Executive Council Meeting
December 10, 2013, 8:45 am., Husky Hall 1160
Present: Jerelyn Resnick, Chair, Paul Collins, Colin Danby, JoLynn Edwards, Karen Gourd, Andrea
Kovalesky, Kari Lerum and Pierre Mourad
Adoption of Agenda
The agenda was adopted.
Approval of Minutes – December 3, 2013
EC minutes of December 3, 2013 were approved.
Report of GFO Officers
GFO Chair – Kari Lerum
Faculty Senate
Lerum reported on her first Faculty Senate meeting. Jack Lee, Chair of the Senate, expressed
an optimistic outlook for working with UW administration this year. The President and Provost
attend Senate meetings. President Young reported on the need for the UW to focus on a
messaging strategy, showing the range, depth and breadth of UW programs. He spoke about
the mission and values of the University in influencing the message that we project both
internally and externally. The President also announced the creation of a UW Sponsorship
Office. President Young spoke to the Senate about the UW Sponsorship Policy. The UW is
fostering corporate sponsorships and recently finalized sponsorships with Coca Cola and
Starbucks. A discussion on corporate sponsorships was held and faculty voiced concern over
the process for selecting sponsors without faculty input. There should be a stronger faculty voice
and shared governance in this process.
EC discussion points
 How do these sponsorships serve the mission and values of the University?
 Are these sponsorships only monetarily driven, without consideration for ethical and value driven
decision-making? Will these companies have monopolies on the campuses for their products? If
we are discouraging the consumption of bottled water for ecological reasons, why would we
distribute this product across the campuses?
 What are our standards for choosing corporate sponsorships? We must think ethically about
corporate partnerships.
 This is an important faculty governance issue, yet there was no faculty representation on the
committee.
 There should be ethical parameters established with faculty input on choosing corporate
sponsorships.
 The UW has environmental stewardship and sustainability priorities; we could focus on this area for
corporate partnerships.
 Janet Napolitano, President of the University of California system, has made green campuses a
priority in the UC system. We could look to that model for our campuses.
 The decline in State support for the university is one reason that corporate sponsorships are being
cultivated.
Lerum reported on legislation brought before the Senate:
Class A legislation – Academic Freedom and Responsibility. New language in the Faculty Code
gives a more complete definition of academic freedom and offers more protection for faculty.
Class C legislation – UW English Language Lecturers. Recommendation to support the labor
rights of English Language Lecturers to obtain a fair contract.
GFO Vice Chair – Jerelyn Resnick
Cabinet
Kelly Snyder reported on legislative matters. UWB is looking for funding from the State for our
next building. This building will be needed to meet the demand for campus growth to 7500 FTE.
A discussion on the use of public funds for food, travel and other expenditures was held. Fiscal
compliance guidelines must be adhered to within the UW system.
Chancellor Yeigh would like to meet with the EC on a quarterly basis to discuss campus and
governance priorities.
Richard Penny and Melissa Arias updated the Cabinet on the Capital Campaign. They will meet
with the EC Winter Quarter to discuss the campaign.
A GFO meeting is scheduled for February 20, 2014, 3:30 – 5:00 pm. The Capital Campaign will
be discussed. Richard Penny will report on information gathering from surveys, focus groups
and alumni. Some areas he is focusing on are messaging, external reputation of the campus
and internal initiatives to support faculty, especially in areas on campus that are not fully funded,
such as the Arts. Mourad has worked with Richard for funding in the area of medical innovation.
Faculty are encouraged to work with Advancement and External Relations on proposed projects
and initiatives.
Old Business
A. Diversity Designation Criteria – S. Charusheela
Charu attended a Diversity Task Force meeting for a tri-campus discussion of the diversity
requirement at UW and the criteria that will be used to evaluate whether courses can be
given the diversity designation. The proposal for a Diversity Graduation Requirement for
Undergraduates originated from a student coalition and was approved by the Faculty
Senate and the UW President. UWB faculty were not part of the discussions and were not
aware of the student-led initiative on diversity. The Provost’s Office is working on
implementation planning of the Diversity Requirement.
A committee at UWS has been created to review courses submitted as potentially meeting
the criteria for diversity designation. The language created by Faculty Senate is used in
evaluating the submitted courses. Up to 400 courses submitted for Fall 2014 did not meet
the criteria. UWB has submitted 22 courses for review as meeting the diversity
requirement.
Some principles that were part of the initiative are now being addressed. The initiative
called for both a multi-cultural and a non-discrimination approach to diversity. The multicultural approach will focus on social, political and economic diversity, and what is ethical
for citizenship. The non-discrimination approach will focus on power, race, gender and
other areas of inequality. Senate language focused on the multi-cultural aspect of the
initiative and clarification is now sought on the distinction between these categories.
EC discussion points
 Syllabi will need a statement on multi-cultural approach and non-discrimination approach for
Diversity courses.
 Learning objectives on syllabi for Diversity courses must pedagogically satisfy core requirements
and communicate this to students.
 We must institutionalize the course approval process for Diversity requirements.
 Each campus’ Diversity courses are reviewed by a UW committee. This was not in alignment with
previous information we had received.
 The Faculty Senate has worked with the UW Multi-Cultural Committee throughout this process.
One of the problems for UWB is the lack of communication on these policies, processes and
committee representation by UWB faculty.
 The implementation process for the Diversity requirements needed to be communicated to UWB
faculty. Student groups, administrators, Associate Deans and UW faculty representatives reviewed
these courses. UWB faculty were not involved.
 The Faculty Code states that curriculum development is the right of the faculty; developing criteria
without faculty input is in direct violation of the Code.
 The EC and the CCASC are collaborating to develop criteria for UWB Diversity requirements.
 The Diversity Council at UWB should be brought into the discussion on the development of criteria
for Diversity requirements.
 The Diversity Council was not constituted by faculty governance; it was not faculty elected. The
EC will consult with the Diversity Council on this matter.
 The core implementation of Diversity requirements at UW is being done through the Center for
Curriculum Transformation. Betty Schmitz is Director of the Center.
 Charu served as Chair of the GFO Campus Council on Academic Standards and Curriculum last
year and coordinated meetings with Virjean Edwards, UW Registrar. Equivalency course
requirements across the campuses was clarified but a single set of policies across the three
campuses on curricular matters must be developed and communicated.
 Charu is currently working with Jerry Baldasty from the Office of the Provost on curricular matters;
he has appointed Charu as UWB representative on the UW Curriculum Committee on Policy and
Process. Charu will report to the EC on curricular development matters decided by the Committee.
 UWB representatives on the CCASC are appointed through programs/schools and are not elected,
although it is a policy-making Council. Some programs/schools vote for members of the CCASC.
 A complete list of all the curricular committees that Annette Anderson, Curriculum Development
Director, serves on at UW would be helpful to begin to close the communication gap at UWB on
curriculum review and development.
 The EC will begin fact gathering on faculty representation on curricular meetings at UW and look
into course releases for the faculty members to serve on these committees.
 There have been Faculty Code violations on curricular matters over the last few years.
The EC will continue to address these issues on UWB faculty representation and
communication on curricular matters across the campuses.
Joint Academic Council/Executive Council Meeting
Resnick opened the AC/EC meeting with a welcome to the AC and thanked VCAA Jeffords for the
opportunity of a joint meeting with the AC and EC. She shared information on the work of the EC
over Autumn Quarter and provided a list of topics that the EC and the GFO have addressed this
quarter:
Executive Council
 Program proposals for new majors and minors
 Diversity designation requirements and beginning stages of developing criteria for UWB.
 Criminal History admissions question and the Safety and Support Plan.
 Lecture issues related to the Provost’s guidelines on hiring practices.
 Recommended delaying CUSP name change until after CUSP review.
 Approved proposed CBLR designation for courses.
 GFO budget
 Mechanisms for shared governance
 Approved Distinguished Research, Scholarship and Creative Activities Award.
 Began work on Distinguished Service and Leadership Award.
 Began focus on assessment for learning and institutional improvement.
 Participation in UW accreditation site visit.
