CONSENT AGENDA
University of Nevada, Reno
2010-11 Faculty Senate
October 21, 2010
RSJ 304
Process for Consideration of Consent Agenda Items:

All items on the Consent Agenda are action items. A single vote for the consent agenda passes all
items listed on the agenda. Any senator may request an agenda item be pulled for discussion and
held for a separate vote.

Prior to a vote on the consent agenda, the Chair will open the floor for comment from senators
including requests to pull items.

Once all items to be pulled have been identified, the Chair will call for a vote on the remaining
Consent Agenda items.

Discussion and action on items pulled will be managed individually.
1.
Request to Approve the September 16, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Action/Enclosure
2.
Charges for the Academic Standards Committee additional
charge (added from EB 9-21-10
Additional Charge for the Research and Grants Committee
(added from the 9-21-10)
Charges for the Administrative Faculty Personnel Policy and
Procedure Committee
Action/Enclosure
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. 1,111 Facilities and Administrative Rates
b. 2,540 Payment &/or Reimbursement of Moving Expenses
c. Intellectual Property Policy
Action/Enclosure
3.
4.
5.
October 21, 2010 Consent Agenda Packet
Action/Enclosure
Action/Enclosure
Action/Enclosure
Action/Enclosure
Action/Enclosure
Page 1
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
October 21, 2010
Consent Agenda Item #1
1. Roll Call and Introductions:
Present: Pat Arnott (COS), Rafik Beekun (COBA), Mike Bennett (A & F), Todd Borman (IT), Gretchen
Casey for Julie Hogan (DHS), Isabelle Favre (CLA), Isabelle Favre for Leah Wilds (CLA), Stephani Foust
(SS), Catherine Goring (SOM), Keith Hackett (Pres), Eric Herzik (Chair),Yanyao Jiang (EN), Maureen
Kilkenny (CABNR), Stephen Lafer (COE), Kami Larsen (SOM), Amy McFarland (SOM), Donica Mensing
(JO), Glenn Miller (CABNR), Vannessa Nicholas (Prov), Louis Niebur (CLA), Elissa Palmer (SOM), Elliott
Parker (Immediate Past Chair), Crystal Parrish (DEV), Maggie Ressel (LIB), Alice Running (DHS), David
Ryfe( Chair-Elect), Janet Sanderson (Pres), Madeleine Sigman-Grant (COOP), Valerie Smith (VPR),
Valerie Weinstein (CLA), David Zeh (COS).
Absent: Richard Schultz
Guests: Jamie Anderson (SOM), Jordan Butler (Sierra Club), Shirley Diaz (ASUN, Unity Commission),
Dean Dietrich (DEV), President Glick, Cary Groth (ICA), Robbyn Tolles (SOM), Jill Wallace (IT).
2. Re-energize the Vote:
Jordan Butler spoke about the non-partisan campaign to re-energize the vote. Their goal was to get students
between the ages of 18 to 29 registered to vote. Their group would be happy to come and speak to any
classes and a sign-up sheet was passed out to interested senators. They had partnered with ASUN and were
able to have a table at events to make it easier for the students to register to vote.
Contact Information:
Jordan Butler- jordan.butler@sierraclub.org
Marika Dimitriadis-marika.dimitriadis@sierraclub.org
3. Consent Agenda:
Item 1: the August 19, 2010 minutes were pulled.
The remainder of the consent agenda included two items: The Academic Standards Committee Charges and
the UAM Revisions.
MOTION: Sigman-Grant/Parker. To approve the remainder of the consent agenda.
ACTION: Passed unanimously.
Elliott Parker asked that two changes be made to the minutes “change ‘their’ to ‘there’” and remove the word
not and add the word “be” to this sentence “With this schedule there would not more final exams closer to the
grad due date, but the grade due date would change so that grades would be due on the following Monday.”
MOTION: Parker/Beekun. To approved the amended minutes.
ACTION: Passed unanimously.
After reviewing the recording of the August 19, 2010 meeting minutes the minutes were altered to say:
“With this schedule there would be more final exams closer to the grade due date. Dana stated that the grade
due date would change so that grades would be due on the following Monday.”
4. Visit with Cary Groth:
Cary Groth welcomed the opportunity to speak to the senate at any time. Last year due to budget cuts,
Athletics eliminated the men’s and women’s ski programs.
October 21, 2010 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 2
There are currently over 400 student athletes. The graduation rate for athletes was 73% while six years ago it
was 48%. The goal is to have a 90% graduation rate. Six years ago there were 82 athletes majoring in
General Studies now there are just over 20 athletes enrolled in the GS major.
The operating budget is approximately 20 million dollars of which about $14 million is self-supporting. The state
funding dollars were $5.8 million, $2.3 million was tuition waivers non-cash dollars; $1.2 million of the $5.8
million was for maintenance and operating which went directly to facilities, and $2.3 million went to operating
budgets within the departments.
Athletics took a budget cut of over 20%, and rightfully so. Athletics provided $4.5 million in financial support
back to the university. They paid rent for Lawlor and the staffing; they paid for the parking spaces, parking
staff, and university police during events, as well as money that went back to the university for room, board and
fees.
We are the only institution in the WAC (Western Athletic Conference) that meets or exceeds all requirements
for athletes in all sports programs.
Competition:
UNR has been in the top two in the west and has four national broadcasts for football and two for basketball,
which would provide more exposure for the institution. The non-conference games were more regional now to
save money. Each sport was required to raise money to travel.
WAC vs. Mountain West Conference: Groth felt that there should not be an issue with leaving the WAC as
BYU did not sign by 9-1-10. The lawsuit was filed to prevent UNR from joining the Mountain West Conference.
They were working with attorneys to see if they couldn’t come up with something that made sense, it was
difficult as the bylaws differed from the book that Athletics was given. The Mountain West Conference was
much better for athletics, academics and travel for the university.
The university has been trying to position Athletics for many years to be in the Mountain West. The cost of
joining today would be zero, however if there was a fee it would be paid for by Athletics.
