Faculty Senate
MINUTES 
September 21, 2000

MEMBERS - Listed Alphabetically
Eric Amsel
Rick Bingham
Sharen Brady
Delroy Brinkerhoff
Quinn Campbell - Student
Michael Cena
Bruce Christensen
Trent Cragun - Student
Erika Daines
Betty Damask-Bembenek - Excused
Karen Dewey
Gary Dohrer
Rick Dove
Anand Dyal-Chand - Admin
Dave Eisler - Admin.
Marcy Everest
Nick Ferre - Student
Ron Galli - Admin.
Dawn Gatherum
David Greene - Admin.
Frank Guliuzza - Parliamentarian
Bruce Handley
Mark Henderson
Michelle Heward
Warren Hill
Ron Holt
Joan Hubbard - Excused
Ken Johnson
Sheree Josephson
Marie Kotter
Brenda Kowalewski
Jeff Livingston
Kathleen Lukken - Admin.
Jim Macdonald - Excused
Daniel Magda
Dwayne Meadows
Chloe Merrill
Judith Mitchell - Chair
Jill Newby
Diana Page
June Phillips - Admin.
Richard Sadler - Admin. - Excused
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.
Wangari Wa Nyatetu-Waigwa
Lydia Wingate - Craig Gundy representing
Kay Brown, Secretary

1. ROLL CALL

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion: Moved to approve the minutes from the April 20, 2000 Faculty Senate meeting.
Made: Sally Shigley
Second: Wangari Wa Nyatetu-Waigwa
Outcome: The minutes were approved

3. NEW FACULTY SENATE MEMBERS B Judith Mitchell

Daniel Magda replaces Scott Amos and Michelle Heward replaces Richard Beatch.

4. AUTUMN 2000 ENROLLMENT FIGURES B President Thompson

FTE enrollment is up 6% over last year with the head count up 7%. Weber State currently has 16, 050 students enrolled.

5. HOUSING STUDY B Nandi Dyal-Chand, and President Thompson

Weber State has been looking at student housing for the past 6 years. In October of 1997 information on proposed new student housing was presented to the Faculty Senate and received broad support. If new facilities are built, they will be financed by the University through bonds.

Nandi Dyal-Chand presented material on proposed student housing. Information was provided showing the percentage of students living in campus housing at WSU (3.67%), Boise State (8%), BYU (20%), Idaho State (10%), Ricks (15%), University of Utah (10%) and Utah State (18%). Enrollment in 1964 was 6,494 with 8.59% living in campus housing. In 1968 enrollment was 10,280 with 8.54% living in campus housing. Last year we had 14,984 students enrolled with 3.67% living in campus housing.

Existing facilities are deficient in fire and seismic codes, contain no data connections, and have power outlet shortages. Construction costs to address these deficiencies would run $23,000 per bed.

The University is looking at the land south of the Dee Events Center. This is a twenty-three acre site and would accommodate 1,000 beds of apartment-style housing for single students and 600 units of family housing separated by an athletic field or park. The Wasatch, Stansbury and LaSal area is six acres and would accommodate 400 beds of single student housing or 150 family units. The student housing units would lodge four students, and contain four bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a common living and kitchen area.

The question was raised regarding the economics of competing with local housing in the Ogden area. President Thompson indicated that they are looking at student housing from an educational objective and believe they could break even on the housing and enhance learning. The University would like to attract more out of state and international students. This has been difficult to do without satisfactory student housing facilities. The University will own the property and the buildings, but the intent is to negotiate with a company to manage the units.

6. SECOND ANNUAL WILDCAT FAMILY WEEKEND B Barbara Keller, Dean of Students

The Wildcat Family Weekend is scheduled for Friday, October 20 and Saturday, October 21. All events are open to everyone, faculty, staff, students.

7. FACULTY BOARD OF REVIEW B Judith Mitchell

A recommendation from the Executive Committee to appoint Bill Clapp as Chair of the Faculty Board of Review for the 2000-2001 academic year was presented to the Faculty Senate.

Motion: Moved to approve Bill Clapp as Chair of the Faculty Board of Review for the 2000-2001 academic year.
Made: Gene Sessions
Second: Alden Talbot
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

8. FACULTY SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES B Judith Mitchell

Susan McKay will chair the Admissions, Standards and Student Affairs Committee as Georgine Bills has accepted an administrative appointment for one year in the Provost=s Office.

Motion: Moved to approve Susan McKay as Chair of the Admissions, Standards and Student Affairs Committee.
Made: Sally Shigley
Second: Gary Dohrer
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Other committee membership changes are reflected in the Faculty Senate brochure.

9. CURRICULUM AND GENERAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE B Jim Wilson, Chair

College of Social & Behavioral Sciences - Psychology new course proposal for Drugs and Behavior - Psych 3740. This course integrates the fields of abnormal and biological psychology. This course provides an in depth analysis of how drugs affect the brain and consequently behavior.

There is a similar course, Common Medicines, HthSci 1130, taught by Robert Soderberg in Health Sciences. Dr. Soderberg has no objections to this course.

Motion: Moved to approve the new course proposal from Psychology for Drugs and Behavior - Psych 3740.
Made: Sally Shigley
Second: Eric Amsel
Outcome The motion passed unanimously.

