skip page navigationOregon State University
OSU Home.|Calendar.|Find Someone.|Maps.|Site Index.

Faculty Senate

Faculty Senate » May 1, 1997

Faculty Senate Minutes

1997 No. 530
May 1, 1997
 
For All Faculty
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm by President Anthony Wilcox. The April minutes were not available for approval. President Wilcox read the following resolution of sympathy, which was adopted by unanimous consent and sent to the family of Clarence Calder:

Resolution of Sympathy
The Oregon State University Faculty Senate expresses its deepest sympathies to the family of Clarence "Clancy" Calder upon his death on April 15, 1997. Clancy joined the faculty in the department of Mechanical Engineering in 1978. He distinguished himself in his field and held leadership positions in international professional societies. Clancy served his college and university and was a member of the Faculty Senate from 1991-1996. He was also very active in civic organizations, local government, and with his church. This caring and committed citizen of OSU and the community will be truly missed.

Meeting Summary
  • Special Reports: Task Force on Greek Life, Larry Roper and Les Risser
  • Committee Reports: Post-tenure Review Task Force, Ken Krane; Faculty Economic Welfare Committee, James Herzog; and Salary Equity Study Committee, Kathy Heath
  • Action Items: Standing Rules Changes - Curriculum Council, Graduate Admissions, and housekeeping changes; and nominee for the D. Curtis Mumford Faculty Service Award [Motion 97-530-01 through 04]
  • New Business: There was no new business.

Roll Call
Members Absent With Representation:
Balz, R. Dix; Field, P. Thomson; Hansen, P. Ratchfort; Leong, B. Geller; Rathja, C. Bell; and Seville, J. Drexler.

Members Absent Without Representation:
Calvert, Cheeke, Christie, Coakley, Coblentz, Collier, Cowles, Farnsworth, Foster, Graham, Gregerson, Hu, Ingham, Ladd, Madsen, McAlexander, A. Mix, G. Pearson, Perry, Primak, Putnam, Randhawa, and Tiger.

Faculty Senate Officers/Staff Present:
A. Wilcox, President; M. Niess, President-Elect; K. Krane, Immediate Past President; T. Knapp, Parliamentarian; and V. Nunnemaker, Senate Administrative Assistant.

Guests of the Senate:
B. Becker, L. Burns, S. Francis, A. Hashimoto, K. Heath, A. Lake, L. Maughan, J. McGuire, D. Nicodemus, and T. West.

SPECIAL REPORTS

Task Force on Greek Life

Larry Roper, Vice Provost for Student Affairs, explained that since he arrived at OSU he has had people talk to him about Greek life, and their comments were at extreme ends of the continuum. He noted that, in recent years, there has been a decline in membership of the Greek system, a reduction in University-provided staffing, and an increase in confusion and ambiguity regarding the relationship between and responsibility of the University to Greek chapters. He reported that more than 2,000 OSU undergraduates are involved in fraternities or sororities. In response to experiencing difficulty in evaluating the Greek system, he organized a task force to conduct a comprehensive review of the Greek system at OSU.

The primary expectations of the task force are:

1.To review the nature and structure of the relationship between the University and Greek chapters;
2.To assess the current strengths and challenges of Greek chapters and identify the current indicators of good health;
3.To assess the "quality of life" for students residing in Greek chapter houses, including: (a) the learning environment, (b) access to educationally purposeful and personal development experiences; (c) attention to personal health and safety issues, (d) availability of role models, (e) availability of healthy relationships, and (f) the influence of membership on academic success;
4.To assess the "climate" within Greek chapters, specifically, to evaluate the role of alcohol, to review the relationships among chapters, and to describe the "accepted norms" of behavior;
5.To assess the perceptions non-Greeks in the campus and local community have of Greek chapters and to determine the degree to which those perceptions are congruent with the stated missions of Greek chapters.
6. To assess the level of advising available to Greek chapters and make recommendations for appropriate advising expectations;
7. To evaluate the degree to which Greek chapters comply with the stated missions of their national organizations and Oregon State University and the level of compliance with local and University statutes;
8. To review the current member recruitment and selection processes and to make recommendations, where necessary, to improve those processes;
9. To make recommendations for the appropriate relationship of Greek chapters to Oregon State University, including: (a) staffing, (b) expectations, (c) systems of accountability, (d) appropriate reporting direction within the University administration, and (e) educational relationship; and
10. To make recommendations for the future direction of Greek chapters, including recommendations for: (a) enhancing the system's growth, (b) strengthening accountability, (c) managing risks for chapters and the University, and (d) increasing the educational value of the Greek experience.