Athletics was always looking for ways to become more self supporting, while 70% of their funding was self
supporting, they would like to be completely self supporting in five to seven years. One of the ways they were
looking at bringing in more money was to get more people to attend the games. The stadium could hold 29,800
people and normally only 55% of the stadium filled for football games. The Cal-UNR game was a sell out this
year which was good.
Stephani Foust said that it was important for our name to get out there through sports; it makes it easier to
recruit new students.
5. Visit with President Glick:
President Glick thanked everyone for their continuing efforts to make this a better university. This has been a
difficult time and everyone has been affected either directly or indirectly.
This would be the time to talk to political candidates to determine if they were going to destroy or build higher
education.
Washoe County Schools have improved their graduation rate.
The university needed to celebrate the good things even though it was hard at this point. This year the
graduation rate was 66% and the largest graduating class in history. It was also the highest performing and the
most diverse class.
Glick said that they would need to use every tool to make a case to governor and the legislators regarding the
budget. However, he believes we would be given more flexibility and that we would be able to keep both in and
out of state tuition.
A sheet showing the total gift revenue for the last twelve months was distributed to senators. Athletics received
less than 20%, with the largest percentage (over 25%) going to Journalism. Glick and the deans needed to do
a better job of selling to donors. He would like to see donations for professorships and scholarships.
Glick expressed concern about the new PEBP Health Care Proposal, one of his concerns was that those least
able to afford it would be hardest hit. How would they be able to afford dental care for their children?
The Curricular Review process had not been completed yet, but when it was done there would be a postmortem evaluation. As for cuts in the future, they had not made plans for how that would happen, it was felt
October 21, 2010 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 3
that if they put something in writing it would predestine those cuts. The budget turned in by the Regents was
not actually a huge increase as reported by the media.
A senator likened the breaking of the WAC contract to the breaking of contracts with tenured faculty and felt
that it was very disheartening. Glick did not feel that they were breaking a contract with WAC, but that would be
decided.
A senator would like faculty to recognize that the educational system in this state ranks so low. How could the
university convey the importance of education and living a decent life, and how that would contribute to the
political system and to the economic situation? Was there a university response to call it what it is? What kind
of communication should happen between K-12 and the university to make this happen? We should use the
expertise on campus to help solve this.
Glick said that there were different views on how to solve this issue, one of the ways would be to get those
experts out in the community, and another was to get parents involved in education of their children. Many
businesses would not come here, because they wanted their children to have a better education than Nevada
supplied.
A senator said that it was important for faculty to go out and speak with students in high school.
There were two new buildings being constructed on campus with no state dollars, one was a new dorm and
then other was the expansion of the Harry Reid Engineering Lab.
6. Chair’s Report:
Chair Eric Herzik reported that there were two Board of Regents’ meetings since the senate met in August one
in August where the Chancellor’s budget was ratified and one meeting in September where three major items
came out of it, some that have some direct implications for faculty.
The university’s Diversity Report was approved and a ten point plan was offered:
 Include activity to support diversity awareness in the evaluation of deans;
 While we already begin every search process with a discussion of diversity goals and ways to expand
diversity in pools, we are now requiring all pools be approved by the Provost; Presently, the appointing
officers approve the pools.
 Showcase successful efforts to increase faculty diversity to other deans;
 Connect departments/colleges with Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving
Institutions;
 Appoint a committee of minority business leaders to help us recruit and attract and support minority
candidates to Reno and to support our vendor diversity efforts;
 Create a target of opportunity program to allow the recruitment of high quality faculty who may not fit
our immediate hiring plans but do fit long-term needs;
 Use soft funded appointments to attract candidates who may need to be mentored before moving to
tenure track;
 Bring distinguished minority scholars to campus as speakers and on short term appointments to both
enhance the environment and to help us spread the word that we are serious;
 Continue periodic meetings with caucuses and individuals and university leaders;
 Ask the senate to engage in a constructive approach to increase faculty diversity.
Items six and ten were the most relevant and the Provost would be monitoring search pools with a greater
eye towards diversity. The president will ask faculty to engage in a constructive approach to increase
diversity.
The regents also approved the Chancellor’s Plan for the System, which is to improve efficiency and
effectiveness.
 The Chancellor has come back to the 120 degree cap. They will go with this unless there are
accreditation issues. The only exception that the chancellor acknowledged was Engineering.
There was discussion regarding the plan, including the effect on research dollars, low yield programs
and new programs.
Herzik explained that there will be a review of the core.
October 21, 2010 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 4

NSHE is participating in (Center for Urban Education) CUE and (Western Interstate Commission on
Higher Education) WICHE partnership for equity and policy, the focus is on at-risk populations.
The Division of Health Sciences Reorganization happened outside the regular process and the senate office
has been collecting documents for the ad hoc committee to use during their review. The Executive Board has
come up with a list of possible members for the DHS Review Committee and would be discussing possible
charges. At the October meeting the board would bring forward a list of members and charges to the senate.
Code Change discussions would begin with Bart Patterson who would work with the senate chairs on mostly
Chapter 5 and 6 revisions. A senator asked about tenure with the university as opposed to the department.
When their tenure letter was received it was tenure with the university and when curricular review took place
the tenure was attached to the department. The senate needed to be involved in this and the other code
changes. The practice has been to have the faculty member be tenured at the university, not the department.
This became an issue with the vertical cuts. It would be important for this senate to have a say in this matter.
Herzik said that each institutions senate would have input in the changes.
Maureen Cronin has agreed to chair the Academic Standards Committee and Roberto Mancini has agreed to
chair the Research and Grants Committee. There may be an additional charge for the ASC.
The Provost would be convening three committees with membership from across campus. The board was
asked to look at the structure of these committees and make recommendations if they felt it was necessary.
The ICR (Indirect Cost Recovery Task Force) would review how indirect costs were distributed across campus.
The Research and Grants Committee charges would need to be altered to accommodate this.
A Core Curriculum Review Task Force would be created resulting from the program review to see how well our
core serves us and how it was structured.
