FACULTY SENATE MINUTES

1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair and Presiding Officer Wanda Howell at 3:04 p.m. in the College of Law, Room 146.

Present: Senators Bales, Bixby, Borden, Burd, Caldwell, Chandler, D. Davis, G. Davis, Eribes, Erickson, Esparza, Farney, Garcia, Hancock, Hartz, Heinrich, Howell, Impey, Kiefer, Larson, Likins, Lynch, Mitchell, O'Brien, Pintozzi, Rimsza, Schlager, Silverman, Songer, Spece, Tatman, Timmermann, Vierling, Warburton, Weinand, Witte, S. Wright and Zwolinski. Thomas Volgy served as Parliamentarian.

Absent: Senators Arabyan, Dahlgran, Holmes, Jenkins, Joens, Jones, Miesfeld, Mishra, Morris, Oxnam, Richardson, Szilagyi, Warnock, Willerton, E. 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.)

Professor William Bickel– Professor Bickel protested the recently concluded CAFT proceedings regarding the Marguerite Kay case that began in February 2001 without the presence of Professor Kay.

Senator Roy Spece – Senator Spece described a CAFT investigation of his grievance within his college and his ongoing lawsuit against certain University personnel and the Arizona Board of Regents.

3. REPORTS
3A. ASUA President Doug Hartz
Senator Hartz introduced ASUA Academic Affairs Director Christopher Farney, and ASA Director Jennifer Rimsza. Marcy Holmes was unable to attend today’s meeting. One of ASUA’s goals for 2002-03 is to increase voter registration and turnout for faculty, staff and students. ASUA also hope to schedule legislative debates and hopefully a gubernatorial debate on campus in October.

3B. GPSC President Pete Morris
No report.

3C. Vice Chair of the Faculty Wanda Howell
Vice Chair Howell welcomed and introduced the new and returning Senators. She directed Senators’ attention to the Senate schedule for 2002-03 and noted that there is currently no Senate meeting scheduled in January 2003 due to the beginning of the semester on January 15, and the MLK holiday on January 20. She asked if Senators would prefer to meet on January 13, 2003, two days prior to the beginning of the semester or to have no Senate meeting scheduled in January 2003. No one spoke in favor of having a Senate meeting on January 13, 2003, so the Senate will not meet in January 2003. Vice Chair Howell also announced the College of Public Health’s faculty vote results regarding naming the college for a private donor. Of forty-six faculty members voting, 39 were in favor and 5 were against with 2 abstentions. She noted that the Senate and General Faculty Standing Committee’s annual reports were all included in today’s Senate packets.

3D. Secretary of the Faculty Robert Mitchell
Secretary Mitchell reported that while Senators expressed significant interest in participating in a Decision Lab process, not enough senators were available on any one date this spring so this process may be scheduled for the fall. Meanwhile, he asked for immediate feedback to two questions: "How can Senate meetings be made to be more effective?" and "Why are we having problems filling committee and Senate seats?" via the purple questionnaire included in Senators’ packets today.

3E. Chair of the Faculty Jory Hancock
Chair Hancock reported that the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) approved an in-state tuition increase of only 4%. He speculated that the governor and Jaime Molera’s involvement may have influenced the vote this time, and that several regents were conflicted and may not vote that way next year. He also believes the two newest regents are strong advocates of tuition adjustments that will allow the universities to better support themselves. Greg Fahey’s Office of State Relations reports that many members of the legislature are advocates for higher education but are handicapped by this year’s state budget crisis. Chair Hancock commended the Senate’s standing committee chairs and thanked the APPC, under the leadership of Amy Williamsen and Robert Mitchell for that committee’s hard work on Faculty Grievance and Reorganization Procedures. He also thanked ICPC Chair Steve Smith, RPC Chair Chestalene Pintozzi, SAPC Chair Frank Romer, and Committee of Eleven Chair Roger Caldwell. Chair Hancock congratulated Senator Vicki Chandler who has recently been elected to the National Academy of Sciences, and Vice Chair of the Faculty Wanda Howell who has just been named a UA Distinguished Professor.

