CONSENT AGENDA
University of Nevada, Reno
2010-11 Faculty Senate
January 20, 2011
JCSU – R. 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 December 8, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Action/Enclosure
2.
Proposed Charges for the Campus Affairs Committee
Action/Enclosure
3.
Proposed Charges for the Salary and Benefits Committee
Action/Enclosure
4.
Proposed Charges for the Bylaws and Code Committee
Action/Enclosure
5.
Bylaw Revision 3.3.7
Action/Enclosure
January 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 1
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
January 20, 2011
Consent Agenda Item #1
1. Roll Call and Introductions:
Present: Gerald Ackerman (SOM), Rafik Beekun (COB), Mike Bennett (A & F), Isabelle Favre (CLA), Tammy Freeman for
Valerie Smith (VPR), Stephani Foust (SS), Catherine Goring (SOM), Keith Hackett (Pres), Eric Herzik (Chair), Maureen
Kilkenny (CABNR), Kami Larsen (SOM), Amy McFarland (SOM), Donica Mensing (JO), Glenn Miller (CABNR), Vannessa
Nicholas (Provost), Louis Niebur (CLA), Elissa Palmer (SOM), Elliott Parker (Immediate Past Chair), Crystal Parrish
(DEV), Alice Running (DHS), Alice Running for Julie Hogan (DHS), David Ryfe (Chair-elect), Janet Sanderson (Pres),
Madeleine Sigman-Grant (COOP), Mike Simons for Maggie Ressel (Lib), Valerie Weinstein (CLA), Leah Wilds (CLA),
David Zeh (COS).
Absent: Pat Arnott (COS), Todd Borman (IT), Yanyao Jiang (EN), Stephen Lafer (COE), Rich Schultz (COS).
Guests: Stacy Burton (CLA), Maureen Cronin (SS), David Crowther (COE), Aaron DeWall (Pres), Kent Ervin (COS), Bill
Follette (CLA), Scott Geib (SEC), President Milt Glick, Howard Rosenberg (CLA).
2. Request to Approve the November 18, 2010 Meeting Minutes:
MOTION: Larsen/Beekun. To approve the minutes as written.
ACTION: Passed Unanimously
3. Visit with President Glick:
President Glick thanked the senate for inviting him to speak at the meeting. The regents were appreciative of UNR’s
statement on the 120 Credit Max for degree programs, and the fact that UNR faculty supported it on an academically
sound calendar.
There were several important issues that were approved at the Board of Regents’ Meeting.
 We received permission to bond an additional residence Hall which would be paid for by student fees and would
be just north of Canada Hall. This hall would be a living learning center, so it would have classrooms, faculty
offices, and study areas for the purpose of developing learning communities. This concept promotes success.
 We received approval for the lease back of the Fire Science Academy Space. If we could get a continuing stream
of income we would continue to operate it. If not, then we would close it. We would receive $10 million for the sale
of the property from the NV Department of Military and that plus other money would reduce the payment of
student fees towards the capital debt from $26 million to $14 million which would reduce money coming from the
student fee from $6.50 to about $2.00 per credit. The difference could then be used for something that would be
of greater benefit to students. Governor Gibbons, Andrew Clinger, Mandy Elliott, and Gustavo Nunez were
instrumental in getting this accomplished.
 We also received permission to bond a building at 1701 Charleston at the Medical School. This building was
adjacent to 1707 Charleston which was where many SOM faculty were located. The use of the lease payments
would be used to acquire equity in the building, with no additional expenditure. If it exceeded what we were able
to bond with lease payments then we wouldn’t do it.
 There was no new information on PEBP. The loss of the dental insurance and the higher deductable would be a
disaster for the lower income employees and also a detriment in the recruiting process.
Commencement went well and the speaker, Richard Tapia was excellent. Tapia received three Ph.D.s, emigrated from
Mexico and was the first member of his family to achieve a college education.
The enthusiasm for the Bowl game was great. The university would sell more than their allotment of 11,000 tickets.
Administration was looking at ways to turn that enthusiasm into general support for the university.
A conference has been scheduled on economic development in Las Vegas on January 7, 2011, many business leaders
and legislators have been invited. The goal was to have business community step up and say that the way to change the
economy of the state was through education. Scheduled speakers were from Utah, Arizona, Texas, and Colorado, and we
would be particularly interested in the Utah speakers.
January 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 2
We do not have a budget plan yet, but we have been told that there would be a 10% reduction to higher education that
would still leave a $1.2 billion shortfall to the state. Glick believed that there was a lot of readiness to allow us to keep our
tuition, and while there were real upsides, it would not make the difference overnight. This governor was very committed
to no new taxes, but was prepared to download responsibility to the local governments. Glick felt that this was a bad time
to do this.
