|
|
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 3:03 p.m. in the College of Law, Room 146. Chair Mitchell asked the Senate to keep the reports and the question and answer remarks as brief as possible to allow the Senate to adjourn at about 4:45 p.m. today to attend the faculty reception honoring past-President Peter Likins at 5:00 p.m. in the UA Museum of Art.
Present: Senators Bruce, Burd, Christenson, Conway, Corcoran, Cusanovich, D. Davis, G. Davis, Green, Gruener, Hertzog, Hildebrand, Howell, Jackson, Jenkins, Jones, Marchalonis, McKee, Mitchell, Murdaugh, Mutchler, Nolan, Pavao-Zuckerman, Pintozzi, Ranger-Moore, Salazar, San Martin, Sarid, Shelton, Silverman, Smith, Spece, St. John, Tabor, Thorn, Ulreich and Willerton. Robert Sankey served as Parliamentarian. J. Warburton substituted for Senator Sebesta.
Absent: Senators Bergsma, Boepple, Chandler, Cromwell, Cuello, Dahlgran, O. Davis, Estrada, Joens, Kiefer, Mitchneck, Mountford, Ruiz, Schlager, Sebesta, Songer, Sterling, Strittmatter, Tatman, Weinand, Witte and Zizza.
2. OPEN SESSION
Senator Silverman, the UA’s representative to the Coalition of Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA), reported on this national organization composed of 53 faculty senates including the UA and a number of other universities in the PAC-10. The organization was formed several years ago and has been working with other groups to propose reforms to the NCAA and to consider how intercollegiate athletics fits into the academic mission of the Universities. He distributed an executive summary of the Presidential Task Force on the Future of Division I Intercollegiate Athletics. This Task Force was formed by NCAA President Myles Brand and was chaired by former UA President Peter Likins to look into a number of issues including fiscal responsibility, integration of athletics into the university mission, relationships with internal and external constituencies and student-athlete well-being. The COIA had input into this report and many of the COIA’s earlier recommendations were incorporated into the report. COIA has now asked its member institutions for a campus-wide or at least a Senate discussion of this report. Senator Silverman will send an electronic version of this report at a later date. COIA continues to have discussions with Myles Brand on a number of issues on which the COIA has produced position papers, including academic integrity in intercollegiate athletics and campus athletic governance, and has suggested changes in NCAA rules. The Knight Commission and COIA will team up in May 2007 to conduct an all-day, web-cast symposium directed at faculty, focusing on the myths and realities of intercollegiate athletics. COIA will also be monitoring the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee’s consideration of the NCAA’s tax-exempt status.
Senator Murdaugh announced that a three-day, campus-wide blood drive will be held on November 14-16 at various locations on campus. Participants will receive a free T-shirt. The drive is sponsored by the Graduate and Professional Student Council, American Red Cross, Student Union, the University Activities Board and the BookStore.
Senator Ulreich announced the annual “Milton Marathon” on November 17 from 8:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m. in the Library’s Special Collections Room C205. The event consists of oral readings from John Milton’s Paradise Lost and is sponsored by the Department of English, the College of Humanities, the UA Library and Senator Marlys Witte. T-shirts to commemorate the event are available at a cost of $10.00.
3. REPORTS
3A. ASUA President Erin Hertzog
ASUA President Hertzog announced that ASUA is wrapping up its UA Votes campaign. Voter shuttles to polling places will be running tomorrow. ASUA’s early voting station drew the designation of highest-traffic polling station in Tucson. The gubernatorial debate in Tucson was the largest in Arizona and was the only one to focus on education, children and family issues. Over one thousand people attended, and reporters from the New York Times and the British Broadcasting Corporation were in attendance. The Voter Block Party drew over 3000 students, three bands, 35 candidates, the mayor and various administrators. Eleven political groups came to rally for ballot propositions and the event registered another 300 student voters. ASUA registered a total of 2232 student voters. ASUA, ASA and GPSC are working together on a state-wide tuition proposal. ASUA is surveying students campus-wide about tuition. A Tuition Town Hall with Provost Davis, Vice Provost Mok and Regent Boice answered many students’ questions about the Tuition Hearing that will take place on November 20. The Regents’ Task Force on Textbooks is going into its third meeting and President Hertzog thanked Drs. Hogle, Tolbert and Howell for participating on this committee; a faculty survey will be forthcoming. The UA Textbook Committee is meeting this Wednesday at 11:30 in the BookStore; the meeting is open to the public.
