minutes for senate executive committee meeting · 2018-07-24 · minutes for senate executive...

MINUTES FOR SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING November 16, 2009, 2:30 p.m.

142 Gerberding Present: Balick, Harrington, Emmert, Ahmad, Philipsen, Lee, Giebel, Saxberg, Zahorjan, Astley, Johnson, Landis, Jackels, Reusch, Schaufelberger, Breidenthal, Masuda, Christie, Miller, Fabien, Collins, Rorabaugh, Lovell, Killien, Fridley, Mensing, Wise. Guests: Niccolls, Billingsley, Sutton, Arkans. Absent: Breitner, Wenderoth, Bichindaritz, Silberstein, Faleschini. Faculty Senate Chair Bruce Balick called the meeting to order at 2:35. 1. Approval of Agenda.

The agenda was approved.

2. Approval of Minutes. Minutes from the October 12, 2009, Senate Executive Committee meeting and the October 29, 2009, Faculty Senate meeting were approved.

3. Opening Remarks from the Chair. Bruce Balick, Chair of the Faculty Senate. Chair Balick began his remarks by noting that the current salary policy at the UW has its roots in a long, hard row a decade ago. In brief, prior to 1999 the faculty were upset that disproportionate funding was being used for recruitment and retention. This ad hoc, opportunistic salary policy left most faculty without fair annual raises and created unbalanced salary scales within departments and colleges. Faculty Senate leadership, working closely with Provost Huntsman, reached agreement on the present salary policy which is built on a principle of steady salary progression for all meritorious faculty. Executive Order #64 implements the spirit of the principle of steady salary progression by mandating that 2% raises are to be issued annually:

"Consistent with the stated objectives, the first priority shall be to support regular merit and promotion awards to current faculty. Further, each biennium the minimum salaries by rank will be reviewed and, if adjusted, support will be provided to ensure those minimum levels are achieved. Other funds, as available, may be allotted among the following faculty salary + adjustments: • Additional merit to all faculty; • Differential distributions by unit to correct salary gaps created by changing disciplinary markets or assessments of unit quality; • Recruitment and retention; • System wide adjustments to raise the salaries of all meritorious faculty."

There is an important caveat:

"Without the infusion of new money from the Legislature into the salary base, career advancement can only be rewarded at the expense of the size of the University faculty. Without the influx of new money or in the event of decreased State support, a reevaluation of this Faculty Salary Policy may prove necessary."

However, the reevaluation mechanism is not described. Above all, the leadership of the Faculty Senate is committed to the preservation of the extant faculty salary policy, as embodied in the Faculty Code (Chapter 24) since this represents the authoritative will of the faculty enacted by its duly elected representatives. This policy is a very principled compact with a lengthy history that

November 16, 2009, SEC Minutes 2

was drawn up outside the present stresses of the budget. It expresses the vital need to reward loyalty and continued accomplishment by all of UW's faculty over opportunistic salary growth. Cuts to the UW base budget by the last Legislature were devastating to the UW's budget. Increased tuition only partially compensates. Salaries have been frozen. Nearly 1000 positions are vacant, many of them academic. This situation was not anticipated or accommodated when Executive Order #64 was written. This view of preserving extant salary policy is aligned with that of the position expressed by the President in Executive Order #29 (temporarily suspending Executive Order #64):

"Although the suspension of merit salary increases is a temporary imperative, it remains equally evident that regular merit increases, promotions, hiring, retention, and competitive compensation of faculty are critical to the long-term success of the University. University leadership remains steadfastly committed to the fundamental elements of Executive Order #64, and its principles and priorities are reaffirmed."

Balick affirmed that the best offense in any fiscal tempest is a stalwart defense of key assets. The Senate stands behind the broader view that the present faculty salary policy is the best long-term investment in the UW’s future as a world-leading university. He closed by saying that maintaining the compact by which the faculty share in the governance of the institution is a primary objective of the efforts of the Senate leadership this year, just as it was last year. Executive Order #29 reinforces the consensus view:

"Regular merit increases will resume first priority for allocation of salary funds after this suspension expires."

This is the metric for judging events to come.

4. Report from the President.

Mark Emmert. President Emmert concurred with the message delivered by the Chair, saying that two and a half years ago faculty and administration were working to improve a convoluted set of procedures having to do with faculty salaries, and doing so in great confidence that there would not be a time in the future when there would be no pay raises at all. He went on to report that the University has had to eliminate 1,000 positions, with most of those positions representing current employees who were laid off. Administration has sought ways to reduce expenditures, but have done it for the most part without recourse to temporary measures. It is clear that the budget will not turn around quickly. Many universities have relied on temporary measures in hopes that the next year or years would be better. This has worked only to forestall the inevitable. Next year another $2 billion will be cut from the Washington State budget. Although not retroactive, it will impact the next fiscal year. Revenue will not match the need, but there are limits on what can be cut from the higher education budget because of conditions that were agreed to upon the State’s acceptance of federal stimulus money. Emmert is working hard to make a case the UW has taken as large a cut as it can endure. He is also making a vigorous case about the acute need for the UW to have greater flexibility in management of revenue and cost controls, internally. A year ago, these discussions were frequently dismissed. Given the current budget situation, however, legislators are increasingly willing to engage and actually welcome these conversations. He is hopeful that the UW may get some latitude with regard to flexibility of internal fiscal management, but the State base will decline even further before any such changes are enacted. He reiterated that the decline in the State base is a trend line, not an aberration. In the past ten years, the State budget has increased 38%, and the funding for community colleges increased 28%. On the other hand, funding for four-year institutions other than the UW was down 4%, and the UW was down 12% -- a significant gap when compared to the increase enjoyed by the State. This reflects decisions that higher education is not as important as other demands on the State’s agenda. Regardless of this gloomy picture, the President feels


there are many ways to solve these problems and realize the goals of the University over the next twenty years – but it will require legislative permission to explore and implement new ways of doing business internally.

5. Report from the Senate Committee on Planning and Budgeting. David Lovell, Faculty Senate Past Chair and Committee Chair. Senate Committee on Planning and Budgeting (SCPB) Chair David Lovell reported that the SCPB reviewed the proposed moves of the School of Oceanography and the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences into the College of the Environments, thereby leaving only a shell of the College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences. These moves raise issues about the use of RCEP provisions for college-level and program-level reorganization. Lovell asked for questions or comments, and Gerry Philipsen, Group II representative, noted that given the President’s words and his commitment to strategic thinking, this University may be a very different place in ten years. His concern is that SCPB, representing the faculty in matters of budget and planning, needs to be in at the inception of these very important discussions. It’s the very earliest discussions of such consequential issues that shape and direct the planning and discussions that follow with the constituents and stake holders. The focus of the SCPB agenda is too often monopolized by brush fires and tending to immediate needs, such as RCEP procedures. Discussion ensued about the level of consideration for faculty involvement in the various committees and task forces related to activity-based budgeting (ABB) and two years; two decades (2Y2D). The President then made a clarification to address the initial concern that this University may be a very different place in ten years. He wanted to be very clear about what’s broken and what’s not. His perspective is that for the most part, the UW is not broken. As a business enterprise, with teaching, research and medicine being chief among its products, demand has never been greater, and those who come here are willing to pay. What’s broken is the public subsidy. In the face of this downward trend in funding the University needs to find new ways of doing business in order to maintain its current level of operating excellence and meet its goals for the next two decades. Philipsen concluded with expressing appreciation for the President’s vision, but reiterated his hope that SCPB, representing the interests of the faculty, be a part of all initial conversations concerning the shape of things to come at the UW. There have been times when including the SCPB in crucial discussions has been overlooked and a process has had to be re-started as a result.

