WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

FACULTY SENATE MINUTES

Regular Meeting

November 24, 2003

James Loucky, Senate President, called the Senate meeting to order at 4:08 pm. Thirty (30) people were present including twenty-five (25) Senators, one (1) recorder, and two (2) guests.  (See attached roster). 

Approval of Senate Minutes

§       The Senate approved the minutes of November 10, 2003 as written. 

Items from the Administration

§       Provost Bodman reported that University President Karen Morse was attending an American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) meeting in California. 

§       Bodman reported on continued discussions with the HEC Board on its master plan which will be sent to the legislature after its December 10^th meeting.  Bodman and Morse will update Senators on legislative action.

§       Bodman reported that Paul Storer had participated in the Provost’s Council discussion on allocation of Retention and Recruitment (R&R) funds.  Bodman pointed out that this was in line with his continuing process of bringing Senators into the Council. 

§       Bodman reported on a zero balance in the GER reform budget, and that personnel associated with the account had been shifted to other duties.

§       Bodman reported that Western is a leader in the way it has successfully managed over-enrollment for the past decade.  Western aims to over-enroll by about 200 FTE students per year and is currently overenrolled by approximately 250.  Western plans to continue a sensible approach that does not allow over-enrollment to go beyond about 2%.   

Items from the Chair

§     President Loucky reported that constituents would like further discussion on writing curriculum and instruction, and the possible creation of a permanent committee that would report to ACC, the GER committee and the Senate.  Loucky stressed the need to address not only writing concerns, but issues of academic honesty, plagiarism, general concerns about levels of competence, appropriate instruction in group study, etc.  Thomas Downing, Chair of Academic Coordinating Commission reported that ACC is two-thirds of the way through discussing the writing component of the GURs, and that academic dishonesty and plagiarism could be taken up in ACC if the Senate so directed.  Loucky will continue to research the topic and invite participation.

§     Loucky reported that the Bookstore Advisory Group is participating in the search for the new bookstore manager.

John Purdy made a motion for a five-minute recess to give Senators a chance to nominate faculty for the Ad Hoc Committee on Institutional Climate which seeks one representative from each of the Colleges and the Library.  The motion died for lack of a second.  Senators requested additional time to email constituents and solicit volunteers for participation; one Senator reported such a strategy had netted three volunteers within five minutes.

Constituent Concerns

“W” Number too publicly available

§       Senators reported that the “W” number ought to be made invisible on public labels and forms. 

Committee Structure Review

§       President Loucky addressed issues regarding parking, the Arntzen Hall eatery and other campus concerns.  Loucky recommended discussion on a possible need to rethink Senate committee structures. 

Equality of Teaching Hours

§       One Senator reported that constituents would like to have the day before Thanksgiving established as either a full day of classes or a holiday.  A motion by another Senator that each quarter contain exactly 50 full class days or ten weeks of class time was subsequently withdrawn, as it became apparent to all that further investigation on the calendaring process would be helpful.  .

Freshmen Interest Groups (FIGs) - MOTION

§       A faculty member suggested that the Senate might like to familiarize itself with various aspects of the FIGs program, prior to the upcoming discussion in ACC.  After concurrence by Senators, John Purdy made a motion, seconded by Laura Laffrado, in which the Senate “directs the ACC to review and evaluate the Freshman Interest Groups known as the FIGs program.”  The motion passed.  Senators suggested consideration of the following questions:  When are hiring plans made for FIGs and how do they fit into departmental schedules?  What is the problem that FIGs is solving?  Are there other methods of solving the problem that have not been considered?  If FIGs is a pilot program, what is their future as a pilot program?  When does the “pilot” part end and when does it move on to something else?  Will the FIGs be required of every student prior to or as part of a first-year seminar?

Accommodation for Completing Student Evaluations

§       A Senator requested that sufficient accommodation be made for disabled students to complete student evaluations.  Senators thanked David Brunnemer, Office of Student Life for his help in this regard.

Reading of Standing Committee Minutes

The following Standing Committee minutes were accepted.

Academic Coordinating Commission, 11/18/03

Academic Technology Committee, 10/22/03

Senate Legislative Committee, 11/10/03

University Planning Council, 10/29/03 (See discussion below on R&R allocations).

ACTION ITEMS:

Appointments and Elections, Kristen Parris, Officer

Parris reminded Senators that elections to committees are intended to be competitive prior to conducting the following election: 

To the Academic Technology Committee:  Lea Ann Robinson, Woodring

Vacancies:  Ad Hoc Committee on Institutional Climate, one representative from each college and the library.

DISCUSSION ITEMS:

Report from Chair of Salary and Welfare Committee, Paul Storer (see UPC minutes above)

Members referred to a chart in the University Planning Council minutes of October 29, 2003.  The chart provided commentary and the result of a straw vote which took place in the University Planning Council when UPC consulted with the Salary and Welfare Committee on distribution of a small allotment of moneys slated by the legislature for university retention and recruitment of faculty.

Storer reported that Salary and Welfare had proposed spreading the funds as widely as possible, but realized that feedback from committees and members of committees differed widely.  However two priorities emerged:

Ø     The funds were to be used to attempt to recruit and retain top faculty

Ø     The distribution process must attempt to avoid having a negative impact on the morale of current faculty.

