Present: Alex Bezzerides, Chair Elect; Brian Fonnesbeck, Past Chair; Amy Canfield, Secretary
Senators Present: Scott Brainard, Rik Brosten, Jennifer Cromer, Michael Edgehouse, Marcy Halpin, Krista Harwick, Leif Hoffman (substitute for Kerensa Allison), Jenni Light, Dave McCullough, Carol Nelson, Michelle Pearson-Smith, Peter Remien, Wendy Shuttleworth, Louis Sylvester, Amanda Van Lanen, Angela Wartel, LeeAnn Wiggin
Senators Absent: Kerensa Allison, Karen Andrews, Jason Blazzard, Jim Bowen, Toby Delong-Hamilton, Ray Esparsen, Jacquelynn Hanvey, Luther Maddy, Nan Miguel, Joni Mina, Brandon Sternod
Administrative and Guests: Nikol Roubidoux, Registrar; Tony Fernàndez, President; Mary Flores, Academic Dean
I. Called to order at 3:15 by Alex Bezzerides
III. Consent Agenda
Approval of draft minutes from March 27, 2014, and April 17, 2014, meeting. There was a move to approve the consent agenda from Brian Fonnesbeck, seconded by Ric Brosten. There was no further discussion and the motion passed unanimously.
President Fernández asked for faculty input and support for his decision to offer Lori Stinson the permanent position of Provost, and to forego a national search. He noted that he did not think a national search could help find the college a better candidate. He said that several elements factored into his decision. First, he noted that Lori has established impeccable relationships with the Idaho State Board of Education (SBOE), and he said that members of the SBOE favor a permanent position for Lori. He said that Lori has represented LCSC well in the last year, and she has done so in dealing with some difficult directives, such as Program Prioritization. She has also handled the accreditation process in a thorough manner, even with the changes the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU) has made. President Fernàndez said that the provost is the voice of faculty to administration, and Lori has come to faculty’s side on many decisions and has advocated successfully for faculty in a few different ways. He said that she works well with him and that he trusts her completely in terms of her judgment, professionalism, and advice. There will be at least three meetings over the next two weeks (hopefully two next week and one during finals week), so that faculty can meet with Lori and ask her about her vision for the college and any other issues. Those meeting times and locations will be announced. He asked that faculty provide him thoughts on this decision, either by emailing him directly or sending their comments to Ed Miller or Alex Bezzerides. Brian Fonnesbeck asked if Lori had accepted, and President Fernández said that she is interested. The reason it took until now to make this decision is because he wanted to do a national search, but things have changed and he reevaluated the national search. Alex said he would keep all comments anonymous if people sent him their thoughts, if they wanted that.
Alex noted we still don’t have a chair-elect and he asked Senators to talk to their divisions. He’s hoping by the fall all-campus meeting we will have someone, so that we can confirm someone at a very early fall Faculty Association meeting.
V. Invited Reports
VI. New Business
A. General Education Framework
Jenni Light provided an overview of the process to get this framework to Senate. She said that a modified version of the framework went out to divisions and there was a vote on it. From that, the General Education Committee examined the key items that the vote revealed. She noted that these included NS 150, the 350/351 courses, and flex credits. One of the decisions form the committee, based on faculty feedback, was to no longer require NS 150. She said that the integrative seminar (currently the 350/351 courses) are pretty well supported across campus, but that the committee did have questions as to how those would work with AS degrees. She said that they may not be a 300-level course, but they would still be a capstone course for GenEd. The last issue was on the three “flex” credits. Two weeks ago, the committee held meetings with faculty to hear ideas of how to deal with these three credits and other concerns regarding the core. In the GenEd meeting last week, there was a debate over these credits and there was not a consensus among the committee members. Essentially it boiled down to voting for three flex credits for now, or leaving the set-up as it was. The discussion on the flex credits turned to a discussion on a cultural diversity class. The committee liked the idea of using the three credits for a diversity course, but was uncomfortable bringing that to a vote since faculty had not had adequate input on such a proposal. There were also questions of what those courses could be. The committee decided to move forward with a proposed framework that dealt with three flex credits now, but with additional language that they wanted to pursue the diversity competency course in the future. That aspect will be fleshed out in the future, and faculty will have to come up with the same idea of learning outcomes and ways of knowing that apply to the other courses. Once that is fleshed out, we can vote on the diversity component. This is where the Phase I and Phase II of the proposed framework comes into play. Jenni said that the Phase II part isn’t clear enough yet, but she wanted it noted that Phase II is an exploration, and not a foregone conclusion. She also said that she would like to propose an amendment to the proposed language within the framework to make sure that it would go through enough channels, and the proper channels, to get faculty input.
