. (Optional: If a student has taken the ACT or SAT test and scores at or above a 21 ACT composite
or 1000 SAT (critical reading/math) only the math portion of the COMPASS assessment will be
required.) This pertains only to requirements for dual enrollment students.
Another suggestion was that all campuses have the same entrance requirements, namely, those suggested
for the Oxford campus. The operative requirements for admission to the Oxford campus are: students
Page 49 of 76
Agenda Item 5.c.
must have a cumulative GPA of at least 3.5 on a 4.0 scale and a minimum composite ACT score of 24 or
a minimum Sat score (CR + Math) of 1090.1
Since the proposal (both versions) states with regard to course qualifications: “Dual enrollment options
must follow the same college content, pace, rigor, and pre-requisites (syllabi, assessment and textbooks)
as the courses taught to traditional Miami students,” it appears that students who meet the minimum
standards for admission at any campus are deemed capable of successful completion of the course work
on any campus of Miami University. The figures below indicate that this is accurate. Since an important
goal of the program is to provide increased opportunity for worthy high school students to take and
receive credit for college level work, the Committee concludes that it makes sense that “worthy” not be
interpreted so as to prevent capable students from having the opportunity to participate in the program.
Of the 437 regionally enrolled students:
291 of them would not have met the ACT comp = 24 requirement (most having not taken the test
yet)
97 of the 437 had less than a 3.5 GPA
(76 students did not meet either criteria)
(215 students met the GPA requirement but not the ACT requirement)
(21 students met the ACT requirement but not the GPA requirement)
Of the 437 PSEO students enrolled at the two regional campuses, 425 of them completed their college
coursework and are eligible to re-enroll. If the more stringent requirements were put into place, 312 of
these students would NOT have been eligible.
The Committee concluded that it seems reasonable that high school students, who have a cumulative GPA
of 3.25 and meet the other requirements for participating in this program on the Regional campus, are
capable of successfully completing course work at Miami University. These students are worthy of being
given the opportunity to participate in this program.
Academic Policy Committee therefore recommends that all students applying for admission into this
program on any Miami University campus need only meet the Requirements suggested by the Regional
campus. All high school student applications for this program will be sent to the Regional Admission
Office. If there are overriding reasons for having different requirements for participation in this program
on the Oxford campus, we recommend that those requirements not apply to students seeking to participate
on the Regional campus.
2. Proposed Changes to Student Handbook
1.3.D
Scholastic Regulations
The most significant aspect of this proposal maintains that winter term is excluded both as a term on
which suspension can be applied and as a term to satisfy suspension. This is deemed most favorable to
students.
1
For specific course placement, students who meet all other admission criteria may be admitted
with less than the required ACT composite or SAT combined if an individual sub-score predicts
successful achievement for the specific course.
Page 50 of 76
Agenda Item 5.c.
3. Policies Relating to Undergraduates Taking Graduate Courses
The options provided take financial matters having to do with various scholarship issues into
consideration.
4. Proposed Policy for Courses offered in one division and carrying departmental prefixes (or
subject codes) in another division
On occasion it may turn out that a department of program requests that a course that carries the prefix
(known as a “subject code”) from another department or program be offered by a faculty member whose
appointment resides in the former department or program. This policy helps to ensure that such courses
are adequately staffed so as to maintain academic continuity and course quality. The following provisions
were judged most helpful:
• Instructors must notify and request permission from the Miami University department or program that
owns the course prefix or subject code.
• Instructors who are not members of the unit that owns the course prefix or subject code must hold
similar qualifications as the faculty within the unit holding the course prefix.
• The course offered by the new faculty member with an appointment in another division must follow
similar content, outcomes, pace, rigor, and pre-requisites as the same course taught by faculty in the host
department or program.
• After teaching the course the initial time, continuing conversations between the faculty member and the
academic department or program that developed the course are expected.
The other provisions of this policy are aimed at meeting the above desiderata.
Adjourned 9:30
Page 51 of 76
Consent Calendar, Agenda Item 6.c.i.
Policies Relating to Undergraduates Taking Graduate Courses
Approved by Academic Policy Committee, February 15, 2013
Introduction
The proposals below relate to the issue of undergraduates enrolling in graduate courses. The critical
change to the existing policy is an increase in the number of credit hours (from nine to twelve credits) of
graduate course work which can be counted toward their undergraduate degree. The rationale for this
change is to increase the number of students who take advantage of this opportunity and to accommodate
those degrees that include courses with differing levels of credits and thus were not well-suited to align
with the nine credit threshold requirement.
These proposals have been approved by COAD and the Graduate Council.
Permission for Undergraduate Students to Enroll in Graduate Courses
Undergraduate students who have earned 64 or more credit hours and have a GPA of 3.00 or greater may
request permission to enroll in 500 or 600 level graduate courses. Students must obtain permission from
the instructor, the department chair, and the Dean of the Graduate School. Students may double-count up
to 12 hours of graduate course work toward their undergraduate degree. With permission of the
appropriate advisor(s) and dean(s) or their designee(s), these students may count the graduate courses
toward their major, minor, electives, and university requirements. Graduate courses taken in this manner
will be treated as graduate level non-degree courses. A maximum of 12 hours of graduate non-degree
courses may count toward a graduate degree program at Miami (see Miami Bulletin).
Revisions to the Miami Bulletin, Admission for Graduate Students, Non-degree Status
(p. 217 in 2012-13 Bulletin)
If you would like to take graduate-level courses, but do not intend to pursue a graduate degree, you can
apply for admission with “continuing non-degree graduate status.” After you are admitted, you can earn
an unlimited number of graduate hours within an indefinite period of time; however only 12 hours may
be applied to a degree program.
To apply for admission, submit to the Graduate School:
 Completed admission application form;
 Nonrefundable application fee;.
 Transcript of the highest degree earned from an accredited institution (not required if your highest
degree was awarded by Miami University).
If you are admitted as a non-degree student, you will not be able to enroll in certain courses if the
department or program has limited enrollment; students who have been admitted to a degree-granting
program have first priority. Check with the department about enrollment restrictions. If you have been
denied regular or conditional admission to a degree program, you can enroll in courses in that department
as a non-degree student only if the department grants permission. If you take courses as a non-degree
student after you have been denied admission as a degree student, these courses cannot be applied to a
future degree program.
If you are a non-degree student (and have not previously applied for degree admission) and desire
admission to a degree program, you must apply for admission and meet Graduate School and
Page 52 of 76
Consent Calendar, Agenda Item 6.c.i.
departmental standards for admission. No more than eight twelve of the most recent graduate hours
earned with non-degree status can be applied toward a graduate degree and then only with the approval of
the department. All eight twelve hours are subject to normal time limitations for credit toward a degree.
Revisions to the Graduate Student Handbook, Section 1.2.L Graduate Academic Regulations,
Registration
1.2.L Combined Bachelor’s/Master’s Degree
Departments and programs that offer the master’s degree have the option of offering a combined
bachelor’s and master’s degree program. See the specific department/program of interest for program and
admission details.

Admission Requirements: Students can declare their interest in the combined program anytime during
their academic career at Miami, from the time they apply for undergraduate admission. Upon earning
a minimum of 64 hours and having a GPA of 3.25 or greater, students may apply to a combined
program by completing the Graduate School application and submitting materials as required by the
program to which they are applying. Standard application and admission procedures shall be used.
Both full- and part-time students may participate in the combined program at a department’s
discretion. Regular time-limits for completing the master’s degree apply to students in a combined
program.

Double Counting Graduate Hours: Departments or programs with a combined degree may allow
students to double-count up to nine twelve hours of graduate course work toward their undergraduate
degree. With permission of the appropriate advisor(s) and dean(s) or their designee(s), these students
may count the graduate courses toward their major, minor, electives, and university requirements. A
minimum of 150 hours is required for the combined program, 120 semester hour minimum for a
bachelor’s degree and 30 hour minimum for a master’s degree of which 30 must be graduate
course work.

Student Classification and Graduation: Students in a combined program will remain undergraduates
until they apply for graduation or submit a request to the Graduate School to have their classification
changed from undergraduate to graduate. Students must have completed a minimum of 128 hours to
be classified as a graduate student. Students may receive their bachelor’s degree prior to completing
their master’s degree. Upon receiving the bachelor’s degree, students will automatically be classified
as graduate students. Students receiving the bachelor’s degree prior to completing the master’s
degree can count up to nine twelve hours of graduate course work toward their bachelor’s degree.
Those hours can also count toward the completion of their master’s degree as indicated in 3 above.
Students may withdraw from the combined program by completing a withdrawal form at the Graduate
School. The student must note on the withdrawal form that he/she is withdrawing only from the
combined program and wishes to retain their status in the undergraduate program. The student must also
notify their department of their decision to withdraw from the combined program.
Page 53 of 76
Agenda Item 6.c.ii.
Guidelines for Courses offered in one division and carrying departmental
prefixes (or subject codes) in another division
Approved by Academic Policy Committee, February 15, 2013
Introduction
In the Final Report of the Regional Campus Implementation Committee stated the following concern:
One of the continuing concerns of many faculty members is, “how can we assure that faculty in the new division
continue to teach Miami Plan foundational courses?” In other words, if faculty whose background in English opt
to be in a new department in the new division rather than the English Department of Arts and Science, how can
we assure that the new faculty member would be allowed to teach ENG 111 and ENG 112 on the regional
campuses? We request that COAD work together to develop and approve a protocol for a process to offer crossdivisional courses.
The proposal below advances guidelines and set of procedures that addresses this concern and enables faculty teaching
in one division to offer courses that carry the prefix or subject code of a department or program in another division.
Guidelines
On occasion, a course which carries the prefix (known as a “subject code”) from a department or program in one division
may be offered by faculty whose appointment resides in another division. This situation can occur when:
1) A qualified faculty member whose appointment resides in one division offers a course that was created and
approved by faculty in a department or program in another academic division (e.g., School of Creative Arts
faculty member wants to teach a College of Arts & Science course); or
2) A qualified faculty member whose appointment resides in one division wants to design and offer a new course
carrying the prefix or subject code of a department or program housed in another division (e.g., a regional
division faculty member with a PhD in English wants to offer a new ENG course that has never been offered
before).
In both situations, the following guidelines must be followed:



