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

Faculty Senate

Faculty Senate » January 8, 1998

Faculty Senate Minutes

1998 No. 535
January 8, 1998
For All Faculty
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm by President Anthony Wilcox. There were no corrections to the December minutes.
Meeting Summary
  • Special Reports: Information Services, Curt Pederson and Martin Luther King Teachin, Ken Krane
  • Action Items: Installation of elected officers and Senators; Approval of Parliamentarian; Category I Proposals - Delivery of Baccalaureate Degrees in Environmental Sciences and Natural Resources as Statewide Programs [Motion 98-535-01 through 03]
  • New Business: None

Roll Call
Members Absent With Representation:
Carson, S. Rubert; Chambers, H. Polensek; Christensen, D. Myrold; Coakley, D. Clark; Daniels, G. Hightower; Henderson, D. Keszler; Rielly, L. Maughan; and Seville, P. Hsieh.

Members Absent Without Representation:
Bontrager, Breen, Burton, Cowles, Elwood, Graham, Gregerson, Jepson, Jones, Lee, Levine, Locke, Mallory-Smith, McDaniel, Righetti, Rivin, and Winograd.

Faculty Senate Officers/Staff Present:
M. Niess, President; R. Rose, President-Elect; T. Wilcox, Immediate Past President; R. Iltis, Parliamentarian; and V. Nunnemaker, Senate Administrative Assistant.

Guests of the Senate:
S. Bloomer, L. Burns, P. Doescher, J. Dorbolo, S. Francis, E. Fritzell, K. Green, A. Hashimoto, D. Johnson, K. Krane, A. Messersmith, P. Muir, D. Nicodemus, F. Obermiller, J. Root, L. Schroeder, G. Schuette, J. Schuster, B. Thielges, T. White, and. B. Winner.

Action Items

Installation of Elected Officers
Anthony Wilcox recapped his year as president in opening remarks. He felt that one of the most significant accomplishments of the 1997 Faculty Senate was to extend eligibility to Faculty Research Assistants and all Professional Faculty.

Wilcox reported he formed an Information Services (IS) Review Task Force in December to analyze how and in what units the deficit occurred and relate that to the proposed IS deficit repayment plan. The task force members are: Bruce Sorte, Budgets & Fiscal Planning Committee; Gary Beach, Library Committee; John Block, Instructional Development and Technology Committee; and Wilcox. Associate Provost for Information Services, Curt Pederson, has pledged full disclosure in working with the task force. The task force will report to the Senate when their work is completed.

Wilcox expressed appreciation to: Provost Arnold for his candor and integrity in his dealings with the Senate; the 1997 Executive Committee; Parliamentarian Trischa Knapp; and Vickie Nunnemaker.

President Maggie Niess was installed by Anthony Wilcox, who wished her much success. Niess thanked him for his leadership, and example of leadership, and noted that he was a great champion of the faculty. She then presented him with a Myrtlewood plaque on behalf of the Senate which read:
Anthony Wilcox
Oregon State University
1997 Faculty Senate President
Given in appreciation for his leadership,
judgement, compassion, wit and dedicated service
to the faculty of Oregon State University.
Wit is the rarest quality to be met with
among people of education.
- William Hazlett

Niess then installed President-elect Robin Rose; Executive Committee members Jim Foster, Gordon Matzke and Sandra Woods; and Interinstitutional Faculty Senate representative Antonio Torres. Niess expressed appreciation to past president Ken Krane for his valuable interaction on the Executive Committee. She also thanked the retiring Executive Committee members: Cheryl Jordan, Don Reed, and Ken Williamson; and the retiring Senators. She then asked newly elected Senators to stand and declared them installed.

Approval of Parliamentarian
Robert Iltis, Speech Communication, was confirmed as the 1998 Parliamentarian. Niess thanked Trischa Knapp for her commitment to the Parliamentarian duties in the past.

Category I Proposals
Sherm Bloomer, Curriculum Council member, presented for approval two abbreviated Category I proposals for distance delivery of existing degrees as part of OSU Statewide - the B.S. degree in Natural Resources and the B.S. degree in Environmental Sciences. The proposals have been approved by the Curriculum Council and the Budgets and Fiscal Planning Committee.

Bloomer noted that there are two separate proposals, but they are being presented together since they have been discussed together, and they share common threads: both are interdisciplinary, they have somewhat similar structures, and a number of courses are common to both degrees.

