VOTES TO APPROVE the CE plan change from:
Peggy Pollak (BIO)
Matt Gage (CHM)
David Cole (P&A)
Amy Rushall (MAT)
Erik Neilsen (SESES)
Ron Gray (CSTL)
Steve Dewhurst (FOR)
Maggie Vanderburg (EE/CS)
Tom Rogers (CECMEE)
The only vote we are missing is Heidi Feigenbaum (ME)
From: Ronald Edward Gray
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 8:08 PM
To: Pauline Laurie Entin
Subject: Re: Civil Engineering Proposal for ELECTRONIC vote
This looks fine. Approve.
-Ron Gray, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Science Education
Center for Science Teaching and Learning
Northern Arizona University
Building 21, Room 159
(928) 523-3618
http://www.rongray.net
From: Thomas Robert Rogers
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 8:13 PM
To: Pauline Laurie Entin
Subject: Re: Civil Engineering Proposal for ELECTRONIC vote
Approve
Sent from my iPhone
From: Stephen Michael Dewhurst
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 4:30 AM
To: Pauline Laurie Entin
Subject: RE: Civil Engineering Proposal for ELECTRONIC vote
I vote to approve the proposal.
From: Matthew John Gage
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 7:07 AM
To: Pauline Laurie Entin
Cc: Amy Diekelman Rushall; David M Cole; Erik Nielsen; Kathleen Anne Corak; Maggie Vanderberg; Mark
Charles James; Peggy Ellen Pollak; Ronald Edward Gray; Srinivas Chakravarthi Kosaraju; Stephen Michael
Dewhurst; Stuart S Galland; Thomas Robert Rogers; Bridget Bero
Subject: Re: Civil Engineering Proposal for ELECTRONIC vote
I approve.
Matt
Matthew Gage, Associate Professor
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
P.O. Box 5698
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5698
From: Erik Nielsen
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 9:51 AM
To: David M Cole
Cc: Bridget Bero; Pauline Laurie Entin; Amy Diekelman Rushall; Kathleen Anne Corak; Maggie
Vanderberg; Mark Charles James; Matthew John Gage; Peggy Ellen Pollak; Ronald Edward Gray; Srinivas
Chakravarthi Kosaraju; Stephen Michael Dewhurst; Stuart S Galland; Thomas Robert Rogers
Subject: Re: Civil Engineering Proposal for ELECTRONIC vote - TYPO found!
Yes!
Erik
From: Amy Diekelman Rushall
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 11:33 AM
To: Erik Nielsen; David M Cole
Cc: Bridget Bero; Pauline Laurie Entin; Kathleen Anne Corak; Maggie Vanderberg; Mark Charles James;
Matthew John Gage; Peggy Ellen Pollak; Ronald Edward Gray; Srinivas Chakravarthi Kosaraju; Stephen
Michael Dewhurst; Stuart S Galland; Thomas Robert Rogers
Subject: RE: Civil Engineering Proposal for ELECTRONIC vote - TYPO found!
I vote yes.
____________________________________
Amy D. Rushall
Mathematics and Statistics
Northern Arizona University
NAU Box 5717
Flagstaff, AZ 86011
Phone: 928.523.0660
Fax: 928.523.5847
From: Peggy Ellen Pollak
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 1:52 PM
To: David M Cole; Bridget Bero; Pauline Laurie Entin; Amy Diekelman Rushall; Erik Nielsen; Kathleen
Anne Corak; Maggie Vanderberg; Mark Charles James; Matthew John Gage; Ronald Edward Gray;
Srinivas Chakravarthi Kosaraju; Stephen Michael Dewhurst; Stuart S Galland; Thomas Robert Rogers
Subject: RE: Civil Engineering Proposal for ELECTRONIC vote - TYPO found!
I vote yes.
Peggy E. Pollak
Dept. Biological Sciences
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5640
From: David M Cole
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 9:46 AM
To: Bridget Bero; Pauline Laurie Entin; Amy Diekelman Rushall; Erik Nielsen; Kathleen Anne Corak;
Maggie Vanderberg; Mark Charles James; Matthew John Gage; Peggy Ellen Pollak; Ronald Edward Gray;
Srinivas Chakravarthi Kosaraju; Stephen Michael Dewhurst; Stuart S Galland; Thomas Robert Rogers
Subject: RE: Civil Engineering Proposal for ELECTRONIC vote - TYPO found!
Bridget
Understood and thanks for taking so much of your time to respond to my concerns.
I vote YES
dave
From: Bridget Bero
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 9:42 AM
To: David M Cole; Pauline Laurie Entin; Amy Diekelman Rushall; Erik Nielsen; Kathleen Anne Corak;
Maggie Vanderberg; Mark Charles James; Matthew John Gage; Peggy Ellen Pollak; Ronald Edward Gray;
Srinivas Chakravarthi Kosaraju; Stephen Michael Dewhurst; Stuart S Galland; Thomas Robert Rogers
Subject: RE: Civil Engineering Proposal for ELECTRONIC vote - TYPO found!
Importance: High
Dave,
ALL: Here is some clarification:
X86 courses are not capstone courses, they are a sequence of design courses. Except for Mech
Eng, CENE 386W and EE 386W have long been accepted as our required writing course in
these curriculum – we have never had our students take an additional writing course. With
new changes to the design curriculum, these courses have now been replaced with EGR 386W
and ME has eliminated the ENGLISH course in favor of this course. EGR 386W is the same
as the other-prefixed 386W courses except that it is logistically easier for us to register students
and plan teaching and classroom schedules and the advisors don’t have to continually override
students – and the other courses are no longer taught so we have to replace this in the catalog.