College of Applied Science and Technology - Computer Science new course proposals for Designing a Microsoft Networking and Directory Services Infrastructure - CS 3450 (CS 3450A and B), and Designing a Secure Microsoft Windows Network - CS 3460 (CS 3460A). Microsoft has released their new version of Windows. These courses incorporate the Windows update. CS 3450 provides students with the knowledge and skills necessary to design a networking services infrastructure based on the needs of an organization. CS 3460 provides students with the knowledge and skills necessary to design a security framework for small, medium, and enterprise networks by using Microsoft Windows technologies.

Motion: Moved to approve the new course proposals from Computer Science for Designing a Microsoft Networking and Directory Services Infrastructure CS 3450 (CS 3450A and B) and Designing a Secure Microsoft Windows Network -CS 3460 (CS 3460 A)
Made: Dan Schroeder
Second: Chloe Merrill
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Honors new course proposal for Human, Machine and Natural Computation - Hnrs. This course will provide Honors= students with an opportunity to learn this major area of thought. No specific prerequisite in math is required.

Motion: Moved to approve the new course proposal from Honors for Human, Machine and Natural Computation - Hnrs 3130.
Made: Gene Sessions
Second: Bruce Handley
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously

10. APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND TENURE 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 document has 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.

It is the intent of the Faculty Senate that the above changes in PPM 8-11, PPM 8-16 and PPM 8-19 apply to the tenure and promotion process for 2000-2001.

The last paragraph of PPM 9-19A states: Committee recommendations for advancement in rank, for tenure, or for making favorable progress toward tenure shall require a majority vote of the total Committee membership. A quorum, for voting purposes, shall consist of five Committee members. Individual Committee members may issue a separate dissenting or concurring evaluation, which shall be forwarded to the provost, individual members and placed in the respective candidate=s file.

It was pointed out the possibility that the quorum could consist of five committee members who would all have to vote to affirm or deny tenure. It was suggested that a simple change could be made to read. . . Committee recommendations for advancement in rank, for tenure, or for making favorable progress toward tenure shall require a majority vote of the total Committee membership.

The APAFT Committee was charged to look at the PPM and clean up the wording and to make committee names, processes and statements consistent among the various sections.

Motion: Moved to approve the recommended language changes to PPM 8-11, PPM 8-16 A, and PPM 8-19 A.
Made: Bruce Handley
Second: Jill Newby
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

The following changes were proposed for PPM 8-12 - Dated Guidelines for the Ranking Tenure Review Process. The PPM states: Normally to be Completed Prior to . . . No motion was made to change the wording.

Sept 15 The faculty in each college shall nominate individuals to go on a college wide ballot for the election of the college Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee. (PPM 8-16) The faculty shall nominate individuals for election to the University Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee. The individuals making the nominations shall check with the nominees to see if they are both willing and eligible to serve. Names of the eligible nominees shall then be forwarded to the dean for inclusion on the college ballot.

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)

Jan 15 8 The department Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee chair forwards to the candidates copies of the recommendations from the departmental faculty and informs all candidates of their right to prepare a written statement and schedule a personal appearance if desired. (Meetings must not be held prior to one week after such notice.)

Jan 22 15 The candidate may submit written statements on any information in the professional file to the department chair for placement in the candidate's professional file.

Jan 22 15 Candidates' professional files are complete and ready for review.

Feb 10 1 The department Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee chair reports the findings and recommendations of the Committee, in writing, to the candidate and sends a copy to the dean for inclusion in the candidate's file and informs the college Ranking Tenure Committee chair that the files are ready for review.

Feb 10 1 College Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee chairs shall inform candidates, in writing, that they have five (5) working days to request, in writing, a hearing before the Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee.

Feb 25 16 The college Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee completes their review of the files and makes their recommendations. The college Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee chair informs the candidates of the results of those evaluations, in writing, and sends a copy to the dean for placement in the candidates' files along with a notice that the files are ready for review (PPM 8-18).

Mar 12 5 The dean reviews the files, makes recommendations and informs the candidates, in writing, as well as places the recommendation in the candidates' files. The dean then informs the provost that the files are ready for action by the provost and also notifies the provost of those files that require action.

Mar 10 All requests for review must be submitted in writing to the University Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee.

Mar 20 The University Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee completes its review and makes its recommendations. The University Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee chair informs the candidates of the results of those evaluations, in writing and sends a copy to the various deans for placement in the candidates= files along with a notice that the files are ready for review. The chair then informs the provost that the files are ready for action by the provost.

March 20 30 The provost reviews all cases where there is a conflict in the recommendations at some level and any other cases they see fit to review. The provost then forwards a copy of the recommendations to the faculty member concerned, to the department chair, the dean and to the president, if the president desires them. The provost also notifies all candidates of their right to file an appeal on due process grounds within ten working days to the Faculty Board of Review and their right to appeal before the Board (PPMs 8-34 and 9-9).

Mar 26 31 The president or the designate forwards the recommendation to the Board of Trustees. (The provost informs faculty members, committee chairs, deans and department chairs of action taken by the Board of Trustees as soon as the Board has acted.)

It was pointed out that with the above calendar, the University Committee would be doing the bulk of its work over Spring Break. The possibility of selecting the University Committee in the Spring prior to the new academic year was discussed.

Motion: Moved to approve the above changes to PPM 8-12, Dated Guidelines.
Made: Eric Amsel
Second: Gary Dohrer
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

As now approved - 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 review, that member shall be disqualified to consider the case. (Normally by September 15.)

The following changes were proposed for the 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.

Motion: Moved to approve the changes to the Dated Guidelines for 2001-2002.
Made: Dan Schroeder
Second: Erica Daines
Outcome: The motion passed with 1 abstention.

ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 4:12 p.m.