1.     Roll Call

2.     Approve the minutes from the January 21, 2010 meeting

3.     Research, Scholarship & Professional Growth Committee – Marjukka Ollilainen, Chair
        Fall Funding Report

4.    Academic Resources & Computing Committee – John Armstrong, Chair
       ARCC Report

5.   Salary, Benefits, Budgets & Fiscal Planning Committee – Lloyd Burton, Chair
      PPM 3-51 Evening School and Off-Campus Rate

6.  Curriculum Committee – Erika Daines, Chair
     Curriculum Proposals can be viewed at: http://faculty.weber.edu/senate/
     On the Faculty Senate homepage in the purple column on the left is a link "Curriculum Proposals for Senate Approval."

Curriculum

Foreign Language - Program changes for all Foreign Language Majors and Minors; Course proposals for First Year I - FL 1010, First Year II - FL 1020, Second Year I - FL 2010, Second Year II - FL HU 2020, Second Year II - FL 2021, Second Year Language Review - FL 2030

Visual Arts - Program change for Bachelor of Integrated Studies Art Emphasis

General Education Course Renewal

Honors - Perspectives in Life Science - HNRS LS 1510

Honors - Perspectives in the Physical Sciences - HNRS PS 1500

Health Sciences - Biomedical Core Lecture/Lab - HTHS LS 1110

Health Promotion & Human Performance - Foundations in Nutrition - NUTR/HLTH LS 1020

7.   BA/BS Proposal

8.   Other Items

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

5.     SALARY, BENEFITS, BUDGET & FISCAL PLANNING COMMITTEE – Lloyd Burton, Chair

The Board of Trustees suspended PPM 3-51 March 10, 2009. Because of cost reductions, the fixed salary rate for supplemental pay was cut. Prior to last year the fixed salary rate had increased at a greater rate than the average base salary. The proposed change would allow the fixed salary rate to increase or decrease independent from the base salary rate.

PPM 3-51

I. POLICY

A. A fixed salary rate for regularly appointed faculty members teaching classes for supplemental pay is established and reviewed periodically annually and reported to the Salary, Benefits, Budget & Fiscal Planning Committee by the president in consultation with the provost and the Faculty Senate.
1. The fixed salary rate shall be adjusted annually at the same rate as the average base salary increase for that year.

2. Under unusual conditions, individual exceptions to the fixed salary rate may be recommended by the academic dean and approved by the provost.

Faculty Statements About the Suspension of PPM 3-51

• The policy was sent to the Board of Trustees without being discussed with the Executive Committee. It seems to be an egregious violation of the principle of shared governance.
• It was proposed that a charge put into PPM that would require the administration to discuss suspensions of sections of the PPM with the Executive Committee before they were sent to the Board of Trustees.
• No faculty input on the suspension.
• What’s to prevent the administration from deciding a policy that the faculty relies on is no longer valid?
• Where was the faculty representation?
• Faculty Senate members recall the discussion on the budget cut and the reduction in the pay rate, but they do not remember any discussion of a suspension of a PPM policy.
• The Faculty Senate should vote on PPM changes.
• The suspension went to the Trustees during spring break.
• There was not realization that the discussion of the reduction in the pay rate would cause a suspension of the PPM.

Provost’s Responses

• The Provost came to the Senate in January to discuss the budget cuts the University was facing and alternative strategies for dealing with those cuts. One of those strategies was to reduce the compensation for face to face teaching and to reduce the compensation for online teaching. This was described in general terms in the January Senate meeting. The Provost came back in February after meeting with the Salary, Benefits, Budget & Fiscal Planning Committee with specific options with regard to the magnitude of the reduction to the online pay rate and the magnitude of the reduction to the face to face pay rate.
• After the trustees acted the policy was discussed with the Faculty Senate Chair and Vice Chair.
• The policy has not been adhered to. The fixed salary rate and the supplemental base rate have not gone up in tandem.

Main Motion by the Salary, Benefits, Budget & Fiscal Planning Committee to approve the proposed changes to PPM 3-51 at stated above.

Amended
Motion: Charge the Executive Committee to charge the appropriate committee to write a policy or modify the existing policy with regard to timely and suitable consultation and notification of the faculty when it is deemed necessary to temporarily suspend a policy in the PPM.

