ࡱ>  bjbj 4hhc, '''8_\\'pE---EEEEEEEG,JBEE--*EX--EE?'C-4'tX@"D@E0pE AnKnKD'CnK'CEEpEnK :  OVERFLOW MEETING MINUTES November 3, 2011 3:00 -5:00 p.m. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES________________________________________________ ROLL CALL Present: Heidi Buchanan, Beverly Collins, Chris Cooper, Cheryl Daly, Elizabeth Heffelfinger, Christopher Hoyt, David Hudson, Leroy Kauffman, Rebecca Lasher, David McCord, Erin McNelis, Elizabeth McRae, Justin Menickelli, Ron Michaelis, Leigh Odom, Kadie Otto, Malcolm Powell, Bill Richmond, Phil Sanger, Wes Stone, Vicki Szabo, Erin Tapley, Ben Tholkes Members with Proxies: Luther Jones, Kathy Starr, Chuck Tucker, Cheryl Waters-Tormey Members absent: None Recorder: Ann Green Initial Comments from Erin McNelis: This is a continuation of the meeting from last week. At the last meeting we dispensed with the order of the day by moving to Old Business first, and then moved to Council Reports where we had just finished Collegial Reviews first matter and we will move to the second matter today. Before beginning, Erin asked that everyone keep in mind to try to be brief and to the point and she will have to stop discussion if it gets off point. Were going to start the 2nd order of business for the day which is the 3rd Collegial Review Council item by opening up the floor which is not per se by Roberts Rules, but allowing 15 minutes for any faculty statements or comments which will be limited to 2 minutes per person. This was put in the announcement about the Senate meeting as well. During this time we will not stop and have discussion within the Senate. People from the floor will have their chance to speak and any questions asked within that time will be noted and addressed within the open discussion and debate during the regular portion of the Senate. COUNCIL REPORTS________________________________________________________________ Collegial Review Council/Vicki Szabo, Chair: Early Tenure and Promotion: Vicki Szabo: The CRC was asked to look at this because it wasnt especially useful or clear and the criteria for early tenure were different from the criteria for early promotion. So what weve done is homogenized the language. Its still somewhat vague, but it needs to be somewhat vague so that the DCRD can control that, as well. So, youll see what weve done is create a standard language for both tenure and for promotion. The language we chose has three changes. 3.b. We wanted to make it clear that the probationary period for tenure-track faculty to establish a record of academic achievement was in all three areas: teaching, scholarship, and service. And then if c: the statement for tenure. If faculty has exceeded expectations, and demonstrated significant and sustained contributions in all three areas, may apply for early consideration for tenure. The language is the same for promotion. Its not that much more helpful, but its better then it was. Comments and Discussion: Comment: I wonder if the council considered adding an adjective, like exception. Something that indicated that this should not be the norm just to meet the standard criteria a couple years early, but that theyre really a special scholar. Comment: The language thats in there right now is faculty with exemplary performance and the endorsement of their department head and college dean. We thought that exceeded expectations and demonstrated evidence was more useful then exemplary performance. In 6.b for the promotion it was extraordinary competence, so we took the exceptional, exemplary, extraordinary and just made it exceeded expectations. Comment: So, the university is capitalizing. We refer to significant and sustained contribution to the university. Is that specifically restricted to ĢƵor is prior service included in this? Comment: It never has been before. Comment: If you get prior service credit, then that record stands as part of your application. Comment: I think the exceeds expectations was something that was rather consistent in DCRDs throughout the university. And now as a point of taking away a word like exceptional or exemplary or extraordinary: thats more vague. Were as exceeds expectations is defined in the DCRDs. And then, I know when I got here in terms of being considered early I was told no, we dont count what happened prior to you being here. I know it shows up on my TPR and I was told to remove it. Comment: The ruling is, as far as I understand it, is that if you have prior service credit that year at other institution, that you record those activities as part of your application. Thats why you have prior service credit. Comment: Scholarship, and service? Comment: Everything. Scholarship, teaching, and service. Whatever your activities were for that year. Comment: This looks to me like its going to put the bar just barely above the standard. So that someone in their fourth year gets one or two extra publications, and their teachings been particularly good, then theyre going to be able to go out a couple of years early. Is that what we want? Is that the purpose of this? Comment: We talked about discouraging it much more vocally, but it wasnt really our call. Its more the department and the candidates. We didnt want to discourage it, because we didnt feel that it was our place. We just wanted to clarify the language. Comment: I would agree. It seems to lower the bar in a way that makes it not the exception, but the norm. Comment: Were happy to entertain changes in the language. If people would like to suggest it, or we can take it back to CRC. Comment: The conversation we had there focuses on the next phrase: demonstrates evidence of significant and sustained contribution. Its like in your third year, the piece that youd be missing theres not compelling evidence of a significant, sustained performance. It could be a blip. So that is one reason probationary period is five years long, looking at the track record. On the other hand, I hear what you guys are saying. What could we add to who have exceeded expectations to a substantial degree, who have exceed expectations to a ? degree and demonstrated efforts? I think modifying that -- keep the bar as high as we know it is its real rare that people get early tenure and promotion here. It is a high mark, judgment, you knowmodifiers of that first phrase, exceeded expectations canemphasize it a little bit and I would be in favor. That really reflects the reality. Comment: There was a statement that basically lowered the bar because everyone we have can meet this after three or four years. At least thats what I heard, and I really question that if that is the case then is our regular bar too low? And should we, instead, as a faculty say that okay, we need to raise everyones bar? So that it is an exception that someone gets it in three years. Comment: I dont really think thats the point. I dont think you want to set a limit that some people can barely meet it, so that makes it fine. I take it that the point of early tenure in the past is that these are people who are exceptional and we want to make sure they stay around. So, it shouldnt just be that youre better than average, right? It shouldnt be that we have to raise the average, but this does seem to suggest that anyone who is a bit better than average should be able to go up early. Which hasnt been the case in the past. Im not necessarily opposed to it, there are some universities who do it that way, but it hasnt been what weve been doing and this language certainly seems to invite that change in how we offer early tenure. So, if we dont, I think we need a modifier. Comment: Can I formally and officially recommend a friendly amendment for the word, far to be added? Comment: So, the amendment. I think weve added it in two places. Is it accepted as friendly for the record? Comment: I was just going to say that this language doesnt read to me like a bit better than