FACULTY SENATE MINUTES

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair and Presiding Officer Wanda Howell at 3:08 p.m. in the College of Law, Room 146.

Present: Senators Benedict, Borden, Bui, Burd, Christenson, Cusanovich, D. Davis, G. Davis, Diaz, Garrett, Hancock, Hildebrand, Howell, Jenkins, Jones, Kiefer, Larson, Likins, Mitchell, Pintozzi, Pitt, Radebaugh, Rainer, Schlager, Silverman, Spece, Tatman, Vierling, Warburton, Weinand, Willerton, Witte, Zizza, and Zwolinski. Terrence J. Monks substituted for Timmerman. Robert Sankey served as Parliamentarian.

Absent: Senators Bales, Bixby, Chandler, Conway, Dahlgran, Erickson, Esparza, Green, Gruener, Impey, Joens, Lynch, Miesfeld, Powell, Songer, Strittmatter, Swanson, Timmermann, Tomanek, S. Wright, and Wysocki.

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.)

Dr. Mary Beth Callie – Dr. Callie, an adjunct instructor in Media Arts, presented information about a proposed city comprehensive transportation plan contained in Propositions 200 and 201. Even though this is a city of Tucson political issue, it is directly related to University life and is consistent with the 2003 Campus Plan by offering alternatives to parking garages.

Senator Jennifer Jenkins – Senator Jenkins, Chair of Undergraduate Council, reminded Senators that, as focused excellence proposals are advanced, it is most important to involve the Curriculum Office. This office must process a sequence of paperwork for all majors, courses, course prefixes, or program changes. A flowchart of the approval process for academic programs or units is located on the web at http://www.registrar.arizona.edu/programs .

Professor Emeritus Cornelius Steelink – Dr. Steelink, the Faculty Senate representative from the University of Arizona Retirees’ Association (UARA), informed the Senate that he is serving on a tri-university taskforce composed of staff, faculty and retirees, who are working with a consulting group that was hired by the Board of Regents, to evaluate strategies for self-insurance.

3.  REPORTS

3A. ASUA President J. P. Benedict

ASUA President J. P. Benedict reported that ASUA is drafting a tuition proposal and will be conducting student surveys, focus groups, and interviews. ASUA is also working on a plan for faculty retention and is working to revise the Student Academic Progress Report (SAPR) to make it easier to read. The Battle of the Bands will be held on October 20, 22, and 28. A Shakespeare series is also in the works. ASUA is working to create an off-campus apartment guide with real information and ratings, not just promotional material from realtors.

GPSC President Jani Radebaugh reported that GPSC is working on an academic visa reform petition to assist foreign students, which it hopes to take to the state legislature. GPSC is continuing to explore the advisor-student relationship and is also continuing the work begun last year on childcare, partnering with ASUA to try to determine the number of undergraduate and graduate student parents at UA. Student Showcase, an exhibition and competition spotlighting graduate and undergraduate students’ research, will be held on the mall during Homecoming Weekend.

3C. Vice Chair of the Faculty Wanda Howell

Vice Chair Howell distributed a letter from the Shared Governance Review Committee and requested Senators to respond with any concerns about the lack of compliance with the Shared Governance Memorandum of Understanding (SGMOU) as demonstrated by the process of administrative restructuring which took place this past summer. The committee is considering amending the language of the SGMOU to address and prevent future breaches of shared governance. She asked for another Senator to volunteer for the Student Affairs Policy Committee and for recommendations for another general faculty member for the Research Policy Committee.

3D. Secretary of the Faculty Robert Mitchell

No report

3E. Chair of the Faculty Jory Hancock

Faculty Chair Hancock noted that many academic units lack a structure or procedure that provides the opportunity for Senators to report back to their units, and to collect input from their units. He asked Senators to think about ways in which they might extend shared governance to their constituents by sharing information and soliciting opinions at a local level. He has also asked the President to meet with the chairs of every University committee. Chair Hancock asked for one more Senator to volunteer to serve on his faculty legislative advocacy group. They expect about 15 legislators to visit the UA in December where they will learn how hard faculty work and share their passion and energy. Chair Hancock has also been actively involved in discussions and consultations in SPBAC, UCAT, and the Senate Executive Committee about various proposed distribution patterns and mechanisms for salary increases.

