Docstoc

UNIVERSITY SENATE

Document Sample
UNIVERSITY SENATE Powered By Docstoc
					                                           UNIVERSITY SENATE
                                           September 27, 2010



       The University Senate was called to order at 3:15 p.m., in Room 111, Harrison Hall, Oxford
Campus, on Monday, September 27, 2010, with Interim Provost John Skillings presiding.
Parliamentarian Rob Withers reported a quorum present for the purpose of conducting business.
Members absent: Michael Dantley, Valeria Freysinger, Jeff Gambrell, Christopher Maltbie, Caleb Picou,
Dave Sauter, David Sholle, Debra Tibbs, Catherine Wagner, and Alyssa Whittemore.



                                              Announcement

Interim Provost Skillings:
         Interim Provost Skillings announcements are recorded verbatim.
         Let me congratulate the entrepreneurship program at Miami for achieving a twentieth ranking
among undergraduate programs nationwide.
         I am pleased to announce that we have a record number of international students enrolled this
fall on campus. There are a total of 815 international students at Miami this year compared to 700 last
year; a 16.4% increase.
         On a less positive note, the state of Ohio has announced that it will withhold Miami’s June state
subsidy payment this year, which is in response to the need to balance the state budget this fiscal year.
For the Oxford Campus the amount is $4.25 million; the Hamilton Campus amount is $508K; and the
Middletown Campus amount is $417K. Statewide a total of $127.5 million will be withheld from
institutions of higher education; e.g., Ohio State will not receive $24.9 million. While the state indicated
they plan to provide these funds in the next biannual budget, the fact is that one General Assembly
cannot make a commitment to the next General Assembly. So for the present, the University is
assuming this is a permanent budget cut. There may be more news about the budget after the election.
         Finally, a member of the University Senate has written to ask about the Strategic Priorities
Taskforce recommendation to contract with a professional consulting firm to make recommendations
on cost-saving measures on administrative efficiencies. The University does plan to follow this
recommendation and prepare a request for proposals for such a service; and it should be completed
soon. This has the support of the Fiscal Priorities and Budget Planning Committee, a standing
committee of University Senate. The focus of a possible consultant’s review would be on the quality,
efficiency, and coordination of services at Miami including administrative and IT Services. Any
                                                          University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                             Page 2 of 37


recommendations would be provided to the University, and Miami would make the final decisions. This
activity has been pursued at places such as the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the
University of California at Berkeley. The process used by these institutions is available on their websites.
Now, let me be clear about something. Miami has high quality, loyal employees and this is an asset to
us and an important part of the Miami experience for our students. We do not expect to have whole-
sale outsourcing achieved in this process. Could some outsourcing take place? Yes, perhaps on a
limited scale. For example, we now outsource some of our printing of brochures and we are likely to
pursue more statewide purchasing contracts.
         A couple more points are important to note. First, while I don’t enjoy stating this, because of
our budget situation there will be fewer people working at Miami in the future. Even in areas fully
managed by Miami, fewer people are likely to perform the work in the future and service levels may
need to be adjusted accordingly. When reductions are made, the University will be as helpful as
possible as people transition. Second, we will need to look at alternative ways of delivering services in
the future; e.g., the work at the state level to have more cooperation among public universities in Ohio
in providing some services. But our aim should be to be as fair as humanly possible to people working at
Miami while we meet the needed budget adjustments. Our goal continues to be to provide a high
quality education at an affordable price for our students.



                                             Special Business

        3.a. Summer Greek Task Group Report – Barbara C. Jones, Vice President for Student Affairs.

Interim Provost Skillings:
         Provost Skillings introduced Barbara Jones, Vice President for Student Affairs to report on the
activities of the Summer Greek Task Group.

Dr. Jones:
         Dr. Jones thanked faculty, staff, students, Miami alumni, and the Oxford community who
contributed time and effort over the summer months to assess issues of student behavior at Miami as a
result of three incidents that occurred in spring 2010; and thanked University Senate for the invitation to
update Senate on the activities of the Summer Greek Task Group. The incidences involved three
sororities and resulted in the formation of the Task Group. The incidences, which caused concern for
student safety and embarrassment for the University, were inexcusable and unacceptable in any stretch
of the imagination. In response to an email sent to the entire Miami Greek community, Dr. Jones
received an overwhelming response from students across the United States and some studying abroad
who wanted to be part of the solution. Yes, other institutions deal with similar student behavior issues
(e.g., Ohio University, University of Dayton, Wake Forest, James Madison), but how would Miami
University respond to the incidences which occurred? The Task Group’s primary concern was to identify
what the University should put in place to move forward and to address continuing issues on the
                                                         University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                            Page 3 of 37


Campus. While these events happened within the Greek community, this type of behavior is not limited
to the Greek community. The Task Group decided to look beyond the Greek community and to focus on
three primary areas: (1) standards and expectations for the Greek community; (2) student and student
organizations, including Greek organizations, accountability; and (3) educational programming
(Attachment A).

Professor Massie:
        Who will pay for security at student-sponsored events?

Dr. Jones:
        The student organization must present to the Office of Student Activities the signed contract
with a University-approved security agency. The student organization is responsible for the cost
associated with the hiring security at student-sponsored events.

Professor Krafft:
        How might a security agency have diverted the activities that led to the incidences last spring?
Will security agents bear arms?

Dr. Jones:
        Examples of how a security agency might divert activities of inappropriate behavior: denying an
individual who demonstrates signs of alcohol abuse entrance onto a bus providing transportation to an
event; or removing a student who demonstrates inappropriate behavior from an event and making
certain he or she returns home. Security agents will have the authority to make arrests of an individual
who is non-cooperative.

Mr. Frazier, Senator and President of a Greek organization:
        Student organizations will be required to hire a security agency if the venue at which an event is
to occur does not provide security.

Mr. Doty:
       Was raising the standards for membership within the Greek community a subject of discussion?

Dr. Jones:
         Raising the standards for membership within the Greek community was discussed. Currently,
first-semester students, or students who have a lower than 2.5 GPA, may not join a Greek organization.
Raising the minimum 2.5 GPA is an ongoing discussion.

Professor Domino:
        Will the University offer assistance to students who abuse alcohol?
                                                         University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                            Page 4 of 37


Dr. Jones:
         One of the three focuses of the Task Group is educational programming and reaction to
discipline measures. Observing student activity on a Friday or Saturday night in uptown Oxford will
support the concern that Miami’s cultural issue is a large concern. Changing the culture is an ongoing
process at Miami.

Professor Hey:
        Discussions of alcohol abuse at Miami have taken place for many years and have resulted in the
adoption of educational programs and enforcement methods. What were some failures of the current
system that resulted in the incidences that occurred last spring?

Dr. Jones:
         Multiple variables contributed to the collapse of the enforcement standards already in place;
e.g., peer pressure, lack of staff oversight. Approximately ten individuals and their dates were
responsible for the incidences which occurred last spring and because their peers would not identify the
responsible individuals, no action could be taken against the individuals. Covering for peers is a bi-
standard behavior. The educational programming and discipline policies will deal with the matter of
peers covering for peers and will be addressed by the Student Affairs Council.

Professor Sanabria, Senator and resident within the Square MIle:
        The problem is much greater than the recent Greek incidents. The Square Mile has become
increasing uninhabitable over the years and residents are becoming fewer and fewer. Alcohol is a
contributing factor to the rowdiness that occurs within the Square Mile. Noise, vandalism, litter, and
trash are related to rowdiness. Greek organizations stage events in rental houses within the Square
Mile. The City of Oxford has a noise ordinance which states that after midnight activities in housing units
must be quiet; however, activities producing increased volumes of noise that once began from 5:00-7:00
p.m. now begin from 3:00-5:00 p.m. and after midnight the noise-producing activities move from
housing units to the streets. Groups of students roam the streets screaming at the top of their lungs.
Individuals from outside the Greek organizations make noise; however, the Greek organizations are a
major component of disruptive noise making. Families within the Square Mile bitterly take on the
responsibility to clean vast amounts of trash on a daily basis. Dumpsters are filled with 200-300 beer
cans.

Professor Ridilla:
        Students leave their parents home, the University becomes a surrogate parent, and then
students are out in society. We may try to police students while they are at Miami; however, will the
problem of disrespect and inappropriate behavior become exacerbated when students leave Miami and
are out in society? Has the University considered adopting an honor code? An honor code has the
potential to build a sense of right and wrong behavior.
                                                         University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                            Page 5 of 37


Dr. Jones:
         Educational programs for first-year and second-year students address ethics and personal and
social responsibility of the individual. Honor codes can be a very visible statement of an institution’s
expectations; however, unfortunately, honor codes do not work as well as some might hope.

Professor Norris:
         Conventions of national student organizations incorporate the cost of security in the registration
fee. Students are dealt with rather severely by the venue and/or by the local police should an incident
of unacceptable behavior occur. The problem of unacceptable behavior starts before students leave
home for college. The unpreparedness of the staff at the venues where the sorority functions took
place is as accountable for the outcomes as is the unacceptable behavior of the students in attendance.

Ms. Schaefer:
       What are the requirements for the events without alcohol?

Mr. Frazier:
        The presidents of the Miami fraternities and sororities approved a revised risk management
policy which includes the requirement that there be a 1:1 ratio of events without alcohol to social
events where alcohol is present. Events without alcohol must be rotated with events where alcohol is
present; may be social or educational; may involve one or more fraternities and/or sororities; must be
attended by at least 65-75 percent of the chapter; and the event must be approved by an advisor.

Professor Detloff:
          As curriculum is developed consideration might be given to curriculum which would foster a
sense of citizenship, responsibility, and ethics. Unfortunately, focusing on such considerations can be
difficult during times of restricted budgets.

        Interim Provost Skillings and University Senate thanked Dr. Jones for reporting on the activities
of the Summer Greek Task Group.



                                                 Reports

        3.a. Executive Committee of University Senate – Stephen Wright, Chair.

Professor Wright:
     Executive Committee met September 20, 2010, to set the September 27, 2010, agenda.
     Fall semester University Senate will hear a report on the residence hall renovation project.
                                                         University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                            Page 6 of 37


      Individuals have contacted Professor Wright requesting specific information relating to Miami’s
       budget. A fairly comprehensive overview can be found in the annually published budget book.
       For FY 2010 (which ended on June 30), the link is:
       http://www.units.muohio.edu/bpa/FY2010/Budget%20Book%20FY%202010.pdf
       The controller's office also posts an annual audited financial report:
       http://www.units.muohio.edu/controller/prod/controller/docs_forms/2009_Miami_Financial_R
       eport.pdf
       The financial report includes helpful explanatory text not found in the budget book.
       The June 30, 2010 audit is still underway; therefore, this year's financial report is not
       completed. The FY2011 budget book will be published after this audit has been completed,
       because the book needs to include some budget-to-actual comparisons with the preceding year.
      The Executive Committee will fill and confirm vacancies on Senate standing and advisory
       committees should any occur during the academic year.
      Professor Wright read a statement which was approved unanimously by the Fiscal Priorities and
       Budget Planning Committee at the Committee’s September 17, 2010 meeting:
                The Fiscal Priorities and Budget Planning Committee supports the commitment of
                University funds necessary to retain an independent consultant to conduct a University-
                wide evaluation of all administrative and support operations to achieve the target level
                of operational efficiency identified in the SPTF report. The committee expects the
                vendor selection criteria included in the RFP will explicitly call for demonstrated
                expertise with large, complex, public universities. While the committee understands
                such an evaluation will likely cost upwards of $1 million, we believe the consultation and
                engagement of outside professionals is crucial, both in expertise and objectivity, to fully
                realize the targeted cost savings.
      Fiscal Priorities and Budget Planning Committee reported that the Committee supports
       increasing the cap on Lecturers and/Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty to twenty percent
       (20%); an item of Old Business on today’s Senate agenda.



       3.b. Board of Trustees, September 24, 2010, Meeting – Steven DeLue, Chair-elect, Executive
            Committee of University Senate.

Professor DeLue:
        Professor DeLue referred Senators to the September 27, 2010, e-Report, for a list of actions
taken and reports heard at the September 24, 2010, meeting the Board of Trustees:
     Approved room and board rates for the 2011-2012 academic year.
     Report from the Strategic Priorities Taskforce.
     Report from the Board’s Academic and Student Affairs Committee which included notes of
        Miami extending its lease at the current site of the Dolibois European Center in Luxembourg
        until 2017 and of the University’s goal to work from an eighty-three percent (83%) graduation
        rate to an eighty-five percent (85 %) graduation rate.
                                                        University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                           Page 7 of 37


       Moved to request approval from the Ohio Board of Regents to issue general receipts revenue
        bonds in an amount not to exceed $125 million and then, with approval, authorized Miami’s vice
        president for finance and business services and treasurer to issue those bonds for the purpose
        of paying a portion of the costs within the Series 2010 University Facilities Project which
        includes: renovation of Elliott, Stoddard and Bishop Halls; infrastructure upgrades relating to
        proposed new housing facilities; safety upgrades; planning for Marcum Center additions;
        Havighurst Hall HVAC replacement; infrastructure upgrades and extensions for Armstrong
        Student Center (ASC), modification to Gaskill and Rowan Halls and initial construction phase
        renovation of Phillips Hall.
      Approved a student fee, subject to the approval of the Chancellor of the Board of Regents, of up
        to $125/semester to pay for the first phase of renovations at the new ASC and to cover
        operating expenses at the Center, not to begin until the semester in which the center opens,
        currently anticipated to be fall 2013.
      Approved suggestions by the University Facilities Naming Committee for the Armstrong Student
        Center and several rooms within the planned ASC.
      Approved the conferral of title of emerita/us to several retirees.
      Recognized national trustee Jay Henderson, whose active service to the board ends after two
        years as a voting trustee and six years as a national trustee, within which he served as chair of
        the Finance and Audit Committee for six years
        The e-Report did not include the September 21, 2010, letter to the Board of Trustees which was
signed by tenured faculty who represent twenty-seven departments/programs and five academic
divisions; therefore, Professor DeLue respectfully requested that the letter be attached to the minutes
of University Senate (Attachment B). The letter expresses “deep concern that our University is in grave
danger of losing sight of its central academic mission as a liberal arts institution.”



                                 Approval of University Senate Minutes

          4. a. September 13, 2010, Minutes of University Senate.

          A motion was received and seconded to approve the September 13, 2010, minutes of University
Senate.

Professor Van Gundy-Yoder:
        Professor Van Gundy-Yoder requested that the following revision be made to the
September 13, 2010, minutes of University Senate: In addition to the two-year associate degree,
beginning fall 2010, the criminal justice program is offered as a four-year program on the regional
campuses. The criminal justice program is currently offered as an Associates degree on the regional
campuses; a four-year program has been proposed and is in the program development stage.

