FACULTY SENATE MINUTES

1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair and Presiding Officer Wanda Howell at 3:05 p.m. in the College of Law, Room 146.

Present:  Senators Arabyan, Bixby, Burd, Caldwell, Chandler, D. Davis, G. Davis, Farney, Garcia, Hancock, Hartz, Heinrich, Holmes, Howell, Jenkins, Jones, Kiefer, Likins, Mishra, Mitchell, Morris, Oxnam, Pintozzi, Powell, Radebaugh, Schlager, Silverman, Songer, Spece, Swanson, Sweazea, Szilagyi, Tatman, Vierling, Warburton, Warnock, Weinand, Willerton, Witte, S. Wright, Wysocki, and Zwolinski. Robert Sankey served as Parliamentarian.

Absent: Senators Bales, Borden, Dahlgran, Erickson, Esparza, Impey, Joens, Larson, Lynch, Miesfeld, O'Brien, Rimsza, Timmermann, and E. Wright.

2. 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.)

There were no speakers for the Open Session.

3.  REPORTS

3A. ASUA President Doug Hartz

President Hartz reported that ASUA is completing its voter registration drive and will then turn its energies to increasing voter turnout by providing a shuttle service for student, faculty and staff to polling places on Election Day. ASUA is hosting a series of student focus groups and Town Halls to identify prominent issues and concerns relating to focused excellence, and is working with ASU and NAU student governments to find ways to combat further budget recisions. The Student Lifeline SafeRide program provides students in an emergency situation to obtain a free ride home, or to the nearest hospital, or police station. ASUA is renewing its investigation for a fall break around the time of Thanksgiving.

3B. GPSC President Pete Morris

GPSC is currently engaged in strategic planning for significant and institutional changes in the way the 20,000+ graduate students in the Arizona system can collaborate to advocate at the state and ABOR levels. President Morris reported that GPSC has seven new members of its Council, leaving only the Optical Sciences and Pharmacy units underrepresented. Working with Dean Pivo and Provost Davis, GPSC is currently considering the broad quality of life of graduate students after the relative stipend plunged from the 54 percentile to the 22-23 percentile and placed graduate student stipends in the area of need, not want. A recent attrition symposium addressed the 20% Masters and 33% PhD candidates who do not complete their degrees, and much of this problem is because of the budget cuts which these students could not anticipate when they accepted.

3C. Vice Chair of the Faculty Wanda Howell

Vice Chair Howell announced that the Faculty Senate Decision Labs brainstorming sessions have been canceled because an insufficient number of participants were available for any of the days and times. An electronic synopsis of the Senate meeting was sent to the Senate listserv immediately following the last meeting, to provide a timely essence of the Senate’s actions, and is intended to be widely circulated among senators’ constituents. A vacancy created by Gabriel Gonzales-Portillo’s resignation on the University Committee on Ethics and Commitment will be filled by Duane Sherrill who garnered the next highest number of votes in the same election. Accurate recording of recent motions on the Senate floor has proven difficult, so Senators are asked to provide their motions in writing, or to allow them to be written on the overhead so that precise wording can be recorded accurately. This is most essential for complex policy discussions with multiple amendments. SAPC is still in need of one more Faculty Senate member.

3D. Secretary of the Faculty Robert Mitchell

Secretary Mitchell reported that he has convened the first meeting of the Committee on UHAP, Constitution, and Bylaws Revisions, which has begun considering the revisions and clean up of outdated material in the Constitution and Bylaws that were drafted this past summer with the assistance of the Chair and Secretary of the Faculty, Faculty Center staff, and the University Attorneys Office. All changes will come first to the Faculty Senate, hopefully within this semester, and then to a vote of the entire General Faculty.

3E. Chair of the Faculty Jory Hancock

Chair Hancock announced that the Senate Executive Committee endorsed his nomination of Doug Jones to serve as the replacement for Larry Schooley on the University Compensation Advisory Team. Chair Hancock met with the Student Affairs Policy Committee and discussed the potential for tough adjustments and social consciousness that students will encounter this year, and that a student serving on SPBAC should also serve on SAPC to help students understand what is happening because of the budget’s austerity. Social consciousness also extends to the faculty and the whole campus community. Reflecting on the Arizona Board of Regents’ (ABOR) "Changing Directions" theme, Chair Hancock asked everyone to be sensitive of the broad generalizations of the mission differentiation being applied to each of the three campuses that get watered down and over-simplified into one-word labels that can be damaging and hurtful. The Arizona Faculties Council is recommending that like faculties from our sister institutions should begin communicating and working together rather than just comparing programs.

