CONSENT AGENDA
University of Nevada, Reno
2010-11 Faculty Senate
August 25, 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 June 9, 2011 Meeting Minutes
Action/Enclosure
2.
University Special Hearing Committee
Action/Enclosure
3.
Learning Outcomes Document
Action/Enclosure
4.
University Academic Promotion and Tenure Committee Members
Selection Procedure
Faculty Senate Committee Policy
Action/Enclosure
5.
August 25, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Action/Enclsoure
Page 1
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
August 25, 2011
Consent Agenda Item #1
June 9, 2011 Meeting Minutes
1. Roll Call and Introductions:
Gerald Ackerman (SOM), Gerald Ackerman for Elissa Palmer (SOM), Rafik Beekun (COB), Mike Bennett (A &
F), Todd Borman (IT), Patricia Ellison (CABNR), Eric Herzik (Past Chair), Howard Goldbaum for Donica
Mensing, (JO), Catherine Goring (SOM), Keith Hackett (Pres), Stephen Lafer (COE), Kami Larsen (SOM),
Amy McFarland (SOM), Glenn Miller (CABNR), Vannessa Nicholas (Prov), Crystal Parrish (DEV), Chuck Price
(SS), Alice Running (CHS), Alice Running for Julie Hogan (DHS), David Ryfe (Chair), Amy Shannon for
Maggie Ressel (Lib), JoAnne Skelly for Sue Donaldson (COOP), Valerie Smith (VPR), Valerie Weinstein
(CLA).
Absent: Pat Arnott (COS), Isabelle Favre (CLA), Yanyao Jiang (EN), Louis Niebur (CLA), Rich Schultz (COS)
Leah Wilds (CLA), David Zeh (Chair elect).
2. Administrative Faculty Personnel Policies & Procedures Committee Final Report, Chair Dean
Dietrich
Link to the Report:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/committees/AFPPP/AFPPP_Yrend2010-11.doc
AFPPP Committee Chair Dean Dietrich thanked the committee members for their hard work. He summarized
the report and said that the committee had only a few recommendations that would need to go forward to
Administration for approval, the other recommendations would go to the executive board.
MOTION: Hackett/Price. To accept the report as written.
ACTION: Passed unanimously
Recommendations to the executive board:
(1) The AFPPP should continue to exist as a standing committee of the senate, and it should continue
to be a mix of both administrative and academic faculty.
(2) To boost attendance and interest in the brown-bag lunches, the committee recommends that at
least one of the two brown-bag lunches held during the coming year should be at least loosely
focused on a subject of possible interest to administrative faculty.
(3) The committee could explore holding a brown-bag lunch in concert with, or as a way of promoting;
the workshops/discussions referenced in recommendations (4) or (7) below.
Recommendations to be voted upon:
Recommendations 4 through 6:
Although the committee still believes that a workshop or training session for supervisors of administrative
faculty about the possibilities that exist for the promotion of administrative faculty would be a good idea, it
would be best to still consider some kind of workshop in conjunction with a multi-pronged approach which
makes better use of the web to make sure that the information is available to supervisors. With this in mind,
last year’s recommendations have been refined and revised as follows:
(4) In conjunction with the Faculty Senate and/or the AFPPP, Human Resources should offer a
workshop/information session sometime in the spring of 2012 for supervisors and administrative
faculty about the possible avenues that exist for promotion; if successful, this workshop could be
added into the standing rotation of training workshops currently offered by Human Resources.
(5) To ensure maximum participation and maximum effectiveness, the training session could be
conducted simultaneously in an online classroom (such as WIMBA), and the session could be
recorded and posted to the web for future playback and reference.
August 25, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 2
(6) The H.R. web page for supervisors should be revised so that under the "faculty" sub header, there
is a link to a page that explains the promotion process for administrative faculty, in addition to the
existing link to the promotion and tenure process for academic faculty. The linked page could also
contain a link to the training session referenced above once that session has occurred.
