Minutes of the Faculty Senate | Faculty Senate | SIU

Meeting convened at 1:14 p.m. by Sanjeev Kumar, President.

ROLL CALL

Members present: Om P. Agrawal, James S. Allen, Ira J. Altman, Ken B. Anderson, Gary Apgar, Kimberly Asner-Self, Connie J. Baker, Ruth Bauner (ex officio), Lisa B. Brooten, Ronald A. Caffey, Rita Cheng (ex officio), Jeanne Cross (for Stephanie Graves), Joan M. Davis, Lisabeth A. DiLalla, Stephen D. Ebbs, George Feldhamer (for Michael J. Lydy), James S. Ferraro, Ed Heist (for James E. Garvey), Jyotsna Kapur, Allan L. Karnes, Michelle Kibby-Faglier, Sanjeev Kumar, Mary E. Lamb, Douglas W. Lind, Marla H. Mallette, Cathy C. Mogharreban, Nancy Mundschenk (ex officio), William Recktenwald, Don Rice (ex officio), Benjamin F. Rodriguez, Jose R. Ruiz, Gerald R. Spittler, Thomas H. Tarter, Brooke H. H. Thibeault, James Wall, Jonathan S. Wiesen.

Members absent without proxy: Mark A. Amos, Sandra K. Collins, James A. MacLean, Diane Muzio.

Visitors and guests: Codell Rodriguez (Southern Illinoisan), Jay Means (College of Science), Todd Winters (College of Agricultural Sciences).

MINUTES

The minutes from the meeting on July 13, 2010, were approved as presented.

REPORTS

1. S. Kumar reported: a) he met with the Lipmann-Hearns Research and Consulting Team as part of the Chancellor's Executive Committee to discuss SIUC's enrollment, marketing, communication and planning strategies; b) there is a plan to revisit Southern at 150; c) the Chancellor's inauguration is planned during the week of April 11, 2011, and may be expanded to the entire month of April; d) he attended the opening ceremony of the new football stadium; e) the President has reported that planning for the Alumni/Foundation building is in progress; f) the Chancellor has confirmed that this year's faculty and staff recognition will have no monetary component; g) some of the colleges have significantly lower enrollment compared to last year; h) the fall faculty luncheon meeting is scheduled for 11:30AM on October 21. The theme for this year is, "The Effect of Budget Cuts on Academics." There will be speakers, including Chancellor Cheng, and a question and answer session will follow.

2. Chancellor Cheng reported on the budget, stating that FY11 will be a challenge for the University; FY12 will be a similar and possibly more difficult time for SIUC and the higher education community in Illinois. The University started the year with a $15.3 million budget shortfall; a 4% budget reduction across the campus netted $7.3 million; a one-time cache from last year netted another $1.6 million; and anticipated revenue from fall semester tuition will be approximately $4 million; so there is still a roughly $2 million shortage. Non-academic units have been informed that an extra 1% will be charged to them. The Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory Committee will look at ways to differentiate the 4% cuts based on the performance and enrollments in the schools and colleges over a period of time. This would mean that the 1% reduction in the other units would actually be a .9% or so adjustment that would have to be secured in the other areas. It is anticipated the University will have to enact unpaid administrative leave days to make up the $2.5 million shortfall. The Board of Trustees will be asked at its September meeting for the authorization to enact up to six days a year over the next two years to allow the University some time to sort out how to move forward with less state dollars. It is expected that a $2.5 million shortfall will require four unpaid days (payroll is approximately $550,000 a day). Once the Board has given its authorization, she will discuss impact with the bargaining units and constituency groups, as well as get everyone's input about the best days to take. The four days would mean an approximately 1.5% temporary gross pay reduction, but would not affect SURS or health insurance.

