CONSENT AGENDA
University of Nevada, Reno
2011-12 Faculty Senate
November 17, 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.
2.
3.
Request to Approve the October 13, 2011 Special Senate
Meeting Minutes
& October 20, 2011 Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
Institutional Advisory Committee ( IAC
) Election Procedures Revised
Action/Enclosure
Action/Enclosure
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. 1,900 Equal Employment Opportunity Statement
b. 5,020
University Notary Public Services
Action/Enclosure
Action/Enclosure

UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
November 17, 2011
October 13, 2011 Special Senate Meeting Minutes
Roll Call and Introductions:
Gerald Ackerman (SOM) via video, Pat Arnott (COS), Rafik Beekun (COBA), Mike Bennett (A & F), Todd
Borman (IT), Patricia Ellison (CABNR), Isabelle Favre (CLA), Isabelle Favre for Marjorie Vecchio
(CLA),Howard Goldbaum for Donica Mensing (JO), Keith Hackett (Pres), Eric Herzik (Immediate Past Chair),
Stephen Lafer (COE), Kami Larsen (SOM), via video, Amy McFarland (SOM), Glenn Miller (CABNR), Denise
Montcalm for Alice Running (CHA), Vannessa Nicholas (Prov), Louis Niebur (CLA), Louis Niebur for Leah
Wilds (CLA), Elissa Palmer (SOM) via audio, Crystal Parrish (DEV), Chuck Price (SS), Maggie Ressel (Lib),
David Ryfe (Chair),Kerry Seymour for Sue Donaldson(COOP), Valerie Smith (VPR), Claudene Wharton
(Pres), David Zeh (Chair Elect).
Absent: Cathy Goring (SOM), Julie Hogan (DHS), Yanyao Jiang (EN).
Guests: Duncan Aldrich (Lib) Dean Scott Casper (CLA), Executive Vice President and Provost Heather Hardy,
President Marc Johnson, Riley Snyder Sagebrush).
Reassignment
Senate Chair David Ryfe called the meeting to order. Senators and guests were given instructions for using the microphones. Chair David Ryfe gave senators some background on why a special meeting was called. A special meeting could be called by 25% of the senate and must be held within 10 days from that time. Ryfe thanked the senate office staff for their hard work in scheduling this video conference; he also thanked
President Johnson, EVVP Hardy, and Dean Casper for rearranging their time to attend this meeting. Ryfe also gave instructions on how he would run the meeting. First the senate would hear from Johnson, Hardy, and
Casper and then senators could ask questions. He would consider a motion, a second and then comments from senators. Public comment would be accepted, public would write down their comments and those would be read.
The meeting was to discuss the posting for: Assistant Professor, Gender Race and Identity Program (Women’s
Studies) and the reassignment process.
President Marc Johnson reported that he was very involved in the CR process and said that he would like to address this issue. UNR followed the NSHE Code in this process, Title 2, Chapter 5, section 5.4.6:
5.4.6 Curricular Reasons for Termination. A faculty member may be laid off because an administrative unit, project, program or curriculum has been discontinued, reduced in size or reorganized for bona fide reasons pertaining to the missions of the System institutions resulting in the elimination of the faculty member's position. Such curricular revisions shall come as a consequence of the academic planning process as established in writing and approved by the presidents of the member institutions affected, and which may be set forth in the institutional bylaws. For faculty members of the Desert Research Institute, however, refer to
Section 5.8 of the Nevada System of Higher Education Code.
Following the requirements, Johnson said that we went through the whole curricular review process and academic planning process as approved by former President Glick. German Studies was one of the programs eliminated. Valerie and several others were given notices of lay off. There were two provisions that we had to follow, one was Title 2, Chapter 5, section 5.4.7 c.
5.4.7 Procedures for Furlough, Pay Reduction or Termination of Employment Due to Financial Exigency or
Curricular Reasons.
(c) If a faculty member is laid off for the above stated reasons, the faculty member's position will not be filled within a period of two years, unless a reasonable attempt to offer reappointment has been unsuccessful or

reappointment has been offered in writing and the faculty member has not accepted the same in writing within
20 calendar days of the receipt of the offer. The reappointment referred to herein shall be at the faculty member's previous rank or salary level.
