INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE, 2014-2015
March 26, 2015, 3:30pm, Dede III
Minutes
Members Present: R. Guell, S. Lamb, C. MacDonald, C. Olsen, A. Anderson, C. Ball, K.
Bolinger, C. Fischer, T. Foster, E. Hampton, D. Hantzis, M. Haque, M. Harmon, B. Kilp, A.
Kummerow, I. Land, K. Lee, D. Malooley, A. Morales, D. Richards, R. Schneirov, V. Sheets, E.
Southard, M. Sterling, K. Yousif
Members Absent: K. Berlin, L. Borrero, P. Bro, B. Bunnett, R. Lugar, S. McCaskey, C. Paterson,
L. Phillips, J. Pommier
Ex-Officio Present: Provost J. Maynard, T. Allen, A. Badar, L. Maule, J. Murray, Y. Peterson,
M. Reed, B. Yousif
Ex-Officio Absent: President D. Bradley
Guests: T. Hawkins, J. Hays, J. Powers, L. Spence
1. Administrative Reports:
a. President D. Bradley: Absent
b. Provost J. Maynard:
i. The President regrets that he is not here. He is in Indianapolis for
additional meetings with the legislators on the budget. It is still unknown
exactly what will happen; there is a possibility that the base budget will
experience a reduction of two to four million dollars. The funding for
renovation for the Arena continues to be on the table. Conversation about
Hulman Center is also still on the table. We will start to see the full picture
around the end of April. We will also receive direction on any tuition
increases. Time will tell.
ii. Everyone has seen that we have a new Vice President of Student Affairs,
Willie Bates, will begin May 15. The President is very pleased.
iii. The new Provost, Michael Licari, will be on campus tomorrow.
iv. We are getting to our many end-of-the-year celebrations. We started with
Community Engagement awards, and there is almost a different awards
program every week or so until Commencement. It’s a great time to
celebrate everyone’s accomplishments.
v. The search for General Counsel is close to ending; by the week after next
we will likely have our finalists, and will hopefully have one chosen by
July 1.
vi. The President has been holding Strategic Plan Goal Report-Outs for the
past two days; we have been sharing successes and progress.
vii. The Scott College of Business is celebrating fifty years on April 10.
viii. It is also Women’s History Month, and our campus is having a week-long
celebration. Please stop by and participate in these excellent programs.
This evening we a faculty member is having a talk on the history of Title
IX.
2. Chair Report: R. Guell
a. R. Guell: Ballots go out tomorrow morning, and voting will end in one week.
Results will be announced almost immediately. An informational meeting of
newly elected and returning Senators will be in Monday, April 6 on the ninth
floor. We will create name tags for next year’s Senators so that you can then selfidentify which office position you would like to run for. This get-together is
merely a conversation starter—no speeches, just conversation. The meeting for
formally elect next year’s officers will be April 9.
b. R. Guell: There will be a formal Executive Committee meeting next week, and
because our usual room is occupied, it will be in room 918 in HMSU. There is too
much to do on section 305.
c. R. Guell: We will also talk about 305 today—April 16 is already on the calendar
as a possible date, but now there will definitely be a meeting in which we will
chew through line-by-line amendments for 305, with hope we will get all the way
through and then pause and allow anyone who wants to think about it enough time
to do so and it will be the first agenda item on the April 30 meeting.
d. R. Guell: At that time we will likely have the new Sexual Violence Policy. FAC
has met and has thoroughly reviewed it. AAC met today and SAC has also had a
chance to discuss it.
e. R. Guell: AAC dealt with a request by the President to consider advancing the
Office of Community Engagement to the Vice President level. That will come
before us on April 30 as well as two FEBC motions including using some of the
ten semesters’ fee waiver on graduate education as well as one to deal with
spouses on our health insurance allowing them to use the Rec Center free of
charge. Also on the 30th will be the Amorous and Familial Relations/Conflict of
Interest Policy. My question for you is whether you would like a meeting on the
23rd of April or May 7 during finals week…looks like April 23 is preferred.
i. C. Fischer: The UCC people may not be able to be here that day.
ii. R. Guell: I understand.
3. Staff Council Report: M. Reed for R. Torrence
4.
5.
6.
7.
a. M. Reed: The members of the Staff Council would like to thank R. Guell for his
work on the Sick Leave Policy.
b. M. Reed: An appeal had gone out seeking Grievance Committee members.
