CONSENT AGENDA
University of Nevada, Reno
2010-11 Faculty Senate
May 12, 2011
JCSU – Rita Laden Senate Chambers
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.
Request to Approve the May 4, 2011 Meeting Minutes
Action/Enclosure
2.
Request to Approve the University Administrative Manual Revisions: vetted
by the UAM Committee & the Executive Board
Please note that additions are underlined
Deletions are strikethroughs
a. 2,690 Faculty Providing Consulting Services
Action/Enclosure
Faculty Senate Curricular Review Report (Amended Version)
Action/Enclosure
.
3.
May 12,2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Action/Enclosure
Page 1
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
May 12, 2011
Consent Agenda Item #1
May 4, 2011 Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
1. Roll Call and Introductions:
Gerald Ackerman (SOM), Pat Arnott (COS), Rafik Beekun (COB), Mike Bennett (A &F), Todd Borman (IT), Patricia Ellison
(CABNR), Isabelle Favre (CLA), Keith Hackett (Pres), Eric Herzik (Chair), Jodi Herzik for Vannessa Nicholas (Prov), Julie
Hogan (DHS), Yanyao Jiang (EN), Stephen Lafer (COE), Kami Larsen (SOM), Amy McFarland (SOM), Donica Mensing
(JO), Glenn Miller (CABNR), Louis Niebur (CLA), Elissa Palmer (SOM), Elissa Palmer for Catherine Goring (SOM), Elliott
Parker (Past Chair), Crystal Parrish (DEV), Chuck Price (SS), Maggie Ressel (Lib), Alice Running (DHS), David Ryfe
(Chair-Elect), Janet Sanderson (Pres), Madeleine Sigman-Grant (COOP), Valerie Smith (VPR), Valerie Weinstein (CLA),
Leah Wilds (CLA), David Zeh (COS).
Absent: Rich Schultz (COS).
Guests: Amanda Albert, Molly Albert, Phil Boardman, Stacy Burton, Scott Casper, Cari Cunningham, Robert del Carlo
Robert Dickens, Susan Donaldson, Lucy Dugan, Juliana Fehr, Michael Fernbach, Rob Gander, Scott Gieb, Karen Hinton,
Meghan Kirwin, Katrin Lamprecht, Barbara Land, James Mardock, Dan Parrish, Jonathan Price, Eric Rasmussen, Sameer
Regmi, Stephen Rock, Sara Sinnett, JoAnne Skelly, Allyson Stronach, C.J. Walters, Larry Walters, Claudene Wharten.
2. Clicker Instruction:
Alina Solovyova-Vincent went over clicker instructions for senators to use for voting.
There will be three voting options approve, do not approve, and abstain.
Microphone instructions: Please push the button and ensure you are speaking into the microphone.
3. Consent Agenda:
Elliott Parker asked to pull both the March 24, 2011 and April 21, 2011 meeting minutes from the consent agenda. He
asked that the following amendments be made: 3-24-11 in the roll call, he should be listed as past chair, not from COB,
and in the 4-21-11 minutes it should be Richard Bryan, not Richard Bryant.
MOTION: Parker/Beekun. To approve the minutes as amended.
ACTION: Passed unanimously
4. Chairs Introduction:
Chair Eric Herzik went over the curricular review process, what the senate would consider today, how the meeting would
run and how the faculty comment period would be run.
5. Faculty Comment:
Barbara Land, Lecturer Theatre and Dance
She taught the first ballet class ever at the university, she was responsible for design and implementation of the dance
minor curriculum. She would like the senate to know that the program has 1400 students and that they have been filled
beyond capacity. They offer two performances per year and each of those performances were typically sold out. They
have brought in renowned artists to the performances and the performances were funded with grants. The community
outreach was outstanding. To date, 21,000 Washoe County School students have attended the performances. They also
worked with Marvin Piccolo School.
JoAnne Skelly, Associate Professor, College of Cooperative Extension:
The Provost’s report stated that Cooperative Extension was isolated from the UNR teaching mission. Cooperative
Extension’s 800,000 educational contacts last year alone would disagree with that. UNCE was not isolated; families,
seniors, children, farmers, ranchers, businesses, and local governments count on them to bring the university to them in
their communities. UNR was isolated from the counties, especially the rural counties, without cooperative extension. As
for the isolation from the research mission, their scholarship criteria were just as stringent and their faculty brought in
almost $5,000,000 in grants funding alone. The UNCE faculty were well published and have international recognition.
These deep cuts to extension would tell the people of Nevada that they were not important to the university. Did UNR
want to continue to be seen or to develop the reputation as an elitist institution, because many of the people of Nevada,
could not get here so they didn’t count and that would be what UNR was saying to those people.
Parker apologized for using the term “cooperative extension service.”
May 12,2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 2
James Mardock, Assistant Professor, Department of English:
Cari Cunningham was needed on this campus. She could theorize space and environment and perception in ways that
other departments couldn’t. During Curricular Review last time he was told that as part of the English Department he
would not have to worry. He works for the University of Nevada, Reno and we cannot operate in a vacuum. He
fundamentally questions the concept of enough majors. He would not want to see limited majors, not all majors are made
for everyone. If students were only offered majors that were for everyone, then this institution could not be called in a
meaningful way, a university.
Cari Cunningham, Assistant Professor, Theatre and Dance:
She fully supports here colleagues in Theatre, but feels compelled to speak about the decision to cut the minor in dance.
The elimination of the minor would set the program back thirty years. This would send a message that this campus did not
support the academic pursuit of the physical art form. Of the 25 credits in the dance minor, only six were physical course,
the dance minor included classes such as: dance history, choreographic principles, methods of teaching dance and
creative movement. The program currently costs less than 300,000 per year.
If the dance minor was eliminated, then this would also eliminate all female faculty in the department.
Rob Gander, Chair Theatre and Dance:
Art was not easy, and it was not unusual for an artist to wonder why they chose this profession. Theatre like a democracy
could only be done in collaboration and the university needed to work democratically to save theatre. As in Eric Herzik’s
April 5, 2011 letter regarding current cuts: “are an unprecedented assault on academic quality, faculty rights (and to be
honest all employee rights on campus) and the ideal – practiced for centuries – of shared academic governance. “ Rob
would like to save all of the academic programs; why make faculty complicit in the view of shared governance? Do not
dismantle this university.
Lucy Dugan, student Secondary Education major and dance minor:
Her mom, Mary Dugan General Counsel for the university, was a dance major in college and this taught her to be
creative. She used this creativity every day in her job to present arguments to help the university. Lucy would be using
