1. CALL TO ORDER

Lacking a quorum, Secretary of the Faculty Robert Mitchell, presiding in Vice Chair Howell's absence, called the April 19, 2004 Special Session of the Faculty Senate to order at 3:12 p.m. in the College of Law, Room 146.

Present: Senators Burd, Chapman, Conway, Cusanovich, G. Davis, Green, Hancock, Hildebrand, Jenkins, Jones, Kiefer, Kim Mitchell, Pintozzi, Radebaugh, Rainer, Schlager, Silverman, Spece, Zizza and Zwolinski. Robert Sankey served as Parliamentarian.

Absent: Senators Arabyan, Baughman, Benedict, Bixby, Borden, Chandler, Christenson, Dahlgran, D. Davis, Diaz, Erickson, Garrett, Gruener, Howell, Impey, Joens, Larson, Likins, Lynch, Miesfeld, Pitt, Powell, Songer, Strittmatter, Swanson, Tatman, Timmermann, Tomanek, Vierling, Warburton, Weinand, Willerton, Witte, Wright, and Wysocki.

2. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE RECOMMENDATION WHICH HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE SCHOOL OF PLANNING REORGANIZATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (attachments)

Secretary Mitchell called upon Dr. Nancy Huber, Chair of the Reorganization Advisory Committee for the School of Planning to present the only order of business, which is the Report and Recommendation from the Advisory Committee for the School of Planning. Chair Huber explained that Planning was suggested for closure because it was an isolated graduate program with an enrollment so small that it was having difficulty meeting minimum graduation numbers set by ABOR. As a single-degree graduate program, without an undergraduate component, and insignificant outside funding sources, it "fell under the microscope" for possible elimination. The Reorganization Committee conducted extensive interviews with all Planning faculty members, potential receiving units, staff and students to arrive at this recommendation.

The Committee has recommended that the School of Planning move as a unit to the Department of Geography and Regional Development (GRD) in the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences (SBS). The entire faculty of the School of Planning supports this recommendation and both Dean Donnerstein of SBS and J. Paul Jones, GRD Department Head, are receptive to this move. Chair of the Faculty and Senator Hancock, who served as co-chair of the Reorganization Advisory Committee, described that some of the key benefits of moving Planning to GRD, which include the potential to develop Gen Ed courses, an undergraduate minor in Planning, and ultimately even an undergraduate major in Planning. Retaining the Planning degree also increases the potential to better support increased graduate student enrollment. Senator Hancock also said the university would save little money by eliminating the school because its tenured faculty would still be employed in other departments. One way to save is for the same amount of money to have more productivity. The synergies and efficiencies between Planning and GRD, supported by an enthusiastic Dean and Department Head, will better support rejuvenation of Planning and the higher productivity coming out of such an arrangement constitutes, in effect, a cost savings. The report emphasized that quick implementation is essential to retain Planning's reputation as an accredited program and its ability to recruit top quality students
and urged that a transition team convene by June 1, and the embargo of admitting new students be lifted immediately.

The committee also considered other possible outcomes, such as becoming an Interdisciplinary Program. Senator Hildebrand, who served on the Reorganization Advisory Committee, advised the Senate that becoming an IDP is a lengthy process that is determined by the GIDP Advisory Committee, an elected faculty body. As a former member of GIDPAC, he said that this committee takes seriously the process of approving GIDPs and that a Planning IDP at this time would have an uncertain outcome because it would scatter the faculty and seriously disadvantage the students by placing the program's accreditation and degree in jeopardy. After moving as a unit into GRD, however, an IDP might very well grow from the School of Planning in that setting.

Director of the School of Planning, Dr. Barbara Becker, who also served on the Reorganization Advisory Committee, described how the program currently meets the Focused Excellence goals and how they would be met after the moving to GRD. She also described how the program was recently accredited and met 80 of the 85 criteria totally, and the other five were partially met. UA's School of Planning is a strong, nationally recognized program that serves a real need in Arizona, particularly for the Native American tribes, the southwestern region, and the United States. Planning faculty member Sandra Rosenbloom, who also served on the Advisory Committee described the potential for Planning to be somewhat self-supporting with funds generated by offering courses for professionals and the professional exam courses which are in great demand, since the UA's planners have a higher first pass rate than other schools, and from public service projects. Such entrepreneurial activities are a part of SPBAC's criteria. Planning's faculty and student body are among the most diverse on campus. Over 50% of Planning's students are from out-of-state, and in-state students have declared that no other Planning program would meet their needs. The program's enrollment was on an upward trajectory before the embargo on admissions was imposed: even so, students are currently awaiting a decision because they still wish to enroll in the UA's Planning program.