6. Report on Legislative Affairs. Jim Fridley, Faculty Legislative Representative. Faculty Legislative Representative began his remarks by saying that most of what he had intended to convey had already been expressed by the President. He further noted, however, that this is the short half of the two year legislative session and the legislature will be working primarily to adjust the budget as a result of what’s been learned over the past year. He agreed with President Emmert’s sense that the legislature will be more receptive to proposals to change policies that would increase internal budget control. Fridley encouraged SEC members to contact him regarding this issue. A question was raised about the possible benefits of the faculty having union representation in Olympia, since the UW seems to be in such a weak position with regard to the legislature. Fridley responded that labor unions are an effective presence in Olympia and are respected because of the power lent by their memberships. Large numbers can have an influence on those whose positions depend on constituents. However, he also indicated that he did not know if the faculty at the UW or at WSU, represented by a union, would represent a formidable enough presence to make a substantial difference. Furthermore, while employee unions are important and effective “insiders” what higher education might be most lacking is strong external advocacy.


7. Report from the Secretary of the Faculty.

Marcia Killien, Secretary of the Faculty. Secretary of the Faculty Marcia Killien reported that in addition to the groups of faculty working on the faculty salary policy, there are also work groups examining the nagging issue of textbook authorship, possible revisions of how we conduct dispute resolution, and a proposal to restructure the Faculty Senate and the Senate Executive Committee (SEC). She asked the SEC for feedback on process of recruiting and electing nominees for Vice Chair of Faculty Senate. Traditionally, candidates are asked to speak at a Faculty Senate meeting and then a vote is taken immediately thereafter. Due to attendance at Senate meeting and because faculty who hear presentations don’t have time to reflect on what they’ve heard, she asked SEC to consider the possibility of having candidates address the Senate at a meeting – and then holding an electronic election several days or a week later. She encouraged SEC members to send comments and suggestions, positive or negative, to her concerning this proposed change in policy. Killien concluded her remarks with an appeal that members remain at the meeting long enough to deal with packet of legislation dealing with the Faculty Council on University Relations. This involved three pieces of legislation, and given the legislative agenda in store for the Senate this year, it would be helpful to deal with these three issues at this meeting.

8. Report from the Faculty Athletic Representative. {Exhibit A} Patrick Dobel, Faculty Athletic Representative. Faculty Athletic Representative (FAR) Patrick Dobel introduced himself and his function as FAR. He then stated that there were two issues of national concern that he needed to convey to the Senate Executive Committee. The passing of Miles Brand, President of the NCAA, was an enormous loss to that organization. There had been significant gains with regards tp requiring and promoting academic support for student athletes under his leadership. This had previously taken a back seat to athletic/competitive priorities. Dobel hopes that a new president is found who shares Brand’s commitment to the academic side of student athletes’ lives. Dobel was pleased to report that the NCAA has passed legislation addressing the troubled culture surrounding intercollegiate basketball. He also made mention of the situation in some institutions where athletic departments within institutions of higher education have been let loose – and encouraged – to find other sources of funding. This has resulted in a significant loss of accountability to the college or university that the teams represent. He and the Advisory Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics (ACIA) are working to keep this from occurring at the UW. ACIA is also working to ensure that Title IX, which provides for equal funding for women’s sports, is being followed. In addition to this work, Dobel mentioned that President Emmert is a leader of reform university presidents working to establish a new identity for the PAC-10. Ensuing discussion focused on the question of recruiting student athletes without enough regard to whether they are qualified or equipped to handle the academic rigors of a typical UW student. Although acknowledging the enormous and largely successful efforts made by Kim Durand (Associate Athletic Director for Student Development) to make this less of a concern, one SEC member opined that even one student who fails to thrive as a student athlete is one too many. Dobel was quick to acknowledge the point, but added that the current rate of graduation of student athletes is now roughly the same as for the student population at large. When questioned about the value of athletics within a University, Dobel responded that he believes that athletics is a form of excellence as much as is art or music. Athletics belong in a University, although arguments could be made to the contrary with regard to football and basketball. Nevertheless the other teams exist at the UW in large part because of the success of the football program.


9. Nominations and Appointments. {Exhibit B}

Nominees for Faculty Councils and Committees. Action: Approve for Faculty Senate consideration. The nominations were approved.

10. Information. There was no information reported.

11. Announcements. Chair Bruce Balick reported on having attended the Medal of Honor Memorial dedication on November 11 and sited it as another example of the positive impact the students and faculty of this University have had on the world.

12. Unfinished Business. There was no unfinished business.

13. New Business. a. Official Request for Code Interpretation of Chapter 24, Sections 24-70 and 24-71. {Exhibit C}

Discussion: Refer to the Advisory Committee on Faculty Code and Regulations. Chair Balick introduced David Lovell, Chair of the Senate Committee on Planning and Budgeting, to address the request for Code interpretation of sections of chapter 24. Lovell referred SEC members to a new Exhibit C, dated November 16, 2009, distributed at the beginning of the meeting: “Request for Code Interpretation.” He explained that this does not need to be debated today. He brought the request for the SEC to forward to the Advisory Committee on Faculty Code and Regulations for their advice in order for the SEC to have a more informed discussion of these questions when the time comes. The SEC is the body that is authorized to interpret the Code, with the advice of the Advisory Committee on Faculty Code and Regulations. After considerable discussion about the legal complexities involved and about the consequences should the faculty remain silent on this issue, Gerry Philipsen made a motion that the SEC deliver this request for interpretation to the Advisory Committee on Faculty Code and Regulations. The motion was seconded. After further discussion, the question was called and approved. The main motion was then approved with two abstentions.

b. Faculty Council on University Relations. i. Class C Action: Marcia Killien, Secretary of the Faculty. {Exhibit D}

Title: Proposal to Create a Special Committee on Honorary Degrees. Action: Approve for Faculty Senate Consideration. A motion was made and seconded to submit the proposal to create a Special Committee on Honorary Degrees. Secretary of the Faculty Marcia Killien then recounted that Faculty Councils had been asked to examine council charges and efficiencies they might make in view of the budget situation. The charge of the Faculty Council on University Relations (FCUR) is included in Exhibit F, attached to the agenda. In the past, FCUR has been involved in a number of issues, but in recent years, the focus of the Council has been on honorary degrees. In discussions with the Council, a conclusion was reached that their purpose could be well-supported by a special committee rather than a faculty council. This transition requires three pieces of legislation. This first Class C action would establish the Special Committee on Honorary Degrees. The next item on the agenda, Class B legislation, would change the University Handbook regarding the appointment of Honorary Degrees. The next item after that is Class A legislation that would change the Faculty Code by deleting the FCUR. The proposal to create the Special Committee was drafted over the summer by key members of the FCUR, then vetted and approved by its membership at its first Council meeting of the year.


