Three will be elected to serve two year terms. The other two will serve as alternates.

Gene Bozniak, S 
Merlin Cheney, A&H 
Nancy Haanstad, S&BS
Alma Harris, B&E
Ron Peterson, COAST

Motion: Moved to approve the above committee membership for the 2001-2002 academic year.
Made: Bruce Handley
Second: Chloe Merrill
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

8.  ELECTION OF THE FACULTY BOARD OF REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR 2001-2002

Elections were held for the Faculty Board of Review committee members who will serve two year terms. Those elected were: Eugene Bozniak, Nancy Haanstad, and Alma Harris. Merlin Cheney and Ron Peterson will serve as alternates.

9.  RESEARCH, SCHOLARSHIP AND PROFESSIONAL GROWTH – Gary Godfrey, Chair

Three calls for proposals were issued during , early fall semester, early spring semester, and mid spring semester. Faculty submitted a total of 34 proposals for RS&PG funding. The total requested was $73,592, of which $36,522 received funding, representing awards to 21 faculty. Thirteen proposals for Hemingway Faculty Vitality awards were received, requesting a total of $47,795. All these proposals received funding, representing 13 projects and 17 faculty. For the year, requests in all areas equaled $121,387, with awards totaling $84,317. The committee recovered a little over $6,000 in unused funds from previous awards.

10.  CURRICULUM AND GENERAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE – Jim Wilson, Chair

BIS Program - Bachelor of Integrated Studies - New Course Proposals for Preparation for BIS Capstone and Graduation - HISTORY 3800; program change.

Motion: Moved to approve from the BIS Program the Bachelor of Integrated Studies the new course proposals for Preparation for BIS Capstone and Graduation - HISTORY 3800; Program Change.
Made: Gary Dohrer
Second: Chloe Merrill
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Foreign Languages and Literatures - Program Proposal for European Studies Minor.

Several departments in the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences whose courses are incorporated in this minor have not signed off on the proposal. The College of Social and Behavioral Sciences objects to the two year requirement of a foreign language. When departments are asked to sign off on programs that incorporate courses from their department in a program, we are asking if there is an academic reason why this program should not be approved, a signature is required to avoid duplication. Two questions have been debated: (1) Can a program be approved by the Faculty Senate if a department whose courses are being used in the proposal object to the proposal? (2) Can departments hold programs hostage by not giving approval?

Lee Sather, Chair of the History Department, stated that several faculty members and departments in the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences have concerns over the proposed European Studies Minor. However, at this time they remove their objections to the proposal with the idea of presenting their own proposal next year.

The question of requiring a "C" within the program rather than a "C-" was discussed.

Motion: Moved to approve from Foreign Languages and Literatures the program proposal for European Studies Minor.
Made Dan Schroeder
Second: Bruce Christensen
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Master of Education - New course proposal for The World As A Classroom - MEDUC 6640; Teacher Education - Change to an existing course for Assessment and Evaluation of the Gifted - EDUC 4490/MEDUC 6490; course deletion for Principles of Assessment - EDUC 4440/MEDUC 6440.

Motion: Moved to approve from the Master of Education Program the new course proposal for The World As A Classroom - MEDUC 6640; from Teacher Education a change to an existing course for Assessment and Evaluation of the Gifted - EDUC 4490/MEDUC 6490, and a course deletion for Principles of Assessment - EDUC 4440/MEDUC 6440.
Made: Mike Cena
Second: Chloe Merrill
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering Technology - New course proposal for Computer Applications in Construction - CMT 1500; course changes for Construction Materials & Methods - CMT 1210 split into Residential Construction Materials & Methods - CMT 1210 and Commercial Construction Materials & Methods - CMT 1310; Electrical Systems - CMT 3260 and Mechanical Systems - CMT 3270 continued into Mechanical and Electrical Systems - CMT 3260; program change for Parson Construction Management Technology.

