Electronically approved
FS # 9
UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
April 26, 2012
3:30 p.m. HH 102
Present:
Absent:
Ex officio:
Deans:
Guests:
I.
S. Lamb, R. Baker, K. Bolinger, S. Buchanan, J. Buffington, J. Conant, B. El Mansour,
R. Guell, C. Fischer, E. Glendening, D. Hantzis, M. Haque, T. Hawkins, N. Hopkins,
J. Hughes, R. Johnson, L Kuhlman, B. Klip, K. Kincade, C. MacDonald, A. Morales,
R. Peters, T. Sawyer, G. Stachokas, B. Yousif, K. Yousif
P.T. Advocate: A. Solesky
N. Corey, R. Goldbort, L. Hall, L. Kahanov, C. Olsen, L. Walton
Provost J. Maynard, President D. Bradley
B. Balch, K. Brauchle, A. Comer, J. Murray, B. Sims
A. Hay, R. Lotspeich, D. Malooley, S. Powers, A. Shahhosseini
Shelby Sands and Lindsay N. Morgan (scholarship recipients) $400 each
Memorial Resolutions: None
II. Administrative reports
Provost Maynard:
a. President Bradley is in Thailand receiving an honorary degree.
b. Many of you were in attendance last week at the Faculty Awards Banquet. Congratulations to
those who were promoted, earned tenure, or awards.
c. At commencement we will be conferring three (3) honorary degrees to: Former Indiana Chief
Justice Sheppard, Donald Buttrey and his late wife Karen.
III. Chair Report- Steve Lamb:
a. The New Executive Committee for 2012-2013 will be Chair, V. Sheet; Vice Chair, J. Conant;
Secretary, T. Sawyer; and at large members, SAMy Anderson, K. Bolinger, T. Hawkins, B. Kilp,
E. Lorenzen, C. Olsen.
b. My Chair’s report will be brief. First, I want to acknowledge the tremendous work done by Robert
Guell in his role as Secretary. The Musings were his brain child, and his work. They added greatly
to the role of the Faculty Senate. Faculty, as well as Faculty Senators, are instantaneous aware of
the forthcoming issues. This has resolved a tremendous problem for Faculty Governance. For
years we have been criticized for not informing the campus as to the issues.
To T. Sawyer, it is my strong desire that the Musings continue and be the responsibility of the
Secretary.
I have had conversations with the Provost. Presently, the Chair of the Faculty Senate gets a course
release time each semester for that role. I suggested to J. Maynard that the same be given the
Secretary, with the assumption that the same dedication to quality effort be made. He was
comfortable with that, and expanded on the suggestion somewhat. His alternative suggestion is
1
that the total of four course release time during the year be spread among the officers as they see
justified. So be it. I suggest one course per semester for the chair, one course per semester for
the Secretary.
I thank the Senators this year for being of strong opinion on nearly all issues. We did not have to
fear apathy.
Continue to protect the viability of the Constitution, the viability of Shared Governance. Keep in
mind the long run viability of our Constitution. Administrators come and go, be flexible, but
preserve the strength of your constitution. You have among you a strong set of leaders. Virgil
Sheets can navigate almost any tumultuous current. Listen to him carefully. He is knowledgeable
about all facets of the intricacies of shared governance. And there is untapped talent in the minds
of Tim Hawkins, Chris Olsen, Christine MacDonald, and Brian Kilp. Give them opportunities. John
Conant, and Bob Guell are proven leaders.
By the way, there is no one ideal type for a Senator. It truly takes a variety of styles for the Body
Senate to be effective. The body badly needs the caustic style of Jim Hughes, and Nora Hopkins. It
needs the intellect of Darlene Hantzis, Kevin Bolinger and the patience of Jim Buffington. It also
needs those who absorb and weigh information calmly and participate through their votes.
It has been my great pleasure to work with all of you.
IV.
Announcement of this year’s Faculty Scholarship recipients Lindsay Morgan and Shelby Sands by
J. Buffington.
First of all, I’d like to thank the scholarship committee, chaired by Ali Shahhosseini with able
assistance from Al Finch and Swapan Ghosh. This year, we had an all-time high of 84
applications, and there were many deserving applicants. It was a tough job, but the committee
has selected two very deserving winners.
It is my pleasure to introduce to you the winners of this year’s Faculty Scholarships. In spite of the
tough economy, we decided to award two scholarships for the second year in a row.

