ASC Minutes 10-05-15 Page
1
Academic Standards Committee
Policy Subcommittee Meeting
10-05-15
Minutes
In attendance: Jo Crane, Alyce DeMarais, Suzanne Holland, Sunil Kukreja, Tanya
Stambuk, Peter Sullivan, Brad Tomhave
Visitors: Kelli Delaney, Ben Tucker
Chair Suzanne Holland called the meeting to order at 4:02 PM.
1. Informal approval of minutes from 09-03-15 full committee meeting; one
correction to 09-14-15 minutes followed by informal approval.
2. Discussion of Common Hour
Derek Buescher and Andrew Gardner reached out to Sunil and Brad regarding
common hour (they were curious about where things stood). Brad briefed them
on some of the challenges involved in revision of the class schedule as well as
efforts to date to revise the schedule. Brad reviewed the current schedule to
identify options for scheduling that included a common hour. They explored
possible ways to move the conversation forward.
Suzanne opened the discussion to subcommittee members. We appreciate the
discussion notes and draft schedule, both from 2010-2011, provided by Sarah
Moore (Appendix I). Tanya asked if there is interest within the faculty to pursue a
common hour. Jo would like some clarification about the purpose of the
common hour. Sunil provided some explanation regarding the desire of faculty
members to increase faculty participation in shared governance and other
activities related to university business. Suzanne confirmed that faculty interest
revolves around issues with conflicts at the beginning and end of the day that
preclude participation in shared governance. Jo appreciated these responses
and expressed her concern that we carefully and thoughtfully articulate how the
common hour is used (e.g., clearly define a plan that allows for full faculty
meetings, department meetings, standing committee meetings).
We referred to a draft proposed schedule that Sarah Moore produced in 2010 2011 (Appendix I). We think it is worth looking at that proposed schedule as a
start and see how we can suspend normative assumptions to adjust the class
schedule and include an hour for meeting times. We could address Jo’s concern
by designating specific weeks for meeting types. Brad noted the schedule could
be revised to better meet the needs of athletics, music, student groups, etc.,
groups that convene in the afternoon. Suzanne reiterated that compromise will
be needed to produce the best-case schedule. Sunil suggested we “pick up” the
ASC Minutes 10-05-15 Page
2
discussion from the model produced by Sarah Moore. Is the model worth
forwarding or are there particular scenarios that would better the model? If we
find good reasons to discard the model and go in a different direction that is
certainly feasible.
Peter asked Brad how many courses would be affected by a Wednesday at 1:00
PM “common hour” time slot (and how many of those classes are “inflexible,”
such as lab sections, five day per week classes, etc.). Jo asked Brad if we can
take this semester’s courses, for example, and try placing them into the model.
Brad asked if it would be beneficial to have a “mostly common” hour. Suzanne
asked why the model uses Wednesday at 1:00 PM rather than noon. Brad
identified that scheduling to date has been designed to reduce traffic in the
student center at noon. Ben asked about the benefit for students. Suzanne
identified that the main benefit is for faculty governance.
Peter proposed that if the goal is shared governance, to what extent can we
schedule faculty governance within the framework? Can everyone who needs to
be at a meeting get to the meeting? Suzanne noted that we really need to have
a time for full faculty meetings and those would be once per month, for
example. Peter, like Jo, suggested we articulate the benefit of the common
hour—full faculty meetings, departmental meetings, potentially committee
meetings (there may be too many standing committees to schedule effectively
within the common hour). For Suzanne, shared governance is the primary
motivator (full faculty meetings). Jo wants this better defined: for example, do
we add in the standing committees. Peter noted that standing committee size is
one metric that could used. Jo added that what ex officio committee members
need to be present in standing committees could limit meeting times.
Suzanne wondered if we need to have an 80 minute “common hour” slot rather
than an hour. Kelli asked if the Academic Standards Committee has been
formally charged with this issue. Suzanne understands that we will be charged
and, even if not, we can identify topics of discussion for the committee to
address. Peter noted we could identify that class scheduling to accommodate
more 80 minute classes. Why can’t 80 minute classes start at 1:00 PM rather
than 2:00 PM? Brad responded that this would put pressure on the three day a
week classes (by essentially taking up two 50-minutes class periods). Suzanne
wondered if we have more classroom space now than we did a few years ago.
Brad told us we didn’t (for various reasons including loss of classrooms in
buildings such as McIntyre and Jones, less than optimal rooms in
Commencement Hall, rooms dedicated to specific programs such as in
Weyerhaueser).
