The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair of the Faculty Robert P. Mitchell at 3:02 p.m. in the College of Law, Room 168.

Ms. Stephanie Merz, co-chair of the English Graduate Students’ Union, an English Rhetoric and Composition graduate student, and a graduate teaching assistant in the Writing Program, spoke on behalf of the graduate teaching assistants and the Writing Program. The Writing Program employs about 120 English graduate students and is responsible for teaching about 480 writing sections serving 5000-6000 undergraduates per year, not including summers. She distributed a handout indicating that among our ABOR peers, the UA’s Writing Program GTAs have the highest workloads, currently at 2-2, and the highest class sizes, 25 students per section, and are working 9 hours beyond the contracted 20 hours per week. With the current budget situation, she asked that the Faculty Senate and administration keep in mind class sizes for first-year writing classes, which are all in jeopardy.

Senator Silverman reminded the Senate that this weekend (March 6-8), the UA is hosting the national meeting of the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA), which is an alliance of 56 Division 1A university faculty senates whose aim is to promote comprehensive reform of intercollegiate sports. He invited senators to attend any of the events, and primarily two Saturday sessions beginning at 9:00 a.m. in Law 156 which will include Jim Livengood, President Shelton, former UA President Likins, and NCAA Faculty Athletics Representative Jory Hancock discussing integrating intercollegiate athletics into the missions of academic institutions.

President Bruce yielded his time to Senator Michael Slugocki, state-wide Chair of the Arizona Students Association (ASA), who informed the Senate about the efforts of the ASA regarding the budget situation. ASA sponsored an enormous rally for higher education at the state capital several weeks ago and received a great deal of press attention. ASA has also been lobbying individual legislators as well, meeting with Representative Crandall who is chair of the House Education Committee, Speaker of the House Adams, House Minority Leader Lujan, senator Paton, Representatives Heinz, Bedford, Sinema, and others. ASA has also been attending and speaking out on behalf of students at budget hearings in Phoenix, Tempe, Flagstaff, Casa Grande and Tucson, to try to stop the budget cuts to higher education. ASA will have a "lobby day" at the capital this Wednesday and will join the "March for Schools" at 4:00 p.m. that same day. The democratic caucus will hold a budget hearing in the UA’s South Ballroom at 7:00 p.m. this Thursday.

President Bieda yielded his time to GPSC Senator David Talenfeld, who advised senators that graduate students have also been attending lobbying days, budget hearings and rallies and helping to provide more student voices in these events. GPSC is currently seeking applications and nominations for all GPSC offices. Turning his attention to ASUA President Bruce, Senator Talenfeld expressed concerns that GPSC council members felt somewhat marginalized at the large rally in Phoenix. He also expressed concern that there has been a lack of communication in some traditionally co-sponsored events. He extended GPSC’s hand to ASUA President Bruce and his successors, in the spirit of mutual cooperation and respect, and said that GPSC wants to foster and enhance collaboration with ASUA. He asked for support in integrating ASUA/GPSC liaisons to facilitate better communication in the future. Focusing on the budget, Senator Talenfeld said that GPSC has some reservations about recent fee proposals, but recognizes that the majority of the budget cut burdens may fall on the students. Future proposals for reductions will be better accepted, however, if the administrators would include estimates of the minimum funds necessary to maintain current services, as well as projections of the impact of potential future cuts. He thanked President Shelton for his patience and understanding and asked the Senate for its collective mentorship in this ongoing process.

Presiding Officer Robert Mitchell announced that Agenda Item #8 will include a report on some proposed policy changes by the Board of Regents. The Academic Assembly and Faculty Senate at ASU and NAU have already taken a position on these changes, and the UA’s Senate must act today if it wants to present a position at the ABOR meeting next week. The Senate will adjourn at 4:45 to go into Executive Session today to consider one more Honorary Degree. All non-senators will be asked to leave the room at that time. Online voting in the primary faculty election ends at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 5. Presiding Officer Mitchell asked all senators who haven’t yet voted to please log into Employee Link and click on "Vote Now" and to encourage colleagues to vote, too. The election is undersubscribed for Senators-at-Large, so Presiding Officer Mitchell offered an early congratulation to all returning Senators-at-Large. The election was similarly undersubscribed for Committee on Committees and petitions are available March 5. The election was oversubscribed for SPBAC, so the Faculty Bylaws require a run-off election, which will take place March 25-April 7. The Committee on Elections has concluded its special election in the College of Architecture to replace College Representative Senator Ignacio San Martin and Presiding Officer Mitchell formally welcomed Lauri Johnson to the Senate to complete his term. No College of Engineering faculty member put forth a petition to replace recently deceased College Representative Senator Don Davis, so that seat will remain open for the remainder of the term which ends in May 2010.

