Approved 1-11-07
Thursday
November 30, 2006
2:00 p.m.
MA 211K
AGENDA SETTING MEETING
PRESENT
Shannon Butler, Tamara Chase, Dave Ferro,
Bruce Handley, Ron Holt, Wade Kotter, Jack Mayhew, Gene Sessions, Mike
Vaughan, Jim Wilson – Kay Brown Secretary
EXCUSED
Ann Millner
GUESTS
Tony Allred, Eric Amsel, Dan Bedford, Laine
Berghout, Barry Gomberg, Leah Murray, Molly, Smith, Doris Geide-Stevenson
MINUTES
Shannon Butler: Moved to approve
the minutes from the November 9, 2006 meeting.
Second: Wade Kotter
Outcome: The minutes were approved.
CRAO
Constitutional Review, Apportionment, and
Organization Committee – Tony Allred, Chair, reporting.
WSU APPORTIONMENT 2006-2007
Apportionment determined as follows:Total number of Faculty in college divided by the total
number of faculty,
times by the total Senate seats available
Example (College of Science) 74 / 483 X 39 = 5.98
Results with Colleges Ranked by the Highest Percentage Above a Whole Number
|
COLLEGE |
FACULTY |
% REP |
Base Seats |
Seats Added |
Total Seats |
Net Change |
|
Library |
10 |
.81 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
HP |
70 |
5.65 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
0 |
|
Educ |
47 |
3.80 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
|
S&BS |
74 |
5.98 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
0 |
|
Science |
74 |
5.98 |
5 |
1 |
6 |
0 |
|
B&E |
45 |
3.63 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
|
A&H |
101 |
8.16 |
8 |
0 |
8 |
0 |
|
AS&T |
62 |
5.01 |
5 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
|
TOTAL |
483 |
39 |
35 |
4 |
39 |
0 |
MOTION
Gene Sessions: Moved to Forward to the Faculty
Senate the above college apportionment figures for 2007-08
Faculty Senate representation
Second: Tamara Chase
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.
GEN ED
General Education Improvement and Assessment Committee –
Dan Bedford, Chair reporting.
Proposed General Education Mission Statement and Goals
General education at Weber State University provides students with a foundation in the arts and sciences that transcends and complements their academic emphases. This exposure to diverse fields of study enables students to make intellectually honest, ethical decisions that reflect a knowledge of and respect for diverse people, ideas, and cultures. Such breadth of education also cultivates skills critical to student success in academic, personal, professional and community endeavors both within and beyond the university.
Students completing the general education program can
A memo from Dean Dale Ostlie mentioned "that perhaps all gen ed courses should be sunsetted in light of the general revisions in gen ed learning outcomes that are coming through the Faculty Senate (the A&H outcomes were recently approved, for example, and the QL outcomes are apparently assumed to be mandated from the state with interesting local interpretations)."
"If courses are not sunsetted then there is no guarantee that the existing courses are consistent with the learning outcomes that are being approved, which seems a bit odd, and difficult to justify. I know that it would be a tremendous amount of work, but a lot of work isn’t really an argument against doing what is best for the gen ed program and our students."
The General Education Improvement and Assessment Committee has been working on a process to assess general education course to make sure they meet the learning outcomes. Assessment in the Social Science area is already underway. Also under discussion is how to handle courses that do not meet gen ed assessment outcomes. Both Laine Berghout and Dan Bedford felt that if current gen ed courses were sunset, it would have to be done in a phased process. One idea under discussion is to develop a process by which the area committees could use the evaluation data to see if the courses are accomplishing what is intended by the learning outcomes, and if they are not, work with the departments to improve courses that are falling short of their intent.
MOTION
Gene Sessions: Moved to forward to the Faculty
Senate the above proposed General Education Mission
Statement.
Second: Dave Ferro
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.
ARCC
Academic Resources, and Computing Committee, Eric Swedin
reporting.
The old STAARS system was a homegrown system that used obsolete technology. The State Board of Regents wanted everyone in the state system to use the same system, Banner. When you buy a system and bring it to your campus, you change all your processes to conform to the system. The system drives the way you function.
SunGard bought several different programs from various companies and put them together for a total package designed for higher education, known as Banner. The package really functions as multiple, separate solutions. Weber State purchased the software, but skimped on buying all the high priced customized software solutions.
WebCT Vista is in a smaller market and better understood. The rise of open source programs also affected this market. There are now open source solutions than can do what WebCT can do. Grant money was obtained for software development with additional funding from multiple universities, and programmers to develop a software product that does what WebCT does. This software is made available to other universities at no cost (open source).
