Eric Amsel
Rick Bingham
Sharen Brady
Delroy Brinkerhoff
Quinn Campbell - Student
Michael Cena
Bruce Christensen
Trent Cragun - Student - Excused
Erika Daines
Betty Damask-Bembenek
Karen Dewey
Gary Dohrer
Rick Dove
Anand Dyal-Chand - Admin
Dave Eisler - Admin. - Excused
Marcy Everest
Nick Ferre - Student - Excused
Ron Galli - Admin.
Dawn Gatherum
David Greene - Admin
Frank Guliuzza - Parliamentarian
Bruce Handley
Mark Henderson - Excused
Michelle Heward
Warren Hill
Ron Holt
Joan Hubbard - Excused
Ken Johnson - Excused
Sheree Josephson
Marie Kotter
Brenda Kowalewski
Jeff Livingston
Kathleen Lukken - Admin. - Excused
Jim Macdonald - Excused
Daniel Magda
Dwayne Meadows
Chloe Merrill - Richard Blake representing
Judith Mitchell - Chair
Jill Newby
Diana Page
June Phillips - Admin.
Richard Sadler - Admin.
Dan Schroeder
Randy Scott
Monika Serbinowska
Gene Sessions
Debbie Sheldon - Student
Sally Shigley
Mohammad Sondossi
Timothy Steele
Mali Subbiah
Alden Talbot, Vice Chair
President Paul Thompson - Admin.
Jennifer Turley
Michael Vaughan - Admin. - Excused
Wangari Wa Nyatetu-Waigwa
Lydia Wingate
Kay Brown, Secretary

1. ROLL CALL

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion: Moved to approve the minutes from the September 21, 2000 meeting.

Made: Alden Talbot
Second: Sally Shigley
Outcome: The minutes were approved.

PROGRESS REPORT ON DIVERSITY – Forrest Crawford, Assistant to the President for Diversity

In 1991 President Thompson established the office of Assistant to the President for Diversity. Several important developments have taken place to move this campus toward achieving full diversity as a centralized core value of institutional governance. The 1991 report identified important recommendations for the University to create an infrastructure to absorb and manage diversity issues. Three major areas were highlighted: General Activities, Diversity Action Teams, and an annual Diversity Conference.

General Activities include the 1991 Ad-Hoc Report, the 1999 Unity Task Force Report, The Summer Inquiry 2000 and Leadership and Technical Assistance.

Diversity Action Teams involving Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, Information Technology, University Relations, and Administrative Services have been developed where management and staff actively participate in diversity concerns and discuss opportunities for organized planning and reporting.

The Second Annual Diversity Conference took place October 13, 2000 with Martin Luther King III as a keynote speaker. The Diversity Conference will take place each year during the third week of October as a way to underscore and communicate to the local community the University’s efforts on diversity.

CURRICULUM & GENERAL EDUCATION – Jim Wilson, Chair

Bachelor of Science course proposal from the English Department for Introduction to the Study of Language - Engl 3010. Students must analyze and categorize data from languages unknown to them, as well as from English. They must formulate hypotheses based on this analysis and categorization, test those hypotheses and refine or reject them based on additional data, draw conclusions based on their observations, and make predictions based on those conclusions.

Motion: Moved to approve the Bachelor of Science course proposal from the English Department for Introduction to the Study of Language - Engl 3010.
Made: Alden Talbot
Second: Dan Schroeder
Outcome: The motion passed with 1 opposed.

New course proposal from Zoology for Tropical Marine Ecology - Zool 4490. We do not currently offer a course that considers tropical marine ecosystems in depth. These ecosystems are unique in their structure and function and important because of their tremendous diversity, importance for fisheries, role in the global atmospheric and environmental processes.

Questions were raised by the Botany Department: (1) Why this course is being put through as a new course rather than a topics course; and (2) Why Botany 3523 - Marine Biology was not included as a prerequisite. Dwayne Meadows addressed the two questions. The course is being offered through Study Abroad. Pay for teaching the course will be based on the number of students enrolled in the course. The department plans on offering the course every year. The Zoology Department felt their prerequisites were in line with similar offerings at other universities. The course requires Zool 1110, 1120 and 3450, and the Zoology Department felt that requiring a fourth prerequisite was burdensome.

