• GFO Bylaws
• Officials, Councils and Committees
• People »
  • Members
  • GFO Chairs
  • Founding Faculty
• Minutes
• Awards
• Documents »
  • Program Planning Policy
  • Faculty Governance Primer
  • The Lower Division Task Force Draft Report
  • Planning Parameters for a Lower Division Program
  • Good Teaching at UW Bothell
  • First UW Bothell Job Satisfaction Survey Report
• Annual Reports
• GFO Newsletters
• Blackboard
• Contact Us

General Faculty Organization: 08/08/2007

General Faculty Organization Meeting

August 8, 2007, 12:00 pm, UW1 220

Chair:  Mike Stiber

Present: Mike Stiber, Sundar Balakrishnan, Cherry Banks, Mary Baroni, Arnie Berger, Bruce Burgett, Steve Collins, Bill Erdly, Munehiro Fukuda, David Goldberg, Chuck Jackels, Dan Jacoby, Dan Jaffee, Mark Kochanski, Gray Kochhar-Lindgren, Andrea Kovalesky, Sandeep Krishnamurthy, Alison Lo, Pete Nye, Robin Rider, Gowri Shankar, Suzanne Sikma, Linda Watts, Linda Westbrook and Alan Wood.

            Mike Stiber, GFO Chair opened the discussion on the new campus to be located in the North Sound area.  This effort is in response to WA Substitute Senate Bill 5731, authorizing the UW to govern and operate an additional branch campus to be located in the Snohomish, Island and Skagit count area.

A UW-SIS Work Group (WG) was formed by President Emmert to develop a preliminary plan, due November 15, 2007, for program design and implementation of a new UW campus in Snohomish, Island, or Skagit (SIS) County.

The WG is now organized into five Study Groups (SGs): Demand, Student Profiles, National Models/Programming, and Lessons Learned from previous branch campuses, Innovative and Alternative Education, and Public Outreach. Chancellor Chan Chairs the National Models/Programming group; Mike is a member of this group and Vice Chancellor Jeffords has joined that group. Tom Bellamy is working with the Demand Study group, Dan Jacoby is working with the Student Profile group, and Bill Erdly is Chairing the Lessons Learned group (on which Alan Wood also serves).

Directions from the Legislature are that the new campus have a science, math, and technology focus and that the first students be admitted in fall 2008.  At this point, the Working Group is gathering and evaluating information, including potential models and lessons we can learn from other university campuses.  Mike has called this GFO meeting to gather input, comments and feedback from the UWB faculty.

GFO discussion:

Funding Issues:

• One area of concern that is missing in this overview is cost realism.  There is no sense of what this new campus will cost.
• If the new campus is well planned and funded, it will be great.  If it is not well funded, it will be a huge drain on everyone, especially UWB.
• The UW must participate in a substantial way and not take resources from existing campuses.
• These decisions could influence the amount of support UWB gets in the future.
• If the new campus is STEM oriented, will we be denied money to fund STEM programs at UWB?
• The Legislature will not put money in both places, how will this affect UWB from moving forward on math and science?
• Since UWB does not have the space to build labs, this may be an opportunity to get funding in the STEM area, build a campus that will serve this need.

Timeline Issues:

• The Autumn 2008 timeline to begin classes will drive the planning of this campus in a major way.
• The timeline will limit the kinds of degrees that could be offered, no degrees requiring labs could be established that quickly.
• A polytechnic institution could not meet the timeline with new programs.
• Majors requiring prerequisites could not meet the compressed timeline; there is not time to implement new programs. 
• The plan cannot come to full functionality by 2008.
• The 2008 timeline cannot drive this process, but how do we meet the mandate?
• The 250 student FTE could be at a different site - a temporary site.

