Note: Complete proceedings of the meeting were recorded and are available at This recap contains agenda attachments, votes associated with action items, Information Items and the Roll Call.

A PDF of the recap can be found here.


Thursday, March 14, 2019


  1. Curricular Proposals – Allen Thompson, Curriculum Council Co-chair presented the below proposals for approval:

Action: Motion to approve the Business Analytics #106038 – New Degree Program proposal passed with 37 votes in favor, 3 opposed and 1 abstention.

Action: Motion to approve the Communication MA, MS #99706 – New Degree Program proposal passed with 36 votes in favor, 2 opposed and 2 abstentions.

Action: Motion to approve the Environmental Sciences #99706 – OSU-Cascades Campus, New Degree Program proposal passed with 41 votes in favor, 2 opposed and 3 abstentions.

Action: Motion to approve the Certificate in CyberSecurity #105390 – New Degree Program proposal passed with 44 votes in favor, 2 opposed and 3 abstentions.

  • Russian Studies Undergraduate Certificate #100119 – Termination of an Academic Program
    • CPS Proposal  
    • PDF Proposal
    • Justification: This proposal would terminate the Russian Studies Certificate, which can no longer be earned by students at OSU because the required coursework has not been offered for over five years and cannot be offered with existing resources. This is a direct effect of the administrative decision not to hire new faculty into two tenure lines left vacant by retirement in the past decade.
    • President-Elect Plaza thought it was a shame that students will no longer be able to learn Russian, given the current issues with Russia.

Action: Motion to terminate the Russian Studies Undergraduate Certificate #100119 passed with 32 votes in favor, 11 opposed and 8 abstentions.  

  1. Approval of Minutes  
    February 14, 2019 – not voted on


Jay Noller, Senior OSU IFS Senator and co-president of IFS recapped recent IFS meetings.

January IFS meeting held at Portland State University – issues discussed included:

  • Provost Jeffords, Portland State University (PSU), spoke about higher education funding, and the fact that being in the Portland Metro area is unique. She also addressed the issue of OSU and UofO expanding course offerings in Portland. PSU
  • President Shoureshi reported that the Faculty Senate is discussing allowing armed campus police – there recently was a shooting on campus. Due to frequent protests and counter protests spilling onto their campus, they are looking at issues such as maintaining democracy, campus governance and being positive role models for their students.
  • Veronica Dujon, Higher Education Coordinating Commission (HECC) leadership, spoke about a recurrent theme – HB2998, which is an alignment of universities and community colleges related to transfer issues that occur. There a number of examples of existing transfer maps from community colleges to four-year institutions, and faculty from both entities agree that they are not as streamlined as they could be.
  • There are a number of higher education bills in this legislative session where legislators are seeking to manage/micro manage issues.
  • Regarding student evaluations of teaching, the UofO has abandoned their current mode and is in the process of evaluating and implementing a new mode. The UofO data showed:
    • that students caught cheating and removed from a class were still able to submit evaluations for that class,
    • the lack of correlation between student achievement and student evaluations,
    • that evaluations discouraged innovative teaching, and
    • there is a clear gender bias in evaluations of faculty.
  • As a result, the UofO Faculty Senate drafted guidelines for defining good teaching and have developed peer methods for the review. Their new system of evaluation is not like anything with which OSU faculty would be familiar. The UofO is calling it a pilot, but it’s being used across campus.
  • As IFS co-president, Noller represents IFS in legislative affairs and during IFS meetings he facilitates discussion on pertinent bills to determine best ways to approach legislators. He also attends hearings on identified bills and provides statements. Currently there is a long list of bills. On Monday, HB 2651, sponsored by Representative Gorsek, will be discussed in committee – they are looking at redundancy issues across public universities and are directing HECC to identify where redundancies are and ask universities to justify why they have the same program as another university. A recently added amendment to the bill relates to pre-planning of curricular proposals that would require all institutions to obtain pre-approval from the statewide Provosts’ Council to change a program or add a new program. It is unclear whether the bill will advance out of committee.
  • Discussed a number of research papers that show a disproportionate  of women and
  • PSU is implementing a new eSET process.
  • Another legislative bill is looking at course/program duplication.

