See the latest updates and information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, including a list of University contact information at semo.edu/covid19.
Present: Aide, Baker, Barrios, Beard, Bertrand, Buis, Hinkle, Janzow, McDougall,
McGowan, Miller, Parker, Prater, Shaw, Starrett, Stephens, Strange and Veneziano
Guests: Ragu Athinarayanan, Marcie Hobbs, Teresa Wilke
Upon a motion by McDougall; seconded by McGowan, the minutes of November 4, 2008 were unanimously approved.
B. ACTION ITEMS (discussed out of order):
1. Centers – Definition, Protocol, and Current List
Stephens explained that this issue was raised when a proposal for a new center was brought forward and taken to Executive Staff, who asked for a definition of a center and the process for approval, etc. She said the goal of this item is to clarify the definition of, and the process for establishing a center, as these two things will be taken to the Board of Regents for approval. Discussion followed on the issue of centers being formed for the purpose of writing grant proposals. Council agreed on several revisions to each page of the handouts (revisions are attached). Shaw moved approval of the two documents with revisions; McGowan seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
2. Division of Department of Communication to Department of Mass Media and Department of Communication Studies
Barrios moved approval of the division of the Department of Communication to the Department of Mass Media and the Department of Communication Studies; Miller seconded. Barrios pointed out that “Department of Mass Media” should replace “Department of Mass Communication” on the handouts everyone was given. Barrios explained that the Department of Communication is made of two different faculty groups, serving two distinct constituencies. He also noted that the Mass Media group has accreditations that govern that the department chairperson be a mass media faculty member; as Dr. Towns is not, he would have to delegate the role and not participate in the accreditation process. Question was raised on how the budget for the split would be allocated; Barrios explained that the budget would be split proportionately. Buis commented that any library funds would be split proportionately as well. Council supported the division and motion passed unanimously.
3. MS in Nursing – Revisions to Curriculum
Prater moved approval of the revisions to the curriculum for the MS in Nursing, contingent upon the approval of three graduate courses that are on thirty day review; Aide seconded. Prater explained that these revisions are basically a reallocation of hours and brings the program into compliance with accreditation. Hobbs explained that the department brought in a consultant and found that the program was heavy in core hours. Janzow commented that this was approved in Graduate Council, and explained as a re-distribution of content. Motion passed unanimously.
4. MS Industrial Management to MS Technology Management – Program Changes
Shaw moved approval of the title change and program changes for the MS in Industrial Management to MS Technology Management, contingent upon the approval of courses on thirty day review; McDougall seconded. Shaw explained that the changes include a program title change, and moving focus areas to options, as these changes will better serve the students and market. McDougall asked if the Technical focus area was being eliminated; Athinarayanan explained that the area was being split into two options and renamed. It was decided to revise the wording to say that the Technical focus area is being split into two new options. Council supported the changes, with revisions, and motion passed unanimously.
C. DISCUSSION ITEMS