HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY
Academic Senate Minutes
05/06:13
04/11/06
Vice Chair Green called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 11, 2006, in
Nelson Hall East, Room 102 (Goodwin Forum).
Members Present: Backues, Bliven, Bruce, Butler, Cheyne, Dunk, Eichstedt, Green,
Haag, Heckman, Kornreich, Larson, MacConnie, Meiggs, Moyer, Nordstrom, Owens,
Paynton, Powell, Rawal, Roberts, Sanford, Schwetman, Shellhase, Snow, Thobaben,
Varkey, Vellanoweth, Yarnall.
Members Absent: Alvarado, Coffey, Fulgham, Holschuh, Mortazavi, Richmond, Vrem.
Proxies: Haag for Henkel, MacConnie for Riordan, Sommerman for Wieand.
Guests: Bob Snyder, Susan Higgins, Cathleen Rafferty, Ann Diver-Stamnes, other
members from the Education Department.
Reports, Announcements, and Communications of the Chair
Since Chair Mortazavi is out of town, Vice-Chair Green is leading the meeting.
Information on grant funding for Information Literacy Initiatives has been distributed via
email. Proposals are due May 12, 2006. Information is available on the CSU Academic
Affairs web page (Memo No. AA-2006-14) at:
http://www.calstate.edu/acadaff/codedmemos/Index.shtml
A forum on Retention, Tenure and Promotion (RTP) will be held on Tuesday, April 18,
4-6 p.m. in Goodwin Forum. It will include discussion of the results of the questionnaire
on proposed changes to Appendix J. The Faculty Affairs Committee would like to see a
good turnout for the forum.
A General Faculty Election will be held on Wednesday, April 19 and Thursday, April 20.
Sample ballots have been distributed. The ballot includes a proposed revision to the
CSU Academic Senate Constitution.
The Senate will hold the election of officers at its next meeting (April 25). So far, no
nominations have been received.
Due to concern about a recent non-competitive tenure-track hire on campus, Chair
Mortazavi has appointed an ad hoc committee, chaired by Senator Cheyne, to address
the need for local policies and procedures.
Take Back the Night is this Friday evening.
The Senate shared a moment of silence in acknowledgement of the recent passing of
two distinguished members of the faculty: William “Bill” Jackson (Business) and
Howard Seeman (Journalism).
Approval of Minutes from the Meeting of March 28, 2006
Academic Senate Minutes
April 11, 2006
2
M/S/P (Heckman/Owens) to approve the minutes from the meeting of March 28, 2006
as written, with 2 Abstentions.
Reports of Standing Committees, Statewide Senators, and Ex-officio members
Faculty Affairs Committee (Chair Green): The Committee has a resolution on today’s
agenda and will also be holding a forum on RTP and Appendix J on April 18.
Student Affairs Committee (Chair Moyer): The Committee has a resolution on today’s
agenda.
Senate Finance Committee (Chair Larson): The University Budget Committee (UBC)
has reviewed the summarized ranking of the decision packages from each division.
UBC members, through a ranking process, identified a list of 12 priority items. (Items
#10-12 were weighted equally). The list will be posted on the UBC web page at:
http://www.humboldt.edu/%7Ebudget/OrigDocuments/FY2005-06/UBC%2004-072006/Decision%20Package%20Voting%20Summary.pdf It was noted that of the twelve
highest ranking proposals forwarded from the UBC, seven were ranked either first or
second by the division proposing it. The proposals reflect the campus priorities of
retention, recruitment, and fundraising.
There has been no further news regarding payback; the campus is waiting to hear
whether or not the Chancellor will grant HSU an exemption from payback.
University Curriculum Committee (Chair Eichstedt): UCC will be moving ahead and
developing a streamlined GE approval process for the interdisciplinary courses that will
be the core courses of the pilot project. An email will be sent to the entire campus,
providing a description of the pilot project and setting a Fall deadline for initial
proposals. In addition, the GE Survey is currently underway.
