Minutes of the University Senate
The University Senate met in
regular session at
Members absent: Charles Ambrose*, Lynley Anderman*, Kimberly
Anderson, Mary Arthur*, Wendy Baldwin*, Rolando Berger*, Suketu Bhavsar*,
Sheila Brothers*, Frank Butler, Ben Carr, James Cibulka, Alfred Cohen,
Elizabeth Debski*, Jody Deem*, Nirmala Desai*, Philip DeSimone, Michelle
Duffy*, Mary Duke*, David Durant*, Roberta Dwyer*, Greg Feeney, Joseph Fink
III*, Mat Gabel, Daniel Gargola, Rachel Hardy*, Allison Hensley*, Kay Hoffman,
Brian Jackson*, Tom Janoski*, Ling Hwey Jeng*, James Kerley, Richrd King*,
Robert Kovarik, Phil Kraemer, Thomas Lester, Mary Marchant, Joan Mazur*, Leola
McClure, Katherine McCormick, Terry Mobley, David Mohney, Michael Nietzel, Sue
Nokes*, Sean Peffer*, Peter Perry, Martha Purdue*, David Randall*, Connie Ray*,
Kenneth Roberts, Thomas Robinson, Mark Roland*, Peggy Saunier*, Sandy
Schomaker*, Jason Shaw, Robert Shay*, Richard Siemer, Scott Smith*, Veleashia
Smith, D.C. Storm, Devanathan Sudharshan*, Patricia Terrell, Lee Todd, Allan
Vestal, Retia Walker, Rachel Watts*, Shirley Whitescarver*, Carolyn Williams,
Eugene Williams, Emery Wilson, Don Witt.
*Absence Excused.
Chairperson Jeffrey Dembo
called the meeting to order at
The Chair noted a
modification to the minutes and asked the Parliamentarian to explain the need
for the change. Blyton informed the
Senate of the principle of due notice and said the Senate vote on a motion made
from the floor at the last meeting was out of order because it violated this
principle. Blyton said the vote taken by
the Senate was a straw vote and has been noted as such in the revised minutes. The minutes were approved as amended.
2. Memorial Resolutions:
Memorial Resolutions were
presented for John Ballantine by Pat Litzelfelner from the
3. Announcement:
The Chair reminded the Senate
of the upcoming Board and Senates’ holiday reception and urged the Senators to
attend. He also noted that there will
not be a Senate meeting in January. He
suggested the Senators should begin thinking about possible nominees for the
next Board of Trustees election since Jones’ term expires in June 2004. The Chair then announced the results of the
recent Senate Council elections. Chard,
Grabau and Jones were elected and will begin their terms in January 2004. The Chair told the Senate that Yanarella is
the Senate Council Chair elect and Saunier will be Vice-Chair. Their terms will begin at the end of June
2004.
4. Annual Academic Ombud Reports:
The Chair noted the absence
of Anthony and yielded the floor to Scollay.
Scollay thanked several people for their assistance during her term as
Ombud, including Michelle Sohner from the Office of the Ombud, Don Witt and
Cleo Price from the Registrar’s Office, Dean of Students Victor Hazard, former
Acting-Dean of the Graduate School Doug Kalika and her predecessors in the role
of Ombud.
Scollay reported on the
various activities undertaken by the Ombud and explained the differences
between single-contacted records and those which become cases. She called the Senate’s attention to a
hand-out in which she placed her time in the Ombud’s office in a ten-year
context to see how the nature of the cases had or had not changed over
time. Scollay noted the similarity in
type and number of cases heard. She then
outlined the disposition of the various cases heard by her office and noted how
few of them were forwarded to the University Appeals Board.
Scollay said her
recommendations were similar to those made by past-Ombuds. She noted a larger population of Distance
Learning students and the complex and diverse nature of today’s students. She urged the Senate to examine it Rules governing
the academic enterprise of the University.
The Chair thanked Scollay for
her report.
5. December Degree List:
The Chair noted the Senate’s
statutory responsibility and obligation in relation to the approval of the
lists of candidates for degree three times per year. Blandford moved to approve the December 2003 degree list and Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed without dissent.
Brief conversation was held
regarding the role of the Senate and the role of the departments in approving
these lists. Gesund suggested increasing
the role played by the departmental faculty in the approval process. Garen said the University already employs
multiple safeguards to ensure the quality of the potential graduates. Jones said the Senate should act in its role
as the body of higher authority that has delegated the responsibility of making
sure those safeguards are in place to the colleges and departments. The Chair noted the importance of the Senate
retaining its visible role in the approval process.
6. Retiree
Health Benefits Motion:
The Chair noted several
letters which have been sent to the Employee Benefits Committee about this
issue, including some from the
The Chair reported on the
activities of the Staff Senate and said the Senate Council had instructed him
to write a joint letter with the Chair of the Staff Senate to underscore the
areas of the mutual concern between the two Senates. The letter will be sent to the Employee
Benefits Committee.
The Chair called the
attention of the Senate to the rationales drafted by the Senate Council. He reminded the Senate of their charge to the
Senate Council to create this document.
Gesund made a request to put forth a friendly amendment. Byton informed him that a committee report
could not be amended. Gesund
respectfully reminded the Parliamentarian that this item was a Senate
resolution and not a committee report.
Gesund suggested two friendly amendments. The first was to add that it was the sense of
the Senate that the report and recommendations of the Retiree Health Benefits
Task Force would damage the reputation for integrity of the University and its
Administration. The amendment was seconded by Mark Hanson. After brief discussion a vote was
conducted. Six were in favor of the
motion and the rest of the Senators were opposed, with one abstention. The motion failed.