A Statistics Review Task Force which would look at how statistics were taught across campus. There would be
two different statistics committees, one would be a users group and the other would be with the teachers of
statistics.
Stephani Foust stated that there has been some confusion on the number of special admits, some believe that
the number has gone up. A special admits was one that does not meet the normal enrollment requirements of
a regular student. The number has actually gone down.
7. Vote for the new Executive Board Member:
There were no nominations from the floor. The new member is Glenn Miller.
8. ASUN Department of Campus Unity, Shirley Diaz:
“They were created last year to give diversity issues their due place in campus life and to set the bar for
diversity initiatives on our campus.” There was a meeting scheduled for Thursday, September 23, 2010 and
there would be a diversity day on November 5, 2010. The department was looking for faculty members who
would like to present or conduct workshops during that day. The deadline for faculty to apply would be October
8, 2010.
https://asun.unr.edu/Docs/Forms/1_810201042828PMCall_for_workshops.doc
The theme would be Learning Diversity. There might be a greater diversity among students if there was a
greater diversity among faculty.
9. AFPPP Final Report:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/committees/AFPPP/AFPPP_Yrend09-10.doc
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/committees/AFPPP/AdminFacEvalCompetencies.pdf
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/committees/AFPPP/2009AdminFacultyEvalForm.doc
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/committees/AFPPP/Admin-Fac-Unit-ByLawsTemplate.doc
October 21, 2010 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 5
Jill Wallace and Stephani Foust thanked their committee members, there were fourteen people on the
committee and they met several times last year. They had 5 standing charges and 3 additional charges and
then received more charges later in the year. Wallace summarized the report.
MOTION: Lafer/Palmer. To approve the report as published.
ACTION: Passed unanimously
MOTION: Ressel/Larsen. To approve Recommendation 1 as written.
ACTION: Passed unanimously
Recommendation 1:
Add the following charge back into the AFPPP’s standing charges: Conduct brown-bag lunch meetings
of the administrative faculty, at least one per semester, to provide them an opportunity to discuss the
issues of the day or to provide them with information about benefits, policies and procedures, etc.
MOTION: Borman/Palmer. To approve recommendation 2 as written.
ACTION: Passed unanimously
Recommendation 2:
1. Continue the AFPPP committee, with both administrative and academic faculty representation. 2.
The Faculty Senate Chair (or another member of the FS Executive Board) and the AFPPP chair will
meet with senators who are administrative faculty to determine the charges for the following year.
Recommendation 3: Michelle Hritz pointed out that this recommendation would change the way charges were
given to committees. There was some discussion as to whether this was an effective change.
MOTION: Borman/Larsen. To combine recommendations 3 & 4, change the word “objectives” to “charges” and
approve as amended.
ACTION: Passed unanimously
Recommendation 3 and 4 now read:
Proposals affecting an AFPPP committee’s objectives charges should be sent to the committee for
review and recommendations before being presented to Faculty Senate. Upon request by the
Executive Board, serve as a sounding board for the Executive Board for issues related to AFPPP
Committee charges.
Recommendation 5:
MOTION: Beekun/Larsen. To amend recommendation 5 to combine both parts and to add the words “to allow
the appointment of” in front of a liaison to the Administrative Faculty Salary Placement Committee and delete
“appoint.” The recommendation now reads:
Continue the standing charge of appointing a liaison from the AFPPP Committee to the University
Administrative Manual Committee and to allow for the appointment of a liaison to the Administrative Faculty
Salary Placement Committee.
ACTION: Passed unanimously
Recommendation 6 was written in 3 parts, 6a, 6b, and 6c. These were voted on separately.
October 21, 2010 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 6
Recommendations (charge 6a): 1. (For Human Resources) Hold trainings for supervisors of administrative
faculty positions that explain how PDQs may be written to allow for administrative faculty advancement. 2. (For
supervisors) Include criteria for advancement/promotion in the position description or PDQ. 3. (For Human
Resources) Clearly define the process for a salary range review, i.e. under what circumstances a review
should occur and how the process is initiated.
MOTION: Foust/Niebur. To approve recommendation 6, parts 1, 2, &3 as written.
ACTION: Passed unanimously.
Recommendation 6b:
There was discussion about the process and how it was different in each individual unit some senators thought
that it should be better defined in each unit perhaps through bylaws. The greatest concern was that the
process was not fair in all units.
Recommendation (charge 6b): A committee in each administrative and academic faculty unit should review
and make recommendations for the evaluation process of administrative faculty within that unit, if the
evaluation process for administrative faculty is not already defined in the unit’s by-laws.
MOTION: Kilkenny/Beekun. To table the recommendation (which would go back to the Executive Board for
reassignment to the new AFPPP Committee).
ACTION: passed 4 abstentions.
Recommendation 6c:
There was discussion about whether there should be a separate senate that stands for academic faculty
issues as there was for administrative faculty issues. A concern was raised that administrative faculty would
vote depending on how their supervisor wanted them to vote. There was also discussion about whether or not
there should be a similar committee for academic faculty. The academic units have department committees
that do those things for academic faculty. Herzik said that his concern was the naming of specific units; just say
that administrative faculty can serve on the senate. Then these units could change at any time and that would
cause the senate to relook at this. Wallace explained that the reason that they named the units was to ensure
that administrative units continue to have representation on the senate.
Recommendation (charge 6c): The administrative units, Administration and Finance, Development & Alumni
Relations, Information Technology, President’s Division, Provost Division, Research and Student Services, will
continue to have representation on the University of Nevada, Reno Faculty Senate.
MOTION: Sigman-Grant/McFarland. To approve the recommendation as written.
ACTION: Failed, 11 opposed, 10 abstentions.
Chair Herzik said that the ability of administrative faculty to serve on the senate would remain status quo.
Recommendation 7:
There was concern that administrative faculty have been used in academic units to sway the vote in some
colleges.
Recommendations (charge 7): 1. All units who employ administrative faculty should review their own unit
bylaws to ensure more inclusion of the rights of administrative faculty. 2. Although the template has been
October 21, 2010 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 7
included in Appendix B as a suggestion for what administrative bylaws should include, the template should be
reviewed by the Faculty Senate Bylaws and Code Committee, and after that point, it should be posted on the
Faculty Senate Bylaws Repository as a tool that administrative units can use in crafting their own bylaws. 3.
