Meeting Minutes: October 19, 2017

1 | P a g e
Faculty Senate Minutes
Regular Meeting
October 19, 2017

The Faculty Senate was called to order by J. McDonald, Chair on Thursday October 19, 2017, in FSHN T101 at 3:30 p.m. thirty-four (34) members were present with twenty-three (23) absent and eight (8) nonvoting members present.

Minutes of October 5, 2017 meeting were approved as circulated.

1. Announcements (Information items).
   1. Information Items.
      1. Executive Officers met with the president and provost on October 10, 2016.
      2. Minor Change Bulletin #3 (Exhibit B)
      3. The Research & Arts Committee has reviewed and approved the 5-year self-study review on the Energy Systems Innovation
2. Announcements (Reports)
3. Remarks by J. McDonald
   1. Senate Executives met with the president and provost, with an overview:
      1. There is no hiring freeze in place, although administration advised deans have the latitude to hire or not hire in their colleges, as they deem appropriate.
      2. Concern was relayed to administration regarding the stipend for some graduate students in Engineering being reduce by 30% and that this could impact WSU’s ability to recruit graduate students in the future.
      3. AVP positions – the request for more transparency when positions of this nature are created was requested.
      4. Demographic data on FTE and salaries was requested regarding the composition of employees at WSU including administrators, tenure track faculty, non-tenure track faculty, AP, coaches, and other types of employees over the last 20 years, along with student enrollment figures for the same time period
      5. Prior constituents concerns are still being followed up on and when we receive answers, we will report the findings.
   2. Remarks by Nancy Swanger, Athletic Representative
4. Additions or Changes to the Agenda. None.
5. Agenda Items (Action Items)
   1. Recommendation from the Academic Affairs Committee to approve the Undergraduate Major Change Bulletin #3 (Exhibits L L1 )– G. Crouch
      1. Motion Carried
   2. Recommendation from the Academic Affairs Committee to approve the Rule 6(i), Transfer Credit (Exhibits M M1 )– G. Crouch
      1. Motion Carried
   3. Recommendation from the Graduate Studies Committee to approve Graduate Major Change Bulletin #2 (Exhibit N ) –T. Salsbury/D.Potts
      1. Motion Carried
6. Agenda Items (Discussion Items).
   1. Recommendation from the Academic Affairs Committee to approve the Undergraduate Major Change Bulletin #4 (Exhibits O O1 )– G. Crouch
      1. No Discussion
   2. Recommendation from the Graduate Studies Committee to approve Graduate Major Change Bulletin #3 (Exhibit P ) –T. Salsbury/D.Potts
      1. No Discussion
   3. Recommendation from the Steering Committee to amend the Bylaws and Constitution on Guidelines for Senate Committees when conducting business over email (Exhibit Q)
      1. Discussion: A question arose if this change addressed all other technology for meetings such as Skype? It was reported that some senate committees have historically conducted their meetings
         through email. And this recommendation to amend the constitution would address compliance pursuant to Robert’s Rules of Order. Also noted email records are subject to a records request, that senate meetings are recorded but that committee meetings are not.
7. Constituents’ Concerns.
   1. A concern was raised regarding the need for an independent committee to hear cases from faculty that do not qualify under the criteria of FSC or a visit to the Ombudsman. The Executive Officers are looking at other models on neutral committees to address this issue and will report their findings back to administration.
   2. The provost’s office is looking at software to address the faculty questionnaire that is filled out by students. More information will be coming.
   3. Senator Brendan Walker volunteered to lead the Research Committee Task Force to address concerns that administrative hurdles are an impediment to advancing research at WSU. Once a proposal has been put together, they be granted a 1 hour meeting with the president. Other people may be invited to attend as the task force desires.
   4. Additional questions on INTO Program and Individual Academic Unit’s Graduate Program:
      1. How is an Academic Unit’s Graduate Program to interface with the pool of INTO students?
      2. Is the INTO pool of students treated separately from the pool of regular applicants?
      3. What are the graduate level admission criteria for INTO students?
   5. A concern was raised that a number of constituents are concerned that the CAS Dean’s Office has asked chairs/directors to evaluate all of their faculty individually on 5-year retrospective data to determine if their teaching load should be adjusted due to perceived underperformance based on teaching (specifically number of student credit hours; SCHs) or research productivity. That is, there is a concern that an initiative may be underway in which a CAS faculty member deemed to be teaching too few SCHs or not producing enough in terms of research (i.e., publications or grants) could be given additional teaching
      assignments. One specific constituent added the concern that such a process could over-identify women and/or minorities (i.e., for additional teaching responsibilities), because certain barriers/pressures/demands that women and minorities may face relative to white, male faculty could hinder their research productivity.
   6. A question arose regarding should the faculty senate become unionized. It was later noted that faculty senate does not address any topics regarding unionization as that is outside the scope of the faculty senate’s purview.
   7. A question was posed regarding the graduate school having representation. It was noted the meetings are open to the public, but non-senators do not have voting rights and the senate chair retains the right to admit their questions.
   8. A request was brought forth to inquire if an analysis was available to see if there is a statistically relevant pattern of gender or non-US born bias with regard to separation, termination or forced resignation in CAHNRS whether or not Commodity Commission pressure was involved.
   9. A concern was brought up that the business center model in CAHRNS going to become implemented university wide. If so, it would be beneficial to have an external audit to assess if this is a workable and efficient /cost effective model.
   10. The faculty appointment letters vary from unit to unit and it was questioned if there is a way to have information provided on where revenue is spent.
   11. The minor change bulletins appear to have many Women’s Studies Courses on them and should these changes be a major change bulletin? It was noted that Women’s Studies are undergoing a realignment process and are minor adjustments. The Registrar’s Office reviews all incoming changes to asses if items
       qualify for a minor or major change bulletin.
   12. A concern was expressed that there is no access to Scopus or Web of Science, and that this lack of access is an impediment to research.
   13. It was noted the Executive Officers would follow up on these concerns.
8. Adjournment.
   1. The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
      1. Amy Nielsen, Executive Secretary