Faculty Senate Minutes

January 11, 2005

 

NOTE:  Minutes were taken by Maria Fung, reprising her role as Senate secretary (thanks, Maria!)  and transcribed by current Secretary, Karen Haberman.  Hopefully not too much was lost in translation.

 

I.                 Meeting called to order at 3:34 PM

II.              Call of roll not done (no name tags, will find out who was absent)

III.           Corrections and approved:  Approved at 3:35 PM

IV.           Reports of Presidents

A.              President of Faculty Senate (Keller Coker): 

1.                Committee on committees:  Still a couple of dysfunctional committees.  Mark Van Steeter is the only member at this time.  This committee keeps track of who is on which particular committee.  Needs help going through e-mails and organizing the information.

a.                Elisa Maroney knows of a person and Kathryn Schmidt also volunteered.

2.                Catalog:  Academic requirement committee usually looks at this.  Keller will have a conversation about revising the catalog via this committee rather than forming another one.

B.              President of the University (Philip Conn)

1.                Strategic planning:  Kristina Frankenberger pulled entire university together to come up with major goals for the university.  (Many universities stop here.)  We want each academic unit to come up with goals and directions.

a.                President works with VPs and VPs work with faculty to set specific objectives.  Within the next few weeks a statement of the format of how to put together all the resources.

·                 Some units very optimistic, some realistic.  Right now, realistic is better.

·                 2005-2007:  focus on things that can be done with existing money.

·                 Kristina has completed her efforts extremely well and now the individual units will do the specific work.

2.                Governor Kulongowski’s Budget proposal (handout)

a.                Governor is focusing on the positive, e.g. areas of improvement.

b.                Higher education is faring better than K-12.

c.                Governor is pushing affordability for students (e.g. doubling funding for needy Oregon students).

d.                Building of a facility in Medford, a joint work of SOU and Rogue CC will occur (or is occurring?)

e.                One million dollars available for certain faculty salaries, primarily for institutions with high performing scholars to offset hiring of experts away from Oregon.

f.                  Special funding for nanoscience and microtechnologies.

g.                Decrease in real funding, so individual institutions will have to reduce by 5.6% their operating budgets (w/o legislative appropriations)

h.                Money for enrollment growth is not there.

i.                  Overall a 2.1% increase of funding for higher education.  Tuition increases kept at around 5%; 2% may be added.  Not clear if these are caps or guidelines.

j.                  Salary freeze will be lifted.  Money in total package is around 2%.

k.                Maintenance projects of about 102.3 million dollars through bonds.

l.                  Intention to loosen up from 8% to 10% on tuition remissions.

m.              Other items relate to extension programs.

n.                Additional amounts in legislative appropriations.

o.                First meeting with Ben Sappingtonà in March a tuition proposal has to be put forth.  Balance tuition increase with cuts (?-KLH)

p.                Best case scenario is this proposal.

q.                Question:  No funding enrollment for growth à change in funding system of money per student?

·                 This stays the same but growth is not encouraged.  Since we’re all sharing in the decrease of funding for public higher education, no more money is available for “extra” students.

r.                 Fund balances are going down (since last summer):  Try to save as much balance money as we can, close to 15% and away from 10%.

s.                 Question:  Did WOU submit a capital project? 

·                 Yes, building for Business, Computer Science and Math.  It is #16 on the priority list.

·                 OSU power plant replacement will cost $100 million.

·                 We get some money, e.g. $4 million for campus maintenance improvements if this plan goes through.

·                 We pulled our collaboration with Chemeketa for our building.  Everyone wants to collaborate with Chemeketa, so if there is a joint building it would be in Salem.

C.              President of the Student Senate (Ben Sappington)

1.                No report (not present)

V.              Old Business

A.              Consensual relationships.

1.                Concerns were answered by Judy Vanderburg (she handed out a document).  AAUP recommendations attached at the back, from absolute prohibition to strong discouragement.

a.                Discussion?  Thoughts?

b.                Moved to approve is made and seconded.

c.                Motion is unanimously approved and it becomes effective immediately (as per President Conn).

B.              BA/BS information: 

1.                Gudrun has revised the BA/BS information sheet and has had conversations with different divisions.  Benefits section was eliminated.  She asks for it to be adopted as an advising sheet and put online as well as in the catalog.  Students need to be better informed wherever advising happens (e.g. strictly for information only).

2.                Diane Tarter:  What about Diversity and Writing Intensive requirements

a.                G:  They are the same.

