The meeting was called to order by Presiding Officer Jeffrey L. Warburton at 3:05 p.m. in Room 146 of the College of Law. Senator Warburton welcomed everyone to the new academic year, reviewed the contents of the meeting packet, and introduced new representatives from the Graduate and Professional Student Council and Arizona International College.

Present: Senators Aleamoni, Armstrong, Atwater, Caldwell, Christiano, Cohen, Coker, Dahlgran, D. Davis, Dryden, Dvorak, Erlings, Ervin, Garcia, Heckler, Heinrich, Hogle, Hurt, Impey, Jenkins, Joens, Johnson, Laetsch, Larson, Levin, Levy, Likins, Love, Marchalonis, Maré, Medine, Merkle, Miller, Mishra, Mitchell, Nolan, Pitt, Schooley, Silverman, Spece, Swindle, Sypherd, Szilagyi, Taylor, Troy, Voyatzis, Warburton, Weinand, Witte, and Zwolinski. Robert Sankey served as Parliamentarian.

Absent: Senators Clarke, T. Davis, Dyl, Gruener, Hernandez, Howell, O’Brien, and Pepper.

2. OPEN SESSION

There were no speakers for the open session.

3A. ASUA President Tara Taylor

Senator Taylor reported that the opening of school had been a huge success. She also listed several issues in which ASUA will be involved this academic year: (1) Student Union renovation project—Student input is being sought on a number of items, including decor and funding. (2) Library printing costs—ASUA representatives are currently having a healthy dialogue with Dean of Libraries Carla Stoffle regarding how the library can fund increased copying costs without creating an undue financial burden on students. (3) Debate for gubernatorial candidates—ASUA will sponsor such a debate prior to the November elections, and Senator Taylor is currently awaiting word from Governor Jane Dee Hull whether she will participate. (4) Arizona Daily Wildcat cartoon—Senator Taylor has been discussing with the Wildcat editor the reaction to the recent "Looking for Bill" cartoon. Ms. Taylor also reported that ASUA personnel participated in an excellent retreat on Mt. Lemmon last weekend, and that she is looking forward to a productive year.

No report.

3C. Secretary of the Faculty Susan Heckler (Attachments)

Secretary Heckler made three announcements: (1) Minutes survey—of the 2,500+ surveys mailed out to all General Faculty members (including Emeritus) in August, 121 faculty members have returned them to date, to indicate that they would like to receive printed copies of the Faculty Senate minutes this academic year. Additional blank survey forms are available from Secretary Heckler. All deans and unit heads will continue to receive paper copies of the minutes. (2) Faculty-wide listserv—The possibility of creating such a listserv (with the Chair of the Faculty in charge of it) is being explored. One issue being considered is whether the listserv should be the standard type or broadcast-only. Senators and other faculty are invited to provide input regarding this idea, and Secretary Heckler will report the feedback at the next Senate meeting. (3) Faculty governance website—The revision of the website was completed over the summer. Secretary Heckler thanked Senators Atwater and Caldwell, former Secretary Gerber, and Faculty Center staff member Pam Bridgmon for their work on this project. Using a laptop computer and a projection screen, Senators Atwater and Caldwell gave a brief demonstration of how to navigate the website (address listed above).

