CONSENT AGENDA
University of Nevada, Reno
2011-12 Faculty Senate
October 20, 2011
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 September 15, 2011 Meeting
Minutes
Action/Enclosure
2.
Request to Approve the AFPPP Charges
Action/Enclosure
3.
Request to Approve the Campus Affairs Charges
Action/Enclosure
4.
Request to Approve the Academic Standards Committee
Charges
Action/Enclosure
October 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 1
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
October 20, 2011
Consent Agenda Item #1
Request to Approve the September 15, 2011 Meeting Minutes
1.
Roll Call and Introductions:
Present: Gerald Ackerman (SOM), Pat Arnott (COS), Rafik Beekun (COBA), Mike Bennett (A & F),
Todd Borman (IT), John Cushman for Trish Ellison (CABNR), Susan Donaldson (COOP), Isabelle
Favre (CLS), Catherine Goring (SOM), Keith Hackett (Pres), Eric Herzik (Immediate Past Chair), Julie
Hogan (DHS), Yanyao Jiang (EN), Stephen Lafer (COE), Kami Larsen (SOM), Kami Larsen for Amy
McFarland (SOM), Donica Mensing (JO), Vannessa Nicholas (Prov), Louis Niebur (CLA), Elissa
Palmer (SOM), Crystal Parrish (DEV), Chuck Price (SS), Maggie Ressel (Lib), Alice Running (DHS),
David Ryfe (Chair), David Shintani for Glenn Miller (CABNR),Valerie Smith (VPR), Claudene Wharton
(Pres), Leah Wilds (CLA),
David Zeh (Chair-elect).
Guests: Orion Cuff (GSA Council), Jason Geddes (ROB), Marc Johnson (Pres), Ann Keniston (CLA),
Sue Voyles (RGJ).
2. Visit with Chairman Jason Geddes for the Board of Regents:
Chairman Jason Geddes said that he represented District 11 which included Washoe County and
would soon include Pershing County. At the September Board of Regents (BOR) Meeting they
discussed strategic planning. There were speakers from Western Interstate Commission for Higher
Education (WICHE) and from Northwest Accreditation. The regents were watching to see where
Northwest Commission of Colleges and Universities (NWCCU) was going with the new performance
metrics at 1, 3, 5, and 7 years. The regents also were looking at where NSHE was going as a system.
The Board of Regents experienced some frustrations last year with the budget cuts and which
programs the different institutions were going eliminate. The Social Work program was an example,
both UNLV and UNR were going to eliminate the program and then both ended up keeping their
program. Regents would begin working with several different groups to see how education fits in with
the economic plan. The regents would like to develop some campus and systems policies to build
and go forward. Their plan would include input from the institutions to help to create a budget and
also show the value education would continue to bring to the state.
Geddes described the presidential search process: The Regent’s Presidential Search Committee and
the Institutional Advisory Committee would meet and define the qualities that they wanted in the next
president and then inform the Executive Search Firm. Most of the preliminary interviews would be
done by the search firm. Due to Nevada’s Open Meeting Law having the search firm conduct the
preliminary interviews would allow for more candidates to apply as their application and interviews
would remain confidential until further along in the process. They would like to be able to bring
candidates to campus in January or February. The Regents have the only vote that count, however in
the past, the regents and the advisory board agreed on a candidate. Leah Wilds agreed that was
what happened on the committee she served on. Geddes stated that this was a great institution and
felt that we would get many good candidates.
Bart Patterson, Vice Chancellor for Administrative & Legal Affairs, would be looking into the curricular
review process for policy change recommendations.
Questions and Comments from the senate:
 Were NSHE’s last strategic planning goals updated? Yes and those goals would be the
framework for the current process.
October 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 2






A question was asked about the searches, what would be the order of hiring, for example in
CLA their past dean was the interim provost, and they have an interim dean, so would they
hire for president first and then work their way down the line? They most probably have
step down rights, so the hiring would have to wait until the president position was filled.
Regarding the Low Yield Policy Proposal would the use of smaller numbers create a more
realistic approach? Regents have not seen that policy yet, however, there would be a
policy and they would have to look at what was brought forward.
