CFR Faculty Meeting June 7, 2002 (Anderson Hall, Forest Club Room, 2:30 pm - 4:00 pm) Notes Faculty Attending: Graham Allan, Bruce Bare, Susan Bolton, Gordon Bradley, David Briggs, Jim Fridley, Frank Greulich, Rick Gustafson, Kevin Hodgson, Chavonda Jacobs-Young, Jay Johnson, Bob Lee, Bill McKean, Bob Northey, John Perez-Garcia, Peter Schiess, Gerard Schreuder, Eric Turnblom, James Agee, Sally Brown, Linda Brubaker, Linda Chalker-Scott, Bob Edmonds, Kern Ewing, David Ford, Jerry Franklin, Rob Harrison, Chuck Henry, Tom Hinckley, Dave Manuwal, John Marzluff, David Peterson, Ken Raedeke, Sarah Reichard, Dan Vogt, Kristiina Vogt, Alan Wagar, Stephen West The meeting was led by Steve West. Steve opened with the statement that there are no provisions for proxy and that an email vote is possible. He also wanted to clarify confusion about the motion (currently tabled). The motion is to adopt the final version of the CTRANS curricula proposal - ONLY the curricula part, not the full eight items in the proposal. (NOTE: The full eight items identified in the final proposal of the Ad Hoc Committee on Curriculum Transformation are listed below: 1. Revise current majors in wildlife science (renamed wildlife ecology), forest management, environmental horticulture and urban forestry, and paper science and engineering. 2. Delete current majors in forest engineering, sustainable resource science, and conservation of wildland resources. 3. Create a new major in environmental science. 4. Require all majors to participate in an interdisciplinary core of classes emphasizing the concept of sustainability. 5. Require all classes and majors to accomplish specific learning outcomes. 6. Investigate College structures that encourage faculty to participate across majors across rather than within them. 7. Begin deliberations to rename the “College of Forest Resources” to something like the “College of Environmental Science and Resource Management,” thus allowing for 8. changing the degree offered by the College from a Bachelor of Science in “Forest Resources” to a Bachelor of Science in “Environmental Science and Resource Management.”) Steve opened the floor for discussion. It was moved and seconded that the faculty appoint a small committee to present a proposal to resolve issues of integration of the curriculum by next Thursday, June 13, 2002. This committee should be asked to resolve the differences between the CTRANS and ALTRANS proposals and present a compromise in the next week. In response to this motion, it was suggested that faculty move as far as possible today in coming to a decision about the curriculum and if a decision can’t be reached in this meeting, then move forward with this motion. The comment was made that one of the issues is developing consensus: it is important that decisions about the curriculum have near unanimous support of the faculty. Right now there are two groups that may or may not be far apart - that is a matter of debate. There is a need to go back and do some work with various faculty to get them to come aboard. In response to this comment, it was stated that the group has spent close to three years on this issue and it is difficult to imagine what more anyone can say that will help faculty reach a decision. The suggestion of further work with individual faculty was described as being a “delaying tactic.” A member of the CTRANS ad hoc committee pointed out that much discussion had taken place and the CTRANS proposal had changed dramatically to meet needs based on the concerns of EHUF. This involved the opening up of a variety of classes in the sophomore year to allow flexibility for transfer students and extensive discussions on integration. Another faculty member commented that the two proposals are very close and suggested that today be used to air differing opinions that still exist and then turn it over to a small committee to present an integrated proposal as the motion currently under discussion suggests. A question was raised regarding the ramifications of putting this decision off to the fall. Bruce Bare stated that most ramifications are on political and perceptual levels. The President’s office would like to see us resolve this issue and move forward and are pushing us to resolve the curricula issues this quarter. Will there be punishment? Probably not. If it drags on for a year, three years, then yes. There is no do or die problem, but we should resolve this, and we need to have some kind of consensus. A faculty member stated that he feels the influence of a few faculty have completely changed the original CTRANS proposal into something he wouldn’t vote for now except to move forward. A second individual stated discomfort with turning this over to a small group because he has no sense at all of what a small group of people would come up with. Two reflections were offered: First, both groups have worked diligently in a responsible fashion. Both are interesting options. Second, we need to adopt one and the losing side will need to get on board because CFR is one college. In response to this, a question was raised about the cost associated with taking an extra week to develop a single proposal. Is the extra week worth having a single proposal to vote on as opposed to two competing proposals to choose between? A faculty member called for the question. It was stated that if consensus is what we have to achieve, this vote will disenfranchise people. The question was raised, “Do we have to vote one way or the other?” There was some discussion about the value of taking an unofficial vote to indicate where the group as a whole stands on the two proposals (CTRANS and ALTRANS). Steve West suggested that faculty could conduct a straw vote. The comment was made that in the June 5th meeting faculty tried to call the question and couldn’t. Over one-third of the faculty didn’t want to vote at that time. It was suggested that faculty vote for the alternatives simultaneously. “We don’t have polarized faculty unless after the vote people who didn’t get the vote take their ball and go home. We are not a polarized faculty because we have different preferences. We need to make our opinions known not to be polarized, but to see where we stand.” It was suggested that a vote be taken among CTRANS, ALTRANS or a merge. It was pointed out that if there is concern about perceptions, there is a simple process to fix this. Have an additional motion: CFR faculty will work together to support this. Another comment pointed out that adaptive evolution of either proposal is critical. Neither proposal should be viewed as an end point, but as a starting point. Steve West asked if discussion of the motion (to appoint a committee to resolve the issues of integration between the two proposals) was concluded. A motion was made and seconded to table this motion. Ballots were distributed to vote on tabling the motion. Tabling the motion was approved by 20 of 37 votes. It was moved and seconded that the motion tabled in the June 5th meeting (to adopt CTRANS) be taken off the table. In response to this, it was suggested again that the group conduct a straw vote. It was also moved that the tabled motion be amended to make it subject to an email ballot. The motion to take the “adopt CTRANS” motion off the table failed by 23 of 37 votes. The motion remained tabled. It was moved and seconded to conduct a straw vote: CTRANS, ALTRANS, merge the two. Straw vote results: CTRANS 14, ALTRANS 8, merge 13, undecided 1 of 36 votes. It was moved and seconded that CFR faculty adopt either the CTRANS or ALTRANS structure. It was moved and seconded that this motion be amended to require an email vote to be returned by June 12, 2002. This point was clarified: if the amendment is approved, the motion to adopt either the CTRANS or ALTRANS structure goes to an email ballot and there is no vote in this meeting. If the amendment fails, the vote takes place here and those not present do not vote. There was confusion at this point on the original motion - is the original motion only to adopt either CTRANS or ALTRANS or is it to adopt all eight points presented by the CTRANS committee? It was stated that the intent of the original motion was to adopt the full proposal as presented by the Ad Hoc Committee on Curriculum Transformation. A vote on the amendment was called for. Steve West again clarified that a yes vote on the amendment means the motion to adopt either the CTRANS or ALTRANS structure goes to an email ballot and there is no vote in this meeting. A no vote means the vote takes place here and those not present do not vote. The email motion failed with 21 opposing votes of 36 votes. There was some discussion on the motion before the group. The person who made the motion stated the intent was to have a vote that decided between ALTRANS or CTRANS. There was a comment on the wording of the motion, indicating that the motion as it was stated was to have an election between the two. The floor was opened for discussion of the motion. An amendment was proposed to the effect that whichever proposal was selected, a committee be incorporated to consolidate the differences. This amendment was withdrawn. It was moved and seconded to reword the motion “to proceed with an election between CTRANS and ALTRANS.” This amendment passed with 21 approving votes of 36 votes. There was no discussion. The vote on the amended motion proceeded with 20 votes CTRANS, 16 votes ALTRANS. CTRANS will be adopted. Bob Lee stated that he wanted the record for this meeting to show there was no opportunity to vote for an email ballot on the amended motion. There was a comment by one individual indicating confusion on what was being voted on. Others stated that they were clear on the motion and the vote. It was moved and seconded that the faculty of the college work together to support the CTRANS curriculum. (At this point, four faculty members left the room). The people remaining voted in favor of the final motion with 25 approving, 0 opposing, and one abstaining. The meeting was adjourned.