1.   ROLL CALL

2.   APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

Motion: Moved to approve the minutes from the April 20, 2006 meeting.
Made: John Sohl
Second: Jason Allison

3.   INTRODUCTION OF STUDENT MEMBERS

Jason Allison (Legislative Vice President), Pete Owen (President WSUSA), Eric Pope (Vice President of Diversity), and James West (Davis Campus Senator) are the student representatives to the Faculty Senate.

4.   ATHLETIC REPORT – Jerry Graybeal, Athletic Director

The Athletic Department tracks about 280 students during an academic year. Out of the 280 students, two students had a 4.0 GPA, eighty four students had a 3.5 GPA or better, and sixty nine students had a 3.2 GPA or above.

NCAA Academic Performance Program

Academic Progress Rate - The APR measures an institutions success in retaining scholarship athletes and keeping them eligible in each sport. Academic Performance Rate requirements - Teams must maintain an APR score of 925 or above, or they will be subject to penalties.

The NCAA is concerned about retention and eligibility of student athletes. By the third year student are required to have 40% of their degree completed, entering their fourth year they are required to have 50% of their degree completed, and by their fifth year they are required to have 80% of their degree completed for graduation.

Current APR rates for WSU: Men’s Sports - Basketball (916), Cross Country (985), Football (919), Golf (932), Outdoor Track (987), Indoor Track (986). Women’s Sports - Basketball (953), Cross Country (1000), Golf (971), Soccer (968), Indoor Track (992), Tennis (971) Volleyball (926).

5.   RESEARCH, SCHOLARSHIP, AND PROFESSIONAL GROWTH – Susan Matt, Chair

Total $21,060

Hemingway Vitality Grants-Spring 2006
Joyce Buck - "Love and Logic Instructor Training" $998
Brad Carroll - "Physical Science Ed. for Pre-Service Elementary School Teachers" $376
Judy Elsley - "The Art Quilt: Twelve New Compositions" $1005
Kathy Herndon - "Muslim Communities in Contemporary Europe" $3836
Becky Jo McShane - "Content Mgt and XML at the Society for Technical
Communication’s Conference in Las Vegas" $959
Michelle More - "Physical Science Ed. for Pre-Service Elementary School Teachers" $376
Marjukka Ollilainen - "American Sociological Association Career Workshop on
Combining Family and Academic Work – Experiences and Best Practices" $680

Hemingway New Faculty Grants-Spring 2006
Autumn Behringer - "Building Boundaries or Building Bridges?
A Study of In-Law Relationships" $684
Robert Fudge - "Adam Smith and the Euthyphro Problem" $1004
Colleen Garside - "4th Intl Conference on New Directions in the Humanities" $1000
Valerie Herzog - "Revision of the Athletic Training Major" $1800
Kerry Kennedy - "Theories of Motivation in Addiction Treatment" $1230
Nicole Okazaki - "Presence of the Diapause Hormone
Gene in the Brine Shrimp Artemia" $2460 + Undergrad$2720
Michelle Zwolinski - "Stable Isotope Probing to Identify Active Methylotrophic" $1200

Hemingway Faculty Excellence Grants–Spring 2006
Alicia Giralt - "16th Conference of the Intl. Assoc. of Hispanic Women Writers" $5000
Adam Johnston - "Science Education at the Crossroads 2006" $1800
Julie Rich (Geography) - "Rwanda Well Service Learning Project" $3000
Viktor Uzur (Performing Arts/Music) - "Bonneville Chamber Music Festival" $4630

Hemingway Collaborative Grants-Spring 2006
Jeff Eaton, Mohammed Sondossi and Colin Inglefield - "Microbial Survival in
Evaporated Salts" $2300
David Ferro and Eric Swedin - "Murray Leinster Project" $4452
Mohammed Sondossi and Jonathan Clark - "Isolation and Genetic Characterization of Microorganisms with the Capability to Metabolize" $4177

Weber Writes Grants–Spring 2006
The Office of Academic Affairs created the Weber Writes Program in the Spring of 2006 and asked RSPG to administer it. The program offers incentives for scholarly writing. During the Summer of 2006, successful applicants received $3000 to support their writing projects. In the Spring of 2007, rather than paying faculty a stipend, the program will buy out one course of successful applicants. The following faculty received $3000 grants for Summer 2006:

Matthew Choberka - "Something/Nothing: Abstraction and Representation in Contemporary Painting"
Matthew Domek - "Bacteriocin Production by Locally Isolated Strain of Bacteria"
London Draper - "Two Articles for Publication in AAOHN Journal"
Yuhong Fan - "Overreaction and IPO After Market Performance"
Valerie Gooder - "Scholarly paper describing the development of a course of mass casualty care and disaster nursing"
Kristin Hadley - "Elementary Teachers and Mathematics Anxiety"
Edward Hahn - "The Value of an MBA for Business Librarians"
Richard Hooper - "The Transfer of Writing Competency Skills"
Kerry Kennedy - "Susbstance Abuse Treatment Research"
Becky Jo McShane - "Knitting and Technical Communication: The Physical Connection"
Loretta Walker - "Stories from the Front"
Jeffrey Ward - "Research and Documentation of the Plasma Fluid Finite Difference Time Domain Model"
Michele Zwolinski - "Case Studies for Geomicrobiology"

Total RSPG funds dispersed, Fall 2005: $14,036.24
Total RSPG funds dispersed, Spring 2006: $21,060
Total RSPG funds dispersed 2005-06: $35,096.24

Total Hemingway Vitality, Fall 2005: $10,613
Total Hemingway Vitality, Spring 2006: $8,230
Total Hemingway Vitality funds 2005-06: $18,843

Total New Faculty Funds: $9,378
Total Hemingway Collaborative and Faculty Excellence Funds: $25, 359
Weber Writes, Spring 2006: $39,000
Undergraduate Research Assistant Funds: $6,581

Total All Funds: $134, 257.24

6.   ACADEMIC RESOURCES AND COMPUTING COMMITTEE – John Armstrong, Chair

ARCC is developing a technique for gathering information about faculty and staff IT concerns, and working toward having ARCC serve as an advisory group to determine how IT decisions are made on campus.

7.   WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY MISSION STATEMENT – Mike Vaughan, Provost

The Board of Regents has asked all the institutions in the system to review their mission statement, and bring them forward for the Regents to approve. About half of the institutions in the system have now submitted them to the Regents.

The current mission statement revision process began with University Planning Council. They put together a small group from the Planning Council which drafted a revision of the mission statement and sent it out to the campus. Suggestions were added to various drafts of the mission statement. At one point there were six alternatives. The six alternatives were posted on the web and the campus community was invited to state a preference. About eight hundred faculty and staff participated. There was a strong preference for two of the drafts. The two drafts were taken to the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate, they were revised and one draft emerged. It went back to the University Planning Council for review. The National Advisory Committee was involved in the process, and the draft mission statement was shared with the Board of Trustees.

The Provost would like the Faculty Senate, if they are comfortable with it, to send the mission statement below to the Board of Trustees, and then onto the Board of Regents. If there is discomfort with it, he suggested that some guidance be given, and that it go back for revision.

June Phillips suggested that "cultural programs" be added to the mission statement.

Motion: Moved to forward to the Board of Trustees and then the Board of Regents the above mission statement.

Amendment: Add cultural programs after public service.
Made: Marek Matyjasik
Second: Jeff Stokes
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously

8.   COMMITTEE CHARGES – Bruce Handley

ACADEMIC RESOURCES AND COMPUTING

1. Allocate ARCC resources, including Dee Family Technology Grant funds, using consistent, objective, fair, and responsible criteria.

A. Review funding criteria and procedures for ARCC for possible revision or clarification purposes.
B. Continue to develop funding criteria for and advertisement of the Dee Family Technology Grant.

2. Assess faculty and student computer needs, solicit faculty input, and lobby for the faculty’s computer-related interests.
3. Review (with computing support) standards for hardware and software purchases.
4. Continue to improve the means of submitting proposals and decreasing the amount of paperwork involved.
5. Monitor the expenditures of all ARCC funds, including those supported through WSUSA funding.
6. Maintain close communication with other computer resource entities on campus, including WebCT/Vista.
7. Be represented on the IT Council and other critical technology oriented committees and routinely invite directors to summarize status of new projects and ongoing IT/CE support.
8. Improve communication between faculty, IT/CE, administration regarding technology issues and advise said bodies of faculty needs.
9. Sponsor a faculty/staff IT Users Group to share information, ideas, and solutions regarding the use of technology at Weber State.
10. Further establish itself as a nexus of information regarding IT issues among faculty, staff, and students, acting in an advisory capacity, and investigate its position as a decision making body.

