Thursday Approved 1

Approved 1-20-05

Thursday
January 13, 2005
2:00 p.m.
MA 211K

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

PRESENT
Tamara Chase, Bruce Christensen, Bill Clapp, Lauren Fowler, Sue Harley, Michelle Heward, Becky Johns - Chair, Ann Millner, Molly Smith - Vice Chair, Mike Vaughan, Kay Brown - Secretary

EXCUSED
Wade Kotter

MINUTES
Sue Harley: Moved to approve the minutes from the December 2, 2004 meeting
Second: Bruce Christensen
Outcome: The minutes were approved.

GEN ED MORATORIUM
The Executive Committee discussed the possibility of placing a moratorium on all Gen Ed, S.I., and Diversity course proposals. It is very difficult to assess a curriculum that is ever changing because courses are being added each year. Executive Committee members felt that the Curriculum & General Education Committee needed to be alerted. Departments need to be notified that a moratorium is coming by the end of Spring 2005 semester, and will be in place for a year, reviewed in the Spring of 2006 with the possibility of the moratorium being extended another year until Spring 2007.

GEN ED COMMITTEES
Wade Kotter will represent the Executive Committee and the Curriculum & General Education Committee on the Core Gen Ed Assessment Committee, and Lauren Fowler will represent the Executive Committee on the Breadth Gen Ed Assessment Committee. It was suggested that another letter from the Provost and the Faculty Senate Chair go out informing faculty that there are three General Education Committees, University Graduation Requirements Implementation Ad Hoc Committee, General Education Core Committee and the General Education Breadth Committee, the purpose of each committee, time line of committee work, and the committee membership.

GEN ED SURVEY
Kathleen Lukken met with the Executive Committee to administer a general education survey. The Deans and employees in the College of Applied Science and Technology have participated in the survey. This is an activity that the Gen Ed Committee hopes will happen across campus providing broad input from faculty, students and staff to facilitate a collective campus discussion and focus on what we are trying to accomplish as we graduate students.

Committee members were asked to think in their mind of the ideal baccalaureate level graduate. The graduate you are most proud of that exemplifies what a Weber State degree is all about.

As a result of a Weber State Education -

What is this person like?
What qualities do they have?
What does this person know?
What knowledge have they acquired as a result of their education?
What can they do?
What are this person’s attitudes?

Finish this sentence, "An ideal baccalaureate student should be able to . . ." Executive Committee member wrote their comments identifying four or five major outcomes.

Executive Committee members were grouped and shared with their group and then the larger group the outcomes of the free write.

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL
The Faculty Senate chair asked the President and Provost to excuse themselves from the meeting so that all Executive Committee members would feel free to express their ideas on faculty representation on President’s Council/

Administrative comments -

President Millner considers President’s Council meetings as staff meeting for coordination across division lines.
If you see faculty representation at the other state institutions, you see a very large group.
Some issues reviewed at President’s Council are personnel issues and program issues. In a sense faculty have already acted on those proposals. Would people coming through have a rightful claim to charge violation of due process, or double jeopardy?
What outcomes are faculty looking for by having the Faculty Senate Chair sit on President’s Council?
Sample items presented at President’s Council
Informational items, i.e. construction items, repairs
What’s happening with the Legislature
Things that come through on their way to the Trustees, i.e. Senate issues, sabbaticals
Salaries and budget items

Prior to leaving the meeting Executive Committee members were asked by the Provost and President to think about why they wanted to have a representative on President’s Council.

FACULTY CONCERNS
Ron Holt met with the Executive Committee and distributed a draft of a memo written by thirteen faculty from four different colleges outlining a substantial list of concerns. Executive Committee members were also concerned about some of the same issues outlined in the draft memo.

Concerns were categorized in four areas

Broad Philosophical Issues
Faculty Senate Issues
Faculty Administrative Issues
Faculty/Staff Issues

Ron was asked to prioritize his concerns and send the final document to the Executive Committee.

SHARED GOVERNANCE
Statement from the 11-10-04 draft of the Northwest review -- "There are multiple councils, boards, and committees through which the various constituencies of the university participate in governance. The self-study notes that Weber State has a strong tradition of shared governance, and the evidence bears this out. The faculty as individuals and the Faculty Senate are well-represented within institutional governance structures, both standing and ad hoc. The only anomaly is the absence of a faculty representative on the President’s Council when even students have a seat at the table. Senate leadership indicated that the request for representation was rebuffed by the former president, and has not been raised since the current president took office."

Faculty would like to be involved in making some of the budget decisions, policies that may impact what is taught, and how it is taught. Faculty feel that the University would be strengthened by faculty input. Budgets are not made available to the Faculty Senate Chair. Budget cuts came during the middle of Fall semester. Who decided that it was 1.4 million dollars? How does the enrollment drop relate to the 1.4 million dollar deficit? These issues drive curriculum. The Deans were given their budget cut without any discussion of what would be best or feasible for their area.

The PPM defines what a faculty member is and what an administrator is. The argument has been given that the Provost is the faculty representative on President’s Council. The Provost is not faculty. The Provost is an administrator. He is part of the "President’s staff." Staff meetings and President’s Council meeting should not be the same thing. Faculty should be at the table to understand what is being discussed and what decisions are being made that affect faculty. Executive Committee members could not understand why the President would not want the point of view of the faculty.

Page 8 of the WSU Catalog states -

". . . Therefore, expressions or actions that disparage an individual’s or group’s ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, marital status, age or disability are contrary to the mission of Weber State University."

This statement directly affects faculty and their freedom of speech in the classroom. The statement came from Forest Crawford who was chair of the Diversity Committee at that time. The text was presented to and reviewed by President’s Council and the Board of Trustees. It was never presented to faculty or the Faculty Senate.

Lauren Fowler expressed that several faculty from her college suggested that junior faculty who sit on Faculty Senate may not feel comfortable to openly express their opinions adequately because the President, Provost, and Deans are present.

Discussion will continue at future meetings.

ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.