May 4, 2009

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 3:03 p.m. in the College of Law, Room 168.

2. OPEN SESSION

There were no speakers for the Open Session.

3. REPORTS

3A. ASUA President Chris Nagata

ASUA President Chris Nagata introduced himself and said he looks forward to working with the Faculty Senate this coming year.

3B. GPSC President David Talenfeld

GPSC President David Talenfeld announced that GPSC is moving out of the Graduate College and will be housed in Student Affairs with ASUA. He hopes the consolidation and proximity will save money, reduce redundancies and allow GPSC to accomplish more. President Talenfeld has set two goals for the year: to host a "Wildcat Ball" open to all students, to raise money for the endowment; and to find a professor in Law or in Public Administration who would be willing to offer a course on the legislative process in Arizona.

3C. Faculty Officers’ Report

Presiding Officer Mitchell also announced that the vote on agenda item 11, the return of the seconded motion [Motion 2008/09-31] to approve creation of a School of Mathematical Sciences has been postponed pending the faculty vote on that proposal. This item will return in the Fall. Mr. Mitchell reminded Senators of the Standing Committees’ reports that were in the packets. He thanked outgoing Senators Barton, Bergsma, Estrada, Garcia, Joseph, and Ruiz and to outgoing ASUA and GPSC representatives Bruce, Bieda, Ellis, Jacobi, Nystedt, and Slugocki. The newly-elected and appointed Senators will begin attending at the first meeting of the Fall semester. Presiding Officer Mitchell urged Senators make a note of the dates of all of the Senate meetings for next year. The location of the Senate meeting room is still unknown and will be announced later. Mr. Mitchell also announced the runoff election results for SPBAC; Dr. Eric Betterton was re-elected and Dr. John Paul Jones was elected to his first term.

3D. Provost Meredith Hay

Provost Hay provided an update on the Arizona Board of Regents’ (ABOR) meeting last week when the Governor made an appearance the first morning to show her support of higher education. An important action was the Regents approving a tuition economic surcharge for the three universities to cover the gap based on the analysis of each institution’s state appropriations plus the anticipated federal stimulus dollars. UA’s surcharge will be $766 for in-state students, and $966 for out-of-state. ABOR also approved increasing tuition for the Colleges of Medicine and Nursing. Dr. Hay reminded the Senate that the federal stimulus dollars are temporary funds that will not be available to compensate for the lack of state funding in years to come. ABOR’s Academic Affairs Committee has approved all of the UA’s Transformation Plans program changes and degree programs. The universities have been charged with working together with ABOR for a System Redesign to double the number of undergraduate degrees produced with a new lower-cost model. Provost Hay thanked UAPD Officer Brian Seastone and Harry McDermott for coming to today’s Faculty Senate meeting to provide updated information on the H1N1 flu virus.

3E. President Robert Shelton

President Shelton apologized for missing the April Faculty Senate meeting because he was serving on an academic accreditation review team for the University of New Mexico. He emphasized that the UA has lost $77M (18%) of permanent state budget dollars this year, and that all indications are for an additional $20-25M next year. Although the governor has committed funds from the federal stimulus plan, he reminded Senators that this money will be gone by FY12. He hopes to be able to lower the tuition surcharge and reminded the Senate that the surcharge is only for one year. He added that the UA needs to continue using the strategic plan and the collective wisdom of the Faculty Senate to continue with a transformation plan that will reduce the institution’s permanent dependence on state funds. President Shelton said that Governor Brewer is fully supportive of education and that he supports looking at her five-point revenue plan. Turning to the ABOR System Redesign, also known as the "Regent Boice 6," President Shelton explained that ABOR President Boice has asked the universities to consider how to deliver more undergraduate degrees outside of the typical Research I universities. Educational delivery alternatives may include branch campuses, 2+2 partnerships with community colleges all over the state, distance learning and thinking broadly about the extension services in Nogales, Douglas and Yuma. The UA’s role will be different than ASU or NAU, but President Shelton hopes the UA will be able to help absorb some of the enrollment growth that the state is expecting, without impacting the physical campus, which will continue its measured growth.

4. QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD FOR AGENDA ITEM 3

Senator McKean asked, for purposes of tuition waiver calculations, whether the tuition surcharge is considered part of the tuition or part of the fees. President Shelton is waiting for clarification on that question, but that he believes that it falls under tuition.

Senator Schlager asked whether the strategy for moving ahead on the Transformation Plan involves putting a hold on program fees and differential tuition fees. Provost Hay said nothing has been placed on hold, but the tuition surcharge had to be approved and that ABOR wanted that to be a very simple, clear single item, plus the College of Medicine and College of Nursing increases. The differential tuition and program fee proposals will be considered during the regular tuition setting process in this fall.

Senator Silverman asked whether the University’s 2010 allocation from the legislature will be negatively affected by the federal stimulus money and the tuition surcharge. President Shelton responded that the legislature understands that, because the universities are receiving the full complement of the federal stimulus money, the maximum cut to the system for next year is about $70M ($28M for UA). This is due to the "maintenance of effort" requirement, which stipulates that states must provide support for higher education institutions at levels no lower than in fiscal year 2006. Arizona’s K-12 and higher education took an enormous, disproportionate hit in January, much higher than any other state entity. Legislators are beginning to realize and understand the impact of this cut, and President Shelton doesn’t believe they will move to cut more.

Senator Sterling asked about the national media reports suggesting expanding the roles of community colleges offering four-year degrees. President Shelton responded that such discussions have been ongoing in Arizona and in the governor’s P-20 Council for a number of years, but there is no consensus among the presidents/chancellors. There was an agreement several years ago that if a community had a need for a degree to be offered, the Arizona Board of Regents would have the "right of first refusal" after which a community college could step in to offer a degree. This agreement was never ratified, however, and right now, no one has any money to begin offering more degrees, and the Arizona community colleges do not have an organized body.

Senator Hildebrand asked about a report from the University’s Office of Government Affairs that the legislature is considering sweeping local funds which could include indirect costs. President Shelton agreed that the seriousness of such an action would involve about $45M and would be devastating. He said that the legislature may not have enough votes to pass such a measure, plus certain legal issues may prevent this from happening.

Senator Tabor asked what numbers the "system redesign" is anticipating in terms of increasing the number of degrees and over what time span. President Shelton explained that the "system redesign" is an offshoot of the Regents’ 2020 Vision Statement which calls for doubling the number of bachelor’s degrees in Arizona by the year 2020. This goal of adding another 30K degrees is probably not reachable, but President Shelton believes that the vast majority of those degrees would have to come from different venues. ASU would grow its satellite campuses in highly-populated Maricopa County. UA would look for 2+2, distance ed, partnering and expanding and establishing its presence in highly populated Pinal County and elsewhere in the state.