Eric Swedin would like to see more faculty input in IT decisions that are being made at Weber State. Faculty who are informed and assertive need to be involved on committees that deal with IT issues because faculty change the conversation and the decisions that are being made, and how end users will be affected. The Banner Committee primarily deals with operational issues (keeping Banner going), user issues are not being discussed. He would like to see a full-time Banner project manager in the IT organization. Some group needs to evaluate the problems end users are having, prioritize those problem, and begin to address them. Of particular concern are Grad Evaluations. Provost Vaughan pointed out that if a Banner project manager was hired, faculty would lose three faculty positions.
It was suggested that Eric Swedin report back in a couple of month and include in his report security issues, and if all the money going into security is necessary.
APAFT
PPM8-23 Appointment, Promotion, Academic Freedom and Tenure
Committee – Doris Geide Stevenson, Chair, reporting.
PPM 8-23 Probationary Period for Tenure
". . . In exceptional cases, the tenure process may be
temporarily suspended (leave and re-enter at the same point), and
the probationary period extended by the college Ranking
Tenure Evaluation Committee, upon recommendation by the department
and the dean, in consultation with the provost by a period
not to exceed two years. For example, when a faculty member becomes
a parent through birth or adoption of a child below the age of six,
great consideration shall be given to the faculty member's request
to extend the probationary period for tenure for up to two years, in
one year increments, provided the request is made in writing during
the year following the birth or adoption. Other examples include but
are not limited to death, divorce and illness.
A. Process for extension of the tenure review period "The faculty member requests an extension in writing to their department chair with a copy to
their dean for an extension of their probationary period. This request can only be made prior to the completion of the professional file by the candidate. The request should include the rationale for the extension. The decision to extend the probationary period is made by the college Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee, upon recommendation by the department chair and the dean, in consultation with the provost. The dean ensures that this process is followed and completed in a timely manner. . ."These changes make it clear that the candidate can "temporarily suspend (leave and re-enter at the same point), and the probationary period extended by a period not to exceed two years."
PPM 8-12 PPM 8-12 Dated Guidelines
Mar 20 27
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.
The University Committee chair
shall inform the Provost in writing of
its the committee’s evaluation and recommendations adding
its own evaluation. The University Committee chair shall also
send copies of its the committee’s evaluation and
recommendations to the department chair, the dean and candidate. The
chair shall send the report to the dean for inclusion in the candidate's
professional file. The dean shall place a copy of this report
in the candidates’ professional files along with a notice that the
files are ready for review.
Mar 30 April 6
The provost reviews all cases where there is a conflict in the recommendations at some level and any other cases he/she sees fit to review. The provost then forwards a copy of the recommenda- tions 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 of Review (PPMs 8-20 and 9-9).
Mar 31 April 7
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.) The provost gives timely written notice (
PPM 8-26) to regular full-time faculty members whose contracts will not be renewed at the end of the next academic year or who will be continued with substantially reduced status.The current dates in PPM 8-12 Dated Guidelines required the University Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee to meet during Spring Break. The proposed changes give them one additional week. The proposed editorial changes will make the wording in PPM 8-19 and PPM 8-12 be exactly the same.
PPM 8-19 PPM 8-19A - Action by the University Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee
" . . . The University Committee chair shall inform the Provost
in writing of its the committee’s evaluation and
recommendations adding its own evaluation. The
University Committee chair shall also send copies of its the
committee’s evaluation and recommendations to the department
candidate's professional file. The dean shall place a copy of this report in the candidates’ professional files along with a notice that the files are ready for review."
MOTION
Tamara Chase: Moved to forward to the Faculty Senate
PPM’s 8-23 - Probationary Period for Tenure, PPM 8-12 -
Dated Guidelines, and PPM 8-19A - Action by the University
Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee as stated above.
Second: Jack Mayhew
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.
APAFT
The explanation of the WSU Conflict Resolution Policy included
in the packet was discussed.
MOTION
Gene Sessions: Moved to disseminate to all faculty
with the Faculty Senate newsletter the explanation of the WSU
Conflict Resolution Policy.
Second: Dave Ferro
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.
ASSA
Admissions, Standards, and Student Affairs Committee – Molly
Smith, Chair, reporting.
Charge 1 - Continue review of PPM sections dealing with student employment and Wildcat cards. The definition of who is a student has not been finalized.
The PPM section dealing with student employment, PPM 6-13 and 6-13a have not been revised since 1977. Executive Committee members felt that these sections should be revised by Administrative Services. The information was sent to Norm Tarbox who forwarded it to the Payroll Office for updating the PPM.
Wildcat Cards - Bill Fruth, Director of the Shepherd Union Building, and Monika Rodie, Associate Director of the Shepherd Union Building, felt no changes needed to be made to the PPM regarding Wildcat cards.
Definition of who is a student - Toni Weight last year felt that a definition of who is a student needed to be included in the PPM. It was suggested that Jan Winniford, Vice President for Student Affairs determine whether or not a definition is needed.