Roper then introduced Les Risser, task force chair. Risser noted she accepted the challenge of chair for the following reasons:

1)believes that all OSU programs need to be successful;
2)believes that the Greek system may be suffering from a lack of attention in recent years;
3)believes that the University is only as strong as the sum of its parts and that everyone shares in the responsibility of projecting a positive image; and
4)believes that a program as rich in history as this one (the first chapters were chartered in 1950) has certain obligations, including:
  • adding value to the University
  • providing compelling learning experiences within confines of a safe environment for members
  • providing opportunities to live a set of values that may not be acquired elsewhere
The task force is comprised of three graduate students, ten undergraduate students (both Greek and non-Greek), ten faculty and staff, and three community members.

Groups and individuals have been identified to speak with the task force regarding their evaluation of the Greek system in terms of strengths, weaknesses, and expectations. The process will include focus groups and written surveys.

Risser applauded those in Student Affairs who recognized the need and initiated the process. For the process to be successful, she indicated that it needs to be open, active, and inclusive. She asked two things of senators: 1) To take time to provide input when the survey is received, and 2) To feel free to contact her with suggestions, comments and questions.

Roper noted that the task force is meeting on a regular basis during the 1996/97 academic year and has been asked to conclude their work during fall term. At that time, a public meeting will be held to share the information gathered, prior to recommendations being made. Senator Cornell, Liberal Arts, questioned what the next step would be after the task force makes its recommendations. Roper responded that the recommendations will be shared publicly and he will consult with colleagues to determine what they are capable of doing in response to the recommendations.

Senator Rose, Forestry, questioned whether Roper had the power to physically move all fraternities on campus. Roper indicated OSU has the power to not recognize a fraternity or sorority, but did not have the power to tell them where they can live.

Committee Reports

Post-tenure Review Task Force

Ken Krane, Post-tenure Review Task Force Chair, reported that articles concerning tenure have been appearing at an increasing rate in higher education publications. He noted that the Interinstitutional Faculty Senate is looking at post-tenure review policies at OSSHE campuses. In addition, the legislature is expressing concern regarding tenure for K-12 teachers and he felt that questions about university faculty are not far behind. He explained that the Faculty Senate felt that it should take the leadership on reviewing tenure and post-tenure review, which resulted in the task force. Krane noted that OAR 580-21-140 requires a system of post-tenure review.

The charge to the task force from the Senate Executive Committee is:
  • to compare OSU's Periodic Review of Faculty with review processes in place at other institutions;
  • to assess the current status of the relationship between tenure and academic freedom;
  • to provide guidance to OSU administrators in conducting faculty reviews, especially the use of the position description and/or other performance expectations as the basis for the review;
  • to strengthen our periodic review system by incorporating opportunities for faculty development and enhancement of professional skills in scholarship, instruction, or service.
The task force, which is comprised of members from each college, has been divided into three subgroups with specific responsibilities:
  • Subgroup A - to investigate the current relationship between tenure and academic freedom
  • Subgroup B - to study post-tenure review systems in place at other institutions
  • Subgroup C - to investigate the strengths and weaknesses of OSU's current system of Periodic Review of Faculty
Krane stated there is an existing Periodic Review of Faculty which mandates that tenured faculty be reviewed every three years. He noted there is considerable variation among academic units as to implementation of the review and they are determining those variations on campus. Krane is looking for input consisting of ideas or knowledge of effective post-tenure review systems in place at other institutions and personal experiences with OSU's present system - particularly if a unit has a very effective way of evaluating faculty.

The task force hopes to conclude deliberations in June and will be presenting a report to the Senate during fall term.

Senator Daley, Agricultural Sciences, expressed concern about tightening the review process. Krane responded that an outcome would be to strengthen the current review system. OSU already has a more rigorous system than some institutions, however, it lacks a procedure to assist faculty whose reviews are below an acceptable performance.

