Approved 9-6-01
Thursday
April 12, 2001
2:00 p.m.
MA 211K
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
PRESENT
Bruce Christensen, Gary Dohrer, Dave Eisler, Ron Holt, Marie
Kotter, Judy Mitchell, Dan Schroeder, Gene Sessions, Sally Shigley,
Alden Talbot, President Thompson, Kay Brown - Secretary
MINUTES
Marie Kotter: Moved to approve the minutes from the
March 22, 2001 meeting.
Second: Ron Holt
Outcome: The minutes were approved.
RSPG Gary Godfrey, Chair of the Research, Scholarship &
Professional Growth Committee reported.
Three calls for proposals were issued 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.CRAO
Jeff Eaton, Chair of the Constitutional Review, Apportionment
& Organization Committee reported on the two additional charges
given this committee.
Charge: Student representatives voting on the Faculty Senate.
Recommendation (passed unanimously by the CRAO Committee): If students are to be in attendance at the Faculty Senate, they should be permitted to vote. Issues before the faculty senate have a direct impact upon students.
The CRAO Committee felt that there was a separate issue of student proportion of votes. This could be a possible charge to the committee for the coming year.
Charge: Non-tenure track "instructors" serving on the Faculty Senate.
Recommendation (passed unanimously by the CRAO Committee): All full-time teaching faculty, whether they are tenure track or not, are counted for representation as defined in the constitution. If they are to be counted, they should have the right to serve as representatives on the Faculty Senate. This comprises over 20% of our full-time teaching staff. The CRAO Committee felt it was important that they be allowed to serve in the Faculty Senate. The general sense of the committee was that colleges have the right to elect who they wish to have as their representatives.
Approximately 22% of the faculty hold non-tenure track positions, ten full professors and one third of assistant professors are non-tenure track.
The CRAO Committee also discussed whether or not there should be some sort of residency requirement for serving on the Faculty Senate, i.e., should junior or incoming faculty be burdened with the onerous duties of Faculty Senate and committee work?
APAFT
Frank Guliuzza, Chair of the Appointment, Promotion, Academic
Freedom & Tenure Committee reported on proposed changes to PPM 8-11
Post-Tenure Review. Dr. Guliuzza met with Rick Hill, University Council,
who offered some stylistic suggestions that are reflected in the
document, two public hearings were held on April 2 and April 5.
Unfortunately not many faculty attended those public hearings. One
faculty member offered a counter proposal which he circulated to APAFT
Committee members and which he also distributed at the second hearing.
Changes made: A. Departmental Interview - (1) Changed from every three years to every two years. This allows a person to have at least a couple of reviews prior to the post-tenure review, and this change reflects what is happening in the various colleges. Every college on campus has either an annual review or a biannual review. (2) Personal file changed to professional file, and the faculty member will have an opportunity to comment on things that are included in his/her professional file. III Post-Tenure Review - Time frame is the same, areas of review are the same. B, 2 - In all cases, these materials will include the summary report of the departmental interviews, as described in 8-11 (II-A), conducted during the five year period. B,3 - They made sure the faculty member knew that they had the right to have a review by the Faculty Board of Review by cross referencing sites in the section. B, 4 - The process of establishing standards for the post-tenure review will be done at the University-wide level. Each college shall use its tenure policy to establish definitions and criteria for these ratings. B, 5 - Documentation was given its own section. C, 2, b - Added . . . 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 . . . C, 2, c - 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. Throughout the entire document language was taken out that made any reference to salary.
Proposed PPM 8-11 (Drafted 4-12-01)
I. REFERENCE
II. GENERAL EVALUATIONS
III. POST_TENURE REVIEW
IV. TENURE REVIEW
V. EVALUATIVE CRITERIA FOR ACADEMIC RANK
I. REFERENCE
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.
