academic year. The FSCC ended up approving one certificate proposal and holding others in order to get more information from the department, which is their regular practice when there are questions about curriculum proposals. Because this happened at their last meeting of the year, the proposals have not yet moved forward. The FSCC is committed to meeting with the affected department early in Fall to discuss next steps. They are also producing a report outlining their decision-making criteria to support future proposals for CiHS graduate certificates.
Items that Warrant Board Attention
As elected representatives, it is our responsibility to represent the faculty, and we endeavor to do that in this report by sharing some ongoing areas of concern. We hope you will value the perspective we share and consider it as you make decisions. Please know that we raise concerns because we are committed to the long-term success of the institution and to the best outcomes for CWU students. We believe the Board needs to be aware of faculty perspectives in order to make the most informed decisions to support the health of the institution.
CWU 101-05 Policy Revisions
At the time we write this communication, the Board agenda is not yet public. Therefore, we are unsure whether you are considering changes to the Board policy on powers and duties (CWU 101-05) at this meeting. We are concerned about the proposed changes presented at the University Policy Advisory Council (UPAC) meeting in the summer. Those changes included substantial revision to the process used to evaluate the President, including reduction of comprehensive evaluations that involve constituent feedback from every year to every three years. This change is concerning given the current university climate: A reduction in feedback at this time will likely result in a further erosion of trust. Further, such a reduction may create challenges for this President and future Presidents in meeting expectations and understanding perceptions of the university community. The process by which this change has been proposed is also concerning. It was proposed by the President after the public comment period was closed, which means the university community did not have an opportunity to weigh in. Because of this concern, the UPAC submitted a mixed recommendation about this policy, with four members voting to recommend it and four voting against.
We ask that you consider our concern that this change to the President's evaluation would reduce the voice of university constituents, as well as our concern about the process
4
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator