School of Environmental and Forest Sciences
Faculty Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2012, 10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
Anderson Hall Room 22
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Tom Hinckley, Interim Director at 10:30 a.m.
ATTENDANCE
PRESENT: Graham Allan, Ernesto Alvarado, Bruce Bare, Gordon Bradley, Sharon Doty, Bob Edmonds, Greg Ettl,
David Ford, Charlie Halpern, Tom Hinckley, Kevin Hodgson, John Marzluff, Doug Sprugel, Eric Turnblom, Dan
Vogt, Kristiina Vogt, Steve West, Aaron Wirsing, Darlene Zabowski
ABSENT: James Agee*, Stanley Asah, Jonathan Bakker, Susan Bolton, David Briggs, Sally Brown, Renata Bura,
Ivan Eastin, Kern Ewing, David Ford, Jerry Franklin, James Fridley, Robert Gara*, Dean Glawe, Lisa Graumlich,
Frank Greulich, Richard Gustafson, Jay Johnson, Soo-Hyung Kim, Joshua Lawler, Bruce Lippke*, David
Manuwal*, William McKean*, Monika Moskal, Dorothy Paun, John Perez-Garcia, David Peterson, Sergey
Rabotyagov, Sarah Reichard, Clare Ryan, Peter Schiess, Stuart Strand, Christian Torgersen, Sandor Toth
ALSO ATTENDING: Nevada Smith, Michelle Trudeau
49 eligible to vote faculty during Autumn Quarter 2011.
*faculty member not eligible to vote Autumn Quarter 2011.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
• 40% rehire was funded centrally and now will be funded through ABB so the unit will be funding the retired
faculty. In the current model it was relatively easy to get approval for the 40% re-employment. Now it
could get more difficult.
• Future Forestry Leaders Symposium, Friday, February 24 to Saturday, February 25, 2012, Vancouver, BC,
University of British Columbia, “A Graduate Student Research Symposium Celebrating the International
Year of the Forest.” Ivan Eastin helped coordinate this event, please see him if you want to attend or have
any questions about the event. (http://events.forestry.ubc.ca/future‐forestry‐leaders/)
• Wilderness First Aid, we have both dates February 25&26 and March 3-4. Both dates are weekends,
Saturday and Sunday. ESS may partner with us. The courses are not free. Wilderness First Aid is $125135/person, but it covers regular first aid which is $50.
• 3000 institutions are looking at university education.
FACULTY ACTIONS
No actions have been proposed.
PRESENTATION
No presentations have been scheduled.
DISCUSSION
• Should SEFS develop a plan to fund graduate students (PhD and Masters) that guarantees two years
of funding for them?
Dr. Ford has brought forward these discussion items (Option 1 and Option 2 below) for these reasons:
(1) A guarantee of funding attracts higher quality students to accept offers.
(2) Until we commit ourselves to this approach we will not feel the need to re-organize finances to attract the
best graduate students, e.g., placing the funding of incoming students to have some priority.
(3) The present situation of accepting at least some students with no funding leads to dismay and
disgruntlement among students who have no funding. They may say they accept the situation when they
agree to come but experience shows they change their minds once here. This dissatisfaction diminishes the
quality of the whole program.
(4) In turn more security in funding is likely to aid in student retention.
Option 1.
C:\DOCUME~1\cece\LOCALS~1\Temp\im180417.doc
School of Environmental and Forest Sciences
Faculty Meeting Minutes
Page 2
Students should only be admitted to the Masters of Science, or PhD graduate programs of the School of
Environmental and Forest Sciences with a two-year guarantee of funding as TAs, RAs, or on scholarship that
covers the three regular teaching quarters in each year.
Option 2.
Before acceptance to the Masters of Science, or PhD graduate programs of the School of Environmental and
Forest Sciences both student and provisional chair of the student's committee should sign an agreement sheet on
the source of funding for fees and stipend for the three regular teaching quarters in the first two years of study.
This should include the guarantee for at least three regular teaching quarters.
DISCUSSION:
Option 1.
Dr. Ford: Implementing one of these options should improve the environment in which graduate students work.
These suggestions do not apply to the professional masters (MFR) which is just coursework. Admitted students
should be guaranteed funding for three regular academic quarters which guarantees that students will have
health coverage. Students won’t get in unless they have 2 years of guaranteed funding.
Option 2. Before acceptance student and faculty sign an agreement stating where the funding comes from.