Gesund then proposed a
friendly amendment noting the task
force did not give due consideration to the recent changes in Medicare in its
projections. Tagavi seconded the motion. After
brief discussion Gesund withdrew his amendment and instead offered a friendly
amendment suggested by Carolyn Bratt.
The amendment suggested adding wording to the first item on the
rationale which would then read
“rests on narrow and possibly flawed
foundations, including but not limited to the lack of consideration of the
recently enacted Medicare reform, and questionable assumptions posited by the
consulting firm that developed the model and generated the projections and
proposed options”.
After brief discussion the
motion passed with two votes opposed
and one abstention.
After further discussion,
in which no motions were proposed, the entire rationale were voted upon and passed with none opposed and two
abstentions. The Senate directed the Chair
to include appropriately gracious language in the joint letter he will compose
with the Chair of the Staff Senate to express appreciation for the hard work
accomplished by the Retiree Health Benefits Task Force.
The Senate then turned its
attention to the recommendation,
which was proposed by the Senate Council. Grossman offered a friendly amendment that the “blue ribbon” wording
be deleted. Conversation ensured regarding
the definition of the wording. Zentall
seconded the motion.
Staten, Cibull, Bailey and Tagavi spoke against the amendment.
After further discussion a vote was taken with twelve in favor of the
amendment and the rest of the Senators against it. The motion failed. The recommendation
will move forward as written.
The Chair provided some
brief background on this item and yielded the floor to Doug Boyd. Boyd provided the history of the item,
including its initiation with the Board of Trustees’ committee headed by Joe
Fink and the various iterations it had undergone when Phyllis Nash was the
Chief of Staff. Boyd said Nash had
prepared a status report in June 2003, which was forwarded to the President and
the Board as a work in progress. He
noted the completion of the second draft in August 2003 and said that draft was
now being circulated to various groups around campus for comment.
Boyd said the
The Chair asked if Boyd was
seeking comment on a document which was a work in progress. Boyd said the document was a draft and was
open to any comments or input and added the Administration would never send
such a document forward without providing an opportunity for input from both
Senates.
The Chair asked the
Senators if they had any questions about the process. Jones asked for a deadline by which input
could be submitted. Boyd said a firm
deadline had not been set but suggested input would be necessary by mid-January
in order to be incorporated in time to be prepared for the Board in late
January.
Lesnaw asked if a
relationship existed between this Code and the existing Code of Conduct. Boyd said he didn’t know, and added this Code
of Conduct would apply to everyone associated with the University instead of to
small groups who have developed various Codes in compliance with their various
accreditation needs. Lesnaw asked if an
effort had been made to incorporate the Administration’s code of ethics as it
pertains to the commitments it makes.
Boyd replied that he did not know.
Gesund expressed concern
about the second paragraph on the second page and suggested it be re-written to
protect affirmative action. Boyd noted
the suggestion. Tagavi asked if the Code
would also include other boards, like the Hospital Board and the Athletics
Board. Boyd said the Code includes
virtually everyone at the University.
Tagavi suggested it include students as well. He also suggested including
anti-discrimination language as it applies to the evaluation of students and
their work. Boyd asked if Victor Hazard
had any comments about the suggestion.
Hazard said whether or not to include students in this document was at
the discretion of the Senate.
Lesnaw suggested the Code
deal more with concerns about ethics in a general way and leave issues
pertaining to conflict of interest under the aegis of existent regulations.
Zentall suggested placing
the current Code in the context of historical versions, or in relationship with
earlier documents to help the argument of why this is necessary become more
easily understood.
Rouhier-Willoughby wondered
what the term “University resources” refers to.
The Chair noted the Code
was an action item on the agenda and encouraged Senators to forward individual
concerns or suggestions and then see the Code again in its finished form. Staben noted the Senate will not meet again
until after the item has been presented to the Board. Cibull suggested inviting the members of the
Senate, or all faculty, to submit concerns or suggestions to the Senate Council
office, which could in turn collate the responses and forward them to
Boyd. Cibull made a motion to that affect. The
motion read
“ to solicit comments from
the University Senate that would be collated by the Senate Council which would
then submit the comments to Dr. Boyd with its recommendation regarding this
document”.
Tagavi made the friendly amendment to include all University
faculty. Cibull accepted the
amendment. Jones seconded the motion, which passed
in voice vote without dissent.
Annual Academic Ombud
Report, continued:
The Chair yielded the floor
to Joe Anthony, Academic Ombud from LCC, explaining that Anthony had arrived
late due to class obligations. Anthony
presented his report in which he expressed concern for the number and type of
claims his office received in relation to Distance Learning education. He reported on the types of classroom
disputes in which he is asked to intervene and the increasingly-diverse student
body as it relates to cultural expectations of classroom decorum. He reported on the increasing rate at which
plagiarism occurs on his campus and expressed concern over the number of
students who admit to cheating or sharing work in polls. Anthony concluded his presentation by
recommending the appointment of a task force to examine the question of
academic honesty among students. He said
his ideal solution would be the creation of an enforceable honor code which
would attempt to change the atmosphere of acceptability in which cheating
occurs. He expressed concern that some
students don’t feel that cheating is morally or ethically wrong, and he hoped
the creation of a task force could help address the problem.
The Chair thanked Anthony
for his report and suggested the Senate might hear a recommendation from the
Senate Council at a subsequent meeting.
There being no further
business, the meeting adjourned at
Respectfully
submitted by Jeffrey Dembo
Chair,
Senate Council
Prepared by Rebecca
Scott on December 15, 2003