Referring to his written report included in Senators’ packets, Chair Hogle commented briefly on the topics discussed therein: (1) Shared governance and salary matters—Decisions regarding classification salary adjustment (CSA) and merit have involved shared governance more than ever before, even if there are remaining problems. Dr. Hogle said he was satisfied that we have done all we can do with regard to merit and CSA this year. (2) Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure (CAFT) issues—CAFT has been given increased responsibilities, but the most recent efforts have kept it a faculty process. Dr. Hogle noted that he had followed the highly publicized CAFT case very closely from the time he became Chair. He described himself as "absolutely satisfied" that both CAFT panels involved in the case operated properly under the procedures currently in place, doing a "thorough, careful, and fair job." He added that we may want to review and refine those procedures and their associated documents, particularly in light of the federal law passed in 1996 regarding research misconduct cases. (3) Constitution and Bylaws revisions—The shared governance agreements have necessitated some revisions to the Constitution and Bylaws of the General Faculty. A committee now chaired by Senator Silverman is considering those changes, as well as others suggested previously, and is developing a series of proposed revisions. The first phase of those revisions will be discussed today and may be voted upon by the General Faculty in November. Additional revisions are likely to be placed on the ballot during the regular General Faculty elections next spring. (4) Faculty census and Voting Faculty list—Membership in the General Faculty is currently being verified by means of the annual faculty census. We may want to consider expanding General (Voting) Faculty membership at some point to include several groups who are not now categorized as General Faculty and have expressed concerns regarding their representation in faculty matters. The Committee on Faculty Membership will review these issues over the new few months and may have proposals to bring to the Faculty Senate. (5) SPBAC "2000 and Beyond" report—This report, which was enclosed in the packets for the May 4 Senate meeting, has become a central document for planning and budgeting University-wide. It is important that it be widely read and commented upon, in order to ensure that it accurately reflects a common vision of the UA. Chair Hogle urged Senators to read the report and provide input regarding it to him or other members of SPBAC (Strategic Planning and Budget Advisory Committee). Dr. Hogle also commented regarding two topics not covered in his written report: (1) Renaming the College of Law—According to Dr. Hogle, the renaming of this college does not require a Faculty Senate vote, but the proposal has the unanimous support of the faculty in the College of Law. (2) Grade inflation—The series of articles that appeared in The Arizona Daily Star last week regarding grade inflation at the UA seemed generally informative and well balanced, Dr. Hogle said. However, he expressed his personal opinion that the editorial which appeared last Sunday, suggesting that UA faculty should be deeply ashamed of this situation, went beyond the conclusions that could be drawn from the articles. Chair Hogle said he and others would be crafting responses to the newspaper in the new few weeks, and input would be appreciated.

3E. Provost Paul Sypherd (Attachments)

Provost Sypherd noted that the situation at the UA is now improving, after several years of hard times due to declining enrollments, budgetary downturns, and criticism from external entities. He complimented the faculty for dealing effectively with the challenges of the recent past, and he commented on the "remarkable changes" that campus community members have made in their attitudes and the way they view the University, their jobs, and the students. After eight consecutive years of enrollment declines, this year student registration is up, with total enrollment approaching 34,300. The freshman class of just over 5,300 students—a substantial increase from the usual 4,500—all met the new minimum entrance requirements. Perhaps because of the more stringent admission standards, a larger number of freshman placed in the higher levels of math and English than in the past, and one-quarter of entering freshmen qualified for the Honors Program. Senator Sypherd credited the "near-heroic efforts" of the enrollment management group, as well as the work of the colleges and departments over the summer, for handling the increased numbers of students so well and for producing a nearly flawless opening of school. Using overhead transparencies, Provost Sypherd then discussed the 1998-99 budget. Highlights: (1) The 1998-99 state budget is an increase of approximately 6% over the 1997-98 budget. Building renewal was funded at 100% of need—approximately $16 million, an increase of $6 million over 1997-98. (2) CSA funding will total $3.7 million for all categories of employees, with faculty receiving the largest share of the distribution. This year’s CSA will be used to address compression (not marketplace issues) for tenure-track faculty, graduate assistants, some appointed personnel, and a few classified staff categories. A large, broad-based campus committee worked on the CSA plan over the summer, and it is now being implemented. (3) Merit salary adjustment funds, representing 2.5% of the total personnel base budget, will become effective January 1, 1999. Merit adjustments will be based on 1997-98 performance reviews and will be distributed according to guidelines developed by a committee that included faculty leaders. This represents an improvement over last year, when faculty salary adjustments were based on the Teaching Improvement Plan (TIP). (4) For the first time since 1991, there will be no general reductions or reallocations from college budgets. Over the past two years, approximately $15.3 million of internal resources, including $3.59 million of state funds, have been reallocated to fund employee salary adjustments, in order for the University to be fair and competitive in the marketplace. If this situation continues, Dr. Sypherd said, we are in danger of undermining programs; therefore, we must continue to request salary adjustment funding from the Regents and the Legislature. Senator Sypherd also touched on several other points not included on the overhead transparencies: (1) The University has allocated $800,000 to pay health insurance for graduate assistants in teaching and research, in order to comply with federal regulations. For those graduate assistants paid through grants and contracts, funding for health insurance will come out of the salary category of those grants and contracts. (2) The negotiations regarding sick-leave buyout have finally been completed. There will be a limit of $30,000 per individual, to be paid out over three years to employees who retire with at least 500 hours of accumulated sick leave. (3) Developing and implementing the post-tenure review process has involved a great deal of effort on the part of faculty, but doing so "narrowly averted" the elimination of tenure at the three state universities. The UA will be reporting the results of the post-tenure review process to ABOR; forums will be held this fall to help departments implement the process effectively in their areas.

