r 
r" jnut· ~;, of t.he I"cetinr; of lle fle.-d ,' ir : /\f ,'; t1r'[; Committee 
\'I~tine8d,!'lY, J\pril 11,1979 
'1 :00 p.m. Room 2067 - Cushwa Hi'l J 1 
1resent: 	 Dr . Hi 111 Dr. Scriven I :~ o P , Mr. Skarote, 
Mr. Quinby, Dr. Swan, D '!ldi ~o, br. Hovey, 
Dr. Aichley, Dr. Edgar 
/ctions: 
" 
1. 	 Dr. Raldino moved that the r evi' j minutes of April 4 
be approved as amended. Second er by Dr. Kougl. 
T~animously approved. 
2. 	 Experimental Courses: 
Dr. Cohen 	was present to dis c ISS this proposal. 
In discussin~ the AAC's juri sd iction in this proposal, 
Dr. Hovey pointed out the r'c ! ui red change in procedure, 
not curriculum change. 
Dr. ~~~·Ji1.n fel t the proposal t () be a violatlon of clearly 
established faculty responsibility. He felt items 
#2 and 5 of Dr. Cohen's pol i c y statement restricted 
faculty rights as outlined i n contract. The whole propo-' 
sal would require a Senate amendment. 
Dr. Hichley thought the proc edure for this type of course 
was spelled out in the Senat o Constitution. As such, 
the Constitutional By-Laws Committee must rule on the 
proposal, perhaps they will decide a portion is under AAC 
jurisdiction.' 
Dr. Hovey inquired if the pr oposed policy will be 

presented in appropriate fo r m as a Constitutional 

amendment. 

Dr. Ed~ar 	 discussed corres po .. dence from Miami University 
concerning a similar proposa l at that institution. 
Dr. Scriven felt that Miami'3 faculty preceded along the 
same lines as ours in develo ping senior ~pecial topics 
courses. 
Dr. Baldino pOinted out that the proposal does violate 
certain aspects of contractually established procedure 
for curriculum matters. 
Dr. Pill asked Dr. Cohen for specific information 
about the derivation of the proposed policy and the expec 
ted procedure for approval. 
Dr. Cohen summarized: the basic concept of the proposal, 
..' 
is to work up a procedure for establishing thesecoursei ' 
wi thin a department. There are stUdents who are interested 
in a particular suhject and cl !'C1J::1!" l rwr' :; ' :lch require 
a Cl,uick try-out. The course rn a'! \;(: I llirk)'" Initiated 
ins tead of gOing throur:h curri~ u 1. urn .<"l m: Ii L , . " S and the 
Deans' offices . It rna:,.' be u"oc] to ~ ..~ all i : a particularI 
course rif~ht now, rather than w it i n a ". ~ I when it may 
not be appropr i ate. 
A department may offer a c ours r.:! " eI:. the expe ri.;..· 
mental basis. Perhaps the inte. tion ~y to put it on 
a regular basis, thus going t.hro llt;h ' . \1 1'3 , ; , l ege procedures. ' 
If a proposed course is intpr- ,1e . r t. 1' . t al there is 
a provision for veto and referra ~o hE .' udemic Vice 1 
President. I don't suppose you coul I ~L ' "3ntee no abuse 
of the proposal. However, my pos i 1: " j ; t hat the facul ty 
is respons i ble and won't be ['. bus i ve . l'he clanger of abuse 
is minimal and there are checks. It Quld be innovatively 
rewardinr;. 
Once a department has approved a cours(·, it could be 
offered immediately. Book work must be dOLe, and there 
will be help available in Dr. Scriven's off ice. 
A department \1ill have no more than one course desig 

nated experimental per quartpr, four per y .~r. The course 

will be a regular one, with a ll regular ap lications. 

The course will be included jn the invento y for one year 

only. The applicability to t he major or mi nor will be 

decided by the department. The area requirements will 

remain as usual. 

