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

Faculty Senate

Faculty Senate » May 7, 1998

Faculty Senate Minutes

1998 No. 538
May 7, 1998
 

For All Faculty
The regular monthly meeting of the Faculty Senate was called to order on May 7, 1998, at 3:00 PM, in the LaSells Stewart Center by President Maggie Niess. There were no corrections to the minutes of April 2, 1998.


Meeting Summary
  • Action Items: Resolution honoring L.L. and Elizabeth Stewart; Revisions to AR 2; Standing Rules Revisions; Task Force on Post-Tenure Review; and Faculty Panels for Hearing Committees [Motion 98­538­01 through 06]
  • Discussion Item: Ad Hoc Committee on Off-Site Degree Programs
  • Executive Session: Consideration of award nominees
  • New Business: None

  • Roll Call

    Members Absent With Representation:
    Hatch, P. Phillips; Lowrie, D. Johnson; Pereira, R. Robson; Tate, R. Landau; and van der Mars, J. Widrick

    Members Absent Without Representation:
    Bruce, Carson, Champeau, Coakley, Cowles, Daley, Elwood, J. Field, K. Field, Henthorne, Hooker, Huyer, Isensee, Jepson, Jimmerson, Kerkvliet, Lajtha, Leong, Levine, McDaniel, Mix, Morris, Peters, Powelson, Proteau, Randhawa, Righetti, Riven, Rodriguez, Sanford, Seville, and Williams

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

    Guests of the Senate:
    L. Burns, S. Esbensen, S. Francis, A. Hashimoto, D. Johnson, B. Mate, M. Mate, L. Maughan, P. Muir, D. Nicodemus, J. Root, R. Schori, J. Schuster, B. Strohmeyer, and J. Tanaka


    RECOGNITION

    Resolution for L.L. and Elizabeth Stewart

    Following a reception held immediately preceding the Senate meeting, President Niess noted the Stewart's would receive a journal containing expressions of gratitude from faculty and a framed copy of the following resolution in recognition of L.L. and Elizabeth Stewart's support of OSU faculty development, which was approved by the Senate with no dissenting votes:

    Whereas L.L. and Elizabeth Stewart are long term stalwart supporters of Oregon State University; and

    whereas among the forms their support has taken is

    the L.L. and Elizabeth Stewart Faculty Development Award, funded in 1975; and

    whereas since 1975 the L.L. and Elizabeth Stewart

    Faculty Development Endowment has disbursed in excess of $528,000 to support faculty development; and

    whereas since 1975 over 330 awards have been given to 265 faculty across Oregon State University in support of diverse forms of professional development; and

    whereas the L.L. and Elizabeth Stewart Faculty Development Endowment is material evidence of its benefactors' generosity and commitment to faculty excellence; therefore be it

    RESOLVED, that the Faculty Senate at Oregon State University honors L.L. and Elizabeth Stewart for realizing that faculty development is essential to educational excellence and the quality of students' experience, and for their contribution to faculty development, and expresses warm appreciation to the Stewart's for their ongoing commitment to higher education in Oregon.

    President Niess also presented L.L. Stewart with a plaque bearing this inscription:

    Presented in recognition of Loren L. and Elizabeth Stewart by the OSU Faculty Senate May 7, 1998 in warm appreciation for their generous and stalwart support of Oregon State University faculty development.

    Mr. Stewart noted that he felt very pleased and humble to be able to support faculty and expressed appreciation for the honor bestowed upon him. He also encouraged faculty to continue to apply for development funds.


    ACTION ITEMS

    Standing Rules Revisions

    Laurel Maughan, Committee on Committees Chair, presented recommended revisions to the following Standing Rules for approval by the Faculty Senate; in most cases, only the sections containing the proposed revisions are printed. All recommendations have been approved by the committees involved.

    She noted that the proposed changes in committee composition to the Academic Regulations and Advancement of Teaching Committees are a result of recommendations made by the Senate Membership Task Force, as presented in their report last fall.

    For purposes of this document, Teaching Faculty are faculty who have teaching and/or advising responsibilities as described in Section II, Faculty Responsibilities, of the OSU Promotion and Tenure Guidelines.

