|
|
FACULTY SENATE
|
MINUTES
FACULTY SENATE
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA®
Once approved, 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/
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair of the Faculty Robert P. Mitchell at 3:06 p.m. in the College of Law, Room 146.
Present: Senators Aleamoni, Bergsma, Burd, Conway, Cuello, Cusanovich, Dahlgran, A. Davis, D. Davis, O. Davis, Effken, Foley, Green, Hildebrand, Howell, Jones, McKee, Miller, Mitchell, Mitchneck, Mountford, Mutchler, Neish, Nolan, Pavao-Zuckerman, Pintozzi, Sarid, Shelton, Silverman, Slugocki, Smith, Songer, Spece, St. John, Strittmatter, Ulreich and Witte.
Absent: Senators Bruce, Christenson, Engel, Estrada, Garcia, Gruener, Jenkins, Joens, Knutson, Mosher, Ruiz, Sander, San Martin, Schlager, Sterling, Weinand and Willerton.
2. OPEN SESSION
Presiding Officer Mitchell reminded everyone that the maximum number of speakers per session is four and that no discussion is permitted, and no votes allowed. Please note that speakers at the Open Session are expressing their personal opinions, which may not reflect the position of the Faculty Senate. Written statements submitted during Open Session are available from the Faculty Center.
Associate Vice President for Human Resources, Allison Vaillancourt directed Senators’ attention to the second page in the packets which is a document about the Phased Retirement program for Optional Retirement Plan Participants. Ms. Vaillancourt informed the Senate that ABOR did approve this Phased Retirement Program and interested faculty may begin negotiations immediately for implementation on July 1, 2008. She thanked W. Howell and M. Cusanovich for their assistance.
Senator Dror Sarid expressed concern about SB1214, an Arizona senate bill that would allow concealed weapons on school grounds that just passed the Senate’s Judiciary Committee. He encouraged the Faculty Senate to adopt a clear statement to keep our campus a weapon-free zone.
Presiding Officer Mitchell directed Senators’ attention to a packet of information from the Global Health Alliance (GHA), which is a student-driven organization within the Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health that aims to enhance students’ knowledge of how public health functions in a global context. The GHA wants the Senate to be aware of its proposed position statement that border deaths are preventable and unacceptable.
Dr. Ben K Sternberg, Professor, Mining and Geological Engineering, provided Faculty Senators with oral and written arguments for preserving the Geological Engineering program. He asked the Senate to reject the proposal on today’s ICPC Consent Agenda to eliminate the Geological Engineering program on procedural grounds as well as arguing that Geological Engineering is a vital program at the UA.
3. REPORTS
3A. ASUA
Michael Slugocki, an ASUA Arizona Students’ Association Director, spoke on behalf of President Tommy Bruce. He provided an update on proposed textbook legislation to help make college textbooks affordable. The Arizona Students’ Association is still working to improve this bill and convince the legislature to pass it.
GPSC President Catherine Neish advised the Senate that GPSC has been working for over a year on a “Graduate and Professional Student Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.” GPSC is now asking various University committees to vet the document with the hope of it becoming a University policy. It will next go to the Student Affairs Policy Committee and she hopes to bring it to the entire faculty for a vote of approval at some point. GPSC is still seeking nominations for graduate student awards for Graduate Student Appreciation week, which is the last week of March.
Presiding Officer Mitchell indicated that there is a possibility that the
Senate may not be able to complete item 12 on today’s agenda. He reminded
Senators to vote in the current online Faculty election which runs through
March 5 by logging into Employee Link and clicking on “Vote Now.” He thanked
everyone who put his or her name forth for the general faculty Primary
Election that ends Wednesday. Results will be posted this Thursday. He
indicated that petitions are available and due this Wednesday for the second
phase of the Faculty Election for twelve unsubscribed College Representative
seats and one Strategic Planning and Budget Advisory Committee (SPBAC) seat.
“Statement of interest” postcards for the Arizona Board of Regents’
“Coalition for Solutions through Higher Education” are available at the
podium as well.
Provost Sander is in China and Vice Provost J. Mok indicated there is no report from the Provost’s office.
