|
FACULTY SENATE
|
MINUTES
FACULTY SENATE
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA®
April 1, 2002
These minutes may be accessed
electronically at:
http://fp.arizona.edu/senate/minutes.htm
Visit the faculty governance webpage at:
http://fp.arizona.edu/senate
Present: Senators Arabyan, A. Armstrong, N. Armstrong, Burd, Caldwell, Dahlgran, D. Davis, G. Davis, Eribes, Garcia, Hancock, Heinrich, Howell, Jones, Kidd, Kiefer, Larson, Likins, Marchalonis, Medine, Merkle, Mishra, Mitchell, Oxnam, Pintozzi, Quintero, Romer, Schooley, Silverman, Szilagyi, Tatman, Vierling, Warburton, Warnock, Witte, Wright and Zwolinski. Dr. Richard Poss substituted for Senator Jenkins. Thomas Volgy served as Parliamentarian.
Absent: Senators Bickel, Chandler, Copeland, Corum, Esparza, Gonzales-Portillo, Hurt, Impey, Jenkins, Joens, Judice, Kurzer, Marta, O'Brien, Quinn, Regan, Richardson, Smith, Songer, Spece, Tal, Taren, Walsh, and Weinand.
2. REPORT FROM GPSC
PRESIDENT Kirsten Price Copeland
No report.
3. OPEN SESSION
(Please note that speakers at the Open Session are expressing their personal opinion,
which may not reflect the position of the Faculty Senate. Written statements submitted
during Open Session are available in full at the Faculty Center.)
Senator Peter Medine -Senator Medine expressed disappointment at the Senate Executive Committee's decision not to place his February 18, 2002 resolution on the Senate's agenda. He expressed gratitude for today's agenda item 8, regarding the policy for placing items on the Senate's agenda. He said that he would be offering two resolutions under new business today; 1) to overturn the Executive Committee's decision not to place his resolution on the agenda, and 2) that the Senate empanel an ad hoc committee to study faculty salary disparities.
4. REPORTS
4A. ASUA President Ray Quintero
Senator Quintero introduced Doug Hartz, the new student body president, who will take over beginning May 1. Approximately 80 positions are available in ASUA for increased student involvement. The Arizona Students' Association (ASA) Campaign, "Failing our Future" intends to send a strong message to state legislators that the decisions that they have made both recently and in the past have truly failed the future of our educational system, the future of our universities, and the future of the students of Arizona. Students want to ensure that the legislature makes future decisions that will positively impact the students of Arizona as well as the universities by allocating university funds instead of rescinding them, by supporting faculty and staff salary adjustments, and by continuing to support that tuition is kept as nearly free as possible. A rally in Phoenix on March 22 was extremely successful and ASA pledges to continue "Failing our Future" as a long-term campaign. In the AUSA elections, an amazing 67% of UA students passed the referendum to increase the campus recreation center fee to $3. The additional funds will support programs, sports clubs, staffing, and equipment that are not covered by the students' $25 recreation center debt repayment fee. ASUA hopes to complete three projects before May; 1) a student survey about the drop date policy wherein students sometimes have to make a decision to drop a class without having received any feedback from the instructor, 2) clarifying and enforcing the student handbook's final exam policy that states that no exams are to be given during the week prior to final exams, and 3) informing and advising undergraduate students about the necessity and availability of the Undergraduate Writing Proficiency Examination (UDWPE).
4B. Vice Chair of the Faculty Wanda Howell
Vice Chair Howell noted that the faculty elections resulted in eleven continuing and nine new College Representative Senators. Two more positions from Engineering and Pharmacy will be decided in a runoff election ending April 8. Although seven seats remain unfilled, all colleges except for Public Health are represented in the Senate by College Representatives or by Senators-at-Large. She called attention to the information summary regarding on-line voting and announced that the Senate may be surveyed for its opinions about this issue and that the issue will be placed on the Senate's May agenda for a vote. Senator Quintero shared that the ASUA's on-line elections have run smoothly for two years with complete security and have increased voter response. Vice Chair Howell reminded Senators of the Town Hall tomorrow, April 2 at noon in the DuVal Auditorium on the Health Sciences Campus.