average. It reads to me like someone who is pretty exceptional. Whats the difference between someone who gets tenure after four years? I mean we bring people in with tenure, after no years. So, if youre a superstar in all aspects, and you go up early and you far exceed your departmental and college expectations? Comment: I was just going to say that if you exceeded expectations and evidence of significant sustained contributions in all three areas, thats pretty damn exceptional. I mean thats a huge accomplishment to make in five years. I would think that the CRC would read this and think this is a pretty high bar. Comment: We just recently went through our CCRwhatever --our meeting, where we talked about who was going to go up for tenure and promotion. In reading our document we had to go through and look, okay had they met scholarship and teaching and service? And in each case, the verbiage in there exceeds expectations//meets/fails to meet, and so this new change here would be consistent with what our DCRD says. Theres some indication there, and its really at the departmental level, that we specify how that early tenure/early promotion is met. That document right there is really going to determine whether or not early tenure and promotion is met; its not here. So, early tenure and early promotion is really now consistent with the purpose that we have in this. Comment: One concern I do have, theres a few words in here that I dont see how you can realistically measure them. Significant and sustained? If someone goes up to three years, how in the heck do you see consistent and sustained? I mean, you cant measure that. Comment: Lets direct questions and comments toward the chair, then. Comment: Isnt consistent harder to do in shorter periods of time? Comment: Thats sort of the point, though, isnt it? That if youre going to go up early, then youd be exceptional to have demonstrated that sustainment and contribution. Comment: I think what you are saying; sustained, meaning the word cannot be defined in 3 years, 4 years. Either way, its not defining sustained. Sustained means 5 years or more. ..How are you supposed to know if it is sustained after the 3rd year? Comment: Thats why its defined in the departmental. There are guidelines in the departmental documents that say early promotion, tenure, thats how its defined. In the departmental -Not here. Question directed to Beth Lofquist: Point of clarification, while you were Associate Provost and we re-did all CRDs to all depts.. Have criteria for early promotion and tenure? Response from Beth: No. Comment from Erin: Not all depts. currently do. Go back to your departments and consider. I think that would help each individual group determine what they mean by sustained, what do they mean by exceptional, exceeds, etc Comment from Beth: We did not require that in DCRDs in my mind because the Handbook says exceptional and when youve got the regular criteria for tenure and promotion in your DCRDs the exceptional part would be above that in all three areas or high level in all three areas, according to your standards, so it wasnt like you had to have a specific section on that. Comment: This is a tricky issue and I think that early tenure and early promotion are always going to be judgment calls at the university level and theyre tough to make. They usually say no. Thats a reality. I think part of the purpose of collegial review documents and the Handbook is to communicate reality as well as we can to new faculty members or else they get set up for failure. One of the things Ive found is people ask, can they go up early and youre in no mans land in terms of advising that faculty because usually nobody gets it. If you read the faculty handbook and they say, theyve done a good job here I can try. A couple of times Ive gone along with it and wished I had not because they get no votes most of the time and then they are discouraged and demoralized and they get insulted and they get disappointed. So, to me the friendly addition of adding far exceeded thats a good reflection of reality. To me, its communicating to a successful, productive tenure track faculty member as they entertain that idea of going up early adding far presents to me a realistic picture of what they face it deals with setting people up falsely. Comment: I understand that its really hard to measure sustained and significant, but we do have to have some language that makes early promotion and tenure possible. So, it has to be. We arent talking about eradicating the option for early tenure and promotion so I dont know that theres a better way to word something that seems to be impossible to quantify. Im ok with far, and Im also ok with exceeded expectations. Comment: Since most departments seem to quantify expectations for a full professor maybe we could make the early tenure equivalent to meeting those expectations. Comment: That was making early tenure equivalent to the full? Comment: Not that you would become full, but you have to meet those quantified expectations. Response from Erin: That would be a pretty drastic change. That would need to be if this group decides to send it back because its a pretty significant change. Discussion ended. ELECTONIC VOTE ON CRC RESOLUTION FOR CRITERIA FOR EARLY TENURE AND PROMOTION (4.07 a.3.B, 3.cC, 6.c) Yes: 20 No: 0 Abstain: 2 Motion passes. The next item on the agenda is the Resolution on Collegiality Statement: Vicki explained that the English Dept caught grammatical errors that are not significant, but important enough to note. In the resolution 4.04 C the bolded paragraph: the second to the last sentence should read, Non-collegial behavior may be grounds for denial of reappointment, tenure, promotion or for unsatisfactory post-tenure review decisions. Comments from the floor were received: Comment from the floor: Three scenarios: 1: a faculty member asks a question at a General Faculty Meeting, 2: a faculty member disagrees with an administrative decision and presents a resolution to overturn it to Faculty Senate, 3: a faculty member does not speak during a department meeting and the department head writes on the AFE that she is a non-participant. These scenarios could be considered non-collegial and disruptive. The CRC resolution appears problematic to me. I would like to encourage Faculty Senate to instead adopt the AAUP statement on collegiality. It is thorough, contextual and nuanced and it speaks clearly to the issue. Comment from the floor: I applaud the language with which this resolution has been written. The syntax and verbiage reflect beautifully what the kind and keen measured thoughts of brilliant professors and it appears on its face to be reasonable legislation set before this body. However, in spite of its content, it nonetheless allows faculty members at this institution where you constitute the same sorts of hierarchies that one might find in elementary school. Hidden within its language are an ability to grant weight to poisonous hearsay and official valorization of we dont like you, na, na, na, na, boo-boo and any of its multiple incarnations and most darkly a license to condemn without offering an opportunity or action plan for redemption or improvement to the individuals it affects. I hope that this body will consider how the inevitable overlap with personal relationships and professional obligations perpetuate __? with injustice and prejudice any singular or restrictive definition of collegiality. I would wish that compassion and hope would guide the Faculty Senates deliberation of this matter and that any tendency to deliver permanent assessment of collegiality will be tempered by empathy. I would also mention that the amorphous language of this resolution opens a Pandoras Box for potential accusations of violations with Americans Disability Act and Equal Employment Opportunity requirements. In closing, I urge