3E. President Robert N. Shelton
President Shelton publicly thanked Vicki Chandler and Melissa Vito for chairing the successful searches for Provost and Vice President for Instruction, and announced that Dr. Meredith Hay will begin as the UA’s Provost on April 30 and Dr. Juan Garcia will begin serving as the Vice President for Instruction and Dean of University College on May 19, pending the Arizona Board of Regents’ approval of these appointments. Turning to the state budget, President Shelton advised the Senate that although the governor issued an executive order for a hiring freeze to all state agencies, the universities are somewhat exempt. The governor has asked the universities to obey the freeze in spirit, so President Shelton has told the deans and department heads to proceed with critical faculty hires at this time but to keep in mind that another budget cut is likely FY09. For the FY08 shortfall, the chairs of the appropriations committees started out recommending a 10% cut for the universities, but that has been negotiated down to about 2.5% or about $10 M for UA. The governor is making every effort to hold the universities harmless this year, and to minimize the cuts for ’09.
4. QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD FOR AGENDA ITEM 3
Senator Effken asked President Shelton whether the hiring freeze applies to promotions. President Shelton said he does not expect to receive any directions from the Regents that would limit our ability to continue making promotions.
Senator Dahlgran asked President Shelton whether the University has an official position on the legislation regarding allowing weapons on campus and how it is expressed. President Shelton said for the record that he opposes this bill and believes such a move would be an absolute disaster. He hopes the Regents will adopt a position on this issue for the whole system and express it to the legislature.
5. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 28 AND FEBRUARY 4, 2008
The minutes of January 28 and February 4, 2008 were approved.
6. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: RPC RESOLUTION REGARDING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SECURITY POLICY (attachments)
Research Policy Committee (RPC) Chair Mike
Cusanovich directed Senators’ attention to the RPC’s Resolution to support
implementation of the proposed Information Technology Security Policy which
comes as a seconded motion [Motion 2007/08-37]. Chair Cusanovich commented
that there are a lot of reasons for the University to have an information
technology security policy, not the least of which is the risk of another
hacking incident. The RPC believes this policy is reasonable, but
complicated. RPC had major discussions on this subject regarding two
significant problems: 1) the actual guidelines are incredibly technical and
difficult to understand for non-technical personnel and 2) it will
inherently cause difficulties in some areas that are not heavily populated
with technical expertise or that have equipment that is not the most
amenable to meeting the security requirements. As Senate approval is not
required for this policy, RPC recommended endorsing the resolution to
support implementation with provisos for the central administration to
provide resources for departments that lack the capabilities and resources
to comply. Chief Information Officer (CIO) and University Information
Technology Services (UITS) Director M. Norin has assured the RPC that her
staff will be flexible in implementation. RPC also recommended a faculty
advisory committee to review and make recommendations concerning future
changes to the IT Security Policy to avoid undue burdens on the departments.
Senator Aleamoni questioned the apparent dissonance in the policy’s Section
VI, Recourse for Non-Compliance, between remedial and punitive actions for
non-compliance. Chair Cusanovich said the RPC’s understanding is that UITS
will work with people to bring their workstations into compliance but if
they persist in non-compliance, they will be removed from the University’s
network. Discussion ensued about the vagueness of the description regarding
what is or is not subject to more stringent sanctions. Sylvia Johnson, the
University Information Security Officer (UISO), explained that it is
difficult to be specific in these situations because they must be handled on
a case-by-case basis. If a person is using a University computer to engage
in criminal activities, the sanctions may not begin with remedial action.;
however, as a state entity, all employees enjoy the right of due process and
those safeguards and protections are in place, she assured. Senator Green
expressed confusion about the majority of the document which deals with
jeopardizing the security of our computer system, and the final statement
which seems to switch the topic to the illegal use of computers. Illegal
activity is an entirely different issue and doesn’t seem to belong in this
section or policy. UISO Johnson acknowledged the validity of this point.
Senator Silverman moved [Motion 2007/08-38] to amend the RPC Resolution
Recommendation #3 to read, “A faculty advisory committee should shall
be appointed by the Faculty Chair, . . .” Motion was seconded and passed.