The proposals are to offer two existing interdisciplinary BS degree programs statewide, initially at five sites: Central Oregon Community College, Mt. Hood Community College, Eastern Oregon University, Southwestern Oregon Community College, and the Warm Springs Indian Reservation. Students would complete the first two years at the offcampus sites and complete the last two years of their degrees using distance education offerings from OSU. Distance students will be expected to fulfill the same requirements as for on-campus students. The difference between on-campus and off-campus offerings is that the choice of options and courses will be more limited for distance students.

Bloomer summarized what he felt were the most important questions raised by the Curriculum Council in reviewing these proposals:

Funding for development of distance offerings? There is now a budget for development of the program, approved by the Provost, that includes support for development of about 35 courses over four years. Development costs are estimated at $15,000 for an interactive course and about $-22,0-00 for a web or video course; costs include faculty salary and support. The budget also includes costs for some support staff. Additional course development will be supported by grants in some units.

In what format will the courses be offered? Courses will be offered in a variety of formats, including interactive TV, video-work-books, and web-based courses. The budget assumes that twice as many video courses as web courses will be developed. The appropriate mode of delivery will be determined by faculty and program committees, as facilities and resources allow.

How will advising be done? Distance students would initially be advised by the Office of Continuing Higher Education (OCHE). Students would be assigned an advisor in an appropriate unit once they select an option or specialization.

Will the WIC component be included? The core classes or options will have to include a WIC course when they are selected.

Will the DPD requirement be fulfilled? Yes. If one of the distance sites does not have such a course, it will have to be provided as part of the OSU course offerings.

How will student services, access to the library, and student support be supported? These services will be provided or coordinated by staff in OCHE.

Will there be special modifications of requirements for the distance degrees? Not currently. If necessary, it will be put forward through the usual curriculum review process.

What are department responsibilities and returns? The costs of development for these courses will be funded centrally; the costs of delivery will be the responsibility of the departments. Initially the credit hours for the distance education students will be accrued to OCHE. The Council understands that the eventual plan is to have the student credit hours accrue to the department offering the courses.

Which options will be offered? The proposal does not specify which options or specializations are to be offered. That decision must come from the faculty and steering committees involved in each degree; the Council understands that, with the support of appropriate deans, discussions about the specifics of those courses are ongoing. The distance degree offerings are planned to be phased in over a two to three year period. Students currently interested in the program are taking the preparatory work; they would need core courses next year, and option courses the year after.

It was the Council's opinion, after much discussion and review, that this was a reasonable degree of specificity for a proposal like this. It seems logical to offer the degrees to interested students throughout Oregon; if that is true, it seems to the advantage of the University to move forward and lead the efforts to expand the opportunities we can offer to Oregonians. Waiting until each course is online would mean a two-year delay; the Council was convinced that the implementation of these distance degree offerings can go forward simultaneously with the development of the specific courses for the program.

President Niess explained that the Executive Committee (EC) had questions about the proposals and chose neither to endorse nor reject the proposals, but decided to bring them to the Senate because of the desire for a debate about the issues surrounding these proposals. The EC was particularly concerned about several issues:
Resources to support the release time for faculty course development and for teaching the actual courses. There is support the first four years, but it's not clear that adequate funding will be available for effective development and delivery after that point. What happens when funding is no longer available and units must continue the program development within its existing budget? How does this funding affect the depleted budgets of the units? How will units make decisions about this program and other for which they are responsible?

What part of the program will be delivered to the distance students since not all options were identified as being available. Will students have elective choices in WIC and DPD courses that oncampus students have? Will students have the breadth of elective courses desired in the baccalaureate core in designing their programs?

Who is in charge of the programs? Who does the advising? Are these proposals in too much of a rush to hasten the expansion of OSU Statewide? Has there been adequate consultation of faculty, department chairs, and deans?
Niess noted that the EC recognizes that these proposals are the first wave of many such Category I proposals to come before the Senate through OSU Statewide. The EC considered the issues of positioning OSU as a major university leading the development of such programs, rather than following the paths developed by others. The question is, should and will OSU be a leader in this direction? Since OSU already has the degree authority for these programs, these proposals are not for new degrees. Since Category I proposals are not required when courses on campus change to webbased course delivery rather than classroom lecture, doesn't OSU already have the authority to provide the distance delivery? At what point will distance delivery cease to be recognized as the essential feature of the program and, thus, no longer require a Category I route? At this point, the Oregon State System of Higher Education requires that it be involved with any changes of magnitude with the degree program. The EC asked, at what point is the process considered micromanaging? Niess explained that the EC has only just begun to debate these issues and felt it necessary for the issues to have a full airing before the Senate. She emphasized that the Curriculum Council and Budgets and Fiscal Planning Committee have recommended approval after a much longer study and analysis.