3.                DT: What if it is confusing

a.                G:  This is part of the catalog in addition to other sections

4.                Motion is unanimously approved.

C.              Diversity guidelines

1.                Chehalis Strapp (Chair of curriculum committee) mentioned previously that the curriculum committee was looking for more guidance on diversity guidelines and had handed out guidelines from John Minahan that had not been formally approved by faculty.  They have a form but no real criteria.  She is asking for the formation of a committee, since the curriculum committee is not the appropriate forum.

a.                Keller Coker:  Ad hoc committee is the best strategy at this point.

b.                Dean Roselli:  Can we form a committee that consists of faculty who are experts in this area?

c.                This can happen by open invitation.  Perhaps chairs of divisions can generate names and have specific people be invited.

d.                Brian Caster:  Do two diversity courses guarantee exposure to diversity?

e.                Keller Coker:  We can mandate any parameters to the committee

f.                  John Rector:  Any students with trouble getting Diversity credit on their transcripts?

g.                Brian Caster:  Transfer students have had this type of problem.

h.                John Rector:  Social sciences and humanities can guarantee the two Diversity courses.

i.                  Keller Coker:  Do we want to put together an ad hoc committee?

j.                  Janeanne Rockwell-Kincanon:  Should recommendations go back to the curriculum committee?

k.                Keller Coker:  We can decide.

D.              Oregon Transfer Module (OTM or GETM):  Bob Turner

1.                A couple of steps have occurred since his last e-mail.  Joint Boards Articulation Committee: OTM is one means of trying to ease students from one institution to another.

2.                OTM is a one year plan. 

3.                Reviewed by “More, Better, Faster” working group, Provost Council, Administrative Council of Community Colleges.  Nobody is happy but it is not causing lethal wounds.

a.                It provides proof of cooperation between universities and community colleges.

4.                Endorsed by a summit of IFS, faculty senates of PSU, SOU and OIT.  Tomorrow it goes to U of O, and Thursday it goes to OSU.  Feb. 1: EOU.  On Feb. 5, the OUS board is expected to approve it.

5.                Main point:  If a student completes this package the set of classes will be accepted throughout institutions in Oregon for general ed/LACC courses.

a.                Not total agreement among community colleges as to gen. ed. courses.

b.                Advantage of OTM compared to AAOT:  C- grade requirement to transfer.

c.                Not all of gen. ed. courses exist at all institutions, e.g. one extra writing course at WOU, etc…

d.                Consideration and endorsement of this document is requested.  Consider “work done on the OTM”.

e.                Community colleges are concerned about losing students

6.                Questions, etc…

a.                Brian Caster: Is it more of an advising issue?

b.                Bob Turner:  If a student took anthropology as a social science course (not science), he or she will get social science credit for it.

c.                Both universities and community colleges faculty see this as having a high potential of being confused about how these courses are transferred and what additional courses will be required.

d.                Some of the hours that are transferred will not fit into the general education requirement.  Need to figure out exactly where to apply these credits to the LACC and how much more they need.

e.                Advising has really got to happen.

f.                  What is meant by “Arts and Letters” and “Social Science”?

·                 Deliberately vague:  Leaves room for individual institutions to fit courses as they please.

g.                45 credit block is basically the AAOT without the elective; e.g. if a student takes history as “Arts and Letters”, we need to counting it as a Humanities/Creative Arts course at WOU.

h.                Kristina Frankenberger:  What are the implications of not adopting this?

i.                  Bob Turner:  Adopting this will put off a legislatively-created transfer module that will include courses in the major/minor.  Three legislators currently have direct plans to normalize/unify all the courses.

·                 Maybe better ways to improve transferability discipline by discipline.  Not as quick and easy, but perhaps the next step.

·                 This does not require every institution to offer OTM.  So, it is necessary to accept OTMs but not necessary to put together an OTM.  For example, University of Oregon does not require speech Communication, but all others do.

j.                  Dean Roselli:  Does this trump other articulation agreements.

·                 Bob Turner replies that he has not heard anything.

k.                Dean Roselli:  Worries about specific courses, e.g. teacher education courses where articulation is well-established.

l.                  Brian Caster: This forces us to do more substitutions than we would have before.

m.              Kit Andrews: Question about oral communication:  speech or communication?

·                 Bob Turner:  Put there to satisfy the largest number of campuses.

n.                Zenon:  If I’m a student and have the OTM, then any advisor at WOU should tell me the same thing.  SO perhaps we would say that a combination of such-and-such courses should comprise the LACC?

o.                Bob thanks the Senators for considering this.

E.               IFS report:  Bob programmed for 2.5 minutes  (the question is, who programmed him—KH)

1.                Wants to emphasize increased interactions between IFS and OUS board working groups.

2.                Work by Peter Gilke pushing the OTM is something the OUS board appreciates.

VI.           Move to adjourn, 4:45 PM