Document Sample
EC-Minutes---May-29_-2012final Powered By Docstoc
					Executive Council Meeting
May 29, 2012, 8:45 am., UW2 327

Present: Pamela Joseph, EC Chair, Mary Abrums, JoLynn Edwards, Steve Holland, Bruce Kochis,
Kevin Laverty, Clark Olson, Marc Servetnick and Tony Smith

Guests: Charles Jackels, Carol Leppa and Mike Stiber

Adoption of Agenda
       The agenda was adopted.

Review of EC Minutes of May 15, 2012
       The EC minutes of May 15, 2012 were approved as amended.

Report of GFO Officers
             GFO Chair – Steve Holland
             Faculty Senate
             Holland reported that the Faculty Senate meeting was a summary of legislation that had
             been finalized over the last few months. Changes to the Faculty Code included “without
             tenure” faculty appointments the possibility of renewal for an additional three years and
             multi-year contracts for part-time lecturers, previously only one year contracts were offered.

               GFO Vice Chair – Pamela Joseph
               Faculty Council on Tri-campus Policy (FCTCP)
               Joseph reported on a discussion held on proposed revisions to the Student Conduct Code.
               Julie Draper from Student Services at UWT spoke to the FCTCP on the process now
               underway of updating the UW Student Conduct Code. It has been 20 years since the Code
               has been revised and the language of the Code needs to be revisited. There have been
               issues on equity discussed and the need to update process and procedure on current uses
               of technology, among other items under discussion.

               Virjean Edwards, UW Registrar spoke to the Council on the cross-campus curriculum
               approval process. Some proposals have had language changed inappropriately. Edwards
               assured the Council that the UW Curriculum Committee would function in an administrative
               capacity and not make substantive changes in syllabi or course content.

EC discussion points
    UWB has discussed the need for gaining authority over their curriculum; this may be the opportune
       time to move forward on this matter.
    One of the FCTCP members brought up the issue of grants and stated that they could lose grant
       support if the campuses become too autonomous, that the UW “brand” could be compromised.

               Academic Council
               Gray Kochhar-Lindgren, Associate Vice Chancellor for Undergraduate Education opened
               the meeting with a discussion on course prefixes. Not all UWB programs/schools use the
               “B” in course prefixes. Further discussion on this matter will be held at a later date.
               The UWB Learning Goals were accepted as amended with AC input incorporated, the
               Learning Goals will now go to the Chancellor for review. The Learning Goals will be
               finalized by the EC for dissemination.

               The Faculty Fellows Program at UWB is undergoing some changes. The salary offered
               faculty serving as mentors will no longer be offered after this year. Although new faculty
               attend the Faculty Fellows Program on September 1, their health insurance coverage does
               not begin until October 1 and contracts begin on September 15, this could create a conflict
               for faculty attending early activities. There was discussion on how new faculty might be
               able to get medical coverage on September 1.

               The UWB Budget discussion clarified information on the allocation of Designated Operating
               Funds (DOF) and the General Operating Funds (GOF). Recognition of increased growth at
               UWB has changed the way funding is allocated, rather than holding back DOF funds until
               enrollment supports the release of these funds, GOF will be released at the beginning of the
               year but could be called back if enrollment targets are not reached. A cost of $1 million will
               be needed to refurbish the Annex for office space. The EC briefly discussed student
               retention efforts at UWB in regards to achieving FTE count. The faculty should not have
               pressure placed on them in relation to grading to achieve high rates of student retention.

               Information Technologies presented a Horizon Report to the AC which tracks technology
               use among the faculty at UWB. Blackboard, Catalyst and Tegrity were assessed. The
               report indicated that the majority of faculty use Blackboard or other on-line learning systems
               however there was low usage for Tegrity, a lecture-capture system

Old Business
          A. Academic Misconduct Hearing Process
             Holland opened discussion on the Academic Misconduct Hearing Process. Holland
             reviewed the response from Aileen Huang, Assistant Attorney General, UW with the EC on
             two areas of concern. Questions forwarded to the AAG on academic misconduct:
                 1. Would it be possible to specify that every case of academic misconduct go to the
                     UDC or is the option of an informal hearing mandatory?
                             The choice of hearing type belongs to the charged student.

                    2. Could we get a ruling from the AG's office on our current policy of having informal
                       hearings for academic misconduct cases that do not involve faculty members?
                               The Code does not require that faculty members be involved in Informal
                               Hearings for academic or behavioral misconduct. It does require faculty
                               involvement on the University Disciplinary Committee and the Faculty
                               Appeal Board.

EC discussion points
    The EC could recommend that the hearing officer be a faculty member.
    Cases where there is a dispute of facts should be referred to the University Disciplinary Committee
      The initiating officer can act to exonerate the charged student, recommend disciplinary action, refer
       to the UDC or refer to the Faculty Appeals Board.
      Any UWB school/program can handle its academic misconduct cases independently.
      Faculty should make the decision on exoneration of the charged student; this decision has been
       problematic with faculty on some occasions.
      The current hearing officer, Lynda West consults with faculty on cases.
      The EC could recommend consultation with faculty on all cases.
      We can add language to the Faculty Code to implement a policy for consultation with faculty on
       disputed cases.
      When there is academic judgment involved, the appropriate response is to consult with faculty.
      Currently, if the hearing officer decides that no plagiarism occurred when the faculty member
       charged the student with plagiarism, the faculty member has no recourse in the case.
      Faculty need to have an appeal board for academic misconduct cases.