3F. President Peter Likins

President Likins described the four major parallel activities in which the three universities are engaged and which are being driven by the State’s financial crisis. The first activity is finding ways to cut UA’s budget by a projected $33M or 10% by June 30, 2003. Last Friday’s Financial Planning Bulletin #18 suggested some preliminary thoughts about this challenge. The administration has asked the Deans to prepare for a 5% cut, and is asking the other units to look for 10% cuts and one-time strategies for one-time access to funds and capital financing to mitigate the damage to the academy. The seriousness of these financial challenges has persuaded the Regents to rethink how the State’s university system functions and to invite each institution to begin thinking about its individual destiny and proposing its strategies to be presented at a Study Session on October 30. ABOR staff will also present a study of the impact on the system of each of these missions. November’s ABOR meeting may consider some Regental policy changes such as admissions, tuition/financial aid, or geographic domains. These proposed changes may be repeated and acted upon in January’s meeting, if the three universities' missions remain compatible. In March and April the Regents will be responding to the universities’ proposals about tuition, and in June, the Regents may be responding to the Universities’ proposals about restructuring or changes in programmatic offerings. The Provost’s ABC Bulletin of last Friday sets forth a series of recommendations about the academic leadership strategies for future investments for the University’s future. The administration is also gathering information about where reorganizations may bring about mergers, relocation, restructuring and elimination of programs. He emphasized that the shared governance process for these activities involves wide consultation among faculty groups such as the Cabinet, the Academic Council, SPBAC, and various shared governance committees at the college level, but that the decisions will not be democratic.

3G. Provost George Davis

Provost Davis described his goals as Provost, on behalf of the University, its faculty, and its academic programs, is to provide leadership that helps protect the University’s intellectual and academic reputation and strength, and its collective faculty; to preserve and protect valued learning and educational experiences for our undergraduates, graduates, and professional students; and to continue to provide vital outreach to the state and the community in ways that are marked by tech transfer and economic development, as well as quality of life advantages for the people of this region. The past fifteen years have been characterized by almost perennial budget recisions. Since July 2001, UA has cut permanently almost $24M and now is asked to cut another $34M. In order to preserve the reputational strength of the institution, the span of the programmatic breadth is simply too great for the amount of money the UA is allotted. ABC Bulletin #4 indicates two dimensions of actions and activities: 1) selection of academic leadership teams, and 2) reorganization. Work on the reorganization issue began last year in the Strategic Planning and Budget Advisory Committee (SPBAC) and in Academic Council, and continued in the Senate last month. The Academic Affairs Office has compiled a manual of all the Board and University policies to guide the process and assist directors, department heads, and deans in their search to reorganize, merge, or eliminate programs in ways that will release dollars to be reinvested or reallocated into the foundational basis and into some intrinsic values of the institution, into recruitment of outstanding and diverse faculty, and into meeting essential responsibilities such as student demand for courses. Certain academic leadership themes are being identified that help interpret some of the mission-central dimensions of the institution and help the Provost and others make the determinations of where to optimally make investments. Ultimately there will be a relatively small number of themes, and those themes will not be the sole basis for investment and reallocation. There will be some highly nationally ranked programs that must be protected, that will not be explicitly relatable to the emergent themes. The fundamental infrastructure of the institution must also be preserved. Provost Davis hopes that these draft recommendations will stimulate reflection and input from faculty, deans, departments heads, vice presidents, and directors and he plans to define and announce the themes by the end of November. Regarding the reorganization schedule, Provost Davis has been in ongoing discussions with the Deans and hopes to receive some proposals for reorganization by mid-December, with an announcement of intended actions around mid-January, and then begin the process described in the Procedures for Reorganization document. He intends to keep the process open, communicative, and constructive and he emphasized that the reappointment of tenured faculty members is not in question.

4. QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD

Senator Szilagyi asked why the Administration hasn’t requested the Senate’s input relating to issues that have been forced upon us by the Board of Regents about fundamental changes in the institution’s direction, mission and destiny, and he asked what are the Senate leadership’s plans to force such a discussion? Provost Davis shared that he began thinking about the academic themes in August and discussed the concept in the Cabinet and Academic Council retreat. He then immediately brought it to SPBAC for development of the general concept, although not the specifics. He has consulted with the Senate Executive Committee and the Committee of Eleven, ASUA and GPSC about his view of the importance of the academic themes. Reorganization discussions began earlier and have involved broader consultation to be certain that the process is being followed in strict accord with University policy and shared governance protocol. President Likins explained that the Regents’ concept of "Changing Directions" is being driven by the rate at which funding is being extracted from the Arizona university system and is threatening the entire enterprise. ABOR understands that if it passively allows this withdrawal of state funds, that the entire system will diminish to such a degree that recovery will be very difficult even if the state’s economy recovers. The Regents may now regret that they didn’t realize sooner that the universities cannot absorb such tremendous financial threats. ABOR and the governor agree that the universities should seek new directions for the system. This past summer, the Regents asked each of the three presidents to provide a vision for how the universities might change in ways that better use the diminishing resources of the state, meet the needs of the people of the state, and advance the agenda of the three universities. Faculty, students and staff will have an opportunity for input and to discuss these concepts of focused excellence and academic themes. After January 15, UA’s reorganization procedure will be initiated and at the end of the academic year, the administration will make a set of recommendations to the Regents.

Senator Willerton asked whether the state politicians who have placed the universities in this fiscally depleted condition will accept a reasonable plan for the system’s recovery from the Regents, or will they simply ignore such a plan and do whatever they want. President Likins commented that we are in a recession which followed over a decade of tax cuts that stripped the state of $777M/year in revenues, as well as a contraction of government services driven by a goal for smaller government. The basic economy of the state will eventually recover, and the politicians making decisions at that time need to invest in activities that yield returns that are critical to a knowledge-based economy, so it is critical that the public do everything possible to persuade elected officials to invest in those governmental activities that yield positive returns to society such as education and healthcare. Education is best served by moderate politicians. Senator Davis commented that while he doesn’t know if the Regents’ "Changing Directions" strategy will be successful, he is clearly aware of the financial cutbacks and the need for leadership action which is necessary to mitigate against the erosion of quality education, retention of faculty, and the institution’s reputational strength.

Senator Witte commented that the growth path chosen by ASU is not risky and stands to benefit Phoenix substantially, but that the focused excellence vision articulated by President Likins will be politically, financially, and academically dangerous and could be damaging to the Tucson community differentially. She asked if the University would also raise admission standards for athletes. President Likins answered that all student athletes are obliged to function within the institution’s academic standards, but these changes in admission standards will evolve slowly. It is obvious that the University is not optimally serving some ill-prepared freshmen who are permitted by regental authority to enroll in UA, because only 50% will become sophomores. Anyone can transfer to UA as a junior, after completing two years at a community college. Over time, by elevating the floor, and subsequently the ceiling, the more demanding entry level will reduce the stress on the system, maintain the University environment, help to retain nationally-ranked faculty, and allow our state time to better prepare its students for university study. He acknowledged that the focused excellence strategy has risks and said that restrained growth, without a reduction in the undergraduate population, is appropriate and desirable for landlocked UA, while ASU is in a much better situation to grow with three campuses and adequate real estate.

Senator Burd remarked that she completely supports the administration’s proposal to increase admission standards and refocus the University, but is concerned about how much faculty input is going into budget cutting decisions. President Likins explained that the deans have been invited to submit proposals for 5% cuts that come from their colleges by whatever shared governance mechanism is in place, and the vice presidents have been asked to submit proposals for 10% cuts. The set of proposals will then be submitted to the process. Provost Davis elaborated that the model that emerged from last year’s recisions which included strategic saves and both temporary and permanent cuts is again being used, but that the timeframe is compressed, because the university’s biweekly payroll is $22.5M. He will continue to emphasize to the deans that their college faculty and faculty committees be given time to submit their best input to the proposals. Senator Mitchell reminded the Senate that it has already taken an important step to ensure detailed faculty input into the process when it passed the Reorganization Procedure in September. Senator Hancock commented that announcing proposals in mid-January is necessary to allow the Reorganization Procedure adequate time to be implemented. Senator Songer commented that full faculty input into the budget-cutting process won’t be fully achieved by relying on faculty to figure out how to get involved or who to talk to. He believes that many underrepresented faculty would truly appreciate additional input coming from the top and that this would have a significant impact on the process.

