FACULTY SENATE MINUTES

CORRECTED

1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair and Presiding Officer Wanda Howell at 3:05 p.m. in the College of Law, Room 146.

Present: Senators Arabyan, Bales, Burd, Chandler, Dahlgran, D. Davis, G. Davis, Esparza, Garcia, Hancock, Hartz, Holmes, Howell, Impey, Jenkins, Joens, Jones, Kiefer, Likins, Lynch, Miesfeld, Mishra, Mitchell, Morris, O'Brien, Pintozzi, Powell, Rainer, Schlager, Songer, Spece, Vierling, Warburton, Warnock, Weinand, Willerton, Witte, S. Wright, Wysocki, and Zwolinski. Robert Sankey served as Parliamentarian.

Absent: Senators Bixby, Borden, Caldwell, Erickson, Farney, Flores, Heinrich, Impey, Larson, Oxnam, Silverman, Swanson, Sweazea, Szilagyi, Tatman, Timmermann, and E. Wright.

2. OPEN SESSION
There were no speakers for the Open Session.

President Hartz reported that ASUA will host a Town Hall with the Office of the President on December 5, 2002, at 4:00 p.m. in Modern Languages 350 to discuss tuition and financial aid increases. ASUA also will pursue the Fall Break concept, having surveyed students in 92 classes during the Wednesday prior to Thanksgiving Break to determine that 58% were completely canceled.

President Morris distributed a 3-D Memorandum describing the effects of reorganization proposals on graduate and professional students and requesting department heads and deans to protect graduate students from further recissions in their departments. He expressed extreme concern about the proposed maximum tuition increase for graduate students of $1250, and optimism that the President and Provost will work to improve the compensation packages for teaching and research assistants. GPSC’s 10^th Annual Student Showcase elicited over 100 exhibits and awarded over $10,000 in prizes. President Morris reported that GPSC is collaborating with the University of Arizona Retirees Association and the Alumni Association to generate scholarships, and is pursuing the Fall Break concept with ASUA.

3C. Vice Chair of the Faculty Wanda Howell

Vice Chair Howell welcomed Professor Emeritus Cornelius Steelink, representing the University of Arizona Retirees Association (UARA), which the Senate Executive Committee voted to award official observer status in the Senate. The Senate Executive Committee voted to add two Senate meetings in the Spring term, March 10 and April 14, in anticipation of increased workload due to reorganization. The Senate Executive Committee decided to wait for Professor Peter Medine’s return from sabbatical this Spring to address his resolution regarding a study of faculty salaries. Dr. Bob Eno from the University of Indiana has been corresponding with NCAA schools nationwide including the PAC 10 to elicit support for reforms of Intercollegiate Athletics. The Shared Governance Review Committee distributed a letter to the Faculty Senate, the University Council and SPBAC, clarifying whether particular reorganization proposals are sent for review to SPBAC or to the Senate. SPBAC Chair Jerry Hogle explained that in general, the Senate reviews policy recommendations, while SPBAC reviews budget and planning proposals and prioritizations, and some areas such as reorganizations will be reviewed by both.

3D. Secretary of the Faculty Robert Mitchell

No report.

3E. Chair of the Faculty Jory Hancock

Chair Hancock reported that the tone and attitude of the November Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) meeting was extremely positive, and that the Regents have begun to acknowledge that keeping pace with peers is important and that adjusting and raising tuition and financial aid is necessary. The Arizona Faculties Council (AFC) appealed for a commitment to reach the top of the bottom third in national tuition rates and to stay there, and also discussed how increased tuition may cause more students to qualify for financial aid. The Regents’ Breakfast with members of the University Distinguished Professors and Regents’ Professors and the Senate Executive Committee allowed time for the Regents to converse with faculty members in a comfortable and informal way. Senator Chris Impey also made a presentation to the Regents about how fragile the University Research areas are and how committed this faculty is to the students and how much they care about not losing what we have.