Jo wondered about considering start times other than on the hour or half hour.
Suzanne recalled that Colgate started at different times. Ben suggested re-
ASC Minutes 10-05-15 Page
3
appropriating days that are closed to classes already, such as fall break or
reading period, and holding meetings on those days.
Suzanne moved back to Jo’s suggestion of evaluating models of varying different
start times across the schedule. Peter clarified that different start times at
Colgate are by day (for example, all classes start at a specific time after the hour
on Mondays). Suzanne gathered information from the Colgate registrar about
class length and start times previously; she will gather this information for the
current schedule. We discussed Sarah Moore’s model, making sure we
understood the spreadsheet. Jo reiterated that we need to identify the
reason(s) for the “common slot” (from the Senate?). Suzanne noted that this
discussion has been going on for so long that we may not get any additional
information from the Senate on motivation; however, she will ask the Senate for
clarification.
Action items:
 Brad: determine what classes would be affected by a common hour on
Wednesdays at 1:00 PM.
 Brad: determine if there are times when there are open classrooms on campus
 Suzanne: gather information about class scheduling from Colgate
 Suzanne: ask for clarification from the Faculty Senate regarding the proposed
purpose of a common slot.
 Jo: investigate non-traditional start times
Next meeting of the ASC Policy Subcommittee: Monday, October 26, 2015; 4:00 PM.
Added after the meeting: Report of the Petitions Subcommittee for the Period
09/04/2015 – 09/30/2015, submitted to the secretary by Brad Tomhave (Appendix II).
Respectfully submitted by Alyce DeMarais, Secretary.
ASC Minutes 10-05-15 Page
4
Appendix I: 2010-2011 Discussion Notes and Draft Schedule
Common Hour Discussion
ASC 10.26.10
Discussion of proposed common hour:
The ASC was charged to explore the feasibility of implementing a common hour for: a) 1st year
seminars and b) campus-wide meetings and events. One motivation for the common hour is to
allow students to choose any first-year seminar based on interest rather than their schedule. Some
of the concerns of the proposed common hour are that some faculty may teach multiple seminar
sections and it may not be logistically feasible. Also, many music groups meet in the late
afternoon, so a common hour in the afternoon would not work for these students. The ASC
decided the feasibility of a common hour should be discussed among individual departments.
Some members of the ASC committee volunteered to explore what their respective departments
think about the idea of a common hour. After the meeting, McCall distributed information about
the common hour via email and asked ASC members to consider the proposal and bring some
ideas for how the ASC might proceed to the next meeting.
ASC 11.9.10
Charge on feasibility of a common hour. McCall asked ASC to consider the feasibility of a
common hour. James Bernhard: From the perspective of the math department, a common hour is
“completely unfeasible.” The department is maxed out on computer classroom time and classes
are already scheduled every hour in computer classrooms.
McCall: What would need to be done for a common hour to work for the math department?
Bernhard: Not sure, perhaps move classes into the evening.
Bernhard agreed to consult with the chair of his department further.
Debbie Chee: Is adding night classes a realistic solution for establishing a common hour?
Gary McCall: What do students think about night classes? Should we let them have the night for
other activities?
Emily Levandowski (ASC student representative): If it’s a class you want to take and that’s the
time it’s offered, you take it – you make it work.
Marcus Luther (ASC student representative): There is a huge distinction between a lab that meets
one night a week versus a class that meets several nights a week. This will limit what students can
do in the evening.
Duane Hulbert: Night classes would prevent students from attending/performing in evening
concerts.
Sarah Moore pointed out that class scheduling is currently not conducive to leaving open a
common hour. Moore asked whether people were open to thinking about different scheduling
guidelines. The current class scheduling was discussed and it was agreed that there many possible
variants. The current scheduling system could be revised, which would probably be up the Dean,
perhaps in collaboration with the Senate. Moore suggested that we could look at what is being
done at common schools to accommodate a common hour. McCall noted that a student is
ASC Minutes 10-05-15 Page
5
currently proposing a block system where students take only one class at a time in three week
blocks (similar to Colorado College).
It was agreed that the ASC would identify what needs to be done to make a common hour
happen. If the idea of a common hour does move forward, the ASC would not take sole
responsibility and would work with other groups to develop a common hour. McCall
asked ASC members to consult with their individual departments and find out what
would be required to accommodate a common hour. He asked ASC members to gather
information and the committee compile a report at the next meeting.
