Index of Topics –  May 225, 2006

Roll Call– Election of Officers; Reports from Committee Chairs

Pledge regarding new faculty positions – President Morse

Parking Fees – Discussion re Board of Trustees

Revised Strategic Plan – Motions and Vote of Approval

 

WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

FACULTY SENATE MINUTES

Regular Meeting – May 22, 2006

 

Call to Order, Seating, and Roll Call

Bill Lyne, President Pro Tem called the roll of attendees at the seating of the 2006-2007 Faculty Senate following a call to order at 4:03 p.m.  Lyne welcomed twenty-eight (28) Senators, three (3) ex officio members, the Legislative Liaison (1) the Past President (1), the recorder (1) and six (6) guests for a total of forty (40).  (See attached roster).  Vice Provost Moheb Ghali sat in for Provost Bodman.  Senators thanked outgoing Senator Ramona Chauvin for her years of service which included regularly driving to Senate meetings from the off-campus site in Everett.

 

Approval of Minutes

§    Senators accepted the Senate minutes of May 15, 2006, and University Planning Council minutes of May 17th that included UPC approval of the Revised Strategic Plan. 

§    Senators postponed discussion of the proposed Center for Cultural and International Studies as well as remaining Standing committee minutes until the first meeting of Fall Quarter on October 2nd

 

Election of Officers

2006-07 Senate President Ira Hyman held the election of the following faculty to the 2006-2007 Executive Council:  Vice President and Parliamentarian:  Jeff Newcomer, Engineering Technology;

Secretary: Lorraine Kasprisin, Woodring College

Appointments and Elections Officer, Matthew Liao-Troth, Management

At-Large, Laura Laffrado, English. 

Legislative Liaison, Sara Singleton, Political Science

President pro tem Bill Lyne, English,  remains a non-voting member of the Executive Council, along with Jim Hearne, Chair of the Academic Coordinating Commission (Computer Science), and Thomas Downing, Chair of the University Planning Council (Philosophy). 

 

Thanks to Chairs and Special Acknowledgement to Thomas E. Downing

The Senate expressed thanks to the Chairs of Standing Committees for extensive work in the past year, and recognized and applauded the long and outstanding service of Thomas E. Downing both as Chair and as a member of the Academic Coordinating Commission.

 

Reports from Chairs of Senate Standing Committees

Senators received the following reports from the Chairs of Senate Standing committees

 

Activities of the Academic Coordinating Commission in 2005/2006  -  Thomas E. Downing, Chair

The bulk of what the ACC does, of course, is to review the minutes of all of the major curricular committees on campus. In addition to this often time-consuming task, the ACC took some major actions and, with the idea of eventually taking action, discussed issues it determined to be important.

Major actions the ACC took in 2005/2006 include

·         Devising a rubric for offering FYE seminars, viz., reserving “117” for them, and setting the rules for their approval as well as for the approval of regular courses offered as FYE.

·         Passing rules regarding the proliferating and increasingly irrational use of alpha suffixes in course numbering

·         Establishing a committee to reexamine the Add/Drop Policy and the use of the “W.”

Major items of discussion include

For the first time in its history, the ACC held what was in effect a joint meeting between it and representatives from the College Curricular Committees that report to it.

 

Senators asked questions about the Academic Dishonesty Policy.  Downing reported that Jim Hearne, the new ACC Chair will be in touch with the Senate.  Downing went on to comment on the irrationality of the current dishonesty policy and system, where a student can actually pursue filing a claim against a faculty member when it is the student who is charged with dishonesty.  Downing suggests the creation of a separate appeals board and to skip the present process of forwarding to the Chair and the Dean.  An appeals board could be comprised of student peers with faculty oversight.  Downing suggests simply removing academic dishonesty from other types of complaints where students “moan and groan about a grade.  We want to make it easier for a faculty member to charge this if it happens.  It should not be viewed as a ‘grievance’”.

 

* * * * *

Activities of the University Planning Council in 2005-06 – Rick Osen, Chair

Meeting biweekly throughout the academic year, the main topics addressed by the UPC included the following.

