CONSENT AGENDA
University of Nevada, Reno
2011-12 Faculty Senate
December 14, 2011
JCSU Rita Laden Senate Chambers
Process for Consideration of Consent Agenda Items:

All items on the Consent Agenda are action items. A single vote for the consent agenda passes all
items listed on the agenda. Any senator may request an agenda item be pulled for discussion and
held for a separate vote.

Prior to a vote on the consent agenda, the Chair will open the floor for comment from senators
including requests to pull items.

Once all items to be pulled have been identified, the Chair will call for a vote on the remaining
Consent Agenda items.

Discussion and action on items pulled will be managed individually.
1.
Request to Approve the November 17, 2011 Senate Meeting
Minutes
Action/Enclosure
2.
Academics Standards/ UCCC
120 Credit Limit Draft Policy
Action/Enclosure
December 14, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 1
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
December 14, 2011
Consent Agenda Item #1
November 17, 2011 Senate Meeting Minutes
1. Roll Call and Introductions:
Present: Pat Arnott (COS), Mike Bennett (A & F), Rahul Bhargava for Rafik Beekun (COBA), Todd
Borman (IT), Susan Donaldson (COOP), Patricia Ellison (CABNR), Isabelle Favre, (CLA), Catherine
Goring (SOM), Keith Hackett (Pres), Eric Herzik (Ex-Officio), Julie Hogan (DHS), Yanyao Jiang (EN),
Stephen Lafer (COE), Kami Larsen (SOM), Kami Larsen for Elissa Palmer (SOM), Amy McFarland
(SOM), Amy McFarland for Gerald Ackerman (SOM), Donica Mensing (JO), Glenn Miller (CABNR),
Swatee Naik (COS), Vannessa Nicholas (Prov), Louis Niebur (CLA), Crystal Parrish (DEV), Chuck
Price (SS), Maggie Ressel (Lib), Alice Running (DHS), David Ryfe (Chair), Valerie Smith (VPR),
Jonathan Weinstein (COS), Claudene Wharton (Pres), David Zeh (Chair-elect).
Absent: Marjorie Vecchio (CLA).
Guests: Joseph Broad (ASUN Senate), Juliana Fehr (ASUN Senate), Martha Hildreth (BCC), Casey
Stiteler (ASUN Senate).
2. Bylaws and Code Committee – “Expedited Tenure” Recommendation – Chair Martha
Hildreth
The committee was asked to review the policy revision regarding tenure with hire “expedited tenure”:
“At the request of the Board of Regents, NSHE staff prepared an amended proposal for consideration
that would allow for a similar process for tenure on hire for exemplary faculty who do not have tenure
at another institution, but who have an exemplary record that indicates extraordinary achievement in
the field. This process for granting exceptionally outstanding academic faculty tenure in a manner
similar to that defined above for faculty with tenure at other institutions protects the principles
established in the award of tenure and protects the important role of faculty in the award of tenure.
Annual reports to the Board with the list of the accomplishments that justify tenure on hire would be
required.”
While Board of Regents (BOR) oversight was not excessive, this amended policy would allow the
presidents even greater flexibility to hire someone who had never been in academia, but worked in
the private or governmental sectors and could still receive tenure at hire. The BCC recommended
against this change.
Questions/Comments:
A senator disagreed with this recommendation, he felt that the change presented to the BOR would
allow UNR to compete with universities that were larger and had more resources.
A senator said that even BOR oversight was better than not having any oversight, and that it might
prevent a president from hiring those that were not capable. Discussion centered on the need for
BOR oversight, whether or not there had been issues in the past since departments were advisory on
who would be hired with tenure. Was this something that could be brought to the P & T Committee?
Would it be possible to put a probationary period on the tenure with hire to make sure the faculty was
a good fit? If it went before the BOR or the P & T it was possible to lose a good candidate as this was
a time consuming process. In the School of Medicine (SOM) all chairs were brought in with tenure.
MOTION: Niebur/Donaldson. To accept the recommendation of the committee as written.
ACTION: Passed, 8 abstentions.