Provost Hay announced that the new Dean of the UA College of Medicine - Phoenix is Stuart Flynn, who has been serving as Interim Dean since last May. Provost Hay will announce the new Dean for the College of Nursing on March 4, 2009. On Friday, President Shelton will be hosting a "transfer summit" with all of the community colleges’ chancellors and presidents at the request of former Governor Napolitano to open up communication and increase opportunities for transfer students throughout Arizona to come to the UA. Federal bailout is in two parts: one part is coming to the states/governors, and the other piece is going to federal agencies such as NASA, NSF, NIH, and DOE. Provost Hay, Vice President Tolbert and Dean Comrie have assembled "Tiger Teams" to be very aggressive in seeking funding from these federal initiatives. Provost Hay thanked Vice Provost Burd for her leadership in preparing the academic program and transformation proposals for the March 11 ABOR Academic Affairs Committee meeting. She also thanked Chair Howell and the Senate’s Budget and Strategic Planning Committee for working so hard to vet these proposals for closing and disestablishing under-enrolled programs/degrees. ABOR will also be giving permission for the UA’s transformation proposal ideas ranging from the College of Arts, Letters and Sciences to school formations and program mergers. These items will then come to the Faculty Senate, probably in April.

Speaking first about the budget, President Shelton reminded the Senate that the university system has taken significant hits this year and the UA’s share of the FY09 cuts is almost $80M. With the help of leadership in his administration, SPBAC, faculty and student leaders, he has been able to identify funds to close the books on FY09. There are rumors, however that there may be more shortages before June 30, 2009. For FY10, all state agencies including the universities have been asked to identify how they would deal with 5%, 10%, 15% and 20% cuts. President Shelton continues to look for ways to decrease spending and increase revenues for the UA, so as not to put the entire burden on students’ backs. President Shelton and his team are in communication with the governor to encourage her to request Arizona’s portion of the $700B Recovery Act, and for the state to meet the criteria of the "maintenance of efforts" which requires the state funding levels not to fall below 2006 funding levels for K12 and Higher Education. There are also provisions for a waiver, so if the governor needs to, she may apply for a waiver. President Shelton said his position continues to be that the state of Arizona needs a great institution of higher education like the UA, that the UA is part of the solution, not part of the problem, and that the state cannot solve its immediate, much less its long-term budget problems without generating more revenue. President Shelton announced that last week, the UA received $2M gift from the Helios Education Foundation to help fund the Arizona Assurance program. He thanked the student and faculty leaders for their input and asked for a continued open process.

Senator Jull inquired about whether the UA needs a separate dean for the UA COM-Phx. Provost Hay responded that the UA COM-Phx absolutely needs a full-time dean to manage the operations, faculty and curriculum for the 48 students currently enrolled as well as the new class of 48, because Vice President Crist is far too busy overseeing both COM campuses, University Medical Center, University Physician’s Healthcare, UPH-Kino Hospital, and fundraising for the COM.

Senator Tabor asked what the federal funds could do for the universities. President Shelton said there are still a great many unknowns about implementing the federal stimulus package. He indicated that the funds for Higher Education in Arizona would come through the governor’s office. The amount might be as much as $800M and could be used in FY09, FY10, or FY11. He emphasized that this is one-time money, so the strategy is to invest in areas that will keep the UA strong and generate additional funds such as purchasing instrumentation for science laboratories, providing travel funds for non-science faculty, or paying off one-time major bills.

Senator Willerton asked about the differences articulated by several other states’ governors about the federal stimulus funds, and specifically whether Arizona can pick and choose which funds for education to request. President Shelton said he believes that the governors will have a lot of discretion about which funds they will accept. The funding for education, however, is tied together in the act by the "maintenance of effort" requirement.