March IFS meeting held at the Oregon Institute of Technology Wilsonville campus – issues discussed included:

  • HB 2651 was further discussed with Veronica Dujon. HECC, as a state agency, does not have a position on this bill but they are looking to the legislature for guidance as to where to exert influence and what they should manage. If HB 2651 should pass without further amendments, this is an example of them being empowered to exert authority and there is a possibility that these issues may result in some form of the Oregon University System (OUS) being resurrected.
    • HB 2998 is making progress on specific programs – Biology is completed, English is almost completed and Elementary Education will be discussed next. They are first reviewing programs that are broad and have the most relationship to both community courses and four-year institutions.
    • Community college leadership continues to attend IFS meetings – this bridge was started in Spring of 2018.


  • President-Elect Plaza questioned what other institution are doing about student evaluations. Noller responded that all other IFS Senators were quite jealous of the progress that the UofO is making. The sentiment that the current structure of eSETs are biased against those who don’t present themselves as tall, white and who has grey hair was unanimous. The data supports that there are better methods, but a system that discriminates continues to be used.
  • Senator Schellman, Physics, was annoyed about having to include eSET data in P&T cases. She felt it should be used as a private, useful evaluation that gives feedback to instructors. Including  numerical values was a decision made by the Faculty Senate, and she urged Senators to make the choice not to require that information. She felt this could be done quickly.
  • Senator Mendez, Public Health and Human Sciences, questioned who is in charge of making decisions about eSET scores or student evaluations. President Carson affirmed that it is the Faculty Senate, in consultation with the Provost’s Office, who can make decisions related to eSET. She also noted that she has been consulting with Provost’s Office representatives on this type of pressing issue.
  • Senator Shaw, Liberal Arts, questioned what needs to be done to eliminate SETs. President Carson stated that there could be a motion to refer the issue back to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, which has been discussing this issue.

Action: Senator Shaw moved to refer the issue of eSETs to the Executive Committee to consider dropping the eSET immediately from the Promotion & Tenure process, and for the Executive Committee to look into a process that would provide good evaluation materials for faculty to improve their teaching; motion seconded.

  • Senator Maes, Liberal Arts, stated that the President’s Commission on the Status of Women (PCOSW) took this issue as a priority agenda item last year. An invited speaker spoke to the urgent need to change procedures around student evaluation of teaching and provided an analysis of the data which is reproducing biases according to gender, and many other aspects of identity, but it provides the wrong data set to improve teaching. President Carson indicated that the Executive Committee has recently been discussing this issue since it arose during the Pac-12 Academic Leadership Coalition (ALC) meeting in January – this is an issue around the Pac-12.
  • Senator Gwin, Agricultural Sciences, spoke from an Extension perspective, noted they have clientele evaluations of teaching, and questioned whether there are similar studies with a very different environment that may show similar biases. She also questioned whether this issue could be considered as part of the review and process. Noller responded that it is worth looking into.
  • Senator Gwin regarding the issues of redundancy in HB 2651, is this something that has previously been considered? Noller responded that, in addition to IFS, the statewide Presidents’ and Provosts’ Councils are discussing this, as are Rep. Gorsek’s constituents – this could be seen as a way to prevent other institutions from offering courses in the Portland area to compete with or interfere with PSU.
  • Associate Provost Capalbo noted that the Provost’[s Office would welcome the conversation of how teaching is evaluated. Currently teaching is evaluated three ways in the dossiers: eSET, peer-teaching evaluations and with the summary student evaluations – the latter two are valid and have been used extensively. In conjunction with the Center for Teaching and Learning, there has been a lot of effort put into a portfolio approach to evaluating teaching, which would also be worth a conversation and is similar to the UofO approach.