this body to reconsider this resolution in its current wording and vote against this passage. We, at this institution, who love it, deserve something far more humanistic. Comment from the floor: I am an attorney, I do practice part time in the state of Florida. Ive been here for about 11 years. I have read every single case in the hand out that I got that was basically a law review type of article. I have also looked at your resolution. I have also practiced in employment law. I think you are walking into a tremendous trap with the language that you have in this resolution. I think that a litigation plaintiffs attorney would have a field day with the vagueness, the lack of standards, the way in which you have decided as a body to construct this language. What you have based it on is one article and yesterday, Mr. Richmond, invited me with something from a professor in Southern Connecticut, someone who visited our campus and did some studies. I cant make a lot of comment on the efficacy of the study, but it did not seem to me to have a whole lot of academic weight to it. What concerns me most of all is the case law; beyond any doubt the courts can not define collegiality, case after case, after case. The authors say they embrace it. I dont disagree as a lawyer. Embracing it is one thing, holding, a holding of the case is another. There arent many holdings, in these district court and circuit court cases. Theres a lot of dicta, theres a lot discussion among many factors, a lot have egregious behavior that occurs and yes, collegiality is discussed. The 2 minute limit was reached at this point and the speaker was not able to finish comments. Comment from a Senate member who wasnt able to be at the meeting, but comment was read by another member: As Ive been unable to attend the Faculty Senate Overflow meeting, Ive asked that my views on the proposed resolution on collegiality be read in open comment to the Senate. I fully agree with the Collegial Review Committee that a statement of this kind should be included in the Faculty Handbook. My reservations to the current proposed statement are as follows: The last sentence of the statement reads, Collegiality may be defined according to more specific and relevant disciplinary parameters, if desired, in DCRDs. Perhaps, the problem is that we are attempting to define collegiality rather than what it is not. A definitive statement on what it is not collegial with a defined set of parameters would solve a lot of issues. We would all recognize that bullying, intimidation and sexual harassment, denigrating a colleagues personal and professional reputation without due cause and evidence to be non-collegial. Why can we simply not state so? To leave the statement as it stands, leaves the definition of collegiality in a hazy, dark and murky window with no parameters either good or bad. The next to last sentence in the statement says non-collegial behavior may be grounds for denial of reappointment, tenure, promotion or post-tenure review. I believe that we must establish a set of parameters. As university educators, were not allowed to determine on a personal whim whether we like a student or not. Were required to have a grading where we treat all students fairly when assigning an evaluation of a students performance. As faculty we are not entitled to the same consideration as our students? To leave the statement as it is proposed establishes no rubric keys for evaluation thus leaving it to the individual department head, departmental committee and the dean. Any department that would wish to do so leaving the statement as proposed could establish their own criteria for collegiality. Realizing that any changes to the DCRD would have to be approved by the Office of the Provost, this approval process would act as a safety net, to ensure that the guidelines would be proper. Correspondingly, any department that does not wish to go through the process of re-writing the DCRD and submitting it for approval would be free to apply the unwritten nebulous standards that are currently observed. Dont try to determine what collegiality is; define what it is not. The 2 minute limit was reached at this point and the speaker was not able to finish comments. Discussion and debate of the topic continued with discussion among the Senate members. Vicki began by providing context for the resolution. She explained that last year several CRC members attended the Robert Cipriano workshop, read his literature and did his exercises in groups. This is all on the h drive if anyone would like to read it. There was no interest in pursuing it last year, but this year it came up again as an issue at the department heads workshop and it went back to CRC. They have spent three separate meeting determining what they want to do and they unanimously wanted to include it. The next meeting was spent figuring out how they wanted to form the language and they chose an article titled, Collegiality and Higher Education Employment Decisions: The Evolving Law, which contained an appendix of past extant collegiality language from Faculty Handbooks from around the country. They used that extant language that is being practiced at universities across the country to form their statements. Vicki stated, We are not lawyers, so we didnt read the case law, we read the article but not the case law. They then all wrote statements, and met in another meeting to cobble together those statements into one unified statement that reflected some of those extant statements, but also ideas that they felt were important as faculty at Western Carolina. Vicki said they also had the AAUP statement and other material in addition to the article mentioned earlier. An opportunity was given to Mary Ann Lochner, university legal counsel, was asked to address the ADA issue, but she did not feel it was a problem. Comment: I wanted to piggy back. If there is any concern whether we are adding collegiality we are not. Were actually just putting it in there to clarify. Its out there. We are being judged by collegiality and if we are showing non-collegial behavior, then it comes out in the review process. This is just to make sure this is out in the forefront and that people are aware its there. Comment: Any number of points from colleagues in the College of Business, this is a compilation of probably five different college concerns. 1. The word, collegiality, is not only vague and ambiguous, and subject to ones interpretation, but what would be considered disruptive behavior as pointed out in the resolution. Who determines what is disruptive, or what is not? Noticeably absent in the proposal is any sort of checks and balances, no mention of documentation, and/or a persistence of particularly non-collegial behavior. Is the faculty the only entity that has to behave in a collegial manner? What about administrative behavior? Furthermore, we have Section 4.09 Termination of Employment, Section D, Discharge or the Imposition of Serious Sanctions which already exist and in addition we have any other requirements that are in the CRD documents. Going back to the fact that there is no definition of the word and no structure or mechanism for documentation, a faculty member suggests that the resolution at minimum be modified to read persistent, documented behavior may be grounds for denial or reappointment to influence decisions regarding the granting of tenure or promotion, non-collegial behavior must be documented over time and shown to persist even after repeated notification to the faculty member at issue. To influence decisions related to post tenure review, all of the above considerations apply as well as all provisions of existing post tenure regulations including notification and opportunity to correct the deficiency. Those are just a few concerns. Comment from Vicki: We discussed the idea of bullet pointing to answer the statement