4C. Secretary of the Faculty Robert Mitchell
Secretary Mitchell remarked that issues of shared governance and faculty apathy have been topics of recent discussion. The Committee on Elections, noting a decline in petitions for the general faculty elections, sought a meeting with the three elected faculty officers, the two immediate past Chairs of the Faculty, Jerry Hogle and John Schwarz, and the chairs of the Committee on Committees and the Committee of Eleven. The consensus of this meeting was to use the University’s Decision Lab in McClelland Hall on several Monday afternoons to allow senators to conduct a dialogue on the issues of shared governance and the Faculty Senate such as "Why do you think we have trouble getting faculty to run for the Senate?" and "What are the shared governance issues in your department or college?" Senators will be polled via e-mail for their availability for sessions on April 8th or 15th.
4D. Chair of the Faculty Jory Hancock
Chair Hancock reported that at the last Board of Regents meeting in Yuma, the administration was successful in convincing the Regents to consider giving the universities more authority over financial aid distribution. Michael Crowe was announced as Arizona State University’s new president. A study session about athletics focused on student advising and the Regents became aware of how critical academic advising is to all students, and especially those who carry an additional load such as athletics. Regents also began discussing tuition increases. Chair Hancock advised the Senate that a document, "Reorganization Procedures at the University of Arizona," will be coming to the Senate in May. This document was originally passed by the Faculty Senate in 1993 and now requires a few minor changes such as a reference to a university budget planning committee that no longer exists. Both the Senate Executive Committee and the Academic Personnel Policy Committee will consider the revisions before bringing it to the Senate in May.
4E. Provost George Davis
No report.
4F. President Peter Likins
President Likins expressed appreciation to Ray Quintero and Doug Hartz for their leadership and activism in the "Failing Our Future" campaign. He hopes to present an assessment of the cumulative impact of the cuts to the budget that was adopted for FY2002 and FY2003, and to broadly and deeply inform the community about the magnitude of the financial burdens, the challenges and the consequences of these impacts to students. The governor’s current FY2003 budget proposal is substantially more severe than the rescission and additional cuts of this year. This week, following consultation with ASUA and other groups, President Likins will announce what tuition recommendations he will make to the Regents. He expects the Regents to pass the proposed changes to the rules governing the management and administration of financial aid. He would like to see future discussions of tuition increases coupled with discussions of partial tuition waivers for needy students. He said discussions of these issues are routinely coupled in private universities. Diversity continues to be a challenge to the university community and President Likins hopes the Committee of Eleven’s Report on Diversity will provide the impetus for the Senate’s continuing discussion and possible action.
5. QUESTION AND ANSWER
PERIOD
Considering the lack of candidates for the Senate election, Senator D. Davis inquired
whether there has been any thought to shrinking the size of the Senate. Vice Chair Howell
responded that this is one of several views that are being considered.
Senator Garcia inquired whether a Decision Lab session could be scheduled on April 22nd. The Senate Executive Committee meets April 22nd, but Secretary Mitchell will look into the 29th as a possible session date.
Senator Medine commented that the issue of faculty giving examinations during the week preceding final exams is very serious and perhaps even a violation of faculty contracts, and suggested that the provost emphasize to the deans and the departments that this rule should be enforced.
Senator Silverman inquired whether the state employees’ salary increase in now a considered a cost-of-living raise. President Likins responded that every employee will receive a fixed sum, $1450, not a cost-of-living increase. He noted that this amount is a large sum of money (almost a 10% raise) for the least well-compensated of our employees, and that it will raise the University’s minimum wage to $8.20/hour, which will be established as the University’s lowest rate of pay.
Senator Medine applauds the improvement of wages for the least well-paid staff and asked the Senate and President Likins to focus on the considerable percentage of senior and associate faculty members at the University of Arizona who have paid a "loyalty tax;" that is, whose salaries are at odds with decades of documented achievement and also are so compressed compared to peer institution levels as to be unreachable.
6. APPROVAL OF THE
MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2002
The minutes of March 4, 2002 were approved with one opposed.
7. APPROVAL OF CONSENT
AGENDA ITEM FORWARDED AS A SECONDED MOTION FROM INSTRUCTION AND CURRICULUM POLICY
COMMITTEE (attachment)
The consent agenda item detailed at the end of these minutes was approved [Motion
2001/02-22].
8. DISCUSSION AND
ACTION: PROCEDURES FOR PLACING ITEMS ON THE SENATE AGENDA (attachment)
Vice Chair Howell opened the seconded motion from the Senate Executive Committee [Motion
2001/02-23] to approve the "Procedures for placing items on the Senate agenda"
which was distributed at the March 4, 2002 Senate meeting for discussion. Senator’s
questions and concerns included: Does the phrase "its agenda," at the end of
item 4 (a) refer to the Senate Executive Committee’s agenda or the Senate’s
agenda? Parliamentarian Volgy affirmed that the reference is to the Senate’s agenda.
Senators requested that the word "Senate’s" be substituted for
"its." 2) Is it correct that if an item has not been previously considered and
acted upon by the Senate, that item will automatically go onto the Senate agenda?
Parliamentarian Volgy affirmed. 3) The Senate is a legislative and an advisory body, and
the single reason for controlling the narrative of the agenda is less than compelling and
this entire procedure seems unnecessary, and even to aggregate the power of the Executive
Committee. 4) It seems that a minority somehow controls the agenda and presides over the
meetings, to the point where Senators do very little speaking because reports take up most
of the time. 5) The Senate should be permitted to talk about anything a Senator brings
forward, with the understanding that it may be ruled out of order and that this ruling may
be appealed. 6) Because the Senate Executive Committee is not composed entirely of
Senators, it is conceivable that outside influence could control the agenda, and there are
instances where a majority could control the minority voice. 7) Over the years the Senate
has dealt with numerous difficult issues and sensational cases without a set of
labyrinthine rules or gags. 8) Generally speaking, in legislative bodies where business
must be conducted and meetings frequently run overtime, it is common to have rules that
affect what can be discussed and to limit repetitious discussion. 9) There are normal
procedures for appealing to overrule the Executive Committee’s decision, or a Senator
can move for reconsideration of a motion that was passed or defeated earlier on. 10) The
Senate is tedious due to the extensively repetitive nature of the meetings. 11) What is
the rationale that the Senate Executive Committee used to create this document?
Parliamentarian Volgy responded that he was asked to comment about the present Senate
rules for setting the agenda and concluded that those rules are not clear, are not
transparent, are contradictory to the Bylaws, and are perhaps even in violation of the
Open Meeting Law. What was particularly unclear in the old rules was the opportunity for
an individual senator to raise agenda items. The only change from the status quo, he
explained, is that if these rules are adopted, the Senate is required to entertain an
individual Senator’s request. 12) Some requests for agenda items have never even been
reported on nor placed on the agenda, so this procedure will prevent such oversights. 13)
There should be a mechanism written into the procedure on items 4 (a), 4 (b), and 4 (d)
for the Senate Executive Committee to report back to the Senate its decision not to place
an item on the agenda, so that the Senate can take action to override if it so chooses.
14) This procedure will assist in allowing equal access to all. 15) There is very little
opportunity in the Senate for pre-deliberation of controversial items because everything
seems to be pro-forma with presentations and votes and the general faculty is uninformed
because the Senate minutes are so delayed and not widely distributed. Senator Likins moved
[Motion 2001/02-24] to add the following sentence, "Every request will be reported to
the Senate." to the end of items 4 (a), 4 (b), and 4 (d) of the procedure. Motion was
seconded and passed. 16) It is disingenuous to report that an issue has been discussed
before because situations are dynamic and changing. Furthermore, legislative bodies
continuously reconsider issues, so it is customary to deal with situations that have been
discussed before. 17) Item 4 (c) deals with requests for items substantially addressed by
previous Senate action. 18) When dissent is suppressed, it bubbles over into other outlets
such as minority discussions, the press or the courts. Permitting an informed, educated
discussion is preferable. Motion passed, with three opposed.
9. FIRST READING:
"SUGGESTED CHANGES TO CONSTITUTION OF THE GENERAL FACULTY" (attachment)
Secretary Mitchell introduced the two basic changes to the Constitution of the General
Faculty regarding the status of emeritus faculty and of certain ex-officio members. He
clarified that emeritus faculty would retain voting status for the first five years of
emeritus status, and that the department can recommend continued voting status beyond the
first five years.