Dr. Harry McDermott, Director of Campus Health, and Brian Seastone, UAPD Commander, presented an update on the University’s response to the H1N1/Swine flu virus. There are over 1000 cases in 21 countries involved. The World Health Organization (WHO) has a 6-Level pandemic staging system and the current alert is at Level 5. The term "pandemic" does not relate to how deadly a virus is. The criteria for a pandemic involves three factors: 1) a novel virus which has never been seen before, which this is, having components of avian, human and swine flu; 2) the ease of human-to-human transmission; and 3) the breadth of the involvement across the globe. The initial reports from Mexico indicated severe mortality rates, but outside of Mexico, the illness seems to be milder. For an unknown reason the virus seems to behave differently in Mexico. The pattern is still fluid but in Arizona there are seventeen cases, of which fifteen are children. No cases have been identified yet at the UA. Health Department authorities in Arizona are not closing schools because this currently appears to be no more severe than a regular flu. The Center for Disease Control has advised against non-essential travel to Mexico and the UA has adopted that stance and it is still in effect. A subset of the UA’s Campus Emergency Response Team (CERT) Core group, as well as the CERT, have been communicating and meeting with various campus groups since last Monday. Dr. McDermott is in daily contact with the Pima County Health Department and is providing the Core group, as well as the President and Provost, with daily status updates. Commander Seastone mentioned that last week Provost Hay asked all units to update their pandemic continuity plans. These continuity plans are to be in place for multiple hazards, either natural or manmade. The CERT website http://cert.arizona.edu/ has a great deal of information about the campus pandemic plan. Commander Seastone encouraged everyone to sign up for the UA’s text messaging service, UAlert! which allows campus authorities to instantly notify thousands of people on campus. The signup is available on UA’s home page and persons can register a mobile device and an email address. Senators’ comments and questions included: 1) What is the UA’s current supply of Tamiflu? Campus Health has about 40-50 doses of Tamiflu, an antiviral used in treating influenza. The Federal Government’s Department of Homeland Security declared a state of emergency a week ago, which enables the release of antivirals from the national stockpile. Arizona will receive some of these doses through the Arizona Department of Health Services. 2) What are the UA’s policies for distribution of these antivirals? The UA will follow the CDC’s recommendations for a limited supply: to use it only in severe cases or with high-risk patients. 3) Is it true that Tamiflu will only decrease the length of the illness by one day? This is true in the general population, but it has a significant impact for patients with high risk for complications. 4) Is the seasonal flu still circulating in Tucson? Yes, the majority of the flu cases in the state are still the seasonal flu, or influenza-like illnesses, not H1N1/Swine flu. If the WHO goes to a Level 6 alert, will the UA follow the numerous non-pharmaceutical interventions such as school closures? Dr. McDermott said this decision will be made in consultation with the Pima County Health Department. Right now the recommendation is for social distancing and practicing good hand washing. The next step might be staggering shifts or working from home. The last step would be closing schools and canceling large public events. The UA CERT team is carefully assessing the summer programs in Mexico. President Shelton thanked Dr. McDermott, Commander Seastone and the entire CERT team, which has been working for years on a pandemic response plan.

The minutes of April 6, 2009 were approved with two corrections.

The Senate conducted its annual elections for the Committee on Conciliation, University Committee on Ethics and Commitment, University Hearing Board, and for Faculty Senate Elected Representatives to the Grievance Clearinghouse Committee, Senate Executive Committee, Shared Governance Review Committee, and the Senate Committee on Budget and Strategic Planning. Presiding Officer Mitchell noted that one seat on the Senate Committee on Budget and Strategic Planning is unsubscribed, and he invited Senators to nominate, self-nominate, or write in a Senator’s name. Votes were cast using written ballots. Parliamentarian Sankey and Secretary Mutchler served as tellers. In accordance with the General Faculty Bylaws, those elected are:

Albrecht Classen Owen K Davis
Margaret Livingston Michael A Cusanovich (write in)

University Hearing Board Faculty Senate Executive Committee

Simin Karimi Andy Silverman

Dale Brenneman
Fabio Lanza Grievance Clearinghouse Committee
Robert Schon William E Conway

University Committee on Ethics Shared Governance Review Committee

and Commitment Andy Silverman
Moira Marti Geoffrion
Lihua Marmorstein

Undergraduate Council (UGC) Chair George Gehrels, accompanied by Chair of the Faculty, Wanda Howell, and Dean of the Graduate College, Andrew Comrie, introduced a seconded motion [Motion 2008/09-77] from the Senate Executive Committee: "The Faculty Senate adopts the revised ‘Approval Process for Academic Policies, Programs and Units,’ " dated April 2009. Dr. Gehrels explained that there are essentially three changes involved in this revision. The first change involves the UGC assuming responsibility for overseeing General Education (Gen Ed) policies, which currently reside in the University-wide General Education Committee (UWGEC). UWGEC will continue to handle Gen Ed course approvals, which will then flow to the UGC. The second change calls for a faculty chair of the Graduate Council (GC), to mirror the UGC’s structure. The third change is to disestablish the Faculty Senate’s Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee (ICPC), altering the approval process flow to come directly to the Senate Executive Committee and the Senate. Dr. Gehrels said these changes are offered in the spirit of improving efficiency of the approval process without compromising the quality of decision-making. Dean Comrie explained that although the GC revised its bylaws last year, it has approved another revision that calls for the GC Chair to be a Faculty member, an Ex-Officio Senator and to serve on the Senate Executive Committee (SenExec).