Provost Davis described the historical perspective of the minimal or non-existent funds for state employees' annual salary increases. This situation led the all-funds budgeting group to develop a plan to identify new marginal dollars to apply to an annualized salary increase package for UA employees. Following shared governance deliberations with the Strategic Planning and Budget Advisory Committee (SPBAC), the University Compensation Advisory Team (UCAT), and others, he concluded that $2.6M would be committed to a salary package to be implemented in January, with $315K of this amount applied to re-grades for our lowest paid staff, increasing their wages from $8.20 to $8.50/hour. By applying the increase in January, this amounts to a total annualized package of $4.5M. Continued deliberations among these shared governance groups now involve distribution decisions. Across-the-board increases would stretch the money too thin so they are considering ways that emphasize merit and market competitiveness. The salary package could be divided among vice-presidential areas in accord with total state and local revenues. The vice-presidents would then move dollars to the various unit heads, directors, and deans who would be charged with the responsibility of developing salary deployment plans to be vetted by the individual vice presidents. Of greatest importance is that the University is committing to an internal annual salary compensation process, using all-funds and whatever local dollars can be dedicated to salary increases. By doing this annually, perhaps in a January cycle, it could significantly reduce the number of off-cycle salary adjustments. When salary packages come from the state, it may be possible to take that package and plan its distribution with an overall salary evaluation based on performance evaluation and post-tenure review, provided that the state has not placed any caveats about when and how to distribute the package. Turning to the impacts of the administrative restructuring, Provost Davis described his search for a Vice-Provost for Academic Affairs and a Vice-Provost for Instruction. Beth Mitchneck and David Cox are currently serving in those positions but will step down in January. Reporting directly to the Provost are Lynne Tronsdal, Assistant Vice-President for Student Retention and Student Success, Patricia MacCorquodale, Dean of the Honors College, and Kirk Simmons of International Programs. For the rest of this semester, Pat Van Metre, Interim Dean of Extended University, and Gwendolyn Johnson from the area of Teacher Course Evaluations and Survey will report to CIO Sally Jackson. The director of AIC and the director of the Humanities Program report to Beth Mitchneck as those two programs are phased out. The directors of Transfer Curriculum & Articulation, General Education, and Advising are all reporting to Dave Cox. As part of focused excellence, the President and Provost had proposed the elimination of Extended University. Pat Van Metre and Sally Jackson have developed a reorganization plan for Extended University (EU) which will eliminate EU and create an Office of Continuing Education and Academic Outreach that will report to the Vice-provost for Instruction. One significant change that will increase economy and efficiency is that Curriculum and Registration will now handle Summer and Winter Sessions in the same way as Spring and Fall sessions.

3G. President Peter Likins

President Likins commended Chair Jory Hancock on the successful gala opening event at the new Stevie Eller Dance Theatre, which adds a splendid cultural dimension to our campus. In September, the Board of Regents approved a plan to move the Flandreau Science Outreach Center to become a centerpiece of the Rio Nuevo Project in downtown Tucson. The move would significantly expand the University’s outreach, as it would become the University of Arizona Science Center. The University would retain the state-funded operating budget of $.5M and continue to support the center. This move is subject to the city’s approval and funding commitment of $20M and land and the University has to raise $16M in an endowment to run this project. The business plan would permit the science center revenues to pay off the $56M debt service that ABOR will have to borrow. The project would provide outreach to the community, strengthen community-University ties, provide youth with a very visible link to the University, and elevate the quality of life. President Likins also reminded the Senate that the of the $4M set-aside funds that he identified for salary adjustments at the last Senate meeting, $550K was given directly to the Provost to be used for retention, $600K was given to the College of Nursing to increase the number of faculty, pursuant to SB1260 which requires the University to double the number of nursing graduates by 2005, leaving the $2.6M that Provost Davis addressed today.

Senator Silverman asked if the administration plans to identify a certain amount out of the all-funds budget every year. Provost Davis replied that he hopes to make personnel compensation a very high priority by identifying set-aside money very early on in the all-funds budgeting process.

Senator Cusanovich asked whether promotion raises are included in the 2.6M set-aside for salary increase. Provost Davis replied that promotion raises are all managed decentrally, by the deans, and there is no plan for changing that system.