1. Time frame: All tenured faculty will be reviewed formally every five years (thus, approximately 20% of the tenured faculty are to be reviewed annually). The review of tenured faculty will be completed each year by November 1 (see PPM 8-12). The department chair may, when warranted by new developments, reduce the period between reviews from five years to four or three. The decision to do so must be approved by the dean, and the chair must inform the faculty member of this decision at least one year before the review is to be performed. In exceptional cases, the post-tenure review process may be temporarily suspended (one may leave and re_enter at the same point), 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 dean with a copy to the provost.2. Areas under review: Typically, a faculty member will be evaluated with regard to his or her teaching, scholarship, service and ethics. However, during a given review cycle, a faculty member may choose not to be reviewed in either scholarship or service. The faculty member should keep the department chair informed of any such decision. The reviewers will evaluate the faculty member’s work of the previous of five years. The format of the review, and the materials to be included in the review, will be established by the various departments and colleges. In all cases, these materials will include the summary report of the departmental interviews, as described in 8-11 (II-A), conducted during the five year period.
3. Reviewers: The initial review of a tenured faculty member will be conducted by the department chair with review and approval by the dean. The department chair will be reviewed by his or her dean. 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).
4. Ratings: The tenured faculty member shall receive the following ratings: Excellent, Good, Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory. Each college shall use its tenure policy to establish definitions and criteria for these ratings. The following channels designate the minimum levels of acceptable performance in the areas of evaluation.
|
Teaching
I. Good II. Good III. Satisfactory |
Scholarship
Good No rating Satisfactory |
Service
No rating Good Satisfactory |
Ethics
Ethical Ethical Ethical |
5. Documentation: At each step of the faculty member’s post-tenure-review, the reviewer(s) shall prepare a written report that summarizes the review. The report shall included a listing of the major items of accomplishment of the faculty member and identify deficiencies, if any. The reviewer(s) 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.
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 . . .
Faculty are asking what they get from tenure. The tenure myth is that tenure guarantees job permanence as well as freedom from oversight from persons who are not qualified to evaluate their courses.
Dr. Mitchell indicated that we are in compliance with Northwest under the current policy of faculty reviews.
MOTION
Gene Sessions: Moved to send PPM 8-11 Post-Tenure
Review as stated above to the Faculty Senate for the April 19,
2001 meeting.
Second: Marie Kotter
MOTION
Ron Holt: Moved to have C 2, b include the colleges as
well as the Office of Academic Affairs "to provide
resources, within reason, necessary to enable the faculty member
to improve . . ."
Second: Bruce Christensen
Outcome: The motion passed with 2 opposed.
ATHLETIC
BOARD
Sally Shigley reporting with Melissa Freigang, Associate Athletic
Director, on behalf of Lee Sather who is the Chair of the Athletic Board.
They would like the Admissions, Standards, and Student Affairs Committee
to look at changing the registration deadlines for student athletes. They
stated two issues of concern, the way practice times are scheduled and the
changes the NCAA have made concerning how they define "satisfactory
progress." Weber State has approximately 300 student athletes with
77% of the classes unavailable to them that will not conflict with
practice times. If a class does not fit the student’s plan of study
(major or minor) and show direct progress toward a degree, the course does
not count according to the NCAA and the student is not allowed to
practice.
Currently, online courses are not counted by the NCAA toward satisfactory progress because of potential for abuse. The topic of online courses is still under discussion by the NCAA. The Athletic Board is asking that the student athletes be allowed to register with seniors and graduate students.
MOTION
Sally Shigley: Moved that the Admissions, Standards, and
Student Affairs Committee take as one of their charges the
examination of student groups who are being hampered in their
satisfactory progress toward a degree by the current registration
system and how the University registration policy can be amended
to remedy that, i.e. athletes, financial aid.
Second: Marie Kotter
Outcome: The motion passed with 2 opposed.C&GE Jim Wilson, Chair of the Curriculum and General Education
Committee, reporting.
BIS
Bachelor of Integrated Studies - New course proposal for BIS
Capstone and Graduation Preparation - HISTORY 3800; BIS Program change.
The new course proposal is a one credit hour course that would prepare the
students for the capstone course.
A title change was suggested to read "Preparation for BIS Capstone and Graduation."
MOTION
Gene Sessions: Moved to forward to the Faculty Senate
for the April 19 meeting from the Bachelor of Integrated Studies
Program the new course proposal from BIS for the BIS Capstone
and Graduation Preparation - HISTORY 3800, and the program
change.
