FACULTY SENATE MINUTES

AMENDED

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. Presiding Officer Howell asked for a moment of silence in memory of the faculty colleagues from the College of Nursing who died last Monday, October 28, 2002.

Present:  Senators Arabyan, Bales, Bixby, Borden, Caldwell, Chandler, Dahlgran, G. Davis, Flores, Hancock, Hartz, Heinrich, Holmes, Howell, Jenkins, Joens, Jones, Kiefer, Likins, Mishra, Mitchell, O'Brien, Oxnam, Pintozzi, Powell, Rainer, Schlager, Silverman, Songer, Spece, Swanson, Sweazea, Tatman, Vierling, Warburton, Warnock, Weinand, Witte, E. Wright, Wysocki, and Zwolinski. Dr. Charles Poster substituted for A. Esparza. Robert Sankey served as Parliamentarian.

Absent: Senators Burd, D. Davis, Erickson, Esparza, Farney, Garcia, Impey, Larson, Lynch, Miesfeld, Morris, Szilagyi, Timmermann, Willerton, and S. Wright.

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.)

There were no speakers for the Open Session.

The minutes of October 7, 2002 were approved.

Dr. Nancy Huber, Chair of the Committee on Elections, explained that the Committee began looking at on-line elections last spring to explore concerns about the high expense and low voter turnout associated with faculty elections. She distributed a cost breakdown of the past two years’ elections ($6893) and an estimate of the cost of mounting an on-line election this year ($415) which represents significant potential savings in the very first year. The new system will be implemented for the next General Faculty election. She explained that on-line voting will not entirely replace paper ballots for those faculty who wish to continue using paper ballots, and that every attempt will be made to assure access to computers for emeritus faculty and faculty who are housed off-campus. The potential benefits of on-line voting besides significant cost savings, include increasing voter turnout, reducing the number of invalid ballots, enhancing and preserving security and anonymity, increasing accuracy, and reducing labor intensive efforts on the part of the Committee on Elections faculty members and staff. Dr. Huber introduced Laura Cisneros and Samson Dunatunga from the Computing Center who described how the online faculty elections are mounted within the Employee Link website by clicking on Employee Link at the lower right corner of the UA Homepage, and explained how every faculty member has access to this site using his/her NetID. Ms. Cisneros demonstrated how to create a UA NetID using the last six digits of the faculty member’s CatCard number and an Employee Identification Number. She then demonstrated how to cast an on-line vote, using a sample ballot complete with biostatements and propositions with pro and con statements. Dr. Huber distributed a list of all the on and off-campus locations through which on-line voting can be accessed from anywhere in the world with an Internet connection. The General Faculty will receive written communication notifying them of the on-line election and how to request a printed ballot from the Faculty Center.

Research Policy Committee (RPC) Chair C. Pintozzi distributed the outline of significant differences between the current UHAP 2.12.09 Policy on Research Misconduct, and the proposed policy. She said the committee has been receiving input from a variety of sources including Senator Spece, Research Integrity Officer Hixon, the University Committee on Ethics and Commitment (UCEC), and the suggestions offered at the October 7 Senate meeting. The committee plans to finish reviewing all of the proposed amendments to determine which suggestions it agrees with, and present the policy at the December 2 Senate meeting for final discussion and vote. Senator Songer noted that UCEC questioned why the policy calls for an external member on the UCEC inquiry panel and suggested eliminating this provision. Chair Pintozzi said the RPC considered this proposed revision but rejected it because it would be beneficial to UCEC by lessening the workload, providing an external perspective, preventing UCEC from being perceived as potentially biased, harsh, or overly lenient. Senator Songer countered that UCEC is unbiased by virtue of the fact that it is completely elected, and that the external member adds to the complexity of conducting an inquiry. Senator Spece inquired and Chair Pintozzi responded that this policy has been vetted for compliance with ORI guideline. Senator Silverman requested that the changes in the next draft be shown with strike-throughs and caps or bold. Vice President for Research Powell commented that his office is currently operating under the current UHAP 2.13.09 until this policy is passed, or until President Likins adopts an interim policy. Chair Pintozzi asked for any additional feedback to be sent to the Research Policy Committee.

