The February 1986 Monthly packet includes the February agenda and appendices and the Faculty Senate minutes and attachments from the meeting held January 1986

Portland State University Faculty Senate

PDXScholar (Portland State University)

Portland State UniversityPDXScholarFaculty Senate Monthly Packets University Archives: Faculty Senate2-3-1986Faculty Senate Monthly Packet February 1986Portland State University Faculty SenateLet us know how access to this document benefits you.Follow this and additional works at: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/senateminutesThis Minutes is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Senate Monthly Packets by an authorizedadministrator of PDXScholar. For more information, please contact pdxscholar@pdx.edu.Recommended CitationPortland State University Faculty Senate, "Faculty Senate Monthly Packet February 1986" (1986). Faculty Senate Monthly Packets.Paper 20.http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/senateminutes/20To:From:portland state universityThe Faculty Senate win hold its regular meeting on February 3, 1986, at :-1:00 p.m.in 150 Cramer Hall.AGENDAA. Roll*8. Approval of the Minutes of the January 13, 1986, MeetingC. Announcements and Communications from the FloorD. Question Period1.2.Questions for AdministratorsQuestion for Vice President Dobson, submitted by the Steering Committee:"\~hat kind of catalog time-l ine are ..../e facing regarding theimplimentation of the general distribution requirements and thepublication of the list of approved courses?"Questions from the Floor for the ChairE. Reports from the Officers of Administration and Committees1. ARC Progress Report regarding Lists of Approved General EducationDistribution Courses -- Dressler2. Winter Term Registration Report Up-date -- BlumelF. Unfinished Business -- NoneG. New Business -- NoneH. Adjournment*The following documents are included with this mailing:a. Minutes of the January 13, 1986, Meeting** Included for Senators and Ex-officio Members onlylv1inutes:Presiding Officer:Secretary:t~embers Present:PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITYFaculty Senate Meeting, January 13, 1986Robert JonesUlrich H. HardtBeeson, Bennett, Bentley, Bjork, Boyle, Brenner,Cdbel"ly, Carllpbell, Con::;tans, Dirnan, D:"2ss1c)~, Dunkeld,Erdman, Featheri ngi 1-1, Fi sher, Goekj i an, Gosl in,Grimes, Hakanson, R. Johnson, Jones, Kempner, Kim-brell, Kristof, Lutes, Mandaville, Maynard, Moor, Mor-ris, Neklason, Olson, Parshall, Peterson, Radich,Scheans, Scruggs, SmeHzer, Solie, Sommerfeldt, Soo--hoo, L. Steward, N. Stuart, Tayler, Westover, Wrench,vlyers.Alternates Present: Anderson for Cumpston, Chapman for Edner, Cox forEd\'Jards-All en, Ceas_2 for Locb'100d, Sugarman for Ste-ward (part of meet-ing), Visse for Tang, r~-idson for\~urm.APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES~­(Members Absent:Ex-officio MembersPresent:Badi Ii, Cogan, Hammond, Heneghen, A. Johnson, New-berry, Trace, Weikel, Marty.Bl Lime1, Bogue, Dobson, Erzuruml u, Forbes, Hardt, Ha r-ris, t/1iller, Paudler, Pfingsten, Reardon, Ross,Schendel, Toulan, Trudeau.The minutes of the December 9, 1985, meeting were approved as circulated.ANNOUNCEiv1ENTSJ. DAILY reviewed the history of the current round of collective bargainingwhich began a year ago. No money was a part of that negotiation until thelegislature had made budgetary decisions.. Follo'lling that, the Chancellorpresented a di stri but-j on formul a fot' the state, all o\"i ng PSU 2% 1ess thanUO and OSU, which prompted an unfair labor practice complaint to be filed.t~eanwhile, the petHion to decertify AAUP has been filed, and any furthernegotiations have been set aside until the results of the election (Febru-ary 7-25) are knovin. The election I,,-ill go ahead as scheduled unless athi rd party protests. ~lANDAVILLE wanted to know who such a thi rd partymight be. DAILY explained that it could be AAUP or another union, andCABELL Y added that an al ternate uni on had until February 29 to col-I ectsignatures; no other union will be automatically put on the ballot, unlessanother union objects and was put on the ballot. In the case of successfuldecertification \"ith no other union on the ballot, no union would be al·-lowed at PSU for at least one year. BLUMEL wanted to know if the griev-ances filed '~/ould go forward. DAILY said they would, since they \'Ieregrievances of individuals \'iho \'Jould press them even without the union.BRENNER asked what would happen to the contract if AAUP would be decerti-fied. DAILY replied that the administration could then do as it chose.(Page 10QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATORSVice President DOBSON responded to a series of questions regarding academicminors by pointing out that there were no OSSHE or PSU guidelines for thedevelopment of mi nors. It is understood general-Iy in academe and in theOSSHE that Illi nor lkogr'clllis are i dent; f-; ed concentrati on of ccurses \Vi thi i1 anexi sti ng authori zed undergr'aduate maj or, des i gned for non-maj or students.While majors allow for in-depth study of a subject, minors permit studentsto focus 1imited concentrated course \'!ork in f-ields of study outside their'major. Minor programs range from 24 to approximately 50 credit hours. Therole of mino'rs, said DOBSON, is no different at PSU than at any otherinstitution. Approval of minors may be gained through the internalcurricular channels and need not go to the Board of Higher Education, sincethey are areas of study wi thi