I. The meeting was called to order at 3:35. In attendance were Scott Beaver, Keller Coker, Susan Daniel, Bryan Dutton, Claire Ferraris, Mark Girod, Bob Hautala, Ryan Hickerson, Shaun Huston, Klay Kruczek, Elisa Maroney, David Murphy, Peggy Pedersen, Roy Bennett (for Janeanne Rockwell-Kincanon), Mark Seabright, Sue Dauer (for Tracy Smiles), Chehalis Strapp, Mark Van Steeter, Max Beach (for ASWOU President Tiffani McCoy), and WOU President John Minahan.
II. The minutes from the Faculty Senate meetings of 4/08/08 and 4/22/08 were approved by unanimous voice vote.
III. Faculty Senate President Shaun Huston’s Report:
President Huston noted that during the previous Faculty Senate Executive Committee meeting new courses from Dance had been approved. President Huston also reported that the discussion of relocation of OIRPA would be postponed until the 5/27 Faculty Senate meeting since John Killoran was presently out of town. He reminded the Senate that each division should have by now elected its representatives to Faculty Senate; if that is not the case for any division it must be done prior to the 5/27 meeting at which officers for next year are to be elected. President Huston reminded any incoming senators present not to vote on any motions at the present meeting.
IV. University President John Minahan’s Report:
President Minahan reported that WOU’s enrollment is up about 8.9% from last spring to this spring, with some 300 more students now than at this time last year. This has produced a fair increase in revenue; WOU is spending some of that down. Graduate enrollment for next fall is down somewhat, transfers are up and resident students are down a bit. Surprisingly, our yield rate is up significantly; Preview Days have been very well-attended as have the incoming student receptions at Cornelius Pass Roadhouse in Hillsboro. This uptick may be a result of a combination of the following three factors: our retention is up, our recruitment efforts have increased and broadened, and the Tuition Promise appears to play a significant role. As a result, dorm space has become a scarce commodity at WOU.
President Minahan reported that his recent trip to China was successful; several agreements were negotiated, including one in Szechuan. WOU has begun a dialog with universities in China regarding potential faculty exchanges.
He also announced that WOU has a downtown lease in Salem, which had been under fairly tight secrecy until recently, since consideration of the lease required an executive session of the Salem City Council. The lease is for part of Marion Parkade, across from the cinema complex. The owners expect us to be in by Fall 2009; we have an option for 60 beds but need only fill 30. We’ll potentially house some overflow Nursing students there, and there would be some Continuing Education opportunity there. On-site programming is likely to be a combination of things, but will not include asking faculty to move any programs downtown. President Minahan pointed out that it is not in the best interests of WOU to see OSU or U of O move in to the Salem area, and this deal stems in part from our need to both forestall that possibility and to lay claim to the Salem area as part of the region WOU serves as a state university.
Peggy Pedersen asked if a program could hold off-site classes there if it wished, and President Minahan replied that there are three classrooms there; the International Education program would require only 4-5 hours/day and the remainder of the day could be used to accommodate a program’s wish to hold class there.
President Huston asked if there would be a chance for the campus community to see the site, and President Minahan replied that after the lease were signed, the site would be opened up.
Roy Bennett asked if the WOU development in Monmouth is closer to becoming a reality, and President Minahan replied that it was, but we still don’t have an agreement there that is in our best interests.
V. ASWOU President Tiffani McCoy’s Report (delivered by Max Beach):
Max reported that ASWOU will hold a year-end barbeque on June 4 from 11-3 in either The Grove or Monmouth Park, and that ASWOU will roll out a Health Education campaign at the end of this month. They will also hold a panel on GLBTQ issues on May 27, and are looking for a moderator. Max also noted that ISOC is being held tonight at 6PM in the WUC. ASWOU is continuing its voter education campaign until June 3.
VI. Old Business
1. ARC Recommendations Regarding Grading Categories and Final Exam Periods – Bob Hautala
Please refer to the Faculty Senate Minutes of the 4/22 meeting, during which the proposal was introduced.
Chehalis Strapp expressed concern that students would be confused by the proposed options, and Bob replied that the catalog language to accompany the proposed changes should remedy that.
Chehalis noted that at the previous Faculty Senate meeting, Dean Scheck had said that grading options such as these are fairly common at other universities, and asked if there were any data that could speak to how prevalent these types of options are. Bob replied that although Sriram Khe had reported that he was familiar with the options, the ARC did not check to see if other universities used the options.
Keller Coker reported that the “S/NC” option was unanimously opposed by Creative Arts, since it was the feeling of all present at that division meeting that there would be a stigma attached to students who used that option, potentially labeling such students as slackers who “take classes for S.” If the perception exists that employers might think in this way, students would then take fewer exploratory classes.
Klay Kruczek pointed out that the opposite effect may occur, namely that students could end up taking more exploratory classes since there would be no risk of getting a low grade in such a class.
