Senate Meeting Minutes
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Call to Order
meeting was called to order at 3:21 pm by the Chair.
Introduction of Visitors
Leanne Parker, Susan Odom, Barbara Barnes, Cody Bloomsburg, Scott
Brainard, Rik Brosten, Claire Davis, Brian
Fonnesbeck, Debbie Goodwin, Jacob Hornby, Rachel Jameton, Diane
Johnson, Cheryl Jurgens, Eric Martin, Jeff Matthews, Dan Mayton,
David McCullough, Ed Miller, Joni Montez, Clay Robinson, Michelle
Sotka, Travis Osburn
Tony Fernandez, Laura Bracken, Margaret Chavez, Linda Coursey, Tracy
Flynn, Matt Johnston, Lynne Bidwell, Harold Crook,
Kent Johnson, Ray Miller, Jim Tarter , Mike Owen, Gin Weber
Chet Herbst, Julie Crea
Approval of Minutes
Minutes from the Senate meeting of March 16, 2006 were unanimously
approved by acclamation
Provost Report: No report
Faculty Senate Appropriated Account: $742.40
Faculty Association Account: $3994.97
Faculty Benevolence Account: $1370.00
community college system for the state was not passed
by the legislature.
D’Alene has new videoconferencing equipment.
Provost will issue a memo clarifying the number of credit hours per
class, focusing on laboratories and clinicals.
Dean Hanson reminds faculty to encourage students to register now
for fall. Students who are graduating, yet returning in the fall,
need to fill out a PIF in order to receive financial aid.
development of a residential parking zone seems to be moving
forward. This zone will encompass approximately two blocks around
Faculty can now test the Student Course Evaluation. By
signing on (login: last name; password: warrior ID# without leading
zeros) faculty can see what students see when they
fill out the course evaluations.
Coeur D’Alene, an “Educational Corridor” between NIC and
the other institutions continues to be discussed.
State Board of Education is considering whether to standardize how
we manage credits from unaccredited schools.
bookstore is now being managed by Follett. Employees
can choose whether to work for Follett or LCSC.
Applications for fall are up 8.2%, mostly at the Coeur D’Alene
campus and in Professional-Technical Programs.
Supervisor Performance Surveys are available and faculty and staff
are reminded to fill them out. Faculty/staff Surveys have been
redesigned to reflect what was discovered last year. They will be
available to be filled out in a week or so.
Utah is increasing the number of out-of-state waivers to
room reservation website will be up in June (see Appendix A). Every
room will be on the website and everyone will be able to see
what is available. Rooms not related to classes will be reserved
through the website or through Julie Crea. Rooms for classes will
be scheduled by Ryan Gill.
There is an online competition for the design of a new campus ID
card. The competition closes May 4 and voting will be done
online. The campus ID card is soon to be more flexible: the
are purchasable from the SUB information desk and library will work
in vending machines, at the library, for computer printing and food
service. The ID cards are also used for entrance to events at the
activity center, and soon to dorms.
Standing Committee Reports
Administrative Procedures (Jeff Matthews)
committee has had its last meeting for this semester.
consideration of adding an adjunct faculty seat to the senate has
been deferred until next year. Thus far, the department chairs have
expressed opposition to the idea on
the grounds that one person
could not properly represent a diverse population of adjunct faculty
and that advocates for adjunct faculty already exist within the
current representational process. Other concerns discussed include
whether adjunct faculty should be expected to do anything but teach
and whether adjunct faculty have the same investment in the
of LCSC as regular faculty.
committee unanimously decided that there is no constitutional
barrier to a Senate Chair running for a second term. There is also
no reason for constitutional change at this time, but should be
considered for next year.
revision of the Tenure Policy was submitted for a first reading
(Appendix B). The new policy is separated into a policy section and
a procedure section.
Budget Liaison (Leanne Parker)
committer has had its last meeting for the semester. It
continue to provide feedback to the work of the Compensation Review
Curriculum Committee (Jacob Hornby)
from the Curriculum Committee containing 8
proposals was unanimously
approved by acclamation. See appendix C.
committee reviewed the new midterm grade policy. Feedback by the
committee was generally favorable toward
the policy because it
strengthened the faculty-student bond. The committee recommended
that the time for submission of
the grades be extended
to noon on
the Monday following end
of mid-term and also that
faculty include an explanation of how they use midterm grades in
Faculty Affairs (Susan Odom)
committee developed a guide for using the new Student Course
Evaluation tool (Appendix D).
committee plans to examine the effects of the new
policy on workload, working conditions and
faculty welfare during
the Fall 2006 semester.