Sandra Woods, faculty member in Environmental Engineering and former Faculty Associate to the Provost on the extended education team, explained that the proposals are requesting permission to avoid coming before the Faculty Senate every time a site is added, not just for the five sites listed. She felt it was important to offer science-based programs to placebound students in areas with large populations for the first sites. The courses are offered in clusters to make it easy for students to add specific courses to the basic requirements to obtain a degree. It will also be possible for students to accomplish the bulk of their coursework via distance delivery and come to campus for 6-12 months to complete options.

Woods stated that the institution should not be expected to provide all course development funding. Current efforts to bring in external funding for distance courses has resulted in $1 million so far.

She gave a comparative enrollment example for EOU of 700 unduplicated distance students per term. If those students were at OSU, they would generate over $2.5 million. Oregon's community colleges offered 832 distance courses during 1996/97 with 19,217 student enrollments, which translates to 1,324 FTE. She noted that this program would enable thousands of place-bound or time-bound Oregon students, who have completed AA degrees, to obtain a baccalaureate degree.

In the past, there was no incentive for units to teach distance courses because it wouldn't be reflected in their budget. She noted President Risser's reference to the importance of looking at our internal budgeting process and she noted that the hope is that a system is developed for internal budgeting that will contain a strong link between departmental budgets and whether they participate in distance education.

Senator Wood, Health & Human Performance, questioned where the monitoring function is. Bloomer responded that measurements will be similar to an oncampus degree program, such as number enrolled, number graduating, evaluations, etc. Students will be given the same feedback as oncampus students.

Senator Morris, Science, was concerned that departments would be driven to have to develop distance courses to add to their recurring budget. He expressed concern about maintenance costs and what happens to the budget after the fourth year. Woods stated that the reason the budget stops at four years is because the Budgets & Fiscal Planning Committee requires new proposals to submit a budget for only four years. She noted that the reason the budget is decreased in the fourth year is that most of the courses will have been developed by then. Bloomer added that the Curriculum Council was concerned that there was no maintenance budget to improve the courses after the first year. Bloomer felt that the maintenance costs were not known since this has not been done before.

Senator Hale, Liberal Arts, questioned the cost of delivery and, since there is no revenue on the budget, there is no way of assessing revenue vs. costs. Bloomer responded that the budget is based on a formula developed by Jon Root in Distance Education, which includes the development of a course in its initial offering, faculty release time, use of technical expertise, and costs of Ed-Net and reproduction of videos. Also included is the cost for OCHE to be the node through which exams from instructors to students would pass. The costs in terms of faculty time and effort, except for release time, are not included.

Provost Arnold noted that these proposals posed a number of very complex questions, with the resource area being the most interesting. There are a number of OSU units already effectively delivering distance education courses and they find that it is cost effective using the mechanism through OCHE. Arnold noted that the current method only brings the tuition resources to the campus to support OCHE, delivery costs, and faculty time costs involved in offering a particular course or program. He felt the system was clearly headed toward distinguishing less between on-campus vs. distance students. He noted that units are currently offering distance education that is supported by tuition revenues alone and resources will be available to the institution when a state subsidy or match is based on numbers of students served. He acknowledged that it's well understood that we're missing the mechanism to assure that the generating unit receives the resources.

Senator Frank, Liberal Arts, questioned whether student credit hours from distance delivery would be used to bump OSU up one or two enrollment corridors to allow OSU to be eligible for additional enrollment revenues. Arnold responded that the understanding is that we need to move to a model where all students served are being counted in the overall enrollment figures and OSU's budgetary allocation would be based on all students served. He noted that the commitment is there and that the state system has had that discussion. There is a set of principles endorsed by both the governor's task force and OSBHE that indicates the OSBHE budget model should allow access to students anywhere, has allowances for subsidies, and that reallocation of resources in the next legislative session will clearly be for targeted investments that have specific expected outcomes that can be tracked. The OSBHE has asked the Chancellor's Office to do further work on the principles.