Review of the Draft Strategic Plan:  At various times in the process, drafts of the university’s revised Strategic Plan were brought to UPC for review, discussion and recommendations. 

Classroom Design & Building Planning:  UPC took part in examining the classroom design plans for the AIC building and heard updates regarding the ongoing effort to renovate and upgrade general university classrooms in existing buildings.   

Operating Budget:  Updates and discussion of issues regarding the university’s operating budget were interspersed in the UPC agenda throughout the year.  The UPC Executive Committee serves on the President’s Planning and Resource Council (PPRC).

Capital Planning:  The Faculty Senate charged UPC to “…review the processes involved in planning major construction projects and set forth guidelines for future construction projects.”  This undertaking has begun.

UPC Charge:  Discussion has taken place around defining and revising the charge of the University Planning Council.  UPC members have wrestled with this, and have had a hard time identifying how the council’s role fits in with all the other groups on campus that are involved in major planning issues.  

 

Senators thanked and commended Rick Osen for his lengthy term of service and outstanding work as Chair of the University Planning Council.

 

* * * * *

Activities of the Academic Technology Committee in 2005-06 – Michael Meehan, Chair

Michael Meehan reported that the committee had reviewed the technology fee committee proposals and advised the AIC building on several issues that needed improvement.  A reorganization document for academic technology had been in the works last year, and it has been pushed along and refined, but it makes no sense to go ahead and make any suggestions in that we are now in the process of hiring a replacement for Jerry Boles.  Meehan mentioned some popular concepts from other universities that may appear on Senators’ radar screens such as:  student portfolios, etc.

MaryAnn Reynolds asked about some 24 suggestions for changes in the building of which 23 were adopted, and asked if anyone had the opportunity to look at those plans and see how the suggestions were being incorporated going down the pike.  Reynolds noted that at one point there were plans to put in place some way of monitoring questions that would be answered by a feedback group.  Meehan noted that ATC now works with the computer and work stations in the new buildings, no longer UPC.  David Fewings responded on behalf of UPC that we have interviewed people from Facilities Management, and discussed the entire planning process, but we have not incorporated a feedback mechanism to date.

 

* * * * *

2005-06 Report from the Senate Legislative Representative – Sara Singleton

The Senate Legislative Representative is charged with representing the interests of the faculty before the legislature.  This involves monitoring legislation, testifying before committees, meeting with legislators and members of the governor’s staff; and attending meetings of various task forces, commissions, etc., that influence higher education in the state.  He/she coordinates his/her activities with the Council of Faculty Representatives (CFR) and Western’s administration, as well as the Council of Presidents, and Western’s student legislative representative.  

 

The 2005 session was a short (60-day) session, which did not involve full-scale budget creation.  While there were several pieces of legislation that were relevant to faculty concerns, few made it out of committee.  One exception was a bill brought by students, the so-called “textbook” bill, which concerned cost savings on course materials.  The bill directs bookstores to “unbundle” prepackaged course materials so that students can purchase whatever pieces they need without paying for the whole package. It also directs bookstores and faculty to consider the cost of materials before assigning them (in particular, students want faculty to think carefully before assigning the newest edition of a text, when, in their minds at least, an older edition might be just as good).  Some university administrations and bookstores opposed this act; others supported it.   CFR worked with the students to include language making it clear that nothing in the act should be construed to impinge on faculty’s authority in selecting course materials.   This bill was very popular with the legislators and ultimately passed.  I also worked closely with the Director of Government Relations,  Sherry Burkey, to support Western’ s  supplementary budget requests.  As Sherry Burkey reported to the Faculty Senate in April, these were ultimately successful. 

 

The fact that 2005 was a non-budget year allowed CFR to devote time and effort toward increasing the visibility of faculty and faculty concerns (as often complementary, but nonetheless distinct from our administrations) and prepare the way for future efforts.  To that end, CFR did the following:

§    Established a budget and membership dues process for CFR ($500 per year for each institutional member), to fund transportation to and from monthly CFR meetings for the faculty representative to the HEC board meetings; postage, mailing, printing, special events expenses, etc.

