Policy F-22 (Rank) is on the web. Senators were asked to please be ready to vote on this next time.

The calendar for 2000-2001 was distributed.

This holiday party will be held Friday, December 18, from 11:30 to 1:30. There will be refreshments, Bingo, prizes, Santa and a lip-sync contest. There will be a luncheon buffet.

Nominations are needed for next year's executive secretary. Laurie Wood asked where the procedure for this was written. Ernest Carey mentioned that changes to the Faculty Senate constitution have been voted on and approved by the Faculty Senate, but have never been changed on the original document. Nobody knows where the constitution is maintained. The process of electing a new secretary is as follows: The executive board makes nominations for names to be placed on the ballot, or faculty-at-large can make a nomination by preparing a petition with signatures of fifteen eligible faculty. All nominations are due 10 days before the ballot is distributed. Ernie stated that all of the faculty votes on this position, not just faculty senate members. Laurie will run the election. Deborah Baird, current secretary, recommended that the position become a two-year one to match the two-year term of Faculty Senate president. She explained some of the duties of the position. Nominations are due January 12^th and the vote will be conducted on January 26th.

Laurie Wood mentioned that she is still looking for people to serve on committees. Senators are to give her some recommendations.

Stephanie Larsen explained that the student government ran an informal survey of 200 students regarding posting evaluations on the Web. She distributed a copy of the study. On other campuses the summative evaluations are available on the web. Since the movement is student generated and student run, there is little that faculty senate can really do but make suggestions. Laurie Wood's department suggested that a link from the evaluation site be made available that goes directly to the teacher's homepage so that students can easily learn more about the teacher's strategy. They also suggest that students develop a mission statement to explain the methodology of this project. Lisa Lambert mentioned that it is apparently legal for students to use campus resources to provide the site, based on precedent. Stephanie said there are many programming issues to still solve. She is also still preparing the actual questions that will be used in the evaluation and will bring those to the senate. Chris Jones wondered if there had been any research to show that this type of thing was beneficial to the institution. This may backfire. Teachers will not become better, they will simply try to become better entertainers. Stephanie responded that having teacher evaluations on the Web is very common on other campuses and the sole purpose of it is for the students to share their opinions. It was suggested that the student evaluation contain some accountability feature, such as be listed by demographics. Senators requested the site addresses for other school's evaluations to see how it works.

Linda Makin reported that the main issue was SUU and Dixie looking into offering four-year degrees. Dixie wants to control the University Center. Our proposal for the Behavioral Science bachelor degree will not be brought forward until the January meeting.

Dave Manning discussed the ongoing work on the academic appeals process. The committee has decided to form a subcommittee with two faculty members and three students. This committee will meet on an individual basis as problems come up. They will be writing the policy, and realize that they need to have it done for Fall 1999.

This committee is currently looking at five categories as far as merit distribution. They are meeting today to discuss them. They will be developing some new criteria. They are meeting weekly and plan presenting their proposal in the spring.

Ron Hammond distributed a comprehensive research report on the faculty pay scale study. This will be on the faculty senate web page under the budget committee link. Feedback was requested.

Chris Jones says that his committee has been working hard, and that they only have one more meeting before the catalogue materials must be submitted.

Forrest Williams handed out a memo. He would like this to be an action item for the next meeting. The committee decided that it is a good policy to split summative and formative evaluations. It is suggested that each department may have five additional questions on the formative. Any questions would have to come back through the committee. Dave Manning mentioned that a department chair may now go into a class and watch a teacher whenever he feels necessary and evaluations of a teacher can be done in any manner chosen by the department chair. He wondered why this formal procedure was needed. Forest recognized that the department chairs are relying too heavily on the summative evaluations, but the chairs do not like confrontation. This procedure will not affect merit bonus. If your department used some of the questions from the summative evaluations as some of the five new questions allowed for the formative, the questions are already approved.

Duane says it will be very similar to years past. Do your faculty evaluation, your two peer evaluations, etc. and you should be receiving some information on the communicator soon.

Kirk's committee met and forwarded recommendations to the Academic Vice President. Her deadline is December 5. They are now working on post-tenure review process.