          The motion to approved the September 13, 2010, minutes, as revised, carried.
                                                          University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                             Page 8 of 37


                                            Consent Calendar

        University Senate received the following items on the Consent Calendar:
       Minutes from the Benefits Committee dated July 12, 2010.
       Minutes from the Faculty Welfare Committee dated September 1, 2010.
       Minutes from the Gradate Council dated August 26, 2010.
       Name Change: Institute of Environmental Sciences to Institute for the Environment and
        Sustainability. (Rationale: The 21st century is a time of unprecedented global environmental,
        socioeconomic, and political changes. The challenges of sustainable energy, agricultural,
        economic, and environmental systems permeate every aspect of today’s society. Miami
        University is poised to educate students to meet these challenges. To do so, we need to
        enhance the visibility of our environmental and sustainability programs to students, promote
        interdisciplinary collaboration in teaching and scholarship across academic programs and
        divisions, and work synergistically to increase levels of external funding. We propose to
        transform the existing Institute of Environmental Sciences (IES) into a broader umbrella, the
        Institute for the Environment and Sustainability (IES), which will serve as an interdivisional nexus
        for academic programs, research, and outreach on the environment and sustainability. A
        stronger integration of academic programs and expertise on the environment and sustainability
        will provide students with greater access to state-of-the-art interdisciplinary training at the
        undergraduate and graduate levels. The restructuring of the Institute will also enable us to do
        more with existing resources, and to leverage new resources.)



                                               Old Business

        7.a. Proposed revisions to the Miami University Policy and Information Manual, Sections
             7.11.C, 7.11.D, and 7.11.E (new), Total Number of Lecturers and Clinical/Professionally
             Licensed Faculty.

Interim Provost Skillings:
         At the September 13, 2010, Senate meeting, a motion was received and seconded that
University Senate adopt the proposed revisions to the Miami University Policy and Information Manual,
Sections 7.11.C, 7.11.D, and 7.11.E (new), total number of Lecturers (including the senior position) and
Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty (including the senior position) (Attachment C). Senate did not
complete discussions on this motion before the agenda was reorder; therefore, the motion is carried
forward to this meeting of Senate.
         Senators have asked Interim Provost Skillings to provide some data on the number of Visiting
Professors that relate to the conversation about Lecturers and Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty.
Interim Provost Skillings’ response is recorded verbatim:
                                                         University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                            Page 9 of 37


        First, fall 2010, Miami has one hundred eight-two full-time, temporary faculty at Oxford and
another thirty-nine at the regional campuses; i.e., a total of two hundred twenty-one full-time
temporary faculty. This number does not include the number of part-time faculty.
        To give you a perspective on why the number is large let me talk about tenure-track searches.
Five years ago we completed fifty to sixty tenured-track searches each year, but in the past couple years
(due to budget considerations) the number of searches has decreased to twenty to twenty-five – even
though the number of vacancies has remained high.
        The difference between the twenty to twenty-five tenured-track searches that we perform now
and the fifty to sixty that we used to complete has led to hiring full-time temporary faculty. The deans
and the Strategic Priorities Taskforce believe it would be preferable to hire in some of these cases
Lecturers and Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty who would be continuing faculty as opposed to
temporary.
        We are currently at the limit in the number of Lecturers that we can have, so the proposal is to
increase the percentage that is allowed for Lecturers and Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty by five
percent (5%) each (ten percent [10%] total) to a total of twenty percent (20%) .
        If this is passed, it gives Miami four advantages:
        (1) We can retain the service of exceptional teachers beyond the current five-year limit.
        (2) We can have less reliance on temporary faculty.
        (3) Recognizing the financial implications that Lecturers and Clinical/Professionally Licensed
             Faculty teach more and generally cost less than tenured faculty; this helps us meet the
             changes we are facing in our University finances.
        (4) Since Lecturers and Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty are “continuing” faculty,
             replacing visitors with Lecturers and Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty helps us
             continue to have a high percentage of our courses taught by “continuing” faculty.

Professor Dunn:
         As the number of tenured and tenure-track lines decrease, will the number of Lecturers and
Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty also decrease?

Interim Provost Skillings:
         As the number of tenured and tenure-track lines decrease, the number of Lecturers and
Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty would also decrease.

Professor Thomas:
        Does the eligibility for promotion, leaves of absence, and University service differ between the
positions of visiting professors and Lecturers and Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty?

Interim Provost Skillings:
         Per the Miami University Policy and Information Manual (MUPIM), Section 7.1.E, Lecturers and
Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty may be promoted to a senior position. MUPIM, Sections 7.11.C.5
                                                          University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                            Page 10 of 37


and 7.11.D.5 state “..by virtue of the prospect that they may be associated with departments/programs
for extended periods of time, should be as fully enfranchised as possible in the day-to-day life of the
departments/programs with which they are affiliated.” Later this semester, Senators will consider if
Lecturers and Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty should be granted fuller rights and
enfranchisement.
        Visiting professors are eligible to receive annual reappointments not to exceed five years and
may not be promoted though they may apply for a tenure-track position.

Professor Van Gundy-Yoder:
         Many external funding opportunities (e.g., NSF or NIH) are available to only continuing members
of faculty, i.e., tenured and tenure-track faculty. Has the University discussed how that might impact the
institution especially during this time of financial constraints?

Interim Provost Skillings:
        Interim Provost Skillings is not aware of significant conversations that have taken place. Miami
considers Lecturers and Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty continuing faculty and could present the
argument that these positions are full-time and continuing members of faculty; however, the decision
ultimately rests with the funding organization.

Professor Detloff:
        If the number of Lecturers and Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty increases might that
contribute to an erosion of tenure; and how might that affect the Miami “brand” for high-quality
teaching with a high percentage of classes taught by tenured and tenure-track faculty?

Professor Houk:
        Senate should not consider limiting the number of Lecturers and Clinical/Professionally Licensed
Faculty without also considering placing a limit on the number of visiting faculty. Unless a limit is placed
on both positions, the University runs the risk that in the future one-third of Miami’s faculty may be
nontenured faculty.

Professor Krafft:
         Professor Krafft expressed caution that Senate should consider how Lecturers and
Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty are integrated into the life of the University before Senate acts
on the proposal to increase the number of Lecturers and Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty.
Increasing the number of Lecturers and Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty because the University
does not have to pay them as much as the University pays tenured/tenure-track faculty is cynical
reasoning.
                                                         University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                           Page 11 of 37


Professor DeLue:
         The University is burdened with maintaining high-quality instruction if the institution cannot
retain visiting professors beyond five-years of service even though some visiting professors are
exceptional teachers.

Professor Bachman:
        Professor Bachman concurs with Professor Houk; i.e., Senate should not consider limiting the
number of Lecturers and Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty without also considering placing a limit
on the number of visiting faculty.

Professor Hey, Senator and Director, International Studies Program:
        Professor Hey’s conclusion is that the inclusion of Lecturers has been overwhelmingly positive.
The University must exercise care and be very particular about the persons hired as Lecturers. Might
Senate consider amending the proposal to place a timeframe by which the University addresses the
matter of rights and responsibilities granted Lecturers and Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty?

Interim Provost Skillings:
        Senate Executive Committee is committed to bring before Senate during the 2010-2011
academic year the matter of rights and responsibilities granted Lecturers and Clinical/Professionally
Licensed Faculty.

Professor Walsh:
        The fundamental issue is the core number of tenured and tenure-track faculty necessary to
reach and maintain high standards of teaching and then determine the distribution of other
nontenured-track faculty positions. Might Senate consider amending the proposal to state that the total
number of lecturers and clinical/professionally licensed faculty shall not exceed ten percent of the total
number of full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty; i.e., not five percent per each but ten percent
total?

Professor Campbell:
        Miami’s percent of tenured and tenure-track faculty is high when compared to other institutions
of higher education.