Action: Senator Bogley, Science, moved to split the prior motion into two separate motions; motion seconded.

Discussion of the first motion: For the Executive Committee to immediately drop the eSET from the Promotion & Tenure process.

  • Susan Capalbo, Senior Vice Provost and OSU’s Accreditation Liaison Officer, requested that ‘immediately’ be defined and noted that the P&T dossiers have been forwarded by colleges and are currently being evaluated by administration. She suggested that this could apply when the next round of dossiers are considered.
  • Senator Shaw felt that the EC could make that determination and that the intent was to encourage the EC to hurry up with the discussion, but to recognize that this year’s dossiers have been submitted.
  • Senator Johnson, Engineering, cautioned about being too hasty about remove eSETs from the P&T process since many faculty have worked to build a trajectory of improving eSET scores, and it is noticed by external reviewers. No one likes the ground to be moving under their feet as they are preparing their P&T dossier. To suspend the way it has been done for many years needs to be managed carefully.
  • President Ray suggested a motion to return the issue of eSET to the Executive Committee to consider dropping eSET in Promotion & Tenure evaluations, consider the timing of phasing in a new process and explore alternatives to bring to the Senate as quickly as possible.
  • Senator Epps, Agricultural Sciences, raised the question of how would evaluation of Ecampus instructors would work, particularly graduate students and those teaching one or two terms. President Carson noted there were quite few issues that will need to be considered, including this issue.
  • Senator Gillies moved to substitute the suggestion made by President Ray for Senator Shaw’s motion; motion seconded.

Action: Motion to substitute the previous motion, which became the main motion – To return the issue of eSET to the Executive Committee to consider phasing out the eSET in annual review, promotion, and tenure decisions: examine alternatives to eSET in future evaluations of teaching, and return those alternatives to the Senate for discussion and vote. Motion passed with 52 votes in favor, 2 opposed and 1 abstention.

  • Senator Selina Heppell felt it is important to identify ways to ensure that students have a way to provide feedback – this may not be via eSET. President Carson conveyed that a comment that resonated during the Pac-12 ALC – students are not experts in teacher evaluation, but they are experts in learning experiences
  • Senator Mendez appreciated phasing out eSet scores, but noted that phasing out may be good for some faculty but not for others.
  • Senator Gillies noted that a speaker from Penn State last year suggested that the only appropriate use of eSET numeric scores was to compare to a person’s performance to their own previous performance.
  • Senator Schellman was a bit disturbed by changing to annual review since she uses student evaluations, especially the comments, when discussing teaching with individuals. For instructors, the annual review can be a hiring and firing decision. People need to realize that student responses may be useful when discussing performance with faculty, but should not be used as a reason for termination. Useful discussions may be hampered by adding annual review.
  • Senator Faridani, Science, was surprised that department head has access to both student comments and scores – he thought it was up to the faculty member to disclose the student comments. He was also unsure that it was fully discussed during the transition to eSET that anyone other than the faculty member would have access to student comments. He expressed his personal concern at the highest level, and asked that it be investigated how it came to be that anyone other than the faculty member has access to their eSET student comments.
  • Senator Van Zee, Science, noted that the wording says to consider phasing out use of the eSET in annual review, promotion and tenure decisions, which could mean that they could be separately reviewed and considered and returned to the Faculty Senate.
  • Parliamentarian Michael Beachley indicated that, if Senator Shaw accepts, the revised motion becomes the main motion.
    • Senator Shaw stated that by including the term ‘consider phasing out’ makes her nervous because the Executive Committee could say they considered it and did not want to do it. She wanted to be clear that her motion was to figure out the alternatives to eSET because eSET is bad and discriminates, which has incredible consequences on people’s career. She wants to ensure that it is clear that what the Executive Committee is looking for is how we get rid of what we have and come back with something that is useful, helpful and valid and supports all faculty. If that is what the revised motion means, then she is accepts it; the individual seconding also accepted the revised motion. Senator Gillies suggested developing a phase-out plan and come back with alternatives. Shaw does not see eSET as being viable, but supports the plan to phase it out and to return with alternatives to replace it based on data that shows best practices.
  • Senator Faridani felt that it is crucial for the word ‘consider’ to remain in the motion. He did not feel that there was enough discussion during this meeting to end a long-standing practice. He felt that a process is being started but not finished, and it is important to leave options open to prepare for an extended discussion in the Faculty Senate of what student evaluation of teaching is about, what is its purpose, what can it be expected to achieve and what side effects do we have to prevent – after that is completed, we will know what the best alternative is.
  • Online individual thought there was already a committee working on this issue to identify alternatives. Vickie Nunnemaker noted that the Faculty Senate Advancement of Teaching Committee, chaired by Devon Quick, has been working on this issue since last academic year to identify eSET alternatives.
  • Regardless of whether a committee is already working on this issue, the purpose is to express urgency that this is not something that we can work on – this is the Faculty Senate as a whole talking to the EC and saying this is urgent and we should be working quickly on it.

