Faculty Council News
22 January 2013
The January meeting opened with approval of minutes and a few announcements, chief of which
is that the committee for college wide requirements (CCR) needs someone to step up for one
semester to fill a vacancy due to a sabbatical. Next, Council deliberated on a policy from APC on
transfer credit from other institutions, advanced placement exams, international baccalaureate,
and college level examination programs. The gist of the policy is that students may apply such
credit to the following ICC components: 1st y composition, quantitative literacy, diversity, and
writing intensive, as well as the 12 complimentary liberal arts credits depending on school and
program requirements. Transfer/earned credits can not be applied towards the themes and
perspectives and capstone. There will be no double dipping either. Someone cannot, for example,
apply a transfer/earned credit towards diversity if that diversity is part of a theme and perspective.
The policy was approved 22 in favor, 0 opposed and 4 abstentions.
Council then opened discussion on the Huron Report. Discussion centered on only a few of the
items; namely, changes in benefits, parking fees, and the suggestion that capacity be increased in
high demand programs and decreased in low demand programs, with resources being reallocated
accordingly. With this latter topic, there was concern that the Huron language was thinly veiled
program review, perhaps even a suggestion that dollars and cents would supersede program
review as a means with which to reallocate resources. After a lengthy deliberation, Council
passed a motion that recommended that this Huron recommendation not be acted upon until all
programs have had an opportunity to undergo program review in this current three year cycle.
The motion passed 19 in favor, 1 opposed, and 4 abstentions. One point raised about program
review during discussion that requires clarification is how the review will be used by the
administration. For example, if a program review reveals deficiencies in a program, will there be
an opportunity to remedy the deficiencies?
The chief concerns with the fees for parking and reduced benefits (an increase in the percentage
of employee share of benefits) was that these Huron recommendations were regressive in nature,
hurting employees that earn less money and perhaps families, which have higher benefit cost,
harder. Council passed a motion that recommended the administration consider a progressive
scale based on salary and family structure for parking fees and benefit reductions if these Huron
recommendations are accepted. The motion passed 24 in favor, 0 opposed, with 2 abstentions.
Council then recommended that the parking fee Huron recommendation be dropped, suggesting
the potential revenue generated wasn’t worth the additional burden on college employees.
Shaianne Osterreich brought forward the point that even if the proposed fees only raise $100,000
per year, that amount is sufficient to protect a few staff positions. Indeed, the proposed shift in
benefits and enacting parking fees may only cost employees about $500 a year while raising
$800,000, thereby potentially saving a multitude of positions. Nonetheless, the motion passed 13
in favor, 9 against, and 4 abstentions.
Council spent the rest of the meeting in Executive Session.
Respectfully,
Tom Swensen
Secretary Faculty Council
Professor and Chair Exercise and Sport Sciences