Storer reported that a request to the Deans to comment on the most divisive features in the previous distribution process did not reveal any definite trend.  Currently the committees are rethinking whether to recommend a competitive process, or whether to simply give the Provost discretionary authority over its distribution with the intent that it be used for preemptive salary adjustments to offset competitive offers.  Storer sought input from Senators, and discussion revealed a wide range of thinking (summarized below):

o      Open competition divides faculty; negative impact may exceed R&R benefits; there is definite value in a non-competitive procedure, with accountability in the process

o      One use might be to guarantee summer money for new hires, the virtue of which could be to take new faculty out of the quest for summer research grants;

Legislative Intent

o      Provost Bodman reported that “earmarked funds” are specifically identified in the legislative budget

o      The relatively small amount, which covers both faculty and exempt staff, is about $248,000 for this year, and $255,000 for the following year.  Raises would be permanent and would therefore carry forward to 2005/07.  If raises were restricted to a half-step, the amount available would cover about two-thirds of the faculty.

o      The budget administrator, Paula Rustan, who was not present, had suggested it was essential to keep consistent with the intent of the legislature: funds probably cannot be used to address creation of tenure track lines, compression issues, or across-the-board distribution to everyone.

o      Senators asked to what extent would we jeopardize money in the future by not going strictly according to legislature intent?  One Senator suggested that using funds for tenure track positions is a move that would shift restructuring costs into R&R.  Such costs should be borne in a different manner. 

o      Senators suggested using funds for cost-of-living increases as a message to the legislature.  Instead of being dictated to be the legislature, take a more pro active stance.   If the differences are college-based in large part, perhaps Salary and Welfare could allow each individual college some freedom in its distribution. 

o      At the Senate Executive Council members had asked President Morse if, given legislative intent, a different issue could be used as a “secondary lens” by which to distribute funds.  R&R would be the primary lens, but broadly interpreted it could also include those way down in compression.  Council members noted that President Morse did not seem to have a problem with this idea.  Further conclusions led to the idea of letting colleges have discretion on how they weight the distribution.

o      The issue goes beyond the legislature to the attitudes of voters in the State.  Voters do not sufficiently respect higher education in this state; perhaps we make some sort of preemptive move with this money to show generosity and commitment to higher education. 

Other Comments

o      There was agreement among the Deans that the way it was done last time was not the best way to do it.  Since the Deans in different colleges disagree on process, perhaps colleges could be given more discretion in the distribution process. 

o      If competition is for a mere half-step, this would be loose change for 75% of the faculty, and would be an extraordinarily subjective procedure that ccould create lots of bad feeling.  Some Senators thought distribution should be to all tenure stream faculty and should not be distributed by the Provost. Everybody should get the raise.  This small amount of money is symbolic and nobody is more extraordinary than anybody else, and everybody can be hired elsewhere. Some Senators were resistant to the idea of having to compete with others for such a small amount.  Other Senators thought that some are stronger contributors than others; boundaries and different gradations are a problem

o      Others favored distribution to a coterie of younger faculty in mid-career who are growing increasingly disillusioned with the cost of housing rising at 3 or 4 times the rate of salary increases.  To ignore R&R challenges is to bury our heads in the sand.  It is harder to retain somebody after they received an offer; better to identify those most at risk for leaving. Being frustrated that we never get raises should be kept intellectually separate from what we do with the money.

o      There was a suggestion that R&R funds be used to guarantee that every new hire gets a quarter or semester off within the first three years, to help with research, etc..

o      Apply the funds to our health care costs across the board. That is a retention item.

o      Create a lottery to deal with the problem of distributive justice, rather than a competition.

Provost Bodman reminded Senators that the legislature did not give money to anybody else in state government.  Viewing the legislative language he does not think he can give an across-the-board increase.  The original discussion in 98/99 was the notion of 10% increases for 10% of faculty.  That was the tenor of the legislative discussion back then, and that appears to be the direction the legislature is asking us to go in terms of allocation.

The Senate might wish to draft guidelines for the Provost to follow.  Bodman is asking for two things:  a process that meets legislative intent, and that would be simple and transparent in the way it is constructed.  Bodman will meet with Loucky and Storer to consider a distribution process.

Adjournment

§       Senators adjourned at 5:48 pm.

Written by Rose Marie Norton-Nader, Recorder, 11/24/03

                      _______________________________

                                                                                                                          Thomas Read, Secretary

Faculty Senate Roster 2002-2003

_______________________________

Article III.  Faculty Senate

The Faculty Senate is empowered to speak and act for the Faculty in University affairs with particular responsibility in the areas of curriculum, academic programs, Faculty salary, Faculty status, scholarly activities, and all matters relating to the welfare of Faculty, the education of students, and the academic mission of the University.

The Faculty Senate is limited to 30 voting members elected by the Faculty, and the President of the University, the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs of the University, and a college dean appointed by the Provost serving as Provost's Council representative as ex officio non-voting members.    (Faculty Handbook, page 55)