GPSC President Thorn reported that students can expect tuition hikes that again exceed the rate of inflation. He has been meeting with President Shelton about funding priorities for graduate students. The top three priorities, according to a survey of 1451 graduate students, are need-based aid, full tuition remission for graduate assistants, and extended healthcare benefits for graduate assistants. The annual Student Showcase will take place November 10 on the mall with live dance performances at 1:00p.m.
Provost Davis reported that ABOR has planned three Study Sessions on strategic budget planning. UA will lead off with the first of these sessions to be held on November 30 at UA, with a set of presentations that explains the strategic plan and integrates it with President Shelton’s five-point inaugural address emphasis. Provost Davis hopes to have some student voices represented and is working closely with SPBAC on the one-hour presentation. Provost Davis believes that it would be beneficial for the UA to take on three or four of the elements in the Spellings Commission Report on the Future of Higher Education such as financial aid, outcomes assessment, lifelong learning, and access. Vice Provost for Instruction Hogle has agreed to be the point person for the North Central Association’s decennial accreditation review. Human Resources now reports to the Provost and A. Vaillancourt has assisted with developing a fundamental electronic letter of offer resource for department heads, directors and vice presidents, in which one can insert proper boilerplate language along with a checklist of language and components and backed with a spreadsheet description of the offer with start-up dimensions and salary. This will help the University to evaluate systematic evaluations of start-up dimensions across salary equity and gender/diversity. HR is now creating a more effective and systematic electronic performance evaluation that incorporates the missions of the departments, colleges and University. Provost Davis commended Ed Frisch and Natalie Bohnet on their efforts to maintain fiscal stability at UA Presents. Academic Council has been discussing academic priorities, with each college identifying strategic mission goals, areas of opportunity, and limitations. Provost Davis gave an example in which Dean Sevigny reported on, “Does it make a difference to be a College of Fine Arts in a Research I University?” The answer is yes, because of research intensities such as collaboration between engineering mechanics with theatre arts lighting and set design, or a developing programs utilizing music therapies with Speech and Hearing and the College of Medicine.
3E. President Robert N. Shelton
President Shelton thanked Senators for attending his Inauguration and commended Jory Hancock and the staff who worked with him for the way he planned and blended the events of that day. He also thanked the faculty who took the time to speak with him in the previous months to help him formulate his ideas and his vision for his speech. Two off-campus events demonstrate how we are projecting this University into and around the state: the October 10 official opening of the University of Arizona College of Medicine in Phoenix at 5th and Van Buren provides a very physical and visible reminder of how UA serves the state; yesterday President Shelton visited the heart of the Rio Nuevo building site on the west side of the freeway. This location will house the UA science center; the Historical Society and the Arizona State Museum were there with tents and representatives to describe how this project would revitalize that part of the community while respecting the heritage of that property. ABOR will induct the UA’s new Regents’ Professors and conduct its tuition-setting meeting at UA on November 30-December 1. President Shelton thanked ASUA President Hertzog and GPSC President Thorn for their conversations with him about tuition and also for their gifts of power bars and margarita mix.
QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD FOR AGENDA ITEM 3
There were no questions about the reports.
5. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF October 2, 2006
The minutes of October 2, 2006 were approved.
6. FIRST READING: CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS REVISIONS (attachment)
Secretary Jenkins explained that the UA Faculty Constitution and Bylaws were revised in 1992 to bring them into compliance with the ABOR “Conditions of Faculty Service.” The next revision in 1998 updated the faculty officers’ structure, responsibilities and titles, changed the Committee on Committees’ membership to be elected instead of appointed, and incorporated ASUA and GPSC representatives into appropriate shared governance committees. A minor revision in 1999 doubled the membership of the University Committee on Ethics and Commitment and codified the Committee on Committees as the nominating body for faculty elections. Secretary Jenkins and the Committee on UHAP, Constitution and Bylaws Changes began a line-by-line examination of the documents last December, which revealed that the evolution and functioning of shared governance has established new and reconfigured committees such as the Strategic Planning and Budget Advisory Committee, the Shared Governance Review Committee, the University Committee on Corporate Relations, the Naming Advisory Committee and the Constitution and Bylaws Committee. The present revision adds the Chair of SPBAC to the Senate Executive Committee, and also brings the Undergraduate Council Chair onto the Senate Executive Committee, which reinforces the faculty’s ownership of the curriculum. It is hoped that the Graduate Council may follow this precedent in the next iteration of the Constitution and Bylaws. A general revision of both documents is necessary to make them consistent and to bring them up to date. The Senate’s previously approved changes to the grievance policy are included in this revision. The Constitution contains the definitions and charges of the General Faculty; the Bylaws contain the faculty governance procedures, faculty grievance procedures and committee memberships and terms. The revised version with deletions shown as strike-throughs and additions in bold underlined is online at http://fpnew.ccit.arizona.edu/senate/. Secretary Jenkins explained that today’s item is merely a first reading and asked Senators to review the online documents in preparation for discussion and possible action at the December 4, 2006 Faculty Senate meeting. In accordance with the shared governance agreement, these revisions have been reviewed by the Committee on UHAP, Constitution and Bylaws Changes, the Senate Executive Committee, and the Office of the General Counsel. The process for approving the changes is as follows: following the Faculty Senate’s approval, the revised documents will go to a vote of entire general faculty, hopefully this spring. The revised Constitution and Bylaws will become effective when approved by the Arizona Board of Regents in accordance with Board Policy 1-113. Vice Chair Mitchell advised Senators to call the Faculty Center for a hard copy of the documents.