Senator Slugocki questioned whether students’ downloading music is a breach
of the security. UISO Johnson commented that such actions are not a breach
of the University’s computer security, but rather that it is a breach of
copyright law. She added that the universities enjoy more latitude regarding
computer use than do other state agencies. Senator Foley suggested that UITS
take Senator Green’s suggestions seriously and that this policy should stick
to security issues. If UITS wants a policy about illegal activities, it
should be in a separate document. Senator Foley moved [Motion 2007/08-39] to
add a fourth recommendation to the RPC’s Resolution to delete the last
sentence of the policy’s section VI which reads, “Violations of this policy
may result in loss of data access privileges, administrative sanctions, and
personal or criminal liability.” Motion was seconded. President Shelton
spoke in favor of keeping the existing language in the interest of full
disclosure of what could happen. Senator Burd called the question [Motion
2007/08-40]. Motion was seconded and passed. Motion 2007/08-39 failed
16-17-0. Motion 2007/08-37 passed unanimously.
7. INFORMATION ITEM: LONG TERM CARE OFFERING (attachment)
Human Resource Compensation and Benefits Director Linda Charlip thanked Vice Chair Mitchell and Senator Aleamoni for serving on the committee to help select a vendor and vet the plans for University employee long term care insurance. The vendor, Prudential Company, is a financially sound company that has been in business for over 180 years, and has offered long-term care insurance since 1986. It is one of the top three or four long-term care insurance providers in the U.S. She explained that this benefit is purchased by each individual under a group program, and may be kept as long as the premiums are kept up to date, even if an employee leaves the UA. The benefit does not have an annual Open Enrollment period; it may be purchased anytime, but for three weeks beginning today, UA employees are guaranteed acceptance without any medical underwriting questions, and spouses up to age 65 may be accepted with a limited medical questionnaire. The plan is also available to extended family members including parents and children. HR has scheduled numerous information meetings through the month of March, and PowerPoint “Webinars” and applications are available online. This is a very rich plan that offers the flexibility of fifteen different options plus a premium refund death benefit for untimely death under age 65 prior to using the benefit.
8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA FORWARDED AS A SECONDED MOTION BY THE INSTRUCTION AND CURRICULUM POLICY COMMITTEE (attachment)
Presiding officer Mitchell advised the Senate that the consent agenda items forwarded by the ICPC and detailed at the end of these minutes come as seconded motions [Motion 2007/08-41 and 2007/08-42]. Motion 2007/08-41 passed.
Senator Foley requested to remove Item 2, the proposal to disestablish the Bachelor of Science in Geological Engineering, and questioned whether the existing “Reorganization Procedures at the University of Arizona” are applicable to this situation which involves the disestablishment of a degree program and the reassignment of the two faculty members who provide the teaching for that degree. ICPC Chair W. Conway recognized College of Engineering Dean Thomas Peterson, Associate Dean Jeff Goldberg and Department of Geological and Mining Engineering Head Mary Poulton in the gallery. Dean Peterson explained that all of the concerns and issues raised by Dr. Sternberg in the Open Session have been brought up and addressed at each level of the various vetting and approval processes. He stated that this is not a proposal to eliminate faculty. There is still a graduate program in Mining and Geological Engineering and there will be opportunities for the affected faculty to be involved in the teaching of that program, as well as in programs in the undergraduate curriculum that involve their areas of geotechnical and geological engineering, depending on enrollments. The College of Engineering has eight departments, he explained, and both Mining and Geological Engineering are in a single department and both require accreditation. Geological Engineering is by far the smallest department and the degree differs from Mining Engineering by fewer than five courses. This proposal is simply a means to consolidate the programs while effectively offering the same curriculum to students. Senator Mitchneck asked whether faculty would be reassigned. Dean Peterson answered that the proposal is totally unrelated to personnel; that is not to say that personnel issues don’t exist, but that they are not connected to this proposal. Senator Jones asked what reorganization procedures were applied. Dean Peterson explained that the proposal originated in the department and then went to the College of Engineering’s Undergraduate Studies Committee, which has representation from every department and where the proposal was approved without objection. The proposal then went to the University’s Undergraduate Council and its Academic Programs Subcommittee where it was approved and then moved on to the Provost’s Office and the Faculty Senate. He said that the arguments presented by Dr. Sternberg in support of the program do not pertain to this proposal; they were in response to the 2002-03 “focused excellence” proposal to dis-establish about sixteen programs University-wide, all of which ultimately failed.