After minimal discussion the motion was approved.

ii. Class B Legislation: Marcia Killien, Secretary of the Faculty. {Exhibit E} Title: Proposed Legislation Changing Volume Four, Part III, Chapter 11, Section 6 Honorary

Degrees. Action: Approve for Faculty Senate Consideration. Chair Balick explained that Class B legislation changes non- Faculty Code sections of the University Handbook. After review by the Senate Executive Committee, the Faculty Senate considers Class B legislation once and then sends it to the university president for review. Within ten days of approval of the action by the president, the Class B legislation is duplicated in a Class B Bulletin and sent by the Secretary to each member of the faculty. The legislation becomes effective unless a significant number of written objections is received by the Secretary within 21 days of its publication. A motion was made and seconded to send this legislation to the Senate for consideration. The question was called and approved. The main motion was then approved unanimously.

iii. Class A Legislation – First Consideration. {Exhibit F} Stuart Sutton, Member, Faculty Council on University Relations. Title: Proposed Legislation to Eliminate the Faculty Council on University Relations. Action: Decide whether to forward resolution for Faculty Senate consideration. Balick then explained that Class A legislation changes the Faculty Code, which is found in Volume II of the University Handbook. After first review by the Senate Executive Committee, the Faculty Senate considers Class A legislation once, sends it back to the SEC and then has a second consideration. Although Legislation may be amended at either consideration by the SEC, it is only at the first Senate meeting that it can be revised. A motion was made and seconded to send this legislation to the Senate for consideration. Stuart Sutton, current member of FCUR, who had participated in the drafting of the Special Committee proposal, then recounted the process leading to its drafting. There was no further discussion and the motion was approved by a unanimous vote.

c. Intelligence Officer Training Program, Christoph Giebel, Group 4 Representative. {Exhibit G} Discussion: Possible effect on academic integrity, safety and security of the UW’s global activities. Chair Balick then directed SEC members’ attention to a concern raised by one of the group representatives, Christoph Giebel, from Group 4. Giebel requested that the SEC address Intelligence Officer Training Programs and their possible effects on academic integrity, safety and security of the University of Washington’s global activities. Giebel began by distributing a reprint of an article from the June 19, 2009, issue of the Washington Post entitled “Obama Administration Looks to Colleges for Future Spies.” He described the program and told SEC members the questions this program raised for him, including issues of transparency and honesty, safety and security. For example, if it were known that the UW was taking part in this program, it may be an invitation for rival intelligence agencies to send counter-intelligence agents to enroll as well. It may also put overseas study and research programs at risk, since there is no way to identify the students who may be a part of this program. His main concern, however, is that the UW has reacted to situations such as this one in an ad hoc way. Each time something like this comes up, it requires significant amounts of information gathering and organizing of faculty to ensure the issue is adequately addressed from a faculty perspective. He feels it is now time for the faculty to formulate a policy to address requests from intelligence organizations when they impact the transparency of what we do as a University and the safety of students here and in overseas programs. He would like the Senate Executive Committee to take this up for further discussion.


Chair Balick responded by saying that issues of this magnitude are generally assigned to Faculty Councils for review and any recommendation indicated. Brian Fabien, Chair of the Faculty Council on Student Affairs, welcomed the opportunity to address this issue with his Council.

d. December 3, 2009 Faculty Senate Agenda. {Exhibit H} Action: Approve for distribution to Faculty Senators. The December 3, 2009, Faculty Senate agenda was approved.

14. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 4:46 p.m. PREPARED BY: Marcia Killien, Secretary of the Faculty APPROVED BY: Bruce Balick, Chair, Faculty Senate

Football Acade

mic M

ajors

2009

AES ‐10

AIS ‐4

App

Math Co

mp Sci ‐1

ppp

App

Math PS Eng

‐1

Aqu

atic & Fish Sci ‐1

Astrono

my ‐1

Biology‐3

Biology ‐3

Busine

ss ‐5

Commun

ication ‐3

German

‐1Hit

3History ‐3

Inform

atics ‐1

Individu

alized

Studies ‐8

Law, Society & Ju

stice ‐2

Music ‐1

Political Scien

ce ‐1

Sociology ‐1

1Spanish‐1

Spanish

1Sw

edish ‐1

Und

ecided

‐37

November 16, 2009 SEC Minutes 8 Exhibit A

M.B

aske

tbal

lAca

dem

icM

ajor

sM

. Bas

ketb

all A

cade

mic

Maj

ors


Special Admit Data Snapshot By Year

Entering Class of 2005-2006 (29 special admits)

9 Withdrew from UW/quit the team/ cut or transferred 2 Dismissed from UW 8 Remain at UW and in good academic standing 0 Went pro (left school early) 0 Below 2.0 or are academically ineligible 10 Earned UW degree


10 Withdrew from UW/quit the team/ cut or transferred 1 Dismissed from UW 17 Remain at UW in good academic standing 0 Went pro (left school early) 1 Below 2.0 or are academically ineligible 1 Earned UW degree


5 Withdrew from UW/quit the team/ cut or transferred 1 Dismissed from UW 23 Remain at UW in good academic standing 1 Went pro (left school early) 1 Below 2.0 or are academically ineligible 1 Earned UW degree


3 Withdrew from UW/quit the team/cut or transferred 0 Dismissed from UW 24 Remain at UW in good academic standing 0 Went pro (left school early) 0 Below 2.0 or are academically ineligible 0 Earned UW degree


Priority Admit Data Snapshot By Year Entering Class of 2005-2006 (46 priority admits)

10 Withdrew from UW/quit the team/cut or transferred/ no info. 2 Dismissed from UW 15 Remain at UW in good academic standing 0 Went pro (left school early) 0 Below 2.0 or are academically ineligible 18 Earned UW degree 1 Never attended UW

Entering Class of 2006-2007 (54 priority admits)

12 Withdrew from UW/quit the team/cut or transferred 2 Dismissed from UW 27 Remain at UW in good academic standing 1 Went pro (left school early) 0 Below 2.0 or are academically ineligible 9 Earned UW degree 3 Never attended UW


11 Withdrew from UW/quit the team/ cut or transferred 2 Dismissed from UW 39 Remain at UW in good academic standing 0 Went pro (left school early) 0 Below 2.0 or are academically ineligible 0 Earned UW degree 3 Never attended UW


4 Withdrew from UW/quit the team/cut or transferred 3 Dismissed from UW 61 Remain at UW in good academic standing 0 Went pro (left school early) 3 Below 2.0 or are academically ineligible 0 Earned UW degree 1 Never attended UW