Senator Antin asked what is the timeline for resolution of the federal stimulus package unknowns. President Shelton reported that Arizona’s congressmen in Washington D.C. have speculated that the guidelines coming from the agencies about how they would distribute these funds might be complete by the end of April.

Senator Strittmatter asked what the UA’s undergraduate enrollment goals are for next year and how many applications have been received. Provost Hay said the goal is to increase undergraduate enrollments by 200, and to increase out-of-state enrollments by as many as possible. In-state applications are up by 800 whereas out-or-state applications are at the same level as they were this time last year. The UA is trying to collect as many commitments and commitment checks as possible, but parents seem to be holding on to the commitment checks as long as possible due to the uncertainty of the economy.

Senator Howell asked about how differential investments will be decided. Provost Hay said that strategic investments will be made in areas that ensure the UA moves forward in a positive direction and maintains its class status, particularly in fields where the UA is at, or near, the top or in areas in which targeted investments would move them into the top tiers. She will be decreasing investments in those areas which the UA simply cannot afford anymore because they are underperforming or under-enrolled. She has a Provost’s Advisory Council on the Sciences and has recently formed a Provost’s Advisory Council on the Humanities and the Arts to help determine upon which disciplines within those fields to focus monies and energies.

Senator Mitchneck asked which Provost’s Advisory Council is addressing the Social Sciences. Provost Hay indicated that she is using the term "sciences" in the plural sense, to include the basic sciences, life sciences, social sciences and health sciences.

Senator McKean asked whether these advisory councils are generating differential criteria by which to judge the disciplines. Provost Hay said that SPBAC’s Strategic Plan outlined nine specific areas on which to focus investments and she has asked for further refinement of those areas to identify certain areas in which to maintain or increase our market share.

The minutes of January 26, 2009 were approved. The minutes of February 2, 2009 were approved.

University Information Technology Services (UITS) Chief Information Officer Michele Norin and Mosaic Project Implementation Director Hank Childers offered a PowerPoint report on the status of the $80-90M MOSAIC Project, which is a massive proposal to replace the University’s major administrative computing systems, launched in August 2008. Norin introduced Kay Beasock, who is the project’s communications manager. MOSAIC will replace UA’s Personnel Services Operating System (PSOS) and Student Information System (SIS), with Oracle Software’s "PeopleSoft Enterprise Campus Solutions." Financial Records System (FRS) and Sponsored Projects Information System (SPINS) will be replaced with an open source product being developed by KUALI. UITS has selected Hobson’s EMT for its student recruitment tool, to go live in May 2009. These new software products will provide a complete environment in which to collect and analyze business intelligence data. This is the first year of a three to five-year project. It is important to realize that the MOSAIC project is not just an Information Technology project; it is a University project that will truly impact everyone: students, faculty and staff. UITS is minimizing customization to keep the costs down. Ms. Norin briefly explained the timing and personnel structure of the project, including the layers of the working groups and advisory councils making recommendations and vetting decisions. The new Human Resources system will go live in October 2009, the financial system in January 2010, the research module will be added over the next several years, and the student information system will be rolled out between February and December 2010. Several units have been identified to help pilot the research module. The MOSAIC website has complete information about the project.