Senators’ comments and questions included: 1) Senator Burd spoke in favor of eliminating the ICPC, because there is faculty input at the unit and college curriculum committee levels, at UWGEC, UGC and GC, and at SenExec and Senate. She added that ICPC’s purview is to consider the overall view of a program or policy change, but it has too often been caught up in the curricular details of a proposal. As an example, Burd pointed to the degree on today’s ICPC Consent Agenda a Master’s Degree for current Middle School Math teachers, which didn’t pass ICPC last year when it was proposed as a graduate certificate. That certificate was funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation and was a valuable opportunity for the teachers to receive valuable content and pedagogy. Senator Burd also spoke of an Integrated Science degree program that the College of Science proposed last year. This program requires a heavy load of coursework in the hard sciences, but ICPC requested that a "philosophy of science" course be added to the requirements. Dr. Burd felt that the curriculum of this program was being micromanaged by ICPC. 2) Senator Silverman expressed concern about disestablishing the ICPC. He said that Arizona’s Faculty Governance Law [ARS 15-1601(B)] places the universities’ curriculum within the purview of the faculty. Even though the SenExec and Senate will still be involved in approving curricular matters, there is very little discussion on the floor of the Senate or even in SenExec, particularly since many items come as part of Consent Agendas. The Senate has trusted the ICPC to provide a detailed examination and review. 3) How are UGC and GC members selected? Dr. Gehrels responded that UGC faculty members are appointed by their college’s academic deans. Dr. Comrie said that GC faculty members are nominated/elected by their college advisory councils, or appointed by their deans or associate deans. 4) Dr. Witte reminded the Senate that the Faculty Governance Law explicitly calls for elected faculty representatives to participate in curricular affairs. She also asked to know why the ICPC disagreed with the Math Teacher’s Graduate Certificate proposal last year. 5) Senator Spece spoke against disestablishing the ICPC and argued that this change will result in less faculty governance. 6) Senator S.M. Smith advised the Senate that several years ago the President’s office issued a directive that members of the UGC and GC are supposed to be elected, not appointed. Drs. Gehrels and Comrie agreed that electing members to these committees is preferable, but the reality is that sometimes it is a challenge to find faculty representatives willing to serve, so the Associate Deans often appoint them. 7) Senator Schlager, a two-term member of the ICPC, spoke against disestablishing the ICPC. Unlike the UGC and GC, which are under substantial influence from the administration, she sees the ICPC as being the only truly independent curricula reviewing body, because it is solely responsible to the Faculty Senate. Transferring the vetting of academic programs and policies to the Senate will take up a great deal of the Senate’s time. 8) Senator Tabor asked how long it takes for a program or policy to make its way through the approval process, and how much time would be saved by eliminating ICPC. Dr. Gehrels responded that the average is 4-6 months, and that eliminating ICPC may shave one month off the process. 9) Senator Willerton remembers that while he chaired ICPC, the Provost’s Office and ICPC developed a simultaneous review process which increased efficiency. 10) Senator Conway affirmed that the ICPC continues this simultaneous review process. He also responded to Senator Smith’s inquiry about the Graduate Certificate in Math Teaching. He said ICPC had wanted to see the curriculum for the program, which had not yet been developed. The representative for the Math Department never did provide the ICPC with the curriculum.

