Thursday

AGENDA SETTING
March 11, 2010

1. Approval of the minutes from the March 4, 2010 meeting

2. Calendar

3. Environmental Issues– Hal Crimmel, Chair

Sustainability Across the Curriculum

4. Appointment, Promotion, Academic Freedom & Tenure – Afshin Ghoreishi, Chair

Library Tenure Document

5. Curriculum Committee – Erika Daines, Chair

Gen Ed Procedure & Flow Chart

BA/BS Proposal

Curriculum Proposals

Technical Sales - Program changes for - Technical Sales, Sales and Merchandising, Sales and Service

Technology (Minor), and Interior Design/Technical Sales; Course proposals for Advanced Selling Techniques - SST 2603, and Senior Seminar - SST 4993; The Fashion Merchandising minor is being removed from the Technical Sales program.

Master of Business Administration - Certificate in Environmental Sustainability for Business

6. General Education Implementation & Assessment Committee – Rick Ford

Composition Mission Statement & Learning Outcomes

Proposal for a Director of General Education

7. Liaison Reports

ARCC - Ed Hahn

APAFT - Sue Harley

ASSA - Peggy Saunders

CRAO - Doris Geide-Stevenson

Curriculum - Laine Berghout

Environmental Issues - David Ferro

General Education - Laine Berghout

Honorary Degree - Kathy Sitzman

RSPG - Azenett Garza

SBBFP - David Ferro

TLA - Colleen Garside

8. Other Items

MINUTES

PRESENT
Laine Berghout, David Ferro, Colleen Garside, Azenett Garza, Doris Geide-Stevenson, Ed Hahn, Sue Harley, Peggy Saunders, Kathleen Sitzman, Mike Vaughan – Kay Brown, Secretary

EXCUSED
Ann Millner

GUESTS
Erika Daines, Dick Dahlkemper, Afshin Ghoreishi, Mark Simpson

MINUTES
Colleen Garside: Moved to approve the minutes from the March 4, 2010 meeting.
Second: Ed Hahn
Outcome: The minutes were approved.

LEGISLATURE
The Legislature approved an Engineering degree at Weber State. The Faculty Senate approve an Electronics Engineering degree in 2006 and then approved a General Degree with tracks. Those proposals have been on hold in the Regents Office.The Trustees will probably make a resolution that will say something like – The WSU Board of Trustees acknowledges and approves of the action of the 2010 Utah Legislature to create an engineering degree at Weber State University. The exact language might be put in the bill to say that the Legislature’s actions are consistent with the Trustees prior approval of the creation of an engineering degree at Weber State. Once a degree is approved by the Regents or the Trustees, they no longer have input into the curriculum in that degree.

The Legislature mitigated the budget cuts for all state institutions. There will still be a budget cut for the upcoming academic year, but it will be less what was anticipated.

CALENDAR
The Executive Committee reviewed some different schedules that have been proposed for the academic calendar. The Executive Committee discussed the advantages and concerns of each calendar. Faculty would like to see Fall and Spring semesters be balanced in terms of teaching days and the number of days allotted for finals.

One of the proposals suggested increasing class time, but to not teaching on Fridays so that faculty could use that time weekly for service and scholarship. The Provost indicated that the Building Board and Legislature use a formula for building use. If classes were not taught on Fridays, Weber State would show up at 20% excess building capacity which would mean that Weber State would not be approved for any new buildings. Another problem mentioned is that scheduling would be difficult with a four-day week.

Executive Committee members were asked to rank between 1 (not important) to 5 (important) the options that are important to consider in the calendar and return the information before March 25.

The Registrar, Mark Simpson, will furnish information to the Senate Office on summer utilization, how many classes were taught in the full semester, how many in first and second block. The number of classes taught during the 7:30 time frame will also be furnished.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Environmental Issues Committee – Hal Crimmel, Chair

The sustainabilty subcommittee has met twice since last month. "The goal of these discussions is to consider whether and how sustainability issues can be better incorporated into the curriculum. In general, the concern is that students are graduating from WSU with little or no knowledge of environmental/sustainability issues. The subcommittee feels students need to have some exposure to such topics, both as a matter of being well-educated, and to prepare them to meet the workforce challenges in coming decades.

