CONSENT AGENDA
University of Nevada, Reno
2010-11 Faculty Senate
February 16, 2012
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 January 19, 2012 Meeting Minutes
Action/Enclosure
2.
Request to approve: Bylaws and Code Committee Charges
Action/Enclosure
3.
Request to approve: Salary and Benefits Committee Charges
Action/Enclosure
4.
Request to Approve: University Administrative Manual Revisions
vetted by the UAM Committee & the Executive Board
Please note that additions are bolded
Deletions are strikethroughs
a. 505 President Delegated Signature Authority
b. 2,257 Temporary Employment Program
c. 2,361 Classified Fee Benefit Program
d. 4,716 Marketing Policy (New)
Action/Enclosure
February 16, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet
Action/Enclosure
Action/Enclosure
Action/Enclosure
Action/Enclosure
Page 1
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
February 16, 2012
Consent Agenda Item #1
January 19, 2012 Meeting Minutes
1. Roll Call and Introductions:
Present: Gerald Ackerman (SOM), Gerald Ackerman for Cathy Goring (SOM), Pat Arnott (COS), Pat Arnott
for Jonathan Weinstein (COS), Mike Bennett (A & F), Todd Borman (IT), Susan Donaldson (Ext), Patricia
Ellison (SOM), Isabelle Favre (CLA), Howard Goldbaum for Donica Mensing (JO), Mary Groves for Rafik
Beekun (COBA), Keith Hackett (Pres), Eric Herzik (Ex-Officio), Julie Hogan (DHS), Yanyao Jiang (EN),
Stephen Lafer (COE), Kami Larsen (SOM), Amy McFarland (SOM), Glenn Miller (CABNR), Swatee Naik
(COS), Vannessa Nicholas (Prov), Elissa Palmer (SOM), Crystal Parrish (DEV), Chuck Price (SS), Maggie
Ressel (Lib), David Ryfe (Chair), Valerie Smith (VPR), Marjorie Vecchio (CLA), Claudene Wharton (Pres),
Leah Wilds (CLA), David Zeh (Chair-Elect).
Absent: Louis Niebur.
Guests: Joseph Broad (ASUN), Marc Johnson (Pres), Scott Mensing (COS), Ken Smith (COS), Riley Snyder
(Nevada Sagebrush).
2. Visit with Cary Groth Athletic Director:
 Over 400 student athletes in 30 majors – less than 25 were enrolled in the General Studies 78%
graduation rate of student athletes in 2002 it was under 50%
 July 2012 move to the Mountain West Conference
 With the move to the Mountain West Conference the TV revenue would increase substantially
 16 sports that consistently rank in top 3 for Title IX
 Athletics stimulated the Reno economy
 Athletics supported 261 jobs outside of athletics
 Fundraising brought in approximately $36 million over the past seven years
 Athletics provided 2500 hours of community service.
How could the disconnect between athletics and academics be fixed? Groth responded that by offering to have
faculty and staff participate more. Groth asked senators to forward ideas to help integrate athletics and
academics to her. They would be happy to look at all the options. Athletics has a broadcast across the state and
would be happy to have faculty speak during the radio broadcasts. Use the venue of intercollegiate athletics
from a public relations standpoint, they would be happy to help.
What about discontinuing alcohol consumption in the stadium? Not many NCAA institutions allow alcohol at
events, but here it would be a very political issue with many donors and unless it came from the NCAA it would
probably decrease ticket sales. A senator asked if there was an initiative to not have alcohol advertising during
the televised games. Athletics doesn’t have control over what advertisements the networks run. Julie Hogan
offered the help of the staff at CASAT for alcohol related issues. Athletics needed to maintain certain average
of fans (butts in the seats for football) or we would go on probation. Fan behavior has gotten much better in the
past few years.
Athletics wanted to make sure that the campus and community had access to the athletic faculties.
Athletics took a hit in the budget crisis; they lost 13 positions and were also trying to do more with less.
A senator asked about the loss of Boise State in the Mountain West and would that lower the funds? Groth
responded that she did not think it would.
February 16, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 2
3. Visit with President Marc Johnson:
 Board of Regents Meeting on 1-20-12 was a strategic planning session and UNR was to present the
regents with the 8% fee increase proposal and the $5.5 million one-time money proposal. The
regents would also be looking at a proposal to change the funding formula. The proposed formula
could include output measures rather than input measures. They were looking at classes that had
been finished for SFTE and an emphasis on rewarding graduates. We would like them to consider
graduates based on the national norms.
 Administration anticipated a budget shortfall, but they were not sure of the amount or what that
would entail. Johnson said there was a possibility of a 1% tax for units. Administration would look
at spreading any budget deficit across the board and try to use a mechanism that would not impact
employees from the standpoint of closing programs again.