Senator Foster, Liberal Arts, supports distance education and stated that it is something that OSU must and should be doing and noted that one third of the faculty in his department are engaged in distance education. However, he felt that a serious hidden cost of the proposal is the additional workload surrounding distance delivery courses that will be accomplished at the cost of departmental majors and residential students. Bloomer responded that this point was not lost in Curriculum Council debates. He noted that the proposals contained a straw set of courses that provided an example of courses that could be developed and, possibly, the particular courses listed aren't the right ones to choose. The participating academic units need to determine which course or courses can be offered as a group course and within the resources of the unit providing the courses. He noted that no course has been identified to be offered by distance education until that discussion occurs. The proposals were put together with the knowledge that that discussion had not happened, because it was felt that the risks were worth it, but that the risks had to be talked about by the participants.

Senator Lajtha, Science, didn't like the proposal because she felt the risks associated with the proposals were too great since there is reliance on many department chairs to be successful. Since the specifics have not been worked out, she's not sure she wants to spend a great deal of time developing a course and then find out that the time spent was wasted. She questioned why the proposals were being presented before the specifics and options were worked out. She felt that those discussions should take place long before the proposals are presented. She is also nervous about leadership for the proposals, since that has not been defined. Bloomer responded that the options were not specified since it would take two years to specify the courses and options, develop them, and have them online. The Curriculum Council felt it would be a mistake for the institution to wait that long. His understanding was that the academic deans from the involved units are committed to work with the departments to offer the requisite courses.

Laurel Maughan, Valley Library, wanted to stress the idea that the library is another hidden cost. She feels it would be difficult to provide the necessary services unless the university is willing to provide some funding.

Senator Lunch, Liberal Arts, is a proponent of distance education, but felt that these proposals have no connection between resources listed in budgets that are seen and those responsible for carrying out the courses. As a result, it ends up being a burden on either the faculty member, department head, or dean. He questioned the position of the involved deans and department chairs, given that the budgets expire in four years. Dean Horne, Science, stated that he doesn't know what the budget will be from year-to-year, but the assumption is that we will not continue to have historical budget and across the board cuts. The incentive for these proposals is that the money generated will come back to the units.

Senator Oriard, Liberal Arts, referred to the Liberal Studies model and questioned 1) whether the proposed 70 students is enough to return the expected costs and 2) what is the actual expected participation in the programs to justify the costs. Woods responded that Liberal Studies and OCHE are self-support and can't run a deficit; they don't offer courses that don't generate enough revenue. Woods has been told that the cut-off number is 7-12 depending on actual expenses for a particular course.

Woods referred to the proposed course list and clarified that, although multiple courses from one department may be listed, the courses listed in bold are those that appear in both majors and would be the most logical ones to be developed. She noted that it doesn't mean that all the courses listed would need to be developed for the proposals. There are 40 courses required for both degrees, with about 20 departments in four or five colleges participating in the two degrees. She stated that OSU does not have to prepare all the course work since there are many already developed, high-quality courses that can be licensed. She also noted that there are community college instructors with Ph.D's who would love to teach these courses and OSU could pay them far less than OSU faculty are paid. She indicated that OSU could choose to offer the programs on a self-support basis, but it would not provide the desired quality. Bloomer added that the Curriculum Council felt that the academic content of these degrees needs to be under the control of the participating academic units.

Senator Manogue, Science, felt that faculty were being pushed from many different directions to offer these types of proposals, but stated that the Senate needs to think about quality. She felt that individual courses can be effectively taught via distance education, but not entire degree programs. She added that OSU has research faculty involved in active research that gives them perspective on these subjects that community college faculty don't have. She questioned whether students would be receiving a quality OSU education if they never step foot on this campus.

Coblentz indicated that he could never support the proposals since the Senate was told by Woods that OSU could become a mail order institution or hire community college instructors to teach OSU courses. Woods clarified that she was citing an example related to resources showing that we can afford the proposals. She stated that the revenue generating ability is there, but there was never any idea that this example would happen. The curricula and courses are under control of the academic units and colleges. Bloomer stated that the understanding of the Curriculum Council was that these are to be OSU degrees, meaning that 300 and 400 level courses are taught by and controlled by the academic units on this campus. This could mean that adjunct faculty are hired by the academic units.

Senator Shor, Engineering, spoke about the quality of distance education and expressed concern that other top universities are offering distance education classes, and companies often tend to prefer to have their students take courses at the employer's site.

Senator Grunder, Science, questioned how many students it would take to break even on a distance course. Bloomer responded that about 10-12 would cover the maintenance cost, but not the development cost.