Instructors must notify and request permission from the Miami University department or program to which the
course prefix or subject code is assigned.
Instructors who are not members of the unit that owns the course prefix or subject code must hold similar
qualifications as the faculty within the unit holding the course prefix.
The course offered by the new faculty member with an appointment in another division must follow similar
content, outcomes, pace, rigor, and pre-requisites as the same course taught by faculty in the host department
or program.
Page 54 of 76
Agenda Item 6.c.ii.
When a faculty member with an appointment in one division wishes to offer an existing course with a prefix from a
department or program in another division, special efforts must be made to maintain academic continuity and quality of
the course. The faculty member and host academic department or program should engage in the following activities
the first time the faculty member teaches the course1:



participation in a course-specific meeting facilitated by the relevant Miami academic department;
syllabi review by permanent Miami faculty from the host academic department or program;
regular communication between the instructor and a faculty liaison in the academic department or program
which developed the course.
After teaching the course the initial time, continuing conversations between the faculty member and the academic
department or program which developed the course are expected.
When a faculty member whose appointment resides in one division wants to design and offer a new course carrying the
prefix or subject code of a department or program housed in another division, he or she should propose the course to
the host department. The course should undergo the same university approval processes as any new course offered
within the host department and division.
In rare cases, a conflict may arise between the instructor and the host department. In this situation, the instructor and
the chair or director of the host department or program should approach each of their divisional deans, and the deans
should attempt to resolve the conflict. If the divisional deans are unable to resolve the conflict, the deans should
approach the Provost who will make a final decision.
1
Note: These guidelines only apply to faculty members who have not previously taught a given course with a prefix from another
division. It does not apply to courses that have already been taught by current faculty housed in another division. For example, a
regional faculty member who has taught COM 135 on the regional campuses for many years does not need to undergo the coursespecific meeting or syllabi review.
Page 55 of 76
Agenda Item 5.d.
CODI-Council on Diversity and Inclusion Meeting Minutes
September 7, 2012
Attending: C. Burt, G. Yearwood, T. Kernodle, W. Brickman, J. Wheeler. C. Brown, J.
Goettsch, B. Dysart, R. Scott
Introductions of members present at the meeting. This will be repeated at the next
meeting when a majority of the committee will be present.
Announcements:
Matt Boaz, who was to chair the committee has taken a new position at another
University. Kenya Ash has been named Interim Director of OEEO. Kenya will be
sitting in on some of the meetings during the year. For the time being, R. Scott will
assume leadership of the Council.
20/20 Goals process has begun—everyone should be prepared to participate in the
process.
Discussion:
The role, purpose, and scope of CODI was discussed informally. Everyone is asked
to begin thinking about directions and goals for the committee.
Next Meeting:
September 28
Page 56 of 76
Agenda Item 5.d.
CODI Minutes
November 28, 2012
Agenda/Minutes:
Quick Announcements/Upcoming Events
Membership and Leadership—commitments and directions for future.
Meeting schedule for next semester
Changing the campus focus from negative and reactive to proactive and
positive or realistic and balanced. Revising Institutional Diversity Web
page to include what makes Miami Great/Inclusive section.
20/20 Support-CODI will need to be involved in discussions of core
values, especially #3 Inclusion and Global.
Retention (undergraduate) Support-final report will be sent out.
Assault Prevention Task force—Announcement of charge. Report due
January.
Open Forums—workshops—seminars, the need to establish and
support.
Activities in Units (what is the area you represent doing in terms
In terms of diversity)—Pre-assessment of campus diversity
Adjourn
After highlighting the topics in the agenda and the direct implications for the
Council, a question about the charge, duties, responsibilities of the Council
was raised by the membership. This lead to an extensive discussion about the
history of the University Multicultural Council, the year spent revising and
renaming the council, and the reasons why the changes were both necessary
and important.
In order to fully understand the role of the Council, members were asked to
read the original 1998 Diversity Plan and the description of the University
Multultural Council and Council on Diversity and Inclusion. Members were
sent web links via e-mail.
Next Meeting: TBD January, dates and agenda will be sent via e-mail by
December 20.
Page 57 of 76
Miami University Council on Diversity and Inclusion
Meeting Minutes - January 25, 2013
In Attendance: Cory Brown, Mary Jane Berman, Ashlie Puckett-Farr, April Robles, Gerald Granderson, Chun Liang, Bo
Brinkman, Carol Michael, Kristie Marcum, Ron Scott, Kenya Ash, Gerald Yearwood, Tammy Kernodle, Denise Baszile, Charles
Burt, Becky Dysart, Jane Goettsch
Absent: Helane Androne, Jimmie Jones, Madelyn Detloff, Jonathan Wheeler, Nicolyn Woodcock, Robert Hendricks
I.
Introductions – Ron Scott
a. Welcome and welcome back! Thank you for being here!
II.
Miami Diversity Plan – Ron Scott
a. Typically institutions no longer have plans that are as long as Miami's 1998 Diversity Plan. CODI will be
revisiting the diversity plan and what it will be.
b. If you would like to review Miami’s 1998 Diversity Plan, please contact Ron.
III.
Sexual Assault Prevention Task Force – Ron Scott and Kenya Ash
a. President Hodge convened a Sexual Assault Prevention Task Force
b. Kenya Ash, Interim Director of OEEO, chaired this task force
c. In December 2012, the Task Force submitted a preliminary draft, with recommendations, to President Hodge
d. In January, the Task Force submitted a revised draft which included several recommendations
i. The Task Force recommended a campaign on respect and inclusion which will consult with CODI –
this would include a visual campaign -- examples: Green Dot Campaign; Red Flag Campaign;
Safe@UNC, Expect Respect at the University of Michigan
a. Video with student leaders
b. Issuing institutional messages
c. Led by VP of Student Affairs and Associate VP for Institutional Diversity
ii. Hosting and designing workshops and trainings regarding sexual assault prevention
iii. Standing committee for sexual assault prevention
e. There is a currently a search for a fulltime staff member – Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, which should
be completed within the next month
f. Questions and Comments:
i. Question from Carol Michael: Did the flyer from the residence hall spark the need for creating the
Sexual Assault Prevention Task Force? Answer from Kenya Ash and Ron Scott: The task force was
