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

Faculty Senate

Faculty Senate » June 10, 2004 Minutes

June 10, 2004 Minutes

The regular monthly meeting of the Faculty Senate was called to order by President Stella Coakley on June 10, 2004 at 3:00 PM in the LaSells Stewart Center. President Coakley thanked Gary Tiedeman for serving as Parliamentarian.

Meeting Summary
  • Action Items: Consideration of Degree Candidates - B. Balz; Category I Proposals - C. Boyer: Master of Engineering (MEng) Degree, Terminate the Master of Engineering in Manufacturing Program, Master of Health Physics (MHP) in Radiation Health Physics, Graduate Certificate in Health Care Administration, and Geographic Information Science - Undergraduate Certificate, Graduate Certificate, and Professional Certificate; Non-credit Certificate Policy - C. Boyer; Standing Rules Changes - M. Niess: Academic Standing, Computing Resources, and Graduate Admissions Committees; and Policy on Graduate Level Learning - L. Ciuffetti [Motion 04-596-01 through 16]
  • Special Reports: Interinstitutional Faculty Senate and President Ed Ray
  • New Business: None

ACTION ITEMS

Consideration of Degree Candidates

Barbara Balz, Registrar, recommended for approval the proposed lists of degree candidates and honors subject to final confirmation of all degree requirements. There were 4,166 students who were candidates for 4,288 degrees (this is a 6% increase over 2003) which included: 3,257 Bachelors, 755 Masters, 173 Doctors and 103 Professional degrees. There were 108 students who were candidates for two degrees and 8 students who were candidates for three degrees.

The Class of 2004, OSU's 135th graduating class, had 936 seniors who qualified for Academic Distinction and included 444 'cum laude' (gpa 3.50-3.69), 267 'magna cum laude' (gpa 3.70-3.84), and 225 'summa cum laude' (gpa 3.85 and above).

Motion 04-5 -01 to approve the proposed list of degree candidates and honors passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

Category I Proposals

Charles Boyer, Curriculum Council Co-chair, thanked Bob Burton, Alice Tucker, Michelle Rosowsky, the Faculty Senate, the Valley Library staff, Graduate Council and Budgets & Fiscal Planning Committee for their assistance in reviewing and preparing Category I proposals to be presented for approval during the past year. The following proposals were presented for approval:

1) Master of Engineering (MEng) Degree - Boyer explained that this was a professional degree that involves all the departments in the College of Engineering. There was no discussion. Motion 04-596-02 passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

2) Terminate the Master of Engineering in Manufacturing Program - This was a multi-campus degree that had limited activity, the partner institution agreed to the termination, and the students have been notified. This degree is being replaced by the degree previously approved. There was no discussion. Motion 04-596-03 passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

3) Master of Health Physics (MHP) in Radiation Health Physics - Boyer explained that this is a new professional degree that relies on existing courses. There is considerable interest by OIT students, and others in the state, for this degree. There was no discussion. Motion 04-596-04 passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

4) Graduate Certificate in Health Care Administration - Boyer explained that this program was proposed by the Department of Public Health and designed to meet an increasing need for place-bound professionals in health care administration. It will serve an important need in the state and will be delivered through various means. There was no discussion. Motion 04-596-05 passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

5) Geographic Information Science - Boyer explained that this is a set of three certificates. The undergraduate and graduate certificates are meant to replace the Earth Information Science and Technology Minors. The proposed name also more accurately reflects the current description for this type of program since it was recognized that these are actually certificate programs rather than minors. The courses are currently in place.

Senator Landis, Associated, noted that the library assessment had been inadvertently omitted from the materials received by Senators. The assessment indicated that library resources were adequate to support the proposal and it was also recommended that $1200 be allocated for journals.

  • Undergraduate Certificate - Motion 04-596-06 passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
  • Graduate Certificate - Motion 04-596-07 passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.
  • Professional Certificate - Motion 04-596-08 passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

Non-credit Certificate Policy

Charles Boyer, Curriculum Council Co-chair, presented for approval the following policy statement:

Policy Statement: Review of Non-credit Certificates

  1. Non-credit certificates authenticate a learning experience that does not involve university credits that could be part of a degree. Non-credit certificates are of two overlapping kinds: those that testify merely to participation and those that are professional in nature.

