Academic Standards Committee
September 11, 2015
(ASC) Minutes
1:30 pm
University Union, Oak Creek Room
Meeting called by:
Academic Standards Committee
Type of meeting:
ASC
Facilitators:
Attendees:
Rebecca Campbell
Note taker:
Melanie Osborne
Roger Bounds, Rebecca Campbell, Todd Carlson, Terry Crites, Laurie Dickson, Amanda Dietlin, Chris
Drake, Margaret Dunfee, Norbert Francis, Andrea Graves, Erin Grisham, Lucy Hegg, John Masserini,
Mohamed Mohamed, Vicki Penna, Linda Robin, Michael Rulon, Jaime Smith, Margery Sorensen, Rick
Stamer, Jenny Staskey, Laura Sujo-Montes, Robin Tuchscherer, Kate Watkins, Melissa Westover, Ben
Ullyot, Tanya Vogel.
Announcements:
Meetings are scheduled to be in Oak Creek Room for this academic year, except for the November 13th
meeting, which will be held in HLC 2405. If you must attend by phone, the Meet-Me-Line number is 5239999 for all meetings.
Call to Order
Call to Order
Presenter:
Rebecca Campbell
Rebecca Campbell called the meeting to order at 1:32 p.m.
Welcome and Introductions: After calling the meeting to order, Rebecca asked committee members to
introduce themselves.
ASC Business
Agenda Item:
1
Overview of Process
Presenter:
Rebecca Campbell
Rebecca reviewed the ASC policy process document that was attached to email.
Laurie Dickson mentioned that the committee is often presented with a fully developed proposal for a
formal vote to proceed to the vetting phase. However, sometimes the committee is asked to discuss an
issue prior to the formulation of a policy that will then be developed into a full proposal.
Vetting process – if you point out why a policy is important to your constituency group, you will often get
better participation. Please consider requesting time on your college and department meetings agendas.
Send out immediately when the policy to vet is received. The template for feedback will be sent to
committee members via email, to which you can add your comments and send to your constituents.
Following receipt of feedback, review and compile the responses and send them to
AcademicStandards@nau.edu. The compiled responses will be discussed at the scheduled meeting of the
ASC.
Following discussion of the policy and feedback, the ASC will vote to approve/deny the policy. If approved,
the proposed policy is forward to the Provost for final approval.
Agenda Item: 2


Committee Procedures
Presenter:
Rebecca Campbell
Culture - Respectful, open-minded, productive, relevant, solution focused
Review of member expectations
Page 1
Summary of Expectations
Attendance:
o You can use substitutes for single meetings or long term situations such as
sabbaticals. If sending a substitute to vote on a policy, please make sure the person
is knowledgeable about the policy and is aware of any feedback from constituents.
o Use the AcademicStandards@nau.edu email to inform the Administrative Liaison if
missing meetings and if sending subs.
o If you miss more than three meetings, you can be dismissed from the committee.
Preparation:
o Materials will be sent a week before the meeting, please read them prior to the
meeting and be prepared to discuss
Vetting:
o Work with your Dean, Director or Committee Chair to establish how to disseminate
information to your college, division or committee. If you represent a college, please
coordinate vetting processes with your other college representative.
o Disseminate materials in a timely manner and provide a feedback deadline.
o Summarize feedback and send to the ASC email address. If you are unable to
provide the written summary by the deadline provided, be prepared to share the
information orally during the meeting and send a written summary to the ASC email
after the meeting.
Voting:
o You or your sub must be present to vote because of the information sharing and
discussion that may influence the vote.
o Your vote should reflect feedback of constituents rather than simply your
own opinion

Meeting Schedule for AY 15-16: Fridays 1:30-3:00 Meet Me Line is 928-523-9999
o Sept 11 (Oak Creek – Union), Oct 9 (Oak Creek – Union), Nov 13 (HLC 2405), Dec 4 (Oak Creek
– Union), Jan 22 (Oak Creek – Union), Feb. 12 (Oak Creek – Union), March 4 (Oak Creek –
Union), April 1 (Oak Creek – Union), April 29 (Oak Creek – Union)
Agenda Item: 3
Action Items
Presenter:
Rebecca Campbell
ASC Minutes from May 1, 2015 were approved
There were no comments or corrections: Margaret Dunfee moved to approve the meeting minutes from
May 1, 2015. Michael Rulon seconded the motion.
Motion passed unanimously.
Agenda Item: 4
Action Items
Presenter:
Rebecca Campbell
Transfer policy related to ACE Alternative Credit Project (see attached proposal)
 Action Item: Vote to vet
Laurie Dickson explained the ACE Alternative Credit Project to the committee.
Rebecca called for a motion. Michael Rulon moved to vet the ACE Alternative Credit Project, Erin Grisham
seconded. Vote passed unanimously.