created as result of the town hall meetings that were a result of the flyer from the residence hall.
ii. Question from Chun Liang: Is there (or can there be) a website that includes the various crime alerts
so that individuals can see the entire list of crimes? Answer from Kristie Marcum and Kenya Ash:
Yes, the annual crime statistics report is part of Miami’s “Right to Know” website at
www.MiamiOH.edu/righttoknow. The archive of Campus Crime alerts (and the status of each case)
is available on the Miami Police website at www.MiamiOH.edu/police/crime-alerts/archives.
iii. Question from Mary Jane Berman: Will the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator work out of student
health and wellness? Answer from Kristie Marcum and Kenya Ash: Yes, this position will report to
Rebecca Baudry Young, Director of Student Wellness.
IV.
Campaign for a better campus culture – Ron Scott
a. The proposed campaign would:
i. be an overarching campaign addressing many issues that affect the campus culture
ii. include recommendations from the Sexual Assault Prevention Task Force
iii. include Miami’s values statement
iv. is in line with Miami’s 2020 Goals
b. Questions and Comments:
Page 58 of 76
i. Question: Bo Brinkman: Will the Safe Zone Program be part of this campaign? Answer: Ron Scott:
This campaign does not replace existing programming. This campaign is an over-arching campaign
that will include various topics.
V.
Open Dialogue – Ron Scott
a. Thursday, January 31st, 3-5pm
b. 336 Shriver Center – Office of Diversity Affairs
c. Open dialogue to invite individuals to state which issues they want to address related to diversity / inclusion
VI.
Assessment– Ron Scott
a. Miami is once again in the accreditation process. Diversity initiatives/programs/projects are a component of
this process.
b. Ron would like the members of CODI to be involved in the diversity piece.
VII.
List of Initiatives/Programs/Projects – Ron Scott and Kristie Marcum
a. Please compile a list of diversity-related initiatives/programs/projects for your area and try to have at least
the start of a list by February 7th.
b. Kristie will email everyone with instructions for submitting their list. (We will attempt to use a Google doc or
Niihka site.
VIII.
Future Meetings
a. Location: all 2013 spring semester meetings will be held in the MacMillan Hall Great Room (212)
b. Next Meeting: February 8th – 1-2:30pm
c. Ron and Kristie will meet and figure out the schedule for the rest of the semester and then send it out to
everyone
IX.
Announcements
a. Asian Fusion – January 26th
b. Nominations are due Monday, February 4th for the Women's Leadership and Male Ally Awards and the Jennie
Elder Suel Distinguished Woman of Color Award. Please contact Jane Goettsch or visit
http://www.miami.muohio.edu/news/article/view/18199 for more information or to submit a nomination.
c. Miami is providing some half-price slots in Junior Scholars for M2SE students. M2SE (Minorities in
Mathematics, Science and Engineering) needs to fundraise to pay the other half (about $1500), for 3-6
students. These would be tax-deductible gifts to M2SE, but also directly benefit Miami.
d. Step Afrika – Thursday, January 31st, 6-8:30pm, Hall Auditorium
e. Lecture by Dr. Khalil Gibran Muhammad, Tuesday, February 12th, 6pm, Shriver MPR B-C
f. Please contact or visit the websites for the Center for American and World Cultures, Office of Diversity Affairs
and Office of Equity & Equal Opportunity for additional upcoming events and programs.
Page 59 of 76
Agenda Item 5.e
Liberal Education Council
Minutes
November 27, 2012 3:45-5:15
In attendance: Helane Androne (MUM), Peter Dougherty (Student), Kate de Medeiros (SOC/GTY), Ashlie Puckett
Farr (LED), Paula Gandara (SPN/POR), Jerry Gannod (SEAS), Doug Green (SA), Theresa Kulbaga (MUH), Janelle
Sikorski (GLG), Hank Stevens (Senate), John Tassoni (Director), Nicolyn Woodcock (Grad Student).
Absent: Diane Fellows (ARC/ID), Nick Hemmert (Student), Rebecca Luzadis (FSB), Mary McDonald (SEHS), Clifton
McNish (Honors), Nick Miller (Student), Eric Resnis (University Libraries).
Discussion:
MIS majors and ISA-2 Thematic Sequence (Tassoni): Dr. Tassoni followed up with the FSB and ISA
department chair and was informed that the ISA-2 Thematic Sequence is an exception to the rule that FSB students
must take a Thematic Sequence outside the FSB. LEC voted, with 2 abstentions, to allow MIS majors to count ISA-2
for the Thematic Sequence requirement.
CJS 451 G-Course Proposal Resubmission (Gannod, Androne): The proposal resubmission addresses the
initial concerns LEC had regarding the Miami Plan principles. Council would like to see the role of international
students in the course clarified more, as well as how students will serve as mentors/coaches. LEC voted to approve
with one abstention.
RUS/ENG 257 Revised G-Course Proposal (McDonald, Gandara): The suggestions offered by LEC on the
first review were incorporated into the revised proposal and syllabus. The role of the Havighurst events is clarified,
but the events are still not compulsory. Council requested that Dr. Tassoni follow up with the proposer to find out why
the events are not required. LEC voted to approve with one abstention.
Meeting adjourned 4:45 pm.
Upcoming:
Proposals:
KNH 117 G-Course (Resubmission)
ATH 135 G-Course
Page 60 of 76
Agenda Item 5.e.
Minutes
December 4, 2012 3:45-5:15
In attendance: Helane Androne (MUM), Peter Dougherty (Student), Kate de Medeiros (SOC/GTY), Ashlie Puckett
Farr (LED), Jerry Gannod (SEAS), Doug Green (SA), Theresa Kulbaga (MUH), Rebecca Luzadis (FSB), Eric Resnis
(University Libraries), Hank Stevens (Senate), John Tassoni (Director).
Absent: Diane Fellows (ARC/ID), Paula Gandara (SPN/POR). Nick Hemmert (Student), Mary McDonald (SEHS),
Clifton McNish (Honors), Nick Miller (Student) Janelle Sikorski (GLG), Nicolyn Woodcock (Grad Student).
Discussion:
KNH 117 G-Course Proposal Resubmission (Stevens, McDonald): The updated proposal addresses the
concerns LEC initially had. Council members like the direct cross-cultural exchange with Chinese students and how
the course compares Eastern and Western notions of well-being. LEC voted unanimously to approve the proposal.
ATH 135 G-Course Proposal (Green, Kulbaga): The proposal is strong, but mentions assignments that carry
out the G-goals yet do not appear on the syllabus. Council would like to see a revised syllabus with more detail about
the course assignments and the G-goals. LEC voted unanimously to temporarily approve on the condition that the
proposer submit a revised syllabus to the reviewers.
Upcoming:
Meetings will resume in the spring.
Page 61 of 76
Agenda Item 5.e.
Minutes
January 22, 2013 3:45-5:15
In attendance: Peter Dougherty (ASG), Ashlie Puckett Farr (LED), Diane Fellows (SCA), Jerry Gannod (SEAS),
Andrew Hebard (CAS), Theresa Kulbaga (MUH), Nathan Lombardi (ASG), Rebecca Luzadis (FSB), Janelle Sikorski
(CAS), Hank Stevens (Senate), John Tassoni (Director), Nicolyn Woodcock (Grad Student).
Absent: Helane Androne (MUM), Kate de Medeiros (EHS), Doug Green (SA), Nick Hemmert (Student), Mary
McDonald (EHS), Clifton McNish (Honors), Eric Resnis (University Libraries).
Discussion:
First-Year Seminar 2013-2014 Proposals: Rather than assemble a subcommittee to review FYS proposals,
Dr. Tassoni asked full Council to review and vote on each proposal.






