Faculty Senate MINUTES March 27

Faculty Senate
MINUTES
March 27, 2003

MEMBERS - Listed Alphabetically
Tony Allred
Donavan Aoki - Student
Lee Badger
Brody Barnes - Student
Rick Bingham
Lloyd Burton
Paul Caldarella
Bill Clapp - Vice Chair - Al Talbot representing
Roger Crockett
Gary Dohrer - Chair
Anand Dyal-Chand - Admin
Dave Eisler - Admin - Excused
Ann Ellis
Al Forsyth
Ron Galli - Admin.
Colleen Garside - Parliamentarian
Dawn Gatherum
Richard Greene
Cheryl Hansen
Laird Hartman - Rene Weston-Eborn representing
Michelle Heward
Warren Hill - Admin.
Ron Holt - Absent
Joan Hubbard - Excused
Pam Hugie
Christopher Jones
Sheree Josephson
Diane Kawamura
Marie Kotter
Kathleen Lukken - Admin.
Marek Matyjasik
Laura MacLeod
Susan Matt - Gene Sessions representing
Susan McKay
Kirby McMaster - Kent Weaver representing
Chloe Merrill
President Millner - Excused
Kathy Payne - Wade Kotter representing
Steve Peterson
June Phillips Admin
Kyle Poll - Student
Jared Prisbrey - Student
Jack Rasmussen - Admin
Richard Sadler - Admin.
Dan Schroeder
Monika Serbinowska
Rick Sline - Becky Johns representing
Molly Smith - Monica Mize representing
Erik Stern - Dave Feller representing
Mali Subbiah
Chris Trivett-Russin
Betty Tucker
Michael Vaughan - Admin.
Huiying Wei-Arthus - Excused
Lydia Wingate - Admin
Yu-Jane Yang
Kay Brown, Secretary

2003-04 Senators
Jay Barton - Absent
Gary Dohrer
Rick Ford
Laruen Fowler
Dawn Gatherum
Richard Greene
Sue Harley
Becky Johns
Wade Kotter
Diane Leggett - Absent
Matt Mouritsen
Paul Schvaneveldt
David Sumner - Merlin Cheney representing
Yu-Jane Yang

1. ROLL CALL

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion: Moved to approve the minutes from the February 20, 2003 Faculty Senate meeting.
Made: Lydia Wingate
Second: Warren Hill

Amended Motion: Remove from item 9, Faculty Evaluations, third paragraph, the sentence, ~~"If approved by UIA it will go to the Legislature."~~

Made: Brody Barnes
Second: Kyle Poll
Outcome: The amended motion passed.

Main Motion: The minutes were approved

3. UAAP FACULTY GOVERNANCE AWARD – Presented by Richard Alston

In October 1998 the Weber State Chapter of the Utah Association of Academic Professionals (UAAP) donated funds returned to them when the UAAP disbanded. These funds were set up in an endowment from which the interest income would fund an annual UAAP Faculty Governance Award and stipend. The original check was issued in the amount of $17,628.65 to establish the endowment.

The award was designed to recognize faculty who have led efforts to improve faculty governance at Weber State.

Criteria: Members of the Faculty Senate will nominate current faculty for the Faculty Governance Award. Nominations should include a written statement indicating:

the committees that the nominee has worked on,

accomplishments that the committees have made during the nominee’s tenure on the committee,

the role that the nominee played in those accomplishments, and their service to the committee and the university

membership on standing committees and the role played on those committees and

other information that is pertinent to the nominee’s service to faculty.

Nominees were solicited and reviewed. The awardee was selected by Executive Committee members.

This year’s recipient was Rosemary Conover. Since coming to Weber State in 1970, Dr. Conover has been a significant role model for female faculty members who aspire to major faculty leadership positions, as she was the first female chair of the Faculty Senate (1985-87). Rosemary has also provided an extraordinary amount of service to this institution, having served on virtually every major Faculty Senate committee.

4. ELECTION OF FACULTY SENATE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR

Faculty Senate Chair election - Tony Allred, Dawn Gatherum, Sue Harley and Diane Kawamura removed their names from the ballot. Senators for the 2003-04 academic year cast their ballots. The remaining names on the ballot were: Bill Clapp, Michelle Heward, Becky Johns, Wade Kotter, and Molly Smith. Michelle Heward was elected Faculty Senate Chair for 2003-04.