ASC 12.7.10
Report on proposed common hour. ASC members had been asked to poll their respective
departments to investigate the feasibility of a common hour. McCall compiled the
responses and distributed a Report on Common Hour Feasibility (attached as an
appendix). James Bernhard said the chair of the Math Department gave six reasons why it
wouldn’t work; the main reason is because there is not enough physical space in the
computer classrooms and classes are scheduled all hours of the day. Duane Hulbert added
that music groups use the rare hours when students are available to schedule practice.
Members of the committee agreed a common hour would require significant
restructuring. Sarah Moore stated that we would either need to adopt a whole new
scheduling system or do some sort of halfway thing in which departments generally try to
avoid a certain hour.
It discussed that we need to not only consider whether a common hour is feasible, but
also whether it is desirable. Moore pointed out that, as a faculty member at Puget Sound,
it is not part of the culture to attend faculty meetings; there would have to be a change in
how people view this part of their work. Realistically, it would require a shift in
normative behavior. Not everyone who is available goes to faculty meetings. Jack
Roundy added that faculty meetings were well attended when the core was being
developed; however, meetings are now poorly attended. Perhaps faculty would come if
there were incentive. It was agreed that feasibility and desirability of a common hour are
two separate matters, and addressing the culture may be a more complicated issue.
McCall agreed to work on this report further and distribute it to the entire committee.
Appendix (note that this is the final version that appeared in the Senate minutes)
ASC Report on Common Hour Feasibility
Senate charge to the ASC: Consider the feasibility of a class schedule that would both
implement a common hour for teaching first-year seminars and allow for a “common
hour” for faculty governance and/or campus-wide events.
Summary of ASC deliberations: The full committee deliberated on the charge during
portions of the 10/26/10, 11/9/10 and 12/7/10 meetings. Several members expressed
difficulty in implementing a common hour or hours into their dept course schedules. We
agreed that the feasibility of common hours for seminars required a much more in depth
analysis, likely by the Registrar, in terms of the availability and scheduling of classroom
spaces. Given the perceived difficulties in scheduling even a single common hour for
ASC Minutes 10-05-15 Page
6
campus-wide events/faculty governance, the ASC proceeded with addressing the issue of
having only a common hour for events/governance. Each faculty member was asked to
consult with his/her department members and report back on the feasibility within their
department. The specific instructions were to identify: 1) the issues/problems of
scheduling for a common hour, and 2) what it would require to overcome these problems.
Although not a directive of the Senate charge to ASC, input pertaining to the desirability
of a common inevitably surfaced as well.
Departments represented by ASC members: Exercise Science, Business, Comparative
Sociology, Biology, Communication Studies, Music, Classics, Math and Computer
Science, Chemistry, Occupational Therapy, and Psychology.
Summary of department feedback: Generally, several departments expressed some
ability to adjust course scheduling to accommodate a common hour, somewhat dependent
upon when that hour would be designated. All represented departments expressed, to
varying degrees, that significant challenges exist in order to set aside a common hour
within the confines of current scheduling guidelines and/or existing campus facilities.
There was a general consensus that such significant hurdles exist in implementing a
common hour under our current scheduling guidelines that the university would need to
undertake a comprehensive analysis to consider alternative scheduling models that allow
for a common hour while meeting the needs of every department’s academic and
cocurricular programs. In addressing the issue of feasibility, feedback from departments
also included views on the desirability of a common, particularly with concern to whether
or not the current campus ethos reflects a value for participation in governance and
campus-wide interactions. Inasmuch, some ideas below are aimed to foster a culture of
greater faculty interaction, participation in governance, and attendance of events should
the campus implement scheduling guidelines that allow for a common hour.
1. Issues with scheduling a common hour among departments included:
• coordination and dependency of scheduling with consideration for when other
departments’ courses were scheduled if/when these courses presented potential
conflicts with course scheduling within the home department of a student’s major
 similar issues exists for avoiding conflicts in scheduling courses/labs even
within a major, esp. for science department labs
• courses are already scheduled essentially from 8 am- 5 pm; inasmuch there is no
available time for a common hour
• limited or no staff support for classes and labs offered after 5 pm
• only time(s) available under current schedules are considered undesirable, e.g. 8
am on Fridays
• a need to prioritize scheduling of events and/or meetings for common hour to
eliminate conflicts, e.g. between competing committees and/or events
• an apparent lack of value and/or motivation for attending university-level
meetings and events in light of other demands
• graduate clinical programs in OT/PT may have additional constraints, such as the
already fulltime use of clinical labs and patients facilities, that would preclude the
ASC Minutes 10-05-15 Page
7
ability to block off time(s) in which these courses and clinics could not be
scheduled
2. What it would require to overcome perceived problems a make a common hour
feasible?