Charge 2 -
Look at statistics about the success of the placement policy, such as correlations between ACT scores and Math 1010, the new developmental English course etc. Monitor procedures for helping students who were admitted prior to Spring 2006 and have not completed their developmental courses.The policy was implemented in Spring 2006 and although they have some initial data from that semester, the preliminary results of a longitudinal study, which began fall 06 won’t be available until next summer.
Charge 3 -
Work with the Registrar and the Provost to increase the number of working days for entering grades online .The current deadline dates are necessary for financial aid disbursement. To increase the time for entering grades, fall semester would need to begin earlier in August or delay the start of spring semester would need to begin later in January. John Allred is looking at some calendar options.
Charge 4 -
Look at the maximum number of hours for 5000 level courses in a master’s program.The ASSA Committee recommended leaving some adjustment room at the department level. Currently the Curriculum PPM states: "The committee recommends that no more than 25% of the total master degree credit hour requirements be from any combination of 3000, 4000 and 5000 level courses."
Charge 5 -
Review and make recommendations to the current graduation sign off procedure.Currently the Registrar (through the Graduation Office) signs off generals, although policy says department (PPM 4-1). The Registrar does not have enough staff to check all graduating students. Concern was expressed about delegating the sign off of generals to departments or colleges. Department do not have access to all the information needed to adequately check a student’s transcript. Some felt departments would be willing to sign off on generals if the information they needed was available to them. The Executive Committee wanted the ASSA Committee to propose new language for PPM 4-1 and send the changes to the colleges.
Charge 6 - Review policy on petition or waiver processes in the Registrar’s Office. The process is not outlined in WSU policies, however, a waiver form is in place.
Charge 7 - Review PPM 6-2 on some proposed additional language to section III.D.1. to include math 1010 in the language.
PPM 6-2 - Application Requirements by Application Status Based on test results students will be placed in specific English, math or reading courses according to the WSU Assessment & Placement Standards document. A fee will be charged for each assessment test. Students are not allowed to register for any course(s) before taking all applicable tests. All students requiring developmental coursework must enroll in and not withdraw from their initial developmental course(s) within the first two semesters. These students are then required to enroll in developmental course(s) and make progress each subsequent semester (excluding summer) until all relevant minimum developmental requirements (including Math 1010 if applicable) have been met for the students' declared degree program of study (A.A.S., A.S., A.A., or bachelor's degree). Otherwise, a hold will be placed on their registration which can only be removed by the Academic Advisement Center.
MOTION
Dave Ferro: Moved to forward to the Faculty Senate
the proposed change to PPM 6-2 as stated above.
Second: Jim Wilson
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.
PPM 6-1 Residency - Chris Rivera has proposed new language that deals with (4.3) Active Duty United States Armed Forces Personnel Who are Residents of Other States but Stationed in Utah. (4.4) United States Armed Forces Personnel Who are Utah Residents Prior to Active Duty Assignment or Deployment Outside Utah. (4.4.1) Prior Utah Residency. (4.4.2) Immediate Family Member. (4.4.3) Residing With. . . (4.5) Job Corps Students. (O.) Procedures for Determining Resident Status (7.1) Application Deadline. These changes bring Weber State’s policy in line with Utah State Code 53B-8-102.
MOTION
Gene Sessions: Moved to forward to the Faculty
Senate the above changes to PPM 6-1 Residency.
Second: Jim Wilson
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.
CURRICULUM
Curriculum Committee – Laine Berghout, Chair,
reporting
Curriculum proposals from Zoology Department - Program proposal for Zoology Major B.S. Degree; Visual Art Department - Program proposal for the Art Minor, Art History Minor, and course deletions for Watercolor Painting I, II, and III- Art 2650, 3650, and 4650; Chemistry Department - Program proposal for Chemistry Major Options 1 and 2.
The Chemistry Department was granted a waiver of seven upper-division credit hours during semester conversion due to state-wide course number articulation. The provision in the PPM that allowed for this waiver was removed during Spring Semester 2006. This proposal requires students majoring in Chemistry to fulfill the graduation requirement of 40-credit hours of upper division. Revisions to the course requirements for Option I and Option II were also proposed.
MOTION
Gene Sessions: Moved to forward to the Faculty
Senate the curriculum proposals from Zoology Department -
Program proposal for Zoology Major B.S. Degree; Visual Art
Department - Program proposal for the Art Minor, Art
History Minor, and course deletions for Watercolor
Painting I, II, and III- Art 2650, 3650, and 4650;
Chemistry Department - Program proposal for Chemistry
Major Options 1 and 2.
Second: Jim Wilson
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.
MATH OPTIONS
Math Competency Option to Current Graduates
A charge will be sent to the ASSA Committee to look at the language in PPM 4-1 and revise the language to include the new math competency option.
OUTSTANDING
STUDENT AWARDThe Executive Committee felt this request should go to Dean’s Council for discussion.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.