§    This fund enabled CFR to develop a six-page brochure that showcases research and teaching of faculty in often-overlooked areas that are strong priorities for many legislators and their constituents.  Areas included in the brochure include:  K-12 education; Environment; Public Health; Economic Development; and Protection of Children and Families.  

§    Another use of the fund was to stage an event on Feb. 28 in the Capitol Building entitled “Faculty Serving Washington” that brought faculty from the six institutions to Olympia meet with legislators and their staffs and talk about and display posters of their programs and research.  The main messages CFR sought to convey through the event were:  1. faculty all over the state---not just in specific high-visibility programs in the research institutions---are making significant contributions to the quality of life for Washington residents; and 2. faculty at all six institutions of higher education are “at-risk” of being hired away by other universities because of the failure to keep up with salaries at peer institutions.   Western’s representatives to the event were Tom Roehl, associate professor in Management;  Arunas Oslapas, associate professor in Engineering Technology; and Donald Alper, Professor of Political Science and Director, Canadian-American Studies.  The event generated considerable amount positive feedback, and CFR plans to repeat it next legislative session.   

§    CFR also met with more than 50 key legislators and members of the governor’s staff to discuss several key items:  1. the need for a stable, long-term funding plan for higher education; and 2. the need for faculty representation on state-wide planning initiatives.  (Some of these we are already attending, but without a formal seat at the table).

§    I continue to attend monthly meetings of CFR during which we will, under the direction of our respective faculty senates, develop a legislative agenda for the upcoming session.  We will also be doing legislative outreach and attending meetings of the HEC Board and the governor’s Washington Learns taskforce.

 

* * * * *

Activities of the Salary and Welfare Committee 2005-2006 - Paul Storer, Chair

The committee dealt with three main issues this year:

1. Equity/compression funds and studies Committee members were involved in the selection of a salary study consultant and later met with the consultant to discuss the scope and methodology of the race/gender equity study.  The committee will continue to be involved in the interpretation of the results of the gender/ethnicity study, the development of a compression study methodology, and the analysis of what these studies tell us about how equity/compression funds should be distributed. 

2. Salary increase for Fall 2006 The committee recommended an across-the-board salary increase in order to counter the erosion of salaries that occurred during the most recent period of state salary freezes.

3. Chair compensation Committee members recognized that inadequate compensation may explain why many departments are experiencing difficulty recruiting and retaining chairs. There was a feeling that chair stipends should reflect the size of the department and should also tend to rise at the same rate as general merit salary increases.  The committee felt that chair compensation should reflect the amount of time a person serves as chair so that temporary “re-enlistment bonuses” (rather than permanent step increases) might be the best way to encourage chairs to continue for multiple terms.

 

Senators asked if there had been any movement on summer salary discussions, and learned that discussion had to be set aside because no one is sure how the committee will continue in the new environment.  Storer commented on the retention and recruitment policy -- the one is place right now is “contested by more than 50% of people on campus all for different reasons, ranging from ‘too competitive to not competitive enough’”.  So this year the committee focused on equity and compression issues.  Storer reminded Senators of the forthcoming interim report from a salary consultant.  Storer mentioned that the salary policy recommends special merit but that we have been “diverging from that every year.”

 

* * * * *

Report from the Committee on Grievance and Sanctions - Daniel Warner, Chair

Faculty Handbook:  The report “shall maintain the confidentiality of the complainant, respondent(s) and the specifics of the case.”                  Report There were three grievances, and they were each resolved after hearings.

 

* * * * *

Activities and Report from Senate Library Committee - Sara Singleton, Chair

The Senate Library Committee continues to wrestle with a number of contentious issues, as well as overseeing various positive developments directed toward enhancing current strengths and increasing the “usability” of the library for students and faculty. 

The main problem areas:

§    Lack of adequate funds for the library continues to be a serious problem.   Much of this is driven by the rapid pace of inflation of periodical subscriptions.  The head librarian continues to explore options for increased funding.  These could include:   expansion of external fundraising efforts; a dedicated student library fee, similar to the student activity fee (although much lower).   