Senator Cusanovich asked how the $56M in debt service for developing the Arizona Science Center at Rio Nuevo would affect our capital construction plan. President Likins replied that this project is in the capital construction plan and that this amount is comfortably below ABOR’s 8% and 10% limits for debt service ratio.

5.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2003

President Likins asked to add the words, "and others" to the eighth sentence of section 5, to read, "For this year, it decided to limit its reach to the vice-presidents and others reporting directly to the President, . ." The minutes of September 8, 2003 were approved as corrected.

6. FIRST READING, INTERIM POLICY ON DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR IN AN INSTRUCTIONAL SETTING (attachment)

Senator Warburton offered a first reading of the Interim Policy on Disruptive Behavior in an Instructional Setting, which has been passed by the Student Affairs Policy Committee. Senator D. Davis said the policy’s instructional rules and decorum and the system of warnings and complaint discouraged him. He said every possible disruptive behavior should be clearly stated in the course syllabus or that infractions could be handled similarly to the Code of Integrity, in which a student receives a sanction, and if s/he does not appeal, the matter ends there. Senator Warburton replied that the Dean of Students needs to document the disruptive behavior and that this policy gives the faculty something to fall back on if they omitted a behavior from their syllabi. Senator Davis believes it would be simpler to include everything in the Code of Conduct. Senator Warburton asked for input to be emailed directly to him at warburto@u.arizona.edu. He also showed the "Arizona Idol" video on disruptive behavior that was shown to all incoming freshmen at orientation this summer.

Senator Jenkins led the Senate in a continued discussion on the "Interim Policy on Threatening Behavior, Draft 4," and a draft cover letter that is to accompany this policy when it is distributed. The Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee reviewed the policy and offered several clarifications of language to the letter and the policy. In the first paragraph of draft letter, a question arose about whether the gender of nursing student responsible for the murders should be identified. In the sentence following the two URL’s, "We write to ask you to be vigilant but reasonable, ." Senator Jenkins suggested changing the conjunction "but" to "and." She also recommended matching the letter and policy language about expulsion of students. In the policy itself, under Prohibited Behavior, the ICPC recommended changing the first and second sentences to read, "Threatening behavior" means any written or oral statement, communication, conduct or gesture, including those in written form, directed toward any member of the University community that causes a reasonable apprehension of physical harm to self, others a person or property. A student shall be in violation of this policy regardless of whether the person who is the object of the threat observes or receives it can be guilty of threatening behavior even if the person who is the object of the threat does not observe or receive it, so long as a reasonable person . . .. Under Procedures for Mandatory Reporting of Threatening Behavior, #3, ICPC recommended changing the sentence to read, You must report the student’s threatening behavior promptly to the Dean of Students Office by filing a Student Code of Conduct Complaint (See ABOR 5-403) Anyone who observes what appears to be threatening behavior should report it to the Dean of Students Office and in the appropriate case, file a Student Code of Conduct Complaint (see ABOR 5-403). Under Procedures for Mandatory Reporting of Threatening Behavior, #4, ICPC recommended changing the sentence to read, If you are an employee, you must also notify your supervisor and the Dean or Department Head of the college or department where the threatening behavior occurred. UA employees who observe what appears to be threatening behavior should also report it to their supervisor or Department Head, who should report it to the Dean. Senator Warburton moved [Motion 2003-04/10] to accept all of these changes. Motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Senators’ comments and questions included the following: 1) Being mindful of the anniversary of the College of Nursing murders this month, it would be preferable to move on this now, rather than bringing another revision back next month. 2) This policy does nothing more than the current code of conduct to increase a faculty member’s feeling of security. 3) A line prohibiting contact between the threatener and the person who has been threatened could be added to the first paragraph of the section on Disciplinary Process about what happens in the 24 hours following the report of threatening behavior to answer this concern. 4) This line could be added to the letter that accompanies the policy. 4) Is there any provision for the Dean of Students Office to respond to the person reporting the threat, if that person is not the object of the threat? UAO’s Steve Adamcyzk responded that because of student privacy laws (FERPA), it would depend on whether that person has a legitimate need to know. Senator Warburton moved [Motion 2003-04/11] to approve the policy as amended today. Motion was seconded and passed unanimously. The Senate thanked Senator Jenkins for her hard work on this policy during the past year.