• offering more courses and other scheduled events after 5 pm, with even more labs
lasting as late as 10 pm
• even better coordination of equipment already shared between labs and among
courses
• eliminating the number of sections offered for a course
• increasing class/lab enrollment limits, which may require additional lab (and even
building) space and/or lab equipment, such as more computers or other hardware
• more fully-electronic equipped classrooms
• changing the schedules for other non-course specific activities, such as
community music, athletics, music ensembles
• adopting a new fundamental schedule structure, e.g. a student proposal was made
for a block course schedule. Another idea was to have more two day/wk teaching
options, e.g. MW and TTh courses- leaving F open works on other campuses. But,
could we deliver our entire curriculum in four days?
• creating a culture that encourages attendance and participation in university
business/governance, perhaps by increasing the role and type of participation
expected of faculty at university-level meetings.
• more compelling content at university-wide gatherings or committee meetings;
the common hour has to be “worth it.”
• allow for a “semi-protected” common hour in which courses taught by visiting
faculty could still be scheduled
• allow faculty to teach during a scheduled common hour only once per academic
year to promote the implementation of a common hour while balancing with some
unavoidable scheduling constraints in specific departments
Summary of desirability of common hour: While it’s clear that many faculty and
departments support the idea of a common hour, it seems that many other constraints on
time and/or facilities put a strain on the enthusiasm for overcoming these obstacles, and
hence the judgment as to the feasibility is diminished. Inasmuch, it would be insightful to
further explore whether some departments and/or faculty members place less value on
participating in faculty governance and/or attending campus-wide events and why. Some
ASC members feel that such faculty would need to be convinced of the value of a
common hour and there would need to be a corresponding shift in the institutional culture
to overcome the perceived barriers to implementing a common hour. In short, there are
major obstacles to instituting a common hour and efforts to do so seem unrealistic at this
time. Establishing a “voluntary/semi-protected” common hour may be more practical and
make more sense as a first step. Further, if the desirability of a common hour is to
facilitate participation in faculty governance, particularly attendance at faculty meetings,
then, based on departmental feedback, the value of such participation needs to be more
clearly articulated and promoted among faculty.
ASC Minutes 10-05-15 Page
8
Submitted on 12/10/10
Gary McCall
ASC Chair 2010-11
ASC 2.3.11
Report on Common Hour. Barry reported that the Senate appreciates the work that ASC
has done on common hour and voted to receive the report, which means that they will
take no further action — the report is accepted and in the record.
ASC Final Report 2010-2011
Charge: Feasibility of common hour
The ASC addressed the feasibility of implementing protected common hours into the
academic calendar to facilitate a meeting time for campus wide governance, such as
faculty meetings, as well as special events, such as guest speakers or performances. To a
lesser extent, the committee also discussed the feasibility of scheduling the freshman
writing seminars during common blocks of time. ASC members consulted with their
individual departments to identify the feasibility, and the potential roadblocks and costs
involved. The ASC report to the Senate of its findings and deliberations is included as
Appendix A. In short, the feasibility of implementing a common hour under the current
scheduling system was judged to be limited.
ASC Minutes 10-05-15 Page
9
ASC Minutes 10-05-15 Page 10
Appendix II
Petitions for the Period 09/04/2015 – 09/30/2015
During the dates covered by this report, the following actions were taken on petitions
submitted to the Academic Standards Committee:
2 Approved Late Adds
19 Approved Registrations with a Schedule Conflict
1 Approved Medical Withdrawal
1 Approved Waiver of the “Last 8 Units Rule”
1 Approved Waiver of the Minimum GPA Required for an Independent Study
24 Total Petitions
Registrar Approved: 1
Preview Team Approved: 16
Sub-Committee Approved: 7
Total Approved: 24
Sub-Committee Denied: 0
Total Petitions: 24
As is typical, the first petitions of the new academic year deal with registration
issues. For comparison with last year, as of September 20, 2104, 29 petitions had
been approved with no petition denied. Of the 29 approved petitions, 7 were late
registration petitions and 16 were schedule conflict petitions.