Physics - New course proposals for Introductory Individual Research Problems - PHSX 2800; Introductory Readings in Physics- PHSX 2830. Chemistry - new course proposal for Molecular Symmetry and Applied Math for Physical Chemistry - Chem 3400; course change for Physical Chemistry I - Chem 3410; program changes for Chemistry Option I Major and Chemistry Option II Major

Motion: Moved to approve from Physics the new course proposals for Introductory Individual Research Problems - PHSX 2800; Introductory Readings in Physics- PHSX 2830. Chemistry - new course proposal for Molecular Symmetry and Applied Math for Physical Chemistry - Chem 3400; course change for Physical Chemistry I - Chem 3410; program changes for Chemistry Option I Major and Chemistry Option II Major
Made: Ron Galli
Second: Dawn Gatherum
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Radiologic Sciences -New course proposals for, Basic Sectional Anatomy - RADTEC 2272, Invasive Imaging Procedures - RADTEC 5443; Change to Existing Courses for Laboratory Experience - RADTEC 1601, Patient Care & Assessment I - RADTEC 2043, Principles of Radiographic Exposure - II - RADTEC 2403, Directed Readings and Research - RADTEC 2833, Clinical Education - RADTEC 2861, Clinical Education - RADTEC 2866, Comprehensive Review - RADTEC 2913, Final Competency Assessment - RADTEC 5867; course deletions for IV Therapy - RADTEC 2271, Biophysical Aging Changes - RADTEC 3023; new program proposals for Radiography, Radiological Practitioner Assistant.

Motion: Moved to approve from Radiologic Sciences the new course proposals for Basic Sectional Anatomy - RADTEC 2272, Invasive Imaging Procedures - RADTEC 5443; change to existing courses for Laboratory Experience - RADTEC 1601, Patient Care & Assessment I - RADTEC 2043, Principles of Radiographic Exposure - II - RADTEC 2403, Directed Readings and Research - RADTEC 2833, Clinical Education - RADTEC 2861, Clinical Education - RADTEC 2866, Comprehensive Review - RADTEC 2913, Final Competency Assessment - RADTEC 5867; course deletions for IV Therapy - RADTEC 2271, Biophysical Aging Changes - RADTEC 3023; and new program proposals for Radiography, Radiological Practitioner Assistant.
Made: Erika Daines
Second: Wangari Wa Nyatetu Waigwa
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Nursing Department - Bachelor of Science Course Proposals for Nursing Assessment Across the Lifespan - Nursng 3030, Nursing Assessment Across the Lifespan - Clinical Experience - Nursng 3031, and Guided Research - Nursng 4800. The Diversity Course Proposal for Culture and Health Care - Nursng 4000 was pulled and will come back in September with Clinical Experience Related to Culture and Health Care for Nurses - Nursng 4001.

Motion: Moved to approve from Nursing the Bachelor of Science Course Proposals for Nursing Assessment Across the Lifespan - Nursng 3030, Nursing Assessment Across the Lifespan - Clinical Experience - Nursng 3031, and Guided Research - Nursng 4800.
Made: Nick Ferre
Second: Sharon Brady
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Information Systems and Technology - Program changes for BIS emphasis, Minor, Associate of Science, Bachelor of Science, and Bachelor of Arts.

Motion: Moved to approve from Information systems and Technology the program changes for BIS emphasis, Minor, Associate of Science, Bachelor of Science, and Bachelor of Arts.
Made: Bruce Christensen
Second: Wangari Wa Nyatetu Waigwa

Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

11.  APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND TENURE COMMITTEE – Frank Guliuzza, Chair
PPM 8-11 - Post Tenure Review. Judith Mitchell mentioned that this policy has been reviewed and discussed for the past two years and that there has been some confusion about the accreditation requirements for post-tenure review. A post-tenure review policy is being proactive rather than reactive to what is happening in legislatures across the country. Legislative concerns have been what to do with tenured faculty who become less committed to scholarly activities, service to the community and institution, and less committed to the instruction of students.

Two public hearings have taken place. The committee seriously discussed whether or not there is a need for post-tenure review at Weber State. They started from the premise that there probably was not a need.

Arguments against post-tenure review: (1) These reviews could provide "witch hunts" by the administration. It offers a method for termination that heretofore did not exist. (2) Post-tenure review policies are designed to punish rather than develop said faculty. The developmental component of any post-tenure review proposal depends on the institution’s good will, and its commitment to financial resources. (3) Faculty are reviewed to death. They spend considerable time satisfying demands for accountability. (4) WSU currently has a post-tenure review process in place that satisfies accreditation process.

Arguments in favor of post-tenure review: (1) The political reality - Several state legislatures (Texas, Arizona, Wisconsin) had mandated that their universities provide a comprehensive post-tenure review plan. It is a matter of time before the Utah legislature and the Board of Regents require a post-tenure review plan. It was the preference in APAFT that the faculty craft the plan rather than submit to a plan submitted by representatives from the nine state institutions or a proposal generated by the State Legislature. (2) The reality of "deadwood." All studies indicate that at a given institution less than 10% of faculty are performing in an unsatisfactory manner, typically between 3-7%. An effective post-tenure review plan provides a mechanism for revitalization or removal of faculty operating unsatisfactorily. (3) The current policy does not establish adequate protection for tenured faculty (PPM 8-25).