Faculty Economic Welfare Committee

James Herzog, Faculty Economic Welfare Committee Chair, explained that they analyzed the self-funded 6% mid-year faculty salary adjustments, which consisted of a 2% adjustment for faculty with fully satisfactory service and a 4% pool for merit/equity adjustments. The committee studied the salary adjustments to determine whether they met the intent, as approved by the President's Cabinet, Dean's Council, leadership of the Faculty Senate, and the Chancellor's office.

After reviewing the data, the committee reached the following conclusions:
1.It appeared that most of the units produced salary adjustments which were close to the 6% goal. Overall the adjustments were $187,445 short of a full 6% adjustment. The major deviation comes from the College of Engineering which was $101,571 in deficit (see #3). The range of average overages and shortages per individual ranged from +$645 in Research and International to -$720 in Engineering.
2.Salary adjustments were analyzed by base salary to determine if the adjustments were skewed toward higher or lower salaried employees. There did not appear to be any unusual variations in the distribution.
3.The committee was deeply concerned about the lack of distribution of salary funds to faculty in the College of Engineering (COE). The COE deviated considerably from the formula specified by the memo of October 4. The average salary adjustment was 4.8%. According to the COE plan, one-third of the available funds (2%) were not distributed to faculty but were instead diverted to a "non-recurring merit increase fund (bonus) administered by COE". The COE would then distribute the funds as bonuses at the end of the academic year. Due to the untimely death of Dean John Owen, it was not possible to get a full explanation of the details of the bonus plan. The committee was concerned about several issues. First, bonuses are non-recurring and do not become a part of the base salary. This deprives the faculty of the potential benefit of compounding due to future percent increases. The committee went on record as being "categorically opposed to the process of diverting salary adjustment funds into non-recurring bonuses." It also questioned the wisdom and legality of doing this.
4.The committee recommends that the Faculty Senate take a firm action to reverse the action of the College of Engineering and re-appropriate state funds for their intended purpose as salary adjustments.
Herzog explained that a decision has been made to reallocate the COE money to the faculty as a recurring salary adjustment. He noted that the long-term status of the bonus program will be put on hold until a permanent dean is in place.

Senator Budd, Science, questioned whether the COE chairs will determine merit increases. Herzog indicated his understanding is that the department heads and dean will meet and determine reallocation.

Salary Equity Study Committee

Kathy Heath, Salary Equity Study Committee Chair, explained that, in the fall of 1996, OSU conducted a study of salary equity for women faculty and faculty of color. The final report (which will be forwarded to the Faculty Senate when completed) will describe the background, development of guide-lines, implementation, results and recommendations of the study. Heath explained how the committee arrived at the recommendations:

BACKGROUND:
  • Impetus for the study came in 1993, when the President's Commission on the Status of Women (PCOSW) at OSU produced the report, "Achieving Parity for Women at Oregon State University." One of the twelve recommendations was to conduct a study of salary equity based on gender.
  • In response to the PCOSW Parity Report, the Provost named a University Salary Equity Planning Committee to propose a model for a salary equity study of faculty women's salaries. This committee recommended that the University conduct a salary equity study: 1) using a comparator analysis; 2) limiting the study to tenured and tenure-track Assistant, Associate and Full Professors; 3) and considering gender-bias but not addressing salary compression or other historical or market-based reasons for salary differences among faculty. They set the time-line for completion as Spring Term, 1996 and suggested a review of all three ranks separately.
  • In March, 1996 the University Salary Equity Committee (USEC) was appointed and consisted of the following members: Kathleen Heath (Chair), Alan Acock, Wilbert Gamble, Ilene Kleinsorge, L.J. Koong, Kay Schaffer, Sandra Woods, and Beth Strohmeyer; ex-officio members were Andy Hashimoto and Stephanie Sanford.
DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDELINES - In developing the guidelines, the committee supported the idea of using a comparator study and reviewed the following information: a 1993 University of Wisconsin-Madison comparator study of faculty salaries; national data; and AAUP information. Ethnic/racial minorities were added as a second group of faculty for salary review, which had not been done before. The following was also developed: a series of questions; Draft 1996 Plan and Guidelines for a Comparator Study of Salary Equity for Women and Ethnic/Racial Minorities in the Professorial Ranks; distributed questions and the Draft Plan to deans and the Faculty Senate Executive Committee and interviewed those groups; the Draft was modified based upon input from these groups. Economic Research Services, Inc. reviewed the overall plan and method and plan proposed by OSU. The 1996 Plan and Guidelines for A Comparator Study of Salary Equity for Women and Ethnic/Racial Minorities in the Professorial Ranks was submitted to the Provost who approved it and submitted it with the October 4, 1996 salary adjustment memo.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STUDY - Analysis conducted at the college/unit level; there were 14 major units. Twelve units appointed a Salary Equity Study Committee (SESC) composed of five to seven tenured or tenure-track faculty with professorial rank. The Comparator Study consisted of identifying three caucasian male comparators, finding the closest match between discipline (and specialty area where possible), rank, years in rank, and years at OSU. Based on the final report submitted by the SESC, the executive administrator or dean determined what equity allocation, if any, was appropriate for each faculty member reviewed. The SESC and administrator/dean reports for each unit were submitted to the Associate Provost for Academic Affairs.