EGR 386W IS an approved writing course, and passed committee regarding the very questions
you pose re: individual vs team work. The reason we did this is the writing is embedded in
design. EGR 386W is a design course that advances the design outcome for our students along
with the communication outcome (which is the writing part). These courses have substantial
ENG-TA support of the writing component. The course was designed this way so that engineers
would have relevant writing experience for their professions.
With all due respect, this discussion is not germaine to the question posed to the committee and it
would be unfortunate to have this hang up the real issue at hand. I assure you, I am not trying to
pull the wool over anybody’s eyes with the quickie vote – the SCI elective is the primary issue at
hand and the rest are just tweaks. Representatives Kosaraju and Rogers will support my EGR
386W argument as they know these programs well. EGR 386W is an approved writing course
– the time to have that discussion was when EGR 386W came through the committee long ago,
not now. At this point in time, since CENE 386W is not being taught and EGR 386W is the
approved course, we must change the catalog.
Bridget
From: David M Cole
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 9:19 AM
To: Bridget Bero; Pauline Laurie Entin; Amy Diekelman Rushall; Erik Nielsen; Kathleen Anne Corak;
Maggie Vanderberg; Mark Charles James; Matthew John Gage; Peggy Ellen Pollak; Ronald Edward Gray;
Srinivas Chakravarthi Kosaraju; Stephen Michael Dewhurst; Stuart S Galland; Thomas Robert Rogers
Subject: RE: Civil Engineering Proposal for ELECTRONIC vote - TYPO found!
Bridget
Thanks and my apologies for the “monkey wrench”….
But I still have the “W” concern. I know your “ #86 “ courses are capstones and that the students
are often/mostly/always grouped. How much indiv writing and how much indiv feedback will
your students now get?
I have taught a 300 level W course for many years and am consistently dismayed at the level of
writing ‘skill’ exhibited by our students. On this, the day of the announcement of the Nobel
Prize for Literature…… I think our W requirements are minimal, even insufficient, and am
loathe to support any diminution 
In other words, the “86” courses have always been there, but so too was the official “W”
course. I therefore take from this that, up until today, the 86 ers were not viewed as W sufficient
and that a separate course was required. Now it seems like that separate course is being ‘swept
under the rug’.
I would even be in favor of ‘trading in’ one of the science course requirements for an additional,
serious, W.
After all, if cefns tells our students once, we tell them a hundred times, that prospective
employers are looking for students with good team-working and communication skills.
dave
From: Bridget Bero
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:51 AM
To: David M Cole; Pauline Laurie Entin; Amy Diekelman Rushall; Erik Nielsen; Kathleen Anne Corak;
Maggie Vanderberg; Mark Charles James; Matthew John Gage; Peggy Ellen Pollak; Ronald Edward Gray;
Srinivas Chakravarthi Kosaraju; Stephen Michael Dewhurst; Stuart S Galland; Thomas Robert Rogers
Subject: RE: Civil Engineering Proposal for ELECTRONIC vote - TYPO found!
All,
After about 100 reviews of this document… David he has found a typo! The course is
EGR386W not C! Attached please find the corrected document (I have renamed it in my files).
Thank you David, for your careful read of the document! 
bridget
From: David M Cole
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:45 AM
To: Pauline Laurie Entin; Amy Diekelman Rushall; Erik Nielsen; Kathleen Anne Corak; Maggie
Vanderberg; Mark Charles James; Matthew John Gage; Peggy Ellen Pollak; Ronald Edward Gray; Srinivas
Chakravarthi Kosaraju; Stephen Michael Dewhurst; Stuart S Galland; Thomas Robert Rogers
Cc: Bridget Bero
Subject: RE: Civil Engineering Proposal for ELECTRONIC vote
Howdy all
One question/issue …. And I
vote NO
until this
“W” issue is resolved.
It appears that the 300 level writing course (cene 386 w) is being deleted and is not being
replaced with another, required “W”. I see the note at the bottom indicating that it has been
replaced with egr 386 W, but the text does not use a “W”; it refers to this course as egr 386 “C”.
Is it their opinion that the “capstone” (egr 386 c) qualifies as writing intensive…??
I would like to see more evidence of that. It is my understanding that only a small number of
assignments/presentations are required all semester for the capstone(s), and even those are
“team” efforts. I therefore suspect that any given indiv student would NOT do much writing at
all, much less individually, nor could they receive direct feedback on their individual writing.
This may fly with abet, but I suspect (read ‘hope’) it violates nau’s requirements.
dave
From: Maggie Vanderberg
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 12:19 PM
To: Peggy Ellen Pollak
Cc: David M Cole; Bridget Bero; Pauline Laurie Entin; Amy Diekelman Rushall; Erik Nielsen; Kathleen
Anne Corak; Maggie Vanderberg; Mark Charles James; Matthew John Gage; Ronald Edward Gray;
Srinivas Chakravarthi Kosaraju; Stephen Michael Dewhurst; Stuart S Galland; Thomas Robert Rogers
Subject: Re: Civil Engineering Proposal for ELECTRONIC vote - TYPO found!
I vote "yes" as well.