n exi sti n~J authori zed undergraduate majorprograms.REPORTS FRmij THE OFFICERS OF THE AD~tINISTRATION AND COW~ITTEES1. President BLUMEL reported that winter term registration was up over ayear ago by the sam2 margin that fall term exceeded last year's, i.e.,headcount vias up 2.5% and student credi t hours up 4.5%. Fees pai dthrough January 10 was up by 4%.2. DRESSLER announced that the ARC had recei ved, from all departments,( 'I-ists proposing General Education Di stribution courses. She observedthat there appeared to be uneven interpretation of the ARC guidelines,and several i i sts have been returned to departments fm' rev; e\'/ andrevision. A certain ambiguity has been observed by the ARC.UNFINISHED BUSINESS~~ATSCHEK presented the EPC proposal for Wr-iting across the Curriculum andoffered to be available to anS\ller questionsQ HA~1~10ND inquired about therelationship of the proposal to the existing 'tJriting program, MlITSCHEKresponded that there would be no changes in the WR 121 and 323 requirement;the EPC recommendations are in addition to the Engli~h Department coursesnow offered. KIMBRELL thought that if these WATC proposals were in addi-tion to WR 121 and 323 the EPC had violated the original intention of theassignment given to the committee last year. JONES asked for clarifiea·-tion, and WYERS, last yearls EPC chair, explained that EPC WaS asked by theSenate to develop strategies for WATC. A sub-committee was formed to studythe problem and to develop recommendations.ItiYERS moved "that the Senate accl~pt the HATC recommendations presented bythe EPC." The moti on \'/as seconded.OLSON wa~ disappointed that the proposal did not give stronger backing tothose professors \\/ho demanded adequate student 'tlri ti ng in thei r c'l asses.JONES observed that professors have always had that perogative. KIMBRELL( pressed to knol'/ j'lhat 'lioul d happen if the fPC recommendat'j ons vlere ac-·cepted. To vlhorn are the 'instructions? ',iho "Iould staff the \>1ritingcenter? Do teachers who teach courses with a writing emphasis have to at-tend meetings or workshops? BJORK asked if each department had to provide;; .. 'Page 11.\courses ~v"ith a \'iriting emphasis; he noted that recommendations "a" to "d"each contained a II may II and wanted to know if departments \'/ere free not toestablish a "Iriting-emphasis course in their programs. ~'1.L\TSCHEK reploiedthao'.:: each department mllst provi de courses but that there \;fere maony di f-ferent \IJays of achieving the goal; different options, in fact, 'tJere preo-sented.BJORK then asked whether EPC has talked about using an exit exam. EPC haddiscussed the legal implications of such exams. He wanted to know if theWr"iting Department could supply people to assist other faculty °in theteaching of writing as some WATC programs in other universities do. TheEPC recommendat ions do not i ncl ude any reference to staffi ng or budgetarymatters. 1>'1ATSCHEK pO'jnted out that bUdgets \vere not \·tithin the realm ofresponsibility of the EPC. WESTBROOK, Director of Composition, added thatEPC wanted to propose a program which was not terribly expensive, thereforethe recommendation is made that departments transform some of their smallerupper division classes into writing-emphasis courses. GOEKJIAN wanted toknow if there would be any funds to expand the rudimentary writing centernow in existence; for clarification he pointed out that there was no Writ-ing Department at PSU. The answers to the problem would be very differentdepending on the budget available.PAUDLER argued that the EPC recommendations should be disseminated and dis-cussed in all departments acrosS the University. He suspected that many( departments already had in pOlace upper division courses with a wrHingI emphasis, but the total faculty shouold have a chance to doiscuss the I"/ATCproposal. He also reminded the Senate that the Math Department operated asuperb tutorial service and said the English Department could do the same.KRISTOF added that EOP has a successful remedial writing program, albeit asmall one.KIMBRELL offered the following substitute motion: 1'1 propose that the EPCbe requested to present tlli s proposal [YiATC] to the facul ty through depart-ments for reactions and return 'f/i th resul ts to the Senate at the Aproj 1,1986, meeto.ing. 1I The motion ','ias second~d and passed.MOOR wondered if OAA would be better equipped to survey the departments.DOBSON promised to make all necessary staff available to EPC for the task.RODICH predicted that departments might be puzzled by recommendations 5 and6 because of their budget implications. He asked \'Ihat I,I/ould happen ifdepartments actepted the first four recommendations but there was no moneyto operate the University--'tJide writing center' or to conduct faculty 'liork-shops. JONES suggested that EPC coul d amend oj ts propos a1. HAW'IOND thoughtit ,</ould be helpful to have budgetary implications doiscussed before depart-ments debate the recommendations, but SCHEANS argued the Senate dealt onlywith policy, not ",lith budgets. BEESON suggested the preparation of aquestionnaire to help facilitate Univetsity-',..lide discussion of the pro-posal.ADJOURNr'IENTThere being no new business to come before the Senate, the meeting was ad-journed at 16:00.

Faculty Senate Monthly Packet February 1986

http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=senateminutes

Faculty Senate Monthly Packet February 1986

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

PDXScholar (Portland State University)