Faculty Senate Vice Chair election - Dawn Gatherum, Sue Harley, and Diane Kawamura removed their names from the ballot. Senators for the 2003-04 academic year cast their ballots. The remaining names on the ballot are: Tony Allred, Bill Clapp, Becky Johns, Wade Kotter, and Molly Smith. Tony Allred was elected Faculty Senate Vice Chair for 2003-04.

Ron Holt and Mali Subbiah served as election tellers.

5. SALARY, BENEFITS, BUDGETS AND FISCAL PLANNING COMMITTEE – Alden Talbot, Chair

With these requests in mind, the Salary, Benefits, Budget, and Fiscal Planning Committee recommends to the Faculty Senate:

Accept from the administration the 2 percent salary increase to base salaries across the board based on satisfactory performance.
Maintain current benefit levels for medical and dental coverage.
Ask the Deans of the respective colleges to look for moneys to alleviate special equity problems within their colleges and for awarding special merit.

The question was raised about where WSU faculty salaries are as compared with CUPA. Currently faculty salaries are at 86.44% of CUPA comparisons.

Motion: Moved to approve from the Salary, Benefits, Budget and Fiscal Planning Committee the above salary recommendations.
Made: Dawn Gatherum
Second: Michelle Heward
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

6. CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW, APPORTIONMENT, AND ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE – Tamas, Szabo, Chair

PPM 1-13, ARTICLE XIII. AMENDMENTS

Section 1. The Amending Process

These Bylaws may be amended by a two-thirds majority vote of the Faculty Senate present and eligible to vote at a regular Senate meeting, but a proposal to amend the Bylaws may not be voted upon at the meeting at which it is first moved.

Today will be the first reading of the recommendation.

The CRAO Committee unanimously recommends to establish as a permanent standing committee of the Faculty Senate Online Instruction and Distance Learning.

PPM 1-13 - CONSTITUTIONAL BYLAWS OF THE WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY FACULTY GOVERNMENT

ARTICLE B-V. COMMITTEES OF THE FACULTY SENATE

It is proposed that the Faculty Senate Bylaws be amended to include the following after section 4.6:

4.7 Committee for Online Instruction and Distance Learning

The Committee for Online Instruction and Distance Learning shall review, update, and evaluate policies and procedures for online and distance learning courses.

This committee’s membership shall include at least one representative from each organizational unit, WSU Online and the Department of Continuing Education.

Speaking against the recommendation - This committee while appropriate as an ad hoc committee is outside the cluster of what we normally do as Senate committees. When this committee was established two years ago, it was because there were some immediate questions that needed some answers. Those questions were written up as charges for this group. They felt those charges have now been completed Some of the concerns of this committee now need to be handled by the academic Deans and the Provost.

A faculty Senate Committees should not be over academic instruction. This committee has set in motion peer review and quality of online courses. The committee should not talk about how many students should be in an online course, what kind of compensation should be available to those who teach. Those are questions that should be handled in the academic arena, not in a Faculty Senate over-site committee.

In the future will some of the charges of this committee create some redundancy with the work of other committees? Eventually nearly all of the courses that are taught will have some elements of technology for online delivery. Will this create some overlap with the Curriculum and General Education Committee and the Teaching and Learning Forum?

The sentence that describes the committee’s role states: "The Committee for Online Instruction and Distance Learning shall review, update, and evaluate policies and procedures for online and distance learning courses." That does indicate an overlap of what some of the other committees are doing. This policy would treat online courses differently from classroom instruction. Should we not be working toward having the same policies toward online courses that apply to classroom instruction?

Salary issues should be handled by the Salary Committee, curriculum issues by the Curriculum Committee, standard issues by the Standard Committee, and administrative issues by the Administration.

Speaking in favor of the recommendation - The chair of the Online and Distance Learning Ad Hoc Committee indicated that all of the charges have not been completed. This committee has been approached by Todd Nilsen’s office to possibly take on the Teach Act in making sure that online classes meet the Teach Act, which is the copyright law. They have also been asked to take on working with refueling new courses.

The Online and Distance Learning Ad Hoc Committee has not had as part of their charges, compensation, and number of students allowed to register for a course.

Charges - They are developing a global evaluation form, which was piloted last summer. They have revisited the Online Guidelines. As a result of that, they have developed a course review document to help them develop courses for WSU Online. Future plans are to interface with the Teaching and Learning Forum to help faculty become familiar with how to develop a course for online instruction. They are looking at accreditation issues associated with online instruction. Currently faculty do not have a way of using online course evaluations for promotion and tenure.

The charges of the committee are set each year by the Executive Committee and approved by the Faculty Senate.

PPM 1-13 Article B-V Section 6 - Establishment of Ad Hoc Committees

"Ad hoc committees are appointed by the Faculty Senate in those instances where a committee is needed to carry out a specific function and none of the existing committees is in a position to accept the responsibility. The composition and powers of such committees will be recommended by the Executive Committee and approved by the Senate. Ad hoc committees continue to function until they have completed their assigned task or until the end of the current academic year, whichever comes first. Ad hoc committees may be reappointed for a second academic year if they have not completed their assigned task. If the task of an ad hoc committee is such that it cannot be completed within a two-year period, consideration should be given to requesting the Faculty Senate to establish the committee as a permanent committee."

The next reading of this recommendation will be presented at the April 24 Faculty Senate meeting.

7. APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, ACADEMIC FREEDOM, AND TENURE COMMITTEE – John Sohl, Chair

College of Science tenure document was distributed and discussed. The statement under III. Evaluation, B. 3, last sentence, "A candidate should not expect a committee to take into account information that is not well-documented in the file." was discussed. PPM 8-14 states, "Decisions made regarding the advancement in rank or the awarding of tenure of a candidate will be based on information contained in their professional file, as well as all other relevant information brought to the attention of reviewers at any stage of the review process. . . " This statement from PPM 8-14 and the statement highlighted above from the College of Science tenure document give different impressions. The College of Science expects the candidate to produce a complete file. A suggestion was made to state positively rather than negatively the above highlighted sentence. Dean Warren Hill was concerned about the wording of the sentence under discussion, and asked if the wording could be changed as a nonsubstantive item.

Motion: Moved to approve the College of Science tenure document.
Made: Dawn Gatherum
Second: Dan Schroeder
Outcome: The motion passed with18 in favor, 16 opposed and 2 abstentions

PPM 8-16 - Composition and Selection of College Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee

The College Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee shall consist of four tenured full professors from different departments in the college and three tenured full professors from outside the college. Where reasonably possible, each member from the college should be from a different department. five tenured full professors from within the college and two tenured full professors from outside the college. Where reasonably possible, each member should be from a different department. All members are to be elected from a slate of candidates nominated by the faculty within the college from a pool of all tenured full professors from across the University who are willing to serve. The faculty may nominate as many candidates as it chooses from eligible members. The faculty making the nomination shall check on the eligibility and willingness to serve of the nominees and forward their names to the dean for placement on the ballot. The ~~three~~ two outside members may not ~~all~~ both come from the same college. Persons serving on a college committee are not allowed to serve on a department Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee within that college. (See PPM 8-15)

Professors serving on these Committees come from a University-wide pool from which the ~~three~~ two external Committee members shall be elected. In the event that any of the ~~three~~ two receiving the highest number of votes becomes unable to serve, the individual receiving the next highest number of votes is elected and so on until ~~all three~~ both individuals have been elected.

First paragraph , "five tenured full professors from within the college . . . " was discussed. Do they have to be full professors? There is going to be a smaller percentage of full professors on this campus because of the new timetable for tenure and promotion. In the future this could be a charge for the APAFT Committee to review whether all the members of the committee need to be full professors. Is it wrong to have junior faculty involved in the promotion of faculty?

The University Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee does not review all cases. By removing all outside faculty members you lose that broader perspective.

PPM 8-16a - Composition and Selection of College Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee

The chair of the University Committee shall be recommended from that committee’s members by the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate. The Faculty Senate shall then approve or reject the recommendation. If rejected, the Faculty Senate may either select a different chair from among the University Committee’s members or have the Executive Committee make a new recommendation.

PPM 8-19a Action by the University Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee

The University Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee shall review the files of all candidates for advancement in rank or tenure who request it. Typically, 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 request review by the University Committee even if there is no disagreement among the reviewers identified above.

In making tenure reviews, the University Committee shall review and evaluate the candidate’s materials based on the tenure documents of the candidate’s college. 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 candidate's college.