dance in the classrooms to help students learn how to be good presenters. This program has taught her a lot about
communication through movement and how to participate in campus life. She would hate to see the faculty in dance leave
this university.
Jon Price, Director of the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology:
The Bureau has a legislative mandate through a series of laws and they would not be able to meet this mandate with the
$1 million Provost’s proposal. The Bureau has had a number of discussions with Department of Geological Sciences and
Engineering and believed that those discussions would help the department and the university.
Susan Donaldson, Associate Professor, Cooperative Extension:
A line has been drawn and cooperative extension was on the wrong side. Despite UNRs vision, mission, and strategic
plan which all focus on the people of Nevada, a choice was made to gut cooperative extension. Perhaps it has been
forgotten who funds this institution, the taxpayer of Nevada. When the vote to remove funds from Cooperative Extension’s
budget lines occurs, then the university would be thumbing their noses at the people of Nevada. We are the only land
grant university in the state of Nevada and we exist to serve the people of Nevada.
There were no more public comments:
Herzik took this opportunity to thank Barbara Land who brought dance to this campus. She delivered on everything she
said in her statement.
Stephen Lafer addressed the senate and said he sent notes to colleagues, and was concerned that the Curricular Review
Process had put everyone in an awkward position and destroyed any sense of community. The senate has had to deal
with particulars without really having the opportunity and the will to think fully about the kind of pain and grief this process
has caused. This has been difficult to sit and adjudicate on others and vote on whether or not they should be fired. He
would like the senate to look at the basic causes of the problems we face. The budget cuts were not just our problem. We
were suffering from the mistakes others had made. We have been complicit in this and in how to solve the problems.
Lafer did not see a way around the process, but we were not doing anyone any good and we were doing worse things by
not speaking out as a senate. With all the things being cut, we are not a university. We need to put on our future agendas,
what the problems are, what solutions there could be. We are the stewards of the community and the nation. What is the
university, what is its purpose, who does the university serve?
May 12,2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 3
Think about how we set ourselves up to be capable of dealing with these kinds of problems that we are facing now and do
what is necessary to make sure that in future decisions that are made are formed of and by the people.
Herzik said that at the last meeting: were unable to address broader thinking about curricular review discussions and
critical thinking would be made. We would begin that discussion again at our next meeting and it would be on the agenda
for the next meeting.
6. Curricular Review Committee Report and Recommendations:
Elliott Parker asked for a moment of silence for Milton Glick and for the ideal of a public university.
Parker thanked the members of the committee, he said that he had not served with a more thoughtful and diligent
committee.
The committee was recommending the downsizing of Cooperative Extension, the downsizing and reorganization of the
NBMG, the downsizing of French program, the elimination of dance program and the memorandum of agreement with
special collections.
Link to the report:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/committees/CRCTE_Spring2011/FSCRC2011_Report.pdf
MOTION: Wilds/ Miller. To accept the report as published.
ACTION: Passed unanimously.
Proposal 1: Reduction in Size of the University of Nevada Cooperative Extension (UNCE)
The Provost is proposing to cut UNCE’s state budget by approximately $5.5 million, leaving it with a state budget of $2.2
million. To get to that number, the Provost proposed significantly reducing extension administration, while maintaining at
least one state, area or regional specialist at 0.80 state funding in the six statutorily required subject fields, along with
continuing all 16 current Extension Education positions on a combination of state and county funds. In this scenario, 31
specialist positions would be eliminated, and all 37 specialists would receive notices of lay-off or non-reappointment with
the opportunity to apply for the retained specialist positions. According to this proposal, UNCE will still be able to meet the
requirements of existing cooperative agreements with Nevada's County Commissions for the continuation of county
extension programs, maintain the state 4-H Camp (NRS Chapter 550), and retain the core Land Grant University
responsibilities for Cooperative Extension.
The Provost notes that the state is legally required to match the funding provided to UNCE by the federal
government. While the university has allocated $7,678,549 in state funding for UNCE, the amount required by the
matching agreement is $1,153,230, an over-match of $6,525,319. The Provost acknowledges the important outreach and
public service function that UNCE provides. UNCE is, however, relatively isolated from the core teaching and research
mission of the university and the Provost argues for a reduction to nearly $2.2 million, which is adequate for the required
match even after deducting charges for operations & maintenance.
UNCE Response:
The UNCE Curricular Review Committee developed two responses to the Provost’s proposal. Alternative A is an attempt
to meet the Provost’s budget cuts of $5.5 million. Alternative B proposes to cut UNCE’s budget by the $2.6 million
originally recommended by the Governor’s Executive Budget (33.2%).
UNCE Alternative Proposal A
UNCE proposes that it be moved to NSHE, in order to better collaborate with all NSHE institutions. This
proposal assumes that operations and maintenance (O&M) funds of about $700,000 would not be charged
against its $2.2 million budget. More specifically, this alternative proposes to eliminate the Assistant
Dean/Assistant Director position as well as the state 4-H specialist and an unspecified number of classified
positions. It also recommends the creation of 10 state-supported specialists positions at 0.75 FTE (instead of
0.80), with the option of faculty supporting the remaining 0.25 FTE of their salaries with grants. This alternative
also proposes the retention of 15 state-supported extension educator positions at 0.90 FTE, with the option of
faculty funding the remaining 0.10 of their salaries with grant funding. One extension educator position (Southern
Nye County) would be converted to a classified or administrative position.
In those counties where the only 4-H staff person has been funded partially or fully by state funds, UNCE
proposes retaining enough state funding to bring the position up to 0.51 FTE. The proposal also requests
incentives to help meet the targeted shortfall number, through a voluntary separation agreement that offers a
lump-sum payment equal to half the annual salary, as under some circumstances this results in mutual benefit for