11/9

/200

9E

quity

in A

thle

tics

Dis

clos

ure

Act

Com

paris

ons,

200

6-07

Ari

zon

aA

rizo

na

Sta

teC

alif

orn

iaO

reg

on

Ore

go

n S

tate

US

CS

tan

ford

U

CL

AW

ash

ing

ton

Was

hin

gto

n S

tate

Mic

hig

anM

inn

eso

taG

eorg

ia T

ech

Num

ber of FT Und

ergrad

s28

,442

32,722

23,863

14,949

13,599

16,729

6,68

9

25,432

27,836

14,051

24,631

28,516

11,842

Men

13,5

10

15

,809

10,9

81

7,

064

7,

260

8,

310

3,

449

11

,103

13,4

12

7,

442

12

,218

13,3

89

8,50

1

Wom

en14

,932

16,9

13

12

,882

7,88

5

6,33

9

8,41

9

3,24

0

14,3

29

14

,424

6,60

9

12,4

13

15

,127

3,

341

Num

ber

of S

port

s19

22

29

18

18

22

38

24

23

17

27

25

17

Mal

e A

thle

tes

239

31

1

49

4

238

291

343

422

345

32

5

234

379

39

6

252

Fem

ale

Ath

lete

s18

1

222

304

16

3

23

4

34

8

37

2

35

9

326

20

5

38

4

436

10

4

Athletically‐Related

Aid

$6,622

,595

$8,084

,474

$8,317

,318

$6,137

,477

$6,147

,552

$10,83

6,33

7$1

5,47

8,24

8$8

,171

,292

$7,181

,423

$5,407

,143

$12,50

7,06

9$8

,242

,694

$6,436

,551

Men

's T

eam

s$3

,595

,849

$4,6

98,4

70$4

,319

,241

$3,6

69,2

23$3

,536

,132

$6,1

06,6

81$8

,204

,564

$4,2

60,9

42$4

,025

,638

$2,9

72,8

74$6

,811

,589

$4,4

46,5

46$4

,252

,985

Wom

en's

Tea

ms

$3,0

26,7

46$3

,386

,004

$3,9

98,0

77$2

,468

,254

$2,6

11,4

20$4

,729

,656

$7,2

73,6

84$3

,910

,350

$3,1

55,7

85$2

,434

,269

$5,6

95,4

80$3

,796

,148

$2,1

83,5

66

Revenu

es by Team

$45,32

0,05

3$5

3,47

3,27

6$6

0,53

8,72

5$5

0,48

9,77

1$4

5,40

9,99

0$7

6,38

3,68

8$6

5,48

0,18

7$6

1,30

9,66

8$5

9,64

8,45

1$3

1,92

8,45

3$8

9,07

9,98

2$64,82

8,59

6$4

9,58

1,18

2

M B

aske

tbal

l$1

6,71

0,41

7$5

,368

,916

$5,9

52,2

35$4

,922

,491

$3,5

44,1

67$3

,747

,231

$6,0

49,1

83$9

,108

,587

$8,8

42,3

03$2

,830

,494

$7,5

36,9

02$9

,277

,073

$8,7

87,0

87

W B

aske

tbal

l$3

91,0

18$4

01,7

25$1

,966

,176

$529

,646

$276

,369

$259

,210

$1,2

46,1

39$1

92,4

84$8

05,7

45$3

62,9

42$8

3,92

9$1

,127

,229

$523

,500

Foo

tbal

l$1

7,48

9,51

0$2

3,51

9,74

2$2

6,00

1,07

5$2

1,49

5,62

6$2

8,29

9,19

9$3

1,70

5,20

7$1

2,92

7,40

7$2

3,53

9,59

3$3

3,69

4,96

2$1

0,46

6,37

0$5

0,98

2,6

29$1

7,39

0,37

6$2

5,33

1,13

0

Oth

er T

eam

Rev

enue

s$2

,821

,019

$2,5

21,5

96$1

2,00

7,77

8$7

89,5

51$1

,603

,139

$2,4

09,6

19$4

,033

,204

$1,7

58,1

47$4

,462

,203

$2,0

12,6

72$3

,634

,25

9$7

,983

,946

$3,5

21,5

24

Not

Allo

cate

d by

Gen

der

or S

port

$7,9

08,0

89$2

1,66

1,29

7$1

4,61

1,46

1$2

2,75

2,45

7$1

1,68

7,11

6$3

8,26

2,42

1$4

1,22

4,25

4$2

6,71

0,85

7$1

1,84

3,23

8$1

6,25

5,97

5$6

2,23

7,71

9$2

9,04

9,97

2$1

1,41

7,94

1

Recruiting

Expen

ses

$901

,858

$751

,269

$777

,600

$1,077

,266

$826

,996

$903

,799

$893

,425

$641

,494

$934

,969

$636

,317

$1,001

,770

$998

,990

$1,111

,936

Men

's T

eam

s$6

66,4

15$5

47,1

51$4

91,1

17$7

81,1

16$5

64,8

28$6

35,3

50$6

58,5

43$4

03,4

80$6

08,4

72$4

12,3

80$6

72,0

16$6

70,4

84$8

35,4

18

Wom

en's

Tea

ms

$235

,443

$204

,118

$286

,483

$296

,150

$262

,168

$268

,449

$234

,397

$238

,014

$326

,497

$223

,937

$329

,754

$328

,506

$276

,518

Coe

d T

eam

s$0

$0$0

$0$0

$0$4

85$0

$0$0

Ope

rating

Expen

ses by

Team

$5,894

,941

$8,180

,790

$9,059

,643

$7,404

,198

$6,833

,055

$12,31

0,24

9$9

,291

,219

$9,641

,579

$9,101

,878

$5,190

,160

$9,899

,702

$6,135

,261

$4,252

,905

M B

aske

tbal

l$1

,256

,816

$909

,904

$612

,562

$1,4

68,1

11$5

28,9

46$9

20,8

00$9

16,9

73$1

,677

,895

$1,0

50,8

61$8

21,4

83$9

29,0

46$6

65,8

57$6

43,2

23

W B

aske

tbal

l$4

03,7

65$6

43,3

29$5

27,1

39$5

41,9

16$3

78,8

78$6

99,2

36$6

75,7

16$4

07,6

82$7

08,2

18$4

25,5

39$5

36,8

49$5

87,9

75$4

03,4

56

Foo

tbal

l$2

,010

,921

$3,7

00,7

43$4

,409

,967

$3,6

47,9

82$2

,933

,472

$6,0

38,3

27$3

,017

,787

$4,4

54,2

38$3

,620

,719

$1,8

38,6

09$4

,001

,171

$1,7

64,6

96

$1,2

81,7

60

Bas

ebal

l$3

94,5

96$4

73,9

65$2

68,3

60$0

$1,0

88,6

52$7

54,5

76$2

98,2

90$3

42,5

38$4

69,1

90$4

51,0

66$4

02,7

21$3

36,0

59$3

18,7

83

M T

rack

Com

bine

d$2

66,9

13$2

97,3

91$2

19,4

02$3

23,3

29$0

$231

,084

$268

,873

$300

,053

$259

,489

$205

,707

$291

,145

$246

,824

$219

,503

W T

rack

Com

bine

d$2

59,0

64$2

90,6

58$1

65,3

95$1

76,4

82$6

3,43

5$2

98,4

74$2

30,6

28$2

72,5

16$3

17,1

52$1

77,1

35$3

94,9

71$3

06,5

07$2

24,3

59

M G

olf

$94,

031

$142

,621

$95,

738

$79,

680

$118

,213

$325

,987

$222

,253

$126

,121

$194

,391

$0$8

4,73

6$9

0,42

3$2

19,7

84

W G

olf

$84,

418

$136

,722

$80,

349

$79,

253

$85,

581

$338

,115

$94,

727

$79,

449

$87,

071

$104

,661

$97,

059

$78,

258

$0

W G

ymna

stic

s$1

17,2

43$1

46,7

88$1

08,4

20$0

$278

,829

$0$1

33,2

