Present: Alex Bezzerides, Chair; Ed Miller, Past Chair; Amy Canfield, Secretary; Tony Fernandez, President; Lori Stinson, Provost
Senators: Kerensa Allison, Lynne Bidwell, Scott Brainard, Diane Driskill, Michael Edgehouse, Jacquelynn Hanvey, Deborah Kolstad, Jenni Light, Luther Maddy, Randy Martin, Dave McCullough (alternate for Rik Brosten), Joni Mina, Carol Nelson (alternate for Holly Tower), Michelle Pearson-Smith, Peter Remien, Louis Sylvester, Angela Wartel, LeeAnn Wiggin
Administrative and Guests: Marcy Halpin (Chair, Curriculum), Levi Stroud (ASLCSC), Megan Weir (ASLCSC), Laura Earles
I. Call to order
New Senators and ASLCSC representatives introduced themselves.
III. Consent Agenda
Approval of draft minutes from May 1, 2014, meeting. Jenni Light moved to approve the consent agenda, and Joni Mina seconded. There was no further discussion and the motion passed unanimously.
A. J. Anthony Fernández
President Fernández said there will many progress reports over the year as projects get underway. Currently Silverthorne theatre is being remodeled, and work is occurring to allow for the President’s residence and College Advancement to have access to the Intranet. He reminded Senators of the new logo from athletics, and he said anyone can use it for promotion of the institution on brochures, bulletins, etc., and on non-official letterhead. Logan Fowler’s webpage has the logo for use. The college will be getting new stationery with the new logo, but faculty and staff should continue to use their current stationery until then. The college will be working more on LCSC branding in southern Idaho over this year.
B. Lori Stinson
Provost Stinson provided updates on some of the initiatives coming out of the provost’s office. She noted first that Alex Bezzerides already represented LCSC at the August meeting for the State Board of Education (SBOE) when he made the formal presentation to have constitutional changes approved, and she noted that he represented all of us very well. Provost Stinson said that the Dean of Academic Affairs, Mary Flores, and the Dean of Professional-Technical Programs, Rob Lohrmeyer, will be working on initiatives that will affect faculty and students. We will be hearing more on this soon. Accreditation is a large focus right now, since the mid-cycle visit will be in a few weeks. Provost Stinson will be meeting with the Budget, Planning, and Assessment committee soon to discuss institutional assessment and procedures, different than the assessment at the program level. There will be campus forums on assessment in the upcoming months. One of the provost’s goals is to look at assessment process, what the actual forms will look like, and how to tie those institutional assessments in with the Unit Action Plan (UAP) process and program prioritization. She said that we have a few policies that need to be updated at an institutional level, and she will work with Alex on the best way to move forward with those policy changes. She said that work has continued on expanding the Testing Center, and that Kristy Roberts has taken the lead on that and we will really see the expansion of that in the spring. The Teaching and Learning Center will be put on hold just while the provost’s office deals with the mid-cycle assessment. She urged faculty to feel free to communicate with her.
Dave McCullough asked about the course fee policy and she said the policy hasn’t been approved yet, and we will know more after the October SBOE meeting. She said that the deans, the internal auditor, and division chairs should be the point of contact first. President Fernández said that we now have an internal auditor was has completed an audit so far of Human Resources, and will move on to Athletics and to all of the divisions. He said that the biggest issue in deciding course fees is that they are appropriate for that course and that they result in no surpluses, essentially that the students are paying just what is needed.
C. Alex Bezzerides
Alex noted that the new size of the Senate should help with the service load of faculty. He said that the smaller size makes attendance very important, and if a Senator cannot attend a meeting, then s/he needs to get an alternate. He also reminded Senators that they need to communicate what happens at Senate back to their divisions, as they are to be communication liaisons. This is especially important this year with General Education changes and program prioritization.