1. Continue review of PPM sections dealing with student employment and Wildcat cards. The definition of who is a student has not been finalized.
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.
3. Work with the Registrar and the Provost to increase the number of working days for entering online grades.
4. Look at the maximum number of hours for 5000 level courses in a master’s program.
5. Review and make recommendations to the current graduation sign off procedure.
6. Review PPM’s 4-1. VII, 4-2,II. D, and 6-4, II. A, and make recommendations. All reference a petition or waiver process with the Registrar’s Office.

1. Review PPM 8-23 and other pertinent policies to clarify who can start the process of delaying tenure decisions. Allow for delaying the process for up to two years.
2. Research the practice of administering course evaluations across campus and consider policy that facilitates the distinction between course and program evaluations.
3. Investigate methods for communicating more effectively the new accommodation policy to the faculty.
4. Recommend revisions to PPM 8-12 regarding the timing of reviews by the University Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee. The current guidelines essentially require that the Committee meet during Spring Break .
5. Consider proposals from the APAFT subcommittee created last year to investigate and recommend revisions to the intellectual property sections of the PPM.
6. Review PPM 8-1a to clarify the process by which contract, tenure-track, or tenured faculty who wish to seek an advanced degree can determine if the institution in which they wish to enroll is appropriately accredited, and if the degree itself is acceptable.
7. Consider raising the standards (PPM 8-11) for a rating of Excellent in Scholarship and re-think the types of publications (and associated evaluation standards) that should be considered when evaluating and rating a faculty member’s scholarship. Special attention should be given to standards for evaluating electronic publications, chapters in edited collections, and vanity publications.
8. Review PPM’s 8 and 9 for formatting and language.

1. Calculate apportionment for Faculty Senate representation using the Hamilton Method and present the apportionment figures to the Faculty Senate during Autumn Semester.
2. Look at the language in the Faculty Senate Constitution regarding the membership of the Executive Committee and whether or not a faculty member from the library should always be included.
3. Research questions and make recommendations that are brought to the attention of the CRAO Committee.
4. Review PPM 1-13, Article C II, Section 3, 3.3 Student Members, and make a recommendation on the voting status of student representatives to the Faculty Senate.

1. Review and approve curriculum and program proposals.
2. Continue to conduct workshops on an as-needed basis with college curriculum committee chairs to acquaint them with curriculum procedures.
3. Develop forms for core and breadth course proposals.
4. Review and recommend language in PPM for workshops.
5. Work with the new General Education Assessment and Improvement Committee to develop an efficient and complementary working model that allows each to fulfill its part of the University's General Education evaluation needs without unnecessary duplication of effort.

1. Learning outcomes: Oversee completion (i.e. faculty senate approval) of learning outcomes for all GE breadth and core areas. This has already been accomplished for some areas, but not all.
2. Assessment tools: Oversee establishment of assessment tools for all GE breadth and core areas. This probably need not be as formal as the learning outcomes, as flexibility at the college and department levels may be necessary. Begin consideration of how individual courses can be held accountable.
3. General Education Program objectives: Revise the statement of General Education program objectives to improve clarity and concision. Consider how well the existing Gen Ed program fits with the reworded statement of objectives. Consider how well the existing WSU Gen Ed Mission Statement describes the reworded statement of objectives, and recommend changes to the mission statement as necessary.
4. Committee procedures: Now that the Gen Ed Assessment and Improvement Committee is no longer ad hoc, basic procedures to meet the committee’s mission are needed. Specifically, we need to establish (and codify) procedures for assessment of new courses intended to meet Gen Ed requirements. This will include consideration of relationships with other committees, most obviously the curriculum committee. We also need to establish and codify procedures for review of Gen Ed (incorporating results of assessment tools).
5. SI and Diversity: These are not strictly part of the Gen Ed program as outlined in the WSU catalog, but certainly seem to be part of the committee’s area of concern. The relationship of these requirements to Gen Ed should be clarified and codified. Learning outcomes and assessment tools may need to be developed, as appropriate.

1. Meet separately and early as the faculty portion of the committee to discuss representing in a unified manner the constituent needs and interests of the faculty in the deliberation of the larger committee.
2. Ensure faculty involvement in the nomination and selection of candidates for honorary degrees and for commencement speakers through maintaining the important voice of the faculty and the Faculty Senate as a major force on the institutional committee.
3. Consider ways to encourage more nominations from faculty for honorary degrees,
4. Encourage the selection of at least one honorary degree recipient each year who has made an outstanding academic contribution to higher education, preferably a WSU faculty member.
5. Work to achieve a representation of gender and ethnicity among degree recipients and ensure that all recipients are of stature to enhance the image of Weber State University.
6. See that the criteria for honorary degrees are considered , so that the understandable desire of the administration to cultivate donors and potential donors does not overwhelm the deliberations and pass over otherwise worthy candidates.
7. Provide the larger committee with a way to carry forward information so next year’s committee can benefit from work done this year.