December 14, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 2
3. Chair’s Report:
Chair David Ryfe welcomed the new senators from the College of Science, Swatee Naik and
Jonathan Weinstein. Senator Alice Running from DHS was leaving the university in December and
DHS would hold an election for this vacant seat. The December meeting would begin at noon and the
January senate meeting should be held in RSJ 304.
Curricular Review was a substantive issue and everyone hated the way it was organized. Last year
Bart Patterson, Vice Chancellor for Administration and Legal Affairs, created a task force. The
recommendations of that task force were tabled. Patterson met with the council of chairs and asked
them to take on the task of looking at the report and making recommendations. The chairs would like
to include more faculty input in the process. For example: a faculty committee could look at the
financial data of their institution and then make a recommendation to the president. Each institution
would need to fill in the academic planning process that would include faculty oversight. The
recommendations would be done in December and the senate could look at them. Ryfe would have
the task force’s report sent to the senate and then the senate could send their comments to the
executive board. Suggested language would need to be general enough to fit all institutions. Ryfe
would like to see faculty involvement throughout the process.
The senate’s language regarding presidential searches has been forwarded to Brooke Nielson.
The SBC had forwarded a recommendation regarding Domestic Partner Benefits to the President last
year. Former President Glick had tabled it as it was not an appropriate time to send forward. Now that
we have a new president the SBC has asked about the status of that recommendation. Both the
President and the Provost were strongly supportive of it. Chancellor Klaich has been in discussions
with PEBP and said that if he can’t get satisfaction, then NSHE would make a concentrated effort to
leave the system.
At this point there is no policy for professors to have office hours. Administration has asked that the
executive board look into creating an Office Hour Policy. Ryfe said that he was not sure if office hours
were effective for students as there were many different ways to contact them. Both ASUN and GSA
would be asked to look into this and make a recommendation to the executive board who would then
forward it to the Academic Standards Committee (ASC).
Background checks were currently being used for classified and administrative faculty and it was felt
that best practices would be for all new hires to have a background check done. This would cost
$50.00 per individual and about $7,000 annually. The performance metrics sheet will be discussed
later in the meeting.
Chancellor Klaich presented to the legislature a 4 point plan that included fee increases. The
legislature did not accept the 13% fee increase in the second year. Klaich intended to go to the
legislature for this increase and asked for plans from the presidents for a 5%, 8%, 10% and 13%
increase plan. The first iteration sent forward from UNR was rejected because it was not student
centered and the chancellor wanted the increase to directly benefit students. Ryfe stated that we
have a health care bill coming up and there was not a budgeted line item for this. The university
would have to find 1.7 million and they were not planning on doing curricular review to get the money.
This would mean that the funds would be coming from the administrative side of the university.
Neither building renovation nor faculty retention was close enough to students to be considered in this
increase. A senator asked about salary decreases and Ryfe responded that he had not heard
anything pointing to that.
4. Consent Agenda:
October 13, 2011 meeting minutes
October 20, 2011 meeting minutes
IAC Institutional Advisory Committee
UAM revisions
December 14, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 3
Ryfe explained that the revision to the IAC nominating process was to allow the executive board to
create a more diverse committee by replacing the lowest vote holder with someone more diverse.
The Notary Public Policy was removed from the consent agenda for discussion.
MOTION: Larsen/McFarland. To approve the remainder of the consent agenda as published.
ACTION: Passed unanimously.
A senator asked why the notary policy was being changed. Michelle Hritz, Senate Manager stated
that the UAM has been undergoing changes to revamp the manual for the past several years. This is
not a change to the policy, but a new policy. He asked if there was an issue with notaries. Why are
they developing a policy that restricts the use of Notary Publics on campus? Ryfe thought that they
wanted to the Notary Publics to just be doing university business on university time. The discussion
centered on why this included only university business, this has been a convenience for faculty, staff,
and students to have Notary Publics on campus.
MOTION: Miller/Hackett. To send a letter to administration saying that the senate feels as though this
is an unnecessary additional policy.
ACTION: Passed, 3 opposed, 3 abstentions
5. Faculty Commission:
Ryfe thanked the Executive Board for their hard work on the Faculty Commission. The packet
included a statement and the proposed charges.