Twenty-seven people have expressed an interest. Human Resources will conduct
mandatory training sessions in the next few weeks. Members will serve a 3-year
appointment.
c. M. Reed: Staff Council officer elections will be taking place in April, with the
new Executive Committee taking over on June 1.
d. M. Reed: The annual council meeting opened to all staff will take place on
Wednesday, May 13 from 10am-12pm at HMSU Sycamore Banquet Center.
e. M. Reed: The Canvas on Campus fundraiser netted $500, all of which goes to the
Staff Council Scholarship Fund.
f. M. Reed: An additional fundraiser is going on this Friday. The Indiana State
massage therapy students will be giving chair massages in Stalker Hall 211 from
3:00-5:00pm. Please click on the link provided in ISU Today to schedule a time;
however, walk-ins will be accepted. The massages are free but donations are
being accepted and will go to the Staff Council Scholarship.
Temporary Faculty Representative: M. Morahn: Absent.
SGA Report: O. Findley: Absent
Approval of the Minutes of February 19, 2015: A. Anderson, K. Bolinger. Vote: 25-0-0
Fifteen-Minute Open Discussion
a. D. Richards: I read with distress about the new initiative to enable Vigo County
high school to teach college-level courses. As a parent and an instructor of
graduates of local high schools, I can attest that local schools are struggling to
even prepare students for college. Handing them the responsibility to teach
college is a wrong move. In general we are pushing in the wrong direction. There
is a quality/cost trade-off here. I would like to hear a response from the advocate
of this initiative.
i. J. Maynard: As many know, the College Challenge, or Dual Credit
Program, has been around for several years and the model of having high
school faculty serve as college faculty has been around since I’ve been in
office. That is not new. There is increased pressure across the state to
increase the number of students participating in dual credit programs. We
have received grants from the state to provide training for high school
teachers for the past 15 years or so. This early college program adds to the
opportunity for them to come to campus and reduce tuition by taking
advantage of being taught by regular faculty during the summer. If all is in
place they can come in with thirty hours of credit. Concerns about credit
are what we struggle with, as well as training and ensuring the quality of
instruction is good. There are things that are done well and things that
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
aren’t. We have many competitors in the state—Purdue, IU, Ball State—
all playing this same arena trying to reduce the time to degree completion.
C. Olsen: I am not an advocate, but I’ve been involved for a while. I’m
assuming it rests often on courses that have been approved by faculty at
different points. My concern is that those change, and I would worry about
how to present this to parents and students when they think a course will
fill a certain requirement; it will disappoint many. The UCC handles and
approves what gets counted for Foundational Studies. We need to be
careful with how we present this. We can’t get away from it, and it has
been around for a long time. I think wide expansion of programs like these
dilutes the quality.
J. Maynard: This program is restricted. It’s an opportunity for us to try to
recruit these talented kids to make a commitment to enroll. That is part of
the goal. There is no doubt that communication with students and parents
is key. Dr. Brauchle and his shop are overseeing this and they will work
very strongly towards this.
K. Brauchle: They are good points. Everything we are doing we are doing
in collaboration with the academic department. They have to have the
right credentials. There is oversight, visits, etc. so we are comfortable.
M. Haque: Right now high school students can take Advanced Placement
classes and exams, and their grades transfer. They have a high standard. I
don’t know how this would work.
C. Olsen: The main problem I have had with this for years is that high
school students need a C or better. High school teachers are under
immense pressure not to give grades under a C. I would like to trust
teachers and simply ask who deserves credit and who doesn’t. They also
agree this is a foolish plan, almost to a person. There is no exam at the end
of this. I’d rather we trusted high school teachers to be responsible and
state who deserves credit. That is a different battle.
J. Maynard: I was just reviewing students for the Hines Medal. Everyone
who was in the final group had at least eighteen hours of credit prior to
enrolling, between Advanced Placement and Dual Credit courses. We
have programs across the country where you get an Associate degree and a
high school diploma the same day—I share your concern. The realities are
uncomfortable. We need to do the best we can within our region.