MOTION: Herzik/ Parrish. To accept the recommendations as written
ACTION: Passed unanimously
Recommendations 7 & 8:
(7) As the calendar year draws to a close (and evaluation seasons draws near), Human Resources and
the Faculty Senate should co-sponsor a panel discussion about the different possibilities for the
evaluation of administrative faculty. The idea for the panel discussion would be to encourage
departments and divisions which employ administrative faculty to consider different options for the
annual evaluation of administrative faculty in a manner which might make the process more positive
and productive for all involved. Although the current form and process evolved partly as a way of
recognizing and allocating merit, in an era when merit raises are no longer a reality, it is possible for
both administrative faculty and their supervisors to discount the potential value inherent in the
annual review process.
(8) Although the discussion with human resources satisfied most members of the committee as to the
checks currently in place to make sure annual reviews are completed for all administrative faculty in
a timely manner, the AFPPP Committee should continue to monitor reports about evaluations that
have not been completed.
MOTION: Ackerman/Beekun. To accept the recommendations as written
ACTION: Passed unanimously
The discussion centered on the importance of evaluations; some senators felt that they were not even read by
supervisors or deans; sometimes it was the culture of the department or unit. Was this a widespread problem?
Evaluations helped to protect faculty. Some have heard that all the evaluations leading up to the return of merit
would count toward that first years return merit.
The senate thanked Dean Dietrich and his committee.
3. Chair’s Report:
Chair David Ryfe reported:
 The Executive Board Retreat would be held June 30, 2011. Senators should forward items they want
the board to discuss to either him, Michelle Hritz or Linda Kuchenbecker.
 The NSHE Code Committee was still meeting and reading through the Code line by line. The
committee discussed moral turpitude and that if faculty members engaged in any of those activities they
could be terminated. Some of the activities that come under moral turpitude were not illegal and faculty
expressed concern that if the activity was not illegal and done on their own time how it was the
university’s business? It did not appear that the code committee would be taking on any major
refinements of the code at this time.
 NSHE Funding Formula:
The consultant’s report has been completed. The funding formula has traditionally been based on
student numbers and it might be revised to include a more performance based model. The current
funding formula has not been used for the past few years.
 Tenure Policy: NSHE has expedited the tenure process. In the past, the Board of Regents needed to
approve tenure decisions and those decisions would now be conducted at that institution level by the
Presidents.
 NSHE Budget: Ryfe said that the President would discuss the budget when he spoke at the meeting.
 Board of Regents’ Meeting:
There were two major items that would be discussed at the June 16 and June 17, 2011 meeting. One
issue would be how the regents decided to implement the legislative budget mandates of salary
August 25, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 3


reduction and furloughs. The other was the School of Medicine issues regarding the amount of time
spent in the North and the South by the Dean for the School of Medicine/Vice President for Health
Sciences.
MyNevada has gone live and faculty needed to complete their FERPA training prior to receiving access
to the system. Please be patient as there might be some bugs that need to be worked out. Ryfe also
recommended not waiting until the last minute to work with the program.
The Research and Grants Committee was scheduled to report in August.
Discussion:
A senator asked if we estimated bigger cuts than were needed would the money would go back to those
affected units. If the 13% tuition went into effect in the second year of the biennium and the university had extra
money the senate should be involved in the rebuilding process and should especially consider putting funding
back into those programs cut. There was more discussion about the senate’s role in curricular review and
rebuilding. The curricular review process has not just been budget cutting, but has reshaped the university.
What strategy was administration using to make these cuts? The driver of the curricular review process was
not the curricula, but financial. Some senators felt that the senate needed to stand up to administration and not
just act as a rubber stamp making it appear that the senate approved of firing tenured faculty. At the public
comment section of the Board of Regents’ meeting it would be reasonable for our chair to make a few points
based on the appropriateness of the numbers. This body should make a strong statement that everyone has
taken enough.
4. Consent Agenda:
May 12, 2011 (FY10-11 and FY11-12) Meeting Minutes
UAM Revisions:
2,450 Payment and/or Reimbursement of Moving Expenses
3,046 Class Schedule and Instructional Space Assignment
MOTION: Borman/Price. To approve the Consent Agenda as published
ACTION: Passed unanimously
5. Continuing Budget Discussion:
Chair David Ryfe wanted some sense of how things happened both generally and at the university. He has
asked a lot of questions and hoped to have a portion of each meeting where the senate could talk through
these issues.