    The recommended changes to the Administrative Appointments Committee would simplify the procedures and still provide an indication of the level of responsibility that this committee should have.

    Approval of the changes to the Undergraduate Admissions Committee would clarify the role of the committee in terms of the existing admissions policy.

    The proposed revisions are provided below (highlighted sections indicate additions; strike-throughs indicate deletions).

    ACADEMIC REGULATIONS COMMITTEE

    The Committee consists of five [Teaching] Faculty, and three Students members and the registrar, ex-officio, non-voting.

    ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING COMMITTEE

    The Committee consists of five [Teaching] Faculty, and three Students members, one of whom must be a graduate student and one of whom must be an undergraduate student, and the Provost and Executive Vice President [or designee,] ex-officio, non-voting, or designee, ex-officio, non-voting.

    There was no discussion on the recommended revisions to the Academic Regulations Committee or Advancement of Teaching Committee; motion 98-538-01 passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

    ADMINISTRATIVE APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE

    In addition to newly created administrative positions, the following positions are to include involvement on the part of the Administrative Appointments Committee:

    A. General Administration: [All positions at the Provost, Vice President, Vice Provost and Associate Provost level.] Provost and Executive Vice President; Chief Business Officer; Vice Provost for Research & International Programs; Vice Provost for Student Affairs; Chief Institutional Advancement Officer; Associate Provosts; Dean of the Graduate School; Dean of International Education; Dean of Research; Dean of Students; Registrar; Director of Admissions; Director of Agricultural Experiment Station; Director of Computing Services; Director of the Office of Continuing Higher Education and Summer Term; Dean of Extended Education and Director of Extension Service; Director of Libraries; and Director of Sea Grant College Program.

    B. College and Deans: [All positions at the Dean level.] Deans of Agricultural Sciences, Business, Engineering, Forestry, Health & Human Performance, Home Economics and Education, Liberal Arts, Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Pharmacy, Science, and Veterinary Medicine.

    C. [Other positions of academic significance: Including, but not limited to, University Honors College Director, Undergraduate Academic Programs Director, Admission and Orientation Director, and Registrar.]

    The Administrative Appointments Committee consists of nine Faculty members appointed by the Faculty Senate's Executive Committee.

    There was no discussion on the recommended revisions to the Administrative Appointments Committee; motion 98-538-02 passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

    UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE

    The Undergraduate Admissions Committee passes on any [decides whether to admit any] potential undergraduate applicant, not meeting the stated admission requirements as established by the Oregon State Board of Higher Education and who requests consideration by the Committee. Previous academic experience, test scores, recommendations, and other criteria are reviewed in the process of determining which requests for exemptions should be approved. [The Committee also serves as the focal point for discussion and review of policy changes related to undergraduate admissions and makes recommendations to the Associate Provost for Academic Affairs or Faculty Senate, as appropriate.] The Committee consists of seven [eight] faculty members, [and] one student, and one person selected at-large. Of the seven [eight] faculty members, there shall be [at least] five from the teaching faculty, one college head advisor, and one representative from International Education. All members should be available to serve during the summer since most of the committee activity, in fact, takes place during the summer. In addition, a representative from the Admissions [and Orientation] Office [shall be ex-officio, voting] should be granted discussion and voting rights for deliberation on student appeals.

    There was no discussion on the recommended revisions to the Undergraduate Admissions Committee; motion 98-538-03 passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

    Task Force on Post-Tenure Review

    President Niess noted that agenda materials identified two additional issues that were not included in the Senate's charge to the Task Force: 1) An effective system of evaluating administrators, as well as faculty; and 2) A minimum campus-wide program for the improvement of teaching as well as a commitment of resources to support scholarly activities.

    Michael Oriard, task force committee member, presented recommendations from the report and noted that the substantive changes from the draft report presented at the April Senate meeting were the clarification of review frequency and responsible parties. He mentioned that the task force's concern was to balance accountability with a need to not overburden faculty participating in the review.

    Oriard stated that, if the recommendations are approved, two subcommittees will meet to draft language for the Faculty Handbook and to develop model guidelines to assist departments.

