Minutes of the Faculty Senate

Main Content

Meeting convened at 1:05 p.m. by Phil Howze, President.

ROLL CALL

Members present: Om P. Agrawal, Edward J. Alfrey, James S. Allen, Mark A. Amos, Gary A. Apgar, George E. Boulukos, Lisa B. Brooten, Ronald Caffey (for Joseph A. Brown), Sandra K. Collins, Joan M. Davis, Lisabeth A. DiLalla, Stephen D. Ebbs, James S. Ferraro, Eric Hellgren (ex officio), Philip C. Howze, H. Randy Hughes, Kathryn A. Hytten, Allan L. Karnes, Sanjeev Kumar, Mary E. Lamb, David A. Lightfoot, Douglas W. Lind, Michael J. Lydy, Marla H. Mallette, Cathy C. Mogharreban, Jerry Monteith (for Kay M. Zivkovich), Diane Muzio (for Gerald R. Spittler), Don Rice (ex officio), Benjamin F. Rodriguez, Peggy Stockdale, Thomas H. Tarter, Brooke H. H. Thibeault, Greg Whitledge (for James E. Garvey).

Members absent: Samuel Goldman (ex officio).

Members absent without proxy: Jose R. Ruiz.

Visitors and Guests: Ken Anderson (Geology), David Carlson (Library Affairs), Codell Rodriguez (Southern Illinoisan), Stile Smith (Daily Egyptian).

MINUTES

P. Howze reported that a more complete rendition of the minutes of October 13, 2009, specifically regarding the discussion of the proposed changes to the Senate's Operating Paper, will be provided next month. The Senate may approve the minutes as presented or wait for the complete version. M. Lamb noted she had to leave for a conference and was unable to review only that section of the minutes, which was provided separately from the rest, before they had to be posted. Hearing no preference, P. Howze indicated the complete minutes for the October meeting will be presented for approval in November.

REPORTS

1. P. Howze reported that a colleague on the Council of Illinois University Senates (CIUS) has asked for the Senate's participation in a research project survey he is conducting. P. Howze distributed the surveys, which were completed and then collected. P. Howze noted that G. Spittler is representing him at the CIUS meeting being held today. G. Spittler will report back on the meeting, the theme of which revolves around the state's lack of funding and the suffering being felt by all. In other business, P. Howze reported that he has received several favorable comments on the fall faculty luncheon/meeting held on October 29. Many believed it was a wonderful program and long overdue. P. Howze noted there was one item on the fall meeting agenda that was not taken care of, and which he would like to do now, and that is to present P. Stockdale with a plaque recognizing her contributions as President of the Faculty for the years 2008-2009. Senators gave P. Stockdale a round of applause.

2. Provost Rice reported that the President called (but did not attend) a meeting of all the vice chancellors, Budget Director Carol Henry and Susan Ferry (Chancellor's office) to discuss the University's cash flow. It was reported that as of November 9, 2009, the state of Illinois is $12.5 billion in debt, which is still growing. The state owes the SIU system approximately $115 million, $73 million of it to SIUC. There has been no movement of funds from the state to SIUC since July. Provost Rice explained that the University has two kinds of accounts: restricted funds which are tied to a specific expenditure (e.g., contracts with auxiliaries, bond issues); and unrestricted funds which are not specific to a particular expenditure. Normally, the unrestricted fund pays for salaries, other than salaries (OTS) and vendors such as 710 Bookstore; however, because the state has not moved any money to SIUC, the unrestricted funds are being used [only] to pay salaries, and vendors/bills are not being paid. Unless the University receives its state appropriation, the unrestricted pool of funds will be in a negative balance by the end of this month. If it continues, the University will be down $79 million by the end of February. Provost Rice indicated the University will continue to pay its payroll, even if it requires taking out a loan, which can be done for salaries, but not for operational expenditures. The President is pleading for all units on campus to conserve their unrestricted funds through January by curtailing or delaying any OTS and salary expenditures. The deans will make the determination as to whether a particular expenditure is time sensitive, critical to a particular stage of some other investment, etc. The deans will meet this week to discuss these issues. The primary concern is making payroll. At the end of December, there will be a meeting to discuss where SIUC stands with respect to cash flow.

