The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair and Presiding Officer Jory Hancock at 3:09 p.m. in the College of Law Room 146.

Present: Senators Aleamoni, Armstrong, Becker, Bickel, Caldwell, Dalton, D. Davis, G. Davis, T. Davis, DeYoung, Eribes, Garrard, Gruener, Hancock, Hartman, Hogle, Howell, Ivey, Jenkins, Joens, Likins, Marchalonis, Medine, Mitchell, O’Brien, Regan, Richardson, Romer, Schooley, Sheridan, Silverman, Smith, Spece, Szilagyi, Tal, Taren, Walsh, Warburton, Warnock, and Weinand. Thomas Volgy served as Parliamentarian.

Absent: Senators Auxier, Benson, Dahlgran, Graff, Grant, Houtkooper, Hurt, Impey, Kidd, Kosta, Kurzer, Larson, Merkle, Mishra, Parsons, Pepper, Perches, Pitt, Quinn, Witte, Zilm, and Zwolinski.

2. OPEN SESSION

Jeanne Pfander – Ms. Pfander, Chair of the University Library’s Scholarly Communications Project Team, said the purpose of her team is to promote awareness and dialogue on scholarly communication issues including scholarly publications, copyright, intellectual property, and related issues to library staff and also, in collaboration with faculty, to the UA campus. She distributed the "Principles for Emerging Systems of Scholarly Publishing," a document created and agreed to by a diverse group of faculty, librarians, university administrators, and representatives of scholarly societies that met in March 2000 in Tempe, Arizona. The purpose of that meeting was to build consensus on a set of principles that could guide the transformation of the scholarly publishing system. She asked the Faculty Senate to consider endorsing these "Tempe Principles" this fall.

Senator Thomas P. Davis – Senator Davis spoke in support of past and present faculty members who have been elected to serve on the University Committee on Ethics and Commitment (UCEC), and other such groups. During his 6-year term as UCEC Chair, he received 38 inquiries, two of which went forward to the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure (CAFT) for a complete investigation. He said the members of this committee work with the highest level of professionalism and it is the responsibility of the faculty to support these elected members, because service on this committee is a very difficult job.

3A. ASUA President Benjamin Graff

Senator Dalton, an Arizona Students Association (ASA) Student Director and ASUA officer, reported in Senator Graff’s absence that UA is leading in the tri-university "get out the vote" competition with about 1300 registered student voters. ASA has requested that student advising becomes a statewide issue and be included in university budget proposals. Sara Becker, ASUA Academic Affairs Director is beginning the application process for the spring Parents’ Association Scholarships. Some UA students have been invited to attend the "Debate Watch" with the Tucson Citizen on Tuesday, October 3^rd.

3B. GPSC President Jason Auxier

3D. Secretary of the Faculty Wanda Howell

No report.

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

Chair Hogle announced that the Campaign Arizona Kickoff will take place this Friday with a convocation for faculty, staff, and students to hear directly from President Likins at 8:30 a.m. in Crowder Hall. President Likins will then make a public announcement of the Campaign’s goal at 12:00 noon just east of Old Main. Emphasizing that the Campaign will benefit the entire UA community, Chair Hogle urged Senators to attend both events. Turning to state matters, Chair Hogle presented information on how funds from Proposition 301 would be distributed and how they would affect the university system’s budget if this measure passes. The education sales tax would provide 85% for K-12 public education and 15% for higher education, with about $45 million going to the Board of Regents to divide among the three universities. The first $70 million would go toward capital debt retirement for "Students First" which would ease the pressure on the state’s general fund. Low-income families may apply for a rebate for the sales tax increase. The Board of Regents is making a strong recommendation to the legislature for a separate appropriation to provide substantial increases for all university salary classifications because they fall so far below the national standards. The "Arizona University System Salary Plan Format" proposes three funding amounts over a two-year period for "catch-up," "keep-up," and for special market adjustments for retention. Much external support will be necessary in order for the legislature to consider funding this proposal.