Senator Foley agreed that the curricular portion of this proposal has been properly vetted at every stage, but the issue that has not been addressed is the reassignment of faculty or the attempt to eliminate two faculty members. Senator Songer questioned what is gained by eliminating this program? Dean Peterson explained that the college has eighteen programs, fourteen of which are formally accredited. The College ranks third in the number of accredited engineering programs in the U.S. There is some logic in offering the same programs in a combined way that lowers the overhead of the accreditation process. The college graduates about 400-450 bachelor’s degrees per year and fewer than ten or twenty are in geological engineering. Combining the programs in mining engineering makes sense programmatically, administratively, and financially. Senator Witte moved [Motion 2007/08-43] to postpone this item to the April Senate meeting to allow time to understand the contested issues and to allow time to gather additional information on the value of this action versus the downside of how tenured faculty are being affected and how this proposal fits with the streamlined reorganization procedure on today’s agenda. Motion was seconded. ICPC Chair Conway said his understanding was that the two affected faculty members have joint appointments. Associate Dean Goldberg explained that they are administratively assigned to the Department of Materials Science Engineering at this time. Senator D. Davis recommended voting against the motion to postpone because the proposal has been properly vetted all along the way. Senator Foley remarked that postponing this proposal might prevent it from moving up to the Board of Regents in a timely manner. Motion 2007/08-43 to postpone action on motion 2007/08-42 failed 7-22-0. Senator Foley asked for assurance that there is no intent to eliminate two tenured faculty members who are invested in this program. These faculty members are disappointed and angry, he said, and they need help and reassurance because they don’t know where they’ll be placed. Dean Peterson replied that he took offense at the request. He said there are processes for dealing with challenges to faculty performance and he and any administrator have every right to follow that process for any faculty member, whether that faculty member is involved in a reorganization or not. He added that this question is totally irrelevant. Senator Foley apologized for the question and thanked Dean Peterson for his explanation.
Presiding Officer Mitchell recognized Dr. Sternberg. Dr. Sternberg informed the Senate that he was able to obtain the Undergraduate Council minutes through the Public Records Act. The Undergraduate Council minutes report that, “Dean Goldberg said it was being looked into to remove me to Electrical Engineering, which will not be a possibility, and to remove Dr. Kulatilake to Civil Engineering.” Associate Dean Goldberg clarified that question posed to him in the Undergraduate Council was, “Does the college have any alternatives for these two faculty members if this program goes away?” He said the college’s motivation was and is 100% teaching load. This is a 140-credit hour per year program and the college cannot afford to devote two full-time faculty members to teaching this venture. He told the Undergraduate Council that Dr. Sternberg has a joint appointment in Electrical Engineering—there could be opportunities there, and Dr. Kulatilake has expressed a desire to move to Civil Engineering—there could be opportunities there. Presiding Officer Mitchell reminded the Senate to focus on the curricular issue. Senator Mitchneck expressed concern with discussing personnel issues within the context of the Faculty Senate meeting. Such discussions belong in the offices of the Dean and the Provost, she said. She asked that the Senate separate the curricular from the personnel issues and vote on the curricular issues. Senator Mountford called the question [Motion 2007/08-44]. Motion was seconded and carried 33-2-0. Motion 2007/08-42 passed 25-3-4.
9. APPROVAL OF ICPC NON-CONSENT AGENDA ITEM (attachment)
Presiding Officer Mitchell advised the Senate that the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee is returning the seconded motion [Motion 2007/08-27] to approve “Policies and Guidelines for Individual Studies Courses” that was postponed at the request of Senator Mountford. ICPC Chair Conway indicated that an incorrect version of this document had gone out to Senators and that 900-level courses have been removed and are not affected by this policy. Motion passed with one abstention.
10. ICPC INFORMATION ITEM (attachment)
ICPC Chair Conway called Senators’ attention to three policy clarifications: the Advanced Placement (AP) Policy, the College-Level Examination Program (CLEP) Policy, and the International Baccalaureate (IB) Policy. Some students mistakenly believe that the UA offers the Advanced Placement exams, which is not true, or that they sometimes request to use a different AP table than the one for the year they took the exam, which is not allowed. The same clarification is offered for the CLEP and IB exams.
