1. Call to Order - The Chair, Douglas Cherkauer, called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. in HLT 241.
   
   
2. Automatic Consent
1. Minutes #4, 2003-2004 (January 8, 2004) were approved unanimously as submitted.
   
   
3. Procedural Matters - none
   
   
4. Old Business
1. Discussion of Draft Response to Provost's Proposed Program Priorities - Don Solomon reported that the sense of the APBC is that the Provost plans to move ahead on his plan, regardless of any opposition. Doug suggested that the APC urge the Provost to put money into the infrastructure; he feels we should not be proposing new program initiatives with a new administration coming on-board. Kathy suggested that the Committee should go on record strongly in support of L&S programs. Swarnjit proposed sending the APC's memo to the APBC, UC, ASC, and Senate. He thinks the Senate will address the concerns of the Faculty, so the Committee should not back off. Stacey said the Committee has three alternatives: 1) object to the process; 2) make a stronger case for L&S; 3) make a case to support infrastructure. She added that she does not think we have time for proper planning. If the Committee members try to argue for particular priorities, they also will be guilty of engaging in a flawed process. Mark pointed out that people are noticing the APC is active. He suggested making the point that the process was flawed, pointing out that L&S, which is the core of the University, was ignored. Tom suggested that the Committee point out that the Provost's metric, giving 100% weight to national rankings, was inappropriate and that an example of an alternative metric, putting national ranking in a more appropriate relationship with other factors, be provided. It was noted that the APBC probably could come up with some alternative proposals in a relatively short time and, given the importance of committing the money soon, that APBC was the most appropriate body to represent the Faculty in this process. After more discussion, it was decided to rework the response to focus on the following:
   • the flawed process, suggesting an alternative metric;
   • the role of L&S given the nature of the university;
   • the short time frame, arguing for reconsidering previous priorities that were not full funded.
   Kathy, Tom, and Mark will comprise a committee to modify the response around these three points. Mark will send out an outline of the response and ask the others to add examples. The revised draft will be sent to Committee members via email for a final vote. The work will be completed in time for the APBC meeting on Thursday morning.
   
   
5. New Business - none
   
   
6. Adjournment - There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 a.m.
   
   
   

Respectfully submitted,

Connie Jo
Special Assistant to the Dean

Distribution: Dean Richard Meadows
Associate Deans Harris, Miller, O'Bryan, Schuster
Assistant Deans Horstman, Kissinger
Chairs (via email/web)
Secretary of the University

D:comm./apc/minutes#5,2003-2004