MOTION: Herzik/Smith. To adopt the statement and the charges as published.
ACTION: Passed unanimously.
Faculty Commission Nominees:
Ryfe explained the process of how the list was generated and why it was done in this manner. The
senators and executive board members were asked for recommendations to the nominee list and
then Ryfe went and spoke to most of the deans and the chairs to get more recommendations of
nominees to the list. There were about forty people on the list. The names were grouped into 3
categories, administrative faculty, mid-career level faculty and senior faculty. The commission needed
a diversity of minds so that all different ideas could be represented on the commission. Ryfe spoke to
each individual on the list to make sure they were willing to serve, and all of those that agreed
seemed enthusiastic and committed.
Comments/Questions:
There were no College of Education faculty on the list did they decline? There were some comments
on the diversity and unit representation of the list. Ryfe however felt that there would be enough
interaction with faculty from all units to create a pool of diverse ideas. How would faculty be able to
reach the commission members? The commission was a faculty senate sponsored commission and
would be reporting to the senate 5 or 6 times a year. The recommendations would come forward to
the senate for approval. Ryfe also hopes to have a website developed for the commission.
Results of the vote:
Kelly Corrigan, Janita Jobe, Reginald Stewart, Christopher Coake, Ana de Bettencourt-Dias, Stacy
Gordon, Gary Blomquist, Patty Charles, Amy Childress, Dana Edberg, and Trudy Larson. The
executive board added two members, JoAnne Skelly and Steven Maples. The commission was now
13 members, plus David Zeh and David Ryfe as Co-chairs. The first meeting would be scheduled in
early December. Ryfe thought the commission would have approximately ten formal meetings.
Casey Stiteler stated that the ASUN underwent a similar process and developed a Joint Vision 2017.
December 14, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 4
6. Performance Measures:
This happened quickly; a consulting group looked at the funding formula and created some
performance metrics suggestions. In the last legislative session a committee was established to make
recommendations at the next legislative session. The performance based measures would be
important to this process as people were incentive oriented animals. If there were performance
measures in the funding formula, it would be important to have a conversation about what measures
should be used. There would need to be input and output measures. Research should be a part of
the performance measures for the universities. These measures are very over simplified at this point.
Comments/Questions:
Just graduating students does not fill the needs of the state; the graduation has to happen in key
disciplines.
It seems that the number of graduates that go on to teach would be important. Klaich said that if the
legislature wanted to spend money on the universities, then we should become the universities that
the legislature wants.
UNR does pretty well on those metrics nationally and statewide, but what happens if other institutions
don’t meet those measures? Would they be given less money because they were not meeting the
targets? There would be a need to have a mechanism in place for equity and a need for a balance
between what makes a university a university, such as research or internship experience. There
should also be some kind of weight if more students were graduated in fields like nursing, which
came with a higher cost. While the university did not have control over those measures, if we could
help Klaich create or decide on better measures he would take them to the legislature. We needed to
generate ideas and then Ryfe would bring them forward to the other senate chairs. Please send any
ideas to Ryfe regarding performance measures.
7. New Business:
ASUN President Casey Stiteler said that many conversations are happening independently and he
would like students, faculty, staff and administration to push in the same direction.
Meeting Adjourned: 3:50 pm
December 14, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 5
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
December 14, 2011
Consent Agenda Item #2
120 Credit Limit Draft Policy
The Academic Standards Committee was charged to “Research the development of the campus-based portion
of the process for exceptions to the 120 credit limit (accreditation).” Due to the June 2012 implementation
deadline, the University Courses and Curricula Committee drafted the 120 Credit Exception Procedures
document found below:
DRAFT 1.3 (12/06/11)
Procedures for requesting a bachelor’s degree program in excess of 120 credits
(To be included in the UNR Administrative Manual)
Introduction
The number of credits for a bachelor’s degree has been established by the NSHE Board of Regents as 120 credits. This
standard can be found in the Board of Regents Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 16, Section 38.
Programs may request an exception to the 120-credit standard by using the procedure outlined below to verify that the
program meets one of the criteria provided in item 3 of the Handbook requirements provided below.