Faculty would like to have input into the presidential search process. Faculty could send
their input to either the Presidential Search Committee or to the Institutional Advisory
Committee. During the appointment of the Interim President, some faculty members were
afraid to provide input due to the Curricular Review Process, but they might be more willing
to provide that input now.
The Work Force, Research, and Economic Development Committee was approved in
concept at the September Regents’ Meeting. This committee would look at increasing
research and grant productivity on campuses. The regents would like to increase the grants
and research dollars by 10%. The system institutions took a lot of cuts in their matching
grants. The Knowledge fund was created and this would be a good opportunity to start
working on what we want it to become. This committee would also be looking at ways to
make if faster and easier for UNR and UNLV to get grants and contracts in and out.
Health Sciences Council would include deans from the School of Medicine, School of
Dentistry, and the School of Nursing. These deans would work together with the Vice
President for the Division of Health Sciences. The regents were planning a retreat and this
framework planning would begin there. There would be no replacement for the Executive
Vice Chancellor for Health Sciences System
The salary increase for DRI was approved. Were there any initiatives for UNR and UNLV to
decrease brain drain? The regents were looking at that. In the past the regents had two
policies; one was to keep tuition low and the other was to keep tuition and fees the same at
both universities, now they would be looking at differential tuition.
3. Low Yield Policy - Academic Standards Committee (ASC) - Ann Keniston Chair:
Link to the revised report:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/committees/AS/Low_yield_9_16_11.doc
ASC Chair Ann Keniston would like to have the narrative removed from Appendix B and not be part of
the policy. In the proposal right after point # 5 the chancellor proposed certain exemptions and the
committee felt that those needed to be clarified.
How are low yield programs defined? The committee listed a number of issues that they felt needed
to be considered. These were under general comments right after point #1. Also on the cover sheet
were comments regarding issues that were not addressed in the chancellor’s proposal; one was cost
savings and the other had to do with the mission of the university.
MOTION: Wilds/Price. To accept the report as modified by shortening Appendix B.
ACTION: Passed unanimously
The committee had a number of different criteria that should be considered. If there was no cost
savings, that should be part of the metric for when low yield was triggered. The committee didn’t want
to recommend a fixed ratio, but research and research productivity should factor in. UNR was much
October 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 3
smaller than many of the institutions considered in the Chancellor’s proposal so there should be a
lower threshold.
The next concern was the number of years considered, the committee felt that it would be a good
idea to raise the term of years from 1 to 3 or even 5 years, so that if a program has an off year it
would not be affected.
The 3rd issue was not just the number of diplomas issued in a major, but the need to include other
kinds of teaching. This was alluded to in the proposal but it was not quantified. The committee would
distinguish between service, core curriculum and possibly interdisciplinary courses, these should be
factored in.
4th issue was the size of the units. The chancellor’s proposal seemed to target the smaller
departments. So the number of faculty vs. the number of student FTEs should be taken into
consideration.
Questions regarding these recommendations:
Ryfe explained that the number that the chancellor used was not a fixed number, but a number to
begin the conversation with institutions.
 What was the difference between the Low Yield Proposal and Curricular Review?
o This proposal could be used for good or evil. The university has a tendency not to ever
kill a program, for example it took a decade to kill the Latin Program. This policy could
have an explicit clause that says all tenured faculty would be reassigned if a program
was eliminated.
 Discussion included several topics and issues:
o Student services looking at the low yield program list to increase recruitment in those
programs.
o Don’t just looking at the number of graduates of a program, but also the size of the
department.
o Once a program is identified, it is harder to recruit students and faculty.
o Would the regents be focusing on these issues rather than overall viability of
institutions?
o The use of a formula might be better than just the numbers proposed in the chancellor’s
proposal.
o Chancellor Klaich’s Proposal was to add a section 5 to the Title IV, Chapter 4 of the
code, but Ryfe wondered if a component could just be added into Section 4 which
discusses program review. Would the committee be willing to delete section five and
add a component to section four of the code? Perhaps having a threshold that would be
the trigger and the protection of faculty rights and then use those quantitative levels?
o How would this affect new programs? It would not affect them until they were ten years
old.
