ࡱ>  bjbjVV 7,<<& 8/yROO"qqqLLLrytytytytytyty$E|~yLLyqqyA&A&A&qqryA&ryA&A&j6`&eq0&g!a2^yy0y$bw#wd&ew&e8LL6A&,LLLyy$lLLLywLLLLLLLLL : WESTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY Regular Meeting of the FACULTY SENATE Tuesday, 27 October 2009 4:00 p.m. Capitol Rooms - University Union A C T I O N M I N U T E S SENATORS PRESENT: P. Anderson, C. Blackinton, B. Clark, J. Clough, L. Conover, J. Deitz, G. Delany-Barmann, D. DeVolder, L. Erdmann, L. Finch, M. Hogg, M. Hoge, N. Made Gowda, M. Maskarinec, J. McNabb, L. Miczo, C. Pynes, P. Rippey, M. Siddiqi, M. Singh, I. Szabo Ex-officio: Jack Thomas, Provost; T. Kaul, Parliamentarian SENATORS ABSENT: D. Mummert GUESTS: Kevin Bacon, Bill Bailey, Lori Baker-Sperry, David Banash, Steve Bennett, Jillisa Benton, Virginia Boynton, Bill Brewer, Judi Dallinger, Richard Filipink, Al Goldfarb, David Haugen, Ken Hawkinson, Virginia Jelatis, Elgin Mannion, Candace McLaughlin, Kristi Mindrup, Kathy Neumann, Joe Rives, Tim Roberts, Jim Schmidt, Phyllis Self, John Simmons, Bill Thompson I. Consideration of Minutes A. 13 October 2009 MINUTES APPROVED AS DISTRIBUTED II. Announcements A. Approvals from the President and Provost 1. Approvals from the President a. Revision to appeals process for Study Abroad Courses b. Establishment of a minimum 3 s.h. of credit to satisfy the Global Issues component of the Foreign Language/Global Issues requirement. 2. Approvals from the Provost a. Request for WID Designation i. Renewable Energy Concentrations b. Request for Designation as Discipline-Specific Global Issues i. CHEM 342, Fundamentals of Environmental Chemistry, 4 s.h. c. Requests for Designation as General Education Global Issues i. HIST 126, ֱ Civilization Since 1648, 3 s.h. ii. HIST 341, Latin America Since 1860, 3 s.h. B. Provosts Report Provost Thomas announced that Judy Erwin, Executive Director of the Illinois Board of Higher Education (IBHE), visited ֱ today to discuss the budget and future plans. The list of individuals that will serve on the search committee to select a Dean for the College of Arts and Sciences has been compiled. Provost Thomas will chair the search committee for the Vice President for Advancement and Public Services. Their first meeting was held yesterday. Provost Thomas told senators the new H1N1 policy has generated a lot of concerns and questions. He said the administration would like faculty and others to abide by the policy that is in place, erring on the side of the student. He pointed out that the policy does not excuse students from completing required work. Provost Thomas noted that doctors offices are overwhelmed with requests for excuses from school, and President Obama has declared a national medical emergency. The next Provosts Open House will be held at 2:00 p.m. on November 11 in the Presidents Conference Room. C. Student Government Association (SGA) Report (Jillisa Benton, SGA Representative) The Student Government Association was happy with the results of their trip to Springfield to lobby for reinstatement of Monetary Award Program (MAP) funding. She related Illinois Governor Pat Quinn is backing the MAP grant for spring. Chairperson DeVolder thanked SGA for taking students to Springfield, stating he heard the event was quite impressive. SGA is developing flyers and posters to encourage students to attend Student Government Association meetings and voice their concerns. D. Other Announcements 1. Joan Livingston-Webber was elected by Unit A faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences to fill a one-year vacancy on the University Personnel Committee. A call for petitions to fill a spring semester sabbatical vacancy for the College on UPC was mailed out this week. 2. Chairperson DeVolder informed senators of an email from Vice President Rives outlining initial steps he has taken since the open technology meeting with faculty last week: Vice President Rives will be working with Assistant Vice President Mike Dickson and the deans to schedule open college meetings, beginning later this semester. He would also like to include another session for Faculty Senate. Assistant Vice President Dickson will contact Council of Chairs Coordinator Warren Jones to have Vice President Rives and himself routinely placed on the Chairs Council agenda. Assistant Provost Ken Hawkinson will represent the Provost on the Technology Cabinet. The University Technology website will be updated with current information, including committee membership, within the next couple of weeks. Libraries Dean Phyllis Self and Assistant Vice President Dickson are ready to work with the Faculty Senates Council for Instructional Technology (CIT) once requested by the Council. Chairperson DeVolder stated he attended CITs first meeting, and they plan to invite Dean Self, Assistant Vice President Dickson, and Director of Non-Traditional Programs Rick Carter to one of their future meetings. The ad hoc Technology Advisory Users Group is being converted to a standing committee with regular rotation of faculty representation. The same will be done with the Web Accessibility Committee and the Technology Cabinet. (The Technology Security Committee is already a standing committee with faculty representation on staggered terms.) 3. President Al Goldfarb President Goldfarb told senators he began the day with an IBHE meeting, explaining the University is now addressing next years budget as well as this years. He reiterated the positive news that MAP funding has been reinstated for spring semester 2010, adding that rallies organized by students and universities really made an impact on the Governor and legislature. He said the vote to reinstate MAP funding for spring passed with only one dissenting vote in both houses. President Goldfarb pointed out that funding sources for MAP still need to determined, but he believes the state will find the dollars; he related when it was announced that MAP would not be funded for spring 2010, it became a hot topic, with editorials in nearly every newspaper supporting MAP and university presidents giving interviews urging action. President Goldfarb told senators the state just this month paid WIU its $5 million reimbursement for MAP funds for fall, which is much later than usual. He stated there is an intense cash flow problem in Illinois: right now, the state owes ֱ $17 million in payments, about one-third of the Universitys general revenue fund twice what it owed last year at this time. President Goldfarb related the University is operating off of its income fund and very carefully monitoring it, but it is becoming harder. He said about half of the income fund approximately $60 million is a result of tuition income, but that money arrives in spurts, and WIU cant survive on it indefinitely. The University is submitting its payroll expenses as reimbursements to the state. President Goldfarb reminded senators that the state last year gave back to WIU, as a result of the stimulus package, money that was formerly taken away from the budget. He said the federal stimulus also protected state university budgets last year from being diminished, but he is afraid that without that protection next year, budgets will be in danger of cuts. He related every institution in the state is dealing with these problems, and he hopes the state of Illinois will push through its grant application to receive the stimulus funds soon. President Goldfarb believes the only way the states budgetary problems will improve is with revenue enhancement; otherwise, the President does not know where the state will find the funds necessary to operate at current levels. President Goldfarb reiterated the good news that WIU received approval in the capitol budget for funding for the Performing Arts Center, Quad Cities Riverfront Campus, and deferred maintenance, the second highest capitol recommendation in the state of Illinois. He said the state will likely have to issue bonds to make this happen, and anticipates it may be