  2. Non-credit certificates must be reviewed in a process parallel to the Category I process, unless excluded by OUS (see http://www.ous.edu/aca/noncredit.html).

  3. Non-credit certificates may require 800-level courses, as long as these are properly identified as "in-service" or courses aimed at practicing professional skills with no academic assessment or credit that would lead to a University degree. New 800-level courses must be submitted to the Office of Academic Programs for approval.

  4. Non-credit certificates that themselves are not transcript visible will be reviewed if they require any credit courses (XX 001-899). Note that OSU Non-credit Certificates do not appear on any OSU transcript.

Boyer explained that the rationale for creating the policy is due, in part, to the proliferation of the number of certificates and types of certificates being offered. Additionally, there is considerable variation in what is considered to be a certificate program, ranging from a certificate of participation to a credit-based program. Concerns have been raised as to the implications of certificate programs in relation to the learning experience.

Senator Coblentz, Agricultural Sciences, questioned how this policy is different from the diploma offers he receives. Boyer explained that it is not necessarily different since OSU offers several kinds of programs that result in participation certificates. This policy attempts to differentiate those programs that are a non-credit experience that involves an approval process, and is an effort to put teeth into what are being called certificate programs.

Senator Iltis, Liberal Arts, questioned whether existing non-credit programs will go through the approval process. Boyer responded there has been no discussion on this issue.

Senator Selker, Agricultural Sciences, questioned whether there was a list of existing non-credit programs, who will keep the list and will there be a grace period allowed. Boyer responded there is no known list since there has been no approval process. However, if the policy is implemented, a listing of approved programs would be created, and the existing programs could go through the approval process and be placed on the list.

Boyer noted there is confusion surrounding this issue. This approval process is intended to be used where there is a more extended learning experience involving formal coursework and allows for formal faculty review and approval.

Senator Selker, questioned whether there will be criteria. Boyer responded that the criteria will evolve over time but will involve the same criteria used for other programs, i.e, learning outcomes and expectations, syllabi, etc.

Senator Hoogesteger, Student Affairs, questioned what process will be required. Boyer responded they will review the programs submitted for approval and, over time, will be able to benchmark learning experiences. As an example, student leadership already sometimes involves credit. If you think a formal certificate recognition is a benefit for students, consider running it through the process as a modified Category I.

Senator Coblentz, asked if this becomes centralized, will participant fees go to the University and be filtered back to the department. Boyer responded that the proposal was not meant to deal with fiscal issues, but is meant as a quality check only. The money still remains in the respective program.

Motion 04-596-09 to approve the policy was inconclusive by voice vote. Following President Coakley's call for a vote by show of hands, Senator Selker moved to table the motion pending clarification of the context and implementation; motion seconded. Following an explanation by the Parliamentarian that tabling typically means for a brief period of time to allow the issue to be brought up later in the meeting, the second was retracted. Senator Selker moved to return the policy to committee for refinement and further context; motion seconded. Motion 04-596-10 to return the policy to the committee passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

Standing Rules Changes

Maggie Niess, Executive Committee member, presented for approval the following proposed Standing Rules changes on behalf of the Committee on Committees (proposed deletions are bracketed in red and proposed additions are bolded):

Academic Standing Committee
The Academic Standing Committee is charged with the enforcement of the regulations on Satisfactory Academic Standing. In this regard the Committee has [developed] the authority to develop guidelines for the administration of these regulations. These [G]guidelines are reviewed annually to ensure that they continue to serve the interests of the University community and that they reflect current University policies and procedures. The Committee has discretionary authority to grant exceptions to the regulations on Academic Standing. The Committee hears all requests for reinstatement exceptions following academic suspension, that meet the conditions detailed in the Academic Standing Committee's Policy Guideline #7. Upon request of the student, the Committee conducts a personal [interview] hearing to determine the causes of unsatisfactory performance and possible reinstatement and remedies. [The Committee meets] These personal hearings occur during Committee meetings to consider [such] requests [for reinstatement by exception], as needed[,] each term prior to the last day to register. Hearings are scheduled prior to the last day to register, when at all possible. Once the Committee makes its decision on a request for reinstatement by exception, and the hearing is completed, the case is considered closed. Appeals to Committee decisions may only be addressed by the Provost of the University after the Committee's decision has been recorded. Appeals must be based solely on the original file reviewed and acted upon by the Committee. The Committee will re-open a case only if significant new information is presented to it.

