Cyber College Assembly
Date:April 16, 2003 Meeting Minutes
1. Attendance: Total of 41 members out of 60 members.
Dean’s Office: Good, M., Mitchell, W.
Staff Representatives: Hancock, C., Young, K.
Applied Science: Hawk, R., Anderson, G., Bhattacharyya, A., Jennings, S., Mazumder, M., Sims, B., Thompson, G., Wright, A.
Computer Science:Ford, C., Bayrak, C., Jones, J., Milanova, M., Minsker, S., Tang, P.
Construction Mgt:Niles, L., Carr, J., Tramel, M.
Engineering Tech:Midturi, S., Luneau, D., Menhart, S., Pidugu, S., Tebbetts, G., Tschumi, P.
Information Science:Bruhn, R., Burris, K., Burton, P., Karlson, N., Lowery, C., Tudoreanu, M., Wigand, R., Xu, X.
Systems Engineering:Chan, Y., Djouadi, S., Iqbal, K., Jovanovic, N., Kim, J., Reddy, R.
Corrections: Al-Shukri, H., Liu, X.,
2. Call to order and approval of minutes:
Meeting was called to order by President Tebbetts at 3:30 PM. The minutes from the February 28, 2003 where presented by Secretary Tramel, in a hard copy format due to e-mail file problem, and where approved without corrections.
3. Dean’s Remarks
President Tebbetts introduced Dean Mary Good who gave the State of the College report.
- Budge Items: Dean Good reported on budget issues and informed the Assembly that the College did not have a current approved budget due to the possible adjournment of the State legislature. The proposal on the House floor is not favorable due the partial funding of the first year biennial. University of Arkansas system administrators have not made a determination about a tuition increase to date.
- Miscellaneous Items: Engineering Technology students took first place in the IEEE national competition over several high profile universities. The Bioinformatics program is now moving forward. A recent grant award of $675,000 for minority recruiting may be delayed due to a change in the NASA grant administrators. There is also a $500,000 equipment grant that will assist the College through the current budget problems. The Dean’s office is working on using CDs for recruiting mail-outs instead of the normal hard copy format used in the past. Beside appealing to younger students with computer skills it may have the additional bonus of a cost savings. Faculty may have to retake photos for the new CDs.
Pete Tschumi’s Executive Committee Report:
- Pete reported that final language for the Policy and Personnel Advisory Committee had been finalized. The question was raised concerning the proper language of the revised draft of the constitution and it was determined that the Agenda language was the correct version. Pete made the motion that the current language be approved by the Assembly George Tebbetts seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously passed.
4. Motion to overturn the Cyber College Undergraduate Curriculum Committee’s decision on the Systems Engineering curriculum revision proposal:
- Yupo Chan, the Chair of the SYEN department, requested time to explain why he did sign the proposed SYEN curriculum revisions and why he challenged the decision. Chan’s main point was that the proposed changes where of such a massive magnitude that he had not been given enough time to do a proper analysis to determine the impact that they would have on the program. Chang also stated that the proposed changes had only just recently been reviewed by the SYEN Advisory Council and that they did not appear to represent the overall mission or the original reasons for creating the SYEN program. Concerns where also expressed by Chang about several potential problems that the proposed changes would have on the SYEN program’s ability to receive accreditation.
- Swaminadham Midturi, Chair of the Engineering Technology department, requested time to explain why he had challenged the decision. Midturi explained that the scope of the proposed changes would have a negative effect on the ability of the SYEN program to be accredited by ABET. Midturi also stated that all the stakeholders in the program had not been properly considered and that the end result could disenfranchise them. Concerns where also expressed by Midturi about allowing the proposal to go forward without administrational approval in terms of adequate allocated resources without a proper analysis.
- Lee Niles, Director of the Construction Management program, requested time to explain why he had challenged the decision. Niles explained that his challenge was based on the potential that the State Legislature could perceive the changes as going away from the original intent for creating the SYEN program and this could result in funding problems.
- A call for a vote was made and Pete stated that the Assembly had to have a motion on the floor before a vote could be made. Midturi made the motion to overturn the decision and Niles seconded the motion. After discussion the Assembly agreed to allow Nick Jovanovic, the SYEN Curriculum Committee Chair, to present the reasons for the proposed changes.
- Jovanovic provided a detailed presentation outlining the original proposal approved by Higher Education and stated why the Committee felt that the proposal was in agreement with the original proposal. He also presented a detailed explanation why the Committee strongly felt that the proposed changes were needed in order for the SYEN program to be accredited by ABET and that the potential existed for ABET not accredit the program without the changes. Jovanovic ended his presentation by requesting that the Assembly not overturn the decision of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee decision.
- The Assembly discussed the matter until Mary Good, Dean of the Cyber College, requested time to explain the importance and need for the SYEN program to be accredited by ABET. Good stated that ABET accreditation would be based on the catalog that was in place when the SYEN program was originally created. Good also stated that the current curriculum need to be adjusted since it had basically been developed as it was being taught. The real issue was that the SYEN program would be better served by making the adjustments after the program had been accredited by ABET.
- The Assembly requested a recess in order to continue the discussion. It was determined that a recess could not occur with a motion on the floor. Midturi and Niles stated that they would withdraw their motion and second as long as the challenge period remained in place.
- Charles Ford made a motion to that effect and requested the recess, Andrew Wright seconded and the Assembly passed the motion.
5. Adjournment: The meeting ended at 5:15 PM.