California Faculty Association (Chapter President Meiggs): CFA will go back to the
bargaining table for several scheduled bargaining sessions. CFA will be in Sacramento
on May 2 and 3, lobbying the legislature for more funding for the CSU. The CFA faculty
magazine has been distributed.
It was announced that Coach Bob Owens has been offered and accepted a head
coaching position at Chapman University. Congratulations were offered.
Associated Students (Legislative Vice President Backues): The Associated Students
recently passed three resolutions: Resolution in Support of the Student Fee Advisory
Committee’s Recommendation (a 2.5% fee increase for housing); Resolution in Support
of Child Care Availability for HSU Student Parents, and Resolution in Support of the
Day of Silence (in support and recognition of alternative lifestyles). The Instructionally
Related Activities Committee has completed their budget process and will forward the
budget to the President this week. AS elections are next week; encourage students to
vote.
Student Affairs (Vice President Butler): A Take Back the Night rally will be held at 6
p.m. on Friday. It will be followed by a session for faculty and staff to continue the
Academic Senate Minutes
April 11, 2006
3
discussion of campus climate and how it can be improved. Everyone was reminded
that May 1 is the Outstanding Student Awards Ceremony.
University Advancement (Vice President Nordstrom): The Distinguished Alumni Awards
dinner will be on April 27 in the Kate Buchanan Room. All are invited.
Statewide Senate (Senator Thobaben): The upcoming election with the proposed
amendment to the Statewide Constitution is very important. The HSU Senate Executive
Committee recommends that faculty vote in favor of the amendment.
(Senator Cheyne): An interim meeting was held where individual committees worked
on their resolutions. A more detailed report will be provided after the resolutions have
come to the floor. The GE Advisory Committee has been polling campuses and
compiled results of a survey to which 15 campuses responded. There are some areas
with strong positive consensus. A copy will be sent to all senators.
1. TIME CERTAIN: 4:30 P.M.
Resolution on Change of Name of the Department of Education (#24-05/06-EP)
M/S (Kornreich/Varkey) to place the resolution on the floor.
Resolution on Change of Name of the Department of Education
Resolution #24-05/06-EP – April 11, 2005
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University recommends that the
Department of Education be re-designated the School of Education; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the School of Education shall continue to operate as a department of the
College of Professional Studies, such that no additional administrative costs or new layers of
administration are created.
RATIONALE: The Department of Education has requested this change, arguing that the
complexity of the departmental structure and program offerings is better described by the title
“School.” The department argues that such a name change realigns HSU with the rest of the
CSU system, in which 19 campuses have “schools” of education rather than departments. Thus
the name change is a means for the department to more effectively compete with other Schools.
Expecting that a name change without adding additional layers of administration will have no
significant adverse consequences to the university, the request of the department faculty should
be approved.
The Department of Education forwarded a proposal to the Senate Executive Committee
requesting to change the department’s name to the School of Education. The
Educational Policies Committee drafted the resolution, using wording from a previous
resolution on the change of name from the Department of Business to the School of
Business. The resolution recommends the name change and clarifies that it will remain,
operationally, a department of the College of Professional Studies.
Discussion:
Academic Senate Minutes
April 11, 2006
4