    The nine recommendations are as follows:

    1. The description of the PROF system in the Faculty Handbook should be expanded to include a stronger justification for the process and a detailed description of the consequences of satisfactory and unsatisfactory reviews

    2. The Provost should call for the development of written unit-level policies and procedures for implementing the PROF system. Faculty input must occur in the development of these policies and procedures.

    3. The Provost's office should provide training for colleges and departments in conducting and administering the review process.

    4. Heads of academic units (usually the department head or chair, but possibly the dean in colleges with no departments or the staff leader in off-campus extension offices) shall be responsible for conducting an annual review of all faculty in their units. As in the present PROF system, the unit head will provide a written evaluation to the faculty member, who may attach a rebuttal or explanation. Peer involvement in this process is strongly encouraged; for example, a committee of peers could review the dossiers and written reviews with the unit head to ensure fairness, balance, and conformity with the unit's mission.

    5. At intervals of no longer than five years, in addition to the annual review by the unit head, each tenured faculty member will be reviewed by a peer committee of faculty from the academic unit. (A promotion or tenure review that leads to a full peer evaluation at the unit level will satisfy this requirement.) Where appropriate, faculty members from outside the unit may be included on the peer committee. Written evaluations from the peer committee and the unit head will be provided to the faculty member, who may attach comments, explanations, or rebuttal.

    6. At any time during the five-year interval between regularly scheduled peer committee reviews, a faculty member or the unit head may request a peer committee review if either deems it beneficial to the professional development of the faculty member.

    7. Copies of all reviews will be forwarded by the unit head to the Dean of the College or to the appropriate academic supervisor.

    8. Should the peer committee conclude that a faculty member's record is less than satisfactory in teaching, scholarship, or service, a professional development plan will be drafted by the peer committee, the unit head, and the faculty member under review. This plan should include definite steps to be taken to remedy the specific perceived deficiencies. A timetable of no longer than three years should be provided to accomplish the goals of the plan, with annual monitoring to measure progress. The plan must specify the resources to be made available to accomplish the goals. The institution's PROF guidelines will specify the consequences of repeated negative reviews or failure to complete the goals of the development plan.

    9. The Faculty Senate will periodically review the effectiveness of the PROF process.

    In response to Senator Matzke, Science, questioning what the next step would be following approval, Oriard stated that the recommendations would go to the Provost for action, the two subcommittees would develop language and, presumably, the Provost would hold training sessions to assist in implementing the recommendations.

    One person in the audience expressed a concern of allocating resources to a faculty member who is underperforming. Oriard indicated that there are probably not many who are underperforming. He also noted that tenure is a commitment to the promise of long-term contributions and achievements and there is an assumption that this is potentially a productive faculty member who should be given an opportunity to regain their productive levels. He also agreed that resources are an issue and dependent on those resources available within units.

    Senator Frank, Liberal Arts, questioned what happens to the faculty member if nothing changes after three years as recommended in #8. Oriard stated that the document indicates that termination is possible.

    Senator Hathaway, Extension, proposed the following as friendly amendments to recommendation #4: change "staff leader" to "staff chair" and capitalize "Extension."

    Motion 98-538-04 to approve the Faculty Senate Task Force on Post-Tenure Review recommendations, including the friendly amendments pertaining to #4, passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

    President Niess thanked the task force members for their efforts and noted that the intent was to come back in June with the proposed Faculty Handbook and guidelines language.

    Academic Regulations Revisions

    Marshall English, Academic Regulations Committee Chair, presented proposed revisions to Academic Regulation 2 which deals with transfer of community college credit, in particular vocational-technical credit transfers. He noted that Leslie Burns, Undergraduate Programs Director, requested the revisions which have been revised and ratified by his committee and reviewed by the Academic Requirements Committee and the Curriculum Council.

    In summary, the primary impacts of the proposed revisions would be to: 1) reduce the number of vocational-technical credits that can be transferred, bringing that number into line with other key campuses (UO and PSU); 2) eliminate uncertainty about what transfer credits a student will receive and when they will receive them; 3) establish a policy for articulation agreements currently in use; and 4) shift responsibility for oversight of Articulation Agreements from the Academic Requirements Committee to the Curriculum Council.

    The proposed revisions are provided below (highlighted sections indicate additions; strike-throughs indicate deletions).