8. FACULTY GRIEVANCE POLICY

Chair of the Faculty Hancock reported to the Senate about the resolution it passed in last April, about asking the Arizona Faculties Council to join us in asking the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) to change its standard of proof which is "preponderance of the evidence." to match the Faculty Grievance Policy’s proposed revision which uses the higher standard of "clear and convincing." Article IV, Section 2, t of the proposed Bylaws revisions currently reads, "No faculty members should be disciplined unless there is clear and convincing evidence of all facts predicate to the discipline. Otherwise the standard of proof shall be by a preponderance of the evidence." Senator Kiefer reminded the Senate that the Academic Personnel Policy Committee was asked to consider changing our standard back to preponderance of the evidence last spring, and voted unanimously to retain the clear and convincing standard of proof. At the April Senate meeting, Senators passed a resolution asking faculty leaders to take the issue to the Arizona Faculties Council (AFC) to request that our sister institutions consider joining us to ask the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) to consider changing to the higher standard of proof for faculty misconduct. UA faculty leaders did this and the issue was discussed at the two subsequent AFC meetings during the summer. ABOR is bound by the state’s level of proof, which is preponderance of the evidence, so according to the ABOR Policy Manual 6-201 (ABOR-PM), in cases involving dismissal or suspension without pay, the standard is a preponderance of the evidence. The AFC agreed that, while the higher standard would offer additional protection for faculty, it could also work against faculty in cases of a conflict between an administrator and a faculty member. Furthermore, if the clear and convincing standard were required for lesser infractions, it might encourage administrators to apply the greater sanction of suspension without pay or dismissal, because it requires a lower standard of proof. The AFC agreed that while applying a higher standard of proof for lesser infractions is illogical, they were willing to advance the idea to ABOR if there is a precedent for it in Arizona. Chair Hancock consulted with Senator Spece, several other UA law faculty members and the Dean of the College of Law, and asked the faculty leaders from ASU and NAU to consult with their counterparts to find such a precedent. Failing to find a precedent, the Arizona Faculties Council declined to support this change. Secretary Mitchell clarified the AFC’s position, noting that they declined to support the proposal unless there is proof that this is standard practice in a recognized field of jurisprudence, not just cutting edge. Senators’ questions and comments included the following: 1) This is not a matter of Arizona law, but rather a matter of the US Constitution. According to an article published in a peer-reviewed journal, a definite trend exists to apply the clear and convincing standard to professional discipline cases under the US Constitution. 2) The spirit of the Senate’s resolution in April was to convince the AFC to ask ABOR to adopt the higher standard for all cases involving faculty misconduct, as a matter of policy, morality, and Constitutional law. 3) A recent New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) article states that, in scientific misconduct cases, because of the great opportunity for abuse of faculty members, the standard of proof should be clear and convincing. 4) The Arizona State Supreme Court has applied the clear and convincing standard of protection in cases involving professionals who are attorneys. 5) The Faculty Senate should choose to do what’s right for the faculty, because it is evident that the University’s counsel and ABOR’s counsel favor applying minimal protections for faculty, even though this may be unconstitutional. 6) The September 10, 2003 NEJM article entitled "Due Process and Investigations of Research Misconduct" cites case law and policies and should be distributed to the Faculty Senators. 7) Even if no precedent exists, does Arizona state law restrict ABOR from adopting a higher standard of proof? President Likins responded that according to ABOR’s general counsel, ABOR does not have the power to change its standard from preponderance of evidence for cases involving the ultimate sanctions contained in ABOR-PM 6-201, although it could adopt this standard for cases of lesser sanctions. 8) Preponderance of the evidence is the standard used by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and adopting a higher standard would complicate things and may necessitate re-hearing cases at the lower level. 9) Whatever ABOR mandates is not necessarily wise or just. 10) If ABOR felt that the state’s policy is unconstitutional, they could ask the state Attorney General for an opinion. 11) It is sad that our faculty colleagues at ASU and NAU don’t want to be at the cutting edge of protecting faculty rights. 12) NIH standards do not apply to all faculty grievances, and the Office of Research Integrity has said that it is acceptable for institutions to be more protective at the local level. 13) Senators should be urged to read the NEJM article and become educated on this issue and to take a stand on this very important and moral issue. Laura Todd Johnson of the University Attorney’s Office said she has done research on behalf of the UA General Counsel’s Office. She said she couldn’t speak to whether there is a trend developing, and has a differing opinion about whether it is a matter of Constitutional law, but Arizona case law supports the preponderance of evidence standard. It is the Arizona Procedures Act, which supports the preponderance of evidence standard that applies to ABOR-adjudicated hearings. The Arizona State Supreme Court’s ruling applies to attorneys who are at risk of losing their license. In 1996 in the Culpepper case, the Arizona Appeals Court rejected a request to use clear and convincing and upheld preponderance of the evidence as the standard for the case in which a nurse was at risk for losing her license because she was caught cheating on a certification exam. 14) As Senators representing other faculty constituents, we should support clear and convincing because it offers stronger protection for faculty, regardless of what ABOR or the AFC think. 15) The Faculty Senate should speak up for what it believes is morally and Constitutionally right. 16) The University Counsel represents the interests of the administration, not the faculty. It is somewhat unethical for a University attorney to come to a faculty meeting and speak as a faculty advocate, so the information they provide should be taken in that context. 17) The tactic of inserting the higher standard of proof into a faculty grievance policy which must then be vetted by the President and ABOR is not an effective method to raise the standard, because the University counsel and ABOR counsel will simply line it out. The best way to pursue the higher standard is to vote to adopt the ABOR-approved language at this time, while continuing to ask our colleagues at ASU and NAU to join us in taking a motion to ABOR to raise its standard. We could also invite Senator Spece to speak to the AFC. 18) President Likins, speaking as the President and not as a Senator, stated that it is simply illogical to have a higher standard of proof for secondary violations and a lesser standard of proof for the most serious violations, and he cannot go to ABOR and ask them to challenge the constitutionality of Arizona law to see if it would change the standard of proof for the most serious violations involving dismissal or suspension without pay. ABOR simply isn’t going to do that. If this Senate retains the higher standard of proof in this faculty grievance policy, these Bylaws revisions will then go to the entire general faculty for a vote, probably without any mention of the standard imbedded in ABOR or in state law. If the faculty approve the new Bylaws, the President will be obliged to overrule it and he doesn’t want to do that because it creates a confrontation between the President and the entire faculty. He requested the Senate to please accept the standard of proof to be preponderance of the evidence. 19) The faculty is fortunate that they do not have a conflict of interest and that they can do what is right, but they should become educated. Chair Howell said the appropriate materials mentioned today will be made available to educate the Senators and this matter will again be on the agenda in November. Discussion was postponed as time ran out.