1. Continue to issue RFPs for Research and Instructional Improvement, Hemingway, and Weber Writes grants and review the proposals in a timely manner.
2. Continue to coordinate deadlines for submission of proposals with the chairs of the Institutional Review Board and the Animal Care and Use Committee.
3. Review and update as needed the proposal guidelines. Clarify and report the criteria for awarding the grant. Explore ways to simplify the process and broaden the criteria.
4. Provide feedback to authors why proposals were not funded.
5. Continue efforts to publicize the committee’s activities. Seek ways to broaden participation campus wide. Explore opportunities to disseminate information about funded projects including workshops in order to provide consistent information and feedback to potential applicants.
6. Develop a proposal for additional funding to support faculty research and evaluate and report on the effectiveness of current funding on Weber Writes.
7. Work with the Teaching, Learning and Assessment Committee to find non-monetary ways to promote and recognize faculty research and scholarship.
8. Work with the Teaching, Learning and Assessment Committee to help faculty identify new methods of scholarship.
9. Look at the committee description and membership regulations listed in the Faculty Senate Bylaws, PPM 1-13, for possible revisions and updates.
10. Continue to coordinate with the office of undergraduate research to provide faculty with funding for research assistants.

1. Look at a proposed change in the PPM related to sick leave for faculty.
2. Consider recommending a tiered award structure for degree completion.
3. Equity Adjustments - Look at dollar amounts each year.
4. Look at salary comparisons in the inter mountain area, and cost of living for various areas.
5. Have a member of the SBBFP Committee sit on the Medical Benefits Advisory Committee.
6. Have the Chair of the SBBFP Committee sit on the Medical Benefits Steering Committee.
7. Narrow the gap between online teaching and face to face teaching.
8. Update the committee and discuss the process and status on rebidding medical insurance coverage.
9. Discuss how to communicate more effectively to faculty their contract period and how long their salary and benefits continue once they have tenured their resignation.

1. Continue to provide faculty development of teaching and learning through a range of established forums and opportunities yet to be created. These may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Sponsor an Adjunct Retreat in conjunction with the Office of Academic Affairs;
• Revise and re-organize the Last Lecture Series in partnership with WSUSA;
• Sponsor the Annual Faculty Forum in conjunction with Academic Affairs and RSPG ;
• Promote book discussion groups, workshops, and retreats;
• Assist the Office of Undergraduate Research and Office of Community-Based and Experiential Learning in providing faculty awareness and development in these areas;
• Sponsor the annual New Faculty Retreat.

2. Compile a database of faculty and community expertise in various aspects of teaching and learning which would serve as a resource when planning professional development activities.
3. Continue to assess the effectiveness of established forums in serving faculty needs in teaching, learning, and assessment.
4. Develop, monitor, and assess a number of ways to promote faculty awareness, attendance, and support for TLA sponsored opportunities for professional development which might include re-instituting a quarterly newsletter.
5. Work with the Research, Scholarship and Professional Growth Committee to find non-monetary ways to promote and recognize faculty research and scholarship.
6. Work with the Research, Scholarship and Professional Growth Committee to help faculty identify new methods of scholarship.
7. Discuss and make recommendations as to whether or not the committee title and description listed in the Faculty Senate Bylaws, PPM 1-13 (and stated above) reflect the role of the committee.

There was considerable discussion by Senate members on the S.I. requirement, and whether or not to impose a deadline for the General Education Improvement and Assessment Committee to bring forward to the Faculty Senate a recommendation.

Amendment: Amend charges to the General Education Improvement and Assessment Committee to have them report back to the Faculty Senate the committee’s recommendation what to do with S.I. by the January 2007Faculty Senate meeting
Made: Warren Hill
Second: Rob Reynolds
Outcome: The amendment to the motion failed with 14 in favor of the motion 23 against the motion.

A questions was raised about charge #1 to the APAFT Committee - "Review PPM 8-23 and other pertinent policies to clarify who can start the process of delaying tenure decisions. Allow for delaying the process for up to two years." It was pointed out that there is existing policy; the charge is to clarify the policy.