Vice Chair Howell announced that the Shared Governance Review Committee met last week and that she requested a subcommittee composed of J. Hogle, J. Schwarz, and J. Hancock to delineate clearly what types of issues should come before the Senate and/or the Strategic Planning and Budget Advisory Committee (SPBAC), and what kind of shared governance input is provided for faculty regarding these issues. She invited Jerry Hogle, Chair of SPBAC to describe the subcommittee’s work to the Senate. Dr. Hogle said the subcommittee is very aware that a lot is going to be happening that will require responses from both groups, and there are certain areas that may be distinct and some that may be in common. Dr. Hogle noted that, according to the Shared Governance Memorandum of Understanding (SGMOU) that was passed by the Faculty Senate in 1997, "academic and curricular policies, the creation and elimination of programs and units, policies relating to student affairs and admissions, faculty personnel policy, and the guidelines on faculty and administration salary policy" are all within the province of shared governance and must go through the normal Faculty Senate committees and processes or the Procedures for Reorganization passed by the Faculty Senate this year. Also according to the SGMOU, Dr. Hogle explained that "a committee on the budget and long-range strategic planning, comprised of faculty, administrators, and other sections of the University community as appropriate, shall be the university-level forum for obtaining full consultation of the faculty on the projected budget. At least half of the committee will come from the faculty, chosen by way of accepted faculty governance procedures." This committee is SPBAC, and the majority of the faculty members on SPBAC are elected. Any recommendations about programmatic changes, focused excellence, the budget, or modifications or amendments to the Strategic Plan, will go through SPBAC. An area in common includes the idea of leadership themes, which the Senate will discuss today, and for which SPBAC will consider prioritization for both budget and strategic plan.

President Hartz said ASUA appreciates the strength and resolve of the campus community this past week following the tremendous trauma and loss of October 28 and he hopes faculty members continue to engage students in conversation and remain vigilant of psychological implications that might carry on. He emphasized how critical to the University tomorrow’s election is, and to that end ASUA will provide shuttles to polling places for all members of the campus community. ASUA conducted its first Student Town Hall on October 30 with some discussion on changing directions/focused excellence. Students’ concerns included class availability, maintaining University resources, implications on tuition, and differential tuition.

Roberto Flores reported in President Morris’ absence, that the GPSC’s Student Showcase will be held this week to promote both graduate and undergraduate students to present their research to both the Tucson and the University community. The winners of the competition receive cash prizes and will present their work in Phoenix to the Board of Regents. GPSC is conducting forums to gather graduate students’ opinions about changing directions/focused excellence. For the first time in its history, GPSC has full representation from every college.

6D. Secretary of the Faculty Robert Mitchell

No report.

6E. Chair of the Faculty Jory Hancock

Chair Hancock described today’s Memorial Service for the College of Nursing faculty members and their families, colleagues, and students. He said the loss to the University is immense and reported that he has received numerous messages of condolences from national institutions concerning the University of Arizona’s losses in the College of Nursing. He said our University's loss was acknowledged publicly at some of those institutions and he read messages from David Camacho, President of the Faculty Senate at NAU, James Sayer, President of the Faculty at Wright State University, and Phillip Carter, Chair of the Faculty of North Carolina State University. Chair Hancock then announced that Lehman Benson of the Eller College of Business and Public Administration has been appointed to the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee. UA Cares, a fundraising campaign in which faculty and employees can donate money to help the University will commence soon. Senators should remember to vote in tomorrow's election because a candidate that would have supported higher education in Arizona recently lost a primary by only 13 votes. Chair Hancock described the heavy commitment of time required for service on SPBAC, and commended Senators Impey and Mishra for their hard work and reminded Senators that the faculty Committee on Budget and Strategic Planning was rolled into SPBAC several years ago. Finally, Chair Hancock described the ABOR Study Session in which each of the state’s university presidents presented their proposed direction and strategy to the Regents. President Crow believes ASU could be the best metropolitan Research University in the country because it has 1200+ additional acres with which to grow and because Phoenix expects to have 6M people in 2025. President Haeger believes NAU can become a national leader in undergraduate residential education with focused research in the undergraduate experience and environmental concerns. President Likins stated that the University of Arizona is a world-class, student-centered, Research University and described the physical and financial restraints of UA.

Provost Davis described the healing process that is underway in the campus and Tucson communities and extending to the international community. Turning to focused excellence, he has received considerable valuable input about the draft listing of leadership themes and he expects to issue a second draft with descriptions soon. The purpose of identifying academic leadership themes is to call attention to intellectual objectives that UA is extraordinarily well positioned to pursue in ways that are nationally and internationally distinguished and depend upon interdisciplinary contributions across colleges. It is hoped the themes will advance the reputational strength of the University overall, creating deeper foundations of basic and applied knowledge, extending more powerful outreach into society and increasing the quality of learning environment. He acknowledged the palpable anxiety among programs that do not "map" to any of the announced themes, and reminded the Senate that faculty positions are held by the Colleges, not the Provost’s office, and that academic leadership themes will not be the only basis for allocation or reallocation of resources. Provost Davis wants to protect highly nationally-ranked programs and departments as well as the vital intrinsic institutional values including diversity, supporting globalization and internationalism of learning, research and service, liberal learning in the undergraduate curriculum, advancing faculty and staff compensation and basic practical factors such as high student demand and workforce development. The themes are as silent as possible on the names of departments and colleges as well as on the interplay of outreach, teaching and research for these responsibilities are intrinsic. Provost Davis reported that visiting faculty peers who visit the UA are awed by the interdisciplinary nature of the institution.