Provost Davis described Senator Impey’s presentation to the Regents as extraordinary, describing the close interfacing and juxtaposition of teaching and research. Provost Davis described the deployment of the budget cuts to meet the 5.3% required by the state. He has met with each dean, the Senate Executive Committee and SPBAC for input to meeting the original 5% cut ($16,723,000) plus the additional .3% ($1,150,700) for a total of $17,873,700. These cuts will be disproportionately imposed, ranging from 10.1% in units that report to the President and the Senior Vice President for Business Affairs, 6.6% in units that report to Academic Affairs outside the colleges, to an average of 3.3% in the colleges and 3.8% in the Arizona Health Sciences Center. There is still a gap of $559,700 and the .3% is still to be determined. Provost Davis has also been holding in-depth meetings with vice presidents and deans to discuss the opportunities for merges, streamlining, and reorganization proposals. He is also reviewing Academic Program Reviews and accreditation reviews dating back to 1995-96. During the week of December 16-20, he and President Likins, Randy Richardson, Dick Powell and Libbie Ervin will meet with each dean to apply the SPBAC criteria to each unit and program. In January, President Likins and Provost Davis expect to present their conclusions regarding reorganization strategies. The Senate Executive Committee will meet with President Likins and Provost Davis on January 27, 2003, to help determine how the Senate can adapt its schedule to respond to requests for programmatic reorganizations.

President Likins described the adversarial relationship between the Board of Regents and the universities a decade ago, when the Regents were focused on questions of abolishing tenure, faculty workload, and faculty performance. But shortly before President Likins came to office, there began a dialogue with the Regents that resulted in a Post-Tenure Review procedure and a relationship that is mutually respectful. He explained how, every time the UA hosts ABOR, he asks a faculty member to present to the Regents what faculty members actually do, in order to educate and remind the Regents of the work of the universities. He said such presentations as Senator Impey’s help the Regents to understand how enormously significant are the faculty’s role and contributions, beyond the budgets, policies, and politics. President Likins explained how the legislature’s regulatory mentality would prevent the Universities from fully utilizing the capabilities of the people of the State of Arizona for decades, but ultimately resulted in severe deficiencies in financial aid, accessibility, and resources. The Regents have finally begun to understand how this logic was flawed and at the last ABOR meeting, the three universities presented computer modeling focusing on needy undergraduates showing the effects of a 20%, 30%, and 40% increase in tuition and the corresponding financial aid alternatives. At UA, the most extreme model, a $1000 increase in annual tuition and a corresponding set-aside of 40% for financial aid, would significantly improve the UA’s national standing in tuition levels and would reduce unmet need by $.5 million. If the Regents do in fact, permit the universities the freedom to determine their future and increase tuition, such a radical ($1000) increase in tuition would garner $19M for UA, but with this year’s mid-year recissions that total $17.9M, this increase would not solve the University’s serious financial shortfall, but rather, would be only a modest repositioning step. Still the Regents’ shift in attitude is significant, and is one for which the faculty can take the credit.

Senator Garcia remarked that he hopes that ASUA is also surveying the faculty to determine whether they are canceling classes immediately prior to Thanksgiving holiday, because in spite of rumors of class cancellations, the Physics Department canceled no classes last Wednesday.

The minutes of November 4, 2002 were approved with the following amendment: the following sentence, "Senator Spece inquired and Chair Pintozzi responded that this policy has been vetted for compliance with ORI guidelines." to be added to the discussion on the Policy on Ethics in Scholarly, Creative, and Research Activities and Procedures for Investigations of Misconduct.

The consent agenda item detailed at the end of these minutes was unanimously approved [Motion 2002/03-15].

DISCUSSION: UNDERGRADUATE COUNCIL PROPOSED POLICY ON ADMINISTRATIVE DROP WITH PREJUDICE (attachment)