three to five years before ֱ sees this occur. The President assured senators, though, that WIU will see the projects come to fruition because he does not believe the bill will be disregarded after it has been signed. He said that projects that are shovel ready are the ones that will be considered first, and both of ֱs projects are at this stage. President Goldfarb continues to monitor H1N1 closely and said the University is erring on the side of caution. The President realizes this makes it very difficult to teach classes, but he wants to make sure that ill students are not in the classroom. He said almost every state is implementing similar measures. President Goldfarb stated the University will try to move as quickly as possible with the search for a Vice President for Advancement and Public Services. WIU continues to be involved in the comprehensive campaign, which will reach $30 million this month on its way to its $60 million goal. He said the University has received some significant and generous donations from alumni, which is inspiring in the face of difficult economic times. He hopes to get the new vice president hired in time to help with the end of the campaign. The President told senators the University is currently in the middle of preparing for the 2011 visit from the Higher Learning Commission. He expressed his appreciation to senators for reviewing the North Central Association reaccreditation report, stating those involved in preparing it want as much input as they can get. The President concluded with an expression of appreciation to faculty for staying with ֱ. He pointed out that cuts and furloughs have come to other educational institutions across the country, many of which have not been able to provide the raises for employees that WIU has continued to this point. 4. Joe Rives, Vice President for Quad Cities, Planning, and Technology Senators provided feedback to Vice President Rives on Criteria 2 and 3 of the reaccreditation report. Co-chairs of Criterion 2 were Bill Brewer and Kristi Mindrup; Criterion 3 was co-chaired by Lori Baker-Sperry and Candace McLaughlin. Associate Provost Judi Dallinger told senators they will be reading about ten chapters of the report by the time it is completed. Vice President Rives thanked senators for taking time to read the chapters, stating that after the next two they will have completed the criterion portion of the report. He returns to Faculty Senate on December 1 to receive comments about Criteria 4 and 5. 5. Summary of Assessment ֱ Reports 2008-2009 Womens Studies Professor Lori Baker-Sperry presented the report, including some minor changes that were discovered after distribution to senators. The report states that Overall, the assessment of student learning has improved in quantity and quality in the last five years. In some cases, the improvements are significant. To this end, we have identified departments that are working to improve as well as those that have strong practices in place. Dallinger and Baker-Sperry meet on a bi-annual basis (and by request) with each department to facilitate this process. Senator Pynes asked what feedback is sent back to departments who do not meet the goals for assessment of student learning across the University. Dr. Baker-Sperry responded chairs receive the report summary, which will eventually be uploaded to the Provosts website. She and Assistant Provost Dallinger generally also meet in the spring with those departments that have more serious issues in an effort to work with them. III. Reports of Committees and Councils A. Council on Curricular Programs and Instruction (CCPI) (Elgin Mannion, Vice Chair) 1. Requests for New Courses a. HIST 201, Historical Methods, 3 s.h. b. HIST 319, Ancient Near East and Egypt, 3 s.h. c. HIST 322, Pre-Modern Military History, 3 s.h. d. HIST 326, Old Regime Europe, 1648-1789, 3 s.h. e. HIST 431, Alexander the Great, 3 s.h. f. HIST 433, Tudor/Stuart England: 1485-1714, 3 s.h. g. HORT 484, Sustainable Landscape Practices, 3 s.h. h. IS 325, Global Social Networks, 3 s.h. NEW COURSES APPROVED 2. Requests for New Minors a. Legal History b. Modern Global History NEW MINORS APPROVED B. Council on General Education (CGE) (Steve Bennett, Chair) 1. Request for Inclusion in General Education a. IS 325, Global Social Networks, 3 s.h. IS 325 APPROVED FOR GEN ED Chairperson DeVolder asked if senators would object to reordering the agenda to consider the Committee on Committees report next in order to give the Council for International Education chair time to arrive. NO OBJECTIONS D. Committee on Committees (Reordered) (Martin Maskarinec, Chair) UNIVERSITY COMMITTEES: Committee on Sexual Orientation Melanie Hetzel-Riggin, Psychology replacing Melanie Hetzel-Riggin 12 At-large NOMINATION APPROVED C. Council for International Education (CIE) (Kevin Bacon, Chair) 1. Requests for Designation as General Education Global Issues a. HIST 125, ֱ Civilization to 1648, 3 s.h. b. HIST 144, History of the Middle East, 3 s.h. c. HIST 318, Women and Gender in European History, 3 s.h. Senator Pynes asked if WS 318, which is cross-listed with HIST 318, would also receive designation as General Education Global Issues. History Chair Virginia Boynton responded it would receive the same designation, just as both cross-listed Gen Ed courses are included in General Education. Senator Rippey noted that HIST/WS 318 would still be taught by a historian so would have the same content, although Dr. Boynton pointed out that WS 318 would have a different star number. Chairperson DeVolder suggested that Senate confirm with the Provosts office that cross-listed GEGI courses will be handled in this way. d. HIST 344, Modern Middle East, 3 s.h. Senator Siddiqi asked how different HIST 144 is from HIST 344. Dr. Boynton responded HIST 144 begins with the very early history of the region and continues to the present in one semester. HIST 344 examines in depth the time period covered during the last couple of weeks of 144. GENERAL EDUCATION GLOBAL ISSUES COURSES APPROVED 2. Requests for Designation as Discipline-Specific Global Issues a. HIST 312, Technology, Culture and Society, 3 s.h. Senator Maskarinec asked why the department is requesting two discipline-specific global issues courses. He said when the ad hoc committee that devised the Foreign Language/Global Issues guidelines thought about the DSGI courses, they assumed each department would have only one. History Professor Rich Filipink responded the courses may not be available the same semester since they are generally taught in a two-year rotation. Dr. Boynton added that it is difficult to know how many students will take HIST 312 or 445 as their DSGI course because it will not be taken by History majors. Senator Maskarinec asked if there is an anticipated need; Dr. Boynton responded it is difficult to know what the departmental requirements will be. CIE Chair Kevin Bacon stated he foresees certain departments, because of the different paths within their disciplines, offering more than one DSGI course. He stated that it would be very appropriate, for instance, for Agribusiness, Agronomy and Animal Science to offer different DSGI courses within the School of Agriculture. b. HIST 445, History of Modern East Asia, 3 s.h. DISCIPLINE-SPECIFIC GLOBAL ISSUES COURSES APPROVED IV. Old Business A. CCPI Bylaws Amendment 1. Second Reading and Vote BYLAWS AMENDMENT APPROVED 21 YES 0 NO 0 AB B. Faculty Input into Technology Decisions Senator Maskarinec had previously submitted a letter to Chairperson DeVolder expressing his concern with the lack of faculty participation in decisions pertaining to the use and adoption of technology on our campus. The letter recommends three courses of action for Faculty Senate to consider: 1) Investigate where technology decisions that affect academics are made and work to include the academic perspective into this process. Chairperson DeVolder reminded senators that the Executive Committee has given this charge to the Council for Instructional Technology; he has asked the Council as one of their first tasks to investigate the hierarchical process and to begin actively representing the faculty in this process. 