In other budget-related news, Chancellor Cheng reported that the University has narrowed its non- capital RAMP requests to the state to only two items: a $2.7 million request for faculty and staff salaries; and another $2 million in operating funds for the Simmons Cancer Institute. On the capital side, the requests have been narrowed down from 12-14 items to 3: the Communications building; Agriculture; and renovations/additions to Neckers. Additionally, the Chancellor reported that she and the Provost have discussed strategic hiring of faculty. At this point, they have reviewed requests coming in from the colleges and special schools. It appears there will be some hiring, but it will be careful, strategic and based on the budgets in each of the areas.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

1. S. Ebbs asked when the Chancellor uses the term strategic, does she mean "well justified" or strategic as in "higher ranked" (professor or targeted/super hires). Chancellor Cheng responded that she meant it in a very much localized, programmatic sense, e.g., vacant faculty lines in key areas that would be at risk for accreditation or ranking, etc. Critical hires would probably be a better term. Provost Rice reported that over the past few years, as those faculty who were hired under the strategic faculty initiative (now the faculty hiring initiative) have left as a result of retirement or resignation, those central funds were pulled back. However, departments are able to request to maintain a position because it is still valid and still fulfills the need that was part of the proposal for the expansion line initially. In those cases, the funds will be returned for some replacements for those people hired under the faculty hiring initiative who have left in the last year.

2. K. Anderson asked how the unpaid days off would calculate for faculty who prorate their salary over 12 months. Chancellor Cheng was uncertain, but noted that it would be in the procedures. She wants to be fair to everyone to make sure it is an equivalent percentage of the salary. B. Thibeault asked if the 1.5% salary reduction the Chancellor mentioned is based on a 9 month or a 12 month appointment. Chancellor Cheng responded that it would be 12 months. B. Thibeault noted that for someone on 9 months, then, it would be closer to 2%. K. Asner-Self suggested that even though it is a percentage similarity, 1.4% from someone who is making $30,000 is not the same kind of hit as for someone who is making $125,000. She asked if there is any possibility of having some type of graduated system. Chancellor Cheng responded that, because of the large number of people in civil service categories making in the $30-60,000 range, reducing a day would require a substantial number of days at the upper salary area. There would be more dollar values from the higher salaries than the lower salaries with the same percentage. She acknowledged that there is perhaps a bigger marginal impact on a lower salary. There are any issues that, in a fairness capacity (such as dual employment), are very debatable.

G. Spittler asked why the term administrative closure than furlough is being used. Chancellor Cheng responded she does not yet have all the history of Illinois, but is aware there is furlough language in the Civil Service Rules that does not allow furloughs. G. Spittler indicated that there is no furlough language in the non tenure track faculty contract; however, he does have a legal opinion that authorization of non-paid days would not bypass the obligation to bargain the issue since it affects wages and salaries. Chancellor Cheng agreed, noting that once the Trustees give authorization, the administration will bargain impact. J. Ferraro wondered about not only the political impact but also the real impact of where the University stands in going forward and in its competitiveness. What is really happening is a new era of contracting the University, which may be what needs to happen. The institution is simply prolonging the suffering by spreading it out, and it makes competitiveness a problem. Those people the University least wants to leave will have more incentive to go. Chancellor Cheng responded that over time, different structures and different ways of doing things will need to be explored; however, at this time she believes massive layoffs can be avoided. She agreed that over time this is just a stop-gap.

C. Mogharreban reported she and others have gotten many questions from faculty about the closure days. She asked what the plan would look like. Chancellor Cheng responded that the days to be taken will need to be discussed, as well as who are the essential employees (those who absolutely need to be on campus--the ones who are here on holidays and emergency days off). There would need to be conversations with the bargaining units across campus on the impact, and there would need to be collaboration with the constituency groups. The administration will have to make sure all the pieces have been considered and then move forward with a recommendation for the closure dates. They would need to have the President's approval on the particular days and the procedures. Chancellor Cheng indicated that the staff have already worked through the payroll system to know that they can make it work; SURS has been consulted to make sure that it can work. There are details that have to be ironed out. C. Mogharreban mentioned that the faculty have some good ideas about how this might go. How will the Chancellor solicit that input--through chairs, deans, directly or through Faculty Senate? Chancellor Cheng suggested maybe all of the above. She indicated she definitely wants to move quickly after approval, so she would like the faculty to think it through because she does not want to give people short notice on particular days. Her preference would be to select the days so everyone knows and can work around them.