    2. Credit From A Two-Year Institution (Undergraduate Students)

    a. College Transfer Credits: Oregon State University accepts for credit toward a baccalaureate degree all college transfer work completed in [at] an Oregon or other accredited community college up to 108 lower-division credits. A student who has completed 108 lower division credits must obtain approval of a petition in advance before completing additional lower division work at a two-year institution if credit for such additional work is to count toward graduation. Transfer credits and grades are not used in calculating the OSU cumulative GPA. Students who hold the Associate of Arts [Oregon Transfer] or other transfer degrees or who have 90 or more credits accepted in transfer will be granted junior standing.1 Students who have received Associate of Arts Oregon Transfer degrees from Oregon community colleges will be considered to have met the Perspectives and Skills (except WIC) areas of the Baccalaureate Core. They must complete the upper division Synthesis areas of the Core. Students transferring from approved institutions of higher education [without Oregon Transfer degrees] ordinarily will be given Baccalaureate Core credit in the Perspectives and Skills areas on a course-by-course basis for work that is judged to be equivalent in content. They must complete upper division Synthesis courses.

    b. Block Transfer of Vocational-Technical Credits: Block transfer of vocational-technical credit from accredited or state approved community colleges into specific departmental programs2 at Oregon State University may be awarded up to 45 credits on the basis of proficiences, work experience, and/or technical courses as determined by the appropriate department, but without assignment of grade. Such credits will apply to the agreed upon transfer program only, and the credit will not be granted until completion of the program by the student, and these credits will not be used to classify students. The 45 credits, or portion thereof, transferred will count as part of the 108 credits defined in paragraph 2a above.

    b. [Transfer of Vocational-Technical Course Credits: A maximum of 12 quarter credit hours (8 semester credit hours) of vocational-technical course work applicable in an associates degree or certificate program at an accredited institution can be accepted upon admission to OSU as general elective credit (graded as Pass) and as part of the 108 quarter credit total that can be applied toward a baccalaureate degree.]

    c. Transfer of Equivalent Vocational-Technical Course Credits [through Articulation Agreements:] Lower division [OSU] credit [may be awarded] for specific vocational-technical community college courses may be awarded for equivalent OSU course work when [those courses are] equivalency is validated by [articulation agreement with] the [appropriate] OSU department offering the equivalent course work. [This may be above the 12 quarter credit hours of general electives (graded as Pass) allowed when a student is admitted to OSU.] Community college course work is not equated to upper division OSU course work. Equivalent Credit will be awarded only upon the recommendation of the appropriate department and college, and approval by the Academic Requirements Committee. [Community college course work is not equated to upper division OSU course work.] If the vocational-technical community college course and the equivalent OSU course vary in credits, the number of course credits that may be granted will be the lesser of the two. These course credits will count as part of the 108 credits defined in paragraph 2a above. OSU departments [who have articulation agreements with community colleges regarding] offering courses which have been identified as equivalent to designated community college vocational-technical courses shall review the [agreements] equivalency annually and forward a dated list of the [articulated] equivalent community college courses to the Academic Requirements Committee [Curriculum Council].

    d. Transfer of Nonequivalent Vocational-Technical Course Credits: In cases where paragraph 2b above is not applicable, up to 24 credits of lower division credit for specific vocational-technical community college courses may be awarded (but without assignment of grade) for nonequivalent OSU course work when the proficiencies, training, or experiences gained by the student are recognized by the appropriate OSU department or college. Credit will be awarded only upon the recommendation of the appropriate department and college, and approval of the Academic Requirements Committee. No more credit will be offered by OSU than was offered by the community college for the course involved in a given transfer. The course prefix and number to be used in awarding of such credit is VocT 100. The 24 credits, or portion thereof, awarded will count as part of the 108 credits defined in paragraph 2a above. The credit will not be granted until completion of the student's program, and these credits will not be used to classify students. In the event the student transfers into another OSU department, the new department will reevaluate the appropriateness of such vocational-technical training or experience. This provision may not be used in combination with paragraph 2b above.

    Senator Henderson, Forestry, noted that sometimes several community college courses are equivalent to one OSU credit. Leslie Burns noted that this concern is defined in the Articulation Agreement.