Senator Renger observed that the motion encompasses three issues, and that only the disestablishment of the ICPC seems to be challenged. He asked whether the three issues are meant to be voted on as a single motion. Presiding Officer Mitchell affirmed that it was the sense of the Senate Executive Committee to bundle these three items into a single vote. Senator Silverman moved [Motion 2008/09-78] to separate the disestablishment of the ICPC from Motion 2008/09-77. Motion was seconded by Senator Witte. Senator Jones moved [Motion 2008/09-79] to sever the three issues represented in Motion 2008/09-77 and to vote separately on each as a separate motion: I) The Faculty Senate adopts the UGC assuming responsibility for overseeing General Education policies [Motion 2008/09-80]; II) The Faculty Senate adopts the Graduate Council being chaired by a faculty member [Motion 2008/09-81]; and III) The Faculty Senate adopts the disestablishment of the Faculty Senate’s Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee [Motion 2008/09-82]. Motion was seconded. Senators Silverman and Witte withdrew motion 2008/09-78 and its second. President Shelton asked whether the revised approval process plan would hold together if any piece of it is voted down. Dr. Gehrels affirmed that it would. Motion 2008/09-77 not acted on. Motion 2008/09-79 to sever the three issues and vote on them separately passed with several opposed.

Senator McKean observed that today’s version of the narrative description of the UGC/UWGEC relationship has been revised since the April Senate meeting, eliminating the creation of an additional committee that would replace the ICPC. Dr. Gehrels affirmed the change, noting that only Gen Ed policy aspects will fall to UGC; Gen Ed course and program approvals will remain within the purview of UWGEC, and that several members of each committee will be invited to join the other. Senator Smith conveyed her continuing concern with the concept that faculty on these groups are appointed rather than elected by their college advisory councils. Senator Howell noted that the bylaws relating to both the Graduate and Undergraduate Council can be changed at any time, and that the issue of elected or appointed representatives does not impact today’s issues or motions. Senator Cusanovich called for the Question [Motion 2008/09-83] to end debate on Motion 2998/09-80. Motion to call the question was seconded and passed with one abstention. Motion 2008/09-80 for the Faculty Senate to adopt the Undergraduate Council assuming responsibility for overseeing General Education policies passed with two abstentions. Motion 2008/09-81 for the Faculty Senate to adopt the Graduate Council being chaired by a faculty member passed with one abstention.

Senator McKean reiterated her colleague’s, (Dr. Homer Pettey), stance that ICPC has a more independent and global institutional perspective than the individual Graduate and Undergraduate Councils. Dr. Gehrels countered that the key issue is whether or not there is an adequate review process by faculty and whether good decisions are being made in the end. Gehrels added that, from his experience serving on these committees, he does not believe the quality of decision-making will be undermined by eliminating the ICPC. Chair of the Faculty Howell declared that it is not essential to decide which faculty group makes better decisions. If 15-20% of proposals need greater scrutiny, the SenExec or the Senate can provide that level of review. Senator Spece spoke in favor of retaining ICPC and reasserted the difference between elected and appointed faculty. Senator Witte agreed, adding that elected faculty behave differently and answer to different groups than appointed faculty, and that it is expected that these faculty members will agree most of the time; it is only occasionally that a proposal may need additional review, and that cannot be done in the Senate at large. Senator Cusanovich asked whether the members of ICPC are elected. Senator Howell explained that they are appointed by the Vice Chair/Presiding Officer of the Faculty Senate, which is an elected position, with consultation from the Faculty Senate Executive Committee. Senator Hildebrand called the Question [Motion 2008/09-84] to end debate on motion 2008/09-82. Motion to call the question was seconded and carried with one abstention. Motion 2008/09-82 to disestablish ICPC passed 22-17-1.

The consent agenda items forwarded by the ICPC and detailed at the end of these minutes [Motions 2008/09-85 through 91] were approved unanimously.

