Minutes of the Faculty Senate | Faculty Senate | SIU

Meeting convened at 1:15 p.m. by Phil Howze, President.

ROLL CALL

Members present: Om P. Agrawal, Gary A. Apgar, Lisa B. Brooten, Ronald Caffey (for Joseph A. Brown), Sandra K. Collins, Joan M. Davis, Lisabeth A. DiLalla, Stephen D. Ebbs, James S. Ferraro, James E. Garvey, Samuel Goldman (ex officio), Judith Green (for Kathryn A. Hytten), Eric Hellgren (ex officio), Philip C. Howze, H. Randy Hughes, Allan L. Karnes, Sanjeev Kumar, Mary E. Lamb, Jim LeBeau (for James S. Allen), David A. Lightfoot, Douglas W. Lind, Michael J. Lydy, Marla H. Mallette, Lori Merrill-Fink, Cathy C. Mogharreban, Jerry Monteith (for Kay M. Zivkovich), Don Rice (ex officio), Benjamin F. Rodriguez, Jose R. Ruiz, Peggy Stockdale, Gerald R. Spittler, Brooke H. H. Thibeault, Rebecca J. Weston.

Members absent without proxy: Edward J. Alfrey, Thomas H. Tarter.

Visitors and Guests: Linda McCabe-Smith (Diversity and Equity Office), Codell Rodriguez (Southern Illinoisan), Stile Smith (Daily Egyptian), Marvin Zeman (Mathematics).

MINUTES

The minutes from the meeting on July 14, 2009, were approved as presented.

P. Howze announced that prior to approval of the minutes, he would like to make some adjustments to the agenda, first to change the order of the agenda to move up the administration reports; and second, to take up one item of new business that deals with a faculty welfare issue in the College of Science. He noted there were initially two new business items, A and B; however, item A, which dealt with the academic calendar for 2010, has been resolved. P. Stockdale moved to waive the five-day rule (motion was seconded).

Motion to waive the five-day rule carried on a voice vote.

P. Howze noted he will attempt to poll the body to determine its pleasure is concerning the final format of the agenda. The Senate has traditionally followed a certain format, and he attempted a different format at the July meeting to expedite the handing of business items. That format was very well received, but there is also a competing interest to hear from the administration.

GUEST

P. Howze welcomed L. McCabe-Smith, who is the Interim Associate Chancellor for Diversity. L. McCabe- Smith thanked the Senate for the invitation. She explained the role of her office and answered questions from the floor. [Website:http://ode.siuc.edu/]

ADMINISTRATION REPORTS

1. Chancellor Goldman reported that the fall 2009 enrollment numbers were just released and will be forwarded to the IBHE. Enrollment is at 20,350 students, compared to 20,673 a year ago (a drop of 1.6%). On campus enrollment is at 18,328, and off campus is 2,022. The Chancellor highlighted some of the data: growth in freshmen and sophomores; continuing problems at the junior and senior level; an increase in graduate students; a considerable increase in applications from the five surrounding states (though it is too early to tell how that will translate with respect to enrollment).

Chancellor Goldman also reported: a) there is a great deal of effort going on across the state to promote support from the legislature and Governor on funding MAP. The legislature meets in October for the veto session, and if they do not make a decision on MAP, it will be too late for spring. SIUC is particularly vulnerable, particularly given the economy and the availability of community colleges as good alternatives; b) [early on], he set a 5% growth goal for undergraduate enrollment for all the colleges; only one college met that goal (Agricultural Sciences), although the other colleges are moving in that direction. Two are showing growth, and a number are showing minor changes; there are a couple of the colleges that [the administration] will need to talk with about how to help them grow. He believes that given the challenges with enrollment and Banner this year, the [University] did okay.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

1. A. Karnes commented that he would like to see the reporting system changed to show graduate student by college. Chancellor Goldman agreed that they should be pulled out and reported separately.

2. P. Stockdale asked if the decline in junior and seniors is a transfer issue or a retention issue. Chancellor Goldman responded that it is both, though he believes it is mostly retention. He receives almost weekly reports on those who drop out, and the reasons given are mostly financial. He believes that is something the University could overcome if it had the funds. However, he is looking forward to increased retention rates as a consequence of the First Year program and the Saluki Cares program. The University also needs more professionally-oriented programs like nursing. He is discussing with Northern Illinois University the possibility of a joint venture to offer a baccalaureate and doctorate in physical therapy. The deans have informed him of some online programs they are working on as well. His hope is to increase the University's offerings to make it more attractive for next fall.