Second: Sally Shigley
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.
EDUCATION
Master of Education - New course proposal for The
World As A Classroom - MEDUC 6640. This course is designed for teachers
who have participated in significant professional development and would
like to receive credit for their experiences. A contract must be signed
and approved prior to the experience.
MOTION
Marie Kotter: Moved to forward to the Faculty Senate
for the April 19 meeting from the Master of Education Program
the new course proposal for the World as a Classroom - MEDUC
6640.
Second: Alden Talbot
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.
TEACHER
EDUCATION
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
Marie Kotter: Moved to forward to the Faculty Senate
for the April 19 meeting from Teacher Education the change to an
existing course for Assessment and Evaluation of the Gifted -
EDUC 4490/MEDUC 6490, and the course deletion for Principles of
Assessment - EDUC 4440/MEDUC 6440.
Second: Gary Dohrer
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.
COAST
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
The changes in this program are due to accreditation issues. Total hours in the program, 124.
MOTION
Alden Talbot: Moved to forward to the Faculty Senate
for the April 19 meeting from Manufacturing and Mechanical
Engineering Technology the 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; and
program change for Parson Construction Management Technology.
Second: Gary Dohrer
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.
PHYSICS
Physics - New course proposals for Introductory
Individual Research Problems - PHSX 2800, Introductory Readings in
Physics- PHSX 2830.
MOTION
Gene Sessions: Moved to forward to the Faculty Senate
for the April 19 meeting from the Physics Department the new
course proposals for Introductory Individual Research Problems -
PHSX 2800, Introductory Readings in Physics- PHSX 2830.
Second: Dan Schroeder
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.
CHEMISTRY
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
Bruce Christensen: Moved to forward to the Faculty
Senate for the April 19 meeting from the Chemistry Department
the 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.
Second: Dan Schroeder
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.
NURSING
Nursing Department - BS course proposal for Nursing
Assessment Across the Lifespan - NURSNG 3030, Nursing Assessment Across
the Lifespan - Clinical Experience - NURSNG 3031, and Guided Research -
NURSNG 4800; Diversity course proposal for Culture and Health Care -
NURSNG 4000.
Students will be guided in the development and/or critique of clinical problems. Ethical canons related to clinical research will be discussed. Design and execution of a clinical research project, participation in a faculty developed clinical research project and meta-analysis of a topic of scientific interest.
MOTION
Marie Kotter: Moved to forward to the Faculty Senate
for the April 19 meeting the BS course proposal for Nursing
Assessment Across the Lifespan - NURSNG 3030, Nursing Assessment
Across the Lifespan - Clinical Experience - NURSNG 3031, and
Guided Research - NURSNG 4800.
Second: Gary Dohrer
Outcome: The motion passed.
It was suggested that discussion take place between the Nursing Department and the Department of Sociology and Anthropology because of the similarities between the Nursing course, Culture and Health Care - NURSNG 4000 and the culture courses taught in the Sociology and Anthropology department. The diversity course proposal for Culture and Health Care - NURSNG 4000 was pulled from the packet. It will come back next fall with NURSNG 4001.
RADIOLOGY
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.
The number of credit hours is in excess of the recommendation from the Regents, however, the program proposal reflects changes to meet accreditation requirements. This is a three-year lock-step program. Dave Eisler will discuss with Mike Petersen at the Regents AAS programs requiring hours in excess of the recommended hours for an AAS degree.
MOTION
Marie Kotter: Moved to forward to the faculty Senate
for the April 19 meeting 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; New program proposals
for Radiography, Radiological Practitioner Assistant.
Second: Gene Sessions
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.
IS&T
Information Systems and Technology - Program changes
for BIS emphasis, Minor, Associate of Science, Bachelor of Science, and
Bachelor of Arts.
MOTION
Bruce Christensen: Moved to forward to the Faculty
Senate for the April 19 meeting the program changes for BIS
emphasis, Minor, Associate of Science, Bachelor of Science, and
Bachelor of Arts.
Second: Gene Sessions
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.
FOREIGN
LANGUAGE
Foreign Languages and Literatures - Program Proposal
for the European Studies Minor.