This was also a bad time to restructure PEBP, with the retirement benefits, a defined benefit plan, there was a huge long
term debt, but it was not in the worse half nationally, we rank in the middle or a little better than average. In the past this
was not an issue, but with GASB (Government Accounting Standards Board) the new rules have made it different, as they
have to look at the obligation over 30 years.
Andrew Clinger has a chart showing that Nevada is 50th in the nation per capita for support of the government and 5th in
the nation for support of the local governments. The wages were higher for local governments than the wages for state
government.
State sales tax was only 2% and the rest was add on taxes, some were pass through funds for local government, and
general service tax. For example on car registration $33.00 went to roads, the rest went to a general service tax which
went back to local governments. K-12 received about 45% of state budget which went out to the public schools at the
local level. Public schools actually increased their budgets by about 3%.
Executive Vice President and Provost Marc Johnson met with the executive board and began the conversation about how
to better involve, faculty and staff in the budget discussions. No decisions have been made regarding the budget cuts;
however Johnson would continue to have conversations with the board. All conversations would be on the table, but we
don’t want to signal the legislature that we were ready to take budget cuts or stigmatize anyone, and, we don’t want to
wait and have to make the decisions in five weeks either. The regents would be strong lobbyists against more cuts to
higher education and Glick believed that there would be smaller cuts than have been talked about.
Glick has been trying to plant a seed that the best thing the legislature could do was to make a future bond issue for
building renovation, this construction would put Nevada workers back to work which would increase revenue to the state.
Glick believed that the $17.5 million was met by keeping the current furloughs, but that they were not factored in. The
furloughs and the taxes were due to sunset this biennium.
Before they close the budget there would be another Economic Forum which Glick felt would show an improvement in the
economy.
The legislature has two major tasks, balancing the budget and reapportionment. Tax increases require a two-thirds vote.
Reapportionment would be bad for the Northern part of Nevada, as all the growth has been in the South.
The regents have not made any recommendations about budgets, vertical or across the board. We still need to convince
people about the good of higher education.
4. Salary and Benefits Committee Final Report, David Crowther, Chair:
David Crowther thanked the committee for their hard work. He then summarized the report: The committee had one
recommendation that needed senate approval.
Link to report:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/10-11/Agendas/12-8-10%20agendapkt(2).doc
MOTION: Wilds/Palmer. To approve the report as written.
ACTION: Passed unanimously
The committee recommendation was: To have the Faculty Senate request that the Board of Regents consider providing
additional health insurance subsidies for employees in Registered Domestic Partnerships to eliminate unequal treatment
of domestic partners and married spouses by the Public Employees Benefits program.
There was some discussion regarding the practice plan and how the money paid to those on Family or Maternity Leave
created a burden on others in the practice plan and how that affected those on grant funds. The policy goes beyond what
the federal government dictates.
Leah Wilds thanked Crowther and the committee for their hard work on behalf of faculty.
MOTION: Niebur/Goring. To approve the recommendation as written.
ACTION: Passed unanimously.
January 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 3
5. Curricular Review Process Final Report, Bill Follette, Chair:
Link to the report: http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/10-11/Agendas/12-8-10%20agendapkt(2).doc
Eric Herzik said that a post mortem was part of the Curricular Review Process. The Executive Board met with the Faculty
Senate Curricular Review Committee and the Employment Review Committee to go over the bad and the ugly of this
process. The board met last week in terms of the budget and it was felt that this process would not happen in this way
again, but that there would be future budget cuts.
Bill Follette gave special thanks to this committee who worked hard and diligently during this process. He also thanked
everyone who spoke with the committee. There were many hours of face to face meetings with affected faculty. He did not
feel that there was much to discuss regarding the process as it would happen differently next time. The regents were
making changes to the code that would change how the process might happen in the future.
The Code said that the process had to be specified, but did not say where or how. If the senate chose to make changes to
the bylaws, then they should be as vague as possible. Currently our bylaws have a gap in terms of what we need to do.
The difficulty was while there was not a mathematical process to allow programs to perk to the top; a mathematical
process would not have the features that would benefit a Liberal Arts College.
Curricular Programs and separability were not well defined terms. What may be good for the department or program to
recruit students also can make them separable.
Valerie Weinstein thanked the committee for their hard work. The terms “programs” and “shut” might be useful to define,
for example, in the case of German, the major was eliminated, but German was still being taught, and faculty that were
laid off could be hired back as contingent faculty, but getting rid of the major did not mean no longer teaching the classes.
There was discussion over the virtues of lateral cuts vs. vertical cuts. The reality was that neither could be done
indefinitely without damage to the institution. Was the vertical cut decision a bad one? A really strong department might
survive if vertical cuts were implemented, but with horizontal cuts faculty might leave.
Vertical cuts were the President’s decision, although faculty had input into the process 2 or 3 years ago. Last year the
senate agreed that vertical cuts were the way to accomplish the budget cuts. One of the issues with the Curricular Review
Process was that faculty from CABNR that had a minor teaching role in both their contracts and their role statements. It
was expressed that the process was unfair holding faculty who contractually had to keep their teaching load low were held
to the same teaching standard as other units. A senator asked if the next time Curricular Review happened would they
look at Cooperative Extension as they don’t have any majors. Some departments and units came up with alternatives
while others were not aware that they could. It was also unfair to be held to the help from the stakeholders of a particular
program. Concern was expressed over the use of size metrics rather than productivity metrics.
David Ryfe stated that the president made that decision. The faculty senate had input into the process 2 or 3 years ago,
and at that time, the senate agreed that vertical cuts were the way to go. There was no part of the curricular review
process that the committee got to review the basic decision.
NSHE system appears to be (according to 47 state codes) the only system that allowed tenured faculty to be eliminated
without severance pay. UNLV did not violate contracts. Why not reapportion and start them somewhere else? Across the
board cuts were less severe than firing tenured faculty. Breaking contracts was horrifying.
Follette said that there was something complicated in the report, it was notable the amount of variability in how people
responded to being targeted for cuts. Ex. COE came back with a proposal that was very different than was originally
proposed. That variability should be examined as to why some programs and some individuals rose to the occasion and
others were overwhelmed by the process. If one could define a reasonable way of identifying those options, it should be
shared with all the targeted programs. The variability was an important point and some departments were not aware they
had options and why were they not made aware of those options? The committee did not feel that the options were
offered, but that some departments came up with options to the original proposal.
Follette said that the university had experienced horizontal cuts, they received no cost of living raises, no merit and their
medical insurance was being gutted.
There was discussion about the criteria that the provost used.
It would be helpful if the committee members were advisors to targeted departments if the curricular review process were
used again.
Follette would be meeting with the provost to make this point. This was an adverse process and the ALC needed to be
talking about this all the time. The committee did not want the issues to go away.
MOTION: Parker/Wilds. To accept the report as published
Action: passed unanimously.
January 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 4
6. Chair’s Report, Eric Herzik:
The Senate chairs met with Vice Chancellor of Administration and Legal Affairs Bart Patterson and the Chancellor.
Patterson appointed the Committee to Revise Sections 5 and 6 of the Code. The UNR members were David Ryfe, Mary
Dugan, and Jannet Vreeland. NSHE was trying to resolve Curricular Review and Financial Exigency at a higher level so
they don’t have those issues.
UNR was applauded for their willingness to work on the 120 degree policy that the Chancellor put forward in his Austerity
Report. We were applauded because we were trying.
The Low Yield Policy would not be coming to the March meeting. Senate chairs were still discussing it and if it came back
it would be in a modified form. In terms of the Provost’s meeting our discussion was shared with Dan and the magic
number of 10 degrees has faded.
The differential tuition request for Engineering was approved as well as the ability to bring forward differential tuition to
other graduate degrees.
The tenure homes issue was sent forward to System Legal Council. Action has stopped on campus as System Legal
Counsel would be forming a legal opinion. The senate chairs would keep their senate posted.
The bad news was regarding the 10% budget reduction that the Governor requested that would be about $ 175 million to
NSHE and even with this there would still be an estimated $1.2 billion shortfall in the state budget.
UNR would be down about 29% from the 2009 appropriation.
Glenn Miller asked if this $175 million included the current furloughs. Elliott Parker responded yes. The furloughs sunset,
but Herzik said that he believed that the 5 to 6 % pay cuts would happen.
Governor doesn’t want the sunset on the taxes to be reversed, however, furloughs might be kept. Local governments
would probably also have their funds reduced.
PEBP update, it appears that the $4,000.00 deductible (for families) was locked in stone and there would be no dental.
By state law, the faculty retirement plan must be the same as PERS, although the regents did not discuss this.
The NFA Survey about potential budget cuts strategy and what faculty think was shared. Discussion included community
colleges being funded by the counties, phased-in retirement, and vertical cuts vs. horizontal cuts. Kilkenny said that there
was concern regarding the ability of a super-unit to hold a sub-unit hostage under vertical cuts.
Herzik said that neither he nor the committee believe that this Curricular Review process would be followed next time.
Herzik also reiterated that the senate was only advisory to the President and as such did not have much of a voice.
Curricular Review happened differently across the system.
Mary Stewart had agreed to chair the Campus Affairs Committee which would be given a single charge to look at tenure
and had been requested to report in June.
Kent Ervin agreed to chair the Salary and Benefits Committee. Herzik said that he had a potential chair for the Bylaws and
Code Committee.
7. Executive Board Member Nominations:
Herzik asked the senate since the parliamentarian was not there and David Ryfe was next on the agenda if they had an
issue with Michelle Hritz and Elliott Parker counting the ballots. The senate had no issue with this. There were no
nominations from the floor.
Amy Mc Farland was elected as an at large member.
8. Bylaws and Code Committee Final Report – David Ryfe, Chair:
Link to the report:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/10-11/Agendas/12-8-10%20agendapkt(2).doc
David Ryfe summarized the report and thanked the committee.
MOTION: Palmer/Beekun. To accept the report as published.
ACTION: Passed unanimously.
Recommendations:
Recommendation 1a:
We recommend no change to the definition of a major unit at this time.
However, we recommend a revision of sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 of the UNR bylaws to reflect two changes. First, that a list
of major units will appear in the UAM, and second, that major administrative units may, but are not required to, adopt
bylaws. Our specific recommended language for these changes is as follows:
January 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 5
2.1.1 MAJOR UNITS OF THE UNIVERSITY [deletions crossed out; additions in bold]
The University shall be divided into constituent parts, referred to in these Bylaws as major units. Major academic units
shall include colleges or other equivalent units administered by a dean. Major administrative units shall be administered
by vice-presidents, the Executive Vice-President and Provost, or the President.
“The Major Units of the University shall be listed in the Administrative Manual and on the Faculty Senate
website.”
Every major unit of the University containing academic faculty shall develop bylaws to govern its organizational and
administrative structure and its personnel policies and procedures. Major administrative units not containing
academic faculty may, but are not required, to develop bylaws. Major unit bylaws are subordinate to and shall not
conflict with these Bylaws or other higher-level rules and regulations.
Bylaws of each major unit shall be in force upon completion of the following four steps: 1) review by the Faculty Senate; 2)
approval by the faculty of the major unit in a written secret ballot, with sufficient notice to allow all eligible faculty to
participate; 3) approval by the dean or the designated administrator of the major unit; and 4) approval by the President.
Faculty approval of the initial adoption of bylaws requires a simple majority of those voting. Subsequent amendment of
bylaws requires a two-thirds majority of those voting. The most recently approved major unit bylaws, including any
approved amendments, shall be forwarded to the Office of Faculty Senate, and made available to all faculty.
2.1.2 DEPARTMENTS OF THE MAJOR UNITS
Major units as described in Section 2.1.1 may be divided into constituent parts known as departments, or by other
appropriate designations, hereinafter referred to as departments. Each department’s faculty A department containing
academic faculty may develop bylaws, to provide for its organizational and administrative structure, its personnel policies
and procedures, and specific procedures for selecting, evaluating, and removing a Department Chair. Alternatively, a
department containing academic faculty may be governed by the bylaws of its major unit. Such departments may also
develop written policies and procedures which shall require the same approval process as department bylaws. In all
cases, all academic and administrative faculty shall have the protection of bylaws at the level of their major unit or below.
Department bylaws are subordinate to and shall not conflict with the bylaws of its major unit, these Bylaws and all other
higher-level rules and regulations.
If a major administrative unit not containing academic faculty has adopted bylaws, departments in that major unit
may also develop bylaws in accordance with the procedures outlined in the above paragraph. In all cases,
departments of major administrative units not containing academic faculty shall be governed by the policies and
procedures of their major unit.
Note: UAM Revision. If approved, this recommendation will require a change to the UAM. We recommend a revision to
section 48 [“Unit Bylaws”]. The introduction to this section should be amended to read [additions in bold]:
According to Section 2.1.1 of the University Bylaws, all major units containing academic faculty must develop
bylaws, and major administrative units may, but are not required, to develop bylaws. Major units on campus
include the following:
College of Agriculture, Biotechnology & Natural Resources
College of Business Administration
College of Education
College of Engineering
College of Liberal Arts
College of Science
Cooperative Extension
Extended Studies
Graduate School
Libraries
School of Journalism
Administration and Finance
Development and Alumni Relations
January 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 6
Division of Health Sciences
Medical School
Information Technology
Research
Student Services
Office of the President
Office of the Provost
The following procedures apply to the development and approval of all unit bylaws, and to their required submission to the
Faculty Senate Office.