11. INFORMATION ITEM: ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS REPLACEMENT PROPOSAL (attachment)
Presiding Officer Mitchell invited Chief Information Officer (CIO) Michele Norin to the podium. Ms. Norin explained that she is here to inform the Senate and invite comment on a proposal to replace the University’s extremely old administrative software systems including those that manage payroll, student information, financial services, grants management, etc. The Personnel Services Operating System is thirty years old and is becoming impossible to maintain or change to fit simple business needs of today, such as adding benefits or new accounts. She and her staff recommend replacing the financial and grants management systems with KUALI, and the student and human resources systems with PeopleSoft over a five-year period at a cost of $80-90M. Infrastructural issues and implementing standard analysis and reporting tools are also included in the scope of this proposal. She would like to take a loan to address most of the costs of implementation. These systems have reached a critical stage and to not address them is a bigger risk than the cost of replacement. This proposal has been reviewed by the Cabinet, the President, and the President’s financial advisors and will next move to the Board of Regents for its approval. Senators’ questions and comments included: 1) Are these new systems better than developing our own turnkey systems? CIO Norin responded that these are products that can be pulled off the shelf and implemented. UITS will only have to develop the interfacing pieces to connect these systems to provide information flow between them. 2) How will this be paid for if a loan isn’t available? CIO Norin responded that she is pretty certain she can get a loan. 3) Ninety million dollars is a lot of money; has the team received any technological external guidance? CIO Norin responded that the Board of Regents has provided a great deal of guidance, and her team has evaluated the UA’s peers. The UA’s sister schools as well as most of our peer institutions have already replaced their systems with PeopleSoft. She confirmed that external consulting will certainly be used in the implementation process. 4) Will increased contact with Oracle Corporation have consequences for other systems we use, like “Desire2Learn (D2L)?” Will it create more lawsuits? CIO Norin wasn’t sure of the impact of lawsuits, but Oracle is building the interfaces between course management systems and PeopleSoft. While Oracle has been proprietary in the past, it has realized that it needs to take a new direction and is opening up its standards to allow for other pieces to snap in. 5) What does this budget include? CIO Norin responded that it includes everything: new servers, hardware, software, consulting, permanent staff, training and all the pieces needed to implement the new systems. 6) What was the result of ASU’s recent replacement experience? ASU replaced its HR and student systems in an eighteen-month period. Struggles with their payroll system were not related to PeopleSoft, but rather from changing key business rules, like shifting from 24 to 26 pay periods. 7) Will PeopleSoft help with electronic transmission of transcripts from high schools and community colleges? This may be possible and discussions are ongoing. 8) What is the annual payment on a loan or debt service as this evolves? CIO Norin explained that the funding requires three pieces: a $33M loan to be paid back with a $3M payment over 15 years; a $10M annual increment increase to UITS’ permanent budget; 3) an additional $10-20M in one-time money. 9) Where will the $10M annual increment come from? CIO Norin responded that there is a recognition that the entire University will need to share in providing this funding. President Shelton thanked M. Norin for a very thorough analysis. He remarked that over the past decade, a persistent topic at the AAU Provosts’ meetings has been how to modernize campus systems. The numbers are always staggering but a number of primarily public universities spent much more than this in the early days of PeopleSoft or competitors’ systems. Fortunately for UA, a lot of the kinks have been worked out by universities that have already implemented the newer systems. The UA has ignored this situation much too long; we cannot afford to have payroll, HR, accounting, or grants management systems to crash. UA has to come into the 21st century. 8) When will implementation begin? CIO Norin indicated that her implementation target is to begin July 08.
12. FIRST READING AND POSSIBLE ACTION: REVISED REORGANIZATION PROCEDURES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA (attachment)
Presiding Officer Mitchell advised the Senate that the revised
“Reorganization Procedures at the University of Arizona” comes as a seconded
motion [Motion 2007/08-45] from the Senate Executive Committee. He described
that the original was written in the 1980’s and modified in the 90’s and
again in 2002. Provost Sander believed it was time for another revision and
he began by working within shared governance to develop a more streamlined
version. The Provost provided a draft revision to Chair of the Faculty
Howell, SPBAC Chair Joseph and Vice Provost Mok who worked on it and then
brought it to the Senate Executive Committee. Several members of the Senate
Executive Committee met a week ago to suggest further revisions, which
resulted in the document in Senators’ packets today. Then on Wednesday of
last week, SPBAC met and made further suggestions about modifying this
document. SPBAC Chair described the changes from SPBAC: 1) to clarify which
administrators (such as deans, department heads and directors) of the units
affected must be involved in developing a proposal; 2) to require (rather
than expect) the advisory committee review process if a majority of the
affected general faculty oppose the proposal; and 3) to increase the role of
the Faculty Senate in the membership of the advisory committee. SPBAC made
the following change: instead of “Three members appointed by the President.
