[Type text][Type text]Faculty Senate 2015-16

Draft Minutes

Fort Lewis College Faculty Senate

30 March 2016, 2:30-3:30 pm, 130 Noble Hall

Senators present: David Blake, Nancy Cardona, Ginny Davis, Betty Dorr, Steve Fenster, Lee Frazer, Kris Greer, Andy Gulliford, Tony Holmquist, Bill Mangrum, Justin McBrayer, Billy Nollet, Ellen Paul, Jen Rider, Ryan Smith, Kaori Takano, Lorraine Taylor, Laurie Williams

Senators absent: Erik Juergensmeyer (Sabbatical, Sp.’16), Astrid Oliver, Dugald Owen, Chuck Riggs (Sabbatical, Sp’16)

Guests: Sandy Gilpin, Paul McGurr, Barbara Morris, Kelly Stanley, Bob Stremba

Vice President Laurie Williams called Senate to order at 2:30 pm sharp.

I. Announcements

a. David Blake announced two separate elections, one for Arts & Humanities and then the following week, there’ll be an election for everyone else (at-large folks). Senate composition will change but he thinks it makes it more diverse.

b. David brought up the civility clause of 2014, as professors we are part of a community of scholars and accept our ability to do shared governance, including committee work. He urged committee members to contact President Dugald Owen or BOT Rep Justin McBrayer (this year) if they have issues on their committee(s). Next year, faculty with concerns about civility on committess should contact Faculty Senate President-elect David Blake or Board of Trustees Faculty Representative-elect Michael Valdez.

II. Consent items

A. Minutes for March 16, 2016. Approved by consent. Sandy Gilpin agrees with the Math Dept about TRS92 that it does not adequately prepare students. Remove mention of the bridge program.

B. Course approvals (here) Approved by consent.

III. Action and discussion items

A. Academic Integrity Policy (Academic Standards Committee) . Justin would like Senate to vote to approve this policy so it can go to the deans. It’s not a change to the handbook, so it doesn’t need to go to the board. Ellen Paul moved to approve; Ryan Smith seconded. Andy Gulliford says the Handbook Committee has spent extensive time discussing this. He agrees that plagiarism enforcement needs to be clearer. Provost Morris has significant concern about that as well. She is concerned about suspension or expulsion at the second offense to be Draconian. She says the administration will not agree to it. Bill Mangrum also has concerns, esp. about the appeals process and the issue of how to protect at-will employees. The policy says Ken has the right to adjudicate a case and overturn the decision of the committee. It does not allow Ken Pepion to waive the sanction. Justin thinks a group of tenured folks should have control of the final decision. Bill is concerned about non-tenured faculty and political pressure on them. Justin says the policy has no sanctions for non-reporting by faculty, tenured or non-. Bill’s second concern regards changes in definitions of plagiarism. He is concerned that a program like “Turnitin” cannot actually detect plagiarism. He would like the policy to be more nuanced. Justin says two years ago Faculty Senate approved this version of the definition, from AAUP, and internal investigation. Justin says it says that faculty should report plagiarism. Bill thinks plagiarism comes down to how faculty design assignments, that they are not creative enough. He mentioned Stephanie Vie’s article on plagiarism; Justin says it was not consulted (but many others were). Bill would like a statement in such a policy to say that “if you report, nothing will happen to you.” Bill is concerned that at-will employees might be unduly influenced (at the upper end of the chain) and adds that at the lower end of the chain (the non-tenured faculty) should have protections, too.

Justin would like Senate to send it on to the provost. Provost Barbara Morris would prefer that Senate send the wording back to the Policy Committee, in the spirit of shared governance. Justin disagrees that hashing it out in the Senate is a good way to share governance. The Policy Committee has spent years on this and Ryan says the committee probably needs NEW eyes on this document and would like the folks with disagreements should voice their concerns/amendments. Ryan said: “The action should fall on those who propose.”

Lorraine Taylor is concerned about the line describing impact on a student’s grade—because she had a student lying in student group. Justin explained this definition and says not all unethical behavior is academic, as opposed to something that should be handled by the student conduct code. They were trying to focus on academic sleaziness, not the other types. Andy Gulliford suggested that Bill send his amendments on to the Deans’ Council.

Provost Morris thinks the Deans’ Council is a good intermediary. Jen Rider asked about amendments and was told to put it in writing and send it along to the provost. Ellen withdrew her proposal to approve. Ryan proposed to send this up to Deans’ Council and folks with edits should send them to the provost, Policy Committee, and the Handbook Committee at the same time. David Blake seconded. Approved.

B. Online course evaluation proposal (Academic Policy Committee). Cathy Simbeck is proposing (through Faculty senator Lee Fraser) immediate changes to the online course evaluations. There are too few students completing them now, sometimes less than 20 or 30 percent. She wants students to not see their grades before they have completed their course evaluations. Student responses should be tied in to seeing grades. Another change would be that online evaluations do not open until after final exams. Andy moved to approve. Lee seconded.

Ellen had a concern about visibility of grades on Canvas and the spirit of openness re: grades that faculty have been encouraged to implement. Lee says the big question is should this be a “carrot” or a “stick”? Ryan thinks that Chemistry uses a question to filter out students who think they’re going to fail the course. This has been shown to increase average scores. This is not a chance for students to opt out (if they’re failing). There is general agreement (by Cathy and others) that the evaluation questions need to be redone, too. Cathy is concerned about the younger faculty needing evaluations for tenure and promotion etc. The timing—that students now can complete the evaluations 3 weeks before the end of the course—is not practical. Cathy is proposing that the evaluation period begin a week later (two weeks left) and end before finals week.

Kelly Stanley says the current policy (which came from the faculty taskforce about the course evaluations) already allows departments to modify the timing and wording. Billy Nollet suggests we work on how to make the evaluations more useful to faculty. Laurie agrees and says we are getting “course satisfaction” numbers not really whether students are learning something. Kelly says faculty can login through canvas to add questions/change department questions.

Provost Morris says numerous faculty are already working on ways to make the evaluations more useful. David Blake clarified and heard the provost agree that as of now a department can change the timing of the evaluation period, keeping them open until the day after finals.

Motion by Lee to approve Cathy’s proposal; seconded by Ryan. Approved. 1 abstention.

Lee motioned to extend the meeting for 5 minutes; David seconded. Approved.

C. Faculty Qualifications Procedures (Academic Policy Committee) Cathy Simbeck summarized the document. Andy moved; Justin seconded to approve. David asked if the Academic Policy Committee decision was unanimous. Cathy says yes (minus one who was absent). Approved. 1 abstention.

Andy motioned to adjourn; Ryan seconded. Good-bye.

Not discussed this week:

D. College hour use (SEC proposal)

-elp