Undergraduate Council (UGC) Chair Jennifer Jenkins presented the policy that was initially drafted in the Undergraduate Council as a response to ensure faculty and staff safety following the murders at the College of Nursing. Concerns arose regarding the lack of centralized tracking for escalating incidents and the files and records dating back for long periods of time in disparate offices. Chair Jenkins explained that the policy is not intended to deny anyone his or her due process rights and invited discussion. Senators’ questions (Q), comments (C), and answers (A) included the following: (Q) How would allowing different offices being able to follow potential problem students make faculty feel safe? (A) A Student Code of Conduct (SCC) Complaint Form would be filed and all possible mechanisms then kick in including informing the Student Information System, the Dean of Students, and the UA Police Department, and due process begins and students are informed of their rights and hopefully the student is counseled. (C) Faculty may feel more secure and tensions may be reduced if we succeed in changing the culture, similar to the airlines and bomb threats, so that people understand that even idle threats can expect serious consequences. (Q) Does the policy really intend to expel, rather than suspend? (A) Expulsion is forever, suspension is a determinant period of time ranging from a month to as long as five years. (A) The UGC wrote expulsion and this is what they intended. (C) The committee should be cautious about expulsion because it may make it difficult for a person to make the decision to administratively drop the student the second time because of the severe consequence. (Q) Where does the interplay of due process and the policy’s language, "causes reasonable apprehension of harm" occur? (A) Due process begins after the SCC complaint form is filed. The student is notified in writing about the complaint and the need to talk with V. Kowalski in the Dean of Students Office. This initiates the investigation, in which V. Kowalski may interview the student, other students, and/or the faculty member. V. Kowalski either dismisses the case or makes a determination that a violation occurred. If the case is dismissed, the result is reinstatement to a different section of the same class. If a violation has occurred, there are a number of sanctions including expulsion, suspension, probation, warning, and others. Students may also be assigned to another section and receive counseling. Students sanctioned with expulsion or suspension may request a hearing with the University Hearing Board (UHB). If the UHB makes a determination of no finding, the student can expect restoration. (Q) Would advisors have access to this information? (A) Yes, and in fact, advisors experience some of the most abusive behavior on campus. (Q) Are the SCC complaint form and sanctions distributed to the department head, the instructor, and the student? A) Because of FERPA, the Dean of Students’ Office is limited in what can be released. Right now, confidential information is not placed in SIS, but rather is kept in a student’s file, but discussions are underway to determine what sort of centralized clearinghouse for student behavior might be created. (C) The University does need a clear policy to change the culture and improve faculty security, but this policy needs to be beefed up to provide what is really needed: an integrated tracking system, which would really make an impact. (C) Replace "will be administratively dropped" with "may be administratively dropped, based on appropriate review by the Dean of Students or the UA Police" or whatever is appropriate, or with language like "just cause," as is used in faculty and staff policy. Such language would indicate the serious impact but the sanction is not immediate because there is some ongoing investigation and consideration. Also suggest adding wording to the last sentence in both sections that reads, "The University may, after appropriate review, seek appropriate disciplinary action up to and including suspension and expulsion." (C) The policy appears to give due process, but the SCC complaint form should appear in the policy to make it clear. Also the language of the second paragraph states that a student will be immediately expelled after a second administrative drop with prejudice, which implies no appeal process. The first paragraph is too long and the subject of the paragraph is lost. (Q) Are any other areas of the University dealing with this question in a larger way, given that students are not the only people who are capable of endangering or causing physical harm to others. (A) The next agenda item is workplace violence. (Q) Is the policy mandating the communication of information? (A) Yes, and it also mandates the sanctions. Members of the UGC felt that students are often not sanctioned enough, and this policy would take some of that discretion away from the Dean of Students Office. (C) Due process procedures are important, particularly since false allegations can be and are made, but the process should not take too long, so the committee should consider adding a timeline. (Q) Since this mandates administrative dropping of a student from a course, does this include a student who says, "I’m gonna kill myself?" Does the policy really intend that? (A) This policy is not intended for a student threatening to harm him or herself. (C) Then the real issue is whether the word should be "will be administratively dropped" versus "may be administratively dropped." (C) Different levels of threats, and intended actions, or actions, invite branch point within the policy. (C) The language "causes reasonable apprehension of such harm" is extremely difficult to interpret but this is precisely where due process needs to exist in an explicit way. (C) When the policy is final, it should be included on course syllabi, which comes from the Provost. (C) As written, the policy permits a student to threaten the life of a secretary, but not faculty. (A) UGC tried to draft the second paragraph to deal with non-classroom and non-faculty situations. Chair Jenkins invited additional input be sent to her at jenkinsj@u.arizona.edu .

Vice Chair Howell directed the Senate’s attention to the Workplace Violence Policy draft that has come from Cathy Nicholson of Human Resources (HR) for the Senate’s input. Human Resources representative Cathy Nicholson explained that this policy applies to all University employees, including faculty, staff, and student employees.