Dean Higgins (College of Professional Studies) was asked if she supports the name
change. She indicated her support and indicated that the Provost’s Council and the
College’s Council of Chairs all support it.

In response to the question when the next program review was due, it was noted
that the department just completed a program review this year.
Voting on the resolution occurred and PASSED with 1 No vote.
2. Resolution on the Graduation Writing Requirement (#12-05/06-EP)
Discussion on the resolution began at the last Senate meeting (3/28/06) and was
postponed for further discussion to today’s meeting. Chair Mortazavi has asked that
there not be too much repetition of the discussion from the last meeting.
Resolution on the Graduation Writing Requirement
#12-05/06-EP (revised) – April 11, 2006
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University recommends
that the criterion for passing the Graduate Writing Proficiency Exam (GWPE) at
Humboldt State University be raised to a score of 16 out of 24; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University recommends
that a new course designator of “Writing Intensive” (WI) be established for inclusion
in the Catalog. Courses shall receive the designation WI when an application for
certification is submitted that shows:
a) The course is an upper-division course,
b) Section enrollment is limited to no more than 30 seats,
c) The majority of the classwork in the course involves writing, editing, and/or
composition, and,
d) Writing which demonstrates achievement of high standards of organization, clarity
and mechanics is a necessary requirement for passing the course.
And be it further,
RESOLVED: That the University Curriculum Committee shall implement
certification and periodic review of Writing Intensive courses before regular
registration begins; and be it further
RESOLVED: That students who have attempted and failed the GWPE shall be given
registration preference to enroll in Writing Intensive courses; and be it further
RESOLVED: That students passing a course certified as Writing Intensive with a
grade of C or better have fulfilled the Chancellor’s graduation writing requirement
described in Executive Order 665 and need not complete the GWPE; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University strongly
encourages instructors, departments, and academic deans to support the development
of courses throughout the university that satisfy the Writing Intensive criteria; and be it
further
Academic Senate Minutes
April 11, 2006
5
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University recommends
that advisors strongly encourage students to attempt the Graduation Writing
Requirement during their junior year; and be it further
RESOLVED: That this policy be reflected in the HSU Catalog for the 2007-2008
academic year, and distributed to all academic deans, department chairs, and advisors.
RATIONALE: The GWPE is a test of impromptu writing consisting of two 45-minute essays and
scored such that two readers read each of the two required essays, and award each essay a score
from 0 to 6. The current score needed to pass the GWPE is a 14/24, which in most courses on
campus would not represent a passing grade. Furthermore, of the sample essays in HSU’s
publication The Graduation Writing Requirement, only those that scored a 4 or better represent
competent college-level writing. Thus a score of 4 should represent the minimum graduation
requirement. Four scores of 4 yields a criterion of 16/24 on the entire exam.
However, standards cannot be raised without added support and instruction in writing at the
upper division level; therefore we resolve to develop an alternative method for preparing for and
satisfying the requirements of the Executive Order.
Discussion on the resolution:

Provost Vrem previously expressed concern about the timing of the resolution.
Senator MacConnie was asked to provide information regarding the WASC process
and whether or not the process would be underway far enough in the early fall to be
able to respond to the concept of the resolution. If so, it might be possible to make a
more joint decision.

The Campus Proposal has been approved by WASC. The WASC steering
committee is meeting this week and will be focusing on establishing the mechanics
for the next steps. The Capacity Review will begin next Fall, and it would be during
that process that this issue might be addressed. It may or may not happen soon
enough to actually create a resolution by the end of the Fall semester. But it would
be a place for the discussion to begin, on a broader level. It is likely that fairly soon
after the beginning of the fall semester, this resolution or the content of it could be
considered by one of the working groups.

The concept is good, but the timing is premature. Could this be postponed to Fall
semester so it could be combined with the WASC process and create a more united
front on this?

A need has been identified which the resolution addresses. It should be
implemented now.

It was suggested that the concept of the resolution be shared with an appropriate
WASC working group, providing a place for them to begin a discussion of the issues.

This could be done informally; but right now the resolution is on the floor to be voted
on. There was more than one vote at the last meeting on postponing the resolution
which did not pass.
Academic Senate Minutes
April 11, 2006
6
The discussion was interrupted for the 4:30 TIME CERTAIN agenda item.

A lot of students support the idea of the resolution. They don’t like not having an
alternative to the GWPE.

There is no need to postpone making a decision on this until the WASC review
begins. The Educational Policies Committee has been working on this resolution all
year and has put a lot of thought into it. It is not clear why it should be linked to the
WASC accreditation process. There is a clearly defined issue and it is known that
students want more instruction in writing. This resolution proposes a solution to the
problem and ensures that graduating students are proficient at college-level writing.

The general concept is fine, but there is still concern regarding the 30 seat limit.
This seems to be a high limit for a writing-intensive class. What is the definition of
“the majority of the classwork” and what is the definition of “high standards”?

What will the certification process be and is the UCC willing to accept this additional
work and is it set up to take on this task? Will faculty from the English Department
be involved? It would be good to have some reassurances.

The UCC asked for additional writing courses years ago. It anticipates that this will
be tied in with the Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) program, which is currently
run by someone from the writing program. The certification committee would be
constituted with individuals who are experts in writing pedagogy. It would not be the
UCC acting as a whole, but would be a smaller working group.

The Committee discussed using the term “high standards” and has faith that the
academic community will know what these standards are and will not abuse this by
failing to live up to those standards.