President Likins began by discussing the CAFT case involving research misconduct, commenting that the "profoundly difficult" decision to terminate Regents’ Professor Marguerite Kay had been the most weighty of his 16-year career as a university president. He noted that when he arrived at the UA last October, the case was already in progress. He chose to keep his distance from the unfolding faculty process, instead asking Chair of the Faculty Hogle and Interim General Counsel Thomas Thompson to watch carefully to assure that procedures were being followed properly. When the CAFT report reached him, he regarded it as something to be tested against his own sense of the truth and the voluminous evidence available. He spent considerable time doing that, and he eventually persuaded himself with "absolute confidence" that there was "misrepresentation in publication of the results of laboratory research; that is a confirmable outcome. What is never so clear, however, is why and by whom and who did what exactly and what are appropriate sanctions." He then consulted extensively regarding specifics of the case and appropriate sanctions. He said he sought a different result, but in the end he had to accept the reality of the situation and terminate Dr. Kay. Dr. Likins said that, in line with the tenets of shared governance, he intends to fully explain his decision regarding this case—first to relatively small groups of faculty (UA members of the national academies of science and engineering, then Regents’ Professors) and later in writing to the Senate. He asked for Senators’ patience while this process unfolds, and he assured them that there would be ample opportunity for substantive dialogue and questions regarding information in the public domain after his written report is distributed several months hence. President Likins then discussed several other matters: (1) Nike contract—The UA recently signed an all-school contract with the Nike Corporation. The group established by the Senate to consider such matters—the University Committee on Corporate Relationships (UCCR)—is currently finalizing a general policy on corporate relationships, including criteria by which to judge them. After reviewing the proposed Nike contract, the UCCR advised President Likins to make a decision on the contract on its own merits, unconstrained by any potential conflict with the impending policy on corporate relationships. Dr. Likins said this process proceeded "remarkably smoothly, given the inherent complexities" of the situation. (2) Baldenegro reassignment—Noting that he had participated fully in the decision to reassign former Assistant Dean of Hispanic Student Affairs Salomón Baldenegro to another position, Dr. Likins said that press accounts of the matter were misleading, because the administration chose not to present all dimensions of the situation to the press. He said he would be willing to respond to questions about this issue during the question-and-answer period. (3) Donation to College of Law—James Rogers’ recent decision to increase his contribution to the UA College of Law to $50 million over 20 years will enable the college to step up dramatically in the national arena over time. This unprecedented gift, although providing immediate and direct support to only a part of the UA, also sends signals and sets standards for the infusion of private resources that will eventually benefit the entire institution. We need now to work on securing this type of private investment in other areas of the campus, as it is crucial to the future of the University, President Likins said. (4) Grade inflation—Dr. Likins agreed with Chair Hogle that the accounting of grade inflation in the recent newspaper articles was reasonable and probably helpful, but he noted that he shared Dr. Hogle’s discomfort with the editorial. Focus on and discussion of the state institutions’ grading practices is healthy, in that it affords an opportunity to examine and evaluate the situation, then explain it to a sometimes skeptical public. However, grading should remain a faculty matter; administrative or ABOR intervention is not appropriate at this point. (5) Long-range planning—Managing day-to-day problems and issues like those detailed above is necessary and important, but it should not cause us to lose sight of our vision. Ten years from now we will be judged not on how we responded to daily crises, but on how the institution as a whole developed over that time. In order to avoid institutional drift, we need to develop a strategically generated plan and to drive toward specific goals within that plan. As part of this process, President Likins noted that he intends to deepen the relationship with SPBAC, so that planning and budgeting become an integral activity. He may also modify the structure of the President’s Cabinet somewhat, in order to make interaction more effective. Any changes he makes should not be seen as a repudiation of anything, merely as a refinement of the management structure in order to pursue our objectives. President Likins commented that the development of an institutional plan must take place within the context of ABOR plans and long-term vision. At their June retreat, the Regents, now our "powerful allies," committed themselves to developing such a vision for the Arizona university system, which Dr. Likins characterized as a very significant breakthrough. (6) Searches—Judith Leonard has been named General Counsel and will begin work at the UA sometime in October. The search for Vice President for Advancement has been narrowed to four finalists. With the conclusion of these two searches and the possible modification of the President’s Cabinet, the restructuring of the management team will be complete.

4. QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD

Senator Witte’s comments: (1) The primary purpose of the Senate should be debate, rather than reports or presentations. The idea of a faculty-wide listserv is good, because it will facilitate debate and enhance communication, especially from Faculty Senators to their constituencies. Therefore, the listserv should be in the hands of Senators, rather than strictly under the control of the Chair of the Faculty, because that is a partisan position. (2) Describing herself as "the architect of the misconduct policy," Senator Witte expressed her "shame and concern" regarding how the articulation of the University Committee on Ethics and Commitment (UCEC) to CAFT functioned during the Kay case. She said the express purpose of the committee that developed the policy, as she saw it, was to protect the faculty member first and to avoid sanctions. Having a hearing at which the panel is allowed to suggest a sanction such as dismissal is a "short circuit of due process." (3) While the generous gift to the College of Law is remarkable, it would be a mistake to name the College of Law after the donor. Public buildings should not be for sale at any price. At other universities, decisions to name buildings after donors have been reversed after the ensuing public outrage, she noted. [President Likins clarified that the building housing the College of Law is already named the James E. Rogers Law Center, so the donor’s name is already on the facility.]

Senator Szilagyi asked Provost Sypherd how he could assure that the distribution of the salary adjustments does not exacerbate the problem (i.e., if those who are the most inadequately compensated are not eligible for this year’s distribution of CSA, they would be relatively worse off after the distribution). Provost Sypherd explained that CSA is intended to address compression, not market issues per se, and not faculty salaries that are low for reasons other than compression. Senator Ervin added that the available funding will permit the UA to address only a fraction of the deficits this year. However, each unit will write its own plan for distribution of CSA, so there should be opportunities for faculty to provide input to the decision-making in their own departments.

Senator Szilagyi asked President Likins why he did not allow Regents’ Professor Kay a terminal year or some "face-saving mechanism" before dismissing her. Dr. Likins responded that he had "tried desperately" for approximately six weeks to "persuade Professor Kay that there was an alternative to termination, if she would simply avail herself of it. For whatever complex reasons, it was not possible for her to do that." He added that he believes he acted "out of compassion" in a way that disturbed the Regents, who thought he was "bending over too far in accommodating Professor Kay."

Senator Medine expressed pleasure that the issue of salaries is now being so widely discussed. He said he understood that the CSA funding mainly was being used, and appropriately so, to address internal compression. However, this has resulted in some inequities across colleges. As an example, he pointed out that his own college (Humanities) is receiving only 20% of the funding that one or two other colleges are. He asked Provost Sypherd if CSA funding would be continued in future years. Dr. Sypherd responded that the administration will continue to request this type of funding from the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC), and there will also be a system-wide effort to address faculty salaries in general. He noted that Regents are concerned about market issues (i.e., how salaries of Arizona faculty members compare to those of similar faculty at peer institutions).

Identifying himself as a member of a college committee developing guidelines for CSA distribution, Senator Levin asked Provost Sypherd for clarification of the instructional document that was provided to such committees. He said the document states that compression or market distortion should be considered, as well as performance. Senator Sypherd responded that it is almost impossible to deal with the compression issue without talking about merit and market forces. Senator Ervin added that performance was mentioned in the document to assure that faculty who have been at the bottom of the merit pool repeatedly and therefore have the lowest salaries in the unit do not receive the largest raises as a result of the CSA distribution. Noting that several campus units have developed good plans that are available as models, she offered to speak with Senator Levin in more detail later.