B. Thibeault asked what is the likelihood of the closure days going away in the following and later fiscal years. Chancellor Cheng responded that she is unaware of any institutions that have converted a furlough to permanent pay reductions, though she is aware that some institutions have gone to their faculty and staff for a permanent pay reduction. What the University is doing is not being coded by Payroll as ongoing; it is a one-time reduction, and then it will kick back to normal. The authorization of the Board has been asked for fiscal 11 and 12; however, they may only be comfortable with one year at a time, which is also fine. S. Kumar pointed out that the Board policy states that the closure days "will have a negative impact on the employees' pay." His understanding is there was some kind of agreement between the Faculty Association, the Faculty Senate and Graduate Council that when there is negative impact on the salaries, wages or working conditions that they need to be negotiated before those things are enacted. He asked if the Chancellor has discussed this with the Faculty Association, Non Tenure Track Association or other associations. Chancellor Cheng responded that they have discussed this only with the civil service bargaining units, and those they have spoken with have been in the civil service area. The administration will ask for Board authorization and will bargain the impact of the procedures and the policies. They have not started to bargain because there has been no authorization. K. Asner-Self expressed the hope that this will be done in a way that continues to promote a positive campus atmosphere from all concerned. Chancellor Cheng indicated that, depending on what the Board authorizes, she will come back to the Senate and, if necessary, seek input in the interim through the Senate president. There is a $2.5 million shortfall, and it is a permanent one unless the University can increase other aspects of revenue. The unpaid leave days are to allow some breathing space until a more permanent solution is found, and hopefully that solution will be growth.

L. Brooten asked how it would work to have the administrative closure days on non-teaching days; she was not aware there were non-teaching days. Chancellor Cheng responded that Thanksgiving week tended to be a time when there are no classes or fewer classes. Certainly, the Wednesday before Thanksgiving is a day that can be cancelled. She noted that the School of Medicine has made her aware of its unique schedule. The administration will need to work with the faculty and administration there about what are the essential dates that they need to be on campus. Spring break is another possibility.

B. Thibeault commented that the non-closure days could have a significant impact on those close to retiring since pensions are based on a person's final three years. Chancellor Cheng could not address that issue, but is aware they are working to make sure employees can buy back their days; however, she is unsure if those payments will go toward final salaries.

K. Anderson questioned why the resolution specifically excludes December 23 to January 2. Why are those dates not available? What that does is to force days into another month, potentially making employees have to take two days in a month. Chancellor Cheng responded that it was a sentiment of the administrative staff who advised her that taking a day during that time period would be perceived as a permanent reduction in a benefit. K. Anderson suggested spreading out the days to no more than one a month. Chancellor Cheng responded that the details will have to be worked through.

REPORTS (cont.)

Chancellor Cheng reported: a) there are positive and negatives in the fall enrollment. Graduate and international student enrollments are up, and juniors are strong. Freshman numbers are soft (down 135), as are sophomores. Some softness was expected, as this is an age group where the populations across the country have declined, so the number of high school graduates is also declining. There are more students coming in from the five-state area. She reported that the University is being more strategic in its recruitment and making its message more crisp and timely with the help of Lipmann- Hearns. With respect to retention, the institution is also examining the organization of all those programs across campus that support student success. She will be calling for an advising initiative so there is a more coordinated and professional advising network across campus. Advisement needs to be ramped up. The Math department will be working on a way to use technology to get better results in Math 101 and 107; the [WF] grade is also being examined; b) research funding is up $6 million from this time last year. Scholarly activities have been tremendous, with publications and honors taking place across the campus. She would like to showcase those and has spoken with the Southern Illinoisanabout ways to get faculty success stories in the papers. She has talked with University Communications about changing the SIUC website to have a balance of research and students so students are reminded they have access to public research; c) she would like to address distance education, which is being broadly defined as online and off campus. That organizational structure will be under the Provost's office, with links directly to the schools and colleges. Currently, the credit hour production generated by many of these programs is not being counted in the schools and colleges, which means the IBHE believes the institution's credit hour production is lower than what it is in actuality; d) the Higher Learning Commission gave the University its stamp of approval. Their recommendations will help with financial planning over the next 10 years.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

1. J. Wiesen commented that he has always heard that SIUC is not doing as well with retention as other universities and that other universities may have a direct connection to counselors that this institution does not. Provost Rice responded that part of Enrollment Management's reorganization strategies includes face-to-face time with advisors in the region. It is a recognized problem, and Interim Assistant Vice Chancellor John Nicklow is attempting to reassign people so that this does not continue to happen. Chancellor Cheng added that there is also some field research that supports J. Wiesen's remarks. Provost Rice indicated that a fact book is being developed that will be tailored to high school advisors to let them know what students can accomplish by coming here. Many advisors are unaware of what the University has to offer.

