Approved 10-5-00

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

TUITION INCREASE
Dee Hansen, WSUSA President has been meeting with other student body presidents on the tuition initiative, and attending the Tuition Task Force for Higher Education. UVSC, Dixie and the University of Utah are in favor of a 25% tuition increase.

The student body presidents are discussing a base tuition increase in the range of 7-10% with a financial aid component and a component for the needs of each institution, which would include an increase for faculty salaries.

APAFT
Appointment, Promotion, Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee B Frank Guliuzza, Chair.

The University Committee was approved by the Faculty Senate at the March 23, 2000 meeting. Some of the language in this document suggests an appellate body. The word Aappeal@ in the document suggests that one has the right to cross examination. The University Committee is another level of review. It is not an appellate body. Frank Guliuzza, Judith Mitchell, Kathleen Lukken and Rich Hill, have met and discussed the language. The word Aappeal@ throughout the documents have been changed to read Areview.@

PPM 8-11, III C B . . . Furthermore, after the Department Tenure Evaluation Committee, the College Tenure Evaluation Committee, and the dean have completed their respective reviews, the candidate to appeal to may request an additional review by the University Tenure Evaluation Committee. The University Committee is an appellate body which evaluates the substantive issues of teaching, scholarship, service and ethics. The University Committee shall review the files of all candidates for advancement in rank or tenure who appeal their case request such a review (see 8-19 A). The recommendation(s) of the University Committee will be forwarded to the provost. . .

IV EVALUATIVE CRITERIA FOR ACADEMIC RANK B It shall be the policy of the University to make promotions in rank to competent and deserving members of the faculty. Upon their request, faculty members will be considered for advancement in rank by the dean and the ranking tenure Evaluation Committees at the levels of the department and the college. At his or her sole discretion, the provost may review and make separate recommendations for or against a candidate=s advancement in rank. An exception is that in the event that there is a conflict among recommendations from the dean, the College Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee and the Department Ranking Tenure Evaluation committee, the provost must make a separate recommendation. Furthermore, after the Department Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee, the College Ranking Tenure Committee, and the dean have completed their respective reviews, the candidate may appeal to request an additional review by the University Tenure Evaluation Committee. The University Committee is an appellate body which evaluates the substantive issues of teaching, scholarship, service and ethics. The University Committee shall review the files of all candidates for advancement in rank or tenure who appeal their case request such a review ( see 8-19 A) The recommendation(s) of the University Committee will be forwarded to the provost.

PPM 8-19A     ACTION BY THE UNIVERSITY RANKING TENURE EVALUATION COMMITTEE B The University Ranking & Tenure Evaluation Committee shall review the files of all candidates for advancement in rank or tenure who appeal their case request it. Typically, an appeal such a request will be predicated by a disagreement in the recommendations among the Department Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee, College Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee or the Dean, although a candidate may appeal to request review by the University Committee even if there is no disagreement among the reviewers identified above.

In order to provide a context for their review, the University Committee shall have access, as needed, to the professional files submitted by candidates for promotion and tenure during the academic year from the appellee=s candidate=s college.

PPM 8-16 A     COMPOSITION AND SELECTION OF UNIVERSITY RANKING TENURE EVALUATION COMMITTEE B The University Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee shall consist of eight tenured professors representing each of the seven colleges and the library. The faculty from each college and the library will select one person to serve on the University Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee and shall select an alternate member from a different department. Persons serving on the University Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee are allowed to serve on a Department Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee or College Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee with the understanding that if a member of the University Committee is involved in a case before the Committee; is a member of a department from which a case arises; or is serving on either the Department Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee or the College Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee germane to a particular appeal review, that member shall be disqualified to hear or investigate the appeal consider the case.

DATED GUIDELINES
The following changes were made to PPM 8-12 DATED GUIDELINES FOR THE RANKING TENURE REVIEW PROCESS.

Oct 1 Annual election of the members of the college Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee (PPM 8-16) and election of the college=s representative to the University Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee (PPM 8-16A)

The Executive Committee asked Frank Guliuzza to have the APAFT Committee look at the wording in PPM 8-12, specifically, ANormally to be Completed Prior to,@ and AThe provost gives timely written notice.@

DATED GUIDELINES 2001-2001
Dated Guidelines for 2001-2002
   December 10, 2001 Peer review committee reports due.
   January 7, 2002 Candidates must complete updating their files.
   January 17, 2002 Department Ranking & Tenure review completed.
   January 28, 2002 College Ranking & Tenure review completed.
   March 1, 2002 Dean=s review completed.
   March 15, 2002 University Committee review complete
   March 29, 2002 Provost=s review complete.
   April 1, 2002 President submits to Trustees.

FACULTY EVALUATIONS
Leo Dirr requested that student evaluations of professors be compiled, rated and made available to students. He feels there should be some way of monitoring these evaluations over a period of time. He stated that in 1993 an attempt was made by Student Government to conduct a faculty evaluation by students. This attempt was not successful. He does not feel that the students= right to know should hinge on the Student Government=s ability to follow through with that process. He would like to see the evaluations open and available to everyone.

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

ATHLETIC BOARD
Allen Simkins requested Joan Thompson, and Dan Litchford to serve on the Athletic Board for a three year term, and have Sally Shigley continue to sit on the board for one more year for continuity purposes.

CURRICULUM
Copies of curriculum proposals for Faculty Senate packets vs. posting the information on the web was discussed. Bruce Christensen will work to have equipment available in WB 122 that will allow Senate members to view curriculum proposals as they are presented at the Faculty Senate meeting.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES
On September 12, 2000 the WSU Board of Trustees passed the following recommendation. AI move that Weber State University Board of Trustees recommend to the Weber State University administration that the designation of BC and AD be used to indicate dates before and after Christ, rather than BCE (before common era) and CE (common era) in all Weber State University publications.@

SUPPLEMENTAL PAY
Dave Eisler expressed his concern regarding supplementary pay in excess of PPM guidelines. He is working with faculty in the Department of Radiologic Sciences. PPM 3-50, II C states: