Faculty meeting Minutes
March 8, 2000
President Pierce called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. Fifty-two voting members of the faculty
were present.
Minutes of the February 16, 2000 faculty meeting were approved as distributed.
President Pierce, with reference to the three recent bomb threats against Jones Hall (on January
21, March 6, and March 8, 2000) said that making a bomb threat is a criminal act of violence and
is an imprisonable offense. She said the two most recent threats were judged to be “manipulative
events.” She said that every threat is different and must be evaluated separately, but that future
such manipulative bomb threats would not necessarily result in closing affected buildings. While
classes will be immediately relocated and all students will be asked to leave, the building will
remain open. She said that individuals working in the affected buildings can leave the buildings if
they wish. She asked anyone with any information at all about the recent threats to let Todd
Badham know.
Dean Cooney added that, contrary to rumor, students in classes in Jones Hall will not “be grilled.”
Suzanne Barnett said she appreciated efforts of the Registrar’s staff to relocate classes. Michel
Rocchi asked whether Registrar’s staff are safe standing next to threatened buildings during the
class relocation process. President Pierce responded that the University has been working
closing with law enforcement officials on such matters. She also noted that a written protocol
would be developed. Matt Warning suggested that offering a reward might discourage future
acts. President Pierce thanked him for the suggestion and said that she would ask those most
knowledgeable about such matters to advise her. Ted Taranovski suggested publicizing the
criminal penalties for making a bomb threat, and President Pierce said she had done that in an
email message to all faculty.
David Droge reminded us that Guillermo Gómez-Peña performs tonight at 7:30 p.m. in the
Concert Hall.
Karly Therriault, of the senior honor society Mortar Board, announced that Mortar Board members
will conduct a Benefit Day at Borders bookstore on Sunday, March 26, 2000, between 9:00 a.m.
and 11:00 p.m. Mortar Board members will hand out 20%-off coupons and will receive 10% of
purchases made with the coupons. This money will go to First Book Children's Literacy
Organization, which distributes books to underprivileged children in the Pierce County area.
Neither President Pierce, Dean Cooney, nor Faculty Senate Chair Haltom had formal reports. We
next turned to the “cleanup” discussion of the core curriculum. President Pierce reminded the
group that the faculty had already decided that guidelines for each of the Core rubrics would be
developed either by the curriculum committee or by task forces and that the task before the
faculty was to determine how to implement that.
Dean Cooney distributed hard copies of a document entitled Procedure for Developing Core
Category Guidelines. A copy is attached to these minutes. He explained that discussion of such
a procedure had been on the Faculty Senate agenda, but that the Senate had not had time to
discuss the topic. Cooney said that Senate Chair Haltom had invited senators to think about this
in order to provide structure for today’s discussion. The result of Dean Cooney’s thinking was the
document he distributed, which was reviewed by several members of the faculty before today’s
meeting. Dean Cooney indicated that he was uncertain whether we needed to pass this as a
formal motion or just express the sense of the faculty. Taranovski said he thought that it would be
better to adopt it formally. Taranovski therefore M/S/vote reported later “to adopt the
distributed Procedure for Developing Core Category Guidelines.”
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
March 8, 2000, Page 2
Warning asked what would happen at step 4 if we vote against the comprehensive curricular
statement? President Pierce responded that it would be up to the faculty to decide but that she
imagined that the faculty would either try again to develop guidelines or decide to remain with the
current Core. Ray Preiss asked what kind of diversity there would be on the task forces. Dean
Cooney responded that diversity was called for in the language of step 1. Jim Evans asked what
the curricular statement in step 4 was. Dean Cooney responded that step 4 calls for internal
consistency between the developed core guidelines and the existing framework that describes
and defines University degree requirements.