Provost Rice explained that the University's debt problem is a different issue. There was a shortfall in terms of tuition income because there were not as many students as projected (the numbers were down from last year). The loss of tuition/income fund is $4.7 million. Added to that is the Illinois Veterans Grant (IVG), an unfunded mandate of approximately $4 million, and zero funding for MAP. Exacerbating the problem is that the money the state had to spend on higher education was supplemented by the federal stimulus money, which was front-loaded. The stimulus money is part of the appropriation the University is supposed to receive whenever the state begins paying universities; however, the stimulus money [will not continue]. Therefore, in addition to having to balance a budget with a $4.7 million shortfall in the tuition income and the unfunded IVG, SIUC will likely take a 7% cut in next year's budget. Provost Rice indicated that before the Chancellor left for China, he had intended to go through all the budget items in hopes of returning funds to those units that had carry-forward (money from FY09 that was moved to FY10). He was also going to remove the constriction that was part of the hiring freeze of moving funds from an OTS account to a salary account, and vice versa, so there would be more flexibility in spending those funds. Every unit was to have an anecdotal reduction target. However, as he understands it, when the simulations were run, they showed the reduction target was higher than the carry-forward. Consequently, there was no reason to release the carry forward until it could be determined how [it] would be paid back. This is another topic C. Henry and others will discuss this week. Provost Rice pointed out that the University must have a balanced budget by June 30 and will have to plan for a budget reduction in FY11, both as a university and also within the units. The cash flow problem is immediate and will be covered with loans, if necessary. Provost Rice commented that about two weeks ago, the state comptroller promised the President that he would attempt to loosen funds from Springfield and get them into the public universities' accounts. The comptroller has since backed off of his promise, primarily because [the state] has no money.

P. Howze reported that the President mentioned to him that he is more than willing to speak with the faculty, either as the Senate or as a larger group. P. Howze believes if, by February, the University finds itself in a deficit exceeding $70 million (which could happen if the bills are not paid), it would be a very good time to have some politicians come here and explain what they are going to do about this problem. He believed the University had a fighting chance of getting funded until the University of Illinois announced it was $300 million in debt. Suddenly, the problem became too large to help a few small entities; that is why the state universities need to work together to achieve some gains. Provost Rice noted there was an effort on the part of SIUC to bring the public universities together to craft a strategy in an effort to influence the release of funds. His understanding is that the other universities did not want to go along, as they did not believe the crisis was at that level.

3. E. Hellgren reported the Graduate Council's meeting was very short, as the first chancellor candidate was coming to campus that day.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

1. S. Kumar presented for approval the Resolution to Approve and Support the Formation of a Chancellor's Budget Policy Committee (included as Attachment A to the Agenda). He reported that he currently serves on the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory Committee, which has been primarily informational. What is being recommended is to transform that committee into a budget policy committee. P. Stockdale asked Provost Rice if he is aware whether the Chancellor would be in favor of, and would cooperate with, this kind of committee. Provost Rice responded that the Chancellor has been reluctant to have the committee be a policy-making group or one that would make decisions based on information provided either by the Budget Office or by Kevin Bame, Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance. However, the Provost noted he would not allow that to be a determining factor. P. Stockdale asked if the Chancellor is aware of the proposed change and is choosing not to voice an opinion. Provost Rice responded that he is unsure if the Chancellor has been asked for his opinion, though the Chancellor is aware of discussions within the Senate's Executive Council meetings [which he attends]. Provost Rice believes most budget situations occurring during the Chancellor's term have taken place with the counsel of C. Henry and K. Bame. The current budget committee is informed as to what is happening and occasionally will be asked questions/input, but he does not believe the committee has ever been given the data to inform a conversation.

A. Karnes believes the proposed constituency-based budget policy committee is standard operating procedure on most campuses. The committee would set the direction for where the University is going with the budget, including [determining budget cuts and increases]. The process would be more open so people would know what is happening and can make informed decisions. P. Howze noted the resolution was presented last month as a first reading. Changes in the language (shown in brackets) were made by the body to improve the state of the resolution. It is now being presented for approval in its final form. P. Howze commented that this is a transformational time at SIUC. Both chancellor candidates have indicated they are familiar and accustomed to working with the faculty on budgetary matters, so there is no better time than now to seek a culture change and have someone from the Senate seated at the table.