the university and the faculty member.
May 12,2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 4
UNCE Alternative Proposal B
Alternative B recommends that UNCE’s budget be cut at the rate recommended in Governor Sandoval’s
Executive Budget (33.2%, a reduction of $2.6 million). This plan also proposes moving UNCE to NSHE, the better
to collaborate with all NSHE institutions. More specifically, the plan calls for combining the Assistant
Dean/Assistant Director position with the state 4-H program leader; eliminating separate office space for the
Central/Northeast Area Director; reducing state-supported operating expenses; and remitting the charges
assessed to UNCE for O&M. Retirement incentives are again requested to help meet the targeted shortfall.
Alternative B proposes eliminating all campus-based specialist positions and conducting internal searches for:
0.50 FTE Economic Development; 0.50 FTE Water Resources; 0.50 FTE Range Health; 0.25 FTE Veterinary
Medicine/Livestock; 0.25 FTE Health and Nutrition; 0.50 FTE Youth Development; and 0.25 FTE Program
Evaluation/Impact Assessment.
This alternative recommends: reducing the number of state-funded horticulture positions in Clark County
from three to two and transferring the remaining faculty to Pahrump as the extension educator; eliminating vacant
specialist positions for livestock, weeds and water quantity; and removing 1.5 classified and administrative faculty
FTE from state funding, leaving open the option for counties to support these positions; eliminating one vacant
classified position in the Dean’s office; reducing classified FTE by .50 in the statewide administrative office; and
eliminating state funding for the Area Extension Specialist, Aging Wellness position. Finally, new fee-based
horticulture certification courses would be created; the fees would be used to offset the cost of horticulture
coordinator positions.
Discussion:
Madeleine Sigman-Grant talked about the land grant mission. NSHE receives the funding for Cooperative Extension and
in turn delegates the funds so UNR becomes the holder of the covenant. UNR administration has abdicated its role as the
land grant institution. Also the faculty senate has gone along with the dismantling of the land grant obligation. First, the
senate approved the strategic plan that addressed outreach but failed to specifically mention UNCE. Second, the first two
points of the criteria for curricular review had classroom education which UNCE faculties were legally restricted from
performing and this was being used against them. Third, no UNCE member was given a seat of the Provost’s Budget
Advisory Committee. The university did not allocate the funds; those were allocated from the legislature and should not be
moved out of UNCE’s budget line. The $6 million was not an overmatch, but the amount of money needed to educate the
citizens of Nevada. There was no documentation of Cooperative Extensions’ research in the Provost’s proposal or the
faculty senate curricular review committee report. In fact, charge 4 stated that there was little evidence that UNCE
activities impact the university’s core missions of teaching and research. She was disheartened that the committee did not
recognize the scholarship contribution of research from Cooperative Extension faculty of UNCE in the amount of $ 5.2
million in grants and contracts. UNCE questioned how closely the committee read the counter proposal as there were 23
pages of appendices that spoke to the accomplishments of the UNCE faculty. Madeleine challenged the Faculty Senate
Curricular Review Committee (FSCRC) conclusion that Cooperative Extension did not impact the core mission of
research. If the primary functions of UNR were classroom instruction and research, then why not support the movement of
Cooperative Extension to NSHE, this would alleviate UNRs issue and allow UNCE to maintain their educational duties.
She hoped that the senate could see the way to use the governor’s budget (plan b), if that was not possible, then accept
the UNCE proposal. The Curricular Review Committee did not challenge the appropriateness of the Provost’s criteria, so
the conclusion was that they embraced the abandonment of the land grant mission. Outreach should be part of the criteria
for an outreach unit.
Glenn Miller said that the Cooperative Extension cut was deeply troubling as were all of the cuts. This was a large chunk
of money that was seen as an easy grab. Their research productivity has been quite good. Outreach mission was good
and this was troubling. This should not have been an easy way to cut. UNCE is an excellent group of faculty. The senate
needed to look at this seriously, the outreach mission is critical. While don’t feel that we are elitist, many of us are. We are
dismantling the university piece by piece. He will support Plan A as feels that allows an opportunity to recover.
Valerie Smith said that her constituents supported Plan B and were willing to look at Cooperative Extension moving to
NSHE.
Recommendation 1: The faculty senate should approve the adoption of the Alternative Proposal A prepared by
University of Nevada Cooperative Extension (labeled as Plan 2 in the UNCE response) with the exception of its proposal
to move UNCE to the NSHE System level.
MOTION: Parker/Ryfe. To approve the committee’s recommendation as published.
ACTION: Passed 19 approved, 9 opposed 1 abstention
May 12,2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 5
Proposal 2: Reduction in Size/Reorganization of the Nevada Bureau of Mines & Geology
The Provost proposes reorganizing the Nevada Bureau of Mines & Geology (NBMG) as a program within Department of
Geological Sciences & Engineering (DGSE) and to reduce their state budget from $2,108,907 to $1,000,000 in FY13. The
core statutory and programmatic functions of NBMG and the State Geologist would be preserved. Externally-funded
research activities, including externally funded faculty and staff would be retained. The Provost states that while NBMG
provides an important public service function, it is not closely connected to the ability of the University to fulfill its teaching
and research missions.
NBMG Response:
Because the Provost’s Proposal contains two significant elements, the NBMG addressed each of those elements
separately: 1) Administrative Merging with the Department of Geological Science & Engineering (DGSE) and 2) Proposed
Cuts in State Funding.
1) Administrative Merging with Department of Geological Science and Engineering
NBMG does not support merging administratively with DGSE. The research mission of NBMG has been well
coordinated with DGSE in the past. NBMG recognizes the need and benefits of focusing more effort on educating
undergraduate and graduate students: while NBMG faculty have been involved in teaching, they propose that NBMG
faculty will teach approximately one course per year per FTE.
2) Proposed Cuts in State Funding
The proposal from NBMG details the impact of cutting the current budget of $2.1 million to $1.7 million, to $1.4 million,
and to $1 million (with attention to the ability of NBMG to perform its functions). If their budget is cut to $1.7 million, the
following functions would be affected:




Serve as a bureau of information and exchange on Nevada mineral industry, mineral resources and geology.
By questionnaire, field investigations, laboratory studies or otherwise, conduct a thorough survey of the mineral
resources and geology of the state.
Apply geologic engineering principles to problems of conservation, environment, construction, mineral industry
and other scientific matters that may be of importance to the welfare of the state.
Retain enough funds to retain the national search for a new State Geologist/Director of NBMG.
With a budget set at $1.4 million, a level that NBMG argued would still be sufficient to support staff to facilitate
research productivity of the remaining faculty, the functions listed above would be affected, as well as these additional
functions and the loss of four faculty FTE and one classified staff FTE:


Consult with, advise, and assist state and local governmental agencies on geological problems of importance to
the citizens of Nevada.
Consider such other kindred scientific and economic questions as in the judgment of the Board of Regents shall
be deemed of value to the people of the state.
Reducing the budget to $1 million, as the Provost proposes, would require the layoff of three of the current five
classified staff and six of the 13 faculty FTE, and would affect these additional services:




Make studies of mineral materials to determine the most economical and practical methods of concentrating and
processing these resources and to promote their conservation.
Collect, in collaboration with the Mackay School of Mines, a library and bibliography of all literature pertaining to
Nevada mineral industry, geology and mineral resources.
Collect, in collaboration with the Mackay School of Mines, typical geological and mineralogical specimens and
models, drawings and descriptions of appliances used in the mineral industry and earth science. Collections of
these materials may be maintained and displayed elsewhere within or without the state.
Provide for the dissemination of information on the mineral industry, geology and mineral resources of the state
through lectures and publications.
NBMG indicates that the cuts proposed by the Provost are too severe to meet their state-mandated mission. They
therefore propose a graduated time scale in order to reach the Provost’s target budget, as follows:

Encourage the Legislature to provide extra funding to the University to maintain the funding level at $1.7 million to
cover the statutory functions of NBMG. NBMG states that their programs stimulate the Nevada economy through
resource development, saving lives and property, and attracting significant external funding.
May 12,2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 6

Work over time to achieve the Provost’s goal of $1 million in state support by supplementing state support through
returning indirect F&A revenues that NBMG generates, beginning at 90% in FY2012 (approximately $610,000)
and reaching 15.5% ($105,000) in FY2016, the same as the combined shares for the principal investigator and
the department. The return of F&A would be used to provide a transition as faculty increase external funding.
College of Science Review:
The College of Science Curricular Review Committee voted on the Provost’s proposal, and the NBMG proposal to reduce
funding to $1.7 million and to maintain NBMG as a self-managed entity within the college and university. The vote was 5
in favor of the Provost’s recommendations, 5 in favor of the NBMG proposal and 2 abstentions.
The review committee provided arguments for and against the Provost’s recommendations. In favor, the committee stated
that the cuts proposed by the Provost would need to be made within the university if NBMG was not cut, and that this
would most likely result in cuts to academic departments and units. Therefore, the NBMG cuts are necessary. In
arguments against the proposal, the committee stated the need for NBMG because of its impact on the state economy, its
state-mandated mission, and its productivity.
Discussion:
Pat Arnott said regarding the vote within the COS for the decision to choose the various options, he thought that perhaps
the vote was somewhat inappropriate. Some of the faculty that he spoke with felt that it was either NBMG or perhaps their
department would get cut if they did not vote for this one. Also some faculty felt that they did not have enough information
to make an informed decision. The soft money tenure and tenure track currently teach some undergraduate class. They
could leverage $ 2 million in state support to bring in $ 4 million in grants. If there budget is cut to $ 1 million it could not be
expected that they will bring in a proportional amount in grants.
It is not fiscally wise for the state to cut this program as there will be a net loss to the university.
Recommendation 2:
The Faculty senate should approve the adoption of the Provost’s proposal to reorganize and downsize the Nevada
Bureau of Mines and Geology.
MOTION: Parker/Ryfe: to approve the recommendation as published.
ACTION: passed
Approve: 20, Opposed 7, 2 abstentions.
The Special Collections will be discussed and considered at the end as the senate would be voting on a Memorandum of
Understanding.
Proposals 3 and 4 were withdrawn.
Proposal 5: Close the Department of Theatre and Dance
The Provost proposes closing the Department of Theatre and Dance, including the B.A. and B.F.A. degrees in Theatre
and minors in Theatre and Dance. Justification for the closure focused on the size of the program, citing six degrees
awarded in theatre along with production of 79.1 student full time equivalents during academic year 2009-10.
The provost’s target reduction in this proposal is $894,962, though the department estimated its total cost at
$901,312. The proposal calls for eliminating seven professional positions and several Letter of Appointment (LOA) faculty
associated with the Theatre and Dance.
Response from the Department of Theater & Dance:
In response to the Provost’s proposal, department personnel developed a counter-proposal that would reduce the size of
the department budget by 33 percent but still retain the B.A. major in Theater and minors in Theatre and Dance.
The counter-proposal from the department:


Maintains the theatre B.A. and minor but puts the Theatre B.F.A. major in hiatus.
Reduces the number of credits required for a major and minor.
May 12,2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 7





Eliminates one faculty position through a retirement in June 2012.
Eliminates two LOA positions by making Introduction to Theatre a large lecture course.
Eliminates the offload for the chair position, increasing the teaching load to 2/2.
Assigns teaching duties to two administrative faculty.
Reduces the number of major productions of the Nevada Repertory Theatre Company from four to two a year.
With respect to the Dance program, the counter-proposal from the department:





Reduces operating costs for Dance by half (from $4,000 to $8,000).
Reduces the credits for a minor from 25 to 19.
Eliminates the lecturer position.
Reduces the LOA budget from $40,750 to $3,500.
Cuts the salary of the two Dance faculty by 10%.
The department made a number of arguments in regards to their program, including the following:









Theatre and dance are essential elements of the humanistic purpose of a university. Students who participate in
these endeavors and audiences who partake of them become the richer for that experience.
A theatre and dance program contributes substantially to creating a “sticky campus.” More than 3,000 people, a
mix of community members and students, attend theatre and dance productions every semester.
The program attracts internationally renowned professionals for in-residence programs. Alumni of the program
have distinguished themselves nationally and internationally in film, Broadway and television.
Theatre and dance are critical to university recruitment. Students in local high schools have robust theatre
programs and expect the same of the universities they chose to attend. Students have voted for an arts fee in
addition to tuition, to support a strong program.
The program has significant influence beyond its majors. In spring 2011, 653 students were enrolled in dance
classes and 448 students in theatre classes. Both Theatre and Dance have popular fine arts classes in the core
curriculum.
The Theatre and Dance program at UNR focuses on performance and technical opportunities for undergraduate
students. The UNLV program is substantially different, focused on professional hires and graduate student
performers.
The department has experienced growth in its number of majors, despite the fact that Theatre and Dance have
comprised a combined unit for less than a year. Even with the upheaval of reorganization and loss of faculty due
to vacated positions and cancelled searches, they currently have 75 majors and 62 minors.
The program has built several rewarding new partnerships, including with the Lake Tahoe Shakespeare Festival
and Kennedy Center-American College Theatre Festival.
Eliminating Theatre and Dance would render the “School of the Arts” little more than a shadow designation.
The proposed changes are estimated to reduce the cost of the Theatre major by 31%, to $193,476, and reduce the cost of
the Dance minor by 37% to $103,344. The net effect would be to reduce the cost of the Theatre and Dance department
from $894,962 to $604,493.
CLA Planning Committee Proposal:
The College of Liberal Arts Planning Committee also produced a set of recommendations regarding the Department of
Theatre and Dance. The committee rejects the provost’s proposal and instead endorses portions of the department
counter-proposal. The committee does not endorse the voluntary salary cut made by the two faculty in Dance. The
committee also feels the cumulative effect of the proposed changes will seriously weaken both programs. Therefore, the
CLA planning committee endorses its own proposal, including the following elements:






Eliminate the B.F.A. degree in Theatre.
Accomplish the department’s proposed revisions to the Theatre major and minor, with concomitant savings in
LOAs.
Accomplish further instructional efficiencies through reassignment of faculty to other courses.
Reduce the number of annual productions in Theatre, as proposed.
Close the minor in Dance, along with the positions associated with this program (one probationary tenure-track
faculty member and one lecturer).
Maintain a small number of course offerings in Dance, taught by lecturers or LOA instructors (at roughly the
current cost of one lecturer and a number of LOAs in Dance) and financed partly through existing soft money in
Dance. (Incidental operating expenses for continued Dance instruction would be covered from existing Theatre
operating budget.)
May 12,2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 8