Those units who employ a large number of administrative faculty who do not have current bylaws should use
the template in Appendix B to assist in creating their own unit bylaws within the next fiscal year.
MOTION: Foust/Larsen. To approve recommendation 7 as written.
ACTION: Passed unanimously
Recommendation for the Board of Regents
MOTION: Parker/Borman. To amend these three recommendations by combining them into one
recommendation .
ACTION: Passed unanimously
Recommendations (for Board of Regents) - Proposal 1 and 2: 1. In Section 1.1 of the NSHE Code, amend
subsection (b) to define administrative faculty (and not administrators) as “those professional staff in executive,
supervisory or support positions, as defined by the Board of Regents.” 2. In Section 1.1 of the NSHE Code,
add a definition of administrators that differentiates administrators from administrative faculty who are not
considered to be administrators. 3. Once administrative faculty and administrators are defined, use the specific
titles of academic faculty, administrative faculty and administrators in the NSHE Code when referring
exclusively to that respective subgroup.
The Bylaws and Code Committee was scheduled to report in November and the Salary and Benefits
Committee was scheduled to report in December.
Meeting Adjourned: 5:00 pm
October 21, 2010 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 8
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
October 21, 2010
Consent Agenda Item #2
Academic Standards Committee (ASC)
Charges, 2010-11 Academic Year
Purpose: The Academic Standards Committee monitors, conducts studies, and makes recommendations on
matters such as admission standards, grading practices, degree requirements, academic status, scholarships, and
related issues.
Chair to meet with Executive Board as soon as new charges are completed and in March 2011 for the standing
charges.
Report due for Presentation to Faculty Senate as soon as the report on new charges can be scheduled in April,
2011for the standing charges.
Standing Charges:
1. Review ASC 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 ASC. 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 ASC 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 ASC charges and objectives.
5. Appoint a liaison from the ASC to the Core Curriculum Board, and another liaison to the Academic
Advising Advisory Board. Facilitate communication, as appropriate, between these boards and the
Faculty Senate.
Additional Charges – to be completed as soon as possible:
1. Review NSHE’s General Ed and Transfer Policy Proposal. Make recommendations to the Senate
regarding concerns that should be discussed/investigated further or to endorse the proposal as written.
2. Review the request to change the admission policy, requiring a new or transfer student to obtain an
instructor’s signature prior to adding a class after the class has begun. Make recommendations to the
senate regarding concerns that should be discussed/investigated further or to endorse the proposal as
written.
3. As the implementation of PeopleSoft proceeds, the Committee will review academic policy issues not
addressed in our current system and/or policies that require revision prior to implementation in the new
system.
October 21, 2010 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 9
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
October 21, 2010
Consent Agenda Item #3
Research and Grants Committee (RGC)
Charges, 2010-11 Academic Year
Purpose: The Research and Grants Committee monitors university policies and offices that significantly affect the ability
of faculty to compete for external funding, conduct high-quality research, and publish research results. The committee
studies the best practices of our aspirant institutions, and makes recommendations to improve the university’s research
capacity.
Report due for Presentation to Faculty Senate in April, 2011 – Tentative Date
Standing Charges:
1. Develop strategies to implement the recommendations adopted by the Faculty Senate over the past three years.
Report on the implementation status of these recommendations, and assess whether any of the recommendations
should be modified or dropped.
2. Make recommendations on the future status, organization, structure, and charges of the RGC. Consider whether
the committee is necessary and effective, and how it could be improved.
3. Upon request by the Executive Board, review any proposals affecting RGC 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
RGC charges and objectives.
5. Appoint a liaison from the RGC to the Institutional Review Board Executive Committee. Identify other campus
committees with similar missions, and appoint liaisons as appropriate to facilitate communication between these
committees and the Faculty Senate. Recommend strategies for improving communication between RGC, the
OHRP office and IRB panels, the Office of Sponsored Project Administration, and other relevant campus
committees.
Additional Charges:
6. Appoint a Liaison to the Indirect Cost Recovery committee. Ensure there is adequate faculty input regarding the
procedures and formula for internal distribution of Facilities and Administration (F & A) and their use and
allocation through the use of open forum, email, surveys, etc. Report committee progress to the executive board
and/or senate.
7. Work together with the Vice President for Research Marsha Read to prioritize the recommendations that came
forward from the different campus committees (Research and Grant’s Committee and the Center for Advanced
Studies).
October 21, 2010 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 10
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
October 21, 2010
Consent Agenda Item #4
Administrative Faculty Personnel Policy & Procedures (AFPPP) Committee
Charges, 2010-11 Academic Year
Purpose: The Administrative Faculty Personnel Policy & Procedures Committee conducts studies on university personnel
policies and procedures, and the best practices of our peer and aspirant institutions, to make recommendations to the
senate and the administration on matters that affect the welfare and employment status of administrative faculty.
Members will include both academic and administrative faculty members.
Report due for Presentation to Faculty Senate in April, 2011.
Standing Charges:
8. Review AFPPP Committee charges over the prior three years, and any recommendations adopted by the Faculty
Senate. Report on the implementation status of these recommendations.
9. Make recommendations on the future status, organization, structure, and charges of the AFPPP Committee.
Consider whether the committee is necessary and effective, and how it could be improved.
10. Proposals affecting AFPPP Committee charges should be sent to the AFPPP by the Executive Board before they
go to the full senate for a vote. The AFPPP committee should serve as a sounding board for the Executive Board
for issues related to AFPPP committee charges and objectives.
11. In consultation with the Executive Board, appoint a liaison from the AFPPP Committee to the University
Administrative Manual Committee and to allow for the appointment of a liaison to the Administrative Faculty
Salary Placement Committee. Identify any other campus committees with similar missions or concerns, and
appoint liaisons as appropriate to facilitate communication between these committees and the Faculty Senate.
