|
|
FACULTY SENATE
|
MINUTES
FACULTY SENATE
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA®
Once approved, these
minutes may be accessed electronically at:
http://fpnew.ccit.arizona.edu/senate/minutes.htm
Visit the faculty governance webpage at:
http://fpnew/ccit.arizona.edu/senate/
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Mitchell at 3:02 p.m. in the College of Law, Room 146.
Present: Senators Boepple, Burd, Chang, Conway, Cuello, D. Davis, G. Davis, O. Davis, deWinter, Green, Hertzog, Hildebrand, Howell, Jackson, Jenkins, Jones, Kiefer, McKee, Mitchell, Mitchneck, Mountford, Mutchler, Nolan, Pavao-Zuckerman, Pintozzi, Salazar, Sarid, Schlager, Sebesta, Silverman, Smith, Spece, St. John, Strittmatter, Thorn, Willerton, Witte and Zizza. John Warnock substituted for Senator Ulreich. Robert Sankey served as Parliamentarian.
Absent: Senators Chandler, Christenson, Cromwell, Cusanovich, Dahlgran, Estrada, Gruener, Hammann, Joens, Likins, Marchalonis, Ranger-Moore, Ruiz, San Martin, Songer, Sterling, Tatman, Ulreich, Weinand, and Wheeland.
2. OPEN SESSION
There were no speakers for the Open Session.
3. REPORTS
3A. ASUA President Erin Hertzog
Newly-inaugurated ASUA President Erin Hertzog reported that ASUA/Arizona Students Association has just completed its letter-writing campaign to encourage state legislators to approve the governor’s budget. The UA’s and ASU’s combined efforts yielded about 12,000 letters which were hand delivered to the legislators. The Board of Regents has agreed to move the tuition-setting process to the fall of the year, which will be more challenging for student leadership but beneficial to the students. The proposed Student Union fee referendum failed with 70% of voters opposed to the $40/year fee. ASUA will now work toward developing a more adequate proposal.
Vice Chair of the Faculty Robert Mitchell reminded Senators that the reception honoring President Likins’ UA career which was scheduled for today has been postponed and will be rescheduled for the fall when he is feeling up to it. Vice Chair Mitchell welcomed the 2006-07 Senate to its first meeting of the year, noting that the Senate’s meeting schedule which begins its new year in May does not correspond with the fiscal, academic or calendar years. He introduced new college representative senators Owen Davis, College of Science; Cecile McKee, Social and Behavioral Sciences; Barnet Pavao-Zuckerman representing non college-affiliated faculty; James Ranger-Moore, College of Public Health; and Judith Sebesta for College of Fine Arts and returning Senator Edella Schlager, Eller College. He called senators’ attention to the Senate’s meeting schedule for the coming year plus the standing committees’ reports that were in the packets or placed at their desks today. Also on senators’ desks today is a handout provided by Dudley Woodard, the Faculty Athletics Representative to the NCAA explaining the process for calculating a school’s Academic Progress Report for intercollegiate athletics, as he reported on in April. Vice Chair Mitchell is still assembling the Senate Task Force on Campus Child Care and asked for more volunteers. At the Regents meeting last month, Chair of the Faculty Howell and Vice Chair Mitchell and faculty leaders from the other campuses led a productive dialogue with the Regents about post-tenure review.
Provost Davis congratulated the new student government leaders on their elections and looks forward to working with them. The Board of Regents approved the UA’s proposed resident undergraduate tuition increase of 6% for UA and 1.6% for UAS including fees, as well as some differential tuition and fees in Eller, Architecture and Engineering. Under the new schedule, tuition hearings will take place the week of November 13 and the Board will decide tuition setting at its November 20-December 1, 2006 meeting. ASU President Crow presented the master plan for the downtown Phoenix campus, which is on the ASU website. Provost Davis acknowledged Senator Sally Jackson, UA’s Chief Information Officer and her team including Michelle Norin for its presentation on the IT-AZUN (Information Technology Arizona University Net) the UA’s network master plan. Provost Davis presented the UA’s “Regents Accountability Measures,” which includes our six-year graduation rate of 58% which was our goal for 2009. In 1985 the four-year graduation rate was 17%. Now it is at 34%, probably due to Lynne Tronsdal’s and Lynette Cook-Francis’s strong emphasis on retention. Other measures include student engagement; grants, contracts and gifts which increased by about 3.5%. The number of Ph.D. graduates is down by about 10, possibly due to a decline in international doctoral candidates, although this year’s international applicants are up 61%. The UA outreach telemedicine program is already almost at its 2009 goal of 90K contacts. Provost Davis said he returned from the Regents meeting with a clearer idea of UA’s distinguished status with respect to other universities in Arizona, and how UA might be perceived nationally. UA needs increased funding support for the research, scholarship and creative activities which inform the teaching mission of the University. He believes the UA should be able to accomplish this. Of the twenty high school students named Flinn scholars, the UA will welcome twelve and ASU will welcome the other eight this coming fall. ABOR approved the Regents Professors’ nominations of Carol Barnes, Mary P. Koss, Toni M. Massaro and Mark A. Nichter. President Likins was awarded the Regents Medal and emeritus status. UA’s compliance investigation of a set of three allegations of potential NCAA violations by a faculty member and a student athlete in the Classics Department involved the Faculty Athletics Representative D. Woodard and the Athletics Department’s Associate Director of Compliance, Bill Morgan. Acting on President Likins’ behalf, Provost Davis ruled on the three allegations that there were no compliance trespasses. The investigation revealed other information, however, which caused him to ask Vice Provost for Instruction Hogle to thoroughly examine independent studies in Classics and Religious Studies and beyond, if needed, to determine whether certain prerogatives or privileges have been given to student-athletes. President Likins telephoned Provost Davis yesterday and is feeling much better. The President also surprised the Cabinet last week when he dropped in with his wife Pat for a few minutes.
President Likins was greeted with standing applause when he and Mrs. Likins surprised the Faculty Senate today with a brief visit. He told senators he could not allow this year to end without thanking the Senate for the past nine years. He said most university presidents understand that the Faculty Senate is an adversary, an obstacle to be overcome. He believes that this kind of perpetual combat is not good for anyone and he has worked hard to develop the kind of respectful relationships that have enabled him to function with a genuine commitment to shared governance here at UA. When he arrived, Chair of the Faculty Jerry Hogle asked President Likins to sign the Shared Governance Memorandum of Understanding, which he did and which he has tried to honor. When there have been disagreements, he said, it has always been respectful, and that is a beautiful thing. President Likins also advised the Senate that he is still in the 6-8 week recovery period from his open heart surgery and that his doctor says his prognosis is good. He does expect to “walk across the finish line” when his final year as UA’s eighteenth President ends June 30.
4. QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD FOR AGENDA ITEM 3
Senator Silverman asked whether the forums on differential tuition, program fees and general tuition increases have involved faculty and students across campus as well as the Strategic Planning and Budget Advisory Committee. Provost Davis responded that UA’s tuition planning process is transparent and made more so by the Regents, who have been supportive of program fees for professional schools at the graduate level. The Regents require three things, however: 1) evidence that peer institutions are also charging such fees, 2) clarity about how the fees will be used to benefit the college/university, and 3) evidence that the students are prepared to support the concept and its impact on them. Many departments as well as professional programs in the Arts and Sciences with significant collateral issues due to budget cuts and rising enrollments haven’t been eligible for program fees under these Regents guidelines. There are some fee proposals that are primarily reflecting “catch-up” for investments that should have been made previously. ASUA leadership has traditionally relied upon college-by-college polling of deans to report on student input as well as polling the students from each college. ASUA then reports this input to the Board of Regents. Senator Hertzog indicated that the deans who have implemented a student advisory board provide the best model for student input.
