Index of Topics – January 24, 2011

         Exhibit A:  For Approval 2/7/11

Senate Library Committee – Jeanne Freeman, PEHR, Vice chair

 

Center for Instructional Innovation -  Justina Brown, Technology Specialist

 

Faculty Handbook, Article V:  Elimination and Merger – Discussion

 

Guidelines on Shared Governance in Colleges – Discussion

 

 

WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

FACULTY SENATE MINUTES

Regular Meeting – January 24, 2011

 

Call to Order

Senate President Scott Pearce called the 2010-2011 Senate to order at 4:03 pm.  Pearce welcomed twenty-five (25) Senators along with ten (10) others for a total of thirty-five (35) (See attached roster).

 

Items from the Faculty Senate President:

Approval of Senate Minutes:   Senators accepted the Senate minutes of January 10, 2011.

Items from Senate President Scott Pearce:

·         Pearce drew attention to recent comments from President Shepard about the severity of budget cuts expected to reach between 5-7%.  State support is dropping to 30% with only $2900 per student provided from the legislature. 

 

In other matters Pearce plans: 

1)      To form a subcommittee to revise the Code of Faculty Ethics to reflect high standards of behavior

                 regarding sexual relations between faculty members and students;

2)  To address the issue of constricted majors which drive students into General Studies;

3)  To propose solutions such as deducting points on a test if students do not fill out Scantrons properly.

 

Items from the Administration

·         Provost Riordan asked for ideas on how the units can be more effective in light of expected cuts to the academic budget and the consequent reshaping of the university. Riordan is looking at issues such as why a major at Western is 30% bigger than at other schools; efficiencies in student printing and printing costs generally; how to quickly generate revenue through EESP; and plugging staff ideas into the conversation loop.  Riordan emphasized that despite budget tightening there is no talk about abandoning our core mission.

 

Other Reports

·         Steve Garfinkle, UFWW President, reminded Senators that despite budget bad news there is a long way to April, and faculty should not believe the worst is going to happen.  Garfinkle asks that faculty get in touch with him if workload issues arise. 

·         The UFWW plans to hold information fora for faculty with representatives from Olympia in the coming months.

 

Senate Library Committee - Presentation:  Jeanne Freeman, PEHR¸ Vice Chair

Freeman proposed points to be incorporated into a new charge for the Senate Library Committee.  The charge is in line with the strategic plan and as a paradigm of shared governance will introduce the Dean of Libraries to the opinions and sentiments of students and the faculty at large.  A draft charge was presented and a formal document will be brought in Spring quarter. 

 

           The Senate Library Committee’s (SLC) role is to help the library support the University’s mission. To do so, the SLC will: 1) provide advice and recommendations to the Dean of the Libraries and 2) serve as liaison between the faculty and Dean of Libraries. Specifically, the committee shall:

 

§  Assist, by way of recommendations, the development of library collections to improve levels of information literacy and research for faculty, students, and staff.

§  Encourage use of the library.

§  Meet regularly each quarter

 

 

The committee will review documents, polls, budgets, policies related to collections, services and facilities, and by way of recommendations assist the Dean in serving many entities across campus with complex perspectives.  A formal document will be brought to the Senate for approval.

 

Center for Instructional Innovation - Presentation:  Steve VanderStaay, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, described the multiple functions of the Center for Instructional Innovation (CII), along with Justina Brown, Technology Specialist.

ü  The CII serves faculty as a resource, library, web depository, and provides instructional assistance and advice, including professional development workshops.  Among these are teaching and assessment workshops, support for faculty initiatives including a faculty GUR group and a faculty research writing series, methodology and instructional initiatives, and individual consultations and mid-course evaluations.

ü  CII also provides a nationally known showcase and archive of teachers who excel at what they do.  One faculty member in Management (Jason Kanov) has reported that “The CIIA is an indispensable resource for faculty. The annual Teaching Showcase not only disseminates a wealth of useful pedagogical information and materials, but also publicly legitimizes and celebrates the university’s teaching mission.”

ü  Faculty who would like more information or who wish to have an anonymous midterm assessment of their teaching and students’ response can call X7210 for an appointment.