R. Schneirov: In the larger context there is the decline and assault on
liberal arts values across this country. High school courses aren’t
Advanced Physics or Vocational Education courses. They are English and
History and Sociology or the equivalent. In some cases, Math. We have to,
on a state level as well as national, speak up—us, administration, AAUP—
speak to the importance of liberal arts values because we are the ones that
have to guard that. We are the guardians. Our inability to speak up to this
is leading to this sort of thing. I feel this day is coming; I can see where
there won’t be any history department, for example. The legislation is
pushing in this direction.
ix. D. Hantzis: The conversation about College Challenge and Dual Credit
Programs is different than early college. High school students would come
to our campus during the summer and take our courses. I think in terms of
University College Council and what we’re looking at in terms of
pressures of enrollment, I’m sure these things are being talked about. I
agree with everyone about the complexity of the issue. Pressure is very
high now, but this other one I’m concerned about impacts on the
workforce.
b. S. Lamb: I was hoping D. Bradley would be here. I prepared a comment for him. I
do think we’ve had an assault on quality for some time and I think we’re losing.
That is nationwide. This is a note to D. Bradley:
i. S. Lamb: Dan, I do so much appreciate all that you have done for this
university, and you have done it primarily by listening to your own
counsel. We are all aware of your abilities and what they have done for the
University. You have succeeded in making ISU most viable.
However, I strongly believe it is time for you to change your strategy. I
think the austerity program that you have led us through has put us in
wonderful light with the state. Because of you efforts, because of your use
of FTE/student ratios, you have made this the institution that the state
points to. However, your tactics are now becoming, or are perceived to be,
punitive to the institution by most stakeholders. Our spirit is being
crushed.
Understand that the deans and all faculty have responded responsibly to
your real need—that is, to the university’s real need to become more
efficient.
We have met your challenge positively, time after time, to the benefit of
the institution.
Now this strategy is beginning to harm the institution. We can cut no
further without sacrifice to our students without doing a poorer job of
delivery of our programs. It is time to provide additional resources to the
academic body, and not by taking from one and delivering to another.
All are stressed. All are engaged in non-productive work, attempting to
write position paper after position paper proving the stress upon their unit
and the need for additional resources. This need should be most obvious to
you. You have accomplished your goal. Proceeding with the same tactics
one more year will be counterproductive. Any more and the real cost will
far outweigh the benefit.
Receive the advice of your vice presidents and of your deans. Turn the
spigot on to some extent. The institution is healthy. The reserves are there.
Let us have some sunlight. Let us reward the institution for its adherence
to your productivity goals.
Dan, the institution has effectively been changed because of your inspired
leadership. You must now change with it.
c. T. Hawkins:
i. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today, and thank you for
taking the time to read my previously circulated comments. Since they
were sent to you, the Executive Committee has taken steps (that R. Guell
will explain) that excuse me from stretching out a full agenda with any
extended remarks on the subject of advising and teaching. My written
comments lay out my position in detail.
These comments were prompted by what I saw last week as a precipitous
move to seek Senate approval for revising current Handbook language to
bring advising explicitly within the teaching domain. My opposition then
and now to such a move is threefold: philosophical, practical, and
procedural.
My philosophical opposition is based on my belief that classroom
instruction and the years-long training required to make us successful in
this environment is not equivalent to the training required to advise our
students. I do not deny that overlap exists between the two. Certainly good
teaching and good advising are both essential in moving students towards
graduation. However, in my view, equating the two dilutes the definition
of teaching and the extensive work we do to ensure that our students
receive the benefit of our disciplinary expertise. This belief is not
universally held on campus, as I have come to learn, but it is a position
maintained by many—if not a majority. If we need a university-wide
policy that resolves the question once and for all, then let us set aside the
time to debate the issue thoroughly and find a consensus.
My practical opposition is based on my belief that should advising be
recognized as teaching, the university does not have in place the essential
institutional framework to launch such a fundamental change to our
operational policies. Vague Handbook statements currently recognize
advising as teaching. However, long-standing practice at ISU places
advising within the category of service when considering faculty
workload. Until we know what needs to change and what impact this
change would have across all levels of the university, we should not move
forward with a broad policy statement. It seems to me unwise to make a
definitive declaration regarding this issue now and then push off all the
uncomfortable details in to the future.
My procedural opposition is based on my belief that these philosophical
and practical debates must be held and resolved before the Senate adopts
any formal and final language. At a minimum, the Senate deserves to hear
from FAC on this matter. At a minimum, the Senate needs to hear from
the Advising Taskforce—a group that does in fact exist but has to date not
received an explicit charge to consider and make recommendations on this
matter.
