Index of Topics –  March 6,, 2006

Collective Bargaining - Statements

Call for Nominations – Senate Election

Academic Freedom – Draft Statement (Estrada)

Charge to University Planning Council - Motion

 

WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

FACULTY SENATE MINUTES

Regular Meeting – March 6, 2006

 

Bill Lyne, President called the 2005-2006 Faculty Senate to order at 4:08 p.m.  Thirty (30) people were present, including twenty-six (26) Senators, three (3) ex officio members and one (1) recorder. (See attached roster). 

 

Approval of Minutes of February 13, 2006

Senators approved the minutes of February 13 with minor corrections. 

Items from the Chair

 

Collective Bargaining President Lyne explained some aspects of the future relationship between United Faculty of Western and the Senate following a recent vote establishing the union presence. 

·       Both the Union and the Senate will represent all faculty, and any kind of contract the union negotiates will apply to all faculty whether they are union members or not. 

·       Three areas fall within collective bargaining:  1) mandatory:  salary, wages and working conditions as part of a contract; 2) permissible:  tenure and promotion issues; and 3) excluded from collective bargaining are areas having to do with curriculum, admissions, etc. 

·       The Administration and the Union negotiate in mandatory and permissible areas.  In the permissible category, both union and administration have to agree to put those things on the table before they can be bargained.

·       Everyone is eligible to join, no one is required.  The Union and the Senate will not be negotiating on how to “divvy things up”.  Mandatory items must be part of negotiations.  Permissible items are negotiated between union and administration. 

·       The Faculty Senate is not precluded from talking about anything it wants to.  Nothing prohibits the Senate from advising the Union, nor the union from seeking advice from the Senate.  The Union and the Senate represent all faculty.  But on the question of mandatory subjects, the administration must negotiate with the union. 

·       Lyne encouraged Senators to respond to constituents’ questions on the topic and postponed further discussion until later on the agenda.

 

Constituent Concerns

v Investment Options:  David Fewings asked about access to retirement information.  Human Resources has indicated that there are a range of investment options available beyond TIAA-CREF.  Val Berry and Lyne’s conversation included the possibility of reviving a joint faculty HR committee to examine investment options.

v Bicycles on Campus:  Fewings reported that the Transportation Planning Initiatives Task Force has almost completed its report which will come to the Senate in the spring quarter, and several suggestions in the report will mitigate some bike problems.  The Senate will invite campus Police Chief Jim Shaw to the Senate in the spring who will report on bike ticketing, accidents, bicycle monitoring, and answer Senators’ questions.

 

Items from the Administration

President Morse read the following statement that urged collaboration and self-education about the Union. 

“Questions and speculations have surrounded all of us since the result of the faculty unionization vote was announced.  As you know by now, a majority vote in the election resulted in affiliation with the union.

“Working with a faculty union is a new experience for many of us, so we are taking time to fully understand this new paradigm.  I will, of course, respect and comply with the legal obligations that result from the union’s presence on campus.

“I would also like to communicate my respect for the Faculty Senate and appreciation for your important role in the process of shared governance for many years.  I have spent much time and effort working together and I appreciate that experience.  I believe the process has been effective, and I intend to continue the Senate’s involvement in campus issues that are not explicitly reserved for union representation.  It will take some education and discussion to clarify those issues and how committees will work, and I will engage in the Senate in the discussions, as appropriate.

“We in administration will continue to educate ourselves and prepare for the initial collective bargaining session while the union engages in their internal organization process.

“This is a new area for many of us, not a new area for others.  Regardless, we need to move forward and work to produce the very best environment for faculty and staff and for student learning.” – President Morse

 

·    Morse congratulated the Theater Department, on the current excellent production of Evita and encouraged Senators and faculty to attend.  

·    Morse reported good input at open meetings of the Waterfront Committee and indicated a willingness to present to the Senate the current information from the Waterfront Committee.  Dean Brad Smith serves on the Waterfront Advisory Committee for the Port and will provide an overview on citizens’ groups.

 

Provost Bodman announced his full support of the statement made by President Morse (above).

·    Bodman reported he has nearly completed tenure and promotion matters and will provide a report to the Senate at the first meeting spring quarter.

·    Bodman reported that there has been a meeting of the search committee for the Vice Provost for Information Technology.   Members of the committee include Steve Ross, Julia Sapin, David Bover, and Andrea Peterson.

 

AGENDA - ACTION ITEMS

Reading of Standing Committee Minutes (Exhibit B):   

The following minutes were reviewed and accepted by the Senate

 

 

 

Date

Topics for Senate Review

o        Academic  Coordinating Commission

2/14/06

Motion re Alpha Suffices (Registrar’s comments; degree audit; course repeat checking; prerequisite checking). 