J. Allen expressed concern about the composition of the committee. A constituency-based committee might be good in principle, but it could dilute the faculty's influence. He uncomfortable with empowering non-faculty to participate on an equal status when the committee may be setting policy that directly affects faculty work. P. Howze pointed out the resolution is not to determine composition, but rather to get the ball rolling on such a committee. He agreed that the Senate should carefully consider the ultimate composition of the committee. Should the Senate approve the resolution, it will be in a strengthened position when the resolution is forwarded on to the other constituency groups for their support. A. Karnes believes the Senate will need to guard against the concern expressed by J. Allen. He added that at one time there was a [budget policy] committee, which consisted of five Faculty Senators, a Graduate Council member and one member each from the civil service, A/P and student groups. He is unsure if there will be that type of composition again, but there would at least be two members from the Senate, a member from the Graduate Council and probably another faculty member from the Faculty Association. He believes there should be strong faculty representation on the committee, but that is something to be worked out. He added that the deans will likely want a representative as well, but he would be opposed to having any voting upper administrators on the committee; rather, they would be informational or would be there to staff the committee.

B. Thibeault commented that the way the resolution now reads, it is requesting that the current committee be transformed into something else rather than requesting formation of a new committee. She did not believe the Senate would have a say in the composition if the committee were transformed; however, if a new committee was formed and the old one dissolved, then the Senate would have a say in the composition. B. Rodriguez asked what is the composition of the current committee. A. Karnes responded that there are two Faculty Senate representatives; one Graduate Council member; a dean, A/P and civil service representative; two student representatives [one undergraduate and one graduate]; C. Henry; and the Chancellor. There are also various vice presidents who are in and out. R. Hughes believes the composition of the committee [would be difficult to determine at this time], and the Senate may want to revisit the issue at a later time. [He encouraged the Senate to investigate the possibility of developing an operating paper to determine rules on composition and how decisions are to be made. Proposing a resolution that focuses on those issues could be something onto which all the groups could sign.] S. Ebbs suggested a revision to the "resolved" so that it would read, "...the Faculty Senate...approves and supports the transformation and reorganization" of the current committee. It would be a first step towards that, while buying time to address concerns/comments raised by J. Allen and R. Hughes. S. Kumar indicated he would accept that as a friendly amendment.

Provost Rice asked that the Senate allow sufficient flexibility for the new chancellor to have input on the reorganization and transformation. Both candidates have considerable experience with this type of committee and, he believes, have very different views on how they are put together and who should be represented. He would not want to see something proposed that is inflexible and does not allow the new chancellor an opportunity to have input into the reorganization. If the issue is [immediate] reorganization, there are ways to achieve input without a dramatic restructuring to which a new chancellor would effectively be tied. P. Howze commented that it will likely take the next three months just to get through the various constituency groups. He reiterated that this is essentially a resolution to get the ball rolling, with the hope it will be ready to go when a new chancellor begins next year.

Resolution, as amended, was approved unanimously on a voice vote.

2. M. Lamb presented for approval the Resolution Expressing Concern and Displeasure in the Administration's Refusal to Incorporate the Faculty Senate's Recommendations into the Proposed Sexual Harassment Procedures (included as Attachment B to the Agenda). She explained that at the Senate meeting last month, Associate Provost Susan Logue and Associate General Counsel Deborah Nelson were present to discuss the Sexual Harassment Complaint and Investigation Procedures. In summary, the Senate was told that the associate chancellor can make the decision on her/his own, and without any oversight, to put anyone accused of sexual harassment on administrative leave for 30 days or longer, if warranted. D. Nelson believes being placed on administrative leave is not a disciplinary action. In addition, the Senate was told that the associate chancellor, as a measure of showing consistency, can select those members of the panel who will hear appeals of her/his decisions. M. Lamb believes the bottom line is that the procedures give the associate chancellor enormous powers without oversight and without any sense of checks and balances. As she sees it, the Senate's input from last year's resolution #0905 does not matter.