3F. Provost George Davis
Provost Davis commented about the challenges of the budget cuts. The tuition increase will cost the University about $3.7M in anticipated revenue. It appears that the legislature will recommend a 9% cut on UA’s budget. Tier I and II general education classes will not be at full capacity next fall. The planning for cuts that will take effect July 1 must involve close interaction among deans, department heads and directors, and elected faculty representatives and faculty governance within the colleges, in order to determine the best ideas for strategic saves and to minimize surprises. A broad general cut across the board would reduce excellence of the institution and the university’s ability to target strategic mission areas although making selected decisions results in tremendous resistance and counter-arguments and deep dialogue. SPBAC has recommended guidelines for evaluating where cuts, saves, and mergers could be achieved in the following six areas; educational excellence, research and creative excellence, student demand, vital public impact, revenue generation, and interdisciplinary need. The plan for a UA-North to be co-located with Pima Community College Northwest will have to be deferred for now. Provost Davis voiced his support for the Bachelor of Applied Science (BAS) to be offered exclusively at UA-South. There is significant demand among citizens of southeast Arizona for this program and the BAS is an established model for many universities including NAU and ASU.

3G. President Peter Likins
President Likins noted that not many faculty senates in America that include a member of the National Academy of Sciences, as well as several University Distinguished Professors and he congratulated Senators Chandler and Howell. As the state’s budget crisis continues, President Likins warned that there will be adverse effects on the University’s programmatic offerings. The previous cut was met largely with dollars that were allocated for one-time expenditures that could be deferred. This strategy helped to reduce the burden before spreading it out among the operating units and thereby reduced the impact on academic operations although 55 adjunct professors and 120+ courses were eliminated this spring. The burden for next year will be an additional 2.5% to a possible high of 9%. Since the budget numbers are still changing, it is almost impossible to plan adequately for the classes necessary to meet the needs of an increasingly large incoming freshman class as well as for the graduating seniors. In addition, the 90-day notice rule for non-renewals of appointments for adjuncts, instructors, and critical researchers requires that such notices be sent immediately, although there is a chance that those instructors may be called back into service when the final budget is known. In preparation for possible reorganizations, mergers, or eliminations, today the Senate will be asked to consider a process of consultation that would involve the affected faculty and more generally the Faculty Senate. This process will be unlike Arizona International College, which was created by the Regents and was therefore disestablished by the Regents. President Likins emphasized that although the universities have more friends in the state legislature this year than in the recent past, there simply aren’t any funds. He expressed bitter disappointment in the Regents’ decisions not to increase tuition significantly to enable the university to meet the needs of its students, nor to better accommodate the needs of scholarship students. He will continue to build both political and regential relationships to increase understanding of how universities work, so that, as the state economy recovers and the governorship changes, the universities might find the political will to rebuild and maintain their financial base.

4. QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD
There were no questions.

5. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF APRIL 1, 2002
The minutes of April 1, 2002 were approved with one opposed.

6. ELECTIONS FOR COMMITTEE ON CONCILIATION, UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON ETHICS AND COMMITMENT, UNIVERSITY HEARING BOARD, AND FACULTY SENATE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE FACULTY SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (attachment)
Votes were cast using written ballots. Secretary Mitchell and Parliamentarian Volgy served as tellers. Within the General Faculty Bylaws, those elected were:

Committee on Conciliation
Barry Ganapol
Jeanette C. McCray
Mae Smith

University Committee on Ethics and Commitment
Janice Dewey
Elizabeth Evans
Helen Nader
Alfred Quiroz

University Hearing Board
Albrecht Classen
Carmen Garcia-Downing
Michael Riggs
Barbara Williams

Faculty Senate Executive Committee Representative
Douglas E. Jones

APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM FORWARDED AS A SECONDED MOTION FROM INSTRUCTION AND CURRICULUM POLICY COMMITTEE (attachment)
The consent agenda items detailed at the end of these minutes were approved [Motions 2002/03-1, 2002/03-2].