Consolidated Testing center is still developing its hours
structure. It needs input from the divisions.
committee will continue to examine the pros and cons of purchasing
plagiarism software for utilization on campus.
Several of the
What type of software to use. Thus far, they have looked at the
“Turn it in” software.
expense. “Turn it in” costs $3000 for the site
license plus $0.80
What type of learning environment this would create.
Whether or not the use of the software would be mandatory.
Whether or not students would have to submit all
papers online, and
how that could be done.
consequences of plagiarism and how we teach students about
Faculty Development (Leanne Parker for Linda Coursey)
committee has already awarded its grant money.
weeks, they will present recommendations for changes
in how funds
are awarded for faculty development grants.
General Education (Ed Miller)
committee approved adding HUM 301 to the Distributive Literature
component of the Core. This is the first time that
division course is being considered for a place in the historically
lower division portion of the core.
committee will meet twice more this semester, and
present a written
report to senate.
Student Affairs (Leanne Parker for Harold Crook)– no report
Technology Advisory (Rik Brosten) – No report
Good of the Order
There will be a Service Learning Training on April 28, 2006,
– 1:30 pm. There are $50 faculty stipends available. Call
Service Corps at x 2084 to register.
final Faculty Association Meeting of Spring 2006 will be on May 9,
2006 at 3:15 pm in the WCC, with a social beforehand at 2-3 pm.
This is changed from the previous date of May 11.
There will be an All-Campus meeting at 4:00 pm on May 9, 2006 in the
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 4:51 pm by the Chair.
The office of the
registrar handles all academic courses scheduling through the
scheduling cycle. All courses and space assignments are reflected
on LCAcademic (web page address).
is any space assignment or request that is not found on
(any non-academic course scheduling). Events scheduling is done
through the Events and Campus Card Services office and reflected on
(web page address).
meeting requests can be done through two avenues. You can call
the Events office (telephone#) or
you can view room schedules and submit a request on LCEvents
(web page address) with a
requestors/schedulers can request to have a customized LCEvents
page setup so that they can continue to reserve their favorite
spaces are not reserved through the Events scheduling office:
Department/Office conference rooms
spaces can be reserved through the respective areas, who utilize
LCEvents, or can be reserved through the Events scheduling
office if part of a coordinated event (event involving multiple
spaces on campus):
All space uses (buildings and outside use) should be
scheduled and noted on LCEvents (web page
address) so that the LC community has quick access to meeting
and event locations to better serve students, faculty, staff, and
(Policy can also
be found on Administrative Procedures website)
I. Policy Pertaining to Tenure
A. Definition and Philosophy
Tenure refers to a faculty member’s continuous
employment following the end
of a probationary period, and upon
fulfillment of the appropriate criteria. After tenure is awarded,
the faculty member’s service may be terminated only for adequate
cause as defined by Board policy: in the case of retirement or
financial exigency as declared by the Board; where extreme shifts in
enrollment have eliminated the justification for a program; or if
the Board has otherwise authorized the elimination or reduction of a
Tenure is based upon the principle of academic freedom,
freedom to teach, conduct research, and
participate in extramural activities,
and 2) the assurance of
sufficient stability to establish a mutually-beneficial commitment
between a faculty member and the institution. Toward that end,
tenure embodies a long-term relationship of trust, commitment, and
reciprocal obligation between the institution and the faculty
member. Tenure is granted only to faculty members who demonstrate
they have made and will continue to make significant contributions
in their disciplines through effective teaching, advising,
scholarly/creative activity, professional development and service.
B. Eligibility for Tenure Status
Pursuant to SBOE
policy, tenure is available only to eligible, full-time
institutional faculty members, as defined by the institution.