ICPC Chair Conway explained that the proposal to establish a Graduate Academic Renewal Policy comes as a seconded motion [Motion 2008/09-92] from the ICPC. Senator Jones expressed a concern on behalf of Senator Pintozzi who is unable to attend today’s meeting: To allow a graduate student, who has been through a rigorous selection evaluation process to determine his/her readiness to succeed in graduate school, to have grades for a particular period of time excluded from the grade-point-average (GPA) seems an awkward step backward. Presiding Officer Mitchell recognized Associate Graduate College Dean Dianne Horgan, who explained that this proposal parallels the undergraduate Academic Renewal Policy. She explained that occasionally, graduate students don’t have a realistic idea about graduate education and find themselves enrolled in the wrong program. If they can get into the correct program, however, they succeed. If a student has made poor grades, however, they either have to transfer to another institution or continue to take courses to raise their GPA. Women and students of color are sometimes encouraged to go into a program they aren’t truly interested in. The courses will remain on the transcripts, but the grades will not be calculated as part of the GPA. Motion passed 23-9-4.

The next seconded motion [Motion 2008/09-93] from the ICPC involves approval of the proposal to revise the Course Repeat Policy, which is designed to limit the number of opportunities that students have for repeating courses more than twice. Senator St. John inquired whether this policy would affect medical students, because some courses begin after the fifth week of classes. Presiding Officer Mitchell recognized Graduate College Dean Comrie who explained that medical students are not considered undergraduate or graduate students, so this policy does not apply to them. Senator Plante inquired whether this policy might place students in a position whereby they are unable to graduate from a program with a limited number of courses that will satisfy the degree requirements. ASUA Senator Nystedt countered that she hopes students will not be allowed to get to a point where they have to repeat a course three times to graduate. Dr. Conway added that in such a case, the student could file a general petition. Senator S. Smith noted that some students take the same course number (93 or 94) more than two times, but the content changes. Presiding Officer Mitchell recognized Senior Associate for Academic Affairs Patti King, who said the new policy will not prevent a student from registering for a third time if there is room in the class on the first day. Motion passed with one opposed.

Dr. Conway informed the Senate that after the first week of classes, the number of drops far exceeds the number of adds. The ICPC has forwarded a seconded motion [Motion 2008/09-94] to approve a proposal to extend the WebReg access by one day, which will be most effective in tandem with the new Course Late Drop Fee, making more seats available earlier, during the "free drop" period. Senator Foley inquired, and Dr. Conway affirmed, that an instructor will still be able to block WebReg. Motion passed unanimously.

Dr. Conway introduced ICPC’s seconded motion [Motion 2008/09-95] to reduce the Honors First-Year English Composition Requirement from six to three units, substituting ENGL 109H (3 units) for ENGL 103H + 104H (6 units). He expressed concern with cutting the number of English composition units because it is one of UA students’ most important classes; he inquired whether this proposal may be coming forward due to limited resources. Vice Provost Burd explained that limited resources are not an issue for this proposal; that Honors students will have to qualify for this substitution with English grades and SAT scores; and that both the Honors College and the English Department support this proposal. ASUA President Nagata added that he does not oppose this proposal. Motion passed with one abstention.

Dr. Conway explained the seconded motion [Motion 2008/09-96] from ICPC to approve the proposal to revise the Medical Withdrawal Policy and Procedure, which clarifies the responsibility and process for students who seek to withdraw after the tuition refund deadline or retroactively after the last day of classes. One of the reasons for this policy revision is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy act. The policy calls for the Executive Director of Campus Health Services to review the student’s medical documentation. Senator McKean inquired whether the same documentation would be required for the University’s general petitions process. Dr. Conway explained that a student submitting a general petition would require a recommendation from Campus Health. Senator Nystedt inquired whether any potential downside exists in having medical information within the University’s purview. Dr. Conway explained that such information would be held in confidence in the Office of Campus Health, which must, of course, comply with HIPAA. Motion passed unanimously.

Presiding Officer Mitchell advised the Senate that the return of the Senate Executive Committee’s seconded motion [Motion 2008/09-31] to approve creation of a School of Mathematical Sciences has been pulled from the agenda pending a faculty vote from the affected units. Motion postponed pending unit faculty vote.

