CFR FACULTY MEETING MINUTES
11 January, 2005
PRESENT
Agee, Bolton (left prior to voting), Bradley, Briggs, Brown (left prior to voting), Brubaker, Doty, Eastin, Edmonds,
Ewing, Gara, Greulich, Gustafson, Halpern, Harrison, Lippke, Manuwal, Perez-Garcia, Schiess, Schreuder, Sprugel, Turnblom, Vogt, K., Wagar, West, Zabowski
EXCUSED
Marzluff, Kearney , Ryan Hinckley, Vogt, D., Paun
ABSENT
Allan, Bare, For, Franklin , Fridley , Hodgson, Johnson, Lee, McKean, Northey, Raedeke, Reichard, Strand , Wolf,
Wott
MyChem UW Chemical Database Workshop
All PIs are responsible for the chemicals they keep in their labs and must keep an inventory of them. To learn
how to be in compliance with the University policy and use the online chemical inventory system ( www.ehs.
washington.edu/services/mychem/mycheminfo.htm , PIs must attend a training session.
“Please plan to attend one of these two seminars. Getting the Chair to sign off on future grants will be conditional on you attending one of these training session so now would be a great time for you to meet that requirement…,” Rick Gustafson.
One session was held last week; the next session is Tuesday, February 1 st in Anderson Hall, Room 22 from
10:30 to noon.
PMT Committee: Faculty Merit Procedures
Rob Harrison, PMT committee chair, passed a hand out of the goals of the PMT committee and a synopsis of
the merit procedure from last year. The handout was also circulated electronically to the faculty prior to the
faculty meeting.
The goal of the committee was to create a merit evaluation system that assesses teaching, research, and
service fairly for all faculty. Rob and the committee asked the faculty for criticism/feedback on how to address
issues of procedure that were received poorly; in particular, how to assess/measure the service aspect of a
faculty member’s work. Service was not weighted as part of the merit process last year. Ann Corboy was going
to assist in the ‘Service’ assessment project, but now that she’s no longer at the College, it’s not clear who will
take this on.
The faculty needs to decide whether or not continue to use last year’s system or vote to overhaul it and make
changes.
The merit review is a required exercise, regardless of availability of funds to give merit raises. There is currently, and will continue to be a positive bias toward those faculty who teach required/flagship undergraduate
courses.
PMT Members:
Rob Harrison, Chair, 04-05, Kern Ewing, Vice Chair, 04-05 Bruce Lippke, Forest Systems; Bob Gara, Sustainable
Resources; Gordon Bradley, Social Science & Urban Ecology; Dave Manuwal; Bill McKean; Steve West; John
Wott
MS & PhD Degree Policies & Procedures
Rick went over changes recommended from last discussion of procedures at last meeting.
Qualifying exam’s purpose
• To determine if student is qualified for a PhD
• To spot weaknesses in the student’s knowledge
Changes were made to the wording allowing the advisor to be present in the exam but not participate in the
post-examination deliberations and vote.
Faculty deliberated on committee numbers for student and the advisor’s role in the qualifying exam. Some
faculty still disagrees on the usefulness of the qualifying exam.
Greulich motioned to accept procedure and policies as is. There was no second.
Further voting on the Q.E. policies & procedures were tabled until amendments to the procedures were discussed and voted upon.
Discussion and amendments to original proposed Q.E. procedures
A. Wagar motioned to accept, but with modifications to section #4 on the policy and procedures of the Q.E.
J. Agee seconded the motion.
F. Greulich moved to accept as is but to remove the shaded wording in section #4 in the Q.E. procedures.
J. Agee seconded the motion.
B. Lippke moved to amend item 5 to require a minimum of three present at deliberation.
J. Agee seconded the motion.
Favor: 20
Oppose: 0
Abstain: 4
Harrison agreed, but moved all three faculties DO NOT have to be members of the committee. Should one
committee member not be able to attend, the other members, at their discretion may ask another faculty to
attend the Q.E.
J. Agee seconded the motion.
Favor: 18
Oppose: 2
Abstain: 4
D. Zabowski proposed amendment to item 3 to read; ”students will have up to or a maximum of four weeks to
complete the written part of the exam.”
R. Harrison motioned
J. Agee seconded
Favor: 17
Oppose: 2
Abstain: 5
Motion to approve the Q.E. policy and procedures with the amendments was made and seconded
Favor: 16
Oppose: 6
Abstain: 2
Adjourned 12:00