12. The Executive Board will request input for AFPPP committee charges from the senators representing
administrative units. The AFPPP chair and Faculty senate chair will discuss and agree upon the charges and
committee membership.
13. Conduct brown-bag lunch meetings of the administrative faculty, at least one per semester, to provide them an
opportunity to discuss the issues of the day or to provide them with information about benefits, policies and
procedures, etc. Coordinate with the senate office to announce these events.
Additional Charges:
1. Begin discussions with Human Resources, regarding Recommendations 6a. through 6c. from the 2009-10 AFPPP
report, determining their willingness/resources available to implement the recommendations. Report regarding the
barriers and/or obstacles that are problematic.
2. The 2009-2010 committee recommended that each unit create a committee to investigate how administrative
faculty are evaluated in that unit. This recommendation was tabled by the senate with the intent to bring it back to
the committee to refine, however, is not within the power of the Faculty Senate, or the President for that matter, to
accomplish. Therefore, we ask the 2010-2011 committee to revisit this recommendation to determine the
following: What is the intent of the recommendation? Is this intention worthy of pursuit? If so, how might it be
accomplished?”
October 21, 2010 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 11
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
October 21, 2010
Consent Agenda Item #5a
1,111 – Facilities and Administrative Rates
RATIONALE FOR CHANGE: In an attempt to clean up the UAM, the outdated policy dealing with F&A
waivers was deleted. The new policy is now located in Section 1,119 - Facilities and Administrative Cost
Recover Policy.
Facilities and Administrative Rates
1,111
Revised: September 2010
Facilities and Administrative Costs (F&A), also known as indirect costs and overhead, are those costs that cannot be
separately identified with a specific project, but which are nevertheless incurred by the University as a consequence of
conduct of a sponsored project. They are costs that are incurred for common or joint objectives and therefore, cannot be
identified readily and specifically with a particular sponsored project. The University cannot afford to accept funds for
activities without receiving the total (direct and F&A) costs of proposed research and scholarly activities. When the
University must pay these costs from their own funds, money must be diverted from other needs.
F&A rates to be used in the submission of proposals for grants and contracts to outside agencies are computed by the
Controller’s Office. The following F&A rates should be used on all proposals submitted to federal and nonfederal
agencies and organizations for research and instruction grants and contracts and other sponsored activities:
Research grants and contracts
Instruction grants and contracts
Other sponsored activities
On Campus
41.0%
51.0%
33.0%
Off Campus
26.0%
26.0%
26.0%
These rates are effective July 1, 2009.
The following distribution of F&A recovery monies from grants and contracts has been approved effective July 1, 2005:
President/Provost
4.5%
Vice President for Research
60.25%
(includes OSP, TTO, OHRP, Building Bonds, Intramural Funding & Cost Share)
College
7.75%
Department
7.75%
PI
7.75%
Administration and Finance
4.88%
Property Acquisition
0.75%
Development/Alumni
3.75%
Scholarship
2.62%
Fund 1207 and 1210 exists with separate accounts to reflect these distributions and any further allocations of
college/school F&A recovery directed by each college/school. All F&A recovery and expenditure of the same shall be
recorded in these funds.
October 21, 2010 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 12
October 21, 2010 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 13
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
October 21, 2010
Consent Agenda Item #5b
2,540 – Payment and/or Reimbursement of Moving Expenses
RATIONALE FOR CHANGE: The allowable amount for payment/reimbursement of moving expenses
paid from state funds was updated for FY11.
Payment and/or Reimbursement of Moving Expenses
2,540
Revised: September 2010
If an employee is hired into a continuing position and moved from a location which is at least 50 miles from the new
location, institutional funds may be used to pay for or reimburse the employee for certain specified moving expenses
(pursuantto the State Administrative Manual, sections 0238.0-0252.0)
http://nevadabudget.org/wiki/index.php?title=Nevada_State_Administrative_Manual.
1. Relocation travel for the employee and immediate family members: Travel expenses may be claimed for a oneway, economy class (or equivalent) airplane ticket; or reimbursement for use of a private automobile for one-way
direct travel by the employee and/or spouse using the per diem, subsistence, and mileage allowances detailed in state
travel regulations.
2. Moving of household goods: Expenses may be claimed for moving up to 18,000 pounds of household goods in
accordance with state moving regulations. Where office and professional materials are deemed essential to the
successful performance of the employee, these are not counted against the household goods limit.
The expenditure of institutional funds (state and non-state) must not exceed the costs, permitted by state travel and
moving regulations, incurred by the employee. The amount of state funds expended for a given employee cannot exceed
1/12 of the average university academic faculty salary (“B” contract base) as reported to the AAUP in the previous
academic year (the amount is updated every July 1; $7,551 for 2009-2010; $7,601 for 2010-2011).
If a unit wishes to pay or reimburse a newly hired employee for those expenses, it must forward a request to the respective
vice president through the appropriate administrative channels (i.e., chair, dean and/or director). A “Request for Moving
Expenses Reimbursement” form is available at http://www.unr.edu/vpaf/controller/documents/request_moving_exp.pdf.
The request must identify the position by number and title/rank. It must indicate the amount requested and the source of
the funds to be used.
If approved, the authorized moving expense may be paid directly to a moving company on behalf of the employee using
the requisition/purchase order process (over $2,000) through the Purchasing Department or through use of a university
purchasing card ($2,000 or less). A “Request for Payment” http://www.unr.edu/forms/#payment (with original itemized
receipts attached) may also be used to directly reimburse the employee for the authorized moving expense. A copy of the
approved “Request for Moving Expenses Reimbursement” must be attached to the requisition, purchasing card “statement
of account”, or to the “Request for Payment”.
Note: As the payment or reimbursement of these expenses may create a tax liability, the advice and assistance of a tax
attorney or other tax professional should be obtained by the employee.
October 21, 2010 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 14
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
October 21, 2010
Consent Agenda Item #5c
6,507 – Intellectual Property Policy
RATIONALE FOR CHANGE: Minor revisions were made to clean up the current policy including clarifying
that the policy is a UNR policy not an NSHE policy. Language was added to clarify the new policy of not
releasing inventions back to UNR inventors and clarifying that the University has a non-exclusive license to
use faculty owned course materials.