RESULTS - The committee reviewed the reports from each unit to ensure that the procedures used met the basic requirements of the comparator analysis. Of the 337 faculty whose salaries were reviewed, 97 or 29% received a gender and/or race/ethnicity equity adjustment which ranged from $315 to $12,876; the percentages ranged from 1% to 17.8%; the median adjustment was $1,830. Of the 255 women reviewed, 85 or 33% received equity adjustments; 82 people of color were reviewed and 12 or 15% received equity adjustments.

Heath noted that, overall, the members of the USEC were pleased with the implementation and outcome of the salary equity study and were especially impressed by the careful involvement of the SESC's at the unit level.

RECOMMENDATIONS -
1.Consideration must be given to the time that is needed for this type of study. At least three months should be allowed, once the SESC's are formed. This would allow more time to educate the SESC members about the comparator analysis, to compile all the data on merit and other performance measures and allow time to revisit cases that may be difficult.
2.As was done in this study, there should be a variety of opportunities for administrators and faculty to discuss the purpose of the review and the methods chosen for the review. Committee members meeting with deans and the Faculty Senate Executive Committee to receive input was considered to be invaluable.
3.In order for the analysis to be valid, it must be focused on determining equity, not equality. The comparator method is not aimed at giving equal salaries to faculty comparators; rather it is intended to identify equitable salaries across comparators, given the value of various job-related criteria.
4.Funding of equity adjustments raises the philosophical issue regarding who should pay for the adjustments? Should there be a pool of central money or should it come from the units? When targeted funds are not available centrally, the study may be viewed as creating inequities that is a smaller total pool of funds for units with good representation of women and/or people of color. The other side of this issue is that units that have done a good job with equity are penalized when salaries moneys are withheld centrally. The committee suggests that this issue needs to be revisited any time there is to be an equity study.
5.Another salary equity review for women and minority faculty be conducted within the next 3-5 years to continue to monitor possible inequities based on gender and/or race/ethnicity. Any future study should include a study of equity overall, for all employees regardless of gender/race/ethnicity.
6.The University should give serious consideration to a similar study for fixed term faculty.
In response to a question by Sally Francis, Home Economics and Education, Heath responded that Faculty Research Assistants (FRA's) were not included in recommendation #6. Andy Hashimoto, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, clarified the issue by stating that most FRA's were fixed term and would be included.

Senator Rose, Forestry, suggested that the next study should consider salary compression as an issue.

Heath thanked the committee members and all faculty who participated in the process.

Action Items

Standing Rules Changes

Laurel Maughan, Committee on Committees Chair, presented Standing Rules changes to the Curriculum Council and Graduate Admissions Committee, as well housekeeping changes to affected Standing Rules, and a recommendation regarding a prelude to the Standing Rules. Highlighted sections indicate additions and strike-throughs indicate deletions.
CURRICULUM COUNCIL The Curriculum Council reviews the University curricula in an effort to implement the long-range educational mission of the University. After careful study, it recommends the introduction of new programs or changes in existing ones. It makes recommendations regarding major curricular changes proposed by the Colleges academic units of the University. It attempts by coordination to bring about a suitable and rational balance of academic programs. It delegates to the Committee's Executive Secretary Council's Chair responsibility for administering approving minor curricular changes. and It formulates curricular policy for guidance and publishes, in cooperation with the Office of Academic Affairs, a Curricular Procedures Handbook. The Council consists of seven nine Faculty and two Student members. In addition, the following are to be members: a A member of the Budgets & Fiscal Planning Committee, appointed by its Chair chair, shall serves as a Liaison liaison member, non-voting. , on the Curriculum Council, and the The Director of Undergraduate Academic Programs, shall be a ex-officio, non-voting, ex-officio member serves as the Council's Executive Secretary. An ex-officio Three Information Services faculty members, non-voting, are appointed annually by the Information Services Associate Provost for Information Services;, shall serve as a Liaison member on the Curriculum Council. one represents the library, one represents distance education, and one represents instructional technology. The Catalog Coordinator shall also serve as an ex-officio, non-voting member.
Maughan noted that the changes more accurately reflect what the Curriculum Council actually does; the membership increase was proposed due to the increasing workload of this Council; and it increases opportunity for Information Services input. In response to Senator Daley, Agricultural Sciences, questioning the need for additional members, Joe McGuire from the Curriculum Council indicated that, per year, about ten undergraduate programs will be reviewed, in addition to the current workload.