Minors; dependency graph; meeting of curricular chairs and secretaries;  Fall 2005 withdrawals – policy

o        Academic Technology Committee

1/11/06

 

2/8/06

2/15/06

Media cabinets lock; software procurement; wireless coverage; year’s agenda; Jerry Boles’ announcement; chart of different authentication points; student tech fee discussion

Email outage; Student Technology Fee proposals 1 – 12

Constituent concerns; Student Technology Fee proposals 13 - 23

o        Univ. Planning Council

2/8/06

AIC Construction update; draft strategic plan discussion; announcement of open forum on waterfront proposals

·    Senators pointed out that ATC may wish to address certain intellectual property issues at some point.  For instance, is the faculty member protected when his lectures are taped by students?

·    Senators were urged to address questions regarding the Student Technology Fee proposals to ATC, which has already ranked the proposals.  Results will appear in the next minutes.

 

APPOINTMENTS AND ELECTIONS – Jeff Newcomer

The Senate appointed the following faculty to serve through Spring Quarter:

To Faculty Senate:  Bruce Hamilton, Music, for Bertil Van Boer

To Academic Coordinating Commission:  Stan Tag, Fairhaven, for Marie Eaton (acting Dean).  Dan Boxberger, Anthropology, for Linda Kimball.

CALL FOR NOMINATIONS

Newcomer announced that faculty nominating petitions for the Faculty Senate elections are due back in the Senate Office by Monday, March 13th at 12 Noon.  Available seats by area are as follows (One At-Large position is continuing):  A:Natural Sciences-2;  B:Social Sciences-1;  C:Humanities-4;  D:Fine and Performing Arts-2;  E:Business and Economics-1;  F:Fairhaven-0;  G:Huxley-1;  H:Woodring-3;  I:Libraries-1 


 

AGENDA ITEMS – DISCUSSION:

Academic Freedom (Exhibit C)

Senators reviewed a draft statement prepared by the Executive Council that refutes David Horowitz’ recent book falsely mischaracterizing Professor Larry Estrada.  Lyne provided background on the book, which is entitled The Professors, The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in AmericaThe following informed the discussion:

Ø The prepared draft statement is a condemnation of  bills appearing in several states that attempt to restrict academic freedom.

Ø Horowitz’ book is the tip of an iceberg; in 23 states so far, legislation based on Horowitz’ template for an academic bill of rights has been introduced and is pending.  None have passed so far.  The problem -- this puts tabs on the political leanings of faculty and gives that oversight into the hands of legislators.

Ø Horowitz’ claims have been shown to be full of all kinds of misstatements, and cannot be corroborated.  Professor Estrada had approached the Senate Executive about a statement from the Faculty Senate.  The Seattle Times had an article last week, also the Bellingham Herald.  If someone were to contact the Senate for a response, this would be it.

Ø Some Senators suggested keeping a low profile, rather than encouraging the sale of the book.  Lyne responded that this response would be only if we were contacted for a statement.  If faculty are attacked, the Faculty Senate will respond, especially when the attack is on academic integrity.  However, this is always a matter of the will of the Senate.

Ø Senators pointed out that we ought to distinguish taking issue with Horowitz’ characterization of Estrada, from support of Estrada.   The third paragraph could stand alone as is.

Ø Senators pointed out that the other two paragraphs should emphasize that the Senate is really offended by the idea that there are 100 people who are dangerous because of academic freedom; the Senate is opposed to attacking people because of what they say either on or off the job.  Faculty condemn the whole idea of such a list.  The purpose of the draft should be to send a letter to the legislature, addressing the underlying issues.

Ø Senators warned against using the same heavy handed rhetoric or bullying tone as Horowitz himself.  While some might object to preventing Horowitz from speaking out, the faculty must stand up to the whole tone of mischaracterization employed by Horowitz.  Faculty pointed out that Horowitz attacks diversity, ethnic studies, and programs where there have been real changes since the ‘60s to give voice to minorities.  Horowitz is marginal when he attacks universities and claims that professors are the networks of power.

Ø Ira Hyman pointed out that this was more serious than what Horowitz is writing; it is what he is pressing in terms of the legislature – the Academic Bill of Rights.  He is demanding that faculty and those working at universities label what they are and make it a matter of public record.  This means pronouncing that your politics is influencing what you teach, what you say, how you grade. 

Ø Hyman added, “but it is neither the university’s business, students’ business nor the State’s business what my politics are.  This is a battle to impose a state of political standards on how we approach our work.  While it may not be ‘McCarthyism’, nonetheless it is a serious threat, and reminiscent of the McCarthy era – then it was a communist, now it is a liberal who cannot be allowed to say anything in the classroom.”  Some Senators concurred that Horowitz does not want freedom of speech; rather he wants to control speech so that it is like his, and that is what is most abhorrent about this.

