CFR Faculty Meeting
June 7, 2002
(Anderson Hall, Forest Club Room, 2:30 pm - 4:00 pm)
Notes
Faculty Attending: Graham Allan, Bruce Bare, Susan Bolton, Gordon Bradley, David Briggs,
Jim Fridley, Frank Greulich, Rick Gustafson, Kevin Hodgson, Chavonda Jacobs-Young, Jay
Johnson, Bob Lee, Bill McKean, Bob Northey, John Perez-Garcia, Peter Schiess, Gerard
Schreuder, Eric Turnblom, James Agee, Sally Brown, Linda Brubaker, Linda Chalker-Scott, Bob
Edmonds, Kern Ewing, David Ford, Jerry Franklin, Rob Harrison, Chuck Henry, Tom Hinckley,
Dave Manuwal, John Marzluff, David Peterson, Ken Raedeke, Sarah Reichard, Dan Vogt,
Kristiina Vogt, Alan Wagar, Stephen West
The meeting was led by Steve West. Steve opened with the statement that there are no
provisions for proxy and that an email vote is possible. He also wanted to clarify confusion
about the motion (currently tabled). The motion is to adopt the final version of the CTRANS
curricula proposal - ONLY the curricula part, not the full eight items in the proposal. (NOTE:
The full eight items identified in the final proposal of the Ad Hoc Committee on Curriculum
Transformation are listed below:
1. Revise current majors in wildlife science (renamed wildlife ecology), forest
management, environmental horticulture and urban forestry, and paper science and
engineering.
2. Delete current majors in forest engineering, sustainable resource science, and
conservation of wildland resources.
3. Create a new major in environmental science.
4. Require all majors to participate in an interdisciplinary core of classes emphasizing
the concept of sustainability.
5. Require all classes and majors to accomplish specific learning outcomes.
6. Investigate College structures that encourage faculty to participate across majors
across rather than within them.
7. Begin deliberations to rename the “College of Forest Resources” to something like the
“College of Environmental Science and Resource Management,” thus allowing for
8. changing the degree offered by the College from a Bachelor of Science in “Forest
Resources” to a Bachelor of Science in “Environmental Science and Resource
Management.”)
Steve opened the floor for discussion. It was moved and seconded that the faculty appoint a
small committee to present a proposal to resolve issues of integration of the curriculum by next
Thursday, June 13, 2002. This committee should be asked to resolve the differences between the
CTRANS and ALTRANS proposals and present a compromise in the next week. In response to
this motion, it was suggested that faculty move as far as possible today in coming to a decision
about the curriculum and if a decision can’t be reached in this meeting, then move forward with
this motion. The comment was made that one of the issues is developing consensus: it is
important that decisions about the curriculum have near unanimous support of the faculty. Right
now there are two groups that may or may not be far apart - that is a matter of debate. There is a
need to go back and do some work with various faculty to get them to come aboard. In response
to this comment, it was stated that the group has spent close to three years on this issue and it is
difficult to imagine what more anyone can say that will help faculty reach a decision. The
suggestion of further work with individual faculty was described as being a “delaying tactic.”
A member of the CTRANS ad hoc committee pointed out that much discussion had taken place
and the CTRANS proposal had changed dramatically to meet needs based on the concerns of
EHUF. This involved the opening up of a variety of classes in the sophomore year to allow
flexibility for transfer students and extensive discussions on integration. Another faculty
member commented that the two proposals are very close and suggested that today be used to air
differing opinions that still exist and then turn it over to a small committee to present an
integrated proposal as the motion currently under discussion suggests. A question was raised
regarding the ramifications of putting this decision off to the fall. Bruce Bare stated that most
ramifications are on political and perceptual levels. The President’s office would like to see us
resolve this issue and move forward and are pushing us to resolve the curricula issues this
quarter. Will there be punishment? Probably not. If it drags on for a year, three years, then yes.
There is no do or die problem, but we should resolve this, and we need to have some kind of
consensus.
A faculty member stated that he feels the influence of a few faculty have completely changed the
original CTRANS proposal into something he wouldn’t vote for now except to move forward. A
second individual stated discomfort with turning this over to a small group because he has no
sense at all of what a small group of people would come up with.