There was discussion regarding why administrative faculty was stricken in this section. All academic faculty must have
access to bylaws, and if they had left “administrative faculty” in, those units would have had to have bylaws.
MOTION: Larsen/Sigman-Grant. To approve the recommendation as written.
ACTION: Passed unanimously.
Recommendation 1b:
To amend 2.3.7 d to remove # 5 and make # 6 number 4.
We recommend revising sections 1.1.3 and 2.1.2 of the bylaws by replacing the phrase “written, secret mail ballot” with
language referring to a new paragraph (d) in section 2.3.7, as below:
2.3.7 ORGANIZATION OF FACULTIES (additions in bold)
d.
Voting Procedures – Where unit bylaws provide for or require a confidential voting process (such as a
secret ballot) voting processes, whether they involve written ballots, online surveys, or other
technologies, must accord with the following principles:
1. Assure electorate integrity. Eligible faculty must be notified of the opportunity to vote in a timely
manner and ineligible faculty must be precluded from voting.
2. Assure confidentiality and transparency. Voter confidentiality must be assured and voters must be
informed of current election policies and procedures, including the process(es) by which
confidentiality is secured and personal identities are safeguarded.
3. Include and make available data retention schedule and vote recount policies. Voting faculty must be
informed of the policies that determine how and for how long data are retained and how vote recounts,
if necessary, will be conducted.
5. Ensure names are untraceable. All reasonable effort must be made to ensure that names of eligible
voters, whether or not they vote, cannot be tracked and are not traceable.
6. Include an option to abstain. Voting faculty must be given the option to formally abstain from voting.
The number of abstentions must be reported along with the final results of voting.
MOTION: Parker/Kilkenny. To approve the recommendation by removing # 5 and renumbering #6 as # 4.
ACTION: Passed unanimously.
Recommendation 2 a 3.3.7:
The committee recommended revising section 3.3.7 of the bylaws as follows:
3.3.7. NOTICE OF PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS (additions in bold)
The responsible agent in each department shall notify each member of that department, in writing, of any
recommendation or failure to recommend for promotion, tenure, reappointment or nonreappointment, salary increases, or
merit increases within 15 working days of the same. In cases involving denial of promotion and/or tenure, faculty
may request and be provided appropriately redacted outside review letters as early as the first step in the
reconsideration process. Thereafter, the faculty member shall be notified in writing within 15 working days by the
responsible agent at the appropriate level only of a failure to recommend or of a revised recommendation.
MOTION: Ackerman/Goring. To approve the recommendation as written.
ACION: Passed, 1 abstention.
January 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 7
Recommendation 2 b: 3.3.7.
After reading the relevant section of the UNR bylaws, however, we realized that the bylaws could mesh more closely with
NSHE Code. We therefore recommend the following revision of the relevant section of the bylaws. This revision added 2
sentences to align more closely to the code:
3.3.7. NOTICE OF PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS (additions in bold)
The responsible agent in each department shall notify each member of that department, in writing, of any
recommendation or failure to recommend for promotion, tenure, reappointment or nonreappointment, salary increases, or
merit increases within 15 working days of the same. Thereafter, the faculty member shall be notified in writing within 15
working days by the responsible agent at the appropriate level only of a failure to recommend or of a revised
recommendation. Written notice involving denial of promotion and/or tenure must inform faculty members of their
right as defined in Title 2, 5.2.3 of the Code to request in writing the specific reasons for which a negative
recommendation was made. Faculty must make this request in writing within fifteen calendar days of the receipt
of the written notice of a negative recommendation. The response must be received within fifteen calendar days
after the appropriate administrator received the written request for reasons.
MOTION: Niebur/Beekun. To approve the recommendation as written.
ACTION: Passed unanimously.
9. Academic Standards Charge 2 – Maureen Cronin:
There has been a gap in the policy which allows students to register late for courses, through the 8 th or 9th day of the
semester. There was also a policy that allowed instructors to drop students who do not attend during the first week. This
becomes an issue when, for example, students lose their seats because they did not attend the first week, but students
who registered late and also did not attend the first week, then occupy those seats. The committee wanted to close gap
so that after 5th day of instruction the instructors would still have the right to withdraw students, but the withdrawals would
not be processed until the second week and then any students who wanted to add would need the instructor’s permission.
The committee also felt that there should be a late registration fee assessed.
The recommendation of the committee was:
The committee recommends the implementation of the following late registration policy:
During the fall and spring semesters, students must obtain written permission from their instructors to enroll after
the fifth day of instruction. During summer sessions and Wintermester, written permission must be obtained after
the second day of instruction. A $50 non-appealable late registration fee will be assessed for each add.