CLS: LEC suggested changing the title to “Ancient War and Modern Film.” Council voted to
approve, with one abstention.
ENG: LEC would like more detail on how the instructor will facilitate the Miami Plan principle of
Engaging with Other Learners. Council suggested shortening the course title and questioned
references to the United States as a “melting pot” in the syllabus. Council voted unanimously to
approve, with suggestions sent to the proposer.
CHM: LEC members agreed that this is an excellent proposal for what will make a very interesting
course. Council would like to know about the availability of sites for the restaurant assignment and
if and how students will visit restaurants outside of Oxford. Council voted unanimously to approve.
COM: Council suggested changing references to a singular LGBTQ community to plural
communities. LEC would like clarification on who “they” references in the activity centered on
Understanding Contexts. Council voted to approve, with one abstention and suggestions forwarded
to the proposer.
SPA: LEC felt that the wording in the Reflecting and Acting assignment could suggest a single
correct way for international students to interact with native English speakers. Council also worried
st
nd
about what seemed to be a lack of reciprocity between 1 and 2 language speakers in a key
assignment. Council voted unanimously to deny the proposal.
EDT: Council suggested reworking the title but otherwise felt this is a strong proposal. Council
voted unanimously to approve.
Upcoming:
FYS Proposals (Full Council): Got 2 more left.
THE 123 (Fellows, Woodcock)
WGS 1 Revision (deMedeiros, Dougherty)
GTY/SOC TS (Stevens, Sikorski)
Page 62 of 76
Agenda Item 5.e.
Minutes
January 29, 2013 3:45-5:15
In attendance: Helane Androne (MUM), Peter Doughterty (ASG), Kate de Medeiros (EHS), Ashlie Puckett Farr
(LED), Diane Fellows (SCA), Jerry Gannod (SEAS), Andrew Hibbard (CAS), Theresa Kulbaga (MUH), Nathan
Lombardi (ASG), Hank Stevens (Senate), John Tassoni (Director), Nicolyn Woodcock (GSA).
Absent: Doug Green (SA), Nick Hemmert (Student), Rebecca Luzadis (FSB), Mary McDonald (EHS), Clifton McNish
(Honors), Eric Resnis (University Libraries), Janelle Sikorski (CAS).
Discussion:
First-Year Seminar 2013-2014 Proposals: Rather than assemble a subcommittee to review FYS proposals,
Dr. Tassoni asked full Council to review and vote on each proposal.