Two reflections were offered: First, both groups have worked diligently in a responsible
fashion. Both are interesting options. Second, we need to adopt one and the losing side will
need to get on board because CFR is one college. In response to this, a question was raised
about the cost associated with taking an extra week to develop a single proposal. Is the extra
week worth having a single proposal to vote on as opposed to two competing proposals to choose
between? A faculty member called for the question.
It was stated that if consensus is what we have to achieve, this vote will disenfranchise people.
The question was raised, “Do we have to vote one way or the other?” There was some
discussion about the value of taking an unofficial vote to indicate where the group as a whole
stands on the two proposals (CTRANS and ALTRANS). Steve West suggested that faculty
could conduct a straw vote. The comment was made that in the June 5th meeting faculty tried to
call the question and couldn’t. Over one-third of the faculty didn’t want to vote at that time. It
was suggested that faculty vote for the alternatives simultaneously. “We don’t have polarized
faculty unless after the vote people who didn’t get the vote take their ball and go home. We are
not a polarized faculty because we have different preferences. We need to make our opinions
known not to be polarized, but to see where we stand.” It was suggested that a vote be taken
among CTRANS, ALTRANS or a merge.
It was pointed out that if there is concern about perceptions, there is a simple process to fix this.
Have an additional motion: CFR faculty will work together to support this. Another comment
pointed out that adaptive evolution of either proposal is critical. Neither proposal should be
viewed as an end point, but as a starting point.
Steve West asked if discussion of the motion (to appoint a committee to resolve the issues of
integration between the two proposals) was concluded. A motion was made and seconded to
table this motion. Ballots were distributed to vote on tabling the motion. Tabling the motion
was approved by 20 of 37 votes.
It was moved and seconded that the motion tabled in the June 5th meeting (to adopt CTRANS)
be taken off the table. In response to this, it was suggested again that the group conduct a straw
vote. It was also moved that the tabled motion be amended to make it subject to an email ballot.
The motion to take the “adopt CTRANS” motion off the table failed by 23 of 37 votes. The
motion remained tabled. It was moved and seconded to conduct a straw vote: CTRANS,
ALTRANS, merge the two. Straw vote results: CTRANS 14, ALTRANS 8, merge 13,
undecided 1 of 36 votes.
It was moved and seconded that CFR faculty adopt either the CTRANS or ALTRANS
structure. It was moved and seconded that this motion be amended to require an email vote to be
returned by June 12, 2002. This point was clarified: if the amendment is approved, the motion
to adopt either the CTRANS or ALTRANS structure goes to an email ballot and there is no vote
in this meeting. If the amendment fails, the vote takes place here and those not present do not
vote.
There was confusion at this point on the original motion - is the original motion only to adopt
either CTRANS or ALTRANS or is it to adopt all eight points presented by the CTRANS
committee? It was stated that the intent of the original motion was to adopt the full proposal as
presented by the Ad Hoc Committee on Curriculum Transformation.
A vote on the amendment was called for. Steve West again clarified that a yes vote on the
amendment means the motion to adopt either the CTRANS or ALTRANS structure goes to an
email ballot and there is no vote in this meeting. A no vote means the vote takes place here and
those not present do not vote. The email motion failed with 21 opposing votes of 36 votes.
There was some discussion on the motion before the group. The person who made the motion
stated the intent was to have a vote that decided between ALTRANS or CTRANS. There was a
comment on the wording of the motion, indicating that the motion as it was stated was to have an
election between the two.
The floor was opened for discussion of the motion. An amendment was proposed to the effect
that whichever proposal was selected, a committee be incorporated to consolidate the
differences. This amendment was withdrawn.
It was moved and seconded to reword the motion “to proceed with an election between
CTRANS and ALTRANS.” This amendment passed with 21 approving votes of 36 votes.
There was no discussion. The vote on the amended motion proceeded with 20 votes CTRANS,
16 votes ALTRANS. CTRANS will be adopted.
Bob Lee stated that he wanted the record for this meeting to show there was no opportunity to
vote for an email ballot on the amended motion. There was a comment by one individual
indicating confusion on what was being voted on. Others stated that they were clear on the
motion and the vote.
It was moved and seconded that the faculty of the college work together to support the CTRANS
curriculum. (At this point, four faculty members left the room). The people remaining voted in
favor of the final motion with 25 approving, 0 opposing, and one abstaining.
The meeting was adjourned.