Substitute Senator Warnock asked how important is a well-supported first year writing program to retention? Provost Davis responded that writing is an important foundation and basis for success throughout the curriculum.
Senator Jones asked for follow-up from the Regents meeting regarding UA’s proposed $65 information technology and library fee. Provost Davis explained that ABOR gave approval to UA to begin purchasing equipment now and begin installing wireless immediately, to be at least partially in effect by fall 2006.
Senator Howell asked Provost Davis to comment on the Promotion and Tenure decisions. Provost Davis said his goal was to complete the process by May 1 and with the help of the University P&T committee and staff, all of the letters were sent to the deans en masse last week.
Provost Davis also elaborated on President Likins’ upcoming the appointment of a Faculty Athletic Representative to replace D. Woodard who is retiring on June 30, 2006. Names of potential successors are being submitted by Senator Howell, J. Livengood, D. Woodard, T. Estrada, and the deans.
5. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF APRIL 3, 2006
The minutes of April 3, 2006 were approved.
6. ELECTIONS FOR COMMITTEE ON CONCILIATION, UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON ETHICS AND COMMITMENT, UNIVERSITY HEARING BOARD, SENATE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, AND SENATE REPRESENTATIVES TO THE SHARED GOVERNANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE (attachment)
The Senate conducted its annual elections for the Committee on Conciliation, University Committee on Ethics and Commitment, University Hearing Board, and the Faculty Senate Elected Representative to the Senate Executive Committee. Votes were cast using written ballots. Parliamentarian Sankey and Secretary Jenkins served as tellers. In accordance with the General Faculty Bylaws, those elected were:
Committee on
Conciliation
Barbara J. Mills
Edward F. Reid
S. Mae Smith
University Hearing Board
Judith Berg
Thomas Ervin
Clare Rowe
Susan Wilson-Sanders
University
Committee on Ethics and Commitment
Daniel Asia
Esther Fuchs
Saumya K. Debray
Deborah R. Mathieu
Faculty Senate
Executive Committee Representative
Douglas E. Jones
7. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FORWARDED AS A SECONDED MOTION FROM THE INSTRUCTION AND CURRICULUM POLICY COMMITTEE (attachment)
Consent agenda items 1 and 3, forwarded by the ICPC and detailed at the end of these minutes [Motions 2006/07-1 and Motion 2006/07-3] were approved. Senator Howell requested to remove item 2, [Motion 2006/07-2] for discussion. She remarked that because the Accelerated Master’s Program is a combined undergraduate and graduate degree, the Undergraduate Council should have discussed and approved this item, but the accompanying documentation does not show any date for UGC’s approval. Senator Burd assured the Senate that the UGC did discuss and eventually approve this proposal. Associate Dean of the Graduate College Horgan responded from the gallery that the UGC approved the Accelerated Master’s Program in December 2005. The date will be added to the official record of this motion. Motion passed with one abstention.
8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM FORWARDED AS A SECONDED MOTION FROM THE ACADEMIC PERSONNEL POLICY COMMITTEE (attachment)
Chair Mitchell explained that this motion, add a 90-day timeline for the President’s response to tenure denial appeals in the University Handbook for Appointed Personnel 4.16, which is the chapter for continuing status personnel, is correcting an oversight that was left out of the motion to add this timeline for faculty appeals that the Senate approved in March, 2006. The consent agenda item forwarded by the APPC detailed at the end of these minutes [Motion 2006/07-4] was approved.
9. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION FORWARDED AS A SECONDED MOTION FROM THE ACADEMIC PERSONNEL POLICY COMMITTEE (attachment)
Academic Personnel Policy Committee Chair Aleamoni informed the Senate that the APPC received a suggestion to put all of the promotion and tenure committees on the same footing. APPC discussed the idea and agreed it is a desirable affect. APPC proposes this resolution, which the Senate Executive Committee also endorsed, as a seconded motion [Motion 2006/07-5] requesting that the Office of the Provost conduct annual orientation meetings for all promotion and tenure/continuing status committee members at the department, college and University levels, to ensure uniformity and equity in the decision-making process. Senators’ questions and comments included: 1) It is great that a Senate committee has initiated something from the Senate, since many of the Senate’s actions are usually reacting to something forwarded by the administration. 2) Provost Davis said his office welcomes this resolution. Motion passed unanimously.