Finally, let me state for the record that my position should not be
construed as a dismissal of advising or of those of you who dedicate
significant time and energy to advising our students. It is a critical
practice. It deserves significant and tangible recognition. To do it well
requires dedication, training, and a devotion to the academic success of
our students. I appreciate the work, and I too want it recognized.
8. CAAC Items
a. SCoB Program Elimination in Information Design and End User Computing: D.
Malooley, A. Anderson. Vote: 25-0-0
i. R. Guell: It is important to acknowledge that low enrollment keeps this
program from functioning practically.
b. BCoE New Minor in Elementary Special Education: E. Hampton, K. Yousif.
Vote: 25-0-0
i. R. Guell: For those who are wondering, you can major in Special
Education which gives a Preschool-12 license. This minor would bifurcate
that so an Elementary Education Major could minor in this and get a
second license in addition to their primary in Elementary Education.
9. FAC Items
a. Sick Leave Transfer Policy Modification: A. Anderson, A. Kummerow. Vote: 250-0
i. R. Guell: This is a change not directly impacting faculty in that we tend
not to utilize sick leave in the same way, but we are allowed to be donors
of time. It did have to come to us. It was approved by both AAC and FAC.
You have it before you. Note that those elements that have stars do have
Staff Council’s input as well, which could be different from ours. Staff
Council and Executive Committee representatives will work with the
President to come to a common recommendation to the Board of Trustees.
ii. D. Hantzis: On your observation that some may be surprised to have sick
leave since faculty don’t call in very often—perhaps there is a need for
faculty attention to be drawn to the opportunity to donate sick time to
b.
c.
d.
e.
others. It would have been very helpful at times for university staff to
benefit from this. We had no problems with the policy but there needs to
be a sense of responsibility that faculty can contribute.
iii. J. Maynard: We do have faculty that use their sick time. We have had
colleagues who have exhausted it and were on leave without pay because
no leave was transferred to them. There are issues with how faculty report
sick leave. I don’t disagree. There is a new model for future generations to
take up.
iv. D. Hantzis: It’s good to talk about this more often; especially that we can
donate across lines.
v. R. Guell: The Chair of the Staff Council tends to be in receipt of those
requests and sends them to the Senate, who will try to harvest enough
hours to get paperwork going.
Extraordinary Personnel Situations: A. Anderson, E. Hampton. Vote: 25-0-0
i. R. Guell: This recommendation came from the Board of Trustees in a
request for comment. It went to FAC, which added a special amendment
that you saw.
Standing Committee Changes to Bylaws: V. Sheets, M. Harmon. Vote: 25-0-0
i. R. Guell: Just for the record, the bylaw changes are different that
Constitutional changes; if I recall, a supermajority is required so that if we
do not get it, we would have to go to a vote of the faculty. This is to clarify
conduct and structure of standing committees.
Cross-Employee Class Grievances: E. Hampton, K. Yousif. Vote: 25-0-0
i. R. Guell: This came from the Executive Committee as a charge to FAC
following an observation that there was no way for one employee class to
file a grievance against another. This provides for the usage for the
respondent’s procedure. Instead of making an entirely new section in
246.14 or 255.14-16 we chose to say that the system would follow the
respondent’s due process.
Motions to Instruct Executive Committee on Section 305
i. R. Guell: I want to agree to restructuring as laid out in taking the structure
of section 305 as it exists, which is in file 8B, and transforming it to the
structure outlined in file 8D that we would have discussion of
reorganization. If you recall this is how we dealt with sections 350 and
351. Second is to note and approve the specific definition of consistent
evaluative criteria and faculty evaluation file. Those definitions are not at
all consistent currently. Third is on academic advising; we should note that
this particular now noncontroversial passage should now say that it should
be an appropriate activity. We are charging and asking the Advising
Taskforce to make a special recommendation as to what the language
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
should be next year. Number four is the inclusion of community
engagement/experiential learning as an explicitly-named appropriate
activity that is to be recognized in promotion, tenure, evaluation, etc. It
does not currently appear there. The fifth will be the creation of Senior
Instructor. If you don’t want to create a new rank there is a lot of work that
needs to be done in the background peel back a lot of other things out of
that. A. Kummerow has another concern that would fall into these
motions, and that is the sixth—whether FAC and Exec have dealt
adequately regarding the question of the layer between the department and
the college with the authority of the Executive Director of Nursing to
insert an opinion of the review file in the hiring portion.