PSY: Council would like a narrative of how all the Miami Plan principles will be met, particularly
Engaging with Other Learners and Reflecting and Acting. LEC members were concerned that
identifying a literature gap and designing a research project around it may be too advanced for a
First-Year Seminar. LEC voted unanimously to approve. Dr. Tassoni will send Council’s
suggestions to the proposer.
FSW: Council thought the proposal was strong and that this will make an excellent First-Year
Seminar. LEC voted unanimously to approve.
THE 123 Course Proposal: The proposal includes a thorough discussion of the acting process with regard to
Miami Plan goals. Suggestions include moving the passage in the syllabus on how non-majors will benefit to a more
prominent place, adding language that broadens Understanding Contexts to interactions beyond those between
playwright and actor, and changing the title of the final project from “capstone project” to “culminating project.” LEC
voted unanimously to approve.
WGS-1 Thematic Sequence Revisions: The proposal includes a solid rationale for adding the courses to
give students more flexibility in course options and enable them to complete the sequence in a timely manner. The
courses make sense together. LEC voted unanimously to approve.
GTY/SOC Thematic Sequence Proposal: The proposal is well organized and focused on the subject of
medical sociology. While the experiences of students in tier 2 can vary significantly, tiers 1 and 3 ground the
sequence in common content. LEC voted unanimously to approve.
Upcoming:
No meeting next week
Page 63 of 76
Agenda Item 7.a.
February 4, 2013
To:
From: Provost Bobby Gempesaw
All-University Faculty Committee for Evaluation of Administrators
RE:
Proposed Revisions to the Miami University Policy and Information Manual,
Section 12.5, All-University Faculty Committee for Evaluation of Administrators
The following proposed revisions to the Miami University Policy and Information Manual,
Section 12.5, All-University Faculty Committee for Evaluation of Administrators, have been reviewed and
endorsed by the Committee and by the Council of Academic Deans.
Corresponding changes will be made to the Enabling Act of University Senate and Faculty Assembly,
Article Five, Section 3.
Rationale:
12.5.A Membership
a) Committee Composition. The Committee will consist of eight seven members of Faculty
Assembly. With the approval of the Board of Trustees resolution R2012-29, a resolution to
establish an academic division on the regional campuses, it is proposed that the regional
campuses be represented by one faculty member rather than one each from the Hamilton
and Middletown campuses, thereby bringing this academic division in line with other
academic divisions and the libraries that each have one representative on the Committee.
b) Term of Committee Members
Each member will serve a nonrenewable three-year term beginning January July 1.
i) To be consistent with other University committees that typically turn over
membership on July 1;
ii) Required for continuity with approval of the change as proposed in 12.5.B below.
Allows for same Committee to develop the evaluation instrument, summarize the
data, and write reports for all reviews conducted during the academic year.
12.5.B Schedule
It is proposed that administrators in year three of their five-year administrative appointment be
reviewed in the spring to provide an additional semester of data on which to provide input to
the administrator regarding their professional development and to record part of the evidence
upon which future personnel decisions may be based.
Be it hereby resolved that University Senate endorses revisions to the Enabling Act of
University Senate and Faculty Assembly, Article Five, Section 3, that correspond to revisions in
the Miami University Policy and Information Manual, Section 12.5, All-University Faculty
Committee for Evaluation of Administrators as set forth below:
12.5 All-University Faculty Committee for Evaluation of Administrators
12.5.A Membership
An All-University Faculty Committee for Evaluation of Administrators will review the Provost, all
academic deans, the Dean of the Regional Campuses, and the University Director of Liberal Education in
years three (3) and five (5) of their five-year administrative appointments. Committee reports are intended
Page 64 of 76
Agenda Item 7.a.
to serve two functions: a) to guide the professional development of the individuals, and b) to record part
of the evidence upon which future personnel decisions may be based.
The All-University Committee for Evaluation of Administrators will consist of eight (8)seven members of
Faculty Assembly, one to be chosen by each academic division for a total of five (5)six (6), and one (1) to
be chosen by the library faculty, and one (1) to be chosen by each of the regional campuses. The members
of the Committee will be elected by the faculty with election procedures to be set by the University
Senate. The Committee shall elect one of its members to serve as chair. Members of the Committee who
are on probationary status (i.e., nontenured or who do not hold continuing contract status) are not eligible
to serve as chair of the Committee. In accordance with a University Senate motion of November 5, 1990,
the library faculty as well as the faculty of the regional campuses shall not be eligible as nominees or
electors in the election of divisional representatives. Each member will serve a nonrenewable three-year
term beginning January July 1. The terms will be staggered so that one-third of the Committee is elected
each year. In the event of the resignation of a member of the Committee before the end of his or her term,
that seat shall be filled by the candidate (who had not been previously elected) who received the largest
number of votes when the ballots are retabulated after votes for the person who has resigned have been
deleted. In the event no such candidate is available, a new election will be held for the vacated seat.
12.5.B Schedule
Each spring fall semester, the Committee shall prepare a questionnaire for the evaluation of each
administrator it is scheduled to evaluate during the next academic year. Administrators in year five (5) of
their five-year administrative appointment will be evaluated in the fall of the evaluation year.
Administrators in year three (3) of their five-year administrative appointment will be evaluated in the
spring of the evaluation year. Early in the fall of the evaluation year, theThe Committee shall distribute
the questionnaire to members of Faculty Assembly assigned to or served by the administrator’s unit and it
shall prepare an evaluation report to be submitted to the administrator’s supervisor.
