7. Residential Director (Administrative addition)

8. Admission Standards (Administrative addition)

9. Testing New Generator (Administrative addition)

Faculty Senate approved 3 course proposals for the USP, one of them with unusual elements.

Biology 104-Conservation had earlier been OK'd for Arts/Science Core-Natural Science. However, the department and A2C2 agreed that it fit better in another category. Therefore, the recommendation is: (a) withdraw it from Natural Science; (b) approve it for Unity/Diversity-Science and Social Policy, effective Summer 2002; (c) allow students who took it Fall 01-02 or are taking it Spring 01-02 to decide which of the two categories they wish to count it in.

(However, students repeating the course after spring 2002 may count it only in the newly approved category.)

The administration received the Senate recommendations.

2. Alumni House: policies and uses

The administration was asked questions about the future status of the Alumni House--in particular, will there be a substantive change in operations (e.g., availability to departments at no charge) when Housing takes it over?

Administration Response:

The only practical change is the restriction of alcohol usage in the Alumni House (once Housing takes over); otherwise normal usage for WSU community.

Some Senate comments spoke specifically to sections of the draft:

(a) The adequacy of 'support' has been a problem in the past and will be even more of a problem in the future unless additional resources are designated to deal with it (that is, 'more of the same' or 'support at the current level' may well be increasingly inadequate as the number of student laptops increases);

(b) In order to answer the question regarding specific applications to have pre-installed, the Senate believes we first need to see a list of what's available (what software is on the piles of CDs in the IT area? What site licenses does WSU have? Etc.)

(c) On the same issue, is it wise to equip all laptops identically? Alternatively, is there a plan/procedure to efficiently make specific applications available for specific courses/programs that need them?

Administration Responses:

1. Trying to stay ahead, but have some trouble with limited IT staff.

2. Language describing part-time students could be confusing. Students who are part-time students have not been required to participate in the laptop program in the past, but the new policy in the fall will require them to either take a full-leased laptop or a pro-rated one. Students can no longer bring their own laptops starting next year.

3. Charge per use is not practical.

4. Complaints of lack of laptop usage in classrooms have been diminishing over time.

5. Reasonable to have just one set of laptop image. Could be difficult to do multiple images!

6. IT will look into issue of multiple images.

7. FACTech should provide input to IT.

Other Senate comments and questions strayed from the specific subject of the draft policy:

(a) Communication between IT and faculty sometimes breaks down--e.g., changes in Blackboard were made without informing faculty (who sometimes use it heavily) or seeking their opinion.

(b) Limits placed on a site license make it difficult for students to get an application installed (example: a student athlete who needs to work on her own laptop on bus trips out of town can't get an app installed because WSU has a limit of, say, 500 installations) [ perhaps Mass Comm ]

Administration Responses:

1. IT will take these comments in consideration.

2. FACTech work with IT.

3. Will be gathering focus groups to work on addressing ramifications in this laptop policy.

4. Cable modems could be installed next year to enhance connection to server application software; right now, phone modems are too slow to handle larger program network applications.

Most of the Senate comments/questions dealt with a peripheral topic: the imposition of an additional fee for students taking courses that are identified as 'laptop required.'

(a) How much is the additional fee?

(b) Is the fee charged if a class is held in a laptop classroom but is not itself a 'laptop required' course?

(c) What terminology should a department use that would avoid triggering an automatic fee upon students enrolling in a course while at the same time alerting the student that yes, you DO have to use your laptop for course assignments...but no, you are not going to go online in the classroom? (example, Chemistry lab) [ may be Mass Comm. ]

(c) Is a part-time student's 'rental' fee increased if s/he enrolls in a 'laptop required' course?

Administration Comments:

1. NO additional fees for "laptop" designated course; i.e. if a course is designated as "laptop required", the students in that course must have a laptop. A leased laptop is $500/semester. A non-leased laptop must pay $250 for network/WSU services. The non-leased laptop will no longer be an issue next year.

2. Technology fee is to fund technology such as projectors in classrooms, media services, network services, and printers in public labs. All students are required to pay the Technology fee. Up to $6.90 per credit next year.

3. Rochester went to the max of $8.00 per credit this year (to match RCTC).

4. Public computer labs (over 50% open time to campus) is kept by IT.

5. Individual department-run labs must do their own up-keeps; i.e. replace computers or printers.

Senate requested information: what software is available for installation on student laptops? What programs are on the piles of CDs in the IT area? What site licenses does WSU have?

Administration Comments:

1. Reasonable to have just one set of laptop image. Could be difficult to do multiple images!

2. IT will provide a list of programs available on a laptop image. The list should include network software and the number of licenses for each type of network programs.

 

 

 

 

4. Responses to President's Work Plan

From Senate, specific questions or comments included:

(a) What is a 'niche' program (in the Rochester section)?

(b) Re. 'Academic Excellence-#1 measurement: does the university in fact reallocate internally to support changes in program offerings? Some senators had the impression that departments are in fact pretty much frozen at their current staffing.