10. ACADEMIC PERSONNEL POLICY COMMITTEE REPORT ON UNIVERSITY HANDBOOK FOR APPOINTED PERSONNEL 3.12.08
Academic Personnel Policy Committee Chair Aleamoni reminded the Senate of the question that arose last February at the Senate’s first reading to change UHAP 3.12.08. The last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 3.12.08 states that, “The President’s review shall be limited to the record compiled under Section 3.12.07? A few senators questioned whether this sentence refers to a review of the process or the dossier. Chair Aleamoni explained that APPC feels that this is a process issue, particularly if there is dissonance in the various review levels about a decision. APPC members do not believe that this opens the door for the President to introduce new information. Furthermore, the committee members do not believe that such an action is detrimental to the faculty member—that the question about the process is raised in the interest of giving the faculty member the fairest hearing possible. APPC will continue the discussion next year and may come back with a recommendation. Vice Chair Mitchell asked that senators with questions or comments please direct them to APPC Chair Aleamoni.
11. FIRST READING: INDIVIDUAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND CONFLICT OF COMMITMENT POLICY (attachment)
Vice Chair Mitchell advised the Senate that the Research Policy Committee Chair Cusanovich has asked to remove this item form the Senate’s agenda today. It will return in the fall.
12. INFORMATION ITEM: REPORT FROM APPOINTED PROFESSIONALS ADVISORY COUNCIL
Carol Beltran, Chair of Appointed Professionals Advisory Council, spoke in Greg Hodgins’ absence and thanked senators for the opportunity to address them. APAC is a formal elected board that represents almost 3000 APs (appointed professionals), employees who perform a diversity of service and leadership roles in both research and administrative functions. She introduced several APAC members in attendance, Dorothy Vezo, Assistant Director of Human Resources for Facilities Management; Dr. Patricia Sparks, a lecturer in Nutritional Sciences; Dr. Alexis Hernandez, Associate Dean of Students; and Fran Sherlock, Manager, KUAT-TV Production & Operations. Some of the other categories of appointed professionals include lecturers, instrument engineers, research associates, assistant research professors, assistant directors, associate directors of the Student Union, BookStore and Arizona research labs, research scientists and directors. This year APAC participated in the Faculty Forum on Compensation, held its own forum hosted by the College of Science to gather input from constituents, and invited speakers from the administration to share ideas. Using shared governance as the medium for sharing ideas, APAC worked on being an advisory liaison for the APs on campus to the administration and hopes to continue working with Faculty Senate to improve the Plan for Extending Shared Governance approved by the Faculty Senate in 1998.