What is the anticipated economic impact upon the university? How many “WI”
courses/sections will need to be provided? Is it expected that a lot of students will
want to take the course rather than attempt the GWPE? The concept is supported,
but the issue deserves careful attention, mainly because of concerns regarding the
need to shift resources in order to handle this.

The data indicates that if the passing score of the GWPE is raised to 16, ca. 200
students per testing session would fail. If all of those students took a “WI” course,
plus a few additional students, we would be looking at needing ca. ten sections. Not
all would have to represent new resources. There are existing classes in many
departments that would qualify. It is envisioned that during the first couple of years
of implementation, existing courses would take up the workload and overtime, as
resources increased, new courses would be proposed. There will be some resource
implications and resources will need to be shifted to accommodate this policy. If
resources at a university should be allocated to anything, it should be to the basics;
reading, writing, and arithmetic.

It was recognized that in general, 30 seats is too many for a writing intensive course;
Academic Senate Minutes
April 11, 2006
7
but it is important that it is stated as “limited to no more than”. Departments may
want to limit it to a lower number. This language just allows for more if needed.
Regarding standards, the UCC will approve these courses based on information and
research available on writing intensive courses. There is criteria easily available
within the CSU and nationally. If this resolution passes, the WASC process could
aid in finding resources to support this and other ways of dealing with the currently
existing problem of students who are not writing well. Passing this resolution does
not prohibit other things from happening on campus.

Writing is one of the highlighted themes in the campus proposal that was just
accepted by WASC. For the next two and a half year, writing will be at the forefront
of the entire WASC process, looking at policies, infrastructure, etc. The idea in this
resolution is good; but if it passes now, it may limit the ability to implement other
ideas that could work well or better. For example, WASC will be focusing on
elements of assessment, which the resolution does not address in depth. It would
be better to fold this into the WASC process with a working group focused on this
particular topic.

Three reasons for supporting the resolution include: 1) raising the passing score to
16 out or 24 seems very rational and also matches CSU-wide practice; 2) it provides
a path for students to document their writing proficiency in other ways, some majors
already require students to go through writing intensive courses; and 3) working with
the UCC, a pathway is being created that students can see in the catalog, and plan
to take a writing intensive course as an alternative to the GWPE, and graduate as
competent writers. The resolution should be passed now, and the discussion should
also continue as part of the WASC process.

Concern was expressed about proposing “WI” courses that are geared to students
failing the GWPE.

Students who fail the GWPE will not be the only students taking the courses. There
are students currently taking courses in their majors that would be considered writing
intensive, who haven’t taken the GWPE. It isn’t expected that courses would be
constructed for students who fail the GWPE.

The WASC group has done a lot of good work, and the WASC process could
certainly further embellish this proposal. But the UCC and the Senate have worked
long and hard on this (ca. five years) and it should move forward. Rather than
putting it off for another year, the Senate should go ahead and pass this. If
necessary, bring it back and amend it next year. It should be a dynamic process.

A clarification was requested: would a GE course that expects 20 pages of essays
be regarded as a writing intensive course? It’s difficult to answer that now; criteria
and a process for designating “WI” courses needs to be developed. It is also
important to consider to what extent performance on the writing affects the grade.

In terms of the students that will be served and classes that currently exist, a fair
number of students in majors that already have writing intensive courses will be
Academic Senate Minutes
April 11, 2006
8
exempted. It is unlikely that students who fail the GWPE will be taking a writing
intensive course in another major. There will be a need to develop some new
courses for students who are failing the GWPE. The primary benefit of the latter part
of the resolution is the exemption of students who will not have to take the GWPE.

Will the UCC establish the criteria for the review and certification of “WI” courses, as
stated in the third resolve?

An assumption is that “implement certification” would include developing criteria.

The second resolved clause lays out what could be considered to be criteria.
Concern has been expressed that these criteria are not particularly informative.
M/S (MacConnie/Backues) to amend the third resolved clause to read:
RESOLVED: That the University Curriculum Committee shall design the criteria for
Writing Intensive courses and implement certification and periodic review of Writing
Intensive courses before regular registration begins; and be it further
Discussion on the amendment:

If the UCC designs the criteria will the Senate need to vote on it? It was clarified that
the Senate would not approve the criteria.

