The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair and Presiding Officer Jory Hancock at 3:05 p.m. in the Center for Creative Photography Auditorium.

Present: Senators Aleamoni, Armstrong, Auxier, Becker, Bickel, Caldwell, Dahlgran, D. Davis, T. Davis, DeYoung, Garrard, Graff, Hancock, Hartman, Hogle, Houtkooper, Howell, Hurt, Ivey, Jenkins, Joens, Kidd, Kosta, Larson, Likins, Marchalonis, Merkle, Mishra, Mitchell, O’Brien, Parsons, Pitt, Powell, Schooley, Sheridan, Silverman, Smith, Spece, Sypherd, Tal, Walsh, Warburton, Warnock, Weinand, and Witte. Robert Sankey served as Parliamentarian.

Absent: Senators Benson, Grant, Gruener, Impey, Kurzer, Medine, Pepper, Perches, Quinn, Regan, Romer, Szilagyi, Taren, and Zwolinski.

2. OPEN SESSION

Senator Spece – Statement of concern regarding General Counsel’s interference with faculty governance at The University of Arizona.

3A. ASUA President Benjamin Graff

Senator Graff recounted his ASUA involvement in UA Student Government. He has served as a freshman volunteer under Gilbert Davidson’s presidency, as an ASUA senator in 1998-99 and as the ASUA executive vice-president in 1999-2000. He has just been inaugurated as ASUA’s president for 2000-2001. He is anticipating a wonderful year working with students, faculty, administration, and the state, and promises to keep the Senate informed of ASUA’s activities this year.

3B. GPSC President Jason Auxier

Senator Auxier announced the GPSC’s newly elected officers: administrative vice president Jonathan Hartman, executive vice president Kameha Kidd, and treasurer Kelly LeFevre. GPSC is planning graduate student orientation to be held on August 18. Initial preparations for Student Showcase to be held during homecoming have begun and the showcase director will be soliciting financial contributions from departments and colleges in June. The T.A. Workload Task Force has decided to withhold its report until the data collection and analysis are complete. Senator Auxier thanked the Senate for including the GPSC’s participation in shared governance.

3D. Secretary of the Faculty Wanda Howell

No report.

3E. Chair of the Faculty Jerrold Hogle (attachment)

Chair Hogle welcomed all of the new senators for the year 2000-2001 and expressed his gratitude to Wanda Howell and Jory Hancock for agreeing to run for Secretary and Vice Chair of the Faculty this next year. He is happily anticipating working with the new ASUA and GPSC presidents too. The Chair of the Faculty represents the faculty to the administration as well as such organizations as the Alumni Association, the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR), and the Arizona Faculties Council (AFC). The elected faculty officers from each university as well as members from each of the branch campuses serve on the AFC. ABOR has asked the AFC to work with them toward improving and facilitating the environment for learner-centered education. Over the past year, a team of regents and AFC members have been working together and have generated some recommendations for change to encourage an environment that is supportive of learner-centered education. Referring to attachments included in Senator’s packets, Chair Hogle described the team’s proposed draft of a revision of the system mission statement and a strategic direction. He invited Senators’ comments and concerns about the proposed revision. Turning to legislative matters, Chair Hogle reported on the status of legislative bills affecting higher education in Arizona, noting that SB1404 (1% merit raise for all state employees) did not pass. Governor Hull has proposed a .6% sales tax increase to generate additional funding for education in Arizona. The university system would receive 12% of the funds or about $45 million. The governor hopes to have the initiative placed on the November ballot as a referendum. The handout entitled "November 2000: A Chance to Improve Education in Arizona," was composed by Charlene Ledet, the UA’s legislative liaison in Phoenix. It describes a three-pronged effort that many people believe is necessary to improve education in Arizona: 1) to encourage good candidates outside Pima County to run for the legislature, 2) to support the governor’s sales tax initiative, and 3) to beat back the initiative to eliminate the state income tax. Acknowledging that this is Provost Sypherd’s last meeting with the Faculty Senate, Chair Hogle thanked Dr. Sypherd for his leadership, honesty, and accessibility in the past decade of enormous improvements at The University of Arizona. Chair Hogle presented retiring Parliamentarian Robert Sankey with a 1973 version of Robert’s Rules of Order and a plaque and gavel noting his twenty-seven years of dedicated service to the Faculty Senate, for which many groups of Senators are grateful.

