December 1, 2008

Once approved, these minutes may be accessed electronically at:
http://fp.arizona.edu/senate/minutes.htm
Visit the faculty governance webpage at:
http://fp.arizona.edu/senate/

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair of the Faculty Robert P. Mitchell at 3:04 p.m. in the College of Law, Room 164.

2. OPEN SESSION

On behalf of University of Arizona Retirees Association (UARA) representative Cornelius Steelink, who was unable to be present today, Presiding Officer Robert Mitchell drew Senators’ attention to the written report on their desks outlining the effects of the recent stock market declines on the state retirement funds.

3. REPORTS

3A. ASUA President Tommy Bruce

ASUA President Bruce will attend the tuition talks that will take place at the Board of Regents meeting in Tempe later this week. He thanked President Shelton and Provost Hay for communication with and working with the students in this effort.

3B. Faculty Officers’ Report

Presiding Officer Robert Mitchell stated that the "Guidelines for Reorganization Proposals at the University of Arizona" are included in today’s Senate packets with the final language revisions provided by Senator and SPBAC Chair Joseph, and approved by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee. For the Spring semester, the Faculty Senate will meet in a different room, Law 168, beginning on January 26, 2009. He thanked the Rogers College of Law for continuing to house the Faculty Senate meetings. A second Open Faculty Forum will take place Tuesday, December 9, 2008, in the Main Library conference room A313-314, for the purpose of discussing the transformation and budget cut processes.

3C. Provost Meredith Hay

Provost Hay declared that her office is moving forward in a coordinated fashion on some of the proposals for reorganization and that Vice Provost Burd is taking the lead on many of these. The PIs of the proposals recommended by SPBAC have been asked to name teams and team leaders in the next week to begin submitting proposals to the Faculty Senate in the next few weeks. Other proposals are more complex and will take more time for continuing discussions with deans and department heads. She welcomes any comments, questions, or conversation about the proposals from Senators by phone, email or in person.

3D. President Robert Shelton

President Shelton mentioned that he has no new definitive word on the state budget, but rumors indicate about a 5% cut which translates to another $20M cut for the UA. His administration and the deans are working on some plans to handle that percentage cut, as well as focusing on FY2010. At the tuition-setting process which will take place at ABOR this week, President Shelton said he values the strong working relationship he enjoys with ASUA and GPSC leaders and that they are very engaged in this process. Each university will also be presenting its strategic plan at this ABOR meeting. President Shelton complimented SPBAC for coupling the UA’s strategic plan to both the Regents’ larger vision and now the transformation plan. At the announcement that Governor Napolitano has been tapped for President-elect Obama’s Cabinet, President Shelton said he will meet with Secretary of State Jan Brewer later this week and plans to articulate to her why the UA is important to our state and its future.

4. QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD FOR AGENDA ITEM 3

Senator Silverman asked Provost Hay for an idea of how many proposals will be coming to the Senate. Provost Hay said even those proposals with full agreement will come to the Senate but she doesn’t want to rush any of them. She and Vice Provost Burd expect about between six and twelve of them to be ready by December 15.

Senator McKean asked when the administrative white papers will be posted. Provost Hay responded that the non-academic white papers are due in her office at the end of today: they will be vetted by SPBAC by December 5^th and posted to the Provost’s website after that.

Senator Foley asked whether the program changes that are proposed in the academic white papers will be handled in a parallel way to the usual program changes, with ICPC, Senate and ABOR approvals. Provost Hay responded that she wants the Senate to review the proposals prior to going through the formal review process.

Senator Willerton asked whether the Board of Regents considers the university system to be in a state of financial emergency, as it has been suggested that the President of ASU believes. President Shelton explained that ABOR policy allows for the Board to declare a state of financial exigency that allows the university presidents to terminate contracts early, both for tenured and untenured positions. President Shelton said that he considers terminating contracts of tenured faculty to be an extraordinary step that he cannot ever imagine taking. President Crow has suggested a change to the ABOR policy wording to allow each president to terminate contracts early for purposes of reorganization; this would include staff, faculty instructors, and appointed professionals for a department that was, for example, being reorganized out of existence. President Shelton does not favor the proposed language which shifts financial emergency or exigency from the University level down to the college or departmental level, although it is currently being vetted by ABOR staff. He believes that if declaring a financial emergency were to be implemented by the UA, it would reflect negatively on the institution for a number of years. He added that there is nothing on the Regent’s agenda for this week that refers to this proposal.

Senator Silverman suggested that the Arizona Faculties Council (AFC) follow closely the status of this relatively drastic proposed language which represents a significant change in tenure. He requested that either or both the Faculty Senate and the AFC should provide input to ABOR and/or take a position on it. Senator Mutchler, current Chair of the AFC, responded that the AFC is following this issue closely and will have a special meeting following the ABOR meeting to discuss it.