2. M. Lamb commented about the lack of billboards and questioned why the University cannot make a better connection with John A. Logan College. Also, in terms of the outstanding scholar, she believes there needs to be some material recognition aside from a plaque. To not do so sends the wrong message. Chancellor Cheng responded that she has been in discussions with the SIU Foundation about the possibility of helping to support the award.

3. B. Rodriguez asked for an update on the Provost's search. Chancellor Cheng responded that she anticipates receiving a list of finalists by this week or next. She believes the committee is in the final stages of checking references, so her hope is to have candidates on campus in early October.

REPORTS (cont.)

3. Provost Rice reported: a) he received some data from Institutional Research on the enrollment history in the Core Curriculum over the past five years. To give a sense of what is contributing to some of the problems students are having, in fall 2009 and spring 2010, as many as 65% of seniors were still taking 100 and 200 level courses. There are many reasons for that, but mostly because they have not been able to pass part of the core requirements, or they are waiting until they are more mature to take the classes; however, they end up taking them again and again (the repeats are phenomenal). There needs to be work done on advising and career planning and on managing the way people handle their general education courses; b) national searches for the deans of Engineering and Liberal Arts are underway. Search committees have not been selected, but position descriptions from previous searches have been used to create a draft position description for each. Associate Provost Logue's office will be communicating with the colleges on the creation of the search committees.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

1. S. Ebbs commented that, as someone who teaches in the Core, the aforementioned problems are not always on the faculty and staff side. There are many students who believe that the core courses do not reinforce anything. They put them off because they see them as simply a mandatory requirement they have to fill rather than a foundation skill to help them learn. S. Ebbs expressed the hope that there is recognition that all facets need to be explored and not just looking at advising or teaching as the root cause.

2. J. Davis asked if there is a timetable for the Applied Sciences and Arts (ASA) dean search. Provost Rice responded that there are interims in the College of Agricultural Sciences and the College of Applied Sciences and Arts. The interim ASA dean would like to retire, probably in the middle of the next academic year, so it was decided to queue those two dean searches after the Engineering and Liberal Arts deans have been selected. Then, they will likely move first to Agricultural Sciences before conducting the ASA search, based on T. Owens' retirement time. The reason his office does not feel a need to push those searches is because the executive committees, chairs and directors in each college are very comfortable with their current deans, as are the advisory groups for the two colleges.

S. Kumar expressed his concern about conducting executive searches, especially the dean searches, particularly when it is at the expense of faculty lines. The cost of hiring one dean is approximately equal to that of four faculty, including the spousal hires and others. When there is talk of cutting the funding for research and furloughs/administrative closures/layoffs, etc., as well as having no money to recognize outstanding faculty and staff, it makes no sense to him to bring in highly paid administrators from the outside. If having interims is an issue, the Faculty Senate approved a resolution addressing interim titles. He suggested looking into that rather than spending a lot of money on the administrators. S. Kumar emphasized, from his perspective, that the University can still provide quality education with a few less administrators; but the quality of education will degrade if there are not enough faculty to teach the classes. He urged the Chancellor to reconsider the decision to conduct administrative searches on the campus.

REPORTS (cont.)

4. N. Mundschenk reported the Graduate Council held its first meeting of the year earlier this month and is formulating its agenda for the year. They are looking at the Higher Learning Commission's recommendations and how those will interface with graduate programs, particularly online program reviews and distance education. The Council has also approved the revised Graduate Program Review Procedures and is currently reviewing the Code of Conduct and the Code of Ethics. Additionally, the Council has some preliminary results on the research climate survey that was recently conducted. They have requested a finer analysis of the results and are waiting to see what those will suggest in terms of actions for the Council.

5. T. Tarter asked Chancellor Cheng to discuss the new relationship of the Cancer Institute with Illinois Healthcare in the southern region. He believes this can only help to enhance the profile of the University and the region by providing cancer care to the southern region. Chancellor Cheng explained that there is now a formal agreement between SIUC and the southern Illinois healthcare organization, particularly the Simmons Cancer Institute and the Cancer Institute here in southern Illinois. This collaboration will allow for a smooth framework under which researchers here can get access to clinical trials and consult with physicians in the Springfield area on particular cancers. They anticipate a team approach to patient care, and it is also a very dynamic way to bring in the research component for cancer care.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