MOTION: Parker/ Beekun. To approve the recommendation with the deletion of the $50.00 late registration fee.
ACION: Passed, 4 abstentions.
.
10. New Business:
None
Adjourned: 4:50 pm
January 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 8
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
January 20, 2011
Consent Agenda Item #2
Campus Affairs Committee (CAC)
Charges, 2010-11 Academic Year
Purpose: The Campus Affairs Committee monitors, conducts studies, and makes recommendations on a wide
range of issues that affect the quality of campus life, such as work environment, campus safety, and food
service.
Report tentatively due to Executive Board in March 2011, for presentation to the Senate in April 2011.
Standing Charges:
1. Review CAC charges over the prior three years, and recommendations adopted by the Faculty Senate.
Report on the implementation status of these recommendations.
2. Make recommendations on the future status, organization, structure, and charges of the CAC. Consider
whether the committee is necessary and effective, and how could it be improved.
3. Upon request by the Executive Board:
a. Review any proposals affecting CAC objectives, and report recommendations to the Executive
Board within six weeks after receipt of any request for review.
b. Serve as a sounding board for the Executive Board for issues related to CAC charges and
objectives.
4. Appoint a liaison from the CAC to each of the following committees: the Committee on the Status of
Women; the Work and Family Task Force; the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Advocacy
Committee; the Multiethnic Coalition; the Intercultural Collaborative; and the University Disabilities
Resource Coalition. Facilitate communication, as appropriate, between these committees and the Faculty
Senate, and inform the Senate as to whether these committees are duplicating efforts.
Additional Charges:
5. Survey aspirant institutions to determine their protections, policies and practices regarding tenure.
6. Review system counsel’s determination regarding tenure, including the protection that exists in The
Code and bylaws and the conditions in which tenure can be revoked. Recommend ways to protect the
rights of tenure and mechanisms to do so.
January 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 9
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
January 20, 2011
Consent Agenda Item #3
Salary & Benefits Committee (SBC)
Charges, 2011 Calendar Year
Purpose: Monitor, review, investigate and make recommendations on salary schedules, health benefits,
system/campus benefits, employment policies.
Chair to tentatively meet with Executive Board in May 2011. Report tentatively due to Executive Board in
November 2011, for presentation to the Senate in December 2011.
Standing Charges:
1. Review SBC charges over the prior three years, and recommendations adopted by the Faculty Senate.
Report on the implementation status of these recommendations.
a. Monitor the Parental Leave Policy, considering modifications to implement parts of the policy
that could be implemented at no or minimal budgetary cost.
b. Monitor the domestic partner policy change recommendations and add further collection of
information regarding the cost of various options for implementation of the Senate's formal
recommendation on adding domestic partner health benefits. Also follow-up on the informal
recommendations in the last report.
c. Continue monitoring Bridge Funding issues.
d. Work with HR (Tim McFarling) and legal counsel (Mary Dugan) to determine the outcome
regarding overload benefits
2. Make recommendations on the future status, organization, structure, and charges of the SBC. Consider
whether the committee is necessary and effective, and how could it be improved.
3. Upon request by the Executive Board, review any proposals affecting SBC objectives, and report
recommendations to the Executive Board within six weeks after receipt of any request for review.
4. Upon request by the Executive Board, serve as a sounding board for the Executive Board for issues related
to SBC charges and objectives.
5. Identify other campus-wide committees working on related issues, and upon approval of the Executive
Board, appoint a liaison from the SBC to each. Facilitate communication, as appropriate, between these
committees and the Faculty Senate, and inform the Senate as to whether these committees are duplicating
efforts.
6. Work with HR to ensure that their website is accurate and up-to-date. Assess and monitor university
practices in respect to educating faculty about the spectrum of existing benefits and advise in regards to
possible improvements.
January 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 10
Additional Charges:
7. Continue to monitor salary equity assessment issues. Explore the ability to implement a new study that
investigates whether “total compensation”, which would include benefits could further improve the
accuracy and whether inequities exist on the basis of age, sex, marital status, or family status for total
compensation (i.e., when employer subsidies of health and other benefits are included). If any such
inequities are found, the SBC would like to review the study and propose solutions based upon results.
8. Continue to monitor retirement plan investment options and plan performance, in conjunction with RPAC,
and report on the results of vendor reviews when they become available.
9. Investigate and propose a policy for creation of a pool for advance funding of annual leave, in particular,
to solve the problem of funding accumulated leave rights for employees on grant-funded contracts or
clinical contracts.