Senators’ questions and comments included: 1) How does the UA compare with our peers and what about the long-term sustainability of this software? Ms. Norin responded that most schools with administrative systems are moving in this same direction and that a few of our peers are in the same situation as the UA, with many of our systems software between 25-30 years old. The PeopleSoft product for HR and SIS are the most popular systems. The KUALI products are relatively new, launched by a consortial approach by Indiana University. UA is an early founding partner in this effort and will be one of the three first schools to implement it. Everyone is confident about these products made by higher education for higher education. Software upgrades have been built into the budget for obsolescence in technology. 2) What will happen to Web Roster and D2L? Ms. Norin explained that the PeopleSoft program will have some portals and dashboards for all the constituents that use it, such as students, faculty and the business entities. The system will be well-integrated so as to be able to navigate directly across systems. 3) Of the $8M build-out costs to maintain these systems, what is the split between software licenses and personnel? Ms. Norin said she didn’t have the exact figures on that breakdown. Mr. Childers added that the combined software/hardware costs will be less than half of that amount, so the dominant expense is in personnel. 4) It isn’t costing that much right now to maintain our current systems, so why will it cost over $4M a year to maintain the new software systems? Ms. Norin explained that administrative systems support personnel will be needed to navigate and monitor the system, make ongoing changes to the system, and generate one-time reports that come out of the system, maintain the data center and servers, make enhancements and manage where the data is stored and how it is manipulated and accessed. Right now, about thirty people are involved in managing the systems, and she estimates twice as many will be needed for the new system. 5) Where is the money coming from for this very expensive project in light of these budget cuts? Ms. Norin explained that the funding for this $80-90M plan was to come from three sources: a $33M loan for implementation, a commitment from the institution to provide some annual one-time money, and a five-year ramp-up schedule for the institution to commit some permanent funding. Given the budget situation, however, she may use the borrowed money up front and defer the institutional commitments to later years. 6) Will efficiencies be gained elsewhere with these new systems? Ms. Norin said productivity gains will come from more automated processes, forms, and tools, and from increased access speed. 7) How will UITS pay for the loan? Ms. Norin explained that she has $3M in set-aside IT funds and will use that money to pay off the loan. 8) How much money will be saved with the new system? Ms. Norin said this is difficult to gauge, but she hopes to learn some of those numbers as the process of implementation proceeds. 9) If you had known two years ago how today’s financial situation would look, is there anything you would have done differently? Ms. Norin explained that because our systems are so old, and because the institution needs modern tools to be able to perform its functions, she would not have done anything differently. 10) Please clarify the number of, and annual cost of, system support personnel. Ms. Norin said she estimates about sixty people will be employed full-time for a cost of $4+M. Ms. Norin offered to bring those projections back to the Senate.

Presiding Officer Mitchell explained that no vote will be called for today on the approval process for academic policies, programs and units. Chair of the Faculty Howell and Undergraduate Council (UGC) Chair and Senator Gehrels led the discussion. Chair Howell explained that she met with Dr. Gehrels, Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee (ICPC) Chair and Senator William Conway, and Parliamentarian Robert Sankey, as well as Curriculum Office personnel Patti King and Celeste Pardee and Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and Senator Gail Burd, to discuss the Faculty Senate’s decision-making process and to help draft the proposed flowchart in Senators’ packets. Dr. Gehrels said the primary question that has been asked of him is why it takes so long to change policies on campus? He further explained that he will be talking about three committees, the University-wide General Education Committee (UWGEC), UGC and ICPC. UGC functions primarily with faculty representatives from each college as well as UA South, ASUA, and administrative and advisory members from the Office of Academic Affairs, the Registrar’s Office, and Enrollment Research as needed. UGC meets monthly and has two standing committees: Academic Policies and Academic Programs, and is establishing a new group to help with policies and approvals of success courses. UWGEC has a similar structure augmented by a representative from the Foundations courses and GPSC, along with administrative/advisory members. UWGEC’s main subcommittee is the Course Evaluation/Course Approval Committee, which determines evaluation and assessment of each Gen Ed course. Another responsibility of the UWGEC is to examine policies for Gen Ed and to review and assess new Gen Ed courses as they are introduced. The ICPC is the Senate’s standing committee for Instruction and Curriculum and is composed of seven faculty members, of which four must be Senators, plus ASUA and GPSC representation. The ICPC reviews the same policies and programs as the UGC and UWGEC. Turning to the flowchart labeled "Approval Process for Academic Policies, Programs and Units," Dr. Gehrels explained that proposals begin with a great deal of faculty input at the individual, department and college levels and are then routed to the VP for Academic Affairs. Some of these proposals go to the UWGEC first, then to the UGC, the Provost’s Management Group, the Associate Deans’ Council, ICPC, Senate Executive Committee, and the Senate. Dr. Gehrels said his point is that there are many different layers of faculty input in almost every step of the approval process, which creates tremendous redundancy and some bouncing back and forth in this process. Dr. Gehrels believes it would be better to conduct a more inclusive and collaborative vetting process in real time. The change to the approval process proposes to remove the UWGEC and ICPC from this approval process, but keep the faculty expertise that exists by adding 3-4 individuals from UWGEC and ICPC to the UGC. A separate Course Approval Committee composed of representatives from every college would be formed to vet undergraduate courses, Gen Ed courses, Success and Foundations courses. Dr. Gehrels believes the efficiency and quality of the approval system would be greatly improved with this change.