The University Committee shall inform the Provost of its recommendations adding its own evaluation. The University Committee shall also send copies of its recommendations to the department chair and candidate. The chair shall send the report to the dean for inclusion in the candidate's professional file.

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.

If three or more cases are forwarded to the University Committee the committee shall have the option of consulting with the provost to extend the deadline listed in the dated guidelines (PPM 8-12). It is expected that this will only be

done if the existing time frame is inadequate to insure a fair and impartial evaluation of all candidates requesting review. Any such extension must allow sufficient time for the provost’s review of the candidate.

Friendly Amendment:
Strike the last paragraph in PPM 8-19a as stated above. This information is covered in PPM 8-12.

Motion: Moved to approve the above changes to PPM 8-16, 8-16a, 8-19, and 8-20 as stated above.
Made: Warren Hill
Second: Lydia Wingate
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

8. ADMISSIONS, STANDARDS AND STUDENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE – Erika Daines, Chair

PPM 4.1.I Graduation Standards

E. Requirements for Double Majors

1. Students may pursue two different baccalaureate majors simultaneously by declaring a major in each academic department. A student may be allowed to pursue a double major within a single academic department (i.e. Foreign Languages, Performing Arts) at the discretion of the department.

2. One diploma (B.S. or B.A.) listing both majors will be awarded.. The student must choose to fulfill the general requirements for either a bachelor of science or bachelor of arts degree, and the requirements for both majors must be satisfied accordingly.

3. If either or both of the two declared majors requires a minor program of study, that requirement is waived , unless the number of additional hours required for the second major is less than 15 semester credit hours. If a student later decides to complete only one of the two major programs, any minor requirements are reinstated.

4. The requirements for both majors must be completed when the student files for graduation. If a student decides to graduate with a single major and to continue work towards the second major at a later time, the policy and regulations concerning a Second Baccalaureate Degree (PPM 4.1.IV.) will then apply.

PPM 4-1.IV. - Second Baccalaureate Degree

A. A minimum of 30 semester (45 quarter) credit hours in residence at Weber State University must be completed. Military credit, special examination, experiential credits and credits awarded by department decision do not qualify for resident hours.

B. Credits earned for the second baccalaureate degree must be in addition to and separate from credits applied to the first baccalaureate degree. The additional 30 semester credit hours may be completed in conjunction with or after the completion of requirements for the first baccalaureate degree. ~~All requirements for the second major or minor must be satisfied.~~

C. A minor is not required for a second baccalaureate degree unless specified by the department.

The redline sentence in item B was proposed by Dean Vaughan as a friendly amendment for clarification of the policy.

Motion: Moved to approve PPM 4.1.I Graduation Standards, and Second Baccalaureate Degree as stated above.
Made: Cheryl Hansen
Second: Tony Allred
Outcome: The motion passed with 1 abstention.

PPM 4-19 - Grading Policies

B. Reporting and Changing of Grades

1. Final grade forms shall be made available to instructors via the appropriate dean's office prior to the close of each term. Grades are to be recorded on the appropriate forms and submitted to the Registrar's Office within three working days following the last examination of each term.

1. Prior to the close of each semester/term, final grades shall be entered into the Electronic Grading System by instructors. Grades are to be entered online within three working days following the last scheduled examination of each semester/term. Upon request, the Registration Office will supply the instructors with a copy of instructions for using the Electronic Grading System.

E. Grade of Incomplete

1. An "Incomplete" may be given by an instructor only when the student, having satisfactorily completed ~~a substantial~~ approximately 80% ~~portion~~ of the required work, is unable to complete the class work for a legitimate reason (such as illness or accident) and, in the opinion of the instructor, could complete the required work without re-registering for the class.

2. When giving an "Incomplete," the instructor must file a Report of an Incomplete Grade with the academic department ~~and the Office of the Registrar~~, specifying in detail: (1) what work must be done in order to remove the "Incomplete" grade, (2) the time deadline for completing the work which must not be longer than a 12-month period following the receipt of the "Incomplete", and (3) the letter grade which is to replace the "I" if the work is not completed. The student must sign the report and be given a copy of the report by the instructor at the time the report is prepared.

5. Students must complete course work for any Incomplete grades prior to graduation in a time frame that will allow an Authorization of Grade change form to be completed ~~ten~~ ~~(10) days prior to graduation~~ prior to issuing any diploma. If the incomplete work is not completed, the graduate's transcript will have the grade recorded that was negotiated at the time of receiving the Incomplete grade. "I" grades cannot appear permanently on a graduate's transcript.