S. Ebbs asked to be re-familiarized with the specific aspects of Senate Resolution 0905, since the second "resolved" is specifically directed towards the content of that resolution. P. Howze responded that Resolution 0905 was the most substantive piece of work the Senate accomplished last term. Included in it was a table with a survey result consisting of responses to questions that asked faculty what was objectionable to the procedures as they existed. He noted that when this began, the policy and procedures were coupled, and [groups] were asked to examine the documents as one. Somewhere along the line, the documents were uncoupled. The policy has already been approved by the Board of Trustees; what is left to discuss are the procedures. Basically, the responses from S. Logue and General Counsel were that they are obliged to follow the most current reading of the law. P. Howze noted that there was much work done on both documents, especially by those who were on the Sexual Harassment Working Group, and that there are scholars currently in the room who study the issue of sexual harassment for a living and gave of their research in a very comprehensive and neutral way. The end result was that all of their hard work was ignored.

C. Mogharreban indicated it is unclear to her who is meant by "administration" in the first "resolved." M. Lamb responded that it is not clear to her at times who is actually behind the procedures, whether it is primarily General Counsel or the Associate Provost. It is possibly a collaboration between various groups. She would welcome the suggestion of a different word. Provost Rice commented that the participation of the Associate Provost for Academic Administration was requested by the Chancellor. Much of the language being discussed comes either from recommendations from various groups or was determined by [General] Counsel. J. Ferraro believes [General] Counsel's response that they have to follow the letter of the law is disingenuous; they do not even follow the letter of the law for the definition sexual harassment, which is defined in a [state] statute. He believes "concern and displeasure" are not strong enough words.

B. Thibeault commented that when S. Logue and D. Nelson attended last month's meeting, her impression was that they were telling the Senate that they were still working through the procedures and had not yet come to a final [version]. She questioned whether the Senate could adopt something that is still being [reviewed by] the other constituency groups. M. Lamb believes the document is fairly close to being final. The first resolved states the procedures of "08/28/09," so it is very clear which draft is being referenced. Additionally, the Senate is simply expressing concern and displeasure. It is a year later, and very little of all the work done has appeared in the revised version. S. Ebbs pointed out the second resolved is very unilateral--"accept our procedures." He is aware there are knowledgeable people who contributed to the document, but surely the administration would say there is a legal or constituency-based reason why a particular element of a recommendation could not be adopted. He questioned whether it would be appropriate to modify the language so that it asks for acceptance of the resolution or for reasons why certain items cannot or will not be adopted. J. Davis commented that Senators came at these procedures from many different angles, and it appears to her that the administration and legal counsel will continue to do what they want.

Resolution was approved 18-8-1 on a show of hands vote.

3. S. Kumar presented for approval the Resolution on Faculty Senate's Review of Proposed Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with the University of International Business and Economics (UIBE) and Zengzhou University (ZZU) in China (included as Attachment C to the Agenda). He explained that there is a standard kind of template for MOUs, and there are somewhere between 100-200 standard MOUs already in existence with international universities. His understanding is that there is an international advisory board that reviews these MOUs. The MOU with UIBE was signed some time in February; however, the MOU with UIBE and now ZZU are not standard MOUs. Rather, they are establishing centers at each university to assist in bringing in or approving students. Also, anyone going to one of those centers will be given in-state tuition. An addendum to the MOUs shows that the centers will be authorized by SIUC, as long as [they] apply to some kind of code of conduct to be established later by SIUC and UIBE.

J. Ferraro expressed concern that SIUC is not only comparing those Chinese students who are currently here with Chinese students who might come here through [the MOUs], but students from Wisconsin or [elsewhere in the United States] who cannot come here and get this tuition rate. Provost Rice noted that it is UIBE and ZZU who are forming the centers in an effort to increase the number of students who attend American universities. The existence of the centers does not abrogate the University's responsibility to accept these students through the normal admissions process. The departments to which those students apply have the opportunity to indicate, after a period of time, that they are not acceptable or not moving correctly through the program. The centers are basically acting as brokers in an effort to place students.

D. Lightfoot recalled that when there was discussion of allowing out of state tuition to nearby counties, there was some limit on how many of these tuition reductions the University could grant. Provost Rice responded that international students do not count against the University's waiver. Additionally, if the MOUs produce the kind of relationships that are intended, the institutions in question will be making financial, as well as infrastructural investments [by sending their students here; by participating in a faculty exchange; by paying housing and living expenses, etc.]. S. Kumar commented that the difference between in-state and out of state [tuition] is almost $10,000 per student per year. If the University wants to have those kinds of centers, it may want to have one in California or New York and possibly bring in [high numbers of students]. Provost Rice responded that the students brought in by [the centers] are students who would not, under other circumstances, necessarily have applied to SIUC. There is also the issue of how tuition is packaged for American citizens and whether or not it is called a waiver or can be done as a scholarship. J. Ferraro questioned how many students would come from Wisconsin if they knew they could pay a factor of 1 instead of a factor of 2.5. Provost Rice responded that the applications from Kentucky and Missouri are up considerably, but were low from the start. J. Ferraro noted the increased numbers suggests it works. M. Amos asked if the University is currently at its 3% tuition waiver cap. Provost Rice responded that the numbers are below the cap. Enrollment Management has been attempting to create programs where the support is not viewed as a tuition waiver, but rather support in the way of subsidies for housing, books, etc.

