Attendance: Maureen Andrade, David Connelly, Karen Cushing, Newell Dayley, Parker Fawson, Stan Harward, Talitha Hudgins,
Nathan Northcott, Jason Slack, Tom Sturtevant, Richard Tafalla, Abraham Teng, Mallory Wallin, Fred White, David Yells
Absent/Excused: Dan Fairbanks, Michael Savoie, Forrest Williams
Guests: Alexis Palmer, Michelle Taylor
Dean of Students
Introduction
New Undergraduate
Research Program
Graduate Studies
Structured Enrollment
Differential Tuition
 Palmer shared her philosophy on Student Life. She noted that Student Life responds to the diversity to all students and is working closely with Kyle Reyes on this facet. She plans to take a holistic view of students such as student health services and accessibility services. Ashley Larson,
Ombudsman, is available to assist. She recently sent out a letter to all faculty about the safety of students.
 Another area of focus is to enhance the programming student life is doing to prepare for the future. Part of that involves the new SLW building and researching how this is helping to change the mind of the student.
 Two Initiatives working on this year o Student Rights & Responsibilities o Title IX
All faculty, staff, students will be trained in Title IX per Federal mandates.
 Let Palmer know if you have any questions or if she can assist you.
 Wright inquired about charges that were being assessed through a club to use facilities. Palmer will follow up.
 Connelly recommended that Student Life help define what faculty should be disclosing without breaking confidentiality.
 Tafalla share that this is a one-time program to provide funding to support completion of upper division student work with faculty mentors to conduct in-depth research or creative work related to their chosen field of study.
 Yells proposed having a series of questions/prompts for students to use as a template in writing their 3-5 page summaries.
 Connelly recapped that Graduate programs were put on hold until UVU had an office and criteria in place to satisfy the Regents. Graduate Studies Proposal was reviewed. He also noted that the current proposal was to get the office up and running with all expectations that the office would continue to grow dependent upon the needs at the time.
 Andrade noted that this office would take the place of the current Graduate Support Committee.
 The Director position would be selected from an internal faculty member.
 AAC approved the proposal to move forward to Liz Hitch.
 The program is currently set up to take students through Developmental Math and Basic Comp, but does not include GE requirements. Has been proposed to include Math and English 2010/2020.
 Yells felt that English writing requirements should be included. Andrade noted that Math
1030/1040/1050 should also be included. Slack noted that there is a bottleneck with Math 1050 and reported that they are trying to define what math requirement should actually be required for each program.
 State initiation is looking at Math 1010 as they feel this is remedial and they want to address the need for this course. Slack noted that they could take Math 1030 and 1035 to assist with additional help.
 AAC approved English 2010/2020 and Math 1030/1040/1050 be put forward to add to structured enrollment to President’s Council.
 Andrade recapped that this is part of an Acute Equity focus, specific goal is to provide students with access to Community College Programs. Idea is for students on career pathways. Currently competing with SLCC as they have lower tuition. We have not defined the career pathway yet. Cost would be @ $373,000 to make up the difference in Pell grants and cost of tuition. This is for all

Data Generation and
Development
Curriculum Process students. May need to submit future PBA request.
 Andrade reported that Hammon included evidence that there are better completion rates with students who have completed a certificate or an associate’s degree.
 Wright noted that this potentially takes funds out of the budget to address a few students.
Andrade responded that this is supporting the Community College (CC) portion of our mission.
 Dayley asked why we don’t lower tuition for these individuals and slightly raise it for others so it’s a wash. Andrade will explore this option with Linda Makin. She noted we don’t currently have a lot of students in our CC programs.
 Tafalla asked if this discussion would open the way for the tuition cost discussions for various programs across campus. Andrade noted that programs already have the option of presenting the costs of their programs to the President. This is up to the individual program to work with the budget office and cabinet to address this issue.
 Michelle Taylor commented that she thought this differential tuition was to address the needs at
Wasatch campus. Andrade said they have not fully identified which certificates/associates would be a part of the career pathways. It would include Wasatch.
 Wright referenced IRI graduation data. Andrade said it was misleading as it includes all the
University Studies degrees. The proposed program would only cover those enrolled in a Career
Pathway program.
 Dayley commented that the term “Career” can be misleading.
 AAC would like to continue the discussion and invite Darrel Hammon for the next discussion.
 Brown asked Deans for ideas on how they get information to make decisions, what critical decisions do deans want to make with the data, and what do they need? o What data points does upper administration want to see? o Enrollments by school/college, department, major o Job placement o Graduate school placement o Graduation rates o Retention at department level o Demographics on students down to major o Fundraising on ongoing basis o Upper division faculty utilization (how many students taught in upper divisions by full-time faculty) o SCH data o By faculty member, GPA, SRI o Easier way to get to SRI o Soft funds, capital expenses o Number of faculty in programs per students o Needs related to program review – tables in the dashboards o More comparative information o Linking SRIs with GPA and pass rates o Advisor ratios, service o Prerequisites – does order really matter o Utilization of gel grants
 Brown noted that over the next year all the data will be fed into the data warehouse so everyone has the same data. She will make a list of all the data points so AAC can prioritize. Connelly recommended seeing an example from the discussions.
 What do the deans need to determine that they are really serving their students?
 Send Brown what you want to see specifically.
 Need to be careful what data will be disclosed and be sure faculty has buy-in.
 Andrade reported that this is a follow-up related to previous conversations about expediting the curriculum process. The current process takes about 18 months. The first part of the proposal outlines what the departments need to do at their level. Approval process comes from departments to the school/college curriculum committee for review. Deans review and post at school/college curriculum level to be sure there are no overlaps. Clean-up at this level with assistance from the Curriculum office.
 Items with no issues raised will be placed on the consent calendar for the University Curriculum
Committee. The University Curriculum Committee will review new courses proposed, R401s, and course review process. The review on broad level and address any conflicts.
 R401s and significant changes will be approved by AAC and the SVPAA.