President Likins said he anticipated that last week’s Study Session with the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) would be the most important week of his UA presidency, until the unspeakable atrocities of Monday morning eclipsed all of these affairs with an enormous confluence of feelings, concerns, and thoughts. He felt tremendous pressure to say the right words and do the right things to keep the community together in a time of crisis while so much external attention was focused on him and on our institution. The College of Nursing students, faculty and staff are emerging from this tragedy with an incredible sense of solidarity, and great personal strength and compassion. A study team at the level of the cabinet will be formed to help the campus community extract the painful lessons from this experience and develop a closer network of communications and a more profound understanding of the kinds of behaviors that are acceptable and the kinds that require some kind of community response. He commended the excellent response of both the Campus and the Tucson Police Departments and the mental health specialists both on campus and beyond for the immediate need for response for the students’ shock, fear and grief. Turning to the Regents’ Study Session, President Likins emphasized that the Regents are gradually moving toward a state of mind that will liberate the Universities to define their existence in the future. Written documents outlining their plans accompanied each President’s oral presentation and are available to the public under "Changing Directions" on the ABOR website at http://www.abor.asu.edu. ABOR staff then presented a report indicating the necessary changes in Board policies that are fundamental to giving the universities the freedom to plan and adapt the varying strategies for success in changing directions. These policy changes include financial aid and tuition, admissions criteria, and geographical constraints of each university. He believes the Regents are developing an understanding of the trends in the state’s financing, distribution of resources, and student population and are building support for the changing directions initiative, as long as the three universities’ missions remain complementary and compatible. The November ABOR meeting will include a first reading on the necessary formal policy changes, followed by the second reading and vote in January. All of the plans and discussions about focused excellence and leadership themes now occurring on campus are based on the assumption that ABOR will vote to relax the constraints.

Senator Warnock inquired how to tell students to contact the poll shuttles. ASUA President Hartz responded that students can call the ASUA office for details.