10. REPORT:
"DIVERSITY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA; ASSESSMENT AND ACTION OPTIONS BY THE
COMMITTEE OF ELEVEN, MARCH 1, 2002" (attachment)
Senator Caldwell explained that Senator’s received the Executive Summary report; the
full report is on the Committee of Eleven’s website. This report was precipitated by
the campus-wide vice-provost for diversity discussion of a few months ago. The Committee
of Eleven reviewed what has been done on campus since 1992, talked with a number of groups
on campus, and then wrote its report. The report also provides some grounding principles,
some observations, conclusions, and recommendations for action. There is currently a
Campus Diversity Coalition composed of eight groups: the Commission on the Status of
Women, the Millennium Oversight Committee, the President’s Council on Diversity, the
Disability Resource Center, the Deans’ Diversity Sub-Committee, the Equal
Opportunity/Affirmative Action Office, Patti Ota of the President’s Office, and
Senator Garcia representing the Committee of Eleven. Senator Caldwell explained that the
group is focusing first on consensus-building for this disparate group of people who have
been working relatively independently, secondly on near-term, low-cost, low-barrier, and
high-effect efforts, and thirdly on accountability towards retention and recruitment. The
President will be sending a series of memos about diversity efforts similar to his recent
financial bulletins. Since some of the Senate’s standing committees will clearly be
involved, Senator Caldwell suggested that the Senate be proactive and bring those
committees up to speed on the issues.
11. DISCUSSION: STATE
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM TUITION (attachments)
Presiding Officer Howell directed Senators’ attention to the background information
contained in their packets as well as the 2001-02 tuition information placed on
Senators’ desks today. Senators’ comments and questions included the following:
1) Public education should be free and raising tuition with the promise of financial aid
places a tremendous burden on many Arizona families. 2) Students should not have to
finance the concept of the University as an economic engine, but rather as a future
economic engine which they control. 3) Students do not get their money’s worth at the
University of Arizona. 4) For young people ages 18-24, time is a great investment and it
is supremely important that they receive a quality education and not waste those years. 5)
Other universities share the philosophy of "as nearly free as possible" and are
able to do far more without the ridiculously low tuition rates that Arizona imposes. 6)
Raising tuition as a response to budget cuts may be sending a troubling message to the
legislature and will not totally make up for the losses. 7) The focus should be on
affordability rather than lowest cost, because increased financial aid can make a college
education more affordable to many Arizona families. 8) The legislature cares very little
about higher education’s affordability index when it sets the amount of state support
for the universities. 9) We must continue to impress upon the legislature the importance
of the best possible higher education. 10) In order to move forward to ensure a higher
quality education for our students, we may need to play the economic engine card because
it works well in some quarters. 11) Linking tuition and financial aid is really important
and can more seriously impact those students in need. 12) The past 20 years’ record
clearly shows that the legislature isn’t going to provide the necessary support for
the universities. 13) If the university were to double its tuition, how would linking
financial aid work to adjudicate the problems for the most seriously disadvantaged
students? 14) If ABOR approves, the University would be able to propose annual tuition
rate increases and a policy for administering tuition waivers such as augmenting Pell
grants, as part of the annual budget process. 15) Increasing tuition and expenses is
impacting the quality of many students’ education because the it reduces the number
of students that are able to participate in quality activities and educational
opportunities such as capstone experiences and internships because so many of them must
work so many hours. 16) The financial diversity of the student body is such that some
students qualify for Pell grants, some students’ parents can completely afford to
finance their education, but the majority of students are middle-income and are graduating
with an average of $18,000 debt in student loans; these students may be forced to drop out
if tuition continues to increase annually over the next five years. 17) Students should
always have some say about where the tuition dollars are spent, as in areas that directly
impact them such as advising, salaries, and technology. 18) Quality of education depends
on the students’ ability to acquire such an education and more financial aid may be
necessary for the middle category. 19) Higher education does depend on some cost sharing
because everyone in the state pays taxes, but not everyone goes to the University and it
is in the state’s economic interest to educate its population. 20) The top of the
bottom third of public institutions’ tuition costs is a reasonable goal for
Arizona’s tuition rate. 21) It is undeniable that our absolute salary structure
relative to peer institutions is directly related to UA’s secure hold on the 49th
ranking in tuition costs. 22) Sustaining quality education while travel, capital
equipment, and operations budgets continue to decline challenges our faculty to do more
and more with less and less. 23) The most compelling reason for a robust tuition increase
is to retain quality faculty. 24) Two dramatic national trends have emerged over the past
several decades: a) There has been a substantial migration of responsibility by the states
from the people collectively to the students and their families, although much less so
here in Arizona. b) More recently, there has been a substantial shift of financial aid
from the poor and need-based awards to the middle class and merit-based awards. 25) In
spite of the 49th ranking in tuition, a recent national study on access rated
Arizona "C+," which means that truly disadvantaged people aren’t able to
come to the university because there isn’t enough financial aid. Increasing financial
aid could increase access for our poorest populations. Nationally, all of the AAU public
institutions are requesting tuition increases in the 10-15% range. 26) A tuition increase
is a fact, while financial aid remains an elusive promise. 27) Some students have to work
so many hours that they cannot maintain grade point averages and sometimes lose their
financial aid. 28) The financial aid structure cannot catch up. 29) The finest quality
education is not necessarily connected to the superstar or brain drain faculty, but rather
from the ordinary faculty who mentor. 30) As costs increase faster than student salaries,
many students have to increase work hours and decrease class hours, and when they drop
below nine credits, they lose all of their financial aid. Will financial aid be flexible
enough to assist these students? 31) To continue to function effectively given the
dramatically dwindling capital support and operational support is not realistic and the
2003 budget cuts will have a tremendous impact on our support structure. 32) Several
states such as Pennsylvania and New York have state-based grants that are equivalent to
the Pell grants. The Governor’s Task Force on Higher Education of several years ago
recommended state based Ace grants of $1000 for any students who qualify for a Pell grant.