The minutes of the Faculty Senate meetings on April 27, 1998, and May 4, 1998, were approved as distributed.

Carol Funckes, Interim Director of CEDRR, noted that, since there are 1,200 students with disabilities on the UA campus, the majority of faculty and teaching assistants do need to provide testing accommodations within their classrooms. Referring to the informational sheet distributed to Senators containing contact information for CEDRR staff members, she noted that CEDRR’s primary focus is to work with faculty and departments to provide academic accommodations for disabled students.

Susan Free, Associate Director of the Affirmative Action Office (AAO), made two points: (1) CEDRR and AAO personnel are available to provide customized on-site training to campus units regarding academic accommodations and issues related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). (2) Personnel in campus units should not just refuse to provide accommodations suggested by CEDRR when they disagree with the recommendation for whatever reason (e.g., if the instructor does not believe the student has a disability, if the accommodation does not seem to make sense for the student’s particular disability, if the accommodation might give the student an unfair advantage, or if making the accommodation would create an undue burden on the unit). In that case, there is a definite process that must be followed in order to be in compliance with ADA; if the process is not followed, there can be many legal ramifications. Ms. Free urged campus units to contact someone in CEDRR or AAO so that a compromise can be reached.

Senator Impey noted that, with the increasing use of electronic components and the Web in classrooms, faculty are uncertain how to accommodate students with disabilities. He asked if CEDRR can help with this, and if there are resources available in case the necessary accommodations will involve significant extra expense. Ms. Free responded that CEDRR specialists are available to help with adaptive technology issues, and although there is no funding earmarked for it, the AAO will attempt to secure funding for special accommodations, if necessary.

Roger Dubord, Program Coordinator of TAP, noted that there are certain procedures that should be followed if a classroom instructor chooses to have TAP administer a student’s test. He stressed that it is important for TAP to receive a student’s exam in a timely manner, so that the disabled student can take the exam at the same time as other students in the classroom. Student exams can be faxed to TAP or hand-delivered by the instructor, the teaching assistant, or the student. TAP is located in the Science and Engineering Library, Room 400A. Mr. Dubord concluded by emphasizing the importance of having the classroom instructor, the student, and TAP work together to ensure that the appropriate testing accommodations are provided.

Senator Atwater, Co-Chair of the North Central Association (NCA) Accreditation Self-Study Project, noted that this would be the first of several updates on the UA’s progress in its required re-accreditation by the NCA. Referring to the document enclosed in Senators’ packets, she noted that that NCA’s Commission on Institutions of Higher Education is responsible for accrediting universities and colleges in 19 states, including Arizona. The NCA requires that institutions be re-accredited every 10 years, and the date for the UA’s re-accreditation, involving a site visit by the NCA review team, is February 14-16, 2000. In preparation for that, a steering committee, co-chaired by Senator Atwater and Dr. Randall Richardson, will coordinate a campus-wide self-study over the next 14 months, culminating in a comprehensive self-study report. The steering committee’s report will be based on evaluations by eight working teams and a committee on assessment, with support from a technical committee. The steering committee and the working teams will have broad representation from campus and community groups. Dr. Atwater said the self-study will provide an opportunity to assess the UA’s strength’s as a student-centered research university and to identify the challenges that lie ahead in the next decade. Part of the self-study will be to evaluate whether the UA is meeting the NCA’s 24 general institutional requirements and five criteria for accreditation.

Dr. Richardson emphasized that the accreditation process is an opportunity for the institution to learn about itself. The ideal is to have the process provide long-term benefit to the UA, rather than just be an exercise undertaken to satisfy the requirements of an accrediting agency. The steering committee’s goal during the self-study phase will be to take full advantage of existing structures, such as SPBAC and its "Beyond 2000" report, in order to avoid duplication of effort, but at the same time to become a tool to provide guidance and encourage institutional change. Using overhead transparencies, Dr. Richardson briefly discussed the timeline for the accreditation process: The working teams are being appointed now. The steering committee and working teams will collect data for approximately four months, then draft team reports. Those reports will be reviewed in February 1999, and the first draft of the self-study report is scheduled to be prepared in April 1999. The next eight or nine months will be spent providing public review of the process and refining the draft before finalizing it and mailing it to the NCA in December 1999. Dr. Richardson called attention to the UA accreditation website listed on the material distributed in Senators’ packets. This website will be a clearing-house for data collected as a result of the accreditation process, he said. [http://www.arizona.library.edu/nca/] He also noted that there will be several open forums to educate the campus community about the accreditation process and to seek input.