Convert one position in an upcoming retirement to a tenure‐ track line in acting (the position for which the
department has searched for two years, only to have both searches cancelled for budgetary reasons). This would
strengthen the theatre portion of the department.
The CLA proposal results in a 37.2% savings ($335,473), compared to the current department budget.
Discussion:
Louis Niebur said that both Cari Carrington and Barbara Land spoke eloquently and he did not understand how the
university could remove the dance minor, eliminate the theatre major and still have a School of Fine Arts. He did not think
this was a precedent that should be established here.
Lafer said that universities were one of the places that preserved the underappreciated courses that the arts offer and
removal of these courses significantly harms the university.
Miller: The issue of offering to reduce your salary is not something that anyone wants to do, but in this case he felt that the
senate should consider that. Parker said that in the discussions with the provost it seemed that salary cuts were a very
bad option. There might be an increased possibility of coercion under the guise of curricular review. It was different than
changing a faculty member’s title and responsibilities and lowering salary that way.
Miller said that these were extreme times and this precedent would not be used often. This was a voluntary method of
resolving a difficult situation, if the money stayed the same then those faculty should be given that option.
The CLA planning committee thought that this would be a race to the bottom, and while the current provost may not use
coercion; a future administrator might with this precedent.
Valerie Weinstein disagreed, she said that it was one thing to race to the bottom of the salary and quite another to offer
them a lectureship. The German Department offered different solutions and instead the provost offered a $ 20 thousand
pay cut and a 4/4 teaching load. Weinstein said she would preferred a salary cut and the continued ability to do her
research, rather than be demoted in rank, salary, and have the teaching loads doubled
Trish Ellison said that the proposal was like CABNR going to the COS. This was similar to going from an A to B contract.
Were there any differences between this? A to B is 12 months to 9 months, reducing time in effort. The department
proposal offers them the same amount of work for less pay.
Miller guaranteed that it was not a voluntary movement from A to B for those in that situation. The options under these
circumstances this should be allowed.
Keith Hackett: if we start to dismantle things that change the culture of the campus we were doing them and our students
a disservice. Perhaps the senate could put a time limit on the length of the voluntary salary reduction, so when the budget
improves their salaries could be looked at again.
Chuck Price said that he could not support the elimination of the dance minor.
Isabelle Favre: The School of Arts was coming together; they have put on some collaborative productions.
David Zeh: This was a horrific committee to be on. He would support an amendment to the recommendation. Wilds would
also support that.
Recommendation 5:
The Faculty Senate should approve the adoption of the CLA planning committee proposal, keeping the Theatre program
but eliminating the Dance minor.
MOTION: Parker/Ryfe. To approve the recommendation as published.
ACTION: Failed. Approved 4, Opposed 25
MOTION: Weinstein/Wilds. To accept the department proposal with the voluntary salary reduction accepted.
Discussion:
Elissa Palmer was concerned about the part of that motion that addressed the voluntary salary reduction and wondered if
someone could come up with alternate wording, perhaps a reduction in FTE?
She asked for a friendly amendment to change the motion from: to accept the department proposal with the voluntary
salary reduction to a reduction in FTE.
MOTION: To accept the friendly amendment.
ACTION: passed unanimously
There was discussion regarding where the FTE reduction could be taken as they already have a high SFTE and cannot
lower the teaching load. The FTE could be reduced in service or research. The 10% FTE reduction would be on top of the
5% pay cut that would happen across campus.
Proposal 6: Close the Academic Degrees in French
The Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures (FLL) in the College of Liberal Arts offers BA degrees with majors
in French and Spanish, and minors in French, Japanese Studies and Spanish, as well as interdisciplinary minors in
May 12,2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 9
Basque Studies, International Affairs, and Latin American Studies. At the graduate level, FLL offers M.A. degrees with
specializations in either Spanish or French. FLL was downsized as a result of curricular review in 2010, when the B.A.
major in German, and B.A. minors in German and Italian were closed, resulting in elimination of four tenured faculty
positions (three in German and one in Italian). In 2010, the Provost’s curricular review proposal also called for the closure
of B.A. and M.A. degree programs in French. However, this proposal was retracted based on recommendations of the
2010 FSCRC.
The Provost’s current (2011) proposal again includes elimination of the B.A. major and minor in French, and the
M.A. degree with a French specialization. Closure of degree programs in French will eliminate four tenure-track faculty
positions and one lecturer (currently on a contract that is renewable contingent upon funding), at an anticipated savings of
$464,676. Lower-division French language courses will continue to be offered by temporary faculty (although temporary
faculty costs have not been factored into the Provost’s proposed budget reduction). As rationale for the proposed cuts, the
Provost indicates that FLL produces a significant number of graduates only in Spanish, and that French awarded 15 B.A.
degrees and produced 86.6 student full time equivalents in 2009-2010.
Response from the Department of Foreign Languages & Literatures (FLL):
In response to the Provost’s proposal, the department developed a counterproposal that would maintain the B.A. major
and minor in French, while reducing state-funded expenditures by $188,821. The proposal also argued in favor of keeping
the M.A. because eliminating it did not save any money. The budget reduction is achieved primarily through a combination
of voluntary salary reductions, position reassignments, and the elimination of temporary instructors. Specifically, the
department plan includes:





Lowering salary costs of the French faculty by reassigning two tenured faculty to lecturer positions, and by voluntarily
reducing the salaries of the two continuing tenured faculty and the existing lecturer. The proposal to convert tenured
positions to lecturer positions is based on evidence that two of the four tenured faculty focus almost exclusively on
teaching and do not participate extensively in scholarly activity and service.
Reducing the number of sections of language courses across FLL to increase teaching efficiency.
Defunding the Multimedia Language Laboratory.
Reducing administrative assistant staffing in FLL and the Latino Research Center.
Eliminating the cost of temporary (LOA/LOB) instruction by increasing teaching loads.
In addition to offering a budgetary counterproposal to the Provost’s plan, the FLL presented several arguments against
closure of academic degrees in French. FLL justifications for maintaining degree programs in French include:




A large and steadily growing number of French majors (approximately 90) and minors (approximately 50) at UNR,
high numbers compared to UNLV and other comparable U.S. universities.
The importance of offering more than four semesters of language instruction in order to produce FLL graduates who
are fluent and can successfully compete in an increasingly global economy.
The critical role played by the UNR French program in fostering French instruction in middle schools and high
schools in northern Nevada.
The desirability of offering degree programs in more than one foreign language.
The department counterproposal retains academic degree programs in French and reduces the cost of running the
program by an estimated $188,821, a savings of at least 41% ($188,821/$464,676). The actual percentage saving is
significantly higher than 41% if the cost of supporting temporary instructors is included in the calculation (see below). The
proposal reassigns two of four tenured faculty to lecturer positions, and entails voluntary salary reductions to the two
continuing tenured faculty and the already-existing lecturer.
CLA Planning Committee Proposal:
After reviewing the Provost’s and the FLL proposals, the College of Liberal Arts Planning Committee issued its own set of
recommendations regarding degree programs in French. The committee rejected the Provost’s proposal and endorsed
many but not all of the department’s counterproposals. Specifically, the CLA Planning Committee:




Endorsed reassignment of two of the four tenured faculty to lecturer positions.
Endorsed the proposal to increase teaching efficiency by reducing the number of sections of language courses
across FLL.
Endorsed the proposal to defund the Multimedia language lab.
Endorsed the proposal to eliminate LOA positions in French.
May 12,2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 10