Dr. Ford presented defensive reasons for adopting the motion:
• He believes that there will be competition within the CoEnv, if we face in-college competition, which he
believes we will (in other words: our students are better than your students)
• Comparison of graduate programs is made on such metrics as:
• GRE scores of incoming students
• Proportion of first choice acceptances
• Graduating student exit surveys should improve
¾ Marzluff: It’s a great idea—2 years for a masters is good, but for PhD he things 3-4 years is better
¾ Alvarado: International students must be funded for entire length of program. Only option 1 is available for
International students.
¾ Sprugel: We are already judged by number of students we have. Adopting one of these plans could mean
we might have fewer but better students.
¾ Ford: Quality is better than quantity—faculty are judged by quality of research and better graduate students
contribute to that. To satisfy numbers (ABB) we should teach more undergraduate students. We are weak
in the metrics about grad students.
¾ KVogt: GRE is one metric that might not evaluate students effectively. Are graduate schools using GREs?
¾ Trudeau: Yes, GREs are used along with GPAs. There is a direct correlation between undergrad GPAs and
success as a graduate student.
¾ Hodgson: What if a student has the qualifications but no one has the funding to support the student? If they
want to come here without funding and they look like they are going to be successful. They should still
have the opportunity to put together their own funding.
¾ Ford: If they are independently wealthy perhaps. But it becomes a haves and have nots situation and
creates a disparity amongst students. They come to Student Services a lot. Sprugel: Are they better off in
the office or not in school at all?
¾ Marzluff: When they come here without funding they compete for other resources. We should be forced to
get the money first.
¾ Zabowski: Can’t guarantee a student a TA. And what if a grant runs out?
¾ Ford: It forces us to change how we do things—guarantee would come from the school so we would have
to re-organize how the finances are done. This is not an easy thing that I’m suggesting but we should do it.
C:\DOCUME~1\cece\LOCALS~1\Temp\im180417.doc
School of Environmental and Forest Sciences
Faculty Meeting Minutes
Page 3
¾ Zabowski: Instructor would not have control who would TA their course.
¾ Ford: It’s a transference from individual responsibility to overall responsibility. These problems are worth
having to deal with so that we can better the graduate program.
¾ Halpern: When I was on scholarship committee I was pushing that we invest more in fewer students. There
should be a conversation with the scholarship committee about this.
¾ Ford: Brought this forward because he wants to explore who thinks this is a good idea. Then we can
explore how we can do it.
¾ Ettl: What proportion of our students are without funding?
¾ Trudeau: We have 160 grad students of which 90-100 are funded and 1/3 of our grad students are not
funded through us. When we offer the top students a fellowship for two years they likely have other offers
in hand and are looking for a match or better of our offer. The ARCs Fellowships that we have been able to
offer are 2 years. In addition with tuition going up it makes the funds will have already stretch. When we
admit students without funding and they accept a better offer from someplace else, we are admitting
students that don’t come, and that looks bad too.
¾ KVogt: We are evaluating current application packages. There is a low turnover of funded students so
there’s not funding for the new students and then there is a decrease in overall grad student numbers.
¾ Hinckley: In ABB grad students, if they are enrolled they get counted; with undergrads we have to get them
out the door.
¾ Wirsing: We will be forced to reconsider our funding models. There would need to be a lot of thought on
how to do this. We owe the students a bit of a safety net.
¾ Hinckley: This is an opportunity to change how we do this.
¾ Alvarado: Underscored that we need a proposal that includes minorities and options for international
students.
• Discussion of the Task Force Report regarding Developing a Coordinated Research and Outreach
Enterprise in SEFS. The report is attached to the agenda. This was Task #2 from the Sept. retreat.
Task #2: Develop a collaborative center structure, as defined under new Institute of Forest
Resources legislation that promotes functional, informational, financial and administrative
interaction and efficiency.
The proposed structure or structures must address the following criteria: a) provide flexibility
to address changing research issues and opportunities as they arise; b) promote internal
efficiencies while simultaneously retaining the support of external stakeholders who identify
with a specific research program; c) increase our ability to respond to RFP's in a timely and
effective manner, i.e., build research capacity; and d) minimizes administrative overhead. In
carrying out this task, provide a portfolio of active and potential research strengths of SFR
researchers. Consider the use of some McIntire Stennis funds as “incubation” funds to test
the effectiveness of the model and provide a platform for a later request for state funds.
Consider the use of Foster School faculty/students to gain fresh perspectives.
