The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair and Presiding Officer Larry C. Schooley at 3:02 p.m. in the College of Law Room 146.

Present: Senators Aguilar, Armstrong, Chow, Dahlgran, Dalman, D. Davis, Dyl, Hancock (substitute for Warburton), Hau, Heckler, Heinrich, Hogle, Houtkooper, Howell, Ivey, Jenkins, Laetsch, Larson, Levin, Levy, Likins, Marchalonis, Maré, Medine, Merkle, Mishra, Mitchell, Newell, Nolan, O’Brien, Parsons, Pope, Powell, Roberts, Schooley, Silverman, Sypherd, Weinand, and Zwolinski. Jack Gaskill served as Parliamentarian.

Absent: Senators Aleamoni, Auxier, Caldwell, T. Davis, DeYoung, Dvorak, Erlings, Garcia, Gibbs (substitute for Christiano), Gruener, Hurt, Impey, Joens, Kosta, Pepper, Perches, Pitt, Sheridan, Spece, Swindle, Szilagyi, Voyatzis, and Witte.

2. OPEN SESSION

There were no speakers for the open session.

3A. ASUA President Francisco Aguilar

Senator Aguilar reported that ASUA is beginning discussions about tuition and will be meeting with President Likins on this topic tomorrow. ASUA election results will be known later this week. The Arizona Students Association (ASA) will be traveling to Washington, D.C. to meet with elected officials about student financial aid, work-study, and international student fees.

3B. GPSC President Laura Roberts

Senator Roberts reported the Teaching Assistant Task Force is now collecting cross-campus data regarding TA workloads to compare with faculty and coordinators’ expectations. The survey is available on line at www.gpsc.arizona.edu\surveys. She announced that Graduate Student Appreciation Week would be April 10-14. She requested nominations for the fifteen awards to be given during the banquet for such categories as best dissertation, outstanding teaching assistant, graduate student advocate of the year, and supportive staff of the year.

Vice Chair Schooley welcomed Professor Jack Gaskill who will serve as a substitute for Parliamentarian Robert Sankey today.

3D. Secretary of the Faculty Susan Heckler

No report.

3E. Chair of the Faculty Jerrold Hogle (attachment)

Chair Hogle reminded Senators of the annual General Faculty meeting on Thursday, March 9 at 10:00 a.m. in the Senior Ballroom of the Memorial Student Union. President Likins will conduct an open session meeting to discuss the future of the University, shared governance, and any other issues that faculty wish to discuss. Faculty Elections are currently being conducted; ballots are due at 5:00 p.m. on Friday, March 10, and several colleges were undersubscribed for college representative senators, so the extended deadline for those petitions is also March 10 and a special election for those colleges will be conducted after spring break. He distributed a list of "Currently Pending Arizona Legislation With Direct Impact on Higher Education," organized by those bills supported by the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) and those opposed by it, and described the process for contacting legislators. ABOR has placed particular emphasis on three bills: SB 1199 which would provide $4 million to give KUAT and KAET digital capabilities needed by both public stations to fulfill FCC requirements; HB 2402 which would provide additional funding for building renewal projects for state buildings, including about $20 million in support for building renewal across the university system in fiscal years 2000 and 2001; and SB 1404 which provides an additional 1% in merit raise dollars to the 2% merit fund for all state employees scheduled to take effect this coming April 1. This bill is dependent on the legislature’s decision to bond for (or otherwise special fund) the "Students First" construction of K-12 schools. At the behest of the Arizona Faculties Council (AFC), ABOR has authorized a lump-sum retirement benefit similar to that available to state retirement system members for members under optional retirement plans (ORP’s) such as TIAA-CREF. The chair of the Committee on Retirement and Benefits is Senator Edward Cirillo, and he will have to see to putting this benefit into a bill during the current legislative session. Senate Bill 1512, which expands and modifies the current Whistleblower Protection Law, has narrowly passed the Senate and is now before the House. The bill acknowledges the separateness of the Universities under ABOR, but goes beyond to say that a hearing officer for appeals shall not make final decisions regarding the employment, tenure or continuing status but has the power to order that these decisions be made by a committee of qualified faculty members from within or outside the institution consisting of two members chosen by the university, two members chosen by the employee or former employee and one member chosen by the appointees of the university and the employee or former employee acting jointly. The AFC unanimously opposes this bill because it creates an alternative promotion and tenure structure to the faculty-voted process. Chair Hogle also distributed a report headed "Towards Promoting an Environment for Learner-Centered Education: A Proposal" as well as a draft list of "Board Policies That May Present Barriers to Learner-Centered Education." This "plan for a plan" is the product of a 6-member team of regents, staff and faculty and does not intend to promote a radical change in university processes or curriculum. The majority of faculty activities can already be called learner-centered education, and Chair Hogle invited faculty to comment on this draft via his e-mail: hogle@u.arizona.edu. The incoming Board president, Don Ulrich, and former ABOR president Judy Gignac are both very interested and supportive of the universities’ efforts in furthering the incorporation of learner-centered education through the academic programs. They also recognize the need for additional financial support from the state and the need to build support from administrators, faculty and students before any additional action can be taken.