earlier. We chose not to do that. Someone raised the point that if you start with these lists, there is going to be an infinite number of examples to provide so we choose not to do that. Vicki also explained that they are not suggesting this to be a fourth leg so if there are documented issues theyre going to fit within one of the other three categories as opposed to some other stand alone category. That also gets the idea of an action plan, the candidate is not meeting standards in scholarship, teaching or service and collegiality is an issue there as well. There are already mechanisms for action plans so I dont think its possible to a have a collegiality action separate from those three legs. Comment: Is this the committees first go is it the first one brought this far? Response from Vicki: It is the first one here, but this was the 2nd- we worked on this language for two meetings. Comment: Im trying to bring in comments from other faculty. One is the perception or feeling here that the statement is being inserted in to the faculty handbook as a mechanism to protect the university from law suits from faculty that are denied tenure based on collegiality or non-collegiality. (This is) at least, a perception among some faculty and if this is not an issue were not doing a good job of communicating There was a separate comment of why are we addressing what is actually an HR Personnel issue and it should be addressed there rather than in the Faculty Handbook. I think there is if nothing else a whole lot more communication that we should probably do with faculty before we finalize. Comment: At CRC a number of folks from different departments that arent necessarily on Faculty Senate said that language about collegiality had already been added to the departmental DCRD documents. I guess Im curious how the faculty of those depts. felt. Did they have similar concerns? My sense is that it was happening at a departmental level that people were wrestling with collegiality, but maybe not. Are there other people that have collegiality statements in their DCRDs right now? Comment: The library does, but we dont call it collegiality. Its more of a professional standards thing. Its communications, being respectful. Its more detailed than this, but it is in the same spirit that applies to all of our work. Comment from Vicki: I dont think the comment that this needs to be inserted to protect the university it doesnt. Thats already the universitys right. Comment: I understand. I think though that there is a perception by certain faculty that that is why it is being put in and so communication to the faculty that that is not the caseI certainly have not communicated it well to xxx faculty. Comment from Erin: Just for clarification, I asked Rebecca to type in everything that X had said. This is not added as an amendment, but it was to clarify what was read. Comment: I want to put out a worry that was shared with me and I think it was pretty seriousin this statement where youve got the sentence, disruptive or non-collegial behavior interferes with the ability of colleagues to achieve the mission and goals of the University, it does threaten to make a standard for ending someones career which is where this would be put in place most dangerously. Based on not getting along with others or making others feel uncomfortable which is really a fishy kind of standard to have, where if you compare it what is said in the grounds for discharge for somebody who already has tenure, youve got incompetence, neglect of duty and misconduct are the basic standards. Its not unreasonable to think that those should be the standards for ending someones career before they get tenure as well. Rather than making others around them feel uncomfortable, and it we think its more than making others feel uncomfortable, I think that we should articulate something more like what is in the grounds for discharge. Its such a serious thing to do to somebody. Leaving it with this murky language that says, it interferes with the ability of colleagues to achieve the mission of the university- thats an important goal its something we should all shoot for. Its tough to just leave it that we think you are not helping us do what we want at the university. Thats all the guidance somebody has and its all grounds for dismissal. And, we are talking about ending a career. Comment: That is ultimately what I got from my colleagues as well. Section 4.09 already exists-Termination. The sense was there is no need for this resolution at all. Saying that what is up there in caps, I would say is the worst case scenario. The best case is to not entertain this at all. And the worst case is to at least have lots of initial language to at least clarify many of the ambiguities Comment: I guess this is where we have to talk to administration. Lets assume we dont have a statement on collegiality is there a belief that you cant deny promotion and tenure renewal based on collegialitymy understanding is that, no, thats not true, you can. Its just we dont have a statement here. And so, a faculty member reading the handbook can still be denied promotion, tenure, renewal whatever based on collegiality, but we havent said flat out, you best consider it. The question is, is that statement correct. If Im wrong, you cant deny them for those reasons, then Comment from Mary Ann Lochner: This is good discussion because in the end you guys own this this is yours. This is not something for administration to write not something for the lawyer to write. Its your statementI either inadvertently or very purposefully started this discussion at the department heads meeting where many of you were in attendance and the deans were in attendance. Beth had asked me to discuss very seriously different legal issues that came to the fore over the past academic yearI will tell you the past academic year was a doosey. Ive practiced for 28 years. Ive practiced in many settings. Ive been vice president general counsel before in large institutions and I have never before seen such a dismal conduct on the part of employees anywhere where Ive been employed or served as counsel in private practice not just on the part of other employees, but faculty too. So, I choose to talk about collegiality, and I choose to talk about collegiality in very positive framework. Particularly two things we have a new chancellor and believe me, the new chancellor does business differently than what youre used to. The new chancellor wants you all to take ownership in the institution and be proud of it. This chancellor expects everybody to work together in a cooperative, constructive, productive framework. Faculty, staff alike. He involves multiple stakeholders in all kinds of problem solving arenas and policy arenas. Its a new day. What I wanted everybody to do and Ive said this over many yearsIve talked about supervision, appropriate performance management and collegiality Collegiality is not defined very well, if at all, much like academic freedom. Im not here to define it Its yours to define. I have encouraged departments over years to come up with their own collegiality definition. You can define it negatively, by using terms such as disruptive, combative and on and on such that you faculty member will be disciplined if you engage in non-collegial activity. Or you can go the NC State way which was more positive, that collegial behavior was an expectation of all faculty members and they go on to give examples of what collegial behavior is Whether you like it or not collegiality is a part of faculty evaluation, it is a part of faculty evaluation with respect to teaching, to scholarship and to service. There are elements of collegiality in all three legs and its just what it is. It doesnt matter if that statement is in the faculty handbook or not. Its what it is. My point is for all of you supervisors out there is