 

Constituent Concerns:  Only General Studies' advisors can approve students who choose to declare General Studies as a major.  Students can now research General Studies through Bb. (Karen Stout)

 

STANDING COMMITTEE MINUTESReading and Acceptance (Exhibit B)

Committee

Date

Topic

University Planning & Resources Council

12/1/2010

ACCEPTED.  Objectives for University Accreditation; Budget Context

Academic Coordinating Commission

1/4/2011

ACCEPTED.  MOTION: Approval of E-Catalog Committee charge; discussion re reduction in Engineering majors; election to CUE

Academic Technology

Committee

12/1/2010

ACCEPTED.  CIO mtg; Computer Support Group mtg; Technology Transform Taskforce; STF;  migration from Titan; Camptasia Relay

 

 

 

Appointments and Elections:   Chuck Lambert, Officer

Senators voted to approve the 2011 Election Schedule

 

DISCUSSION ITEMS

Faculty Handbook: Article V, Elimination and Merger.  Faculty provided feedback to the Executive Council on a draft document which will come to the Senate for a vote in the near future.  Senators expressed concern about the specifics of ranking priorities within the strategic mission.  Discussion points follow:

 

§  Correspondence.  The new Mission Statement does not appear to correspond with this policy because there are no programs defined in the Mission Statement with the exception of the Liberal Arts core and topics in a sidebar such as diversity.  How does this help in finding criteria for making an elimination or merger decision?  This is a real problem -- defining the core of the university.

 

§  This is a huge question, yet we would like this policy to be in place because we are going to be talking about this in February and March because of expected funding cuts.

 

§  Clarify selection criteria.  Spencer Anthony-Cahill requested that the definitions of the selection criteria be made clearer, not just referenced in the Mission Statement.

 

§  No ranking.  Also, it is not clear whether the listing in the document is meant to indicate a ranking.  Perhaps a statement should say these are listed in no particular rank order.

 

§  Meet the New Manager.  Penny Hutchinson reported on one issue with new merger – having a new boss – sometimes without warning.  Hutchinson suggested it might be helpful from the human side to get early information about who your new manager is going to be and his/her responsibilities in a new merger.  This is of course understanding the confidential nature of “Elimination”.

 

§  Senate Responsibility.  Chris Suczek supports Anthony-Cahill’s comments.  If in fact decisions are being made about mergers and eliminations then some group of people are going to be making those decisions.  If the Senate defines the criteria, then the Senate can be behind those decisions.   If it is defined in the Mission Statement, then whatever ad hoc committee is formed, they will have to come up with criteria if none have been specified. Somebody has to provide specific criteria. 

 

§  Remove “significant.” Senators objected to the word “significant” in “Minutes will be kept at all significant meetings” because of possible loopholes and suggested: “Minutes will be kept at all meetings.”

 

§  Pearce pointed out that the clearly defined criteria, rationale, and documentation would be forwarded to the Board afterwards, but Senators pointed out that this was “after the fact”.

 

§  Colleagues’ Credentials.   Michiko Yusa asked about the role of the Senate related to academic programs, and whether our first priority is to our colleagues.  It seems challenging to have to put a rubber stamp on what we might not have authority to say anything about, especially when we do not have the entire picture nor have spoken to those involved.  Is our job to listen to issues and make a collective decision; is that part of our mission?

 

§  Faculty Voice Essential.  Senators understood that the role is to give advice, or to form a task force such as the one that helped in the decision for the Music Library.  While we won’t be able to get ahead of every decision it is important to put faculty voice into the process. This is new language for a policy already in the handbook.

 

§  Confidentiality.  Dan Larner reminded Senators that in the previous year during the Dance Department merger the Senate was involved through its officers.  But Larner reminded faculty that issues that involve personnel cannot be brought out publicly.

 

§  Faculty Must Read Closely.  David Meyer and Scott Pearce pointed out what a meaningful role has been taken on by UPRC and suggested the importance of involved faculty taking close looks at documents and really trying to understand issues.

 

§  Redundancy A Good Idea.  Anthony-Cahill suggested that a list of possible criteria ought to be defined in several places.  Are we convinced that the mechanisms that are in place fully inform and provide total recognition of the situation and the data?. 

 

§  Is the Information Available?  Roger Anderson asked:  Are the people making decisions really in a position to judge the international or national reputations of faculty who might be involved?  Are we sure that the knowledge and information informing those decisions is as good as we would like it to be?  Is that in place now?  Anderson is not convinced.

 

§  Procedure or Policy? Pearce pointed out that the draft focuses on procedure.  The policy itself was created by the planning and budgeting office and has been on the web since last April.

 

§  The policy seems central, rather standard, very thorough, and with so many criteria that you can pick and choose any that you want, allowing the decision to be completely political.  Provost Riordan suggested that this is the case, and criteria turns out to be a case of apples and  oranges.

 

§  Is Feedback Requested? Jackie Caplan-Auerbach asked about section c.3, whether this is intended to be just an explanation for discussion, or are you looking for feedback at this point?  Pearce suggested we are building through discussion and compromise and attempting to establish things with a basis that will be respected; we cannot just impose.