Ryfe would bring forward the recommendations from this report to the Council of Chairs. The chairs
from the other institutions would also be bringing forward their ideas. Negotiations would start with the
Chancellor to bring forward to the regents a proposed policy that would be accepted by the regents.
MOTION: Wilds/Hogan. To approve the committee’s recommendations.
ACTION: passed unanimously.
4. Visit with President Johnson:
October 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 4
President Marc Johnson reported the following:
 Low Yield was discussed at the regents meetings and there was now awareness with the
regents of the fear that it created among faculty. Faculty felt it was similar to Curricular Review
where faculty got fired. The senate’s resolution on Low Yield would be helpful.
 New programs were subject to regent review at three and five years and must include the
number of majors in each new program. Regents keep a pretty close eye on those numbers.
 Student headcount was up slightly (2% headcount increase and a 3.5% FTE increase) and the
graduation rate was also up from 47% to 52.5%
 UNR has moved up within the Tier One ranking in the U.S. News University Directory.
 The Enrollment Management Plan was under way. Prospective students with an ACI
(Academic Index) between 60 and 65 would be counseled on beginning their education at a
community college and then coming to the university. This would help the student to succeed and
help the university to improve the quality of students.
 Reginald Stewart, Director of the Center for Student Cultural Diversity was appointed to the
half time position of Director of Diversity Initiatives on Campus.
 Reynolds School of Journalism Foundation was carefully watching the candidates for the
position of Dean. They have not been directly involved in the process, nor have they commented
on any of the candidates, but they have indicated the school’s prospects with them would be
based on the leadership selected. There were four very good candidates that would be coming to
campus.
 The Board of Regents passed a formalization of the Workload Policy that we have used in the
past.
 The Board of Regents would like to see an optimal medical campus so they would be planning
in that direction.
 Administration was looking for a faculty member to serve on an ad hoc committee that would
consider the best way to honor Milton Glick. This committee would be representative of the
university and would have some students and a member from facilities.
 It was decided that faculty who were 90% grant funded would be considered fully grant funded.
This would allow them to have the non-grant funded time needed to perpetuate the grant. This did
not exempt them from the furlough.
 Market pressure would be one of the universities real issues with the lack of salary increases.
Senate Comments and questions
o We need to look at academic reputation and creativity rather than just numbers when looking
at Low Yield
o Where does the money from vacant positions go? In the last three years when a program went
away, the money did not go back to the administration, it just went away. If a program was
going to be adjusted in any way, the money would go back to the dean and the college.
o Approximately 33% of our graduates come from interdisciplinary programs and graduate
programs and in a year most of them would be gone without funding. Johnson responded that
there was a difference between taking away graduate school support and closing a program.
There has been some controversy over these programs. Administration was looking at ways to
October 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 5
shave state funds from the interdisciplinary graduate programs without killing them.
Administration did not want standard allocations for the program.
o The reason for Enrollment Management was to focus our resources on those students who
were ready to come here and able to complete their programs. With K12 we were working with
all 12 school districts and the other NSHE institutions. TMCC and UNR would work together to
create some remedial math classes at the high schools.
5. Paths to Growth:
Chair David Ryfe reported that in the past both UNR and NSHE were in an environment of growth
and now the environment was one of scarcity and might remain that way for the next decade.
Priorities and plans were developed in that time of growth. Faculty would need to have a strong
influence in the future planning process.
Ryfe suggested forming a commission of approximately 15 faculty members that was sponsored and
staffed by the senate. The commission could do outreach by asking students, administration, and
outside sources as well as due diligence to form the basis for a conversation that the senate could
then have with administration. Ryfe would like the senate to allow the executive board to develop a
slate of candidates and charges for the commission and then bring them to the senate for a vote. The
commission would have both an internal and an external facing charge. The tasks of the commission
would be to decide what the faculty’s priorities were and how to distinguish ourselves from other
institutions. The commission would need to look for outside money, and to see what strategic
partners we wanted to create regarding resources, curriculum, and more. This group could canvas
the university and see what was being done and see what needed to be expanded. Ryfe asked each
senator to comment on their feelings regarding creating this commission. The consensus was to
create this commission.
