AGENDA
Smith Lecture Hall, WB 206-207, 3:00 p.m.
March 25, 2010
1. Roll Call
2. Approve the Minutes from the February 18, 2010 Meeting
3. Earth Hour Saturday, March 27, 8:30 p.m.
4. Faculty Governance Award – Laine Berghout
Awarded to Afshin Ghoreishi and Laine Berghout
5. PPM 3-51 - Evening School and Off Campus Pay Rate
Update on Policy Suspension
6. Elect 2010-11 Faculty Senate Chair and Vice Chair
7. Program Discontinuance Process
PPM 1-14
8. BA/BS Proposal – Erika Daines
9. Appointment, Promotion, Academic Freedom & Tenure Committee – Afshin Ghoreishi, Chair
Library Tenure Document
10. Curriculum Committee – Erika Daines, Chair
Curriculum Proposals can be viewed at: http://faculty.weber.edu/senate/ On the Faculty Senate homepage in the purple column on the left is a link "Curriculum Proposals for Senate Approval."
Technical Sales - Program changes for - Technical Sales, Sales and Merchandising, Sales and Service
Technology (Minor), and Interior Design/Technical Sales; Course proposals for Advanced Selling Techniques - SST 2603, and Senior Seminar - SST 4993
Master of Business Administration - Certificate in Environmental Sustainability for Business
11. General Education Improvement & Assessment Committee – Rick Ford, Chair
Composition Mission Statement & Learning Outcomes
Proposal for a Director of General Education (Information item)
12. Other Items
Next Meeting: April 15, 2010
MINUTES
MEMBERS - Listed Alphabetically
Yousef Al-Awadhi - Student Mark Baugh - Glen West representing Laine Berghout Dave Berry - Jenny Turley representing Julie Buck Russell Burrows Matt Choberka Ken Cuddeback Dick Dahlkemper Bruce Davis Eric Ewert Dave Ferro Robert Fudge Lewis Gale - Excused Janelle Gardner Colleen Garside Azenett, Garza Doris Geide-Stevenson Afshin Ghoreishi Ed Hahn Bruce Handley Rod Hansen Sue Harley Michael Hernandez Allison Hess Warren Hill - Admin. Joan Hubbard - Wade Kotter representing Colin Inglefield Gary Johnson John Kelly Tina Kraaima Elene Kvernadze - Student - Absent Tyler Lathem - Student - Absent
|
David Malone President Millner - Admin. Madonne Miner - Admin. Dale Ostlie - Admin. Ryan Pace - Excused Thom Priest - Larry Dooley representing Jack Rasmussen - Admin. Richard Sadler - Admin. - aaron Ashley representing Peggy Saunders Paul Schvaneveldt - Jim Bird representing Cori Segovia Gene Sessions Yas Simonian Kathleen Sitzman Rick Sline Ryan Thomas Shelley Thomas Susan Thornock Lisa Trujillo Michael Vaughan - Admin. Jeff Ward Katelynne Wilson-Shaw Jan Winniford Michelle Zwolinski - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Robert Fudge, Parliamentarian 2010-11 Faculty Senate Members Isabel Asensio
|
1. ROLL
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Motion: Moved to approve the minutes from the February 18, 2010
meeting.
Made: Warren Hill
Second: Shelley Thomas
Outcome: The minutes were approved with editorial changes.
3. EARTH HOUR – Azenett Garza
Weber State University Environmental Issues Committee urges Faculty, Staff and Students to join in turning off the light in heir home or office for one hour March 27th at 8:30 p.m. to call for action on climate change.
4. FACULTY GOVERNANCE AWARD – Presented by Laine Berghout
In October of 1998 the Weber State Chapter of the Utah Association of Academic Professionals (UAAP) donated funds returned to them when the UAAP disbanded. These funds were set up in an endowment from which the interest income would fund an annual UAAP faculty award and stipend for service to faculty governance.
Laine Berghout presented the award to Afshin Ghoreishi. For the past five years, Afshin has served on the Appointment, Promotion, Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee. The last two of those years he has chaired the committee, guiding a significant portion of section 8 of the PPM through a lengthy revision process. Afshin has also served on the Faculty Senate, the College of Science Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee, and has chaired the Major Programs Committee, the Quantitative Literacy Committee, and several search committees. He has also served as the Math Club Advisor and has mentored students in scholarly activities by starting a Journal, Problems, and Research Group.