The Constitutional changes Senate voted on in the spring have been approved through the SBOE, the most important of which are the new Senate size and the reduction of standing committees to five. Alex reminded faculty that Sept 8 is the faculty development grant application deadline for any travel or research for Fall 2014. Lynne Bidwell asked if there is a chair-elect yet. Alex said no, but Jane Finan has agreed to chair Faculty Affairs, which the chair-elect is supposed to chair. Seven faculty members were nominated for chair-elect, and all seven declined. Jenni Light asked about the new policy for tuition reductions for faculty and staff. Provost Stinson said the new policy allows for one dependent at a time to attend LCSC at half the tuition rate. President Fernández noted that the dependent must be full-time and faculty and staff will receive more information on this.
V. Invited Reports
VI. New Business
A. Committee appointments
Alex said that the Senate needed to approve three appointments to the Hearing Board. Heather Van Mullem has agreed to serve as a division chair representative, and Nancy Williams (BTS) and Jennifer Anderson (HUM) agreed to serve. President Fernández will be contacting a faculty member about being the presidentially appointed alternate. Jenni Light moved to approve the three appointments, and Louis Sylvester seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Alex said that the Winter Revels committee needs two faculty volunteers. Marcy Halpin and LeeAnn Wiggin volunteered to serve.
B. Curriculum proposal protocol discussion
Alex discussed streamlining some of the curriculum proposals. He said that by the time Senate receives curriculum proposals, they have gone through divisions, the curriculum committee, and sometimes the General Education Committee. He asked if it was possible that if the Faculty Chair and the chair of curriculum deemed a proposal as non-controversial, that proposal could be put on the consent agenda for Senate? Senators would still get the Curriculum report before the Senate meeting, and any Senator could ask that any proposals on the consent agenda be moved to New Business for more discussion. The Faculty Chair, the Curriculum Chair, and the Curriculum committee would have any of the more potentially controversial or complicated proposals on the New Business agenda for a larger discussion. Dave McCullough said that if the curriculum committee can determine what is contentious, let’s let them. He asked if Senators would still get the report and Alex said yes. Kerensa Allison asked who would make the decision as to what was on the consent agenda and what wasn’t. Alex said there would be three filters: the curriculum committee and chair, the Faculty Chair, and the Senators. Marcy Halpin said that she would ask the curriculum committee at the end of every meeting which proposals should be asked to go on the consent agenda. Alex said that part of motivation is that there are going to be so many proposals because of GEM stamping and this will make the process more efficient for more routine proposals regarding small changes. Louis Sylvester said that this seemed like a good plan to avoid spending too much time going through minutia, and instead focus on the proposals that need attention. Michelle Pearson-Smith moved to make curriculum proposals deemed routine as part of the consent agenda the new senate protocol. Marcy cautioned that in the curriculum committee “routine” means something different so the wording might need to be looked at. In the curriculum committee, “routine” means that a proposal can go through first and second readings simultaneously. Carol Nelson asked if there would still be first and second readings. Marcy said yes, that this wouldn’t change the curriculum committee’s process. She will be separating out the GEM stamp proposals, too. Louis seconded the motion regarding the new protocol. The motion passed unanimously.
C. General education alignment process proposal discussion
Laura Earles presented on the General Education Alignment Process Proposal to align our GenEd courses with the stateside objectives from last year. For the fall, Dean Flores is asking faculty who are teaching these courses to submit the courses for GEM stamping using the course alignment template document. The process for this approval alters the typical curriculum process. Faculty will send their documents to Laura for review. Then, they will go to the Competency Area Review Team (CART) for that area or way of knowing. CARTS are comprised of three faculty from that area, plus a GenEd committee member. If approved there, they will go to division chairs and the academic dean, and the chairs will submit them to the curriculum committee. The curriculum committee will complete both a first and second reading. Typically for all curriculum proposals affecting GenEd, the GenEd committee gets those between the first and second read. That is not required with this new protocol, since a GenEd committee member will have already seen it. However, the curriculum committee can still send it to GenEd, if it chooses. After the curriculum committee, the proposal goes through the regular curricular process.
