EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

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

EXCUSED 
Bill Clapp, Wade Kotter, Ann Millner

GUEST 
Dave Ferro

MINUTES 
As several changes were made to the January 13, January 20 , and February 3 meeting minutes, Executive Committee members suggested that new copies be distributed for final review and approval at the meeting on February 10, 2005.

CATALOG 
Provost Vaughan presented information on how the catalog is compiled with various units on campus over different sections of the catalog. There are basically three areas in the catalog that overlap with faculty responsibilities:

• Academic Text - About 80% of the catalog deals with curriculum

• Admissions and Standards

• University Profile - Overview of the University

The statement " . . . 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" appears in the "University Profile"

Provost Vaughan discussed the statement with Rich Hill, University Counsel, and was told that from a legal standpoint the above language is not problematic for the University.

The Executive Committee discussed stronger catalog oversight by the Faculty Senate Standing Committees. This oversight could be included in the various committee charges, and the Executive Committee could be responsible to look over the first few pages that deal with the overview of the University.

MOTION 
Bruce Christensen: Moved to include in the Faculty Senate Standing Committee charges the charge to review the section(s) of the catalog that are connected to the work of their committee, i.e. CGE looking at curriculum changes, ASSA look at policy changes dealing with admissions and standards, and the Executive Committee reviewing the language under the University Profile section
Second: Michelle Heward
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

The three gen ed committees are -

• The Faculty Senate Ad Hoc University Graduation Requirements Implementation Committee (committee formed by the Faculty Senate)

• The Core General Education Assessment Group (Set up to look at core gen ed)
• The Breadth General Education Assessment Group (Set up to look at breadth gen ed)

It was suggested that "Assessment" be added to their titles. Tamara Chase has been approached by faculty in the Dumke College of Health Professions expressing their desire to have representation on the Core General Education Assessment Committee. This is the third time she expressed CHP’s concerns to the Executive Committee. The Provost indicated that the "Core" assessment group was not put together to have representation from every college or department, but rather made up of faculty involved in Composition, American Institutions, Quantitative Literacy, and Computer and Information Literacy, and that the findings from this group would eventually filter back to the Ad Hoc General Education Graduation Requirements Implementation Committee which has a representative from the Dumke College of Health Professions.

The Faculty Senate approved the establishment of the Ad Hoc University Graduation Requirements Implementation Committee, membership, and charges at the January 29, 2004 Faculty senate meeting.

PPM 1-13, Article B V states -

Section 6. Establishment of Ad Hoc Committees

The possibility of establishing a permanent Faculty Senate Standing Committee to look at General Education was discussed. A common model for most universities is a committee that looks at curriculum and a committee that looks at general education. If there is support in establishing a committee for general education oversight the efforts would need to be coordinated with the Constitutional Review, and Apportionment Committee. The recommendation would need to be presented to the Faculty Senate one month and voted upon the following month.

PPM 1-13, ARTICLE B-XIII. AMENDMENTS states -

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."

STUDENT SUCCESS 
The Provost talked about the importance of coordinating the Student Success Task Force with the ASSA Committee to look at retention of first year students, developmental math, reading ability, and mandatory placement testing. Another item that needs to be studied is what to do with students that place below math 0950. Executive Committee members felt that the chair of the ASSA Committee should be included on the Student Success Task Force.

FACULTY EVALUATIONS 
A question was raised about where faculty evaluations are stored. Steve Kerr was contacted and indicated that since 2003 he has stored information on faculty evaluations that comes to his office in Institutional Research on the "V" drive. He also mentioned that the Testing Center has stored faculty evaluation information for several years prior to 2003. After Institutional Research compiles the evaluation information it sends the data to each academic department and the dean over that area. Evaluation instruments differ from department to department.

RESEARCH CENTER 
Utah State University and the University of Utah have brought forward a joint proposal to the Legislature for a $440,000,000 research center, with branch centers in Ogden and Provo.

ARCC 
Dave Ferro, Chair of the Academic Resources and Computing Committee met with the Executive Committee.

Items ARCC is working on -

• Faculty survey through chi tester. They hope the survey will go out next week and allow three weeks for faculty to respond.
• Scheduling problems with multimedia rooms in terms of wiring and construction.
• Creating a multimedia map for the classrooms. Bob King is working with them and they hope in the next couple of months to have a map of all multimedia classrooms and what technology is available in each room.
• Working with IT Council to represent faculty
• Looking at security issues of Social Security numbers on campus
• Depending on the survey they may hold some kind of a town meeting to let faculty voice their concerns and let them know what ARCC is doing.
• Creating a wireless map of the campus
• Working on network issues.
• Looking into intellectual copyrights
• Discussing what equipment should be covered by ARCC funds.

Dave Ferro was encouraged to do two mailings announcing the survey and supplying faculty with the link. Kay Brown will copy the announcement of the survey supplied by Dave Ferro and mail it to all faculty. Drew Weidman has access to all mailboxes.

CATALOG DECLARATION 
John Allred sent a memo to Becky Johns discussing the catalog declaration policy. Executive Committee discussed John Allred’s concerns and felt the memo and PPM 4-2 should be sent to the ASSA Committee as a charge.

MOTION 
Bruce Christensen: Moved to forward as a charge to the ASSA Committee John Allred’s concerns with policy language on catalog declaration and PPM 4-2.
Second: Sue Harley
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

PPM 6-8 D Restrictions

BANNER TRAINING 
Tamara Chase mentioned the importance of faculty training on Banner. Faculty need to know how to post grades, do graduation evaluations, advise students, change a student’s declared major, etc.

ADJOURN 
The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.