Florence Sandler asked what kind of guidelines we want to emerge from this. Dean Cooney
suggested that no decision about that could be made ahead of time. He said we can’t make
decisions about the content of the omnibus motion through procedural discussions. Suzanne
Barnett pointed out that the existing curriculum statement includes the goals of the university, and
Dean Cooney replied that he was not suggesting there would be any changes in them.
Curt Mehlhaff wondered whether the end of spring term was a practical goal for finishing the
guidelines as suggested in the proposed procedures. Dean Cooney said he had thought there
was a sense of urgency among faculty in developing guidelines. Bill Barry said the Curriculum
Committee would go right to work on its part of this. Warning asked when draft guidelines would
be put before the full faculty. He said there was nothing in the proposal about that. Taranovski
suggested that the task forces could have open hearings and that you always get feedback as
soon as something is drafted. He said “you can’t prevent a dialogue.” He added that he thought
the end of spring term was a worthy objective for finishing,
David Sousa wondered why there should be balance on the task forces between those in the
most closely relevant disciplines and those from other areas, because “those in the affected
disciplines know best.” Dean Cooney noted that faculty within the current meeting had asked for
balanced representation, and he indicated that the core must be an expression of the faculty as a
whole and “what we produce must have broad support from the faculty.” Sousa M/S/vote
reported later “to amend the procedures so that the ratio on the task forces of those in
affected disciplines to those outside them is two to one.”
Bill Beardsley opposed the amendment, saying he thought the ratio should be two to one in the
opposite direction. Barry said a consequence of the proposed amendment could be that the
guidelines might become “over-written” and that this would be a problem because “folks outside
the disciplines will have to apply these guidelines.” David Tinsley suggested that, while equal
representation was logical for the freshman “passion” seminar, faculty teaching within the Ways of
Knowing core categories should have considerable say about goals contained in the guidelines.
Warning doubted that the proposed proportion could actually be achieved in practice. Jim Evans
suggested that equal representation avoided “ramming stuff through” that might cause problems
later. Taranovski pointed out that some core categories are larger than others. He said for
example that humanities includes many departments, whereas mathematics may include perhaps
two.
Rocchi M/S/P to close debate on the amendment. The motion to end debate passed on a
voice vote. The Sousa amendment then failed on a voice vote.
Doug Cannon M/S/P to close debate on the main motion. The main motion to adopt the
distributed Procedure for Developing Core Category Guidelines then passed on a voice
vote.
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
March 8, 2000, Page 3
We turned then to a discussion of the Curriculum Committee’s proposal to change the fall
calendar, which came to the full faculty by way of the Faculty Senate. A packet of background
materials was distributed electronically to faculty prior to the meeting.
Haltom summarized the proposal as being one that adds one day to fall break in October, adds
the Wednesday before Thanksgiving to Thanksgiving vacation, and starts fall semester the
Thursday of orientation week. Mehlhaff asked why this was coming before the full faculty. Dean
Cooney responded that the Senate wanted the full faculty to decide this because it is a proposal
that would affect everyone. Tinsley asked that one of the Curriculum Committee members
describe the reasons for the changes for those present who had not read the background
materials which he, Tinsley, had read. Chris Ives attempted this, enumerating some of the
arguments contained in the Steve Neshyba memo from the Curriculum Committee to the Faculty
Senate, a copy of which is attached. Tinsley asked why we didn’t simply go to a shorter fall
semester to gain the desired two additional days off, and Ives launched into a review of the
institutional comparison data that were included in the background materials. Cannon suggested
that the Curriculum Committee seemed not to be prepared to make a motion on this. He
suggested putting it on the agenda for the next meeting.
President Pierce noted that approving the calendar change would shorten orientation and
suggested it is important to examine the total package of changes the revised calendar would
require. David Balaam asked that the chair recognize new ASUPS President Ryan Mello. Mello
argued that the proposed calendar change would adversely affect what is recognized as being an
“exemplary” orientation program. He suggested that we postpone the discussion until the
implications for orientation can be assessed.