Senators’ questions (Q), comments (C), and answers (A) included the following: (Q) In the last line on the last page about the functions of the Workplace Violence Crisis Management team, "collect and monitor data relating to violence in the workplace," if a student is a part-time employee, would a report go to the Dean of Students and to HR? (Q) What is the legal basis on which the University prohibits firearms on campus? Is that a state law or a University policy or flatly contrary to the Second Amendment? (A) There is a University "Weapons on Campus" policy in place. The right to bear arms remains a controversial issue. (C) The expression "induce distress" is too vague: a heated argument may cause distress but not violence. (C) Under the definition of intimidation, add, "as an end in itself." following the phrase "induce distress." Cathy Nicholson said suggestions from all employee groups will be pooled and incorporated if adopted. The policy will then be posted and implemented. Additional comments and suggestions may be sent to maryn@u.arizona.edu .

Research Policy Committee (RPC) Chair C. Pintozzi presented the revised draft of the Policy On Ethics In Scholarly, Creative, And Research Activities And Procedures For Investigations Of Misconduct, which comes as a seconded motion [Motion 2002/03-16]. She thanked everyone for the suggestions that she has received to date. Senators’ initial questions (Q) and answers (A) included the following: (Q) Does this policy address all of the University Committee on Ethics and Commitment’s responsibilities, because it does not include financial misappropriations. (A) Correct, this policy does not include all of UCEC’s responsibilities. Chair Pintozzi explained that the Senate would now consider each of the proposed amendments that the RPC received and did not choose to incorporate into the revised draft, and then vote on the revised Policy as a whole. Parliamentarian Sankey explained that the revised policy comes as a seconded motion, but that Senator Spece’s and others’ proposed amendments must be moved and seconded, discussed and voted upon individually. UCEC proposed and RPC accepted a replacement to Section III, A with the effect that the Preliminary Inquiry Panel need not be required to appoint an external member unless outside expertise or excessive workload warrants it. Senator Spece moved [Motion 2002/03-17] to amend line one of Section I.B.2. by adding "as far as can reasonably be expected" after "will." Motion was seconded. Chair Pintozzi explained that the wording of this passage, while not identical to NIH, is consistent and in the same spirit. Some senators expressed concerns that it is virtually impossible to check every step, but rather that the Principle Investigator (PI) is responsible for providing clear descriptions and expectations and training for employees. If a PI is responsible for fifty or more employees, or in multi-centered drug trials, it would be draconian to find him or her guilty of misconduct for an employee’s failure to check the data as instructed. Yet authors are responsible for the content of a paper in which their name is listed. The question was called. Motion failed 20-12. Senator Spece moved [Motion 2002/03-18] to amend line two of Section I.B.3. by adding "as reasonably can be expected within their relevant research or scholarly community" after "records." Motion was seconded. Senator’s comments and concerns included the following: There are significant differences among the disciplines and that any inquiry panel needs to judge a colleague’s behavior by the standards of that particular discipline. In a recent example relating to Element 118, in which the lead author was disciplined, but the numerous co-authors were not. In a multi-disciplinary research paper, some of the co-authors may not completely understand what is in a paper. Motion failed, 22-9. Senator Weinand moved [Motion 2002/03-19] to amend the definition of misconduct in Section I.C.3. by excluding "or other practices" because this wording does not appear in the Federal Register definition of Scientific Misconduct and because the scientific community recognizes this term as invalid and too broad for a focused scientific investigation and hearing. Motion was seconded. Chair Pintozzi described a passage from the Office of Science and Technology that defines misconduct as a "significant departure in accepted practices." Some senators who serve on RPC said they "or other practices" captured both this content and intent. Some senators disagreed on the federal definition of misconduct and indicated that the elimination of "or other practices" from that sentence would render the sentence nonsensical. Several senators suggested that the Federal Register’s definition of misconduct be inserted directly into the Section I.C.3. of the policy to avoid ambiguity. Senator Weinand withdrew motion 2002/03-19 and moved [Motion 2002/03-20] to eliminate the words "or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the relevant research and scholarly community." Motion was seconded and passed. Senator Spece moved [Motion 2002/03-21] to amend Section I.C.4. by adding to the end: "No person shall be subject to a sanction not required by the federal government unless the allegation is proven by clear and convincing evidence." Motion was not seconded. Presiding Officer Howell announced that a quorum was no longer present but that discussion could continue. Senator’s comments and concerns included the following: "Preponderance of evidence" means that a researcher could receive an academic death sentence by a panel’s finding that is only slightly more true than not true. The Federal Register specifically discussed this issue and specifically concluded that the standard should be "preponderance of evidence." We owe it to our colleagues to require a higher standard than the federal government. RPC believes this policy should keep within the federal government’s guidelines. President Likins stated that he could not accept a policy that is in conflict with federal standards. If we are citing the Federal Register in this policy, it makes no sense not to conform in other portions. We should explicitly tie this policy to the Federal Register and then if the standard is found to be unconstitutional, we can change it at the same time as the federal government. Since UA receives federal grants and contracts, we should follow the federally articulated text in the Federal Register and avoid creating two sets of standards, one for researchers with federal money and one for other types of funding. Most civil cases require a "preponderance of evidence," while criminal cases or parental rights cases require "clear and convincing." As time ran out, Chair Pintozzi requested that additional comments and suggestions can be emailed to her at pintozzic@u.library.arizona.edu .