Rationale & Opportunities

Strengthen WSU’s Stated Objectives & Core Mission
Differentiate Weber State from Other Institutions
Build on the Strength of Faculty Expertise in Sustainability Issues
Provide Students with the Skills and Knowledge to Succeed in a "Greening Economy"

The committee is advocating for:

New University graduation requirement. This would not add any new graduation hours.
Designation in the General Education curriculum, i.e. Sustainability, Sustainable Living, Environmental Issues or Environmental. Students could pick up this designation anywhere in their program of study. Professors would submit a course proposal, similar to submitting a course proposal for Gen Ed credit. The proposal would pass through the College Curriculum Committee, the University Curriculum Committee, and final approval by the Faculty Senate. Assessment would be done based on the learning outcomes established in the proposal
The Environmental Issues Committee will discuss the proposal with the academic deans, and different models will be discussed by the Environmental Issues Committee before moving the proposal forward.

APAFT
Appointment, Promotion, Academic Freedom & Tenure Committee – Afshin Ghoreishi, Chair

Library Tenure Document - Summary of Changes

After reviewing the Library’s existing tenure document, which dates to 1990, we determined that the existing document is so badly out of date that it would be better to create an entirely new document instead of trying to revise the old one. With permission from Dean Rasmussen, we decided to base our new document on the College of Education’s recently revised tenure document. Since this new library tenure document is a replacement for, and not a revision of, the existing document, we have not included the text of the existing document in the attached copy. To do so would have made it much more difficult to review. Instead, passages in the new document that match language in the existing document are highlighted; as you will see, there are only a few of these. The following paragraphs briefly describe each section of the new document in comparison to the existing document.

Introduction: This new introductory section reflects current University policy. The existing document does not have an introduction. Instead, it starts with a Definitions section that simply repeats information from the PPM as of 1990 and briefly states the purpose of the document.

Credentials/Probationary: This new section combines and updates material from Section II. A-C of the existing document.

Standards of Professional Behavior: This new section replaces section II. E in the existing document. Instead of describing ethical standards in detail, as in the existing document, this new section refers to relevant sections of the PPM.

Competencies: This new section summarizes the competencies to be considered during the review process; there is no comparable section in the existing document.

Evaluation Summary: The new section discusses the evaluation summary, which is not mentioned in the existing document, and presents the channels to be used in the evaluation process. Channels A, B, D and E match Channels I-IV in the existing document; Channel C is new.

Ratings: This new section expands on section II. F in the existing document.

Professional File: This new section replaces references found throughout the existing document to the professional file and adds details on documents that should be in the professional file.

Peer Review Committee Evaluations: There is no comparable section in the existing document. Instead, references to peer review are spread throughout that document, with little detail.

Definitions of Categories and Criteria: Category I: Teaching: The section replaces section II. G of the existing document, where this category is designated as Instruction. The distinction made in the existing document between formal and informal instruction is no longer relevant. The activities listed under the new subdivisions include, in different or expanded wording, everything found in the existing document and adds several new items relevant to the teaching activities currently engaged in by library faculty. New to this section is the clarification of ratings section at the end. The inclusion of librarianship in this section reflects the fact that the teaching activities of library faculty include activities that encompass a variety of instructional activities outside the classroom. It also reflects the use of the term librarianship in other library documents.

Definitions of Categories and Criteria: Category II: Scholarship: This section replaces section II. H of the existing document, where this category is designated as Professional Activities and Scholarship. Other than the change in title, the major change made to this category was to eliminate the two subcategories (Professional Activities in the Library and Professional Growth) and move several activities from these two subcategories to Category III in the new document. Thus, this section of the new document is more focused on scholarship and professional growth and is more in line with the PPM. A clarification of ratings section has also been added.

Definitions of Categories and Criteria: Category III: Administrative and/or Professionally Related Service: This section replaces section II. I of the existing document, where this category is designated simply as Service. As noted above, the major change in this category was to eliminate some activities that are no longer relevant and add some activities from the previous category. Finally, a clarification of ratings section has been added.