G. Apgar reported: a) both he and A. Karnes serve on the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory Committee. A. Karnes is the chair of the subcommittee looking at a transparent way of evaluating the [4%] plus/minus for the revenue sharing model; b) he has represented the Executive Council at constituency heads meetings; c) the Council had expressed some concerns about the recent Math personnel issues and appreciated the Chancellor addressing that matter at a recent Council meeting; however there was limited opportunity for transparency because of the personnel issues. Until such closure occurs, he will bring information to the Senate as he is able; d) there was discussion about the research laboratories in Engineering. Provost Rice reported he has a meeting scheduled on September 15 with the dean to discuss some of those access policies. He has also acquired an assessment of space allocation for the entire building of Neckers and will visit space concerns with the dean of Engineering during that meeting as well.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- L. DiLalla, Chair

1. L. DiLalla presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME for the Addition of an Instructional Systems Design Specialist Certificate in Workforce Education and Development, College of Education and Human Services (included as Attachment A to the Agenda). K. Anderson asked why the second Whereas states, "rather than seeking a degree." L. DiLalla responded that the point of the program is designed for people who are not seeking a degree; however, it is also available to those who are, so that is why it is worded that way. There will be academic credit awarded, but it is specifically designed for people looking for the certificate. S. Ebbs noted that the last Whereas states, "the proposed minor" and should say "certificate." L. DiLalla accepted this as a friendly amendment.

Resolution was approved, as amended, on a voice vote. [see appendix 1]

2. L. DiLalla presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME for the Addition of a Specialization in Event Planning and Management and a Certificate in Event Planning and Management, College of Agricultural Sciences (included asAttachment B to the Agenda). She made a friendly amendment to the last Whereas to change the word "minor" to "specialization." S. Kumar suggested also adding "certificate" since the RME is for both a specialization and a certificate.

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

3. L. DiLalla presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME for the Addition of Specializations in Animal Biology, Environmental Biology, Fisheries Biology, Pre-Veterinary Science, and Wildlife Biology to the Bachelor of Science Degree in Zoology, College of Science (included as Attachment C to the Agenda). She reported that Zoology is going to a [new] specialization to allow a number of specializations in the degree. M. Kibby-Faglier questioned the wording on the last Whereas, which states that "no new resources are requested in order to initiate these specializations." L. DiLalla responded she worded it that way because they are new specializations (they currently have none). S. Kumar asked if the specializations add any complication with the accreditation bodies. J. Means responded that there are no accreditation bodies for Zoology.

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

4. L. DiLalla presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the Elimination of the Athletic Training Major in the Department of Kinesiology, College of Education and Human Resources (included as Attachment D to the Agenda). B. Thibeault asked if the department wants to end the program. L. DiLalla believes it is a disappointment, but the department has indicated that enrollment has been declining. They have made a commitment to see the students currently in the program to completion. Additionally, there will be no impact on any of the faculty. Chancellor Cheng asked if there is an alternative program for students seeking sports medicine or athletic training. L. Dilalla responded that she was not aware of any.

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

J. Wall asked for clarification as to the Senate's role in the RME process. J. Allen responded that changes to degree programs are initiated by the faculty; faculty own the curriculum they deliver. They propose the changes to their college's curriculum committee; then, they go to the dean and then to the Provost before coming to the Senate. The Senate's Operating Paper states clearly that curriculum matters are the purview of the Senate.

5. L. DiLalla presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME for the Addition of a Specialization in Professional Construction Management to the Bachelor of Science Degree in Technical Resource Management, College of Applied Sciences and Arts (included as Attachment E to the Agenda). She noted that she did receive approval from the Department of Management on the specialization. B. Rodriguez asked if there would be a cost associated with the specialization. L. DiLalla responded that there is no extra cost, although there is no statement in the RME to that effect. She could add such a statement as a friendly amendment that there would be no budgetary requirement.

Resolution was approved, as amended, on a voice vote. [see appendix 3]

6. L. DiLalla reported that the committee still has several RMEs under consideration.

FACULTY STATUS AND WELFARE COMMITTEE -- L. Brooten/J. Kapur, Co-Chairs

1. L. Brooten presented for approval the Resolution Honoring Academic Integrity at Southern Illinois University Carbondale (included as Attachment F to the Agenda). She indicated the committee believed it was important to recognize the two individuals for their efforts, as well as the fact that the University did stand behind them at a time when they felt they were standing alone. J. Ferraro questioned whether the resolution had to actually name Toyota. S. Ebbs added that it has not been made clear that the problem identified was actually a flaw. Provost Rice concurred, believing the automotive company and the professors "agreed to disagree." J. Ferraro suggested changing the last part of the first Whereas to read, "...with their recent groundbreaking research on automotive safety." L. Brooten accepted this as a friendly amendment.