    Senator Thies, Science, felt that the wording in Section C of the revision "Community college work is not equated to upper division OSU course work." could be confusing. The sentence by itself is untrue, but is true when applied to vocational-technical courses. Thies moved to amend Section C to read, "Vocational Technical community college work will not be equated to upper division OSU course work." Motion 98-538-06 to approve the amendment passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes. Senator Oriard proposed a friendly amendment to the approved amendment to correct the grammar and place "vocational-technical" after "community college." The friendly amendment passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

    In response to Senator Frank questioning if the proposed revisions were discussed with community colleges, Burns indicated a number of community college liaisons were consulted and they fully support the revisions which would make it easier for them to explain to students which courses will transfer to OSU.

    Motion 98-538-05 to approve the proposed revisions to AR 2, as amended, passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

    Faculty Panels for Hearing Committees

    President Niess explained that the Board's Administrative Rules define criteria and procedures for the imposition of sanctions for cause, including terminations of appointment (OAR 580-21-320 through 580-21-375). If such a sanction is to be imposed, the faculty member is entitled to a formal hearing of charges by a hearing committee to be selected from a faculty panel which has been duly established.

    Faculty Panels for Hearing Committees are elected on even numbered years. Nominees for each new panel were randomly selected and ballots were distributed to Senators at the meeting. Those elected to Panel B were: Cheryl Jordan, Paul Doescher, Daniel Arp, Barbara Moon, William Warren, Jr., Neil Christensen, Ronald Guenther, Jeffrey Hale, Joseph Karchesy and Dwight Bushnell. Alternates include: Anne Christie, Jill Schuster, Lucy Shiao-Ling Yu, Donald Armstrong, Willie Rochefort, Jack Bailes, Zinovy Reichstein, Philip Watson, Nancy Wortman and William Ayres.


    DISCUSSION ITEM

    Ad Hoc Committee on Off-Site Degree Programs

    While introducing Bob Burton, Ad Hoc Committee co-chair, President Niess expressed appreciation to the committee for their efforts. Burton thanked everyone who helped prepare the final report, which was printed in the May Senate agenda.

    Burton recapped the creation of the ad hoc committee by explaining that, last January, the Curriculum Council sought approval from the Senate for undergraduate proposals for Environmental Sciences and Natural Resources. The proposals were tabled since, as presented, they weren't sufficiently developed at the faculty level and there was concern and confusion expressed about distance education as a whole. The proposals are currently being developed in detail before resubmission to the Senate.

    The committee members and co-chairs Burton and Gordon Matzke tried to develop a report on off-site degree programs that was factual rather than editorial. They solicited questions from the faculty and attempted to find answers to those questions. Burton noted they would have preferred to have had broader student input and more systematic avenues of input from faculty who are teaching distance courses.

    Senator Landau (pro-tem), Science, expressed several concerns: there is a feeling that money is being taken away from traditional education; it takes more money and time to develop distance courses than traditional courses; 60­70% of students enrolled in distance courses are also enrolled in traditional courses; and the more web information available to students, the greater the demand on faculty to help guide them through the materials.

    Thies felt that a major issue is that there are a lot of required degree courses that are not available off-site. Burton indicated that the Environmental Sciences degree is close to having most of the courses available off-site; although he acknowledged that some off-site degree programs may not be able to accomplish all requirements off-site. He felt that the distinction between on and off-site will continue to blend.

    Sandy Woods, OSU Statewide, noted that over $500,000 was requested for course development out of an available $200,000 fund for 1997/98. Courses targeted to receive funds were those that would support statewide degree programs and additional money is expected for next year. Sally Francis, Home Economics and Education, questioned the source of the $200,000 funding. Woods stated that the Provost provided the start-up funds for this year; it's not clear if these development funds will be recurring. The funds were disbursed with the assistance of a Distance Degree Program Council, consisting of program leaders and the Deans. She hopes to have a general RFP process when the budget is known.

    Burton noted that this is an evolving process since the Council referred to by Woods is somewhat ad hoc and there are discussions underway to formalize the Council and to determine the best role for faculty governance and the Faculty Senate.