The Curriculum Council requested a friendly amendment to insert "University" before "Catalog Coordinator" in the last sentence of the last paragraph. Motion 97-530-01 to approve the Curriculum Council Standing Rules changes, as amended, passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

GRADUATE ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE

Admission to the Graduate School is determined by the Committee on Graduate Admissions. The Graduate Admissions Committee acts on appealed applications for admission to the Graduate School. Candidates are considered on the basis of the undergraduate record and the preparation for graduate work, with special reference to the particular field desired. The Committee consists of eight Graduate Faculty members, with the Director of Admissions and Orientation, Ex-Officio. The Chair of the Graduate Admissions Committee shall be a Liaison member, non-voting, on the Graduate Council.

Maughan explained that the proposed changes more adequately reflect what the Graduate Admissions Committee does and provides consistency between the committee names in the head and body of the Standing Rules, as well as correctly reflecting the correct title of the ex-officio.

After a discussion on what constitutes appealed applications to the Graduate School, Senator Wrolstad, Agricultural Sciences, proposed an amendment to the first sentence to insert "referred and" between "acts on" and "appealed"; motion was seconded. Motion 97-530-03 to amend the Standing Rules was defeated by voice vote with some dissenting votes.

Motion 97-530-02 to approve the Graduate Admissions Committee Standing Rules, as proposed, passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

The following proposed housekeeping changes would provide consistency between all committee/council Standing Rules:
  • The committee/council names be consistent in the heading and body of the Standing Rules, e.g., Graduate Admissions Committee vs. Committee on Graduate Admissions;
  • change references to liaison from upper case to lower case;
  • change references to ex-officio members from upper case to lower case; and
  • add "non-voting" after ex-officio in all cases where an ex-officio member is listed.
Motion 97-530-04 to approve the proposed housekeeping changes passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

The Committee on Committees also recommended that the Faculty Senate Executive Committee send the following prelude to the published Standing Rules to all committee chairs each year in addition to their copy of the Standing Rules. Currently, the prelude is typically not included with Standing Rules for individual committees. The Bylaws of the Faculty Senate provide that "The Committee on Committees shall propose Standing Rules, subject to the approval of the Faculty Senate, for each of the Senate's standing committees and councils, and cause those Rules, thus approved, to be published annually in the Faculty Senate Handbook, and in each issue of the Faculty Handbook" (see Article VIII, Sec. 4 of the Bylaws). These Standing Rules are listed below; for each, the most recent date of Senate approval for original wording and/or revision is noted in parentheses. Unless noted otherwise, Ex-Officio members are non-voting.
To fulfill its responsibility to the Faculty Senate, each Committee and Council is expected to report at least once each year to the Senate; recommendations for the Senate's consideration may be presented at any time deemed appropriate by the Executive Committee. To conduct its business, each committee and council may develop operating procedures or Guidelines which are consistent with its Standing Rules. Such procedures or guidelines should be reviewed periodically and, where appropriate, reported to the Faculty Senate.
The memberships of Faculty Senate Committees and Councils are published in the Faculty Senate Handbook. For additional information, contact the Faculty Senate Office, 541/737-4344.