There was some discussion regarding who should be on the commission, should there be students
and outside community members? Would there be subcommittees? Should the size of the
commission be smaller? Should there be two commissions? Would the membership have
representatives from each unit? What would the outcome look like and what would integrate this into
campus? We need to find an umbrella where we might look different from other universities we need
to be creative in this process. Could there be a community member, we need to consider our
philanthropists too. What was the timeline and would the commission have the ability to
teleconference so faculty from outside the area would be able to participate?
The commission could be smaller and they could consider using a method such as the Delphi
process to involve the campus. Could there be two commissions, since half of their charge would be
outward looking? The senate should have input on who should sit on this committee and if an outside
person was selected, then should have a good understanding of higher education. Hopefully the
committee would want to look for a high tech partnership. This was a place that cooperative extension
could play a really important role and would not want to be left out. We should learn more from
current successful universities as to why they have been successful, rather than reinvent the wheel.
Ask this group who is the priority, what is the focus, undergraduates, graduate education? Also we
cannot forget non-traditional students and the community involvement. We need to respect our
mission of a research university by increasing our private base of research funding. Our outward face
is very important, we are a blue collar area and this would be one way to show them the value of
education, we could also ask students to do public service. Someone from administration should be
on this commission. We should have at least one student on the commission. Once the university no
longer is reliant on state funds we could decide what we want to be and look at the moon and the
stars. Position of the faculty would be important and have a basis of consensus and understanding.
October 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 6
This group must be nimble and quick moving so it should be a small group but with outside input. The
ideas must grow from the faculty. And they should be far removed from administration so they were
not hijacked by the administration. There needed to be someone who has been here a long time and
has institutional memory and is well respected.
Ryfe thanked the senate for their suggestions and those would be taken back to the executive board
and deliberated upon. He felt that there were a couple of issues: outcomes; his hope was that the
recommendations would come with a series of potential action steps that could be proposed to our
president. In terms of size, that is flexible, but in terms of membership he would like only faculty on
this committee at this time. Faculty have a very difficult time organizing themselves, and this
commission needed to have a consensus. Anything that the commission created would be a starting
point for campus.
MOTION: Wilds/Hogan. To have the executive board flesh out this commission and bring back to the
senate for a final vote a slate of candidates and charges.
ACTION: Passed unanimously.
Ryfe wanted a separate vote on whether the commission would consist of faculty members only.
Some comments were: hopefully there would be some recommendations on how to involve the
community at a later time. The commission should have an agenda that moves the commission
forward. If this commission was here to engage the community some felt that the commission should
have outside membership. The commission could communicate with the community without having
members. If the senate and university wanted a picture of what this institution looked like there would
be a need to have outside members.
MOTION: Wilds/Herzik. To have only faculty members on the commission.
ACTION: Passed, 4 opposed 3 abstentions.
6. Consent Agenda:
Link to the Consent Agenda: http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/11-12/Agenda/9-1511consentpkt.doc
Consent Agenda Items:
Item 1: August 25, 2011 Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes
Item 2: Research and Grants Committee Charges
Item 3: UAM Revisions:
5,304: Use of University Space by Non-University Organizations, Groups and Individuals
5,309: Fundraiser and Concert Policy
1,030: Payment Card Industry Compliance Policy
Link to UAM Revisions:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/11-12/Agenda/9-15-11_UAMconsentpkt.doc
Wilds asked to have the minutes pulled.
MOTION: Herzik/Ressel. To approve the remainder of the Consent Agenda
ACTION: Passed unanimously
Requested amendments to the Meeting Minutes:
Wilds said that under the chair’s report there was a sentence that did not make sense. “Studies might
affect faculty in those programs that did not graduate enough students.” The minutes should have
read: “Studies show that those students who applied late were less likely to continue and graduate.
An issue was expressed that this might affect faculty in those programs that did not graduate enough
students.”
Rafik Beekun asked that in the section under visit with the President the last sentence of the parking
section be changed: “A couple of senators were adamant about the unfairness of this issue.” He felt
that was too strong of a statement and the word questioned should be used instead. The sentence
would be amended to say “A couple of senators questioned the fairness of this issue.”
