Senate Meeting Minutes 
March 13, 2001, 3:30 p.m. 
Columbia Room 

1.0 Call to Order 

2.0 Call of the Roll was automatic. Absent members: Joel Alexander, David Janoviak, David Olson, and Janeanne Rockwell- Kincanon. 

3.0 Minutes/Agenda: 
The previous minutes were approved. John requested that item 5.2 (CTL Report) be the first item of new business discussion. 

4.0 Reports of the Presidents 

4.1 Senate President: 
John will be sending future senate agendas to all faculty. He distributed two extensive lists of curriculum changes recently approved by the Executive Committee. He mentioned several items that will likely be discussed during spring term: writing requirements, LACC, faculty evaluation forms, and a potential union-sponsored evaluation of WOU administrators. 

4.2 President of WOU: 
President Youngblood thanked and recognized participants in the recent higher education lobby/rally. She distributed copies of the Oregon Economic and Revenue Forecast; please review and share with colleagues. Provost Minahan then distributed and discussed current campus budget- related information. He reported that we will be in the black this year, with some growth (in particular with respect to graduate and international students) and good retention. Concerns are for next year, in particular with regards to flat to lower recruiting. The Provost said that the next significant timepoint for budget information will be the 4th week of next term. 

4.3 Student Body President: 
Andy also commended the WOU effort at the higher ed. rally, reporting that Western, with 300 participants, ranked second in the state (behind PSU). After lengthy discussions in student Senate, student fees will be increased; however, he said that these will likely be under fire from the legislature and asked for support as this issue is tackled at higher levels. He reported that Abby's House and efforts to improve the weight training/workout facilities are moving forward. 

5.0 New Business 

5.2 CTL Steering Committee: 
Dr. Tory Templeton, Director of Teaching Research, distributed a "fact sheet" about the CTL, summarizing major points regarding the CTL mission, the source of and commitment to matching funds, and the role of CTL with regards to the larger PT3 grant and the whole campus. In contrast with the contentious issues raised prior to this presentation (e.g. the union-sponsored email that was distributed), the discussion that followed Dr. Templeton's presentation was minimal. Only John posed specific questions about funding issues (e.g. what will happen if there isn't enough funding to cover the match next year and where other funds for CTL/PT3 are directed). The responses: a loss of CTL will wound - but not kill - PT3; funding distribution is defined in the grant in terms of salary, equipment, and sub-grant awards. Chehalis asked about access to CTL resources and Dr. Templeton provided information about the Hamersly Library Office (312) which will work with faculty on program analyses, improvement, and assessment design. Meanwhile, Dr. Templeton can be reached at Teaching Research, Todd 242 if you have questions or interest. She strongly encouraged as much faculty use of CTL as possible and said, in three years, if CTL is under- utilized there would be no reason to pursue renewal funding. 

5.1 Pastega Honors Award 
During this significant discussion, the mandatory wait period rules regarding "new business" were suspended to allow voting on all these issues because the Senate has discussed them at several previous meetings. 

5.1.1 After little discussion, the names of the current "teaching" and "research" awards were changed to, respectively: (1) The Mario and Alma Pastega Award for Excellence in Teaching and (2) The Mario and Alma Pastega Award for Excellence in Scholarship. The term "scholarship" is meant to reflect its use in the faculty handbook as related to tenure/promotion and covers broad projects spanning from research publications to exhibits to performance. The Senate approved that the current wording of the proposal be amended to the new names to reflect this new vote so subsequent voting could take place. 

5.1.2 Single Project. 
After little discussion, the Senate voted unanimously to adopt the "single project" criteria with minor changes to the existing document. These included grammatical corrections and pluralizing the terms publication, exhibit, performance, etc. in the purpose statement. 

5.1.3 Eligibility. 
After moderate discussion, the Senate voted 11 to 5 in favor of the eligibility requirements as written. Discussion focused on Teaching Research (their role and the impact of excluding them from this award), the "fairness" of comparing teaching faculty with full-time research faculty on this campus, the nature and expectations of research performed in Teaching Research, and whether the "new" project-based criteria, in fact, made the whole eligibility question moot. 

5.3 and 5.4 Graduation requirements and LACC Discussion. 
These two items were, more or less, proposed and discussed together by John in light of recent presentations by Dean Chadney that suggested SPARC was going to discuss both issues. John distributed a "fact sheet" summarizing other campus' graduation and general education requirements. He also distributed copies of his own proposal and strongly noted that this was meant to generate discussion because, to date, no precise plans have emerged. Based on his participation on the LACC committee in the early 1990s, he also shared insights about the last time this campus reduced LACCs: notably, math courses were moved from LACC to general graduation requirements and lower division writing courses were cut in favor of the currently problematic upper division writing intensive approach. Immediate discussion raised several issues and concerns: (1) Do potential students really evaluate these kinds of numbers when comparing campuses (or are current recruiting trends more reflective of a good football season at OSU)? (2) Are we selling out to current trends in marketing higher education? (3) How would such cuts impact the education of students and the mission of WOU? (4) Would allowing double-dipping (common on most other campuses) simply solve the problem? (The Provost noted that the last time double-dipping was allowed here, the reaction was to inflate degrees to make up the difference). Have fun discussing this one! 

The meeting was adjourned at shortly after 5, believe it or not. 

Sarah