Motion by the Executive Committee to approve the above Faculty Senate Committee charges for 2006-07.
Outcome: The motion passed with 1 opposed and 1 abstention.

9.   CURRICULUM COMMITTEE – Laine Berghout, Chair

Curriculum Proposals

Teacher Education and Child and Family Studies - Program Option Deletion for Early Childhood Education Endorsement

Motion by the Curriculum Committee to approve from Teacher Education and Child and Family Studies a program option deletion for Early Childhood Education Endorsement.
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Philosophy - Course proposal for Deductive Logic - Phil 2200 proposed for QL designation
The vote in the Curriculum Committee meeting for Deductive Logic - Phil 2200 with the QL designation was 8 in favor of the proposal and 4 against the proposal. A concern of the Curriculum Committee was that the proposal came to them requiring only high school level mathematics competency. The Curriculum Committee amended the proposal to add Intermediate Algebra - Math 1010 or placement eligible for Contemporary Mathematics - Math 1030, Introduction to Statistics - Math 1040, or College Algebra - Math 1050 as a prerequisite. Currently all QL courses require Math 1010 as a prerequisite.

Motion by the Curriculum Committee to approve Deductive Logic - Phil 2200 with the QL designation.

Amendment: Moved to remove Math 1010 as a prerequisite for Deductive Logic - Phil 2200.
Made: Gene Sessions
Second: Ron Holt
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Proceeding with discussion of the logic course was questioned as the Faculty Senate has never approved a set of learning outcomes for quantitative literacy. Currently the General Education Improvement and Assessment Committee is charged to look at that issue.

It was pointed out that the Regents have outlined learning outcomes for quantitative literacy courses, and it is the Curriculum Committee’s responsibility to determine whether or not a course meets those outcomes.

Motion to Table: Moved to table the proposal for Deductive Logic - Phil 2200 for QL designation until such time as specific learning outcomes for QL are approved by the Faculty Senate, and until the General Education Improvement and Assessment Committee has established a codified procedures for assessment of new courses intended to fulfill general education requirements.
Made: Dale Ostlie
Second: Marek Matyjasic
Outcome: The motion failed.

Motion by the Curriculum Committee to approve Deductive Logic - Phil 2200 with the QL designation.

• Some pre-law students with 3.8 GPA’s take Math 1010 a couple of time and then have success in Math 1030, but now have a GPA of 3.5 and find they are unable to be accepted in a law school. For some reason some very smart students are having difficulty passing Math 1010 as taught.
• The Deductive Logic course will provide a rigorous option for some students without compromising the quality of their education at Weber State.
• The foundations of modern symbolic logic (propositional logic and predicate calculus) are the same foundations as modern mathematics (including algebra and calculus) – set theory.
• Logic courses are becoming the norm at many universities to fulfil quantitative literacy requirements (University of Utah, BYU, Notre Dame, University of Chicago, Indiana University, etc.)
• The logic course will better serve, and be the more appropriate course for students in some programs.
• The Deductive Logic course proposal is a response to the Math 1010 issue.
• Norm Jones from the Regents states "There is not inherent reason why deductive logic cannot be used in lieu of math. Its symbolic logic can be just as rigorous, and might be more appropriate for students in some programs."
• The logic course is forward thinking.
• The Regents have left an opening for institutions to offer courses to fulfill QL that are not math courses.
• The logic course uses mathematical models and equations to prove arguments.
• The Utah Regents Task Force on General Education stated, "The achievement of quantitative literacy in a college graduate should be viewed as a process that spans the undergraduate experience. It is not something that someone can get out of the way in high school. Students can test out of a math course, but would have to take the logic course to fulfill the QL requirement.
• The logic course meets the standard of a QL course.

Motion to Table: To allow Senators time to review the text used in the Deductive Logic course.
Made: John Sohl
Second: Becky Jo McShane
Outcome: The motion failed with 13 in favor of the motion and 23 opposed to the motion.

Amendment: Moved to reinsert as prerequisites for Deductive Logic - Phil 2200, Math ND0955, Math ND0960, or placement test eligible for Math 1010.
Made: Richard Greene
Second: Eric Pope
Outcome: The motion passed with 1 abstention

Previous Question
Made: Gene Sessions
Second: Ron Holt
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Motion by the Curriculum Committee to approve Deductive Logic - Phil 2200 with the QL designation.
Outcome:  The proposal passed with 22 in favor of the proposal, 13 against, and 1 abstention.

ADJOURN:

 The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.