FACULTY SENATE
AGENDA
Smith Lecture Hall, WB 206-207, 3:00 p.m.
February 17, 2011

1.     Roll Call

2.     Approval of the Minutes from the January 20, 2011 meeting

3.     Ogden City Presentation – Justin Anderson
        Proposed Water Transmission Pipeline

1.    ROLL

2.    APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Motion: Moved to approve the minutes from the January 20, 2011 meeting.
Made: Warren Hill
Second: Colleen Garside
Outcome: The minutes were approved.

3. OGDEN CITY PRESENTATION – Justin Anderson, City Engineer

Proposed Water Transmission Pipeline

This is the fourth time Ogden City has made the presentation to different groups at Weber State. This item will go back to the Environmental Issues Committee to consider, and, if appropriate, come back to the March Senate meeting with a recommendation and vote on this issue.

In 2008 Ogden City bonded for approximately fifty million dollars for water upgrades within the city. Ogden City is proposing to do a transmission line that will connect two water systems, Weber Basin water (south system), and Water through wells and a treatment plant up Ogden Canyon (north system) which feeds down the canyon to a series of reservoirs. This proposal will link those two systems together. Ogden buys water from Weber Basin. This is on a use it or lose it basis (The city pays for it whether or not they use it). The proposed system will allow Ogden City to use all the water they purchase from Weber Basin. The proposed system will also allow the city to send water when needed from the north system to the south system and visa versa.

Benefits to Ogden City

• L:ow Cost (The city will save about a million dollars that they can put toward other projects.)
• Ease of Construction
• Water for the future
• Fire break
• Water pressure will remain relatively even

Environmental Impact

• Removal of shrubs and trees.
• Scar on the land. Once the line is in, they will come back and vegetate the area.
• Clearing of a 20 foot wide area along the alignment
• Temporarily limit access to hiking trails

Questions

• What kind of pipe? The pipe is duct alignment and will be placed about five feet below the ground.
• How long to complete the project? Laying the pipe will take about three weeks. The project, including re-vegetating will take about a year to complete.
• Pipe placement? Ogden City has tried to place the pipeline so that it will not be in conflict with future construction by the University.
• Maintenance access to the pipeline? The city does not anticipate any maintenance to the pipe for 75 or so years. If for some reason there was some separation in the pipe, they would need access to fix the pipe.
• How visible will it be on the mountain? The scar on the land will probably be visible for the first 5 years.

4. RESEARCH, SCHOLARSHIP & PROFESSIONAL GROWTH – Marjukka Ollilainen, Chair

Fall Awards - Twenty-four proposals were directed to the Hemingway Faculty Vitality Fund ($28,674 requested), while eleven applied for the RSPG/Instructional Improvement and Research funds ($32,197). The total amount of funding requests was $64,933, while the committee had $30,285 to allocate (about 47% of the total requested). The total of amount of funds to expend ($30,285) included $15,163 for research and instructional improvement (RSPG) projects, $12,122 for faculty vitality projects (HMWY), and $3,000 to allocate for student assistants, generously provided by the Office of Undergraduate Research (OUR).

RSPG Research/Instructional Improvement (All funds spent)

• Requests: 11 applications, total $32,197
• Awarded: 7 (63% of) applications; $15,163

Hemingway Faculty Vitality (All funds spent)

• Requests: 24 applications, total $28,674
• Awarded: 14 (58% of) applications; $12,122

Office of Undergraduate Research (Remaining balance: $138)

• Requests: 3 requests for partial funding for a student assistant
• Awarded: $2,862 (out of a possible $3,000)

The entire report can be found on the web from the Faculty Senate Homepage under the February 10, 2011 Agenda Setting meeting link: http://faculty.weber.edu/senate/ http://faculty.weber.edu/senate/Minutes10-11/FS17Feb11.htm

After the Fall 2010 funding decisions, the RSPG Committee reports a remaining total of $138 (OUR). This money will carry over to the Spring 2011 funding cycle for hiring undergraduate assistants.

The RSPG Committee will accept applications for Spring 2011 in two calls for proposals. The first call included the Hemingway Collaborative and Excellence Awards (deadline February 18, 2011). The second call is for RSPG research and Instructional Improvement as well as for the Hemingway Vitality, New Faculty, and Adjunct proposals (deadline March 11).

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

Models from around the state were looked at by the Salary Committee to draft the proposal model below.

Supplemental Pay - Online and Face to Face - Draft 2-10-11

3 Credit Hour Example

Enrollment Multiplier Pay

This is coming to the Faculty Senate as an information item with the plan to roll it out to the colleges in the next few weeks through the dean’s office. A representative from the Salary, Benefits, Budget & Fiscal Planning Committee will attend each college meeting to talk with faculty in that college about the impact of this policy, field questions, answer concerns, and identify financial implications for individuals in the college. Once the committee has feedback from the colleges the recommended supplemental pay model will come back to the Faculty Senate for a vote.

Discussion

• The pay would be the same whether or not the faculty member is teaching online or face to face.
• Concerns expressed about low enrollment classes.
• The Deans and Continuing Education can negotiate the pay rate for courses that need to be offered, but will have small enrollment.
• This policy is detrimental to those who teach online.
• This is a redistribution of wealth.
• This model applies to faculty and adjuncts.
• We already have a policy for supplemental pay (PPM 3-50).
• Why not increase base pay?
• This model will put $250,000 into over load teaching. If you pay more for overload, the incentive is to teach more overload.
• Some feel this policy slaps down faculty who teach and earn lots of money.
• Consider the impact on students. Will there be as many online courses offered?
• Could lab sections be broken out?
• Why is it broken into 5 student blocks? One or two students over or under the break down makes a sizeable difference in pay.
• Quality of instruction - How can a faculty member teach a full load and teach 2 or 3 sections of 100 plus students in each section and provide quality, personal instruction?
• Departments need to self-police their course offerings.
• This model is more fair.
• There has been a huge disparity in overload pay for those teaching 75-100 students face to face and those teaching 75-100 students online.
• A faculty member teaching 75 students face to face earns $2,700. A faculty member teaching 75 students online earns $7,900. That is a huge difference.
• What is the role and philosophy of the university regarding online classes?

6. ADMISSIONS, STANDARDS & STUDENT AFFAIRS – Kathleen Herndon, Chair

PPM 4-2 Catalog Requirements, B. Returning Undergraduate Students, 2. General Education Requirements.

This language mirrors the language in PPM 4-21a, Awarding of Transfer Credit, and Credit by Examination or Petition, approve by the Faculty Senate January 20, 2011.

Discussion

• If older courses are accepted for credit, can they be used as the prerequisite for another course? This language allows a department to set age limits for prerequisites, and decide if the prerequisite is valid.
• This policy is specific to the application of a course to a degree requirement.