Tentative dates for vetting cycle
 ASC members send email with proposal to constituents on Mon., Sept 14, 2015
 ASC members send feedback to Laurie.Dickson@nau.edu by Sept, 28, 2015
 ASC agenda with proposal feedback to ASC members by Oct. 5th, 2015 for the Oct. 9th
meeting.
Page 2
Agenda Item: 5
Discussion Items
Presenter:
Rebecca Campbell
Implementation of Faculty Senate Approved Degree Program Expectations: Recommended Modifications to
ACCA, University, and College Curriculum & Assessment Committee Roles & Responsibilities
Goal: Provide feedback to Advisory Council for Curriculum and Assessment
Laurie Dickson reviewed the Faculty Senate Approved Degree Program Expectations document
that was emailed to committee members.
Comments from ASC members:
 What is it, exactly, that the college committees would be reviewing for a course and for a plan?
 Is the idea that someone else would do the Academic Catalog work?
 What would be done to limit curriculum proliferation across colleges? It seems that this would
create a more “silo-ed effect” across colleges, if the university committees are not reviewing
courses for the academic catalog.
 I think it is important for us to recognize that duplication of courses may exist across colleges
because students may not have access to the courses offered in another college, due to prerequisites, etc. Isn’t it important that students have access to the courses they need?
 What about discussing curriculum policies such as the policy that every degree program must
have 24 unique units?
Agenda Item: 6
Discussion Items
University Policy Regarding Syllabi
Presenter:
Rebecca Campbell
Goal: Provide feedback to Advisory Council for Curriculum and Assessment
Comments from ASC members:
 Is it required that Degree Program Student Learning Outcomes be in the syllabus?
 Do all class sections have to have a uniform assessment for the outcomes in the course?
 Will all syllabi be accessible, particularly so students can compare courses by looking at syllabi?
 Nursing already has already developed an audit function to ensure all of the class section syllabi
are aligned. Will we be able to continue doing this on a semester-by-semester basis, because that
is what is required by our accreditor.
 Is it not universally accepted that all syllabi are housed somewhere in the department? You
mean it’s supposed to happen but it doesn’t?
 I wanted to address a comment made about part-time faculty being forced to use a syllabus
designed by the department. Doesn’t this limit the part-time faculty member’s academic
freedom to have to use a syllabus created by us? Such a policy indicates that the disciplinary
expertise and authority is only with tenure track faculty or those who work in continued
positions. I don’t want to assume that part-time faculty are “less than” full-time faculty.
 Isn’t it a duplication of effort to have to create a syllabus of record and a class/ section syllabus?
Why must there be two? Aren’t these two different things? What if we called the Class Section
Syllabus a “syllabus” and called the other something else? Faculty are getting confused. What
if, instead, we had a flow chart that showed how the course fits into the degree, but not a
syllabus?
 Also, if a syllabus is designed for a topics course, doesn’t it lose meaning when you create a
purpose and outcomes that are so broad that anything could fit into it?
 If the Academic Standards Committee feels strongly about the need for a centralized
repository for all NAU syllabi, we could research and vet a proposal regarding the
development of a repository for syllabi.
Page 3
Agenda Item 7
Discussion Items
Presenter:
Rebecca Campbell
Proposed Academic Standards Committee charge.
We are a key committee of the Faculty Senate. The Faculty Senate is revamping their policies, procedures
and bylaws this year.
Current Charge
Proposed Charge
Academic Standards Committee. The ASC:
 recommends policy with respect to all
general and special academic policies,
standards, procedures, and scholastic
regulations, and
 continuously re-evaluates such standards
and policies to assure that appropriate
academic standards prevail.
 The committee also hears and acts on
requests from students regarding waiver
of any university policies.
 The Academic Standards Committee
recommends policy with respect to all
general and special policies, standards,
and procedures concerning admissions
and scholastic regulations, and
 continuously re-evaluates such standards
and policies to assure that high academic
standards prevail.
Academic Standards Committee. The Academic
Standards Committee (ASC) is charged by the Faculty
Senate to maintain the academic standards of the
University through the appropriate review, creation,
and application of academic policies as they apply to
undergraduate students, while recognizing that special
circumstances may occasionally warrant an exception
to a policy. The ASC accomplishes this charge by:
 Identifying the need for new policies or the
revision of current policies;
 Drafting new policies or revised policies,
engaging faculty members in the examination
and critical appraisal of the policy prior to
voting upon recommending the policy to the
Office of the Provost for final approval;
 Acting as the final arbiter for grade appeals only
in the case of perceived violation of due process
in grade appeal process;
 Ensuring that the standards of the University
are maintained through the appropriate
application of policy;
 Reviewing exception requests from
undergraduate students related to universitywide academic policies that are not adjudicated
through other channels; and
 Reporting annually to the Faculty Senate
regarding actions taken to fulfill their charge
and strategic efforts for the coming year.
Goal: Provide feedback to Advisory Council for Curriculum and Assessment
Michael Rulon commented that the new committee charge seems to make our role more proactive.
Agenda Item: 8
Potential Future Agenda Items
Presenter:
Rebecca Campbell
Goal: Determine who will lead proposal
Below is the tentative schedule of policy proposals for the 2015- 2016 Academic year.
Rebecca called for volunteers to work on the policies and present to the committee. Volunteers’ names are
listed in the chart below.
ACE transfer
credits proposal
Admin. Drop
proposal
End-of-term
policy
Medical
withdrawal
Grade appeal
(Jenny
Page 4
(Laurie)
Sept 11
Oct. 9
Nov. 13
Dec. 4
Jan. 22
Feb. 12
Vote to vet
Vote to approve
(Erin Plese, Lucy
Hegg, Ben Ullyot,
Laurie Dickson)
Vote to vet
Vote to approve
(Michael Rulon,
Lucy Hegg, Laura
Sujo-Montes)
Vote to vet
Vote to approve
(Erin Grisham
and Rebecca
Campbell)
Vote to vet
Vote to approve
Staskey, Chris
Drake, Roger
Bounds, and
Margaret
Dunfee)
Vote to vet
Vote to
approve
March 4
April 1
April 29
9. Good of the Order
Agenda Item: 9
Adjournment
Presenter:
Rebecca Campbell
Lucy Hegg noted that she will not be at the October 9th meeting. Ben Ullyot will attend in her absence.
Rebecca mentioned that Veteran’s Affairs have changed their Military/Institutional Excuse and Short/Term
leave guidelines. Possibly this is something ASC should have had the opportunity to look at. We need to be
observant and if we hear/see something that we think should come to the committee, present it. Rebecca
also said the Institutional and Absence policy in general should be looked at.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
Page 5