Intellectual Property Policy
6,507
Revised: August 2010
Section 1: Preamble
1. The Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education (“NSHE”), on behalf of the University of Nevada,
Reno (“University”), is dedicated to teaching, research, and the extension of knowledge to the public. The University
personnel at its institutions recognize as two of their major objectives the production of new knowledge and the
dissemination of both old and new knowledge. A byproduct of these objectives is the development of new and useful
products and processes and the publication of scholarly works. Such activities (1) contribute to the professional
development of the individuals involved, (2) enhance the reputation of the institutions concerned University, (3) provide
additional educational opportunities for participating students and (4) promote the general welfare of the public at large.
2. Inventions and copyrightable works often come about because of activities of NSHE university personnel who have
been aided wholly or in part through the use of university funds and/or facilities of the University System. It becomes
significant, therefore, to ensure the utilization of such inventions for the public good and to expedite their development
and marketing. The rights and privileges, as well as the incentive, of the inventor or author/creator must be preserved so
that the abilities of the inventor or author/creator and those of other university personnel of the NSHE may be further
encouraged and stimulated.
3. The University Board of Regents acknowledges that faculty, staff and students who are university employees of the
Board regularly prepare for publication, usually through individual effort and initiative, articles, pamphlets, books, and
other scholarly works which may be subject to copyright and which may generate income. Publication may also result
from work supported either partially or completely by the institution University. With the advent of innovative
techniques and procedures, the variety and number of materials which might be created in a university community have
increased significantly, causing the ownership of such copyrightable works to become increasingly complex.
4. The foregoing considered, as directed by Title IV, Chapter 12, of the NSHE Board of Regents Handbook, the
University Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education does hereby establish the following policy with
respect to inventions or intellectual property resulting from the work of its faculties, staff and students.
Section 2: Definitions
1. “Intellectual property Property” is a category of intangible property which includes patents and copyrights.
2. The term “ inventions Inventions” shall refer to all inventions, discoveries, computer programs, processes, methods,
uses, products, materials, compositions of matter, or combinations, whether or not patented or patentable at any time
under the Federal Patent Act 35 U.S.C., or relevant international foreign laws, as now existing or hereafter amended
or supplemented.
3. “Copyrightable works Works” shall include the following: (1) books, journal articles, texts, glossaries, bibliographies,
study guides, laboratory manuals, syllabi, tests and proposals; (2) lectures, musical or dramatic compositions,
unpublished scripts; (3) films, filmstrips, charts, transparencies and other video or audio broadcasts; (4) programmed
instructional materials; (5) computer programs and documentation; and (6) other materials or works which qualify for
October 21, 2010 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 15
protection under the copyright laws of the United States, international or foreign laws, or other protective statutes
whether or not copyrightable hereunder.
4. “Net income Income” is defined as income received by the NSHE University from a NSHE university owned
invention Invention or copyrightable work Copyrightable Work, less a fifteen percent (15%) management fee to
the University’s Technology Transfer Office, and less all payments or obligations directly attributable to patenting,
copyrighting, marketing, licensing, protecting, or administering the invention Invention or Copyrightable work Work.
5. “Personnel” refers to part-time and full-time members of the faculty, staff, all other agents and employees, and
undergraduate students, and graduate students, and postdoctoral fellows of the NSHE University.
6. “Work for Hire” is a Copyrightable Work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment, as
defined by the copyright laws of the United States, and is used herein, as a work prepared by an employee within the
scope of his or her employment.
7. 6. “Course Materials” refers to materials prepared for use in teaching, fixed or unfixed, in any form, including,
but not limited to, digital, print, audio, visual, or any combination thereof. Course materials include, but are not
limited to, documents related to course approval by relevant authorities, lectures, lecture notes, and materials,
syllabi, study guides, bibliographies, visual aids, images, diagrams, multimedia presentations, web-ready
content, and educational software.
Section 3: Significant Use
1. When an invention or copyrightable work is developed by NSHE university personnel or others participating in NSHE
university programs using significant NSHE university resources such as facilities, materials, equipment, personnel,
funds or other resources under the control of or administered by the NSHE university, the NSHE university will own
the invention or copyrightable work in accordance with the provisions of this policy.
2. 1. For the purposes of developing inventions Inventions or copyrightable Copyrightable works Works, the NSHE
University does not construe the provisions of office or library facilities or traditional desktop personal computers as
constituting “significant use” of NSHE university space or facilities, nor does it construe the payment of salary from
unrestricted accounts as constituting the significant use of NSHE university funds, except in those situations where the
funds were specifically paid to support the development of inventions Inventions or copyrightable works
Copyrightable Works.
3. 2. Textbooks developed in conjunction with class teaching are also excluded from the “significant use” category; unless
such textbooks were developed using NSHE university administered funds paid specifically to support textbook
development.
4. Ownership of the rights to Course Materials, including copyright, shall reside with the author/creator. However, the
University retains a fully paid-up, royalty-free, perpetual, and non-exclusive worldwide license to any Course
Materials for the purpose of continuing to teach the course of instruction for which the documents were prepared,
with the non-exclusive right to revise and update them as required for this purpose.
5. 3. Generally, an invention Invention or a copyrightable work Copyrightable Work will not be considered to have been
developed using NSHE university funds or facilities if:
(a) only a minimal amount of unrestricted funds have been used; and
(b) the invention Invention or copyrightable work Copyrightable Work has been created outside the assigned duties
of the inventor or author/creator; and
(c) only a minimal amount of time has been spent using significant NSHE university facilities or only insignificant
facilities and equipment have been utilized; and
(d) the development of the invention Invention or copyrightable work Copyrightable Work has been made on the
personal, unpaid time of the inventor or author/creator.
4.This section shall not be interpreted as preventing member institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education from
adopting stricter criteria on what constitutes the significant use of NSHE resources.