Information Items

  • Interinstitutional Faculty Senate - A recap of the April IFS meeting was sent to Senators via e-mail.
  • Joint IFS/AOF/AAUP Meeting - The annual joint meeting will take place May 17.
  • Summer Field Tour - Reservations for the College of Agricultural Sciences Summer Field Tour must be made by May 30.
  • University Guidelines on the Policy of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Religion - Recently approved guide-lines, included in the agenda, indicate that nondiscrimination on the basis of religion requires a balance of refraining from promoting religion and refraining from inhibiting religion.
  • University Procedures for an Accelerated Search - Recently approved procedures were attached.


Reports from the Provost

Provost Arnold reported on the following items:
  • Post-tenure Review - He met with IFS representatives in April who discussed this issue. Arnold noted that the Northwest Academic Forum met the previous month and the issue of post-tenure review was also an item of discussion. Several OSU faculty were invited to Ohio State, as part of a larger group, to discuss OSU's Promotion and Tenure Guidelines and post-tenure review also came up in that gathering. The Texas legislature passed rules requiring changes in post-tenure review, however, Texas Tech is not making changes because they have determined that their current process is consistent with the expectations. Arnold suggested that their process be reviewed. He also learned that Iowa State is completing a review of this issue.
  • Accelerated Search Process - Arnold noted that this process, which received input from the Executive Committee and was included in the May Faculty Senate agenda, would be used in the search for an engineering dean.
  • Legislative Update - All of the hearings for the OSSHE higher education base budget have been completed by the Education Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee which has agreed to move the budget forward. The committee chair invited Chancellor Cox to submit a prioritized list of items to be considered as possible addbacks.
  • Searches - Three individuals for the position of Vice Provost for Research have visited campus and a fourth will be on campus May 8 and 9. Dan Hess and Kathy Olson continue under consideration and are regarded as active and interested candidates. Vice President for University Advancement - The University is using the services of a search firm who has received about 50 formal applications. They have selected 10-12 whom they consider to be appropriate for further consideration. The screening committee, President and Provost will review all candidates selected by the search firm and determine whether candidates will meet with the President or Provost at a neutral site. These meetings will determine whether to invite specific candidates to OSU for interviews.
Vice Provost for Information Services - Joy Hughes has accepted an offer from George Mason University to become their Vice President for Information Services effective July 1. Provost Arnold has met with the senior management team of Information Services (IS). He noted there has been some discussion to rethink how to connect IS to aspects of distance education or extended education. Arnold is meeting with various groups on campus and with President Risser to determine how to move forward with this search.

Senator Krane, Science, questioned whether there were plans to expand the marketing efforts statewide. Arnold responded affirmatively and that there were plans to launch marketing efforts on a larger scale. He also noted that a screening process is underway to select a new advertising agency for OSU.

Senator Matzke, Science, questioned whether the self-funded salary increase was built into the legislature's base budget. Arnold responded that it is in the OSSHE base budget recommended by the governor and subcommittee. Still to be determined is what portion of the OSSHE budget will be allocated to OSU.

Reports from the Faculty Senate President

President Wilcox included the following items in his report:
  • Reminded Senators of the joint IFS/AAUP/AOF meeting on May 17.
  • Referred to the OSU This Week article on institutional change. Paul Axtell will conduct a two-day workshop on June 5 and 6 and an additional two-day workshop prior to the start of fall term. Steve Bosserman will speak to the Senate on this topic in June.
  • Referred to the Guidelines on the Policy of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Religion which is in the process of a minor revision to clarify the distinction between responsibilities as employees and as private citizens. A statement will also be added indicating that it is permissible for faculty to serve as advisors for recognized student organizations with religious affiliations. Wilcox noted that these changes were pursued by the Executive Committee.
  • The Task Force on Assessment of Teaching, chaired by Maggie Niess, has just begun meeting. The charge is: to evaluate the effectiveness of the university-wide student assessment of teaching instrument and proposed revision, if deemed necessary; assess the effectiveness of the peer assessment of teaching procedures; and to recommend processes for both student assessment of teaching and peer assessment of teaching that consider recommendations for working with faculty to improve their teaching or faculty development. The task force will conclude at the end of the calendar year.


New Business

There was no new business.

Executive Session

Jon Olson, Faculty Recognition and Awards Chair, presented information on the nominee for the D. Curtis Mumford Faculty Service Award, which will be awarded at University Day on September 16. There was no discussion. The nominee was approved via written ballot.

Meeting was adjourned at 5:03 PM.

Respectfully submitted:

Vickie Nunnemaker
Faculty Senate Administrative Assistant