The Valerie Weinstein position was closed forever and the position line was removed as part of the budget cutting process. The position at issue was a new position.
The second provision of the code is Title 2, Chapter 5, section 5.4.7 b.
(b) The faculty member shall be continued in employment, if possible and if such employment does not result in the termination of employment of another faculty member, in an appropriate qualified professional capacity within the System institution involved.
Administration did attempt to find positions for everyone one the layoff list, they did not succeed in all cases.
They did offer some faculty RCUF (renewable, contingent upon funding), positions. In Supply Chain
Management three faculty members were laid off, two faculty members were retained and one of those decided to retire, which opened up one position. The unit opened a search among those three and one applied. Johnson gave a couple of other examples of how administration followed these policies within the budget constraints.
The reconsideration committee came back with a suggestion regarding the downsizing of a program. The committee felt that it everyone should have an opportunity to apply. For example, in the College of Cooperative
Extension, all those area specialists were laid off and were able to apply for the open positions in their areas of expertise. This was now policy and would be written into the Administration Manual. Some implications were made that since we have laid off any tenured f aculty that we didn’t value tenure and that was not true.
Administration did not believe that there would be major budget cuts in the future; therefore, there would not be layoffs of tenured faculty unless they fell under chapter 6 of the code. Tenure was secure and was a long term contract and faculty could do things that were controversial and would be protected. The size and quality of the programs was the point of Curricular Review.
Executive Vice President and Provost Heather Hardy said that she appreciated the opportunity to be here and hoped to provide some information that would be valuable to the session. She said that another valuable academic principle was that of shared governance. She then spoke about the search approval process.
Searches were more centralized in the past, now salary savings are handled at the deans level, as well as searches. Hardy explained that in the month of June she was trying to do the job of provost and dean. On June
29, 2011 Jen Hill the new Director of Women’s Studies spoke with Hardy regarding a faculty member who was planning on resigning effective December 2011. They discussed the process and then Jen Hill was to speak to
Interim Dean Scott Casper spoke about the process in CLA and things unfolded with this search request.
Search requests go through two phases of shared governance. First the request would come forward from the program or department and they consult with faculty and the strategic plan. Then the request was submitted to the dean who then prioritized the requests. The second phase was to go through the college planning committee. The dean submits a search list to the college planning committee for consultation and then the dean submits the list to the provost. On July 1, 2011 Casper received a letter of resignation from Rosemary
Dixon and then Jen Hill was told how position requests were done. The request was based on the strategic plan from 2005 and part of the plan was to create two tenure track joint appointments in Women’s Studies, one with the social science and the other with humanities. The first position was implemented about five years ago.
Rosemary Dixon’s resignation afforded Women’s Studies and Gender Race and Identity Program the opportunity to hire. The strategic plan of CLA has been to replace lecturers with tenure track positions as they opened up. The entry level tenure track position in Women’s Studies and Humanities was placed in the priorities and submitted to the Planning Committee in August and then submitted to the Provost. Hardy said that all deans were asked to submit budget lists with the requests. Her role was to make sure they had the budget numbers in place. In most cases, E-search was used and the department then submitted their requests electronically, then they were approved at the college level and then approved by Vice Provost Jannet
Vreeland.

Questions and Comments from the senate:
What was Rosemary’s position? She was a lecturer in Women’s Studies.
Could this position have been structured so that Dr. Weinstein could have been hired? There was not a position when Dr. Weinstein left. This was a college decision, and Casper felt that it was not appropriate to discuss qualifications of a faculty member in a public setting. It would be more appropriate to say that the directors of the programs asked for an entry level tenure track position and with shared governance that was appropriate and not his place to tell them how to write the position request.
The department handbook says that faculty member shall be continued in employment if possible. Dr.
Weinstein had already left when the position opened up.