Our first recipient, Lindsay Morgan, cannot be here because of a scheduling conflict.
Lindsay Morgan plans to apply to the Nursing Program in fall of 2012. Lindsay is a nontraditional student who is balancing academic demands against family obligations.
Despite facing obvious hurdles, Lindsay has earned a 3.76 GPA which includes courses in
math, chemistry and anatomy. One of her professors described her Anatomy class as one
in which only half the students achieve the “C” required to enter the Nursing Program.
Lindsay earned an “A” in this course despite her outside obligations. Family commitments
do not leave much time for extracurricular activities. Even so, Lindsay is a weekly
volunteer at the Crisis Pregnancy Center. Lindsay says she “dreams of the day when
someone asks her daughters what mommy does for work, and they proudly respond “my
mommy saves lives as a nurse.” We hope this scholarship plays some small part in
making this dream come true.
She sent her regrets, saying “I am so thankful for being chosen and am so sorry I am not
able to thank everyone in person.”
2

Shelby Sands addressed her appreciation to the Faculty Senate on having received her
scholarship.
Shelby Sands is a major in exercise science. Her advisor notes that she has maintained a
4.0 GPA while competing on the women’s cross country and track team. She is involved
in several community engagement projects including: the First United Methodist Church
Soup Kitchen, Coats for Kids, and Mission Indy. Another of her professors writes that
she approaches all her classes and other aspects of her life with determination, maturity,
and professionalism. Asked why she was interested in exercise science, Shelby noted that
she had seen both of her grandmother’s benefit from Physical Therapy rehabilitation.
Each grandmother had her knees replaced and underwent physical therapy. Shelby saw
first-hand how this improved her grandmothers’ mobility and sense of independence. As
Shelby says, “their qualities of life were made more enjoyable, and this, I knew, was what
I wanted to do for people.” Shelby, may your dreams come true as well.
V.
Support Staff Report, K. Hall. Not present. No report.
VI.
SGA Report- Nick Utterback:
Thank you Chair Person Lamb. Good afternoon President Bradley, Provost Maynard, Faculty
Senate, and all others in attendance today. SGA continues to play an active role in students’ lives
as it should. The most noticeable thing that recently took place was the 2012 Spring Election. It is
one of the biggest elections SGA has seen in recent years, and it grabbed many students’
attention. For those of you who aren’t aware of the winner, Andre Brousseau will be the
President of SGA starting May 15th. If you happen to see him around campus please extend a
welcome and say hello as he is a very pleasurable man to meet. With him in charge of SGA, I can
say I have no worries about the organization in the near future.
As the year comes to as close I would like to thank each and every one of you for making this an
enjoyable experience. Not only did I feel welcomed by this particular decision making body, but I
also felt together we have accomplished some necessary changes for students. Your hard work
and effort you put towards student’s lives is something that can’t be replaced. I would like all of
you to know that this energy spent was not wasted and is appreciated by students around
campus. Again thank you for everything you have done during my term as SGA President, and I
wish you the best of luck as we move into the future.
VII.
Special Purpose Advocate Report, A. Solesky: No report.
VIII.
MOTION TO APPROVE Faculty Senate Minutes of March 29th, 2012 (C. MacDonald/ N. Hopkins;
vote: 24-0-1).
IX.
Fifteen Minute Open Discussion:
a.
R. Lotspeich: ISU Faculty Petition to the Indiana State University Board of Trustees on
Affordability Action Items Spring 2012
Preamble
Many faculty members at Indiana State University (ISU) are dismayed by the initiatives
proposed in President Bradley’s letter to the ISU community dated March 12, 2012 and in
the memorandum from Provost Maynard, dated March 8, 2012 with subject:
“Affordability Action Items.” We have chosen to express our views collectively to the
Board by signing this petition.
3
While we recognize the importance of minimizing the economic burden of tuition and
fees, we do not believe these initiatives will significantly address that problem and find
them to be contrary to the principles of academic freedom and shared governance. It is
our view that the ISU tradition of following these principles has served students of ISU
and the Indiana public well and should continue to provide strategic guidance for the
University.