The first thing was that there has been an encroachment of market forces on all public universities. We have all
been complicit in that and we needed to own up to our roles. Ryfe felt that there were two messages here:
The president would not be able to accomplish anything without the faculty. The average length of time
a president stayed at a university was 5 years, so faculty could just out wait him if he did not have buy
in from faculty to accomplish his goals.
However, the senate and faculty could not accomplish changes alone, faculty were like herding cats
and were difficult to organize.
Both the administration and faculty needed to work together to accomplish the goals of the university.
As market forces have intruded, some things have changed at the university. The university was not an ivory
tower anymore; there have been corporate partnerships with business, and an increase in the use of market
language, and the decline of state support. Administration has a deep incentive to centralize decisions and
academics have deep incentives to stay in their labs. Some things have not changed, such as curriculum, the
semester length, instruction and assessment.
Public opinion was still high for higher education.
State appropriation was approximately 50% over the last twenty years, which was higher than many other
public institutions, but the increase was never more than 2 to 3% per year, so the state never supported higher
education in a vigorous way.
August 25, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 4
How much work has increased in the classroom (per credit hour)? That number increase 56% over 20 years.
Our budget has dropped 15% in the last couple of years and SFTEs have increased. Students keep coming
even though we raise tuition, but we don’t know what the ceiling would be.
What did we spend the money on?
Instructional FTE: 36% during that time was filled by contingent lecturers. In the past, vacant positions money
was swept by central administration and then doled back out to the colleges. Now the university has passed a
5% surcharge on to the students and each major unit gets a fixed amount of money.
Other FTE: The administrative faculty have increased 120% in the last twenty years. That increase was to
meet the Gold Standard Metric of graduating students in 6 years. It seems that what happens in the classroom
is not what keeps students from graduating. 70% of grades are in the A and B grade range. So basically if
students show up they would pass the class. We have put more money into student services and IT to
maintain this graduation rate.
Research would not pull the university out of its budget hole. Research pays about 25% of its cost to the
university. The more research that is done, the bigger the gap, so what is the way out of the budget hole?
The way to move forward would be for the institution to get control of their tuition, which was the only big pot of
money that would allow the institution to get out of this hole. Once the institution had control over the tuition, it
could be raised to what the market could bear. However, this could mean that the bottom 20% of students
would drop off, which could in turn raise the retention and graduation rates, allowing the university to hire more
and better quality research faculty, and recruit better students. That was the strategy to move forward. The
senate and the faculty needed to decide if this was the best strategy for the university and if not, then what was
the alternative? Once that was decided they would need to have a plan to make it happen. Ryfe would like
senators to talk with their constituents and come back in August with input from them.
Discussion:
The senate would need to know the criteria to be able to judge the value of any strategy. The senate and
faculty needed to know the vision or purpose of the institution. Vision statements were difficult to develop and
often not used especially without buy in.
Faculty needed to be engaged in teaching and those excellent faculty need to teach, because that was what
students wanted. There was no good metric to measure learning and it was felt that the employers didn’t look
at what students learned at the university, only that they earned a degree. What assessment could be used to
measure what students learned?
6. Visit with Interim President Marc Johnson:
Interim President Marc Johnson reported:
Once the Board of Regents met he would be able to let campus know the final decisions on budget cuts and
curricular review.
The legislature finished their business and passed several important things:
 Salary reduction of 2.5% and six (6) furlough days per year. The furlough does not affect base salary
while the reduction would affect the base salary and what was contributed to retirement.
 Students would receive a 13% increase in registration fees the first year of the biennium. The regents
could decide at a later date to increase those fees in the second year of the biennium.
 With the smoothing, the university would have a reduction of approximately $20 million in each of the
next two years. The curricular review process would get the university to approximately $19.5 million.
Curricular review would not be used to make up the other $1 million. There would be no more closures
of programs or downsizing, which would allow the university to stabilize in the fall and focus on
rebuilding the confidence of the university.
 The governor agreed to extend the sunset taxes so hopefully the state would have a more stable
economy.
Questions and Discussion:
 UNLV had an employee buyout program rather than firing tenured faculty, why didn’t UNR offer that?
August 25, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 5
Administrations concern was that in order to make sure a department was still able to teach its students they
would have had to put restrictions on who could receive a buyout and that would have been a deleterious
approach for UNR.