October 21, 2010 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 16
Section 4: Inventions
1. 1.An invention disclosure should be submitted when something new and useful has been conceived or developed, or
when unusual, unexpected, or unobvious research results have been achieved or utilized.
2. Determination of rights and equities in inventions Inventions (patentable or not) shall be as follows:
(a) Except as otherwise specified by the NSHE University in writing, inventions Inventions shall belong to the NSHE
University if conceived or reduced to practice: (1) by an employee of the NSHE university personnel as a result
of their employee’s duties, (2) by agreement with a non NSHE non-university sponsor or, (3) through the
significant use, by any person, of the NSHE university’s resources such as facilities, materials, equipment,
personnel, funds, or other resources under the control of or administered by the NSHE University.
(b) Inventors acquire ownership in inventions Inventions which are: (1) not the result of a NSHE employee’s
university personnel’s duties or subject to the terms of agreements with research sponsors or other third parties-;
and (2) do not involve the significant use of resources administered by the NSHE University.
(c) In the event there is a question about an invention Invention as to whether the NSHE University has an
ownership claim, the invention Invention should be disclosed to the NSHE University. Such disclosure
is without prejudice to the inventor's ownership claim. In determining ownership interest in an
invention Invention, a designated official may determine that the NSHE University has no property
interest in the invention Invention because its conception and reduction to practice was unrelated to the
inventor's NSHE university duties, involved only insignificant use of institutional university resources
or for such other reasons as may be set forth in the guidelines.
(d) Sponsor-Supported Efforts. Prior to signing any agreement with a NSHE non-university sponsor that
may result in or which deals with patent rights or the like, where NSHE university time, facilities,
materials, equipment, personnel, funds or other resources are involved, NSHE university personnel
must bring the proposed agreement to the attention of the appropriate administrators of the constituent
institution in accordance with its invention Invention procedures and either obtain a written waiver of
university rights or otherwise modify the agreement to conform with these policies, as is determined by
the NSHE University in its discretion. Research agreements with private sponsors shall define
ownership of inventions Inventions. The agreement under which inventions Inventions may be
produced may contain specific provisions with respect to disposition of rights to these materials. The
sponsor may receive an option to license such inventions Inventions on terms to be negotiated. In those
cases where all rights are vested in the NSHE University, where income is shared between the sponsor
and the constituent institution University, the inventor may appropriately share in the income. The
nature and extent of inventor participation in income, however, shall be subject to sponsor and NSHE
university regulations as well as the agreement.
(e) The University will not release University Inventions to the inventor(s). However, in the event the
University decides it cannot financially support Intellectual Property protection for a University
Invention, one or more inventor(s) may request that the University seek such protection at the
expense of the interested inventor(s). The interested inventor(s) shall enter into a written
agreement with the University in which they agree to reimburse the out-of-pocket costs associated
with seeking or maintaining Intellectual Property protection for the Invention. After execution of
such an agreement, the University will consult with the interested inventor(s) on all patent
prosecution or similar matters and will seek cost estimates upon request. Any expenses that were
reimbursed by the inventor(s) under the agreement will be considered unreimbursed, out-ofpocket expenses eligible for reimbursement from the first revenue received from a license. In
acknowledgement of the support provided by the inventor(s) under this option, in addition to
receiving their inventor share of any royalties under University Patent Policy, the inventor(s) that
reimbursed Intellectual Property expenses will share, on a pro rata basis, ten percent (10%) of the
Net Income distributed to the University from any license revenue.
October 21, 2010 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 17
Section 5: Copyrightable Works
1. Copyright is the ownership and control of the intellectual property Intellectual Property in original works of authorship
which is subject to copyright law. In contrast to a patent which protects the “idea”, copyright covers the “artistic
expression” in the particular literary work, musical work, computer program, video or motion picture or sound recording,
photograph, sculpture and so forth, in which the “expression” is embodied, illustrated or explained, but does not protect
any idea, process, concept, discovery or the like. It is the policy of the NSHE University that all rights in copyright shall
remain with the author/creator unless the work is a work for hire Work for Hire (and copyright vests in the NSHE
University under copyright law), is supported by a direct allocation of funds through the NSHE University for the
pursuit of a specific project, is commissioned by the NSHE University, is created with the significant use of NSHE
university administered resources or is otherwise subject to contractual obligations.
2. Except as may be provided otherwise in this policy, the NSHE University does not claim ownership of books, articles
and similar works Copyrightable Works, the intended purpose of which is to disseminate the results of academic
research or scholarly study. Such Copyrightable wWorks include those of students created in the course of their
education, such as dissertations, papers and articles. Similarly, the NSHE University claims no ownership of popular
nonfiction, novels, poems, musical compositions or other Copyrightable wWorks of artistic imagination which are not
institutionally university commissioned works or which were not created with the significant use of NSHE university
administered resources. If title to copyright in Copyrightable wWorks defined within this paragraph vests in the NSHE
University by law, the NSHE University will, upon request and to the extent consistent with its legal obligations,
convey copyright to the creators of such works.
3. The NSHE University shall retain ownership of Copyrightable wWorks created as institutional University rather than
personal efforts -- that is, works created for NSHE university purposes in the course of the author/creator’s employment.
For instance, work assigned to staff programmers is “work for hire” “Work for Hire” as defined by law (regardless of
whether the work is in the course of sponsored research, unsponsored research or non-research activities), as is software
developed for NSHE university purposes, and the NSHE University owns all rights, intellectual and financial, in such
Copyrightable wWorks.
4. Except as excluded under Section 3, the NSHE University owns all rights, intellectual and financial, in copyrightable
works Copyrightable Works created in the course of scholarly projects specifically funded by NSHE university
sponsored agreements or other NSHE university funds. Prior to signing any agreement with a non NSHE -university
sponsor that may result in or which deals with copyrightable works Copyrightable Works, where any NSHE university
time, facilities, materials, personnel or resources are involved, university personnel and students must bring the proposed
agreement to the attention of the appropriate administrators of the constituent institution University in accordance with
its copyright procedures and either obtain a written waiver of NSHE university rights or otherwise modify the
agreement to conform with these policies as is determined by the NSHE University at its direction.
