Approved 2-24-2000

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Thursday
February 10, 2000
SS115, 2:00 p.m.

PRESENT
Karen Dewey, Dave Eisler, Bruce Handley, Judith Mitchell, Candadai Seshachari - Chair, Sally Shigley, Gene Sessions, John Sillito, John Sohl, Alden Talbot, Paul Thompson, Kay Brown - Secretary

MINUTES
John Sillito: Moved to approve the minutes of the January 27, 2000 meeting.
Second: Karen Dewey
Outcome: The minutes were approved

MEDICAL BENEFITS
Allen Simkins gave a status report on the insurance benefits. They issued an RFP the middle of January. They were asked to bid two programs, fully insured, and self insured (partially self funded). All programs were bid, i.e. disability, life insurance, major medical. Those bidding included United, Altius, CCN, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, EMIA, and PEHP. IHC has a working agreement to not be in competition with EMIA, and, therefore, did not submit a bid. The deadline for bidding was February 8. USU and the U of U use Blue Cross as their administrator.

The question was raised about how the administration can receive input. There is a relatively short time frame. Joan Ogden will be at the University on February 23. The Executive Committee will meet with her at 2:00 p.m. on February 23 in place of the usual Executive Committee meeting on February 24. Allen Simkins felt that they should have data to share with the Executive Committee by February 23. An Aopen meeting@ for all University employees was suggested.

ASSA Admissions, Standards and Student Affairs Committee B Georgine Bills, Chair.

Charge 1: Monitor legislation that has been passed by the Faculty Senate but never implemented due to a lack of sufficient STAARS programming resources.

Recommendation -
1) Adoption of the STAARS Feasibility Form and
2) Requiring use and review of the form prior to passing new legislation which will require STAARS resources.

MOTION
Karen Dewey: Moved to forward to the Faculty Senate as an information item for the February 17, 2000 meeting, the adoption of the STAARS Feasibility Form by the ASSA Committee.
Second: Alden Talbot
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Charge 2: Develop long-term goals and a means for implementing those goals ... to improve the preparation of incoming students, particularly in the areas of math, English, computers, and science.

Recommendation -
1) Have university Orientation and Admissions professional staff provide Faculty Senate with current recruiting and informational activities (data attached);
2) Continue to support and develop additional informational brochures specifically a AScoop Sheet@ for parents to highlight the cost differential for students who enter the university unprepared and require remedial courses (proposed sample attached).

MOTION Sally Shigley: Moved to forward to the Faculty Senate for the February 17, 2000 meeting as an information item.
Second: Alden Talbot
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Charge 3: Determine and recommend ways for enforcement and recording of Computer and Information Literacy by end of 60 hours of class work .

Recommendation:
1) Develop an advising message via Touch-Tel and OnLine registration to remind/advise students that Computer and Information Literacy, English core requirements, and Quantitative Literacy are ALL to be completed within the first 60 credit hours at WSU;
2) Improve and develop new advising messages (i.e. through Academic Advising, posters, SignPost) to reinforce these requirements;
3) Academic and departmental advisors will reinforce these requirements.

This will go as an information item to the Faculty Senate. No formal motion

Charge 4: Determine if any legislation is needed to guarantee that students will not be expected to attend additional classes during regularly scheduled finals week.

Recommendation:
1) No Faculty Senate Action is required, department chairs and program directors should continue to monitor.

This will go as an information item to the Faculty Senate. Nor formal motion.

Charge 5: Determine if Computer and Information Literacy, Quantitative Literacy, and English requirements should be added to the University PPM rather than the present location in Curriculum and Gen. Ed. Committee PPM.

Recommendation:
1) All graduation standards be included in the University PPM, Section IV, Policy 4-1 is currently void and is a logical location for these standards; and

2) If similar requirements (e.g. Diversity core requirement) are added in the future, they will be added to Section IV, 4-1, and be cross-referenced with other existing listing such as the Curriculum PPM and the university PPM 6-2 (Admissions).

MOTION John Sillito: Moved to forward the recommendation for Charge 5 to the Faculty Senate for the February 17, 2000 meeting.
Second: Alden Talbot
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Charge 6: Review policies for grade changes, late registration, late withdrawals, etc. and provide training for policy enforcement and consistency.

Recommendation:
1) PPM revisions; and

2) Ongoing training for classified and professional staff in the Student Services departments is the responsibility of Managers in those areas (e.g. Registration, Records); and

3) Faculty should be informed through departmental leadership (chairs and program directors).

MOTION John Sillito: Moved to forward the recommendation for Charge 6 to the Faculty Senate for the February 17, 2000 meeting.
Second: Bruce Handley
Outcome: The motion failed. The Executive Committee suggested that Georgine Bills work with Judy Mitchell to refine the wording of PPM sections 4 and 6.

The credit by CLEP, Special Examination, and Petition along with the disclosure of Services for Students with Disabilities will come back to the Executive Committee at the March 9 Agenda Setting Meeting.

FALL BREAK
Student Senate proposal, AWe Need A Break@ presented by Jeremy Hall. The Student Senate is proposing a two day break Fall Semester, October 5-6.

Dr. Seshachari suggested that Jeremy Hall meet with Winslow Hurst and Kathleen Lukken to look over the calendar for 2001-2002 and discuss the possibility of a Fall break.

Rewording of the proposal was discussed and suggestions were given.

MOTION John Sohl: Moved to send it to Winslow Hurst, Kathleen Lukken, and Jeremy Hall to review the proposal and look at the calendar schedule for 2001-2002 and bring the proposal back to the March 9 Agenda Setting meeting.
Second: John Sillito
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

C&GE Curriculum and General Education Committee B Jim Wilson, Chair

Sociology & Anthropology diversity course proposal for Biological Anthropology - Anthro LS2200.