ADJOURNMENT

A quorum no longer being present, the meeting was adjourned at 5:13 p.m.

Robert L. Mitchell, Secretary

Appendix*

1.  Consent Agenda item forwarded from the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee.
2.  Letter to Provost George Davis dated November 20, 2002 from Jennifer Jenkins re: proposed policy for Administrative Drop with Prejudice.
3.  Undergraduate Council’s proposed policy for Administrative Drop with Prejudice.
4.  Draft policy on Workplace Violence from Human Resources
5.  Revised Draft 11/20/02 Policy on Ethics in Scholarly, Creative and Research Activities and Procedures for Investigations of Misconduct.
6.  Significant Differences Between UHAP Policy and Proposed Policy on Research Misconduct.
7.  RPC Responses to Proposed Amendments, Comments, Questions regarding proposed Policy on Ethics in Scholarly, Creative and Research Activities and Procedures for Investigations of Misconduct.
8.  Letter to All members of the Faculty Senate, SPBAC, and the University Council from the Shared Governance Review Committee dated November 14, 2002 re: The Tracking of Proposals to the Faculty Senate or SPBAC.
9.   3-D Memorandum from Peter Morris dated November 18, 2002 re: Effect of Reorganization Proposals on Graduate and Professional Students.

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

Motion 2002/03-15 Seconded Motion from the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee to approve a joint degree program allowing a student to earn a Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm. D.) and a Master’s degree in Business Administration (MBA) as detailed in the proposal dated 8/07/02. Motion passed.

Motion 2002/03-16 Seconded motion from the Research Policy Committee to approve the Policy on Ethics in Scholarly, Creative and Research Activities and Procedures for Investigations of Misconduct. Vote delayed.

Motion 2002/03-17 Seconded motion to amend line one of Section I.B.2. of the Policy on Ethics in Scholarly, Creative and Research Activities and Procedures for Investigations of Misconduct, by adding "as far as can reasonably be expected" after "will." Motion failed, 20 opposed, 12 in favor, with no abstentions.

Motion 2002/03-18 Seconded motion to amend line two of Section I.B.3. of the Policy on Ethics in Scholarly, Creative and Research Activities and Procedures for Investigations of Misconduct, by adding "as reasonably can be expected within their relevant research or scholarly community" after "records." Motion failed, 22 opposed, 9 in favor, with no abstentions.

Motion 2002/03-19 Seconded motion to amend line one of Section I.C.3. of the Policy on Ethics in Scholarly, Creative and Research Activities and Procedures for Investigations of Misconduct, by eliminating "or other practices." Motion withdrawn.

Motion 2002/03-20 Seconded motion to amend line one of Section I.C.3. of the Policy on Ethics in Scholarly, Creative and Research Activities and Procedures for Investigations of Misconduct, by eliminating "or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the relevant research and scholarly community." Motion passed.

Motion 2002/03-21 Unseconded motion to amend Section I.C.4. of the Policy on Ethics in Scholarly, Creative and Research Activities and Procedures for Investigations of Misconduct, by adding a last line: "No person shall be subject to a sanction not required by the federal government unless the allegation is proven by clear and convincing evidence."

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