Provost Davis expressed his pleasure at serving in his new position. During last month’s AAU meeting, he met with a number of chief academic officers and created a network of resources and wisdom regarding issues and opportunities that exist among our peer institutions. He explained how, as part of his learning style for this position, he has been leaving his office to meet with and learn from as many different people, departments, colleges, and committees as possible. The 2000-2001 fall enrollment is at its highest level ever with 5526 freshmen, compared to 5491 in 1989 and 5238 in 1999. The combined average SAT score for this class is 1100 and the average GPA is 3.35, compared with 1096 and 3.33 for 1999. Students from underrepresented minority groups dropped from 24.5% in 1999 to 22.9%, although the transfer students from underrepresented minority groups increased from 25.2% in 1999 to 27.2%. Overall enrollment increased by 162 students with undergraduate enrollment increasing by 146 and graduate enrollment increasing by 16 for a total enrollment of 34,488, although the FTE count decreased. The NCA accreditation review is complete and the University is accredited for the next ten years, although two interim progress reports will be required. Provost Davis said a preliminary report he received in mid-May identified strengths and challenges and described the University of Arizona as "an economic, cultural, and intellectual treasure in the state and the nation." Many challenges exist including the areas of resources, undergraduate education, and diversity. The first interim report is due on August 1, 2003 and must address the composition and diversity of all UA employees, as well as a plan for diversity and a report on the progress made since February 2000. The second report is due in 2005 and will be on student outcome assessment and should include evidence that the full evaluation cycle has been implemented and that assessment results have been utilized in program development for academic departments, the general education program, and other units such as Campus Life. Provost Davis said his office is currently developing a matrix that describes each individual action recommendation and is identifying key persons to act as stewards for overseeing the efforts in these areas. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) made a site visit to the Arizona Health Sciences Center this past summer. UA was selected as part of a general overview on compliance based on interviews the NIH carried out at ten universities, and not because of any ongoing issues or problems. The team considered the following areas: Roles and Responsibilities, Education and Training, Conflict of Interest, Human Subject Protection, Recombinant DNA Research, Biosafety and related issues, Technology Transfer, and Patents. The site visit did not reveal any non-compliance issues and offered numerous compliments to the institution. Provost Davis and Vice President for Research Richard Powell agree that compliance is an area that needs continuous attention because of its sensitivity and importance. The 1999-2000 Undergraduate Council recommended forming a Task Force on Advising following its charge to evaluate advising proposals received from ASUA, from the University Professional Advisors Committee, and from academic deans. The Task Force will be co-chaired by the Interim Vice-President for Undergraduate Education Randy Richardson, and by ASUA president Ben Graff and is currently identifying potential members. Advising at the UA is a critical area and the Task Force may also find that there exists a close relationship between advising and the issues surrounding retention.

3G. President Peter Likins

President Likins conveyed that Campaign Arizona, the biennial budget for the University, and Proposition 301 are all issues that represent a prospect for re-ordering the University’s position in the state. He remarked that it is astonishing that ABOR approved such an aggressive budget proposal that would enable university employees’ salaries to catch up to the median of our peer institutions within two years’ time and then to maintain that level and to provide for an additional special market adjustment fund. The Regents have also authorized a submittal to enable the University to request general fund revenue for debt retirement for capital expenditures such as building rejuvenation and modernization, information technology, and expansion of branch campuses. Finally, the Regents have agreed to permit the universities to decide which of the $400 million worth of capital improvements to fund. While the change in the Regents’ attitudes is heartening, it is important to continue to drive the change in public opinion to restore the University’s position in the future of Arizona. A combination of public and private funds will be needed to fulfill the promise of a powerful research university. President Likins also invited full employee participation at the Campaign’s kick-off activities, because it is imperative that the co-chairs and volunteers perceive the faculty and staff as dedicated to the cause and committed to the elevation of the quality of all components of the University through private fund-raising.

QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD

Senator Richardson clarified that the Advising Task Force will have three co-chairs including a student, a faculty member, and a professional advisor.

Senator Hogle thanked and commended Vice Chair Jory Hancock for his months of effort in directing the Campaign Kickoff events on Friday, October 6. The entire Senate applauded his work.

President Likins noted that that he was correctly quoted on page 4 as saying that the University has 600 licensees, but that in fact that number is really 300. The minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting on September 11, 2000 were approved as corrected.

Senator Mitchell said the APPC has addressed the Senate’s previous concern about no provisions for anonymous complaints from employees. A new draft distributed today contains language permitting anonymous complaints from both students and employees as follows:

Anonymous Complaints

All members of the University community may contact the Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Office at any time to ask questions about sexual harassment or complaint procedures without disclosing their name and without filing a complaint. However, because of the inherent difficulty in investigating and resolving allegations from unknown persons, individuals are discouraged from making anonymous complaints of sexual harassment.

Although anonymous complaints are discouraged, the University will reasonably respond to all allegations of sexual harassment. In order to determine the appropriate response to an anonymous allegation, the University will weigh the following factors:

The source and nature of the information;

The seriousness of the alleged incident;

The specificity of the information;

The objectivity and credibility of the source of the report;

Whether any individuals can be identified who were subjected to the alleged harassment; and

Whether those individuals want to pursue the matter.