§    Issues of either actual or perceptions of inequity in the allocation of library acquisitions monies.  Last year’s ad hoc committee on the library allocation “formula” was unable to reach agreement as to an alternative plan.  Nor has the committee as a whole been able to reach agreement on what, if anything, would constitute an improvement to what is currently in place.  The difficulties arise from:   a lack of agreement as to whether there is an overall, systemic problem in the current allocation scheme (as opposed to a few problem areas, that could be remedied fairly easily); the inherent complexity of creating indicators for, and measuring, various dimensions or principles for allocation----#’s of students; faculty; cost of materials; etc. etc.; the rapidly changing environment of library acquisitions---how to factors in services like costly databases that provide materials to a variety of disciplines.     The current status of the discussion on the committee is that we are considering asking the library to create a small set of “options” that weight different dimensions or principles differently, and give us rough estimates of how each of these would play out in practice (e.g. how and how much they would be likely to alter the current scheme of allocation of library acquisitions.   

§    Imbalances in the ratio between acquisition of books and periodical subscriptions.  Because the cost of subscriptions to journals is escalating at a faster rate then that of books, there is an ongoing problem with departmental budgets becoming seriously unbalanced.   This is a problem for at least two reasons:   students tend to use books more than journals; and some journals subscriptions have a tendency to embed themselves into the departmental library budget, long after their faculty sponsors have lost interest in them, moved on, etc.   There is a proposal currently being considered by the Committee to require department to review their subscription lists [once a year; once every two years].   This might help department avoid the situations of being faced with periodic draconian cuts and perhaps help to re-balance the book/periodical  ratio. Some department are already doing this, the proposal would attempt to persuade more department to do so.

On a somewhat brighter note, the Library continues the project to update its website to make it more user-friendly.  It is seeking funds to renovate the 6th floor so that Special Collections could be moved up there. The current space could possibly become a 24-hour study area for students.   The library is also conducting a special assessment project called LibQual, which will use user surveys and other instruments to analyze and compare Western’s library with peer libraries.

 

Senators asked if there is going to be a process of change for the basic problem of allocation of library acquisition money, and noted that not much progress seems to have been made.  One of the problems is the challenge of figuring out what kind of indicators to use in order to allocate; how to factor in Proquest and various other databases that don’t relate to a particular department; costs of materials; usage by students; and many other variables. 

§    Senators understood the doubtfulness of coming to an agreement on these figures.   Right now the process is to come up with options to weight certain types of variables according to adopted principles.  Weighting the criteria seems to have greater potential for ending the debate. 

§    Another issue is allocation within departments both for periodicals and books.  Some argue that students read books not periodicals; departments should not devote more than 85% of their budget to periodicals.  If people do nothing, the periodicals will shortly just swallow the entire budget, so additional proposals on this are expected this week.  It would be helpful if departments were required to visit their periodical list once a year, simply to look at it and see if that is where they want their allocations to be. 

§    One Senator is appalled by the incredible resistance by library to any rearrangement, when lists have been created over and over again of how things could be changed. Students are expected to be cutting edge, yet  it is frustrating to see inertia in the library.  The resistance is not just librarians; there just seemed to be no strong feeling that things ought to be changed; the people who have the resources are not going to get cut.  More resources have to be given to the library overall. The students in those departments that are not going through their lists are ending up with no new books.  One Senator noted that the books that come out in her field are so behind they have to focus on journals, but they get cut every year because these journals, and international journals are so expensive. 

§    Everybody should think about getting on the library committee.  Long hours have been spent looking at all the ratios, credit hours and percentages.  Some sciences end up with three times as many journals that cost three times as much.  One Senator suggested lobbying the publishing  houses to go back to prices from the old days.  Others concurred that it is a sweet deal for publishers and a collective action problem. 

On book bundling:  Faculty have the final say about choice of materials and how they are packaged.  The bookstore will have to investigate how they sell these books individually.  If the publisher will only supply course materials in a bundle form, so be it.  The instructor remains the final determinate.