Senator Howell asked whether President Shelton will know in mid-January what the budget cuts will be. President Shelton believes there is potential for a special session of the legislature which would provide the answer by December 25^th. Otherwise, it may be the end of January before the numbers are released.

Senator Sarid asked whether any bordering states have ever declared financial exigency. Senator Christenson responded that Idaho did once and was dealing with lawsuits forever.

Senator Cuello asked whether the UA’s strategic plan will need adjusting to deal with the reality of the budget. President Shelton responded that the long range vision helps the University to focus and to make decisions. SPBAC Chair and Senator Joseph added that the UA Strategic Plan will be publicly available soon via the Provost’s website. This plan appears quite different from previous plans with additional text and links to photos, stories and emphases. The core items that are the strategies are the same as last year, with a new strategic direction focusing on transformation. Environment and energy are also concentrations of this plan, which is keyed to the ABOR 2020 Vision Plan.

The minutes of November 3, 2008 were approved with one abstention.

Parking and Transportation (P&T) Director Patrick Kass presented handouts describing a three-year planned increase in parking rates. The motivation for the increase is the overall state of the UA’s budget as well as the national and state economies. Next year’s increase will be $50 instead of $116 per permit. Building another parking garage for the campus is impossible under the current rates. Increasing parking places increases access to the campus for students, staff and faculty, but P&T also understands that as parking rates as well as fuel costs increase, some persons may not be able to afford permits, so Mr. Kass explained that 50% of the increase will be invested in alternative transportation mode programs such as free universal bus passes, "car share" (car rental by the hour), and bicycle sharing to rent to students by the semester and for cross-campus commuting. Other aspects of the situation that Parking and Transportation is considering include: increasing secure bicycle lockers and racks, funding new garage construction, which costs about $20K per space, automating garage cashiering and student payment plans similar to those offered to faculty and staff. In November 2011, the City of Tucson will be bringing a new type of streetcar-bus onto campus with both right and left doorways exiting and entering from median stations. The route from downtown to campus may run on a ten-minute schedule in peak hours, and twenty minutes off-peak, and will replace the Teal Route Cat Tran shuttle.

Senators’ questions and comments included the following: 1) A major downside of the park and ride Cat Tran Shuttle route from Prince and Mountain is that there is no service in the summer. Applying the same rules that allow shuttle pass holders to park in Zone 1 lots in December and Spring breaks to the summer could incentivize this program. 2) What does the 17% decrease in demand for parking permits in 2008 indicate? Mr. Kass said this is the first time in 22 years that he has seen a decrease in demand. At the same time, the UA saw a 33% increase in bus pass use, so he suspects that the cost of fuel caused a number of people to shift from personal vehicles to buses. 3) Doesn’t increasing the parking permit costs while decreasing alternative transportation program costs seems to create a backwards logic whereby the decrease in demand for parking permits will create a budget shortfall to pay for the alternative mode increase? Mr. Kass noted that although alternative mode programs are not self-supporting, public transit is heavily subsidized by the government. He hopes to structure pricing to support both parking and alternative modes. 4) P&T should advertise that parking permits purchased through payroll deduction save money since they are purchased with pre-tax dollars. 5) Could P&T charge some parking spaces by the size of the vehicle? Some of the "monster" vehicles take up more than one space and significantly reduce visibility? Mr. Kass indicated that there is no definition for "compact" vehicles and that the universal sized spaces in the three main garages are outdated. Another concern will be with the advent of electric cars. 6) Are the Zone 1 lots near the Recreation Center being phased out? Mr. Kass responded that those lots are progressively changing to lot-specific in anticipation of residence hall construction in the area, plus it helps the "South of 6^th" Zone 1 customers to be able to know specifically where they can park each day, as the only alternative is north of Speedway. 7) What is the breakdown by percentage of the parking revenue expenditures? Mr. Kass responded that 20% currently goes toward alternative modes, 20% for operational costs, 30% for personnel costs, and 30% for debt service on the parking garages. 8) Are there other ways to generate revenue? Mr. Kass said that P&T has received some local grants for bicycle lockers, bus shelters and signage, a $100K grant to do a needs assessment survey on campus and state money for the golf carts for disabled transportation. He is also exploring generating advertising revenues from campus bus shelters. 9) Is there any way to address the blight of bicycle theft on campus? Mr. Kass said he has tried to increase police patrols, to educate riders about correct locks, and to provide more secured bike parking spaces. He said bicycle thefts have declined, but bicycles remain an attractive target because they are easily pawned. 10) Could offering retail space on the ground levels of parking garages be a means to generate revenue to finance the costs? Mr. Kass said he is looking at that potential for the next garage to be built, but a feasibility study must be conducted. 11) Where is the unmet need coming from? Who wants to park and can’t? Mr. Kass indicated that most faculty and staff are receiving parking permits, although not necessarily in their desired location, so the unmet need lies primarily with students. 12) Is another parking garage really necessary? Mr. Kass explained that the new garage is necessary to maintain the inventory of surface parking space that is being lost to new building construction. 13) Is there an option that would appeal to part-time drivers who come to campus less frequently? Mr. Kass indicated that carpoolers and other alternative mode users have access to purchase one-day scratch-off permits. 14) How many spaces would be freed up if all freshmen who live on campus were not allowed to bring cars? Mr. Kass stated that 30% of residential students have permits, which is roughly 1000. Existing parking garages range from 700 to 1700 spaces. 15) Complaints about the parking garages include elevators that don’t work, exit gates that malfunction, and filthy conditions including bat guano. Could some of costs that are applied to personnel that issue citations be applied to some cleaning and maintenance? Mr. Kass responded that all garage elevators are maintenanced monthly. The citation personnel budget is a fairly low percentage of the overall P&T budget. Cleaning, sweeping and trash removal is a contracted service and new gates are being installed, debugged and seem to be working well. 13) Since parking permits are actually hunting permits, why not offer refunds to permit holders for days when they are unable to park on campus? Mr. Kass said that P&T oversells parking permits in such a way as to ensure that permit holders always have a place to park, albeit not necessarily as close as they might prefer. This is a change from the way permits were oversold ten or fifteen years ago. Provost Hay personally thanked Mr. Kass and his P&T team for all they do for the campus community.