 A debt reduction plan would be prepared for the March 1 & 2, 2012 Board of Regents Meeting. The
Fire Science Academy closure was approved by the regents and the sale for $10 million was being
completed. 100% would go against the debt, but there would have to be some remediation expenses
to the property. The outside estimate for remediation was $4.5 million. The construction debt would
be around $ 8 million. As soon as that is paid off, the institution would be able to repurpose the
$6.50 fee that students pay. Once this becomes available, we would have a bonding capacity of $39
million which could be used for projects such facilities improvement.
 The rezoning proposal of 104 acres of the farm was approximately 10% of the farm. Approximately
200 people showed up at the rezoning hearing to oppose the rezoning. Administration was planning
on talking with those opposed to the rezoning. They have developed a FAQ regarding the issues.
Administration would be developing an RFP to see if someone from outside the university would
like to lease Wolf Pack Meats. The university would be holding an open forum on February 21, 2012
for the community. Then the university would return to the City Council for the rezoning.
 Johnson said that the Provost has the Math and Statistics Department on the list to get them out of
Temporary Administrative Governance (TAG)
A senator asked if we would be putting more resources into Institutional Analysis and Academic Advising
Assessment. Johnson responded that they were able to keep Serge Herzog’s position (Director of Institutional
Analysis). Institutional Analysis looks at what courses students take and how that would help them towards
graduation as well as feeding the information back to the high schools to help them.
4. General Education Task Force – Chair Scott Mensing:
Link to their site: http://taskforce.blogs.unr.edu/
Chair Scott Mensing said their charge was to look at the learning outcomes and alternative means of effective
and efficient delivery for all UNR students across disciplines. The committee was to get the ideas up and
running for a discussion across campus. The committee had representation from every unit that had a teaching
mission, and CLA and COS each had two representatives. While the library no longer has a representative,
Kathlin Ray was still consulted when needed. This year a representative from Core Writing, Core Sciences,
and the Core Curriculum Director were added to the Task Force.
February 16, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 3
Last year the task force work focused on background data, on what other universities were doing, and the
general state of our competencies. A survey was conducted in the spring of 2011 and the results were on their
website.
This year the committee was looking conceptually at different ways to define the core, by looking at what the
university currently is doing, looking at defining key outcomes and certain fields of study. Once the committee
finished their work, their recommendation would become part of a greater conversation.
A senator asked about the accrediting bodies and what kind of requirements they had. President Johnson
responded that he believed that the accrediting body did not prescribe for general education core, but they were
more interested in the learning objectives assessment to make sure that those were being met.
The task force would need to address goals and guidelines set up by the regents for articulation.
With the 120 credit hour maximum, would the core curriculum be expanding? At this point, there had not been
any discussion of increasing the core, but they also had not been mandated with reducing the core.
There was discussion regarding class size, full professors teaching and that the results of the studies were
counter intuitive. The committee should also provide a rationale so that if it is an essential skill or quality that
comes out of the core that it is written in such a way that we need to find the resources to provide that skill. It
would be good to show that these skills are required beyond college. Scott indicated we were trying to avoid job
skills within an industry as that is a shooting match. The committee has not yet brought in people from the
community to discuss the core yet. The committee was hoping to have a second year report by the end of the
semester.
5. Chairs Report:
Chair David Ryfe reported that the Academic Standards Dismissal Policy was implemented and approximately
200 students were notified via mail. Those students who received a letter had to go before the Academic
Dismissal Committee to appeal their status. In the past, if a student’s GPA was under 2.0 they could continue,
now they must have if there GPA is too low, they can be dismissed and must go before the committee. For those
students who it is mathematically possible to bring their grade up in one semester they will have that
opportunity.
Link to the Dismissal Policy and Forms:
http://www.unr.edu/academic-central/forms-and-policies/policies/academic-standing-dismissal-process
President Johnson scheduled a Town Hall meeting February 1, 2012.
New enrollment deadlines have been established, June 1 for new students and July 15 for transfer students. This
was expected to increase the graduation rate of students.
The Presidential Search Firm was scheduled to meet with several groups on campus; the senate’s time with
them was scheduled for February 7, 2012 at 12:40 pm in the Rita Laden Senate Chambers of the JCSU. There
was an open forum scheduled from 4:30 to 5:30 pm in the JCSU Student Union Theatre.
The Code Review Committee was looking at the Curricular Review Process. The Council of Chairs was hoping
to add faculty input at each step of the process. The chairs would give input to the committee. There appeared to
be more interest from the regents regarding this instead of the presidents. The chairs would like to have faculty
input at each step of the Curricular Review Process. The chairs have identified 4 structures of the process:
Declaration of Curricular Review, Academic Planning Process, Reorganization/Reassignment, and
Reconsideration Process. Now we only have faculty input in the curricular review process and reconsideration.
There was more interest with regents regarding fixing curricular review through the code rather than with the
presidents.
Chairman Jason Geddes was leading the regents through strategic planning and the funding formula. The
funding formula has not been used in the past 2 biennium, has not been fully funded, and was a very
complicated formula. The chancellor presented a simpler formula model to the Funding of Higher Education
Committee and to the Board of Regents.
