• 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

Executive Council Meeting: 10/11/2007

Executive Council Meeting

October 11, 2007, 2:00 pm, UW2 327

Present: Constantin Behler, Steve Collins, Bill Erdly, Dan Jaffe, Nancy Place, Suzanne Sikma (phone conference) and Mike Stiber

Guests:  Dan Jacoby, Gray Kochhar-Lindgren and Linda Watts

Adoption of Agenda

            Agenda was adopted as amended.

Announcements

            Steve began the meeting welcoming Dan to the EC and offering congratulations on his election to the GFO as the new Vice Chair.

Reports of Officers

• A. Chair - Mike Stiber

Mike was attending the Academic Council (AC) meeting and will report later.

• B. Vice Chair - Dan Jaffe

Dan initiated an EC discussion on issues that will be EC priorities for the academic year - the GFO councils and committee structure and role of the GFO in academic planning for UWB.  He updated the EC on STEM planning and the status of the ASTP group.  He stated that VCAA Jeffords has reviewed the findings of the ASTP report and will re-convene a group to work on STEM planning.  Dan stressed that the EC should dialog and work with the Administration to develop a strategic plan for UWB at a campus level.

Discussion of EC priorities

      The EC should assume a leadership role in all academic planning and responsibility for reviewing and advising on major-programmatic changes.  The GFO Campus Council on Academic Standards and Curriculum and the Campus Council on Promotion, Tenure and Faculty Affairs along with the EC should be involved in this process.  GFO committees, rather than appointed task forces, by mandate of the UWB Handbook ensure a strong faculty voice in academic strategic planning. 

Reports of Committees

            No committee reports.

Reports from Programs

            No program reports.

New Business

          A.  Set GFO Agenda for Academic Year, possibly including:

             i.   Harmonizing lower division and overall campus curriculum.

             iii.   Linking new degrees/options/faculty lines with campus-wide strategic planning.

             iv. Partnering with the administration on STEM planning

             v. GFO role in strategic planning

            The EC discussion addressed agenda items A. i, iii, iv and v under New Business as strategic planning issues and amended the agenda accordingly.

EC discussion

• The EC should work closely with the UWB Administration in developing a strategic plan.
• Dan will invite the Chancellor Chan and/or VCAA Jeffords to every other EC meeting.
• Strategic planning at UWB is moving in 2 directions:    
       1.   STEM planning
       2.   All other areas

• A STEM planning group is being revived from the ASTP group.  Phase I, the data gathering has been completed.  Susan Jeffords is moving into Phase II by re-convening the group to begin planning.
• Mike reported on the discussion in the AC meeting, beginning with a summary of campus planning by VCAA Jeffords.  Some strategic questions posed: 

          1.   What can UWB do to become a regionally significant university?
          2.   What can UWB do to benefit students?
          3.   What can UWB do to build on our strengths?

• VCAA Jeffords will consult with Mike to draft a proposal for comment on STEM and other academic planning.
• EC will review the campus retreat summary from the retreat convened by the Chancellor and VCAA in September.
• We must be certain to keep the proposals for new majors from last year that have been made active.
• New major issues:
       1.   Which new programs do we develop?
       2.   Under what administrative unit should they be housed?
• The planning for the North campus is still affecting our program planning.  Will we be moving or should we continue to develop our science and math programs here?
• There needs to be more communication about the North campus planning, the report is due in November and there is still no concrete information about our role in this process.
• The SIS committee is looking at land use planning, population growth and other factors to determine the potential means to deliver a polytechnic institute, although the definition of a polytechnic institute is broad.
• Without room to build labs at UWB, what impact does space have on our developing science programs?
• Academic planning at UWB happens at the program level, but is not coordinated at the campus level.