3. J. Ferraro believes SIUC has a brand problem is it attempting to be a research institution, or a [University that offers a] very good education at a very reasonable price. He believes over the last 10 years, the University has priced itself out of a big market. Chancellor Goldman believes SIUC is a good buy and a good education. Tuition recently increased 4.5%, but Illinois State went up 7.6%. They may be able to help support their students who are on MAP because they are charging 3.5% more and will likely reverse the tuition and pay these students. He believes that is a very dangerous precedent because it will show the legislature that it can be done. SIUC does have a high quality education at a reasonable price, probably somewhere in the mid range of all the state universities.

4. J. Davis commented that in one of his conversations, President Poshard had mentioned about NIU having an agreement with 15 different community colleges to offer courses on those campuses, but this has not been done at SIUC because there is resistance. She asked what direction that might that take the University. Chancellor Goldman responded that John A. Logan has about eight different colleges on its campus. He spoke with their president, who indicated he would welcome SIU to be on their campus (the president explained that an offer was extended previously, but the University declined). Chancellor Goldman indicated in his conversation with Logan's president that the SIUC is very willing to at least discuss this, but the only thing he would ask in return is that if the University does go to their campus, then SIUC wants to be the only one on their campus. He then raised the issue with the deans, who were very receptive. At some point, the University will have to take its courses and programs off campus; the issue is how. [He] is currently holding discussions with the deans because they are the ones that have to make it work. His hope is that an agreement can be reached to do whatever it takes to work more closely with the community colleges. [B. Thibeault] asked what the resistance was on the University's part for not [taking programs off campus]. Chancellor Goldman responded that he was not aware of the reasons; however, life is different today, and SIUC needs the enrollment; additionally, the whole face of post secondary education is changing. There are no longer boundaries or campuses--Phoenix proved that fact.

A. Karnes believes part of the resistance to going off campus is that faculty do not want to go or teach on evenings or weekends without adequate compensation. Chancellor Goldman responded that the administration may need to review its overload policy, if there is one. Provost Rice pointed out that what the University has is a continuing education policy rather than an overload policy. Chancellor Goldman believes some issues that need to be examined in addition to an overload policy are: a) cost recovery courses (head count counts toward enrollment, but credit hours do not); b) the approximately 50,000 credit hours that are deposited into Continuing Education that the University does not [get credit] for in cost studies; c) how online programs affect enrollment on campus; d) what happens to student fees with an online program; and e) the distribution of funding with respect to online programs. He noted that a pilot program is currently being conducted by the College of Business to determine whether a program itself could be set up as a cost center. The results of that study will be examined carefully.

A. Karnes believes the University's fee structure should really be examined because fees are a major component to a student's total bill, and every year they go up. He suggested there may be students who do not want to pay for the Recreation Center, for example, if it is something they do not or would not use. He also pointed out that if the demographic of students who would make use of an online component was typically non-traditional, then businesses such as Boeing and other organizations tend to subsidize the cost of fees, if not the entire tuition (which is why online fees are so expensive).

Provost Rice commented that distance learning fees are less an issue for the University with online classes. However, fees for dual enrollment programs such as the Aviation Technology being starting with Shawnee [could be an issue]. Those students will take courses in Anna and then come to this campus on weekends where lab space is provided. If fees are not charged, then a resident aviation major could drop out of SIUC, go to Shawnee and save a bundle. Consequently, fees need to be examined in light of that kind of problem. He believes the issue has been resolved for the first group for Shawnee, but it will always a consideration for dual enrollment. Chancellor Goldman noted the University has 13,000-14,000 students living on campus, and they have to be provided with services that unfortunately they have to pay for--and that [number is not enough] to pay the bills. He believes it is for the common good, to pass around the cost so no one or two people carry the whole bill. A. Karnes believes there ought to be a concerted effort to reduce fees and attempt to make the overall financial burden less or, maybe reduce some of services offered on campus.

ADMINISTRATION REPORTS (cont.)