Action: Motion to substitute the previous motion, which became the main motion – To return the issue of eSET to the Executive Committee to develop a plan to phase out the eSET in annual review, promotion, and tenure decisions: examine alternatives to eSET in future evaluations of teaching, and return those alternatives to the Senate for discussion and vote. Motion passed with 52 votes in favor, 2 opposed and 1 abstention.


NWCCU Accreditation – Updates and Site Visit Preparation

Susan Capalbo, Senior Vice Provost and OSU’s Accreditation Liaison Officer, and JoAnne Bunnage, Director of University Accreditation, provided an overview of the details about the April 15-17 site visit by NWCC peer evaluators, and a reminder about upcoming designed to engage members of the university community in the accreditation process. Additional details can be found on the .

  • Capalbo spoke about Mission Fulfillment and thanked Bunnage for her efforts in pulling together the report.


  1. Remote Participation in Faculty Senate Meetings
    To participate in Faculty Senate meetings via WebEx, log in to beginning at 2:50 PM on the day of the Senate meeting, and then login with your ONID credentials to the Faculty Senate Chat Room. Senators and proxies must log in with their real names so that attendance can be accurately reflected; if you are a proxy, please indicate the Senator you are representing. If you are asked for a meeting number, insert 926 485 939. If you experience problems logging in during the meeting, please contact Vickie Nunnemaker at [email protected].
  1. Faculty Awards Solicitation
    The Faculty Recognition and Awards Committee is now accepting nominations for the awards listed below. Criteria and nomination forms regarding these awards are online at; nominations will be accepted through March 18, 2019. Guidelines to assist those preparing nomination packets are available online at For further information, contact Vickie Nunnemaker at [email protected].
  • Richard M. Bressler Senior Faculty Teaching Award
  • Faculty Innovator Award
  • Industry Partnering Award
  • International Service Award
  • D. Curtis Mumford Faculty Service Award
  • OSU Academic Advising Award
  • OSU Alumni Association Distinguished Professor Award
  • OSU Faculty Teaching Excellence Award
  • OSU Impact Award for Outstanding Scholarship
  • OSU Outreach and Engagement Award
  • OSU Professional Faculty Excellence Award
  • Outstanding Faculty Research Assistant Award
  • Promising Scholar Award
  • Dar Reese Excellence in Advising Award
  • Elizabeth P. Ritchie Distinguished Professor Award
  • Student Learning and Success Teamwork Award

Additionally, information pertaining to other awards, which are selected by a variety of other groups, is also online at . Note that nominations for these awards have varying deadlines, so please check each award for the appropriate deadline. You may wish to review the Nomination Awards Summary Table at to quickly scan through the awards, determine the deadlines and contact information.

