CONSENT AGENDA
University of Nevada, Reno
2008-09 Faculty Senate
April 16, 2009
RSJ 304
Process for Consideration of Consent Agenda Items:
 All items on the Consent Agenda are action items. A single vote for the consent agenda passes all items listed on the agenda. Any senator may request an agenda item be pulled for discussion and held for a


 separate vote.
Prior to a vote on the consent agenda, the Chair will open the floor for comment from senators including requests to pull items.
Once all items to be pulled have been identified, the Chair will call for a vote on the remaining Consent
Agenda items.
Discussion and action on items pulled will be managed individually.
1.
2.
Request to Approve the March 26, 2009 Meeting Minutes
The Administrative Manual Revisions: Vetted by the UAM Committee
Please note that additions are bolded and underlined
Action/Enclosure
Action/Enclosures
.
Deletions are strikethroughs a. Policy for Hosting Purchases of Meals, Refreshments & Gifts
Section 1,069 Revised March 2009 b. Printing: Section 1,516 Deleted March 2009 c. Leave without Pay: Section 2,305 February 2009 d. Clinical Appointments: Section 2,631 March 2009
UNR Faculty Senate Consent Agenda Packet – April 16, 2009
Page 1 of 10

UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
March 26, 2009
Consent Agenda Item #1
University of Nevada, Reno
March 26, 2009 Meeting 8
1. Welcome, Introductions, & Roll Call
Present: Dick Bjur (VPR), Gale Craviso (SOM), David Crowther (COE), Donnelyn Curtis (Libraries), Dean Dietrich (DEV),
Bill Follette (Chair FS), Stephani Foust (SS), Tom Harris (CABNR), E ric Herzik (CLA), Jodi Herzik (Provost’s), Jen Hill
(CLA), Julie Hogan for Eric Albers (HS), Stephen Jenkins (COS), Maureen Kilkenny (CABNR), Tom Kozel (SOM), Bill
Kuechler (COBA), Gale Craviso for Doina Kulick (SOM), Alex Kumjian (COS), Qizhen Li for Manoranjan Misra Bourne
Morris (JO), Elliott Parker (Chair-Elect), HansPeter Plag (COS), Janet Sanderson (President’s), Madeleine Sigman-Grant
(COOP), Leah Skladany (SOM), Judy Strauss (COBA), Virginia Vogel (CLA) Lucy Walker (President’s), Jill Wallace (IT),
Leonard Weinberg (CLA).
Absent: Normand LeBlanc (SOM, Jane Patterson (A & F).
Guests: Marc Johnson (Provosts), David Sanders (EN).
2. Consent Agenda
MOTION: Wallace/Vogel. To approve the consent agenda as published
ACTION: Passed unanimously
3. Sense of the Senate re: President Glick
During the February 19, 2009 Senate meeting, Bourne Morris suggested a statement of endorsement for President Glick’s three-year evaluation, particularly for his clarity, integrity, and willingness to communicate with the faculty. Chair Bill
Follette drafted the Sense of the Senate for presentation at this meeting and to be read at the April 2 nd and 3 rd Board of
Regents Meeting.
MOTION: Vogel/Crowther. To approve the Sense of the Senate for President Glick.
ACTION: Passed, 1 abstention
4. Sense of the Senate re: Sustainability Lunches
Guy Hoelzer asked the senate to endorse a statement to continue the Sustainability Lunches. The draft was edited by
Follette and presented to the senate for approval. There were some questions about the number of sustainability committees, if they were aware of each other and if they were working together. The sense of the senate could be passed and then when Executive Vice President and Provost Marc Johnson arrived he might be able to answer these questions.
One of these committees was research oriented and the other was on renewable energy.
MOTION: Kumjian/Vogel. To approve the Sense of the Senate re: Sustainability Lunches with one typo corrected: therefore, the “senate” supports.
ACTION: Passed unanimously
5. Chairs Report
A joint resolution initiated by ASUN senate, was voted on via email. The resolution was a call to action to the citizens of
Nevada to save Higher Education and with it the future of the state. Follette thanked the senate for their cooperation in this email vote.
The Executive Board supported a policy that allowed voting through checkbox for time-dependent item that they felt needed to be vetted by the full senate. Any such items would pass with a majority of those senators who participated in the vote. This policy would not need a bylaws change.
The Sense of the Senate on Health Care Benefits asking for no change in benefits was sent to several legislators, the
Board of Regents and Council of Chairs. No responses were received.
Dick Bjur spoke to the changes that were occurring in the Office of Sponsored Projects Office.
Tammy Bain had left the university and Dick Bjur would be assisting until a new director was chosen. Their office was working towards having a back-up for each person in the office. Two people have been selected as pre and post award managers. If faculty have any unresolved research issues they should contact Dick Bjur. The office should be well enough staffed to handle all incoming stimulus funds. There was a discussion regarding the difficulty of hiring qualified employees and being able to react quickly enough to the stimulus money that might be obtained. Steve Rock asked that information
UNR Faculty Senate Consent Agenda Packet – April 16, 2009
Page 2 of 10