. ,” it reads, “Three members of the Faculty Senate appointed by agreement
of the Provost and the Faculty Senate Executive Committee.” A final change
calls for the designees from ASUA, GPSC, SAC and APAC to be selected by
those bodies. SPBAC did approve the revised version with these changes.
Presiding Officer Mitchell will defer additional discussion until the next
meeting. Vice Provost Mok shared that, from Provost Sander’s perspective,
there is a presumption that the hard work and substantive conversations of a
proposed reorganization will take place at a preliminary level well before a
proposal would ever reach this procedure. Motion was not acted upon.
13. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:03 p.m.
J.C. Mutchler, Secretary of the Faculty-elect
Pamela S. Bridgmon, Recording Secretary
1. Phased Retirement Program for Optional Retirement Plan Participants from Human Resources, dated February 12, 2008
2. Undated Proposed Position Statement on Border Deaths and Chronology of Border Deaths Position Statement from the Global Health Alliance
3. Memorandum from Dr. Ben. K. Sternberg to Faculty Senate re: Proposed Elimination of the Geological Engineering Program, dated 3-1-08
4. Research Policy Committee Resolution supporting implementation of the proposed Information Security Policy with the recommendations provided, dated January 26, 2008
5. Information Security Policy number IS-100 dated 8/8/07 from the Office of Information Security
6. Long Term Care Insurance information sheet from Human Resources dated February 12, 2008
7. ICPC Consent Agenda
8. ICPC Non-Consent Agenda: Approval of policies and guidelines for Individual Studies Courses
9. ICPC Information Item: Clarification of the Advanced Placement (AP) Policy
10. ICPC Information Item: Clarification of the College-Level Examination Program (CLEP) Policy
11. ICPC Information Item: Clarification of the International Baccalaureate (IB) Policy
12. Enterprise Systems Replacement Proposal dated February 17, 2008, Executive Sponsor: Michele Norin
13. Reorganization Procedures at the University of Arizona draft revision 2-25-08 Clean Copy
14. Reorganization Procedures at the University of Arizona draft revision 2-25-08 with changes shown
15. Two overheads of SPBAC revisions to Reorganization Procedures at the University of Arizona draft revision 2-25-08
16. Memorandum from Provost Sander on Instructional Accountability and Responsibility Pprocess dated November 2, 2007 and “Provost’s Plan for a New UA Management Process”
17. Notice of the second phase of the Spring 2008 General Faculty elections, dated February 20, 2008
*Copies of material listed in the Appendix are attached to the original minutes and are on file in the Faculty Center.
Motion 2007/08-37 Seconded motion from Research Policy Committee: Resolution to support implementation of the proposed Information Security Policy but with the recommendations provided. Motion carried.
Motion 2007/08-38
Seconded motion to amend the third recommendation to read: “A faculty
advisory committee should shall be appointed by the Faculty Chair,”
Motion carried.
Motion 2007/08-39 Seconded motion to add a fourth recommendation to the RPC’s Resolution to strike the last sentence of the policy’s section VI which reads, “Violations of this policy may result in loss of data access privileges, administrative sanctions, and personal or criminal liability.” Motion failed.
Motion 2007/08-40 Seconded motion to end debate on the motion 2007/08-33. Motion carried.
Motion 2007/08-41 Seconded motion from the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee to approve a Bachelor of Sciences degree with a major in Geography. Motion carried.
Motion 2007/08-42 Seconded motion from the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee to approve disestablishing the Bachelor of Science in Geological Engineering. Motion carried.
Motion 2007/08-43 Seconded motion to postpone action on Motion 2007/08-42. Motion failed.
Motion 2007/08-44 Seconded motion to end debate on Motion 2007/08-42. Motion carried.
Motion 2007/08-27 Returning postponed seconded motion from the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee to approve “Policies and Guidelines for Individual Studies courses.” Motion carried.
Motion 2007/08-45 Seconded motion from the Senate Executive Committee to approve the revised reorganization Procedures at the University of Arizona. Motion not acted upon.
The University of Arizona Faculty Center
facsen@u.arizona.edu
last updated
07/02/08