Present: Mark Siders (Bus.), Diana Maltz (English; Senate Secretary), George Converse (Comp. Sci.), John Sollinger (Bio.), Barbara Scott (ECP; At-Large), Linda Wilcox Young (Econ.), Marc Levy (Psych.), Garth Pittman (Comm.; Senate Chair), Michael Naumes (Psychology), Jon Harbaugh (Bus.), Gudrun Gill (Foreign Lang.), Jonathan Bilden (Student Sen. Pro-Tem), Dale Vidmar (Library), John Fitton (Success at Southern), Connie Anderson (Library), Bill Danley (Special Ed.), Etsuko Fujimoto (Comm.), Kevin Talbert (Info. Tech. Svcs.), Lee Ayers (Criminology; Senate Vice Chair), John Whitesitt (Math.), Katy Bazylewicz (Mktg./Pub. Rel.), Charles Lane (Geol.; Interim Provost; Senate Ad Hoc), Terry Longshore (Music), Wayne Schumacher (Housing), Sib Farrell (Access Center/Career Svcs.), Laura O'Bryon (Associate Director, Medford Campus).  

Garth Pittman: We will have an Executive session in 2nd half of the meeting with just Faculty Senate, Provost and President.   

Announcements:  
 

There is a student percussion recital at Music Recital Hall Monday at 8.   

Students have asked that we remain positive about the university's future.   

Marc Levy and Bill Danley are going to Monmouth for the Inter-Institutional Faculty Senate (IFS) meeting: this coming Fri-Sat, February 7-8: contact them if you have issues or concerns upstate.   

Criminology Club: 2nd lock in is Feb 22, 5 PM -6 in morning.   

Student President Jonathan Bilden:  Students are concerned with student fee process, and will lobby to keep these raises to a minimum.  Have been meeting with governmental affairs people, will have more questions for FS next meeting.  We aim to reprivatize higher ed and K-12 since Measure 28 did not pass.  

Discussion / Action Items

UPC Committee Nominations: Charles Jaeger has been replaced with Andy Dungan for Business.   George Converse made motion, John Whitesitt seconded.  Kevin Talbert is the FS rep on the UPC. Connie Anderson is the alternate.  All in favor except 3 abstaining.   

Academic Standards Proposal: Curtis Feist is here to answer any questions.  Marc Levy made motion to approve.  Bill Danley seconded.  Today it is a discussion item.  We will delay voting til Feb 17th.     

Question: What it is the impact of this change?  

Answer: More people will go on probation.     

Linda Wilcox-Young:  What was the consensus, and was it controversial?   

Answer: Academic Standards Committee conferred with registrars at other universities.   

Wayne Schumacher:  Do other regional schools go by the proposed method?  

Answer:  All the larger schools using it.  Mike is out of town, so Curtis can't answer that.     

Linda Wilcox-Young: Did this proposal go out to just senate or all campus, all faculty?  Let's wait until everyone has a chance to see it.  We will put it in the minutes.     

John Harbaugh: I would like to see some numbers.    

Answer: We can get them to you.  Of the 46 who were suspended last year, only 23 would have been suspended with this method.    

DISCUSSION ON CREAC:  
 

CREAC representative Todd Carney on history of CREAC  

CREAC was formed on Jan 9 at a joint meeting of curriculum committee and core curriculum committee. Charles Lane and Judith Ginsberg attended.  Impulse behind its formation came from the Senate Advisory Committee and the Provost.  Curriculum realignment emerged as synthesis classes were limited and outside reviewers had commented on problems of the curriculum.  Curriculum Real Action Committee.  Original members were volunteers from Curriculum, and Core Curriculum committees and then Susan Walsh and Bill Gholson joined.  Both had specific Gen Ed experience. [Original members (Todd Carney, Steve Jessup, Steven Petrovic, Emily Miller-Francisco) were volunteers from Curriculum and Core Curriculum committees along with Judith Ginsburg (ex officio).  They were then joined by Mattie Courtright (ASSOU), John Sollinger, Susan Walsh and Bill Gholson.] We have had 3 meetings so far (posted on web site).  We are trying to make this process as open and transparent as possible.  We are involving the ASSOU in this, with an ASSOU member on the committee.  Forum is just getting underway and anyone can log on and engage in dialogue.  

CREAC website has minutes and all email traffic, and all docs and data we have been accumulating to this point.     