Eligible full-time faculty members as defined by the institution
include those academic faculty holding the rank of assistant,
associate, and full professor. Faculty holding the rank of lecturer
or instructor are not eligible for tenure, and the rank of
instructor is not considered “tenure-track.” If promoted from
Instructor to assistant professor, faculty may become eligible for
prior to July 1, 1993, faculty in the professional-technical
not eligible for tenure.
appointments are subject to the approvals required in Board policy.
Nontenured members of the faculty are appointed to term
appointments, for a
period not to exceed one year. All
first-year faculty appointments are made for a period not to exceed
one (1) year. Ordinarily appointments are made for periods of one
(1) year each before a tenure decision is made.
A probationary period typically precedes the granting of
tenure. A faculty member will usually be evaluated for tenure
after at least four (4) full years of service and in no case later
than during the faculty member’s sixth (6th) full
academic year of employment. A faculty member may be considered
promotion and tenure in the same year.
All satisfactory service in any professorial rank may be
used to fulfill the
time requirement for acquiring tenure. A
maximum of two (2) years satisfactory service in the rank of
instructor at Lewis-Clark State College may be allowed toward
fulfillment of the time requirement in the
professorial ranks. In
cases involving prior service, tenure may be granted following less
than the usual period of service. Where performance can be
adequately documented, faculty members with prior experience at
other accredited institutions may be granted credit for up to a
maximum of two
(2) years and may be considered for tenure during the
second (2nd) full
year of service at the college.
Eligibility for early tenure consideration, however, must be
stipulated in writing by the Provost at the time of hire
or no later
than the end of the first (1st) academic semester after
2. Academic Administrators
Academic administrators include the chief academic officer of the
institution, deans and division chairs of the academic units. An
individual hired for or promoted to an academic administrator may be
a tenured faculty rank in the appropriate department,
contingent upon approval by the institutional president. Upon
termination of employment
as an administrator, a tenured employee
may return to employment in the department in which he or she holds
tenure unless such employee resigns, retires, or is terminated for
adequate cause. An employee with tenure in
an academic department
who is appointed to an academic administrator position retains
tenure in that department.
An individual hired as a non-academic administrator from outside the
institution will not be considered for tenured faculty rank in
with such appointment. However, if the individual will
teach and otherwise contribute to that department, he or she may be
granted an adjunct
faculty appointment, upon the recommendation of
the appropriate department and dean and with the approval of the
provost and president
Comment: This is covered elsewhere in policy.
C. Notice of and Standards for Non-Reappointment or Termination of
of Non-Tenured Faculty Members Hired in Tenure Track
1. First Amendment Guarantee
faculty members are under First Amendment and
guarantees of academic freedom.
2. Non-Reappointment or Termination
non-reappointment or termination, or of intention not to recommend
reappointment, must be given in writing in letter form (See Section
II, A, Procedures Pertaining to Non-Reappointment or
D. Criteria for Granting Tenure
Criteria for granting tenure are consonant with the role and mission
Lewis-Clark State College. Accordingly, a faculty member
through the ranks is expected to meet escalating standards
performance and assume additional responsibilities in teaching
advising, scholarly/creative activity and professional
service, and collegiality.
Each division shall maintain a written policy that identifies
appropriate standards for granting tenure. These standards will
address levels of performance in teaching and advising,
scholarly/creative activity and professional development, service,
and collegiality. Division criteria for granting tenure must be
developed by division faculty and be approved by division faculty,
the division chair, the respective dean, and the provost. Changes
to the criteria will follow the same approval process. Each list of
criteria must include the date the faculty approved the division
criteria. Copies of the criteria will be maintained in the offices
of the provost, dean, and division chair. The division chair will
distribute copies to all division faculty.