The Committee consists of [seven] up to nine Faculty and two Student members, and the Registrar (or representative), ex-officio, non-voting. The committee chair is also a non-voting member, except in the case of a tie vote by Committee. Committee members involved in a student's request for exception may not participate in the vote.

Senator Mills, Associated Faculty, questioned whether there was a minimum number of faculty required. Debbie Bird McCubbin, Academic Standing Committee Chair, noted that the proposed change was to reflect the intent to increase the number of members. Senator Lunch, Liberal Arts, moved to amend the Standing Rules to read 'a minimum of seven up to nine'; motion seconded. Motion 04-596-12 to amend the Standing Rules passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

J. Nisihara for Senator Tsunyoshi, Student Affairs, questioned whether the Senate intends to have Standing Rules based on policy guidelines that are not changed by the Senate. Coakley responded that is currently possible. She did state that the EC reviewed the policy referred to and did not feel there was a problem in this instance. She also noted that this issue could be discussed in the future if there is a perception that the Senate should not proceed in this manner.

Motion 04-596-11 to approve the revisions to the Academic Standing Committee Standing Rules, as amended, passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

Computing Resources Committee
The Computing Resources Committee reviews and recommends policy concerning technology as used by faculty in instruction, research, and service on campus and off-campus. It assists in planning and advocating for the necessary technology to maximize student learning and enhance faculty research and service activities to OSU and the wider community. It acts to advise other committees and Information Services as well as providing leadership in adoption and effective use of computing for instruction, research, and service. One member of the Computing Resources Committee serves as the designated Faculty Senate representative to the Administrative Information Systems Advisory Council. The Committee shall consist of [nine] six Faculty, at least [six] four of whom must be Teaching Faculty, and two Students, and the Vice Provost for Information Services, ex-officio, non-voting. The Vice Provost for Information Services may recommend a resource person from Information Services as another ex-officio, non-voting member.

The Executive Committee is encouraged to look for broad representation in the appointments to the committee in order to provide disciplinary diversity.

Niess noted that there was difficulty in achieving a quorum and conducting business since the members were not able to meet at the same time.

There was no discussion on the proposed revisions. Motion 04-596-13 to approve the revisions to the Computing Resources Committee Standing Rules passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

Graduate Admissions Committee
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, at least seven of whom are Graduate Faculty members from different colleges, with the Director of Admissions, ex-officio, non-voting. The committee members should be selected to ensure adequate representation of International Education. The Chair of the Graduate Admissions Committee shall be a liaison member, non-voting, on the Graduate Council.

Niess noted that it was necessary to have input from International Education faculty and this revision would ensure that input is provided.

Senator Coblentz noted that the wording appears as though all committee members are expected to have some international education experience. Niess responded that the intent was that the committee have adequate international education representation, not that all members have international education experience.

Senator Taylor, Student Affairs, questioned how adequate international education representation will be achieved. Senator Mills asked if a precise number could be given for International Education representation. Senator Westall, Science, responded that the Executive Committee chooses the members of Faculty Senate committees and councils and if adequate representation was found among the graduate faculty members, then the EC has the option of choosing eight graduate faculty members. On the other hand, if the EC didn't feel that any of the seven graduate faculty members provided adequate representation, they could appoint someone from International Education who was not a graduate faculty member.

In response to Senator Hale, Liberal Arts, questioning whether the intent was expertise in international education or a faculty member specifically from International Education, the answer was expertise. Senator Hale proposed a friendly amendment to change International Education to lower case; there were no objections.

To clarify that the intent is eight faculty members, Senator Lunch moved to amend the proposed revisions to add 'faculty' after 'eight'; motion was seconded. Motion 04-596-15 to amend the Standing Rules to read '…eight faculty…' passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes and no discussion.

