My thanks to Jim Hiestand for pointing out the appropriate procedure (2/3
vote) to add an issue as "extra business."  I may make such a motion or
defer to a later meeting if appropriate,  since our plate is already full,
to say the least. At least we can be sure of a quorum this time around!

Professor Noe has spelled out in some detail exactly what resources we need
and were promised.  The  Implementation Committee has been concerned even
before the recent budget crisis announcement about the administration's
seeming lack of action as we plan for the implementation next fall.  We will
(maybe this is no longer the case) get one-year "soft" money from the
foundation.  That is why we cannot advertise tenure-track positions.  That
will require state funding and approval,  which is not very likely.  This
means that gradually existing lines will be shifted to new General Education
needs as people retire or are forced to leave.

I doubt if many departments and programs can spare those lines without
adverse impact on existing programs. This may be a hidden "cost" in
implementation.  I don't know if we really want to stop the momentum of the
new Gen Ed (Professor Wright and I devoted a good deal of time last year
designing our contribution),  but it seems both reasonable and realistic to
consider implementing requirements gradually as resources become available.
In particular,  we might delay the oral communication requirement and
perhaps computer skills to later entering classes.  Records will howl,  but
they already want us to change grade repetition policy to fit the
capabilities of their new software programs.  A lot of tail wagging dog
around here!

The Implementation Committee will be meeting just before the Faculty Meeting
today, and I will defer to Professor Darken any further suggestions about
how best to procede.

Richard Rice
History