As concerned faculty members of ISU we agree to the following:
1) We object to policies that inappropriately restrict an individual faculty member’s choice
of course materials such as textbooks. We ask that this initiative be discarded. Acceptable
divergence from this autonomy arises when there is a conflict of interest because a
faculty member receives monetary compensation for sales of a particular textbook, or
when material chosen is clearly inappropriate because it does not address the subject
matter of the course. Centralized decisions on course materials are not required to
address these issues.
2) We object to arbitrary rules for determining administrative structure expressed in the
system of academic departments, including rules regarding minimum size. Decisions on
academic structure are specified in the ISU Handbook as an area of primary authority of
the faculty. We ask that this initiative be pursued in accordance with the Handbook. We
recognize that changes in academic structure are sometimes helpful and urge that
deliberative procedures be used to effect such change. The College of Arts and Sciences
has an established procedure for changes in academic structure. Any faculty member,
faculty group, or administrator may submit a proposal.
(see
http://www.indstate.edu/cas/faculty_and_staff/proceduresAdminRestructuring.htm).
3) We object to mandates decreasing the number of hours required for a major.
Determination of curriculum is specified in the ISU Handbook as an area of primary
authority of the faculty. We ask that this initiative be pursued in accordance with the
Handbook.
Reduction of hours might be justified in certain cases, but such changes should be
approached with concern for the quality of education.
b.
c.
d.
N. Hopkins: I have a concern that our Chair is not allowed to rehire one of our best
instructors. I was told that this came from Dean, but I suspect it came from higher up and
was based on DWF. What is the DWF rate where faculty will be fired?
Provost Maynard: Personnel issues are complex. There is no magic number. However, this
is not appropriate arena to discuss individual personnel matters.
D. Hantzis: It is my view that the new law with regard to the 120 hours creates an
opportunity to graduate students who are only shy in that requirement. To that end, what
petitions will be considered appropriate regarding overall graduation hours?
Provost Maynard: I concur with your observation that an opportunity has been created.
We need to create a process to analyze these.
R. Guell: While I have been credited with creating the musings, I do want to acknowledge
that it was D. Hantzis who suggested that transparency would be enhanced by a Faculty
Senate Executive Committee blog. Since I didn’t know how to do that, but I did know how
to email faculty, that was how the Musings came out. Still the creation for the idea
belongs to D. Hantzis.
4
e.
X.
J. Hughes: Why petition? Is there a need to petition the 124? Why not make it
automatic?
Provost Maynard: We need to create a process.
FAC: As per Constitutional Change requirements: Introduction (Discussion Only) of Consideration
of Expanded Role for Multi-Year contract Faculty.
a.
Language of Changes
Senate Colleagues, These Constitutional Changes may be introduced at a one regular
meeting (that is today), but may not be voted on at that meeting. They may be voted on
at the next senate meeting and if they achieve approval by at least 2/3 of those present ,
they may go to the Faculty Body, where another set of rules kick in.
From
(a) 245 Constitution of the Faculty of Indiana State University
(i) 245.1.2 Definition of University Faculty. All appointees with academic rank and
the professional librarians shall constitute the faculty of Indiana State University.
(ii) 245.1.3 Voting Members. Only tenured and tenure-track members shall be voting
members of the University Faculty.
To
(b) 245.1.2 Definition of University Faculty. All appointees to the Regular Faculty and the
professional librarians shall constitute the faculty of Indiana State University
(c) 245.1.3 Voting Members. All members of the University Faculty shall be voting
members.
(i) And (amendments of Guell-Lamb)
1. Replace the Existing
a. 245.3.2.1 Ineligible Administrators. No voting member of the University
Faculty who occupies the position of Assistant Dean, or who occupies a
position determined by the University Faculty Senate to have
administrative status equal or superior to that of Assistant Dean shall be
eligible for election to the University Faculty Senate.
b. 350.1 Appointment. Academic department chairpersons are appointed by
the University President on the recommendation of the Provost and Vice
President for Academic Affairs and the recommendation of the dean,
based on the formal recommendation of the faculty of the department.
c. 350.5 Selection and Removal. Chairpersons serve at the pleasure of the
dean and the department faculty.
2. With
a. 245.3.2.1 Ineligible Administrators and Non tenured/tenure track faculty.
