FACULTY SENATE
AGENDA
Smith Lecture Hall, WB 206-207, 3:00 p.m.
February 16, 2012

6.      Other Items

MINUTES

1.   ROLL

2.     APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

Motion: Moved to approve the minutes from the January 26, 2012 meeting.
Made: Stephen Francis
Second: Deborah Judd
Outcome: The minutes were approved.

3.     APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, ACADEMIC FREEDOM & TENURE – Diana Green, Chair

The APAFT Committee was charged with preparing a post-tenure document in line with the Board of Regents post-tenure documents. Procedures: The idea is to build a foundation and then let the colleges and department specify standards.

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 assess the tenured faculty member’s performance be based on criteria different from the award of tenure with the intent of:
     1. recognizing performance in the discipline's endeavors which demonstrates growth and development 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 teaching, scholarship, 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 Promotion and 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. Each year, all post-tenured faculty members 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.

PPM 3-62 Evaluation of University Personnel

POLICY

Discussion

• Change A, 2 by putting teaching before scholarship: communicating to the faculty member specific areas in need of improvement related to performance in teaching, scholarship, and service, and . . . This change was accepted as a friendly amendment.
  Change 1. Student Evaluations to read:
• 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 contact, 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. Each year, all post-tenured faculty members 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. 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.
• The Regents and the Legislature wanted the words "post-tenure" used in the policy.

• Is the "Remedial Actions" section based on Board of Regent’s policy? This was a section addressed by the APAFT Committee to address Weber State’s due process policy. Concerns were expressed by Senate members about this section. Faculty members will be at the mercy of their Department Chair. Is disciplinary action mentioned in the PPM? Disciplinary action is currently under "Due Process."
• There is nothing in this policy that dictates how the colleges will set up the reviews and the criteria.

PPM 8-11 Section IV - Evaluative Criteria for Academic Rank, E - Teaching, 1 - Student Evaluations Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness includes:

1. Student Evaluations

In an attempt to chart ongoing teaching performance, student evaluations shall be administered and compiled by an impartial third party in at least two of the courses that the faculty member teaches. 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 shall be kept on file in the office of the chair. In the case of the faculty member who is on tenure track or who is seeking promotion, the chair shall send to the faculty member’s professional file summaries of that faculty member’s student evaluations mentioned above, plus department averages for similar courses.

Motion by the Appointment, Promotion, Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee to approve the above changes to PPM 8-11 and PPM 3-62.
Outcome: The motion passed with 2 opposed.

College of Applied Science & Technology Tenure Document revision.

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:

Motion by the Appointment, Promotion, Academic Freedom & Tenure Committee to approve the above changes to the College of Applied Science & Technology tenure document.
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Appointment, Promotion, Academic Freedom & Tenure Committee membership change:  Replace Sally Cantwell with Melissa Neville

Motion by the Appointment, Promotion, Academic Freedom & Tenure Committee to replace Sally Cantwell with Melissa Neville.
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

4.      GENERAL EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT & ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE – Rick Ford, Chair

Revised Humanities & Creative Arts Mission Statement & Learning Outcomes

Creative Arts and Humanities General Education

Foundational Principles

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

Motion by the General Education Improvement & Assessment Committee to approve the above Creative Arts & Humanities General Education Foundational Principals and Learning Outcomes.
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

5.      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 by the Curriculum Committee to approve the course deletions from the Library as stated above.
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously

ADJOURN

The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.