With regard to the timeline, Senator Silverman asked about the wisdom of scheduling campus review of the self-study draft in May, at the beginning of the summer hiatus. Dr. Richardson responded that this campus review essentially will be continuous over a period of months, so there should be ample opportunity for input.

Senator Silverman, Chair of the Committee on UHAP, Constitution, and Bylaws Changes, noted that the committee had been established last year by the Chair of the Faculty and the Senate Executive Committee to consider possible revisions to the Constitution and Bylaws of the General Faculty, as well as to the University Handbook for Appointed Personnel (UHAP). The committee, chaired by Dr. Christopher Puto until his recent departure from the UA, consists of Dr. Rose Gerber (former Secretary of the Faculty), Vice Provost and Senator Libbie Ervin, Dr. Donald Myers (former Senator and former Chair of the Faculty), Dr. Robert Sankey (Senate Parliamentarian), and Dr. Mary Wetzel (former chair of CAFT), in addition to Senator Silverman. Today’s proposed revisions constitute "phase I" of anticipated recommendations from the "revisions committee" regarding changes to the Constitution and Bylaws. Today’s discussion is a first reading of the suggested changes; input and suggestions from today will go back to the revisions committee for consideration. The next version of the phase I changes, incorporating input that the revisions committee accepts, may be brought to the Senate in October as a motion, which would then be subject to debate and amendment on the floor. Senator Silverman briefly reviewed the major changes being proposed in phase I: (1) Creation of a Vice Chair position—First suggested by Chair Hogle because of the increased workload for faculty governance officers, former Chairs of the Faculty John Schwarz and J. D. Garcia concur with this recommendation, Senator Silverman noted. Stated duties for the Vice Chair were purposely kept light, so that the Chair can delegate as necessary, he added. The revisions committee suggests having the Vice Chair serve as the chair of the Committee on Faculty Membership and chair of the Committee on Committees. The Vice Chair would be elected by the General Faculty in odd-numbered years for a two-year term beginning May 1, at the same time that the Chair would be elected. (2) Elimination of the position of Presiding Officer of the Senate, having the Secretary preside over Senate meetings and chair the Executive Committee—In recent times, the duties of the Secretary of the Faculty have lessened, since the actual minute-taking at Senate meetings is done by Faculty Center staff, Senator Silverman said. The revisions committee felt that an officer elected by the General Faculty should have more responsibility than reviewing the Senate minutes before distribution. Also, there seems to be internal and external confusion regarding the Presiding Officer of the Senate position; many people assume that he or she is the Chair of the Faculty, since on many campuses the Presiding Officer is elected campus-wide. The proposed change would address both of these issues, Prof. Silverman said. The Secretary position would continue to be elected in even-numbered years for a two-year term beginning May 1. (3) Listing of the duties of the Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary—This information has not been included in the Constitution and Bylaws in the past, but the revisions committee thinks it is advisable to do so now, Senator Silverman reported. (4) Creation of a new provision dealing with resignation, absence, and incapacity of the officers—This section specifies that the Vice Chair would exercise the duties of the Chair if the latter is temporarily absent or incapacitated. If both the Chair and Vice Chair are temporarily absent or incapacitated, the Secretary would perform the Chair’s duties. If the Chair resigns or becomes permanently absent or incapacitated, the Vice Chair would assume the Chair’s duties if the Chair’s remaining term is six months or less. If the remaining term is more than six months, the Committee on Elections would conduct a special election for a new Chair. In the event of the resignation or permanent absence or incapacity of the Vice Chair or Secretary, the Chair would appoint a replacement, subject to the approval of the Faculty Senate at a regularly scheduled meeting. (5) Making the members of the Committee on Committees elected by the General Faculty—The revisions committee is suggesting this because of the increased importance of the Committee on Committees as a result of shared governance; also, the shared governance agreement itself specifies that the Committee on Committees will be an elected body, Senator Silverman explained. (6) Amendment of the Bylaw provision dealing with the Senate Executive Committee, making it comply with the practice of having the chairs of the standing committees and Committee of Eleven serve on the Executive Committee—This change would just formalize current practice, Senator Silverman noted. (7) Creation of a new provision dealing with the appointment of members to ad hoc committees—This section specifies that the Chair will appoint members of General Faculty ad hoc committees, after consultation with the Senate Executive committee, and the Secretary will appoint members of Senate ad hoc committees. Senator Silverman noted that concomitant Bylaws provisions will also be changed to conform to the Constitutional revisions. He also mentioned several other proposed changes to the Constitution and Bylaws, such as (1) the change in UA representatives to the Arizona Faculties Council to Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary of the Faculty; (2) the removal of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost from membership on the Committee on Faculty Membership; and (3) the change of the total Faculty Senate membership to 61, to include the Vice Chair position. He concluded his presentation by inviting input and noting that the revisions committee would be meeting next on September 16.