2. Provost Rice reported that last week, the Daily Egyptian ran an article stating that the search for an Associate Provost for Academic Affairs would be starting that week. That is not the case. There will be an internal search this semester, but it will not occur immediately. Provost Rice also wanted to clarify the events surrounding the change to the academic calendar. He explained last week, at the request of several faculty members, he contacted the interim director of Records and Registration and asked that the intersession dates be put on the [2010] calendar, which was done. However, when the calendar was posted, it was realized that the dates of spring break had been changed. Instead of the dates everyone assumed, March 6-14, the calendar showed the dates as March 13-21; that put the University out of sync with local school districts and caused those faculty and staff who had already made plans for spring break to be very unhappy. The calendar has since been shifted so that spring break is back at March 6- 14; no other changes will be made. R. Hughes noted that the members of the Academic Calendar Committee were told last November or December that [Records and Registration] wanted to make this change in the calendar and send it to the Chancellor for approval. Did that not happen? Chancellor Goldman responded it did not occur, to his knowledge. R. Hughes indicated the approval date shows it was approved by the Chancellor in January 2009. Provost Rice indicated he appreciated the feedback because he was unaware [of the approval date]. He will look into the approval process.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

S. Kumar reported the Council is discussing and will be looking into many items: 1) offering courses at community colleges, as the Chancellor mentioned; 2) development of an overload policy; 3) course load reductions for the Senate president, officers and JRB members; 4) distance learning and online courses; 5) a possible resolution on principles of hiring in administrative searches (Governance Committee); 6) SIU centers at community colleges and how much they have helped; 7) hearing a report from the Strategic Enrollment Planning Committee; 8) the formation of a new budget committee that may [draft] proposed policy and send actions to the Chancellor; 9) marketing of the University, particularly in the St. Louis area; and 10) monitoring the returns of the investments in neighboring states and how the marketing dollars are helping the [retention] rate. S. Kumar also reported that the Judicial Review Board (JRB) has been reactivated; 2) the fall faculty luncheon/meeting is scheduled for 11:45AM on October 29 (more information will be forthcoming); 3) the Council continues to be concerned about the MAP funding and urges Senators and all faculty to contact legislators and encourage them to restore the MAP funding; 4) the Senate supports the Saluki First Year and Saluki Cares programs and encourages faculty to get involved in those as well.

Provost Rice noted that a contingency of students, organized by Student Trustee Nate Brown, will be meeting at the Student Center Auditorium on the MAP funding issue. He also heard anecdotally that McHenry College is giving students the day off to lobby in Springfield. P. Howze noted this is the time for people to be in touch with legislators, even if it is a postcard or e-mail, to let them know [how important this issue is to students and the University].

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- G. Spittler, Chair

G. Spittler presented for approval the resolution to approve the Proposed Revisions to the Operating Paper of the Faculty and Faculty Senate (included as Attachment A to the Agenda). He reported the committee has been discussing the issue of including a more representative number of non-tenure track (NTT) senators on the Senate. At the Senate's summer meeting, the committee presented the resolution for a first reading. However, the committee was asked to consider limiting the number of seats per college, as well as limiting the seats to those NTT faculty who are on continuing contracts (with the exception of those in Springfield, which does not offer continuing contracts). After much discussion and considering a number of alternatives, the committee decided not to limit participation to those NTT faculty who are on continuing contracts. The committee believes there are probably a number of dedicated and eager colleagues who are still on a term contract who would be [interested in serving on the Senate]. If a situation occurs where a term contract is not renewed, the process for replacement on the Senate would be the same as for a tenure track faculty senator (i.e., special election). It was decided that this would be more fair to the general membership and also to Springfield. The committee's proposal initially was to have only two seats per college; however, after careful consideration, and the fact that the NTT faculty are being represented as a constituency, the committee believes this would limit NTT faculty in choosing who they would prefer for their representative. The thought was that there will be two campus-wide competitions for the additional four seats on the Senate, and that the actual probability of having any one seat [overrun by NTT faculty in one unit] is very small. There are a number of very active [NTT faculty]. Therefore, after much discussion, the committee did not believe that was a probable issue; so, the recommendation is to enlarge the Senate to 36 members, with the NTT faculty unit having six seats, and the remaining seats apportioned as set forth in the Operating Paper. G. Spittler noted the committee did decide that no NTT faculty nominations will be allowed in any college or equivalent unit currently holding two continuing seats on the Senate; so, [one] unit could end up with two senators from the NTT faculty, but not in excess of that.