Motion 04-596-14 to approve the proposed revisions to the Graduate Admissions Committee Standing Rules, as amended, passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

Policy on Graduate Level Learning

Lynda Ciuffetti, Graduate Council Chair, presented a proposed policy for discussion at the May Senate meeting. A revised Policy on Graduate Level Learning was presented for approval in June as outlined in the Graduate Council's explanation below:

The Graduate Council on May 20, 2004 addressed concerns voiced at the May 13, 2004 Faculty Senate meeting regarding the 50% Rule on Graduate Level Learning. As stated in the original document oregonstate.edu/dept/senate/agen/2004/200405a2.htm effective Fall 2005, all graduate student programs of study submitted to the Graduate School must consist of, at a minimum, 50% graduate stand alone courses. In an effort to respond to faculty concerns with the implementation deadline, the Graduate Council has approved the following:

Departments or Programs that are unable to meet this policy for Graduate Programs beginning Fall 2005 may submit a Transition Plan that will address how the unit will move towards compliance with the policy.

Ciuffetti noted another concern that was raised at the May Senate meeting regarding the feeling by some that the 50% policy does not improve the quality of the graduate program. The Graduate Council's response was that they recognize that this may be a judgment call, but considers the minimum of 50% stand alone graduate credits to be an improvement over the current policy. The Council believes that even a modest increase in stand alone credits is a worthy accomplishment and does indeed raise the quality of the graduate experience. The Council also considers blanketed number courses to be a strong option to the stand alone classroom graduate level learning. Also, the increase from six to nine blanket number courses is a maximum allowable number.

Charles Boyer indicated that the Curriculum Council has extensively reviewed the proposal and noted that it is necessary to ensure that graduate level learning experiences for graduate students are being offered. Their concerns were around options and ability of various units to implement the policy, but felt that there was enough flexibility provided by the Graduate Council and that the blanket courses provided an option for programs to develop a method for students to meet the intent of the proposal. The Curriculum Council voted unanimously to endorse the recommendation of the Graduate Council.

Senator Roberts, Liberal Arts, noted that she and her colleagues appreciate the movement toward accommodation. Roberts had three questions: 1) To whom will the transition plans be submitted and who approves? 2) What will the approval criteria consist of? 3) Is insufficient faculty lines an acceptable criterion? Ciuffetti responded that transition plans would be submitted to the Graduate Council. The plan would be an outline of how the unit would meet the goals over time. The criteria would be that the Council has a sense that the unit is moving toward the 50% rule. If hiring was necessary, there would be some indication that the dean was in favor of supporting the situation. The feasibility of the plan would be an important criterion. The time limit would be left up to the unit, as long as it is reasonable. A lack of resources would allow the transition plan to go into place with an accompanying outline of how a unit would achieve the 50% policy. Senator Roberts requested the justification for the Graduate Council to receive the transition plans rather than the Graduate School. Ciuffetti responded the Graduate Council was identified because of the idea of a quality of graduate level learning. They felt that this was their policy, the Council has representation from every college, and felt that they would be able to look at and evaluate the policy.

Ciuffetti stated that all colleges within the Graduate Council, with the exception of Liberal Arts, supported the implementation of the 50% rule. She also noted that the plans could go to the Graduate School at some point, but that discussion has not taken place.

Senator Gupta, Forestry, explained that his department reviewed the policy and has the following concerns: 1) there is an insufficient number of courses in other departments that are not offered often; 2) the policy discourages students from taking more than the minimum number of credits since they would have to take the corresponding number of additional stand alone courses; and 3) blanket number courses don't show up as exact titles. The department feels that the policy goals are good, but has concerns that units have not determined whether the policy will fit their course offerings. Ciuffetti noted that quality issues can be addressed by putting forward an individual course of the 500 component. The policy is intended to improve the quality of the graduate level experience. The Council will revisit this issue during exit interviews and will determine if the policy is accomplishing the need.

Senator Mills questioned why the Council did not identify a specific transition date. Ciuffetti stated they were sympathetic to units and were allowing them to move toward implementation. There is no way of knowing when units will have adequate resources.