9. FACULTY CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS REVISIONS

(Agenda item 9: Faculty Constitution and Bylaws Revisions will be placed on a future agenda.)

10. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM FORWARDED AS A SECONDED MOTION FROM THE INSTRUCTION AND CURRICULUM POLICY COMMITTEE (attachment)

The chair requested that the Senate take up agenda item 10: ICPC Censent Agenda out of order toa allow consideration of this item prior to adjournemnt. Hearing objection, the consent agenda item detailed at the end of these minutes was approved [Motion 2003/04-12].

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:07 p.m.

Robert L. Mitchell, Secretary

Appendix*

1. Interim Policy on Disruptive Behavior in an Instructional Setting.
2. Interim Policy on Threatening Behavior (Draft Revision #4).
3. Draft letter to the Faculty from Saundra Taylor, Vice President for Campus Life, to accompany the Policy on Threatening Behavior, dated October 2003.
4. Consent Agenda item forwarded from the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee.
5. Draft revisions to the Grievance Policies and Procedures for Faculty.
6. Draft revisions: September 3, 2002 to the Constitution and Bylaws of the General Faculty of the University of Arizona.
7. Letter requesting group input dated September 23, 2003 from the Shared Governance Review sub-committee.

*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 6, 2003

Motion 2003/04-10   Seconded motion to accept all of the language clarification changes to Draft #4 of the Interim Policy on Threatening Behavior as detailed in these minutes. Motion carried.

Motion 2003/04-11 Seconded motion to approve Draft #4 of the Interim Policy on Threatening Behavior as amended today. Motion carried.

Motion 2003/04-12 Seconded motion from the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee to approve the name change from the College of Engineering and Mines to the College of Engineering. Motion carried.

BACK

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 11/04/03