P. Howze asked if this is the final reading of the proposed changes. G. Spittler responded that it is, as the first reading was at the summer meeting. J. Allen suggested a friendly amendment to the proposed change in II.A.3.a so that it reads, "...holding two or more continuing seats...." R. Hughes indicated the intention is that if there are two faculty from the NTT unit from a college already sitting, and their terms continue, then there would be no nominations taken from that college. B. Rodriguez expressed confusion on the wording and asked for clarification. G. Spittler believes the confusion was with the word "continuing," but it should read "two continuing seats," meaning that there will not be two senators from the same unit who are continuing or non-continuing. B. Rodriguez indicated the way he reads the change, it could be interpreted [as any college with more than two senators cannot have a senator nominated from the NTT unit]. It needs to be changed so it is clear the committee is referring to only the NTT senators. The suggestion was made to change the wording to "two unexpired seats" or "no more than two NTT faculty [per college]." J. Allen commented that if Senators are confused about the wording, then the language does not explain itself. He moved to return the resolution to committee; seconded by B. Rodriguez. G. Spittler pointed out that the paragraph calls for no NTT faculty nominees, which would be allowed. He sees the wording as quite clear. [C. Mogharreban] believes the confusion stems from the use of the word "continuing." She suggested wording such as "two non-tenure track unit seats or two non-tenure track seats on the Faculty Senate." The word "continuing" could be struck, and it would have the meaning with which people are grappling.

A. Karnes commented that he would still prefer some type of districting within the population of NTT faculty. The tenure/tenure track faculty on the Senate is representative of the number of faculty in the colleges; he does not know why something similar could not be done for the NTT faculty. P. Stockdale responded that the committee worked this out elaborately and came up with various scenarios that were all faulty for one reason or another. The proposed solution about limiting the number of nominees--if there are already two NTT faculty from one unit that will continue, that unit does not get a nomination in that term--seemed to satisfy the problem. R. Hughes explained that there are some units that have a handful of NTT faculty, and attempting to apportion those would be complicated. Regarding the question of limiting nominations versus the number of seats, it is very easy from the point of view of conducting the elections to determine that nominations are not taken from certain colleges as opposed to later attempting to figure out how to make the choice between two or three vote getters where one college is limited. It may end up that people are unable to make a clear selection when it comes to voting. Restricting the number of nominations when there are two seats that will continue into the next term achieves the goal of preventing one unit or college from dominating the NTT units. He believes the only change that is needed is to change the word "continuing"; he suggested "non-expiring."

P. Howze announced that there are two motions on the floor; one requiring a ruling, and one requiring a vote. The one requiring a ruling is the one that makes the recommendation moved by J. Allen and seconded by B. Rodriguez to table the matter. He noted that is why he asked if the resolution was the final reading because if it is not, it can be sent back to the committee for reconsideration. If it is, then it is something the Senate is ready to act on one way or another. G. Spittler believes the committee intended it to be the final reading and an item for action (the committee concurred). He indicated he would accept the wording change as a friendly amendment. P. Howze asked J. Allen if he was willing to withdraw his motion. J. Allen declined, indicating he does not understand what the difference is between seats and terms. There are colleagues who [do not] join the Senate for a full term, which causes a certain problem of stability and continuity in the Senate's deliberations as a body. Since that is not addressed in the wording, he remains at a loss as to how to understand [the wording]. He believes the language is still not where it needs to be. A. Karnes questioned whether something can be a first reading if the language is something that is being seen for the first time.

Motion to table the resolution carried 14-8 on a show of hands vote.

P. Howze indicated the resolution will be considered a second reading. He requested that the Governance Committee bring back the resolution when they have wording they believe is a final reading.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- L. Merrill-Fink, Chair

1. L. Merrill-Fink presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME for the Addition of a Minor in Global Studies within the College of Liberal Arts (included as Attachment B to the Agenda). P. Stockdale asked what units in Liberal Arts would be involved with the minor and if those units not listed could still participate. L. Merrill-Fink believes that to be the case, noting the list is fairly comprehensive. C. Mogharreban asked if [the resolution] addresses the essential goals of Southern at 150. L. Merrill-Fink responded that it does. A. Karnes asked if there is any cost involved. L. Merrill-Fink responded that there will be no proposals coming from the committee that involve funding.

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

2. L. Merrill-Fink presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME for the Addition of a Minor in Peace Studies within the College of Liberal Arts (included as Attachment C to the agenda).