Senator Lee, Science, opposed the motion due to the approach of the problem. He felt there is no need to disrupt existing courses and degree programs that are working well. There may be 400/500 level courses that are not at the graduate level, but that is not a reason to eliminate the slash courses or implement the stand alone requirement. The offending courses should be examined and brought up to standards. Senator Lee read a message from Bill Bogley, University Honors College Council Chair, who opposed the policy as it makes it more difficult to deliver additional graduate programs when tenured faculty are in decline. Ciuffetti responded that she spoke with the College of Science dean and associate dean, who talked with all the department chairs, and they endorsed the policy. She felt that more than a few courses are involved and the policy is not related to accreditation since it was being worked on before the accreditation effort.

Senator Hale questioned who is responsible for the MAIS policy implementation. Dean Francis, Graduate School, responded that Ann Schauber, MAIS Director, would be responsible. Francis indicated that Graduate School staff will review students' programs to determine whether it is 50/50.

Senator Roberts stated that her college does not have the faculty to fulfill the policy since budget issues prevent achieving necessary faculty lines. Ciuffetti empathized with the situation, but believes that OSU needs to go forward in increasing the graduate learning experience. She also noted that, to be done right, the 500 component of the 400/500 takes overload from faculty.

Senator Selker, who also serves on the Graduate Council, addressed several concerns. For dual major students - each major will either comply or have a transition plan, so one unit will not need to vouch for other majors. The 50% rule applies to those courses that must be on the program, this does not apply to electives, and course titles will show up on transcripts. The reason for no implementation date is because of the complexity of each case and the deans will be determining dates on the transition plan. The thought that there is no need for the policy is contrary to the facts since the Council could not think of one program where this was not a central issue. The Graduate Council does not see this as an ideal policy, but as the very best possible compromise.

Senator Flahive, Science, questioned why, if this issue has been discussed for over four years on campus, proposals weren't requested at that time. A primary objection is that faculty were not given enough notice of the proposed policy. She also didn't agree with the supposition that a uniform policy will help everyone. Ciuffetti acknowledged that, probably, uniform policies don't help everyone, but there is a uniform graduate policy in terms of credits. She also noted that two forums were held to inform faculty of the policy and to ask them for input and, as a result of the input, the original proposal was revised.

Senator Coblentz noted that quality continues to be stressed and he questioned the sample size of slash courses examined by the Graduate Council which determined that courses meet some quality standard for graduate education. Ciuffetti explained that the Graduate Level Learning Committee, a subcommittee of the Graduate Council, has been studying the various 500 level components, and the resulting graduate level learning criteria was discussed at the May Faculty Senate meeting. As graduate courses are submitted, they will be evaluated by those criteria. Dean Francis noted that the subcommittee conducted two campus-wide surveys by asking faculty to distribute the surveys in all slash courses and had a huge database that they analyzed. Coakley noted that the data was presented to the Senate and links have been available for Senators to review.

Charles Boyer noted that graduate courses also go through the Curriculum Council for review and they are paying attention to slash course differentiation and specific requirements in the syllabus. He noted that both criteria must be met.

Motion #04-596-16 to approve the Policy on Graduate Level Learning passed by hand vote with 38 in favor and 29 opposed. Ciuffetti thanked the Faculty Senate for their work and concern and noted that the Graduate Council does appreciate the input provided.


SPECIAL REPORTS

Interinstitutional Faculty Senate

Kelvin Koong, OSU IFS Senator, provided a recap of the June IFS meeting. In April, the IFS requested to meet with then OSBHE President, Neil Goldschmidt. Their request resulted in a meeting with IFS and the entire OSBHE in Ashland at the June meeting. IFS discussed three major points with the Board:

1) Quality of education in the eyes of the faculty - This discussion was generated by a working group of the Board, commonly called 'More, Better, Faster'. They are in the process of developing core courses that can be transferred from community colleges to OUS four-year institutions. IFS is concerned by the approach of the Board developing the core courses and with the resulting quality. IFS proposed that faculty be allowed to deal with the issue and determine how to develop common core courses.

2) Tuition plateau - After discussing the pros and cons, IFS reached a consensus of supporting the plateau.

3) Faculty Fighting Fund - $500,000 would be forwarded to the E-Board for approval for the fund. IFS expressed concern about the potential risk in terms of creating faculty super stars and all in light of the salary freeze. It was noted that those institutions with contracts have no way of implementing the funds.