Presiding Officer Mitchell called for questions or comments from the floor. Senator McKean asked to read a statement from one of her constituents, Dr. Homer Pettey in Media Arts. In his statement, Dr. Petty admonished the Senate to carefully consider surrendering ANY body of faculty governance in these critical times, and particularly any attempt to reduce the amount of faculty review of the curriculum with the new proposal to eliminate ICPC. Among his arguments for keeping ICPC are that ICPC represents an important vetting committee of UA faculty, who have control of curriculum and instruction on this campus; that ICPC represents a system of checks and balances to larger committees for curriculum and policy, that ICPC is NOT a duplication of efforts of other committees, since by its very nature, it is an oversight committee across both the graduate and undergraduate levels; and that ICPC takes a global view of curriculum and instructional policy for maintaining the standards of the entire University. Presiding Officer Mitchell reminded the Senate that if this proposal is approved by the Senate, it will necessarily involve a change to the Constitution.

Senators’ questions and comments included: 1) Is the Graduate Council (GC) also faculty driven, because ICPC also vets proposals coming from GC. Dr. Gehrels responded that his understanding is that GC is faculty-driven. 2) What would be the composition of UGC under this new proposal? Dr. Gehrels responded that there would be one faculty representative from every college and he would like to try to absorb the faculty members of ICPC and UWGEC. 2) What about student representation on the new committee? UGC currently has two ASUA reps. If the new committee takes over for UWGEC, Dr. Gehrels would add a GPSC representative because of the impact of Gen Ed policies and programs on Graduate Teaching Assistants. 3) What happens to graduate proposals? Dr. Gehrels indicated that Graduate Council would continue to vet these proposals, and that the UGC enjoys a great interaction with GC. 4) ICPC has a very important role and it has been functioning very efficiently. 5) What does ICPC Chair Conway think about this proposal? Senator Conway responded that he shares the concerns regarding the lack of review of Graduate Council proposals. Senator Conway sees the primary difference between UGC and ICPC is that UGC is more departmental and college-oriented, whereas ICPC is more University-oriented. UGC forwarded the Success Course proposal for credit and letter grades indicating that students will not attend or take them seriously if they aren’t for regular grades and credit. When ICPC discussed Success Courses, members determined that the courses do not have academic content and therefore should not be offered for credit towards a degree or receive letter grades. That is the difference in perspectives between UGC and ICPC, and Senator Conway is reluctant to see that perspective eliminated. 6) The College of Humanities provides the majority of Gen Ed and Foundations courses and the Faculty Senate should oppose undermining the Gen Ed curriculum by removing UWGEC. Without a University-wide Committee’s commitment to overseeing Gen Ed and the Foundations courses, there is a potential for weakening the existing Gen Ed structure. Presiding Officer Mitchell announced that this item will return to the Senate agenda for the April 6 meeting.

Strategic Planning and Budget Advisory Committee (SPBAC) Chair Miranda Joseph distributed a document to remind the Senate of SPBAC’s nine identified research and outreach areas of emphasis for strategic priorities. She also reminded Senators of the University’s mission of recruiting, educating and graduating students, and the land grant mission of sharing knowledge with the people of the state of Arizona and beyond. Vice President Tolbert has provided SPBAC with a reduced and more focused list of research priorities: Globalization, Environmental Sustainability, Personalized Healthcare, Space Sciences, and Information Science and Technology. The areas of interdisciplinary humanities, social sciences and fine arts are articulated under "globalization and environmental sustainability." The Provost’s Strategic Advisory Council will be working to determine which disciplines in these areas to protect and invest in. Provost Hay hopes to begin working with this group next week.

