Minutes of the Faculty Senate Meeting
September 27, 1999
Senators Present: Bartanen, Bowe, Bruce, Cooney, Edwards, Haltom (Chair), Holland, Kline, Nahm,
Ostrom, Sousa, Ward, Wimberger.
Guests: David Droge (Chair of the Diversity Committee), Carrie Washburn, Kim Bobby, Robert McCool,
TRAIL reporter.
Haltom called the meeting to order at 4:15 p.m. Two corrections to the minutes of the previous meeting
were offered and approved: Cooney indicated that he had said the Diversity Committee "might not" have
the authority to recommend goals, and Wimberger indicated that he had said "virtually" all experiments
with warm-blooded animals (at UPS) did not technically meet current national guidelines.
The Senate then entered the Special Orders portion of its deliberations. Wimberger made two requests:
1) That the Senate chair ask departmental chairs for copies of departmental responses to the 3-2-load
proposal; and 2) That Dean Cooney and President Pierce indicate to the Senate what sort of proposal
regarding 3-2 they would make to the Trustees. Regarding #2, Cooney obliged immediately, noting that
the first Trustee meeting (in October) was the beginning of a year-long process, that no specific 3-2
proposal would be made, and that he would-in a Trustee workshop setting-propose adding enough faculty
positions over the next decade (or so) to make a 3-2 load possible. He said that, in general, he would
communicate to the Trustees that the faculty had reached a reasonable limit of expectations with regard
to teaching, professional growth, advising, co-curricular activity, etc., and that instituting a 3-2 load would
be one way of easing the pressure imposed by having reached this limit. Cooney added that he would
present to the Trustees some idea of what the 3-2 load would cost but not specify how the load would be
implemented. He urged Senate Chair Haltom to attend the Trustee workshop in question.
Senator Bowe announced that the 1999-2000 "theme year" is the Year of the Asian American, mentioned
the "kickoff" gathering (Sept. 28), and named two guest speakers appearing in October: Harry Wu,
Chinese dissident, and Jean Kilborn, expert in advertising analysis.
There's No Business Like Old Business. M/S/P to suspend discussion of other committees' charges so
that members of the Diversity Committee might chat with Senators about the Diversity Committee's tasks
for the upcoming year. FDC Chair Droge referred Senators to the final report of the FDC had written in
98-99; the report assessed progress the University has and has not made in reaching goals outlined in
the May 1990 Diversity Report. He reiterated the FDC's desire to focus its work this year, to serve as a
"think tank" working on one or two issues, and named recruitment, admission, and retention of minority
students as an important issue. He also urged the Senate to rescind (as it were) the proposed By-Laws
change that would require the FDC to make an annual report, suggesting that different offices within the
administration could, annually, make pertinent information available to the University without the FDC's
serving as an intermediary. Finally, he suggested that an Ad Hoc committee might eventually be
responsible for setting new goals.
Ward wondered whether an ad hoc committee would be redundant. Droge suggested not, saying that the
FDC was very busy with other things besides setting goals and that the President should decide how
goals should be set.
Ostrom asked what issue the FDC would likely focus on this year. Droge said this question would be
decided at the FDC's next meeting, but he reiterated that recruitment, admission, and retention (see
above) seemed a likely topic to pursue. Ward wondered about the potential of "overlapping jurisdictions"
between the FDC and an ad hoc committee; his question led to a general discussion of the FDC's
authority, a topic that had arisen at the Senate's previous meeting.
Senate Chair Haltom indicated that the authority of Faculty Senate Committees, including the Diversity
Committee, was broad, as suggested in the following excerpt (which he read) from the By Laws:
***
ARTICLE IV
THE FACULTY SENATE
Sec. 1. Purpose. The Faculty Senate, hereafter referred to as the Senate, shall serve as an Executive
Committee of the Faculty and shall study, advise, recommend, and initiate programs of action for the
good of the University and communicate its findings and proposals to the Faculty, the Administration, the
Board of Trustees, and other appropriate bodies.
***
Haltom added that the primary responsibility for interpreting the By Laws lay with the Faculty Senate. He
instructed FDC Droge that the FDC had the authority to recommend diversity goals to various
constituencies of the University, including the faculty, the administration, and the Trustees but added that
these constituencies could choose to accept or not accept such goals. He urged the FDC to use both its
authority and its judgement in charting a course.
Haltom then drew the senators' attention to the letter of 9/27/99 from President Pierce to the Faculty
Senate, in which she defined Kim Bobby's role as assessor of diversity initiatives, asked the Senate to
defer making recommendations about diversity, and pointed to areas of progress the University had made
with regard to Diversity. Droge indicated that Bobby was an ex officio member of the FDC and that the
FDC stood ready to work with her. Sousa asked about the time-line for Bobby's assessment. Bobby said
that she hoped to complete her assessment by September 2000.