Concern was expressed about giving the UCC blanket permission to design the
criteria. It should be brought to the Senate, so the amendment is opposed.

Concern was expressed that the Senate is getting into details of determining which
classes will be designated “WI” and which will not be. The Senate should set the
general criteria and then a designated body should determine whether or not
individual courses meet the criteria. The criteria should not be too narrow as to
exclude courses that would meet the purpose intended. The amendment doesn’t
change the meaning of the resolved clause.

The purpose of the UCC is to work with curriculum. In general, UCC has performed
as a well-reasoning group. It will continue to work jointly with Writing Across the
Curriculum and the Writing Program. The amendment should be accepted.
Voting on the amendment occurred and PASSED with 23 Yes votes, 3 No votes, and 1
Abstention.
Discussion returned to the main motion:
M/S/P (Eichstedt/Varkey) to end debate and vote immediately.
Voting on the amended resolution occurred and PASSED with 19 Yes votes, 5 No
votes, and 3 Abstentions.
The amended resolution reads:
Academic Senate Minutes
April 11, 2006
9
Resolution on the Graduation Writing Requirement
#12-05/06-EP (revised) – April 11, 2006
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University recommends
that the criterion for passing the Graduate Writing Proficiency Exam (GWPE) at
Humboldt State University be raised to a score of 16 out of 24; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University recommends
that a new course designator of “Writing Intensive” (WI) be established for inclusion
in the Catalog. Courses shall receive the designation WI when an application for
certification is submitted that shows:
e) The course is an upper-division course,
f) Section enrollment is limited to no more than 30 seats,
g) The majority of the classwork in the course involves writing, editing, and/or
composition, and,
h) Writing which demonstrates achievement of high standards of organization, clarity
and mechanics is a necessary requirement for passing the course.
And be it further,
RESOLVED: That the University Curriculum Committee shall design the criteria for Writing
Intensive courses and implement certification and periodic review of Writing Intensive courses
before regular registration begins; and be it further
RESOLVED: That students who have attempted and failed the GWPE shall be given
registration preference to enroll in Writing Intensive courses; and be it further
RESOLVED: That students passing a course certified as Writing Intensive with a
grade of C or better have fulfilled the Chancellor’s graduation writing requirement
described in Executive Order 665 and need not complete the GWPE; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University strongly
encourages instructors, departments, and academic deans to support the development
of courses throughout the university that satisfy the Writing Intensive criteria; and be it
further
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University recommends
that advisors strongly encourage students to attempt the Graduation Writing
Requirement during their junior year; and be it further
RESOLVED: That this policy be reflected in the HSU Catalog for the 2007-2008
academic year, and distributed to all academic deans, department chairs, and advisors.
RATIONALE: The GWPE is a test of impromptu writing consisting of two 45-minute essays and
scored such that two readers read each of the two required essays, and award each essay a score
from 0 to 6. The current score needed to pass the GWPE is a 14/24, which in most courses on
campus would not represent a passing grade. Furthermore, of the sample essays in HSU’s
publication The Graduation Writing Requirement, only those that scored a 4 or better represent
competent college-level writing. Thus a score of 4 should represent the minimum graduation
requirement. Four scores of 4 yields a criterion of 16/24 on the entire exam.
Academic Senate Minutes
April 11, 2006
10
However, standards cannot be raised without added support and instruction in writing at the upper
division level; therefore we resolve to develop an alternative method for preparing for and satisfying the
requirements of the Executive Order.
3. Resolution on Developing a Standardized Core Evaluation Form (#23-05/06SA) – FIRST READING
Resolution on Developing a Standardized Core Evaluation form
#23-05/06-SA – April 11, 2006 – First Reading
RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate of Humboldt State University thanks the Course Evaluation
Subcommittee for their two years working towards an instructor evaluation form which would be useful
for every department; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Student Affairs committee recommends to the President that the attached set of
questions be adopted as a core set of questions for use in every department; and be it further
RESOLVED: That each department is encouraged to add department-specific questions to the
University-wide core questions; and be it further
RESOLVED: That any rating-scale questions added by departments must use the same 5-point scale
(5=excellent, 4= good, 3=average, 2=below average, and 1=poor) employed by the core questions; and be
it further
RESOLVED: That use of this new form begin in the Fall of 2006.
Rationale: Currently, most departments at HSU have designed their own course-evaluation
forms, with the result that Personnel committees have a bewildering experience dealing with a
wide variety of rating scales and other types of forms. This Resolution would create some
uniformity through the use of common-core questions and common formatting of the forms used
across campus, while still allowing departments to ask the questions they find most meaningful.
Senator Moyer introduced the first reading of resolution #23. The Student Affairs
Committee meets on Friday mornings, and the resolution was distributed to the Senate
as quickly as possible in order for it to be discussed at this meeting. Because there was
not marked supported for either of the two forms suggested by the Course Evaluation
Subcommittee, the Student Affairs Committee has come up with an alternative. It
looked at selecting a nationally produced form. A drawback is that the nationally
produced forms tend to be long (the shortest being 20+ questions) and part of the
feedback from the campus was that the proposed forms were too long. The Committee
decided to review all forms currently used at HSU and try to select the most often used
questions from those forms. The Committee has met only once to produce the
document presented today, so it is far from being a final document, and feedback is
welcomed.
The attachment to the resolution includes a core set of questions along with a rationale
for each question. Departments may add their own questions but it is recommended
that everyone use the same rating scale. It is hoped that by the next meeting, the
Committee will have some open-ended essay questions to recommend, plus a list of
optional questions. The list of core questions has been sent out to departments for
Academic Senate Minutes
April 11, 2006
11
feedback as well.
Discussion:

It is recommended that the form be implemented in the Fall of 2006; does that allow
enough time?

How many total forms are currently in use on campus? It is hard to tell; some
departments have multiple forms for different types of courses; one college has a
generic form and individual forms. The Committee reviewed a total of 42 forms.

This seems to be moving in a good direction. Thanks were offered to both the
Course Evaluation Subcommittee for their work and to the Student Affairs
Committee for their work, especially its remarkable speed in getting to this stage.

It was noted that the time spent by the Course Evaluation Subcommittee was time
well spent and helped get the process to this stage.

This is moving in a much better direction than it could have. All ten questions
probably apply to most classes; but would they apply to all classes. For example,
would question #1 apply to a performance based class? Would all questions apply
to a physical education class?

A show of hands was requested to see how many are in favor of a uniform
evaluation form. There are potentially evil ways this information could be used.
Does everyone support the concept of a uniform evaluation form?

The campus needs to establish a culture that does not require evaluation of every
single course. For example, do activities courses need to be evaluated every
semester?

Could a column be added that say “N/A” for questions that might not apply to all
courses. This would be helpful for activity related courses.

It was noted that existing policy requires that Lecturers have all of their classes
evaluated.

Given that student evaluations fit within a “tent” of evaluation, they are not the only
evaluation process for faculty. This will actually help faculty peers do a better
evaluation of each other, and that should lead to better understanding at the IUPC
and CPC and the UFPC.

Since these evaluations are used for RTP purposes, it seems like a question should
be asked regarding the student’s current standing in the class, i.e., are the doing
well, poorly, etc., as it could have an influence on the evaluation.

It was suggested that the word “intellectually” be removed from question #5.
Academic Senate Minutes
April 11, 2006
12
Students can interpret how they are challenged, i.e., intellectually, physically, etc.

While originally opposed to a universal form, the process of looking at all of the
forms currently in use showed that everyone is basically asking the same questions
anyway.

At the University of Oregon, common questions are required on all university student
course evaluation forms. The results of those questions and faculty members’
averages are automatically posted to the Provost’s web site. It was noted that none
of the common questions are as clear as the ten core questions suggested in this
resolution. This does not seem like a bad thing to do. The resolution’s rationale
refers to a “bewildering experience” but it was noted that has not been an
experience shared by all.