2) Recommend to Provost Thomas that he create a position for an Associate Vice President for Instructional Technology. Senator Maskarinec clarified that he thinks it is vitally important that this individual be an academic who understands technology at its deeper level, somebody to represent both sides of the house. In his letter, Senator Maskarinec recognizes the difficulty of creating a new administrative position in challenging economic times, and suggests creating a temporary position funded with release time as one method that might be possible with limited budgetary impact. 3) Recommend to President Goldfarb that he give the Provosts office at least sign-off authority for technology decisions affecting academics. Senator Rippey stated that the person who fills the Associate Vice President for Instructional Technology position should be an advocate for faculty, not a conduit to faculty of decisions made elsewhere, and should be able to understand and transmit the faculty perspective. Senator Maskarinec explained that is part of the reason he added the third recommendation, so that the position would not be one that only relays decisions made elsewhere but so that the Provosts office would be involved in the decision-making process. Senator Rippey stated that the open meeting on technology held recently by Faculty Senate and the Provosts office seemed to generate a fairly forthright discussion, but toward the end it appeared that there were increasing suggestions that the problem is communication, and thats not what faculty generally see. She said faculty see the problem as one of decision making: the decisions regarding technology are not being made within Academic Affairs, which is having a significant impact. She related there was previously a long tradition that the Provosts office would have responsibility for all aspects of academic affairs affecting both students and faculty. Senator Rippey stated it would be truly remarkable if the oversight of decisions regarding science labs was taken out of Academic Affairs and individuals who are not scientists were determining what equipment should be purchased and replaced; likewise, technology is part of the infrastructure for teaching in the classroom. She stated the idea that these types of decisions are not made in Academic Affairs is remarkable and difficult to believe, adding that the Provost and Provosts office have always made these types of decisions and need to be the ones doing so. Senator Singh stated that, in the interests of institutional vision, it is important for an academic to define what basket of skills ֱ expects its students to have upon graduation, regardless of their majors or disciplines, and whether the institution has a measure for the threshold of skills students should have upon entering the University. He stated an Associate Vice President for Instructional Technology can define a compelling vision that goes beyond social networking to determine if students really possess a valuable skill set in terms of todays technological society, and reassess that expectation every year as technology undergoes rapid changes. He stated this point person, with input from the campus and in consultation with various disciplines, would be the one faculty could seek out to help bring their visions to fruition. He added he or she would have a difficult but compelling role at WIU. Parliamentarian Kaul expressed his hope that technology oversight is not just handed over as one additional component for someone already working in the Provosts office to handle but that it is done right with the hiring of someone who clearly understands both the academic and the technology sides of the discussion. He recalled the person who defined the gold standard for technology on this campus a number of years ago was Jim Calhoun, and he hopes that somebody like him, who faculty can immediately rely on for advice, is chosen for the position. He added that Academic Computing was created almost 20 years ago, but since that time something has not gone well in regards to technology at WIU, and it needs to be fixed at this time. Senator Pynes seconded Senator Rippeys point that the problem is not one of communication but one of decision making, stating that how the technology budget meshes with the academic side of the house is not always clear; he pointed out that the vice president over technology reports directly to the President, so it is not clear how the Provost fits into that decision making. Senator Pynes stated Recommendation #3 seems too weak: he believes there needs to be not just a sign-off but defeater authority so that if something is a bad idea, the Provosts office can veto it and have input into the decisions that are made. He stated what is needed is somebody who is engaged in the process; he stated, for example, that if a certain learning management software were considered for the University, it could have particular consequences for faculty, and someone needs to be in a position to guard those interests. Senator Maskarinec explained that when he was formulating his letter, by sign off authority he implicitly meant veto power. Senator Singh expressed his agreement with Senator Pynes concerns about budgetary authority, stating that if the Associate Vice President for Instructional Technology does not have some kind of fiscal authority, the position could easily be sidelined from technology decisions. He clarified Faculty Senate is asking for an administrator who would be the faculty champion, with the authority to make budget decisions in consultation and with due process, but who would be far more powerful than is currently reflected in Recommendation #3 and an equal participatory member of the vice presidential cabinet. Senator Rippey told senators that a question from a faculty member at the open forum on technology this week illustrates why she thinks it is so important for Academic Affairs to re-form Academic Computing. She related the faculty member asked technology representatives what the vision was for equipping classrooms because, as an Arts and Sciences faculty member, he had particular needs for the way he taught. She said the question was met with dead silence initially; the Provost couldnt answer because it was outside his authority to have that budget and make those decisions for his faculty. Assistant Vice President Dickson responded that University Technology utilizes a one-size-fits-all method. Senator Rippey stated that for a lot of technology outside of Academic Affairs, such as email systems and servers, that consistency is desirable, but it does not work for a campus with over 39 particular disciplines. She stressed it is essential for faculty to have control of the equipment and resources that undergird their work. Senator Rippey asserted the Provost cannot succeed in his role without this kind of authority and the resources to support it. She believes faculty who ask questions are entitled to an answer that addresses academic issues. Motion: That the three items in Senator Maskarinecs letter be formalized as a motion with explanations for each (Rippey/Singh). Chairperson DeVolder reminded senators that the first recommendation has already been delegated by the Senate Executive Committee to the Council for Instructional Technology but clarified the motion as he understands it is to transmit Recommendations 2. and 3. to the President. He said senators can decide if they wish to do anything additionally to Recommendation 1. besides charging it to CIT. Senator Pynes related that two years ago when Zimbra was implemented, he asked Vice President Rives and Assistant Vice President Dickson how standard classrooms are converted to electronic classrooms. He related that Morgan