Secondary Issues: (1) Moral of junior faculty - Junior faculty are being evaluated by some who do not come close to meeting the standards they have imposed upon their junior colleagues. With a post-tenure review policy, they would have to meet these same standards. (2) It provides a way of identifying or rewarding merit.

The APAFT Committee looked at two models: (1) Periodic Peer Review Model. There are two types of periodic peer review, (A) A comprehensive review plan where every faculty member goes through some kind of review, and (B) A triggered review plan where only those who have been flagged for performing in an unsatisfactory manner are reviewed. (2) Administrative Review either done by the Chair, the Dean or Chief Academic Officer. APAFT opted to go with the Administrative Review because the data indicated that 93-97% of faculty should be able to navigate through post-tenure review because they are working at a satisfactory level or better. The process seems to be more fair for all faculty to have to undergo review rather than a few faculty who are selected out for review.

Proposed PPM 8-11

I. REFERENCE
II. GENERAL EVALUATIONS
III. POST-TENURE REVIEW
IV. TENURE REVIEW
V. EVALUATIVE CRITERIA FOR ACADEMIC RANK

PPM 3-62 Evaluation of University Personnel

II. GENERAL EVALUATION POLICY

A. Departmental Interviews

Every three two years, or more often at the discretion of the chair or dean, or at the request of the faculty member, faculty members shall meet with their department chair for an interview covering the recent performance of the faculty member. Goals of the interviews include finding ways to help faculty members improve their performance, finding ways the University might better support faculty members, and discussing individual, department, and University goals and expectations. Teaching performance should be a priority item for discussion. To provide a focus for discussion and better inform the chair, faculty members shall bring to the interview a summary of their most recent activities in teaching, in scholarship, and in service (vitae update since the last review).

The chair shall send a written summary report of the interviews to the dean, the faculty member, and for inclusion in the personnel faculty member’s professional file. That report shall include a listing of the major items of accomplishment of each the faculty member, and identify deficiencies, if any. A copy of the report shall be included in the for inclusion in the personnel faculty member’s professional file. An individualized copy of the report shall be sent to the faculty member. The faculty member will have the opportunity to comment in writing upon the review. Any such comments will be included in the faculty member’s professional file. who may make a response to the dean.

B. Student Evaluations

In an attempt to chart ongoing teaching performance, each year each faculty member shall have student evaluations administered and compiled by an impartial third party in at least two of the courses that the faculty member teaches. The two courses to be evaluated each year will be determined through consultation between each faculty member and his/her department chair. If the faculty member and the chair cannot come to agreement on which two courses should be evaluated by the students, the choice of courses to be evaluated will be subject to binding arbitration by the dean, after consultation with the faculty member and the chair. The results of those evaluations shall be seen by the chair, the faculty member, and T those specified in the review process. The summaries shall be kept on file in the office of the chair.

III. POST-TENURE REVIEW

A. Commitment to tenure and academic freedom.

The State of Utah and Weber State University have much invested in its tenured faculty. The faculty, administration, and staff at WSU share a common purpose driven by a desire to maintain a vibrant, healthy, productive, and student-oriented institution. Furthermore, they should recognize that the conditions of tenure are vital to academic freedom and central to university governance. Consequently, these are matters in which faculty voice must be accorded primary authority. Historically, the award of tenure has provided the best guarantee to protect the academic freedom and right of free inquiry among all members of the university community. Tenured faculty are obligated to protect the academic freedom of all members of the faculty to teach, conduct research, engage in scholarly and creative activity, and offer service to the university in accord with the highest ethical and professional standards of their profession, as well as in conformity with current state and federal law, and with state and local educational-institutional policies and standards.