13. INFORMATION ITEM: REPORT ON UA SOUTH CURRICULUM UPDATE (attachment)
Senator Mutchler advised the Senate about some curricular changes at UA South. ABOR has awarded planning authorization for three new degree programs: a Master’s of Education in Secondary Education, a Bachelor’s of Science (BS) in Elementary Education, and a M.S. in Education Technology. He reminded Senators that UA South’s curricular approval process is different from that of main campus in that curricular changes are vetted by the UA South curriculum committee, UA South faculty and Faculty Forum, the deans and then an oversight committee in the Office of the Provost and then ABOR. While these programs may seem duplicative, they are not intended to compete with the offerings at main campus; rather they are intended to reach out to students who would otherwise not have the opportunity to go to college. Senators’ questions and comments included: 1) Where will these courses be offered? These course are offered in Sierra Vista, on Tucson’s far east side, in Benson and Douglas and perhaps also in Nogales. Some will also be offered as distance learning for remote locations. 2) What is UAS’ enrollment? This semester the full time equivalency count is about 475, but we are actually servicing about 900 students, mostly adult learners, aged thirty and up. 3) How many UAS faculty members are tenured or tenure track? Currently there are eleven tenured or tenure track faculty and we are in the process of hiring four more and hopefully some more next year too. 4) It is surprising that UAS’ curricular matters do not come through the UA’s approval process. Provost Davis explained that this approval process was established through Board of Regents’ approval two and a half years ago when the strategic mission and vision was intended to allow UAS to move more broadly into Southern Arizona and to more aggressively recruit students. The concept underlying the process makes it imperative that the faculty groups approving the degree programs are a mix of UA Main and UA South faculty. UAS’ particular construct right now has Dean Eugene Sander serving as Vice Provost for Outreach and Dave Cox as Interim Director of Continuing Education and Academic Outreach. The Associate Dean for Academic Affairs reports to Dr. Cox so that new programmatic proposals and recruitment of faculty are connected much more tightly with UA main. 5) Senator Zizza remarked that, as a UA South faculty member, he shares Senator Conway’s concern and believes the UAS could benefit from more main campus faculty and departments involvement when designing programs. 6) What is UAS’ Faculty Forum? The Faculty forum is composed of all the benefits eligible faculty, including tenured and tenure track, full time clinical and full time contract lecturers. 7) At the next Faculty Senate meeting, could we have a review of all of the Faculty Senate actions and hearings relating to UA South? It is my recollection that it was mutually desired to have a closer relationship between UA South and main campus and have things come through here. Somehow that seems to have changed. What actions have been taken by the Faculty Senate since the creation of UA South? 8) A UA South faculty member does sit on the Undergraduate Council so they are listening to what we do; are we listening to what they do?
14. INFORMATION ITEM: REPORT ON UA INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS
Athletics Director Jim Livengood presented information about the NCAA’s Academic Percentage Rate (APR) which is a major change, and explained what it means for UA’s Intercollegiate Athletics (ICA). The effect on UA was a loss of three football scholarships and 1.17 baseball scholarships. While losing scholarships is not a good thing, Mr. Livengood said he envisions this action will improve the amount of attention paid to academics, eligibility, retention rates and graduation rates, not only at UA but all across the country. In this trial period, there are some consequences that the student-athletes and coaches are going through right now. UA is one of 337 Division 1 institutions that play intercollegiate athletics in the US. Mr. Livengood believes six things must happen for athletics to remain at universities and colleges across the country. 1) Athletics programs must adhere to a principle of integrity, i.e. follow the rules and not “go gray.” 2) We have to graduate a high percentage of our student-athletes. When student athletes leave early, that is counted against our graduation rates, but a new ranking called the “graduation success rate” (GSR) means that UA’s intercollegiate athletics will not be held accountable if a student-athlete leaves the University in good standing. 3) Student-athletes have to represent the UA in a positive manner. ICA works with the students to help them understand their responsibility is not just competing but also to behave in a positive manner that reflects well on this University. 4) We have to do a better job of enhancing the college experience, making sure that student-athletes have a true collegiate experience, academically, athletically, and socially. 5) We need to produce student-athletes with a sense of civic responsibility and who will be contributors to our society. 