be sent out when there are changes in the staffing of OSPA and also if they could let the university community know what stimulus money is available.
The President would like faculty to send a 1 to 2 page memo on the challenges faced by faculty in both faculty and student recruitment. Please send your reply to Janet Sanderson by April 10, 2009.
6. New Business: Summer Scholars Program
Summer Scholars Program: Orientation changed and was scheduled to be held throughout the summer in smaller sessions. This would create a challenge in scheduling the Summer Scholars program. A survey would be created to get input to help decide whether to hold the Summer Scholars Project on either Friday, August 21, 2009 or Saturday, August
22, 2009. The project had gotten a late start this year as they were looking for funding to purchase the books. There was a suggestion to use the book Inherit the Wind as it is pertinent to the current environment, an inexpensive book and there are lots of way to access the information, the play, the movie or the book. Time is critical at this point, so a small committee will decide on the book quickly and then the committee would decide on the future process of choosing the book. The senate discussed what their role should be in the process. There was also discussion about what would be an appropriate book.
MOTION: Parker/Jenkins. To approve the formation of a committee that would quickly choose the book for this year and formalize the book selection process for next year.
ACTION: Passed unanimously
The following senators agreed to be on the committee: David Crowther, Donnie Curtis, Stephani Foust, Jen Hill, and Lucy
Walker.
Senate Chair Bill Follette plans to have a Faculty Coffee/Tea on April 10, 2009.
7. Visit with Executive Vice President and Provost: Marc Johnson:
The First Draft of the Institutional Strategic Plan would be going out next week. Executive Vice President and Provost
Marc Johnson met with the Executive Board and they formulated a procedure to planning light, resulting in a short concise plan. The Provost’s Office wrote the first draft and would like to have faculty input prior to the second draft which would be sent to a larger committee to finalize. The deans have been asked to come up with degree programs that they anticipated instituting in the next six years. If the programs are not on the Academic Master Plan, which will follow the Institutional
Strategic Plan, then the Board of Regents would not consider them.
There was discussion on the budget and the article in the paper regarding the closure of the Planetarium. Provost
Johnson said that the university answered a request to show what would be lost if they had to return to 2006 funding levels. The university was charged to name specific programs that would have to be cut if they went back to 20.6%, they agonized over this and along with UNLV decided it was inappropriate and improper to name specific programs that might be considered for proposed cuts. The possible closure of the Planetarium made the headlines. A question was asked if administration had thought about using furloughs to save money, as some universities were saving several million dollars with this idea. Johnson said this was not something that they had looked at. Johnson hoped that the when the legislature decided what amount would be cut that they would let each agency decide how to best serve the community with that money.
More discussion generated regarding the classified staff and the rules for hiring layoffs and if faculty were not able to hire qualified employees that this could affect stimulus funds. HR and BCN would know the rules the best and Johnson would discuss the issue with Tim McFarling and ask him to address the issue.
8. Academic Standards Committee Year-end Report: David Sanders, Committee Chair:
UNR Faculty Senate Consent Agenda Packet – April 16, 2009
Page 3 of 10

Follette thanked both David Sanders and the committee for their hard work. David Sanders thanked his committee members for their hard work: Maureen Cronin, Mary Groves, Christopher Herald, Stephen Lafer, Frank Lucash, Nancy
Markee, Patrick Ragains, Banmali Rawat, Virginia Vogel and Peter Weisberg.
The charges for the committee were:

Meet with academic advisors to consider in more detail the potential problems with the first three proposals of the
2007-08 committee, which were tabled by the Senate. Revise these proposals as necessary, and bring them back to the senate in the fall for further consideration. o Charge one was divided into three areas:
 Drop/Withdrawal Policy
 Grade Replacement Policy
 Probation, Disqualification, suspension and dismissal policies
 Review and propose revisions to the university’s policy on student grade appeals, with particular attention to the policies and procedures used in peer and aspirant institutions.

Building on the recommendations of prior committees, recommend a specific set of standards for a consistent faculty response to the student academic dishonesty.