October 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 7
Claudene Wharton said her concern was that under New Business the minutes did not represent a
diverse perspective of the senate and that we needed to make sure not to characterize what one
senator said to the entire senate. Wharton would like to add that this administration was not to blame
for where we are they are not the enemy. She also requested that the word “some” be added to the
following statement:
“It was believed by some that once a department was on the curricular review list they would remain
on the list and that the lists have been arbitrary.”
Wilds asked that the word “some” be added to this sentence: “Faculty felt that the duplicities of this
administration and their desire to fix morale with a BBQ was insulting to faculty.”
Ryfe reminded the senate that the minutes were not a verbatim transcript. We would go back and
listen to the meeting minutes and if something was not in the recording, then the minutes would not
be revised, but an amendment could be added.
MOTION: Price/Ressel. To approve the amended minutes.
ACTION: Passed unanimously
7. Chair’s Report:
Chair Ryfe reported that he was surprised at how quickly the regents approved the DRI Salary
increases. This increase would only affect 165 of those researchers, not all of the researchers would
be able to do this with based on their grant’s rules. This was mainly a recruiting and retention tool.
Vice Chancellor Bart Patterson and the Council of Chairs met. They discussed conducting a salary
survey. A concern was that faculty would leave based on salary issues.
NSHE has slipped backwards especially with health benefits and would look at ways to supplement
salaries to offset this.
The Chancellor’s Office would push PEBP very hard for a middle health insurance option, however he
did not think they could do it, but said NSHE would aggressively seek to get us out of the PEBP
system.
The BOR Community College Task Force report had a recommendation to create a virtual university
and outsource all online education to this virtual university, which would be a for profit university. This
would not have a profound effect on UNR as we don’t do a lot of online education. We should be
more innovative more entrepreneurial in this regard and not just say no to this recommendation. If we
don’t like this recommendation we would need to come up with an alternative. He suggested that
senators should read that part of the report. Western Nevada College just went through Curricular
Review. The code says that the president of each institution must have a plan. At WNC the President
and some administrators met and then announced in a faculty meeting that seven tenured faculty
were being laid off and that was the process. He did not feel that this met the code and their faculty
might have some grounds for reconsideration. Their faculty has said that they should refuse to sit on
search committees. The chairs read a statement to the regents and asked that the curricular review
process be worked out. The situation at the community colleges was different as their roles were
much murkier and the boundaries were difficult to know.
As we develop our own ideas for strategic planning we will feed into what the system was doing. The
WICHE presentation painted the bleakest picture of Nevada. Nevada needed about 400,000 new
graduates by 2020 to diversify our economy. We produce the fewest graduates and the weakest
students in the states. Demographics work against us and Nevadan’s were not concerned about
education because until recently a person could earn more without a college degree in Nevada than
in any other state.
The Interim Committee to Fund Higher Education has been almost formed. This would be an
important committee to follow.
Ryfe has not been able to have a conversation with the executive board regarding parking yet, he has
been collecting information and at this point it did not seem as though all the increases were related
October 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 8
to Athletics. We do need to have information and participation in how administration allocates
budgets.
Presidential Search Process:
The senate has not had a formal procedure regarding the Institutional Advisory Committee selection.
The procedure that was in the packet was culled from past presidential searches. Any faculty member
can nominate, but only senators would be able to vote on the nominations.
MOTION: Borman/Wilds. To approve the procedure as written.
ACTION: Passed unanimously.
There was some discussion regarding whether or not to hold a special meeting to discuss the
nominations and vote at that meeting or to vote via checkbox.
MOTION: Wharton/ Wilds. To hold a special meeting to discuss the nominations and to vote.
ACTION: Motion failed, 16 opposed.
8. New Business:
None
Meeting adjourned at 4:35 pm
October 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 9
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
October 20, 2011
Consent Agenda Item #2
AFPPP Charges
Administrative Faculty Personnel Policy & Procedures (AFPPP) Committee
Charges, 2011-12 Academic Year
Purpose: The Administrative Faculty Personnel Policy & Procedures Committee conducts studies on university personnel
policies and procedures, and the best practices of our peer and aspirant institutions, to make recommendations to the
senate and the administration on matters that affect the welfare and employment status of administrative faculty.