 Whether with a buyout program or curricular review there is still a loss of experience and accumulated
teaching years.
 Has a study been conducted to see if putting more money into student support services has increased
the graduation rate? Johnson was not sure that a study had been done.
 Senators asked if the faculty would have input on the rebuilding process. Johnson responded that the
university has the strategic plan and the budget advisory committee. He asked how the senate would
like to be involved.
 There was some discussion about the four year guarantee that had been offered to students in the
past. Departments were doing a good job of getting students into the classes they needed, even with
the budget issues.
 Would funds be restored to units that had taken cuts if there was more money in the budget? Johnson
did not feel that there would be more money.
 What was going to happen to the faculty senate position that had been identified for a cut? Johnson
said that position was secure.
 Cooperative Extension took a very big cut; if there was money would those be restored? Johnson said
that Cooperative Extension would use grants that would help to make them whole. Any increase in
funding would be addressed with input and that increase would be applied in an orderly fashion.
 Vacant positions were swept for budget savings, would those lines return to the units? No, there should
not be that assumption.
 Johnson has met with the Regents, the seven Commissioners, Lawrence Weekly and current hospital
administrators at UMC and believed that there would be a strong vote to approve the contract for the
Vice President for the Division of Health Sciences/ Dean for the Medical School. Things were settling a
little with the division between the north and the south regarding the school of medicine.
7. New Business:
There was a question regarding senators outside the area and with the reduced budgets would there be a
possibility to video conference. Todd Borman, Chuck Price and Michelle Hritz will look into the possibility.
A senator asked about enrollment and graduation rates for 1991 to present.
Meeting adjourned: 4:08 pm.
August 25, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 6
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
August 25, 2011
Consent Agenda Item #2
Please Note: Additions are bold and underlined and deletions are strikethroughs.
University of Nevada, Reno
Faculty Senate
Procedure Manual
University Special Hearing Committee
In accordance with UCCSN NSHE Code 6.112.3, the Faculty Senate will select at least 15 members of
the faculty to serve on a special hearing committee panel. When constituted, 9 members of this panel will
be selected by lot to form a special hearing committee that This committee hears cases under chapter 6 of
the code. This committee will provide a recommendation to the president for final decision on these
cases. This committee It is in no way related to or associated with the University Grievance Appeals
Committee. Membership to the committee is a one-year term. No faculty member will be asked to serve on
the committee for more than one year in any contiguous four-year period.
Faculty Senate Selection Procedures
o
In March, March 1 the administrative assistant (AA) requests a list of all UNR faculty from the Human
Resources Office. The list should include the names of all faculty members who have .50FTE and are
on renewable continuing contracts.
o
Using the lists of committee members from the last year and the previous two years (that is, lists from
the past three years) tThe AA eliminates from eligibility the names of all faculty members who served
during those previous three years.
o
The AA inserts the names of all faculty members eligible to serve into a random list generator
that assigns a random order to all numbers to each of the names remaining on the list.
o
Someone other than the AA should make the selections, typically, the senate manager. Select 25
numbers.As much as possible,To ensure the final list of 25 at least 15 names should includes about
a minimum of 10 tenured professors and five administrative faculty members, the first ten tenured
academic faculty members at the rank of professor and the first five administrative faculty
members from the random list will be included. The remaining 10 members will be placed on
the committee panel in the order they were chosen by lot regardless of their faculty title. The AA
reviews the 25 names to determine whether any adjustments are may be necessary, and makes a
recommendation to the PO Faculty Senate Chair for approval.
o
The AA prepares letters to each of the 25 faculty on the final list, inquiring about willingness and ability
to serve. The letter is sent under the name signature of the president, and includes a copy of code
6.112.3 and a response form. The letter must clearly indicate the seriousness with which one should
take membership on the committee, and should include a deadline for response.
The president signs the lettersThe Ffaculty Ssenate office sends the letters and Rresponses are
submitted to the faculty senate office. After the deadline for submitting responses, the AA will follow
up with any faculty member who has not yet responded. The AA will then prepares the list of at
least 15 faculty members who agreed serve and a memo to the president signed from the Senate
Manager Faculty Senate Chair. The Senate Manager signs the memo and reviews the list.
August 25, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 7
o
The AA makes one copy for the office files and sends the original to the president.