The existing library tenure document can be viewed at: http://www.weber.edu/FacultyAndStaffResources/library_tenure.html

MOTION Sue Harley: Moved to forward to the Faculty Senate the Library Tenure document.
Second: Ed Hahn
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

CURRICULUM
Curriculum Committee – Erika Daines, Chair

Creative Arts Gen Ed Forms

The forms were revised to strike Humanities and put in Creative Arts. The learning outcomes were not changed. The Curriculum Committee Chair felt the form for Humanities and the form for Creative Arts Gen Ed need to be different. This can come as a charge for next year’s committee.

BA/BS PROPOSAL
The editorial revisions to the BA/BS Proposal were reviewed.

MOTION
Doris Stevenson: Moved to forward to the Faculty Senate for a vote the BA/BS Proposal and Flow Chart.
Second: Kathleen Sitzman
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

Curriculum Proposals

Technical Sales - Program changes for - Technical Sales, Sales and Merchandising, Sales and Service Technology (Minor), and Interior Design/Technical Sales; Course proposals for Advanced Selling Techniques - SST 2603, and Senior Seminar - SST 4993; The Fashion Merchandising minor is being removed from the Technical Sales program.

Master of Business Administration - Certificate in Environmental Sustainability for Business

MOTION
Ed Hahn: Moved to forward to the Faculty Senate the above curriculum proposals.
Second: Peggy Saunders
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

GEN ED
General Education Improvement & Assessment Committee

Composition Mission Statement

The composition core required by the Utah State Board of Regents is a two-semester sequence of courses: English 1010 and English 2010. The overarching goal of composition is to prepare students to enter the discourse communities of the university and larger society.

Students in English 1010 should produce a minimum of 4000 words of revised prose; students in English 2010 should produce a minimum of 5000 words of revised prose. Students must exit both courses with a C or better in order to receive credit.

Because the following competencies are the combined outcomes for English 1010 and 2010, it is not expected that each course, individually, will meet all outcomes. Students successfully completing the sequence should be able to

Rhetorical Situation

Adapt their writing to a variety of purposes, audiences, and composing situations by selecting and using the most appropriate genres.

Produce a variety of formal and informal kinds of writing, emphasizing the most common academic genres.

Demonstrate an understanding of how rhetorical expectations vary from discipline to discipline.

Use technologies appropriate to purpose and audience.

Demonstrate an understanding of how emerging technologies create emerging genres.

Reading

Demonstrate an ability to read and understand texts of a variety of genres, styles and complexity.

Demonstrate an understanding of how texts are structured in specific ways for specific reasons.

Demonstrate an ability to understand and evaluate a text's organization.

Thinking

Use writing and reading for inquiry, learning, thinking, and communicating.

Recognize personal and authorial bias when approaching texts, issues, and ideas.

Recognize contradictions and logical problems in texts.

Demonstrate an understanding of the relationships between language, knowledge, and power.

Recognize complex ideas and positions in arguments and attempt to understand diverse perspectives.

Ask constructive questions that could lead to meaningful inquiry.

Identify connections between and among texts and their ideas.

Writing

STRUCTURE and MECHANICS

Compose writing that is structurally coherent and unified.

Compose writing assignments with a clear thesis or main idea.

Control such surface features as syntax, grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

Use a style manual to find answers to grammar or usage questions.

PROCESS

Demonstrate an understanding of how effective writing is a recursive process.

Develop flexible pre-writing, drafting, peer response, and revision strategies in composing written assignments.

Continue to practice writing as a process.

Demonstrate an understanding of how electronic technologies can enhance the way we compose and share texts.

Research and Argumentation (emphasized in 2010 but may also occur in 1010)

Use library resources to locate appropriate sources for research.

Evaluate potential source material for credibility and usefulness.

Use sources to make arguments.

Summarize, paraphrase, and use quotations appropriately.

Use MLA and introduce one other citation method (preferably APA).

MOTION
Colleen Garside: Moved to forward to the Faculty Senate the above Composition Mission Statement and Learning Outcomes.
Second: Azenett Garza
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

GEN ED DIRECTOR
Proposal to Establish a Faculty Director of General Education

Charge: In consultation with the Provost’s office, review the organization of General Education at WSU and develop an improved organizational plan than will allow for effective oversight and development of Gen Ed. The plan should address issues of consistent leadership and incorporate representative subcommittees for breadth and core Gen Ed areas.