12.5.C Evaluation Questionnaires
The Committee shall develop a common core of questions appropriate for each class of administrators it
is responsible for reviewing. For example, it shall develop a common core of questions for all deans of
academic divisions. When developing these questions, the Committee shall consult with the class of
administrators to be reviewed and with their supervisor. All questionnaires shall be accompanied by a
one- to two-page statement from the administrator being evaluated that addresses the following questions:
1. What are your duties?
2. What have been your most significant accomplishments since occupying this position or since last
you were evaluated in your current position?
3. What are your primary goals for the duration of your appointment?
All questionnaires shall begin with a question that asks respondents whether they feel that they have
sufficient information to evaluate the administrator; respondents who reply that they do not shall be asked
to return the questionnaire with only that question completed. All questionnaires shall ask respondents
who complete more than the first question to indicate the extent of their knowledge of the administrator’s
responsibilities and performance.
When preparing to evaluate a particular administrator, the Committee shall adapt the common core of
questions to reflect this person’s responsibilities and any special and unique aspects of the administrator’s
position or circumstances. In this process, the Committee shall consult with the administrator to be
reviewed and the administrator’s supervisor. The final decision on the composition of the questionnaire
rests with the Committee.
12.5.D Committee Reports
The CommitteeCommittee’s final evaluation reports shall submit its final evaluation report on each
administrator be submitted by December 1 for administrators evaluated in year five (5) and by April 1 for
administrators evaluated in year three (3). Before then, the Committee shall submit a draft of the report to
the administrator’s supervisor. The supervisor and the Committee (or a representative) shall meet to
discuss the draft report and make any modifications deemed appropriate by the Committee. If the
Committee and the supervisor disagree on the final report, the supervisor may attach a letter to the
Committee report explaining the disagreement. This letter becomes part of the final report.
Page 65 of 76
Agenda Item 7.a.
In year three (3) of an administrator's appointment, the Committee’s final report shall be promptly shared
by the supervisor with the administrator being evaluated, and a summary of the Committee’s final report
shall be prepared jointly by the supervising administrator and the Committee. If the administrator is
continuing in his or her position for at least one (1) more year, this summary shall be submitted to the
faculty within the unit. If the supervising administrator and the Committee cannot agree on the summary,
they shall prepare separate summaries that shall be distributed together to the faculty within the unit.
In year five (5) of an administrator's appointment, the All-University Faculty Committee shall cooperate
with the evaluation committee established in “Appointment, Evaluation, and Reappointment of Academic
Deans” or “Evaluation and Reappointment of the Provost” of this manual. A summary of the final reports
by the Faculty Committee and the committee established in “Appointment, Evaluation, and
Reappointment of Academic Deans” or “Evaluation and Reappointment of the Provost” of this manual
shall be prepared jointly by the supervising administrator and the combined evaluation committees. This
summary shall be submitted to the faculty within the unit if the administrator is reappointed for another
five-year term. If the supervising administrator, the Faculty Committee, and the committee established in
“Appointment, Evaluation, and Reappointment of Academic Deans” or “Evaluation and Reappointment
of the Provost” of this manual cannot agree on the summary, they shall prepare separate summaries which
shall be distributed together to the faculty within the unit.
The Faculty Committee's final reports and the summaries of these reports that are prepared jointly by the
Committee and the supervising administrator shall include the following information:
1. the number of surveys sent, response rate, the number of people indicating insufficient information
to evaluate the administrator
2. the mean and distribution of responses, if numerical data are reported
3. a brief, balanced overview of the overall response to each question or set of questions, not quotations
of the respondents’ actual words
4. when the Committee feels it is appropriate, separate analyses of responses from individuals who
indicated that they have a more extensive knowledge of the administrator’s responsibilities and
performance and of responses from individuals who indicate that they have a less extensive
knowledge of the administrator’s responsibilities and performance
In addition, the Faculty Committee's fifth-year final report and the summary of that report shall include
the Faculty Committee’s recommendation concerning whether the administrator should be reappointed
for another five-year term. If an administrator is reappointed despite the Faculty Committee’s
recommendation against reappointment, the Committee may call for a vote of no confidence from the
appropriate faculty. In the case of the Provost, the Associate Provost and Dean of the Graduate School,
the Dean and University Librarian, and the Director of the Liberal Education Program, the appropriate
faculty unit for a vote of no confidence will be Faculty Assembly.
The supervisor and the administrator being evaluated shall have access to all of the faculty responses,
including survey results and transcribed copies of comments. The Committee shall retain the
questionnaires returned by faculty for a period of three (3) years from the date of the final evaluation
report.
12.5.E Election Procedures for the All-University Committee for Evaluation of
Administrators
A total of five (5) nominees for each position will be chosen by the single transferable vote method from
a complete list of all the eligible voters in each unit. Within no less than two weeks after the ballots for
nominees have been returned, a second ballot naming the nominees will be distributed to the voters in
their respective units and again counted by the single transferable vote method. For mid-term
resignation/vacancies, see Section 12.5.A. Units may adopt alternative procedures with the approval of
University Senate.
Page 66 of 76
Agenda Item 7.a.
Proposed Policy Title
Originating Office/Body