Dean Mary Flores noted that she is supportive of such an amendment, and she emphasized that Phase II will go through the typical curricular process. She also noted that the three flex credits won’t be entirely “free” credits, but rather students will have to select from three GenEd-approved classes. Wendy Shuttleworth asked if we are going forward with the three floating credits being put into play now, or if it is all on hold until the Phase II portion. Mary said that first it is all subject to approval from the State GenEd Committee, but that she thinks we will move forward this fall with realigning our courses for the GEM stamp process and course outcomes alignments with the proposed framework. She said that Phase I is where we will likely start in fall. Alex Bezzerides asked for clarification if students on the 2014-2015 catalog year would be affected. Mary said that no, since we will just start moving through the process this fall with Fall 2015 as the hopeful date for implementation. She also noted that the first 30 credits are prescribed in policy; it is the six following credits that institutions have more leeway on, but that these six credits are still subject to further approval. Wendy asked when NS 150 would be gone, and Alex said that would also be Fall 2015. Marcy Halpin asked if there would be an earlier deadline for proposals as we moved through Phase I. Mary says we need to have proposals to the SBOE by Jan. 1, 2015. Marcy asked if we have through fall to approve the courses and framework, if it was possible to deal with the diversity classes in Phase II and have that ready by Jan. 1? Mary said it was possible, but things could still change. She noted that the vote on the integrative seminar did not include what level the current 350/351 courses would be, and she clarified that Associate degrees can include 300-level courses. Marcy said that the Curriculum Committee approved this framework as a “second-read” status. Rik Brosten asked if this framework required action from the Senate, or if it was informational at this point. Alex said that Senate will vote on it as part of the Curriculum report. Dave McCullough asked for clarification on specific Associates degrees and how much this applies to hem. Mary said that for an Associates in Applied Sciences, there are 15 credits in GenEd and 12 are prescribed explicitly. But, she said, the Associates of Sciences and Associates of Arts degrees will have this same framework. Dave asked if trade school students will still complete 15 and Mary said yes.
VII. Old Business
VIII. Committee Business
A. Administrative Procedures
B. Budget Liaison
See Curriculum report for all proposed changes and details.
Marcy Halpin introduced proposal 14-077 for the Social Sciences Division. It is a proposal to add a new Psychology elective course. Jenni Light moved to approve the proposal, Brian Fonnesbeck seconded it. Dave McCullough noted that this was a good course. After no further discussion, the proposal passed unanimously.
Marcy next introduced proposal 14-076 from the Humanities Division. This proposal seeks to add an existing course (THEA 480) to a major/minor as a selective option. Amanda Van Lanen moved to approve, Carol Nelson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with no further discussion.
Marcy then introduced the GenEd framework, discussed under New Business. Michelle Pearson-Smith moved to approve the framework, and Rik Brosten seconded the motion. Jenni Light asked to make a friendly amendment to add language to Phase II. The language currently states: “A select list of courses aligned with Culture and Diversity competency and knowledge objectives,” and Jenni proposed to amend that to add “if approved through the General Education Committee, the Curriculum Committee, and the Senate.” Michelle and Rik both agreed to the proposed amendment. Brian Fonnesbeck asked if there would be a description of specifics of what would fit all of the areas in the larger framework, such as under “Oral Communication” and “Written Communication.” Jenni said that the idea is that the “ways of knowing” have descriptors and whatever division “owns” the classes will go through the list of classes to see what matches those descriptor, or if classes will need to be changed to match the ways of knowing. Then there will be a process of moving those courses forward. Mary said that currently the competencies for the first 30 prescribed credits are written into policy, so it is the other six that we will have to write competencies for and then get approval through the SBOE after we approve them here. She noted that this required two things: competencies written for those six credits (which must be LEAP-like competencies) and then course alignment. Jenni noted that there is a fair number of faculty who liked the idea of picking three credits, but who may not have agreed with the diversity component, so there isn’t a forgone conclusion that Phase II will be implemented. She also said that the flex credit is different than what other institutions have, so there is also the possibility that SBOE might reject it. Amanda Van Lanen asked what other institutions are doing in general, and Mary said that most have some sort of integrative seminar and a diversity course. Dave McCullough asked if there could be substitutions to GenEd and Mary said no. Leif Hoffman asked for a clarification on the friendly amendment and that it be read back. Amy Canfield re-read the proposed amendment. Alex called for a vote, and the motion to approve the GenEd framework with the new amendment passed unanimously.
D. Faculty Affairs
Alex said that there are minor changes to graduation. The post-graduation reception that the Alumni Association hosts has been moved to Harris Field. Consequently, faculty need to assist in getting students to turn right at the top of the ramp. There will be physical barriers there, as well.
E. Faculty Development
F. General Education
G. Student Affairs
H. Technology Advisory
IX. Good of the Order
Brian Fonnesbeck moved to adjourn, Jenni Light seconded. The motion passed unanimously with no discussion. The meeting was adjourned at 3:52.
The next meeting of the Faculty Senate will be September 4, 2014 at 3:15 in SUB 143