Registrar Nancy France noted that the proposed changes would make it possible for CAPS to capture courses which meet major or minor requirements (such as courses which are only offered as Pass/No Credit) vice courses taken by students who elect to take a course, normally offered under the A-F grading option, as P/NC. Currently the Registrar’s Office must input those grades by hand.
Roy Bennett asked how unique the proposed distinctions were, and wondered if other institutions would be continually deciphering our fine print regarding these nonstandard options.
Peggy Pedersen asked if other OUS institutions were using the options, and Nancy replied that she thought that such was the case, but that she was not 100% certain.
Peggy Pedersen moved that the Faculty Senate approve the “RP” grading option. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously by voice vote.
President Huston asked what were the Registrar’s Office’s issues with the current options, and Nancy replied that CAPS can only collect all or none of the courses graded as P/NC as satisfying major/minor requirements, so for students taking courses such as practicums, etc., satisfaction of such requirements now must be manually input.
Keller moved that the Faculty Senate postpone consideration of the S/NC option until more input could be obtained from the respective divisions. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously by voice vote, and Nancy volunteered to determine which OUS institutions use the S/NC option.
2. ARC Recommendations Regarding Grading Categories and Final Exam Periods – Bob Hautala
Please refer to the Faculty Senate Minutes of the 4/22 meeting, during which the proposal was introduced.
Mark Girod asked is the proposed final exam schedule would stretch the day out so that it would intrude into the evening schedule. President Huston replied that the proposed FE schedule would add one hour to the length of final exam days.
In response to a question from Keller Coker, Mark Van Steeter reported that the Social Science Division regarded the proposal as controversial. They proposed a modified version of the proposal, in which final exams would be scheduled for one hour and fifty minutes rather than two hours. There was mixed response to this counterproposal, with some in favor, but Bob Hautala stated that two-hour exams seemed more rigorous, and Klay Kruczek said that in his opinion, 1:50 was too short.
President Huston asked if there had been many ARC members who strongly advocated 120 minute finals vice 110 minutes, and Bob responded in the negative.
Susan Daniel expressed concern that so many different starting times might confuse the students, and Bob said that college-age students should have the ability to handle such a schedule; Klay also noted that there is ample opportunity for instructors to alert students to the time of any particular final during the term.
David Murphy recalled the issue of the last final exam period’s end time, which currently stands at 6PM, but which under the proposed schedule would extend to 7PM. Bob noted that students negotiate final exam conflict resolutions frequently now.
Mark Van Steeter noted that we’ve all had to be flexible; it may not be necessary to reinvent this, since it may not actually be that much of a problem.
Klay Kruczek responded that there is a problem; if a student feels rushed near the end of a final exam simply due to the necessity of getting to another exam, that is not fair to the student.
Peggy Pedersen stated that that issue seems like the exception rather than the rule. Klay responded that while that may be true, we should try to treat the students fairly and the most logical way to do that is to fix the system.
Bryan Dutton mapped the schedule out, and noted that there is definitely potential for conflict in the early evening.
President Huston summarized the discussion, noting that there are apparently three options: leave the schedule as-is, postpone consideration of the proposal until further investigation can be made regarding the potential evening conflicts, or either adopt the recommended schedule proposed by the ARC or the 110-minute alternative proposed by Social Science.
Chehalis Strapp suggested that senators seek input from the students as well; President Huston noted that there is some irrationality in stacking finals as they currently are, but also noted that the system has worked pretty well. So it appears to be a good idea to seek students’ input.
Mark Girod voiced his support for Klay idea, that there should be a break, and noted that there may be many ways to implement the idea. Klay suggested that we implement the 110-minute finals for fall term, and assess the outcome.
President Huston suggested that we postpone the vote until further consideration is brought to bear. Peggy Pedersen moved to postpone consideration; the motion was seconded and approved unanimously by voice vote. President Huston said he’d contact ASWOU President Tiffani McCoy regarding obtaining student input.
VII. New Business
1. Catalog Deadlines for Future Academic Years – President Huston
President Huston discussed the details of the discussion the Faculty Senate Executive Committee had with Associate Provost David McDonald. The catalog is essentially a contract with students, but currently the curriculum cycle does not permit publication of the catalog until after students have arrived and already received an initial round of advising. Provost McDonald described a two-year period during which we would converge on a process wherein curriculum changes to be incorporated into the catalog published at the beginning of the academic year would necessarily be approved by Faculty Senate by the end of Winter Term. As an interim step, we’d consider the last Faculty Senate meeting in March next year as the deadline, with the first meeting in March as the deadline for the following and all subsequent years.
In response to a question from Peggy Pedersen, President Huston noted that course changes are effective immediately upon approval, but program changes are not effective until they appear in the catalog.
Klay Kruczek asked if there was a way to ensure that Curriculum Committee (CC) meets in late March (noting that there might be a conflict with Spring Break), and President Huston replied that CC did meet this year during that period. He noted that the difficulties this year stemmed more from the announcement issued by Julie Harding that March 17 was to be the deadline, coupled with adherence to past practices which assumed that this deadline would be inherently soft. The goal is to all agree on a firm deadline going forward.