Referring to an item on today’s agenda, the shift of the Optical Engineering Program from the College of Engineering to University College, Provost Sypherd recalled the origin of University College. It evolved from the split of the very large College of Arts and Sciences into four colleges: Fine Arts, Humanities, Sciences, and Social and Behavioral Sciences. This split left the College of Arts and Sciences without any faculty but retaining the Office of Academic Services which housed a number of administrative responsibilities such as advising undeclared majors, managing summer orientation, implementing and monitoring the general education requirement, supervising the first year English composition, math, and language requirements, and the Interdisciplinary Studies (IDS) Program. With the approval of the Faculty Senate and ABOR, those activities were then merged into University College which later added the reporting responsibility for the Honors Program, the Humanities Program, the Center for Transfer Students, the Freshman Year Colloquium, the Science and Math Education Center, and Writing Skills Improvement Program. The transfer of the Optical Engineering Program to University College is therefore nothing more than adding another responsibility for an academic program similar to those it already administers.

3G. President Peter Likins

President Likins recalled the anti-sweatshop movement which led to an April 30, 1999 agreement that included the creation of the Senate Task Force for Monitoring Labor and Human Rights Issues to monitor whether or not the University is in compliance with the commitments set forth in that agreement. Certain milestones within that agreement began last August and the University has been eager to comply with them to address labor abuses. The University has been communicating with all of its 300+ vendors through the Collegiate Licensing Consortium (CLC) its expectations of policies for direct disclosure of factory locations, specific protections for women workers, compliance with independent and unannounced monitoring, and a commitment to study and implement if possible a livable wage. The next major milestone is this August, when the Fair Labor Association (FLA) is supposed to sign an agreement of understanding regarding these four conditions. President Likins has spoken directly with FLA Chairman Charles Ruff and Executive Director Sam Brown, who clearly understand the University’s requirements and who expressed the hope that the FLA will have monitoring systems in place next summer. Although the FLA includes many apparel companies without any affiliation to the universities, its university members are striving to reach companies beyond those that supply university vendors and thereby shape the global agenda. The Worker Rights Consortium (WRC) is an alternative to the FLA that has emerged somewhat due to the actions of the United Student Against Sweatshops (USAS). It focuses only on apparel companies that supply university logo apparel, and although this is a somewhat more limited domain than the FLA, it may turn out to be more achievable. President Likins said the UA Chapter of USAS has given him a description of the advantages of the WRC over the FLA and he has agreed to consider arguments both pro and con and has asked the Task Force to do a serious study of the WRC. If the Task Force recommends, he is willing to consider participating in both organizations during these formative stages until the August deadline when he will evaluate the FLA’s progress. President Likins invited Senator Silverman, who is chairing the Senate Task Force, for any additional comments. Senator Silverman will give a report on the Task Force at the April Senate meeting. He reported that two important milestones have occurred: all of the University’s licensing contracts now contain the full factory disclosure and the unannounced, independent monitoring provisions. Still to be determined is which monitoring mechanism (FLA or WRC) will be employed.

4. QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD

Senator Medine asked for clarification of Senate Bill 1404. Chair Hogle explained if one advocates for SB1404, one should also advocate for bonding or other funding for K-12 school construction so more of the General Fund is available for other uses (including 1404).

Senator Silverman noted that the local American Association of University Professors (AAUP) position on the whistleblower bill SB1512 differs from that of ABOR and the Arizona Faculties Council.

Senator Silverman asked for an explanation of the design-build process. President Likins explained that the traditional process required a Request for Proposal (RFP) from architects. The selected design was then sent out for bid from contractors. If the bids exceeded the funds available, the process required returning to the architect for a redesign, or somehow increasing the funding for the project. The new process, which was employed in the Student Union project, requests proposals from teams of architects/builders who work together from the outset to submit bids with fixed prices and time schedules. This process clearly saves time and money and is currently in use by most private institutions.

Senator Silverman inquired about the funding available for 1404. Chair Hogle explained that without bonding for K-12 construction, there will not be enough money in the General Fund to support the increase for state employees. President Likins recalled that bonding was also proposed last year and the legislature rejected it. Provost Sypherd encouraged faculty to comment and support bond funding for the universities which in turn may help to establish a precedent which would ease the burden on universities to float their own bonds.

Senator Levin commented that the document promoting learner-centered education reflects some potential inconsistencies that may impact some faculty positions. He also expressed concern about the clarity of a paragraph on page 6 and about the document’s emphasis of skills development (procedural) versus general (declarative) knowledge. He asked Chair Hogle to comment about outcomes assessment and the use of technology in distance education. Chair Hogle assured the Senate that the ABOR members have not indicated that efficiency means reduction in the number of faculty positions or an increase in the number of students per course, and he is confident that the Board will not move in the direction of using learner-centered education as a means to reduce costs. He reiterated that the intent of the report is not to suggest any huge changes in the system and emphasized the Board’s support and understanding of the need for increased financial support for basic costs before any additional action can be taken. He also said "skills development" is intended to be interpreted as a part of a whole. President Likins commented that today’s students need skill in the learning process in order to be life-long, self-driven learners.

Senator Laetsch remarked he would prefer to call this a learning-centered process rather than learner-centered. He also inquired whether University College currently offers a bachelor’s degree in any subject-centered area? Vice President for Undergraduate Education M. Gottfredson answered that the only bachelor’s degree currently offered from University College is the interdisciplinary degree.

Senator Silverman asked how University College compares with other colleges in structure and leadership. Dr. Sypherd replied that Dr. Gottfredson serves as dean of University College although without the title, and he compared this arrangement to the Vice-President for Research who also served as the Dean of the Graduate College until recently. The continually emerging and unique role and responsibilities of this unit necessitates its existence as a college, however it does differ in some ways. For example, University College has no college representative Senator, although the faculty of the Humanities Program does have representation in the Senate through the non-college representatives. The proposed Bachelor of Liberal Arts will be granted from University College, but actually spans numerous colleges in the University.

Senator Medine inquired whether ABOR’s initiative on Learner-Centered Education could be considered a transition into more closely monitoring and managing university activities. President Likins responded that as a result of the Board Retreat in June of 1998, Board members were persuaded that the "input" measurements they had been focusing on might not necessarily continue to define university missions. Rather, the Board determined that it needed to really understand the role of faculty and asked the faculty to help them identify national trends leading toward the shift toward more active involvement of our students in their learning process. In the process of becoming educated about the role and function of faculty members, the Board has become much closer to faculty than ever before, a position that Dr. Likins perceives as a real benefit to the present and future of the university system.

The minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting on February 7, 2000 were approved as distributed.

Vice Chair Schooley presented minor corrections to consent agenda item 2 including adding the word "Program" to the title of the item, deleting the words "The School of" from the Current Name and Proposed Name, and adding the Undergraduate Council and ICPC approval dates. All seven consent agenda items, as detailed in the motions at the end of these minutes, were approved. [Motion 1999/00-15 through Motion 1999/00-21]

Senator Larson indicated the APPC and the Committee of Eleven have been working toward developing a revised faculty grievance policy and procedure. The proposed policy would establish a clearinghouse committee to assign grievances to the appropriate committee, retain the Committee on Conciliation but link it more formally with the Ombudsperson Committee, and restructure the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure (CAFT) into two 6-member committees: one for cases of academic freedom and dismissal, and one to address all other types of faculty grievance topics. These changes will require revisions to the Constitution, Bylaws and the University Handbook for Appointed Personnel (UHAP). During the week of March 20, APPC will incorporate a co-governance method of drafting this policy by including Vice Provost Libbie Ervin and representatives from the University Attorney’s Office. Senator Larson invited comments and suggestions from the Senators as well. He hopes to have a draft policy ready for a first reading at the April Senate meeting and expects that, by the final reading, the document will be acceptable to both the faculty and the administration. Senators’ questions and comments included the following: 1) Will the new policy apply for academic professionals? – Currently the procedures for faculty and Appointed Personnel Organization Council (APOC) are parallel but separate, although by law, some APOC issues can be appealed to CAFT. APPC’s present efforts are concerned only with faculty, although ideally the structure, procedure and policy would work similarly for both groups on campus. 2) CAFT remains opposed to splitting into two committees. – APPC and CAFT should meet once more before the draft is finalized. 3) As soon as the draft is ready, it will be posted on the Faculty Governance Website. 4) Any additional comments or suggestions can be directed to APPC by sending an e-mail message to larsond@u.arizona.edu.

Senator Howell reported that this proposal comes as a seconded motion [Motion 1990/00-22] from the ICPC. Senator Howell deferred to Senator Powell, a member of the Optical Sciences Center, to explain the request to move the degree out of the Center. Senator Powell explained that a recent academic program review committee determined that the field of optics is very broad and touches many traditional undergraduate degree areas, and that the focus of the UA’s optical degree program was coupled only with the application of optics in electrical engineering. The Optical Center’s industrial affiliates affirmed that many companies now want optics coupled with other areas such as mechanical, aerospace, or materials engineering, optical sciences, medicine, ophthalmology, and radiology. Transferring this degree program into the College of Science would not satisfy the need for this broader based multi-disciplinary or inter-disciplinary degree. Senator Howell recognized that the undergraduate program transfer of degree and responsibility parallels the Graduate College’s structure. She affirmed that University College is the correct unit to administer this degree and suggested that even more undergraduate cross-discipline degree programs may follow. Senator’s questions and concerns included the following: 1) This change establishes a significant precedent in expanding the realm of University College to offer a degree in a specific subject area; 2) The change is simply an administrative way to provide a much greater appeal for recruiting students by offering the same opportunities for collaboration among disciplines that faculty now enjoy; 3) The precedent is one of University efficiency; 4) Is it possible to separate items a, b, and c of the motion: a) transfer administrative responsibility from the College of Engineering and Mines and the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Engineering, to University College and the Optical Sciences Committee (the academic committee associated with the Optical Sciences Center); b) change the name of the major from Optical Engineering to optics, and c) change the name of the degree type from a Bachelor of Science in Optical Engineering to a Bachelor of Science, for the vote? 5) The question is whether it is appropriate for the Senate to act first and separately on expanding the function of University College before considering whether this program belongs in that college; 6) The faculties of Optical Sciences and Electrical and Computer Engineering both approve of the change; 7) The unit is a structural anomaly that has created stress because it is a professorial unit located outside a college; 8) The three parts of the motion should not be separated because of the inter-connectedness of the items. Senator Marchalonis moved [Motion 1990/00-23] to close debate and called for the question on the motion to transfer the degree and administrative responsibilities for the Optical Sciences Program. Motion carried with one nay vote. Original motion carried with two nay votes and three abstentions.

