MINUTES                                           Academic Affairs Committee                               25 October 2000

 

The Academic Affairs Committee (AAC) was called to order by Chair Wherland at 3:25 p.m., Wednesday, 25 October, in CUB 212.

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:  Bitter (for Guzman), Couture, Craft, Folwell, Fowler, Struckmeyer, and Wherland.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Baker, Law, Reed, Vreeland, and Warner.

VISITORS:  Christopher Brown, Student Advising and Learning Center Academic Advisor, and Linda Schoepflin, Summer Session Director.

 

The minutes of the 18 October 2000 meeting were approved.

 

Committee Reports

Steering:  Wherland reported that recommendations 18a and 18b (concerning Tier III courses) from the General Education Review Committee Report are on the next senate agenda for discussion.  Members expressed concern about this agenda item, noting that they had not understood the recent senate request for AAC to review the report as one including 18a and 18b specifically, and that no particular discussion of those items had occurred.  Consequently, members concurred that the senate should not consider these particular items from the report until AAC had an opportunity to review them specifically, after which time AAC would forward its recommendations to senate.  One member raised the broader question of whether the General Education Program has the same agency that other academic units have in the curricular review process.  Members concluded that Chair Wherland should ask the Chair of Faculty Senate to advance these items to AAC, which would send it to General Education for review and recommendation within one month.  AAC would then deliberate and send its recommendations to the Faculty Senate in two months with a recommendation.   

Admissions Subcommittee:  It was noted that the Admissions Subcommittee needs to have an AAC liaison member appointed.  Members suggested the Fowler, Reed, and Warner share this responsibility. 

 

Grade Appeals Process

Members reviewed a draft for the proposed grade appeals process, which includes establishing a university appeals board to oversee grade appeals.  The university appeal board would be comprised of sixteen members from a variety of disciplines; out of this membership, five faculty would be appointed by the chair of the appeal board to review an appeal.  All cases would be referred to the appeals board by the department chair, dean, or ombudsman. 

Members agreed that the draft of the university appeal board charge should specify what types of appeals the board would review.  Members also suggested that some limitation for how long an appeal may be filed be written into the policy.  They also noted that current academic regulation 104, Academic Complaint Procedures, be reviewed to see whether the new grade appeals process should be incorporated into the rule.  Finally, members suggested that when this process is forwarded to senate, it should include a memo explaining why WSU needs such a policy. 

            Members agreed to review this item further when another draft would be available. 

 

Meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.

 

Becky Bitter, Secretary Pro Tem

25 October 2000