Dr. Scriven clarified; meanin~ the courses may fullfill 

requirements in the department from which they come. 

Dr. Hill asked if it was the Chairman's prerogative for 

the course to receive credit in his department. 

Dr . Cohen answered yes. He continued, this proposal was 

also submitted to the Un iversity Curriculum Committee. 

They may have jurisdiction ove r portions and you may 

wish to consult with them. 

SpeCial topic courses have been mentioned, however 
not all departments have then: . Special topics are usually 
at an upper, 700-800 l e vel. These experimental courses 
could be designed for t he 500 level. 
Dr. Scriven asked if eac h derartment cotild come up with 

special topics at the 50 0 level. 

Dr. Cohen a nswered yes, the AAC could encourage this type 
of innovative thinking, through a device like this. I 
think it is a good idea for the University to have a 
policy which takes this type of leadership position and 
encourages innovativene:;s. 
Dr. Baldino arp;ued strongly that opposition to this new 
experimental policy doe~: not preclude innovativeness. 
He asked if there will . be need for an appeal process, for 
departmental recourse, He asked if Dr. Cohen wants it to 
read as it does, a.n automatic movement through the 
bureaucracy, with only t he Academic Vice President to 
vetor 
Dr. Cohen an~a'ler(' j, tl1, · Curriculum Commi ttee will also 
look nt the propo:,als ll '1r1 point out any objections to 
the Academic Vice Fres~aent. 
Dr. Bal d ino thoup;h t items ii2 and 3 should be consolidated. 
e further remarked, t he Graduate Dean m~de a r ecent 
statement to the ~raduate faculty to the effect that the 
time-line and various checks are very necessary in 
curriculum development. Do you want the prerogative 
to disregaurd these on the under-graduate level? 
Dr. Cohen answered that he thought misuse would be brought 
before the Academic Vice President. 
Dr. Baldino added, you could designate this as a three 
quarter sequence of courses. Saying that a department 
can submit no more than one course per quarter sounds 
modest, but you can run courses in sequence. . 
Dr. Cohen felt that a department would not invite that 
much work, to offer a course each quarter. 
Dr. Edgar ag reed that this may be a built-in check, the 

department must account for the resources used in new 

offerinf,s ., 

Dr. Baldino asked if-this were a way of meeting the threat 
of declining enrollment. 
Dr. Edgar answered that it may well be. 
Dr. Hovey asked Dr. Cohen if he believed the Curriculum 

Committee could de velop a policy for this proposal, and 

that it would become University policy. 

Dr. Cohen answered, the charge for that committee reveals 
it as in their jurisdiction. 
Dr. S\'Tan pointed out that Dr. Cohen' has proposed a number 
of ch~n~es for that Committee.to undertake. This can 
only be done through an amendment by the Charter and By 
Lai'lS Commi t tee. 
Dr. Cohen added, the Senate would instruct the Charter 

and 8y-La\,18 Committee to review the changes. 

Dr. Hovey asked Dr. Cohen if he were attempting to do 

that himself. 

Dr. Cohen answered no. 
Dr. Swan asked what if a College chooses not to take part 
in this? 
Dr. Cohen answered, the requirements are not affected. 
Departments deve16p; a policy for these courses which may 
or may not influence requirements. Schools will be able 
to decide for themselves to implement or ignore the new 
courses . Even if the University has a strong policy in 
this matter, it would still be up to each School to decide 
for itself. . 
IJr. Si'J"an arp:ued that i
l 
':lT1 /15 1:"" G]C I Y an alteration 
of faculty a~reempnt. 
f)r. Cohen di~)nr;r-cr..:\l , hOl-l can W I' Ijrnjting their powers 
when they have no power 0ver xf ," imental courses now? 
I 
The di c ssion wi l l be continFcci. Dr. Cohen will mee t 
with the AAC at the next meeting. 
3. The meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m.