Consider alternative methods of using university resources more efficiently and enabling students to reduce the time to completion of their degrees, including increasing the use of four- and five-credit undergraduate minimum for graduation is optimal. Make recommendations
The committee looked at the drop date and decided to recommend changing it to 9 weeks instead of 8 weeks. The committee also felt strongly that there should be a drop date. They also recommended not having advisors sign off on withdrawals due to the logistics of it. The senate discussed the advantages and disadvantages to not having a drop date and when that drop date should be. The discussion included the issue of providing the student with the opportunity to make changes once they had completed their mid-term.
There was some discussion on the grade replacement policy making it difficult for students in small departments or colleges as it makes it harder for lower division students to get into classes that higher division students might be repeating.
The committee recommended substantial changes to the Probation, Disqualification, Suspension and Dismissal policies.
The senate would like to see the two academic year in 3 (i)(d) changed to one academic year.
MOTION: Morris/Foust. To accept the report as published
ACTION: Passed unanimously
Recommendations:
Charge One: Drop/Withdrawal Policy Recommendations:
1. The withdrawal date should be extended to the end of the 9 th week of the semester or, in the case of sessions of shorter length (wintermester; summer session) at the point of 60% into the term. This will provide more time for faculty to provide meaningful feedback regarding grades to students and in some instances, provide students with an opportunity to alter their study strategies in a class and see if such changes result in improved academic performance. Currently, students are allowed to withdraw from individual classes up until the end of the 8 th of the semester. This recommendation is consistent with UNLV’s drop date policy.
week
2. Devise a series of pop-up messages on ePAWS that are initiated when a student attempts to withdraw from a course. The messages would inform the student of possible ramifications if they withdraw from a course (i.e., loss of financial aid and/or scholarships; loss of full-time student status; progress towards degree, etc.) and urge students to consult with an academic advisor prior to withdrawing from individual courses. The committee realizes this may not be feasible with our current registration system, but recommends it implementation as soon as possible.
MOTION: Jenkins/Hill. To accept the recommendation of the committees Drop/Withdrawal Policy.
ACTION: Passed, 1 opposed, 1 abstention
(B) Grade Replacement Policy Recommendations:
1. Extend the number of semesters a student has to repeat a course and use the grade replacement option “the next regular semester in which the course is offered and the student is enrolled” to :within the next two regular semesters in which the student is enrolled. If the course is not offered within the next two regular semesters, they must take the course the next time it is offered.” Students should still be encouraged to repeat a required class as soon as possible, but this would provide more flexibility in planning and not require students to adjust their next semester schedule if they have already enrolled in classes and/or a class they need to repeat is full.
2. Change the current restriction on the repeat policy to “a maximum of four lower-division courses not to exceed 15 credits.” The current policy states that “students may repeat a maximum of 12 lower-division credits to replace original UNR grades.” This will assist students who wish to replace the grade in one or more 4 or 5 credit courses.
UNR Faculty Senate Consent Agenda Packet – April 16, 2009
Page 4 of 10

MOTION: Jenkins/Vogel. To approve the recommendation as written.
ACTION: Passed 1 opposed, 1 abstention
(C) Probation, Disqualification, Suspension, and Dismissal Policies Recommendations:
The committee’s recommendations still result in three level/actions, but terminology and actions taken differ from current policy.
1. Academic Warning: GPA cut offs would continue to be based on the number of credits earned at UNR: i. 0-29 credits – when cumulative UNR GPA is 1.6 or above but below 2.0 ii. 30-59 credits – when UNR GPA is 1.8 or above but below 2.0 iii. 60 or more credits – when UNR GPA is 1.9 or above, but below 2.0 iv. Action: a. Allowed to remain in major b. Receives letter from college and email from Admissions and Records c. Registration hold on student’s record; mandatory advising prior to next semester’s registration d. Still allowed to use ePAWS for registration transactions
2. Academic Probation (University): Student falls below the above GPA thresholds which continue to be based on the number o credits earned at UNR i. 0-29 credits – cumulative UNR GPA is below 1.6 ii. 30-59 credits – cumulative UNR GPA is below 1.8 iii. 60 or more credits – cumulative UNR GPA is below 1.9 iv. Action: a. Removed from major; cans stay in college or switch to undecided b. Receives letter from college and email from Admissions and Records c. Registration hold on student’s record; mandatory advising d. Student limited to 12 credits/semester with approval of advisor, access to ePAWS denied; must register in person with advisor signed advisement sheet. With the implementation of the new registration system, it is hoped that electronic registration could be “authorized” thus eliminating the need for registration to be done in person but still allowing advisors to maintain control with respect to the student’s enrollment. Until such point in time, it is suggested that a standardized form be developed and used by all advisors to authorize enrollment in approved courses.
1) Student will be subject to dismissal if still on academic probation after attempting
24 additional UNR credits.
2) A school or college may still place a student on program probation whenever satisfactory progress toward degree objectives is not maintained.
3. Dismissal: Occurs if the student, after attempting 24 additional UNR credits beyond being placed on probation, a student is still on academic probation. i. Action: a. Receives letter from college and email from Admissions and Records. b. Student will be immediately withdrawn from any classes for which the student has registered; any tuition paid will be refunded. c. Student cannot attend as a non-degree student and is not eligible to attend summer session or enroll in courses through extended studies/independent learning. d. Student is required to remain out for at least two academic years. e. Students seeking readmission must receive approval from the dean of the college the student wishes to enter prior to readmission. f. Students should be prepared to provide as part of the readmission process, documentation that demonstrates improved academic performance or a readiness for academic success. g. Students who are reinstated will be on academic probation. The college into which the student is readmitted may develop a prescribed program of study to which the student must adhere. h. If a student is dismissed a second time, subsequent readmission will be allowed only with the approval of the Special Admissions Committee.
MOTION: Parker/Foust. To approved the recommendations to (C) Probation, Disqualification, Suspension and Dismissal
Policies with a change to C (3)(i)(d) from two years to one year.
ACTION: Passed 1 abstention
As the senate was running out of time for this meeting Charge 2, 3, and 5 were tabled until the April 16, meeting.
MOTION: Parker/Kilkenny. To table charges 2, 3, and 5 until the April 16, meeting.
UNR Faculty Senate Consent Agenda Packet – April 16, 2009
Page 5 of 10

