Council of Chairs
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
3:30 – 5:00 p.m. Senate Chambers
Meeting Invitees:
Anziano, Michael, Baranski, John, Boxer, Majel, Brandon, Maureen Brandt, Keri J , Chew, Beverly
Clark, Brad Clausen, Rebecca Colby, Chad Elkins, Dennis Erickson, Mary Ann , Fankhauser,
Crystal, Fine, Kathleen, Fulton, Richard Gilpin, Sandra , Gonzales, David Haaland, Ryan K ,
Hannula, Kim , Hartney, Cathleen, Hartsfield, Larry , Juergensmeyer, Erik, Kendall, Kathy, Lienert,
Carl , Lyon, Douglas , McCormick, Peter , Carrie Meyer , Oliver, Astrid , Ortega, Joseph , Owen,
Dugald , Pepion, Kenneth , Peterson, Michele , Reed, Marc , Riggs, Charles , Sellin, Amy , Shuler,
Phil , Smith, Carol , Smith, Pam Lisa Snyder, Sommerville, Les , Kelly Stanley , Stremba, Bob ,
Wilhelm, Suzanne, Morris, Barbara
Next meeting: Tuesday, November 4, 2014
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Update on the TLC Director search: Committee will hold 8 phone interviews on Monday &
Tuesday next week. Departments will be brought into the interview process after the candidates are selected from the phone interviews.
AGENDA
1.
Rigor Policy Discussion – Anne McCarthy a.
Copies of the policy on rigor were passed out. Development of this policy came out of the work of the HLC workgroups that identified the need to have a statement about academic rigor. A large group of faculty worked on this draft.
The group is now asking for feedback from faculty. Once comments are received and a revised draft is developed based on feedback, the policy will be submitted to Faculty Senate for a vote. b.
The rigor policy group is looking for a vote by Faculty Senate in early November so that the policy can be helpful in redesigning courses. c.
Discussion:
Some council members like the 100 -400 course level criteria descriptions. The policy group considered adding the 500-600 levels to this policy but decided to hold off on this while the graduate policies are being developed. i.
Question: Will rigor be decided at the Curriculum Committee level?
John Baranski: No. Departments and chairs will be responsible for ensuring the level of courses proposed. The Curriculum Committee always has the right to request more information from departments and chairs during the course review process, so the committee may ask for additional information regarding rigor of a course. ii.
Question: So if the determination of rigor stays at the department level how does the faculty senate and provost know that the course has been

vetted by the faculty?
Suzanne & John: The procedures regarding oversight of rigor is discipline specific. Responsibility for rigor starts with the departments but the curriculum review process will ensure oversight by the faculty at large. iii.
Question: Will the CC be looking at the syllabus, learning outcomes and assessment for alignment to the rigor of a course? Suzanne, Yes. John,
No. Suzanne: Distinction between policy and procedure. The team focused on the policy not the procedure. There may be a disconnect between the proposed policy and the CC procedure. iv.
Question: If the Chair lets something slip in a course proposal, would the CC catch a discrepancy between rigor of a course level and the assignments? Ultimately the CC would need to catch this. v.
Question: Do we trust our chairs? Yes, we do. However there is an institutional uniformity that needs to comply with the policy – the faculty – not just one faculty or one chair – but the faculty as a whole.
Anne McCarthy: According to the HLC criterion 4.A.4, “The institution maintains and exercises authority over the prerequisites for courses, rigor of courses, expectations for student learning, access to learning resources, and faculty qualifications for all its programs”. This policy is the institution piece that says this is uniform.
Suzanne: The CC procedures posted on their website state the operating procedures. The CC has the right to review any information in a proposal and to request the Chair represent the department’s proposal and make a case at CC and Senate. d.
Suzanne: Asking for Council of Chairs to embrace and approve this policy. Send comments up until noon on Friday to Ann McCarthy. All comments will be shared with the policy writing team for a re-draft. Any feedback will improve the draft.
2.
Liberal Arts Council Presentation – Erin Lehmer a.
The council is working to identify a timeline for an implementation of the new
LAC curriculum – The original time line would implemented fully in 2017 would require a transitional curriculum for 2016-2017. The feedback from faculty said concerned that more work would be required to develop a transitional curriculum then a permanent curriculum. A shortened timeline means that the new LAC model would be developed this fall and submitted to faculty for a vote in January. In the spring the departments would design their new LAC courses.
The permanent LAC curriculum would be rolled out along with the rest of the curriculum changes. The council is voting on the timelines and will be bringing them to the senate soon. A call for proposals for new LAC models will be forthcoming.
3.
Student and Alumni Survey Data- Richard Miller a.
Presentation on NSSEE, FSSE, ALUMNI, and TUFTS b.
Diversity and citizenship. (What, So What and Now What?) c.
Both diversity and citizenship are prominent in the College mission and Core
Values #3 & 4. d.
FLC students responses are consistent with national average except in one area that was slightly above average – Seniors exposure to gender issues

e.
Despite a diverse student body student responses were consistent with COPLAC and national average. f.
Responses to citizenship questions were statistically identical to NSSE sample g.
Discussion & Questions:
Do we know the characteristics of students who answer NSSE? The demographics were to be expected.
How did Native Americans respond? That information is forthcoming – we will be getting additional information by race, discipline and ethnicity. This data is consistent over the last decade of NSSE surveys.
What about courses where that subject matter of diversity is not appropriate to discuss? Diversity and citizenship should be coming from a strong general education program so that all students have somewhat common experience regardless of a student’s major. There is not an institutional intent to deliver these concepts.
How many instances of graffiti have we had? Between 10-20 in the last several years. They are usually directed at sexual and some religious groups.
4.
Student Success Collaboration Presentation – Suzanne Wilhelm, Kim Hannula,
MaryAnn Erickson a.
Allison, Student Success Coach – exercise science success coach showed what she uses with her students when advising. Faculty advisors will be able to read notes submitted by the success coach. Students can be added to a watch list.
Faculty can set reminders. Risk levels = GPA, grades in major course, difficulty of major, completion rate. b.
Success markers were developed by the department (e.g. ES 242) generates notifications if a student has achieved that mark. Possible to run large scale reports to capture students with over 120 credits who haven’t graduated; taken math or comp requirements; received lower than a C- on Comp course, etc. that can be used to send target communications too. c.
The pilot is testing hypothesis of the benefits a day-by-day type of advising from success coaches and allowing faculty can move into a mentor type role. d.
Discussion:
When is full implementation? More departments will be brought on in the spring. A good place to start is for departments to work with identifying the success markers this spring.
What is the vision for the hand-off from faculty advisors to the success coach?
This year for the pilot every department needs to get situated with a success coach. Over the past 30 days, more than 200 students logged into the system.
84% of those authorized to use it have used it so far. This is eyes only for faculty and advisors. UNC, CS and Metro and Western, Mesa are using this
Meeting adjourned 5:05 PM