The Chancellor has delegated authority for approving exceptions to each institution. Each institution is accountable to the
Chancellor for adhering to the guidelines and periodically the NSHE will review institutional catalogs for adherence.
Board of Regents Handbook
Title 4, Chapter 16
Section 38. NSHE Bachelor’s Degree Requirements (Effective Fall 2012)
1. The standard number of credits required for receipt of a baccalaureate degree from an NSHE institution
shall be 120. Credit requirements for each degree, including a four-year plan of study, shall be published
in the institution’s catalog.
Rev. 250 (09/11) Title 4, Chapter 16, Page 23
2. Institutions with a compelling reason for exceeding the 120-credit standard in a particular academic
major may request an exception to the provisions of this section from the Chancellor.
3. Exceptions to the 120-credit degree standard may be approved if evidence submitted to the Chancellor
(Note: approval will be established at the institution, subject to periodic monitoring by the chancellor)
supports the necessity of more credits under at least one of the following circumstances:
a. The program is appropriately defined as a five-year baccalaureate program;
b. Professional accreditation requirements stipulate a higher number of credits or require coursework that
cannot be realistically completed within 120 credits; or
c. A program is governed by certification or licensure requirements that result in the necessity for credits
in excess of 120 over four years.
4. Institutions will report periodically to the Board of Regents the number of credits required by
their academic programs and the rationale for continuing exceptions to the 120-credit standard.
December 14, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 6
(add row to C&C matrix)
University Procedure
Proposals for exceeding the standard 120 credits for a bachelor’s degree originate with the faculty of the
program, go through the normal college curriculum review process, and require approval by the dean of the
college or deans of cooperating colleges in the case of interdisciplinary programs.
The proposal should be in the form of a memo to the provost. Once a college-approved proposal has been
received by the provost’s office, it will be forwarded to the University Course and Curriculum Committee for a
recommendation based on the criteria established by the Board of Regents policy.
The provost (check if delegated to provost by president) will make the final decision for this institution.
Proposal Guidelines
The proposal memo should include the following information:
*Brief description of the existing program and any significant curricular changes that have taken place in the
last decade.
* Summary of consultations with other similar academic programs in NSHE regarding requirements for the
bachelor’s degree.
* Data relevant to the request. This might include, but not be limited to, average time to degree, average
number of credits at graduation, alumni/employer survey data, comparisons with comparable programs at
other universities, national trends, etc. (UNR data can be provided by the Institutional Research Office.)
*Rationale for exceeding the standard 120 credits, emphasizing items related to the Board of Regents criteria.
*Current catalog copy with modifications indicated, if required
*Plan to periodically monitor the rationale for continuing an exception to the 120-credit standard. (See item 4 in
the NSHE Handbook Bachelor’s Degree Requirements. The timeline for periodic review is to be determined by
NSHE.)
The following extract from the Administrative Manual is provided to show where the procedure will be placed.
From Administrative Manual
COURSES AND CURRICULA
Curricula – Procedures for Changes, New Curricula, or Eliminations 6,030
Revised: June 2009
A curricular change is defined as any modification requiring a revision in the catalog description of a degree
requirement, program, major, minor, emphasis, specialization, certificate or other curricular description
These sections cover:
change in requirements for a degree, major, or program
introduction of a minor or alteration of requirements for a minor
elimination of a specialization, minor, certificate, or degree program
creation of a new emphasis under an existing major or degree title
establishment of a new minor, major, or academic degree program
other alterations of or development of the curriculum
* requests for bachelor’s degree exceeding the standard 120 credits
Technical Assistance
Technical assistance and review is available from UCCC staff at any point in the curriculum approval
process. When such assistance is requested by the proposal submitter, staff will review the proposal,
provide guidance on required components, and begin tracking the proposal through the approval process.
Procedures for Changes in Curricula
1. Procedures for additions of degrees, majors, or programs
a. Review by the New Program Pre-Proposal Committee (NPPP) – see section 6,040
b. Review by department, college, and UCC Committees
c. Review by the Board of Regents – see section 6,041
d. Review by the University’s accreditation association
2. Procedures for deletions of degrees, majors, or programs – see section 6,045
December 14, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 7
3. Procedures for review by Courses and Curricula Committees
a. All proposals for changes in curricula originate in the department or college and, after approval by
the department faculty, department and college curricula committee, and the dean, are forwarded to
the Provost’s Office.