wouldnt it be nice if you would give your faculty members, particularly the ones who are probationary, tenure track faculty an idea of what you are looking for. Dont tell them to be collegial and then not give them anything more and then turn around three years down the road and say, youve got a problem with collegiality If the departments want to do their own collegiality statement, this doesnt prevent you from doing it and I encourage you to do it. If you all want to get a little bit more standardized then this faculty senate makes a recommendation about changes to the faculty handbook Comment: When the comment was made about that you could not be reappointed or tenured for collegiality, you made a statement with respect to the three legs of the stool. Is there any more clarification because the question was is it possible for this to happen and how does this correctly reflect what people need to know or be aware of? Response from Mary Ann: Yes, without a doubt. I am speaking to you not as a participant in an active discussion; I am talking to you now as general counsel of this institution. I will tell you what advice and counsel I give my clients and my clients are the Board of Trustees, the chancellor, and senior administrators on this campus. You guys are employees youre no different than meyoure employees first, then youre faculty. If Im a jerk in my job, the chancellor will come and fire me without notice. If my paralegal who is an SPA employee is a jerk, and is not collegial in her job, I will fire her in her job. If you guys are jerks in your job, you can get disciplined including fired by your bosses who are department heads The only differences between us are the policies and procedures by which we are all disciplined and the policies and procedures, the notice and hearing and the due process due employees based upon their classification whether they are EPA non-faculty, SPA employees or fixed term faculty, tenure track probationary faculty or tenured faculty. I will tell you what is going around now is just a very cursory review of some case law about faculty members who have been disciplined and discharged based on collegiality. Theres a very interesting case that came from NC State University where a tenured faculty member was removed because of collegiality and the court upheld the institutions right. I will also tell youthat the only cases that weve reviewed and Shea and I have done extensive review over the past year that courts have not upheld institutional action, the employers action has been where the employer has failed to follow their own policies and procedures, where the employer has failed to provide appropriate due process or where the motives of the employer or the administrator are in question or theres not sufficient evidence to provide that shows what behavior got the person in trouble. As far as Im concerned as counsel of the institution, if some manager comes to me concerned about faculty behavior that is disruptive, and the supervisor has and this goes to points raised, that supervisors have jobs. They have to evaluate performance and that includes collegiality. If theres a problem they have to tell their employee what the problem is and they have to give their employee an opportunity to fix things. If after three years the employee doesnt fix it, then we have a problem. If that person comes to me and says what can we do and theyve got appropriate documentation and theyve followed the policy and procedures and have given the person fair opportunity to fix things and the person is disruptive to an entire department, we are probably going to say we are going to discipline them whether its serious sanctions or non-reappointment or whatever it is. And, we can terminate employment. Vicki Szabo inserted that if the language is changed or not, nothing changes. Mary Ann agreed. Vicki continued by saying they didnt include a single definition of collegiality because there are numerable definitions they wouldnt have agreed on one anyway. The point someone else made is that this is just trying to get at transparency. Comment: If nothing changes then why are we doing this? Response: To clarify, to show people that this is already happening; for transparency. Discussion continued. Mary Ann reiterated that faculty owns this. Faculty can do it or not, can edit it or not, or leave it to the departments to do their own statements on collegiality in their DCRDs. Her point, as counsel, is that they get personnel problems that shouldnt ever have happened. Mary Ann firmly believes that every employee has a right to expect from the institution (their supervisors) what they need to do to succeed in this institution whether in service, scholarship, collegiality or teaching. Then supervisors need to sit down and tell very frankly where you are good and where you need to improve. Her point is to get transparency out there. Comment: How does this clarify anything? Because a number of the faculty have pointed out that it is very vague and ambiguous. Comment: We dont have to include it, but collegiality is already part of how we gauge our colleaguesif we dont want to say thats what we do, we dont have to, but its part of what we do already so we dont have to include it at all. Comment: Some of the issues about clarificationwhen it got to my department we did need to be a little bit more specific at the dept level and we took this and added to it. One is the framing, beyond the traditional domains of teaching, scholarship and service, overarching behavioral expectations, include professionalism, ethicality and collegiality. So, just framing it. There are a number of things beyond teaching, scholarship and service that are pervasive in what we do. We did add Unacceptable behaviors include but are not limited to bullying, harassing, threatening, intimidating and disruptive and obstructive, just to be clear on a departmental level with tenure track faculty that this is the kind of thing we mean. Beyond the pragmatic issue, its really important to be transparent, so new faculty understand these things matter On a higher level, the university should be a place with a maximum freedom of expression where we can express diverse ideas and disagree with each other in an atmosphere of civil discourseBullying, harassing, threatening, intimidating, disruptive and obstructive behaviors threaten that the freedom of expression of others Its not just a pragmatic issue of warning faculty of what they are likely to be judged by just for their own awareness. I think thats important too, but Im voting yes because of the big issue here. We need to be collegial in order to maintain maximum freedom of expression. Comment: Bullying and harassment are against the law. You can file an assault charge. Those things already exist in Section 4.09There so much redundancy here and then you have this new thing on the table thats not clear. Comment: Bullying and harassment wouldnt be the only forms of non-collegial behavior. It could be things like, I dont advise my students and so they have to go to other colleagues to get advising. So, Ive shuffled off responsibilities. Bullying and harassment may not go to the point of being illegal, but it may be the behavior in meetings forces you into agreeing with my point and suppressing that freedom of expressionAgain this is lending clarity. If you want to propose a different verbiage... I personally think its critical. Ive seen it at other institutions as well. People get caught off guard Discussion continued. Comment: About inclusivity is that part of collegiality? Committee assignments or that you are part of it, hypothetically, its on the table that you can volunteer and you do, but it goes to the person in their 4th or 5th year because they need service and you dont. So, youre not part of a committee. Its inclusivity. I dont hear itbut isnt it part of the notice