7. FIRST READING AND POSSIBLE ACTION: REVISED MANAGEMENT OF PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST POLICY (attachment)
Vice Chair
Mitchell announced that this revised Management of Personal Conflicts of
Interest Policy comes to the Senate as a seconded motion [Motion 2006/07-10].
Academic Personnel Policy Committee Chair Aleamoni reminded the Senate of the
immediate history of the policy, which did not pass the Senate last November,
following one Senator’s strong objection to the policy’s dismissal consequence
without an adequate appeal process. The APPC suggested an appeal process, which
was accepted by then Vice-President Taylor, but the Office of the General
Counsel objected to bypassing the unit head and dean in the appeal process. This
fall, the OGC returned the document to APPC with the revision highlighted on
page three; committee members feel the added line in the first paragraph on page
three, If the immediate supervisor deems the plan unsatisfactory, then the
supervisory employee may submit the plan to the next administrative level for
review and acceptance or rejection.” is reasonable. Vice Chair Mitchell
opened the floor for discussion. Senator Ulreich spoke on behalf of Co-Senators
Kiefer and Mountford, both of whom are unable to be present at today’s Senate
meeting, and also on behalf of his departmental constituents. He remarked that a
number of his colleagues in the English Department urged him to speak as forcefully
as possible against this policy, objecting to the draconian consequences of the
violation of the policy and questioning whether such a policy is actually
needed. He read from
portions of several of the fourteen emails that he has received, all of them
vehemently opposed to this policy. Senator Kiefer’s message notes that the crux
of the problem with this policy begins with these statements: “If a romantic,
sexual or other personal relationship develops between employees in supervisory
and subordinate roles . . . the supervisory employee shall disclose the
relationship to his/her immediate supervisor. The supervisory employee also must
submit a written plan to his/her immediate supervisor to eliminate any conflicts
of interest or potential conflicts of interest to the immediate supervisor’s
satisfaction.” Faculty members’ objections include the following: 1) There are
potentially draconian results if an employee fails to comply: “Violation of this
policy by an employee is misconduct, subject to disciplinary action, up to and
including discharge or termination of a contract or agreement...” 2) The new
policy seems to assume that there must be a conflict of interest when colleagues
have a personal relationship and when one of them is serving in an
administrative capacity. 3) The policy’s language is much too broad in
addressing “potential conflicts of interest.” A malevolent supervisor could
destroy a colleague’s career with a “potential conflict of interest.” 4) The
definition of “personal relationship” is too broad. We all have personal
relationships with one another, which may range from deep mutual affection to
deep mutual hatred, but they’re all “personal.” 5) It is a poor policy that
makes the criteria for identifying such relationships so broad that no
justification for punitive action need be demonstrated. 6) The policy does not
specifically address kinship relations. 7) People who are concerned about
conflicts of interest usually take pains to remove themselves from these
situations, even where there might be only the appearance of it. If a person
isn’t sensitive to a conflict of interest, it is others who need to bring it up.
8) “Working out plans” is both time-consuming and a bad idea; there needs to be
a way of adjudicating the matter at the time it is brought up. 9) This policy is
not necessary at all. 10) The nepotism law is no longer in effect at the
University of Arizona, and quite a number of faculty spouses work for the
University, which might occasionally create problems. Provost Davis noted that
there is a nepotism policy. Senator Ulreich said he agrees with the potential
for damage to a career under this policy; he and others in his department and
college have had experiences with supervisors whose intentions towards them were
not benign. He does believe, however, that a policy is needed to protect all of
us.