Except for proposals involving only editorial changes in curricula, which the Provost’s Office may
immediately approve for implementation (see d. below), proposals for changes in either
undergraduate or graduate curricula are referred to the UCCC.
i. Proposals for requests for curricular changes should be submitted in memorandum format.
Proposals must be signed by the department chair and dean of the appropriate college or school.
ii. Proposals for curricular changes should include the proposed new catalog copy and provide full
justification for the requested change. Curricular proposals are reviewed particularly for their
effect on other university programs, the availability of staff or other resources to implement the
change, and the appropriateness of the change in relation to the goals and authorized purposes
of the department and the university.
Curricular proposals are reviewed not only as entities, but also in the context of their impact on
programs (i.e., degree, major, minor, etc.). Therefore, combine all proposals pertaining to a
single department in one submission and attach new or revised catalog copy for the programs
which will be affected by the proposals.
iii. If the proposed change affects offerings in other departments, the memo must be accompanied
by a letter of support from the impacted department(s).
iv. The submission procedure detailed in item 2c above should be followed.
6,000 – 6,999 CURRICULA, TEACHING AND RESEARCH
308 University of Nevada, Reno Administrative Manual
COURSES AND CURRICULA
Curricula – Procedures for Changes, New Curricula, or Eliminations, Continued 6,030
b. The Provost’s Office may route proposals to the Graduate Council, the University Core Curriculum
Board, and/or the NPPP Committee, as appropriate, prior to their review by the UCCC.
c. Following recommendation for approval by the UCCC, all proposals for new majors or degrees
should follow the procedures and format described in the sections for University and Board of
Regents’ New Program Approval appearing below.
d. Editorial changes in curricula - The Provost’s Office may approve, for immediate implementation,
proposals involving only editorial changes. Editorial changes are limited to changes of such a
nature that they do not require action by the UCCC. Editorial changes could include corrections of
spelling, grammar, typographical errors, and resolving of inconsistencies such as changes in course
numbers of prerequisite and corequisite courses when those courses have been renumbered through
a UCCC approved course number change. Editorial changes do NOT include changes in the
requirements for a degree, major, or program, creation or elimination of an emphasis, specialization,
minor, or degree program, or any other change that is subject to review by the UCCC.
i. A department representative may initiate the request for an editorial change in curricula by
submitting a memo, and revised catalog copy if applicable, through the department chair and
dean, to the Provost’s Office. The Provost’s Office will forward the request to the chair of the
UCCC.
ii. If the proposed change affects offerings in other departments, the memo must be accompanied
by a letter of support from the impacted department(s).
iii. If the chair of the UCCC and the Provost’s Office approve the change, a copy of the memo and
revised catalog copy will be sent to the Office of Admissions and Records. Upon receipt of the
memo in Admissions and Records, the change will be made in the degree audit encoding and in
the catalog copy as soon as possible.
iv. These changes are reported to the UCCC as an information item at its next regular meeting and
included in the minutes.
(After establishing the detailed procedures for requesting a bachelor’s degree in excess of the standard 120
credits, a section will be inserted describing the information to be provided. )
December 14, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 8
The Academic Standards Committee reviewed the document and made the following recommendations which
had been sent to the UCCC for consideration:
1) The flexibility of a memo format is appropriate, given the likely diverse requests expected.
2) Your second-to-last bullet point reads: "Current catalog copy, with modification indicated" This presumes
that a program is requesting curricular modifications while simultaneously requesting an exemption. It is likely
that many requests for exemption will not be accompanied by a request for a curricular change. Therefore, I
suggest modifying the bullet by adding two words to the end: ", if required".
3) The last bullet point requires a plan to periodically monitor the rationale for the exemption. It might make
sense to make the period of the monitoring uniform campus-wide, perhaps every three years.
The Committee is asking for Senate endorsement of these recommendations.
December 14, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 9