A few senators expressed dissatisfaction over the way this was handled. Some felt that even though the letter of the code was followed the spirit of it should have been leaned toward hiring Dr. Weinstein. There was also some concern expressed over the differing opinion of the spirit of the code and that would be up to interpretation of each individual.
What classes did Weinstein teach and what classes would this position teach? Casper responded that he felt that was inappropriate to discuss in this setting as it was a personnel issue.
A senator thanked Johnson, Hardy, and Casper for attending this special meeting and said that they did follow the code, but there was a perception that the process was flawed and how should they deal with that?
Johnson said that perceptions vary and if the senate would like Hardy and Casper could stay to help narrow down those perceptions and make sure that we create policy that would be useful as we go forward. Last year administration changed the policy based on the recommendations of the reconsideration committee. As we get information through discussion we could certainly be more sensitive to create policies that handle the various perceptions about these kinds of issues. Hardy responded that she certainly understood the angst this caused and the timing was unfortunate. No one wanted Dixon to leave and the other individual had already taken steps to find other employment. There was no advanced knowledge that Dixon would leave and that her last day would be in December.
This position had not closed yet, had Weinstein applied for it? That was not known and would not be known until the search closed who had applied.
Ryfe thanked them again for coming.
If there were no more questions that would be addressed to them then the senate could begin to have a free and open discussion.
Discussion: The senate discussed Weinstein’s teaching qualifications and if she would be qualified for this new position. It was mentioned that Casper had a meeting with CLA senators last week and he explained why decisions were made and also that he did not feel comfortable telling departments who to hire and that this was a completely different job. There was some discomfort about speaking out in front of their dean at this meeting by some senators. Another senator remarked that he felt it was inappropriate for a dean to call the senators into a meeting to discuss these issues. It was hard to say that she was not appropriate for the job.
Ryfe said that it appeared that each individual was playing their role, but that there was no conversation in administration about what was happening.
A senator spoke about a good faith effort and perhaps this should be rectified. It appeared to them that there was some disingenuousness in this. Some senators were under the impression that once curricular review was over that administration would bend over backwards to place fired faculty. The term shared governance seemed to be overused by administration in this presentation.
A senator said that we needed to pause and realize that there was a lot of emotion in this. We are making judgments about a process that no one looked at as we are now. Administration followed policy and code and this senator did not see a diabolical or grand scheme to cause hurt. The checks and balances don’t always work.
There was some discussion about whether or not the senate should be involved in an individual case rather than addressing the generalities of these issues.
There was more discussion regarding the letter of the code and the spirit of the code and that administration might have done more in this case. The senate would vote by secret ballot.
MOTION: Miller/Beekun. To have the UNR Faculty Senate support the recommendation to rehire Valerie
Weinstein at previous salary and rank into that position.

A friendly amendment was made to reimburse her for moving expenses. The friendly amendment was not unanimous, so the motion will stand.
ACTION: Passed 16 approved, 9 opposed.
Ryfe said the issue underneath was the academic planning process. Curricular Review in the code states that the President must create an academic planning process, but it didn’t have to be in writing. This issue was regarding reassignment; however there was no language in the code or bylaws regarding this. This policy of laying off tenured faculty was refined in the second round of curricular review. Ryfe felt that some senate review of this was important. The senate had more discussion and then voted on the following motion.
MOTION: Beekun/Borman. To revise the academic planning process to include an explicit process of reassignment that adds some level of faculty senate review.
ACTION: Passed
There was no public comment
Meeting Adjourned 4:19 pm.
October 20, 2011 Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
1. Roll Call and Introductions:
Present: Pat Arnott (COS), Rafik Beekun (COBA), Mike Bennett (A & F), Todd Borman (IT), Susan Donaldson
(COOP), Patricia Ellison (CABNR), Isabelle Favre (CLA), Isabelle Favre for Marjorie Vecchio (CLS), Keith
Hackett (Pres), Eric Herzik (Ex-officio), Yanyao Jiang (EN), Kami Larsen (SOM), Kami Larsen for Catherine
Goring (SOM), Amy McFarland (SOM), Donica Mensing (JO), Glenn Miller (CABNR), Vannessa Nicholas
(Prov), Louis Niebur (CLA), Elissa Palmer (SOM), Crystal Parrish (DEV), Chuck Price (SS), Maggie Ressel
(Lib), Alice Running (DHS), Alice Running for Julie Hogan (DHS), David Ryfe (Chair), Valerie Smith (VPR),
Claudene Wharton (Pres), Leah Wilds (CLA), David Zeh (Chair-elect).