Phases  

1 Clarification  
 

2. Input  

3. Reconstruction  
 

4. Ratification  

By the end of winter term, we should have something of value, we hope.  There have been some concerns from students and depts. over timing.   

So far we are still in the clarification phase.  Attitude is "all things are on the table": no sacred cows, but also no decisions made.  In response to rumors, we have tried to put rumors to rest.  Nothing has happened yet.    
 

John Sollinger, Steve Petrovic and Susan Walsh are putting together a faculty survey for a listening project, and perhaps follow-up surveys will follow this one.  ASSOU has initiated a colloquium working group: Dr. Diane Brimmer is participating in this.  
 

Question and Answer period re: CREAC  

Linda Wilcox-Young: It seems that there was an unclear formation of the CREAC committee.  It didn't go through senate approval like other committees.  It was initially unbalanced, better now.  But it is short still on Social Science, Education and HPE.  I advocate for one or 2 more from that school.  

Todd Carney: We should consider that and give it some thought.   

Dale Vidmar: What about the education department: it has curriculum experts.  It seems like we have experts on campus, they should be on there.   

Todd Carney: It follows that we need these experts as regular constituted members on curriculum committee.  

Dale Vidmar: I appreciate the openness of how you are running this, with the minutes and listerv. 

Connie Anderson:  In terms of changes that might come along to colloquium, I heard that we would be looking at implementing things by fall term.   

Todd: Not rumor, but not fact either.  Once we recommended it to senate, it would be fact: it is an option.  Everything is still on the table.  We might suggest some things for the short run, then implement some things later on.  Nothing is moving in any particular direction.  Except forward!   

Michael Naumes: We would like something that does have faculty support.  Can we do two things with one move. This saves money and is more efficient.  The current Core seems to do minus one thing with one move since we hire adjuncts to teach much of the colloquium.  Whatever we do we need to get faculty support.  I'd have liked to attend the meetings but for scheduling conflicts.  
 

Todd Carney: There's been a difficulty of coordinating everyone's schedules.  We've been floating from ad hoc time to ad hoc time.  Faculty support is important: listening surveys will help. Priorities: budget is not a priority first.  
 

John Whitesitt: We are complaining about a curriculum that was developed over a number of years with regular reports back to Faculty Senate.  Can we redesign a curriculum in one term and come up with something better?  It seems impossible.   
 

Todd Carney: We are still in the clarification phase, and we can't propose major changes.  Don't want to throw baby out.  I hadn't thought something better, just as good, but affordable.  The opportunity exists to make it better, maybe resources will have some impact on making it better.  As far as planning, if we take too long a time in the planning, people lose track of what is going on, the people on committees shift.  Not a good institutional memory.    
 

Linda Wilcox-Young: I am wondering about that line: 'As good but affordable.'  Weren't there criticisms unrelated to budget.  2 goals: financial and pedagogical, critical ones.  We need to separate ideas and identify what is financially necessarily and pedagogically better.  Need to move quickly on budgetary issues, but pedagogy and curriculum needs more extended discussion.   
 

Todd Carney: I am not referring to flaws in program as it exists now -- we want to address same more in a line with our resources.  And then addressing more might be possible.   
 

Sib Farrell:  I am confused about the timeline of the committee.  Will it continue?  When you finish the study, will it be the end of the committee?   

Todd Carney: That wasn't addressed by the joint committees on the 9th.  I don't know.  We may be told we are no longer needed.  I presume at some point the work will be finished.   
 

Sib Farrell: I have a concern attending the meetings that everyone is jumping in trying to fix things.     
 

Todd Carney: Not a bad thing unless everyone has sharp tools.   

Sib Farrell: It wasn't a question, just a comment.   

Garth Pittman: Before we break for the executive session, I want to acknowledge folks (visitors): do you have comments?   

Mada Morgan: Will we be invited at times to give information to CREAC?   

Todd Carney: No reason to have special event.  Forum is ongoing.   

Tonette Long: Meetings are at different places on campus - are visitors permitted in?    

Todd Carney: Yes, their input has been useful.    

Cecilia Zapata: Who will be responsible for the alignment?   

Todd Carney: We will submit recommendations as we make them to our committees and send them on to the Faculty Senate.  If it involves changing the catalog, then we will go through those [proper] channels.   

FACULTY SENATE CONCLUDED THIS HALF OF THE MEETING, AND WENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.