6) And finally, we do need to compete to the best of our ability. Winning is important, to our alumni, our community and to the UA. If we can accomplish these six things, people will see that there is a viable place of intercollegiate athletics, and certainly here in Arizona. One of the challenges that Mr. Livengood has seen in his thirteen years here is the difficulty in communicating to a student-athlete that not everyone is going to be a professional athlete. It is particularly difficult when these kids have been told for four or five years about what kind of contracts they’ll be offered and how much money they’ll make. So the athletics staff helps to encourage these students to be a pro at academics, learning how to study, improving reading and writing skills and so forth. The other main challenge is the fiscal responsibility. We have to be sure that ICA is never a financial drain on the University. ICA receives no money from the University, there are no student fees, and the only state money ICA receives now is for tuition waivers, which ASU also receives. There are only about two or three of the 337 Division 1 Schools that can say this. Incoming President Shelton comes from an institution where over $2M in student fees goes into athletics. The athletics financial model involves keeping salaries and new building/facilities under control while still providing for teams to be successful. Mr. Livengood offered to provide Senators with copies of the booklet, “Myths and Facts of Intercollegiate Athletics at the University of Arizona.” Senators’ questions and comments included; 1) ICA’s fiscal self-sustaining capability is terrific, although tuition and fee waivers are a part of this. Are there any other costs such as maintenance and operations that are covered by the University or state, for example, the McKale Center or the Stadium? Those are a shared responsibility, shared by the University and ICA. The ICA facilities are used by more than just ICA, of course. About three years ago Mr. Livengood and President Likins negotiated an end to the University’s supplement to ICA’s budget, while ICA would eliminate its administration fee paid to the University. Without tuition waivers, however, there would not be any ICA. 2) Who pays for student-athletes’ room and board? ICA pays for room and board. 3) Does the ICA still have random drug testing for student athletes? Yes and it is more extensive than before. If a student-athlete tests positive in an NCAA random drug test, that student loses eligibility for a year, and if s/he fails the next year, they are finished. ICA also conducts random testing and if a student fails the test, s/he receives counseling with the head coach, team doctor and Mr. Livengood. NCAA is beginning summer drug testing this year. The idea of the frequent testing is to be a deterrent, not an infringement on student-athletes’ lives.
15. INFORMATION ITEM: REPORT ON THE PHOENIX EXPANSION OF THE COLLEGES OF MEDICINE AND PHARMACY
College of Medicine (COM) Dean Keith Joiner reported that Arizona trains seven medical students per 100,000 population, which ranks us last in the country. The average is 22/100,000. The need for the College of Medicine Phoenix program is seriously needed and both the COM-Phx and COM-Tucson will be under the same accreditation. The program is considered an expansion, not a new medical school, because we have been sending third- and fourth-year students to Phoenix since 1992. The first 24 students will be enrolled beginning in July 2007, and the site will be in three spectacularly beautiful, 100-year old renovated high school buildings right downtown near T-GEN, on 28 acres that the city of Phoenix has allocated for a massive plan called the Phoenix Bio-medical Campus. Dean Joiner has hired an associate dean for academic affairs and is actively recruiting for a vice dean for Phoenix, eight core faculty and eight more joint appointment faculty with ASU. The COM core curriculum in Phoenix will be the same as in Tucson which was recently revised, but the Phoenix curriculum will also provide some emphasis in some selected areas such as bio-informatics or personalized medicine. The accrediting agency visited in November and made some suggestions; the agency will decide its final approval of the expansion in February 2007. The legislature approved $6M in funding last year and Dean Joiner hopes that another $6M will come forward for this year and be stabilized. The budget will be ramped up aggressively over time and some philanthropic organizations like the Piper Trust and the Arizona Biomedical Research Commission are being tapped. UA currently admits 100 and the COM-Phoenix will hopefully grow to handle 150. College of Pharmacy (PHAR) Dean Lyle Bootman reported that in the Institute of Medicine in Washington, there is a great deal of attention being paid to Arizona because of this expansion. Phoenix is the fifth largest city in the United States and the largest city without an academic health center. Arizona is way behind the curve in numbers of graduates in medicine, nursing and public health, but is now in the position of developing a new and unique type of academic health center, and may be given some privileges from Medicare and other federal agencies to reconstruct or redesign services, payments and pharmaceuticals and could provide some leadership in the world of the academic health center. PHAR is undergoing extensive programmatic, physical and financial planning. Technology is now becoming available to help with individualizing dosages for patients with the help of TGEN and BIO5 and an extensive network of other partners including Mayo, Sunhealth, Banner and the VA. UA’s PHAR students arrived in Phoenix about fifteen years ago; at any given time, about 30 UA pharmacy students are actively completing clinical training in Maricopa County. Funding is not yet secured from the state but Dean Bootman has some potential donors and the Piper Trust will fund some endowed chairs so both COM and PHAR may benefit from this. Right now PHAR graduates 75 students a year, and chooses from over 500 applicants for those slots. Senators’ questions and comments included: 1) How does the accrediting agency’s approval apply to PHAR? PHAR’s accrediting body provides a mechanism by which to expand, similar to U-MN, U-FLA or U-WISC so it is not an issue. 2) Will PHAR students ultimately go to school exclusively in Phoenix? Ultimately, yes, within five to ten years but right now it’s bifurcated. 3) How long before the size of those programs exceed the size of the UA-Tucson? Dean Joiner projects that COM enrollment may reach 150 in 2012. Dean Bootman expects it may be 7-8 years for PHAR. 4) Why isn’t the College of Nursing participating in this expansion? ASU has a College of Nursing which is going to relocate to this site, so there isn’t as much demand for UA’s College of Nursing.