For faculty whose duties are primarily instructional, teaching and
activities that develop and improve teaching will be weighed most
heavily in any evaluation. However, it is recognized that the
faculty of Lewis-Clark
State College perform varied tasks, and that
the relative value placed on
teaching and advising,
scholarly/creative activity and professional development, and
service differ among faculty. Because of this, division chairs are
to negotiate with the faculty member the relative importance of each
criterion to the evaluation of an individual faculty member’s
performance. Each criterion will be weighed relative to its value
to the division and its appropriateness to the college’s role and
mission. This weighing shall be used in a consistent fashion by all
E. Policy Pertaining to Materials for Evaluation
Candidates for tenure will determine what materials will be
preparing their portfolios; however, at a minimum, the
are required: division criteria; candidate
statement; current curriculum
vita; job descriptions and annual peer
and chair evaluation (last four (4) years); course syllabi; student
course evaluations (last four (4) years);
and other materials as
determined by division guidelines. Reviewers may request additional
materials. If additional material is requested by the Individual
Tenure Committee, Standing Tenure and Promotion Review Committee
(STPRC), Division Chair, Dean, Provost, or President, the
and its justification must be in writing to the applicant. If the
applicant chooses to honor this request, the requested information
will be added to the portfolio as it is forwarded to the next level
of review. If the request includes materials that are in the
applicant’s personnel file and the applicant chooses to honor the
request he/she must sign a waiver
available in the Human Resources
office allowing access to the requested materials. The applicant may
respond in writing to clarify the situation if
he or she believes
his or her record has been or may be misinterpreted.
letter will be added to the portfolio and forwarded with the rest
II. Procedures Pertaining to Tenure
Comment: Covered in 3.118
A. The Applicant’s Tenure Portfolio
1. Applicants eligible for tenure shall prepare a tenure
portfolio. The applicant shall receive copies of all items
subsequently sent to the Provost or placed in the portfolio by
The applicant’s portfolio may also be used for promotion
if tenure and promotion occur simultaneously (see
Promotion Policy 2.106).
B. Tenure Process
1. Portfolio Review
a. The portfolio will be made available for review in the Division
Office for the Division Faculty, Division Chair, Dean, and
Individual Tenure Committee. The portfolio will be made available
for review in the Provost’s office for the Provost and President,
and if necessary, the STPRC.
b. Each reviewer or group of reviewers will write a tenure
recommendation. The recommendation will address the candidate’s
fulfillment of institutional and divisional tenure criteria. The
original recommendations of the Division Chair, division faculty,
Tenure Committee and Dean will be placed in the portfolio
to the applicant and chair of the STPRC.
c. At the completion of the applicant’s review process, the
original recommendations will be sent to Human Resources for filing
in the applicant’s personnel file and the
Pportfolio will be
returned to the applicant.
a. The Individual
Tenure Committee may be the same as the Individual Promotion
Committee as long as criteria for both committees are met (see
Promotion Policy 2.106).
b. There shall be
an individual tenure committee for each applicant. The individual
tenure committee will consist of five (5) members and be composed as
(1) Two (2) or
more tenured faculty members, and one (1) or more
faculty members from the applicant's division, if available,
(2) One (1) or
more faculty from outside the division,
(3) One (1) or
more students, but not more than 50 percent of the committee
membership (Student members must have declared a major and taken
upper-division course work in the applicant's division).
c. Faculty in the applicant's division will elect one (1) member
from the division's faculty and one (1) student to serve on the
committee; the applicant will select the remaining members.
d. Faculty in the applicant’s division will elect the chair from the
of the Individual Tenure Committee.
Standing Tenure and Promotion Review Committee (STPRC)
The name of the academic faculty standing
tenure review committee is
the Standing Tenure and Promotion Review
Committee (STPRC) (see
1.104 Article IV, Section 5 for the
committee’s responsibilities, makeup
and terms of service).
C. Procedures for Tenure Evaluation
1. After review of all credentials and criteria, the Provost
of their eligibility to apply for tenure.
2. Following notification by the Provost of eligibility to apply
the applicant submits a "Request for Tenure Evaluation”
Provost's Office. Application for tenure authorizes the
Tenure Committee to secure current formal student
evaluations and formal teaching evaluations and annual performance
3. The Provost provides the faculty senate chair, STPRC Chair,
Division Chairs, and Deans with a list of faculty members who have
indicated they will be applying for tenure.
4. The applicant’s division submits names of Individual Tenure
Committee members, including the chair, to the STPRC Chair.
5. The STPRC Chair issues the list of approved Individual Tenure
Committees, identifying the chair, to the applicant, the Faculty
Senate Chair, the Division Chairs, the Deans, and the Provost.
6. The applicant submits the portfolio to the division office where
be housed for review by the Division Chair, the division
faculty, the Individual Tenure Committee and the Dean.