    Senator Matzke expressed the opinion that using a general RFP is a lousy idea. He felt that OSU will make a big mistake if items associated with distance education courses are randomly funded. Instead, it should be made clear what the objectives are and in what sequence they will be achieved for particular degrees so that funds can be targeted.

    President Niess encouraged Senators to share the report with their colleagues.


    INFORMATION ITEMS

    -- A recap of the April Interinstitutional Faculty Senate meeting was sent to Senators via e-mail.

    -- In 1996 there were no Sr/Faculty Research Assistants or Associates serving on Faculty Senate committees. In 1997/98 there were 24 Sr/Faculty Research Assistants and Professional Faculty serving on Faculty Senate committees.


    REPORT FROM & DIALOG WITH THE PROVOST

    Provost Arnold's report included the following items:

    Expressed appreciation for the thorough work by the members of the Task Force on Post-Tenure Review and the Ad Hoc Committee on Off-Site Degree Programs.

    A commitment was made by the President's Cabinet to make certain that an annual review process be initiated for all members of the Cabinet and that evaluations be performed for all who report to each cabinet member.

    Effective immediately, Sandy Woods has been appointed as interim Distance and Extended Education Dean to replace Gretchen Schuette who resigned. Woods will be meeting with the academic deans in this role. There will be a national search for this position.

    Jon Root will continue in his role as the Director of Distance Education.

    Barbara Moon was named to a permanent position as Director of the Office of Continuing Higher Education, after serving in an interim basis for three years.

    Budget Observations -- Provost Arnold felt it was safe to say that: 1) budgets at unit levels will be no worse than 1997/98 levels; 2) increased tuition from the additional enrollment will be reflected in the budget allocation for 1998/99, although the amount of the matching state funds is not known -- at the tuition level, an enrollment reserve is anticipated to respond to critical high demand areas; and 3) a significant increase in additional resources can be expected a year from now. A group will be formed to help determine how the additional funds will be distributed and to look critically at investments that possibly could be eliminated.

    Senator Lunch, Liberal Arts, referred to media reports about the budget and asked how OSU will fare under the initially discussed budget model and how the deficit will be addressed under the new budget model. Arnold reiterated that media reports do not necessarily reflect the most current information available. He explained that the Board has adopted the position that: tuition will stay with the institution; the model must differentiate costs of programs as general fund money is distributed; and to bring as much as possible into a model that will express costs on a cost per student basis. Arnold stated that OSU tried to be as conservative as possible about the revenues for next year. He also noted that OSU's enrollment has responded strongly and that needs to be recognized in the budget process.

    Senator Rose, Forestry, questioned how faculty salaries will be affected if enrollment is improved. Arnold responded that, for this biennium, the faculty and staff salary resources were set at the beginning of the biennium. If the overall strategy to build a budget model that contains educational, research and outreach opportunities is achieved, it could include a faculty salary component. It will have to be approved by the legislature and would include performance indicators.


    REPORT FROM & DIALOG WITH THE FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT

    President Niess' report included the following items:

    Faculty have worked hard to increase enrollment, as evidenced by 500 additional students expected for 1998/99.

    Appreciation to faculty for turning out to honor L.L. Stewart for his contribution to faculty development.

    She assured Senators that faculty input is being seriously taken into consideration by administration to assist them in the decision making process. She also felt that administration was working hard to respond to faculty.

    She noted that this has been a roller coaster year and there is possibly another tough year ahead; it is imperative to take control of the roller coaster. Niess urged faculty to focus both on the university as a whole as well as individual units. She also encouraged faculty to focus on the future of OSU with a vision of providing a first-class education for a diverse student population while advancing the knowledge that supports the health and wealth of Oregon and the nation as the 21st century approaches. She felt that a difference can be made if everyone works together.


    EXECUTIVE SESSION

    Beth Strohmeyer, Faculty Recognition and Awards Chair, presented nominees for the Distinguished Service Award and D. Curtis Mumford Faculty Service Award. There was no discussion on the nominees. After reopening the meeting to the public, both nominees were approved via written ballot.


    OLD BUSINESS

    There was no old business.


    NEW BUSINESS

    There was no new business.



    Meeting was adjourned at 5:22 PM.



    Recorded by:

    Vickie Nunnemaker
    Faculty Senate Administrative Assistant