January 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 11
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
January 20, 2011
Consent Agenda Item #4
Bylaws & Code Committee (BCC)
Charges, 2011 Calendar Year
Purpose: Review and make recommendations regarding revisions to the NSHE Code, the UNR Bylaws, the
Administrative Manual, and other governing documents.
Chair to tentatively meet with Executive Board in May 2011. Report tentatively due to Executive Board in
November 2011, for presentation to the Senate in December 2011.
Standing Charges:
1. Review BCC charges over the prior three years, and recommendations adopted by the Faculty Senate.
Report on the implementation status of these recommendations.
2. Make recommendations on the future status, organization, structure, and charges of the BCC. Consider
whether the committee is necessary and effective, and how could it be improved.
3. Upon request by the Executive Board:
a. Review possible conflicts between the Code, the UNR Bylaws, major unit bylaws, and/or department
bylaws. Recommendations should be reported to the Executive Board within six weeks after receipt of
any request for review.
i. Make a recommendation regarding the conflict between UNR Bylaw 3.3.5 with the start
of the reconsideration process for promotion and tenure at the college level and the Code,
section 5.2.3 determining that a department recommendation (via the chair) is a decision
allowing for the reconsideration process to begin at the department level.
b. Review proposed new or revised bylaws from colleges or other major units for potential conflicts with
UNR Bylaws and the Code, and make suggestions for improvement as appropriate. Recommendations
should be reported to the major unit administrator and the Executive Board within six weeks after
receipt.
c. Review all proposed revisions to the NSHE Code to analyze the potential impact of such revisions on
faculty, and make recommendations to the Executive Board regarding the reconciliation of the UNR
Bylaws and the Code.
d. Review issues of concern to the Executive Board that may require revision to the UNR Bylaws, and
propose revisions to Faculty Senate.
i. Review UNR Bylaw 3.3.7 and make recommendations:
1. Ensuring the language identifies the appropriate agent to deliver notice of the various
types of personnel recommendations.
2. Ensuring the language clearly states the notification is received by the individual faculty
member affected, not the entire departmental faculty.
January 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 12
4. Appoint a member of the committee to serve as a full member of the Administrative Manual Policy
Review Board (AMPBR). This member should also serve as the liaison between the AMPBR, the BCC,
and the Executive Board. The committee should work with this member in reviewing proposed changes to
the Administrative Manual.
5. Upon request by the Executive Board, serve as a sounding board for the Executive Board for issues related
to BCC charges and objectives.
Additional Charges:
6. Review the bylaws template from the AFPPP committee and make recommendations of any changes.
.
January 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 13
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
January 20, 2011
Consent Agenda Item #5
Two different recommendations from the Bylaws and Code Committee for section 3.3.7, approved by
the Faculty Senate in December 2010, are found below:
3.3.7.
NOTICE OF PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS (additions in bold)
The responsible agent in each department shall notify each member of that department, in writing, of any
recommendation or failure to recommend for promotion, tenure, reappointment or nonreappointment, salary
increases, or merit increases within 15 working days of the same. In cases involving denial of promotion
and/or tenure, faculty may request and be provided appropriately redacted outside review letters as
early as the first step in the reconsideration process. Thereafter, the faculty member shall be notified in
writing within 15 working days by the responsible agent at the appropriate level only of a failure to recommend
or of a revised recommendation.
3.3.7.
NOTICE OF PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS (additions in bold)
The responsible agent in each department shall notify each member of that department, in writing, of any
recommendation or failure to recommend for promotion, tenure, reappointment or nonreappointment, salary
increases, or merit increases within 15 working days of the same. Thereafter, the faculty member shall be
notified in writing within 15 working days by the responsible agent at the appropriate level only of a failure to
recommend or of a revised recommendation. Written notice involving denial of promotion and/or tenure
must inform faculty members of their right as defined in Title 2, 5.2.3 of the Code to request in writing
the specific reasons for which a negative recommendation was made. Faculty must make this request
in writing within fifteen calendar days of the receipt of the written notice of a negative
recommendation. The response must be received within fifteen calendar days after the appropriate
administrator received the written request for reasons.
Adding both recommendations together, does not read properly:
3.3.7.
NOTICE OF PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS (additions in bold)
The responsible agent in each department shall notify each member of that department, in writing, of any
recommendation or failure to recommend for promotion, tenure, reappointment or nonreappointment, salary
increases, or merit increases within 15 working days of the same. In cases involving denial of promotion
and/or tenure, faculty may request and be provided appropriately redacted outside review letters as
early as the first step in the reconsideration process. Thereafter, the faculty member shall be notified in
writing within 15 working days by the responsible agent at the appropriate level only of a failure to recommend
or of a revised recommendation. Written notice involving denial of promotion and/or tenure must inform
faculty members of their right as defined in Title 2, 5.2.3 of the Code to request in writing the specific
reasons for which a negative recommendation was made. Faculty must make this request in writing
within fifteen calendar days of the receipt of the written notice of a negative recommendation. The
response must be received within fifteen calendar days after the appropriate administrator received the
written request for reasons.