Dr. Bare stated that the report presents a new model of looking at research in SEFS. The Institute of Forest
Resources bill passed both houses of the state legislature unanimously. Though the Institute has been in
existence for a while, it has been reenergized by the passage of this bill. Dr. Bare quoted two sentences
from the bill that provide a framework for thinking of the Institute: 1. It is the intent of the legislature for the institute of forest resources to provide the structure and
continuity needed by drawing contributions from the associated centers and cooperatives into a more
consolidated, collaborative, interdisciplinary, and integrated process that is responsive to the critical
issues confronting the forest sector.
C:\DOCUME~1\cece\LOCALS~1\Temp\im180417.doc
School of Environmental and Forest Sciences
Faculty Meeting Minutes
Page 4
2. The director of the school of forest resources at the University of Washington shall coordinate the
various cooperatives and centers within the School of Forest Resources to promote a holistic, efficient,
and integrated approach that broadens the research and outreach programs and addresses issues facing
the forest sector.
Within that context and by virtue of the charge that came out of the Strategic Planning Retreat a task force was
formed to determine how to implement the Institute. The members of the task force were Beverly Anderson, B.
Bruce Bare, Robert Edmonds, Greg Ettl, and Sarah Reichard. In addition, Jerry Franklin and Rick Gustafson
provided valuable insights to the Task Force. SEFS researchers were invited to talk to the Committee.
A revitalized Institute can serve as the focal point for the School’s research and outreach programs and do so in
a value-added way. Ultimately, three broad roles for the Institute were developed: 1) as a provider of services;
2) as a web portal restructuring our research around issues; and 3) as a promoter of new research.
Rather than follow individual interest areas, the Institute should be directed more to issues—issues oriented
programs should make us much more visible to constituents and the legislature. Reinvigorating our web
presence can be done relatively cheaply and easily.
In order to promote new programs and new research SEFS is prepared to redirect some of the McIntyre-Stennis
money to this effort. We generally receive about $400K per year. We would like the faculty to submit issues
that we could start to work on NOW that we could carry back to the legislature at their next session (next year).
The Institute of Forest Resources bill states that the Director of the Institute be the Director of the School. This
duty can be delegated to another member of the faculty. If so, this person would be a promoter of new research,
would focus on new programs, and would be a dynamic faculty member of the SEFS faculty. The Institute
recognizes faculty who are not associated with a center; they could get services from the Institute. We are not
trying to dismantle existing research centers as long as they have funding.
The faculty wondered how should ideas be transmitted. The should be addressed to Tom Hinckley and Bruce
Bare. Tom will look at the ideas that will have been submitted and put out an RFP and frame direction
proposals might go in.
•
Discussion of list of priorities for Advancement fundraising. Dr. Hinckley has prepared a document that
lists all of the ideas that he has, thus far, received from the faculty. That list is attached to the agenda. In
addition a list of the current SEFS events that take place throughout the year is also attached. Advancement
used to support many of these events when we had College status. We want to discuss how we should fund
these events as we move forward. Much of this material supports Task #5 from the retreat.
DISCUSSION: We set priorities of what we’d like to see funded and then they go to the Advancement
office.
Facilities—how do we prioritize renovations? What about naming labs? If we provide 51% to renovate, are
we more competitive to get college money? Recruitment and retention of faculty? Endowment is “forever”
business model is more short term. Bare: Many people believe that modernizing our facilities is the
responsibility of the state. Our capital budget has not been strong. We have to be careful about asking for
facilities money, but think about the requests in terms of program money. A donor might be interested in
paying for a building at Pack but not putting on a new roof. Creating a new research program would be a 5
year example. We’ll need a range of approaches—getting labs named and paid for. Donors might want to
have their name on a lab rather than their name on scholarship. Hinckley wants priorities from faculty so
that he can direct Advancement appropriately. Soils group provided good feedback and he has received
ideas from some individuals. Tom has also asked Center Directors for input.
C:\DOCUME~1\cece\LOCALS~1\Temp\im180417.doc
School of Environmental and Forest Sciences
Faculty Meeting Minutes
Page 5
• Catalyst website put up for faculty portfolio input. It’s really critical that you provide input.
UPCOMING MEETING
The next School of Forest Resources Faculty Meeting will be on Tuesday, February 14, 2012 from 10:30 to
11:30 a.m. in Anderson Hall Room 22.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 a.m.
Attachments: 2011 Retreat Outcomes Report
Task Force Report
List of Advancement Fundraising Ideas
List of School of Environmental and Forest Sciences Events
C:\DOCUME~1\cece\LOCALS~1\Temp\im180417.doc