INFORMATION ITEM: UA SOUTH’S BACHELOR OF APPLIED SCIENCE (attachment)
Professors Peter Medine, chair of the Undergraduate Council’s (UGC) Program Subcommittee and UA South (UAS) Professor Joni Anderson presented background and information about UA South and the Bachelor Of Applied Science (BAS) degree proposal. Pr. Medine anticipates that UGC will bring the BAS degree forward as a seconded motion early next fall for the Senate’s approval. UAS was established in Sierra Vista as a branch campus in 1995 and is separate line item funded by the legislature so it does not compete with UA for funds. The student body of UAS is non-traditional, 73% female, 42% minority, with an average age of 33. The UAS faculty’s workload is heavily weighted toward teaching: 60% teaching, 20% research, and 20% service. The upper division courses are already being taught there; what is new about this proposal is the BAS degree. The campus is primarily fed by Cochise Community College with a 2+2 arrangement that provides for UAS to offer the upper division courses for the degree. UAS is a regional campus and so does not compete with UA for students, and the BAS degree will be unique to UAS. The curriculum for the BAS builds on students’ prior education and work experience and articulation is a major issue that can be dealt with by virtue of UAS’ smaller size, the difference in orientation and advising, and the institutional aims. This degree program, by nature, places much more emphasis on applied skills. The BAS is offered at universities in Minnesota, Michigan, Texas, and Wisconsin, as well as ASU and NAU. The BAS is intended to fulfill a local, regional need and will be offered exclusively at UAS, and is not an alternative to the BA or BS offered at UA. This degree is intended to be terminal, so students anticipating pursuing graduate degrees will be counseled to seek the BA or BS. The UAS faculty has no retreat rights to main campus, as they do not have tenure at UA but are a discrete faculty. The UGC subcommittee has found the proposal to be consistent with the mission of a land grant university. Senators’ questions and the responses included the following: 1) How is UAS related to UA main and faculty governance? UA South has no autonomy with respect to curriculum development and all of its programmatic proposals come through the usual channels here at main campus. Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Ervin also led an effort to develop promotion and tenure standards and criteria for UAS. There is a requirement for a faculty governance process and a need for such, as a UA entity. By contrast, ASU East is academically autonomous, and ASU West is academically autonomous and fully accredited. 2) What is the timeline for this proposal? A three-year implementation is proposed, over which time, three additional faculty members would be added. 3) Will this require an increase in faculty? The proposal as written would require no additional faculty to offer both the general education and core components in the four concentrations. 4) Maybe this time is not the best time to expand, due to the budget crisis. 5) Where are UAS classes offered? Although ABOR recently approved UAS to offer classes in Vail, this BAS program will be offered exclusively in Sierra Vista and Douglas. 6) Does the BAS preclude someone from pursuing graduate work? Students considering graduate study will be advised to pursue the traditional bachelor’s degree as this is considered a terminal degree. Students pursuing graduate study would have to complete all the prerequisites necessary for entrance into the graduate program. An AAS Associate in Applied Science is regularly offered at most of the community colleges including Pima and Cochise. This program will meet the educational needs and increase the upward mobility of many rural students who are "place-bound" by jobs, family, or culture. 7) What is the enrollment? Head count: 412, FTE: 267. Enrollment has been increasing every semester. 8) What are the four concentrations? Business Administration, Educational Technology, Family Sciences and Human Development, and Public Administration. 9) The degree name, Bachelor of Applied Science, seems to imply a concentration in the hard sciences but in many ways, it is more a degree of applied technology. The term Bachelor of Applied Science is nationally recognized and understood.

