WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY

II. Approval of the Minutes:

The minutes of the June 2, 2003 and June 9, 2003, meeting were approved as written.

June 2 Located at http://www.wright.edu/admin/senate/minutes/June03SenMin1.html

June 9 Located at http://www.wright.edu/admin/senate/minutes/June9SenMin.html

III. Report of the President – Dr. Goldenberg

Wright State is the university of choice in the nation for Miami Valley valedictorians for the fifth consecutive year.
Our first-ever major fund-raising campaign exceeded national benchmarks, raising nearly 43 million – one year ahead of schedule.
Research and Sponsored Programs exceeded $46 million in external funding for FY03 and $153 million in current projects that are multi-year.
We provided statewide leadership through the Inter University Council that helped defeat about $150 million in proposed cuts to higher education.
As a guest of Governor Taft to the National Governor’s Council on Higher Education, I heard about reductions in some states up to 26 percent.
Our staff will continue to work with statewide leaders to build the case in future years through the Governor’s Commission in Higher Education.
A statewide effort for which Wright State is one of three finalists is a Wright Center of Innovation to provide help for expanding the Russ Center.
Enrollment reports show total headcount is up 1.3% (UG 1.4% and Grad 0.9%). Total credit hours are up 4.6% (UG 4.2% and Grade 7.0%).
And Provost Hopkins will be working with all academic units to help them implement their strategic planning goals developed in FY03.

Question from Senate President Dustin regarding the Governor’s Task Force on Higher Education. What outcome would you expect the task force to conclude when its work is done? President Goldenberg’s response was (1) realize how well we’ve done despite cutbacks (2) appreciate the number of collaborations occurring and (3) at conclusion, see importance of building stronger foundations for higher education both in teaching and scholarship and research. Follow-up question from Dr. Dustin about how the make-up of this task force will be able to temper future legislative decisions that might adversely impact higher education. President Goldenberg’s response was the Commission is very diverse and has invited a number of speakers on behalf of higher education.

IV. Provost:

o Dr. Hopkins commented that he was pleased to be here, as he made remarks at the June 2 Senate Meeting.

V. Report of the Senate Executive Committee: Jack Dustin

Met with Provost Hopkins concerning:

Strategic Plan
University Information Systems Replacement Project
Accreditation and Assessment
Capital Budget and Process

Susan Mathews resigned and was replaced with Eric Fossum after reviewing votes
SPAM, issue forwarded to the Information Technology Committee
One question survey being developed to faculty about issues of concern
“New Business” The Executive Committee will schedule full discussion after issues have been accepted for New Business.
The following will be included in the agenda for the next Executive Committee meeting:

appointment of representatives to University Diversity Advisory Committee;
deciding whether to identify indicators for the University's Strategic Plan (two-pages);
replace Senator Jane Scott who is no longer fulltime faculty;
appoint members to the University General Education Committee;
take up recommendation of adjusting Senate meeting times to coincide with new course time blocks;
take up recommendation to review textbook problems

Reminder concerning quorum required in order to conduct business of the Senate
Reminder that members can appoint a replacement (non-voting) in their absence

Guest Presentation: Terry Anderson, Associate Director, CaTS regarding University Information Systems Replacement Project (handouts provided and Project Website www.wright.edu/usr)

Highlights included Project Overview including development of an RFP; Selection Process including USR Selection Committee; Preliminary timeline set to evaluate two vendors, SCT Banner and PeopleSoft and make a decision by the end of the year. Early summer, teams were formed to perform an intense evaluate of these two vendors in order to prepare an RFP. Early summer, SCT offered a discount if we made a decision by the end of September. At Dr. Filipic’s request, the committee compressed the timeline in order to reach a decision by the end of September. Subject Area teams were formed comprised of over 100 individual across campus to identify evaluation criteria for these vendors. RFP’s were sent out August 22 in order to have a decision made by the deadline with the understanding, however, if we weren’t comfortable with the process or the vendors being evaluated, we would not force a decision by the end of September. PeopleSoft planned on submitting a bid but declined to submit a bid at the last minute leaving just one vendor. Therefore we had the vendor, SCT, on campus for a week-long demo with over 100 individuals reviewing the product. Last week, the Selection Committee unanimously voted that we proceed with the SCT Banner Solution and forwarded that recommendation to the Executive Steering Committee which unanimously agreed. Timeline was presented including first phase to create a university-wide portal to include email and calendar by Spring 2004 as well as interfaces to our current ROX and Wright On-Line services and WebCT. Concurrent with that, the Finance Administrative module is scheduled for July 2005; followed by Human Resources/Payroll System January 2006; and Student Systems in Fall 2006 and early 2007. Contributor Relations is critical to the university and anticipate starting that after the Student System, however, may adjust the timeline if necessary. Workflow and imaging will be integrated with these systems for on-line access.
Questions were presented to Terry with the following information provided. SCT Headquarters is located in Malvern, Pennsylvania, with offices throughout the United States and have been in business for 25+ years. Their products are in over 800 higher educational institutions. They serve only the higher education market including Miami University, Central State, Wayne State, Xavier, and the University of Illinois. Regarding imaging for student files; transcripts from other schools could be imaged and attached to the student’s file so you have access at your desk. DARS currently provides capabilities to evaluate transcripts to eliminate some of the manual process for faculty. Pre-requisite checking will be incorporated in the implementation of the system.

