Meeting Minutes: February 8, 2018

Faculty Senate Minutes

Regular Meeting

February 8, 2018

The Faculty Senate was called to order by J. McDonald, Chair on Thursday February 8, 2018, in FSHN T101 at 3:30 p.m. Forty-four (44) members were present with thirteen (13) absent and eight  (8)  nonvoting members present.

Minutes of  January 25, 2018 meeting were approved as circulated.

1. Announcements (Information items).
   1. Information Items.
      1. The Executive Officers met with the President on January 30, 2018
      2. The Executive Officers met with the Provost on February 8, 2018
      3. The Graduate Studies Committee has approved updated Bylaws on Nutrition and Exercise Physiology (NEP) which are available on the department’s website
      4. Nominations will be taken until February 20, 2018 for the position for the WSU Legislative Representative
      5. Name change from Council of Faculty Representatives to Council of Faculty (COF)
      6. Chair Elect Process
      7. Minor Change Bulletin (Exhibit B)
      8. The Research & Arts Committee has reviewed and approved the 5-year self-study review on the Center for Reproductive Biology
      9. Steering Committee and Faculty Affairs Committee have approved the Notice of Intent (NOI) in accordance with the MOU guidelines to approve the Proposed Format of a New School focused on Languages, Cultures, and Race 
      10. Steering Committee and Faculty Affairs Committee have approved the Notice of Intent (NOI) in accordance with the MOU guidelines to approve the Move the Program in Women’s Studies to Department of English, CAS
2. Announcements (Reports)
   1. Remarks by J. McDonald
      1. The Provost has provided the data on titles (???) and that information will be posted on the Senate website.  Provost Bernardo has requested to come to the Senate to provide updates.                   
      2. To follow up on a  Constituent Concerns regarding Capital Funding for buildings: An update from VP Stacy Pearson reported that only state funds will go into the buildings recently approved by the legislature. In addition, when the legislature approves capital funding, they also provide some maintenance and operating money for the facilities that they fund.
      3. This is different than what happened when past University leadership made a decision to bond for multiple new buildings without having new funds as a repayment source for bonds. In addition, they did not identify ongoing funding for programming, maintenance or operations. This is highly unadvisable and current leadership would not support such a situation going forward. The true impact of those past decisions was that those buildings came online and the costs cannot be avoided. However, both the bond repayment and M and O has to come out of reserves and current operating budget. Those past decisions contributed to the depletion of reserves and the need to cut spending in other areas. We have to now adjust our spending and budgets to get these buildings funded and more important, avoid any new building projects unless they are fully funded, including ongoing maintenance costs.
      4. An update regarding concerns brought forward from CAHRNS, it was reported that the this will be taken under consideration when the new Dean comes on board.  
      5. Nominations are being taken until February 20 for Chair-elect and the Legislative Representative. Remit your information to the Senate office.
   2. Remarks by VP Keane, Grand Changes, F&A Costs and Industrial Engagement (note this was in response to multiple constituent concerns questions on finances)
3. Additions or Changes to the Agenda.  None
4. Agenda Items (Action Items)
   1. Recommendation from Recommendation from the Academic Affairs Committee to approve the Undergraduate Major Change Bulletin #8 (Exhibits  R   R1 )– G. Crouch
      1. Motion Carried
   2. Recommendation from the Academic Affairs Committee to approve the UCORE Bulletin #3 (Exhibit S  ) – G. Crouch
      1. Motion Carried
   3. Recommendation from the Academic Affairs Committee to approve Rule 90, Student Withdrawal From a Course in accordance with Rules 68 & 70
      (Exhibit T ) – G. Crouch
      1. Motion Carried
   4. Recommendation from the Graduate Studies Committee to approve Graduate Major Change Bulletin #7 (Exhibit  U ) –T. Salsbury/D.Potts
      1. Motion Carried
5. Agenda Items (Discussion Items).
   1. Recommendation from the Academic Affairs Committee to approve the Undergraduate Major Change Bulletin #9 (Exhibits  V  V1 )– G. Crouch
      1. No Discussion
   2. Recommendation from the Graduate Studies Committee to approve Graduate Major Change Bulletin #8 (Exhibit W  ) –T. Salsbury/D.Potts
      1. No Discussion
   3. Recommendation from the Graduate Studies Committee to approve the  Revised Graduate Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL) Certificate (Exhibits X   X1  ) –T. Salsbury/D.Potts
      1. No Discussion
   4. Recommendation from the Graduate Studies Committee to approve the  updated Graduate Certificate in Professional Molecular Sciences (Exhibits  Y  Y1  ) –T. Salsbury/D.Potts
      1. No Discussion
6. Constituents’ Concerns.
   1. Constituent Concern on Equitable Advising Initiative Summary
      1. The Provost wants Pullman to adopt an “Equitable Advising Initiative” that, in essence, removes the advisor from meeting with his or her student for a portion of their time as an undergraduate. Under this system, sophomore and junior students would not have an advising hold. CAS advisors have the following concerns:
      2. Pilot implementation and student tracking is manually done and very time-consuming.
      3. ASWSU video training project for students has been delayed to summer 2018 due to MyWSU Fluid interface. The committee hopes to set up a “milestone” for all incoming students as a future criteria for Equitable Advising to ensure that students are prepared/trained IF they choose not to come in to see their advisors.
      4. Specific concerns from departments/colleges:
         1. How to communicate significant curricular changes or engage them with departmental student-success oriented opportunities, given that undergraduate students do not tend to read emails
         2. How to facilitate mandatory faculty mentoring meetings
         3. Gathering of program assessment data, CAS Student Satisfaction Surveys, etc.
         4. The Equitable Advising Pilot has not been communicated to chairs/directors and is not well-known outside of the advising community
         5. Validity of data on the success of the pilot
      5. Perception of the Pilot among Advisors:
         1. Some advisors are concerned because they see this advising model as “telling the students they don’t want to see them” or “they have too many students to advise.”
         2. There seems to be an expectation that advisors are responsible to train all students in the first year, but that is not feasible given their current workloads.
         3. Currently, the workflow would have students watch a “milestone” video then take an online quiz. If they score well on the quiz, the advising hold is released. However, there is no milestone video in place yet. There is a strong need to have the video milestone in place as a potential solution before the initiative is launched campus-wide.
      6. It should be pointed out that a review of research or data that show success of such advising models from other universities has not been conducted (particularly at universities using the decentralized advising model that we have at WSU). However, an article advocating for mandatory advising. (link: http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Academic-Advising-Today/View-Articles/Mandatory-Advising-Yes-or-No.aspx) was recently published at the Advisors’ national association publication.
      7. A University advising committee (I am not clear on the specifics of this committee) is currently drafting a memo to the Provost to suggest that the campus-wide implementation of the Equitable Advising Model be postponed until Fall 2019.
      8. As I understand it, the Provost wants a Fall 2018 implementation. The potential negative impact this system could have on a student’s time to degree is staggering. A major concern of the advisors is that some students will “fall through the cracks,” particularly those students who are not certified into their programs until later in their undergraduate career. Given these concerns, there is hope for further attention and consideration before implementation.  It was noted by Chair J.McDonald this concern would be brought to the attention of the provost.
      9. A concern was raised on it being difficult to track concerns raised at Senate and the follow up.
7. Adjournment.                                                     

                      The meeting adjourned at 4:53 p.m.

                                              Amy Nielsen, Executive Secretary