The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Mitchell at 3:05 p.m. in the College of Law, Room 146. 

Present:   Senators Boepple, Bruce, Burd, Christenson, Conway, Corcoran, Cromwell, Cusanovich, D. Davis, G. Davis, Estrada, Green, Gruener, Hertzog, Hildebrand, Howell, Jackson, Jenkins, Joens, Jones, Kiefer, McKee, Mitchell, Murdaugh, Pavao-Zuckerman, Pintozzi, Ranger-Moore, Ruiz, Salazar, San Martin, Schlager, Shelton, Silverman, Smith, Sterling Thorn, Ulreich, Willerton, and Zizza. Robert Sankey served as Parliamentarian. J. Warburton substituted for Senator Sebesta.

Absent:   Senators Bergsma, Chandler, Cuello, Dahlgran, O. Davis, Marchalonis, Mitchneck, Mountford, Mutchler, Nolan, Sarid, Sebesta, Songer, Spece, St. John, Strittmatter, Tabor, Tatman, Weinand and Witte.

GPSC President Thorn reported that GPSC continues to advocate for an improved Student Health Insurance Plan to include dental and prescription drug benefits. GPSC is working with ASU and trying to persuade UA’s central administration to add these benefits. President Thorn has begun meeting with heads of departments with large numbers of graduate assistants to garner support for this proposal since the majority of the funding will come from them. Student Showcase will feature both graduate and undergraduate efforts and awards over $10K annually. Applications are still being accepted through this Friday. Projects have been submitted from twelve disciplines and represent both research and creative endeavors. Faculty and community judges are still needed; training for judges is scheduled for October 10 and includes lunch. The Showcase will be held on November 10.

Provost Davis remarked that the issues raised by the proposed “student bill of rights” may be here to stay for a while. He believes the most significant impact might be in the General Education courses. He is considering conducting some meetings with senior and junior faculty who teach Tier I and II classes to determine what are the stresses, the opportunities and the challenges in these sometimes provocative areas. The Provost’s Office wants to create a support structure that will enable our faculty to effectively and responsibly explore areas of complexity or controversy. Both the UA and the Regents fully embrace the learner-centered philosophy, which includes both the students and the faculty as learners, although the concept isn’t widely understood. Student-faculty relationships and interaction experiences outside the classroom enhance the classroom experience. Provost Davis missed the September Senate meeting to attend the annual AAU provosts’ meeting. This year the AAU provosts considered the Spellings Commission Report on the Future of Higher Education, which addresses issues of access; cost and affordability; financial aid; transparency and seamlessness of universities; the escalating cost of a college education; the move from reputation-based to performance-based systems by undertaking serious accountability measures; developing new pedagogies, curricula and technologies to improve learning, especially in science and math; measure and report meaningful student learning outcomes; harnessing the power of information technology; developing strategies for lifelong learning; and increasing federal investment. Provost Davis remarked that a tension exists between the high level of esteem in which higher education is generally held, and the public fear regarding accessibility. This tension is particularly present among AAU institutions and drives the need to emphasize our mission because mission, research and the diverse contributions to society that come from higher education are not well-understood in contemporary society, nor are the costs. The AAU provosts discussed whether to formulate a response to the Spellings Commission Report, especially regarding rising costs. The provosts also had an unscheduled but dynamic conversation regarding the National Research Council’s Survey of Doctoral Education. Discussion revolved around the impossibility of deadlines that the universities are being asked to respond to, especially since there has been no clear agreement concerning how the data are to be collected and the methodologies that are being used to analyze it. The AAU provosts communicated a message to the leadership of the NRC. Provost Davis emphasized at the recent Provost’s Retreat, that the deans, vice provosts and vice presidents should do a better job on communicating the mission of UA. The Enterprise Teams in the Provost’s Office and the Academic Council are working on tightly connecting the budget, particularly the instructional budget, and the management / organization structures to our mission.