If based on these factors it is reasonable for the University to investigate the matter, the Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Office (EO/AAO) will conduct an investigation and recommend appropriate action to address substantiated allegations. However, a reasonable response would not include disciplinary action against an alleged harasser if an accuser insists that his or her name not be revealed, and the alleged harasser could not respond to the charges of sexual harassment without that information.

Senator Warnock commented that the phrase, "a reasonable response" in the last sentence is unclear if it refers to "an appropriate action" in the preceding sentence. He also suggested that the sentence as currently worded implies that two separate factors need to be demonstrated before an appropriate response would occur: "if an accuser insists that his or her name not be revealed, and the alleged harasser could not respond. . . ." Senator Mitchell said he will return this question to the University Attorney’s Office.

Senator Szilagyi inquired how many sexual harassment cases come to the Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Office (EO/AAO) and whether it is justified for the Senate to have a discussion on this matter. A representative of the EO/AAO indicated 7-10 cases of sexual harassment are reported each year. Senator O’Brien commented that a very serious discussion is warranted even if just one case is reported per year. Senator Weinand inquired of Senator Spece whether the provision for anonymous complaints violates the constitutional guarantee that an accused be confronted by his accuser. Senator Spece responded that he doesn’t think so because this draft reads that, if the accused cannot reasonably respond, no negative action can be taken against him.

Senator Medine offered a clarification for the last sentence by adding the phrase "and if, as a consequence" preceding the phrase, "the alleged harasser could not respond. . . ." He also inquired whether this policy is a sufficient safeguard against serious anonymous allegations. Senator Garrard inquired whether there are any other faults for which employees can be anonymously accused within the University and commented that the Soviet Union ended anonymous accusations in 1960. Senator Silverman commented that many people who are harassed feel intimidated and in great jeopardy and therefore want to keep their identities anonymous, but that to provide protection for the accused there may be a more complete way to describe "no disciplinary action." Referring again to the last sentence, Senator Likins believed the conditional clause was meant to be a compound requirement and suggested an example where a written, anonymous allegation could provide substantiation in which the accused might be asked to respond to the allegation without knowing the accuser. Senator Silverman agreed and noted that 911 provides for anonymous complaints in our society on a daily basis. Senator Walsh remarked that having a policy on sexual harassment establishes the climate that any such activity is unacceptable. Furthermore, sexual harassment is an extremely delicate area, much of it is contextual in how the harassed person perceives the harassment, and University professionals must take the highest ground because even the perception of sexual harassment cannot be tolerated. Senator Warnock articulated two questions raised by the last sentence: 1) who would be charged with establishing that an alleged harasser could not respond? and 2) does this need to be established independently of the fact that there is an anonymous accuser, in order for it to be decided that an appropriate action would not include discipline? Senator Spece advised the Senate to seriously consider the rare cases where adverse action could be taken without establishing a foundation for an anonymous document. Senator Aleamoni observed the inherent difficulty in establishing the source, objectivity and credibility of an anonymous complaint. Senator Mitchell responded that those factors would count against the complainant. Senator G. Davis suggested the committee consider what would be an appropriate response if the EO/AAO were receiving multiple anonymous complaints. Senator Quinn inquired whether the committee had considered policies at similar institutions. Senator Mitchell recalled that the UAO and EO/AAO had looked at ten policies and only two of them dealt with this issue.

Senator Mitchell discussed the minor language changes to the original draft. The committee decided that, in the second bullet in the MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES section on page two, the phrase "after learning of" was ambiguous and substituted "after being informed of." In the Retaliation section on the top of page four, the committee determined that the language "Protected activity consists of:" was confusing and substituted "An individual is protected from retaliation when he/she:" and made other minor substitutions to improve the language. Senator Marchalonis suggested qualifying the word "testifies" with "in good faith" to address the possibility of complainants bearing false witness. Senator Mitchell will return these suggestions to the committee for further revision of the policy.

DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES REVISIONS (attachment)

Senator Mitchell explained that in 1998 the Committee of Eleven determined that UA’s faculty grievance policies were problematic, sometimes conflicting, and not widely understood by the faculty. The committee considered other institutions’ policies and determined that ASU’s policy would be adaptable to UA. In 1999 the APPC became involved and a writing team consisting of Roger Caldwell, Libbie Ervin, Dennis Larson, Judith Leonard, Robert Sankey, and Andy Silverman began working to develop a clear and concise faculty grievance policy, to eliminate redundancy and duplication among policies, and to create a policy that faculty can easily read and interpret to determine their options and choices. Key elements in the draft policy are: 1) it defines specific steps and options related to all formal faculty grievance policies and procedures, 2) it creates a new, six-member Faculty Grievance Committee to address issues not related to academic freedom, 3) it restructures CAFT into a six-member committee which handles academic freedom issues, dismissal and suspension without pay, and 4) it creates a new Grievance Clearinghouse Committee consisting of the chairs of CAFT, the Committee on Conciliation, and the new Faculty Grievance Committee to receive and review all faculty grievances and refer them to the proper committee, in consultation with EO/AAO. The implications for CAFT are that panels would no longer be assembled, as all six members of the Committee would hear every case, unless conflicts of interest or out of town schedules preclude, in which case a minimum of three members of the committee would hear the case. CAFT has written a letter to APPC expressing its concerns about the reduced size of the committee in this part of the policy. No changes are proposed for the Conciliation or Ombudsperson committees, although the Ombuds committee has suggested adding language about informal conflict resolution options near the beginning of the policy. Senator Mitchell opened the floor for questions and comments and also invited individual comments to be e-mailed to him at mitchellr@u.library.arizona.edu.

Senator Spece inquired about the proper role of university attorneys who become involved in grievance proceedings and about when committees should defer to legal opinions. Senator Weinand asked why the policy precludes one side from full legal representation should the opposing side choose not to be represented by counsel. Silverman explained that in most cases, if the grievant is a faculty member and could not afford or chose not to be represented by counsel, the respondent could have an unfair advantage, particularly since the administration has access to representation by the University Attorney’s Office.

Senator Schooley agreed with CAFT that the size of the panel might be a problem.

Senator Medine moved [Motion 2000/01-11] that the Faculty Senate endorse a memorandum to the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure concerning the Pending CAFT hearings on Allegations against Dr. Marguerite Kay, signed by Senators Bickel, Garrard, Spece, Witte, Szilagyi, Romer and Medine and dated October 3, 2000. Senator Medine explained that the procedures as followed leading to Dr. Kay’s dismissal have been faulted by the Superior Court, and that, to his knowledge, no university professor in the United States has ever been dismissed because of scientific misconduct even when the charges have been proven or sustained. It is extremely important that the University adhere to the principles of justice. Senator Medine expressed concern that the current CAFT panel is not receiving advice from a specifically faculty perspective, but rather only from university attorneys. Motion was seconded.

Parliamentarian Volgy explained that any Senate action taken under "New Business" would be a violation of the state’s Open meeting Law because there has been no prior notification of the item either to the affected parties or to the general public. He recommended placing the item on the agenda for action at the next meeting. Senator Silverman inquired whether the Senate, because it is advisory, is actually subject to the Open Meeting Law. Parliamentarian Volgy explained that more than three-fourths of all known advisory commissions must meet open meeting law requirements even though they are advisory. Furthermore, due to the extent of co-governance at UA, the Senate is one step beyond the role of advisory only and it is just good policy to stay within the open meeting law requirements. Senator Walsh stated that because academic integrity is fundamentally crucial to universities and can take years to restore, charges of academic impropriety must be treated extremely seriously because of the potential impact on University research monies. Speaking as a member of the Institutional Biosafety Committee, Senator Walsh emphasized the professionalism and fairness of that committee’s findings and recommendations and suggested the motion be tabled. Senator Bickel remarked that there have been no complaints against the integrity of the people who served on the panels, but that the implications of the lack of due process and the University’s procedural error have even greater implications. Senator Spece suggested a straw poll to determine the Senate’s sense of the motion at present. Parliamentarian Volgy suggested the straw poll could be accomplished by a motion to vote on whether or not to add this motion to the next meeting’s agenda. Senators Silverman, Schooley, Gruener , T. Davis and Sheridan objected to the straw poll and preferred to vote on the motion at the next meeting when they can hear arguments for all sides of the issue. Vice Chair Hancock ruled that this motion will appear on the agenda for the November 6, 2000 Faculty Senate meeting.

The Senate meeting recessed at 4:50 p.m. to go into Executive Session.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:16 p.m.

Wanda H. Howell, Secretary

Appendix*

"Principles for Emerging Systems of Scholarly Publishing"

"Arizona University System Salary Plan Format"

"Understanding the Governor’s Education Sales Tax Initiative"

"Final Draft 8/16/00 Sexual Harassment Policy Draft Proposals."

Memo from Senators Bickel, Garrard, Medine, Romer, Spece, Szilagyi, and Witte to Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure regarding "Pending CAFT Hearings on Allegations against Dr. Marguerite Kay"

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