Dr. Randy Richardson and Senator Beth Mitchneck, North Central Accreditation Self Study Co-chairs, distributed a handout with a website URL that identifies the names of the five working teams and the steering committee and the timeline. These working teams involve over sixty members from all across campus as well as from every UA campus. The teams have been composed to be deliberately cross-cutting, global, translational and interdisciplinary. The working teams’ assignments are broad enough to look at all aspects of the University: 1) Mission and Integrity; 2) Preparing for the Future; 3A) Student-Centered Experience in the Classroom and Beyond; 3B) Engagement and Service; and 3C) Creativity and Knowledge Discovery. Dr. Mitchneck described these working groups as engaged in thinking about what the UA can do to enhance the value and quality of its programs, as opposed to just being reaccredited. They are looking at how to fulfill the criteria that the Higher Learning Commission has set out, what are the UA’s successes, and what will be its challenges. Dr. Richardson noted that the working teams are faculty-driven so they will resume their activities in the Fall by drafting the self-study.

Team 1; Mission and Integrity, is focusing on how the University communicates its Mission, whether people know and can quote the Mission, are following and living the Mission, and what does it mean to be a land-grant institution in the 21^st Century. Team 2; Planning for the Future, is waiting, to some degree, to hear what the other teams reveal in their reports. Three large issues this team is considering are 1) the linking relationships between UA’s planning and budgeting processes at departmental, college, central, and comprehensive planning levels; 2) How evaluation processes across the University function; and 3) when and how academic program reviews occur. Team 3A is focused on what students experience in the classroom and beyond, what students are learning and how students learn, changes in teaching modalities/methodologies, what structures support learning, and the roles of faculty and non-faculty in learning. Working team 3B, Engagement and Service, is considering what relationship does this engagement have to the core research, instruction and outreach functions of the UA as defined in its Mission and Strategic Plan. The Higher Learning Commission has urged the self-study team to seriously consider how the University sees itself, and how it wants to be. The team is also looking at how the administrative arrangements empower our partners, promote communication and transparency, provide adequate financial resources, define assessment measures, and hold leadership accountable. As partners, the team is thinking deeply about the kinds of constituencies the UA serves, around the community, the state, the nation and beyond the national borders and how UA is engaging in partnerships and how those partnerships function. Finally, this team is examining how the contributions of UA faculty and staff to these partnerships are recognized and rewarded in annual performance and tenure, promotion and continuing status reviews. Team 3C is thinking about creativity and knowledge discovery and is very much focused beyond just funded research. They have identified three important successes at UA: 1) that the administrative structures strongly support and encourage interdisciplinary scholarship; 2) that independent research is encouraged and supported among the student bodies including undergraduates, graduates, and post-doctorate scholars; and 3) the translation of creativity and knowledge discovery into many contexts for the larger community. Two challenges include: 1) the difficulty in tracking successes across campus, outside of funded research in creativity and knowledge discovery with the systematics that are in place to gather data; 2) the UA is still seriously challenged in communicating its successes across Arizona and to the broader community. In the Fall of 2010, the working teams will draft the materials for the self-study. December 6-9, 2010, a group of 12-18 of the UA’s peers will be visiting on-site, evaluating the University and its Self-Study.

Senator Nystedt asked whether any students are involved on the study teams. Dr. Richardson affirmed that every constituency including graduate students, undergraduates, staff, appointed professionals, parents’ and community members are represented. Senator Howell observed that in 1990, the UA was rated less successfully on accountability relative to student outcomes and assessment; How will this piece be handled this time? Dr. Richardson said that accrediting bodies and site team visitors are very interested in how a university demonstrates that it knows what students should be able to do. UA has implemented assessments for knowledge and skills, and it has established feedback mechanisms. The UA’s Higher Learning Commission liaison visited UA last month and was very encouraging so Dr. Richardson feels cautiously optimistic, noting that the challenge will be with the non-professional schools. Senator Zedeno encouraged the teams to evaluate the partnerships that go beyond the educational or research missions to provide outreach. Dr. Mitchneck assured the Senate that two teams are addressing this area. President Shelton described that an accreditation self-study is a massive effort conducted once every decade. He stated for the record his gratitude to Drs. Richardson and Mitchneck for their superior organization in this faculty-driven process, and noted the high quality of the participants on the study teams that they have been able to recruit.

