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
November 16, 2009, SEC Minutes 3
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.
November 16, 2009, SEC Minutes 4
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.
November 16, 2009, SEC Minutes 5
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.
November 16, 2009, SEC Minutes 6
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.
November 16, 2009, SEC Minutes 7
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
November 16, 2009 SEC Minutes 9 Exhibit A
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
Entering Class of 2006-2007 (30 special admits)
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
Entering Class of 2007-2008 (32 special admits)
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
Entering Class of 2008-2009 (27 special admits)
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
November 16, 2009 SEC Minutes 10 Exhibit A
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
Entering Class of 2007-2008 (55 priority admits)
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
Entering Class of 2008-2009 (72 priority admits)
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
November 16, 2009 SEC Minutes 11 Exhibit A
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
November 16, 2009 SEC Minutes 12 Exhibit A
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.
November 16, 2009 SEC Minutes 13 Exhibit A
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 14 Exhibit A
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.