Instructors (as defined in 305.2.4) and voting members of the University
Faculty who occupy a position of Assistant Dean, or who occupy a
position determined by the University Faculty Senate to have
administrative status equal or superior to that of Assistant Dean shall be
ineligible for election to the University Faculty Senate.
b. 350.1 Appointment. Academic department chairpersons are appointed by
the University President on the recommendation of the Provost and Vice
President for Academic Affairs and the recommendation of the dean,
5
based on the formal recommendation of the tenured and tenure-track
faculty of the department.
c. 350.5 Selection and Removal. Chairpersons serve at the pleasure of the
dean and the tenured and tenure-track department faculty and as such
only tenured and tenure-track department faculty may vote in their
selection and removal.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
o.
p.
XI.
J. West: FAC looked into policies at other institutions, talked to multi-year
instructors and agrees that increasing faculty rights a positive move. AAUP’s
position is stronger (wishing to grant full rights.)
We are not uncomfortable with amendments with the amendments added at
Exec.
S. Lamb: Please consider this a two stage process. This first step will perhaps give
us more comfort with full rights.
N. Hopkins: I have a problem with wording regarding rank. Will instructors have a
say in everything?
R. Guell: The issues we have looked at (promotion, tenure, grievances) require
that the committee members be tenured. If this is true for all such committees
(like we think it is) then it will not be an issue.
J. Hughes: But “undue pressures” can be on many other issues.
B. Yousif: What is the logic for not allowing full rights? It creates a demoralizing
work environment to limit their rights.
S. Lamb: I have seen multi-year faculty misused more often than not. A block can
be manipulated.
C. MacDonald to J. Hughes’ concern: Many are sensitive to this issue. We know
this shouldn’t be done but it is.
D. Hantzis: FAC felt that we already have votes by class of faculty, for instance
only tenured faculty vote on the tenure of others, so have selection and removal
of chairperson by Tenured and tenure track faculty seemed ok to us. I would say
we are concerned that there is not the degree of due process for multi-year
faculty in the handbook that there is for tenure track faculty. did not see MYI=TT;
MYI do not have due process; create due process MYI into HB
R. Guell: S. Lamb and I were concerned about multi-year faculty being used as
voting blocs. In particular, these faculty would out-number the tenured and
tenure track faculty in Communication and English.
K. Kincade: Couldn’t those issues be referred to a Dean?
K. Yousif: Any discussion of allowing voting for the A. Solesky position?
D. Hantzis: FAC discussed extending options. Next year’s FAC will take that up
again.
N. Hopkins: I am not in favor extending voting rights, but I am in favor of having
handbook language on process.
Provost Maynard: I want to speak in support of this. I should not marginalize
these faculty. We have done our part, as the administration in increasing salaries
and benefits for these faculty. It was done with the expectation, as close to a
promise as the officers can make, to address this issue.
FAC Report on Textbook issues: Common texts in multi-section courses, (one, charge 15)
6
1.
Evaluate the wisdom of the administration’s proposal on requiring multi-section
courses to have common texts (March 21 email from Exec).
FAC understands this charge refers to proposed policy #3 in the “Affordability Task Force
Recommended Policy Modifications” (conveyed by the Provost to the faculty, March 8):
(ii) “In a course with multiple sections, the department will adopt the same basic
texts.”
(iii) Recommended Policy Modifications #1 and the University Handbook statement
on Textbooks are also relevant to FAC’s discussion:
1. From Recommended Policy Modifications: “Textbooks for particular courses
are recommended by each faculty member and approved by the department
faculty. It shall be the responsibility of the department chairperson to ensure
that all courses within their department are in compliance with the University
textbook policy.”
2. From Handbook. 310.1.12 Textbooks. Textbooks for particular courses are
selected by each faculty member and approved by the department
chairperson. In a course with multiple sections, it is generally desirable that
all sections use the same basic texts. Textbook requests are coordinated by
the academic department offices. The University Bookstore will order and will
make available for sale textbooks required in all University courses.
FAC Response:
1) FAC considers the recommended policy modification that mandates adoption of the
same text in courses taught in multiple sections to be unwise. FAC finds that the current
language addressing this matter in the University Handbook is sufficient in its recognition
that use of a common text in multiple sections of the same course is desirable. This
practice should not be revised into a requirement. FAC believes that department faculty
should continue to work together to ensure that good decisions are made about
textbooks in multi-section courses (understood to mean undergraduate courses that
hare content and number); such decisions are expected to reflect a commitment to
quality and an awareness of affordability.