16. INFORMATION ITEM: REPORT ON CAMPUS WIRELESS PLAN
Michele Norin, Co-Director for the Center for Computing & Information and Technology and Director for Network Technology Solutions at CCIT presented a brief update on the master plan for a complete wireless overlay for all campus buildings, inside and outside. She expects a quick ramp-up for the fall semester in high density areas such as the Student Union and the libraries. Her design and implementation teams, which are composed of members from all across campus, are also focusing on priorities for the next five years, understanding the needs of the community and the details and task that have to happen. Senators’ questions included; 1) Is there a map of UA’s wireless service already in place and are there any areas north of Speedway? There is quite bit of wireless service that individual departments have installed, but the issue is that they are not integrated. We hope to include the health sciences library in the wireless plan for the libraries for fall 06 and of course the new medical research buildings north of Speedway will have wireless installations. 2) Thank you for surveying the students about this issue. 3) Will the wireless installations work in the libraries where large areas of solid things exist? A site survey conducted with instruments will determine what/where are the obstacles to distributing signal through walls or stacks. 4) What will happen to the already existing networks? There definitely has to be coordination for a system that is completely integrated and consistent. 5) Are the students paying for something the whole campus will enjoy? What does the students’ $65 IT fee cover? The majority ($50) of the fee is slated for wireless and $15 is slated for the libraries to enhance online research offerings. Most parts of campus have a lot of students, but there are a few areas on campus such as Main Gate, where there aren’t many students; the funding for those areas will have to be determined.
17. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:59 p.m.
Jennifer L. Jenkins, Secretary of the Faculty
Pamela S. Bridgmon, Recording Secretary
*Copies of material listed in the Appendix are attached to the original minutes and are on file in the FacultyCenter.
Motion 2006/07-1 Seconded motion from the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee to approve the proposal to change the degree types and majors of: the existing Master’s of Science in Applied Biology (degree type: MSB), with a major in applied biosciences; the existing Master’s of Science in Mathematical Sciences (degree type: MSM), with a major in applied mathematics; and the existing Master’s of Science in applied and industrial physics (degree type: MSP), with a major in applied and industrial physics; to a common degree type of Professional Science Master’s (degree type: PSM), with different major titles reflective of the specific disciplinary content area. Motion carried.
Motion 2006/07-2 Seconded motion from the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee to approve the proposal to offer an Accelerated Master’s Program at the University of Arizona, main campus. Motion carried.
Motion 2006/07-3 Seconded motion from the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee to approve the proposal to create a pre-major for the Bachelor of Arts with a major in Journalism within the Department of Journalism, College of Social and Behavioral Sciences. Motion carried.
Motion 2006/07-5 Seconded motion from the Academic Personnel Policy Committee to approve this resolution: The Faculty Senate calls on the Office of the Provost to conduct annual orientation meetings for all Promotion and Tenure/Continuing Status committee members at the department, college and University levels, to endure uniformity and equity in the decision-making process. Motion carried.
The University of Arizona Faculty Center
facsen@u.arizona.edu
last updated
09/13/06