Warning said that the Curriculum Committee understood that shortening orientation was
something faculty were calling for in the belief it is too long now. Beardsley reiterated the view
that the Faculty Senate should work on this, but Barry responded that the full faculty has to vote
on this ultimately because it is so important. Jim Evans said he favors the proposal, but that
starting teaching earlier in August was “not the best way to pay for it.” He suggested shortening
the reading period by one day and “just eating” the other day.
Mehlhaff reiterated the view that we should postpone further discussion until the next meeting.
President Pierce agreed that we should think about the implications for existing programs. Droge
pointed out that the orientation schedule might be affected by the new freshman seminars to the
extent, for example, that some Prelude content might be included in the seminars. Taranovski
said there is a problem with the short period of classes we have after Thanksgiving and argued
that the semester should be pushed closer to Christmas.
The discussion ended in consensus that the proposal would be discussed again at the next
meeting and President Pierce asked that in the meantime an email be sent to faculty that lays out
all the implications and options.
We then began a discussion of the possibility of changing registration procedures to ensure more
space for freshmen in 100-level courses. Mott Greene read the following but did not put the idea
forward as a motion at this point: “That registration for all 100 level courses (and 200 level
courses that are the first step in a sequence i.e., the ‘entry’ or ‘gateway’ courses that are
prerequisites to programs) be closed to juniors and seniors until all freshmen registration is
complete. Spaces remaining in these courses shall then be open to members of all classes in
order of their originally scheduled registration appointments.”
Dean Cooney pointed out that no one has spoken against this general idea that first came up at
the winter faculty conversation last January, and suggested that we let the registrar figure out how
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
March 8, 2000, Page 4
to accomplish this. Mehlhaff strongly endorsed the idea. Taranovski suggested the new core
curriculum will fix some of these problems and suggested that we could perhaps accomplish the
same objective by saving seats for freshmen rather than changing registration priority.
Greene M/S/P “that it is the sense of the faculty that the registrar be directed to describe
and to prepare a timetable for a system in which registration for all 100 level courses (and
200 level courses that are the first step in a sequence i.e., the ‘entry’ or ‘gateway’ courses
that are prerequisites to programs) be closed to juniors and seniors until all freshmen
registration is complete.” The motion passed on a voice vote.
We adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
John M. Finney
Secretary of the Faculty
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
March 8, 2000, Page 5
Procedure for Developing Core Category Guidelines
The omnibus motion passed by the faculty on February 16, 2000, as the basis for
continuing development of a core curriculum proposal provides that the curriculum committee or
ad hoc task forces should develop guidelines for core categories in the omnibus motion. During
the discussion members of the curriculum committee commented that they had learned a good
deal through review of existing core guidelines this year, and other faculty made reference to the
task forces that worked effectively to create guidelines for the original core. The procedure
outlined below seeks to combine involvement by curriculum committee members and the wider
faculty to develop guidelines that are both informed by experience and reflective of current
thinking.
1. The chair of the curriculum committee, the associate dean, and the chair of the Faculty
Senate will form task forces associated with each core category to develop guidelines for courses
that will meet each core requirement included in the omnibus motion. Each task force will include
at least one member of the curriculum committee who will serve as the convener of the group. All
faculty will be given an opportunity to express interest in serving on one of the task forces through
a process similar to that by which faculty express committee assignment preferences each year.
The curriculum committee chair, the associate dean, and the senate chair will appoint no fewer
than five and no more than eight faculty members to each task force. They will recognize faculty
preferences in so far as possible but will seek to insure that each task force includes both faculty
who may have a direct disciplinary interest in the category and faculty from other disciplinary
groupings in roughly equal proportions. They will allow approximately one week for the return of
faculty preference forms and will announce a list of task force members within an additional week.