Senator Witte noted that she had a number of comments and concerns regarding the proposed changes, among them: (1) The position of Secretary should be renamed to reflect the proposed new duties of the office; several of the duties listed would not normally be performed by a faculty officer known as Secretary. (2) The Executive Committee was intended to be an agenda-setting body for the Faculty Senate, not a substitute for the Faculty Senate. Senator Witte noted her opposition to the strengthening of the Executive Committee’s role. (3) Faculty Senators should receive copies of the minutes of Executive Committee meetings. (4) When the proposed Constitution and Bylaws changes are presented to the General Faculty for a vote, they should be accompanied by the strongest arguments for and against each change, prepared by faculty members recruited for this assignment. (5) The next time the Constitution and Bylaws changes are discussed by the Senate, they should be placed earlier on the agenda, to allow ample time for debate.

Responding to Senator Witte’s second point, Senator Silverman noted that the revisions committee is not recommending adding anything to the charge of the Executive Committee. The changes in that section are being suggested merely to accurately reflect what is already happening (i.e., Senate standing committee chairs and the chair of the Committee of Eleven are currently invited to participate in Executive Committee meetings). Senator Silverman also said that he agreed with Dr. Witte’s fourth comment.

Senator Weinand concurred with Senator Witte’s suggestion that discussion of Constitution and Bylaws changes be placed higher on next month’s Senate agenda. He also urged the revisions committee to reconsider its recommendations regarding term limits for members of the Committee on Committees and Senate standing committees. He expressed the opinion that talented, experienced people should not be restricted from serving consecutive terms.

Senator Schooley suggested that, in the interest of continuity and institutional memory, the terms of the Chair and the Vice Chair be staggered.

Senator Medine asked what the exact process for amending the Constitution and Bylaws is. Senator Silverman explained that all amendments must be voted upon by the General Faculty. These amendments can arise through a proposal from the Faculty Senate to the General Faculty, or by means of a petition signed by 5% or 100 members of the General Faculty. In this instance, the revisions committee decided to process the proposed revisions through the Faculty Senate in order to receive input, he said. Senator Medine asked if the Senate could "kill" the proposed revisions. Senator Silverman responded affirmatively, noting that the petitioning process could then be instituted.

Presiding Officer Warburton asked Senators to provide any additional input to the revisions committee.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:12 p.m.

Susan E. Heckler, Secretary

Report to the Faculty Senate from the Chair of the Faculty, dated September 14, 1998.

Faculty governance website information and copy of first screen on website.

Three overhead transparencies used by Provost Paul Sypherd to discuss budgetary matters.

Important Telephone Numbers - Disabled Student Services.

A North Central Association of Colleges and Schools Accreditation Overview.

Recommended Changes to the Faculty Constitution and Bylaws - Phase I (cover memo and copies of changes).

Original wording as it presently appears in the Constitution and Bylaws of the General Faculty of The University of Arizona.

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