55$2

10,7

34$1

65,1

58$0

$198

,133

$124

,877

$0

M R

owin

g$0

$0$2

64,4

57$0

$106

,794

$0$2

25,6

15$0

$201

,356

$0$0

$0$0

W R

owin

g$0

$0$1

60,9

85$0

$105

,851

$343

,749

$404

,051

$158

,513

$311

,787

$329

,271

$369

,540

$225

,576

$0

M S

occe

r$0

$0$1

35,2

25$0

$125

,418

$0$1

45,5

97$1

91,1

62$1

96,0

73$0

$133

,784

$0$0

W S

occe

r$1

60,1

23$1

63,0

38$1

55,7

53$1

21,4

15$1

34,6

84$3

64,3

06$2

25,8

65$1

66,6

91$2

03,5

15$2

08,5

90$1

53,9

25$1

43,2

57$0

Sof

tbal

l$2

47,6

00$2

99,3

30$2

26,5

26$2

52,4

03$4

30,8

02$0

$174

,369

$218

,314

$373

,496

$0$2

38,1

34$1

54,2

25$2

24,7

11

M S

wim

min

g$1

43,7

92$1

28,2

00$1

61,7

76$0

$0$1

94,3

36$1

74,9

74$0

$132

,786

$0$1

95,7

62$1

53,7

87$9

3,39

7

W S

wim

min

g$1

35,5

73$1

22,7

42$1

78,9

70$0

$163

,013

$199

,645

$248

,470

$146

,819

$138

,207

$186

,042

$197

,966

$151

,829

$91,

329

M T

enni

s$6

6,16

5$1

33,0

79$1

37,2

61$9

1,22

7$0

$450

,453

$99,

825

$119

,938

$167

,546

$0$1

66,4

29$9

5,88

8$1

53,6

38

W T

enni

s$8

4,05

5$1

54,0

34$1

50,0

90$1

11,6

26$0

$258

,847

$136

,205

$145

,444

$139

,829

$127

,411

$133

,650

$76,

550

$131

,471

W V

olle

ybal

l$1

69,8

66$1

63,3

08$1

93,3

71$1

57,6

53$1

34,7

59$3

56,6

46$2

64,1

86$2

72,9

47$3

65,0

64$2

10,1

45$2

05,6

89$1

96,8

21$2

47,4

91

Oth

er$0

$274

,668

$807

,897

$353

,121

$155

,728

$535

,668

$1,2

44,4

95$3

50,5

25$0

$0$1

,168

,992

$735

,852

$0

All Expe

nses by Team

$41,06

7,90

2$5

3,47

3,27

6$6

0,53

8,72

5$4

9,53

1,15

0$4

5,40

9,99

0$7

6,38

3,68

8$6

3,83

4,19

3$6

1,30

9,66

8$5

0,81

3,07

5$2

9,73

0,42

9$6

8,29

2,19

0$64,82

8,59

6$4

9,16

9,81

6

M B

aske

tbal

l$3

,492

,214

$4,1

32,6

36$3

,840

,457

$3,8

54,6

36$2

,856

,470

$4,1

49,2

35$3

,277

,456

$5,2

62,7

75$4

,802

,437

$2,3

51,1

25$5

,299

,018

$3,0

69,

003

$3,3

58,5

01

W B

aske

tbal

l$1

,427

,989

$2,3

42,0

40$2

,277

,320

$1,8

05,8

02$1

,786

,439

$2,1

99,9

16$2

,578

,547

$1,4

47,1

48$2

,434

,708

$1,4

79,1

38$2

,397

,482

$1,9

87,

347

$1,8

46,6

96

Foo

tbal

l$9

,161

,561

$18,

629,

486

$17,

283,

717

$12,

641,

511

$11,

740,

804

$18,

699,

944

$12,

892,

487

$16,

872,

615

$13,

765,

662

$7,5

33,5

45$1

4,75

0,83

6$8

,304

,534

$9,3

97,2

08

Oth

er S

port

s$8

,695

,342

$13,

397,

429

$17,

093,

290

$12,

235,

790

$10,

626,

840

$15,

430,

679

$21,

758,

141

$13,

619,

677

$13,

229,

989

$7,5

79,4

72$1

9,75

5,9

80$1

3,44

0,36

4$7

,255

,467

Not

Allo

cate

d by

Gen

der

or S

port

$18,

290,

796

$14,

971,

685

$20,

043,

941

$18,

993,

411

$18,

399,

437

$35,

903,

914

$23,

327,

562

$24,

107,

453

$16,

580

,279

$10,

787,

149

$26,

088,

874

$38,

027,

348

$27,

311,

944


11/9

/200

9C

ompa

rison

of N

CA

A T

hree

-Yea

r A

cade

mic

Pro

gres

s R

ate

(AP

R)

to P

ac-1

0 an

d S

elec

ted

Pee

r In

stitu

tions

A

vg 4

-yea

r A

PR

-N

CA

A D

ivis

ion

IA

rizo

na

Ari

zon

a S

tate

Cal

ifo

rnia

Ore

go

nO

reg

on

Sta

teU

SC

Sta

nfo

rd

UC

LA

Was

hin

gto

nW

A r

ank

in

Pac

-10

Was

hin

gto

n S

tate

M B

aseb

all

946

930

938

967

NA

942

977

975

953

969

3rd

944

M B

aske

tbal

l93

394

993

094

497

593

690

696

896

895

64t

h94

6W

Bas

ketb

all

962

946

987

978

988

930

959

989

963

973

5th

938

W C

rew

984

NA

NA

995

NA

982

992

989

977

992

T-2

nd97

0M

Cro

ss C

ount

ry96

410

0098

796

897

4N

AN

A98

198

098

33r

d96

7W

Cro

ss C

ount

ry97

196

597

797

797

798

410

0099

599

197

95t

h99

5F

ootb

all

941

924

945

970

935

930

956

984

948

954

4th

918

M G

olf

963

957

994

982

975

959

992

1000

969

973

6th

972

W G

olf

976

975

993

985

1000

992

1000

991

982

1000

T-1

st99

3W

Gym

nast

ics

983

987

955

984

NA

978

NA

1000

976

995

2nd

NA

M S

occe

r95

8N

AN

A95

7N

A95

6N

A99

396

595

7T

-3rd

NA

W S

occe

r97

399

297

799

595

897

099

799

796

099

15t

h96

8W

Sof

tbal

l96

894

598

592

798

698

1N

A10

0098

896

06t

hN

AM

Sw

imm

ing

967

951

965

968

NA

NA

983

979

NA

967

4th

NA

W S

wim

min

g97

997

499

796

8N

A96

995

599

599

498

85t

h99

3M

Ten

nis

964

945

NA

960

935

NA

993

980

965

980

T-2

ndN

AW

Ten

nis

974

965

1000

972

958

NA

986

1000

977

949

9th

952

M In

door

Tra

ck95

393

893

394

896

8N

AN

A98

196

995

85t

h96

9W

Indo

or T

rack

965

953

980

959

979

NA

980

998

976

974

7th

989

M O

utdo

or T

rack

954

939

928

950

956

NA

957

982

946

953

5th

973

W O

utdo

or T

rack

966

949

980

959

977

984

972

998

967

975

6th

990

W V

olle

ybal

l97

296

599

599

097

097

997

610

0095

897

46t

h94

6

The

follo

win

g is

a g

loss

ary

of d

efin

ition

s re

late

d to

the

com

mon

term

s us

ed in

the

NC

AA

's a

cade

mic

ref

orm

effo

rts.