Rejected the department’s proposal for voluntary salary cuts, arguing that such cuts could establish a “slippery
slope” precedent whereby faculty units compete to lower their perceived risk of being included in curricular review,
making it difficult to attract and retain the best faculty.
Proposed elimination of the current lecturer position as an undesirable but necessary cost-cutting measure.
Proposed elimination of the M.A. degree program with a French specialization based on the premise that two
tenure-track faculty are too few to support a graduate program.
This proposal results in a total budget reduction estimated at $218,879, a savings of at least 47% ($218,879/$464,676).
The CLA committee estimates that after including the cost of paying temporary employees to teach lower division French
courses, the actual savings is 64% ($218,879/$340,000) of what the Provost proposed.
Discussion:
Favre thanked the committee for accepting to serve on this difficult committee. UNR is the main research institution of
Nevada, so the mission focuses on research and students. The French major has tripled and given the opportunity they
would continue to grow. The students were working in a global environment and having languages and a dual major
allowed them to be more competitive in that market. There are 32 countries besides France where French is spoken.
Being put on curricular review is humbling. The differences between the proposal from last year and this: this year did
come up with creative solution, 2 colleagues decided to devote to teaching only and giving up tenure to become lecturers.
Some comments included this being likened to a game of chicken or a game of chess.
Recommendation 6:
The faculty senate should approve the adoption of the proposal of the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures,
except without the voluntary salary reductions and without the M.A. Program.
MOTION: Parker/Ryfe. To approve the recommendation as published:
ACTION: Passed, Approve 25, Opposed 4
Proposal 7: Close the Special Collections and University Archives Department
The Provost proposed closing the university’s special collections in the library, along with the university archives
department. Specific collections would be retained but remain dormant, and retrieval of materials would be on an asneeded basis by other staff. The digitization of special collections would cease, as would any additions to the collections.
Response from Libraries:
Special Collections and Archives drafted a defense of their programs, and a counterproposal was developed to achieve
cost savings through other means. Some state funding would be shifted to available soft funds, acquisitions would be
reduced, some retiring or departing faculty members would not be replaced, and some personnel would be reassigned to
other vacant positions. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was drafted, and signed by the Dean and the Provost. Both
agreed that a formal vote was no longer necessary, and the Provost withdrew his original proposal in favor of this new
understanding.
FSCRC Analysis and Recommendations for Proposal 7:
Charge 1: Satisfied, as explained above.
Charge 2: This committee believes that the Provost’s recommendations were consistent with the Faculty Senate
principles. The process described in section 3.5.4b of the UNR bylaws was initially followed, except that once
their counterproposal was accepted, the faculty of Libraries did not formally vote by agreement of the Provost and
the interim dean.
Charge 3: The affected programs and the college faculty did not formally vote, but the response indicates that they
objected to the Provost’s proposal. This committee was told that the dean spoke individually with a majority of the
college faculty, and that they overwhelmingly supported the alternative.
Charge 4: Cost savings were proposed that could be achieved in other ways, and this did affect the merit of the proposal.
Charge 5: The alternative was considered and approved by the Provost.
Charge 6: This committee recommends endorsement of the Memorandum of Agreement, which will achieve identical
budget savings through other means.
May 12,2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 11
Recommendation 7:
The faculty senate should endorse the MOA between the Provost and the Dean of Libraries:
MOTION: Parker/Ryfe. To approve the recommendation as published.
ACTION: Passed, Approve 28, 1 invalid vote.
The committee had three additional recommendations.
Additional Recommendation 1: Laid-off tenured faculty should have priority over untenured faculty for other positions for
which they are equally qualified, with some accommodation for the need to retool when changing job responsibilities.
Valerie Weinstein said that the recommendation has no teeth. There was discussion that this was a restatement of code
or if code specifically talks about priority over someone from outside the institution.
MOTION: Parker/Wilds. To approve the recommendation as published:
ACTION: Passed, approve 25, Oppose, 3, Abstain 1
Additional Recommendation 2: In general, non-tenured faculty positions should not replace tenured or tenure-track
faculty positions as a way of achieving cost savings, unless an academic program is being significantly downsized or
reduced to a service capacity only.
MOTION: Parker/Wilds. To approve the recommendation as published.
ACTION: Passed, approve 26, Opposed, 3
Additional Recommendation 3: The possibility of voluntary separation packages should be offered to all faculty in
programs affected by curricular review, and proposals by specific individuals should be accepted if they are mutually
beneficial.
The recommendation was amended to read:
All faculty in programs affected by curricular review should be informed of the possibility of voluntary separation packages
and those proposals by specific individuals should be accepted if they are mutually beneficial.
Discussion:
Did this pertain to administrative faculty as well as academic faculty? Yes, if they were a part of curricular review.
MOTION: Parker/ Borman. To approve the amended recommendation.
ACTION: Passed unanimously.
Herzik thanked the committee for their work. Both he and Parker were honored to work with the people on this committee.
Herzik also thanked them for their diligence and for the excellent report.
Meeting Adjourned at 3:35 pm
May 12,2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 12
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
May 12, 2011
Consent Agenda Item #2a
2,690 – Faculty Providing Consulting Services
RATIONALE FOR CHANGE: Revisions were made to clarify the process of faculty obtaining prior written
approval when providing consulting services.
Faculty Providing Consulting Services
2,690
Revised: December 2006 May 2011
Administrative Faculty:
The following policies apply to administrative faculty engaged in professional activities in addition to their regular
university responsibilities.
Consulting at UNR: Administrative faculty may not accept additional compensation for providing the same clientele the
same services which are part of their assigned university duties.
Consulting within NSHE: Administrative faculty who engage in consulting activities related to their professional
responsibilities for other components of NSHE may do so upon approval of the appropriate vice president, and are granted
release time if performed during the normal working hours. Administrative faculty may not accept additional
compensation for services when granted release time.
Outside Consulting: The following policies apply to administrative faculty members providing specialized professional
services compensated through sources other than university administered funds.
a. Faculty members understand that the services must not interfere with normal university duties:
b. Faculty members must inform in writing those who engage them that they are not acting in the name of the
University;
c. When consulting for the State of Nevada agencies, faculty members must receive prior written
permissionapproval from their vice president, dean or director;
d. Administrative faculty who engage in consulting work with agencies or firms outside the University, but not
during normal working hours must request prior written approval, in writing, from their vice president, dean or
director and provide information as to the nature of the services to assure compliance with the conflict of interest
policy;
e. Prior approval is requested via the “Consulting Activity Form”. Consulting approvals must be obtained
for each fiscal year even if the consulting work is ongoing or encompasses more than one fiscal year.
f.
Faculty members on 12-month contracts must take annual leave if providing outside professionl or scholarly
consulting services during the standard work week.
g. University facilities, equipment or personnel may not be used unless such use is authorized by the vice president,
dean or director with proper consideration made therefore.
May 12,2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 13
ACADEMIC AND ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL
Faculty Providing Consulting Services, Continued
2,690
Academic Faculty:
Outside Consulting: Academic faculty members have the right to offer specialized professional services which may
include studies, surveys, consulting, research, teaching, and/or training programs, which are compensated through sources
other than university administered funds. There are certain limiting conditions on the right to obtain payment for federal
consulting services. Faculty members must consider and consult Federal Circular A-21, issued by the Executive Office of
the President through the Office of Management and Budget, in applying the guidelines contained in the Faculty
Consultation Policy before they can claim payment for federal consulting services. Faculty members paid from federal
funds must also consult Circular A-21 before engaging in any consulting services.
The following policies apply to academic faculty members providing specialized professional services compensated
through sources other than university administered funds:
a. Faculty members understand that the services must not interfere with normal university duties;
b. Faculty members must inform those in writing who engage them that they are not acting in the name of the
University;
c. When consulting for the State of Nevada agencies, faculty members must receive prior written permission from
their dean or director;
d. Academic Ffaculty members must notify in writing, request prior written approval from their dean or director
through the appropriate channels and provide information as to the nature of the services to assure compliance
with the conflict of interest policy;
e. Prior approval is requested via the “Consulting Activity Form”. Consulting approvals must be obtained
for each fiscal year even if the consulting work is ongoing or encompasses more than one fiscal year;
f.
For “B” contract faculty,S specialized professional services must not occupy no more than one day's equivalent
time per week, exclusive of non-contract days, evenings, weekends and holidays. Faculty under "A" contract
faculty must take accumulated annual leave time for performance of services upon agreement by the dean or
other appropriate administrator and the university central administration.
g. University facilities, equipment or personnel are may not be used unless such use is authorized by the dean or
director with proper consideration made.
May 12,2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 14
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
May 12, 2011
Consent Agenda Item #3
Three changes to the Curricular Review Committee Report are being made as follows:
Three references to the Cooperative Extension Service have been changed to remove the word
service.
In charge 6 on page 9, the sentence has been changed to remove the word research, to say instead:
“The budget cut proposed in Alternative B is significantly less than that proposed by the Provost,
without significant initiatives to improve the connection of UNCE to the university’s core teaching
mission.”
At the bottom of page 14, the last paragraph has been changed with: “The proposed changes are
estimated to reduce the cost of the Theatre major from $621,570 to $428,094, a reduction of 31%,
and reduce the cost of the Dance minor from $279,742 to $176,399, a reduction of 37%. The
combined budget of the Theatre and Dance department would decrease from $901,312 to $604,493,
a cut of 33%.”
The Senate is being asked to endorse these changes so that the revised report may be placed on the
Faculty Senate website in place of the previously approved report.
Link to the Revised Report:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/10-11/Agendas/FSCRC2011_ReportAmended.pdf
May 12,2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 15