Provost Sypherd reflected upon his past seven and a half years as provost. When he arrived in January ’93, he discovered that The University had no money, that parents, students, and regents were angry at the University, and that state legislators were questioning tenure, faculty workloads, and even the budget. He was faced with the challenge of re-allocating $72 million in the past decade, as compared to the $7 million total value of decision packages in that same time frame. Without sacrificing the University’s research mission, expenditures, or rankings, the undergraduate experience has been improved with increased class availability, classrooms equipped for technology, ranked faculty involved in lower-division teaching, and there has been greater participation of undergraduates in research. The advent of shared governance was another milestone and Provost Sypherd thanked former Chair of the Faculty John Schwarz for bringing co-governance in its present form to The University of Arizona, and current Chair of the Faculty Jerry Hogle for implementing it so effectively. Provost Sypherd is pleased to be rejoining the faculty.

3G. President Peter Likins

President Likins gratefully acknowledged Provost Sypherd’s contributions and welcomed the new leaders in faculty and student governance. He praised the great strides the University community has made in shared governance and recommitted himself to making it work at all levels. In matters of policy and real substance, he reiterated his first obligation is to consult with all relevant parties prior to a decision, then to decide, and finally to explain, if the decision is not in concert with the advice he received.

QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD

Senator Silverman inquired about the procedure by which the Arizona Faculties Council decides whether or not to support a legislative bill. Chair Hogle explained that all AFC members ask their faculties for input before taking a position on a bill. Senator Silverman also inquired and Chair Hogle confirmed that the governor’s proposed sales tax increase would be in addition to the general fund allocation for education.

Chair Hogle thanked the chairs of the Senate Standing Committees for the annual reports and their service to the faculty this year.

The minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting on April 3, 2000 were approved.

ELECTIONS FOR COMMITTEE ON CONCILIATION, UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON ETHICS AND COMMITMENT, UNIVERSITY HEARING BOARD, SHARED GOVERNANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE, AND 2000-02 FACULTY SENATE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE FACULTY SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (Attachment)

Votes were cast using written ballots. Secretary Howell and Parliamentarian Sankey served as tellers. Senator Sheridan asked about the tenure qualification for Committee on Conciliation and after consulting the Faculty Constitution and Bylaws, Parliamentarian Sankey declared assistant professor D. Ortiz ineligible to run for this committee. Secretary Howell and Parliamentarian Sankey tallied the ballots. Within the General Faculty Bylaws, those elected were:

Committee on Conciliation

Alfred W. Kaszniak

Julie A. Plax

Dianne J. Winslow

University Committee on Ethics and Commitment

Richard Friedman

J. Glenn Songer

John Prince

Mary Holcomb

University Hearing Board

Judith A. Berg

Molly Childers-Kimball

Philip Keller

Shitala Mishra

Nanalee Raphael

Michael Riggs

Shared Governance Review Committee

Shitala Mishra

Jeffrey Warburton

Faculty Senate Executive Committee Representative

Larry C. Schooley

Consent agenda items 1-4 detailed at the end of these minutes were approved. [Motions 2000/01-1-4] Senator Walsh requested to remove consent agenda item 5, [Motion 2000/01-5] the College of Agriculture name change to College of Agriculture and Life Sciences from the consent agenda. Speaking against the motion, Senator Walsh proposed that the name be changed to the College of Agriculture and Applied Life Sciences, which would distinguish it from the Colleges of Science and of Medicine which contain some of the strongest life science departments on campus such as Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Microbiology, Biochemistry, and Molecular and Cellular Biology. Emphasizing that these departments teach the bulk of all pre-med life science courses, Senator Walsh expressed concern that "agriculture" might become synonymous in usage with "life science" and that people might not realize that life sciences are taught elsewhere on campus. Vice Chair Hancock asked for someone to speak in support of the motion. Provost Sypherd reminded the Senate that this motion has been brought to the Senate previously and failed. He expressed his belief that this name change has been earned by the College of Agriculture and shared that it has passed every other level of The University including the Dean’s Council, unanimously. Moreover, at other universities where this title has been used, it has not detracted at all from the biology that is conducted in science, medicine, or veterinary medicine. Senator Witte raised a point of order regarding the unfamiliar parliamentary procedure of asking the body for a supporting statement. Parliamentarian Sankey clarified that the sponsor of a motion has the first right to speak in behalf of the motion. In this instance, an opposing party spoke first, so the Vice Chair called for a supporting statement next. Senator Witte spoke in opposition and proposed Agricultural Life Sciences as an alternative name. Other arguments both pro and con included: 1) the considerable confusion created by the already numerous references to life sciences on campus, 2) some of the curriculum in the College of Agriculture is very theoretical and not applied, 3) many students from the Department of Veterinary Science and Microbiology are discriminated against when they apply to medical school because their degree is from the College of Agriculture and many of those students do go on to medical school, 4) Senator T. Davis of the College of Medicine graduated from a College of Agriculture. Senator O’Brien moved [Motion 2000/01-6] to close debate and called for the question on the motion to change the name of College of Agriculture to the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Motion to close debate passed unanimously. Original motion carried.