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

3. L. Merrill-Fink presented for approval the Resolution to Approve Internal and External Program Reviewers for 2010 (included as Attachment D to the agenda). S. Kumar asked that since only the graduate programs in Engineering will be reviewed, [do those names need to be approved by the Graduate Council]. J. Smith responded that the Graduate Council's participation in reviewing the list comes primarily in the providing of internal reviewer names for graduate programs under review. Supplemental to this list will be another provided by the Graduate Council, which will be adding internal reviewer names to each of those programs already on the list. He explained that the Senate does not vote on those names, as they are under the Graduate Council's purview. Because the Senate has a longstanding practice of reviewing this list and has done so for years, it is the Senate's purview. J. Allen noted he checked with the Graduate Council chair, who agreed that it was an unnecessary division of labor and since it has been done this way in the past, it would be best to leave it that way.

R. Hughes noted that for the reviewers for the Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory, there is a misidentification of a department [that is not involved]. Also, does J. Allen expect to have resolved the question of the Physics reviewers before the Senate's next meeting? J. Allen responded that he is meeting with the chair of Physics and the dean of the College of Science to review [the list proposed] by the department faculty to see if [some kind of agreement] can be reached. R. Hughes questioned what role the dean does have in collecting the names of reviewers; is it not the department or program that selects the reviewers. J. Allen responded this is an important issue, and the guidelines need to be clarified (they do not even mention the Senate's role in the process, a serious omission). He believes G. Apgar and his committee are best situated to do that so the process can be transparent and acceptable to the Senate and its colleagues. Additionally, it is the responsibility of the deans to ensure programs are in fact carried out, so they should not be left out of the process by any means. Ultimately, however, the choice is the Provost's since he is the one who oversees the process and is accountable to the IBHE for the program reviews. P. Howze reminded Senators that they are voting on the list of reviewers and not [the process.

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- O. Agrawal, Chair

O. Agrawal reported the committee has two standing committee assignments to bring forth for approval. The first is to assign M. Amos to serve on the Budget Committee, replacing Rebecca Weston, who has left the University. The second is to approve the move of J. Ferraro from the Faculty Status and Welfare Committee to the Undergraduate Education Policy Committee to fill the impending vacancy on that committee (as a result of the forthcoming resignation of L. Merrill-Fink).

Standing Committee assignments were approved on a voice vote.

ELECTION FOR COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES VACANCY

The floor was opened for nominations to fill the vacant seat on the Committee on Committees caused by the resignation of R. Weston. P. Stockdale nominated M. Amos.

Hearing no other nominations, the nomination of M. Amos to the Committee on Committees was approved by acclamation.

FACULTY STATUS AND WELFARE COMMITTEE -- None.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- None.

OLD BUSINESS

1. Appreciation was expressed by the Faculty Senate to L. Merrill-Fink for her work on the UEPC and her service as chair of the committee.

2. S. Kumar reported the Executive Council supported the Senate President's request to review the Faculty Senate action items from the previous year and inquire about any actions [with unknown status]. Also, the Executive Council will be reviewing all University committee reports that were submitted over the summer. P. Howze commented that those reports will be taken very seriously, and if any recommendations come from those reports that belong in front of the Senate for action, they will be brought forth to the Senate.

NEW BUSINESS

R. Hughes, upon the urging of the faculty within the College of Science, is offering forth a resolution for Senate consideration. The resolution is to "Encourage a Meeting Between the Interim Provost and the Faculty in the College of Science." P. Howze noted that for the record that this is the item B that was announced at the beginning of the meeting.

R. Hughes distributed and read the resolution (included as appendix 1 to the minutes). He moved that the resolution be taken up by the Faculty Senate; seconded by G. Spittler. J. Ferraro asked how many departments are in the College of Science. J. Smith responded there are approximately six. R. Hughes indicated the resolution represents a large portion of the college. What he would like to do is yield his time to M. Zeman, who has more history on this process. M. Zeman distributed and read a written statement to the Faculty Senate on his comments (included as appendix 2 to the minutes).

P. Stockdale indicated she was unaware of the whole history behind this situation, but she is somewhat aware of the relationship between the dean and the faculty. She believes there is always more than one side to story and was not willing to act on a resolution coming in the last five minutes of the meeting, particularly when [she] did not yet know whole story. J. Ferraro commented that the college is much bigger than the departments listed. He is in Physiology and has not heard anything. Where is Microbiology, Plant Biology, Zoology? There are more departments not represented by the resolution than there are represented. He questioned why the other departments were not brought in if it is a College of Science resolution. Why have they not talked to all the departments in the college? G. Spittler agreed, adding that he knows nothing of the problem. R. Hughes believes that is exactly the point of the resolution; the fact that [it is not seen as] serious says that in fact the Provost does need to talk to the faculty in the College of Science, and that is what the resolution calls for. [The three departments] would certainly welcome participation from all members of the college; but, the fact that the three departments have overwhelmingly identified a problem should have been enough reason for the Provost to have carried out the meetings with these faculty, if not with other faculty in the college. What they are asking is for the Faculty Senate to encourage such a meeting to take place.