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

Motion 2008/09-31 Returning seconded motion from the Senate Executive Committee to approve creation of a School of Mathematical Sciences, as described in the document "The University of Arizona 2009-2010 Academic Strategic Plan; Academic Organization Units Table 1: List of Proposed New Academic Units." Motion postponed pending unit faculty vote.

Motion 2008/09-77 Seconded motion from the Senate Executive Committee to adopt a revised: "The Faculty Senate adopts the revised ‘Approval Process for Academic Policies, Programs and Units" dated April 2009. Motion not acted upon.

Motion 2008/09-78 Seconded motion to separate the disestablishment of the ICPC from Motion 2008/09-77. Motion withdrawn.

Motion 2008/09-79 Seconded motion to sever the three issues represented in Motion 2008/09-77 and to vote separately on each as a separate motion: I) The Faculty Senate adopts UGC assuming responsibility for overseeing General Education policies [Motion 2008/09-80]; II) The Faculty Senate adopts Graduate Council being chaired by a faculty member [Motion 2008/09-81]; and III) The Faculty Senate adopts disestablishing the Faculty Senate’s Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee [Motion 2008/09-82]. Motion carried.

Motion 2008/09-80 Seconded motion for The Faculty Senate to adopt the Undergraduate Council assuming responsibility for overseeing General Education policies. Motion carried.

Motion 2008/09-81 Seconded motion for The Faculty Senate to adopt the Graduate Council being chaired by a faculty member. Motion carried.

Motion 2008/09-82 Seconded motion for The Faculty Senate to adopt the disestablishment of the ICPC. Motion carried.

Motion 2008/09-83 Seconded motion to end debate on motion 2008/09-80. Motion carried.

Motion 2008/09-84 Seconded motion to end debate on motion 2008/09-82. Motion carried.

Motion 2008/09-85 Seconded motion from the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee to approve the proposal to implement an MA degree with a major in Middle School Mathematics Teaching and Leadership in the College of Science. Motion carried.

Motion 2008/09-86 Seconded motion from the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee to approve the proposal to merge the BS in Electrical Engineering and the BS in Computer Engineering degrees and to create a BS in Electrical and Computer Engineering in the College of Engineering. Motion carried.

Motion 2008/09-87 Seconded motion from the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee to approve the proposal to implement a BS degree with a major in Public Health in the Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health. Motion carried.

Motion 2008/09-88 Seconded motion from the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee to approve the proposal to implement MS & PhD degrees with a major in Environmental Health Sciences in the in the Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health. Motion carried.

Motion 2008/09-89 Seconded motion from the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee to approve the proposal to implement MS & PhD degrees with a major in Medical Sciences as described in the College of Medicine. Motion carried.

Motion 2008/09-90 Seconded motion from the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee to approve the proposal to implement an undergraduate Sports Management Minor in the Eller College of Management. Motion carried.

Motion 2008/09-91 Seconded motion from the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee to approve the proposal to implement a doctoral level Entrepreneurship Minor in the Eller College of Management. Motion carried.

Motion 2008/09-92 Seconded motion from the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee to approve the proposal to establish an Academic Renewal Policy for graduate students. Motion carried.

Motion 2008/09-93 Seconded motion from the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee to approve the proposal to revise the Course Repeat Policy. Motion carried.

Motion 2008/09-94 Seconded motion from the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee to approve the proposal to extend WebReg access for adding courses. Motion carried.

Motion 2008/09-95 Seconded motion from the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee to approve the proposal to revise the Honors First-Year English Composition Requirement from a two-semester sequence (ENGL 103H + 104H for 6 units) to one course, ENGL 109H (3 units). Motion carried.

Motion 2008/09-96 Seconded motion from the Instruction and Curriculum Policy Committee to approve the proposal to revise the Medical Withdrawal Policy and Procedure. Motion carried.