MOTION Karen Dewey: Moved to forward the diversity course proposal from Sociology & Anthropology for Biological Anthropology - Anthro LS2200.
Second: Alden Talbot
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Political Science diversity course proposal for Problems in World Politics: Third World Women - Polsc 4160.

MOTION John Sillito: Moved to forward the diversity course proposal from Political Science for Problems in World Politics: Third World Women - Polsc 4160.
Second: John Sohl
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Criminal Justice diversity course proposal for Community Policing - CJ3040.

MOTION John Sohl: Moved to forward the diversity course proposal from Criminal Justice for Community Policing - CJ 3040.
Second: Karen Dewey
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Information Systems & Technology course proposal for Software Skills for Business - IS&T 1000.

Concern was expressed that this course did not meet the criteria set by the State and passed by the Faculty Senate for the Computer Literacy requirement. Would the passing of this course open the door for every college to create their own Computer Literacy course? This course allows students to finish the requirement with a one credit hour course while the TBE courses that fulfill the requirement require three credit hours. Prerequisites and equivalents for the class were discussed.

MOTION Bruce Handley: Moved to forward the course proposal from Information Systems & Technology for Software Skills for Business - IS&T 1000.
Second: Karen Dewey
Outcome: The motion passed with 1 opposed.

ARCC Academic Resources and Computing Committee. Eva Szalay is being recommended to replace Denise Weeks on the Academic Resources and Computing Committee.

MOTION Judith Mitchell: Moved to forward the name of Eva Szalay to the Faculty Senate as a member of the Academic Resources and Computing Committee.
Second: Alden Talbot
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

REVIEW OF DEANS
The evaluation of College Deans is done by the Ranking and Tenure Committee of that college. The Ranking and Tenure Committee excludes Department Chairs. This has the effect of keeping the Department Chairs out of the process.

PPM 1-17, V states: A. Academic deans are to be formally evaluated by the provost no later than the end of their appointed term of service. The evaluation shall include, but not be limited to, a formal survey of all faculty and staff serving under the dean's leadership, and input from all pertinent constituencies of the dean, both internal and external. The purpose is to provide feedback to academic deans and their administrative superiors on a regular and formal basis.

B. Faculty Survey Instrument
The basic survey instrument will be faculty generated by a task force appointed by the Faculty Senate. The basic instrument will be approved by the Faculty Senate. Additions to the basic survey, addressing unique college needs, will be submitted to that college's faculty for approval.

C. Administration of the Faculty Instrument
Beginning at the end of the dean's second year of service, the instrument will be administered at the end of every other academic year. Each secretary representing a department will be provided, by the provost, the exact number of surveys as personnel within that department. The department secretary will provide one numbered copy to each person and will inform them that no reference to the respondent will be attached to that survey. The secretary must collect all copies, completed or not, and return them to the provost for compilation of the data.

D. Interpretation of the Instrument
The biannual survey data will be interpreted the year in which the dean is evaluated. An advisory committee for each dean consisting of that college's rank and tenure committee and another dean to be chosen by the provost will be formed to interpret the survey data and assist the provost in the evaluation. Copies of the surveys from each year will be held in the provost's office until they are needed by the committees. Deans may have access to annual evaluations as desired. A dean may request the opportunity of discussing the evaluation data with the committee prior to its final report.

MOTION Bruce Handley: Moved to send the PPM policy dealing with the evaluation of College Deans to the APAFT Committee for review.
Second: Sally Shigley
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

CHAIR SELECTION
The procedure for the selection of a Department Chair was discussed. The role of the faculty and the role of the Dean were discussed in relation to the selection of the Department Chair.

PPM 1-19, IV states : When circumstances dictate that a chair be selected (expiration of a term, retirement, termination, illness, etc.) the following procedures shall be followed:

Prior to February 1
The dean shall survey the faculty to determine which members of the faculty would be willing to serve as chair. The dean shall also advise the faculty as to whether the option of bringing in a chair from outside exists.

If the possibility exists for bringing in someone from the outside to serve as chair, the dean shall, in consultation with the faculty, determine the desirability of bringing in a chair from the outside.

Prior to March 1
When the position of the chair is to be filled by a member of the department faculty, the dean shall conduct a written survey of the faculty on the slate of candidates. This survey should ask for either "yea" or "nay" on the acceptability of each candidate and should not be a vote between candidates. The dean shall report the names of any candidates receiving two-thirds majority support. The slate of those candidates receiving two-thirds majority support will then become the recommendation of the faculty to the dean for the position of chair. In the event no individual receives two-thirds majority support of all the faculty, the recommendation of the faculty to the dean shall be the candidate or candidates having at least simple majority support of the faculty. If there are no candidates with simple majority support, the dean will so advise the faculty and conduct another written survey of the faculty. The top two candidates from the previous survey will make up the slate for the second survey. The candidate receiving the most faculty support on the second survey will be the faculty recommendation to the dean.

If the position of the chair is to be filled by a person not presently a member of the faculty, a search shall be conducted in accordance with appropriate institutional hiring practices. When a majority of all faculty agree on a candidate from the outside to be chair, the faculty shall recommend that candidate to the dean for consideration.

If the choice for department chair is from the current department members, the dean shall prepare the case recommending the candidate and submit it to the provost in accordance with PPM 1-18.

PROMOTION The Executive Committee discussed sending the procedure to promote faculty from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor without being tenured. The question of whether or not tenure should be tied to faculty advancement was discussed.

MOTION Bruce Handley: Moved to forward to the APAFT Committee the questions of whether or not tenure should be tied to faculty advancement to Associate Professor.
Second: Sally Shigley
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

FACULTY CONCERNS
Faculty concerns were discussed with Provost Eisler.

ADJOURN

The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.