of the chancellors idea of coming together as a community Comment: It seems like one of those all or nothing. We need no statement at all or we need a significant statement that is less vague than the one here. I agree about threatening behavior does go on at this university at a level thats not illegal and it should be stoppedAnd I agree with other examples that people can be collegial even though they speak their voice. Make the statement less vague to a point where I can feel good about points made earlier. Comment: I think theres something not quite right in the claim that all we are doing is articulating something that is already in existence. Once we document this it becomes a sort of policy and I think that is very important to acknowledge...The statement that is being proposed is very murky and its suggests that we are allowed to dismiss people because they dont help us accomplish the mission of the university which is really broad. Where if you compare it to that the Section (4.09 D) it is quite specific and it covers the things you are talking about. It talks about unethical behavior, mistreatment of students, negligence of duty, but it is much clearer about what it is that you can lose your job over. It may be true that everyone needs to know that collegiality is a relevant consideration, but we in this act are also specifying what we think the standard of collegiality should be and I think we need to own the responsibility for that. Once we document it, it will become practice even if that practice isnt what is specified by law. This is what people will people will go byAgain the statement is much clearer and easier to follow as to what counts as grounds for dismissal in the other section. Comment: Pretend this is passed. Are the things that are permissible to be said in Tenure Promotion Committee meetings changed? Right now, theres the sense there are sort of things you can say in the meeting and certain things about people that you cant say and a lot of them are around this collegiality issue. Will you be allowed to say different things will the topics of conversation be allowed to be the same or will they shift? Response from Mary Ann: Thats an it depends kind of question. Again, it depends on what your departmental document already provides for, it depends on information say at a dept. collegial review meeting, what your DH is bringing in addition to the dossier. Say if there is a behavioral or conduct issue and Im not talking about not liking somebody thats not what collegiality is-conduct where people are disrupting colleagues ability to do their workso lets say thats happened after the dossier was submitted. Can you talk about that in the Collegial Review process? Absolutely you can. What you do, 2 things: Those proceedings must be confidential and sacrosanct. You should be doing it with the assurance that you can speak candidly and honestly. As long as what you say is true and accurate; is not put forward with malice, is something that you have knowledge about Comment: You will be able to say theoretically this passes, we are having the same conversation in CRC that were having before this thing passes? Theres nothing thats changed as far as what is allowed to be talked about? Response from Mary Ann and Beth: That is correct. That doesnt change. Mary Ann: Section 4.09 does speak to termination and timely notice and such, but I dont know it is mostly to do with imposition of serious sanctionsit doesnt necessarily speak to the non-reappointment of a probationary faculty member because again they havent been collegiate. I agree with X and X and X this is something that exists and right now it appears to scare the holy heck out of people and I think they would be less afraid if they knew what yall were talking about and what it meant. Discussion continued. Vicki asked if people would like to see this as a fourth leg. Several responses indicated no. Motion was made and seconded to send the resolution back to the CRC for further work, clarification and reflection upon the comments and discussion made. ELECTRONIC VOTE TO SEND THE RESOLUTION ON COLLEGIALITY (4.04C) BACK TO CRC Yes: 16 No: 6 Abstain: 1 The motion to return the resolution to the committee passed. Rules Committee/Cheryl Waters-Tormey, Chair: Leroy Kauffman reported for Cheryl who was not in attendance. The resolution from the Rules Committee is in regards to Proxy Voting. It was raised last year when there were a couple of situations where there were individual senators that had a number of proxies. The resolution resolves to limit the number of proxies that a single senator may hold to one at a meeting. It is also recommended that a change be made in the Senate By-laws. The resolution contains the language to be added. Along with this they will develop a statement of best practices with suggestions on what you ought to tell your proxy. Erin explained that she had asked that the proposed language for the By-laws be added to the resolution. It could be separated out so that voting could take place today on the Proxy Voting and the change to the Faculty Senate By-laws be up for vote at the next meeting. Erin asked how Leroy acting in Cheryls place would like to handle the vote. The decision was to have one vote on both the proxy voting and the language addition to the By-Laws to take place at the next meeting. This is the first reading and will be voted on at the next meeting. OTHER REPORTS________________________________________________________________________ Old Business: Old Business was discussed at the meeting on October 27, 2011. New Business: Review of the Universitys Diversity Plan/Henry Wong: Henry is the Director for the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity Programs and is chair of the Council of Diversity. Erin said she and Jason Lavigne as faculty and staff chairs both serve on. The Council has drafted a policy and Henry is bringing it to staff, faculty senate, and student government for input. Henry said the Council on Diversity and Inclusion was recommended in Westerns Strategic Plan in 2010 to address the UNC Tomorrow report. The purpose of the Council is to recommend diversity initiatives for the entire campus. They are looking at promoting diversity, a welcoming climate, inclusion, equal opportunity, not only for faculty and staff, but also for students. The draft in front of us will continue to be revised and it will eventually go to all 43 units on campus the departments. They will ask the departments how they would like to address these general goals to promote diversity and inclusion on campus including how to measure the actions. These will be incorporated into the document and reviewed annually and will go to the chancellor and executive council so they can see how we are doing in terms of promoting inclusion, a welcoming climate, and diversity on campus. It is expected that this will be an ongoing council for many years to come. Henry said they look forward to our recommendations, thoughts, especially on how they can include others and have more participation. Comment: Is a plan to examine gender differences included in the plan the request for consideration? Comment: To examine gender differencesthe salary study? The Chancellor spoke last meeting on the salary study and it will include the questions from AAUW (another study not this document). Comment: Will you have your own budget to accomplish these goals? Response: We do not have a budget as a council. Where budget is necessary that will be determined by the chancellor and the executive council. Joint resolution on University Community Responsibilities and Shared Governance: The heads of the student government senate, staff senate and faculty senate came together and discussed the benefit of the statement. Students already have something like this in their code of conduct, but the president and vice president