NOTE: Late responses of faculty who agree to serve are accepted. The Senate Manager AA will send an
amended list to the president, following approval of the Faculty Senate Chair.
August 25, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 8
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
August 25, 2011
Consent Agenda Item #3
The enclosed University Courses and Curriculum document for proposing new courses has Minor
document changes in the learning outcomes portion. The Executive Board reviewed this document at
their July retreat and do not see any issues with its implementation.
Link to Learning Outcomes Document:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/11-12/Agenda/LEARNING_OUTCOMES.doc
August 25, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 9
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
August 25, 2011
Consent Agenda Item #4
Please Note: Additions are bold and underlined and deletions are strikethroughs.
University of Nevada, Reno
FacultySenate
Procedures for Electing University Academic Promotion and Tenure Committee Members
The Academic Promotion and Tenure Committee advises the Provost & Executive Vice-President
regarding every application for promotion and/or tenure submitted by colleges and other major units.
Committee membership includes one representative from each major unit that employs tenured or tenuretrack faculty. A list of eligible units is attached, and will be maintained in the Faculty Senate office. As much as
possible, committee members will serve three-year terms, and one-third the membership should will rotate off
each year.
1.
In March of each year, the Faculty Senate office will notify the colleges major units for which there are
vacancies on the committee.
2.
The colleges with vacancies Following the same procedures used in the election of faculty
senators, these major units will hold nominations and elections to fill the vacancies Unless otherwise
specified in college bylaws, elections will be by secret ballot. There will be two ballots, a nominating ballot and
an election ballot.
a. Nominating ballot: Each faculty member who is eligible to vote may nominate one person, and
nominees must be eligible to vote in their major unit. The nominating ballot must instruct that
only tenured academic faculty with .50 FTE or greater are eligible for nomination, and that no
faculty member may serve more than three contiguous years in any four-year period. These are
minimum qualifications. The ballot must include a list of those faculty who are not eligible for
election because they are completing a term on the cCommittee. The Faculty Senate will provide a
list of current Academic Promotion and Tenure Committee members.
In addition to the above minimum qualifications, there are three desired qualifications for
nominees: (1) nominees should have prior experience on department or major unit
personnel committees; (2) nominees should have a current record of active scholarship or
creative activity; and (3) nominees should hold the rank of Professor (Rank IV). These
desired qualifications should be listed on the nominating ballot. For major units with an
insufficient number of qualified candidates, nominees should meet at least two of these
three qualifications.
Because the committee may be called upon to evaluate college procedures, decisions, letters from
outside reviewers, and requests for reconsideration, the ballot should also indicate that it is
important for nominees to have experience with personnel matters and especially evaluating and
reconsidering applications for promotion and tenure. Faculty members may name as many as two
nominees. The two faucltywho have the highest number of nominations will be included on the
election ballot. In the event there is no tie for first place, but there is a tie for second place, the first
place nominee and all the nominees who tied for second place wil be included on the election
ballot.
August 25, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 10
b. Election ballot: Faculty members may vote for only one nominee. All nominees who meet the
minimum qualifications to serve on the Committee and have expressed their willingness to
serve will be placed on the election ballot, along with a brief self-provided description of
their qualifications. The election will then be held according to major unit bylaws. If no
nominee receives a majority of the vote from his or her major unit, then a run-off ballot shall
be held between the two nominees with the most votes. In the event there is a tie on the
election ballot, an election will be held to break the tie.
c. No member of the Committee may serve simultaneously on personnel committees in either
their department or major unit, nor on other university personnel committees. Newly-elected
members must resign from any such committees as soon as they are elected.
3.
Before the last day of instruction in the spring semester, colleges must submit the names of their new
cCommittee members in a memorandum to the president, through the Faculty Senate Chair with a copy
to the provost Provost and the Faculty Senate Chair.
4.
Each year, tThe chair of the cCommittee will be selected by the Faculty Senate Chair, provost and
president Provost, after consultation with the Faculty Senate Chair.
Current version was approved by the Faculty Senate on 2.21.02.
Approved by the President 3.14.02.
Previous guidelines were in effect since August 1996.