Graduate and Professional Student Council President and Senator Jani Radebaugh, who also served on the Reorganization Advisory Committee, reported that the School of Planning students' desire is for the University to retain the accreditation, the degree, and the interdisciplinary nature of the program. Furthermore, the students are supportive of charging course and program fees for planning students to help improve the school's financial stability, as long as the fees go directly back into the program.

Dr. J. Paul Jones, GRD Department Head spoke in support of the recommendation. GRD and Planning have much in common and while GRD’s faculty is more research- and academically–oriented, they are open to the idea of devising an appropriate agenda for the future and would welcome another dimension to the department's intellectual atmosphere. Furthermore, In GRD, Planning could broaden undergraduate education by providing courses on issues such as city history and structure, economic development and transportation. Planning might eventually develop an undergraduate curriculum, Planning’s graduate students would still focus on service and community outreach, and the possibility for Planning to generate a new IDP would still remain. GRD’s business manager could help to manage Planning’s affairs and revenue-generating opportunities. Dr. Jones concluded that, "If you support this recommendation, you are making the right decision."

Senators’ questions and comments included 1) What other Planning programs are available in the state? NAU offers an undergraduate minor and ASU offers a degree in design and environment from Planning and Landscape Architecture, in which mainly Maricopa County students enroll. 2) What are the downsides to moving into GRD? The Chair of Geography would like his department to become a top-ten program. The scholarly orientation and research emphasis is not a complete mesh with the professional degree offered by Planning and the curriculums would remain distinct. Senator Jenkins commented that finding departments so willing to merge with each other is unusual. She moved [Motion 2003/04-52] that the Faculty Senate vote to support the recommendation. Motion was seconded. Secretary Mitchell advised the Senate that, without a quorum, it couldn’t take formal action. Chair Hancock and Secretary Mitchell conferred with Parliamentarian Sankey to determine how the Senate might respond in a timely manner, without a quorum present at today's meeting. Because the next scheduled meeting of the Faculty Senate is May 3, it would limit the Senate's time to make its review and recommendations. Chair Hancock told the Senate it needs to take action because the May Senate meeting is when the Senate begins its new term, so new senators at that meeting would not have heard this discussion and former senators will have rotated off. In addition, SPBAC is scheduled to hear this report and recommendation at its May 5 meeting. Secretary Mitchell asked Senators present today to take a non-binding vote on the motion to support the recommendation, in order to determine the sense of the Senate. The faculty officers will then send out an email summary of today's discussion indicating the results of the vote taken today and will ask all Senators to vote electronically, including those who voted today. The Senate voted 18 in favor, none opposed, and 2 abstentions, to support the recommendation to move Planning as a unit into GRD.

3. ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:11 p.m.

Robert L. Mitchell, Secretary

1. Cover memo from Reorganization Advisory Committee Chair Nancy S. Huber dated April 15, 2004.
2. Reorganization Advisory Committee Report dated 15 April 2004
3. Appendix A: "School of Planning and Reorganization of the Planning Degree"
4. Appendix B: "Reorganization Procedures at the University of Arizona" approved by the Faculty Senate September 9, 2002.
5. Appendix C: "Advisory Committee" roster and chronicle
6. Appendix D: "Provost’s Appraisal of University of Arizona Pathway to More Focused Academic Excellence ABC Bulletin 4," dated October 4, 2002.
7. Appendix E: "Planning’s Response to ABC Bulletin #4 – Focused Excellence Fit"
8. Appendix F: Memo from Barbara Becker, "The School of Planning Meets SPBAC Review Criteria," dated March 17, 2004.

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

Motion 2003/04-52 Motion to support the Recommendation of the Reorganization Advisory Committee to move the School of Planning as a unit to the Department of Geography and Regional Development in the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences. Motion was seconded. Because of the lack of a quorum the vote is non-binding, however, the motion passed. Faculty leaders announced that Senators will be sent a summary of today’s meeting and then will be asked to vote electronically, via email.