Aca

dem

ic P

rog

ress

Rat

e (A

PR

). T

he A

PR

is th

e fu

lcru

m u

pon

whi

ch th

e en

tire

acad

emic

-ref

orm

str

uctu

re r

ests

. D

evel

oped

as

a m

ore

real

-tim

e as

sess

men

t of t

eam

s' a

cade

mic

pe

rfor

man

ce th

an th

e si

x-ye

ar g

radu

atio

n-ra

te c

alcu

latio

n pr

ovid

es, t

he A

PR

aw

ards

two

poin

ts e

ach

term

to s

tude

nt-a

thle

tes

who

mee

t aca

dem

ic-e

ligib

ility

sta

ndar

ds a

nd w

ho r

emai

n w

ith th

e in

stitu

ion.

A te

am's

AP

R is

the

tota

l poi

nts

earn

ed b

y th

e te

am a

t a g

iven

tim

e di

vide

d by

the

tota

l poi

nts

poss

ible

.

925.

Thi

s is

the

cut s

core

the

Div

isio

n I B

oard

of D

irect

ors

appr

oved

for

imm

edia

te o

r co

ntem

pora

neou

s pe

nalti

es. A

PR

sco

res

have

alre

ady

beco

me

mea

ning

ful n

umbe

rs to

the

mem

bers

hip

and

gene

ral p

ublic

. B

ased

on

curr

ent d

ata,

an

AP

R s

core

of 9

25 (

out o

f 1,0

00)

tran

slat

es to

an

appr

oxim

ate

60 p

erce

nt G

radu

atio

n S

ucce

ss R

ate.

Qu

arte

r sc

ho

ol v

aria

nce

. S

choo

ls th

at a

re o

n a

quar

ter

syst

em in

stea

d of

a s

emes

ter

syst

em w

ere

foun

d to

hav

e an

uni

nten

ded

adva

ntag

e in

AP

R c

alcu

latio

ns s

impl

y be

caus

e of

the

num

ber

of r

epor

ting

occa

sion

s an

d no

t bec

ause

of a

cade

mic

per

form

ance

. Bec

ause

the

repo

rtin

g of

AP

R is

don

e at

two

occa

sion

s fo

r se

mes

ter

scho

ols

but a

t thr

ee o

ccas

ions

fo r

ho

ols,

a s

light

num

eric

al a

dvan

tage

can

acc

rue

from

the

e

xtra

rep

ortin

g oc

casi

on. T

o ac

coun

t for

the

disp

arity

, a s

tatis

tical

form

ula

will

be

appl

ied

to s

light

ly a

lter

quar

ter

scho

ol

AP

Rs.

900.

Thi

s is

the

cut s

core

for

hist

oric

al p

enal

ties.

Thi

s be

nchm

ark

of 9

00 A

PR

tran

slat

es to

an

appr

oxim

ate

45 p

erce

nt G

radu

atio

n S

ucce

ss R

ate.

Sq

uad

-siz

e ad

just

men

t. S

mal

l sam

ple

size

s of

som

e te

ams

can

lead

to r

educ

ed c

onfid

ence

in th

e A

PR

as

an e

stim

ate

of a

cade

mic

per

form

ance

for

thos

e te

ams.

Tha

t is

part

icul

arly

tr

ue w

ith o

nly

one

or tw

o ye

ars

of d

ata.

Con

fiden

ce in

terv

als,

com

mon

ly u

sed

in s

tatis

tics,

rou

ghly

rep

rese

nt a

ran

ge o

f sco

res

with

in w

hich

the

true

AP

R li

kely

res

ides

. Tha

t mea

ns th

e "u

pper

con

fiden

ce b

ound

ary"

of a

team

's A

PR

wou

ld h

ave

to b

e be

low

925

for

that

team

to b

e su

bjec

t to

AP

R p

enal

ties.

The

squ

ad-s

ize

adju

stm

ent i

s a

shor

t-te

rm to

ol, h

owev

er, a

nd

will

be

elim

inat

ed w

ith th

e 20

07-0

8 re

port

s.


11/9

/200

9N

CA

A G

radu

atio

n S

ucce

ss R

ates

, 199

8-20

01 C

ohor

ts

Avg

N

CA

A

Div

isio

n I

Ari

zon

aA

Z S

tate

Cal

ifo

rnia

Ore

go

nO

R S

tate

US

CS

tan

ford

U

CL

AW

ash

ing

ton

WA

ran

k in

Pac

-10

WA

Sta

teM

Bas

ebal

l68

4030

84N

A54

3610

071

753r

d72

M B

aske

tbal

l62

2038

3058

6437

6746

504t

h33

W B

aske

tbal

l82

8090

7193

100

6910

010

010

0T

-1st

91W

Cre

w91

NA

NA

96N

A10

089

93N

A89

T-4

th88

M C

ross

Cou

ntry

/Tra

ck74

8144

6763

NA

6010

077

684t

h48

W C

ross

Cou

ntry

/Tra

ck84

8192

7576

NA

8893

8887

5th

86F

ootb

all

6741

6053

5364

5493

6265

3rd

68M

Gol

f79

3010

075

8080

8610

083

884t

h10

0W

Gol

f87

8689

100

8386

5710

080

100

T-1

st60

W G

ymna

stic

s95

9290

100

NA

100

NA

100

9393

T-3

rdN

AM

Soc

cer

79N

AN

A74

NA

86N

A10

065

793r

dN

AW

Soc

cer

8981

8785

9295

8510

010

010

0T

-1st

93W

Sof

tbal

l86

6976

8789

82N

A10

010

010

0T

-1st

NA

M S

wim

min

g83

7678

68N

AN

A89

94N

A10

0T

-1st

NA

W S

wim

min

g90

9186

92N

A87

8494

9594

T-3

rd10

0M

Ten

nis

8357

6357

100

NA

6710

078

100

T-1

stN

AW

Ten

nis

8971

8688

86N

A86

100

100

100

T-1

st67

W V

olle

ybal

l88

8310

092

9010

092

9190

100

T-1

st75

Ove

rall

GS

R78

6469

7671

8169

9579

832n

d73

The

NCAA G

raduat

ion S

ucc

ess

Rat

e (G

SR)

was

dev

eloped

in r

esponse

to c

olle

ge

and u

niv

ersi

ty p

resi

den

ts w

ho w

ante

d g

raduat

ion d

ata

that

more

acc

ura

tely

ref

lect

the

mobili

ty a

mong c

olle

ge

studen

ts t

oday

. Both

rat

es im

pro

ve o

n t

he

feder

ally

man

dat

ed g

raduat

ion r

ate

by

incl

udin

g s

tuden

ts w

ho w

ere

om

itte

d fro

m t

he

feder

al c

alcu

lation.

The

GSR m

easu

res

gra

duat

ion r

ates

at

Div

isio

n I

inst

itutions

and incl

udes

stu

den

ts t

ransf

erring into

the

inst

itutions.

The

GSR a

lso a

llow

s in

stitutions

to s

ubtr

act

studen

t-at

hle

tes

who lea

ve t

hei

r in

stitutions

prior

to g

raduat

ion a

s lo

ng a

s th

ey w

ould

hav

e bee

n a

cadem

ical

ly

elig

ible

to c

om

pet

e had

they

rem

ained

.


