Correction as per Sen. Stadelmann memo:
P. 5 of 7, Executive Committee, Discussion of Senator Ruoff’s amendment, paragraph 6:
Current reading: “Parliamentarian Stadelmann ruled that the amendment must be voted upon because it had been moved and seconded; it cannot be tabled at this time.”

Corrected reading:  “The Speaker, advised by Parliamentarian Stadelmann, ruled that the amendment must be considered because it had been moved, seconded, and debate had occurred; it could not be withdrawn at that time.”

Sen. Daugherity noted that “acclamation” was misspelled on the last page.

Discussion of 3 tabled items from the Consent Agenda: VIST 270, 271, 486:

• Sen. Walker expressed concerns that the VIST was creating courses that paralleled those of CPSC and wanted CPSC to produce a letter stating that it had no objections to these courses.
• Sen. Warden introduced Dr. Tim McLaughlin, Department Head of VIST, who explained that a request for a meeting with VIST was made but that it was not followed up on.
• Sen. Blasingame asked if the Senate might approve the proposal with edits.
• Sen. Daugherity said that a letter from the head of CPSC would be necessary to allow this to move forward.
• Sen. Blasingame asked that we approve the proposal and that necessary changes and a letter could be completed later.
• Sen. Price said that university policy dictated that a formal letter be issued prior to approval.
• The Parliamentarian suggested that someone could move to return the request to the departments for consultation and letter of approval as required by CPSC.
• Sen. Price moved that the proposal be returned to VIST and CPSC for further consultation and the completion of all necessary documentation. (Stadelmann second).

Discussion of the motion: 

• Sen. Blasingame raised concerns about the impending deadline for catalogue copy; VIST may have to wait a year if this matter were not resolved ASAP.
• Sen. Daugherity said that new courses must be taught as 489s, but withdrew his objection when it was noted by several senators that this policy is no longer in effect.
• Dr. McLaughlin confirmed the necessity of approving the proposal to meet catalogue deadlines.
• Sen. Mathewson argued in opposition, noting that the matter had cleared the UCC and the motion to approve the VIST should therefore be admissible.
• Sen. Price asserted that it is the Senate’s responsibility is to ensure that policies and procedures are followed.
• Sen. Walker addressed the issue of miscommunication between CPSC and VIST.
• Sen. Bednarz reminded the body that when problem situations come to the Senate, we must make decisions based on existing policy.
• Sen. Blasingame said that it should be possible to get departments to agree within short time.
• Sen. Daugherity suggested a “conditional” approval of the proposal.
• The Parliamentarian believed that there is no precedent for “conditional approval” but that such a procedure can be approved by the Speaker; there is danger that such a procedure may allow someone to challenge this ruling at a later time because it represents an unprecedented procedure.
• Dr. McLaughlin said that the 486 course has been taught as 489 three times and that it can no longer be taught again as a 489.
• Sen. Stewart spoke against motion because it is based on technicality.
• Sen. Daugherity explained that the problem was discovered only on the morning of Jan. 12 (the day of the Senate meeting).
• Sen. Strawser argued that “common sense” should prevail and that the Senate should accept a conditional approval; if a substantive reason to deny approval exists, then it would not be approved.
• Sen. Smith suggested that the Senate delegate authority to the Speaker or a committee to ensure that conditions have been met.
• Sen. Price said that she had contacted Susan Williams who informed her that the catalogue deadline could still be met in February.

Vote on the Sen. Price’s Motion:
Sen. Price’s motion passed: the material involving VIST courses and CPSC approval will be returned for completion in accordance with current policy.

Speaker-Elect Bednarz presided.

• Sen. Strawser provided an update on the Black Hawk helicopter crash on Duncan Field at c. 2:30pm; 5 injuries were reported.
• Sen. Magill asked that Senators provide feedback re current course syllabus issues, especially the requirement concerning a rubric for subjective grading.
• Sen. Slack argued that the new policy re rubrics puts an undue hardship on faculty and urged that the policy be changed to streamline the issue.
• Sen. Bednarz noted that the EC has recently charged the Academic Affairs Committee to review the rubric policy and related matters and make a recommendation that the Senate can debate and act on.
• Sen. Price noted a memo from Dean Marty Loudder re a contested grade in the Mays Business School that created the “rubric problem.”
• Sen. Mathewson said that he has taught Geology for Engineers for many years and could not write a satisfactory rubric for this particular course. He argued that faculty need flexibility when determining grading standards for particular courses and disciplines.
• Sen. Hahn asked why this issue has been introduced
• Sen. Bednarz said that it was his understanding that the issue grew out of review for the core curriculum.
• Sen. Slack said that the issue came out of the AAC, which asked if faculty need better uniform minimum syllabus requirements.
• Sen. Smith sated that rubrics often mean something different to others not teaching the course. The concept is flawed because any attempt to get a universal rubric is suspect.
• Sen. McKenzie, speaking as a faculty member in the College of Education and Human growth, argued that requiring a rubric which many faculty are not prepared to write is poor policy and could lead to greater problems.
• Sen. Daugherity read a passage from the minimum course requirements on the Faculty Senate Home Page that states that rubrics are the current operative requirement.
• Sen. Smith believed requiring rubrics remains a bad idea whether it is policy or not.
• Sen. Price suggested that the AAC should talk to the chair of the committee that was asked to overturn a professor’s grade in the Mays College of Business.
• Sen. Hahn believes that such rubrics are another way of babying students.
• Sen. Cepeda-Benito stated that current processes for grade appeals are well defined and have worked well despite one adverse ruling.
• Sen. Grant noted that multiple sections of the same course can create problems because different teachers may have different rubrics.
• Sen. Linton (Galveston) asked if something will come out of an impending meeting about these issues with VP-Undergraduate Programs Martyn Gunn.
• Sen. Bednarz suspects Gunn will come to some workable solution because of urgency with which he called the meeting.
• Sen. Blasingame, speaking as chair of the Graduate Appeals Counsel decried the onerous eight-hour grade appeal and urged the Senate to create a system that minimizes problems created by unfounded grade appeals.