Absent: Gerald Ackerman (SOM), Stephen Lafer (COE).
Guests: Maureen Cronin (SS), Martha Hildreth (CLA), President Marc Johnson, Chancellor Dan Klaich.
2. Visit with Chancellor Dan Klaich:
Chancellor Klaich thanked the senate for inviting him to the meeting and said that he appreciated the opportunity to attend. He felt that this was an important connection.
The system institutions have been through budget cuts and now would need to rebuild. The regents tried to cut the budget in the least destructive way. Now that the budget cutting days were in the past, the regents were looking at the difficult task of moving forward. He had several questions he felt were important to have answered by each institution. Where did UNR want to focus? W hat would be the senate’s role in the rebuilding a governance structure within a political context that won’t be going away? What should our thoughts be about revising the funding formula? What should the role of the student and family be in contributing to the cost of higher education? Should the fees stay on the campus they were generated on?
There was a new political and economic environment in the state that would be here for a while. The regents were engaging in that kind of thinking and a strategic planning exercise. This institution and higher education would be redefined over the next two to four years.
Questions from the senate:
One way of growing was being more fully funded, what were the issues with out of state tuition coming to
UNR?
Tuition retention did not happen last session as the sponsor of the bill spiked the bill. Klaich felt that this issue would be the focus of the formula funding study. Klaich also thought that the university had too many Good
Neighbor and Western Undergraduate Exchange (WUE) students.
Klaich said that things would happen quickly in Nevada, and the university needed to be mindful not to debate and discuss things for too long of a period, but he understood that we still needed to partake in shared governance and move forward with deliberate understanding.

Were the regents doing too much or too little? They were a good board of regents and they were looking at what needed to be accomplished.
We have done a poor job of communication with the community. The reason that Klaich hired a system wide government relations person was to help communicate and educate the community.
The senate was in the process of creating a faculty commission to look at visions for the university from a faculty perspective, how would this play into what the regents were doing and should be doing? Klaich stated that he believed in understanding and communication and that this was a great idea. He also said that he expe cted that the faculty’s vision would be different from the regents and the governor, but that with discussion all parties could come up with a workable plan that everyone could buy into.
If there were more budget cuts at a later time would the system be looking at cutting the lower institutions rather than undercutting the two universities? Klaich did not believe that there would be more budget cuts coming.
What did the Chancellor think about the state of the School of Medicine in Las Vegas? Klaich said that the
School of Medicine in Las Vegas did not have a strong physical presence and that needed to improve as well as building up the basic sciences.
Chair David Ryfe thanked the Chancellor.
3. Faculty Commission Update:
The Executive Board has drafted the charges and they have some process in place and they would like the commission to run from December to December for continuity. This would allow the new president time to be on campus. Ryfe felt that the report should lead into a discussion with the president and possibly be part of the self study for the accreditation process. Approximately 30 faculty members were suggested to serve on this committee a few of those from the senate. The three groups Ryfe wanted to see on the committee were senior academic faculty, junior academic faculty, and administrative faculty. The board would winnow the list down to approximately 20 and then see who would be willing to serve and then the senate would vote on the slate of candidates and the charges in November. Suggestions should be sent to Michelle Hritz or Ryfe. This commission was senate sponsored and the report and recommendations would come back to the senate for final approval. These recommendations would not be a set of demands to the new administration, but a set of priorities that the senate could lead a conversation with the new administration. This would be about shared governance.
4. Visit with President Marc Johnson:
President Marc Johnson had two things he wanted to discuss with the senate and then he would be open to questions and comments. The first topic was outreach activities. They were implementing several strategies on behalf of the university. One was working with Bob Dickens, Director of Governmental Relations. They have developed a strategy to meet with each of the legislators. Their goal was to answer questions that the legislators have for the university. Most of the legislators support the university but not increased taxes.
