Minutes
Faculty Senate Executive Committee
Emporia State University
6 February 2002

Members present: M.Harrell, R.Keith, A.Landis, D.Moore, J.Schwenn, J.Starr, A.Webb, G.Wyatt.
Members Absent: None.
Visitors: None.

  1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order by President Moore at 2:04 in the KSN room.

  2. Approval of the Minutes: A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of January 23. The motion was passed.

  3. Announcements:

    1. President of the Faculty Dwight Moore: Moore announced that the BOR will meet next week. COFSP will focus its discussion on the 54-hour rule. There ensued a long discussion about the merits and challenges presented by this rule. One option discussed was renumbering of courses. There are time constraints. The rule should take effect beginning Fall 2003. But the course catalog must be prepared by July. If there are many curricular changes to make, we will have to expedite curricular review. Moore concluded this discussion by reporting the COFSP view. A 100 level class is introductory to that particular area but it doesn't necessarily mean it is a freshman class. This rule may inhibit students from being introduced to other areas. We are trying to set the standard that we are holding students to for their degree.

    2. Vice President for Academic Affairs John Schwenn: Schwenn reported that the AACSB accrediting team was here. There is the feeling that we will receive a positive review when accreditation is voted on in April. We will begin working on North Central later this year. The North Central review takes place in 2 years. The difference between North Central and NCATE was clarified. NCATE is only for education. North Central accredits the whole university. They are separate entities.

  4. Committee Reports:
    1. Academic Affairs (Webb): AA has invited the chair of the Graduate Council (Terrell) to talk about IP grades. Specifically what should be done about IP grades for student projects that are never completed. If a student receives IP grades for thesis and then changes to a project what happens to the IP grade? Proposed policy would have the IP change to W. Moore asked whether these IP grades will apply to undergraduates.
      AA is also looking at developmental course guidelines. It was noted that they are being handed out at SWARMS but they aren't yet official in the sense of having been approved by the faculty. There was discussion of the history of this issue. Senate was presented with the issue 2 years ago but has been unable to come to closure. The VPAA had initiated current policy because the old policy hadn't been working well. Moore expressed his agreement with the policy but felt there was insufficient faculty input to the process. It was asked whether it would be worthwhile to spend more time on the issue. It was felt that closure would be preferred. AA might affirm the current policy. Wyatt recalled that President Schallenkamp had directed that data on developmental policy be kept and reported each year. It was suggested that Goltra and Robinson may have these data.

    2. Faculty Affairs (Landis): Landis reported that FA will address the ombudsmen issue. Likely he will assign the issue to an ad hoc committee. Second, FA has spent significant time discussing faculty concerns relating to appropriate handling of personnel files. The committee may choose to let concerns be addressed through professional development of administrators rather than through Senate legislation. Third, FA will discuss concerns related to chronic inadequate performance policy. Webb expressed the hope that more could be done with the results of the AAUP forum on FRC documents. The forum results didn't prescribe what should be done, rather it identified issues for FRC policies to address.

    3. Committee on Campus Governance (Starr): Starr asked for the status of the Animal Care and Use Committee. Schwenn stated that the President would appoint the committee imminently. Starr raised a concern about the Sunset Bill with respect to abolition of a committee. According to the bill a committee must be notified by Feb. 28 in the event of its abolition. But if the review of the committee comes after that date, then there is a conflict. Alternative interpretations of this policy were discussed. Moore asserted that the lifetime of a committee according to this bill is 4 years unless recommended by COCG for continuation. Harrell recommended that COCG send a letter to each committee to be reviewed. The letter should stipulate that the committee will cease to exist unless renewed as a result of the review process. This notification could occur before Feb. 28.

  5. Items for Discussion:

    1. Evaluation of Administrators:
      1. The proposed evaluation instrument for Dean Downs was approved. Moore will inform the committee that they may proceed.
      2. The proposed evaluation instrument for VP Hauke was reviewed and discussed. The instrument was approved subject to the addition of provision of information specifying the breadth of Hauke's responsibilities. This information could be included in the instrument or in the cover letter to be sent out with the instrument.

    2. Recognition of Faculty Organizations: Harrell distributed draft legislation relating to recognition of faculty organizations. Harrell explained the purpose of recognition of faculty organizations. We want to make sure that faculty organizations can use university facilities, including but not limited to union rooms, mail and email. Schwenn suggested that some of these matters can be taken care of by the VP without legislation. He noted that there may be a limit on the number of requests for mailing labels. After the limit is reached there would be a charge for the labels. Harrell recommended that the VPAA issue an official memo to publicly acknowledge faculty organizations and to what they may have access. The draft bill was then tabled.

    3. Faculty Satisfaction Survey: Wyatt announced that he will bring drafts for the faculty satisfaction survey instrument to the next meeting. He recommends using an online survey approach. However the approach limits the survey to 30 questions. The software, Zoomerang, has a fee for service. Discussion of the software capabilities stimulated general interest for its utilization in various other contexts such as administrator evaluation and student course evaluation.

  6. For the Good of the Executive Committee:

    A concern was raised that facilities like the exercise room in the old PE building were being limited now that the new student rec center is open. It was felt that this was a negative factor when we try to recruit faculty to ESU. We request information from other institutions relating to faculty rec center privileges. There was some discussion of the proposed costs to faculty for using the new rec center.

  7. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 3:38.

Submitted by:

Ron Keith
First Vice-President of the Faculty

Last updated on 27 February 2002.
Provide comments about the format to Dwight Moore at mooredwi@emporia.edu.
Return to the Minutes of the Faculty Senate.