November 16, 2009, SEC Minutes 15 Exhibit B

Nominations and Appointments 2009-2012 Faculty Member Appointments to University and Senate Committees. Senate Committee on Planning and Budgeting Gail Stygall, Group 1, English, for a term effective immediately and ending September 15, 2012. 2009-2010 Representative Faculty Council Nominations Nominate for Senate appointment, effective immediately, representative ex-officio members of Faculty Councils and Committees for terms ending September 15, 2010, with voting rights to be determined by the SEC through the faculty councils: Professional Staff Organization Council Alternate Representative Educational Technology ---------------- Jeanne Small Graduate and Professional Student Senate Council Representative Academic Standards -------------------- Gus Jesperson Educational Outreach ------------------- Lauren Domino Student Affairs ---------------------------- Mallory Martin Multicultural Affairs ---------------------- Eligio Martinez Women in Academia -------------------- Megan Roosen-Runge Associated Students of the University of Washington Council Representative Benefits and Retirement ---------------- William Brenc Educational Technology ---------------- Ryan Schmidt Multicultural Affairs ---------------------- Cheyenne Sanders Research ----------------------------------- Ryan Schmidt Women in Academia -------------------- Abigail Pearl

November 16, 2009, SEC Minutes 16 Exhibit C

Official Request for Code Interpretation of Chapter 24, Sections 24-70 and 24-71. Senate Executive Committee November 16, 2009

Request for Code Interpretation David Lovell, Chair, Senate Committee on Planning and Budgeting

In deliberations of the Special Committee to re-evaluate the salary policy, jointly appointed by the President and the Senate Chair, two primary considerations have emerged: 1. Emergency Class A legislation to change the Faculty Code should be avoided if possible; 2. If any changes are needed in Executive Order #64, after the temporary suspension of parts of it expires, there

should be sufficient time to deliberate in a problem-solving process that includes faculty and administration. The request for interpretation of the Code responds to the first of these issues. The possible need for changes in the Code arises from 24.70.B.1: A salary increase shall be granted to provide an initial minimum equal-percentage salary increase to all faculty following a successful merit review. . . The administration and the Board of Regents have evidently been advised that this provision may require a substantial equal merit increase, notwithstanding the provisions of any Executive Order, and that this requirement would take effect in July of 2010. A further relevant provision is 24.71.A: The Provost shall consult with the Senate Committee on Planning and Budgeting and, each biennium, shall recommend to the President the allocation of available funds for salary increases, for distribution among all categories listed in 24.70. B. . . As Chair of the Senate Committee on Planning and Budgeting, I would like to request that the Senate Executive Committee address two questions of Faculty Code interpretation: 1. What is the range of an initial minimum equal-percentage increase that would satisfy the requirement of

24.70.B.1? 2. The principles of this code are implemented by an Executive Order that prescribes an initial minimum equal

percentage merit increase under normal circumstances. If severe decreases in the UW’s core educational budget lead to consideration of an initial equal merit increase lower than the percentage stipulated under normal circumstances:

a. Do the references in 24.71.A to consultation and to “the allocation of available funds for salary increases” require that the Provost consult with the Senate Committee on Planning and Budgeting on the amount of a minimum equal-percentage merit increase?

b. If so, what elements are required as necessary to achieve consultation on the amount of a minimum equal-percentage merit increase under extraordinary circumstances?

David Lovell, Chair Senate Committee on Planning and Budgeting

November 16, 2009, SEC Minutes 17 Exhibit D

Faculty Senate Class C Recommendation:

Proposal for a Special Committee on Honorary Degrees

Rationale: During the past few years, the Faculty Council on University Relations (FCUR) has been operating almost exclusively as a special committee on honorary degrees, with responsibility established in 2002 by Class B legislation in the University Handbook (Volume Four, Part III, Chapter 11) for recommending candidates for honorary degrees to the President. Because of financial exigencies in the Office of University Committees, and because the current Associate Vice President is willing to take on the staffing of this Committee, the following proposal was drafted: Proposal: To create a Special Committee on Honorary Degrees that will be staffed by the Office of the Associate Vice President for Media Relations and Communications. The Associate Vice President chairs the University’s Committee on Ceremonies and is the President’s designee to the Council or Committee managing honorary degrees. This Committee will continue to provide faculty input and oversight to the process, as described in the University Handbook, of selecting and nominating individuals for honorary degrees at the University of Washington. The Committee would be chaired by a faculty member elected from the Committee membership, and would consist of seven members of the voting faculty serving three-year, overlapping terms. The first seven members of the Committee would be drawn from the current membership of the Faculty Council on University Relations, with additional members recruited, as needed, and appointed by the Faculty Senate. The Committee would report to the Senate Executive Committee (SEC) and would be required to deliver a brief, yearly annual report on its activities at the penultimate SEC meeting of the academic year. Faculty Code provision for this action: Section 21-60. Faculty Councils and Faculty Committees Defined--Power to Appoint

A. The standing committees of the University faculty, authorized by Section 13-31.B, shall be designated Faculty Councils.

B. The power to select and appoint the chair and members of each Faculty Council is delegated by the

University Faculty to the Senate.

C. The term "faculty committee" or "committee of the faculty" as used in Chapters 21, 22, 25, 41 and 42 means a special or an ad hoc committee of the University Faculty, of the Senate, or of a Faculty Council, appointed by the Senate, or by the Senate Executive Committee, or by a Faculty Council and responsible to the Senate, or to the Executive Committee, or to a Faculty Council.

S-A 29, June 8, 1964: with Presidential approval.

November 16, 2009, SEC Minutes 18 Exhibit E

Volume Four, Part III, Chapter 11: Grades Honors and Scholarship Section 6. Honorary Degrees Upon the recommendation of the Faculty, the Board of Regents may confer Honorary Degrees upon a person or persons of exceptional merit, other than graduates of this University. The Faculty Council on University Relations Special Committee on Honorary Degrees will have jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to the award of Honorary Degrees. Nominations for candidates may come from a variety of sources, including faculty councils, committees, departments, programs, schools, colleges or campuses. The names of nominees approved by the Council Special Committee will be forwarded to the President of the University. After consultation with the President, the Council Special Committee will, on behalf of the Faculty, recommend candidates for Honorary Degrees to the Regents. Honorary Degrees will be presented at either a commencement ceremony or a formal academic convocation.