The university was looking for ways to be part of economic development and we have been responding to many invitations from the community, including the Regional Alliance for Downtown (RAD), Northern Nevada
Economic Coalition (NNEC), Rotary and others. We wanted to show them that we were players with resources, we have contributed to the workforce, we have done research that could be commercialized in this area, we have added to the cultural life of this place. There was excitement in being a university centered community and both city and county government was on board. The media relations group has been extremely effective telling the story of the university and we had many good articles in the Reno Gazette Journal. Our relations with both TV and radio are good as well and the media and community see us as a positive asset. The great shakeout event that was held was a good example of community wide involvement.
The second item he wanted to talk about was the more serious matter regarding the letter from Chair David
Ryfe based on the motions of the Faculty Senate’s Special Meeting held October 13, 2011.
The letter discussed two motions passed by the senate.” In the first motion, the senate recommended that the open tenuretrack line in Women’s Studies and a humanities discipline be used to offer Associate Professor
Valerie W einstein reinstatement at her form rank and title as an associate professor in Women’s Studies and a related humanities discipline.” A lecturer decided to leave the university in December so the college followed

their rules and opened a search along the lines their faculty had determined through strategic planning with regards to Gender, Race and Identity Studies and Women’s Studies. The faculty wanted a tenure track humanities position similar to a social science position that would be split 50/50. Johnson understood that while the majority of senate thought that this would heal the wounds, he felt that by ignoring the rules and the results of the CLA faculty to proceed with this search would do the opposite and allow things to continue to fester. The
President did not accept the recommendation of the senate on this motion. Dr. Weinstein could apply for the position if she desired, and she would receive due consideration.
2 nd motion, “the senate recommended that the academic planning process associated with curricular review be revised to include an explicit process of reassignment, and that this process include some form of faculty senate review.”
There are basically 2 circumstances for continuing employment: The first could be used in a program downsizing in which some faculty positions were closed in a unit, but some remained. Then the policy used this year, which would be written into the Administrative Manual, was that every unit that was closed or downsized as a result of curricular review and there were still open positions then everyone in the unit could apply for those positions. A standard hiring process would occur with review committees and the faculty members who were laid off could apply. This was what happened with Extension and the Nevada Bureau of Mines and
Geology. The second case would include the ad hoc situations where you just happen to find a vacancy, such as what happened in Supply Chain Management. A retained faculty member decided to retire prior to the layoffs being completed, the college ran a search with the three individuals that were laid off and one was hired at the original rank and salary.
The process for moving from a vacant position to a new position was that the receiving unit must be consulted and must accept the person as an appropriate person to fill the position.
Discussion and questions:
There was no senate review of the reassignment process and some felt that was an issue. Johnson said that there was senate review of the policies throughout the process, but that it would be inappropriate to have the senate review individual reassignments. Johnson also responded that reassignment was a term used for administrators and a more accurate phrase might be continuation of employment. Once the policy was written it would go to the senate prior to going in either the bylaws or the administrative manual.
There was discussion of closing the German position. Johnson said that the purpose of the policy was to make sure that administration could not close a program to get rid of a person and then three weeks later open the same position up. A senator asked if it was a question of semantics; this person was a quality person and while the rules were followed it seemed as though more could have been done. What should senators say to faculty to help them move forward? Administration tried hard to find positions for faculty that were laid off, within their budget constraints. They tried to find as many positions as possible, some RCUFs, others when someone retired or left. A senator asked why the department did not write a job description that fit Dr. Weinstein specifically. While Dr. Weinstein taught in Women’s Studies and was an expert in German Studies, the college made the choice of the job description.
The change of policy regarding laid off faculty reapplying came about due to the Curricular Review
Reconsideration Committee. They brought forward the suggestion that if positions came available then all those laid off should be able to apply.
A senator commented that it would be inappropriate to tell the department who they should hire. Also at the special meeting a significant number of senators did not vote for the first motion. In the vote for the first motion
16 approved and 9 objected.
