[Type text][Type text]Faculty Senate 2015-16

Minutes

Fort Lewis College Faculty Senate

20 April 2016, 2:30-3:30 pm, 130 Noble Hall

Senators present: David Blake, Nancy Cardona, Ginny Davis, Betty Dorr, Steve Fenster, Lee Frazer, Kris Greer, Andy Gulliford, Tony Holmquist, Bill Mangrum, Justin McBrayer, Billy Nollet, Astrid Oliver, Dugald Owen, Ellen Paul, Jen Rider, Ryan Smith, Kaori Takano, Lorraine Taylor

Senators absent:Erik Juergensmeyer (Sabbatical, Sp.’16), Chuck Riggs (Sabbatical, Sp’16), Laurie Williams

2016-17 Senators-Elect present: Brian Burke, Paul Clay, Michael Fry, Felicia Meyer, Katie Mouzakis, Les Summerville, Michael Valdez, Amy Wendland

Guests present: Jim Cross

Administrators present: Pete McCormick, Paul McGurr, Barbara Morris

President Dugald Owen called Senate to order at 2:30 pm.

  1. Announcements

Andy Gulliford, re: shared governance—the committee is working on this issue and that work will continue into next school year. They are trying to come up with wording for the College and Faculty Senate presidents to sign in the fall. They are also exploring cases of universities protecting faculty for criticism of the administration. Shared Governance in Times of Change was the book given the committee by Provost Morris.

Ryan Smith asked to put an extension resolution on the agenda for next week’s Faculty Senate Meeting.

II. Consent items

  1. Minutes for April 6, 2016. Approved by consent.
  2. Curricular approvals (here). Concerning mostly majors, minors, and options. Approved by consent.

III. Action items and reports

A. New senate SEC elections David Blake is conducting the secret ballot for SEC. The nominees were as follows:

Laurie Williams—VP

Astrid Oliver—Committees

Michael Fry—Corresponding Secretary

Paul Clay—Recording Secretary

B. Graduate & Post-bac Academic Standards (Grad & Post-bac Academic Standards Com).

Academic Standards. Andy moved to approve, Ginny Davis seconded. Discussion—GW grade = no credit but also no GPA hit (basically the catch-all designation for a student who withdraws). Ryan Haaland asked about “pace”—Provost Morris said it is a common financial aid term. Justin called the question; David seconded. Vote: approved.

Rigor Statements. Betty Dorr moved to approve; Ginny seconded. Approved.

C. New February election deadline for Faculty President and BOT representative (Handbook Com) Dugald says it makes more sense to wait until the spring term to elect a BOT rep in the spring term; instead of the fall term. Andy moved; Lee Frazer seconded. Discussion: David wonders if we can accept it without the actual wording in front of us. The only change is the date (in the Handbook wording). Approved.

D. College hour proposal (SEC)—Thursday’s College Hour: 1st and 3rd = reserved each month for faculty senate (or possibly a full-faculty meeting); 2nd = reserved for College and Faculty Committee meetings; 4th = for full campus-wide events for faculty and students. Betty moved to approve; Justin seconded. Provost Morris reminded us that this schedule (with Thursday college hour) was vetted in Spring 2015. She has two questions: 1. Have student groups had a chance to chime in with their ideas? 2. How will there be enforcement of the 4th Thursday and a campus-wide meeting? Dugald suggested that campus wide meetings will be/have been a rare occurrence. Kris Greer is concerned that the 2nd Thursday be clarified as “faculty initiated” meetings, to prevent the administration from also scheduling meetings. There is also the question of folks on multiple committees. Committees will have to coordinate, perhaps via Outlook calendar.

Key to this, Dugald says, is deciding when Senate will meet. Perhaps we recommend what happens with the other days, but the 1st and 3rd are for Senate. Provost Morris says Chairs meetings will remain on Tuesdays. Jim Cross likes the direction of what happens with the 2nd and 4th Thursday. David motioned to make a friendly amendment to change the wording to “recommend” that #2 and #3 be recommended. Approved.1 Abstention.

E. Proposal to terminate the current Assessment Committee reader selection process Betty moved to approve; Andy seconded. Provost Morris asked senators to table this until Heidi, the assessment chair, can be here. David Blake suggested any proposal about assessment be vetted through the Assessment Committee. Brian Burke says the intent to help the assessors do this better; not abandon assessment. This would be a more respectful way of recruitment. The HLC Report will not be in jeopardy. He would like senate to vote on it today.

David Blake summarized an email from Kim Hannula: FLC must provide an update in Spring 2017 to HLC; we must also show we are using the assessment to promote pedagogical change. The call for volunteers only got half as many assessment volunteers as needed. They are trying to improve. David says this vote is a vote for FLC; we SHOULD volunteer, if not enough volunteer, this jury selection process is our fallback. Provost Morris is concerned that this is coming to a vote. She thinks the past year’s jury-style assessment plan has been working. Lee discussed his participation as a scorer—that the instrument used for scoring was not valid because of different interpretations. He is concerned that the tool and findings are not useful. Provost Morris says they just hired a new senior analyst to look at this tool and offer suggestions for making it better.

Betty says her department, Psychology, is concerned about the timing and process of the selection of scorers. It did not feel as random as promised. Pete McCormick follows up Kim Hannula’s comments: he’s concerned that we need to file this report. He fears that disrupting this system now and reinventing the wheel will take away valuable time and hurt the report. Ryan Smith agrees that a tool must be in place for a period of time. He added that the jury selection process is only used when there are not enough volunteers; he suspects that several of Betty’s department members got called last time because there wasn’t enough representation from that department. Currently, there is a two-pronged approach: first ask for volunteers; then use the jury selection process to fill in the rest (of the 13-15 scorers needed). Brian says this will not affect next fall’s process. The intention of this proposal is to impact the next round of scoring, not the scoring being planned for next fall.

3 options: motion as is, table it, or amend it to allow the jury-style procedure into next fall.

Provost Morris reminded us that senate did vote on the jury-style selection process. The second report is due May 2017; and then a follow-up regular report in 2019.

David is concerned that how the way the proposal is written actually stops action instead of making it clear how things should proceed, i.e. having chairs help fill the spots. Lee is concerned with the drawbacks of having different scorers each year and sees value in having the same folks evaluating student work for a couple of years. Ryan Smith does not want to fully abandon the jury-style option in there somewhere. Provost Morris thinks we should wait until Heidi Steltzer, chair of the Assessment Committee, can be here. There is some dispute about whether Heidi believed there would be a vote.

Ginny moved to table, since we are out of time, David seconded. Discussion: should it be tabled until next week or until next fall? Brian feels duped on this issue and has done his best to follow procedures. Vote: 9 approve; 6 against; 1 abstention.

Adjourned at 3:35.

-elp