Item of Discussion: Student On-line Course Evaluations (Attachment A) Student Government President Lucas Beagle presented information regarding on-line course evaluations which SGA feels would be beneficial to students. The review would include an evaluation of the teaching style based on the type of exams, lecture, class discussion, and group work. This information would be beneficial to students before enrolling in the class. It is not to be used as a negative tool. Questions from Cathy Sayer regarding specific wording on the attachment. Suggestion to change Testing Methodology to Assessment Methodology. No numerical validity due to not being required, and since evaluations are after grades are received the results might be skewed by students unhappy with their experience. Place the more evaluative questions at the end of the survey, i.e., move questions one and two to the end. Perhaps moving questions seven and eight to the beginning so the student might first reflect on their own performance and then on the teachers performance. Senator Chamberlain commented concerning the professor who changes their teaching style. Mr. Beagle commented that evaluation of previous class could be deleted if the coursework and style is changed. Results will be cumulative over time but professor specific. Concern about what type of course (laboratory, lecture, clinical) and distance learning classes. Senator O’Brien asked if partially completed surveys would be included; no they would not. Senator Fossum pointed out that the survey does not include a question regarding whether they learned anything. Senator Rizki was concerned with evaluating the course vs. the faculty. CaTS/SGA need to further address design issues as well as wait until the faculty ID link is present. Senator Cathy Sayer addressed the issue of not enough questions regarding learning styles on the survey. Suggestion to include a disclaimer regarding information current to this time and teaching plan subject to change. Suggestion to include a question regarding student choice in learning style. Senator Jim Sayer pointed out the information gathered during the final few weeks of the quarter would be one quarter delay for students to use in selecting their next quarter classes. Plan is to have the evaluation available for all classifications of faculty. Next steps include revising the document, meeting with CaTS for details, and possibly come back to the Senate once again. For feedback, beagle.2@wright.edu, or x. 5508.

VI. Standing Committee Reports and Attendance (Attachment A)

Committees are currently getting organized and collecting agenda items.

There were no reports for today’s meeting.

A. Faculty Budget Priority Committee: Jack Dustin.

B. Non-Bargaining Unit Faculty Affairs Committee

C. Undergraduate Curriculum & Academic Policy Committee: Tom Sav reported that UCAPC met September 23, 2003. Minutes available on appropriate listserves; matters to be heard at the October 20 Senate meeting.

D. Buildings & Grounds Committee: Shelley Jagow

E. Information Technology Committee: Vince Yen

F. Student Affairs Committee: Margaret Clark Graham

G. Student Petitions Committee: KT Mechlin

VII. Council Reports

None

VIII. Old Business:

A. Drop Date Policy – KT Mechlin (Attachment B)

KT shared that approximately one-seventh of all student petitions are related to this topic and that WSU has the strictest drop date policy of all Ohio colleges and universities. Eliminating the distinction of different drop dates would eliminate that confusion and allow professors of courses meeting only once a week a longer window of time to get graded feedback back to students. The proposal, therefore, recommends considering the financial aid drop date as one possible option for determining a combined drop date. If students drop before a certain time, their financial aid will need to be returned by the University. Students would still have to make up those dropped credits to continue their financial aid the next year Clarified that the 60% of the entire quarter would be on day 46 since the entire quarter equals 76 days. Senator J. Sayer shared that the issue during his Academic Council days, was a concern over (a) team and group work and how it is affected by late drops, and (b) trying to differentiate between freshmen and upperclassmen abilities. Concerns expressed then regarding the faculty wanting upper level classmen to be more responsible in terms of course selection. As a compromise at that time, once you were past your first year, you no longer had that eighth week drop date, you had the through the fifth week. Other comments included the issue of notifying students during registration of their current status and their drop date; how it this issue handled at other schools; question of “why we allow them to drop” at all? The Executive Committee asked Student Government to comment and it supported the one drop date idea, with the later the better and that 60% of the term is reasonable. Senator Jim Sayer and Senator Houston also support the single drop date. Concern was expressed about students over-subscribing, impact of financial penalties, and whether full classes would become less than full. Students can still petition to “remove hours and points.” Comment to consider stalling to gather more input and provide more specifics regarding the policy of drop dates; and appropriate committee review. Senator Fichtenbaum suggested that serious consideration should also be given to moving the drop date to the latest possible date in the quarter. More time is needed. Motion to table approved unanimously. Suggest that Executive Committee discuss this at the next meeting.

IX. New Business

(A suspension of the rules will be requested to move Item B to Old Business for a vote.)

Call for Nominations for Professor-at-Large for University Promotion and Tenure Committee (Attachment C). *Nominations will be taken today and at the October 20 Faculty Senate Meeting, with the vote taken at the November 17, 2003 Senate meeting. Please confirm that your nominee is willing to serve prior to the vote.

· Nominations: Rudy Fichtenbaum

UGEC Proposal – Revise number two to begin UGEC immediately (Attachment D)

· Motion to suspend rules and consider the proposal today unanimous

· Motion to consider the proposal unanimous. Discussion included Executive Committee to appoint members, and can do so on October 6, 2003.

· Motion to amend “into existence October 6, 2003” approved.

X. Announcements:

A. Next Faculty Senate Meeting: Monday, October 20, 2003, 2:30 p.m., 156 Student Union.

XI. Adjournment:

The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.