Interim Provost Skillings:
        Approximately seventy-nine percent of Miami’s faculty is tenure and tenured-track which is the
highest percent in Ohio and one of the highest nationally.
                                                           University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                             Page 12 of 37


Professor Leitner:
        Professor Leitner offered the following friendly amendment; i.e., ten (10%) percent
        7.11.E
        The total number of lecturers and clinical/professionally licensed faculty shall not exceed twenty
        percent (20%) ten percent (10%) of the total number of full-time tenured and tenure-track
        faculty members.

        The motion was seconded.

Professor Rousmaniere:
         Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty have obtained a professionally-licensed certificate
degree; have significant professional experience; and are required to remain active professionally.
Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty enhance the national image of programs within a professional
school.

Professor Domino:
        In past discussions two arguments have been presented in support of Lecturers: (1) retain good
teachers and (2) introductory classes do not require instruction by research-active faculty. There is a
difference between a Lecturer and a Visiting Professor. Changing the configuration of Miami’s faculty
may alter the character of the institution.

Professor Houk:
        The Academic Policy Committee should be charged with the responsibility of drafting guidelines
by which Lecturers and Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty are incorporated into the life of the
University.

Professor Rousmaniere:
        Why has twenty percent been proposed and not a higher or lower percentage?

Interim Provost Skillings:
         Twenty percent was recommended by the Strategic Priorities Taskforce and endorsed by the
Council of Academic Deans after they considered (1) the current number of Visiting Professors; (2) the
fiscal realities which the University is facing; and (3) the desire to maintain a high percentage of classes
taught by full-time and continuing faculty.
         Interim Provost Skillings called for a voice vote on the following friendly amendment:
         7.11.E
         The total number of lecturers and clinical/professionally licensed faculty shall not exceed
         twenty percent (20%) ten percent (10%) of the total number of full-time tenured and tenure-
         track faculty members.
                                                           University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                             Page 13 of 37


        The proposed friendly amendment failed by voice vote.

Professor Detloff:
        Professor Detloff offered the following friendly amendment; i.e., …fifteen percent (15%)…
        7.11.E
        The total number of lecturers and clinical/professionally licensed faculty shall not exceed
        twenty percent (20%) fifteen percent (15%) of the total number of full-time tenured and
        tenure-track faculty members.

        The motion was seconded.

        Interim Provost Skillings called for a voice vote on the above friendly amendment.

        The proposed friendly amendment failed by a show-of-hand vote.

        Discussions were non-conclusive on tying the percent of Lecturers and Clinical/Professionally
Licensed Faculty to all full-time faculty and on limiting the number of visiting professors.

Professor Campbell:
         Should the University limit the number of visiting professors, who are full-time members of
faculty, then the University might hire an unlimited number of part-time faculty. The goal is for the
University to have a high percentage of full-time faculty, not part-time faculty.

Professor Callahan, Senator and member of the Strategic Priorities Taskforce:
        A goal of the Strategic Priorities Taskforce is to maintain a balance between high-quality
teaching at Miami and high-quality scholarly achievements of tenured and tenure-track faculty.
Lecturers are full-time members of the teaching faculty; teaching is their priority.

Interim Provost Skillings:
        Interim Provost Skillings called for a roll-call vote on SR 11-04.

                                                     SR 11-04
                BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that University Senate adopt revisions to the Miami University
        Policy and Information Manual, Sections 7.11.C, 7.11,D, and 7.11.E (new), the number of
        Lecturers and Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty, as set forth below:
        7.11.C Lecturer
        A Lecturer must:
        1. …
        10. The number of Lecturer positions shall be limited in each of the schools, the College, and the
        individual regional campuses to a maximum of five (5) percent of the total number of full-time
        tenured and tenure-track faculty members.
                                               University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                 Page 14 of 37


…
7.11.D Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty
A Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty must:
1. …
10. The number of Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty positions should not exceed a
maximum of five (5) percent of the total number of full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty
members.
…
New Section:
7.11.E
The total number of lecturers and clinical/professionally licensed faculty shall not exceed
twenty percent (20%) of the total number of full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty
members.


                Name                 Yes          No        Abstain      Absent
    Alexander, Stephen                             X
    Bachmann, Eric                                             X
    Bailey Van Kuren, Michael         X
    Barr, Terri                       X
    Bazeley, Jennifer                                          X
    Bazeley, Joseph                                            X
    Bowe, Elizabeth                   X
    Brewer, Peter                     X
    Brown, Cory                       X
    Butler, Sara                      X
    Callahan, Phyllis                 X
    Campbell, Richard                 X
    Cowles, Carson                    X
    Cummins, Hays                     X
    Cybulski, Mark                                 X
    Dantley, Michael                                                        X
    de Saint-Rat, Mark                X
    DeLue, Steve                      X
    Detloff, Madelyn                                           X
    Dixon, Linda                                                            X
    Domino, Brian                                  X
    Doty, Daniel                                               X
    Doyle, Narmar                                  X
    Dunn, Charles                     X
    Frazier, Matthew                  X
                             University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                               Page 15 of 37


Freysinger, Valeria                                     X
Grambrell, Jeff                                         X
Granderson, Gerald       X
Groggel, David           X
Hanges, James            X
Hey, Jeanne              X
Houk, William                   X
Ingram, Heath            X
Jeep, John               X
Krafft, John                    X
Leitner, Larry                  X
Lippmann, Stephen        X
Maltbie, Christopher                                    X
Massie, Pascal           X
McKinney, Marla          X
Meikle, Doug             X
Norris, Donald                              X
O’Bryan, Diana                              X
Picou, Caleb                                            X
Rajkumar, T. M.          X
Reider, Noriko           X
Ridilla, Andrea          X
Rousmaniere, Kate        X
Sanabria, Sergio         X
Sauter, Dave                                            X
Schaefer, Alexandria     X
Schauer, Anne            X
Schulz, Melissa          X
Sholle, David                                           X
Smith, Mark              X
Stevens, M. Henry        X
Taylor, Sean                                X
Thomas, Robert           X
Tibbs, Debra                                            X
Van Gundy-Yoder, Alana                      X
Vaughn, Susan            X
Wagner, Catherine                                       X
Walsh, David                    X
Wasburn-Moses, Leah      X
                                                        University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                          Page 16 of 37


            West, Dustin                                                                X
            Whittemore, Alyssa                                                          X
            Wright, Stephen                    X

        SR 11-04 carried by a roll-call vote: YES: 36; NO: 8; ABSTAIN: 9; ABSENT: 12.



                                             New Business

        7.a. Changes to the Altiris Inventory Practices – Information Technology Services.

Interim Provost Skillings:
        The document which outlines changes to the Altiris inventory practices was removed from the
September 13, 2010, Senate agenda, Consent Calendar.

Professor Houk:
        Following the September 13, 2010, meeting of University Senate, Professor Houk contacted IT
Services and received answers to his questions concerning the changes to the Altiris inventory practices.

        The document which outlines changes to the Altiris inventory practices (Attachment D) was
received with no discussion or action by Senate.



        7.b. Proposed Revisions to the Miami University Policy and Information Manual, Section
             7.5.A, Review of Associate Professors Council of Academic Deans (Attachment E).

Interim Provost Skillings on behalf of the Council of Academic Deans (COAD):
        7.1.E from MUPIM allows for formative reviews for promotion to be provided for by
departments upon the request of the candidate. Last year, Senate adopted Section 7.5.A which
mandates review of associate professors in the third year and every three years thereafter. The review
is completed by the department, the dean, and the Provost. This policy adds an estimated one hundred
reviews each year which significantly increases the workload at the department, the dean, and the
Provost levels. COAD has discussed this from the implementation strategic standpoint and the issues
that must be dealt with and COAD is heavily concerned about the burden this policy creates. Therefore,
COAD requests that the current policy be rescinded; and yet recognizing that there are legitimate
concerns regarding reviews of associate professors asks that there be something that is less
burdensome developed.