University of Nevada, Reno
List of Units Eligible for Membership on the Academic Promotion and Tenure Committee
Effective January 1, 2004 2010
College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources
College of Business Administration
College of Education
College of Engineering
College of Liberal Arts
College of Science
Division of Health Sciences
College of Human and Community Sciences
University of Nevada Cooperative Extension
School of Journalism
School of Medicine
University Libraries
August 25, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 11
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
August 25, 2011
Consent Agenda Item #5
Please Note: Additions are bold and underlined and deletions are strikethroughs.
Faculty Senate Committee Policy
Revised June July 2011
Scope:
This policy covers faculty senate procedures for to be followed in the organization and procedures of all
faculty senate committees which are specifically described in the faculty senate bylaws except for the
nominating committee and the executive board. These procedures may not conflict with senate bylaws, the
UNR Bylaws, or the NSHE Code.
All such senate committees exist at the pleasure of and are advisory to the senate. Senate committees may be
either standing (i.e., there is an expectation that they will continue) or ad-hoc. Upon recommendation of the
executive board, the senate may vote to create, eliminate, or alter any committee.
Annual Charges:
Unless the senate specifically decides otherwise, all committees are charged for annual terms. Standing
committees may be charged on either a calendar-year (January-December) or an academic-year (August-May)
schedule, as follows for current (2009) standing committees:
Calendar Year Term: BCC - Bylaws and Code Committee
SBC – Salary & Benefits Committee
Academic Year Term: ASC - Academic Standards Committee
CAC - Campus Affairs Committee
AFP3 - Administrative Faculty Personnel Policy and Procedures
RG – Research and Grants
Committees may have standing charges as well as specific charges for the year. These charges are proposed
by the executive board, and are subject to approval by the full senate.
Membership and Terms:
The executive board shall have sole responsibility, on behalf of the senate, for appointment of committee
members and chairs. Eligibility for committee membership is described in the senate bylaws.
Committee members are appointed annually, and are notified by the senate office annually regarding their
appointment. Members shall normally serve three consecutive one-year appointments, which are renewed as
long as they remain in good standing and are able to contribute to the work of the committee. The executive
board may choose not to reappoint any committee member, or may choose to appoint any member to a fourth
or fifth consecutive annual term if they deem it necessary. No member should be appointed to more than five
consecutive years.
August 25, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 12
Committee members may be recommended by any member of the senate, outgoing committee chairs, deans
or other equivalent administrators, or the faculty committee preference survey. The executive board shall try as
much as possible to choose a representative group of faculty with experience and interest in matters related to
the charges, and shall consult with the incoming committee chair prior to appointment.
Committee Chair:
At the time a committee’s new annual charges are approved by the senate, the executive board shall appoint a
committee chair to a one-year term. The Though it is often preferable, the committee chair does not have to
be a previous member of the committee, though it would be preferable.
Once appointed by the executive board, the committee chair shall contact current committee members and
new nominations nominees from the executive board in order to ensure they are all still willing and able
contribute to the work of the committee to serve. After the executive board then appoints the members of the
committee, Once the committee’s membership has been formalized, the senate office will notify both new
and continuing members of their appointment.
The committee chair is responsible for setting the agenda and scheduling committee meetings at least once a
month, or more often if required. The chair shall plan committee work and delegate tasks to committee
members to ensure that the charges are addressed. It is the responsibility of the chair to ensure that if a
committee breaks into subcommittees, the entire committee has vetted and approved their recommendations
prior to it coming to the executive board or senate.
Committee Liaison:
The executive board may appoint any senator to serve as a liaison to the committee, and this liaison shall
regularly report to the executive board and the senate, as required. The executive board may also appoint
senators to serve as liaisons to other committees outside the senate. The liaison shall serve as a full member
of the committee, unless instructed otherwise by the executive board.
Committee Report:
The chair is expected to give a mid-term report to the executive board regarding progress on the charges, and
present the a final written report to both the executive board and the full senate. The executive board acts on
behalf of the senate to provide feedback and make suggestions in order to ensure that the committee is, in the
executive board’s judgement, addressing its charges in an appropriate manner on the committee’s work.
The executive board may delay presentation to the senate so that the committee may reconsider its
recommendations or consider any criticisms or suggestions. However, the executive board shall not prevent
the committee from presenting any recommendation to the senatethat the committee still chooses to present,
and shall not require alteration of the report, if the committee chooses to proceed over the executive board’s
response.