Senator Davis inquired about the Grade Replacement Option (GRO) that has been extended to the Graduate College, but he doesn’t recall whether that came through the Faculty Senate. Vice Chair Howell commented that recent Graduate Council actions have not been transmitted to the ICPC or the Senate, and that the ICPC Chair J. Jenkins is addressing this concern in writing to Dean Pivo, specifically requesting the ICPC and Senate’s input in academic matters. Senator Garcia suggested that the Senate have the GRO policy rescinded until the Senate has had an opportunity to review it. Senator Morris noted that the GPSC supports shared governance and believes that academic policy changes should come through the Senate, but that since Dean Pivo has already implemented the GRO policy, rescinding it would only punish students.

President Likins remarked that the three internal processes right now are; 1) extracting $33M from the University this year, 2) considering investment strategies for the future, and 3) considering the potential for restructuring the University for longer term focus of the enterprise. The latter two involve conceptual decisions and the faculty is properly engaged. The budget cutting process involves sitting down with particular unit managers to find 5% or 10% cuts. These very specific, fine-structured, line item decisions are occurring with deans and department heads, and this is really too specific to involve the Faculty Senate.

Senator Witte asked the Senate Executive Committee to devote at least 15 minutes of every Senate meeting to a free-wheeling discussion, and also, for the Senate leadership to inform the faculty that they always have an opportunity to give their input directly to the Senators, not only the College Representatives but also the Senators-at-Large.

5. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2002

The minutes of September 9, 2002 were approved with the following amendments: In the report from GPSC President Peter Morris, the first line should read ". . . studied abroad in Australia, the United Kingdom, . . ." and the response to question 1 in the section entitled, "Continued Discussion And Action: Proposed Revisions To Reorganization Procedures At The University Of Arizona" should read, "There was a consensus of the discussion that the tenure is to the University." Minutes passed as amended.

6. INFORMATION ITEM: DEMONSTRATION OF ON-LINE VOTING – NANCY HUBER, CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, AND LAURA CISNEROS, CCIT

Vice Chair Howell announced that Agenda Item 6, The Demonstration of On-Line Voting, has been postponed until the November meeting.

7. INFORMATION ITEM: REPORT FROM CAPITAL CAMPAIGN

Capital Campaign Arizona Executive Director Tom Sanders told the Senate that as of June 30, 2002, $753.1M in commitments has been received toward the goal of $1B. Approximately 50-60 people are actively involved in fundraising for the University, and in excess of 95% of the donations received to date are specifically designated by the donors and over 50% of the donations are, either all or in part, deferred in the form of bequests, trusts, or gifts spread over time, so very little is in the form of unrestricted funds. The Campaign ends June 30, 2005. Since 1996, University employees have given over $7.4M in unsolicited donations, so the Campaign Arizona will be designated as an alternative for employees to designate their charitable giving in the United Way Campaign this year. Donations for undergraduate scholarships and graduate fellowships will be encouraged, but another line will permit donors to specify any designation.

8. FACULTY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP (attachment)

Chair of the Faculty Hancock called the Senate’s attention to the list of nominees for the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee that have come from the Senate and from the Committee on Committees. Since no additional nominations were forthcoming, he will forward the list to President Likins who will make the appointment.

9. INFORMATION ITEM: REPORT FROM SENATE TASK FORCE FOR MONITORING LABOR AND HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES

Senator Schlager introduced herself as the co-chair of the Senate Task Force for Monitoring Labor and Human Rights Issues. She reminded the Senate that the Task Force was created three years ago as a result of some commitments and understandings between Students Against Sweatshops (SAS) and President Likins about fair labor practices with University licensees. The Task Force monitors fair labor practices of the University licensees, watches over the major monitoring organizations that track the activities of the primarily apparel manufacturers for universities, and provides education and outreach for the University and the community. In the area of monitoring, last year the Task Force supported the activities of both the President and SAS which were instrumental in accomplishing positive outcomes for two worker strikes at factories that produce apparel for the University of Arizona, one in Mexico and one in the United States. One of the workers from the Mexico factory strike will be speaking on campus this coming October 18. The Task Force also sponsored two forums with guest speakers, Scott Nova, Director of the Worker Rights Consortium, a major monitoring organization, and Ruth Rosenbaum, an expert on living wage issues from the Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility. Last year the Task Force was given added responsibility and $15K from the Office of the President for supporting and sponsoring research in fair labor-related areas. The Task Force funded four projects submitted by graduate students, which included a study of maquiladoras in Nogales and an examination of the major monitoring organizations. The grant recipients are currently making reports to the Task Force and a final report about the research results will be provided to President Likins and anyone else who is interested. The Task Force also hired a research assistant to organize and compile a listing of all of the written materials it has accumulated over the past three years, and those papers and publications are available to anyone interested in labor issues. Senator Schlager acknowledged that the Task Force could not have accomplished all of these things without the continued support of SAS and of President Likins and his staff.