A second award was presented this year to David Ferro. David has served as a member of Faculty Senate since elected by his college in 2004 and since elected by the faculty at large in 2006 as a member of Faculty Senate Executive Committee. He served as a member of the Academic Resources and Computing Committee from 2002 to 2006, serving as chair from 2003 to 2006. As an ARCC member and chair, he played an important role in shaping that committee and continues to do so. He has also served as Executive Committee liaison to the Research, Scholarship, and Professional Growth Committee, the Salary, Benefits, Budget, and Fiscal Planning Committee, and as the faculty representative on various administrative committees. David has been tireless in his current role as Chair of Faculty Senate, serving the interest of faculty and students at WSU.
5. ELECTION OF 2010-11 FACULTY SENATE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
Faculty Senate members for 2010-11 were given electronic clickers to vote for the Faculty Senate Chair and Vice Chair. Gail Niklason helped with the election process.
Motion: Moved to have a run-off election of the top two
candidates for Faculty Senate Chair.
Made: Allison Hess
Second: Colleen Garside
Outcome: The motion passed with 3 opposed.
Candidates for Faculty Senate Chair: Sue Harley, David Malone, Brian Rague, and Peggy Saunders. The top two vote recipients for Faculty Senate chair were Sue Harley and David Malone. David Malone was elected Chair of the Faculty Senate for 2010-11.
Candidates for Faculty Senate Vice Chair: Colleen Garside, Peggy Saunders, Brian Rague. Colleen Garside was elected Faculty Senate Vice Chair for 2010-11.
6.
PPM 3-51 - EVENING SCHOOL AND OFF CAMPUS PAY RATEUpdate on Policy Suspension
In the February 18, 2010 Faculty Senate meeting the following charge was given the Executive Committee:
Charge the appropriate committee to write a policy or modify the existing policy with regard to timely and suitable consultation and notification of the faculty when it is deemed necessary to temporarily suspend a policy in the PPM.
As a result of the discussion of the February 18 Faculty Senate meeting with regarding the suspension of PPM 3-51 by the Board of Trustees the Provost recommends that the Faculty Senate Chair and/or Vice Chair attend the Personnel and Academic Policy Committee of the Board of Trustees. The agenda for the Personnel and Academic Policy Committee will be sent to the Faculty Senate Office and the Faculty Senate Chair. All PPM changes will be sent to the Faculty Senate Office by the President’s Office. Agendas for President’s Council will also be sent to the Faculty Senate Office.
The suspension of PPM 3-51 by the Board of Trustees was discussed by the Executive Committee at their August 20, 2009 meeting. Those minutes are posted on line at http://faculty.weber.edu/senate/Minutes09-10/EC20Aug09.htm At that time the Executive Committee decided to have the Faculty Senate Chair and Vice Chair meet with the Provost directly and send the matter to the Salary, Benefits, Budget & Fiscal Planning Committee.
7. PROGRAM DISCONTINUANCE PROCESS
PPM 1-14a - I C - Prior to the institution making a final decision which would severely or adversely affect a program or unit, including modification or discontinuance, the program review procedure described in this policy shall be initiated. The Program Review Committee, as described below, shall conduct the review.
B. Program Review Committee Composition
1. The Program Review Committee shall consist of the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate and only those additional faculty members selected by the Committee as to ensure voting representation from each organizational unit. The Program Review Committee will be called by the chair of the Faculty Senate. The Committee will then elect its own chair. The chair and vice chair of the Faculty Senate shall serve on the Committee as ex-officio members without vote. The Committee shall consult with the president and provost during the course of its deliberations.
D 4. The review will be conducted as expeditiously as possible so as to not encumber the institutional planning process, interfere with time constraints imposed by external agencies or unduly delay any affected faculty in their adjustments to the proposed changes. Normally, the review process should be conducted and a recommendation forwarded within 15 (fifteen) calendar days from the initiation of the review. The University president's final decision should be completed as expeditiously as possible.
Review of the Mechanical Engineering Technology program is now taking place. One faculty member will be terminated if that program is eliminated. Doris Geide-Stevenson is chairing the Program Review Committee. The member from COAST replacing the Faculty Senate Chair is Ron Peterson. The recommendation of the Program Review Committee goes directly to the President.
8.