A letter was sent to all department chairs who have courses listed in the European Studies Minor (Rosemary Conover, Gary Dohrer, Hal Elliott, Bruce Handley, Rod Julander, Ron Mano, Cliff Nowell, Michael Palumbo, Ty Sanders, Lee Sather, Tony Spanos). Because of concerns expressed by Executive Committee members with regard to the conflict between some of the departments in the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences and the Foreign Language Department, it was suggested a meeting take place with department chairs whose courses are listed in the proposed minor. Jim Wilson contacted the History Department Chair and asked if an open meeting had taken place. The open meeting did not take place. Those opposed to the European Studies minor met and worked on an alternative proposal. The History Department Chair was told that there is a proposal on the table and it was hoped that they would work toward reconciliation rather than the College of Social & Behavioral Sciences working on their own proposal. The College of Social & Behavioral Sciences did not want to meet with Foreign Languages until they had an alternative proposal in hand.
Just prior to this Executive Committee meeting the Curriculum Committee Chair found in his mailbox an alternative proposal from the College of Social & Behavioral Sciences for two tracks to the European Studies Minor, one with the foreign language requirement, and one without the foreign language requirement which also dropped the Foreign Language an Culture requirement within the core. The essential elements included geography, political science, and history in the core with the same electives as the proposal from Foreign Languages.
The options of the Executive Committee are: (1) Send the proposal from Foreign Languages forward to the Faculty Senate, let it be debated on the Senate floor and voted up or down. (2) Hold the proposal until next fall with the understanding that the History Department has an alternative proposal that will go to the Curriculum Committee. Two very similar minors would then be allowed to proceed through the curriculum process.
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.
The Executive Committee discussed at length the two precedents. (1) One department allowed to hold another department hostage. (2) Departments own their courses and other department cannot use their courses without permission.
On the information page of the program proposal it states, "Explain how this program will differ from similar offerings by other departments. Also explain any effects this proposal will have on program requirements or enrollments in other departments. In the case of similar offerings or affected programs, you should include letters from the departments in question stating their support or opposition to the proposed program."
In November, 2001 an initial draft of the Western European Studies minor was sent to all chairs whose departments offered pertinent courses within the proposed program. The History Department suggested the proposal encompass all of Europe. The proposal was changed to a European Studies minor rather than a Western European Studies minor. A few weeks later the Foreign Languages Department was informed that the language requirement was objectionable to the History Department. Foreign Languages requested that the two department meet to work out a compromise. Several requests were made to meet, but no meetings took place. Foreign Languages decided to send their proposal to the Curriculum & General Education Committee for the March meeting.
MOTION TO
TAKE OFF THE
TABLE
Alden Talbot: Moved to take off the table the motion to
forward to the Faculty Senate the program proposal for the
European Studies Minor.
Second: Gary Dohrer
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION
Gary Dohrer Moved to forward to the Faculty Senate for
the April 19 meeting from Foreign Languages and Literature the
program proposal for European Studies Minor.
Second: Alden Talbot
Outcome: The motion passed with 1 opposed.