Made: Sue Harley
Second: Doris Geide-Stevenson
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously

Discussion of proposed changes to PPM 3-51

• The way the policy reads now a department could decide to have supplemental pay at zero, and the adjunct rate could go up.
• There is a common rate of pay for adjunct faculty and in almost all instances it is equal to or less than the rate of pay for faculty.
• Could a charge be given to the Salary, Benefits, Budgets & Fiscal Planning Committee to look at the policy so that the rate of pay for regularly appointed faculty cannot be less than the rate of pay for adjunct faculty?
• This should go back to the Salary Committee for discussion.

• What bench mark or index is being looked at with regard to trying to establish parity between base salary compensation and supplemental compensation?

Motion to Table: Moved to table the motion.
Made:  Lloyd Burton
Second: Jeff Ward
Outcome: The motion was tabled.

The Provost recommended that there be some discussion on whether to the Salary, Benefits, Budget & Fiscal Planning Committee wants to recommend continuation of the suspension of the policy or remove the suspension of the policy.

Motion: Moved to charge the Executive Committee to charge the Salary, Benefits, Budget & Fiscal Planning Committee to review PPM 3-51 and establish parity in pay for regular contract faculty and the rate of pay for adjunct faculty. The rate of pay for regular contract faculty cannot be less than the rate of pay for adjunct faculty.
Made: Afshin Ghoreishi
Second: Azenett Garza
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

6. CURRICULUM COMMITTEE – Erika Daines, Chair

Curriculum Proposals

Foreign Language - Program changes for all Foreign Language Majors and Minors; Course proposals for First Year I - FL 1010, First Year II - FL 1020, Second Year I - FL 2010, Second Year II - FL HU 2020, Second Year II - FL 2021, Second Year Language Review - FL 2030

Visual Arts - Program change for Bachelor of Integrated Studies Art Emphasis

Motion: Moved to approve the above curriculum proposals from Foreign Language and Visual Arts.
Made: Shelley Thomas
Second: Colleen Garside
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.

General Education Course Renewal

The last full accreditation report from Northwest faulted Weber State for not having a review process for general education courses. In response to the Northwest report learning outcomes were revised and approved by the Faculty Senate. Once all the learning outcomes were approved, the Curriculum Committee was charged to begin the Gen Ed review. This year life science and physical science Gen Ed courses were reviewed. Next year humanities and creative arts courses will be reviewed.

The policy states that Gen Ed courses that are not passed unanimously by the Curriculum Committee be sent to the General Education Improvement & Assessment Committee for further review, discussion and a recommendation from that committee. The four courses before the Senate have gone through that process.

Discussion on the two Honors courses had more to do with procedure than with content. These are variable title courses. The general feeling of both committees was that variable title courses should have some type of review.

"The General Education Improvement & Assessment Committee recommends that the approval of the variable-title general-education courses offered by the Honors Program (HNRS PS 1500, LS 1510, SS 1520, CA 1530, and HU 1540) be handled in the same manner currently used for other variable-title courses and workshops, that is approval by the Chair of the Curriculum Committee, in consultation with the entire Curriculum Committee as needed."

If the Gen Ed courses are approved they keep their Gen Ed status and will not be reviewed again for five years. If the Gen Ed courses are not approved they will be on probation for one year, which means they would have Gen Ed status for the entire next year, and then could be resubmitted in the review process next Fall.

Motion: Moved to have the vote be done by secret ballot.
Made: Rod Hansen
Second: David Berry
Outcome: The motion passed with 1 opposed.

Friendly Amendment: A secret ballot is not needed for the Honors courses.

Honors - Perspectives in Life Science - HNRS LS 1510

Honors - Perspectives in the Physical Sciences - HNRS PS 1500
New variable titles for the Honors courses will submit a topical outline to the Chair of the Curriculum Committee for approval.

Motion by the Curriculum Committee to approve the Gen Ed renewal for Perspectives in Life Science - HNRS LS 1510 and Perspectives in the Physical Sciences - HNRS PS 1500.
Outcome: The motion passed with 1 abstention.

Election Tellers were selected. Pat Shaw and Mark Simpson served as election tellers.

Health Sciences - Biomedical Core Lecture/Lab - HTHS LS 1110

Discussion

• Some concern about the course meeting some of the objectives – ecology and evolution.
• The course is designed on national human anatomy and physiology objectives.
• The course materials shows they address DNA, RNA, and evolution.
• There is a module on microbiology in the course.

Motion by the Curriculum Committee to approve the Life Science Gen Ed renewal for Biomedical Core Lecture/Lab HTHS LS 1110.
Outcome: The motion passed with 32 in favor and 6 opposed.

Health Promotion & Human Performance - Foundations in Nutrition - NUTR/HLTH LS 1020

The discussion should not be about the process. We need to trust the committees in their review. This should not be a political discussing. There is a disagreement between Nutrition and the College of Science on whether or not this course meets the learning outcomes that have been agreed upon by the Faculty Senate.

Speaking in Favor of Continuing the Gen Ed Life Science Status of the Course

• Course does not meet the outcomes.
• The course covers evolution. There are examples in the course proposal and on the slides. They give an example of evolution within scientific inquiry. They tie evolution to other theories. Evolution is embedded throughout the course.
• They teach the scientific method.
• Nutrition courses are commonly life science general education courses, and taught with a biology header at many schools.
• Don’t overlook what is presented in the proposal.
• The nutrition course is used by four department (Dental Hygiene, Nursing, Health Sciences and Health Administrative Services) for students to either fulfill prerequisites or general education requirements. The Dumke College of Health Professions has over 2,000 student needing to use nutrition as a prerequisite or wanting to use it as a general education course. If the nutrition course at Weber State is not granted the life science designation, these students could go to another institution take the nutrition course there to receive their life science Gen Ed credit and then transfer it back to Weber State, and Weber State would then grant them Gen Ed credit.
• The outcomes mention evolution, but they do not mention "natural selection." The course needs to be judged by the existing guidelines.
• There is a state articulation agreement among the USHE institutions to accept nutrition as a life science course.
• Even though this is not a bottom up course in life science it does address the learning outcomes adequately with topics that the students can relate to.
• Some students will do their prerequisites at other institution and transfer them to Weber because they will then be accepted as Gen Ed courses.
• The proposal goes in great depth on each of the learning outcomes.
• There is extensive documentation of how the course clearly has the learning outcomes threaded throughout the curriculum for the entire semester.

Speaking Against Continuing the Gen Ed Status of Nutrition

• Need to discuss the merits of the course.
• There was a vote of no confidence by the General Education Improvement & Assessment Committee that the learning outcomes were not met.
• Do we care about the learning outcomes being met?
• The course does not meet the spirit of a Gen Ed course.
• Science Gen Ed courses should be build on a foundation of science principles. This course does not show a scientific foundation.
• Articulation is not at issue. At issue is whether or not the course meets the learning objectives as established by Weber State.
• The examples of evolution given in the proposal show genetic variation an heredity which are aspects of evolution. The key component of evolution is the selection process, and in natural selection you have extinction events. There is no evidence of the selection process in this course.
• Despite the statements made that this course covers the learning outcome particularly evolution, a careful examination of the material it is felt that this course does not do an adequate job.
• The concern about this course is not about student credit hours.
• The course does not cover evolutionary biology.
• Concerned that students need a general education course in the life sciences.
• Evolution of diet is not the regular way evolution is discussed.
• "Shared genetic processes and evolution by natural selection are universal features of all life" is stated is the learning outcomes.
• Outside reviewers came in and had us examine our Gen Ed courses in terms of what we want our students to know. Learning outcomes were developed and voted upon. A process for review was put in place. Two life science course were examined by two committees. Two courses have come to the Senate that the committees are unsure about meeting the outcomes. The process gives us a year to determine if the way the nutrition course is taught meets the learning outcomes. The point of all of this is to make our curriculum better, not to fight about turf. If we are not quite satisfied, the department can bring back the course and design the course to satisfy the Senate on meeting the learning outcomes.
• The Gen Ed nutrition course at Utah Valley University is 2020 which is the second half of a two semester course.
• The nutrition course at the University of Utah is accepted in a separate category as "applied science" that no other USHE institution has.
• The nutrition course was in a different Gen Ed area prior to semester conversion. The General Education Improvement & Assessment Committee felt that perhaps they should be given the charge in the future to look at having an "applied arts & sciences category " where this course and other courses might have a better fit. We need to be willing to explore other options with regard to Gen Ed.