Motion: Moved to approve the new course proposal from Zoology for Tropical Marine Ecology - Zool 4490.
Made: Mike Cena
Second: Jill Newby
Outcome: The motion passed with 1 abstention.

Program change from Geoscience for the Certificate in Geomatics. The proposed revision to the Geomatics certificate program expands and refines the list of support courses in the computer science and information technology areas, and is designed to provide students with more flexible options that reflect the rapidly changing nature of computer applications.
Motion: Moved to approve the change from Geoscience for the Certificate in Geomatics.
Made: Gary Dohrer
Second: Karen Dewey
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

RELEASE OF FACULTY EVALUATIONS.

A Weber State student requested from President Thompson a release of student evaluations of faculty. Initially the request was for two or three years of data. Faculty evaluations are kept in the department of faculty and are eventually returned to faculty members. In the discussion the student consented to being content with current, Fall 2000 and Spring 2001 evaluations. Students are interested in whether or not a professor is effective and whether or not a course is an effective course.

There is precedence in our state as the University of Utah, Utah State and Southern Utah University release data on two questions, one dealing with the course and the other question dealing with the instructor.

The following information was presented to the Faculty Senate:

PROCESS FOR POSTING FACULTY EVALUATION DATA

1. Current policy and practice (PPM 8-11) regarding faculty evaluations will be followed.

2. A generic faculty evaluation form including two standard questions will be distributed this Fall to all departments. Departments can use the generic evaluation form from the Faculty Senate Office or add the two standard questions to their department faculty evaluation form. The two standard questions will be identified to the students as the questions from which data will be compiled and the results made available.

3. The evaluation data from the two standard questions will be released by class, listing instructors.

4. A full distribution of student responses to the two standard questions will be released.

5. The distribution of the results from the two standard questions will be included in the tenure and promotion process.

6. Data from Fall and Spring Semester evaluations will be compiled through the Institutional Research Office and made available at the Reserve Desk in the Library.

STANDARD QUESTIONS

Data from the following two questions will be compiled and released.

1. Overall this course was (1) ineffective (2) less than effective (3) satisfactory (4) effective (5) very effective

2. Overall this instructor was (1) ineffective (2) less than effective (3) satisfactory (4) effective (5) very effective

Richard Hill, University Council, presented historical information on GRAMA (Government Records Access Management Act). As a public university, Weber State is subject to the Government Records Access Management Act. The act defines records as basically any document that is created, maintained or received by state agencies. There is no question about the applicability of the Government Records Act to student evaluations. The question is whether the University is legally authorized to classify those documents in a way that will restrict disclosure. The Government Records Act sets up a series of designations with different kinds of records. Private Records - These records can only be disclosed to the subject of the record or in a court order. Protected Records - This is a higher level of protection and in some cases the subject cannot have access to the records.

When the original request came to the University, the request was reviewed by the University Records Officer, Bob Deboer. The student evaluations were restricted from access and disclosure to third parties. The grounds to that restriction were based on the grounds that the information was considered to be private under one of the sections of the code which covers personnel evaluations as well as an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The information was also designated as protected under another section which applies specifically to tenure and promotion files in educational institutions. The request was, therefore, denied initially on those grounds. The student appealed and the President then considered the appeal. The President’s job on appeals is not so much to look at the technical and legal classifications of the records as it is to weigh the public interest in disclosure vs. the private interest in restricting access.

If the appeal were to be denied then the student would have the right to request a hearing before the State Records Committee, which is an administrative body designated to hear such appeals. The State Records Committee looks at the question of whether the classifications were appropriate as well as look at the public interest in disclosure vs. private interest in restricting access. The State Records Committee can override the decision of the University based on a legitimate classification if they decide that it is in the public interest. The University then has the right to a review at the District Court level.

