Minutes of College of Forest Resources All­College Faculty meeting of November 18, 2003. Attendees: Bare, Bolton, Bradley, Brubaker, Doty, Eastin, Edmonds, Ewing, Fridley, Gara,
Greulich, Gustafson, Halpern, Harrison, Hinckley, Hodgson, Manuwal, Paun, Reichard, Ryan,
Schiess, Schreuder, Sprugel, K. Vogt, Wagar, West, Zabowski. (During Autumn Quarter, there
are 47 faculty who are eligible to vote, so a quorum was present.)
Also present: Morgan.
The meeting was called to order by Dean Bare, who reported on a meeting held the preceding
Friday, November 14, with the College Visiting Committee and the Volunteer Committee. It
was an extremely positive meeting, focused primarily on the fund-raising effort for the College
during the upcoming university-wide capital campaign. He noted that the members of the
committee were very engaged and encouraged by the changes CFR has undertaken. They had
questions and concerns about the curriculum and the pathways, but felt that clarification of the
terms would be helpful, as would an understanding that the pathways will be meaningful as a
planning tool. He also said that the committee, in their role as ambassadors for the College
during the fund-raising campaign, wants to have greater involvement by and information about
the faculty members’ activities, so the faculty should expect to be hearing from members of the
development staff in that regard.
Frank Greulich, chair of the committee nominating committee for the position of chair of the
combined faculty, took the floor to review the progress of discussions relating to chair selection.
(See below for the full text of the criteria developed by the committee.) The criteria were
arranged in 3 groups.
The first group included rank, administrative experience and commitment to the new
curriculum. After discussion of each item, an advisory vote was taken (nominations should be
limited to tenured faculty, associate or above; administrative experience is desirable but not
necessary; the degree of commitment to the new curriculum should not be a determining factor
for the committee.) The second group pertained to the willingness of the candidates to serve and
evidence that they would be on campus for the next 2 years; those were accepted without
discussion. The third group was comprised of more subjective criteria, directed toward
evaluation of the candidates’ character. After extensive discussion, it was agreed that the list is a
useful way to think about the candidates, and while each member of the faculty will take those
factors into consideration when they vote, it is still essential for the committee to consider them
in putting forward the slate of nominatees.
The nominating committee is requesting input and suggestions from faculty, students, staff and
alumni. They will vet the list, based on the criteria in the first two categories and submit the
final list to the Dean after their meeting on December 4. A special meeting was announced for
the faculty to vote on the candidates proposed by the committee. That meeting will be Tuesday,
December 9, 3:30 – 5:00, in Rm. 22 Anderson Hall. Since many cannot attend, there was
discussion of voting rules; the Dean’s office will get clarification of the voting regulations from
the Provost’s office.
Kevin Hodgson then led the discussions of the final recommendations of the Structures
Committee (memo is below, distributed via email). The primary concern expressed by members
of the faculty is the designation of the faculty interest groups. It was felt that these areas
duplicate the previous curricular classifications. There was an extended discussion of the
purpose of the groups. The purpose is to denominate research foci and graduate study areas. In
addition, the members of the groups can identify lists of courses that undergraduates who are
interested in a particular area should take, whether because of interest in a career path or
admission to a graduate program.
The committee also recommends that a portion of the Indirect Cost Recovery funds should be
allocated back to the interest groups to fund travel, publication charges, etc.
Because of the time, the final item on the agenda, a discussion of the core courses, was deferred
to a special meeting scheduled for November 25 (3:30 – 5:00, Rm. 22 Anderson Hall).
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00.
Faculty Chair Selection Criteria
Group I.
A.
Only full professors with tenure
Amended to: Only associate and full professors with tenure
B.
Previous administrative appointment and duties
Struck
C.
Demonstrated commitment to the new College curriculum
Struck
Group II.
A. Expressed willingness to serve
B.
Will be on campus next 2 years (available year-round)
Group III.
A. Interpersonal Skills-Considers and responds appropriately to the needs, feelings, and
capabilities of different people in different situations; is tactful, compassionate, and sensitive,
and treats others with respect.
B. Forward-Looking-Has a clear sense of direction and concern for the future of the
organization. Able to set or select a desirable destination toward which the organization should
head.
C. Competent-Seen as capable and effective. Possesses value added competence. Has
leadership capability and competence including the abilities to challenge, inspire, enable, model
and encourage.
D. Credibility-Proud to be a part of the organization, feel a strong sense of team spirit, see their
own personal values as consistent with those of the organization, feel attached and committed to
the organization, have a strong sense of ownership of the organization.
E. Team Building-Inspires, motivates, and guides others toward goal accomplishments.
Consistently develops and sustains cooperative working relationships. Encourages and
facilitates cooperation within the organization and with customer groups; fosters commitment,
team spirit, pride, trust. Develops leadership in others through coaching, mentoring, rewarding,
and guiding employees.
F. Integrity/Honesty-Instills mutual trust and confidence; creates a culture that fosters high
standards of ethics; behaves in a fair and ethical manner toward others, and demonstrates a sense
of corporate responsibility and commitment to public service. Models behavior in public and
private life that is beyond reproach.
G. Flexibility-Is open to change and new information; adapts behavior and work methods in
response to new information, changing conditions, or unexpected obstacles. Adjusts rapidly to
new situations warranting attention and resolution.
H. Accountability-Assures that effective controls are developed and maintained to ensure the
integrity of the organization. Holds self and others accountable for rules and responsibilities.
Can be relied upon to ensure that projects within areas of specific responsibility are completed in
a timely manner and within budget. Monitors and evaluates plans; focuses on results and
measuring attainment of outcomes.
I. Decisiveness-Exercises good judgment by making sound and well-informed and timely
decisions; perceives the impact and implications of decisions; makes effective and timely
decisions, even when data is limited or solutions produce unpleasant consequences; is proactive
and achievement oriented.
CFR Structures Committee
K. Hodgson, G. Bradley, D. Manuwal, R. Harrison, S. West, (G. Schreuder)
11/14/03
Final Recommendations to the College Faculty and Administration
Proposal for College Committees:
We propose that there be created essentially 3 different categories for committees that exist
within the CFR:
I.
Committees that are specifically mandated and required by the faculty code and/or
University policy. Usually the procedure for determining the composition of these committees is
also spelled out.
•
Elected Faculty Council
•
Promotion, Merit, and Tenure Committee
•
College/workplace Safety Committee
II.
Standing committees that need to exist within the College for an indefinite period of
time to periodically act on issues facing the College and/or faculty.
•
Curricula Committee (Undergrad and grad)
•
College Planning Committee
•
College Lands Committee
•
College Space Committee
•
Scholarship and Financial Aid Committee
•
Workplace Quality and College Ombudsman Committee
III.
Ad Hoc Committees that are formed as needed for temporary periods of time to address
specific issues that may arise and need faculty deliberation
•
Computing and Information Technology Committee
•
Undergraduate Recruitment Committee (especially for ESRM curriculum)
•
Others as needed
Functioning of the Chair and Vice-Chair of the faculty:
These have now been established as positions of 2-year duration each, and an automatic
succession of vice-chair to chair. A 2–year waiting period should be observed before a specific
faculty member can re-enter either one of these positions. We feel it is important to restrict these
positions to tenured, teaching faculty only, and of at least the Associate Professor level. These
positions must have control of a budget which is roughly equal in magnitude to the sum of the
budgets for the existing M&E and ESC Divisions. Financial resources need to be made available
to these positions in order for them to assist the faculty as they deem appropriate. It is proposed
that the two current administrative assistants for the Divisions work together to assist the chair
and vice-chair, with an appropriate division of the total duties. For the present time, having one
person each in Bloedel and Winkenwerder Halls seems reasonable.
Teaching assignments should be made in close consultation with the faculty involved in teaching
a specific curriculum (and in the case of PSE, the PSE interest group leader), but will ultimately
be the responsibility of the Chair. The Chair will engage in an annual work planning session with
each of the College faculty, and in the case of teaching faculty, this will include plans for
specific teaching assignments for the coming academic year. Any teaching duties to be
performed by research faculty will be handled on a case-by-case basis.
Faculty Interest Groups:
The following interest groups are recommended at the current time. They are formulated around
common areas of research interest and graduate study:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ecosystem Analysis Environmental Horticulture and Urban Forestry Paper Science and Engineering Restoration Ecology and Soils Social Science, Economics, and Marketing Urban Ecology Wildlife Ecology We think three faculty FTE are a minimum for a viable interest group. If appropriate, a faculty
member may choose to belong to more than one group. Interest group leaders should be chosen
by the members of the group, with a vote taken if necessary. Interest group leaders should also
have a term limit (e.g. 2 or 3 years), which could be renewed if agreeable to all of the group
members.
We recognize that the nature of outputs and production from the interest groups will vary by
disciplinary focus, but all should be actively engaged in graduate student instruction and
scholarly research. These outputs can be measured by criteria for research productivity as are
used in PMT deliberations, such as the number of proposals written, proposals funded, research
funds acquired, the number of graduate students supported, the number of peer-reviewed
publications, etc.
The College should allocate financial resources to these groups. It is suggested that College
indirect cost return funding be used for this purpose. Some portion of ICR funding has
traditionally been retained by the Dean’s office in order to distribute this amongst all College
faculty. For example, these funds could be allocated by the Dean’s office for funding of new
initiative efforts by the faculty. A share of 25% seems reasonable for the Dean’s office, with the
remaining 75% of ICR funding to be passed on the interest groups. In the case of a faculty
member belonging to more than one interest group, ICR funding would be allocated according to
a formula determined by the generating faculty member. A faculty member could also choose to
allocate a portion of his/her ICR funds to the faculty Chair is so desired. We do not advocate the
accrual of ICR funding on the basis of individual faculty members. The purpose of this protocol
is to foster collaboration of the members of a group. This funding could be used for various
purposes, such as faculty travel, conference fees, software, computer equipment, etc. The
dispersement of these interest group funds would be decided on by a consensus of the group.
Performance of interest groups should be reviewed by the Dean on an annual basis in a forum
open to the College faculty. Groups not performing well should be informed, allowed time to
improve performance, and dissolved if performance does not improve. As time proceeds, a group
can change its focus or name if circumstances warrant doing this.