(c) In the technology area, an appropriate measure might deal with students' ability to 'get work done' (for instance, printing) in university labs (the comment came from a senator who says s/he was told that departments were responsible for buying printers in university labs)

Administration Comments:

1. "Niche" program is so that Rochester can address what programs can be improved and can serve the community better/best.

2. There is always the possibility of re-allocation, slight changes occur in departments every year. If there are long-term changes occurring in a department, then perhaps re-allocation can occur. However, do not perceive any significant re-allocation over short time period.

General comments from Senate included the following:

(a) Some elements did not identify the individual (s) responsible for them (e.g., "Academic Excellence: 3-Compliance" or "Infrastructure: 2-Campus Master Plan" or "Quality Internal Processes")

(b) Some of the completion dates seemed overly optimistic (particularly for some of the Rochester elements that list 'February 2002' as the completion date)

(c) In general, who would be held to be responsible if projects were not completed? (This question came at the same time as, and may be related to, the items discussed immediately following).

Administration Comments:

1. The President is ultimately responsible for any projects not completed!

Other Senate comments included:

(a) 'Faculty' as among those 'responsible' for certain elements of the plan. For instance, on p. 1, faculty are identified as *supporting* the Academic Program point, while on p. 2, faculty and staff are listed as (co) responsible for sense of community and (the key one) on p. 5, faculty are (co) responsible for enrollment management.

Basically, the comments seized upon what may be an error of omission (that is, perhaps the administration meant for faculty to be 'supporting' in these latter two points, just as faculty are identified as 'supporting' the Academic Program point on p. 1).

Nevertheless, Senators' comments reflected the sense that yes, we ARE critical to successful 'enrollment management' (if that term refers to the interrelationships of retention, advising, student satisfaction, etc). But at the same time, faculty does not feel particularly empowered in these areas. We do not serve on an Enrollment Management team or committee that meets regularly; we have responsibilities but little/no corresponding power; the examination of data to determine whether academic quality has diminished (or diminished to an unacceptable degree) is done by President and Cabinet.

Perhaps the thoughts in these 2 paragraphs may seem to contradict the faculty's oft-stated unwillingness to get involved in the early stages of policy-making ('bring us a proposal and we'll respond to it'). This apparent contradiction, except that perhaps in *this* area, which is so closely connected to student development, academic excellence, and increasing pressures to 'do more with less,' faculty senators seemed to want to have more of a voice.

(b) And finally, if the Work Plan is roughly equivalent to a faculty member's PDP, is it OK for faculty to use "ongoing" to define the time-line for completion of an element of the PDP?

Administration Comments:

1. Exciting comments from faculty! Been wanting to hear this from faculty for a while!

2. Faculty can be empowered by having faculty serve on committees that work with the administration in providing a common recommendation; i.e. Item 8 below (is a beginning)!

3. Yes, faculty can do the "on-going" thing in their PDP's. i.e. keeping curriculum current!

 

Information item. Faculty given a list of Capital Campaign projects. Administration is inviting comments from faculty regarding the first ever-Capital Campaign projects list. The list provides a list of priorities. After receiving comments regarding priorities from faculty, then the administration will do field testing of CC projects; i.e. hire consultants to check feasibility of project(s).

 

The administration provided (contractually required) a report on Student teacher supervision loads for Spring 2002 from Dean Carol Anderson.

Faculty Comment:

1. These reports must come at a timely manner; i.e. before (or right after) term begins. Changes (or protests from faculty) are not possible if loads are received during the middle of the term!

2. Concern so noted by VP-Richardson.

After being Residential Director for ten years, Dan Eastman will be stepping down. An internal search will begin soon. NOV was developed by the Residential College Steering committee. The administration is requesting five faculty (and Barb Oertel) to serve on the Application Review/Advisory Panel. Faculty on the panel should be familiar with the experiential liberal arts nature of the Residential College and its emphasis on first-year students. Panel faculty will be reviewing candidate files and will be making a hiring recommendation to the VPAA.

A document was given to IFO exec's. The number of applicants to WSU has been increasing steadily for at least three years. Down side is having to close before XMAS. Would like to be around Jan. The administration is requesting IFO to participate in the discussions of new admission standards/requirements, perhaps becoming more selective by some measure.

Administration would like recommendations (via A2C2 and Faculty Senate) before the end of May. IFO should identify three faculty members to work with the Director of Admissions and the Director of Institutional Research to decide what adjustment is most appropriate. Committee should get recommendation to Senate by mid-April, early enough that a revised policy can be in place as the Admissions office reviews applicants for the entering class of 2003.

Over spring break (to minimize disruption), new generators will be installed and tested. Electrical network will be shut down this Saturday (March 2). Computer network will also be affected during the break, primarily during evening hours. Therefore people can still work during most of the regular business hours (don't hold your breath though!).

Before spring break, faculty/staff should un-plug computer from the outlets. An Email will be send out regarding un-plugging computers...if you can find/reach where it's attached to!

Adjourned 4:12 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Bill Ng.