President Thompson indicated that there was a previous request for a release of information regarding the 1999 student elections. Those who were managing the student elections determined that there was some fraud. The University canceled that election and held a second election by the old method. The Signpost requested the information on the results of the first election. The University denied the request. Eventually the Attorney General was involved in helping Weber State investigate that election. The Attorney General directed Weber State not to release the results of the first election. That denial was taken to the State Records Committee. They heard the appeal, upheld the appeal and directed Weber State to release the information within 30 days. The State Records Committee almost always upholds the appeal to release the records. If Weber State rejects the current request for release of faculty evaluations, there is a reasonable chance that the State Records Committee will uphold the appeal and direct Weber State to release the information.

Motion: Moved to approve the Process for Posting Faculty Evaluations and the Standard Questions as written and presented to the Faculty Senate.
Made: Gene Sessions
Second: Alden Talbot

Utah Code, section 63-2-302 refers to "private records." The following records are "private," . . . "including performance evaluations . . . " Protected Records refer to "Records of a public institution of higher education regarding tenure evaluations, appointments, application for admission, retention decisions for promotion . . . "

Currently the PPM requires two evaluations.

The Faculty Senate discussed item number five: "The distribution of the results from the two standard questions will be included in the tenure and promotion process."

The Faculty Senate had a lengthy discussion on the obligation of the University to furnish this information to students, the consequences to faculty, and why it would be in Weber State’s best interest to adopt the policy of making available to the public faculty evaluations. Dialog continued on the public’s right to know vs. the individual’s right to privacy.

Also discussed was the student’s right to conduct, collect, analyze, evaluate, and publish their own data on faculty.

Utah State University had some tenure decisions to make several years ago. There was a request under GRAMA to gain access to letters that were written and included in a tenure file. That request was denied by Utah State University. It went to the State Records Committee and the State Records Committee upheld the request to release the information requested.

Concern was expressed that by releasing information from two standard questions, the University would change the "restrictive classification" so that Weber State could no longer retreat back and take the position that these are the kind of data that are "private" and "protected" and they are not for public dissemination. Richard Hill stated that responding to the request would reflect a new procedure by the University. However, the proposal mainly addresses two standard questions, and, therefore, Richard Hill did not agree that if this proposal passed it would mean that all student evaluation data would become available or that it changed the nature of review. These are two new questions to be added to the evaluations.

President Thompson indicated that the critical issue is, if the University turns down the student request and the student appeals the denial, and the State Records Committee upholds the request, Weber State will then have to find that information. We can structure the information that will be made available to the public or we can be ordered by the State Records Committee to release all information from the past two years. President Thompson feels that the University is better off going forward with a couple of questions addressing students’ concerns beginning this fall rather than having to go back two or three years and gathering data from past evaluations.

How much do we want to pay for the fight? Not just what it would cost to pay attorneys, but in publicity and what ends up on the front pages of the Standard Examiner and the Salt Lake Tribune. How much difficulty do we want to endure?

On the other hand, concern was expressed about rushing to a conclusion and making a quick decision. Some would like to see this request run its course including having the appeal go to the State Records Committee to be reviewed according to the GRAMA Act.

Three sister institutions release data on student evaluations of faculty. Fighting this request could create bad press for Weber State. The questions asked on the student evaluations of the other state institutions are very similar to the proposed two questions recommended by the Executive Committee.

Should Weber State be afraid to take the lead and not necessarily follow the other institutions? Perhaps someone needs to take a stand that this is a privacy issue, an internal issue, and students will not receive valuable information.

Discussion also included, "Where does the burden of proof lie?"

Previous Question: Mike Cena (This motion closes debate.)
Outcome: The motion failed with less than a 2/3 vote in favor of the motion.

The question was raised as to whether or not the student request should have been referred to the APAFT Committee to discuss and make a recommendation to the Faculty Senate rather than have the proposed process come from the Executive Committee.

This is a public institution. We cannot make our institution a private institution. Our classrooms are open. What we do in our classrooms is subject to scrutiny by everyone. We have no right to shut the door on what happens in the classroom.

Many felt that more discussion between faculty needed to take place and that there was compelling interest on both sides.

Motion to Table: Michelle Heward (Motion to put aside the pending question until the next Faculty Senate meeting on November 16, 2000.)
Second: Sharen Brady
Outcome: The motion passed with a majority vote in favor of the motion.

ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 4:38 p.m.