UWB Involvement:

• How will the UWB interact with the new campus?
• Will UWB faculty teach at both campuses?
• What level of involvement in the start-up of the new campus will be the responsibility of UWB?
• This should be a UW effort, not a UWB effort.
• The Public Outreach Working Group is composed of all UW members; there is no UWB representation on this group.
• The faculty would like the Chancellor to be very clear on UWB's level of involvement in institution building of the new campus.
• Another factor in building a STEM oriented campus, UWB faculty has limited expertise in this area.
• CSS faculty could rotate into STEM most easily.
• What stakeholder groups, internally and externally have been consulted?  UWB is an internal stakeholder; a communication plan should be drafted from UWB while the planning is in process and under development.
• We should ask Lee Huntsman and Ana Marie Cauce to visit UWB soon.
• Main issues of UWB involvement:
      1.   Budget
      2.   Administrative Structure
      3.   Faculty - Promotion/Tenure, Governance
      4.   Curriculum Development
      5.   Quality of Education
• This campus should have at least a decade before a determination of its success be judged.

Principles to Guide Decision-making:

• This institution needs to be high quality, supported fully by the State Legislature.
• The campus should not be assessed for success for at least a decade; this is a 25 - 30 year process.
• UW should drive the development of this campus.
• UWB does not have the resources to put toward institution building of a new campus.
• Lessons learned - this must be a university-wide contribution, there must be UW buy-in.
• The UW must approach this as a soon to be 4 campus system.
• Each degree program must be built by senior faculty; they bring a level of expertise and wisdom of practice.
• Institution building takes a huge toll on faculty scholarship, how realistic is it to expect UWB faculty to begin again with a new campus?
• A new definition of scholarship/research needs to be examined for faculty at new campuses during institution building.
• The research level of a doctoral university is different than a post baccalaureate university.
• The lack of labs at UWB affects the kind of research we can do.
• A new campus needs about 30 years to produce scholarship on par with UW scholarship.
• What is the mission coherence with UWB, the mission of the new campus needs to be articulated.
• Will the new campus serve non-traditional students as their base? 
• A strong effort to build STEM related programs that bring in women and increase diversity would be innovative.
• We could infuse the new campus with UWB values in STEM related fields.
• It is a priority to develop a vision and mission statement for the new campus.
• Decisions must be made regarding a residential or commuter campus, it will attract a different student base.
• The emphasis on not duplicating UW courses may not be realistic.  What UW degree programs are turning away students?  Duplication of UW programs may be necessary and a good idea.

 Other:

• If the new campus has a STEM focus, has data supported the demand for this?
• STEM is a growing field at UW, the NSF funds these programs.
• No one from the ASTP Committee is on the Working Groups.
• There are models for the campus that span the spectrum, from polytechnic to interdisciplinary.
• Business and Health Sciences are also growing in demand.
• The plan is to have a campus that will have a regional draw, a residential campus.
• Institutional wide input is being sought and collected.
• The Working Group has met twice, now is the time to offer any ideas, concerns, information or feedback so it can be integrated and interpreted for the report.
• Now is the time to weigh in on what will be UWB's level of participation in decision making.  The time to drive the destiny of the future campus is now.
• What will be UWB's relationship with the new campus?  Will we be a campus with two sites?
• Women and science, not represented in the Working Groups.
• It is very important to integrate with K - 12 schools to build a pipeline for the campus.
• UWB's Education Program is implementing 2 new endorsements, Math and Biology and working with Jackson High School in Everett and making connections in K - 12 schools.
• Collaboration with STEM and Education will create pathways.
• The UW must decide what kind of multi-campus university we will be.
• How Snohomish County develops could drive the programs at the new campus.
• There are national models that we can look at; New York has schools in cities all over the state.  We should review good and bad models.
• One model in North Carolina (East Carolina University) developed a local Engineering program that met the needs of the community, is there a local need for Engineering in the North Sound area?  A blended model could serve both regions.
• Distance Learning is another way to serve unmet needs and keep the pipeline moving.
• External stakeholders: public, Western Washington University, Snohomish County.

     Mike will compile the faculty input from this meeting and draft a report to the Working Group communicating the UWB faculty voice on this issue.  He will also find out about getting UWB faculty access to the Working Group's website.

The GFO meeting adjourned at 2:00 pm

Minutes submitted by Barbara Van Sant