  1. Non-Course Category II Proposals
    All non-course Category II proposals approved by the Faculty Senate Curriculum Council since February 14, 2019 are attached.
  1. 2019 Faculty Senate Meetings
    Please reserve the following dates for Faculty Senate meetings for the remainder of 2019; check the monthly agenda to determine the location. All meetings are scheduled to begin at 3:00 PM:

April 11, May 9, June 13, October 10, November 14, December 12

  1. Vacancies
    Please notify the Faculty Senate Office if a sabbatical, leave or retirement will prevent completion of your term as either a Senator or Faculty Senate committee/council member. If you are away more than one term, exclusive of summer term, a replacement is required. This information will assist us in identifying a replacement.

     Mina Carson



Meeting adjourned at 5:30 PM

Recap prepared by Vickie Nunnemaker, Faculty Senate staff


Members Present:
Agricultural Sciences: John Antle (v. Alix-Garcia) (remote), Epps, Gwin, Scott Heppell, Selina Heppell, Moyer (remote), Murthy (remote), Noller, Sanchez, Sterns (remote)
Associated Faculty: Birky, Bunnage, Teresa Fordham (v. Fleming), Gaines (remote), Gillies, Riney (remote), Erica Curry (v. Riggs), Signs, Silbernagel, Trelstad, Viggiani, Yee (remote)
Business: Bourne (remote), Cluver (remote), LeMay (remote), Murnieks (remote), Swift (remote)
Cascades: Dahl (remote), McCalpine (remote), Reuter (remote), Witzke (remote)
Earth, Oceanic, & Atmospheric Sciences: Colwell, Dever (remote), Watkins-Brandt (remote)
Education: Lowery (remote)
Engineering: Fronk, Jensen, Johnston, Mayaram (remote), Nembhard, Paasch (remote), Porter (remote)
Extension: Hein (remote), Johnson, Kaiser (remote)
Forestry: No senators present
Hatfield Marine Science Center: No senators present
Liberal Arts: Burkhardt, Edwards (remote), Lauer (remote), Maes, Mize (remote), Shaw, Sheehan (remote), Shirazi (remote), Trujillo (remote), Warner (remote)
Library: Llebot
Pharmacy: Linares, Zumach
Public Health & Human Sciences: Bethel (remote), Bovbjerg, Bray (remote), Mendez-Luck
Science: Bogley, Bruslind, Faridani, Kayes (remote), McIntyre, Schellman, Thomann, van Zee
Student Affairs: Alvarez-Cortez, Atebe (remote), Nakic (remote), Sanchez
Veterinary Medicine: No senators present

Members Absent:
Agricultural Sciences: Bohnert, Bolte, Cassidy, Field, Godwin, Mata-Gonzalez, Mundt, Waite-Cusic
Associated Faculty: Bradoch, Bruce, Davis-White Eyes, Greenough, Mathern, McKnight, Milic, Pappas, Vignos
Business: Gerasymenko, Scott
Cascades: No Senators absent
Earth, Oceanic, & Atmospheric Sciences: Ruggiero, Shiel, Zirbel
Education: Thompson
Engineering: Grimm, Ideker, Kelly, Lee, Squires, Sweeney, Yeh
Extension: Arispe
Forestry: Belart, Creighton, Hatten, Schimleck
Hatfield Marine Science Center: Miller
Liberal Arts: Akins, Below, Duncan, Emerson, Hammer, Orosco, Roper
Library: No senators absent
Pharmacy: No senators absent
Public Health & Human Sciences: Khanna, Luck, MacTavish
Science: Gable, Giovannoni, Jansen, Riverstone, Weis
Student Affairs: Smith
Veterinary Medicine: Ackermann, Milovancev, Pastey

Ex-Officio members present:
Bokil (remote), Carson, Plaza, Ray

Non-Voting members present:
Bailey (remote), Beachley (remote)

Larry Becker, Jeannine Cropley, Mark Dinsmore, Susan Emerson, LeeAnn Garrison, Alix Gitelman, Colin Hesse, Robynn Pease, Marion Rossi Jr., Kellie Walker