Minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting February 16, 2000 The regular meeting of the 1999-00 Faculty Senate was called to order by Dan Spencer at 3:30 p.m. The following Senators were present for all or part of the meeting: Berry, Brady, Cairns, Gillespie, Hariman, Honts, McCrickerd, Parsa, Petersen, Phillips, Pomeroy, Romig, Schneider, Simpson, Sisk, Spencer, Strentz, Torgerson, Walker, Wright Absent: Stratton Minutes of the Previous Meeting: Upon proper motion and second, the minutes of the January 2000 meeting were approved with corrections. President Spencer announced the newly elected at-large Senators who will begin a two year term of service with the 2000-01 year. They are: Judy Allen, Deborah Symonds, Jane Rankin, Art Sanders, John Haskell, Diana Reed. President Spencer outlined the meeting agenda and welcomed the guests, approximately 70, to participate in the discussion. He thanked Sue Wright and the Steering Committee for the energy and time already committed to this project. He reminded the group of the timetable which calls for the Steering Committee to deliver their data to the Deans by the end of February and for the Deans to meet at end of semester deadline for their priority setting. The Provost will make a set of recommendations over the summer. Senator Hariman asked which Provost would work on these issues. President Maxwell replied that for the purposes of this project Steve Hoag will work closely with the newly hired person. Senator Wright reported on the progress of the Academic Program Review Steering Committee. The Committee has a) produced a program definition, which has been distributed to the Deans and others; b) almost completed a draft of the Guidelines and Criteria which currently has five parts (Program Description, Essentiality/Demand, Quality of Program, Size/Productivity and Opportunity) She stressed that the committee is working to create a set of criteria that a) allows every program to establish its strengths and b) provides information necessary to actually prioritize programs. The Associate Provost is providing enrollment data to the departments through the Steering Committee rather than requiring each unit to supply all its own data. John Parker asked if the recent survey would be summarized and used by the committee. President Maxwell answered that the questionnaire is disconnected from the program review process. It is an instrument to gather the attitude of the campus and he apologized for any confusion on that issue. Vice President Vicki Payseur reported on the Non-Academic Program Review Committee. She shared the names of the on campus membership only as the two Board of Governor representatives have not yet officially replied. Jean Berger, Diane Caldbeck, Renae Chesnut, Jamie Ferrare, Bob Hoehle, Bob Hunter, Marie Klugman, James O'Daye and Patti Verlengia were named. She presented the four goals of the University Program Review and nine additional outcome goals for the Non-academic Program Review. She indicated these outcome goals are tentative, as the committee has not yet met. Several questions were raised that produced a compare and contrast of the Academic to the Non-Academic Program Review Process. President Maxwell indicated the Academic Review is a weighing against each other for resources whereas the Non-Academic is a question of are we doing the right things in the right ways with the right people. Questions concerning committee membership were made especially the lack of a student or student life representatives. Ms Payseur indicated the person's chosen were from employee groups rather than functional groups. President Spencer began with a review of the Review and Priorities Advisory Committee's (RPAC) overall function. The responsibilities are a) guidance and feedback to President on recommendations from Provost b) coordinate public hearings on recommendations c) coordinate and facilitate communication on academic/non-academic review process in Fall 2000 once recommendations are forwarded from the Provost. The proposed timeline is such that the RPAC members will be announced by mid-April. The essential questions for today's discussion focus on the make up of the committee and the selection process. President Maxwell reminded all concerned that the final decision of what goes to the Board is his but he wants to be able to sell the recommendations to the Board as coming from the campus community and collect impressions for this advisory committee. Allen Scult and Greg Sisk expressed opinions that RPAC be comprised of all faculty. Mr. Scult requested that nominated persons be asked to articulate their thinking on the relevant issues. Several others believed that this committee needed to represent the whole of the university. Gretchen Olson outlined a set of offices with wide ranging student and University impact that would not be represented by faculty only representation. She mentioned such offices as International Center, Admissions, Career Center, Residence Life, Greek Life, Student Activities, Counseling/Health Center and Student Financial Planning. Senator Torgerson indicated an interest in the faculty portion of RPAC serving as an advisory group to the Provost and further suggested divisional/college representation. Judy Allen agreed that overall decisions should be looked at by more than just faculty but that the faculty look at the academic programs. Senator Sisk strongly suggested that the faculty nominations come from within the divisions and colleges so that the nominees have the confidence and trust of their units. Senator Berry indicated that a manageable size committee is important with selected people who have a broad view of the university. This committee may be discussing the topic of tenured faculty elimination. Several persons requested clarification of the committee's relationship to the Steering Committee. The groups are mutually exclusive. Steering Committee members are eligible for RPAC. Senator Walker moved and Cairns seconded Motion 00-06: To hold a Faculty Senate meeting in two weeks to respond to motion(s) from the Senate Executive Committee concerning the Review & Priorities Advisory Committee process and mandate. The motion was accepted by unanimous vote. Unfinished Business: None presented. New Business: None presented On proper motion and second the meeting closed at 5:00 p.m. Submitted by Nancy Geiger, Secretary