        A motion was made and seconded that University Senate rescind Senate Resolution SR 10-10,
January 25, 2010, revisions to the Miami University Policy and Information Manual, Section
7.5.A. Review of Associate Professors.
                                                         University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                           Page 17 of 37


                                                   Rescind SR 10-10
                BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that University Senate adopt a new section in the Miami
            University Policy and Information Manual, Section 7.5, Review of Associate Professors, as set
            forth below; and codify the numbering of sections thereafter.
            7.5. Review of Associate Professors
            7.5.A. Review for Promotion. An associate professor may apply for promotion in any year in
            accordance with the timelines established by each division. Colleagues should consult with
            their department chair(s) and/or program director(s), and dean(s) before making this
            request.
            7.5.B. Triennial Review. Starting in their third year in rank and every three years thereafter,
            associate professors must submit to their departments a report of professional activities
            that addresses the criteria for promotion to professor. The department chair(s) and/or
            program director(s), after consultation with the appropriate promotion committee, will
            provide a letter of review of the report. The dean(s) of the associate professor‘s division
            and the Provost will also provide letters of review. These letters should be detailed enough
            to provide associate professors with valuable guidance for achieving promotion.
            7.5.C. Opt out: Faculty who have been in the associate professor rank for at least fifteen
            years may opt out of the review letters. An opt-out will not affect prospects for promotion.

Professor Rousmaniere, Senator and department chair:
        Last year’s proposal originated with COAD. The effect of rescinding SR 10-10, a resolution which
Senate spent much time debating, is rather disturbing. Are there fiscal ramifications of promoting
associate professors to full professor? Even though the policy would increase department chair/
program directors’ workload, Professor Rousmaniere supported SR 10-10 on the merits that the
resulting policy would encourage and help promote associate professors to full professors.

Interim Provost Skillings:
         Today’s proposal from COAD to rescind SR 10-10 is not based on financial ramifications of the
policy. Interim Provost Skillings assured Senate that COAD is not trying to play power politics.

Professor Meikle:
        Writing reviews are not nearly as effective as talking with associate professors one on one to
help them make a plan and to encourage them in the process.

Professor Hey:
        Last year when Senate debated SR 10-10, the former Provost stated that many associate
professors were unclear of the procedures for promotion. Legislating “good chairing” is difficult.

Professor Houk:
         Professor Houk recommended that associate professors submit reports of professional activities
every five (5) years in lieu of every three (3) years.
                                                         University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                           Page 18 of 37


Professor Butler:
        What sections of MUPIM state the requirements that tenured faculty be evaluated every year
and that tenured faculty may request a formative promotion evaluation?

Interim Provost Skilling:
        Section 7.1.A states “Each tenured and probationary member of the instructional staff shall
receive at a minimum a written annual evaluation…” Section 7.1.E states “In addition to the annual
evaluation, all tenured members of the instructional staff in a promotable rank may request a formative
promotion evaluation once per academic year….”

Professor Detloff, Senator and program director:
        The extra workload SR 10-10 creates at the department/program level is a concern. Senate
spent time debating this resolution and for COAD to recommend rescinding the resolution without an
alternative proposal is frustrating.

Professor DeLue:
        The full-professor committee in the department of political science has successfully mentored
associate professors for at least thirty-five years. This mentoring occurs best at the department level;
the need to mentor associate professors beyond the departmental level is questionable.

Interim Provost Skillings behalf of the Council of Academic Deans:
        Alternative considerations to that of rescinding SR 10-10 may include:
             Should reviews be formative or summative reviews?
             Should reviews take place in the third year in rank and every five years thereafter?
             Should reviews take place at the department/program level? … divisional level? …
                Provost level?

Professor Hey:
         MUPIM states that each tenured and probationary member of the instructional staff shall
receive at a minimum a written annual evaluation. Might this section further state that departments/
programs will have conversations with associate professors regarding their progress toward promotion
to full professor and that periodically divisions are informed of associate professors’ progress toward
promotion?

Professor Smith:
        The spirit of last year’s discussions were that reviews would be formative. The fifteen-year opt-
out period is too long.
                                                       University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                         Page 19 of 37


        A motion was made, seconded, and carried to table the motion to rescind SR 10-10 and to
request that the Council of Academic Dean draft an alternative proposal.

        A motion was received, seconded, and carried to adjourn the meeting of University Senate at
4:50 p.m.



                                                       __________________________________
                                                       Marcia C. Weller, Recording Secretary



                                                       __________________________________
                                                       Karen K. Shaffer, Secretary
                                                      University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                       Attachment A.
                                                              Summer Greek Task Group Report, 2010
                                                                                        Page 20 of 37



                        Summer Greek Task Group Report
                                    2010
           Membership:

                       Lindsey Bullinger                  Abby Schwab
                       Dennis Dudley                      Larissa Spreng
                       Allison Hardman                    Drew Sturtevant
                       Dan Herron                         MaryKate Sweeney
                       Tim Hogan                          Dionn Tron
                       Barbara Jones                      Susan Vaughn
                       Jean Kleimeyer                     Gail Walenga
                       Stacey Lowery Bretz                Nathan Warden
                       Casey Barry                        Katie Wilson
                       Daniel Nicolopoulos                Paige Wood
                       Annie Policastro                   Katherine Wren


Known for its challenging academic programs, supportive faculty and staff, and its engaged student
body, Miami prides itself on the quality and character of its graduates. Miami students and alumni
feel a strong connection to the university and its history and tradition. The fraternity and sorority
community has been a part of the fabric of the campus for 177 years and represents almost one
third of the undergraduate population of the campus. Miami is often called the “mother of
fraternities” with five chapters founded on the Oxford campus. However, recent events in the Greek
community have caused some to question the value of the community to the university. Incidents
involving excessive use of alcohol, uncontrolled behavior, and lack of respect for people and
property have caused concern for student safety, embarrassment to the Greek community and the
University, and concern among members of the Miami family.

While the incidents in the spring focused attention on the Greek community, the University
recognizes that current trends in student behavior around the nation have an impact beyond
fraternities and sororities. Recent reports from Wake Forest University, James Madison University
and more than 400 citations issued to students at two Minnesota universities during their move-in
weekend are just a few examples that underscore the pervasive nature of this problem.

The Summer Greek Task Group was formed to assess issues of student behavior at Miami as a result
of the incidents that occurred in the spring. The group was made up of Greek students, non-Greek
students, faculty, staff, and community members. Some members were involved through meetings
held in Oxford and others were connected through email as the process evolved. Three primary
areas of discussion were identified at the first meeting: standards and expectations, student
                                                      University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                       Attachment A.
                                                              Summer Greek Task Group Report, 2010
                                                                                        Page 21 of 37


organization discipline processes, and educational programming. The Task Group met weekly
either as a full group or in sub-groups examining the areas listed previously.

This report highlights the recommendations of the Task Group and the processes that will be used
to evaluate and/or implement the recommendations. These recommendations are designed as a
starting point for conversation and commitment to addressing negative behavior on the part of
students as members of the University and greater community.

           Summer Greek Task Group Subcommittee on Standards and Expectations

In the document “A Call For Values Congruence,” college and university presidents, the presidents
of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), the National Association of
Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU), the National Association of State Universities and
Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC), and inter/national Greek organization executive directors joined
to develop a presidential initiative to transform the collegiate Greek environment. This group
expressed concern about the incongruence between what Greek organizations espouse as values
and the behavior of some chapters and members of the Greek community. These behaviors, most
often fueled by the abuse of alcohol, often put students at risk and result in decision-making that
does not live up to the standards and expectations of the University and the Greek community.