Vice Chair Mitchell told the Senate that this interim policy has been in effect
for four years and that, to date, there have been no appeals. Senators’
questions and comments included: 1) Has this policy ever come to the Senate
before? Vice Chair Mitchell noted that the Senate has reviewed the policy on
other occasions and was been persuaded by Senator Kiefer’s objections to send it
back to the committee for more work. 2) Does the University have the right to
create an interim policy without the Senate’s approval? Under the Policy for
Policy Development the administration can post an interim policy pending
approval by all stakeholders. 3) This overly broad language concerns all of us.
Perhaps the APPC should continue to work on it. 4) This policy doesn’t seem to
support spousal/partner accommodation, which should be one of our goals because
it benefits the institution particularly in a time when we are trying to retain
our junior faculty. Vice Chair Mitchell noted that this is not a spousal hire
policy; those contracts and issues are negotiated and alleviated at the point of
hire. 5) Kinship relationships such as children or siblings aren’t detailed
here, and those might be more problematic than romance/sexual relationships.
Chair Aleamoni agreed that for kinship relationships, the language “or other
personal relationships” is not sufficiently clear. 6) What about the “conflicts
of interest arising from interpersonal relationships not otherwise covered by
existing policies or law” as cited in the policy? Perhaps the Senate should be
made aware of the other laws and policies that cover kinship concerns. That
information could allay some of the concerns being raised today. Chair Aleamoni
said the APPC initially thought that such other policies ought to be referenced
in this policy, but there were objections that it might make the policy too
cumbersome. 7) What is at stake here is the “. . . University’s interest in
securing objective performance of instructional, evaluative, supervisory, or
other responsibilities conflicts with the personal interest, in the outcome, of
the individual carrying out such responsibilities.” 8) Most of the time,
personal relationship situations are being effectively managed locally. The
Provost’s Office usually receives the “exceptions to the rule.” In those cases,
the absence of such a policy places the institution in a much more difficult
situation. In the case of a sexual relationship between a supervisor and a
subordinate, for example, there should be an effort on the part of the
University to at least create an environment where the conflict of interest and
commitment can be dissipated. 9) A policy is needed, but not this policy, and
not in this form. 10) Perhaps the ombudsman could play a role in this type of
conflict resolution. 11) Perhaps adding language such as “knowing and
intentional violations of the policy” would repair the vagueness of the policy.
12) If this policy is returned to the APPC, the committee should also focus on
the consequences of violation of the policy, which is a large part of today’s
objections.
Senator’s comments and concerns continued: 13) Perhaps the language that guides
judges to recuse themselves would be helpful? 14) Is this a personal
relationships policy or a conflict of interest policy? The UA already has a
conflict of interest policy. 15) Is this policy trying to deal with a) personal
relationships that supervisors/faculty have with subordinates/students; b)
personal relationships that may cause a conflict of interest; or c) to prohibit
romantic and sexual relationships between certain groups or people on campus?
16) This is not really a personal conflict of interest policy, but rather a
sexual harassment policy and as such it may be worthwhile to attach it to the
existing Sexual Harassment policy in Human Resources. Vice Chair Mitchell
explained that the University’s sexual harassment policy led to the development
of this policy, because sexual harassment is unwelcome sexual advances, and this
policy addresses sexual relationships that are not unwelcome. 17) If it’s not
unwelcome and it’s between consenting adults, why are we trying to legislate it?
18) The reason for the policy, the “University’s interest in securing objective
performance of instructional, evaluative, supervisory, or other
responsibilities” should be peppered throughout the document. 19) This is a
policy for “disclosure and management of” personal relationships. Disclosure is
a pre-emptive action intended to negate the possibility of a conflict of
interest or commitment. 20) Who makes the decision about whether the situation
needs to be remedied? The appeals process in the highlighted passage on page
three describes who makes the decision about whether the written plan is
sufficient to remedy the situation. The committee should consider adding
something to address the need for remediation to the appeals process. Provost
Davis responded that in such a case, one of the individuals would decide that
the relationship needs to be disclosed to the unit head, and the head would make
the decision about whether the situation needs to be remedied. Chair Aleamoni
added that, in the section titled “Relationships Subject To This Policy,” the
policy refers in every instance to romantic or sexual relationships, but becomes
unclear in the paragraph beyond when “other personal relationships” is added.
21) Is this policy trying to prohibit romantic or sexual relationships or is it
dealing with disclosure of the relationship? The policy states that violation of
this policy is misconduct. What is the misconduct:
having a relationship,
or not disclosing a relationship? 22) Among student/faculty relationships, when
grades are involved, even the perception of a relationship/conflict of
interest can be a concern.