Arizona Faculties Council (AFC) Chair J.C. Mutchler has been monitoring an effort to change some of the "Conditions of Faculty Service" in the Arizona Board of Regents Policy Manual, Chapter 6, Section 201. Dr. Mutchler told the Senate that one of the most important changes the ACF has made this year is that the AFC is now actively involved in the ABOR committees. He distributed a summary of the proposed changes of the affected policies. At the last ABOR Human Resources Committee meeting, it was decided to have a vote at the March ABOR meeting for an "Exception," which is a particular class of action, primarily affecting administrators. ASU is driving much of the modification to 2-104 and 2-301, which allows a 90-day notice of layoff in a contractual clause for administrators if there are budget constraints in the coming year. Dr. Mutchler said he understands that each university can make this determination for itself. Changes that are again proposed by ASU to ABOR 6-201, K, which covers the release of tenured or non-tenured faculty if a program is reorganized or closed. The proposed change has generated a request for more time for study from UA and NAU faculty, human resources administrators and university attorneys, because it would alter the normal review processes for the reorganization and closure of units articulated in ABOR 2-204 and 2-301. The faculty of AFC raised a particular question, however, based on ABOR policy 6-201, O, which stipulates how the Conditions of Faculty Service may be changed, namely: "No modifications to these conditions may be considered by the Board prior to consultation with representatives of the faculty senates." Dr. Mutchler noted that none of these proposed changes have come before UA’s or NAU’s Faculty Senates. Finally, he turned to another ASU proposal to separate the tenure-eligible and non tenure-eligible faculty in terms of how their employment is treated. This recommendation could allow the university to give only a 90-day notice of layoff to release these non tenure-eligible faculty in the case of reorganization for programmatic or budgetary reasons. Dr. Mutchler noted, per ABOR 6-201, O, that this recommendation will need to come to the faculty senates before any change to 6-201 can be implemented. NAU has already passed a motion opposing the passage of these changes without faculty vetting; ASU faculty’s standing about these proposals isn’t clear. Dr. Mutchler asked for a motion to oppose the changes to ABOR 2-204 and 2-301, as well as 6-201 and the creation of a new section 6-214 without more time for study and input by the Faculty Senate. Senator Silverman moved [Motion 2008/09-21] "The Faculty Senate of the University of Arizona opposes the passage of the changes to ABOR Policies 2.204 and 2.301, regarding program reorganization that involves the possible release of faculty, as well as the proposed changes to ABOR Policies 6.201 and the creation of 6.214, regarding the separation of tenure eligible and non-tenure eligible faculty, without time for significant study and input by the Faculty Senate, per ABOR Policy 6.201.O which states: "6.201.O-1. A comprehensive review of these conditions shall be undertaken no less frequently than once every five years. This review shall be conducted by a working group that includes representatives of each faculty senate to ensure faculty input in all stages of the review process. 6.201.O-2. No modifications to these conditions may be considered by the Board prior to consultation with representatives of the faculty senates." Motion was seconded. Senators’ questions and comments included: 1) Has the ASU Faculty Senate taken a position on these proposals? Dr. Mutchler said he believes that the ASU Senate’s position on these changes is not unanimous. 2) This proposal would change the very lengthy process of the conditions under which tenured faculty can be let go. Right now, the process applies to both tenured and contract faculty. The proposal is to separate out the contract faculty to make it easier to let them go. Presiding Officer Mitchell clarified that the important issue of this motion is that ABOR is not following its own rules about changing the Conditions of Faculty Service policy without faculty senates’ input. Dr. Mutchler added that neither he nor the AFC are opposed to changing policy, but he believes such changes should be undertaken both thoughtfully and deliberatively. Senator Witte moved [Motion 2008/09-22] to close debate. Motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Motion 2008/09-21 passed unanimously.

The Senate recessed at 4:46 p.m. to go into Executive Session.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:53 p.m.

J.C. Mutchler, Secretary of the Faculty

Pamela S. Bridgmon, Recording Secretary

Motion 2008/09-21 Seconded motion: "The Faculty Senate of the University of Arizona opposes the passage of the changes to ABOR Policies 2.204 and 2.301, regarding program reorganization that involves the possible release of faculty, as well as the proposed changes to ABOR Policies 6.201 and the creation of 6.214, regarding the separation of tenure eligible and non-tenure eligible faculty, without time for significant study and input by the Faculty Senate, per ABOR Policy 6.201.O which states: 6.201.O-1. A comprehensive review of these conditions shall be undertaken no less frequently than once every five years. This review shall be conducted by a working group that includes representatives of each faculty senate to ensure faculty input in all stages of the review process. 6.201.O-2. No modifications to these conditions may be considered by the Board prior to consultation with representatives of the faculty senates." Motion carried.

Motion 2008/09-22 Seconded motion to close debate on Motion 2008/09-21. Motion carried.