One of the enduring strengths of the Greek community has been its opportunity for students to
engage in self-governance and regulation with the support of the university, alumni, advisors and
the national organization. Miami is committed to the engagement of students in the teaching and
learning process inside and outside the classroom. As the discussion about standards and
expectations began, students expressed the desire to take the lead in developing policies and
practices to address the behavior issues at off campus events. They acknowledged that the existing
“risk management policy” was not addressing some of the changing needs and behaviors at off
campus events. The students spent long hours researching best practices from across the country
including the University of Michigan, University of Southern California, Auburn, Alabama. They also
discussed the reality of events involving campus organizations. They focused on changes that
would help them live up to the five pillars of the fraternity and sorority community. These pillars
reflect the espoused values of the founders of their organizations: scholarship and learning, service
and philanthropy, leadership, community, and brotherhood and sisterhood. Their goal was to raise
community standards by holding each other accountable.

The students recognize that they cannot completely eliminate risk or the possibility of
inappropriate behavior but they can establish an atmosphere and expectation for students to
engage in safe and respectful events. To that end, the presidents of the Miami fraternities and
sororities approved the revised risk management policy with the following highlights:
                                                     University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                      Attachment A.
                                                             Summer Greek Task Group Report, 2010
                                                                                       Page 22 of 37


    Fraternities and sororities sponsoring events outside of Oxford will be required to hire
     security from a list of approved, licensed security personnel. Expectations for the role of the
     security officers will be clearly defined and they will be at the event from the loading of
     buses in Oxford to the return to Oxford.

    Sober liaisons will be members of the chapter who will serve as the liaison between the
     venue, security and chapter members.

    To avoid any confusion about what constitutes a “chapter event” versus events by
     individual members of the chapter, an event is defined as anything sponsored, financed,
     endorsed, or coordinated by the chapter including using chapter meetings, creating a
     facebook event, or using a listserv to announce the event. All events must be registered and
     abide by the risk management policy. Unregistered events will result in a six-month loss of
     social activities.

    There must be a 1:1 ratio of events without alcohol to social events where alcohol is
     present. To shift the emphasis of events to more academic, sisterhood/brotherhood events
     socials are limited to Thursday through Sunday.


   In addition to these recommendations:

    The Greek community will establish an accreditation process to reward and hold chapters
     accountable to community standards.

    Begin a dialogue about the concepts of “Love and Honor” and what those concepts mean to
     today’s college student.

           Summer Greek Task Group Subcommittee on Organizational Accountability

All Miami University students and student organizations, including Greek organizations, are held
accountable to the standards and expectations outlined in Miami University’s Code of Student
Conduct. The Code of Student Conduct outlines the rights and responsibilities of students,
behaviors prohibited on and off campus, possible sanctions, and the procedural rights of students
and student organizations.

The Code of Student Conduct is intended to create a set of expectations of student conduct, ensure a
fair process for determining responsibility when student behavior may have deviated from those
expectations and provide appropriate sanctions when a student or student organization has
violated the Code.

The Greek Task Group subcommittee on Organizational Accountability reviewed the current
student disciplinary procedures and sanctions at Miami University and considered the effectiveness
                                                      University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                       Attachment A.
                                                              Summer Greek Task Group Report, 2010
                                                                                        Page 23 of 37


and applicability for Greek organizations. It was the consensus of the subcommittee that the
procedures and sanctions outlined in Miami’s Code of Student Conduct, though applicable to
student organizations, do not always serve the process, the individual organization or Miami
University well.

The subcommittee benchmarked several institutions including Bowling Green State, Ohio
University, Penn State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Ohio State and Vanderbilt universities, and the
University of Kentucky and found:

    All institutions have a Code of Student Conduct

    All institutions address behavior of individuals and organizations

    Organizations were defined and when applicable included Greek organizations

    Some institutions have a separate Code of Conduct for organizations

The Greek Task Group subcommittee identified the “best practices” from the above named
institutions and considered current practices at Miami, as it applies to student organizations. The
following committee recommendations will be reviewed by the Student Affairs Council and others
for inclusion in the Code of Student Conduct:

    The addition of a section to the Miami University Code of Student Conduct specifically for
       student organizations. This section would specifically address a situation in which a student
       organization, including a Greek organization, is alleged to have violated Miami University
       policy.

    A statement outlining when an organization may be considered to be in violation of
       university policies or rules.

    Adapt current sanctions in the Code of Student Conduct to more accurately address group
       behavior. These sanctions will include education, service to the community, and revocation
       of organizational privileges, probation and suspension. This is NOT an exclusive list of
       sanctions but examples of sanctions that would be applicable to the entire organization and
       not a few individuals.

    Mandatory sanctions for violations of the alcohol policy (consistent with current policy for
       all students) and participation by all members of the organization. Repeat offenses will
       result in suspension of the organization.

    Mandatory minimum sanctions for violations of the hazing policy. Currently there are no
       mandatory sanctions for hazing though suspension of the organization is likely if an
       organization is found responsible for acts of hazing. Mandatory minimum sanctions
                                                        University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                         Attachment A.
                                                                Summer Greek Task Group Report, 2010
                                                                                          Page 24 of 37


        including suspension for a second offense of hazing though suspension may occur with the
        first offense.

     Hold an organization accountable for the behavior of members or guests. If members are
        aware of individual involvement and fail to report it, the organization is subject to
        immediate disciplinary action until such time as they disclose individual names. An
        organization and its members may both be held responsible for violating university policies.
           Summer Greek Task Force Subcommittee on Educational Programming

The Office of Health Education, now the Office of Student Wellness, provides alcohol and other drug
prevention education to:

     Individuals who violate the University Code of Conduct alcohol related sanctions.

     High-risk groups as identified by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
      (NIAAA). These groups include student athletes and Greek affiliated students.

     Student groups, such as residence halls, who request prevention programs.

The educational efforts to address student alcohol high-risk behavior continue to evolve nationally,
with the NIAAA framework making recommendations for programming to reduce the risk.

As part of the Greek Summer Task Group, Miami was benchmarked against the NIAAA framework
that identifies three alcohol and other drug prevention education focus areas: individual students,
the student body as a whole and the surrounding community. Miami’s educational programs are
listed below:

     At Miami the student body as a whole receives basic risk reduction education via the
      AlcoholEdu on-line education course for first year students. Additional education for
      student athletes has been provided using the CHOICES risk reduction program and
      education for members of the Greek community has been provided as a one-time
      presentation to a large audience.

       Individual students receive additional education if they are sanctioned by the Office of
        Ethics and Student Conflict Resolution.

       The surrounding community has been engaged through involvement with the Community
        Coalition that has worked with the local school district and other members of the
        community to address alcohol availability and the local environment as it relates to alcohol.

Based on a review of the practices at other “public ivy” schools and experts in the field, in particular
The Alcohol Prevention Coalition, recommendations for future alcohol and other drug education
are:
                                                     University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                      Attachment A.
                                                             Summer Greek Task Group Report, 2010
                                                                                       Page 25 of 37




    Work with the fraternity and sorority governing council leadership to replace their existing
       annual large group speaker presentation with the CHOICES program, a small group,
       participative education focusing on risk reduction and other targeted programming,
       particularly for new members.

    Explore participation in the National Alcohol Screening Day to assist individual students
       who may be at risk for developing alcohol abuse or alcoholism.

    Work with faculty and staff, particularly the Office of Ethics and Student Conflict Resolution
       to identify other “risk groups” who may benefit from programs such as CHOICES.

    Explore the appropriateness of educational programs as sanctions to determine if some
       students may benefit more from other types of sanctions.

    Continue to work with the Community Coalition, with an emphasis on reducing alcohol
       accessibility and consistent enforcement efforts.

    Expand the pilot STEP UP bystander education program that was completed in the spring.

