CFR FACULTY MEETING MINUTES
30 May, 2006
PRESENT: Agee, Allan, Bradley, Briggs, Brubaker, Doty, Edmonds, Ford, Greulich, Gustafson, Halpern, Harrison,
Lippke, Marzluff, McKean, Reichard, Ryan, Schiess, Schreuder, Sprugel, Turnblom, D Vogt, K Vogt, West
EXCUSED: Bolton, Fridley , Gara, Hinckley , Hodgson, Johnson, Manuwal,
ABSENT: Bare, Brown, Eastin, Ewing, Franklin , Lee, Mabberley, Marzluff, Paun, Perez-Garcia, Peterson, Raedeke, Strand , Wott, Zabowksi
ADDITIONAL GUESTS: McKenzie, Trudeau, Wager, Withey
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Rick Gustafson called the meeting to order and explained that David Ford would be first on the agenda to discuss the Quantitative Landscape Scientist committee recommendations and then John Marzluff would discuss
the revised ESRM Core proposal.
Quantitative Landscape Scientist Faculty Position
David Ford was the chair of this search committee and served with Jim Fridley , John Marzluff , Kristiina Vogt
, Mark Handcock (Stats) and graduate student John Withey. David explained that they wanted to find candidates with an ecology background and not just a statistician. The application deadline was 2/28/06 and 57
applications were reviewed. The group first selected their top ten and then narrowed it to the top four based
upon the most productive writers, the best funding, and those who seemed quantitative enough. Most of the
candidates were post-docs. David then described the interview process, the seminar formats and the order of
interviews among the top four candidates.
The strengths and weaknesses of the four candidates were reviewed by the committee and discussed by the
faculty.
Following the discussion Rick Gustafson asked the faculty to vote on the acceptability of each candidate and to
then rank them in order of preference. An email vote was sent to the faculty and the final votes were:
31 faculty members voted. The results are stored in the chair’s office.
ESRM Core
Rick Gustafson opened the discussion by sharing the straw votes for the five alternative options to change the
ESRM Core courses. The votes were: Alternative A – 1 vote, Alternative B – 4 votes, Alternative C – 3 votes,
Alternative D – 2 votes, Alternative E – 2 votes and 4 abstentions on all of the alternatives. Rick said that the
core could not be changed with so few votes. Therefore the faculty must come up with a new proposal that
everyone can embrace. Rick shared a temporary proposal that John offered: require ESRM 301 or ESRM 303 as
a course and students would have an option to select one of these and ESRM 302 would no longer be required.
Rob Harrison asked what students would be told and Rick said the student services office could tell the students that they would be required to take 301 OR 303. They would no longer be required to take 302 but they
would need to take 304.
Peter Schiess felt that it could be a slippery slope to change so abruptly and that the faculty should reflect for
a longer period of time before the Core gets changed. Rick said that it would not be feasible to wait to change
the Core and have the discussion in the autumn. This proposal seemed to be the most reasonable. Doug
Sprugel asked if this would be an interim solution for the short term until a better solution could be discussed
and decided. Rick confirmed that yes, this would be a temporary solution until the topic could be explored in
greater depth next year.
Clare Ryan asked if there would be a Capstone course. Rick confirmed that under this interim proposal, there
would not be a capstone course and students would only be required to take 301 or 303 and 304.
Michelle Trudeau added that students have consistently expressed concern over the requirements. Should
students wish to take any 400 level, they will be required to petition for these courses. This change would be
for students entering the academic year in 2006-07.
Rob Harrison stated that several students currently in ESRM have already taken 302, can we allow this course
as a substitute or perhaps make an amendment for those who have taken it to date? Jim Agee seconded this
idea. Kristiina Vogt asked if this change would create problems for faculty who teach the core courses? Rick
Gustafson confirmed that yes, there may be some problems for faculty with this change but this would be for
one year only.
John Marzluff added that this option requires less of a commitment than any of the other options proposed.
Michelle Trudeau clarified that the course plan would require students to take 301, 302 or 303 with a substitute of other ESRM major courses. Rick Gustafson said that students could use the additional 10 credits within
their pathway courses. Students could take 300 level courses or higher in ESRM to fulfill the remaining course
requirements. Doug Sprugel asked if students could take courses at some other department at UW and Rick
Gustafson said that next year that can be discussed. For now, they will be restricted to ESRM courses.
Rick then asked if he could get a motion on this proposal. Rick stated again that the new ESRM Core proposal is
that students would take ESRM 310, 302 or 303; ESRM 304 would still be required and the remaining 45 credits
would be upper level ESRM electives of the student’s choosing. Jim Agee made a motion to vote on this proposal and Graham Allan seconded the motion. The faculty voted by a show of hands and the final vote was: 19
approve, 1 oppose and 3 abstained.
Rick reminded the faculty that next week there would be a two hour meeting to cover 2 faculty search committee findings and the PMT recommendations. David Briggs asked faculty to attend the seminar tomorrow at
9am and Jim Agee encouraged attendance at 3:30pm for Stewart Diemont at CUH.
Adjourned 11:20am