The Senate is being asked to approve the following change to section 3.3.7 of the UNR Bylaws:
3.3.7.
NOTICE OF PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS (additions in bold)
January 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 14
The responsible agent in each department shall notify each member of that department, in writing, of any
recommendation or failure to recommend for promotion, tenure, reappointment or nonreappointment, salary
increases, or merit increases within 15 working days of the same. Thereafter, the faculty member shall be
notified in writing within 15 working days by the responsible agent at the appropriate level only of a failure to
recommend or of a revised recommendation. Written notice involving denial of promotion and/or tenure
must inform faculty members of their right as defined in Title 2, 5.2.3 of the Code to request in writing
the specific reasons for which a negative recommendation was made. Faculty must make this request
in writing within fifteen calendar days of the receipt of the written notice of a negative
recommendation. The response must be received within fifteen calendar days after the appropriate
administrator received the written request for reasons.
The Senate is being asked to approve the move of the proposed change regarding redacted outside
review letters into section 3.2.4 as it relates directly to grievance and reconsideration of promotion and
tenure decisions.
3.2.4 PROCEDURES FOR INITIATING A GRIEVANCE (additions in bold)
a. Reconsideration of Decisions Affecting Salary
Petitioners who wish to initiate a Notice of Grievance regarding a disagreement with an annual evaluation
rating or a denial of salary increase have the option of first requesting reconsideration, as provided for in Title
2, Chapter 5 of the Code. In connection with review of merit pay, “denial of a salary increase” means review of
the step or level of merit in accordance with Title 2, Chapter 5 of the Code.
The petitioner may file a request for reconsideration regarding a disagreement with his or her annual
evaluation rating or denial of salary increase, in accordance with Title 2, Chapter 5 of the Code within 15
calendar days of the date he or she received written reasons for the action or decision (except that the
supervisor is not required to state reasons for an adverse annual evaluation under Title 2, Chapter 5 of the
Code if the reasons for the evaluation are stated in the evaluation). The request for reconsideration shall be
submitted in writing to the petitioner's department chair, supervisor, or dean together with the reasons,
arguments, and documentation supporting the request for reconsideration. The petitioner's department chair,
supervisor, or dean who rendered the negative decision shall promptly direct the request for reconsideration
through regular administrative channels up to the Executive Vice President & Provost (Provost), with
recommendations for or against reconsideration of the decision. Final action shall be taken within a reasonable
time by the Provost, who shall promptly inform the petitioner, in writing, of the decision.
If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the Provost’s decision, within 15 college working days after receipt of same,
the petitioner may file a written Notice of Grievance as described below.
b. Reconsideration of Decisions Affecting Appointment with Tenure, Promotion, or Reappointment
Petitioners who wish to file a Notice of Grievance regarding a denial of appointment with tenure, or promotion,
have the option of first requesting reconsideration as provided for in Title 2, Chapters 3 and 5 of the Code.
The petitioner may file a request for reconsideration of the denial of appointment with tenure, promotion, or
reappointment to employment in accordance with Chapter 5 of the Code within 15 calendar days of the date he
or she received written reasons for the action or decision. In cases involving denial of promotion and/or
tenure, faculty may request and will be provided appropriately redacted outside review letters as early
as the first step in the reconsideration process. The request for reconsideration shall be submitted in
writing to the petitioner's department chair, supervisor, or dean together with the reasons, arguments, and
documentation supporting the request for reconsideration.
The petitioner's department chair, supervisor, or dean who rendered the negative decision shall promptly direct
the request for reconsideration through regular administrative channels up to the President with
recommendations for or against reconsideration of the decision. Final action shall be taken within a reasonable
January 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 15
time by the president after receipt of the recommendations, except if the President, after reconsideration,
decides to recommend appointment with tenure, the final decision regarding tenure rests with the Board of
Regents.
If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the President's decision after reconsideration, within 15 college working
days after receipt of same, the petitioner may file a written Notice of Grievance as described below.
Any decision which involves the nonreappointment to or termination of employment of faculty, or the furlough
or layoff of faculty for financial exigency or curricular reasons is not subject to review by grievance procedures.
The petitioner may file a request for reconsideration of nonreappointment or termination, in accordance with
Chapter 5 of the Code.
January 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 16