Motion to Instruct Executive Committee on Reorganization: A. Anderson,
A. Morales. Vote: 25-0-0
R. Guell: Now we move to consistent evaluative criteria, which is first
described in 305.1.7.2 along with default criteria in 305.1.7.2.1 The name
“consistent evaluative criteria” is used to substitute. The language is
inconsistent throughout the section. It gets singularly defined there. In the
default criteria section departments and colleges are instructed to develop
consistent evaluative criteria with the option they may choose that of their
college, and with the statement that the department’s failure binds their
criteria to that of their college. A. Anderson, M. Harmon. Vote: 25-0-0
R. Guell: Faculty Evaluation File: Throughout 305 there are a variety of
descriptions of what the package is that moves from place to place. There
has been the authority to pull things or add them later. The faculty
evaluation file definition in 305.1.7.4 and elsewhere is what this is. M.
Harmon, E. Southard. Vote: 25-0-0.
R. Guell: To the inclusion of academic advising as a placeholder in the
sentence is what I would describe as a marshmallow saying that advising
is recognized as an appropriate activity. Motion to use that as a
placeholder with the proviso that the Advising Taskforce recommend
replacement language next year? M. Harmon, E. Southard. Vote: 25-0-0.
1. D. Hantzis: After the Executive Committee meeting I talked with
T. Hawkins. In that sentence, you had struck part of the ending,
making it nondirective. There is no definition for whom there is an
appropriate activity for. Is this a time to change that?
2. R. Guell: Instruction could be to the Taskforce that the sentence is
inadequate.
3. D. Hantzis: It needs an object clause.
4. K. Bolinger: Since it’s a placeholder it will only be around a short
time. Do we need to recraft it?
5. D. Hantzis: We talked about whether it needs to say “of faculty.”
It’s not parallel to other sentences.
6. K. Bolinger: I had no problem with it due to its temporary nature.
vi. R. Guell: The inclusion of community engagement and experiential
learning as an appropriate activity—this explicitly allows departments and
colleges to allocate credit for community engagement and experiential
learning within its consistent evaluative criteria. Departments and colleges
would have to recognize it, but the manner would be a local decision.
Motion: E. Southard, M. Harmon. Vote: 25-0-0
1. R. Guell: By this motion, we can take this up again at the April 16
meeting. This would be an explicit portion of the Handbook and
would be the role of decision-making, where it counts, be a local
one.
2. R. Schneirov: What practical difference does including it make?
3. R. Guell: There are activities that may not have the same weight
that they might have in your portfolio for promotion, tenure, and
review that would be community-based or communityengagement-based or experiential-learning-based if you are doing
activities in teaching from a particular agency. The campus
emphasis would recognize it worthy of consideration in a P and T
document. I think its greater impact is symbolic and political—that
we have created for ourselves a national reputation—and it adds
meaning that P and T documents would support and respect this
activity.
4. K. Bolinger: I didn’t like the weakness of the language. It is an
appropriate activity that counts for naught. It is up to the
department to decide. That was my objection.
5. S. Lamb: It states “will” be recognized. “Will.”
6. R. Guell: what would you do to strengthen this?
7. K. Bolinger: I wouldn’t propose specific language here, but if we
are a university that values that and we have national recognition
for it, it ought to have weight. That is not evident here. If we let
each unit decide, they won’t look at it any further.
8. S. Lamb: I like the flexibility it allows. I do think the Physics
department, for example, is going to have a different response to
this than a department in the College of Business, and I object to
one-size-fits-all.
9. I. Land: I agree. If we overweight the language on community
engagement it is implicitly undervaluing research. Departments are
aware and colleges are cognizant of the weight of these. For
example, no one will tell junior faculty it doesn’t matter.
10. R. Guell: K. Bolinger, do you wish to make a motion to strengthen
the language?
11. K. Bolinger: I don’t think so.
12. D. Hantzis: I just wanted to know if this was added after FAC’s
deliberation. They didn’t discuss it.
13. R. Guell: It was added at the request of the President.
vii. R. Guell: You will find the rank of Senior Instructor isn’t in 305.4.4.2. The
rank is created as a standard and referenced in multiple other places. In
305.11 specifically and 305.11.1.3, after two full terms, the sixth year
evaluation could result in a person becoming a Senior Instructor. It would
essentially be an “up or out” decision at that level. K. Bolinger, A.