2) FAC supports revising the current handbook language to remove the vague statement
assigning approval authority to chairpersons of textbook selections made by faculty.
However, the assignment of authority to department faculty, as a group, to approve
textbook decisions, if stipulated in a revised statement on Textbooks, should apply only to
multiple-section course textbook decisions (in accordance with AAUP guidelines). One
such revision might read:
310.1.12 Textbooks. Textbooks for particular courses are selected by the faculty
member teaching each course. It is generally desirable that textbooks for courses
offered in multiple sections should be the same in each section and department
faculty are encouraged to work together to select a common text that will support
effective teaching and learning across all sections. Textbook requests are coordinated
by the academic department offices. The University Bookstore will order and will
make available for sale textbooks required in all University courses.

MOTION TO APPROVE FAC Recommendations Regarding 310.1.12 (J. Kuhlman/ C.
MacDonald; Vote: 19-5-1)
7
Discussion:
a. A. Morales: How much is a factor in terms of affordability?
Provost Maynard: It is not a single factor, but an accumulation of factors raising textbook
costs. This is one of them.
b. D. Hantzis: If something goes to Board we will need to consider a definition of “multisection” that deals with format and sequencing.
c. K. Bolinger: How does choosing one text affect cost?
R. Guell: A large number of different books make estimating the buy-back number for
future used books sales much more difficult for the bookstore and because it is a risky
part of their business, they will buy fewer books from students and have fewer cheaper
used books to sell our students.
d. B. Yousif: If the best text is also most expensive, is that not a violation.
2.
Three year adoption of Texts
Evaluate the wisdom of the administration’s proposal on requiring 3-year adoptions of
texts (March 21 email from Exec)
FAC Response
FAC observes that continuing use of an adopted text is already standard practice among
faculty, but finds that it is unwise to adopt any requirement governing the length of time
during which a textbook must be used to support a given course. FAC recommends that
department faculty conversations about textbooks include recognition of the potential
value of a two-year adoption (a three-year adoption provides only a marginal additional
benefit, as documented in the subcommittee report on affordability of books and
supplies). Any decision about textbook adoption should prioritize maintaining the
academic quality of the course and faculty should retain the authority to select the
textbook that best meets their needs in particular courses.

3.


MOTION TO ENDORSE FAC response (N. Hopkins, J. Kuhlman; vote: 19-5-0)
Discussion:
a.
B. Kilp: I wish there was a way to separate Foundational Studies and topical
courses. Is there a way to separate them?
S. Lamb: Departments are doing this
J. West: FACs view was that faculty does this anyway simply because changing
texts is a costly process for prep time.
b.
N. Hopkins: Even with Foundational Studies courses, this is a publisher’s choice.
Many books are not on a 3-year cycle.
c.
T. Hawkins: The administration wants to require something that the faculty
doesn’t want. Faculty do not want any of these restrictions and for good reason.
Faculty should be deferred to.
Faculty authored texts
Evaluate the wisdom of the administration’s proposal on ISU faculty-authored texts
earning a profit. (March 21 email from Exec)
FAC understands this charge reflects recommendation #7 from the “Affordability Task
Force Recommended Policy Modifications”:
“An Indiana State University Faculty member cannot personally profit from the selection
of textbook(s) for courses taught at Indiana State University”
8
FAC Response:
Handbook Insertion as 310.1.12.1
To minimize suggestions of conflict of economic interest, recommendations for adoption
of basic or supplementary textbooks authored by university faculty must include approval
of the department chair or the dean responsible for the academic department, as
appropriate. A statement must accompany such recommendations, indicating (a) that no
other textbooks containing material appropriate to the course are available, or (b) that if
other textbooks are available, the textbook selected is deemed most appropriate.

4.
MOTION TO ENDORSE FAC Recommendation (C. MacDonald, J. Kuhlman; vote: 16-4-3)
Failing to meeting deadlines for textbook submission
Consider whether there should be consequences (perhaps in regards to faculty
performance evaluation) of faculty consistently failing to meet [sic] deadlines for textbook
submission. (March 21 email from Exec)
FAC Response:
FAC encourages departments to act in accordance with the value documented in the
subcommittee report of "on time" notification of textbook decisions to affordability. FAC
recognizes that timely faculty action in textbook notification obviates the possible
perception of a need to impose standard processes of textbook adoption (including multiyear commitments). Repeated failure to submit timely textbook notifications should be
managed through established department personnel guidelines. However, faculty failure
to comply with requests for textbook notification should not rise to the level of formal
punitive response.