Motion: Moved to approve the above changes to PPM 4-19 Reporting and Changing of Grades
Made: Ann Ellis
Second: Ron Holt
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

PPM 4-19 - G. Temporary Status

1. Temporary status is indicated by a 'T' and is given for those courses so structured as to require grading of students to be done in a term subsequent to that one in which the course begins. All such courses must have the approval of the department offering the courses and the Curriculum and General Education Committee. A letter grade (A, B, C, D, E) or CR/NC must be given by the instructor at the time the required work is to be completed.

2. Temporary status is used by instructors in ~~two~~ the following ways.

a. ~~Institutional Incomplete~~: When a course is extended beyond the normal ending date of the term during which it begins, the instructor records a "T" ~~on the Final~~ ~~Grade Report~~ into the Electronic Grading System. ~~A copy of the Final Grade~~ ~~Report is retained by the~~ The instructor who assigns final grades ~~and returns the~~ ~~form~~ will submit an authorization of grade change to the Registrar within three working days of completion of the work. The Records Office will then change the "T" to the grade designated as the final grade for each student registered for the course. The "T" will not be computed in the student's grade point average while on the transcript, nor will the credit(s) be counted toward the total hours completed until a grade is posted for the course.

b. Student Incomplete: The "T" is used by instructors for courses designed to be completed by students on an individualized basis which may extend beyond a term. Students must register each term for courses which require continued individualized instruction and advising by a faculty member, e.g., thesis or directed research. The "T" for the course remains on the transcript permanently for the term in which it was initiated. The final grade for the course is recorded for the term in which the work is completed. The "T" indicates that the course is being continued in the subsequent term and will not be computed in the student's grade point average nor will the credits be counted toward total hours until a grade is posted for the course.

Motion: Moved to approve PPM 1-19 G - Temporary Status as stated above,
Made: Cheryl Hansen
Second: Tony Allred
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Charge# 7: Specify ways in which students may register for upper-division classes before reaching University tier.

Currently, Academic Advising is using a form which gives students permission to register for specific upper-division courses if they agree to register for a course fulfilling core requirements at the same time. This agreement is valid for one semester at a time. Department secretaries still have authority to override a registration block, but the form provides a track record. The committee recommends that this system stay in place and be more widely advertised on campus.

9. CURRICULUM & GENERAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE – Becky Johns

Performing Arts - Change to an existing course for Form and Analysis - Music 3840; Program changes for Bachelor of Arts in Music, and Bachelor of Music Education Performance, and Keyboard or Vocal Pedagogy.

Motion: Moved to approve from Performing Arts the course change for Form and Analysis - Music 3840; Program changes for Bachelor of Arts in Music, and Bachelor of Music Education Performance, and Keyboard or Vocal Pedagogy.
Made: Michelle Heward
Second: Roger Crockett
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Health Administrative Services - Course deletions for Advanced ICD Coding - HIM 2310, and Managing Quality Improvement Programs in Health Care - HIM 3320; Course changes for Basic Diagnostic and Procedural Coding - HIM 2300 to Diagnosis Coding - HIM 2300, Advanced Procedural Coding - HIM 2320 to Ambulatory and Physician Office Coding - HIM 2320, and Health Information Statistics - HIM 2200.

Motion: Moved to approve from Health Administrative Services the course deletions for Advanced ICD Coding - HIM 2310, and Managing Quality Improvement Programs in Health Care - HIM 3320; Course changes for Basic Diagnostic and Procedural Coding - HIM 2300 to Diagnosis Coding - HIM 2300, Advanced Procedural Coding - HIM 2320 to Ambulatory and Physician Office Coding - HIM 2320, and Health Information Statistics - HIM 2200.
Made: Warren Hill
Second: Betty Tucker
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

New course proposals for Health Care Networks and Databases - HIM 3400, and Health Care Systems Analysis and Design - HIM 3450.

Motion: Moved to approve from Health Administrative Services the new course proposals for Health Care Networks and Databases - HIM 3400, and Health Care Systems Analysis and Design - HIM 3450.
Made: Lloyd Burton
Second: Marie Kotter
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Diversity course proposal for Cultural Diversity in Patient Education - HAS 3190.