BA/BS PROPOSAL – Erika DainesThe BA/BS degree proposal came to the Faculty Senate in December. It was decided that there needed to be a few months of discussion before the Senate voted on the proposal. This proposal is about 12 years in the making and is the work of the Curriculum Committee. The proposal was approved unanimously by the Curriculum Committee.
Proposal
To address the charge from Faculty Senate and the concerns identified above, and with the specific goal of providing departments with increased flexibility to define the requirements within their degree tracks, we propose the following changes:
We propose that BA degrees awarded at WSU continue to specifically emphasize language. Majors leading to a BA degree will require twelve semester-hours of foreign language, consistent with the current BA language requirement or six semester-hours of foreign language with further coursework equaling six semester-hours in the language arts beyond the composition requirement in the general education core. Language arts coursework may include literature, creative writing, rhetoric, music composition, etc. A minimum of twelve semester-hours of coursework in language and language arts is required in either option. The options for fulfilling the current BA language requirement would continue to apply.
We further propose that the SI requirement be removed and that it be replaced by substantial emphasis on experimental, analytical, or statistical methods in required lower and upper division coursework within the major program of study leading to a BS degree. This coursework must emphasize analysis of data, application of evidence based investigation, formulation and testing of predictive models through fieldwork or laboratory inquiry, or must address quantitative methods at a level that requires quantitative literacy. Majors leading to a BS degree will require a minimum of twelve semester-hours of coursework meeting these requirements, at least half of which must be at the upper-division level. By defining this coursework as part of the major, it is expected that the coursework will specifically complement and strengthen the major field of study and thus be of greater benefit to the student pursuing a BS degree. Departments have the option to specify coursework satisfying both the major requirements and general education requirements.
In implementing these changes, each department should review its major programs and determine, based on the above criteria, which degree is more appropriate for
each major. The department should consider the most common degree awarded in the major across the state or the nation.If there is a common degree awarded in the major across the state or nation, and the department is content awarding this degree, then the department should propose that the common degree be awarded. Because the BS degree traditionally emphasizes science and math, majors for which the BS is the common degree will be recognized as fulfilling the BS requirements above and no additional coursework will be necessary.
OR
If a department wishes to award a BS related to a major that more commonly receives a BA across the state or the nation and coursework fitting the BS requirements above can be identified in the current major requirements, then the department should propose that the BS degree be awarded and no additional justification is necessary.
OR
If a department wishes to award a BS related to a major that more commonly receives a BA across the state or the nation and coursework fitting the BS requirements above cannot be identified in the current major requirements, then the department should consider ways to include coursework, either from within or outside the department, that will address the BS coursework requirements, and propose the corresponding changes in
the major requirements.OR
If a department wishes to offer a major leading to a BS and a similar major leading to a BA, then each degree track must be designed to emphasize the corresponding degree requirements and should allow for fulfillment of the degree requirements without introducing a significant credit-hour difference between the tracks.
A department's determination to assign BS or BA degrees to major programs will be reviewed by Faculty Senate.
Discussion
Motion by the Curriculum Committee to approve the BA/BS Proposal as stated
above.
Outcome: The motion passed with 4 opposed.
9. APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, ACADEMIC FREEDOM & TENURE COMMITTEE – Afshin Ghoreishi, Chair
Library Tenure Document - Summary of Changes
After reviewing the Library’s existing tenure document, which dates to 1990, we determined that the existing document is so badly out of date that it would be better to create an entirely new document instead of trying to revise the old one. With permission from Dean Rasmussen, we decided to base our new document on the College of Education’s recently revised tenure document. Since this new library tenure document is a replacement for, and not a revision of, the existing document, we have not included the text of the existing document in the attached copy. To do so would have made it much more difficult to review. Instead, passages in the new document that match language in the existing document are highlighted; as you will see, there are only a few of these. The following paragraphs briefly describe each section of the new document in comparison to the existing document.
Introduction: This new introductory section reflects current University policy. The existing document does not have an introduction. Instead, it starts with a Definitions section that simply repeats information from the PPM as of 1990 and briefly states the purpose of the document.
Credentials/Probationary: This new section combines and updates material from Section II. A-C of the existing document.
Standards of Professional Behavior: This new section replaces section II. E in the existing document. Instead of describing ethical standards in detail, as in the existing document, this new section refers to relevant sections of the PPM.