Action item: Dan will invite VCAA Jeffords to attend monthly meetings with the EC.

          ii. Assessing lower division faculty governance

EC discussion

• Is the EC satisfied with the role faculty governance is playing in lower division? After the vote on the CUSP charter, the responsibility for the planning of lower division went to FOCUS.
• The Charter delegated the responsibility for lower division to the VCAA and this responsibility now sits outside the purview of the faculty.
• There are concerns about the structure of lower division at UWB, specifically regarding quantitative literacy and prerequisites for STEM majors.
• The CUSP Charter is a UWB internal document, approved by GFO which charged FOCUS to shape the CUSP curriculum.
• A review of FOCUS and assessment of CUSP will begin next year. An election of new FOCUS members to replace those rotating off of the committee will be held before the end of Autumn Quarter.
• CUSP curriculum is linked to other strategic planning issues.
• If STEM programming goes to a North campus, decisions with CUSP will be different.
• The Campus Council for Academic Standards and Curriculum could initiate a preliminary review of CUSP

          vi.   Charges for Councils/Committees

EC discussion

• The GFO councils and committees can manage the conversations on academic planning, reporting to the EC.  Faculty should drive this discussion.
• The councils and committees will develop their charges in consultation with and reporting to the EC.
  Some possible issues for the Campus Council on Academic Standards and Curriculum:
• FOCUS and lower division planning, review of CUSP
• Integrated Arts on the campus
  Some possible issues for the Campus Council on Promotion, Tenure and Faculty Affairs:
• Assess the change in the way tenure is conceptualized at UWB
• Work with Dan Jacoby to develop a Catalyst survey for the faculty
  Some possible issues for the Instructional and Research Support Committee:
• Research Support
• Assess the work of the Writing Center/Quantitative Skills Center

No motions were made on these items.

Submission of Charter for approval: Biotechnology & Biomedical Technology Institute - Steve Collins

            Steve submitted the Charter for approval of the Biotechnology & Biomedical Technology Institute, the Biotechnology & Biomedical Technology Institute Executive Summary and a Letter of Support for the Biotechnology & Biomedical Technology Institute from the Washington Biotechnology & Biomedical Association.  The purpose of the Institute is to create an institutional space for research, education, and community outreach.  The Institute is the result the work of Mike Stiber, Steve Collins and Alan Leong through the UWB Worthington Award.  Technologies within its purview span the life sciences industries and include drug development, bioinformatics, neuroscience, and electromedical equipment and medical devices; of special interest are technologies spanning traditional biology, medicine, mathematics, electrical engineering, and computing.  There is also a curricular component to the Institute, which will develop a cross programmatic minor that will link the campus' educational mission with the needs of the biotechnology and biomedical technology communities. This curriculum will prepare students for careers in the life sciences industries, provide opportunities for students to learn about careers in these industries, and offer continuing education opportunities to the biotechnology and biomedical technology community.  This is the first step in a 3 step review process; Academic Affairs will post the proposal for faculty review.

EC discussion

• How does the Biotechnology & Biomedical Technology Institute connect with the rest of the campus? It addresses the needs of the region and community; students in CSS are working with medical devices.
• What is the funding stream for this institute? When funds no longer come out of the Worthington Award, is it self sustaining?
• How do we prioritize this against other needs of the campus?
• The formation of the minor, how does that get supported?
• Better data is needed on the strength of the connection with existing and future students

Survey of faculty - Dan Jacoby

            Dan presented UWB's Upper Division 2006-07: An Assessment draft report to the EC for comment and feedback.  The draft is the second of a series of Institutional Research reports which profile our upper division undergraduate students using data produced as a result of the institutional assessment plan adopted in Spring 2006.  He explained that UWB was requiring better data to inform our strategic planning process.  The results of this data will serve as a marketing tool to help us move forward.  Each program at UWB will also submit a survey to incoming students, as each program has different kinds of needs.  Dan would like the EC to take this information to the programs for feedback.  The EC will charge the Campus Council for Promotion, Tenure and Faculty Affairs to work with Dan to develop a Catalyst survey for the faculty.

The meeting adjourned at 4:00 pm

The next EC meeting will be Tuesday, October 23, 2007.

Minutes submitted by Barbara Van Sant