Response: After reviewing the organization and leadership of general education programs at many comparable universities across the country, the General Education Committee recommends that WSU establish the position of Faculty Director of General Education. Such a position is fairly common at other colleges and universities. In many cases it is a faculty position, but is some cases it is an administrative position. We believe a faculty position is in keeping with the strong tradition of curriculum oversight by the faculty here at WSU. The attached description of the responsibilities associated with this position also serves to demonstrate the need for establishing such a position, as these functions are currently decentralized among many individuals and offices across our campus. A Faculty Director would provide a much needed single point of contact for our General Education Program, especially in light of the increasing demands for comprehensive assessment of the program and its constituent courses.

MOTION
Doris Stevenson: Moved for forward to the Faculty Senate as an information Item the proposal to establish a faculty Director of General Education.
Second: Azenett Garza
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

LIAISON REPORTS
Doris Stevenson: Moved to skip the Liaison reports.
Second: Ed Hahn
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

PROGRAM DISCONTINUANCE
PPM 1-14 Program Discontinuance Review Procedure

II. REVIEW PROCESS

A. Initiation of Process

This review will occur at the request of any person in an adversely or critically affected academic program/unit. The chair of the Faculty Senate shall establish a date for this review and send written notification of this to the affected program/unit.

B. Program Review Committee Composition

1. The Program Review Committee shall consist of the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate and only those additional faculty members selected by the Committee as to ensure voting representation from each organizational unit. The Program Review Committee will be called by the chair of the Faculty Senate. The Committee will then elect its own chair. The chair and vice chair of the Faculty Senate shall serve on the Committee as ex-officio members without vote. The Committee shall consult with the president and provost during the course of its deliberations.

2. Any member of the Program Review Committee who is from an affected entity is ineligible to vote on that case. Only one vote from each organizational unit will be allowed.

3. In the event that any member of the Executive Committee is unable to participate on the Program Review Committee for any reason, a substitute member from the absentee's respective organizational unit shall be selected by the Executive Committee.

C. Review Procedure

1. Participants
    a. Persons selected by the affected program/organizational unit who are members of that program/organizational unit.
    b. The Program Review Committee.
    c. Appropriate resource persons invited by the Committee chair.

2. Members of the affected program/organizational unit will respond to proposed changes.

3. Information pertaining to the case will be sought from appropriate sources.

4. Questions and clarification will be pursued until the Program Review Committee feels satisfactorily informed about the case.

5. Deliberation will occur in closed session by the Program Review Committee with a Committee vote being taken by secret ballot.

6. A recommendation will be made by the Committee based on a majority vote.

7. The Program Review Committee recommendation will be forwarded to the president of the University for his/her consideration.

8. A copy of the Committee recommendations will be forwarded to the affected program/unit.

9. The University president will then prepare a final decision with copies to be sent to the affected program/unit and the Program Review Committee.

D. Timing and Duration

1. The review action is to be a one-time event per case.

2. If academic/unit program review ensues as a result of the strategic planning process (PPM 1-14), adequate time should be allowed for the review and response by the Program Review Committee before a final institutional decision is made which would adversely or critically affect an academic unit or program.

3. The Committee review will be initiated within 15 (fifteen) calendar days after the Faculty Senate chair receives notification of a tentative strategic planning decision for program/unit modification or discontinuance.

4. The review will be conducted as expeditiously as possible so as to not encumber the institutional planning process, interfere with time constraints imposed by external agencies or unduly delay any affected faculty in their adjustments to the proposed changes. Normally, the review process should be conducted and a recommendation forwarded within 15 (fifteen) calendar days from the initiation of the review. The University president's final decision should be completed as expeditiously as possible.

Two faculty members in the Mechanical Engineering Technology Department will be affected by the proposal to discontinue the program, Kirk Hagen (Professor) and Daniel Magda (Associate Professor).

The Executive Committee will contact a faculty member from COAST to serve on the review committee.

MOTION
Doris Stevenson: Moved to ask Ron Peterson from COAST to serve on the Program Review Committee.
Second: Colleen Garside
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

MOTION
Peggy Saunders: Moved to have Doris Geide-Stevenson chair the Program Review Committee.
Second: Colleen Garside
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

The Program Review Committee will be formed when a representative from COAST has accepted the assignment.

ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.