Members will include both academic and administrative faculty members.
Chair to meet with the Executive Board in March 2012. Report due for Presentation to Faculty Senate in April, 2012.
Standing Charges:
1. Review AFPPP Committee charges over the prior three years, and any recommendations adopted by the Faculty
Senate. Report on the implementation status of these pending recommendations.
1. 10-11 Committee Recommendations: Work with Human Resources on implementation of the following:
i. 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.
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.
ii. 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.
iii. 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.
iv. Continue to monitor reports about administrative faculty evaluations that have not been
completed.
2. Make recommendations on the future status, organization, structure, and charges of the AFPPP Committee.
Consider whether the committee is necessary and effective, and how it could be improved.
3. Proposals affecting AFPPP Committee charges should be sent to the AFPPP by the Executive Board before they
go to the full senate for a vote. The AFPPP committee should serve as a sounding board for the Executive Board
October 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 10
for
issues
related
to
AFPPP
committee
charges
and
objectives.
4. In consultation with the Executive Board, appoint a liaison from the AFPPP Committee to the University
Administrative Manual Committee. Identify any other campus committees with similar missions or concerns, and
appoint liaisons as appropriate to facilitate communication between these committees and the Faculty Senate.
5. The Executive Board will request input for AFPPP committee charges from the senators representing
administrative units. The AFPPP chair and Faculty senate chair will discuss and agree upon the charges and
committee
membership
to
include
both
administrative
and
academic
faculty.
6. Conduct brown-bag lunch meetings of the administrative faculty, at least one per semester, to provide them an
opportunity to discuss the issues of the day or to provide them with information about benefits, policies and
procedures, etc. Coordinate with the senate office to announce these events. One might focus on how, in light of
all the cuts, we might learn to do business differently at the university, not just within departments or units, but
across divisions, one should be loosely focused on a subject of possible interest to administrative faculty and
possibly hold in concert with or as a way of promoting the workshops/discussions referenced in the additional
charges below.
7. Report on the status of pending or completed administrative requests for action (RFA’s)
Additional Charges:
8. Investigate the effects on administrative support resulting from budget cuts. Canvas where dramatic cuts have
been made (ex: career services) and detail what has been lost. Make recommendations regarding what may be
done now to minimize the impacts of the loss or improve remaining services.
9. Work with administration to develop criteria for Professional Development Leave. Recommend what, if any,
limitations may be placed on criteria, funding thresholds or maximum time off.
October 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 11
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
October 20, 2011
Consent Agenda Item #3
Campus Affairs Charges
Campus Affairs Committee (CAC)
Charges, 2011-12 Academic Year
Purpose: The Campus Affairs Committee monitors, conducts studies, and makes recommendations on a wide
range of issues that affect the quality of campus life, such as work environment, campus safety, and food
service.
Report tentatively due to Executive Board in March 2012, for presentation to the Senate in April 2012.
Standing Charges:
1. Review CAC charges over the prior three years, and recommendations adopted by the Faculty Senate.
Report on the implementation status of these recommendations.
2. Make recommendations on the future status, organization, structure, and charges of the CAC. Consider
whether the committee is necessary and effective, and how could it be improved.
3. Upon request by the Executive Board:
a. Review any proposals affecting CAC objectives, and report recommendations to the Executive
Board within six weeks after receipt of any request for review.
b. Serve as a sounding board for the Executive Board for issues related to CAC charges and
objectives.
4. Appoint a liaison from the CAC to each of the following committees: the Committee on the Status of
Women; the Work and Family Task Force; the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Advocacy
Committee; the Multiethnic Coalition; the Intercultural Collaborative; and the University Disabilities
Resource Coalition. Facilitate communication, as appropriate, between these committees and the Faculty
Senate, and inform the Senate as to whether these committees are duplicating efforts.
Additional Charges:
5. Work with the generator of the online learning report determining what is needed to maintain the online
portal where students interested in online coursework can find all online courses offered? Is there an
ability to do this utilizing PeopleSoft? If so, what are the current obstacles to overcome (training, data
entry, etc.)? If not, what is the alternative, including resources needed and cost.