Wimberger redirected the Senate to Droge's request concerning the proposed By Laws change
(regarding FDC "annual reports-see above). Haltom and Cooney reminded senators that all proposed By
Laws changes (and reconsiderations thereof) would take place by means of a unified process; therefore,
the Senate could not act immediately on Droge's request.
Ostrom asked Droge whether the FDC might generate some information connected to two points raised
in President Pierce's letter--namely, how much financial aid was now available for minority students, and
precisely what programs the Admission Office had in place to recruit and admit minority students. Droge
indicated that the FDC, in the course of its collaboration with Kim Bobby, would make this information
available to the Senate.
Old Business, The Adventure Continues: Charges to the Professional Standards Committee. Wimberger
wanted to know what "review results of survey" [regarding students' evaluations of courses] meant,
exactly. He wondered if the Senate should charge the PSC with making recommendations springing from
results of the survey. Haltom cautioned against this, noting that the PSC might conclude no
recommendations were in order; however, he assured senators that the PSC would conduct a thorough
review of the survey's results and suggested the committee had not yet done so simply because it was
very busy with other pressing matters last year. He assured Wimberger that the PSC knew it had the
authority to make recommendations. Cooney reminded senators that a member of the ad hoc committee
to survey the faculty had been appointed to the PSC this year.
Old Business, The Plot Thickens: Senator Bowe moved that the Senate charge the Student Life
Committee with "reviewing, and recommending changes to, the Integrity Code." He suggested that
sections of the Code were inappropriately vague and that, because the Student Life Committee's
membership reflected several University constituencies, the SLC was an appropriate body to review the
Code. He reminded senators that changes to the Integrity Code could originate from three sources: 1)
The Faculty Senate [Student Life Committee], 2) the Dean of Students Office, 3) the Student Senate, but
that changes needed to be approved by the Student Senate.
Bruce wondered whether the Integrity Code included recent changes. Bowe and Bartanen said no,
indicating that recent campus-wide discussions of the Code sprang from a reiteration of the University's
authority to apply the Code off-campus. Washburn and Holland stressed the importance of insuring that
student-representatives take an active part in SLC deliberations on the Integrity Code. Nahm pointed to
specific places where the Code seemed inappropriately vague, indicating that the Code referred to
students "representing the University in a recognized capacity," and suggesting that this phrase could be
interpreted to mean, for example, students simply wearing a UPS cap.
Bartanen suggested that it might be preferable to delay review of the Integrity Code for a year because
both she and Houston Dougharty were new to the Dean of Students office. Kline sought clarification
about the Integrity Code "versus" implementation of the Code. Haltom drew a rough analogy between
Integrity Code/interpretations of Code and First Amendment/Supreme Court rulings. Cooney indicated
that he was unclear about the governance relationships between and among the Faculty Senate, the
SLC, the Student Senate, and the Dean of Students Office. Bowe pointed again to the three sources
(see above) from which changes to the Code might spring. Ostrom said he wanted, briefly, merely to relay
a concern expressed by some faculty colleagues from departments housed in the library--namely, by
restating its intention to apply the Integrity Code off-campus, did the University run any risk of expanding
its legal liability, and was the SLC capable of addressing this issue? Haltom opined that, having no
lawyers in its number, the SLC was probably not capable of addressing the issue. Bartanen indicated that
a lawyer representing the University had reviewed the recent policy statements regarding the Integrity
Code. Cooney suggested that the issue was probably not the business of the Senate but that, if senators
were interested, they might request from Bartanen a copy of the new policy statements. Bowe suggested
that the Senate might indeed want to examine such statements. Cooney expressed the view that the new
policy statements were cautious and restrained and actually limited the ways in which the Intergrity Code
might be applied off campus. Holland urged the Senate to vote on Bowe's motion. The Senate paid
attention to her and voted. M/S/P to charge the Student life committee with reviewing, and
recommending revisions to, the Integrity Code.
The Senate decided not to enrich the University Enrichment Committee's life with specific charges.
Cooney suggested that, as a matter of form, the Senate should instruct the UEC to carry out its
responsibilities under the By Laws. M/S/P to charge the UEC with carrying out said responsibilities.
Fatigue prevailing, adjournment loomed, but not until the Chair announced that, barring objection, the
Senate would, beginning with its next meeting, get going at 4:15 p.m. The few senators remaining
conscious believed this to be a good idea, provided that the venerable and storied time of adjournment,
5:30 p.m., remained unsullied. Haltom promised to defend the honor of the traditional adjournment time,
making good on his promise by urging the Senate to adjourn (the time was 5:29). A good adjournment
was enjoyed by all.
Respectfully Submitted,
Hans Ostrom