    Assess the impact that broad based wellness programming has on overall Greek member
       wellness behaviors.

It is recommended that the following items be part of the ongoing broader discussion and
actions:

    Examine existing campus dialogues about ethics, personal and social responsibility and
     respect and how these conversations can be expanded through university and community
     structures and programs.

    Invite representatives of the national Greek organizations, advisors, and undergraduates to
     be part of a discussion on how we create the “model Greek community.”

    Strengthen our relationship with the Oxford community about issues of student behavior
     that impact the community and university and how we provide a consistent message about
     expectations and standards.

    Develop materials to share with venues that may host student events that explain the
     expectations for student behavior by the university and provide them with a mechanism to
     provide feedback to the university.

    Development of policies and procedures to address organizational accountability.
                                                        University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                         Attachment B.
                                       September 21, 2010, Faculty Letter to the Miami Board of Trustees
                                                                                          Page 26 of 37


                                                                                       September 21, 2010



         We, the undersigned faculty of Miami University, write to express our deep concern that our
university is in grave danger of losing sight of its central academic mission as a liberal arts institution.
Just when Miami is receiving extraordinary national recognition for its commitment to education, the
very underpinnings of that education are being undermined. While we recognize that the current
economic crisis poses particular challenges for Miami and other public institutions of higher learning, we
are concerned that recent proposals for restructuring the university do not give priority to its
educational aims. Instead, changes to educational policy that will radically alter the character of the
institution are apparently being dictated solely by the “bottom line.” Meanwhile, decisions such as the
hiring of outside restructuring consultants and the construction of a student center seem to prejudge
the issues and will place Miami under even greater indebtedness. The application of a business model
(and one of questionable soundness) to liberal arts education is not what has made Miami great; instead
it has the potential to harm both the educational and the financial health of the institution.
         The implications of the Strategic Priorities Task Force report are extremely troubling for the
diversity of educational opportunities at Miami, as well as for the future of small departments, none of
whom were represented on the Task Force. The fact that Arts and Science teaching faculty have a
minority presence on the committee, with only one representative of the humanities, is deeply
troubling. The report’s suggestions, including the elimination of less populous majors, the consolidation
of small departments and programs, and the reduction in the number of small classes all have the
potential to harm Miami’s standing as an institution of higher learning. The consolidation of
departments according to outmoded categories, and without regard for contemporary intellectual
developments, does not reflect the practices of our peer, much less our aspirational, institutions.
         Increases in average class size and student-teacher ratio will have a negative impact on our
rankings and more importantly on the quality of our students’ educational experience. The “intense
engagement of faculty with students through its teacher-scholar model,” as mentioned in Miami’s
mission statement, will be put at risk. The chance to interact closely with faculty is central to student
satisfaction and to the choice of Miami over other universities, as is evident from exit interviews with
graduating seniors. The elimination of small classes, moreover, will have the greatest impact on
advanced courses across the curriculum, ultimately limiting both the breadth and depth of our offerings.
The best students may elect to attend or transfer to other universities where they can pursue their
interests at a higher level. With the resulting loss of rankings, our hopes of maintaining – much less
increasing – enrollments, are doomed to failure. This is especially true with regard to the out-of-state
students Miami strives to attract.
         The SPTF report rests on two flawed assumptions, namely that what is good for our operating
budget is necessarily good for our student outcomes, and that cuts to our central educational mission
are the best way to achieve financial health. This model assumes that our students are merely
consumers, purchasing those “commodities” they want, and ignoring those they don’t want. The hiring
                                                       University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                        Attachment B.
                                      September 21, 2010, Faculty Letter to the Miami Board of Trustees
                                                                                         Page 27 of 37


of efficiency experts is a further step in the wrong direction. Students are not “customers,” liberal
education is not a “product,” and the work of teaching is not comparable to the making of widgets.
         As an acclaimed liberal arts institution, Miami’s mission is not to train students for employment
in one specific career. Rather, we graduate citizens who can find their way in an increasingly globalized,
culturally diversifying, and technologically complex world. In this environment, our graduates must be
prepared to change careers throughout their lives. To this end, they must be broadly educated, rather
than learning only what they believe will get them easily and quickly employed. (As it happens, students
with a solid liberal arts background are the most attractive to employers, so the dichotomy is a false
one.) What is more, we cannot predict when world events may suddenly increase the demand for those
trained in a particular discipline.
         Our current practices have long produced positive student outcomes, well before the recent
push for “reorganization.” Miami achieved its national status, and its identity as a public ivy of the
Midwest, by means of the very educational structures now being dismissed as “business as usual.” That
which would replace them is untested in its ability to educate our students. We do not reject any and all
change, but change must respond to a particular educational problem or goal. Those who advocate
restructuring bear the burden of making clear precisely what problems it is designed to solve, and how,
before we take the risk of committing to it. Otherwise, we are simply admitting that we can no longer
afford to provide the high-quality education for which Miami is famous. Before irrevocably damaging the
structure and reputation of the university, let us have evidence that these changes will be beneficial.
         The SPTF report seems to suggest that the solution to our problems lies in becoming more like
our peer institutions. This logic is puzzling: if Miami has achieved a national reputation by being a
distinctive liberal arts university, are we now to believe that eliminating what distinguishes us will make
us stronger? Are we to think that by strangling the very programs that make Miami stand out (some of
them unique in the state of Ohio) we will best serve our students? If Miami loses its distinctive
character, how will this further our goal of increasing out-of-state admissions? Based on the SPTF report
and the Q&A in Senate on September 13, we have no confidence that these issues are being seriously
considered. We fear a long-term decline in the national status of Miami University as a liberal arts
institution.
         Before irrevocable damage is done to a proud educational tradition of more than 200 years, we
respectfully request

        1) that in a time of financial exigency, the university under no circumstances take on debt for
        any purpose that does not directly serve its educational mission. The planned student center
        must be abandoned until it can be fully funded in advance without bonding. We seek a
        reordering of priorities such that the bulk of University expenditures go directly to the
        educational mission, and that only those financial solutions be explored that protect that
        mission.
                                                       University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                        Attachment B.
                                      September 21, 2010, Faculty Letter to the Miami Board of Trustees
                                                                                         Page 28 of 37


        2) that the recommendations of the SPTF be thoroughly reconsidered given the inadequate
        representation of faculty from the liberal arts and small programs on the committee,
        that the faculty have a full voice in any discussion of changes to educational policy, and a
        number of seats on the Board of Trustees equal to the number of student trustees.

        3) that before an outside consulting firm is hired to research and implement cost-saving
        measures, as recommended in the SPTF report, there be full public disclosure of the process of
        selection of this company, their exact mandate and the nature of services they will perform, and
        how much they will be paid. Any decisions based on their recommendations must be made in
        accordance with items 1 and 2 above.