A senator asked about the $4.2 million budget increase that the School of Medicine received. Johnson responded that they did not receive an increase, but that their budget line was not cut by $4.2 million and the university line picked up a 4.2% decrease to cover that. The strategic goal was to protect the SOM as they had planned to increase the MD class size and to double the nursing class size.
Ryfe said he had three last things to say on this issue as things to think about.
First, he said that he thought that everyone could agree that we wanted to move forward and grow and prosper and do positive things rather than negative things. We need to recognize that we must acknowledge where we have been in order to move forward productively. Second, we spent three years strategically cutting the universit y. We looked at what was necessary and what wasn’t. We can’t then decentralize all hiring decisions

to the major units and expect those to align with the strategic cuts that have happened. We want to respect the hiring practices at local levels we owe it to everyone to do it in a way that matches our strategic goals. Third he would like administration to think about this senate review process vs. policy. We are happy to look at the policy and make it as good as possible, but in extraordinary circumstances he felt that they should be erring in the side of transparency rather than the opposite. If we have to do this again, we will run into this again. The way to establish trust was through interaction, not through the suggestion that you ought to trust me. We have oversight throughout the process. We cut 63 tenured faculty in three years, more than any other institution.
This was a credit to the policy and the willingness of everyone to work together. Ryfe encouraged administration to think it through and consider allowing senate review as recommended in motion two.
5. Bylaws and Code Committee Presidential Search Language- Martha Hildreth:
Chair Martha Hildreth reported that they were charged to look at the code language regarding the presidential search process. Vice Chancellor of Administrative and Legal Affairs Bart Patterson made suggestions to create flexibility so that the code would not have to be suspended as regents have done in the past. The BCC looked at the different options Patterson provided to the senate chairs and the committee felt that option 1 was the best, but the language needed some revisions. Link to the revision: http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/11-12/Agenda/10-20-11%20agendapkt(R).doc
The committee’s revisions add more restrictions to the proposed language. This language would create an opportunity to consult with faculty regarding the search.
MOTION: Beekun/Wilds. To accept the committee’s report on this charge.
ACTION: Passed unanimously.
MOTION: Miller/Ressel. To accept Option 1 with the committee’s recommended changes.
ACTION: passed unanimously
6. Academic Standards Academic Dismissal Review Committee:
Link to the report regarding the Academic Dismissal Review Committee: http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/11-12/Agenda/10-20-11%20agendapkt(R).doc
Maureen Cronin presented the recommendation of the committee. There were two parts to this issue. Last year the committee created a form and there were things that needed to be revised on that form. Cronin worked with Vice Provost and Secretary to the University Jannet Vreeland to revise the form. The Dismissal
Review Committee has two purposes, to hear from students who don’t want to be dismissed and those who have been dismissed and want to return to the university. There could be as many as 150 student appeals this time as this will be the first semester that this policy would be instituted. This policy would fit in with the new
Enrollment Management Plan. The students that enter into dismissal would count against our graduation rate.
Cronin summarized the structure of the committee, the terms and the appointment of the chair of the committee by the provost. A senator suggested that perhaps eight was too large for this committee and thought that five might be more acceptable. They should still be from different divisions to ensure that there was no appearance of favoritism.
MOTION: Miller/Beekun. To accept the report of the committee.
ACTION: Passed unanimously
MOTION: Wharton/Wilds. To reduce the number of committee members to five and to keep the stipulation that they be from different units.
ACTION: Passed, 1 opposed.
7. Parking:
Ryfe said that the executive board received a parking talking points memo. The parking permit fees had not been raised for three years, but this year they increased $25.00. There were fewer permits issued this year, partly because parking services has been encouraging the use of alternate transportation. Parking Services did not expect to have another increase for some time. The Parking and Traffic Board was composed of students, faculty and staff and the board approved the permit increase. Former President Glick made the decision for the parking fee waiver for Athletics. The executive board thought that they could ask President Johnson to

reconsider this decision, however, Ryfe stated that the underlying issue was the way the overall budget decisions were made. All lines have been consolidated into two and this would give the administration more leeway to move money between those lines. In the past there was the University Planning Committee, then the
President’s Council and Academic Leadership Council, and finally former President Glick constituted a 3 or 4 member group to make budget decisions and the brought the information to the President’s Council. Ryfe felt that budget information should be p assed by a larger group of people. If done in the President’s Council, the only faculty representative was the senate chair who could possibly miss significant changes.
