Dean's Council
Minutes, 2003
Minutes of Dean’ s Council, December 5, 2003.
Discussion items included: FCAS report, Dean’ s meeting with President
Huntsman, Research focus for the College, Chair candidates, announcements.
Attending: Bruce Bare, Bob Edmonds, Steve West, Rick Gustafson, Dave Manuwal,
Karen Russell, Sally Morgan
RCEP/FCAS: No new news on RCEP but we have gotten the formal approval for the
curriculum revision from the Faculty Council on Academic Standards. The new
EASRM curriculum is approved for Winter 2004. We are still waiting for final
approval from the President on the RCEP review.
Meeting with President: Dean Bare met with President Huntsman last week to
discuss the outcome of the RECP review and to encourage him to use the report as
an opportunity to issue a positive statement about the College and the progress that
has been made since the Charting Directions Committee report was issued. (This is
something that would make a tremendous difference to our outside supporters and
constituents, as well as those in the College and across the University.) President
Huntsman agreed to consider this, but the letter hasn’ t been received yet.
Dean Bare reported that he also asked President Huntsman for some new bridgefaculty positions because of our current faculty age class distribution and the
foreseeable need to replace expertise. The President asked that the College
undertake an examination of the state of forestry and natural resources education to
identify areas that are ahead of the curve and seek to hire the next generation of
“ thought leaders.” He might be willing to support several new faculty positions,
but only if we can provide justification and build a strong case. The President noted
that as a professional school CFR is in much the same situation as the Law School
or the Business School in that we should seek to hire faculty who can make
substantial contributions to research and graduate education while simultaneously
1
filling our professional needs. There is no timetable for this, but there may well be a
window of opportunity that is of limited duration, given the climate of the University. It
was noted that our faculty hiring culture has traditionally reflected existing
professional needs and not our research mission. We need to analyze where the
research activity will be in the future. It was proposed that a group be set up as a
think tank to specifically seek this sort of input.
There was general discussion of the relative importance of graduate and
undergraduate teaching and research, taking note of the funding limits by the
legislature and the obligations to our professional constituents and alumni. (It was
noted that the promulgation of the course recommendations in the interest areas or
pathways might help to reassure those groups.)
College Elections: Dean Bare has received the recommendations for faculty chair;
he is meeting with each of the candidates and will be sending an email to the faculty
before the end of the day announcing those who will be on the ballot next Tuesday.
Announcements:
AAAS: the American Association for the Advancement of Science will hold its annual
meeting in Seattle (at the Convention Center) in February.
Income-generating course: Professor Bare announced that he has gotten approval
for his internet section of Q SCI 381 as an income-generating course through UW
Educational Outreach. The fees will generate enough to support a TA and provide
some revenue to the College as well. This is the same as Rob Harrison’ s ESC
110, although smaller, of course.
Federal Budget: NEON has been dropped from the federal budget proposal for NSF
for FY 04.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00.
Minutes of Dean’ s Council, November 21, 2003.
2
Discussion items included: Sabbatical quarter allocation, RCEP and FCAS reports,
Curriculum planning, Ad Hoc Structure Committee report, Budget issues, College
elections, and end-of-year review.
Attending: Bruce Bare, Bob Edmonds, Steve West, Rick Gustafson, Dave Manuwal,
Karen Russell, Sally Morgan
Sabbatical leaves: The sabbatical requests for the 2004-05 academic year are due
next month. At this point, it appears that as many as 13 quarters may be requested.
However, only 6 quarters were allocated by the University, so the chairs need to
prioritize the requests when they submit them.
Curriculum: It was noted that planning for the new curriculum is moving ahead; new
core courses are listed on the time schedule and registration has begun. It would be
very useful to have comments from faculty. The wild lands course is being formally
reviewed by CIDR; at the end of the course (perhaps early next quarter) it would be
useful to have a report on this process to help with implementation of the other core
courses. Scheduling and advising is moving ahead. Course numbers and
designations need to be standardized.
RCEP/FCAS: No new news. We are still waiting for final approval. We will need a
recruiting effort to launch the new ESRM major when it is approved.
Ad Hoc Structure Committee report: The Structure Committee report is in.
Recommendations include such things as forming an ad hoc committee to work
specifically on marketing the new curriculum. The curriculum committee membership
was discussed – potentially, members could be drawn from the interest groups,
with co-chairs representing both undergraduate and graduate programs, rather than
having representation from each. The Committee could always appoint ad hoc
members. It should have representation for the professional masters degree as well.
The Graduate Program coordinator and the Director of Student Services should also
be members. Discussion of student representation concluded that it may not be
feasible or possible to get consistent student participation and that this would be
3
another area where ad hoc representation might be more workable. The question of
having an external group review was raised. This is something that PSE has (in the
context of accreditation) and it might be something to think about for ESRM.
University and College budgeting: the University budgeting and accounting process
is still confused (because of the implementation of the salary raises in August, rather
than in July when the fiscal year started). The administrator and financial services
are still trying to sort things out and get the divisional budgets set up. A note of
clarification was made on the Research Cost Recovery (RCR) funds: it is not correct
that our RCR is at $468,000, with 25% to the dean and 75% to the divisions,
because so much of the funds ($340,000) go to salaries that are in support of
research in the areas of computing, financial services, grant administration, etc. The
25/75 split only applies to the funds left over after those salaries are paid.