The committee should shall consult with the senate office as to the appropriate format of the committee’s
report. A report should begin with a list of members and charges, and then discuss each of the charges in
turn. A committee report should inform the members of the senate, it should provide an objective analysis
using appropriate data, and where appropriate should review the policies and experiences of other universities,
especially those considered peer or aspirant institutions. It should make clear recommendations, and where
possible give alternatives for the senate to consider. Committee members should bear in mind that the
purpose of the committee is to advise the senate, and the purpose of the report is to help the senate make
better-informed decisions.
The committee chair must shall provide the a written draft of the final report to the executive board at least two
weeks prior to the scheduled senate meeting presentationso the executive board may give it a final review,
August 25, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 13
distribute it to the members of the senate (who may, if they choose, distribute it to the faculty they represent for
input) and place ther report on the senate agenda. The chair then has the responsibility to present the draft
report to the full senate, to discuss its recommendations and answer any questions the senate may have.
Once the committee chair has presented the written draft of the final report to the senate, the faculty senate
chair shall entertain a motion from the senate to accept or reject the report. Acceptance of a report by the
senate implies that the senate agrees that the committee means that the committee has appropriately
fulfilled its responsibility to address its charges, but it mere acceptance does not imply that the senate agrees
with the findings of the report or any of its recommendations. Once accepted, a report is placed on the faculty
senate website. In the interest of transparency, rejected reports shall usually be placed on the website too,
albeit with an appropriate disclaimer.
Committee Recommendations:
In addition to any description or analysis of issues related to committee charges, committees may make
specific recommendations to the senate. These may take the form of a Request for Action (RFA), which, once
approved, the senate shall forward to the president. The committee may also request a general “Sense of the
Senate” on a principle, or recommend further study in the form of a new committee charge.
Committee recommendations should be clear and specific. Requests for action by the President should clearly
explain what needs to be changed done, and by whom, andthey should include some consideration and
indication of the general fiscal impact how much these actions will cost (e.g., none, $, $$, or $$$)for both
direst costs and the effort required for implementation. Any sense of the senate should shall be written
appropriately for senate consideration.
Committee recommendations contained within the report are voted on individually by the full senate. The
senate may accept recommendations as written, accept recommendations as modified by the senate, or reject
the recommendations, and the senate chair follows appropriate parliamentary procedures.
If approved by the senate, recommended RFAs are prepared by the senate office and sent to the President for
approval and implementation. If a committee’s recommendation is rejected, the senate or the executive board
may decide to either to let the recommendation die or send it back to the committee with modification or
additional instructions.
Committee Recognition:
Committee service is important to the principle of faculty governance and to the functioning of the university. At
the conclusion of each year, each committee chair will be asked for feedback regarding involvement of their
committee members. The faculty senate chair shall provide information on their service for every committee
member in good standing, for purposes of annual evaluation. This shall be sent to the faculty member and his
or her department chair or supervisor.
August 25, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 14
Common Standing Charges for all Faculty Senate Committees
1. In consultation with the Executive Board, present a comprehensive written report to the Faculty Senate
addressing all charges, utilizing the committee report template.
2. Provide a brief monthly oral summary of activities to the Senate through the Senate Liaison.
3. Work with the Senate Manager to maintain committee documents using Sharepoint software.
4. Upon request by the Executive Board, review any proposals affecting committee objectives, and report
recommendations to the Executive Board within six weeks after receipt of any request for review.
5. Upon request by the Executive Board, serve as a sounding board for the Executive Board for issues
related to committee charges and objectives.
6. Upon request by the Executive Board, appoint a liaison from among the members of the committee to
other university committees with related charges, in order to ensure better coordination and
communication.
7. Review committee charges and recommendations over the prior three years, and report to the Senate
on the implementation of the pending past committee recommendations approved by the Senate.
Administrative Requests for Action should be reported upon as follows: Status of
implementation or completion of approved recommendations, or if not approved, the reasons (if
any) not approved.
8. Make recommendations on the future status, organization, structure, and charges of the committee.
Consider whether the committee is necessary and effective, and how could it be improved.
August 25, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 15