Approved 2-23-12

Thursday
February 9 2012
MA 211K

AGENDA SETTING

1. Approval of the minutes from the January 19, 2012 meeting.

2. Smoke Free Campus – Justin Neville

3. Admissions, Standards & Student Affairs – Kathy Herndon, Chair
PPM 4-21a, III B - Awarding of Transfer Credit, and Credit by Examination or Petition

4.     Appointment, Promotion, Academic Freedom & Tenure – Diana Green, Chair
        PM 8-11 Evaluation of Faculty Members - Post Tenure Review
        Replace Sally Cantwell with Melissa Neville

5. General Education Improvement & Assessment – Rick Ford, Chair
Humanities & Creative Arts Mission Statement & Learning Outcomes

6. Curriculum – Erika Daines, Chair

Library - Course deletions for Humanities on the Internet: Culture, Content and Access - LIBS TD 1115, and Library Skills Resources and Research - LIBS TD 2201

7. Pipeline Project Report – Ann Milner

8. Faculty Ombudsman

9. Other Items

MINUTES

PRESENT
Julie Buck, Patti Cost, Colleen Garside, Ed Hahn, Stephen Hill, Ann Millner, Michelle Paustenbaugh, Brian Rague, Mike Vaughan, Kay Brown, Secretary

EXCUSED
Shelly Costley, Colin Inglefield

GUESTS
Erika Daines, Barry Gomberg, Mark Simpson

MINUTES
Ed Hahn: Moved to approve the minutes from the January 19, 2012 meeting
Second: Patti Cost
Outcome: The minutes were approved.

SMOKE FREE CAMPUS
Justin Neville, Legislative Vice President WSUSA, discussed with the Executive Committee a proposal the students are working on for a smoke free campus rather than a tobacco free campus. The distinction between the two is that a tobacco free campus prohibits any tobacco products to be used on campus whereas a smoke free campus prohibits any smoking on campus.

A group of students visited Bosie State and discussed with them how they implemented a smoke free campus policy, how they enforced the policy, how it affected their international student population, and how the faculty feel about the policy. The City of Boise has adopted a smoke free ordinance in all of their public spaces. Ogden City is in the process of adopting a smoke free policy for all of their public spaces.

Discussion

The students want to collaborate with the administration, faculty, and students to develop a policy.

What other student organizations in Utah are looking at adopting a smoke free campus policy? Utah State, University of Utah, and Southern Utah University are discussing such a policy.

The students feel that it would take a minimum of one year to educate the campus community about the policy.

The students are looking at grant opportunities for nicotine replacement products. Boise State offered these product at no cost to students and employees for a period of time, and currently offer those products at a reduced rate.

Boise State adopted a three strike policy three years ago. The first offence is a warning, the second offence is a warning, and the third offence receives disciplinary action. Students have received warnings, but no one has received a step three offence.

What is the rational for such a policy?

Do we want a policy to take away someone’s choice to smoke? The students do not want to take away choices in a persons personal life, but at the university we adopt policies to protect others and policies to protect the environment.

If people are not allowed to smoke will they substitute other products to reduce their craving for nicotine? Is chewing better?

There are 589 universities that have adopted a smoke free policy. Ten universities in California have adopted smoke free campus policies.

The policy encourages people to be considerate of others.

Will having another policy make it any better?

It would be a good idea to set up a committee that doesn’t have an agenda. A committee that includes smokers and international students to work on the policy.

A suggestion was given the students to come to the Faculty Senate when they are ready to define the problem. The students need to form a committee to investigate the problem and consider alternatives.

How will we enforce the policy? The students need to talk with University Police.

Smokers on campus are estimated to be between 6 and 7% of the population.

It was suggested that the students think about the discussion here, define the problem, gather data, start a committee, form a plan and come back to the Executive Committee.

ADMISSIONS, STANDARDS & STUDENT AFFAIRS – Kathy Herndom, Chair
PPM 4-21a Awarding of Transfer Credit, and Credit by Examination or Petition was pulled from the agenda. It will come back to the Agenda Setting meeting in March.

APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, ACADEMIC FREEDOM & TENURE – Diana Green, Chair
The APAFT Committee was charged to develop a post tenure document.

PPM 8-11 PPM 8-11 Evaluation of Faculty Members

I. REFERENCE
PPM 3-62 - Evaluation of University Personnel
PPM 9-9 – Due Process/General Statement
R481 – Regent’s Policy: Academic Freedom, Professional Responsibility, Tenure, Termination, and Post-Tenure Review

II. ~~POLICY~~ POST-TENURE REVIEW
A. ~~Departmental Interviews~~ Purpose
The post-tenure review shall be based on criteria ~~different~~ separately defined from the award of tenure with the intent of:
1. demonstrating the tenured faculty member’s growth and development in the discipline;
2. communicating to the faculty member specific areas in need of improvement related to performance in scholarship, teaching, and service, and
3. enhancing each individual's future productivity.