Hall Room 230 is so cumbersome it is practically unusable. Assistant Vice President Dickson has explained to Senator Pynes that electronic classroom set-up is determined by where the power plug is located, and by his response Senator Pynes understood that someone in a decision-making position knew ahead of time that this would be a problem in Morgan 230. He stated that rather than spend $300 or so to move a power plug within a potentially $10,000 electronic classroom project, faculty are now reluctant to teach in Morgan 230 at all. He asserted the person in charge of these decisions needs to be someone who can think of potential difficulties and who has taught in a classroom in the recent past. Senator Erdmann asked, if the Associate Vice President for Instructional Technology position is created within the Provosts office, how the funds would be reallocated so that the academic side has some control. Provost Thomas responded that if this came about, President Goldfarb would have to move a line of the budget. He said that while he has concerns, it is important to decide how the change could be constructed to meet faculty needs. Senator Rippey agreed that moving a line would not be that complicated, adding thats what happened when Academic Computing was removed from Academic Affairs. Senator Deitz noted that the fact Faculty Senate is proposing creating a new administrative position and asking the President to move funds to support it illustrates how strongly faculty feel that technology and academics should be more closely connected. She pointed out that Senator Maskarinecs proposal suggests release time could be used rather than creating an entirely new position, but, given those constraints, Faculty Senate still feels this is an important bridge between the academic side and technology. Provost Thomas suggested changes could be made in half-steps to make sure that they are the ones that faculty wants and that what needs to happen in order to be successful, such as funding, is in place rather than doing it piecemeal. He stressed the person filling the Associate Vice President for Instructional Technology position would have to be someone from the academic side who is also technology savvy because the Provost would expect to ask that person questions for which he or she would need to obtain input and make some necessarily tough decisions. Senator Siddiqi asked Vice President Rives to express his viewpoint of the conversation. Vice President Rives said he sees it as a robust and healthy conversation that is for the betterment of ֱ. He stated that he taught for several years, understands what senators are saying, and believes both sides can work together to continue to move the institution forward. Senator Pynes asked Vice President Rives, as the current vice president over technology with control of that budget, how he feels about facultys desire to take control of some parts of the technology budget and give them to the academic side. Vice President Rives responded he thinks it is great; he pointed out that there is only $30,000 left in discretionary funds for technology for the remainder of the year, but agreed that the person who is in charge of the academic side of technology should have a budget. Vice President Rives said he does not see this as taking from one side to give to another but for the betterment of the institution, and he stands behind that. Assistant Provost Hawkinson reminded senators that ֱ six years ago had an associate provost in charge of technology, Library Dean Jim Huesmann. He stated that when Associate Vice President Huesmann left the University, a consultant was brought in who recommended consolidating technology under the President, which led to a major transition. He related prior to this consolidation, departments were using their own funds to pay for electronic classrooms and computers. Assistant Provost Hawkinson said when Vice President Rives was appointed Special Assistant to the President, he was given one million dollars for technology needs, half of which was used to build electronic classrooms across the University. He said Vice President Rives at that time went to the colleges to talk about equipment needs and purchased new computers so that departments didnt have to incur those expenses; a wish list was requested from faculty, then computers were purchased in bulk. Assistant Provost Hawkinson pointed out that even though departmental budgets have not been increased in recent years, the strain of paying for technology has been eliminated through standardization and major funding by the President. He concluded returning technology to Academic Affairs sounds like a great idea. He added that the costs of funding electronic classrooms are unbelievable as much as $20,000, with structural changes like moving power plugs adding several thousand to that estimate. Parliamentarian Kaul stated that at the time the consolidation was implemented, he does not believe faculty intended to move their control over technology entirely out of Academic Affairs. He asserted if standardization and gaining computers across campus meant that Academic Affairs would lose control of technology completely, faculty would not have approved that particular plan. He pointed out that the open meeting on technology held this week brought out that the Student Services and administrative sides of WIU control their own technology needs, but the technology needs of Academic Affairs have become intertwined somewhere with the infrastructure needs of University Technology; Parliamentarian Kaul believes that was a bad policy then and cannot be justified as a correct policy now. Assistant Provost Hawkinson assured senators that the President will hear their voices. He reiterated that the President reorganized the reporting lines and moved technology as a result of consulting recommendations, but he realizes Senate has been concerned at various times through the years. He said he understands the importance of returning technology to Academic Affairs, but also recognizes that this would also involve moving an enormous budget to Academic Affairs. Parliamentarian Kaul clarified that every action of the Senate is recommended to the President or the Provost, who can veto recommendations. He stated, however, that faculty at least need to provide input and voice that what is occurring in regards to technology at WIU is clearly not acceptable. Provost Thomas said he looks forward to receiving the recommendation from Senate. Senator Singh stated that Provost Thomas has alluded to the idea that when he looks at technology, he wants to go full hard; Senator Singh said he couldnt agree more. He asserted that just as critical as a vision for technology is the support provided to faculty and students. Senator Singh recommends a holistic look at technology as applied to ֱs campuses. He proposed to senators that they come to a consensus to make a strong recommendation with a compelling, forceful vision, and then expect an answer as to why if it cannot be approved. He said Faculty Senate needs to convince administrators and make their arguments forceful to explain why faculty feel this strongly. He said he will understand if budget constraints prevent the Senates recommendations from being implemented at this time, but asserted the strength of faculty arguments should be expected to carry the day. Senator Singh also stressed that it is absolutely critical a timeline be established, stating he would hate to be at a Senate meeting six months to a year from today discussing that something needs to be done about technology. He believes the line needs to be drawn in the sand to ask where technology will be, for example, in March 2010. SENATOR SIDDIQI CALLED THE QUESTION Senator Siddiqi explained that there is frustration brewing among faculty about the way technology has been handled as a result of decisions made years earlier; he recognized that while some good, such as