Dr. Miller, who also serves as the President of the Association of Women Faculty, introduced Dr. Mary Poulton, the former chair of the Commission on the Status of Women. Dr. Poulton who is attending in place of Dr. Dinnerstein who was unable to attend due to a conflict with her teaching schedule. Dr. Miller urged senators to be part of a Faculty Senate Discussion Group on Friday, May 5 at 9:30 a.m. in Douglass 102. Dr. Poulton presented a history and an overview of the Millennium Project, a project for enhancing campus climate for academic excellence. She noted that the Commission on the Status of Women has not been entirely successful in solving some of the obstacles and problems of women in academia. The project has national significance, includes campus, local community and national members, and is gathering and analyzing data on workload, salary, hiring, promotion, and retention rates for faculty. Senators are invited to participate in the project’s discussion and focus groups. The Millennium Project Office can be contacted at 626-8383, or by e-mail at millen@u.arizona.edu.

9. FURTHER DISCUSSION ON GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES REVISIONS – SENATOR LARSON, CHAIR, APPC AND SENATOR CALDWELL, CHAIR, COMMITTEEE OF ELEVEN (attachment)

Senator Caldwell provided an overview of the grievance procedure revisions, beginning in 1996 with the Chair of CAFT’s Annual Report, and then followed by the involvement of Committee of Eleven and the Academic Personnel Policy Committee. In developing the revisions, the Committee of Eleven consulted with numerous campus stakeholders such as the Vice Provost for Academic Personnel, the General Counsel, the Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action, the Ombudsperson Committee, the Committee on Conciliation, the Committee on Ethics and Commitment, the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure, and the Academic Personnel Policy Committee as well as ASU, NAU, and other universities. Senator Larson invited senators to view the proposed policy on the web at http://w3fp.arizona.edu/senate/prop%20policy.html during the summer and fall to review and to offer comments and suggestions to the Faculty Center. He explained that the revisions provide for a clearinghouse committee to assign the cases to one of two 6-member committees, one for dismissal, suspension, and academic freedom issues, and another for salary, facility or personnel disputes. In accordance with the recent Arizona State Supreme Court ruling, attorneys will be allowed to actively represent participants at hearings. Conciliation and the Ombudsperson Committees will remain the same but may receive additional training in faculty issues. The structure for the policy and committees is described in a short Bylaw, whereas the Policy and Procedures are to be included in the Policy Manual. Comments, questions, and answers included the following: 1) Is the Clearinghouse Committee’s assignment final? The assignment can be appealed, and in the case of a question about assignment due to topic, the case goes to the higher level. 2) The role of University attorneys to be advising the drafting committee drafting seems conflicted; the committee should have a faculty advocate advising it as well. The drafting committee consulted CAFT, Conciliation, Affirmative Action, and Ombuds, drafted three iterations and between each iteration consulted with the APPC. 3) The rights and structure of the two grievance committees are identical. 4) Even though this is a second reading, the new Senate may not be ready to vote on this policy early in the Fall. APPC will bring forward a new draft for a first reading in the fall. 5) Ultimately, where the new procedure goes (UHAP or Constitution/Bylaws) is a real issue that should be discussed by the Senate. 6) CAFT opposed this change — will CAFT be addressing the Senate? 7) The revised grievance policy and procedures should remain within the Constitution and Bylaws, because once the details of procedures go out of the Bylaws and Constitution and into Policy and Procedures, they become much more easily amendable. Shared governance emphasizes faculty involvement in making changes to policy and procedures.

10. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON REVISED SMOKING POLICY – SENATOR LARSON, CHAIR, APPC

APPC moved the Faculty Senate endorse the adoption of the Revised Smoking Policy for The University of Arizona as a seconded motion [Motion 2000/01-7]. The policy impacts the entire campus and it is hoped that every major campus group including ASUA, SAC, APOC and the Faculty Senate will endorse the policy before implementation July 1, 2000. Motion passed unanimously.

11. CONTINUED DISCUSSION: SHOULD THERE BE A MID-CAREER WRITING ASSESSMENT? – SENATOR HOWELL, CHAIR, ICPC AND DR. KEN SMITH, CHAIR, UNIVERSITY ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE.