ACTION: Passed unanimously
Recommendations for Charge 4: reduce the time to completion of degrees:
1. Do not recommend increasing the number of credits of a course as a way to increase completion rates.
2. Encourage more courses in the summer semester
3. Reduce the Board of Regents (BOR) minimum credit hours requirement from 124 to 120 credits. The committee respects the right of individual programs to determine appropriate credit requirements for their degrees. i. The BOR Handbook establishes a minimum of 124 semester credits. Most UNR degrees require at least 129 credits (See Appendix 3).
MOTION: Parker/Kilkenny. To approve the recommendation to decrease the minimum number of credits to 120.
ACTION: Passed 1 abstention.
9. Proposed Legislation Requiring Reporting of Outside Compensation:
Steve Rock would like faculty to be aware of Senate Bill (SB) 279 which would require full disclosure and public record of compensated outside services. Dick Bjur felt that this bill was unnecessary as NSHE has a Conflict of Interest Policy
Meeting Adjourned 5:07 pm
UNR Faculty Senate Consent Agenda Packet – April 16, 2009
Page 6 of 10

UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
March 26, 2009
Consent Agenda Item #2
UAM Revisions
UNR Faculty Senate Consent Agenda Packet – April 16, 2009
Page 7 of 10

UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
March 26, 2009
Consent Agenda Item #3
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO UNR BYLAWS
As proposed by the University Bylaws & Code Committee
Deletions are struck through in [brackets], additions in bold
1.1.3 AMENDMENT OF THE BYLAWS
Any member of the faculty, the President, the Chancellor, or the Board of Regents may propose amendments to these Bylaws. All p roposed amendments [developed by the faculty] shall be submitted in writing to the Faculty
Senate, which shall refer the same to a Senate Bylaws Committee for its review and recommendation. If recommended for approval by a majority of the Faculty Senate, the proposed amendment shall be submitted to the faculty for a vote by a written, secret mail ballot or other similarly confidential electronic means . A proposed amendment which, after consideration by the Faculty Senate, has not been recommended for approval by a majority of that body shall be submitted to the faculty for a vote by a written, secret mail ballot (or other similarly confidential electronic means) if at least ten percent of the faculty sign a petition requesting this action. [The] A mendment s shall be in force upon: 1) recommendation for approval by the faculty, which shall be by at least a two-thirds majority of those voting [in a written, secret mail ballot]; 2) approval by the
President; and 3) approval by the [Board of Regents] Chancellor .
[Proposed amendments developed by the President, Chancellor, or the Board of Regents shall likewise be submitted in writing both to the Faculty Senate for this body's full review and recommendation and also to the faculty as a whole for its vote before being forwarded to the Board of Regents for final approval.]
Rationale: The two paragraphs redundantly tried to distinguish between amendments proposed by faculty and those proposed by the President, the Chancellor, and the Board. The second paragraph is therefore eliminated and the first paragraph is clarified to mean that ALL amendments (whether proposed by faculty or not) must be submitted in writing to the Faculty Senate, etc. Also, our recent practice of electronic voting is reflected with the addition of "or other similarly confidential electronic means."
3.1.4 PERSONNEL FILE
The University shall maintain at its Human Resources office an official personnel file for each member of the faculty. [, which shall be the exclusive file for personnel decisions, and which includes all personnel] Other personnel files maintained in the department, major unit, or university administrative offices [. Provisions regarding files shall apply to all that are maintained. The files] shall be [maintained,] supervised and kept in a secure, locked place, by the appropriate administrators[;] (department files by the chair, major unit files by the dean or director, and University files by the administrator designated by the President).
Rationale: Human Resources keeps the official personnel file. This file is not exclusive, but is the only official one. Personnel files in other university offices must be supervised and kept secure.
3.3.2 EVALUATION
UNR Faculty Senate Consent Agenda Packet – April 16, 2009
Page 8 of 10