College Elections: The recommendations for faculty chair are due at the end of next
week, with voting to be at a special faculty meeting on December 9. There was a
discussion of how the voting would be done and when the vice chair would be
elected. There was agreement that it must be immediate, because the chair’ s term
starts the first day of Winter Quarter. Because of the start date falling in the middle of
the year, the first term will run 2 years and 2 quarters. The Elected Faculty Council
has elected a chair and vice-chair: Frank Gruelich and Darlene Zabowski,
respectively. It is important to think about how to elect the PMT committee in the
very near future as well, so that they will be ready to start on the merit review. It will
be important to have broad representation, particularly paying attention to both
research and rank distribution.
End-of-year review: There was a discussion of the annual end-of-year review and
how it might be structured to be most constructive. This year, it should primarily be a
planning exercise, and thereafter, could be reporting and planning. It should be for
both research and the centers.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00.
4
Minutes of Dean's Council, November 7, 2003.
Discussion items included: Space allocations and equipment in the shops, RCEP
and FCAS reports, Curriculum planning, CFR Committee structure.
Attending: Bruce Bare, Bob Edmonds, Steve West, Rick Gustafson, Dave Manuwal,
Karen Russell, Sally Morgan (scribe)
Space
The meeting opened with a discussion of two space-related items. First, the
disposition of equipment that had been stored in the metal shop. Strong interest has
been expressed in keeping one drill press. It was recently moved to Pack Forest,
under the mistaken impression that it was not greatly used here. It will be brought
back and placed in the cage. The second item pertains to the space that Student
Services uses. They have requested being moved out of Rm. 115 and into 130 (as
well as keeping 116). There are various considerations: without a person in 115,
what impact would there be on College reception (is it needed at all? Would good
signage help?) Would Brian Boyle, currently in 130A, need to be moved and if so, to
where? Could 115, if vacant, be used for other things such as mail or as a lunch
room? No decision was reached; the questions will be considered further.
FCAS
The Faculty Committee on Academic Standards met last Friday and considered
our ESRM curriculum proposal. Although the unofficial word is that they accepted
the clarifications on upper-level course requirements and approved the proposal, no
formal notification has been received.
RCEP
Still no official word, but all of the formal response periods have run. The
President should be issuing his response by November 27. As there have been no
negative reports, we are anticipating a positive report from the President. As soon
as we get that, we will go ahead with posting requirements, etc. As a side note,
5
Dean Bare commented that our review has pointed out some difficulties in the
University's RCEP procedures, which will probably be amended. The question was
asked about the RCEP/Faculty Senate Committee report's recommendation that
Paper Science be transferred to Engineering. It is Dean Bare's understanding that
this is more observational that a true recommendation. The committee was not
asked to make recommendations, but simply to respond to our proposal. Therefore,
while the Provost and President could make note of it, the result would be for the
President to ask for a formal review of that specific issue.
Curriculum
In spite of not having formal approval of the new ESRM curriculum, it is
imperative that we proceed with planning. Dave Manuwal has asked the ES faculty
to identify courses for proposed pathways (concentrations). Rick will do the same
with the M&E faculty. Anticipating that the ESRM major will become effective in
Winter 2004, the proposed pathways need to be completed by the end of the
quarter. Dave inquired as to how courses will be identified in the Catalog and Time
Schedule. The print Catalog is only updated every other year and is currently in
process for the 2004-06 edition. The online course catalog is updated in real time.
Time Schedule designations can be implemented as soon as approved. Michelle
Trudeau can work with the Time Schedule to make sure the designations are
correct.
There was a discussion of how student credit hours will be allocated to the
various faculty participating in the core courses. This will be an important criteria for
PMT so it is important that everyone treat them in the same way. It was agreed that
(when established) the Faculty PMT Committee take this issue on as part of their
first assignment. This is only one of several measures of faculty effort that require
this Committee's immediate attention.
Committee structures and selection
6
The process for electing the Faculty PMT Committee was reviewed. Since it is
critical that the various interest groups be represented, this is another reason that
faculty interest groups need to identify themselves and put names forward for the
PMT.
The Chair selection needs to go forward as quickly as possible. There will be
only two faculty meetings before the new structure begins in January. The
nomination committee has been appointed; election should take place at the Faculty
meeting on November 18. The possibility of doing an electronic balloting was
discussed; it was agreed that, since there will not be nominations from the floor, an
electronic vote, either by email or a web site, would be legal. Once the Chair is
elected, selection of the Assoc. Chair can proceed and be done at the next faculty
meeting in December.
Bruce Bare noted that he has gotten comments on the first draft of a memo
dealing with the College committee structure. The discussion indicated that the
biggest area of confusion is the role and membership of the Management Council.
Is is to be a consultative body? An informational sharing mechanism? Might it be
effective to have a separate committee that is composed of only administrative staff,
which would deal with implementation issues more than policy? Dean Bare will
continue to work on these issues.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00.
cfr.washington.edu
7