Recommended / Approved by
Reviewed By
History
Proposed Effective Date
Amends Current Policy
Enabling Act of University Senate and Faculty Assembly, Article Five, Section 3, Faculty
Assembly Committee Structure, All-University Faculty Committee for Evaluation of
Administrators;
Miami University Policy and Information Manual, Section 12.5,
Office of the Provost
Council of Academic Deans
Senate Resolutions: SR 90-41; SR 98-13; SR 99-08; SR 02-18; SR 04-06; SR 09-04
July 2013
Enabling Act of University Senate and Faculty Assembly
Miami University Policy and Information Manual
Page 67 of 76
Agenda Item 8.a.
Accreditation Update
Carolyn Haynes, Interim Associate Provost
Open Pathways: Two Components
Improvement
Process
Quality
Improvement
Assurance
Process
Quality
Assurance
Improvement Process
Quality
Initiative
Proposal
Two Options
1. Institution designs and proposes own quality initiative
(standard option)
2. Institution pilots a quality initiative project
recommended by Higher Learning Commission (what
we are doing)
Page 68 of 76
Agenda Item 8.a.
Testing the Degree Qualifications Profile
OUR QUALITY INITIATIVE:
Assurance Process
Data Collection
Accumulate Our
Own Evidence
Assurance
Argument
Analyze
evidence,
write
Evidence File
Upload evidence
needed for
Assurance
Assurance: 5 Criteria
1.
Mission (mission statements aligned, diversity, commitment to
broad public interests)
2.
Integrity (ethical policies, governing board, responsible conduct
in research and teaching)
3.
Academic Programs: Quality, Resources & Support (general
education, teaching and learning support, faculty qualifications,
productivity and roles)
4.
Academic Programs: Evaluation & Improvement (outcomes for all
majors, full-cycle assessment, student persistence and retention)
5.
Resources & Planning (financial & strategic planning, effective
leadership and governance)
Page 69 of 76
Agenda Item 8.a.
Assurance Argument Highlights
Criterion
1:
Mission
2:
Integrity
Progress Step
Date
Miami 2020 Plan
2020
Strategic Priorities Task Force Recommendations
2011
Budget Planning Process
Annual
Revision of Academic Integrity Policy and Procedures
2011
Responsible Conduct in Research Policy & Programs
Ongoing
Inclusive & Comprehensive Process for Creating Miami
2020 Plan
20122013
Criterion
Progress Step
3: Program Quality & Enrollment Center (virtual one-stop approach)
Academic Support
E-Learning Advisory Council (E-LAC) Strategic Plan
Criterion
4: Evaluation
&
Improvement
Date
2014
2013
“The Oxford Pathway” (TOP) Program
2013
Redesign of Miami Plan
2014
ACE Program created and restructuring of
International Services Offices
2012-13
University Studies Program
2012
Progress Step
Approval of 100% Transfer Assurance Guides and Transfer
Modules; Dual Enrollment Policy
Forward-Thinking Academic Program Review Process
Integrated Alumni Survey
University-Wide Online Course Evaluation
Assessment Plans for 100% of Programs
Retention Plan
5: Planning & Responsibility Centered Management
Resources
Strategic Priorities Task Force Report
Campus Master Planning Process
Institutional Analytics Project
Page 70 of 76
Date
2013
2013-14
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013-14
2011
Ongoing
2012
Agenda Item 8.a.
Progress on Assessment
•
•
•
•
•
89% of undergraduate degrees/majors have assessment plans.
19 graduate programs, and 6 certificate programs still need
assessment plans.
All majors, degrees and free-standing certificate programs need
to be collecting assessment data.
Assessment reports (with data summary and suggestions for
improvement) should be uploaded onto Compliance Assist
template by May 20, 2013.
Templates including assessment reports should be updated
each May thereafter.
Upcoming Steps
•
•
•
•
Upload data into all departmental and divisional online
templates by May 20.
Develop preliminary drafts for Assurance Argument narratives
during summer 2013.
Finalize the Quality Improvement Report by August 2013.
Create and approve needed curricular and other academic
policies (e.g., dual enrollment, e-learning course approval
process, joint faculty appointments, pre-requisites, cross-listing,
grade appeals) by January 2014.
Page 71 of 76
Agenda Item 8.b.
The Interactive Future
An overview of the Interactive Degree Audit
Our Charge
• Many studies, reports and focus groups demonstrated a
need for more updated advising tools.
• Undergraduate Academic Advising Council (UAAC)
formed the Technology Subcommittee to implement
more current advising solutions.
• Multi-phase project to help all constituents on campus.
• These projects collectively are known as Recruit, Retain,
Succeed (RRS).
Page 72 of 76
Agenda Item 8.b.
Current Degree Audit
• Miami developed and used DARS since 1983, so it’s
functional, but dated.
• Audit can be confusing to advisors and students.
• Static interface.
Coming Spring Break Week…..
Interactive Audit
• Same audit information with a graphical representation
of requirements and degree completion progress.
• Students navigate the audit by clicking into a category,
which displays the category’s requirements.
• Audit arranged in categories, allowing the student and
advisor to concentrate on specific requirements.
Page 73 of 76
Agenda Item 8.b.
Interactive Audit – Top Level
Categories include:
– Miami Plan (or Honors Plan)
– Divisional Requirements (if applicable)
– Major Requirements
– Minor Requirements (if applicable)
– Elective courses (courses not used elsewhere)
Pie chart and bar graphs represent progress toward degree
and GPA
Interactive Audit – Miami Plan
Top Level
Foundation IV
Requirement
Page 74 of 76
Agenda Item 8.b.
Interactive Audit – Major
Top Level
Core Requirement
Related Requirement
u.Direct Planning and Advising Tool
• Roadmap built from audit allows students to create a
term by term plan for degree completion.
• Students work with their advisors to map out preferred
and/or required course selections.
• Demand analysis will allow for more accurate course
scheduling.
Page 75 of 76
Agenda Item 8.b.
Questions and Answers
Contact Information
Dave Sauter – 529-8781
([email protected])
Carol Jones - 529-8707
([email protected])
Becky Sander - 529-1961
([email protected])
Page 76 of 76

the following proposal was approved by apc 11

Transcription

Similar documents

Worldwide Local Flyer yb 7

Pradeep Belur! Duf Sundheim

iSIMImproving Simulation Instructional Methods

Sharon Salzberg

Vanity Fair, Carrie Carlisle, V.F.`s Guide to Art Basel: Jim Drain, 2010

c020_005_000_003 - Robert J. Dole Archive and Special Collections

Thank you to our Sponsors! Your Contributions help PAL of North

Creating Good Memories through Music and promoting international

http://www.eo.ucar.edu/webweather/index.html

Biography - Senator Daylin Leach