President Shelton offered his opinion that the “student bill of rights” could be highly injurious to major research universities unless we 1) take it seriously, and 2) direct the conversation in ways that are appropriate to the diverse nature of the institutions that make up higher education in the U.S.  (i.e. one size doesn’t fit all). American institutions of higher education may be the only entity that is still revered in the rest of the world. One area of the Spellings Commission that resonates with him is the emphasis on measuring student learning outcomes, which is very difficult to do. President Shelton believes we need to think hard about how to measure and how we can know if we are making a difference. President Shelton shared some very positive core data for UA’s fall freshman enrollment, including the largest freshman class ever, at just over 6000 students; the highest percentage of minorities (31%) which includes a 22% increase in Hispanics and a slight decrease in African-Americans; and the highest percentage of Arizona resident minorities at 36%. This freshman class has the largest number of National Hispanic Scholars ever (49), an increase in the number of Flinn Scholars from ten to twelve, and the largest number of Pima Community College transfers ever (880). The resident SAT scores for this freshman class declined by eight points and President Shelton said this decline in SAT scores was also reported at several other institutions he checked with. About 53% of the class is female. There is a decline in the enrollment of UA South, a decline in graduate student enrollment and in particular, the international student enrollment. President Shelton will be looking at the UA’s “persistence rate” (the number of returning freshmen) which is steady at 79% and reported a very slight increase in the four- and six-year graduation rates (33% and 56%) to see if these numbers can improve and where to put resources, if that would help. Turning to his ABOR budget requests, President Shelton reported that he has requested $1.2M continuation budget for UA South and $.5M for the Water Institute. He also put forward a number of “strategic investments (decision packages): $10M for a competitiveness fund (merit increases for faculty/staff); $7.3M for our instructional mission called, “Building Arizona’s Workforce;” $6M to build entrepreneurship throughout the University; $7.5M in recurring operating funds for the College of Medicine-Phoenix ($6M for COM-Phx and $1.5M for College of Pharmacy in Phoenix); and enough recurring funds to cover utility costs. He will be meeting with the governor and with legislators in the coming weeks.

Senator Silverman asked whether this “academic / student bill of rights” could be sent to the Senate because faculty may wish to give input about it to Senator Hildebrand, the Faculty Senate liaison to the legislature. Provost Davis and Presiding Officer Mitchell explained that this document is a model from Temple University which is being pushed nationwide. The Arizona Faculties Council felt that this model is too flawed and prefers not to give the document credibility by circulating it too widely, but Vice Chair Mitchell agreed to send this document out to the Senate electronically.

Senator Jenkins asked GPSC President Thorn whether performance, space, electricity and projection equipment will be available at Student Showcase. President Thorn explained that there is no stage although a generator will be available for power and projection equipment will be available to show films or performances on digital media.

Senator Howell asked Provost Davis to talk about the faculty workload study that he is conducting.  Provost Davis responded that Vice Provost Garcia has been obtaining data on faculty teaching loads in the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences and the College of Humanities. That data is now being generated for all colleges for Academic Year 05-06. The data includes student credit hours being offered, levels of courses being taught, and courses being taught. The data should help with decisions about how to invest in instruction. Senator Howell asked whether the faculty will receive this report. Provost Davis and Vice Provost Garcia responded that they may need to distill the data and have some conversations with the President, the General Counsel, the Chair of the Strategic Planning and Budget Advisory Committee, the Chair of the Faculty and perhaps the deans before publishing the data. Senator Burd suggested that the data should be accurate. Provost Davis believes the deans should be able to verify the data. Senator Silverman asked whether the workload study is being done for one or two colleges only and what it is meant to represent. Provost Davis responded that this study is meant to represent the “blue collar” teaching loads for all colleges. Chair Howell asked and Vice Provost Garcia affirmed that all colleges are using the same methodology to document teaching loads. Provost Davis is looking for an understanding with the deans regarding whether expectations are being exceeded, met, or not met within the colleges. Senator Green urged that the definition of faculty workload include participation on graduate dissertation committees. Provost Davis agreed this is a legitimate request and that there are quite a number of other requests like it, such as for faculty advising. Right now the study is concentrating on teaching loads, although eventually he’d like to know everything faculty do.

The minutes of September 11, 2006 were approved with two corrections.

President Shelton, Provost Davis, Chair of the Faculty Howell and Vice Chair of the Faculty Mitchell signed four copies of the Shared Governance agreement, “Guidelines for Shared Governance, The University of Arizona” which was passed by the Faculty Senate on April 4, 2005. The agreement was first signed in 1996 by President Pacheco and Chair of the Faculty John Schwarz, followed by President Likins and Chair of the Faculty Jerry Hogle in 1997. In 2005, the agreement was revised, passed the Faculty Senate and was signed again by President Likins, Provost Davis, Chair of the Faculty Jory Hancock and then-Vice Chair Wanda Howell. President Shelton’s signature today assures that the culture of shared governance at the University of Arizona will carry on under his administration.