6. Work with the Vice Provost’s office of Instruction and Undergraduate programs to determine ways that
outside classroom activities assist in overall student success (increased graduation rates). How do student
community service activities affect student success? What are the variables affecting graduation and
retention rates? Determine what policies and practices the university currently has in place to achieve the
goals of increased graduation rate and retention.
October 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 12
7. Create a general faculty morale survey to be vetted by the Faculty Senate Executive Board before delivery
to the faculty early in spring 2012. Include questions that test the criteria for curricular review and relative
effectiveness so far regarding how budgets have been cut either validating what has been done or creating
a path to a different direction. In devising the survey, the committee should consult the Accreditation
Survey and Campus Affairs Faculty Morale Climate Survey to gauge differences in faculty perception
then and now.
8. Of the faculty who received NNR’s and Notices of Lay off, how many were invited to apply for, requested
an opportunity to apply for, and/or were relocated into different positions? Explore how the academic
planning process could be revised to include a process for relocating faculty who received a notice of
layoff.
October 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 13
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
October 20, 2011
Consent Agenda Item #4
Academic Standards Committee Charges
Academic Standards Committee (ASC)
Charges, 2011-12 Academic Year
Purpose: The Academic Standards Committee monitors, conducts studies, and makes recommendations on
matters such as admission standards, grading practices, degree requirements, academic status, scholarships, and
related issues.
Chair to meet with the Executive Board in March 2012. Report due for Presentation to Faculty Senate in April, 2012.
Standing Charges:
1. Review ASC charges over the prior three years, and recommendations adopted by the Faculty Senate.
Report on the implementation status of these recommendations.
a. Regarding Academic Integrity:
i. Verify completion of Academic Integrity website (including recommendations a-h)
hosted by Sally Morgan’s office.
ii. Investigate with UNR IT available online methods of reporting instances of academic
dishonesty without FERPA violations.
b. If proposed policies are approved by the Board of Regents regarding 120 credit degree limit
(approved June 2011) and low yield program review, investigate:
i. Review of other graduation requirements related to total credits (specifically 40 Upper
Division and track RFA for residency change from 32 to 30 upper division).
ii. Research the development of the campus-based portion of the process for exceptions to
the 120 credit limit (accreditation).
iii. Research the development of a campus-based early warning and support system for
programs that are near the degree production thresholds detailed in the BOR proposals.
2. Make recommendations on the future status, organization, structure, and charges of the ASC. Consider
whether the committee is necessary and effective, and how could it be improved.
3. Upon request by the Executive Board, review any proposals affecting ASC objectives, and report
recommendations to the Executive Board within six weeks after receipt of any request for review.
4. Upon request by the Executive Board, serve as a sounding board for the Executive Board for issues
related to ASC charges and objectives.
5. Appoint a liaison from the ASC to the Core Curriculum Board, and another liaison to the Academic
Advising Advisory Board. Facilitate communication, as appropriate, between these boards and the
Faculty Senate.
Additional Charges:
6. Conduct extensive review and revision of current academic progress standards, specifically considering
undergraduates being required to declare a major by the time they have completed 60 credits to decrease
a delay in graduation for these students and increase the 4 year graduation rates.
7. No later than September 30th, following review of the approved RFA for changing catalog language and
implementation of a form for Undergraduate University Dismissal for academic probation, propose
October 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 14
charges for the University Release from Dismissal/Appeals Committee to include (but not limited to) the
following:
a. Committee service term, number of faculty and criteria (if any) for faculty to recruit to the
committee.
b. Beyond GPA, should any other criteria be considered by this committee for appeal of a dismissal
or readmission following the year’s dismissal period? If so, please specify. For both, include the
process for obtaining college/dean input/approval for use in the decision.
c. Requirement to report the number and nature of the appeals each semester/year to the Faculty
Senate Executive Board.
d. Making a recommendation to the Faculty Senate, in year three, to maintain this committee or
combine the charge with the special admissions committee, based on the number and nature of
appeals.
8. Review Chancellor Klaich’s proposed policy regarding Low yield programs and make recommended
revisions, if any, by September 15th senate meeting.
October 20, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet
Page 15