Competencies: This new section summarizes the competencies to be considered during the review process; there is no comparable section in the existing document.
Evaluation Summary: The new section discusses the evaluation summary, which is not mentioned in the existing document, and presents the channels to be used in the evaluation process. Channels A, B, D and E match Channels I-IV in the existing document; Channel C is new.
Ratings: This new section expands on section II. F in the existing document.
Professional File: This new section replaces references found throughout the existing document to the professional file and adds details on documents that should be in the professional file.
Peer Review Committee Evaluations: There is no comparable section in the existing document. Instead, references to peer review are spread throughout that document, with little detail.
Definitions of Categories and Criteria: Category I: Teaching: The section replaces section II. G of the existing document, where this category is designated as Instruction. The distinction made in the existing document between formal and informal instruction is no longer relevant. The activities listed under the new subdivisions include, in different or expanded wording, everything found in the existing document and adds several new items relevant to the teaching activities currently engaged in by library faculty. New to this section is the clarification of ratings section at the end. The inclusion of librarianship in this section reflects the fact that the teaching activities of library faculty include activities that encompass a variety of instructional activities outside the classroom. It also reflects the use of the term librarianship in other library documents.
Definitions of Categories and Criteria: Category II: Scholarship: This section replaces section II. H of the existing document, where this category is designated as Professional Activities and Scholarship. Other than the change in title, the major change made to this category was to eliminate the two subcategories (Professional Activities in the Library and Professional Growth) and move several activities from these two subcategories to Category III in the new document. Thus, this section of the new document is more focused on scholarship and professional growth and is more in line with the PPM. A clarification of ratings section has also been added.
Definitions of Categories and Criteria: Category III: Administrative and/or Professionally Related Service: This section replaces section II. I of the existing document, where this category is designated simply as Service. As noted above, the major change in this category was to eliminate some activities that are no longer relevant and add some activities from the previous category. Finally, a clarification of ratings section has been added.
The existing library tenure document can be viewed at: http://www.weber.edu/FacultyAndStaffResources/library_tenure.html
Motion by the Appointment, Promotion, Academic Freedom & Tenure Committee to
approve the Library tenure document.
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.
10. CURRICULUM COMMITTEE – Erika Daines, Chair
Technical Sales - Program changes for - Technical Sales, Sales and Merchandising, Sales and Service Technology (Minor), and Interior Design/Technical Sales; Course proposals for Advanced Selling Techniques - SST 2603, and Senior Seminar - SST 4993
An objection to Advanced Selling Techniques - SST 2606 was made as the course seems to be very similar to Selling and Sales Management - MKTG 3200 and no documents were included with the proposal indicating that the Marketing Department was contacted. It was pointed out that the SST course is not a new course; it is a credit hour change. Credit hour changes are substantive; however precedent has not required an existing courses to check with other departments who have similar courses when credit hours are changed. The form is confusing and will be looked at for possible revision.
Motion by the Curriculum Committee to approve the above curriculum from
Technical Sales.
Outcome: The motion passed with 1 No and 2 Abstentions.
Master of Business Administration - Certificate in Environmental Sustainability for Business
Motion by the Curriculum to approve the above curriculum from Master of
Business Administration for Certificate in Environmental Sustainability for
Business.
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.
11. GENERAL EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT & ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE – Laine Berghout, Liaison
Composition Mission Statement
The composition core required by the Utah State Board of Regents is a two-semester sequence of courses: English 1010 and English 2010. The overarching goal of composition is to prepare students to enter the discourse communities of the university and larger society.
Students in English 1010 should produce a minimum of 4000 words of revised prose; students in English 2010 should produce a minimum of 5000 words of revised prose. Students must exit both courses with a C or better in order to receive credit.
Because the following competencies are the combined outcomes for English 1010 and 2010, it is not expected that each course, individually, will meet all outcomes. Students successfully completing the sequence should be able to
Rhetorical Situation
Adapt their writing to a variety of purposes, audiences, and composing situations by selecting and using the most appropriate genres.
Produce a variety of formal and informal kinds of writing, emphasizing the most common academic genres.
Demonstrate an understanding of how rhetorical expectations vary from discipline to discipline.
Use technologies appropriate to purpose and audience.
Demonstrate an understanding of how emerging technologies create emerging genres.
Reading
Demonstrate an ability to read and understand texts of a variety of genres, styles and complexity.