There were some questions and discussion about who had to pay for parking and the transparency of the process. Keith Hackett provided some history of Athletics parking. In the past there was an agreement that
Athletics paid $1.00 for every ticket sold and then a certain number of spaces were reserved. There was more discussion about the equity of parking and the underlying issue of budgets and how they were allocated.
MOTION: Beekun/Wilds. To add our voice to the Parking and Traffic Board to encourage the President to reconsider the Athletics parking waiver.
ACTION: passed, 5 abstentions.
8. Chairs report:
Ryfe reported that the faculty workload policy was being revised at the NSHE level and we were in violation when we agreed to lower teaching requirements. UNR has done this as a matter of practice and now the policy would allow it. Link to the BOR Workload Policy: http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/11-12/Agenda/Faculty%20Workload%20policy%20BOR9-11.pdf
The Presidential Search Committee met October 14, 2011 and there were four senators on the Institutional
Advisory Committee. Donica Mensing said that the committee voted to use an executive search firm for open meeting laws reasons. There would be more updates as things happened.
The 120 credit limit was now a policy and all units should be making the change to reduce the required credits or devise a way to circumvent the policy. The deadline would be the end of this year. Trish Ellison said that they have been coming up at University Courses and Curriculum Committee and it had not been an issue.
For the Low Yield Policy Proposal the Council of Chairs had pooled a recommendation together and
Chancellor Dan Klaich revised his policy proposal. This revised draft was in the agenda packet and would go to the Regents in December 2011 for a first reading.
Ryfe met with John Bird Vilseck Director of Information Technology regarding a Technology Committee that was not senate owed. Vilseck would be drafting a University Council template that would come forward to the senate for review. It was important that there be members from the major units to sit on this Council.
The university did not have a formal syllabus policy and the executive board thought that if there was an issue regarding a syllabus then it should be handled in that department rather than with a formal policy.
We need to pay attention to the regents strategic planning process as their overriding goal was to graduate more students. The policy appeared to be overly simplistic. There was a push in the legislature to make the institutions more accountable to the needs of Nevada children. This was a huge cultural shift for Presidents and faculty. We rank ourselves based on the ranking in US News regarding peer rankings and peer groups and now we need to think internally. For example out of state students don’t necessarily serve the needs of
Nevada. Miller institutions move very slowly. Ryfe thought that we needed to come up with a better plan to present to them. Our Funding Formula Advisory Committee has met, but the Legislative Funding Formula
Committee has not. This would not allow a lot of time prior to the next budget planning process and Ryfe was concerned that there may be more budget cuts coming down the line.
9. Consent Agenda:
Items on the Consent Agenda:
9-15-11 Meeting Minutes
Campus Affairs Charges
Administrative Faculty Personnel Policies and Procedures Committee Charges
Academic Standards Committee Charges
MOTION: Herzik/Price. To approve the consent agenda as presented
ACTION: Passed unanimously

10. Reorganization of the COE and CABNR:
The executive board reviewed the documents in the agenda packet and met with the interim deans of both colleges. The executive board would like their review to stand in for the first year review and then have the executive board look at it again for a third year review. This would allow some time for things to shake out.
MOTION: Herzik/Palmer. To use the executive board review as the first year review and consider a 3 rd year review at the appropriate time.
ACTION: Passed unanimously.
11. New Business:
The informational items in the packet were the Faculty Workload Policy and the Low Yield Policy. Ryfe asked that senators circulate them to their constituents and invite feedback.