5. Under the copyright laws of the United States, commissioned works of non-employees are owned by the author/creator
and not by the commissioning party, unless there is a written agreement to the contrary. NSHE University personnel
must, therefore, generally require NSHE university commissioned contractors to agree in writing that ownership of
copyrightable materials Copyrightable Works is assigned to the NSHE University. Examples of copyrightable works
Copyrightable Works which the NSHE University may commission non-employees to prepare are:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Illustrations or designs;
Artistic works;
Architectural or engineering drawings;
Forwards and introductions;
Computer software;
Reports by consultants or subcontractors;
6. Any videotaping, broadcasting or televising of classroom, laboratory or other instruction, and any associated use of
computers, must be approved in advance by the appropriate institutional university administrators, who shall determine
the conditions under which such activity may occur and resolve questions of ownership, distribution and policy.
7. The NSHE University in all events shall have the right to perform its obligations with respect to copyrightable works
Copyrightable Works, data, prototypes and other intellectual property Intellectual Property under any contract, grant
or other arrangements with third parties, including sponsored research agreements, license agreements and the like.
October 21, 2010 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 18
8. Except as provided in Section 3, NSHE university resources are to be used solely for NSHE university purposes and not
for personal gain or personal commercial advantage, or for any other non NSHE -university purposes.
Section 6: Administration
1. Institutional procedures for the development of inventions Inventions, copyrightable works Copyrightable Works and
intellectual property Intellectual Property at the University are as follows:
(a) Each institution of the NSHE is required to develop policies and procedures for handling inventions, copyrightable
works and intellectual property. Each president shall appoint a The University Technology Transfer Office
(“TTO”) shall be responsible for administering all Inventions, Copyrightable Works, and Intellectual
Property owned by the University. In addition, an Campus Intellectual Property Committee, consisting of at
least the Vice President for Research, the Vice President of Administration and Finance, a faculty member,
and the Patent Counsel and Director of the TTO (“Director”), or their designees, no fewer than three or more
than nine members, one of whom shall be designated by the president to serve as chairman. In each case the
committee shall include a representative of the office of fiscal affairs of that institution. This committee shall make
recommendations to the president President regarding procedures, guidelines, and responsibilities for the
administration and development of inventions Inventions, copyrightable works Copyrightable Works, intellectual
property Intellectual Property and such other matters as the president President shall determine. The committee
shall report annually to the President and to the Chancellor of the NSHE on inventions Inventions and
copyrightable works Copyrightable Works disclosed and the disposition thereof.
(b) Each president shall appoint one campus officer who The Director is responsible for the administration and
disposition of inventions Inventions, copyrightable works Copyrightable Works and intellectual property
Intellectual Property. It is the Director’s duty to determine ownership of inventions Inventions, and
copyrightable works Copyrightable Works, develop terms of agreements for/with non NSHE -university
sponsors, inventors and authors/creators and to resolve disputes among co-inventors and co-authors/co- creators.
Detailed operational guidelines and procedures for the administration of campus based responsibilities shall be
established by each campus. Any disagreement between an Inventor(s) or author(s)/creator(s) and the
Director concerning ownership of Intellectual Property may be appealed to the Vice President for Research.
If the issue is not resolved at this level, a final appeal may be made to the Executive Vice President & Provost
and President.
(c) When income is to be shared, all net income Net Income received by the constituent institution University from on
inventions Inventions and copyrightable works Copyrightable Works subject to this policy shall be divided with
the inventor(s) or the author(s)/creator(s) on the basis stated in Section 7, it being understood that if there should be a
plurality of inventors, the portion accruing to the inventors or authors/creators will be distributed on an equal share
basis unless specifically agreed otherwise in writing by all the inventors or authors/creators. The inventor(s) or
author(s)/creator(s) at or before the time of filing a patent application or copyright must agree in writing to any other
terms and conditions negotiated with the institution University. In the case of plurality of inventors or
authors/creators, all individual inventors or authors/creators must sign the same agreement.
(d) The Director is authorized to establish policies and procedures for implementing the University Intellectual
Property Policy, so long as those policies and procedures are not inconsistent with the University Intellectual
Property Policy or the Intellectual Property Policy of the NSHE.
(e) In the implementation of its policies and procedures with respect to inventions, each institution may elect, through
the recommendation of its Intellectual Property Administrator and with approval of the president, any of the
following courses:
(1) To develop and manage its licensing program through an independent patent assistance organization so as to
secure competent evaluation of inventions or discoveries, expeditious filing of application for patents and
aggressive licensing and administration of patents; or
(2) To develop and manage its licensing program through an affiliated nonprofit corporation; or
(3) To develop and manage independently its own licensing program; or
(4) To release an invention to which the institution has title or an interest to the inventor for management and
development as a private venture after the execution of an agreement providing for the division of income.
Each institution’s policies shall provide for an appeal procedure within the institution with a final internal appeal to the
president, in the event of a disagreement as to the ownership and use of an invention or intellectual property.
Section 7: Distribution of Income
October 21, 2010 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 19
1. The inventor(s) or the author(s)/creator(s) of Inventions or Copyrightable Works shall receive not less than 60 sixty
percent (60%) of the net income Net Income from each invention Invention or copyrightable work Copyrightable
Work.
2. The inventors’ or the authors’/creators’ academic unit(s) or department(s) shall receive not less than share 25 twentyfive percent (25%) of the net income Net Income and any remaining income shall go to the institution.
3. The Vice President for Research shall receive fifteen percent (15%) of the Net Income, unless one or more inventor(s)
have reimbursed patent costs under Section 4(2)(e), in which case the Vice President for Research shall receive five
percent (5%) of the Net Income, to: (1) pay for unrecovered patent and technology transfer costs incurred by the
TTO, and (2) stimulate research and scholarly activities at the University.
Institutional Policies
The intellectual property policy of each institution shall be consistent with these guidelines and shall be
submitted to the Chancellor for his review and subsequent approval by the Board of Regents.
October 21, 2010 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 20