PROPOSED FACULTY SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES FOR 2001-02
ACADEMIC RESOURCES AND COMPUTING COMMITTEE 2001-2002
| Three Year Term | Two Year Term | One Year Term |
| Richard
Bingham, HP Jeff Davis, B&E Becky Jo McShane, A&H John Lamborn, Lib |
Ken Cuddeback, COAST George Kvernadze, S Pat Logan, B&E Vicki Napper, Ed |
Richard Hooper,
S&BS Laura MacLeod, COAST Dale Ostlie, S Laurie Fowler, S&BS |
Chair: Dale Ostlie Liaison: Bruce Christensen
ADMISSIONS, STANDARDS, AND STUDENT AFFAIRS 2001-2002
| Three Year Term | Two Year Term | One Year Term |
| Georgine Bills, HP Verne Hansen, COAST Karen Nakaoka, HP Jeff Stokes, A&H |
Tony Allred, B&E Mark Bigler, S&BS Erika Daines, A&H Mongkol Tugmala, Ed |
Art
Carpenter, Lib Dawn Gatherum, S Diana Green, COAST Susan McKay, A&H |
Chair: Susan McKay Laison: Marie Kotter
APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, ACADEMIC FREEDOM, AND TENURE 2001-2002
| Three Year Term | Two Year Term | One Year Term |
| Sally
Shigley, A&H Eric Amsel, S&BS Pat Shaw, HP Steve Stuart, COAST |
Andy Drake, COAST Linda Oda, Ed John Sohl, S Doris Geides Stevenson, B&E |
Joann Hackley, HP Judith Mitchell, Ed Jill Newby, Lib Diane Pugmire, S |
Chair: John Sohl Liaison: Gary Dohrer
CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW, APPORTIONMENT, AND ORGANIZATION 2001-200
| Three Year Term | Two Year Term One | Year Term |
| Laura Anderson, COAST Jeff Eaton, S Thom Kearin, S&BS Bob Mondi, A&H |
Dave Durkee, B&E Dave Hart, COAST Karen Moloney, A&H Pam Rice, HP |
Jerry Borup,
S&BS Evan Christensen, Lib Tamas Szabo, S Afshin Ghoreishi, S |
Chair: Jeff Eaton Liaison: Monika Serbinowska
CURRICULUM AND GENERAL EDUCATION 2001-2002
| Three Year Term | Two Year Term | One Year Term |
| Allyson Saunders, COAST John Mull, S Rob Reynolds, S&BS Lon Addams, B&E Jim Wilson, S |
Bill Hoggan, COAST Wade Kotter, Lib Diane Krantz, A&H Molly Smith, Ed |
Bryan
Dorsey, S&BS Rick Ford, S Linda Forest, HP Wangari Wa Nyatetu-Waigwa, A&H |
Chair: Jim Wilson Liaison: Bill Clapp
FACULTY BOARD OF REVIEW 2001-2002
| Two Year Term | One Year Term Alternates |
| Bill Clapp, COAST Linda Eaton, S&BS Paul Joines, A&H Diane Kawamura, HP |
Chair: Bill Clapp
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Three will be elected to serve for a two year term. 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
| One Year Term |
| Rosemary Conover, S&BS Bruce Handley, B&E Yas Simonian Erik Stern, A&H |
Chair: Yas Simonian Liaison: Mark Henderson
SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN 2001-2002
Colleen Garside
RESEARCH, SCHOLARSHIP, AND PROFESSIONAL GROWTH 2001-2002
| Three Year Term | Two Year Term | One Year Term |
| Brooke Arkush, S&BS George Comber, COAST David Sumner, A&H _____________, Ed |
Brad Carroll, S Suzanne Kanatsiz, A&H Ruby Licona, Lib Daniel Magda, COAST |
Bill
Allison, S&BS Kathy Culliton, HP Diane Horne, S Cliff Nowell, B&E |
Chair: Cliff Nowell Liaison: Ron Holt
SALARY, BENEFITS, BUDGET, AND FISCAL PLANNING 2001-2002
| Three Year Term | Two Year Term | One Year Term |
| Pam
Hugie, HP Al Talbot, COAST Joan Thompson, Ed Shi–hwa Wang, A&H |
Kent
Kidman, S Craig Oberg, S John Sillito, Lib |
Wynn Harrison,
HP David Lynch, S&BS EK Valentin, B&E |
Chair: Craig Oberg Liaison: Gene Sessions
TEACHING, LEARNING, AND ASSESSMENT 2001-2002
| Three Year Term | Two Year Term | One Year Term |
| Claudia
Eliason, Ed Michelle Heward, S&BS Pat McFerson, COAST Chris Trivit, S |
Fran Butler, Ed Vel Casler, COAST Vicki Ramirez, A&H Scott Wright, HP |
Mark
Biddle, A&H Shaun Spiegel, Lib Taowen Le, B&E Robert Wadman, S&BS |
Chair: Kathy Herndon, A&H Liaison: Monica Mize
MOTION
Gene Sessions: Moved to approve the above committee
assignments for the 2001-2002 academic year.
Second: Bruce Christensen
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.