In response to Senator Frank asking if successful distance education courses were looked at, Bloomer indicated that the Curriculum Council did not look at comparators. He added that these are degrees that OSU is uniquely suited to offer. Woods stated that she did travel to various parts of the country to review other distance courses that are successful and that do generate revenue. Provost Arnold stated that marketing was an important tool for other successful programs. He noted that a sense of urgency is present in these proposals since it is difficult to market programs with a "pending approval" disclaimer. A built in advantage to collaboration with community colleges is that they are willing to market OSU's programs with their own.

Senator Drexler, Business, called for the question; motion seconded. Motion 98-535-03 to end debate did not pass by a two-thirds majority through a show of hands.

Paul Doescher, Agricultural Sciences, felt that the option area is the greatest challenge from a quality standpoint. He also felt that the incentives mentioned earlier are only a small step in the right direction toward the development of a quality offering and doesn't feel that we're yet there.

Senator Yamada, Science, wondered why the residency requirement of the last 45 credits or 45 of the last 60 credits being earned on-campus is not applied to distance learners. She questioned how students could learn very complicated, interactive systems without having hands-on experience in the form of upper division labs or field work. Bloomer responded that the Curriculum Council's understanding of the requirement translated into OSU-offered upper division courses where residency didn't mean physically taking courses on campus. He felt that the point about hands-on experience was very good and indicated that was a concern of the Council. He acknowledged that only a few of the options in each degree could be offered if students never set foot on campus.

Senator Lajtha commented that weekend trips would be written into the program to provide interaction between the student and instructor.

Senator Grunder questioned how can we market a degree for which there are no upper division distance courses. She felt that the philosophy of the programs was too ambitious and it would be wiser to determine a specific set of courses for which one would have guaranteed enrollment because there would only be one choice and build it from there rather than trying to offer a fully existing degree program.

In response to Senator Rose, Forestry, questioning whether it was true that the Natural Resources program does not require chemistry, Bloomer indicated that there was no chemistry requirement, but reminded Senators that this is an existing program. The Curriculum Council did not debate the content of the degrees, instead they debated whether the existing degrees should be offered in the distance format.

Jon Dorbolo, Information Services, stated he had been teaching web-based courses for four years. He has 70 students in one section and regularly corresponds with them one-on-one, which would be absolutely impossible to do on a face-to-face basis. He felt it was important to not equate quality with a face-to-face meeting. He thought it was important to distinguish face-to-face from person-to-person. He encouraged anyone who has a concern about the quality of using the internet to contact him.

Senator Morris felt that the discussion was jumping all over some very innovative ideas. He noted that OSU has received recognition for its electronic innovations and didn't feel that the Category I debate was even properly directed since they are already existing programs. He felt it should be an internal discussion within participating departments. President Niess responded that a significant change to an existing program, such as off-campus delivery, does require approval from the Senate. Senator Beach, Associated Faculty, stated that OSSHE requires submitting an abbreviated Category I to the Academic Council and the Chancellor's Office for delivering existing courses to distance sites. The institution is also expected to have this debate and review by the accrediting agency. Provost Arnold observed that the Board will be informed of the proposals but will not vote on them since they are already approved degrees. OSU's process for forwarding proposals to the Chancellor's Office requires that it follow the curricular procedures process. He suggested that future proposals might contain language indicating that they may be offered as an extended program, if it is cost effective, to avoid having to present the proposal twice.

An individual from Student Affairs remarked that she hadn't heard the discussion address the issue that this is an opportunity to give more access to Oregonians which may result in having them support higher education. She was unsure if it was wise to turn our backs on community colleges that were offering to partner with OSU. She sees it as an issue of action and maintaining quality.

Senator Manogue thanked the Executive Committee for allowing Senators the opportunity to have this debate. She has no doubt that distance education is appropriate in some circumstances, that it can be done well, and that OSU can do it, but it's necessary to think hard about how to it and about the cost. She would like to see this body develop a set of guidelines for distance education. She then moved to table the main motion; motion seconded. Motion 98-535-02 to table action on the Category I proposals passed by visible vote.

Leslie Burns, Director Undergraduate Academic Programs, stated that distance education guidelines had been created by the Curriculum and Graduate Councils and were already in place.

Administrative Introductions

Orcilia Zuniga Forbes, Vice President for University Advancement, and Wilson C. "Toby" Hayes, Vice Provost for Research, were both introduced to the Senate and each briefly spoke.