Vice Chair Mitchell does not view this policy as punitive; rather it allows for
a supervisor/faculty member who finds him/herself in an unexpected relationship
with a subordinate/student, to disclose and acknowledge that relationship and to
work out a
solution. The policy provides employees an opportunity to be human without being
fired. Vice Chair Mitchell asked Senators to forward every possible objection to
the policy to Chair Aleamoni or to the faculty officers so that the Senate can
be fairly assured that every objection has been considered the next
time it sees
this policy. He also asked the Senate to consider whether language added to the
policy to specifically focus on romantic, sexual, kinship or business
relationships, would eliminate some of the ambiguity in the broad range of
personal relationships? The motion was not acted upon so the policy will return
to the committee.
8. INFORMATION ITEM: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE PLANNED BIOSCIENCES PARK
Associate Vice President for Economic Development Bruce Wright and Senator Gruener decided that the Faculty Senate should be aware of the UA biosciences park that is being developed by the UA Office of Economic Development (OED), and asked for faculty input on the project. Mr. Wright first updated the Senate on the UA Science-Technology Park at I-10 and Rita Road which employees about 8000 people in 30 companies and is dedicated to commercializing new technologies. UA South is presently offering classes for 300 students at this location and expects to grow to as many as 1000 students in the spring. The Park is embarking on ambitious development including a land trade for 600 homes, a hotel and conference center, and an eco-park. The facility, however, is aging and is going to require some maintenance in the near future.
The UA biosciences park is conceived to bring education, biosciences research and business together in one place to help develop Arizona’s biosciences industry as well as to promote local, state and regional economic development, to support technology development and commercialization, and to facilitate the creation of international economic partnerships. This park will provide a facility designed especially for companies working in biosciences, biotechnology, life sciences and pharmaceuticals, with complex and sophisticated, high technology “smart buildings” integrated into a multi-use development, including a hotel and conference center, retail and residential development and a school. Such a facility would attract world-class research organizations that could collaborate with the Translational Genomics Research Institute, the College of Medicine in Tucson and Phoenix, and the Critical Path Institute, which are all, already in place as part of the Arizona’s Biosciences Roadmap for elevating Arizona into the top tier of states with biosciences industry. The University affiliation is absolutely critical to the park. Quality housing for students/faculty is a strategic part of the plan; the ability to live, work and play is desirable to most people. The location is extremely strategic near the University, interstate and airport, and will provide employment for current residents of one of Tucson’s most undeveloped and blighted areas. There are four components to the park: the biosciences laboratory buildings, housing for graduate students, post-docs, faculty and related personnel, a hotel with meeting space, and a high school with a focus on life sciences and biosciences. The park will take 15-20 years for completion. Senators’ questions and comments included: 1) How does this park relate to and differ from the Science-Technology Park? Mr. Wright answered that the two parks are not and will not be in competition with each other. The biosciences park is being designed more for the biosciences industry and its location near the University Medical Center, Kino and the Veteran’s Hospitals is important for faculty who are simultaneously involved in research and patient care. 2) Are there any projections about how much revenue might be generated for the University? Not yet, but very creative financing is being employed, such as the land exchange using existing assets of the University. Much of the development will be private sector development via ground leases. The University will receive some of the profits from the hotel and from its ground lease. 3) Does the University have an appropriate intellectual property policy to make this park successful? According to our annual tech transfer analysis, UA is still underperfoming its peers but there is no question that UA has the research base necessary to drive this park. The question is how to make it happen. The infrastructure of this park will support that kind of tech transfer that everyone expects from UA. Mr. Wright invited the Senate to appoint a representative to sit on a biosciences park advisory committee that he will be creating in January with some faculty and community members.
9. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:51 p.m.
Jennifer L. Jenkins, Secretary of the
Faculty
Pamela S. Bridgmon, Recording Secretary
1. Presidential Task Force on the Future of Division I Intercollegiate Athletics Executive Summary.
2. Memo to Faculty Senators from Robert Mitchell re: Senator Gruener’s Manifesto, dated 10/25/06
3. Faculty Senate Reform Manifesto: proposal by Senator-at-Large Raphael Gruener, dated (rev) 9/11/06
4. Summary of Proposed Changes to the Constitution and Bylaws for Faculty Senate meeting 11/06/06
5. Policy for Management of Personal Conflicts of Interest for the University of Arizona, dated (revised) 9/20/06
6. University of Arizona FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN FY 2008-2012 draft, dated 10/13/06
*Copies of material listed in the Appendix are attached to the original minutes and are on file in the Faculty Center.
Motion 2006/07-10 Seconded motion from the Academic Personnel Policy Committee and Curriculum Policy Committee to approve the revised Management of Personal Conflicts of Interest Policy. Motion not acted upon.
The University of Arizona Faculty Center
facsen@u.arizona.edu
last updated
01/02/07