Senator Strittmatter reported that a fifteen-page final report on Student Retention and Advancement is currently under review by the Task Force members and will then be circulated to the Senate in January. The Task Force’s approach to increasing UA’s graduation and retention rates was to make recommendations in the spirit of expanding the University’s ability to accommodate increasing student enrollments with an increased range of preparedness and the understanding that one size does not fit all and that increasing income is also necessary. The Task Force’s recommendations are broadly consistent with the Committee of Eleven’s White Paper and Task Force members generally endorsed the Committee of Eleven’s philosophy which called for three types of degrees, regular, multi-disciplinary and honors. This approach allows high functioning students to advance quickly, allows all students to proceed at a pace determined by their level of demonstrated competence, encourages and enables minorities, provides the state with an educated workforce, matches a range of study paths to a variety of students’ needs and goals, and pays for it all. The Task Force recommends adopting strategies to increase the fraction of incoming freshmen with Academic Indices (AI) >150, increase on-campus enrollment by 10-20%, and to substantially increase enrollments in off-campus locations. Regular degrees with honors for students that do very well within the regular degree program as it currently exists would still be available, but a special Honors Degree Program would enable students with superior preparation to advance faster and farther and achieve much more than the current system permits, graduating in perhaps three years or perhaps going on to do graduate work, at no added charge. Multi-disciplinary degree programs would provide combinations of multiple subjects, each to a level that is less than a regular degree, which would be more suitable and more attainable for the non-specialist students or for poorly-prepared, lower AI students, but attractive to a range of employers. The Task Force also considered how improving the quality of teaching could also improve the graduation rate substantially. Some subjects lend themselves to being taught off-campus or via electronic learning and will also be in high demand: those should be expanded as there is leverage in this type of program. The Task Force was impressed, however, by the UA’s lack of coordination of off-campus degree programs. For teaching, the Task Force considered the effectiveness of a primarily teaching faculty versus research faculty and the relative use of graduate teaching assistants versus instructors and stabilizing employment options for adjuncts. The Task Force suggested a teaching cost recovery program, similar to indirect costs recovery, to encourage departments to teach more. Determining curriculum and instructional delivery should remain with the ranked faculty in discipline-oriented colleges and departments for all degrees as well as general education. Gen Ed and the multi-disciplinary degrees would be coordinated by University College on campus, and by the Outreach College off-campus, although combining or coordinating these efforts might be considered.

Senators’ questions and comments included: 1) Is there any evidence showing the effectiveness of teaching with electronics between science and non-science subjects? The evidence does indicate that scientific subjects are much more effectively taught with electronics, which could also provide for cost-savings. 2) What are the next steps to implement these recommendations? Senator Strittmatter believes that a coordinated effort from the faculty, administration and staff will be required to implement. 3) Are the multi-disciplinary degrees better-suited to our lower AI students? Senator Strittmatter believes that the poor retention/graduation rates of our least-prepared students indicate that those students fail because our regular degree offerings are not in tune with their career goals. He also believes that their ultimate employment will lie in areas where more general thinking is required, rather than detailed knowledge of a subject to its highest level. 3) Will the models that already exist for regular and honors 3+2 programs be incorporated? Senator Strittmatter said the Task Force does acknowledge and encourage these programs already in existence. 4) Why should the UA offer multi-disciplinary, non-specialist programs when Pima Community College already provides this? Senator Strittmatter believes that the University must adapt to the career goals of those students who are admitted here by offering a coherent degree program that fits our students’ abilities and goals. 5) These exciting recommendations will open doors and provide opportunities for our students, but all of the tracks have to be developed to be of high quality.