PPACA and Adjunct
Limits
De-Evolution
Miscellaneous
 Items could be submitted year round except during summer with changes being implemented in both fall and spring. Items that need BOT/BOR approvals would need to be coordinated with their calendars. Could be delays at any level dependent upon completeness.
 Planning to do full implementation fall 2015. Graduation office has done a PBA request to help manage this change.
 Wright noted their advisors concern over the semester by semester changes and the challenge of keeping students apprised of the changes. Deans are concerned about the catalog in which students would need to adhere to.
 Dayley recommended an advisor or supervisor participate on the curriculum committee so they are aware of what changes are being made.
 Leick, Connelly, Bernfeld, Andrade continue to work on the curriculum proposal.
 Brown reported that Judy Martindale, Linda Makin and Mark Wiesenberg met to discuss limits. She noted that adjunct office hours must be paid in addition to attending conferences.
 Adjunct faculty may not supervise students, faculty, or staff for overnight off campus activities.
 Adjunct faculty must be compensated and time tracked for off campus events from the time the adjunct leaves home, attends/participates in the conference, and travel home. Webinars also must be compensated.
 On campus conferences/meetings still need to be compensated, but are less costly.
 Brown proposed information that would be sent to adjuncts and what they would need to do if they wanted to attend an event and guidelines that need to be followed. Sturtevant would like the financial manager to review the information first to be sure all pertinent information is recorded.
Brown bag events that are completely voluntary do not need to be tracked and accounted for.
 Andrade reported that the de-evolution is to give more responsibility to departments per their request. She also noted that Financial Managers declared that DE courses are not department courses. Working on one point of contact for scheduling, offering online, hybrid, live interactive, face-to-face courses. Budget piece is not a problem as indexes are already established. Only need to change responsible parties on the index and give to the departments. Can still track the funds to support DE courses. Departments will be asked to generate the same FTE as the previous year for the courses. Departments can set their own caps. Money also covers instructional assistants.
 No incentives for teaching DE or extended site courses, it now becomes a part of faculty load. We would like to develop an innovation award program which would reward faculty or departments.
Need to determine a variety of categories of the possibilities and provide guidelines. They would still get the current structure for developing online courses. Need to determine who receives these funds.
 Currently have hybrid training for faculty that wants to teach hybrid courses.
 Connelly expressed concern about large DE courses and the fact that the incentives are being taken away. This takes away 2/3 income from adjuncts that are currently teaching these courses. Brown noted that across the U.S., there is differential pay based on disciplines. She also noted there is a multiplier for large classrooms.
 Intent is for faculty to teach DE courses as part of their normal load.
 Tiffany Evans is also addressing the scheduling portion and four-year plans towards completion.
Part of that planning is to allow the student to view the options available in all modalities and locations.
 Sturtevant encouraged deans to meet the demands and be supportive for online courses.
 Brown noted that as we are considering new faculty hires, we need to have an expectation that faculty are familiar with DE courses and what kind (hybrid, online, live interactive).
 White noted we need to express to faculty that this is the evolving face of higher education.
 Yells asked if we are still obligated to offer the courses for students to achieve the New Century
Scholarship. Andrade noted we are trying to meet the needs of our service area and assumes so.
 Part of the reorganization is to strengthen faculty by using all modes of technology.
 Andrade is working with Seth Gurell to create a development plan to address large sections in the
3000 and 4000 levels. He will be coming to the deans to see if some of these courses/degree programs can be offered completely online or primarily online with a campus component.
 Currently, students pay a $52 fee for a DE or ES course. Andrade is proposing elimination of these fees as it should be a part of the regular tuition. Makin’s office is crunching the numbers to determine the cost and the need to submit a PBA request. Idea is to hard fund operating costs.
 Launched program with Academic Service Learning and roll them onto an online format.
 Jeff approved funds for advertising in diverse journals, etc. Keep track of receipts and turn in at the end of the search. Submit receipts to Kat Brown or Julie Hayden for transfer of funds.

AA Restructure  Reviewed and discussed the proposed organization chart.
October 21, 2014, 8:30 am – 11:30 am in BA 205a
1.
AAC approved English 2010/2020 and Math 1030/1040/1050 be put forward to add to structured enrollment to
President’s Council