standardization, resulted from the technology reorganization, the way policies are conveyed and communication made to faculty is unacceptable. He outlined, as an example, the frustration experienced when faculty are asked to respond within 24 hours to technology requests with little explanation. He asserted the time is right to send the Senates recommendation to the President, and he hopes it will be implemented. SENATOR RIPPEY OBJECTED TO CLOSING THE DISCUSSION Senator Rippey related that in 1994, the vast majority of faculty had no University-owned computers to use on their desks. That year, an effort was made so that all faculty who conducted student advising would receive desktop computers; in the succeeding five years, a push was made to obtain desktop computers for faculty members across the board. She said the issue now is not about bulk buying but about software and how faculty want to use technology, and Academic Affairs needs to be spearheading this effort because the discussion is no longer about hardware purchases but about pedagogy. Senator Pynes asked if Senator Singh would elucidate on the timeline as a friendly amendment to the motion on the floor. Friendly amendment: That a search for an Assistant Vice President for Instructional Technology, internal or, preferably, external, be conducted no later than the end of the spring semester. (Singh) FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ACCEPTED Senator Miczo asked for clarification of the motion. Senator Rippey responded the motion asks for Academic Affairs control of decisions over the use of technology affecting academics. She clarified that Recommendation #1 from Senator Maskarinecs letter, as proposed by the Executive Committee, should be charged to the Council for Instructional Technology in order for them to begin their investigation. Senator Rippey stated her motion asks for creation of an Associate Vice President in Academic Affairs who is both an academic and a technology expert and who would advocate for faculty and advise the Provost on issue of technology. She added that Recommendation #3 from Senator Maskarinecs letter asks that the Provosts office control the resources and decisions affecting both Academic Affairs and technology. Additionally, the motion specifies that a search for an Assistant Vice President for Instructional Technology within Academic Affairs be conducted before the end of the spring semester 2010. MOTION APPROVED 19 YES 0 N0 0 AB V. New Business A. Discussion of Core Definition Senator Pynes related the history behind the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies request that Faculty Senate consider whether a core requirement can contain a choice of one of two classes. He said when the department wished to create an option for its major, they were told by CCPI that they could not do so without a 15 s.h. core. Senator Pynes explained that Philosophy majors are normally set up in one of three ways: 1) premier schools such as Princeton allow students to take 30 hours of their choice; 2) some institutions, like WIU, require their majors to take logic, the history of philosophy, and additional courses of their choice; or 3) other institutions require logic, a series of history courses, ethics or value courses, and metaphysical/ epistemology courses. Senator Pynes related the core proposed for WIUs Philosophy option included a logic course, two history courses (modern and ancient), a value component, a writing course, and one of two metaphysical/epistemology courses satisfied by using an either/or disjunction, all resulting in 16 hours for the proposed core. CCPI was opposed to using disjunctions in the core, suggesting instead that Philosophy include a Gen Ed course (PHIL 105) or both of the metaphysical/epistemology courses in the core. Senator Pynes said departmental representatives could not find anywhere in the definitions of academic terms language prohibiting use of either/or in the core of an option. Senator Pynes told senators the department believes inclusion of PHIL 105 unnecessarily weakens their major, and is a course that is not needed in order to take metaphysics or epistemology courses. Additionally, he said Philosophy Professor and former senator Gordon Pettit did not recall any discussion when CCPIs definition of academic terms was approved by Faculty Senate prohibiting the use of disjunctions in a core. English and Journalism Professor David Banash told senators his department has been working on significant curriculum revisions and has struggled with this same problem. He said when this issue was initially brought up, the idea of defining a core as 15 s.h. was one of bookkeeping, but it has now become interpreted by CCPI as one of the rules that dictates their review of curricula; he said this means that any department that wants to revise their curricula has to now make their core 15 s.h. He pointed out that there are other majors existing on campus without 15 s.h. of unique core courses, such as Geography which uses an either/or within their core to reflect the diversity of their field, or Economics; he observed that this is not considered scandalous, and CCPI is not asking these departments to change their cores to match their interpretation of the approved definition. Dr. Banash explained that English does not share one subject matter but has a number of methodologies and is serving different segments of the public. He said if English is not allowed to use a disjunction within their core, all students that they serve will be shoved into one box that doesnt fit what is being done within the discipline. He said English and Journalism wishes for Faculty Senate to address whether the definition of terms should dictate how disciplines should be constructed, regardless of their curriculum. Senator Rippey stated she finds it disturbing that a university curriculum committee understands their authority as including telling disciplinary experts how to deliver their curriculum. She expressed an inability to think of any academic or pedagogical reason that even 15 s.h. becomes the sine qua non of a quality major with integrity. Senator Rippey asserted the role of CCPI is to see that departments dont inappropriately step on toes or waste resources by offering the same courses as those taught in other departments; she stated that ultimately the reason the University hires disciplinary experts and gives them authority over majors is because the institution looks to those people to design diverse curricula and deliver the majors. She said she is mystified why CCPI would push Philosophy to include a course they feel is inappropriate to all of their majors and which their disciplinary experts did not select. She hopes Faculty Senate comes up with a definition of the core, but also reverts to trusting departments to define their own majors while using the Senates governing bodies to see that resources are appropriately designed to have academic integrity rooted in the expertise of the Universitys programs. Parliamentarian Kaul related the previous provost was approached by several constituent groups to have a certification program, which prompted the discussion of what constitutes the definition of this and other programs; the task of defining academic programs was at that time given to CCPI. Parliamentarian Kaul expressed his agreement that rules are important, but added that when the common sense application of the rules is lost, difficulties occur. He stated the definition of terms is, basically, a rule created by a Senate council, and if flexibility is lost there is a problem. Parliamentarian Kaul does not see why Philosophy should not be able to utilize this flexibility if they choose, adding that council members should have some flexibility in dealing with the rules. Associate Provost Dallinger clarified that CCPI did not mandate that Philosophy include PHIL 105 as a way to achieve the 15 s.h. core; it was suggested as one path to