Anderson. Vote: 25-0-0
1. J. Maynard: That is not what we agreed on.
2. R. Guell: That is what it says. If you want them to continue as
Instructors that needs to be in your motion to instruct at this point.
3. K. Yousif: It was my understanding that it would be more parallel
to promotion to full professor. You could be promoted or not, and
continue to be an Instructor.
4. R. Guell: That is something we need to decide. I hope here today
we do that.
5. D. Hantzis: We were asked to consider this in FAC by Exec. We
rejected the idea that this promotion was equal to that of full
professor since there is nothing between Instructor and Senior
Instructor. I don’t think it is parallel to full. We already have
something in the Handbook that says after six years we are only
reviewed biennially. Once you’re tenured you don’t have to go
through review. There was never an intent by FAC to make this
parallel to full.
6. R. Guell: Motion is to keep this as is. If you wish to make a motion
for change…
7. J. Maynard: I remember this discussion. You have to say what the
intention is in calling someone a Senior Instructor. A recognition
of seniority or recognition of a high level of performance. The first
is automatic. If you think of it as achievement of higher quality
you would move through by evaluation. I thought within our
discussion in Exec we were moving toward the option track…I had
not thought of it as FAC had. It needs to be defined.
8. S. Lamb: I would like to move that it’s an option. This change
would allow someone to continue beyond the sixth year at the rank
of Instructor. S. Lamb, K. Yousif. Vote: 14-11-0.
9. D. Hantzis: I think that’s the wrong way to go because we continue
to have Instructors who don’t get a pay raise. Tenure recognizes
both duration and quality. Why would we continue to employ them
for six years and not give them a change in rate? If the Senate’s
will is to make it optional we will have to write provisions to those
who are denied. We have all those clauses for those who are
denied tenure. I think we are well past time when we should create
some way for Instructors to have professional promotion after
some time.
10. K. Bolinger: I agree. I think that if you’re going to get to that
second review and are here for six years we are arguing on
something pointless. I disagree with the motion on the floor. There
is nothing wrong with someone in their sixth year gaining a title
and pay increase without additional hoops.
11. D. Malooley: Could you clarify the motion?
12. R. Guell: The motion to instruct amendment is to allow for after
the sixth year review that Instructors would be terminated, stay as
Instructors, or be promoted to Senior Instructor. The current
language is “Senior Instructor or termination.” Motion to amend
this instruction to have the Executive Committee work on all of
what D. Hantzis talked about.
13. K. Bolinger: It’s not more likely to be termination. Current
language says that.
14. D. Hantzis: That is what it sounds like.
15. B. Kilp: This opens the position of negotiating Senior Instructor
from the very beginning of their employment here.
16. R. Guell: The language in 305.2 on Tuesday changed the document
that you were sent for this meeting to include the word “normally.”
Actually there is the possibility that someone would be hired in
now under current language at Senior Instructor. It would be
abnormal.
viii. A. Kummerow: As the document currently sits, because there is an
Executive Director of Nursing for three departments of nurses, there is an
extra level of review that has to happen due to accreditation, for hiring,
promotion, tenure, etc. so those recommendations have to come through
that position which is after the department chair and before the college
level. A. Kummerow, E. Southard. Vote: 23-2-0
1. R. Guell: The motion would be to insert explicitly the need for
intermediate level of review at hiring tenure-track faculty,
Instructors, and Lecturers so it would sit in 305.3 and 305.11 and
.12. I think we can find where it needs to be.
2. D. Hantzis: I spoke to L. Hall about it and we talked about whether
we needed the same clause. It’s a simple process but the hiring
policies themselves are much less specific and directive. The
procedures generally govern the events. It made way for a school
recommendation but no tenure review. The independence of the
revision is guided by a very specific process. The college would be
able to determine it at the department level. We didn’t add it. It is a
complete clause but not really necessary. L. Hall worked with you
and she said that department and school accommodates that. My
concern is that we quit writing policies for the Executive Director
of Nursing.
3. R. Guell: A. Kummerow, the motion to instruct is to include
explicit language at the hiring level.
4. D. Hantzis: We would put it in general policy?
5. R. Guell: Yes.
6. E. Southard: It doesn’t have to address Executive Director of
Nursing.
7. R. Guell: Just review required by accreditation.
10. Adjournment 4:49pm