A quorum being present, the regular monthly meeting of the Faculty Senate was called to order by Presiding Officer Jeffrey L. Warburton on January 25, 1999, at 3:02 PM in Room 146 of the College of Law.

Present: Senators Aleamoni, Armstrong, Atwater, Christiano, Cohen, Coker, Dahlgran, D. Davis, T. Davis, Dyl, Erlings, Ervin, Garcia, Gerken, Gruener, Heckler, Heinrich, Hogle, Howell, Impey, Jenkins, Joens, Johnson, Laetsch, Larson, Levin, Love, Marchalonis, Maré, Meaker, Medine, Merkle, Miller, Mishra, Nolan, O’Brien, Parsons, Pepper, Pitt, Pope, Schooley, Silverman, Spece, Swindle, Sypherd, Szilagyi, Taylor, Troy, Voyatzis, Warburton, Weinand, Wilson-Sanders, Witte, and Zwolinski. Robert Sankey served as Parliamentarian.

Absent: Senators Caldwell, Dryden, Dvorak, Hurt, Levy, Likins, and Mitchell.

2. OPEN SESSION

Senator Witte - Announced the Frederica and John Hearst Prizes for Undergraduate Poetry 1999; deadline for poem submission is February 12, 1999, 4:30 PM. (Attachment)

Senator Taylor and Adam Talenfeld, director of the Arizona Students’ Association office, distributed a letter regarding a Day of Action rally on the UA mall planned for February 4 from noon to 1:00 PM. [The date was later changed to February 3.] They explained that the purpose of the gathering is to send a message to the Arizona Legislature regarding funding higher education, and they encouraged faculty support and participation. Senator Taylor also announced several upcoming events involving the Graduate and Professional Student Council (GPSC): (1) a joint panel with the Association for Women Faculty on February 3; (2) a Graduate Research Conference on March 20; (3) the Student Showcase to take place in Phoenix on February 17, while the legislative budget hearings are being held. She also noted that the GPSC has issued and forwarded to the state legislature a position statement in support of graduate education.

Presiding Officer Warburton’s remarks: (1) President Likins has announced via 3-D the new membership roster of the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (ICAC), effective July 1, 1999. Two of the nominees that the Senate forwarded to the President will serve on ICAC: Katherine Carter will be ICAC chair, while Senator T. Davis will serve as Faculty Senate representative. (2) Now that faculty at the Arizona International College (AIC) have been granted Voting Faculty status, the AIC representative to the Faculty Senate will be a voting member of the Senate, rather than a non-voting observer.

3C. Secretary of the Faculty Susan Heckler

Secretary Heckler reported that plans for developing a faculty-wide listserv are moving ahead, but it may be some time before the list is operational. Dr. Clement Chase has volunteered to help establish the listserv and may be sending queries to the faculty in connection with that task, she said.

Chair Hogle reviewed materials enclosed in Senators’ packets relating to the Chair’s Task Force on Faculty Salaries. He noted that the November 15, 1998, memo from the Task Force to the Provost contained recommendations on faculty salary distributions. After consultation with the Subcommittee on Equity and Compensation of the Commission on the Status of Women, the Task Force made three additional recommendations related to identifying problems of salary equity, as outlined in its memo to the Provost dated December 16, 1998. Whether and how these recommendations can be implemented will depend largely upon the final state budget for the UA. Differences between the budget proposals from the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) and the Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (OSPB) were discussed. The OSPB proposal is more favorable to the universities than that of the JLBC, mainly because the OSPB proposal suggests funding the Students First K-12 program through the issuance of low-interest revenue bonds, rather than through budget cuts. Referring to information placed on Senators’ desk, Dr. Hogle outlined what he plans to do as a private citizen—write to his legislators and the Governor, with copies to legislative leaders in the Senate and House, to express support for the position statement developed by the UA’s State Relations Office and the Arizona Alumni Association. Dr. Hogle encouraged other faculty to do as they choose in this matter, but he emphasized that they must not use UA or other state resources, time, or equipment for this activity.

Using overhead transparencies, Provost Sypherd discussed the UA’s FY 2000-2001 budget request, as well as the OSPB and JLBC budget proposals. Highlights: The budget process is still in an early stage, but if the proposals are followed, the net reduction to the UA main campus budget would be approximately $6 million. One troubling aspect of the JLBC proposal is the return to faculty workload and productivity issues. Another concern is the reduction in formula-based funds, such as those earmarked for building renewal. Some legislative personnel proposing cuts are basing their suggestions on the belief that big government needs to be cut, and that the universities are part of that big government. We need to respect legislators’ opinions, but nevertheless express our disagreement with them and promote the idea that higher education is an investment in the future. President Likins is out battling for the UA budget, but other UA community members should do their part, too. Provost Sypherd concluded by encouraging faculty to contact their legislators, and he echoed Chair Hogle’s caveat against using University resources to do this.

No report, since President Likins was out of town.