               The EC will continue the discussion on the Academic Misconduct Hearing Process at the
               next EC meeting.

          B.   Tri Campus Review: Name change for B.S. in Computer Science and
               Software Engineering
               Professor Stiber presented the CSS program’s responses to the tri-campus review
               comments on the proposal to change the name of the CSS Program’s BS degree to
               Bachelor of Science in Computer Science and Software Engineering.

EC motion
        Holland moved to pass the motion:
“The EC has determined that the proposing faculty have duly considered and responded to the comments
 posted by faculty from across the three campuses during the tri-campus review period.”

The motion was seconded, discussion followed.

EC discussion points
    The CSS program will proceed with ABET accreditation for this degree; software engineering is an
       ABET-accredited program name.

      No further discussion followed, hearing no objections, Joseph called for a vote, the motion carried

New Business
         A. School of STEM
             Professor Charles Jackels, Director of the S&T program opened discussion on the proposal
             for a School of STEM at UWB. Both the CSS and S&T programs have approved the
             merger of the two programs into a School of STEM; the proposal was sent forward to the
             Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs and is undergoing the mandatory 30-day campus
EC discussion points
    A more detailed staffing plan for this proposal is recommended.
    Staffing at the division-level will require resources that are not adequately addressed in the
    Staffing resources for four divisional chairs and future growth of the school are not sufficiently
    S&T currently functions in a division structure with faculty leading curricular development.
    Course release may not be adequate for division chairs, salary increases may be required.
    New models are being developed with directors/deans, we must be cautious not to create too
       many administrative positions.
    Chairs will be administrators at the divisional level; the new Dean will be involved in fundraising for
       the school.

EC motion
       Laverty moved to pass the motion:
“The EC approves moving the proposal for a School of STEM to a second reading”.

    The motion was seconded and no discussion followed.

       Joseph called the question on the original motion. Hearing no objection, she called for a vote on it.
By show of hands, the motion carried unanimously.

           B. Nursing Program Name Change
              Professor Carol Leppa, Director of the UWB Nursing Program introduced a proposal to the
              EC to change the name of the Nursing Program to Nursing and Health Studies Program,
              effective Autumn 2012. The Nursing Program has added a Health Studies degree to the
              program; the change in the program’s name will adequately reflect the breadth of the new
              program configuration. The Health Studies degree will enroll undergraduate transfer
              students and students from CUSP, the new program name will include the new degree and
              these students.

EC motion
        Holland moved to pass the motion:
“The EC approves the proposal for a name change to the UWB Nursing Program to the Nursing and Health
Studies Program.

         The motion was seconded no further discussion followed. Joseph called the question on the
original motion. Hearing no objection, she called for a vote on it. By show of hands, the motion carried

           C. Deans of Schools
              Holland proposed that the EC draft a recommendation on UWB schools being headed by
              Deans rather than Directors. Faculty input on this matter has been gathered from across
              the campus, through GFO meetings and EC representatives.
EC discussion points
    Will the change in title entail a search for a dean of the schools?
    What does the new title of dean mean in terms of faculty governance?
    Are there increased administrative roles or salaries for deans? The budget allocation for schools
       may need to be increased.
    Should the EC recommendation give a rationale for the change to deans?

                Holland will draft a statement on this matter and send it to the EC for comment/feedback.

           D.   Clustering of Faculty Offices
                Holland spoke to the EC about faculty support for clustering of offices by interest groups.
                Some faculty support for clustering was expressed at the GFO meeting and conveyed to
                EC representatives in some programs, other faculty like the interdisciplinary culture
                fostered at UWB. Clustering could be initiated in new office spaces opening up for faculty
                that would like to have that opportunity. Clustering would be implemented on an optional
                basis, voluntarily. Many faculty have expressed the desire to see more meeting and
                collaborative spaces for faculty on campus. At this time the EC will not draft a
                recommendation for clustering of faculty offices. Holland will send a message to faculty
                about the availability of new office spaces over Summer Quarter.

                Academic Misconduct Hearing Process
                The EC returned to the discussion of the Academic Misconduct Hearing process.

EC discussion points
    There should always be faculty input in academic misconduct. The question is – should the
       hearing officer be a faculty member?
    It would be too onerous for a faculty member to serve as a hearing officer.
    If facts are in dispute on a case, a faculty should be brought in to hear the case.
    In questions relating to professional ethics, faculty should be consulted on the case.
    Schools/programs should have a uniform policy concerning course grading when academic
       misconduct is suspected.
    Implementation of the Academic Misconduct Hearing process can mandate faculty input without
       changing the policy.
    Faculty serve on the University Disciplinary Committee.

                Holland will draft a statement on the Academic Misconduct Hearing process and send to
                the EC for input/feedback.

Reports from Program Representatives
          A. Business – no report
          B. Computing and Software Systems – no
          C. Education – no report
          D. Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences
              Edwards reported that IAS will vote on the third opportunity hire today.
          E. Nursing – no report
          F. Science & Technology
              Servetnick reported that Director/Dean search is proceeding.

Good of the Order

Meeting adjourned at 10:45 am
Minutes submitted by Barbara Van Sant
The next meeting will be June 8, 2012.

Shared By:
yaofenji yaofenji