November 16, 2009, SEC Minutes 19 Exhibit F

Faculty Senate Proposed Changes (Additions are underlined; deletions are struck through)

Changes to Volume Two, Part II, Chapter 42,

Sections 42-31 and 42-35 Rationale: The Faculty Council on University Relations (FCUR) was established as an advisory body to the Office of the Vice President for University Relations, which no longer exists in the administrative structure at the University of Washington. The current FCUR operates almost exclusively as a faculty committee on honorary degrees, with responsibility established in 2002 by Class B legislation in the University Handbook (Volume Four, Part III, Chapter 11) for recommending candidates for honorary degrees to the President. Other issues which FCUR had once followed have been assigned to other Councils. Student/neighborhood issues are now overseen by the Faculty Council on Student Affairs, and various transportation issues, including the Sound Transit proposal for the campus and the impact of the proposed replacement of the SR 520 bridge, are overseen by the Faculty Council on University Facilities and Services and government relations issues are overseen by the Special Committee on Legislative Matters. That being the case, this legislation would retire the Faculty Council on University Relations. A concurrent Class C recommendation to create a Special Committee on Honorary Degrees has been drafted. The Special Committee will be staffed by the Office of the Associate Vice President for Media Relations and Communications. The Associate Vice President chairs the University’s Committee on Ceremonies and is the President’s designee to the Council or Committee managing honorary degrees. Since “University Relations” no longer exists as an administrative structure at the UW; and since the Office of University Committees has found it necessary to curtail activities as a result of budget cutbacks; and given that the current Associate Vice President’s Office accepts responsibility for staffing a special committee, this proposal was drafted to retire the FCUR and allow for the creation of a Special Committee on Honorary Degrees that reflects the reality of what is currently happening. Chapter 42: Faculty Councils (the Standing Committees of the University Faculty) and their duties Section 42-31. The Faculty Councils Proposed changes: A. As the principal advisory bodies to the Senate there shall be the following Faculty Councils:

1. The Faculty Council on Academic Standards; 2. The Faculty Council on University Relations; 2. The Faculty Council on Faculty Affairs; 3. The Faculty Council on Research; 4. The Faculty Council on Student Affairs; 5. The Faculty Council on University Facilities and Services; 6. The Faculty Council on University Libraries; 7. The Faculty Council on Instructional Quality; 8. The Faculty Council on Educational Outreach; 9. The Faculty Council on Benefits and Retirement; 10. The Faculty Council on Educational Technology; 11. The Faculty Council on Tri-Campus Policy; 12. The Faculty Council for Women in Academia; 13. The Faculty Council for Multicultural Affairs.

B. Faculty Councils may be abolished and created only by amendment to the Faculty Code. C. Faculty Councils are responsible to the Executive Committee of the Senate. Section 42-35. Faculty Council on University Relations The Faculty Council on University Relations shall be responsible (as described in Section 42-33) for all matters of policy relating to University relations, including community affairs; government relations at the local, state, and federal levels; public service; University communications; and alumni relations.

November 16, 2009, SEC Minutes 20 Exhibit G

Obama Administration Looks to Colleges for Future Spies By Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, June 20, 2009 To the list of collegiate types -- nerds, jocks, Greeks -- add one more: spies in training. The government is hoping they'll be hard to spot. The Obama administration has proposed the creation of an intelligence officer training program in colleges and universities that would function much like the Reserve Officers' Training Corps run by the military services. The idea is to create a stream "of first- and second-generation Americans, who already have critical language and cultural knowledge, and prepare them for careers in the intelligence agencies," according to a description sent to Congress by Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair. In recent years, the CIA and other intelligence agencies have struggled to find qualified recruits who can work the streets of the Middle East and South Asia to penetrate terrorist groups and criminal enterprises. The proposed program is an effort to cultivate and educate a new generation of career intelligence officers from ethnically and culturally diverse backgrounds. Under the proposal, part of the administration's 2010 intelligence authorization bill, colleges and universities would apply for grants that would be used to expand or introduce courses of study to "meet the emerging needs of the intelligence community." Those courses would include certain foreign languages, analysis and specific scientific and technical fields. The students' participation in the program would probably be kept secret to prevent them from being identified by foreign intelligence services, according to an official familiar with the proposal. Students attending participating colleges and universities who agree to take the specialized courses would apply to the national intelligence director for admittance to the program, whose administrators would select individuals "competitively" for financial assistance. Much like the support provided to those in the military programs, the financial assistance could include "a monthly stipend, tuition assistance, book allowances and travel expenses," according to the proposal. It also would involve paid summer internships at one or more intelligence agencies. Applicants to the intelligence training program would have to pass a security background investigation, although it is unclear when they would have to do so. Students who receive a certain amount of financial assistance would be obligated to serve in an intelligence agency for the same length of time as they received their subsidy. Students in the military programs typically participate for all four years of college, but the intelligence program would seek to recruit sophomores and juniors. Through grants to colleges and universities, intelligence agencies have been building partnerships with academia and specific professors, some of whom in past decades served as channels for recommending applicants to the CIA and other intelligence agencies. The intelligence community already has a Centers of Academic Excellence Program that funds programs in national security studies at more than 14 colleges and universities, with a goal of having 20 participating schools by 2015. The programs receive between $500,000 and $750,000 a year. The intelligence officer training program would build on two earlier efforts. One was a pilot program, first authorized in 2004, for as many as 400 students who took cryptologic training and agreed to work for the National Security Agency or another intelligence agency for each year they received financial assistance. That program will be replaced by the new one because cryptology is not as needed as it once was. A second program provided financial assistance to selected intelligence community employees who agreed to study in specialized academic areas in which officials believed there were analytic deficiencies. Named the Pat Roberts Intelligence Scholars Program, after the Kansas Republican who chaired the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, over the past four years it has provided funds to some 800 students and current employees.

November 16, 2009, SEC Minutes 21 Exhibit G

The director of national intelligence would make the Roberts program permanent under the new proposal and expand it beyond analysts to include personnel in acquisition, science and technology. It also could be used to help recruit employees by reimbursing them for prior education in critical areas.

November 16, 2009, SEC Minutes 22 Exhibit H

AGENDA FACULTY SENATE MEETING

THURSDAY, 3 DECEMBER 2009 Gowen Hall, Room 301, 2:30 p.m.

1. Call to Order and Approval of Agenda. 2. Introductory Comments – Professor Bruce Balick, Chair, Faculty Senate. 3. Report of the President / Opportunity for Questions – President Mark A. Emmert. 4. Report from the Senate Committee on Planning and Budgeting – Professor David Lovell,

Committee Chair. 5. Legislative Report – Professor Jim Fridley, Faculty Legislative Representative. 6. Summary of Executive Committee Actions and Upcoming Issues and Actions of November 16, 2009. 7. Announcements. 8. Requests for Information.

9. Nominations and Appointments.

Action: Approve Nominees for Faculty Councils and Committees.

10. Memorial Resolution. 11. Unfinished Business. 12. New Business.

a. Class C Action: Marcia Killien, Secretary of the Faculty

Title: Proposal to Create a Special Committee on Honorary Degrees. Action: Approve for distribution to the faculty.

b. Class B Legislation: Marcia Killien, Secretary of the Faculty. Title: Proposed Legislation Changing Volume Four, Part III, Chapter 11, Section 6 Honorary Degrees. Action: Approve for distribution to the faculty.

c. Class A Legislation – First Consideration. Stuart Sutton, Member, Faculty Council on University Relations. Title: Proposed Legislation to Eliminate the Faculty Council on University Relations. Action: Conduct first review of proposal to submit legislation amending the Faculty Code to the faculty for

approval or rejection. Motions involving Class C actions should be available in written form by incorporation in the agenda or distribution at the meeting. It is preferable that any resolution be submitted to the Senate Chair and Secretary of the Faculty no later than the Monday preceding a Senate meeting.

13. Adjournment.

PREPARED BY: Marcia Killien, Secretary of the Faculty APPROVED BY: Bruce Balick, Chair, Faculty Senate

NOTE: If a continuation meeting is necessary, it will be held on Thursday, December 11 at 2:30 p.m. in Gowen 301.

minutes for senate executive committee meeting · 2018-07-24 · minutes for senate executive...

Documents