The use of a standard form will make it easier for committees to do their work.
There is also potential for misuse. There needs to be some thought given as to what
this will do in terms of driving professorial behavior.
A straw poll was taken to see how many support the concept of a standardized core
evaluation form. There were 19 Yes votes, 0 No votes, and 4 Abstentions.
The Student Affairs Committee was asked to consider and articulate how the
information from the evaluations can and cannot be used. For example, can it be used
for merit raises? Misuse needs to be prevented and safeguards should be put in, so
that it is used for the purpose it is intended.
It was noted that the ASCSU established rules many years ago that include a rule that
assessment is not to be used in a comparative way.
4. Resolution on Revision to Outstanding Professor Selection Process (#25-05/06-FA)
– FIRST READING
There were no objections to changing the agenda in order to discuss agenda item #5
before agenda item #4.
Vice-Chair Green urged all Senators to carefully review the Faculty Affairs Committee
resolution on revising the Outstanding Professor section process for the next Senate
meeting. The Committee and others would like to have the work finished by the end of
the year.
5. Information Item: Proposal for Lower Division GE Pilot Project (Eichstedt)
Feedback from the Senate on the earlier version of the pilot project proposal was taken
to the GE Steering Committee and the revised version reflects the request to have a
more narrow and specific definition of the pilot. It was also discussed at the Senate
Executive Committee and agreed that the pilot project would be presented as an
information item rather than an action item. Suggestions for improving the description
are welcome and should be emailed to Senate Eichstedt at jle7001@humboldt.edu.
Academic Senate Minutes
April 11, 2006
13
The proposal describes the pilot and provides a fictional example. The idea is to create
an interdisciplinary core course that incorporates two different disciplines within the
same GE area. While the committee discussed the possibility of combining disciplines
across GE areas, the logistics were felt to be insurmountable. Course credit goes to
each faculty member teaching the course (3 units) and FTES goes to the instructor’s
departments. OAA has agreed to provide $25,000 for the pilot project. Faculty will be
paid a stipend to develop an interdisciplinary course. The UCC and the GE Steering
Committee will be responsible for overall coordination of the pilot project. During
summer 2007 there will be a two-week workshop for faculty to help faculty develop
courses. Assessment will be done every semester and data will be gathered on the
project. At the end of the project the data will be analyzed in order to make
recommendations on whether or not to continue the project.
Discussion:

Given that there will be four initial pilots, has thought been given to having at least
one pilot in each of the three areas? In terms of selecting the courses, will a general
be sent out?

The committee is still working out many of the details. A proposal from each area
would be very welcome, but it will depend on whether all colleges choose to
participate or not. At the end of this month, a preliminary call will be sent out to
everyone with the description of the pilot project. A proposal deadline would be set
for the Fall (probably November). It is not expected that the proposals will be fully
fleshed out; therefore the faculty whose proposals are accepted will go through a
workshop the following summer to develop their course in more detail.

If the pilot project is successful, it might be the next logical phase for the FIGS. It
could be a voluntary subset of GE, if the data shows that it is useful.
It was agreed to continue the discussion beyond the 5:45 TIME CERTAIN Open Forum.

If a course is proposed that is interdisciplinary across colleges/areas, the logistics
would need to be worked out.

If OAA is providing $25,000, where would the remainder of the funding coming from?
It was clarified that the money will only fund the stipend for faculty training. The
courses will be part of a faculty member’s normal workload.

Students who are aware of the project are excited about it. GE has been discussed
for a long time, and it’s great to see a pilot project moving forward.

If the project is successful, the GE Steering Committee envisions that it will be an
option for students to take in the future.

Additional clarification was offered regarding the cost of the program. If a
department buys into participating, it will not be subsidized for the course. The
Academic Senate Minutes
April 11, 2006
14
department will have to decide how, within its curriculum, it can create the course
and be willing to give up another course.

If it is successful and everyone initially buys into the concept, it will come back to the
Senate to discuss continuing it and the resource implications.
Several announcements were offered:
Everyone was strongly encouraged to attend the Take Back the Night rally on Friday,
and show support for all students and faculty.
Senator Owens thanked everyone for the opportunity to be a part of the faculty senate
and also encouraged everyone to become involved in creating a campus climate that is
special and safe.
There is a rumor that a policy that will require parking permits on campus 24/7 is on the
fast-track. This would do significant damage to university/community relations. The
Senate should discuss this.
It was noted that flyers reporting the recent rape on campus were not put up at the
Forbes Complex until today and a memo did not come out until after Preview. Others
noted that flyers were posted all around campus before Preview. It was also mentioned
that the President talked to all visiting students and parents about the recent rape during
Preview.
M/S/U (Owens/Cheyne) to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.