Following the meeting, IFS sent a thank you note to the Board which responded they would like to continue meeting with IFS, and will next meet with them in October at WOU.

The First 316 Days

OSU President Ed Ray provided his perspective on his first 316 days at OSU and an update of issues.

Budget Issues - Tuition increase - Ray's proposal to the Board was an 11% tuition increase at the undergraduate level for resident students. The proposal would not raise out-of-state, professional or doctoral tuition levels and there would be no increase in the plateau. He feels there needs to be a dialogue in the fall to either return to no charges in the plateau range or have a 50% discount rate on credit hours in the plateau range so there is still incentive to take additional courses.

The budget reduction is $2.9 million. Approximately $2.1 million was drawn back from academic support last fall in anticipation of Ballot Measure 30. Administration believes that the difference can be handled with minimal disruption to next activities in 2004-2005.

There has been discussion of additional changes to the budget model. Ray believes that college budget allocation models need to be just as explicit and transparent as the university model, and they need to be accessible by everyone.

As colleges are working on individual strategic plans to align with the overall university efforts, this provides a context and opportunity to discuss whether there needs to be transition over time in the historic base budgets.

He hopes that the Strategic Investment Program will be sustained beyond the current round and that this will be a faculty-driven process.

He is concerned about resource fees and how fee allocations occur, and thinks that a discussion needs to take place about being more explicit about differential tuition rates. Resource fees should be treated, for distribution purposes, both centrally and in a distributed environment as currently occurs with tuition dollars.

The decision was previously made to put tuition money through the RAM filter which accounts for cost differentials in programs and, while he understands the arguments for doing so, he would prefer that the money be distributed the way it is earned. Whether intentional or not, low cost units, such as Liberal Arts, disproportionately watch their dollars go to high cost colleges. The budget practice needs to reflect the budget priorities.

There is an effort underway to educate legislator's that the fee remission caps are not understand, and he has some hope that the caps will go away with the next Legislature. He is also working on eliminating the salary freeze. There is a proposal going forward to the E-Board that will make $500,000 available for a faculty fiighting fund, and will be allocated on a pro-rated share between all seven institutions. If the unionized institutions cannot agree on a way to use it, the Board will determine how to distribute the money.

Organizational Needs - He expects that the searches for the Vice President of Research, Vice President of University Advancement, Director for Community and Diversity, and Faculty Athletic Representative will be completed in the next few weeks. The title change from Vice Provost to Vice President of Research reflects increased expectations of the position.

OSU Foundation President candidates may be here in August and, hopefully, the successful candidate will begin by the end of the calendar year.

In regard to Provost White's recent health issues, Ray stated that he is doing well, his prognosis is positive, and he will delay in reporting to the University of Idaho until August. Sabah Randhawa has been appointed Interim Provost.

Community and Diversity - The organizational structure will be reviewed to determine a realignment of which offices report to whom. The new Community and Diversity Director will assist Ray in this task.

Programs - Ray expects each college and department to create strategic plans that include benchmarks, metrics, etc. The Interim Provost, and others, will begin working on developing action and implementation plans for next year. It is clear to Ray that professional development workshops for deans, directors, chairs and professional staff need to become a regular part of doing business at OSU.

Capital Projects - OSU made capital projects recommendations to OSBHE, who is responsible for prioritization. The projects will involve 11G Bonds. OSU's recommendations included: the power plant, lab and classroom space for the Linus Pauling Institute, demolition of Snell Hall, COAS equipment facility, and a multi-purpose animal facility.

Projects in progress include: completion of the Veterinary Medicine small animal facility, raising $5 million in matching funds to renovate the large animal facility, completion of the Kelley Engineering Building, efforts to build the ONAMI facility, continuation of upgrading access for disabled students, and improved signage.

Capital Campaign - Once the OSU Foundation President is hired, he/she will work with the search firm to hire a vice president who will head the effort for the Capital Campaign. OSU is currently in the 'quiet phase' of the campaign and expects to go public in the fall of 2005. All efforts need to be merged into the broader capital campaign, i.e., engineering and athletics.


DIALOG WITH THE PROVOST

Interim Provost Sabah Randhawa's report included the following:

Provost's Initiatives - In addition to funding ten proposals, $350,000 has been put aside for instructional equipment for which about 50 proposals were received and are being reviewed.