Chair of the Faculty Howell engaged the Provost and the Senate in a discussion about where another possible 5% in budget cuts over the next 18 months may come from. Provost Hay indicated that central administration may be able to come up with enough one-time funds to cover this 5% for the next six months and have asked the deans and vice presidents to find ways to make these cuts permanent in the next twelve months, perhaps by eliminating some programs. Given this timeline, the UA Transformation process is more intimately connected to saving money. SPBAC Chair Joseph believes $3-5M savings in the short term might be realized, but the more long-term savings could come from streamlining and restructuring the curriculum and General Education, whereas a more significant savings potential might come from resolving college restructurings/mergers. SPBAC will be reviewing the administrative white papers. The Tuition Funds Flow Task Force may recommend incentivizing teaching in some ways. Provost Hay stated that a structured review of under-enrolled programs and low graduation rates for both the graduate and undergraduate curriculums must begin in the Spring, led by Vice Provost Burd and Graduate Dean Comrie. SPBAC Chair Joseph suggested that determining criteria for academic program reviews is most certainly the purview of the faculty and the Senate. Vice Provost Burd said the deans have been given the data for their colleges and that smaller committees are looking at Gen Ed and at other courses. Provost Hay said the question is not purely about size, as some small programs are the only ones offered in the entire state or region. Chair Howell asked how the criteria will be developed. Vice Provost Burd has been working with two large faculty committees, the Undergraduate Council and the University-wide General Education Committee, on these issues. Dean Comrie will have a list of criteria that he is developing with faculty. SPBAC Chair Joseph reminded the Senate and the Provost that the SPBAC criteria that are being used for the Transformation were developed specifically for the purpose of making decisions about what academic programs should receive further investment, be reduced, or be merely maintained. Provost Hay believes that the first step has to come from deans and department heads looking closely at where faculty time is spent and which programs are advancing the department. Senator Joseph asked a defining question: "As a University, where do our values lie?" Senators’ questions and comments included: 1) The deans and department heads should be given direction about what the criteria to use. Indeed, sometimes deans and department heads may have a different appreciation or may not agree as to where the time is spent as well as which programs are needed versus not needed. 2) Once a change to a program is decided, will it still go through the usual UGC or Grad Council, ICPC, Provost’s Management Group? Yes. 3) Recent news reports have been discussing highly paid university administrators across the country giving back some of their earnings to the institutions. Might this happen at UA? Provost Hay said the larger question is, "Should all UA employees be looking at giving back some wages?" There are legal ramifications to such an action since the UA is contracted to pay employees. Furthermore, giving up one week’s or even one day’s wages could be devastating to some employees’ families, but not to all. 4) What is the relationship between immediate pressing budgetary needs and program consolidations which may take several years to realize any savings? Chair Howell proposed that voluntary furloughs or a perpetual hiring freeze may be the answer since our greatest expense is people, and even if programs are merged or closed, tenured faculty will remain until they reinvent themselves or go elsewhere. Provost Hay reminded the Senate that the point of the Transformation is not just to save money, but to strengthen the University so that when the state’s economy recovers, the UA will be as strong as possible and will know exactly which areas to invest in that will advance the University and continue toward becoming a Top Ten institution. Revenue streams from enrollments (tuition) and grants must continue to increase, and some faculty may have their workloads redistributed (teaching) as part of this effort. 5) Cutting salaries permanently is the worst possible strategy because it undermines the institution’s quality and ability to hire excellent faculty. 6) Assigning faculty to teach extra courses for a set period of time is far less demoralizing than a pay cut and also generates more revenue. 7) Classified staff have discussed whether they would be willing to give back a part of their salaries without crossing the line of "paying to work here." Staffers have indicated that they might be willing to work more, however, for a limited period of time to get past this crisis. 8) It doesn’t make much sense to cut lower-paid staff members or to always look to the faculty to increase teaching workloads: someone needs to look to the past few years of increases in deans’ and department heads’ salaries. 9) If a 10% enrollment increase brings in $30M in tuition revenue, what kind of on-campus enrollment increase is the UA planning for? Provost Hay hopes to enroll an additional 200 students every year for the next five years and to push out-of-state recruiting as much as possible. With Cal State limiting enrollment, out-of-state enrollments may increase. 10) The UA took a $20M reduction in base funding level last year, and another $20M reduction in base is being proposed now, with yet another $20M permanent cut for 2010. This cumulative cut is $60M, at best.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:06 p.m.

J.C. Mutchler, Secretary of the Faculty

Pamela S. Bridgmon, Recording Secretary

None.