The Dean will ensure that a portfolio for each faculty member is
completed and made available for review in the division office by
the Division Chair, the division faculty, the Individual Tenure
and the Dean. The Dean will notify the above mentioned
that the file is ready for review.
The Division Chair will write a summative tenure
evaluation/recommendation of the applicant member based on annual
evaluations and other materials in the applicant’s portfolio. Prior
to submission, the Division Chair and applicant must discuss the
summative evaluation/recommendation. The summative
evaluation/recommendation should be attached to copies of prior
annual performance evaluations, including those by both the
division’s evaluating body, if applicable, and the Division Chair or
Director. The original copy of the evaluation/recommendation is to
be placed in the portfolio. A copy will be given to the applicant
and to the chair of the STPRC.
The division faculty members may choose to review the portfolio and
make a written recommendation to be placed in the portfolio. A copy
will be submitted to the applicant and the Division Chair.
The Individual Tenure Committee will review the portfolio and arrive
a recommendation. Each member of the committee will have a full
vote. Voting will be by secret ballot with no tally recorded. The
chair of the Individual Tenure Committee will prepare a written
The committee’s recommendation shall be signed by
each member of
the committee or by the chair only. The original
copy of the recommendation will be added to the portfolio with a
to the applicant and the chair of the STPRC.
The Dean shall review the portfolio and prepare a recommendation.
The original copy of the recommendation will be added to the
portfolio and a copy forwarded to the applicant and the chair of the STPRC,
the Division Chair, and the Individual Promotion Committee
The Dean will then move the portfolio to the Provost’s office for
review of the Provost, the STPRC if warranted, and the President.
The Provost will review the recommendations submitted by all
reviewers and the portfolio and determine whether the portfolio will
be reviewed by the STPRC.
The Provost will review the Tenure File portfolio and prepare a
recommendation to the President.
If the Provost intends to disagree with the recommendation of the
STPRC, the Provost will, in writing, inform the STPRC and candidate
of that decision. Before forwarding a recommendation to the
President or sharing it with the applicant, the Provost will meet
with the STPRC to discuss how the applicant has met or failed to
meet the criteria for tenure, or other reasons for the
The STPRC will review the portfolio if the Division Chair,
Tenure Committee, or Dean recommends against tenure or if
requested to do so by the Provost. The STPRC will submit its
recommendation to the Provost, and provide a copy to the applicant,
the Division Chair,
the Individual Tenure Committee Chair, and the
The STPRC will review the Tenure File and arrive at a recommendation
by simple majority vote. Votes shall be cast
by secret ballot, and
no tally of the votes shall be reported. Each member of the
committee will have an equal vote in all matters. The chair of the STPRC will prepare a written recommendation.
The committee’s recommendation shall be signed by each
member of the
committee or by the chair only.
If the STPRC recommends against granting tenure, it shall
applicant before submitting its recommendation to
the Provost. The
applicant shall then be given an opportunity
to meet with the STPRC
within seven business days to present additional material in support
of the granting of tenure. Immediately after the meeting with the
applicant the STPRC
will review all materials and again arrive at a
When any reviewer or the Provost recommends against granting
the applicant shall be afforded the opportunity to present a written
response to the Provost, who will consider all pertinent material
prior to submitting a recommendation to the President. The
applicant’s written response will be added to the portfolio.
The complete portfolio and the Provost’s final written
recommendation shall be forwarded to the President.
The President shall review the portfolio and determine whether
to recommend approval of the application for tenure.
If the President decides not to recommend tenure, he/she shall,
in writing, notify the applicant, the Individual Tenure Committee
the Division Chair, the Dean, the STPRC, and the Provost.
applicant may meet with the President to discuss the
If the President recommends tenure, he/she shall submit a
recommendation for granting promotion to the State Board of
Education, with a copy to the applicant, the Individual Tenure
Committee Chair, the Division Chair, the Dean, the STPRC, and the
D. Procedures for Appeal
1. The candidate may appeal to the Hearing Board (see
Faculty Grievance Policy).
2. The President's decision on the Hearing Board's
recommendation is final.