Accreditation Visit Preliminary Report - Randhawa felt that the assessment was very fair of the work completed since the initial accreditation visit and the work that still needs to occur. The following four areas were included as recommendations in the preliminary report: 1) Deferred maintenance; 2) Library funding; 3) Cascades Campus - recognizing that they are in the process of developing a strategic plan that is aligned with the broader institution plan; and 4) Assessment - recognizing that some work has been accomplished, but more work needs to be done.


DIALOG WITH THE FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT

President Stella Coakley's report included the following:

Although the Senate's reception for Provost White had to be cancelled following his heart attack, Coakley noted that the Senate does have a plaque to present to him and will be expressing formal thanks and appreciation for his strong support of faculty governance.

Senators were encouraged to review the Institutional Procedures and Criteria for Program Redirection, Reorganization, Reduction and Termination document (an Information Item on the agenda) over the summer, obtain input from colleagues, and forward comments to the Faculty Senate Office.

President Coakley noted that this was an interesting year where progress was made, but felt that some things feel incomplete and she will work on issues over the summer.

Coakley also thanked all chairs and committee members who made the progress possible.


NEW BUSINESS

There was no new business.


Roll Call

Members Present:
Agricultural Sciences: Boggess, Brewer, Ciuffetti, Coblentz, Doescher, Freeman, Koong, Penner, Selker, Thompson and C.Boyer for Webb
Associated: Averill, Brown, Christie, deGeus, Dempsey, Landis, Lee, Miles, Mills, Ratchford, Rosenberg and Strickroth
Business: Coakley, Hsieh, Moulton, and Reitsma
Education: Higgins, Pehrsson,
Engineering: Kanury, Levien, Lundy, McVicker, Mosley, and Quinn
Extension: Filley,
Forestry: Bose, Clauson, Erickson, Gupta, Howell, and Maguire
Health & Human Sciences: S. Bernell for Bowman, Cluskey, Grobe, Ho, Sorte, and Widrick
Information Services: none
Liberal Arts: Ede, Gross, Hale, Iltis, Lunch, Melton, Roberts, R. Schwartz for Shaw, and Warner
Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences: Jennings and Skyllingstad
Pharmacy: Filtz, Ishmael, and Mahmud
ROTC: none
Science: Evans, Flahive, Giebultowicz, Lee, Parks, and Westall
Student Affairs: Bentley-Townlin, DeBellis, Dempsey, Empey, Etherton, Hoogesteger, E. Taylor, J. Nishihara for Tsuneyoshi
Veterinary Medicine: Bird and Jennings

Members Absent:
Agricultural Sciences: Anderson, Arp, Brown, Edge, Fanno, Huddleston, Jepson, Obermiller, Perry, and Strik
Associated: Faulhaber, Gomez, Majeski, Perrone and Sproul
Business: Wong
Engineering: Costello, Cull, Koretsky, and Reyes
Extension: Bondi, Butler and Downing
Forestry: Schoenholtz and Tynon
Health & Human Sciences: Acock and Cardinal
Information Services: Sheffold,
Liberal Arts: Daugherty, P. Farber, V. Farber, Foster, Henderson, Krause, Maul, and Olaya
Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences: Arsenault, Ashe, Duncan, Levine, Prahl, and Torres
Pharmacy: none
ROTC: Klink
Science: Ahern, Barofsky, Edwards, Ho, Horne, Lajtha, Mason, Pearson, Remcho, Spatafora, and Taylor
Student Affairs: none
Veterinary Medicine: none

Guests Present:
B. Balz, G. Beach, C. Bell, D. Bird McCubbin, S. Francis, L. Friedman, A. Klein, H. Koenig, M. Rosowsky, E. Waldschmidt, and D. Wright.

Faculty Senate Officers, Ex-officios and Staff:
S. Coakley, Senate President; B. Sorte, Immediate Past Senate President; G. Tiedeman, Parliamentarian; Ex-officios: M. Niess, S. Randhawa, E. Ray, and J. Trujillo; and V. Nunnemaker, Senate Staff.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 PM.

Respectfully submitted:
Vickie Nunnemaker, Faculty Senate Staff