Chair of the Academic Personnel Policy Committee, Larry Aleamoni, explained that the model being distributed by Vice Provost Garcia closely matched the type of Promotion and Tenure statistics that the Senate and the APPC have been requesting. APPC saw this model and asked for several more numbers: 1) reporting of split votes at the department, college and University levels, 2) statistics for continuing and continuing-eligible (C/CE) faculty, 3) a summary for the past five years’ data, 4) a way to identify whether a denial is the same individual all the way through, and 5) data on appeals. Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Juan Garcia explained that the continuing and continuing-eligible faculty are aggregated into this model because confidentiality would be violated since the numbers are so small, and for the same reason the colleges’ names are disguised.  The splits will be shown at every level, but in this model, there simply weren’t any split votes at the college or University committee levels. The University tenures an average of 80-90%, which indicates that recruiters are targeting and mentoring high quality people. Too many junior faculty are leaving before getting to tenure, however. A “Revolving Door” report on California Schools shows how the tenure process is undermining efforts to increase faculty racial/ethnic diversity and retention rates. Senators’ questions and comments included: 1) Is there any data measuring the effectiveness of the 3^rd year P&T review versus the previous standard of a 2^nd and 4^th year review? Vice Provost Garcia is following this closely and believes that the P&T success rate reflects that the 3^rd year review is working to the benefit of faculty. 2) What percentage of male faculty are leaving early? Vice Provost Garcia said the data shows 25% are males. 3) Why does an extraordinary review not require review by the University Committee? Vice Provost Garcia responded that sometimes an extraordinary review is conducted but this goes only to the Provost. The University doesn’t want retention to become a bargaining chip. 4) Among many Research I universities, junior faculty are using their first placement as a penultimate position. It is also becoming common to reset the tenure clock to be 5 or even 10 year. Is this a possibility at UA? Vice Provost Garcia would support a delay of the tenure clock. He tries to discourage incoming faculty from asking for credit for their tenure clock because many then later change their minds. Provost Davis explained that AAU’s P&T guidelines are changing and he is impressed with the degree to which universities are extending the period of time before faculty go up, and/or maybe even promoting to associate professor without tenure, allowing junior faculty to go up in the 8^th years. There is also an effort to stop the tenure clocks for one or two years without prejudicing the committees. Many universities are more ad hoc about their process, but he feels our process is very good. 5) What are the next steps for APPC? Chair Aleamoni explained that if the Senate is satisfied with this model, APPC will ask for the rest of the data, including the five-year statistics. 6) At our University of North Carolina peer, is the loss of female faculty typical? President Shelton responded that he certainly saw that the attrition rates are significantly higher for women than for men in NC and also at California. The most common theme he heard was that the traditional demands on female faculty were “not worth it” and that they could get better jobs elsewhere. 7) What is the status of the workshops for promotion and tenure committees? Vice Provost Garcia fully supports the Senate’s resolution to orient P&T committees. He wants the training to be meaningful, however, so he is in the process of surveying faculty to find out what would help them as they go through the P&T process. Vice Provost Garcia offered the following appeal data: in the years between 1995-1999, there were 453 P&T cases of which 38 (8%) were denials and 23 (61%) were appealed. When a faculty member appeals, s/he is allowed to see a redacted dossier; often they drop the appeal once they have read that file. In the years 2000-2005, there were 448 cases of which 40 (9%) were denied and 16 (40%) were appealed. For C/CE cases in 1995-1999, there were 54 cases with 3 denials and no appeals, and for 2000-2005 there were 73 cases with 10 denials and 4 appeals. This year there were two denials; one has appealed and one was sent back

Senator Sylvan Green of the Mel and Enid Zuckerman Arizona College of Public Health was elected by default to serve as the Faculty Senate’s representative to the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee.  The term is for three years. Senator John Ulreich was also elected by default to serve as a Faculty Senate representative to the Shared Governance Review Committee. The term is for two years.

Assistant Vice President of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Jeanne M. Kleespie distributed a Statement on Restroom Access at the University of Arizona, which President Likins signed on June 26, 2006. She explained that the statement is not a response to any complaints; rather it is a proactive piece of becoming an inclusive campus. The UA’s policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity allows individuals to use the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity, as well as allowing for restroom access for parents/attendants/caregivers of a different gender. Restroom access in one of the first issues faced by transgendered persons. It is also an issue for parents of small children and caregivers. UA is the first institution in the PAC-10 to have such a statement. Senators’ questions and comments included: 1) What is the difference between a statement and a policy? Assistant Vice President Kleespie explained that a policy constrains behavior and can be enforced. 2) How is this statement being implemented? As this statement is becoming known across campus, both UAPD and the stewards of the facilities are being educated about transitioning and transgendered persons. 3) Will the restrooms be posted as “Transgender?” Arizona isn’t the most liberal state so posting such a sign may not be the wisest decision. 4) Does the statement extend to locker rooms? The locker rooms in Bear Down and the Recreation Center have curtains on the showers; however, the person using the facility needs to be identified as part of that gender. Women using a Men’s Room because of long lines at a sporting event is not appropriate. If the police are summoned for what is erroneously thought to be a safety concern, the UA’s philosophy will be explained. 5) If a person follows this statement, are they protected as they would be with a policy? Are they protected from arrest? The background for the statement is coming from the UA’s non-discrimination policy, in which the factual determination is whether a person identifies with that gender. 6) It appears that this statement is just an application of the non-discrimination policy.

                There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:33 p.m.