(1) Does your division need to elect any new Senators?
(2) Writing Intensive Issues (C-, additions to WI courses)
(3) Reduction in Graduation Requirement Proposal
* * *
April 10, 2001
3:30 p.m. Columbia Room
1.0 Call to Order
2.0 Call of the Roll was automatic. Absent members: JoelAlexander, Maureen Dolan, Mary Anne Linden (for Linda Keller), David Olson, Mark Perlman, Donna Perry, Darryl Thomas, and Dana Ulveland.
The previous senate minutes were
4.0 Reports of the Presidents
4.1 Senate President:
John reported that President Youngblood
John moved on to say that Peter Callero's Workers' Rights Committee would schedule a presentation for the upcoming April 24th meeting. John expressed interest in having the Curriculum Committee and Humanities Division review the existing Writing Intensive (WI) form. Finally, John said a LACC Summary report regarding other institutions' status (both numbers and double-dipping) was being formulated for the ongoing discussion.
4.3 Student Body President.
Andy remarked that the aforementioned space and LACC issues were of interest and concern to the students and would be on future student discussion agendas. He summarized current activities: upcoming elections planning, legislative attacks on student fees, the Book Exchange success, Diversity Month events, and the Fall 2001 opening of the Women's Center/Abby's House.
5.0 New Business
5.1 Writing Intensive Issue:
Dennis Eddings from Humanities provided a summary handout of proposals that should be considered for voting at the next Senate Meeting. These include:
(a) a C- or higher required for Wr135. This would be accomplished by points (1) and (2) on the handout (1 = change in the course description to state this; 2 = a catalog change stating that a C- must be met for Wr135 or transfer equivalent course for Writing) and
(b) extending WI courses to include any 300 level or higher course in writing, except creative writing (summarized in point 4 of the handout). He discussed the President's support for a faculty-staffed Writing Center that would serve all writing needs on campus (point number 3 on the handout). He said that adding any new lower division writing courses was not going to happen because of lack of funding for the necessary faculty positions it would take to offer such a class.
Discussion was somewhat lengthy on this topic. The question of transfer students who come with a whole year of lower division writing (the standard at most other universities in the state) was discussed but not resolved and none of the proposed items address this situation. Questions about the proposed writing center included how it will affect the Tutoring Center functions and how it would differ from the current Writing Center. There were also questions about how much use the current Writing Center receives. A motion to consider points 1, 2, and 4 was made. These items will be voted on at the next Senate Meeting and every effort to obtain feedback from your Division constituents should be made in the mean time, particularly knowing there is no Division meeting in the mean time.
5.2 Reduction in Graduation Requirements
A motion to reduce the graduation requirements from 192 to 180 was made after discussion. It should be strongly noted that this reduction primarily affects the catalog presentation and represents a MINIMUM. Majoring inspecific programs may elevate this base number. This presentation is consistent with other OUS catalogs.
5.3 LACC Discussion
John reiterated LACC issues from the last meeting. He has discussed with President Youngblood concerns that Faculty Senate should have a role in whatever shape LACC revisions take. She stressed that the current LACC discussions in SPARC serve as brainstorming sessions and Faculty Senate will have a voice in final decisions.
6.0 IFS Meeting Presentation
Bob Turner provided a handout that summarized the recent IFS meeting. Please review. Key points:
(1) Contact your legislators;
(2) Everything is on hold until May 15 State Economist's Forecast;
(3) Only 2 states have less affordable higher education in terms of % family income;
(4) OUS funding is not part of the state constitution;
(5) NONE of the regional universities were mentioned once during any of the presentations - which is why you must do (1) and make WOU a part of their common language!
The meeting was adjourned.