DISCUSSION AND ACTION: MEDINE RESOLUTION (attachment)
Vice Chair Howell opened discussion on former Senator P. Medine’s request that the following resolution be placed on the May Senate agenda: "That the Faculty Senate empanel a five-member ad hoc committee to determine the dollar amount necessary to bring teaching and research faculty salaries to within 5% of current American Association of Universities Data Exchange (AAUDE) levels; and to recommend to the Senate for discussion a plan to reach those levels within a three-year period." Senators’ questions and responses included the following: 1) Isn’t there already a committee in place to study faculty salaries? The University Compensation Advisory Team (UCAT) is a broad-based, university-wide committee composed of 13 core and 6-8 adjunct members, that considers faculty, appointed personnel, and staff salaries, but not specifically this topic. Within ABOR, an annually updated study exists that defines the annual gap/shortfall between compensations received by our three university faculties as well as by some comparison set. Calculations in the past have placed that shortfall at $66M. 2) Is a committee really necessary to get a group of people together to crunch numbers? Jerry Hogle formed an ad hoc committee, the Faculty Chair’s Task Force on Faculty Salaries, which met for about three years and did receive those numbers from the Department of Planning and Support. 3) If we did manage to extract these numbers, what would we do with them? 4) The school districts and community colleges consistently receive larger raises. 5) The teachers have a union to represent them and negotiate their contracts. 6) The Medine resolution specifically asks for a plan to be developed. 7) Perhaps a collaborative effort with the Strategic Planning and Budget Advisory Committee (SPBAC) to create a five-year plan with goals and strategies for achieving those goals could be implemented. Senator Spece moved [Motion 2002/03-3] to table the resolution, until Pr. Medine can be present to clarify his resolution, or until a sitting Senator can bring it up. Motion was seconded. Motion was not acted upon. Vice Chair Howell ruled that the Senate can delay action on the Medine resolution while the Senate Executive Committee clarifies with him how to proceed. The Executive Committee will return this issue to the Senate attention at a future meeting.

DISCUSSION AND ACTION: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO "REORGANIZATION PROCEDURES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA" (attachment)
As Acting Chair of the Academic Personnel Policy Committee (APPC), Secretary Mitchell described the "Policy for Reorganization Procedures at the University of Arizona," which was passed by the Faculty Senate in 1983 and revised in 1992 and 1993. That document was written prior to the Shared Governance Agreement and also refers to committees that no longer exist. A team led by former Chair of the Faculty Jerry Hogle and current Chair Jory Hancock drafted revisions to this document. The draft was then reviewed by SPBAC, the Dean’s Council, and the Senate Executive Committee, all of which offered suggestions for changes before forwarding it to APPC. APPC considered all of those suggestions as well as some of its own resulting in today’s version, which comes as a seconded motion [Motion 2002/03-4]. Senator Spece moved [Motion 2002/03-5] to table Motion 2002/03-4 in order to allow more time for discussion. Motion was seconded and failed, 10 in favor, 22 opposed, and 3 abstentions. Senator’s comments and questions included the following: 1) The current draft policy does not include any reference that the Senate is the body that approves changes in degree programs. The 1993 version intended and understood that all actions concerning any program changes that would normally fall within the purview of the Faculty Senate be routed according to normal Senate procedures. This intent should be stated explicitly in the document. 2) The original policy generated tremendous discussion in the Senate and was widely circulated with subsequent iterations to the entire general faculty. At the very least, the faculty should be informed via an article in Lo Que Pasa, which provides the 1993 version along with a summary of the current changes, and what they mean. 3) It is not possible for the Senate to seriously consider this policy in this abbreviated timeline and furthermore, the entire general faculty should be involved. 4) What does the reference to "negative decisions made by mandated sunset reviews" mean? If an academic program or unit has a mandated sunset review, and it is the decision of that sunset review to close that program, then the reorganization procedure will not reopen that department. 5) Why was the aspirational sentence on the top of page 2, "When unit or program reduction or elimination would eliminate faculty positions, every effort should be made to find alternative positions within the university for displaced faculty members" eliminated? That language was struck because ABOR Policy 6-201K specifically governs reorganizations caused by budgetary reasons or programmatic changes that would include release of general faculty prior to the end of an appointment period, whereas this reorganization policy and procedure relates to transfer of faculty members from one academic unit to another. Releases involving non-tenured, tenure-track faculty would also be governed by ABOR 6-201K with the exception of tenure-track faculty who are at the end of a specific term for which they reasonably expect renewal. 7) The reason the draft team thought this policy could be revised and approved by the Senate without months of consultation is that all of the changes are basically housekeeping matters and do not involve any changes to the intent or spirit of the 1993 version. As the time allotted for discussion ran out, Secretary Mitchell asked that Senators with additional concerns please email them to one of the faculty officers. Motion 2002/02-4 was not acted upon. President Likins and Provost Davis told the Senate that if they have to make any programmatic changes within the scope of this document, but that do not involve ABOR 6-201K, they will proceed according to the spirit if not the exact letter of the 1993 policy until it is replaced by a revised version.