 

§  CBA has Legal Force -- Faculty Must be Involved Early in Discussions.  Steve Garfinkle pointed out that while this is Handbook language there are other guidelines from the document from President Shepard, and the faculty collective bargaining agreement (CBA), Section 21.  Garfinkle noted this is procedurally incorrect.  Faculty who might be affected must be involved in discussion earlier according to CBA, and the CBA has legal force.

 

§  Difficult for Those Making Decisions.  Catherine Riordan pointed out that for the people serving on these committees it is very difficult to do what we are going to have to do over the next couple of months.  People on this confidential committee are going to wish they were not on it.  Difficult decisions will have to be taken somewhere; we are not going to be able to do a Music Library type decision in every case.  If shared governance is really working we will be able to orchestrate and move through this together, through some tough conversations.  We have to cut $6 million in the academic divisions alone.  This is not whittling around the edges.  These are deep cuts.

 

Guidelines on Faculty Governance in Colleges The Senate will consider the guidelines in spring quarter when colleges have had a chance to test current models of governance.

 

Adjournment

5:50 pm – January 24, 2011  – Rose Marie Norton-Nader, Recorder

 

                                                                                                David Hartenstine, Secretary, 2010-2011

FACULTY SENATE – ROSTER 2010-2011

 

Senators whose terms end in 2011

 

 

 

1

Spencer Anthony-Cahill  SenACC

Chemistry

A

P

 

Senate President 2010-2011

2

Branko Curgus

Math

A

P

 

Scott Pearce, Liberal Studies, President

3

Chris Suczek  

Geology

A

P

 

David Meyer, Music, Vice Pres. and Parliamentarian

4

David Hartenstine, Secretary

Math

A

P

 

 

5

Michael J Mana

Psychology

B

--

 

Ex Officio

 

6

Ron Helms, (for Vicki Hsueh)

Sociology

B

P

1

Bruce Shepard, University President

--

7

Mick Cunningham

Sociology      

B

P

2

Catherine Riordan, Provost

P

8

Ryan Wasserman

Philosophy

C

P

3

Roger Gilman, Dean, Fairhaven, Provost’ Cncl

--

9

Daniel Rangel-Guerrero

M&CL

C

--

 

 

 

10

David Meyer, Vice Pres (for K.Denham)

English

AL

P

 

Past Pres, Legislative Liaison,  UFWW, ASVP

 

11

Michiko Yusa

M&CL

C

P

1

Daniel Larner, PastPres, Exec NV

P

12

Lesley Sommer ( Erin Hazard)

Music

D

P

2

Marsha Riddle Buly, LegLiaison10-11. Exec

--

13

Shawn Knabb

Economics

E

--

3

Steven Garfinkle, UFWW President, Exec

P

14

John Feodorov

Fairhaven

F

P

4

Ramon Rinonos-Diaz, ASVP-Academics

--

15

Joanne Carney

Elem Ed

H

P

 

 

 

 

Senators whose terms end in 2012

 

Guests

16

David Bover

Comp Sci

A

--

1

Roger Anderson, Chair, ACC

P

17

Jackie Caplan-Auerbach

Geology

A

P

2

Steve VanderStaay, VPUE

P

18

Kathleen Saunders, ACC

Anthropology

B

P

3

Justina Brown, Information Specialist, CII

P

19

Scott Pearce, SenPres, UPRC

Lib  Studies

C

P

4

Karen Hoelscher, Elem Ed.

P

20

Karen Stout  

Comm

C

P

5

Dawn Dietrich, English

P

21

Bradley Howard

Journalism

C

P

6

Jeanne Freeman, PEHR, VChair, SenLibrary Cte

P

22

Sheila Webb

Journalism

C

P

7

Rose Marie Norton-Nader, Recorder

P

23

Penny Hutchinson

Dance

D

P

 

 

 

24

Cynthia Camlin

Art

D

--

 

 

 

25

Mark Springer

Decision Sci

E

P

 

 

 

26

Steve Henson, At Lg Exec

Economics

E

P

 

Ø  Senators Present

25

27

David O Wallin

Huxley

G

P

 

Ø  Absent or Excused

(5)

28

Donald Larsen

Woodring

H

P

 

Ø  Ex Officio

1

29

Chuck Lambert  Appt &E Exec

Spec. Educ

H

--

 

Ø  PPres; Leg Rep;UFWW; ASVP

2

30

Paul Piper

Libraries

I

P

 

Ø  Guests and Recorder

7

 

DATE:   January 24, 2011

 

TOTAL PRESENT:

35