L. Brooten asked whether part of the investment being made by the universities is to bring students up to an English level that should be expected of any applicant. Provost Rice responded that there are currently 21 students from UIBE on campus this year, and UIBE teaches in English, so their English is very good; however, the language is not really the issue. For SIUC, the issue is what kind of programs do they need and can they meet the standards for moving into, for instance, an MBA or a degree in Economics. The problem is not just with China; there are a number of students from Libya who are working with Subhash Sharma in Economics. The students were recruited in Libya and provided with some subsidies by the people who recruited them. It is a highly variable situation, depending on the institution. Currently, R. Viswanathan (Engineering) and Suresh Tadisina (Business) are in India attempting to create a very similar kind of program with two Indian universities in S. Tadisina's hometown. The idea is that the tuition break and some other kinds of relationships will create MOUs that will be productive both ways.

Provost Rice commented that the recruitment of international students takes place in a number of different venues. International Programs currently reports to the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, and it is the Vice Chancellor who has formed or reconstituted the international advisory committee. There is also the Graduate School Dean, who has invested considerable funds and has traveled to recruiting fairs in Taiwan, China and Japan. There are the Chancellor's initiatives, as well as the initiatives of individual departments. There is no centralized process, and to the extent that it is not, some discussion with the administration on who is really in control of the process, activities and initiatives is not out of the question.

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

P. Howze requested the agenda be amended to allow the Undergraduate Education Policy Committee to proceed with its business.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL/UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY

L. DiLalla presented for approval the Resolution on the First Year Experience at SIUC (included as Attachment D to the Agenda). P. Howze noted this is the second of a series of resolutions that the joint committees hope to bring to the Senate to continue its endorsement of the First Year Experience at SIUC. G. Apgar indicated that 97% of [his college's] budget is salary, with about that much additional FTE to offer. Who would have positional control? Provost Rice responded that currently, Saluki First Year has a three-year budget commitment of $400,000 [per year]. There are proposals being written for possible grants, but the program is designed so that it would provide the salaries to support the faculty FTE. J. Allen pointed out that the resolution provides the Senate a platform to develop a reasonable administrative and budgetary response to [G. Apgar's] question. That cannot be done until the [First Year program] is authorized by the Senate. Faculty own and define the curriculum; it is up to the administration to determine how best to make it work. P. Howze noted the Senate is merely going on record to show the First Year program has its continuing support.

Resolution was approved, with one nay, on a voice vote.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- L. DiLalla, Chair

1. L. DiLalla presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the Notice of Intent (NOI) for the Addition of a Bachelor of Arts Degree in International Studies within the College of Liberal Arts (included as Attachment E to the Agenda).

Resolution was approved unanimously on a voice vote.

2. L. DiLalla presented for approval the Resolution to Approve the 2010 Internal and External Program Reviewers (included as Attachment F to the Agenda). She indicated the Department of Physics is still missing its reviewers, but that is currently being worked out. R. Hughes pointed out that the fourth whereas is inaccurate because, in fact, the reviewers were approved by Physics. It is only the dean and the Provost who have not approved those choices. S. Ebbs and G. Boulukos suggested the fourth whereas be reworded to read, "Whereas the reviewers in the Department of Physics have not yet been selected." L. DiLalla accepted this as a friendly amendment.

Resolution, as amended, was approved on a voice vote. [see appendix 2]

3. L. DiLalla presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the New Unit of Instruction (NUI) for the Addition of a Major in Africana Studies and Department and Minor Name Change from Black American Studies (BAS) to Africana Studies within the College of Liberal Arts (included as Attachment G to the Agenda). P. Howze noted that this major has been a 34-year journey and is an [historic moment for the Senate].