of student senate were happy about the positive language in this statement and it was felt this would propel the spirit of a community and mutual respect standards to which we should expect to hold ourselves always, but this is a reaffirmation of those standards. Erin said the point was that each group would find a place that was appropriate in documents for their entity and it would be a uniform statement shared by all of the groups. Staff Senate has seen the statement, but has not voted on it. Comment: Ive missed where this is going to appear? Response: This resolution does not state that. Its just agreement for shared usage. If the paragraph passed, there is a recommendation for where it would appear and that is on the 2nd resolution. We thought for faculty purposes, there is a section in the handbook called Academic Freedom and Responsibility of the University Community that we thought this would fit. Comment: The sentence, Respect for the intrinsic dignity of each member of the University community is the basic cornerstone governing all institutional activities. Im not sure that is true. Should be the basic cornerstone maybe. Are we prepared to say that is the basic cornerstone of all things ĢƵdoes? Thats a huge statement. Comment from Erin: because it is a joint statement it is an all or nothing type of thing. Comment: I dont care that muchbut really? Discussion continued. A motion was made to vote on the Joint Resolution. ELECTRONIC VOTE ON THE JOINT RESOLUTION: Yes: 17 No: 6 Abstain: 0 The motion passes. Erin said it was worth pointing out that this is the first place in the Faculty Handbook where university community would be defined. The only other place in the Handbook where this comes up is the illegal drug policy. Comment: Unlike the first that we could not change, this one is open to clarification and better language because its ours. Response from Erin: The point was it is a joint statement. So, it is still not a changing of that wording, its the location of where to put it. Comment: Is that your interpretation of it? If we dont like the wording of it, we vote it down. Comment: We just voted for it. Comment: Yea, we voted, but we didnt vote to put it in the Handbook. So, when it goes in the Handbook, we dont have to agree to the exact words to go in the Handbook. Comment from Erin: That was not the interpretation of those that created it and that was part of the discussion from that group. It is to be same language by all three groups. Comment: Its sloppy language andthis will be seen. Discussion continued and concern about placing it in the Handbook was prevalent. Erin reminded that if the Handbook is not where you want it to be placed, you would vote no. Suggestion was made to put it somewhere on the website. There were no other representatives from the groups that created the joint resolution and as Erin was the sole representative, she made the decision to remove the resolution to place the joint statement in Section 4.02 of the Faculty Handbook from the table. SENATE REPORTS________________________________________________________________________ Administrative Report/Interim Provost Beth Lofquist: Beth updated the Senate on strategic growth. As we are aware, we have been commissioned to grow, but if we are to grow, we need to grow strategically and where it makes sense to grow. The deans have been working in the colleges to target certain programs for growth. The issues that we are having are 1: resources. Beth spoke about incremental resources. Beth said you will get part time resources and as things become sustained, you may get full time resources. Thats the commitment administration is making in terms of meeting the needs of this kind of growth. Beth also talked about the issue of growing 800 freshmen. We dont have the residential hall space or the liberal studies capability at this point. They have to think seriously about growth; they can grow some freshman, but transfers, new graduates those are the targeted groups that they are trying to parcel out and look at where they can grow. Enrollment targets are due to GA for next year. This is the second year of the funding biennium and this is the first time weve really had meaningful conversation among the colleges about setting those targets. While it is taxing and hard, at least there is input on where it makes sense to grow. Comment: What happens if we go over or under? What are the consequences at the department level? Response from Beth: I dont really know how to answer that yet. I will say the chancellors message to me is, in the past, if you are aware or not, if you petitioned for a position in your department, you would say if I had this, I could grow or do this. Thats no longer how it happens. It will be, were bursting at the seams and doing this, now Ive got to have some help. Its not build it and they will come anymore. Youve got to be bursting at the seams. I know your response to me will be we already are. It wont be that if you have a program that needs to grow, you get a position to grow it. You have to grow it and then you get the resources to sustain it. Comment: Is this an official shift away from the retention model? Response: Actually, Im glad you mentioned that. Retention is a part of that as well. In fact, the spreadsheet that was given to the deans to complete had freshman, transfer, retention. Retention is a big part of this and being able to retain students increases our enrollment, obviously. Comment: You really are limiting yourself to only programs that you already have expertise to deliver? Were bursting at the seams and now we can ask for help. Suppose you wanted to add a program that we dont have expertise in, but the outside community got to havestrategy is you have to grow it, teach it before you can get the resources. Response from Beth: Obviously, new programs are a different deal. I will tell you that GA, we have about 4 programs in the hopper down there now. The message that weve gotten is that we might get those programs if we dont need extra resources to have those programs. All of those programs are straying far from what we already haveBut there will be, part of what we are doing right now, is trying to figure out how to capture some part time resources. I know that departments are really suffering from not having enough part time resources as well as full time resources so that is something Im really trying to look at in terms of enrollment growth funding as we move into next year. Beth shared that our tuition is second from the bottom of our 18 peer institutions. Since this list has come out, GA has given the state of NC a one-time opportunity to raise tuition more than the standard 6.5% if you are in the bottom quartile of your peer institutions. They are looking at this. If we want to raise the tuition we can set the target amount this year and they may agree to let us raise it incrementally for the next few years. Comment: Are they looking at tuition only or at tuition, fees, board and room? Response from Beth: They are looking at tuition only. We are requesting and every institution is, to look at the cost of distance Ed. Right now we are mandated where we can only charge 1/3, not even 1/3 of the regular tuition for distance. As you well now, distance is not less expensive than resident education. Every institution is trying to fight that battle. Were not getting much leverage on that, but that is a major issue. But that would raise distance tuition because its a percentage. Comment: One of my concerns is that the place where were going to come under fire - Higher Ed, UNC whatever if from the whole student loan / student debt issue. And this is not just a tuition issue; its a cost of attendance issue that is creating that huge student debt that seems to be getting some play publically It all mushrooms up to where it is killing the students. I think that