Motion: Moved to approve from Health Administrative Services the diversity course proposal for Cultural Diversity in Patient Education - HAS 3190.
Made: Roger Crockett
Second: Pam Hugie
Outcome: The motion passed with 1 opposed and 1 abstention.

Program Proposals for Certificate in Healthcare Coding and Classification Training, Health Information Management, and Health Information Technology.

Motion: Moved to approve from Health Administrative Services the program proposals for Certificate in Healthcare Coding and Classification Training, Health Information Management, and Health Information Technology.
Made: Lydia Wingate
Second: Lloyd Burton
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

10. HONORARY DEGREE COMMITTEE – Gene Sessions, Chair

The Honorary Degree Committee recommends to dispense with December graduation based on the following:

December commencement began as a temporary expediency during the remodeling of the Browning Center. December commencement continued after the reopening of the Browning Center with no vote or recommendation of the Faculty Senate.
The Honorary Degree Committee feels that December commencement is a much less meaningful event for students in comparison to spring commencement. Students therefore, have something of a counterfeit experience.
The Honorary Degree Committee is concerned about the number of honorary degrees being awarded and sees the extra commencement as an event that exasperates this problem.
The search for effective and meaningful commencement speakers is made doubly difficult by the addition of December commencement.
The Development Office assures the committee that there is not much percent from their perspective in continuing December commencement in terms of donor enhancement.
The cost of December commencement could be better applied elsewhere.
Faculty enthusiasm is measured by attendance. Attendance seems much lower in December than May.
The Honorary Degree Committee does not believe the December commencement attracts that many more students to attend in as much as Weber is a commuter campus and most graduates are still in the area in the Spring.
December commencement is now big enough that it is very long, but not big enough to divide into college convocations as is done in the Spring.

Speaking In Favor of December Graduation:

Students thoroughly enjoy December graduation
As a compromise honorary degrees could be eliminated from December graduation. This would cut back the length of the program.
Speakers could be limited to President Millner, a student, an alumni.
There are so many first generation graduates who look forward to this time.
The money spent on December graduation (about $40,000) won’t make much of a difference in the overall budget of the University and will be used for budget cuts.
Attendance at December graduation is growing.
It’s only one afternoon for faculty.
It was unanimous among the 31 student government representatives that December commencement continues.
275 students surveyed, 210 in favor of December graduation.
Some colleges and department are in favor of December graduation. It gives them a chance to honor their students before they leave the area for jobs. These students will not come back in May for graduation.
Some departments indicated that they have more students participating in December graduation than they have participating in May graduation.
With increased enrollments we will have more students graduating in both May and December.
It is important to establish strong collegiate traditions and build a sense of community. Graduation is a time to do that.
The Alumni Office is able to provide students with personalized experiences. They are able to have the students sign on with the online community of alumni.
There are not too many rights of passage that are meaningful to students. Is it fair to the students to take this away?
Weber State receives good media attention during December commencement.

Speaking Against December Graduation:

May graduation was once a campus-wide celebration. Now that we have two graduations both are cut back; neither are on the same scale as was done when we only held one graduation.
We lost a lot of the event in May when we began to have an event in December.
We do not have the same impact on an annual basis with the students or the community.
Some department indicated that their students wait until May to participate in graduation.
Those doing the survey were against dispensing with December graduation and slanted the survey in their favor.
Many expressed their concern with the length of the program.
Students dislike the alumni survey.
Students and parents leave during the December graduation program because it is too long. The last students to have their names read have very few left in the audience to honor them and their accomplishment.
The college convocations in May have great value. They provide a very personalized ceremony where faculty can honor the students they have taught.
We are the only university in the state that holds December graduation. All the other state institutions seem to manage very nicely.
Event creep - This has gotten bigger and bigger and bigger. We have gone from a handful of speakers to numerous speakers. It is not a two hour commencement.
There are the seven events outside the event.
Three separate honorary degree events.
Over and over again suggestions were made to give honorary degrees once a year.
Go back to one really superb graduation. Do a big splash.
Very hurried scheduling pace between finals and commencement. Some finals are still taking place during May and December graduation.

Call for the Question: Al Talbot

Motion: Moved to dispense with December graduation.
Made: Richard Sadler
Second: Ron Holt
Outcome: The motion to dispense with December graduation failed with 12 in favor, 17 opposed and 6 abstentions.

ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.