XII.
MOTION TO ENDORSE FAC Response (C. MacDonald/J. Kuhlman; vote: 19-2-2)
Discussion:
a.
A. Morales: All we have heard is how this affects the bookstore.
b.
B. Yousif: Can we get out of the agreement?
R. Guell: There are exit clauses in the contract but each has a poison pill. We
would be required to pay off the remainder of the lease on the building, pay an
undepreciated value of the $1.5 million in furnishings the bookstore had installed,
and buy the entire inventory (estimated to be around $10 million to $15 million).
This contract was a gigantic mistake but one we cannot change.
c.
B. Yousif: Why are there these textbook deadlines?
B. Kilp: Are the deadlines associated with a law?
R. Guell: The deadlines are associated with the HERA that requires that students
be able to know how much their books will cost when they register.
University College, CAAC item

a.
MOTION TO ENDORSE CAAC Recommendation (C. MacDonald/R. Peters vote: 19-4-1).
D. Malooley: CAAC recognizes the inevitability of a University College but wishes to stress
the following points:
1.
This be viewed as a “new academic unit”
9
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
XIII.
That CAAC liked TAFFY’s notion of consolidating areas as a means to increase
effectiveness while also reducing administrative overhead
That a Senate-appointed Taskforce similar to GE Taskforce be created to formalize
the structure, that it operate on a limited timeline and that once it was
formalized, operate as a continuing advisory committee.
That whatever the outcome of the structure that First year students are allowed
to enroll in major courses immediately
Pedagogy remain in the department
The Dean’s position be one that works in collaboration with and not superior to
other deans and should not be reaching into departments. If there are issues
within departments that the UC Dean should bring up that the Dean of the
department in question fail to address, it would be the Provost who would deal
with the Dean to address the issue.
That there is an assessment mechanism in place for the unit.
N. Hopkins: I can’t support it, but I understand the idea. I would like to see it fully fleshed
out. I might be able to support a Taskforce report that was fleshed out.
What is the difference between the UC Dean and AVP for SS? There seems to be overlap. I
worry about the motivation to create fluff courses.
J. Hughes: I worry about creating non-teaching positions and the fact that they take away
from teaching. While I can support what CAAC said, there is no guarantee that a UC will
look like that.
S. Lamb: Remember that primary authority is not ultimate authority. My intent is to
recommend strong members to serve on the taskforce and to design strong structure. I
know that when our primary authority has not been adhered to, it has caused problems
for the administration. I still think we are obligated to put forward our best
recommendations.
I also feel that once the taskforce has made its recommendation, this should be brought
back for further input. I will select CAAC leaders to design this and include a
representative of the chairs to make sure their concerns are addressed. We asking for
some amount of faith, but we need to proceed.
K. Kincade: This could be a good idea, but we need to be cautious because this feels like
we are writing a blank check.
How do we know that the Taskforce recommendations will be followed?
R. Guell: I asked that of the Provost at Exec.
J. Maynard: Our pledge is to respect the Taskforce recommendations and to make clear
any differences we have with it. We will bring that through governance.
T. Sawyer: If we vote this down, it will happen anyway. This is our best way to influence
the outcome. This is not new and it is motivated by a desire to help students.
Absent Senators (Discussion Item only)
As per Constitutional Change requirement the following was in the December 7th, 2010 Executive
Committee minutes. We delayed bringing it to the Senate until the next occasion when we had
additional recommended changes to the Constitution. Today, we may only discuss this policy. We
may not vote on it. It may be voted on at the next senate meeting and if they achieve approval by
at least two thirds of those present, it may go to the Faculty Body, where another set of rules kick
in.
10
Attendance Policy:
Senators on leave who will not be attending the Senate meetings for a semester are expected to
notify the Senate Chair so that temporary alternates can be appointed. Other senators who miss
two meetings in a semester will be reminded by the Senate Chair of their obligation to attend. If
the senator misses an additional meeting during the remainder of the academic year, the senator
will lose his/her seat, an alternate will be appointed if one is available, and the college the senator
had represented will be notified of the change of status.
XIX.
Meeting adjourned at 5:09 p.m.
11