Senator Gruener asked Provost Sypherd asked how the budget cuts suggested for Arizona State University compare with those proposed for the UA. Dr. Sypherd responded that one of ASU’s three campuses is slated for an increase, but the ASU main campus is scheduled for a reduction similar to the UA’s.

Senator Szilagyi expressed a concern about the hostile relationship that the UA has with the legislature, in contrast to the one the institution enjoys with the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR), and he speculated that the proposed budget cuts could be the result of that hostile relationship. He also asked what impact the position of Senior Faculty Associate to the President has in this area. Provost Sypherd responded that over the past six years the Regents have been treated with respect, but we have disagreed with them privately. During that time, Regents have noticed positive changes in the areas they had concerns about, and we have gotten to know them well, largely through the efforts of faculty leaders, including the Senior Faculty Associate to the President. With regard to legislators, we have good relations with them at the personal level, but we are sometimes critical of the legislative body as a whole, he said.

Senator Witte asked Secretary Heckler and Chair Hogle to provide a rationale for discontinuing the verbatim transcription of Senate proceedings and for developing the new format of the Senate minutes. Secretary Heckler said the minutes are now being written to conform to Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. She added that the audiotapes are available for review at the Faculty Center. Chair Hogle cited the expense of transcribing the audiotapes and printing the minutes as they were previously written, and he commended Secretary Heckler for making the minutes more concise, while continuing to accurately report the essence of Senate discussions and actions.

Senator Spece asked Provost Sypherd if the UA has been as responsive to legislators’ concerns as it has been to those of ABOR. The Provost responded in the affirmative. Chair Hogle added that the Legislative Advocacy Network, headed by Regent Jack Jewett, is helping to communicate to the legislature the ways in which the University has improved; also, the Senior Faculty Associate is developing one-on-one relationships with legislators and meeting with them privately to provide full information about the UA.

Observer Rochlin asked about the dates of the legislative hearings on the university budgets. Chair Hogle responded that the House hearing will be on February 16, and the Senate hearing will take place on February 17. Both sessions are expected to begin in the afternoon. Another event, organized by the UA’s State Relations office, will be held in the evening of February 17 in the Phoenix area. This will be an opportunity for key legislators to put a human face on the UA by meeting informally with faculty members, students and staff in a kind of Spirit Day for the UA, Dr. Hogle said.

Chair Hogle reported that the long-term disability (LTD) program retirement accrual bill is being reintroduced in the state legislature this session. He said he would express his support of this bill in his letters to legislators and the Governor.

Senator Atwater requested a correction on page 3, section 9, line 1: "Senator Atwater, Co-Chair of the Academic [not Appointed] Personnel Policy Committee (APPC)..." The minutes of December 7, 1998, were then approved as corrected.

Both consent agenda items, as detailed at the end of these minutes, were approved unanimously. [Motion 1998/99-26 and Motion 1998/99-27]

Mr. Bruce Wright, Associate Vice President for Economic Development, distributed informational packets on the University of Arizona Science and Technology Park (UASTP). Highlights of his comments: ABOR purchased the site from IBM in 1994, creating the Arizona Research Park Authority to finance the $98 million purchase by selling bonds. With IBM leasing space back for a 20-year period, the deal became a self-financing transaction. The UA took possession of the property in 1995 for $700,000 in closing costs and fees. Today the UASTP—with 340 acres developed into 2 million square feet of leasable space and an additional 1,000 acres available for expansion—is valued in excess of $200 million. With 26 entities, including 14 high-tech firms, employing approximately 5,000 people in the park, the current facility is almost fully leased and, as of November 1998, is self-sustaining—two years ahead of schedule. It is expected to repay the UA the $4 million it has invested by 2002. Although not envisioned primarily as a revenue generator for the UA, neither will the park be a money loser. The UASTP is being developed to strengthen and enhance the educational, research, and outreach missions of the UA. It contributes to the economic development of the community and the state by forging links between the UA and the park’s tenants, in the process offering internship opportunities for UA students and providing classroom space for a technology training center in cooperation with local schools. A new business incubator program will provide assistance to start-up high-tech businesses. The UA library now has a presence at the park, and Extended University is beginning to offer classes there. Other benefits of the UASTP include providing additional research space for UA faculty; affording more opportunities for cooperative ventures, as required by many research sponsors now; and providing jobs for UA graduates.

In response to a question about exactly what benefits the UA is receiving from the park, several Senators cited specific examples of collaborative relationships between their UA departments and UASTP tenants, noting that the park acts as a catalyst for such arrangements. Other comments from Senators: The presence of a research park creates special collaboration opportunities for university researchers and also fosters the development of more highly paid jobs for the surrounding community; if the connection between a research park and the local university is lost, the park tends to become nothing more than a real estate transaction. Noting that the UASTP is a full-disclosure unit, Mr. Wright invited calls and tours by the campus community, and he suggested the possibility of holding a Faculty Senate meeting at the site.