Resolution was approved, as amended and with three abstentions, on a voice vote. [see appendix 4]

2. L. Brooten presented the committee's Recommendations on University Code of Conduct (included as Attachment G to the Agenda). She reported that, based on the feedback they received, the committee essentially believes the policy as it stands now really muddies the distinction between principles, standards of conduct and policy statements involving specific behaviors. They believe the document needs to be revisited and needs to create some clear standards. Additionally, the document takes quite a bit from the University of Minnesota Code of Conduct; however, that document is much clearer as far as the distinction between standards and policy behaviors and does not get into specific behaviors. The committee recommends the proposed code be returned to the group that drafted it, though who that group is remains unclear. Chancellor Cheng responded that it was drafted by the President's office for the entire system. L. Brooten believes the Code of Conduct needs to be revisited, and the distinction between standards of conduct versus specific policy behaviors needs to be strengthened.

3. L. Brooten presented the committee's Recommendations on University Code of Ethics (included as Attachment H to the Agenda). The committee believes it to be a very good document. It is clearly about principles and not behaviors and makes clear that the behavioral aspects need to be addressed by the relevant units. The only issue the committee had with the document is attribution, which states, "Many major universities have adopted excellent Codes of Ethics. This code incorporates strong language from codes developed by Radford University and Washington University St. Louis." This proposed code is, in many places, word for word from Radford's. The committee believes rather than saying it adopts strong language from Radford, it should state that it came from Radford. Other than a couple of other minor revisions, the committee was satisfied with the document itself and suggests it also be sent back to the drafting committee for revision.

L. DiLalla commented that so much of the Code of Ethics is basically plagiarized. She believes if something is "based on" then that would mean the underlying idea and not the language. She suggested it needed to be clearer (e.g., "used with permission"). J. Allen believes the Senate should not be an editorial committee; rather, send the document back to the original drafting committee for their editing and make it clear that the wording could be seen as being plagiarized. He suggested the document be returned to the Senate for another review.

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- O. Agrawal, Chair

O. Agrawal reported that over the summer, the committee had appointed David Lightfoot to serve on the Outstanding Scholar Award Selection Committee; however, he has been nominated for the award and will now need to be replaced. O. Agrawal indicated he will be contacting Committee on Committees members about a replacement.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- None.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- None.

OLD BUSINESS -- None.

NEW BUSINESS -- None.

1. B. Thibeault commented that, in looking at the Senate's website, she noticed that some updates were needed. S. Kumar responded that the webpage is currently undergoing changes.

2. K. Anderson reported he received news suggesting that the University's Professional Science masters program be eliminated as part of the budget cuts. The program is new this year and is fully funded by the Department of Energy for the next three years. He heard that someone had made comments to the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Committee that it be eliminated and the money redirected to other programs, which is not possible. S. Kumar responded that he was not aware of any discussion on elimination of the program; however, there was discussion that came about that the program has appointed a director and associate director and that there are currently only two students in the program. He believes the discussion was whether the appointment of the directors was needed, not whether the program should be eliminated.

3. J. Ferraro commented that in talking about recruitment and retention, the University's website is the door to many people. Probably the most grievous thing that can be said about the website is its search engine. If someone wanted to search for Faculty Senate, what would come up would be links to articles, etc., and not the Senate homepage. Someone wanting to look up the Department of Physiology would not get there through the search engine. It is very frustrating for anyone coming here or who wants to come here and even for people who work here. Provost Rice responded that there have been several conversations with University Communications Director Mike Ruiz about the links. Supposedly, there was going to be a review of the links and an attempt to make the most important links to faculty and for students more apparent. He indicated he will talk with M. Ruiz again.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

1. N. Mundschenk reminded Senators of the Chancellor's State of the University Address to be held on September 30. A reception will be held at 1PM, with the address beginning at 1:30PM.

2. J. Allen announced that there will be an assessment workshop on October 5 and 6. Please contact him for more information.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 2:56 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, 
Mary Ellen Lamb, Secretary

MEL:ba