B. The post-tenure review evaluation process.

C. Outcome of the post-tenure-review:

1. The faculty member who satisfies channel I, II, or III above will remain in the regular evaluation process.

2. The faculty member who fails to meet any of these channels will enter into a developmental plan.

a. The specifics of one’s developmental plan will be determined through consultation between the faculty member and his or her department chair and approved by the dean. If the faculty member and the chair cannot come to agreement on the specific components of the developmental plan, it will be subject to binding arbitration by the dean, after consultation with the faculty member and the chair.

b. The developmental plan shall identify areas of specific deficiency and identify the means by which the faculty member will improve performance. It also commits the Office of Academic Affairs and the colleges to providing the resources, within reason, necessary to enable the faculty member to improve. When implementing a program of professional development, the chair and faculty member can draw upon a wide range of resources--examples of which might include:

•Workshops on campus
•Funding for regional or national professional conferences
•Video conferences
•Funding to bring consultants to the campus
•Opportunities for professional development grants
•Workload reassignment
•Opportunities for team teaching
•Peer-mentoring

c. The faculty member may enter the developmental plan as soon as an acceptable plan is crafted and agreed upon consistent with the process indicated above. However, the faculty member may not delay the implementation of his or her developmental plan beyond final review by the provost or, if it is warranted, the Faculty Board of Review.

d. The department chair and dean will review the faculty member after the latter has been in the developmental plan for one year. The reviewers shall send a copy of the review to the faculty member and to the dean for inclusion in the faculty member’s professional file. The faculty member will have the opportunity to comment in writing upon the review. Any such comments will be included in the faculty member’s professional file. If the faculty member satisfies channel I, II, or III, the review process will be considered complete. The faculty member’s next post-tenure-review will normally occur five years later, as specified in PPM 8-11 (III-B-1) above. If the faculty member has made insufficient progress, then he or she will remain in the developmental plan. The developmental plan will be in effect for a maximum of two years. When circumstances warrant, the developmental plan may be extended upon recommendation by the department chair and the dean, in consultation with the provost. If and when such a request is granted, the conditions of the extension shall be explained in writing by the department chair.

e. Following completion of the developmental plan, the faculty member will be reevaluated by the department chair with review and approval by the dean to see whether the faculty member can satisfy channel I, II, or III. Failure to meet any of these channels shall lead to a recommendation of termination for cause (PPM 8-25). The chair shall send a copy of the review to the faculty member and the dean for inclusion in the faculty member’s professional file. The faculty member will have the opportunity to comment in writing upon the review. Any such comments will be included in the faculty member’s professional file. The faculty member would then have the option of entering his or her review into the process specified below in PPM 8-11(IV), i.e., before the following review committees and administrators: department ranking and tenure committee, college ranking and tenure committee, dean, university ranking and tenure committee, and provost, with the right of due process review by the Faculty Board of Review (as described in PPM 9-9 through 9-17).  Should the faculty member opt for peer-committee review, he or she must prepare those documents that constitute the basis for peer-committee review as specified in PPM 8-13, 8-14 (e.g., the professional file and all other relevant information that the faculty member wishes to be brought to the attention of reviewers).

IV. TENURE REVIEW . . .

V. EVALUATIVE CRITERIA FOR ACADEMIC RANK . . .

Motion: Moved to approve the proposed PPM 8-11 as stated above.
Made: Marie Kotter
Second: Dan Schroeder

Motion withdrawn

Senate Discussion on Post-Tenure Review - Tenure means automatic renewal. Historically the burden of proof has been on the institution. The proposed post-tenure review policy reverses the burden, it would now be on the faculty member. Comprehensive review seems like an overkill. Would the department two-year review be the trigger? Deficient faculty can be discovered with the current policy. A comprehensive review of all faculty is not necessary. The review process is time consuming for faculty, chairs, deans and the administration. It takes a great deal of time and money to review faculty. Keep the policy simple. This proposal would build tension between the faculty and the administration and pit faculty against each other. A developmental plan is an affront to the integrity of faculty. Tenure is sacred and this proposal is an attempt to destroy it. Matters should be left in the hand of the chairs and deans. This policy should make people think twice before coming to Weber State. This proposal on post-tenure review threatens academic freedom. This proposal better protects faculty. This proposal allows peers to review. Let the administration have the burden of proof. Tenure protects faculty as a teacher and a researcher. The current policy addresses post tenure review, it is called tri-annual reviews. Professors who tarnish tenure hurt students. Students have proposed a bill on post-tenure review. This proposal guarantees for those who are in trouble a means and plan to get some funding and resources.

Call for the question
Made: Tony Spanos
Second: Mike Cena
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Motion: Moved to approve a formal, comprehensive post-tenure review policy beyond what presently exists.
Made: Michael Vaughan
Second: Marcy Everest
Outcome: The motion failed with 12 in favor and 20 opposed.

ADJOURN 
The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.