Resolution was approved unanimously on a voice vote.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL/COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES

S. Kumar reported that the committees met jointly and approved four Judicial Review Board (JRB) candidates to bring to the Faculty Senate for consideration: Regina Foley, Education and Human Services; James LeBeau, Liberal Arts; John McIntyre, Education and Human Services; and Farzad Pourboghrat, Engineering. A vote on each candidate will be taken at the meeting in December, along with the recommendations for chair and vice chair. P. Howze added that F. Pourboghrat has agreed to serve as chair if he is re-elected, and continuing JRB member M. Lamb has agreed to serve as vice chair. K. Hytten asked why some colleges are not represented while some have several representatives. L. Brooten asked about the process, as she was unaware that nominations [were solicited]. P. Howze responded that only full professors can serve on the JRB. S. Kumar added that other criteria are that the person should not have filed a grievance in the last three years or have served as an administrator in the last three years. He explained that colleges nominate no more than the number of Senators from that college. Once the nominations are in, then those who received the top number of votes are asked if they are willing to serve. If they agree to be considered, then they are placed into the pool, which then goes to the Executive Council and Committee on Committees jointly for consideration and selection of the candidates. K. Hytten questioned whether there is a stipulation for representation from colleges. S. Kumar responded that the ["Grievance Procedure for Faculty"] does not state that there has to be representation from each college; however, there cannot be more members than the number of Senators from the same college. D. Lightfoot suggested the list be sent back to the joint committees and that the unrepresented colleges (Agricultural Sciences, Applied Sciences and Arts, Mass Communication and Media Arts) be considered for representation on the JRB. It was noted that nomination ballots for the JRB election were distributed to the colleges in late September/early October. The top nominee from Mass Communication and Media Arts declined to be considered. J. Allen pointed out that the Senate has [a procedure] that adjudicates how JRB members are selected. If there is serious disagreement on the [procedure] then [it should be re-examined]. P. Howze noted that Section VIII [of the "Grievance Procedure for Faculty"] outlines the procedures for the JRB. He asked to be contacted should [Senators] find they are egregiously objectionable.

FACULTY STATUS AND WELFARE COMMITTEE -- G. Apgar, Chair

G. Apgar reported the committee had planned to bring forth a resolution with respect to the hours of the Student Health Center; however, he has since spoken with Jake Baggott, who is the associate director of the Center. G. Apgar suggested that J. Baggott, as well as a representative from Risk Management, address the Senate and provide an update as to the procedures that are in place to protect students and faculty in times of a potential emergency need by a student. He would like to ensure that there is a university-wide standard operating procedure and that faculty are all aware of the appropriate procedures to take in an emergency.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- G. Spittler, Chair

B. Thibeault reported the following for G. Spittler: The Governance Committee met on October 26, 2009, to consider two matters. The first was a resolution submitted by Professor Ken Anderson. The resolution revises the manner in which matters are submitted to the Senate without meeting the advance submission requirements. After thorough discussion and consideration of the current operating paper, it was determined that the current practice allows the Senate adequate latitude in accepting submissions for immediate consideration. The committee will, therefore, forward the Anderson resolution to the Senate with a "do not adopt" recommendation. The second matter considered was the method of conducting future elections. B. Thibeault indicated the committee is continuing to work on this issue. R. Hughes reported that one of the options the committee is considering is using Blackboard which would require [obtaining network IDs]. The disadvantage of continuing with the previous method (ARC) was that the Senate had to pay for the service. The committee has not given up working on the issue and is aware that it needs to have a strategy to act on prior to the spring Senate elections.

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- O. Agrawal, Chair

O. Agrawal reported the committee met with the Executive Council to determine the candidates for Judicial Review Board. Also, he received a request from Victoria Valle (Enrollment Management) for a representative for the Strategic Enrollment Planning Committee, as well as three faculty for subcommittees.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- None.

OLD BUSINESS -- None.

NEW BUSINESS

1. P. Howze reported that the Chancellor Search Committee would very much appreciate feedback [from the faculty] on the candidates for chancellor. There is a link on the Chancellor Search homepage, as well as video of the presentations for each candidate.

2. P. Howze reported that Provost Rice is working to resolve the issue of the Physics reviewers.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Provost Rice reminded Senators of the need for everyone to take the ethics test.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 2:48 p.m.