8. SENATE DISCUSSION OF CHANGING DIRECTIONS/FOCUSED EXCELLENCE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

Senators’ comments and questions included the following: 1) Changing directions/focused excellence is probably the most important occurrence at the University. It is time that the Faculty Senate begins to act like the most important governance body that it is, and to become an active voice of the faculty. The Senate’s meeting schedule of two hours once a month is not conducive to acting and reacting with issues during the next six months of rapid changes. If the Senate intends to be a player in the next six months, it needs to consider meeting more often, or meeting more often as subcommittees. 2) Higher education is unique in Arizona because there are really only three public and very few private institutions. If UA becomes an institution of focused excellence, that will exclude some students and reduce their choices to only two schools, NAU or ASU, which could be a hardship. 3) The community colleges may gain additional enrollment as a result of changing directions and interaction with the universities will be more important than ever. 4) Will each college be required to offer up a program for dissolution? Provost Davis responded that in his dialogues with the deans, there are no such ground rules, and they haven’t yet reached the point of proposals. He is studying academic program reviews, annual reports, and metrics related to student credit hours, degrees, the cost of education per instructional faculty, and outside support. He has also looked back ten years ago to the propitious academic themes and emphasis that were compiled at that time by Senator Caldwell. 5) How do public institutions such as University of Michigan and UCLA, that receive much less financial support from the legislatures, manage to maintain excellence and would they provide a model for UA? President Likins responded that the percentage of these universities total budget from state support is lower, but the dollar amounts are enormous. These research universities have dramatically increased research contract support and have also increased gift dollars. He explained that the national trend for the last thirty years has been a reduction in state public taxpayer support for universities. Most other states have responded with increased tuition and financial aid, however, Arizona is most extreme in its refusal to accept the notion that in times of recession, tuition must increase. As the General Fund allocation has decreased, Arizona universities have been left with no alternative source for unrestricted revenues. Arizona is about a decade behind on tuition increases coupled with financial aid, and generating gift money for endowed chairs. 6) How can UA compensate and retain excellent faculty without increased state support? President Likins is optimistic that the state will increase support when the economy recovers or the universities may also consider going directly to the people, as in Proposition 301. Certainly some of the increased tuition revenues will pay faculty salaries. We may also need to be more flexible and creative in allowing research dollars to supplement faculty members’ salaries as is commonly done in private institutions. This would provide an incentive system for faculty in those domains and provide budget relief for the University. It is a challenge to do this fairly since some academic domains are not eligible for such research funds to augment faculty salaries. 7) Can the deans really self- assemble and do the right thing with limited resources such as space and faculty lines? Sometimes physically locating researchers together is more reasonable. Provost Davis noted that in order to implement the themes, it is essential for his office to be able to sweep vacant lines and possibly move vacancies across the college from one department to another and this is in the institution’s best interest. It may be enormously intellectually beneficial to have certain programs located contiguously but this may be beyond the current resources. President Likins explained that UA has just gone through a period of largely student-focused space investments with the Integrated Learning Center, the Student Union, the expansion of McKale, and the Learning Services Building. Research space is a dramatic deficiency here, but now the Optical Sciences expansion is underway, the Institute for Biomedical Science and Biotechnology, which may help with co-locating faculty from different units doing similar research, is on a fast track. A chemistry building and a medical research building are urgently needed. Investment in research space allows faculty to dramatically increase their research and generate research contract moneys that then pay the debt service on those buildings. 8) Will mission differentiation mean excluding the land grant outreach and the agricultural extension programs and agencies in every county? Provost Davis said that in the ABC Bulletin #4, he simply failed to describe the need to support essential responsibilities such as agricultural extension and healthcare. He believes these are mandated responsibilities and he continues to invite faculty discourse and input with respect to academic themes to be certain the concept and the language is complete and correct. 9) Is there any sort of discussion among the presidents to create an annual Proposition 301 to totally circumvent the legislature? President Likins responded that they have discussed the strategies of teaming with K-12 on initiatives, perhaps addressing alternatives to General Fund financing for school buildings and perhaps university buildings. This strategy might force the hand of the legislature. One of the difficulties of changing the tax policies in Arizona involves increasing personal income tax and personal property tax. 10) What about Regent Jewett’s strategy of "focused budgetary requests" to the state legislature? President Likins commented that Regent Jewett, a former legislator believes strongly that we must find ways to convince the governor and the legislature increase funds to the universities and is looking for ways to articulate more persuasive arguments. For FY04, he has a radically altered strategy to request dollars to pay debt service on research buildings, which are considered investments by the state, rather than efforts to secure funds for faculty and teaching assistant salaries and for improvements to undergraduate education and information technology. 11) According to the Provost’s calendar for a final draft of the academic leadership themes, the Faculty Senate is organizationally challenged to provide input by November 30. Provost Davis responded that all of his meetings with SPBAC have been about process, not about the themes themselves. The theme-specific input he has received has all come to him from individual faculty and staff via email or personal conversation. President Likins reminded the Senate that there is no operational consequence to identifying leadership themes by November 20 or December 15, although there will be in the next stage, in January, which involves recommendations for mergers, dissolutions or reorganizations. The consequences of identifying themes will actually evolve over years. 12) Because the Faculty Senate will be involved in the reorganization process merging, eliminating or reorganization of units, it will be difficult to make reasoned decisions in a timely manner without being well-informed and meeting more often. Once a month Senate meetings are inadequate for timely, relevant input and this is not fair to colleagues whose positions or departments might be eliminated. 13) If the University moves too quickly, focused excellence may be perceived as sterile violence within and without, and may engender a backlash. Chair Hancock explained that the timeline for proposals to surface was created with a high regard for the Reorganization policy, which specifies 120 days, which would allow the Senate to complete its examination in May. 14) Are such actions necessary immediately? Provost Davis provided the example of the closure of AIC in which all the faculty contracts are being honored and all of the students are being allowed to complete their program and receive the kind of experience that originally motivated them to enroll. 15) The Senate Executive Committee should formulate a proposal for how the Senate can deal with numerous reorganization proposals.

9. ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:08 p.m.

Robert L. Mitchell, Secretary

 Appendix*

1.  Voting Online – An Overview.
2.  Faculty Elections Expenses and Projected 2003 Cost.
3.  Access to On-Line Voting.
4.  Significant Differences Between UHAP Policy and Proposed Policy on Research Misconduct.
5.  Revised Draft 9/13/02 Policy on Ethics in Scholarly, Creative and Research Activities and Procedures for Investigations of Misconduct and flowchart for Policy on Ethics in Scholarly, Creative and Research Activities and Procedures for Investigations of Misconduct.
6.  October 1, 2002 Memorandum to Faculty Senate Members from Roy Spece re: proposed amendments to Policy on Ethics in Scholarly, Creative and Research Activities and Procedures for Investigations of Misconduct.
7.  Memo from the Secretary of the Faculty, dated October 24, 2002 about Senate Meetings and background materials for focused excellence.
8.  "A Message from the President" dated October 2002.
9.  "Provost’s Appraisal of University of Arizona Pathway to More Focused Academic Excellence" dated October 4, 2002.

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

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