All evaluations shall be initiated by the department and shall be made on the basis of equitable and uniform criteria. Evaluations of instructional faculty shall include an assessment of teaching evaluations completed by their students. Quality of performance for each area of professional activity shall be assessed according to procedures and criteria specified in department, major unit, and these University Bylaws , [. For academic faculty, evaluations shall] and may include peer review. For tenure-track faculty members, external peer review shall be required for promotion or tenure, as specified in major unit and/or department bylaws.
Rationale: Peer review of teaching is not done in many departments. We propose that it not be mandatory.
3.3.6 RECLASSIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE FACULTY POSITIONS
A reclassification of an administrative faculty member is in recognition of the level of work and responsibilities assigned to that position. A member of the administrative faculty may request reclassification of the administrative range of his/her current position at any time after the first year of employment .
Rationale: The administration proposes that reclassification not be requested until after the first year of employment.
3.4.4 SCHEDULE FOR EVALUATION OF PROBATIONARY FACULTY b. Three Year Review - A probationary member of the faculty must be evaluated and advised regarding progress toward tenure recommendation no later than the end of the third full academic year as a probationary member of the academic faculty of the university and, if not granted tenure, annually thereafter. The probationary faculty member shall be informed of this evaluation in writing, including the program of improvement that must be undertaken to be considered for tenure at a later date. All third-year reviews shall be forwarded by the dean or major unit administrator to the
Executive Vice-President and Provost.
Rationale: Reflects current practice.
3.5.1 NONREAPPOINTMENT OF NONTENURED FACULTY
Notification of nonreappointment of nontenured members of the faculty shall be made in accordance with the provisions prescribed in [Subsections 5.9.1 to 5.9.4] Title 2, Chapter 5 of the Code. [In accordance with
Section 3.3.7 of these Bylaws, when a recommendation or decision not to renew an appointment has first been reached, the faculty member involved will be informed of that recommendation or decision in writing by the body or individual making the initial recommendation or decision, and the faculty member may request written notice of reasons.] Administrative decisions or recommendations involving the nonreappointment of a nontenured faculty member shall be communicated in writing, within 15 college working days, to the faculty member by the administrator making the initial decision or recommendation. Such written notices of or recommendations for nonreappointment shall include reasons for the decision or recommendation.
Rationale: Subsections of the Code may change, so only Title and Chapter are specified. We propose that initial notices of or recommendations for nonreappointment include reasons, without the appointee having to ask for them.
UNR Faculty Senate Consent Agenda Packet – April 16, 2009
Page 9 of 10

3.5.7
SABBATICAL AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT LEAVE S
The major purpose of sabbatical and professional development leaves is to provide the faculty opportunity for continued professional growth and new or renewed intellectual achievement through study, research, writing, creative work and travel, so that teaching effectiveness may be enhanced, scholarly usefulness increased, and the institution's academic, research, and service programs strengthened. Any faculty member with academic equivalent rank, including the rank of lecturer, who shall, at the beginning of the proposed leave, have served full-time on either a ten- or twelve-month contract for six or more salaried years without a sabbatical leave is eligible to apply for sabbatical or professional development leave.
Rationale: Corrects an oversight. IF ADOPTED, TITLE NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED IN THE TABLE OF
CONTENTS ALSO.
3.6.3 VICE-PRESIDENTS
The President, in making a nomination for vice-president to the Board of Regents, shall consult with the faculty.
Consultation shall involve a faculty screening committee selected in accordance with provisions defined by the
Administrative Manual. The committee shall present a list [ranked slate] of three or more candidates to the
President and shall meet with the President to discuss the proposed candidates.
Rationale: The President prefers an unranked list of candidates.
UNR Faculty Senate Consent Agenda Packet – April 16, 2009
Page 10 of 10