is where we are going to get nailed is this whole cumulative cost of attendance and the student debt side of that. Response from Beth: Thats part of the issue. You realize that the BOT has to pass any of this; it has to go to the Board of Governors. Its got a lot of places that it has to be approved before any of that happens. Our whole access of education to students, its a give and take because youre raising tuition even though were one of the least expensive. Its a hard call to make. Comment: Least expensive tuition, but not fees. Cost of attendance is the issue to me. Response: Thats correct. Comment from the floor(Student Government Rep): What would tuition be if we went to that upper quartile? If tuition went up overnight? Response: If it happened over night. I know Sam Miller is working with the student group and providing those figures. My understanding is that its about $1000/year that if we were to jump all of a sudden. But, we know we dont want to do that. Comment from the floor(Student Government Rep): So what would you be going up bythey presented suggestions to Student Senate a few weeks ago and I think tuition is going up 6.5% which is basically $195. Thats the least it could go up. What would it go up more than that? Response from Beth: Thats not been decided. If we were to try to get to the top of that quartile and thats a big if, people would have to talk about that first, but if we would try to get to the top of that quartile over 4 to 5 years, you would just price that out what $1000 would be over 4-5 years (about $250/year) above the 6.5%. Comment: We attended the Student Senate meeting on student fees and so the point about the fees. I was quite shocked to see the fees it was about $2600 in student fees if Im not mistaken and $1500 of that total alone was comprised goes to just 2 entities. One was the funding of athletics and the other is the student recreation center. From that critical perspective of getting a student to think what is the mission of the university and our student fees going to mission critical things I think theres been some discussion. Response: Yes, thats being discussed among that group. I dont know if you are aware, but this is the first year weve really given a lot of credence to that committee, the students, faculty and everyone that is supposed to be looking at that seriously. So, there is a lot of discussion going on about that. And, theyll come out with a recommendation. Discussion continued. The meeting was adjourned.      PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 10 0;=V  H I T U Z _ j t + 3 O P j l =Yyккʩنʩ hPho- hPPhPhho-H*aJhhkJaJhhfaJhho-aJhPho-5 hKrho-hPho-aJ hPaJhPhPaJhPh9Cho-6 h^ho- h9Cho-ho-jho-U/,<= I Z _ j t u O P gdPgd)_gd)_gd)_$a$gdP=Y !:*T "% &y&(J)H,Q-gd)_gdPy07 x%%% &B&E&'(/())))]*e*i*n***c+e+k+,,&,G,,,.%....;/>/v/x/00223N7779hhr%aJhhPCaJ hfaJhh+H*aJhh+aJhhfaJhh-aJhfho-aJhhaJhh*HaJhheaJhho-aJhh+"aJ4Q---./D00 11Z379<:z::y;;;;;;< <<<d<<<==gd)_9;:<:;; <<<><b<d<<<<<=======>>>2>3>=>A>B>C>J>K>R>Y>>>>>??C@k@u@v@@AAaABD۶۶ۭۤۛۛۛۛۛۛۛےۉۭhhmaJhhyaJhh#aJhh*aJhh.+aJhhaJhh)_>*aJhhN1aJhh`aJhPh)_0Jhh)_aJhh/5aJhho-aJhh/aJ2===v@w@FFFLLLLMjVVV W\\.]^dgQhhiklvmengd]Hgd)_DDEEEFFFFGJJ LELFLLLLL|NOPPPvPPQQ-UViVjVVV WYYʸʸ||sjahh$?)aJhh|}2aJhhuaJhh]HaJhh80aJ hfaJhh\HaJhhonaJhh'aJhh aJhhc aJhh)_aJhhSaJhh7aJhhaJhhfaJhhmaJhh&4aJ"YYYYU\\\\-].]@_`````aKaLa|aaddqeefpgggPhQhhhinppӝyof]fhhIfaJhh aJhhbu H*aJhh!RaJhhbu aJhhj}aJhhaJhho}aJhh=-aJhhfaJhh aJhhfK+aJhhuaJhhwWRaJhh4*PaJhh$?)aJhh|}2aJhhKaJ$enoopvxaz΅υ4ijʓ˓”RSmn\gd)_ps7sttu]vkvvv|||vɓʓR}ʸӸ|ssjsjhhaaJhh9aJ hfaJhhyaJhhaJhhNaJhh :aJhh;aJhhdaJhhb2aJhh~MaJhhUaJhhfaJhh aJhh1@aJhhVKaJhhIfaJ)ӚܚFGT̛ޛoz{ءNO=?DFצڦu m;͵ͬ~ h;aJ heaJ haJhheaJhh\EaJhh//AH*aJhh//AaJhhyaJ h!GaJhhXaJhhOcaJhhpaJhhHaJ hfaJhhfaJhhaaJ/ OPgbcӯԯmn gd)_m~ TU]^ִ޴ߴRɶʶ@ACAklmt{ŹԹ"X{u{qmdhqhqaJh^Th!G h!GaJh!Gh!GaJ h!Gh!G hPPho-ho- h;waJ h0caJ haJ haJhh;aJhUhPh;hhOc5aJhh;5aJhhe5aJhh5aJhhaJ h;aJ h,8aJ' U^itɶʶBC'(lmntĹŹԹ"Xgd)_gd!Ggd!Ggd;gd0cgd;gd)_s~NO5-./' pq?@d"9:!&-4Ļ̨̢̻̜̜zzs hPPho- haJ hI$aJ hNaJ h aJhmUchmUc5aJ hmUcaJ haJhShSH*aJhShfaJhShSaJho-h!G hSaJ hCaJh #U h #UaJ hk8aJ haJ h^TaJ hfaJ hqaJ-XOS5./Rqgd)_gdSgd #Ugdq +,?@+U:!"%&-}~FGqrgdgd)_gd)_4/BF`!EF{|zqrluw$9H$%9>ST/abcſŹ㹳㳹㳭hP hPaJ hgaJ h aJ hDEaJ hnaJ h]}aJ h:aJ hx aJ hVaJ hn8aJ h"aJ hfaJ haJhhaJhho-=rr./%`a]^Segd gd/0FGcefhiklnogd)_gd)_gdPgd cdfgijlmopho-h hfmHnHu hG h jhG h UhI jhI U21h:po-/ =!"#$F% Dd9$   "WW331Ԕ?Faculty SenateBradley Hand ITCj& 666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~ OJPJQJ_HmH nH sH tH L`L PNormal$CJOJPJQJ_HaJmH sH tH d@d y Heading 1$$@&'5B*CJOJPJQJ\^JaJph6_DA`D Default Paragraph FontRiR 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k ( 0No List \\ yHeading 1 Char'5B*CJOJPJQJ\^JaJph6_88 9CStyle1 p5jj 9C Table Grid7:V0J!J 9C Style1 Char5CJOJPJQJ^JaJ@o2@  #UStyle2<5B*CJaJphffNoAN  #U Style2 Char 5B*CJOJPJQJaJphff4R4 G 0Header H$FaF G 0 Header CharCJOJPJQJ^JaJ4 @r4 G 0Footer H$FF G 0 Footer CharCJOJPJQJ^JaJB'B vI0Comment ReferenceCJaJ<< vI0 Comment TextCJaJRR vI0Comment Text CharCJOJPJQJ^JaJ@j@ vI0Comment Subject5\FF vI0Comment Subject Char5\HH vI0 Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJRR vI0Balloon Text CharCJOJPJQJ^JaJv vcq0Colorful Shading - Accent 1 $CJOJPJQJ_HaJmH sH tH T/T   No Spacing!$CJOJPJQJ_HaJmH sH tH >"> #VQ0 Footnote Text"CJaJT1T "VQ0Footnote Text CharCJOJPJQJ^JaJ@&A@ VQ0Footnote ReferenceH*TRT CnV Colorful List - Accent 1 %^PK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi};~@(Hu* Dנz/0ǰ $ X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!-Rk.sԻ..a濭?PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6w toc'vuر-MniP@I}úama[إ4:lЯGRX^6؊>$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3ڗP 1Pm \\9Mؓ2aD];Yt\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK]  +++.y9DYpm4cwz|~Q-=en Xrxy{} $'.!L# @0(  B S  ?cceeffhiklnocceeffhiklno]"e"i"n"&&;'>'((==>>BBIIIIXXXX|YYq]]]nkn z z}ӒܒFGTؙמڞs~!uw9>cceeffhiklno^ rj^lV,g'\]L| L2hB ԥp9cv:`-AL KD2@MZ~kcYWZni\/y\z[h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohP^P`OJQJo(hH^`o(. ^`hH. pL^p`LhH. @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PL^P`LhH.^`o(. ^`hH. pL^p`LhH. @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PL^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohP^P`OJQJo(hHh ^`hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h e ^e `hH.h 5^5`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h uL^u`LhH.h ^`o(hH. ^`hH. pL^p`LhH. @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PL^P`LhH.^`o(. ^`hH. pL^p`LhH. @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PL^P`LhH.^`o(. ^`hH. pL^p`LhH. @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PL^P`LhH.^`o(. ^`hH. pL^p`LhH. @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PL^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohP^P`OJQJo(hH^`o(. ^`hH. pL^p`LhH. @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PL^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohP^P`OJQJo(hHkcY/ylVB -A:Zni\p9@M'\ K\z| ^                                                                                                                               powI^Tb2)_  c bu ]}N.+ 7Oc/e+kJP$/;I +"I$$?)fK+o-|}23/W4n8,8k8;x=1@V@//APC>EDE*HVKmAL4*P!RwWR #U`a0cmUcIfon9r;wj}fr%\H*x !Gygy&4 -qHp'=-K~MdCe80: G9N1Nm"VX #Uo}S\ESu :]Hnce@@Unknown G*Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3. *Cx Arial7.{ @Calibri7K@Cambria5. *[`)Tahoma?= *Cx Courier New;WingdingsA BCambria Math"1h_KfI|FڃFA"Mt"Mtq4d >QHX  $P72!xx}C:\Documents and Settings\ahgreen\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\C56UWQPD\Faculty_Senate_Minutes[1].dotxahgreen ahgreenD         Oh+'0  0 < H T`hpxahgreenFaculty_Senate_Minutes[1] ahgreen65Microsoft Office Word@O@|a{̅@ @O-"M՜.+,0 hp  ĢƵt  Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F(4Data 1TableKWordDocument4SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjy  F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q