Faculty Senate Meeting 
Tuesday, February 22, 
3:30 p.m. Columbia Room 

1.0 Call to Order 

2.0 Call of the Roll: 
Meredith Brodsky, Judy Bullington, Brian Caster, Wangeshi Gatimu, David Hargreaves, Stephanie Tunison, Tina Fuchs, Ming-Chi Own, and Martin Rodriguez-Perez were absent.

3.0. Corrections to and approval of the minutes from the previous senate meeting/Agenda Adjustments. 
Minutes approved. There were no agenda adjustments. 

4.0. Reports of the Presidents 

4.1. Senate President 
Joel discussed several Executive Committee actions regarding recently approved course changes or additons. He then summarized impressions of his recent trip to the OUS Board meeting/rally at Eugene. In particular, he noted several fine speeches made by speakers and the large press received. He (and the faculty senate) acknowledged Dr. Youngblood for declining a salary increase until faculty salary decisions are resolved. Joel (with input and further mention from/by Drs. Youngblood and Minahan) discussed recently approved faculty spouse/dependent benefits. In sum, these two-year trial benefits include 10 free hours of study per term at any state institute. Joel (also with input and further mention from/by Drs. Youngblood and Chadney) discussed the approval of the new Anthropology degree. Joel next encouraged the Faculty to begin thinking about new Faculty Senate positions that will be open next year, including Executive Committee Members and the Faculty Senate President. Elections should begin in April. Joel said that our next meeting may not be until March 28 – although, he hinted, we may want/need to call a special meeting for March 14th (and, indeed, see end of minutes – a special meeting was approved for the 14th). Finally, Joel summarized some OUS-raised issues regarding on-line course development that would also be a focus of new business. In particular, he noted that concerns had been raised regarding appropriate FTE/overloading, not being able to meet with students (although he suggested that Saturday meeting times were allowed and encouraged), and expectations built into already approved OUS grants (which bring into question issues of academic freedom, ‘ownership’ of curriculum, and grant-writing protocol that involve major curriculum or program changes). 

4.2 President of Western Oregon University 
Dr. Youngblood reiterated the new trial spouse/dependent benefits, the Anthropology degree, and spoke briefly on the recent issue of ‘arming’ campus security – which has been raised by PSU. She emphasized that a decision on this issue would require several steps through the Leglislature and OUS Board and that PSU was the primary impact site for these decisions. Finally, Dr. Youngblood mentioned that a Title III grant has been revised and submitted; this could provide 1.7 million dollars over 5 years for improving technology, teaching, and learning on campus. 

4.3 Student Body President 
Obie Garza reiterated ongoing plans to bring the Governor to campus and educate students about voting (with an emphasis on the Sizemore initiative). He noted that April is Diversity Month and briefly summarized several planned events. He said that the new Chicano studies minor will probably be approved in the spring. 

5.0 Reports of the Interinstitutional Faculty Senators: 
Irja Galvan summarized the recent February 4/5 meeting, which included a discussion of the aforementioned crime/arming campus security issue and an information-gathering session that compared salary gains by different campuses. She emphasized that the new Legislature will have a great deal of turnover this year (due to new term limits) and said IFS encourages faculty to inform new members of the Legislature about what it really means to be a university professor. She encouraged faculty to read the minutes of that meeting, which are posted on the IFS website (which is linked to our Faculty Senate website). 

6.0 Reports of Faculty Senate Sub-Committees: 
Joel briefly went down the list of sub-committees, mentioning a few items. These included the following: Academic Requirements will be meeting shortly to discuss the Writing Intensive course requirements. Both the Graduate and the Curriculum Committee role in on-line course approval will/may be a big issue on the horizon (see new business). Janeanne spoke on behalf of the Jenson Lecture Committee, informing us that next year’s topic, World Peace, has been decided based on ‘piggy- backing’ onto a planned conference in Portland. She hopes to bring at least one major Nobel Laureate onto campus and seeks input from Faculty on this matter. Laura also spoke on behalf on the Honor Code Committee, saying that they would have their formal report by the next meeting. 

7.0 Consideration of Old Business: 
None. 

8.0 Consideration of New Business: 

8.1 Bylaws Changes: 
Please review the email provided by Carol Harding to read the specifics (briefly: moving new and old business after the Reports of the Presidents, and requiring a one session wait period between new proposals and consideration/voting). Carol spoke briefly on the rationale for these proposals, indicating that the former will take effect as early as Spring, 2000 and the latter in Fall, 2000. There was some discussion but no vote. Faculty Senators, mirroring the theme of proposal two, are encouraged to take these issues back to their Divisions before formal consideration and a vote next time. Joel mentioned that he and the Executive Committee have broached several other potential Bylaw changes one of which, importantly, was changing the role of the Vice President to include maintenance of the Faculty Senate webpage. 

8.2 On-line Course/Program Development: 
This contentious issue was raised and discussed at some length. Essentially, what is purported is the following: a grant was written by Martin Morris (Director of Extended Studies) to develop an entirely on-line curriculum/program (to be up and running by Fall, 2000) that would be aimed at a cohort of working/distant classroom teachers seeking advanced degrees/licensure. Monies were requested via OUS and a corporation called “eCollege.” The problem appears to be that a limited number of actual faculty were consulted or informed of the grant contents and they are now finding out about the grant expectations and questioning several potential problems (timeframe, appropriateness of on-line format, course/program change, and accreditation, to name a few). Subsequent issues that have risen from these discussions have involved, as mentioned before, academic freedom, ‘ownership’ of curriculum, money/grant-driven curriculum, and proper protocol for writing such a grant and approving courses/programs. Martin Morris was not on hand to answer faculty concerns, although Provost Minahan assured faculty that a significant brake had been made in terms of heavily advertising this new program in light of concerns. Joel has distributed an email from Martin Morris summarizing grant issues. Following discussion, the Faculty Senate approved a special meeting to formally discuss these issues with Martin Morris on March 14th, provided he is available. 

The Meeting was adjourned.