B. Procedures
After tenure is granted, faculty will be evaluated every ~~Every~~ ~~three~~ five years, or more often at the discretion of the department 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 Each College Tenure document shall specify procedures to administer a review of the work of each tenured faculty member in a manner and frequency consistent with institutional and professional accreditation standards. The criteria for such review shall include multiple indices, and be discipline- and role-specific, as appropriate, to evaluate:

1. teaching, through student, collegial, and administrative assessment.
2. the quality of scholarly and creative performance and/or research productivity.
3. service to the profession, school and community.

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 (vita update since the last review).

The chair shall send a written summary report of the interviews to the dean for inclusion in the personnel file. That report shall include a listing of the major items of accomplishment of each faculty member and identify deficiencies, if any, for inclusion in the personnel file. An individualized copy of the report shall be sent to the faculty member, who may make a response to the dean.

C. Student Evaluations

In an attempt to chart ongoing teaching performance, student evaluations shall be administered and compiled by an impartial third party. Each year, all contract, non-tenured, and adjunct faculty members will have student evaluations administered in every course taught, and each tenured faculty member shall have student evaluations administered in at least two of the courses. 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 those specified in the review process. The summaries will be kept on file in the office of the chair.

D. Remedial Actions Based on Post-Tenure Review

If, as a result of the post-tenure review process, the faculty member is found to not be meeting the minimum standards required of a tenured member of his or her discipline, he or she is responsible for remediating the deficiencies, and both the University and College are expected to assist through developmental opportunities. A faculty member's failure to successfully remediate deficiencies may result in disciplinary action governed by due process pursuant to the standards described in PPMs 9-9 through 9-17.

PPM 3-62 PPM 3-62 Evaluation of University Personnel
Policy

It shall be the practice to evaluate all University personnel periodically.

A. The evaluation of administrators shall include (1) performance reviews: regular, low-profile reviews of incumbent administrators for essentially "formative" purposes and (2) reappointment reviews occurring near or at the end of a stated term and bearing directly on the question of continuation in office.
B. Faculty shall undergo an evaluation at least every ~~two~~ five years (see PPM 8-11).
C. Staff personnel shall be evaluated at least annually. Criteria and procedures are to be developed by the institution.
D. The evaluation of personnel may be used in the determination of salary, promotion, tenure, merit, retention, etc.

Discussion

The post tenure criteria is different from the tenure process.
The Utah Council of Faculty Senate Leaders is developing a "What is Tenure" document to help educate people to what tenure is and is not.
The above policies are in line with the Board of Regent’s post tenure policy.

Is the faculty member being evaluated at the mercy of their Department Chair? This policy sets the framework for the colleges to set up their review committees.
The Provost was troubled by the first statement in the policy. The wording was changed to read "The post-tenure review shall be based on criteria ~~different~~ separately defined from the award of tenure . . ."
Colleges cannot impose criteria that is not in the PPM.

MOTION
Julie Buck: Moved to forward to the Faculty Senate PPM 8-11 Evaluation of Faculty members and PPM 3-62 Evaluation of University Personnel as stated above with the suggested change from the Provost.
Second: Michelle Paustenbaugh
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

COAST
College of Applied Science & Technology Tenure Document addition.

With the creation of the Engineering Department, Kirk Hagen, Chair, requested an addition to the COAST P&T document.

In 1.2.5 Promotion and Tenure - Common Criteria, 1.2.5.1 Minimum Credentials Required, the addition was requested:

7. Engineering
a. Doctorate in engineering plus two years of engineering industrial experience.

The addition to the university PPM 8-11, IV. Evaluative Criteria for Academic Rank was requested:

College of Applied Science & Technology
For Telecommunications/Business Education and Computer Science, a master's degree plus five years of experience and appropriate certification; for Automotive Technology, Construction Management Technology, the Engineering Technologies and Sales and Service Technology, a master's degree plus five years of experience. For Engineering, a doctorate in engineering plus two years of engineering industrial experience. All degrees and experience must be in approved fields/competencies and at appropriate levels, as outlined in the college promotion and tenure policy.

MOTION
Michelle Paustenbaugh: Moved to forward to the Faculty Senate the above change to the College of Applied Science & Technology Tenure document.
Second: Patti Cost
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, ACADEMIC FREEDOM & TENURE – Diana Green, Chair
Replace Sally Cantwell with Melissa Neville for Spring Semester.

MOTION
Brian Rague: Moved to forward the name of Melissa Neville to replace Sally Cantwell on the APAFT Committee for Spring Semester.
Second: Patti Cost
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

GENERAL EDUCATION, IMPROVEMENT & ASSESSMENT – Michelle Paustenbaugh presenting.

Creative Arts and Humanities General Education

Foundational Principles

1) We believe the arts and humanities play a fundamental role as tools for the analysis, interpretation, creation, and expression of human ideals, challenges, and desires across cultures.

2) Perspectives from the arts and humanities apply to other academic disciplines and to society at large.

3) We value open inquiry into complex problems, and the ability to reflect on, analyze, and appreciate diverse viewpoints and schools of thought.

Although the broad foundational principles outlined above are explored in both Creative Arts and Humanities courses, important distinctions of emphasis characterize these two branches of knowledge. The specific learning outcomes for the two areas are as follows.