 

Report from 2005-06 APPOINTMENTS AND ELECTIONS – Jeff Newcomer, Officer

Jeff commented that most positions in Senate committees had been filled, and thanked Senators for continuing to ask their colleagues to fill remaining vacancies.  Senators then approved the following appointments:

Elected to the following Senate Standing Committees:

Senate Library Committee (3 yr terms):  Sara Singleton, Political Science; Nicholas Wonder, Finance & Marketing.  There is one faculty vacancy remaining.

Academic Freedom Task Force:  Lorraine Kasprisin, Woodring; Daniel Larner, Fairhaven; James Loucky, Anthropology; Roger Anderson, Biology.

Vacancies on Academic Coordinating Commission Standing Committees:

Assessment, (2); Graduate Council (2)

 

Funding the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs Position

§    Senators expressed concern about the 06-07 budget going forward to the PPRC without new faculty lines, and with some rumors about a “freeze” and with little input from the Senate.  Senators were particularly concerned that this was an effect of allocation of funds for the new Vice President for Faculty Affairs. 

§    While faculty pointed out the critical effect on students of losing allocated faculty positions, President Morse reminded Senators that she was the one who had come forward with the budget that included all these new positions. Senators suggested that rumors may be symptomatic of not having faculty on the President’s Council or the Provost’s Council. 

§    President Hyman stated that if there was impetus to call another Senate meeting he would do so, so that there would be the possibility of further dialog with the President and the Provost.  The Faculty Senate expressed the view that whenever this decision is made, that the money for the new Vice Provost position not come out of new faculty lines, because the faculty decided to unionize.  President Morse agreed that no positions should be lost.  

 

Senators applaud President Morse

President Morse pledged that new faculty positions would not be lost when funds are allocated for the position for Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs.  Morse will work with the Budget Director to find alternate funding for the Vice Provost position when the new budget comes out, without penalizing the present allocation of faculty positions.  Morse will follow up with the Provost and the Budget Officer and will bring it to PPRC tomorrow.  Morse’s pledge was greeted by applause from the Senate.

 

Parking Fees and the Lincoln Creek Drive-In

Senators learned that Morse will review and then recommend to the Board the process to be used to determine funding for parking and the Lincoln Creek Drive-in by October 1st of this year.

 

Revised Strategic Plan

Senators reviewed the Revised Strategic Plan brought forward in the University Planning Council minutes of May 17, 2006.  One Senator asked for clarification of text on page 5, especially in using words such as “diversity, “difference”, “cultural”, and “international.”  Roger Thompson addressed the issue as follows: 

Ø "Many goals are being addressed in this section.  One aspect is the way in which international studies is being folded into a section that is primarily concerned with diversity issues, one of the three main sections in the 1997 Strategic Plan.  "Diversity," as I understand the use of the term, has connotations that connect it to the American experience and topics like multi-culturalism. 

Ø “Those of us who do international studies are concerned that people outside the university who will be using this document--Olympia, HEC Board, etc.--might think that this section of the Strategic Plan is concerned only with domestic American concerns.  I'm proposing to use "different" in place of "diverse" to underscore the importance of studying other cultures. 

Ø “It would be more transparent if we could call for the study of "foreign" countries, but that language, for reasons I'm not entirely sure about, is unacceptable.  Even if obliquely, I think it is important for the new Strategic Plan to contain language that commits the University to ensuring that Western's students will become familiar and comfortable, through study about and travel in, the world outside the boundaries of the United States."

Senators moved to approve the following text on page 5 (moved by Thompson, seconded by Jim Stewart):

Ø    “Become more diverse and enhance opportunities for students to understand and participate in culturally different cultures and diverse societies.  Diversity remains one of the central values of the Western Experience. Therefore:

·   The University should strive to become more diverse through recruitment, hiring, and            exchange efforts.

·   The University should develop more avenues for campus community members to participate in diverse communities experience different communities locally, nationally, and internationally.