GFO
 Comprehensive Campaign – faculty involvement
 Criminal History admissions question and the Safety and Support Plan, including
concerns about support for faculty
 Diversity designation for courses.
VCAA Jeffords spoke on the continuing effort at communication between the leadership bodies of
the AC and EC and her commitment to have open, shared conversation on a regular basis. She
provided some background information on Husky Hall including efforts to offer food service at this
location. Because the original cafeteria facility was geared toward frozen food preparation, that
option for the campus was not in our best interest as food space.
Lerum spoke to the AC about the state of shared governance at UWB. She prepared an overview
of GFO Councils and Committees, recent successes and activities of the GFO and challenges that
the GFO faces. She outlined issues that the GFO would like to address and opened dialog on
issues of shared governance in the budget and planning process.
AC/EC discussion points
Budget and Planning at UWB
 The EC is advocating for a strong faculty voice in the budget and planning process at UWB.
 The EC supports shared governance involvement in strategic planning in campus growth and
enrollment and in managing the rate of growth.
















The EC would like to develop an increased financial literacy to work in partnership with the
administration on decision-making in budget and planning.
The EC would like a more transparent process for budget planning and decision making.
Infrastructure should determine the sequence of growth of this campus.
We need to implement the principles of our mission and values and work to have the academic
side in alliance with the Administration.
The GFO could be the conduit for budgetary communication and transparency.
An orientation for EC members at the beginning of each year in budgetary literacy at UWB would
be a great start.
The GFO must have a seat at the decision-making table; our values are embedded in the budget.
The GFO needs to be involved in the strategic planning; this is essential to the quality of education
and learning experience we offer at UWB.
Online learning is one way to achieve enrollment goals but we must make sure online programs
have the resources to support the additional enrollment. These online programs could enroll
thousands of students; if they all have access to library services, resource allocation must be
considered.
Jane Van Galen is working with a tri-campus online learning taskforce; we can ask for updates
from her.
It would be helpful if the GFO officers did not cycle off leadership after two years.
Some areas of budgetary concerns are faculty involvement with the new Capital Campaign and the
campus growth.
The growth of STEM is a concern when other programs are not equally funded. VCAA Jeffords
spoke to this concern. The build out of the STEM School in relation to FTE is disproportionate.
The new building is STEM focused but the attention given to STEM at this time is mandated by the
Legislature. The State is investing in STEM education, specifically for computer science and
engineering. UWB is developing STEM programs in response to this State initiative. The initiative
is externally funded and driven.
Campus growth projections show a 35% increase in STEM FTE; was there faculty input on this
growth projection or the projection to reach 7500 FTE? VCAA Jeffords addressed these issues.
The projected growth to 7500 FTE is a modelling plan and not a definitive plan. Increased
resources would be needed to reach this number and new buildings would be part of the strategic
plan to reach 7500. Chancellor Yeigh will show the Legislature what is needed for this campus to
reach that number and what funding is needed. Growth is contingent on space and other factors.
The original mission of the campus projected 7000 FTE.
The Capital Campaign is working to fund other school and program initiatives.
A creation of a GFO subcommittee to work on campus growth is recommended.
Shared Governance
 The GFO document is evolving; we are developing a list of parameters of faculty governance.
 The EC would like to develop mechanisms for more effective shared governance and would like
the outcome of this meeting to enhance administrative and faculty communication and
transparency.
 A strategic question we must consider is what ratio of tenured faculty to lecturers do we want at
this institution?
 A higher percentage of tenure track faculty ensures academic freedom in the institution.


All faculty ranks support and serve in GFO leadership and representative positions.
Service scaffolding could directly articulate contributions to faculty governance:
o Assistant professors serve on these committees
o Associate professors serve on these committees
o Full professors serve on these committees
Resnick thanked VCAA Jeffords and the AC for the opportunity to meet and discuss important faculty
governance issues. Joint AC/EC meetings could be scheduled the last week of each quarter.
Meeting adjourned at 10:45 am
Minutes submitted by Barbara Van Sant
The next meeting will be January 14, 2014