Members Present: Michael Babcock – Co-Chair, Richard Rudnicki – Co-Chair, Brad Haderlie, Kris Johnson, Bill Freese, Rob Maher, Chris Peterson

Proxy’s: None

Members Absent: Annika Lawerence, Mackenzie Spence, Abigail Richards, J. Mitchell Vaterlaus, Tony Campeau, EJ Hook, Loras O’Toole, Kimberley Obbink, Cindy Tirrell, Alisha Downs, Kenneth Silvestri, Steve Luft, John How, Michelle Mulhill, David Eitle, Brendan Pelkie, Brooke Bocast, Sean Peterson, Dean Adams, Julia Heard, Tia Brown, Sarah Shannon, Pam Schulz, Joshua Turner, Carter Dorsett, Srandvold Knudsen, Mike McNeil, Elizabeth Johnson, Gregory Gilpin

Staff & Guests: Grey Williams

ITEM No. 1 – DISCUSSION – Committee Policy Update

Richard Rudnicki explained the updating of the committee policy, and what this update entailed content wise. He also began explaining how membership composition of the committee has been something of a talking point. He continued by explaining that because of this, two options have been brought to the committee for their input and review.

Richard Rudnicki talked through the first option for membership composition including: term limits, membership diversity, and the rotation of membership. He provided further explanation and clarification on certain aspects of the first membership composition option and how it relates to the current or past membership policy.

Richard then began explaining the second option and how it differs or changes in relation to the first. The differences include more emphasis on years of service to the university and diversity of positions such as tenured, tenure track, or non-tenure track.

Michael Babcock thanked Richard for putting these two options together. Michael stated he liked the rotation system of option 1, as it preserves membership of those who have served previously. He added that option 2 could present challenges as Non-Tenure Track faculty are unionized and do not have to fulfill service requirements, and that ultimately, he prefers option 1 out of the two presented.

Michael Babcock also wanted to open the floor to discussion related to having an All-Staff Council representative on the committee. Richard Rudnicki commented that the All-Staff council should probably have a representative and that their lack of a representative is due to the age of the current committee charge.

Brad Haderlie commented that he was unsure if staff have a place on the committee, as most staff do not frequently interact with classrooms here on campus. Richard Rudnicki stated that staff positions are diverse on campus and a good portion of these positions interact with classrooms, and their view and opinions could be valuable.

Kris Johnson commented that she believes the purpose of the All-Staff council is to get staff involved on campus, and to help them learn about the university and how it works.

Kris Johnson suggested a 3rd option for membership, and her idea is that the committee puts a call out to those interested in the committee and those who are interested can respond, instead of the usual assignment by Deans model.

Rob Maher noted that the important matter is finding those individuals to serve who are interested, and no matter the way membership is composed those who are interested will show up and do the work as opposed to those which are not. He believes any option will do as far as membership composition.

Richard Rudnicki provided clarity on why membership and other procedures needed to be updated. Such as having a consistent amount of voting members. He also stated that the committee is public, and anyone can attend and provide comments or feedback.

Michael Babcock stated that what people bring to the conversation is important and this is a reason to include staff members. Kris Johnson stated she agrees but the staff representation must be involved with classrooms in some capacity. Richard Rudnicki agreed with this prospective.

Richard Rudnicki suggested that an open call to faculty be made and term limits as well as voting power rotate. This provides those who want to be on the committee that opportunity while still rotating the power and responsibilities in a just way. Michael Babcock agreed.

Michael Babcock motioned to approve the all-staff representative serving on the committee. Richard Rudnicki seconds. The motion carries.

Richard Rudnicki stated he will adjust the policy document draft to represent what was discussed today and will bring a new version to the next committee meeting to review and vote on.

Discussion from all members turned to how this call to faculty would be distributed and what best methods and practices would be.

ITEM No. 2 – INFORMATIONAL – Classroom Guidebook

Grey Williams began discussion related to the guidebook and gave a brief overview of what it is and how it could be used and utilized by stakeholders on campus.

Michael Babcock questioned if technology present in classrooms was accurately represented in the guidebook.

Brad Haderlie answered that there is a parallel group constructing a similar guidebook with ATO with a focus on technology in classrooms.

Richard Rudnicki commented that the hope with the two guidebooks was to link the ATO tech guidebook into the Classroom Committee guidebook. He mentioned that both projects are similar but have different information contained in them, such as the Classroom Committee guidebook having photos of every room along with other information such as accessibility and layout, while the ATO guidebook focus on technology.

Brad Haderlie and Richard Rudnicki discussed how the two projects could mesh, with the consensus being a link system in the Classroom Committee book to the ATO book.

Discussion turned to how these systems can intertwine with Ad Astra, and how we can connect both guidebooks. Richard Rudnicki stated that Staff will reach out to ATO and collaborate on how to link the two together. Various ideas were discussed to improve the guidebook as well that will be considered in updating the guidebook.

Richard Rudnicki then quickly gave an update on the previously discussed CIP room packages.