Meeting adjourned: 4:23 pm

UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
November 17, 2011
IAC
Institutional Advisory Committee Election Procedures
Presidential Search Committee
Approved by the Faculty Senate September 15, 2011
Additions are in Bold and deletions strikethrough
In adherence to NSHE Code, Title 2, Chapter 1, Section 1.5.4, five faculty members must be nominated by the senate for inclusion on the Institutional Advisory committee to advise the NSHE Board of Regents during a presidential search.
The chair of the Faculty Senate will send out a campus-wide faculty announcement for nominations. Each faculty member has the opportunity to nominate one member of the faculty to serve on the IAC, through their senator, considering the following criteria:
*
*
Faculty who have experience working on university-wide projects
Faculty who could work effectively with the Regent's committee
*
*
Faculty who not only have a strong voice but one that is widely respected
Faculty who are diverse as possible with respect to units represented, gender, ethnicity, and faculty type (administrative, academic and clinical)
Faculty enter this process unbiased as to outcome *
If nominated, and willing to serve, a faculty member will submit a bio to include the following:
* Name
*
*
*
*
Full Title
Department/College/Unit:
Number of years at UNR
Past experience with searches
* Brief statement of interest in serving on the IAC
If there are more than ten nominated faculty members for inclusion on the ballot, a primary election will occur.
A ballot will be created to include all faculty members nominated and willing to serve. Senators will be provided faculty bios and each will then vote for ten faculty within the primary ballot. At the conclusion of the election, the ten faculty with the most votes will be included on the election ballot. In the event of a tie, all faculty within the top ten (including the tie) will be included in the election ballot.
Each senator will vote for five faculty on the election ballot. According to Faculty Senate Bylaws, the chair of the faculty senate will vote to break any tie in the final election.
To ensure equitable representation on the IAC committee, the Chair of the Faculty Senate may, in consultation with the Executive Board, replace the faculty member with the least number of votes with another faculty member of his or her choosing.
Names of the five faculty members elected will be forwarded to the President’s Office Chair of the Board of
Regents for inclusion in the IAC.

UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
November 17, 2011
1,900 – Equal Employment Opportunity Statement
RATIONALE FOR CHANGE: Revisions were made to reflect state law that prohibits discrimination based on genetic information, gender identity or gender expression.
Equal Employment Opportunity Statement 1,900
Reviewed: December 2009 November 2011
The University of Nevada, Reno is committed to Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action in recruitment of its students and employees and does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, creed, national origin, veteran status, physical or mental disability, and sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity, or gender expression . The University of Nevada, Reno employs only United
States citizens and aliens lawfully authorized to work in the United States. Women and under-represented groups are encouraged to apply.

UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
November 17, 2011
5,020 – University Notary Public Services
RATIONALE FOR CHANGE: A policy was needed to codify acceptable practice for university notaries.
University Notary Public Services 5,020
Revised: November 2011
The University shall provide notary public services to students, faculty, and staff for university business at no charge in accordance with this policy. When a notary commission is required for a particular University office or position and where immediate access to a notary public is essential to the work of the office, upon written approval of the appropriate supervisor with authority to expend university funds, such funds may be used to pay the cost of an individual employee’s notary commission and surety bond.
When university funds have been used to pay for an individual’s notary commission and surety bond, notary services for university related business are to be made available to students, faculty, and staff free of charge. University business includes, but is not limited to, such purposes as the Nevada loyalty oath, scholarship certification, applications for internships, programs and awards, passport and insurance documentation, legal documents related to university affairs, voter registration, financial aid requirements, grant applications, placement and certification needs, retirement documents and student activity participation.
University notaries are not prohibited from providing their services to students, faculty, staff and members of the public for non-university related personal, legal and financial matters; however, such services should not be performed while the notary is performing his or her university job duties.
Notaries who are employees and have paid for their commission and surety bond personally shall not provide non-university notary services during work hours; such notaries are not prohibited from charging fees as allowed by Nevada Notary laws.
There are several university notaries. University notaries can be found using the on-line Campus
Directory . Because all university notaries have other university duties, they may not be able to assist at your convenience. It is advised that individuals needing notarizations call ahead to arrange a convenient time.