10 September 2003

To: John Schaufelberger, Construction Management (Chair)
Dee Boersma, Zoology
Neil Bruce, Economics
Robert Francis, Oceanography
K. Shivaramakrishnan, Anthropology
Ross Braine, ASUW representative
GPSS representative (to be appointed)

From: Sandra Silberstein
Chair, Faculty Senate

Re: Appointment and Charge Letter for the College of Forest Resources
RCEP Process

Dear Colleagues:

Thank you for agreeing to serve on the Review Committee for the College of Forest Resources (CFR). You will be joining the colleagues listed above in reviewing proposed program changes. In this case the proposal entails a transformation of both the undergraduate and graduate curricula.

In the previous stage of the RCEP procedure, a Program Identification Committee (PIC) composed of five of your colleagues was charged with assuring that adequate documentation for the proposed changes had been provided, that there had been full and fair faculty consideration of the proposed programs, and that the proposal rested on a sound basis. In its report, the PIC identified data and procedural omissions in the deliberations which preceded the Dean's recommendation-omissions which were to be rectified over the summer. Attached to this letter you will find Dean Bare's original proposal along with reports from the Dean and the PIC. The latter two were published in a Class C Bulletin, dated June 6, 2003, sent to all faculty.

In consultation with Dean Bare, Vice Provost Steven Olswang assured President Huntsman, Provost Thorud, and me that, over the summer, missing data will have been collected and proper deliberations occur. Moreover, affected units are to have been permitted to present additional data and alternate proposals, and the College Council is to have engaged in data-informed deliberation in advance of the next stage.

As of September 29, 2003, we move into the public portion of the RCEP process. The task of your committee is to afford all members of the University community an opportunity to ask questions and make comments concerning the proposed changes. The charge of a Review Committee is stated in the Faculty Code:

This committee shall conduct an open review of the dean's proposal, with particular reference to the justification offered, and may receive or request additional materials or arguments from the dean, the faculty, students and staff of the identified program(s), and other constituencies in the University or the public at large. Meetings to invite public comment shall be scheduled at times that permit participation by the public. Within twenty instructional days of the publication of the Bulletin, the Review Committee shall deliver its written recommendation to the President. The recommendation shall be transmitted at the same time to the dean and to the chair(s) of the affected program(s). (sec. 26-41 B.4)

In keeping with the Code provisions, then, your report will be due on October 27, 2003. Please forward copies by that date to the President, Dean Bare, the Secretary of the Faculty, and Douglas Wadden, Incoming Faculty Senate Chair. You will be contacted shortly by Professor John Schaufelberger, who may want to schedule an orientation meeting, or may judge that this can be accomplished electronically.

Many thanks for agreeing to undertake this important work.

Best regards,
Sandy

Sandra Silberstein
Chair, Faculty Senate

cc: Bruce Bare
Ross Heath
Lee Huntsman
Steven Olswang
David Thorud
Lea Vaughn
Douglas Wadden