Senate Minutes 
April 24, 2001 
Meeting 3:30 p.m. 
Columbia Room 

1.0 Call to Order 

2.0 Call of the Roll was automatic. Joel Alexander, Kevin Helppie, David Janoviak, David Olson, Darryl Thomas, and Tamina Toray were absent. Wangeci Gatimu substituted for Adele Schepige. 

3.0 Corrections of Minutes/Agenda Adjustments. 
It was proposed that we clearly state and record that the recent course/credit increases proposed by Psychology would not require hiring any additional faculty. There were no agenda adjustments. 

4.0 Reports of the Presidents 

4.1 Senate President: 
John discussed potential concerns about recently passed and pending program course/credit increases (e.g. Psychology and Art History). These included (1) the need for an organized campus-wide discussion and effort if more programs decide to comparably increase course credit because of space and scheduling problems that will occur; (2) clarification about FTE assignments for faculty and adjuncts for the extra hour of class time; and (3) discussion about the nature of extra contact hours in terms of both FTE assignments and academic standards. Chehalis asked for clarification about the state of the Psychology proposal and John affirmed that it had been signed off and moved along. John also distributed and briefly summarized the proposal for the Writing-Intensive Program Oversight Committee and a spreadsheet that summarizes his research of LACC hours and "double dipping" issues at other OUS institutions. Finally, John reminded everyone that new senators must attend the first May meeting. 

4.2 President of WOU 
President Youngblood mentioned increased discussions at the Chancellor's Office regarding moving OUS to semesters. This will not happen during the upcoming year. It may be tried as a pilot program at Southern first. She also said that paperwork describing use of the former library will be provided at the next meeting. 

4.3 Student Body President 
Andy mentioned the upcoming international night, elections, and encouraged faculty to promote voting. 

5.0 Consideration of Old Business 

5.1 Proposal: 
C- or Better in WR135/transfer equivalent for LACC. This passed unanimously. 

5.2 Proposal: 
Upper division WR courses for WI credit. It was moved that this be tabled until the WI Program Oversight Committee issues are addressed. This motion to table was passed 13 to 2. 

5.3 Proposal: 
Reduction in the minimum graduation requirements from 192 to 180. After considerable discussion weighing both the academic and potential "deception" issues of this proposal, the Senate uninamously passed this proposal. It was suggested that a caveat along the lines of "some programs may require more credits for graduation" be included in the catalog alongside the stated minimum. 

6.0 Consideration of New Business 

6.1 WRC Committee 
Peter Callero distributed a question/answer summary of the WRC written by this committee. He also provided a negative letter from a WOU donor about the WRC and a recently passed OUS policy regarding business and impartiality at OUS campuses. He described international human rights issues and violations that warrant consideration of joining WRC. He said that the purpose of this committee regarded WRC only. Hence, the motion on the table is whether or not to join WRC. Discussion and questions raised by the Senate included: What is the scope of the problem here? Can we govern our own choices through the bookstore and athletic programs? Does the WRC actually deal with the smaller companies with whom we do business? Why not join any number of other groups or support other causes (Greenpeace etc.?)? 

6.2 Art History Credit Change. 
Art History explained that the proposed program change will not affect the LACC because the total Creative Arts LACC credits will not be changed. Specifically, Creative Arts proposed changing the wording of the LACC requirement that students take at least one course in three different areas. This would allow a student to take a 4 credit Art History course, a 3 credit course in another area, and two one credit courses in a third, keeping the total at 9. Several questions along the lines of those John raised during his initial address to the senate were discussed but, unfortunately, the move to extend the meeting beyond 5 o'clock was not approved. The meeting adjourned without clarity about the Art History proposal, particularly so given the May 1 due date extension given to Art History. As people were leaving (on this notably sunny day), this need was pointed out and it is likely the vote will be made in the Executive Committee.