10. DISCUSSION AND ACTION: APPC SECONDED MOTION RE: POLICY FOR MANAGING PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (attachment)

Academic Personnel Policy Committee Chair F. Kiefer presented the "Policy for Managing Personal Conflicts of Interest for the University of Arizona," [Motion 2002/03-14] and said that the APPC made two revisions to the policy. The first revision eliminates the term "personal relationship" from the first sentence of the section titled "Disclosure and management of Conflicts" because no clear definition of personal relationship exists. The second change is in the third paragraph of that same section on Disclosure, and it provides an alternate means for conflict resolution in cases involving an employee and his/her supervisor. Senator’s comments and questions included, 1) Does the phrase ". . . one or both employees may be subject to discharge" in the third paragraph of the section on Disclosure mean discharge through normal University procedures? Yes. Motion passed unanimously.

11. FIRST READING: RPC SECONDED MOTION RE: POLICY ON ETHICS IN SCHOLARLY, CREATIVE, AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES AND PROCEDURES FOR INVESTIGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT (attachment)

Research Policy Committee Chair C. Pintozzi oriented the Senate to the current draft of the Research Misconduct Policy which has undergone four years of RPC committee revisions and has received input from the University Committee on Ethics and Misconduct, the Vice President for Research and Research Integrity Officer, the University Attorneys, and the Senate. The committee has carefully considered all of this feedback as well as the Federal Register document, which includes the comment on the proposed policy from the Office of Science and Technology Policy. This document was helpful in determining what is included in the draft policy. Chair Pintozzi acknowledged that the RPC doesn’t necessarily believe this draft is perfect yet, and asked Senators to provide the same sort of serious thought and consideration that Senator Spece has provided in his list of proposed amendments distributed on Senators’ desks today. Balancing the needs of individual faculty members, the needs of other faculty, staff and students, and the needs of society as a whole is a difficult task, and the process is multiphased with many steps to ensure that everyone is given a fair hearing when an allegation of research, scholarly, or academic misconduct is made. The flowchart/timeline distributed on Senator’s desks today graphically describes the process. Senators questions and concerns included the following: 1) It would be helpful to view the previous policy that the Senate reviewed with bolded changes noted, and what new steps have been added since the Senate approved it. The policy that was brought forward 18 months ago was only a first reading and it was never voted upon. The structure has completely changed so bolding text may not be meaningful but the RPC will provide that previous draft. 2) What does RIP refer to in the flowchart? That typo should read RIO, for Research Integrity Officer. 3) The current policy in existence now is probably the correct version to compare this one to. 4) There are two potential conflicts between this draft and the Federal Register. Under 1C, in the definition of misconduct, the Federal Register has eliminated the phrase "and other practices," and in 2C, the Federal Register does not make any reference to anonymous complaints being allowed.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:59 p.m.

Robert L. Mitchell, Secretary

 Appendix*

1. Letter to the Faculty Senate dated September 25, 2002 from Jory Hancock re: Faculty Nominees to the ICAC.
2. October 7, 2002 Draft Policy for Management of Personal Conflicts of Interest for the University of Arizona.
3. Revised Draft 9/13/02 Policy on Ethics in Scholarly, Creative and Research Activities and Procedures for Investigations of Misconduct.
4. Federal Register Vol 65, No 235, December 6, 2000, pp76260-76264.
5. Draft 9/13/02 Flowchart for Policy on Ethics in Scholarly, Creative and Research Activities and Procedures for Investigations of Misconduct.
6. October 1, 2002 Memorandum to Faculty Senate Members from Roy Spece re: proposed amendments to Policy on Ethics in Scholarly, Creative and Research Activities and Procedures for Investigations of Misconduct.
7. Report from the Secretary of the Faculty, dated October 7, 2002.

*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 October 7, 2002

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