J. Ruiz asked if the dean was asked to be included in the discussions, or is it just the Provost and the faculty. He asked if the dean should not be given an opportunity [speak]. M. Zeman responded that the Provost is welcome to speak to the dean; all they wanted was for the Provost to come and listen to them. They are not asking him to take their side; he needs to talk with [all the Science faculty]. The fact is that five months have gone by, and there has been no meeting with the faculty. J. Ruiz asked if such a meeting takes place, will the dean be allowed to be present and participate in meeting.

J. Allen commented that given how few [Senators remain in the meeting] and how few the representation from the College of Science, the Senate is not in a good position to discuss this issue. It is very late in the day and a timely enough issue to have the Senate deliberate on the matter at its next meeting. He recommended postponing discussion and adding the issue to the Senate's next meeting agenda as an item from the Executive Council. M. Lamb pointed out that the Senate is not being asked to take a stand on whether it agrees or disagrees with a vote of no confidence being taken; she is fuzzy on the details as well. Senators are simply being asked to take a stand that when three departments have such a vote that there should be a meeting with the Provost. The Senate should not even have to intervene, but if the Provost is declining or [delaying], then she believes it would be appropriate for Senate to urge that a meeting take place. Delaying until the next meeting is just a further delay. C. Mogharreban agreed, noting she wants to understand what is the Senate's role. She indicated she does not want additional information to be brought to the Senate about what are the problems. G. Spittler believes that if nothing else, there is a communication problem. Many times the presence of a third party, not to take action, but to simply guide a meaningful discussion can do much to resolve an issue. He therefore would urge Senators to vote yes on resolution.

J. Allen withdrew his motion, but noted he is uncomfortable with a resolution coming so quickly without an opportunity for Senators to take it under consideration and discuss it with their constituents and among themselves. He is also uncomfortable with the perception that the Senate is legitimizing a vote of no confidence by encouraging such a meeting, even though the vote of no confidence was not in any way [provided for through a procedure in the college] for such a matter the dean's review, which occurs every five years. It is certainly not a wise thing to do without further discussion with a broader array of colleagues in that college. S. Kumar believes it would be detrimental to the University if it is known that there are problems [and no action is taken]. There is a need to take action rather than waiting five years.

B. Rodriguez understood J. Allen's concerns, as well as the comments made by S. Kumar; however, it is the Provost's job to deal with [these situations], and if he has not had this meeting, his assumption would be that there is a reason for that. P. Stockdale indicated there are some colleges that have a procedure for interrupting that five year process of normal dean reviews. It could be that there is a procedure in the college that was not followed, and that is why the Provost is not agreeing to a meeting. Therefore, maybe the Senate should ask that the Provost explain why he is not meeting this request; if the Senate is not satisfied with that reason, then it can have a resolution requesting him to have the meeting.

J. Monteith asked if the Senate is the logical place for this type of complaint. P. Howze responded that it is an appropriate place. The Senate's operating paper tells it to do exactly this. If there is a faculty member on this campus who is being oppressed, mistreated, pushed around or in any other way abused, that is why the Senate exists. There are a number of faculty who do not have collecting bargaining to protect them--Medicine and Law, for example. What would they do without the Senate and the JRB? P. Howze noted that he does not go to the Provost or the Chancellor in his private meetings with them and say "the senate said" unless the Senate really says. So, if the Senate wants him to have this discussion, it has to say so, and he will take it from there.

G. Spittler move the question on the original motion; seconded by M. Lamb.

Motion to approve the Resolution to Encourage a Meeting Between Interim Provost and Faculty in the College of Science was approved 12-5-3 on a show of hands vote.

P. Howze noted to J. Allen that he will bear J. Allen's comments in mind with a good deal of respect that more time is needed to discuss the issue and that it came at the end of the meeting--none of this will be [overlooked].

ANNOUNCEMENTS -- None.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 3:16 p.m.