consider, as well as other suggestions including requiring both PHIL 335 and 345 instead of either/or for a core of 19 hours. She said CCPI was not pushing the department to include inappropriate courses in its core but to find ways to achieve a 15-hour core. CCPI member and Computer Science Chair Kathy Neumann related that when former Provost Rallo arrived at ֱ, there was a lot of divergence in how academic terms such as emphasis, track, and others, were being used. She recalled a 14-member CCPI subcommittee, on which she served along with representatives from Interdisciplinary Studies, the Honors College, the Provosts office, and others, examined and discussed the academic terms in great detail for two years, from 2005 to 2007, meeting every other week. Dr. Neumann pointed out that the 15 s.h. core only comes into the discussion of an option, which is almost a different major; she noted that pp. 10-13 of the undergraduate catalog list fields of study broken out by their options. She explained, for instance, that Computer Science has both a traditional option and a business option, but believes there should be a body of knowledge that is common to both paths of study for the discipline. She said the discussion centers on whether students graduating from a particular area should have taken widely different courses with little or nothing in terms of a common thread. Dr. Neumann pointed out that 15 s.h. is only one semester of coursework, and both Faculty Senate and the President approved the guidelines that specify that this be the basis for an option. She added that CCPI would be happy to review the guidelines again, but their charge to this point has been to make sure that these guidelines are followed by departments. Senator Siddiqi stated he does not recall this interpretation of the definitions of academic terms when they were presented originally, and he does not think Faculty Senate charged CCPI to implement them in this way. He explained that faculty in English and Journalism spent about ten months discussing the need for flexibility in their core courses, and he thinks these are the people that understand the requirement. Senator Siddiqi observed the purpose of CCPI is not to hinder the academic process as determined by faculty teaching in the departments but to verify if the broader framework of the rules is being followed. He believes that Faculty Senate should consider how to address the current ruling from CCPI and perhaps ask them to bring the entire definition of terms document back to the Senate floor again. He stated the issue of who defines the core and if there is a need for flexibility within the core should always be left to the discipline and the faculty that teach it. Senator Pynes stated that the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies is only asking for clarification of whether or not they can use either/or in the core because nothing in the CCPI documents prohibits its usage. Chairperson DeVolder explained that the Senate agenda item indicates Discussion of Core Definition because the Executive Committee recognized that the way the core is defined applies not only to Philosophy but University-wide. He said if the question of the core definition can be determined, Philosophy can bring its specific option request to the next Senate meeting, but the core definition needs to be resolved before that consideration. Senator Deitz stated she understands the notion of a common body of knowledge to be shared among options within a major, but believes the construction of that common body of knowledge should be left to departments to determine. She asked if the metaphysical/epistemology courses do constitute a common body of knowledge in that they expose students to the same skill set within the major. Senator Pynes stated the skills students learn could be obtained from either course, explaining that metaphysics discusses what is meant by truth and identity while epistemology addresses what constitutes knowledge; he said there is a lot of cross-over between the two courses. He added that most graduate and undergraduate institutions have a metaphysical/epistemology requirement, so either one or the other would work. Senator Deitz said a unique required set of courses does not necessarily prohibit choice; students could be required to make a choice among courses within the core, so she does not understand the distinction that is being made. Sociology and Anthropology Professor Elgin Mannion, Vice Chair of CCPI, told senators that CCPI had not meant to be difficult or obstructionist; the intention was not to dictate curriculum but to make sure the 15 s.h. core was in place. Philosophy and Religious Studies Professor David Haugen related PHIL 105 came into the discussion when the chair of CCPI emailed him and suggested it as a possible way to revise the core; it did not come up for initial discussion at the CCPI meeting but was considered prior to that point. Senator Maskarinec expressed concern that the tone of the discussion seems to imply that CCPI is trying to dictate curriculum, and he does not see that as what is occurring. He explained CCPI appears to be trying to apply a set of rules on defined terms. He pointed out that Philosophy could explore other avenues, such as establishing an emphasis, which does not require a 15 s.h. core, or different comprehensive majors; the only problem is the application to an option. He explained the purpose of defining academic terms was to give meaning across the disciplines, and Philosophy is trying to use the term option as something it was not originally meant to define. He concluded if the 15 s.h. requirement is removed, there is not much difference between an option and an emphasis. Senator Miczo remarked that Senator Deitzs comments on a required choice sounds like directed electives. She said when senators are considering whether there is a precedent for allowing an either/or disjunction, they should ask themselves if there can be two or three disjunctions within a core. She believes this could lead to a path that is too far afield from the standard of a core requirement. Senator Miczo stated, from her experience serving on CCPI, that the Council tries to work within a set of parameters. She agrees with Senator Maskarinec that she does not perceive CCPI as trying to tell disciplines what kinds of courses they should teach but as trying to follow the normal and established standards. She said Faculty Senate should ask what they want to define as the core and if senators are willing to define a disjunction as a core or if this is more like directed electives that should not be allowed within the core. She noted that if Faculty Senate is to allow exceptions to the standard definition, the core could shrink in some cases. Motion: To extend the meeting by ten minutes since the 6:00 end time has been reached (Pynes/Made Gowda) NO OBJECTIONS Senator Rippey said the question is whether CCPI has interpreted the intention of the Senate regarding cores or options appropriately, particularly in the assumption that there should not be flexibility in the number of hours in an option. She noted that the College of Arts and Sciences does not offer comprehensive majors because they want students to take majors with minors as part of their intellectual commitment to a college degree. The College allows small majors and allows departments to define whether majors in other areas can utilize a large number of Arts and Sciences courses. She sees no reason to suggest that there is something about a core that does not lend itself to that level of flexibility when majors can be left to the academic expertise of disciplinary specialists. Senator Rippey said she is hearing there is not a clear understanding of what the option requires: that the core has to be 15 s.h. with absolutely no choices included within it. She noted Philosophy is suggesting that what they are calling a core still falls within the definition