Link to the document:
February 16, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 4
http://system.nevada.edu/tasks/sites/Nshe/assets/File/BoardOfRegents/Agendas/2012/janmtgs/BOR_01.20.12/BOR-5.pdf
The suggested formula was based on three parts: a weighted student credit hour, research mission, and
performance based measure. This was based on the university being allowed to keep 100% of their tuition and a
50% state subsidy. All these decisions would need to be made by June.
Chancellor Klaich was negotiating with the Governor regarding performance based measures. Cannot have
performance based measures that are so solid and grounded and not have a good measure of learning. Faculty
want to teach which implies some learning is happening. Ryfe has been negotiating with Klaich to form a
faculty committee to work along with the working group at the NSHE level to develop some metrics for
learning.
Commission update: the commission has met and divided up into 2 subgroups for their work and were taking
inventory on campus to see how much and what quality of entrepreneurships was taking place. They were also
finding out what strategic plans were on campus. The commission would meet again January 31, 2012.
The fiscal year 13 budget would start with a $3.5 million hole. Health care cost and increases of $1.5 million
and an underestimation of $2 million from last time. This was a structural deficit, not a one-time deficit. One of
the ways to close the gap of the deficit would be to charge each unit a 1% tax of their personnel income and
then use $ 2 million of the one-time money. If the university received tuition and fees, they could use this to fill
the hole. There was discussion about the legislature giving up control of tuition and fees to NSHE.
6. Consent Agenda:
Link to the Consent Agenda:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/11-12/Agenda/1-19-12%20consentpkt.doc
12-14-11 Meeting minutes
5,410 Core Research Facilities Policy for the UAM
Passed unanimously
7. New Business:
Faculty still needed complete their WebCampus training. In every course, there was a link to a library guide.
Construction around campus link:
http://Reno.gov/NorthVirginia
President’s Town Hall will be on WebCT.
Meeting Adjourned: 4:10 pm
February 16, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 5
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
February 16, 2012
Consent Agenda Item #2
Bylaws and Code Committee Charges
Bylaws & Code Committee (BCC)
Charges, 2012 Calendar Year
Purpose: Review and make recommendations regarding revisions to the NSHE Code, the UNR Bylaws, the
Administrative Manual, and other governing documents.
Report due to Executive Board at the beginning of November 2012, for presentation to the Senate in December
2012.
Standing Charges:
1. Review BCC charges and recommendations adopted by the Faculty Senate over the prior three years.
Report on the 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.
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.
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 a 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, serve as a sounding board for the Executive Board on issues related to BCC charges and
objectives.
Additional Charges
6. Propose UNR Bylaw language requiring review and recommendation of tenure on hire decisions by the
University Promotion and Tenure Committee.
February 16, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 6
7. After conclusion of the pending UNR Bylaws RFA, make recommendations to make the bylaws gender
neutral.
8. Make a recommendation as to the definition of a “Dean’s Equivalent” in the Division of Health Sciences.
9. The Code requires a faculty member to request reconsideration and grieve at the level a negative decision
is rendered. Determine what should happen in each academic unit when promotion and/or tenure is
refused at the department level. Should the process stop there, or should it go one at least for a college
review? Make a recommendation for a university-wide standard process.
February 16, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 7
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
February 16, 2012
Consent Agenda Item #3
Salary and Benefits Committee Charges
Salary & Benefits Committee (SBC)
Charges, 2012 Calendar Year
Purpose: Monitor, review, investigate and make recommendations on salary schedules, health benefits,
system/campus benefits, employment policies.
Report due to Executive Board at the beginning of November 2012, for presentation to the Senate in December
2012.
Standing Charges:
1. Review SBC charges and recommendations adopted by the Faculty Senate over the prior three years.
Report on the status of these recommendations.
a. Work with HR (Tim McFarling) to determine the outcome regarding overload benefits
b. 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.
c. Continue to monitor the Salary Equity Survey and the impact other forms of supplemental
compensation.
d. Monitor inclusion of domestic partner benefits at the system level.
e. Continue monitoring bridge funding possibilities.
f. Monitor the principles and RFA requesting 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.
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 its website is accurate and up-to-date. Assess and monitor university
practices with respect to educating faculty about the spectrum of existing benefits and make
recommendations in regards to possible improvements.
February 16, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 8
Additional Charges:
7. UNR Bylaw 3.3.4 states, “In the event that merit funds were not available in the previous year(s), the
record of the previous evaluation period(s) shall also be considered in awarding of merit increases.”
Investigate how administration plans to implement this requirement if and when merit funds are made
available. Work with administration to create a procedure for applying merit fairly under these
circumstances.
8. Liaise with PEBP Task Force regarding supplemental benefits and report back to the Executive Board
quarterly, or as information is available.
9. Investigate how salary and compensation are affecting recruitment and retention of faculty across the
university.
February 16, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 9
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
February 16, 2012
Consent Agenda Item #4
University Administrative Manual Revisions
Link to UAM Revisions:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/11-12/Agenda/UAM_ConsentPkt_2-16-12.doc
February 16, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 10