Each year the Provost’s office will publish the specific
dates on which activities are to be completed.
week of fall semester
faculty of their eligibility to apply for tenure
"Request for Tenure Evaluation" to the Provost
Faculty Senate Chair, STPRC Chair, Division Chairs, and
Deans a list of those faculty who have indicated they will
be applying for tenure
names of Individual Tenure Committee members (including
chair) to STPRC Chair
list of approved Individual Tenure Committees (identifying
chairs) to applicant, Faculty Senate Chair, Division Chairs,
Deans, and Provost
from notification of eligibility
portfolio to Division Office where it will be housed for
reviewers (Division Chair, Dean, Division Faculty, and
Individual Tenure Committee)
that portfolio is complete
appropriate reviewers that the portfolio is available in the
summative evaluation/recommendation in the portfolio
the applicant and chair of the STPRC with a copy of
summative evaluation/ recommendation
Faculty members (optional)
written recommendation in portfolio
the applicant and Division Chair with a copy of the
Individual Tenure Committee
written recommendation in the portfolio
copy of the recommendation to the chair of the STPRC and
written recommendation in the portfolio
copy of the recommendation to the applicant, Division Chair,
and chair of the STPRC
s to the Provost’s office
list of applicants for review to chair of STPRC
portfolios and direction from Provost and respond to Provost
final recommendation and portfolio with all recommendations
copy of the recommendation to the applicant, Division Chair,
Individual Tenure Committee Chair, STPRC Chair, and the Dean
recommendation to applicants with a copy to the Faculty
Senate Chair, Individual Tenure Committee Chair, Division
Chair, Dean, STPRC Chair, and the Provost
all written recommendations to Human Resources for filing in
the applicant’s personnel file
portfolio to the applicant
the State Board of Education of tenure recommendation
tenure awarded as appropriate
April 13, 2006
Committee has approved the following 8 proposals.
Delete Hotel/Restaurant Management BA/BS, add Hospitality Management
Change in name better reflects present and future curriculum of
Change title and catalog description for HUM301 from Arts and Ideas
Literature and Culture. Add HUM301 as an option for
Literature Skills Component
of the General Education Core.
Change in title makes the role of this course in the core more
readily apparent and has been requested by LCSC faculty in Coeur
d’Alene. Students at LCSC-Coeur d’Alene require a Literature
component of the General Education Core,
but lower-division courses
cannot be offered on the Coeur d’Alene campus.
Delete ISATI 317, 418, 419, 420, 421. T06-142.
Courses are not part of any program offered at LCSC.
ISATI 210 Windows 2003 Server Advanced. T06-143.
Course will serve as a continuation to ISATI 209 to provide
sufficient knowledge of this operating system in preparation for the
Prometric exam #70-290.
ENGTE 205 Civil Drafting and Design and ENGTE 209 Surveying and add
to Engineering Technology – Civil AAS. T06-144, T06-145.
Current courses in these subjects are upper division and should not
be required for AAS degrees or certificates.
Change title for CITPT 265/465 from Advanced Desktop Publishing to
Image Editing and Illustration. T06-170.
Change in title more accurately reflects content of this course.
Remove ENGL 102 from Industrial Electronics AAS. T06-174.
ENGL 101 is sufficient for this AAS degree.
Sheet for SCE’s (Student Course Evaluations)
The SCE tool was
developed by the Faculty Affairs Committee after a review of
evaluation instruments and survey methods. It was unanimously
approved by the Faculty Senate in the Spring of 2005.
student feedback on the SCE’s for:
the course and teaching ability
the physical classroom environment
The SCE includes
section – placed first on the tool in order for students to
about their own responsibilities and goals for the course
A course and
instructor section so students can evaluate the strengths of the
instructor and offer suggestions for the course
plant section so students can evaluate the classroom environment
the choice of several responses for evaluating the content areas
–There is no numerical qualifier associated with the response. This
purposely to achieve a qualitative evaluation.
A comment area
follows each question in every section to enhance the specificity of
The goals of this
evaluation tool can be best achieved by:
students of the purpose of SCE’s
SCE voluntary – have no mandates or coercion to complete an
incentives to students such as extra credit or other benefits -
This would invalidate a voluntary sample
the SCE’s during the time frame determined by the Faculty
anonymity to students by not allowing faculty or staff to know who
completed or did not complete the SCE