The current policy for student assessment does not include what the stipulations are for proctoring tests.

The Office of the Provost initially requested changes after students expressed concern about the current policy, Provost Kim Wilcox said during the meeting. ECAC voted to refer discussion on the issue to committees during its Dec. 8, 2010, meeting.

“Issues related to when, how and whom is responsible for proctoring student work require serious consideration by the faculty and clear communication to students,” Wilcox wrote in a letter to ECAC.

Faculty members also are concerned about current policy, at-large councilmember Michael Kaplowitz said during the meeting.

“In one of our faculty forums, the issue of proctoring online courses was raised as a major concern,” he said. “It has broad ramifications in terms of quality instruction (and) fairness to students.”

UCAP expressed concerns about the wording of proposed revisions, UCAP chairwoman Gillian Bice said during the meeting. Current proposed changes are “rather superficial,” she said.

The committee was concerned about problems implementing the policy and the “potential for unintended consequences,” such as making it seem as though appropriate exam proctoring is students’ responsibility, Bice added.

However, members of the UCFA endorsed previous changes to the policy to facilitate action, UCFA chairwoman Deborah Moriarty said during the meeting.

“(There is) some immediacy with this issue, as with the other issue — the course repeat policy,” she said. “(This) has been going on for a very long time, and nothing gets finalized — there was a feeling from UCFA that this requires some immediate action.”

Members of the task force will be chosen from each committee involved with initial examinations of policy changes by the April 5 ECAC meeting. The task force will work to create a final policy change by October or November.

Committees also reported on proposed changes to the course repeat policy. Changes were endorsed by UCFA. Although UCSA endorsed changes as well, members expressed concerns. Both UGC and the Council of Graduate Students will submit written feedback expressing their reactions following their meetings later in the month.

Pending further endorsements, the final proposal and any significant changes would be submitted to the provost for approval, ECAC Chairman John Powell said during the meeting.

The possible merger of the ASMSU Student and Academic assemblies also was discussed. The lack of communication between ASMSU and academic governance about possible changes and the potential controversy of the merger are concerning, Powell said.

Powell said he was concerned that the council had not heard about the merger from ASMSU directly but, instead, from third-party sources.

ASMSU is MSU’s undergraduate student government.

“I would suggest very strongly before the next meeting that you put together some kind of document that would allow us to understand this,” Powell said to Zach Taylor, Academic Assembly internal vice chairman.

If passed, the change would not have a significant impact on ASMSU’s interaction with the academic governance system, and the same number of students would be representatives in academic governance, Taylor said during the meeting.