Using overhead transparencies, Senator Armstrong, chair of the University Committee on Ethics and Commitment (UCEC), briefly discussed the committee’s change and presented the argument for its expansion from 6 to 12 permanent members. UCEC’s caseload has increased considerably, and providing a fair and confidential review of cases presented to it requires many hours of committee members’ time, he said. Also, additional systematic procedures are needed in order to process cases more effectively. Even though both the Committee of Eleven and the revisions committee are considering the general issue of possible revisions to grievance procedures, UCEC feels compelled to proceed now with the recommendation to expand UCEC’s size, Senator Armstrong said.

In response to a question about whether characteristics of members will be considered, or whether committee size is the only issue, Senator Armstrong noted that diversity and broad campus representation on the committee are essential. He added that the Committee on Committees, which prepares the slate of UCEC candidates on which the Senate votes each May, is cognizant of these needs. It was also noted that UCEC panels dealing with individual cases need members with expertise in the appropriate area, and the issue of conflict of interest must be considered when impaneling members for a particular case.

Presiding Officer Warburton said that the proposed revisions would be referred to the Committee on UHAP, Constitution, and Bylaws Revisions for consideration. It is expected that the revisions committee will present a proposal for further discussion and action at the Faculty Senate meeting on February 8, he said.

9. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON PROPOSED WHISTLE-BLOWER POLICY (Attachments)

(Due to the complex nature of the following discussion and the many points presented therein, readers who are interested in more detail are encouraged to review the audiotapes of the Senate meeting, which are available at the Faculty Center.)

Presiding Officer Warburton announced that this discussion should be considered a first reading of the revised whistle-blower policy—an opportunity for Senators to provide input to the Academic Personnel Policy Committee (APPC) before the draft is finalized. Therefore, it will not be necessary to offer motions to amend the document at this time, he said. Rather, Senators should provide feedback to APPC members either today or later this week, so that suggestions can be taken into consideration when the next draft is prepared for the February 8 Senate meeting.

Senator Troy, APPC Co-chair, briefly reviewed the materials contained in Senators’ packets and reported that University Attorney Thomas Thompson was present to provide clarification regarding specific terminology being used. Senator Troy explained that the three state universities are amending their whistle-blower policies to honor a commitment that the university presidents made to the state legislature: to provide university employees the opportunity to appeal to a neutral third party if they are dissatisfied with the results of the initial investigation of a whistle-blower complaint. In a May 15, 1998, letter to Rep. Marilyn Jarrett, the presidents suggested making amendments to internal whistle-blower policies as an alternative to enacting legislation that would provide university employees who allege to be whistle-blowers harmed by retaliation the right to take their grievance to the State Personnel Board. At the UA, the revised policy was drafted by the University Attorneys’ Office under the leadership of Mr. Thompson. The APPC reviewed the draft and suggested several changes, which were incorporated into the document.

Senate discussion regarding the proposed whistle-blower policy included the following comments/questions: (1) The President of the Arizona State Conference of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) provided input via e-mail regarding the proposed policy. The points she made should be responded to in the next iteration of the policy. (2) Is it appropriate for a University Attorney to devise the whistle-blower policy, since his clients are UA administrators? The issue of conflict of interest must be considered. (3) The policy seems to be written from the point of view of a lawyer defending against faculty; there are several instances in the document where the current language seems advantageous to administrators. (4) The Staff Advisory Council (SAC) should be involved in the drafting of the policy, since whistle-blower cases often involve staff. (5) Senators Spece and Silverman should be provided with copies of the proposed policy and revisions, so that they can review them from a legal standpoint on behalf of the faculty in advance of any Senate discussion. (6) The UA whistle-blower policy should be crafted so that it gives University employees the same rights as other state employees. (7) The proposed UA policy does not allow for administrative review de novo; this is a significant difference from the laws in effect for other state employees.

With regard to the first comment, Senator Troy noted that he had followed the whistle-blower issue for two years and had read all relevant documents, including pertinent portions of the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS). He said that the current draft of the UA’s whistle-blower policy follows very closely what ARS provides for other state employees with regard to whistle-blower cases. Chair Hogle suggested that the APPC check into the trial de novo issue prior to the next Senate discussion of the document.

Presiding Officer Warburton urged Senators to provide input in writing to the APPC within the next few days, so that the APPC can review it prior to issuing the next iteration of the proposed policy.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:05 PM.

Susan E. Heckler, Secretary

The Frederica and John Hearst Prizes for Undergraduate Poetry 1999 announcement.

Letter dated January 25, 1999, to faculty members from the Arizona Students’ Association regarding the Day of Action

Materials distributed in Senators’ packets and on their desks from Chair Jerry Hogle. (memos regarding salary distribution and equity recommendations; materials related to proposed budget cuts)

Copies of budget request overheads used by Provost Sypherd during his report.

Consent agenda dated January 25, 1999.

Materials distributed by Mr. Bruce Wright regarding the University of Arizona Science and Technology Park.

Materials from APPC regarding the proposed whistle-blower policy. (cover letter dated January 12, 1999; memo dated November 4, 1998; letter dated May 15, 1998; and draft of whistle-blower policy dated December 11, 1998)

*Copies of material listed in the Appendix are attached to the original minutes and are on file in the Faculty Center.