Following full discussion, Lyne conducted a straw vote and asked:

Ø Does the Senate wish to prepare some kind of statement?  Yes.

Ø Does the Senate want some slightly amended version of this draft or a rewrite based on comments received today, with consideration of the timing?  Yes.

Ø Senators suggested that if an urgent response was required, the third paragraph would be our quick statement. 

Ø Senators suggested that they would appreciate a much stronger statement on academic freedom that would include an objection to the academic bill of rights coming up in various state legislatures

Lorraine Kasprisin and Dan Larner volunteered to revise the statement,  and send it to the Senate via email by Friday of this week.


 

Charge to University Planning Council

Senators agreed to charge UPC to come up with guidelines to address construction issues.  A motion was introduced by Ira Hyman, and seconded by Jim Stewart as follows:  “The Faculty Senate charges UPC to review the processes involved in planning major construction projects and set forth guidelines for future construction projects.”  The motion passed unanimously. 

 

Adjournment

Senators moved to a faculty caucus at 5:15 p.m. and then adjourned at 6:10 pm. 

Written by Rose Marie Norton-Nader, Recorder, 3/06/06

                                                                                                            _______________________

                                                                                                            Lorraine Kasprisin, Secretary

 

Roster 2005-2006 Senate

 

 

Term

 

Senators

Area

Roll

 

2005-2006 Senate President

Bill Lyne

 

 

06

1

Bover, David, Ch, ATC 04-05

A

P

 

Vice President and Parliamentarian

 

 

06

2

Buckley, Patrick

G

P

 

Ira Hyman

 

 

06

3

Ramona Chauvin

H

Exc
 

 

 

 

07

4

 Crowder, Kyle, Library Senator

B

P
 

 

 

 

06

5

Currier, Deb (for Greg Pulver)

D

P
 

 

 

 

07

6

Daley, Chris

A

P
 

 

 

 

07

7

Fewings, David, UPC Senator

E

P
 

 

 

 

06

8

Emory, Steven

A

    P
 

Ex Officio

 

 

06

9

    Henson, Steve

E

P

1

Karen Morse, University President

P

06

10

Hodges, Hart

E

P

2

Andrew Bodman, University Provost

   P

06

11

Howard-Snyder, Frances

C

P

3

Brad Smith, Dean of Huxley, Provost’s Council

P

06

12

Hyman, Ira, PresElect 06-07(EC)

B

P

 

 

 

06

13

Hyatt, Keith

H

P

 

Guests

 

07

14

Kasprisin, Lorraine, Secretary(EC)

H

P

1

 

 

07

15

Laffrado, Laura, At Large(EC)

C

Exc

2

 

 

07

16

Larner, Daniel

F

    P

 

 

 

07

17

Liao-Troth, Matthew

E

P

1

Legislative Liaison: Sara Singleton

--

06

18

Lyne, William, President 05-06(EC)

C

P

2

Recorder:  Rose Marie Norton-Nader

P

06

19

Madsen, Leza

I

P

 

 

 

07

20

Meehan, Michael, ACC, ATC Senator

A

P

 

Monday, February 13, 2006

 

06

21

Meyer, David

D

Exc

 

 

 

06

22

Newcomer, Jeff, Appts&Elect (EC)

A

P

 

 

 

07

23

Ousselin, Edward

C

P

 

 

 

07

24

Parris, Kristen

B

P

 

 

 

06

25

Phelan, Laurie (for Kris Slentz, Wtr Qtr)

H

P

 

Total Senators Present

26

07

26

Stewart, James, Pres. pro tem, ACC

A

P

 

Absent or Excused

(4)

06

27

Stout, Karen

C

  Exc

 

Ex Officio Present

3

07

28

Symons, Lawrence

B

P

 

Recorder and Legislative Liaison

1

06

29

Thompson, Roger

C

P

 

Guests

-

07

30

Van Boer, Bertil

D

P

 

TOTAL PRESENT

30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Article III.  Faculty Senate

The Faculty Senate is empowered to speak and act for the Faculty in University affairs with particular responsibility in the areas of curriculum, academic programs, Faculty salary, Faculty status, scholarly activities, and all matters relating to the welfare of Faculty, the education of students, and the academic mission of the University.

The Faculty Senate is limited to 30 voting members elected by the Faculty, and the President of the University, the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs of the University, and a college dean appointed by the Provost serving as Provost's Council representative as ex officio non-voting members.    (Faculty Handbook, page 55)