The legislature’s lack of interest in the Ace grant program is dismaying. 33)
Increasing the opportunity for students to borrow money is not a solution. 34) It is clear
that one-fourth of the student body does not work nor need financial aid, so if the
Regents decline to link financial aid with tuition increases, the Faculty Senate should
oppose the increase. President Likins said he intends to recommend simultaneous tuition
increases and waivers for certain populations of students to the Board of Regents. His
hope is to provide financial aid without sourcing it from anywhere. Waivers do not have to
be sourced.
12. NEW BUSINESS
Senator Medine moved [Motion 2001/02-25]that the Senate override the Executive Committee's
decision not to place his resolution on the agenda, and that the Senate include on its May
agenda the following resolution, "That the University administration move immediately
to a resolution of differences with Dr. Marguerite Kay so that she may be restored to her
full status as Regents Professor and Professor of Microbiology and Immunology."
Motion was seconded and failed, 13 for, 16 opposed.
Senator Medine requested that the following resolution be placed on the May Senate agenda: "That the Faculty Senate empanel a five-member ad hoc committee to determine the dollar amount necessary to bring teaching and research faculty salaries to within 5% of current AAUDE levels; and to recommend to the Senate for discussion a plan to reach those levels within a three-year period."
13. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Senate recessed at 4:57 to go into Executive Session.
13. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:07 p.m.
Robert L. Mitchell, Secretary
Appendix*
Consent Agenda item forwarded from the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee.
"Procedures for placing items on the Senate agenda," Senate Executive Committee, February 18, 2002.
Memorandum to the Faculty Senate from the Committee on Faculty Membership re: Suggested Changes to the Constitution of the General Faculty March 18, 2002.
"Executive Summary, Diversity at the University of Arizona: Assessment and Action Options By the Committee of Eleven, February 24, 2002."
"Senate Discussion on Tuition (4/1/02) Background Information."
Press Release March 12, 2002 Spring 2002 General Faculty Election Results.
"Notes from Meeting with Laura Cisneros, CCIT re: On-Line Voting for Faculty Elections" dated March 5, 2002.
The University of Arizona 2001-2002 Estimated Cost of Attendance (Resident and Non-resident of Arizona).
The University of Arizona Bursar’s Office Fee Rate- Tuition and Registration Costs: Spring 2002.
"Campus Town Hall, Tuesday, April 2, 2002, Noon, DuVal Auditorium" announcement
*Copies of material listed in the Appendix are attached to the original minutes and are on file in the Faculty Center.
Motions of the Meeting of April 1, 2002
Motion 2001/02-22 Seconded motion from the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee to approve the request from the Office of Curriculum and Registration to officially change the dates and class times for Winter Session this year from beginning on December 23, 2002 to beginning on December 26, and ending on January 14. Three unit classes would reduce from 47.6 to 46.8 total contact hours, while 4-unit classes would be reduced from 64.4 to 62.3 total contact hours (see attached schedule). Motion passed unanimously.
Motion 2001/02-23 Seconded motion from the Senate Executive Committee to approve the "Procedures for placing items on the Senate agenda."
Motion 2001/02-24 Motion to add the following sentence, "Every request will be reported to the Senate." to the end of items 4 (a), 4 (b), and 4 (d) of the "Procedures for placing items on the Senate agenda." Motion passed.
This site
maintained by The University of Arizona Faculty Center
1400 E. Mabel Street PO Box 210473
Tucson, AZ 85721-0473
VOICE 520-621-1342 FAX 520-621-8844
facsen@u.arizona.edu
last updated 06/18/03