of an option; she hopes that Senate relies on the disciplinary specialists and, just as with majors, an option is allowed to have the flexibility it needs. Parliamentarian Kaul noted that the difference between an emphasis and an option is that an option is transcripted while an emphasis is not. He would be satisfied if CCPI brought before Faculty Senate the fact that there is a gray area with a recommendation as to how that gray area should be handled by Senate. He pointed out that 12 s.h. is the common body of knowledge that CCPI and Philosophy agree upon for the core; the remainder is the gray area. He recommended that CCPI bring forward the proposal from Philosophy and let Faculty Senate decide what needs to be done if the Council cannot make the decision to accept it as proposed. Dr. Boynton asked if 15 s.h. for the core is sacrosanct, why there is not a concern with existing majors that do not meet that definition. Dr. Neumann responded that it was specified by Faculty Senate when the definitions of academic terms were approved that they be applied from the point that President Goldfarb approved them forward. She added they were never meant to force departments to change existing programs but only to be applied to new situations. Senator Pynes pointed out the only place the core is mentioned in the definitions is in discussion of an option; he said if the department wanted to create a new major, they wouldnt have to worry about the 15 s.h. core, but they would have the added step of going before the IBHE. He said a situation exists where small departments like Womens Studies and Philosophy and Religious Studies feel they must create options if they wish to have their upper-level classes filled. He informed senators there are ten departments at ֱ without 15-hour cores, six of which are within the College of Arts and Sciences, so this rule disproportionately harms that College. He said the phrasing of the definition refers to a set of unique required courses, but unique is being interpreted by CCPI as invariant. He stated if Faculty Senate rules that these terms are the same, they will be stating that there can be no flexibility in cores. Senator Pynes explained the metaphysical/epistemology requirement is still a unique requirement; it just can be met in one of two ways, so it is unique but not invariant. Senator Hoge asked if Philosophy and Religious Studies unique situation was clearly explained to CCPI: that metaphysics/epistemology represents the same skill set whether taught in PHIL 335 or 345. Dr. Haugen replied this was clearly explained. Senator Hoge stated that if a clear case was presented explaining that 335 and 345 are the same class with a different twist, he does not see the problem. Dr. Banash stated English would like for students to come into the major through one of two classes, Introduction to Fiction or Introduction to Film; he explained both are skill sets based on narrative with a slight difference in subject matter. He said the department would like to include either/or within its core in order to be consistent with what is currently done in the field. Motion: That CCPI interpret the definition of terms as flexibly as possible in allowing for disjunctions of as much as 3 s.h. within the core (Rippey/Made Gowda) Senator Rippey also expressed her appreciation to CCPI for its diligence in enforcing the standards. Friendly amendment: That the disjunction be expressed as either/or (Siddiqi) FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ACCEPTED Senator McNabb suggested as an alternative, because English will need a 6 s.h. disjunction instead of 3 s.h., a better solution might be to change the definition of option to say, includes a set of unique requirements instead of required courses. She explained that metaphysics/epistemology could be considered a requirement. Senator Rippey stated she would accept Senator McNabbs suggestion as a friendly amendment; Senator Made Gowda agreed. The Parliamentarian has clarified that Senator McNabbs proposal, by its acceptance as a friendly amendment, superseded the original motion as a substitution. Senator Pynes suggested it could just be stated that unique does not mean invariant because that is the essential question. Senator Maskarinec asked, if the motion is approved, what the difference would be between an option and an emphasis, beyond the fact that an emphasis is transcribed. He asked why any department would want to create an emphasis that does not appear on student transcripts when it would be just as easy to call their program an option. Senator Erdmann, while expressing his agreement with Senator Maskarinecs point, stated the difference would be number of hours. He explained departments could offer an emphasis with fewer hours than those for an option because the number of hours for an emphasis is solely determined by the department while an option is required to be comprised of one-third to one-half of the major hours. Senator Maskarinec stated that once departments reach the 15 s.h. minimum, there will be no reason not to make their programs options rather than emphases; he explained if the program is 9 s.h., it will be an emphasis, and if 15 s.h., departments will choose to call it an option. Parliamentarian Kaul explained that what has been proposed is changing from a required set of courses to a requirement. He asked senators to understand that if they approve the motion, there will no longer be a required set of courses for an option but a requirement. He noted this could potentially be satisfied by three different requirements bringing together two or more disjointed kinds of areas. Senator Hoge said he is nervous about the critical decision that Senate is about to make. He stated if a department approached CCPI with the logic and rationale for an exception, they currently have some flexibility to approve that, but he has seen the discussion move from that hope to major changes in the definition of an option. Senator Siddiqi asserted the proposal by Faculty Senate would not change anything in the way options are defined. Senator Maskarinec disagreed, explaining the motion completely changes the dynamic relationship between an option and an emphasis, and he is not comfortable with that change. Senator Siddiqi reminded senators that an option must still comprise one-third to one-half of the total hours for the major. Senator Maskarinec noted that the College of Arts and Sciences has been disproportionately hurt by the option guidelines because they have small majors, but a 45 s.h. or less major will still need a 15 s.h. minimum core to meet the option requirement. Senator Deitz remarked it may be possible to avoid changing the definition of an option because it is not the definition but its interpretation that is the point of issue. Senator Rippey stated the motion will give clarity as to how the rules are interpreted. Senator Maskarinec reiterated that Faculty Senate is actually considering changing the wording of an option from including unique required courses to including a set of unique requirements. Dr. Haugen told senators that Humanities are disproportionately affected by the current definition of an option. He stressed Philosophy and Religious Studies faculty are all committed to intellectual rigor, recalling that it took a year of hard work for the Philosophy option to leave their department. Dr. Haugen pointed out that there is a rationale for how Philosophys core requirements are articulated, and to reflect the needs of the major and the students served by it, it needs to be intellectually consistent and include both metaphysical and epistemological pieces. Dr. Neumann reminded senators that Faculty Senate has a council that is established to address these kinds of issues. She asked if senators would consider sending the issue back to CCPI for clarification along with the input of the departments that are concerned. SENATOR SIDDIQI CALLED THE QUESTION MOTION APPROVED 7 YES 4 NO 4 AB Motion: To adjourn (Siddiqi) The Faculty Senate adjourned at 6:27 p.m. Lynda Conover, Senate Secretary Annette Hamm, Faculty Senate Recording Secretary     PAGE  PAGE 14 3ABKMUYZ\`fs˽{mבbZRJh$ CJaJhKCJaJh">sCJaJhaah">sCJaJhaah75>*CJaJhaahmCJaJhaah7#CJaJhmCJaJhm56CJaJhaahF|56CJaJhV"756CJaJh@ih@i56CJaJhaah76CJaJhaah75CJaJhaah#CJaJhaah7CJaJ haah7B[\f   w x  ^ `gd^  ^ `@&$a$ $@&a$gdm$@&a$@&     + 5 > G V e p z      Y {  ( 3 @ ʬ塙ʙ·zrrjhPCJaJhWUCJaJhaahrOCJaJh*CJaJhaah75CJaJh">sCJaJhaah">sCJaJhaahF|CJaJhaah7CJaJh@iCJaJh[CJaJh$ CJaJhaah{%CJaJhKCJaJh CJaJhaahPCJaJ)@ X v w x |    / 4 5 ƾ|peYQIIYIh6CJaJhJ4CJaJh6h6>*CJaJhaahCJaJhaah{.