Ed Miller asked what if a faculty member bends their course a bit to make it meet the “ways of knowing” objectives? At what point does it require a new course description? Laura said that this is for existing core courses, and if a course is so far from the mark that it means it is essentially going to have to be a new course, they the faculty member would have to actually propose a new course. She hopes that for faculty teaching GenEd, these outcomes already align with courses because those outcomes were written by faculty themselves and should be a good encapsulation of what is already happening. Laura suggested that faculty who don’t think alignment is working with their course should talk to her or Mary. Alex asked if there was a motion to approve this process. These documents are due by Oct. 1.
Michelle Pearson-Smith asked if feedback from division has happened. Chairs have provided some, Laura said, and they agreed that this protocol would be easier for faculty and the curriculum committee. Jenni Light asked if Senate needed to approve this process, or if it was just information. Alex said that since it came from a Senate sub-committee, a vote seems appropriate. Jenni clarified that it did not come for a sub-committee. Laura said it may not need an official vote, and Alex said an endorsement might be better. Ed noted that we do not have a policy yet about GEM stamping, so we should have a Senate vote. Jenni asked if it would need a policy number. Provost Stinson said that the issue was that there is already a curriculum policy, and this process goes outside of it, so we do need a Senate vote on it. Jenni asked if it is a one-time, fall-only shift in the curriculum process, and Laura said it might extend beyond fall for some of the outliers, but that the deadline is Oct. 1. Marcy asked that since this is for courses that are already in GenEd, what if someone says that the learning objectives fit a non-GenEd course and wants to propose to add it there? Do they submit this way or the typical curriculum process? Laura said any new GenEd course would have to go through the typical GenEd process plus this new alignment, pending clarification from the Dean. The point of the next few weeks is to get existing courses through Gem Stamp. Provost Stinson said that the Oct. 1 deadline is because the SBOE wants everything by Jan. 1. Louis asked for clarification, that this process is to streamline proposals for this year because it is a special circumstance. Laura said yes.
Louis moved to approve the proposed General Education Alignment Process Proposal protocol. Jenni seconded it, but also noted that if Senators are going to be asked to vote on an item, they should know before attending Senate so they can discuss with their divisions. The motion passed unanimously. The flowchart Laura used is attached to the minutes.
VII. Old Business
VIII. Committee Reports
A. Budget, Planning, and Assessment
Alex will be meeting with the provost and Howard Erdman soon to discuss assessment protocol.
Marcy said that the committee is still using the old curriculum system and that they links work, but the wrong year is listed on the proposal page.
C. Faculty Affairs
Alex noted that Jane Finan is the chair of this committee, but he will make her reports to the Senate. He reminded faculty of the proposed changes to the tenure and promotion policies. These changes have been approved by LCSC administration, are we are waiting for SBOE approval. He also reminded Senators that faculty development grants or due on September 8.
D. General Education
Jenni Light noted that the General Education does not have an official chair yet, but members have made a nomination and are waiting to see if the nominee accepts. Jenni reported that the committee worked with Laura to make assignments for the CARTs. Okey Goode will be the GenEd Committee representative for written communication and humanistic ways of knowing; Gary Mayton will do oral communication; Susan Odom will do scientific ways of knowing; Jenni Light will do math; and Barbara Barnes will do social and behavioral ways of knowing and the integrative component.
E. Student Affairs
Ed Miller said the first meeting will be Sept. 16.
IX. Good of the Order
A reminder of the reception at the president's. Marcy Halpin said that she will try to get the documents for the GenEd process on the curriculum site.
Carol Nelson moved to adjourn and Mike Edgehouse seconded. The motion passed unanimously with no discussion. The meeting was adjourned at 4:13.
The next meeting of the Faculty Senate will be September 25, 2014 at 3:15pm in SUB 143