Zuniga Forbes, who began her appointment January 1, indicated she had served in a similar capacity at the University of New Mexico. -She thanked the Senate for the opportunity to speak and explained that her office is dedicated to furthering the strategic goals of the institution and nurturing OSU's relationships with internal and external constituencies.

Hayes will officially begin May 1, but will be working on campus in a transition mode until then and can be reached via email at . Hayes felt it was an incredibly exciting and engergizing opportunity to assume this position. He noted he has been a faculty member of various institutions for 25 years and hopes that experience will serve him in good stead in his advocacy role in support of faculty research. He emphasized his general impression of the robustness, breadth, and depth of the research enterprise underway at OSU. He also felt there were significant opportunities to expand and enhance research activities, specifically, to expand non-federal research dollars. Additionally, OSU needs to look at ways to support under-graduate research and he hopes to expand and enhance OSU's relationship with OHSU. In the coming months, he is planning to focus heavily on private sector funding and technology transfer and hopes to closely coordinate activities with Zuniga Forbes.

Information Items

-Martin Luther King Jr. Celebration - Teach-in - Ken Krane spoke on behalf of the committee to urge faculty to participate in the celebration. He felt it was important to show students that faculty care about these issues. He referred to political events that occurred in 1968 and noted that issues of diversity and non-violence are before us today, perhaps even more so than in 1968. He suggested commemorating the event with a class discussion, video, or group reading of one of King's speeches. Packets were available for faculty to take back to colleagues to assist them in presentations.

-Faculty Awards Deadline - OSU Distinguished Service Award nominations are due in the Faculty Senate Office February 6. March 6 is the deadline for the following awards: D. Curtis Mumford Faculty Service, OSU Alumni Distinguished Professor, Elizabeth P. Ritchie Distinguished Professor, Dar Reese Excellence in Advising, OSU Faculty Teaching Excellence, Richard M. Bressler Senior Faculty Teaching, OSU Extended Education Faculty Achievement, and OSU Outstanding Faculty Research Assistant. Criteria for these awards may be obtained from the Faculty Senate Office at 737-4344.

-If continuing Senators would like an update for their Faculty Senate Handbook, please contact the Faculty Senate Office.

Reports from the Provost

Provost Arnold's report included the following:
-He called attention to the very keen interest and activity expressed by two government task forces on higher education issues. One relates to access and the other to the efficiency of higher education. Governor Kitzhaber challenged the State Board to seriously consider implementation of the recommendations; essentially, the Board can do it or they can be accomplished in other ways. Arnold hoped that OSU could help lead the way within OSSHE.

-Provost Arnold read a letter from President Risser regarding administrative appointments: In a move to strengthen ties between athletic and academic programs, Dr. Lee Schroeder will become the Sr. Associate in Athletics when the current Athletic Director search is completed. Duties will include senior advisor for administration to the Athletic Director, assisting with sports management, event promotion and fundraising activities, and will lead the project to install the new grass playing field in Parker Stadium. The Athletic Director search is in the semi-finalist stage. It is hoped that an appointment will be made later in January. Mark McCambridge will continue to serve as interim Vice President for Finance and Administration. A national search for a permanent appointee will be initiated later in January.

Reports from the Faculty Senate President

President Niess reported on the following items:
-She thanked the Athletic Department for allowing the Faculty Senate to use the facility for our meeting and for being so helpful in making sure our needs were met. Niess reported that the recent renovation of the Valley Football Complex resulted in the facility size being tripled. She also noted that the beams in the meeting room were developed by post-graduate Forest Engineering and Research students and produced in Creswell, Oregon. The rooms on the third floor were designed to highlight the beams.

-Niess clarified an article in the December 27 Gazette-Times regarding Information Services incorrectly reported that the deficit of $5.6 million would be repaid at a rate of $660,000 annually over six years. The correct information includes three parts to the debt: the budgeted general funds are about $3.9 million which the $660,000 annually will repay; the self-sustaining operations is about $1.2 million; and the Technology Resource Fee debt is $-500,000. The last two debt areas have a two-year payback plan.

-Niess particularly wanted to thank Immediate Past President Tony Wilcox for the lunches during the past year to assist her in getting to this point.
New Business

There was no new business.

Meeting was adjourned at 5:36.

Respectfully submitted:

Vickie Nunnemaker
Faculty Senate Administrative Assistant