·   Units should integrate issues of culture and diversity the study of different and diverse societies more fully across the curriculum.”

 

Senators also changed “campus” to “University” on page 5 following a motion by Ira Hyman, seconded by Laura Laffrado, and included the removal of repeated text on the first page under “Vision”.  Text changes follow:

“Improve communication throughout the University. campus. As Western has grown in size, scope and complexity, effective communication among its units and members has emerged as an important challenge”. … (remainder unchanged)

Repeated text deleted:

VISION: Western Washington University Washington University will become the premier public comprehensive university in the country through engaged excellence.

 

Following these amendments, Senators moved that the Plan go forward as amended, which passed unanimously.

(moved by Hyman, seconded by Laffrado).

 

Adjournment

Senators adjourned at 6:00 to attend the President’s Annual Dinner for the Senate in SMATE.

Written by Rose Marie Norton-Nader, Recorder, 5/22/06

 

                                                                                    _______________________

                                                                                    Lorraine Kasprisin, Secretary

 

Roster of the 2006-2007 Senate (FOLLOWING ROLL CALL)

Term

 

Senators

Area

Roll

 

Senate President

Ira Hyman

 

 

08

1

Anderson, Roger

A

P

 

Vice President and Parliamentarian

 

 

08

2

Armstrong, Jeanne

G

P

 

Jeff Newcomer

 

 

07

3

Crowder, Kyle, Library Senator

B

P
 

 

 

 

08

4

  Currier, Deb

D

Exc
 

Ex Officio

 

 

07

5

  Daley, Chris

A

--

1

Karen Morse, University President

P

 

08

6

  Emory, Steven

A

    P

2

Moheb Ghali for Provost Bodman

   P

 

07

7

  Fewings, David, UPC Senator

E

P

3

Brad Smith, Huxley and Provost’s Council

P

 

08

8

  Henson, Steve

E

P

 

 

 

08

9

  Hoffman, Joan

C

P

4

Legislative Liaison: Sara Singleton

P

08

10

  Hyman, Ira, Senate President (EC)

C

P

5

   Past President:  William Lyne (Exec only)

P

07

11

  Kasprisin, Lorraine, Secretary (EC)

H

P

6

Recorder:  Rose Marie Norton-Nader

P

07

12

 Laffrado, Laura, At Large(EC)

C

P

 

             

 

07

13

 Larner, Daniel

F

    P

 

 

 

07

14

 Liao-Troth, Matthew, Appts & Elects (EC)

E

P

 

Guests:

 

07

15

 Meehan, Michael, ACC, ATC Senator

A

P

1

Paul Storer, Ch, Salary & Welfare Cte

P

08

16

 Meyer, David

D

P

2

Thomas E. Downing, Ch, ACC

P

07

17

 Miller, Brenda (1-yr term for W. Lyne)

C

P

 

Retiring Senators:

 

08

18

 Newcomer, Jeff VPres & Parliamt. (EC)

A

P

3

Kris Slentz

P

08

19

 Ohana, Chris, UPC

H

P

4

Keith Hyatt

P

07

20

 Parris, Kristen

B

P

5

Patrick Buckley

P

07

21

 Partsch, Cornelius (1-yr for E.Ousselin)

H

P

6

Leza Madsen

P

08

22

 Reynolds, MaryAnn

E

P

 

 

 

08

23

 Simone, Genet

H

P

 

Total of 31 Senators Present

28

07

24

 Stevenson, Joan

C

P

 

Absent or Excused

(3)

07

25

 Stewart, James, ACC

A

P

 

Ex Officio

3

07

26

 Symons, Lawrence

B

P

 

Legislative Liaison, Past President

2

08

27

 Thompson, Roger, ACC

C

P

 

Recorder

1

07

28

 Van Boer, Bertil, UPC

D

P

 

Guests

6

08

29

 Wang, Grace

G

P

 

   TOTAL PRESENT:

40

08

30

 Wolpow, Ray

H

--

 

 

 

08

31

 Yusa, Michiko

C

P

 

              DATE:  MAY 22, 2006

 

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)