Senator Howell explained that the Writing at Mid-Career Assessment (WRIMCAT) Team has requested an affirmation of the Senate’s desire for a mid-career writing assessment, and opened the floor for discussion. Questions, comments and concerns included the following: 1) What does the performance data from the UDWPE indicate? – UDWPE data contained in the WRIMCAT proposal indicates that about 22% do not pass; 2) The UDWPE has been successful in many ways, but still presents challenges; 3 The test is designed to have individual professors read each student’s work but recently only 16 faculty members were available to read 871 essays; 4) The UDWPE is designed to measure student progress at mid-career but more typically students take the test during their senior year; 5) Previous initiatives for change to the UDWPE have not been successful; 6) In 1996 a Task Force recommended de-centralizing the UDWPE by delegating it to the colleges, but only one college, Social and Behavioral Sciences, responded; 7) In 1999 another Task Force invented the WRIMCAT, a complex plan for a mid-career writing assessment that would re-centralize the assessment process. 9) The WRIMCAT team is now requesting to know the Senate’s desires and direction for that plan; 9) Students oppose both the UDWPE and to the proposed WRIMCAT requirement for a required non-credit writing class. Senator Laetsch moved [Motion 1990/00-24] that the Faculty Senate not support a mid-career writing assessment. Motion was seconded. Questions, comments and concerns continued as follows: 1) The mid-career writing assessment is a critical element of the general education requirements; 2) The need for continuing assessment of students’ communication skills, particularly in writing, is an obligation of all faculty and not simply a function of the composition program; 3) Using students’ written samples that are submitted for regular coursework for writing assessment purposes is preferable to the somewhat artificial timed writing sample; 4) The proposed portfolio method of satisfying the WRIMCAT is an alternative to the timed writing sample; 5) The WRIMCAT proposal incorporates the general education courses and anticipated 80-90% of students would use the portfolio model; 6) The mid-career writing assessment compels real integration of faculty involvement in undergraduate education through the general education. Senator Davis moved [Motion 1990/00-25] that the discussion be postponed until the next meeting. Motion carried with one nay vote.

The Senate meeting recessed at 4:40 PM to go into Executive Session.

OLD BUSINESS

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Susan E. Heckler, Secretary

Chair of the Faculty’s "Currently Pending Arizona Legislation With Direct Impact on Higher Education" and contact information for Arizona Legislature.

Chair of the Faculty’s report, "Towards Promoting an Environment for Learner-Centered Education: A Proposal" and a draft list of "Board Polices That May Present Barriers to Learner-Centered Education."

Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee’s Consent Agenda for possible Faculty Senate action on March 6, 2000.

Academic Personnel Policy Committee’s Status Report on Faculty Grievance Procedures dated February 23, 2000.

Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee’s Proposal for Optical Sciences Program Transfer, dated January 7, 2000.

"A Question for the Faculty Senate from the Committee to Revise the UDWPE" dated March 6, 2000.

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

1999/00-15 Seconded motion from Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee to approve request for authority to offer concurrent degree programs, JD/MA with a major in Latin American Studies. Motion carried.

1999/00-16 Seconded motion from Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee to approve of change in degree nomenclature and School/Division/Program names for College of Agriculture Family and Consumer Resources to Family and Consumer Sciences and from Bachelor of Science in Agriculture or Bachelor of Science in Family and Consumer Resources to Bachelor of Science. Motion carried.

1999/00-17 Seconded motion from Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee to approve establishing a Text Ordering
Policy. Motion carried.