Creative Arts General Education Student Learning Outcomes

1) Students will create works of art and/or increase their understanding of creative processes in writing, visual arts, interactive entertainment, or performing arts.

2) Students will demonstrate knowledge of key themes, concepts, issues, terminology and ethical standards employed in creative arts disciplines. They will use this knowledge to analyze works of art from various traditions, time periods, and cultures.

Humanities General Education Student Learning Outcomes

1) Students will demonstrate knowledge of diverse philosophical, communicative, linguistic, and literary traditions, as well as of key themes, concepts, issues, terminology, and ethical standards in humanities disciplines.

2) Students will analyze cultural artifacts within a given discipline, and, when appropriate, across disciplines, time periods, and cultures.

3) Students will demonstrate the ability to effectively communicate their understanding of humanities materials in written, oral, or graphic forms.

Approved by the General Education Improvement & Assessment Committee on January 24, 2012

MOTION
Ed Hahn: Moved to forward to the Faculty Senate the Creative Arts and Humanities General Education Foundation Principles and Student Learning Outcome as stated above.
Second: Patti Cost
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

CURRICULUM – Erika Daines, Chair

Library - Course deletions for Humanities on the Internet: Culture, Content and Access - LIBS TD1115, and Library Skills Resources and Research - LIBS TD 2201

MOTION
Ed Hahn: Moved to forward to the faculty Senate the above course deletions from the Library.
Second: Michelle Paustenbaugh
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

PIPELINE
President Millner updated the Executive Committee on the Ogden City Pipeline Project.

Report

The property proposed for the pipeline is state property.
WSU is meeting with Ogden City.
The city is willing to pay for the infrastructure.
The city feels the project would respond to community needs.
The state and community would benefit from the project.
If WSU decides to develop the property in the future where should the pipeline be located?
FFKR Architects in Salt Lake were hired to verify that there was a need for the pipeline. They verified the need and suggested that the pipeline be located in a different location than was originally suggested by Ogden City.
The Environmental Committee has discussed the project. Concerns (1) Location of the pipeline, (2) Could we use this project as an educational opportunity for our students? (3) Weber State needs a restoration agreement with the city.
The project will probably move forward during the Summer.
Weber State wants to have some oversight for the project.

OMBUDSMAN
Discussion of the possibility of creating an ombudsman. Information was gathered from other universities (Idaho State, Montana State, Portland State, and Utah Valley) regarding responsibilities of ombudsman positions.

Common Elements in the Position
Ombudsmen provide information to faculty, staff and students
They do not look at faculty grievances
They are not an advocate
They don’t testify or serve as a witness
They don’t hold hearings
They advocate fairness
Resource center

Discussion

At what level do we want this to occur? Faculty.
Should or should not this person deal with issues related to tenure?
Job description?

The Executive Committee members will talk with faculty in their college and bring back information from their college regarding the role of an ombudsman.

SABBATICAL LEAVE
Sabbatical Leave Policy - The Salary, Benefits, Budget & Fiscal Planning Committee talked about sabbaticals and what kind of accountability should be in place for those taking sabbaticals.

The following information is from the Salary, Benefits, Budget & Fiscal Planning Committee.

The recommendation of the subcommittee is to follow and enforce PPM 3-25 Faculty Sabbatical Leave.

Motion by the Salary, Benefits, Budget & Fiscal Planning Committee to send the following to the Executive Committee. The policy statement is in response to charge 2: "Beginning Fall 2012 each college will report the number of sabbaticals granted for the current semester, the number of faculty returning and the number of sabbatical reports filed from the previous semester to the Salary, Benefits, Budget and Fiscal Planning Committee within 45 day of the beginning of the semester. The report ~~will then be prepared to present at the second~~ is filed with the Faculty Senate ~~meeting of the semester~~ and the individual returning from sabbatical will present their findings at a department and /or college meeting.

Current policy states that a report will be filed by the returning faculty member to the department chair, then to the Dean and then to the Provost. In some cases this is not happening. The Ad Hoc Committee would like to give faculty some incentive to turn in their report.

Discussion

The above policy would give a deadline date for the report to be filed and a centralized collection point. Currently, there is no deadline date for sabbatical reports.
The reports could be included in the TLA/TLF presentations or they could be posted online through the faculty portal. They could be filed in the Deans’ offices.
Some reports are not filed because faculty members say the project is not completed.
There needs to be some accountability.
How do you enforce?
Where does this policy need to go? Should it go to Dean’s Council?
Executive Committee members were asked to talk with faculty in the colleges:
Where should the sabbatical report be filed?
Should presentations of sabbatical reports be given in the department/college?
Should TLF be involved with sabbatical presentations?
Should the Faculty Senate Office maintain a report of those taking sabbatical leave and whether or not they have filed a report?

DEAN’S SURVEY
The Executive Committee was charged by APAFT to form an Ad Hoc Committee to look at the dean’s survey instrument. Suggestions were made for committee members. This committee would be charged with looking at the current dean’s survey instrument, and seeing if it can be improved, and if it covers all the issues. The committee should have at least one representative from each college and a dean.

ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m.