Bob Hautala asked if the proposed deadline was for Deans’ approval by late March; President Huston replied that the late March deadline was for approval by Faculty Senate, and Bob asked what that would mean in terms of a deadline for consideration by CC. President Huston replied that to ensure that any changes appear in the subsequent catalog, CC would need to receive proposals by (or prior to) late January.
Peggy Pedersen suggested that Faculty Senate should consider an agreed-upon deadline for submission to CC, to ensure that submissions make it on the CC meeting agenda (currently proposals are accepted up to one hour prior to the meeting). President Huston noted that recent CC chairs have been very accommodating, and have also had to consider far too many proposals which do not really need CC consideration to go forward, such as course title changes, etc. President Huston also noted that the online version of the curriculum change process should reconcile/streamline the process significantly.
Keller Coker asked if the first Faculty Senate meeting of Spring Term would be too late, since this would give senators one more division meeting prior to the proposed catalog deadline.
Associate Provost McDonald stated that, for most years, early April would in fact be too late. He noted that, for example, this Saturday (5/17) the transfer students are coming to campus, and the catalog process has been well underway for weeks now.
Klay Kruczek asked if the deadline currently in place for submission of changes to CC for inclusion on the following agenda is two weeks prior to the meeting; Peggy Pedersen replied that this is the case but it is not enforced.
President Huston asked that prior to the next meeting, senators try to get a sense from colleagues within their respective divisions how the proposed deadline would be received.
2. AIC recommendations regarding campus needs assessment – Shirley Lincicum and Steve Taylor
A link to the cover letter:
AIC Needs Assessment Cover Letter
and another to the full document:
AIC Needs Assessment
Shirley noted that this is a preliminary report, not meant to be comprehensive.
Shirley also noted that the report does a good job of showing the diversity of needs at WOU, from simple equipment (some of which will be purchased this year) to more complex, longer-range needs. The main point of the report is to move the campus towards a well-defined process of planning for infrastructure needs.
President Huston thanked the AIC for all of its work gathering data and compiling the report, and Shirley thanked Steve Taylor for all of his work pulling all of the data into the report.
Peggy Pedersen noted that classroom and office space is a crucial need for the coming years.
3. Selection of Nominating Committee for Faculty Senate Officers for next year – President Huston
President Huston noted that the bylaws specify a structure for the Nominating Committee; specifically to include and only include positions for the previous Faculty Senate President, one other current Faculty Senate Executive Committee member, and two at-large faculty senators. He noted that Bryan Dutton would fill the first position; President Huston then volunteered to fill the second position, and asked for volunteers for the latter two positions.
Elisa Maroney and David Murphy volunteered, and a motion was made to approve all four appointments to the Nominating Committee. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved by voice vote.
The Nominating Committee is to report back to the Faculty Senate at the next meeting (5/27) with a slate of candidates for Faculty Senate President, Vice-President, and Secretary; the senate will hold votes on those candidates at that meeting.
4. Inter-Institutional Faculty Senate Representative Election – Solveig Holmquist
and Joel Alexander
Solveig reported that her second three-year term as a WOU representative to IFS is up this December, but she will be on sabbatical next year, so now is the appropriate time to elect her replacement.
She described the position, noting that meetings are held monthly from noon Friday until noon Saturday, at the location where the OUS Board meets. Some members of the IFS attend the OUS Board meeting. Expenses for IFS senators are funded through the President’s Office at WOU. Solveig also noted that IFS meeting can often occur on the last day of a given term.
The Presidency of the IFS rotates between presidents of smaller institutions, and presidents of the larger state schools.
She reported that the OUS Board has asked the IFS to assess each school’s assessment methods. Other topics of current discussion are which courses are being taught and what is being done about sustainability, and also we’re being asked to consider the following letter, which asks the Governor to release $125 million for salary increases for OUS faculty:
OSU Salary Pool Letter to the Governor
Joel Alexander noted that IFS senators are often asked to serve on political action committees, particularly during election seasons. He also noted that IFS senators are privy to a great deal of political information; representatives from the Oregon State Senate visit the IFS meetings as do lobbyists; the Chancellor attends each Friday IFS meeting.
Solveig also noted that the Saturday IFS meetings are strictly among IFS senators, and a great deal can be learned about other campuses at those meetings.
President Huston asked that WOU Faculty Senate senators solicit candidates from their respective divisions, and asked that questions be directed to Solveig or Joel.
Joel asked the Faculty Senate to strongly consider adopting a similar resolution as that in the above Salary Pool Letter to the Governor, to help apply pressure to State lawmakers and the Governor toward releasing the salary increase monies.
5. Presentation by Dean of Library and Media Services – Dean Allen McKiel
Dean McKiel gave the following presentation, to illustrate his plan for Library and Media Services:
Hamersly Library - Next Steps
After that the meeting was adjourned.
Download file