Demonstrate an understanding of how texts are structured in specific ways for specific reasons.
Demonstrate an ability to understand and evaluate a text's organization.
Thinking
Use writing and reading for inquiry, learning, thinking, and communicating.
Recognize personal and authorial bias when approaching texts, issues, and ideas.
Recognize contradictions and logical problems in texts.
Demonstrate an understanding of the relationships between language, knowledge, and power.
Recognize complex ideas and positions in arguments and attempt to understand diverse perspectives.
Ask constructive questions that could lead to meaningful inquiry.
Identify connections between and among texts and their ideas.
Writing
STRUCTURE and MECHANICS
Compose writing that is structurally coherent and unified.
Compose writing assignments with a clear thesis or main idea.
Control such surface features as syntax, grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
Use a style manual to find answers to grammar or usage questions.
PROCESS
Demonstrate an understanding of how effective writing is a recursive process.
Develop flexible pre-writing, drafting, peer response, and revision strategies in composing written assignments.
Continue to practice writing as a process.
Demonstrate an understanding of how electronic technologies can enhance the way we compose and share texts.
Research and Argumentation (emphasized in 2010 but may also occur in 1010)
Use library resources to locate appropriate sources for research.
Evaluate potential source material for credibility and usefulness.
Use sources to make arguments.
Summarize, paraphrase, and use quotations appropriately.
Use MLA and introduce one other citation method (preferably APA).
Motion by the General Education Improvement & Assessment Committee to approve
the above mission statement and learning outcomes for composition.
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously
Information Item - Proposal to Establish a Faculty Director of General Education
Charge: In consultation with the Provost’s office, review the organization of General Education at WSU and develop an improved organizational plan than will allow for effective oversight and development of Gen Ed. The plan should address issues of consistent leadership and incorporate representative subcommittees for breadth and core Gen Ed areas.
Response: After reviewing the organization and leadership of general education programs at many comparable universities across the country, the General Education Committee recommends that WSU establish the position of Faculty Director of General Education. Such a position is fairly common at other colleges and universities. In many cases it is a faculty position, but is some cases it is an administrative position. We believe a faculty position is in keeping with the strong tradition of curriculum oversight by the faculty here at WSU. The attached description of the responsibilities associated with this position also serves to demonstrate the need for establishing such a position, as these functions are currently decentralized among many individuals and offices across our campus. A Faculty Director would provide a much needed single point of contact for our General Education Program, especially in light of the increasing demands for comprehensive assessment of the program and its constituent courses.
Duties and Responsibilities:
Leadership and Coordination:
The Faculty Director is responsible for leadership and day-to-day coordination of the General Education program. 1. Provides students, faculty, departments, colleges, Registrar’s Office, and Student Success Center with up-to-date information about WSU’s General Education program (i.e., acts as principal point-of-contact for the General Education program).
1. Provides students, faculty, departments, colleges, Registrar's Office, and Student Success Center with up-to-date information about WSU's General Education program (i.e., acts as principal point-of-contact for the General Education program).2. Serves as chair of Faculty Senate’s standing committee for General Education Improvement & Assessment to provide leadership and vision for the continued development of WSU’s General Education Program.
3. Monitors the University’s catalog, policies and procedures manual (PPM), and website to maintain up-to-date information regarding the General Education program.
4. Acts as a resource for faculty and departments interested in developing General Education courses.
5. For WSU curriculum requirements that are not the responsibility of a
single academic department (i.e., Diversity and Scientific Inquiry),
makes decisions regarding whether or not a transferred course fulfills the
respective WSU requirement.
6. Keeps abreast of national trends in general/liberal education through teaching, reading, and conference attendance. (The Faculty Director should regularly teach General Education courses.)
7. Works with the Director of the Teaching and Learning Forum to provide faculty-development workshops and seminars related to General Education and assessment.
Discussion and Suggestions
Other suggestions and comments will be emailed to Rick Ford, Chair of the General Education Improvement & Assessment Committee.
12. HEALTH CARE BENEFITS – Norm Tarbox
The Legislature has approve Weber State to join the Public Employees Health Program (PEHP)
Benefits of joining PEHP (website PEHP.org)
They hope to start open enrollment the first week of April. It saves Weber State about $200,000 a year by having EMIA continue to manage the dental insurance.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.