SECOND READING AND POSSIBLE ACTION: "SUGGESTED CHANGES TO CONSTITUTION OF THE GENERAL FACULTY" (attachment)
Secretary Mitchell explained that the proposed revisions come as a seconded motion [Motion 2002/03-6] from the Committee on Faculty Membership and involves two changes to Article 1, Section 1 of the Faculty Constitution. The proposed changes would limit the voting status of emeritus faculty to within the first five years of emeritus status with extensions at the discretion of the home department, and would eliminate certain ex-officio members as named in the Faculty Constitution since almost all of those individuals already have voting status by virtue of their faculty appointments. Senators’ questions and comments included the following: 1) Does this change remove emeritus status from those faculty members who have already received emeritus status or will they be grandfathered? The revision does not remove emeritus status; it limits the voting privileges of all emeritus faculty that have been on emeritus status for five years and beyond. The revision allows that, upon recommendation of their departments, individual emeritus faculty members’ voting rights can be extended. 2) It seems strange that emeritus faculty are allowed to vote in University-wide faculty elections when most colleges and departments do not extend voting privileges to emeritus faculty. Senator Silverman moved [Motion 2002/03-7] to amend the proposed revision to Article I, Section 1.c. of the Faculty Constitution of the revision to read, "Such persons in categories (a) and (b) who are in the first five years of Emeritus status which will be extended for additional five-year periods at the request of the emeritus faculty member." Motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Motion 2002/03-6 passed as amended with one opposed.

INFORMATION ITEM: KIMBALL CASE CHANGES TO THE ABOR POLICY MANUAL CHAPTER 6 §201, "CONDITIONS OF FACULTY SERVICE" (attachment)
Secretary Mitchell explained the changes to the ABOR Policy Manual Chapter 6, Sections 201L, and 201M, "Conditions of Faculty Service" are mandated by the Kimball decision of the Arizona Supreme Court. Since all modifications to the ABOR Conditions of Faculty Service require consultation with representatives of the faculty senates, UA Attorney Lynne Wood brought this document to the Senate Executive Committee last month. In the spirit of shared governance, however, today’s Senate is also receiving this document and can ask questions or offer input. The changes add the following rights: 1) the right to representation by counsel, not just as an advisor but as an attorney who can speak for the grievant, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and make arguments; 2) the right to subpoena witnesses and documents for the hearing; and 3) the right to request reconsideration of the agency head’s (university president) decision before the decision becomes final. These changes affect faculty grievance policies in the cases of dismissal, suspension without pay, or discriminatory or unconstitutional action. The changes do not directly affect the grievance policy that the Senate has just approved because the drafters of the revised policy took the Kimball decision into account.

APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM FORWARDED AS SECONDED MOTION FROM SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REGARDING ON-LINE FACULTY VOTING (attachment)
Vice Chair Howell introduced [Motion 2002/03-8], "The Senate Executive Committee recommends conducting the General Faculty elections for 2002-03 using an on-line voting system similar to those developed by the Center for Computing and Information Technology for the past two ASUA elections and for this year’s GPSC election" which comes as a seconded motion from the Senate Executive Committee. This item was removed from Consent Agenda at the request of Senator Witte, who expressed concerns about the security of on-line voting, reduced voter turnout, and emeritus faculty voters who may not have on-line connections. She requested a survey of the general faculty to determine its willingness to participate in on-line voting and moved to table. Motion died for lack of a second. Senator Rimsza reported that ASUA’s on-line elections, in addition to simplifying the process, were widely accepted and did result in increased voter turnout. Vice Chair Howell noted that faculty can request a paper ballot. Senator Chandler spoke on behalf of on-line voting, noting that she is president of a 6000 member professional organization that tripled voter turnout (from 20% to 60%) when it converted to on-line voting and that security is not an issue. The most recent UA faculty election results showed 19% of faculty voted. Motion passed with one opposed.

14. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Robert L. Mitchell, Secretary

Appendix*

1.  Professor William Bickel’s Open Session remarks.
2.  Senator Roy Spece’s Open Session remarks.
3.  2002-03 Faculty Senate Meeting Schedule
4.  2002-2003 Faculty Senate Roster.
5.  2002-2003 Faculty Senate Email addresses.
6.  April 8, 2002 Press Release: Spring 2002 General Faculty Run-Off Election Results.
7.  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 Executive Committee.
8.  Consent Agenda items forwarded from the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee.
9.  "Policy Committee Consent Agenda Item for the 4/2/02 UGC Meeting" re: Academic Distinction.
10. "About UAS: About BAS" information sheet about the Bachelor of Applied Science degree at UA-South.
11. April 17, 2002 request for Faculty Senate agenda item received from Senator Peter Medine.
12. April 24, 2002 memo from APPC to Faculty Senate re: "Reorganization Procedures at the University of Arizona."
13. March 18, 2002 memo from Committee on Faculty Membership to Faculty Senate re: "Suggested Changes to the Constitution of the General Faculty."
14. April 24, 2002 memo from University Attorney Lynne Wood re: "Changes to the ABOR Conditions of Faculty Service Mandated by the Kimball decision of the Arizona Supreme Court."
15. Seconded motion from the Senate Executive Committee: Approval of On-line Voting for General Faculty Elections.
16. 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, and the University Committee on Ethics and Commitment.
17. May 6, 2002 "To all Senators:" questionnaire memo re: Decision Lab dialogue.

*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 May 6, 2002

Motion 2002/03-1 Seconded motion from the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee to approve the request to change the name of the undergraduate public management major to public management and policy in the Eller College of Business and Public Administration, School of Public Administration and Policy. Motion passed.

Motion 2002/03-2 Seconded motion from the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee to approve the revision to the UA policy on Academic Distinction, as detailed in the attached document titled "Policy Committee Consent Agenda Item for the 4/2/02 UGC Meeting." Motion passed.

Motion 2002/03-3 Motion to table discussion of P. Medine’s resolution, "That the Faculty Senate empanel a five-member ad hoc committee to determine the dollar amount necessary to bring teaching and research faculty salaries to within 5% of current American Association of Universities Data Exchange (AAUDE) levels; and to recommend to the Senate for discussion a plan to reach those levels within a three-year period." until Pr. Medine can be present to clarify his resolution, or until a currently seated Senator can bring it forward. Motion not acted upon.

Motion 2002/03-4 Seconded Motion from the Academic Personnel Policy Committee to approve the draft policy revisions to "Reorganization Procedures at the University of Arizona." Motion not acted upon.

Motion 2002/03-5 Motion to table Motion 2002/03-4; motion defeated.

Motion 2002/03-6 Motion to amend Article I, Section 1.c. of the Faculty Constitution of the revision to read "Such persons in categories (a) and (b) who are in the first five years of Emeritus status which can be extended indefinitely at the request of the home department," and to delete Article 1, Section 1.d. of the Constitution which reads, "Certain ex officio members: namely, the President of the University, the Vice Presidents and Associate Vice Presidents of the University the Deans, the Associate Deans, the Registrar, the Associate Registrar, and the University Librarian." Motion passed.

Motion 2002/03-7 Motion to amend the proposed revision to Article I, Section 1.c. of the Faculty Constitution of the revision to read, "Such persons in categories (a) and (b) who are in the first five years of Emeritus status which will be extended for additional five-year periods at the request of the emeritus faculty member." Motion passed.

Motion 2002/03-8 Seconded motion from The Senate Executive Committee to approve conducting the General Faculty elections for 2002-03 using an on-line voting system similar to those developed by CCIT for the past two ASUA elections and for this year’s GPSC election. Motion passed.

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 06/18/03