>*CJaJhaahT+5CJaJhaah75CJaJhKhK5CJaJhaahPoCJaJhaahKCJaJh^CJaJhKCJaJhaah7>*CJaJhaah7CJaJhaah*CJaJh{%CJaJhWUCJaJh*CJaJ  0 1 l m   = | gdz: Y`0p@ P !$`'0*-/2p5@8;=@CPF I@ ^@ `gdP[= _`0Tp@ P !$`'0*-/2p5@8;=@CPF I@ ^@ `gd7 5 p q    ! < > B C D g k l n 13789mqrt%7=>cfͽhmCJaJh|G;CJaJh*CJaJh">sCJaJhP[CJaJh3qCJaJhaah7>*CJaJhJ4CJaJhzCJaJhzhzCJaJhzhz>*CJaJh6h6>*CJaJhWUCJaJh6CJaJ1= > f g 23m: Y`0p@ P !$`'0*-/2p5@8;=@CPF I@ ^@ `gdP[< \`08p@ P !$`'0*-/2p5@8;=@CPF I@ ^@ `gdzgd*+UUU< \`0TpP !$`'0*-/2p5@8;=@CPF I`^``gd]G2 Y`0TP !$`'0*-/2p5@8;=@CPF IgdJ4; & F S`0P !$`'0*-/2p5@8;=@CPF I^`gdDv fgz=bcd(*- "źЯ~vnvffv^ShaahGxCJaJhyCJaJhYACJaJh">sCJaJhkCJaJh7CJaJhoICJaJhf9>*CJaJhaah7>*CJaJhaah>*CJaJhaah7CJaJhaahCJaJhaah-,CJaJhJ4CJaJhLCJaJhWUCJaJhaECJaJh*CJaJhtWCJaJ+67ILL? p0^p`0gd*< \`0TpP !$`'0*-/2p5@8;=@CPF I`^``gd!*< \`0TpP !$`'0*-/2p5@8;=@CPF I`^``gd:8: Y`0TpP !$`'0*-/2p5@8;=@CPF I`^``gdJ4"567: !HI pqVW[pqwns:;ȸ||ttttldh@VCJaJhPCJaJh1CJaJh:PCJaJh|G;h|G;>*CJaJh|G;hm5CJaJh|G;CJaJhmhm5CJaJhmCJaJh|CJaJhWUCJaJhWCJaJh1CJaJhO%h CJaJh CJaJh1pCJaJhaahGx>*CJaJ'IJqWXqr""%%(())++n.p^pgd|G; ^`gd|G;gd|G; & Fgdm p0^p`0gd*t | I"""e#f#r#z#######~$$$u%v%%%%%%(()))+++..m.n.t...21`1a1ȸȸh7h7>*CJaJh CJaJh h >*CJaJh8-CJaJhPCJaJhXCJaJhLCJaJh@VCJaJh+CJaJhsCJaJh![CJaJh$qCJaJhWUCJaJh|G;CJaJhPCJaJ/n.o...,1-1a1e133S5T5}5q9 V`0pP !$`'0*-/2p5@8;=@CPF Ip^p`gd9 V`0pP !$`'0*-/2p5@8;=@CPF Ip^p`gd[p^pgd7gd p^pgd gdP a1R5S5T5Y5{5}555555555777777777777777778 8 88*808ø|tt|k|k`h7hHkCJaJhHk5CJaJh8-CJaJhHkhHk5CJaJhnwrCJaJhHkCJaJh7h7CJaJhg^>>*CJaJh7h7>*CJaJh7h[tCJaJhaahY|CJaJhaah7>*CJaJhaah7CJaJh$CJaJhLh7CJaJh7CJaJ%}5~555555!6U6666"7Z7777777777 8 818J8K8{8 gd708P8z8888888999999999: : :*:~::::::::;;;żug\Shg^>>*CJaJh7hCJaJh4h5CJ\aJh>*CJ\aJh5CJ\aJh6h5CJ\aJhhCJ\aJh6h>*CJ\aJhCJ\aJh5CJaJhh5CJaJhnwrCJaJhCJaJh7CJaJh7h7>*CJaJh7h7CJaJ {8|888889999999 :+:{:|::::::;;P;; gd p^p`gd gd7;;;,>->X>Y>s?t?????&@'@TDUDDDDDDD & FgdD7 gdy gdg^> @ ^@ gdg^> @ ^@ gd gd7;<<Z=w====+>,>->W>X>>>w?x????%@&@@@@OAvACCCCCCDDSDTDUDDDDDDDຮʢ躚º{phchyCJaJhyCJaJhnwrhnwr5CJaJh7hg^>CJaJh*,CJaJh7h7>*CJaJhg^>hg^>5CJaJhnwrCJaJh7CJaJh7h7CJaJh7hCJaJhg^>CJaJhKyCJaJh@VCJaJhCJaJ+DDDDDDDDDDDEECEHEoEpEqEFFFGHLHxHHHHHJJ)KWKXKgKuKK LL"L:LPLYLLL*hXR hXR>* ht>*h4ht>*hthD7haahD7>* h._>* haahD7h._;DDDEECEDEpEqEFHHJ(K)K=M>MRRUUXX\  & F^gde:  & F^gde: & F~ ^~ `gdl  & F^gdT% & FgdD7RR*R/RRRRRRRS SSS(S+S0Seff ffgWhehhhkhhh ii!i)iiiiijNmVmrm]p^p+qqqqNrPrytztuYvtvvvvvwwwxxyyCzDz{{|ĸ𰸰h:"hp2uhGh(h^ohJh%0h@VhUn hth09hhuPih09 ht5hth Nh5h )hkD||||}d}e}}}~~ }NRoہ6A&1,4^/01cPÉ14Iŋҋ%ݎ).ُǺǶhGh?humFhumF5 humF5humFh h 5hfjh  h55h5h55h5hq*h4jh:"h NhCFcd3467GHjk'(җӗ^_  & F^gdWiI & Fgdt & FgdD7  & F^gde:ُ6:FHILijđ"?VWœv&'YZ~Tn]^_plm~45>ÿÿûÿÿû h<6h<hBhoh*,h>tyh Nhjhlh_nh.h@VhWiIh:Jh?h?>* h4>*h4h4>*h4h?h?5humFh?>_56IJլ֬WXmn23ABqr  & F^gdWiI>KHI zݨߩԬլHR 79ǰͰCUlm2APӼԼ-4s3@̿h2jh2j5 h2j5h2jh)eh@Vh~DhANhhhnhh`\h&h<h*,Kor_`ab?C34@\]!HZf &,4ļĸĸh`. h~Dh~DhE?Mh~DhHs5hHsh h 5h=te h 5h h0h@Vh~|4h$ih~Dh2j h6h6h6Crab?@\]78  & F^gdWiI!-467WY[kxzļĬġęvh~|40JmHnHuh h0Jjh0JUhKkjhKkUhaahc}jCJaJhReCJaJhFtCJaJh CJaJhaah7CJaJhdCJaJh hd hd5hO%CJaJhFthFt5h`.hE?MhFt.67def}}! & F  p@ `$P@&^`Pgdc}j & F p@ P@&^`P & F p@ P^`P & F@& & Fgdd gdO%  & F^gdWiI! & F  p@ `$P@&^`Pgdc}j&`#$5 01h:pob/ =!8"*#$h% ^% 2 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~_HmH nH sH tH @`@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH PP  Heading 1$ & F @& >*CJaJRR  Heading 2$ & F@&^5CJ\aJHH  Heading 3$ & F@& >*CJaJJJ  Heading 4$ & F@&5CJ\aJZZ  Heading 5$ & F@&]^5CJ\aJDA`D Default Paragraph FontViV  Table Normal :V 44 la (k (No List X/X Level 17$8$H$^OJQJ_HaJmH sH tH X/X Level 4@ 7$8$H$^@ OJQJ_HaJmH sH tH X/X Level 3p7$8$H$^pOJQJ_HaJmH sH tH X/"X Level 57$8$H$^OJQJ_HaJmH sH tH XC2X Body Text Indent ^ >*CJaJ6BB6 Body TextCJaJ4 @R4 Footer  !.)@a. Page NumberXR@rX Body Text Indent 2 & F^CJaJ6U6 Hyperlink >*B*phXSX Body Text Indent 3 & F^CJaJB>@B Title$L^La$5CJ\aJFVF FollowedHyperlink >*B* phZYZ  Document Map-D M CJOJQJ^JaJtN1t Body Text First Indent 2 hx^h` >*CJaJ@@ WP9_Title $1$a$5aJh^h Normal (Web)&ddd[$\$]^CJOJQJaJ*W* Strong5\66 level1!dd[$\$H"H  Balloon Text"CJOJQJ^JaJ$1$ X7objectfBf 6 List Paragraph$d^m$CJOJPJQJ^JaJPK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi};~@(Hu* Dנz/0ǰ $ X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!-Rk.sԻ..a濭?PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6w toc'vuر-MniP@I}úama[إ4:lЯGRX^6؊>$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3ڗP 1Pm \\9Mؓ2aD];Yt\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] , %%%(@ 5 f"a108;DR_|ُ>suvx{} = +In.}5{8;D\c_rtwyz|~ !(!!8@0(  B S  ?[9\9]9l^9~_9?9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName حAEYcY`CD89 --1152B2a2n2/898::y==@@AAEDODPP@TJT7\C\AeMeȆԆĴɶJT$.kl89rt--$.%.X.Y.......%/,///0033S3T333061677X<Y<$=0=sFvF]]]]^ ^nnwwyy #sypwڼZ[\c333333333333333333333333333333333333333uv44445555GNJNTTNeVe EElӴԴ-4or44!HZf!&,4CCuv44445555GNJNTTNeVe EElӴԴ-4or44!HZf&,4CC[]FRX6 <dGjIR*9J\-ilZ'Da$\TV'0]:C/*xF...t u9@KTq|FuuY "9%Mmt@ZwHK$b*f/10M:PCc Fl5 i$hRDq ~  (+8pzq]*,PeBWk0pxz949GTm + D xo !K!!?5!A!k!X~!v""m ":"#a8#8#A#G#`I#RU#'a#-y#D$;S$W$jj$% %{J%O%`%a%q%du%x%&,&~4&'E''#'\'r'w''(X(\(P|( )})5)?)A)I)*!*/*`*q*++$,+!D+T+qU+iy+',PL,(>2>g^>-y>?YN?[?\?c?,~??+@6@)7@L@]@,ACADAAMAYAzA B&PBGZBjuB~zBC CdC%fC/lC DH D8VD)gDEo EA!E=EaEYFO FF9F3F8FOHFbFumF]fG gG>HAIIoIIP5IhWIWiIJ*J0J:J K*K,KlKL&LLL)_Lw{L)ME?Md|M NAN NaNqNOnOrO P2PE&Q:QAQLQaQH&R'R"(Rf>RGReMRqMRXRYRZmRSaJS\S T9T+=TKVTB\TUUUhU2U|YUiUV2V2VGVvVGW%WC=WiMWtWI7XcXsX\Y#YKY#QYdaYrY Z1Z}_Z*wZzZp[P[![-[.[\,\Z9\S\]\`\n\|\ "]N4]*I],R]_]e] ^^(^Bn^v_._@_!`GZ`"]`q` a@a.a:ala/ra]xa_xalzabNb)bIHbdbfbobcPgc*bdhd3jdlde)e,e6eFeRe=teVf g hjfjhjkj$njc}j k7/k07k-;k!DkckHlf:lUlz^lMmlmDmO*m^mym` nn0n>n_nknnn$ohDoPo;Vo%go2ro1p*Sp1ep( qq$q/KqVq_qlqrprzrG?rnwr8ss,s">st=tt"tt'tl8t;tTBtHtbtSwt uU$up2u3uvvDv2MveuvQ w ww"JwyRw0]wew{wxGx ye>yKy>tyrzzJzozC {Z"{;A{3M{Z{+[{c{|3|F||,}i`} ~~*:~!=~l|~& 'j4B=%]?yY"7;]GY=g6V*:AG}BOZw^x?&-,A=QNo59J3t+]'lH`jk&s+*iUn~ 39;*RYg 2wM{UUc*gmvY|r p5ijlU{|%0%2c~w` (B[ Q)DO6dd)4>~Df,IabHkq:=^ N6\i w%@B_"dau7AU `pFt 4Zw}xkm6fz U "Qt&4Vm{ mId9:cB.HWcrAo;LdkTPcti .I N^b&TEWpOu|D} IWWIsy1NY]Vd>9DHs|q+B@ILk7{e&4mgJ-xp}"=)\?CJS^chikkz$45Of58C|o J4r)2_c I/fKkPoJVY i%4Cf ,6V<>N(6PeqoO^do 0K6WXr;ss*}9FH\sd ,b5n(GPy $0:Q`b~(4FGP{T+*,5;}FplJ"DElHl)nx'jI[l805B@V|Jaa#54Feqz ![03FMMTd@ir3"*O#`5OWqhr{ $O.k/6H?@CoNp*i4jvwZ7#?(7D,Od 2=KyX^d YA:SZhyV&|+<@3qkCCPaQWU2|W# 0[aVij:8G7I~X6w?WA&Ddx6 ^_p[t}{.D7;LL]R} N!%jl177f9sq)1@F+KPNh`mKrAjvr&&CHh,P=NCVoq i\cJ<:iOj )BKYEs, @@:I'`TJ;6KS\^v#@_K~P2%J;#Dpqv*4@]JPt=T%Fh.y09TX3r 47KVFaZjnz$N&\kfnw]4@LDMi&]a^oi!A7H:m)M-<EBI['..1LlmUw<88;aTbf0O%b/a)dkl 1i.57*_Jjz.4Z,<]\nho#=1INTlo:_cO%{%g(NPT W@Y[r.:R"?1 No_my)24Kuos?_es@P@Unknown G* Times New Roman5Symbol3. * Arial71 Courier5. *aTahoma7.  Verdana7.{ @Calibri?= * Courier New;WingdingsA BCambria Math"qh%RGRG=!q!q824dWW 3qHX ?@Z2! xxWESTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY Annette Hamm Annette Hammd                 Oh+'0 $ D P \ ht|WESTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITYAnnette Hamm Normal.dotmAnnette Hamm61Microsoft Office Word@*@,\@NȚ7Z@,\!՜.+,0 hp  ֱ Illinois UniversityqW WESTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F 4&g1TableWordDocument 7,SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8MsoDataStore`g0&gW0Q4GO22PTBP==2`g0&gItem PropertiesUCompObj y   F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q