2. Task forces will meet to discuss the core areas and to draft guidelines in keeping with
the actions of the faculty as a whole. Task forces will be asked to keep in mind that guidelines
should be developed in keeping with the University’s need to explain its educational purposes and
to provide evidence of its effectiveness in pursuing those purposes. Thus, each set of guidelines
should contain a statement of student learning objectives. Task forces may also wish to report on
ideas suggested during the course of their deliberations on how student learning in relation to
those objectives can be assessed.
3. Task forces will make every effort to provide a draft of category guidelines by the end
of the spring term. The associate dean will work with each of the task forces to promote
consistency of treatment of guidelines across core categories and to communicate ideas and
information among the task forces. The drafts of category guidelines will be submitted to the
curriculum committee for assembly of the package as a whole. Should significant issues arise
involving inconsistencies across categories, insufficient distinctions between categories, or
inadequate definition of categories, the curriculum committee will seek with all due speed to
consult with the relevant task force and agree on appropriate revisions. When the guidelines are
all in hand, the curriculum committee will forward them to the Faculty Senate. The Senate may
seek clarifications from the committee if necessary while seeking to place the guidelines on the
agenda for a full faculty meeting at the earliest possible time.
4. All guidelines must ultimately be approved by the full faculty as part of a
comprehensive curricular statement that defines University requirements and the core curriculum.
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
March 8, 2000, Page 6
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
December 1, 1999
Bill Haltom, Chair Faculty Senate
Steve Neshyba, Chair, Curriculum Committee
Proposal for Revision to Fall Term Calendar
The Curriculum Committee has completed its charge to "review faculty views of adjustments to
fall term calendars" and forwards to the Faculty Senate a proposal for an altered configuration of
the Fall calendar as an alternative to the current configuration.
Background:
Our calendar discussion began with anecdotal reports that faculty were dissatisfied with poor
student attendance on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. In Spring 1999, the Curriculum
Committee conducted a faculty survey on the Fall Calendar. The results of that survey indicated
faculty support of a longer Fall Break.
Over the last three months, the Committee has discussed several possible models for an altered
Fall calendar that would create a longer Fall break. The Committee rejected holding classes on
Labor Day (a staff holiday), shortening the reading period (undermines the academic mission of
the University), moving the reading period and finals such that finals ended on either a Sunday or
a Saturday (interferes with the observance of religious holidays), and ending the semester on
December 21 or 22 (complicates travel plans for winter break). The Committee also rejected the
option of subtracting class days from the term in order to create more break time. Fall semester is
already 3 days shorter than Spring.
Proposal:
Our deliberations produced the following proposal:
(1)
Create two additional days in Fall semester by starting classes on the Thursday of
Orientation week.
(2)
Add Tuesday to Fall Break.
(3)
Declare the Wednesday before Thanksgiving part of the Thanksgiving break.
This proposal does not add any class days to the Fall calendar; therefore, Fall would remain a 69class-day term as compared to the Spring term of 72 class days.
Rationale:
1) Why cut the length of Orientation? In the current configuration, first-year students are on
campus for two weekends before they actually attend a class. With the proposed calendar, the
vast majority of students would attend one session of every course before the second weekend.
Also, it was the sense of some members of the Committee that over the last several years many
faculty have voiced concern that Orientation is too long.
2) Why make the Wednesday before Thanksgiving a holiday? Many of our students must travel
long distances to go home for Thanksgiving. The proposed calendar acknowledges that
Wednesday is a legitimate travel day for Thanksgiving. The Committee’s proposal also
strengthens the faculty hand in insisting on attendance on Monday and Tuesday.
3) The main disadvantage of the proposed calendar is the earlier starting date. Many faculty,
however, are already involved on campus during Orientation Week with Prelude, advising, and
departmental activities. The Committee rejected a proposal to mitigate the effect of the earliest
starting date by extending the completion of fall term to December 21 or 22.
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
March 8, 2000, Page 7
A revised version of the calendar-setting guidelines that contains the proposal is attached along
with a chart showing start and end dates for the seven "year" possibilities.
Thank you.