In Senator Howell’s absence, Chair Hogle explained that in October 1999 the ICPC proposed a change to the Upper Division Writing Proficiency Examination (UDWPE) with a new instrument called Writing At Mid-Career Assessment (WRIMCAT). In the course of a discussion over several months’ time, a motion was made that the Faculty Senate not endorse a mid-career writing assessment [Motion 1999/00-24]. The ICPC has considered this motion and decided the Senate needs to understand how this piece fits into the overall program of University student assessment. Introduced by Chair Hogle, Dr. Smith referred senators to a webpage http://ic.arizona.edu/~assess1/ that reports on the UA activities that relate to outcomes assessment. Historically, in 1989 the North Central Accreditation (NCA) Association defined expectations for universities and said UA needed to have an assessment plan for student outcomes. In 1995, the plan was developed with considerable input from faculty and was reviewed by the Faculty Senate. Basic parameters including recognizing that the responsibility for outcomes of academic programs resides with the faculty within those programs, allowing the plan to be faculty-driven, and integrating the plan into the program review process. Beginning preparations in 1998 for the recent NCA Review recognized that progress was uneven among colleges and more consistent implementation was needed. A pilot initiative was begun and initially focused on undergraduate education majors with an attempt to develop an assessment program as an integral part of the way educational programs are developed at the department level. Assessment really represents a conversation among those responsible for an academic program about student outcomes. It includes student outcome statements about what students will know, what they will be able to do, and how they will approach their work and what it will take to be successful. The focus of outcomes assessment is not on an individual course or an individual student, but rather on the success of the program itself in achieving outcomes that have been defined as important by the faculty. The pilot initiative represents experimentation and sharing of practices across the campus via a website. The NCA’s response to the pilot was very positive, noting the method as being a "faculty-owned activity." The NCA expects a report March 1, 2005 on how all of the University’s units have fully developed assessment programs. Assessment of writing across the curriculum needs to be focused not on evaluating students individually but rather as collectively considering the quality of students’ preparation in writing and written communications. The goal is to foster a campus-wide transition from assessment as a reaction to demands for accountability to assessment as a continuous source of knowledge essential for instructional improvement. Learning to use assessment strategies to improve degree programs can be aided by employing college-based initiatives or by being built into the academic program review cycle. Assessment is an integral part of the research process and assessment activities are included on faculty resumes. Assessment of writing should be approached in a way that is consistent with the other assessment. Focusing on how well students are doing, and if they are not doing well, how to help them improve, may be more valuable than a specific test at a specific point in time. Chair Hogle noted it may be premature to vote to eliminate something when it is not yet clear how it factors into the overall assessment plan and moved to return the proposed WRIMCAT, as well as the motion on the floor to end a mid-career writing assessment, to the ICPC for further consideration [Motion 2000/01-8]. Senators’ comments and questions included: 1) It is important to stay the course on the UDWPE for at least two more years in order to gather and present data for assessing writing as it is now being offered in the general education curriculum, 2) The ICPC should evaluate mid-career writing assessment and consider other, more collegially flexible mid-career writing assessments, 3) There is no correlation between faculty assessment activities and student assessment criteria, 4) assessment criteria need to be addressed—courses that are helpful to the student may be superior to assessment tests. Senator Howell called for the question. Motion carried unanimously.

Senator Aleamoni shared as a point of information the Committee of Eleven’s resolution passed at its April 14 meeting, urging immediate and complete reinstatement of Regents Professor Marguerite Kay to the Department of Microbiology and Immunology. This resolution has been sent to President Likins.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:17 p.m.

Wanda H. Howell, Secretary

Appendix*

Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee’s Consent Agenda for possible Faculty Senate action on May 1, 2000.

Chair of the Faculty’s "Status on Legislative Bills in April 2000," "Governor’s Education Sales Tax Distribution," "November 2000: A Chance to Improve Education in Arizona," and "Revising the Arizona University System Mission Statement."

Annual reports from the Academic Personnel Policy Committee, the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee, the Research Policy Committee, the Student Affairs Policy Committee, the Committee of Eleven, the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the Committee on Conciliation, the University Committee on Ethics and Commitment, and the University Committee on Corporate Relationships.

Biographical statements of nominees for membership on the Committee on Conciliation, the University Committee on Ethics and Commitment, the University Hearing Board, and the Faculty Senate Representatives to the Shared Governance Review Committee and the Faculty Senate Executive Committee.

UA Millennium Project Memorandum from President Likins.

Academic Personnel Policy Committee’s "Faculty Grievance Policy and Procedures; Status Report" dated April 17, 2000.

Draft: "Revised Smoking Policy for the University of Arizona."

Draft: "Guidelines for Policy Development by Faculty Senate Committees."

Synopsis of spring 2000 Faculty Senate elections and General Faculty Election results.

Schedule of 2000-2001 Faculty Senate and Faculty Senate Executive Committee meetings.

2000-2001 Faculty Senate roster and email addresses.

"Advancing Student Learning Through Outcomes Assessment."

*Copies of material listed in the Appendix are attached to the original minutes and are on file in the Faculty Center.

senmin/2000-01/5-1-00 senmin.doc