This letter has been signed by the following tenured faculty, representing 27 different departments and
5 schools:
     Professors and Distinguished Professors:
             o Mark R. Boardman, Professor of Geology
             o Gerardo Brown-Manrique, Professor of Architecture
             o Dennis Burke, Professor of Mathematics
             o Rodney Coates, Professor of Sociology and Black World Studies
             o James Cox, Professor of Chemistry
             o Karen Dawisha, Walter E. Havighurst Professor of Political Science
             o Adeed Dawisha, University Distinguished Professor, Political Science
             o Darcy Donahue, Professor of Spanish and Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies
             o Osama Ettouney, Professor, Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering
             o Clive F. Getty, Professor of Art History
             o David Gorchov, Professor of Botany
             o William J. Gracie, Jr., Professor Emeritus of English
             o Jim Hickey, Professor of Botany
             o Bill Houk, Professor of Physics
             o Cynthia Lewiecki-Wilson, Professor of English
             o Quinn Li, Professor of Botany
             o William R. McKenna, Professor of Philosophy
             o Roger D. Meicenheimer, Professor of Botany
             o Rick Momeyer, Professor of Philosophy
             o William H. Newell, Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies
             o Stephen Nimis, Professor of Classics
             o Ellen Price, Professor of Art
             o Richard Quantz, Professor of Educational Leadership
             o Beata Randrianantoanina, Professor of Mathematics
                                                     University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                      Attachment B.
                                    September 21, 2010, Faculty Letter to the Miami Board of Trustees
                                                                                       Page 29 of 37


            o Ralph Raunft, Professor of Art
            o Perry Rice, Professor of Physics
            o Randolph Runyon, Professor of French
            o Dana Saulnier, Professor of Art
            o Bob Schaefer, Professor of Statistics
            o David Schloss, Professor of English
            o Robert Sefton Smith, Professor of Mathematics
            o Elizabeth Wilson, Professor of Comparative Religion
            o Peter Williams, Distinguished Professor of Comparative Religion and American Studies
            o Elisabeth Widom, Professor of Geology
            o Jan M. Yarrison-Rice, Professor of Physics
       Associate Professors
            o Renee Baernstein, Associate Professor of History
            o Yu-Fang Cho, Associate Professor of English
            o Carl Dahlman, Associate Professor of Geography
            o José Dominguez Búrdalo, Associate Professor of Spanish and Portuguese
            o James Constantine Hanges, Associate Professor of Religion
            o Kathleen Haubrich, Associate Professor of Nursing
            o Mary C. Henry, Associate Professor of Geography
            o Paula Gậndara, Associate Professor of Lusophone Studies
            o Venelin Ganev, Associate Professor of Political Science
            o Mila Ganeva, Associate Professor of German
            o Alfredo J. Huerta, Associate Professor of Botany
            o Raúl Ianes, Associate Professor of Spanish and Portuguese
            o Scott Kenworthy, Associate Professor of Religion
            o Anna Klosowska, Associate Professor of French
            o Julia Lindsey, Associate Professor of Art
            o Deborah Lyons, Associate Professor of Classics
            o Dr. S. Douglas Marcum, Associate Professor of Physics
            o Emily S. Murphree, Associate Professor of Statistics
            o Dr. Lynn Al. Olzak, Associate Professor of Brain and Cognitive Sciences
            o Lisa Poirier, Associate Professor of Religion
            o Nicole Thesz, Associate Professor of German
            o Steven Tuck, Associate Professor of Classics
            o Peter M. Schuller, Associate Professor of Philosophy
            o M. Hank H. Stevens, Associate Professor of Botany
            o Benjamin Sutcliffe, Associate Professor of Russian
            o Roscoe Wilson, Associate Professor of Art
.
                                                       University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                        Attachment C.
                                 Proposed Revisions to MUPIM, Section 7.11.C, 7.11.D, and 7.11.E (new)
                                                                                         Page 30 of 37


7.11.C Lecturer
A Lecturer must:
1. hold a master’s degree or higher from an accredited college or university or the equivalent thereof;
    and
2. have documented superior teaching ability or extraordinary experience, talent, or abilities deemed
    critical to fulfilling the mission of the department or program; and
3. be full time.

The following additional expectations and conditions apply to the rank of Lecturer:
4. The rank of Lecturer carries with it the requirement of teaching and advising as well as institutional
    and professional service.
5. Lecturers, by virtue of the prospect that they may be associated with departments/programs for
    extended periods of time, should be as fully enfranchised as possible in the day-to-day life of the
    departments/programs with which they are affiliated.
6. Lecturers shall receive annual performance reviews.
7. In addition to the annual evaluation, all lecturers may request a formative promotion evaluation
    once per academic year. Upon the person’s request, the evaluation shall be prepared by the
    department’s promotion committee and by the chair and/or program director (when appropriate).
    These evaluations shall be based on (1) cumulative information provided by the person concerning
    his or her teaching and service, and (2) may include other relevant information. At the person’s
    discretion, the information provided may include his or her plans concerning teaching and service
    that may help the promotion committee and chair or program director (when appropriate) provide
    useful guidance. Formative promotion evaluations are to guide the person toward promotion and
    are not to be used for personnel or salary decisions.
8. In the event the nonrenewal of a Lecturer is under consideration, the department chair or program
    director (when appropriate) must first consult formally with the faculty consistent with the
    governance procedures of the department or program (when appropriate).
9. The initiative for establishing a Lecturer position in a department/program should ordinarily
    originate in the department/program.
10. The number of Lecturer positions shall be limited in each of the schools, the College, and the
    individual regional campuses to a maximum of five (5) percent of the total number of full-time
    tenured and tenure-track faculty members.

Appointment to the position of Lecturer requires either: (a) the approval of the Provost upon the
positive evaluation and recommendation of the department chair, the program director (when
appropriate), Dean of the Regional Campuses (when appropriate), and dean for a person holding a
nontenure-eligible instructional staff position at Miami University; or (b) a competitive search.

7.11.D Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty
A Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty must:
    10. hold a master’s degree or higher from an accredited college or university or the equivalent
         thereof; and
    11. have documented superior teaching ability or extraordinary experience, appropriate educational
         background, and significant professional experience including a professional license or
         professional certificate/degree; and
    12. be full time.
                                                         University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                          Attachment C.
                                   Proposed Revisions to MUPIM, Section 7.11.C, 7.11.D, and 7.11.E (new)
                                                                                           Page 31 of 37




               The following additional expectations and conditions apply to the rank of
               Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty:
    13.   The rank of Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty carries with it the requirement of teaching
          and institutional service as well as the requirement to remain active professionally for
          accreditation purpose.
    14.   Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty, by virtue of the prospect that they may be associated
          with departments or programs for extended periods of time, should be as fully enfranchised as
          possible in the day-to-day life of the departments or programs with which they are affiliated.
    15.   Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty shall receive annual performance reviews.
    16.   In addition to the annual evaluation, all clinical/professionally licensed faculty may request a
          formative promotion evaluation once per academic year. Upon the person’s request, the
          evaluation shall be prepared by the department’s promotion committee and by the chair and/or
          program director (when appropriate). These evaluations shall be based on (1) cumulative
          information provided by the person concerning his or her teaching and service, and (2) may
          include other relevant information. At the person’s discretion, the information provided may
          include his or her plans concerning teaching and service that may help the promotion
          committee and chair or program director (when appropriate) provide useful guidance.
          Formative promotion evaluations are to guide the person toward promotion and are not to be
          used for personnel or salary decisions.
    17.   In the event the nonrenewal of a Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty is under consideration,
          the department chair or program director (when appropriate) must first consult formally with
          the faculty consistent with the governance procedures of the department or program.
    18.   The initiative for establishing the Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty position in a
          department or program should ordinarily originate in the department or program.
    19.   The number of Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty positions should not exceed a maximum
          of five (5) percent of the total number of full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty members.

Appointment to the position of Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty requires either: (a) the approval
of the Provost upon the positive evaluation and recommendation of the department chair, the program
director (when appropriate), and Dean of the Regional Campuses (when appropriate), and dean for a
person holding a nontenure-eligible instructional staff position at Miami University; or (b) a competitive
search.

New Section:
7.11.E
The total number of lecturers and clinical/professionally licensed faculty shall not exceed twenty
percent (20%) of the total number of full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty members.
                                                          University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                            Attachment D.
                                                                 Changes to the Altiris Inventory Practices
                                                                                             Page 32 of 37


PROPOSAL FROM: Joe Bazeley, Information Security Officer, IT Services

Changes to Altiris inventory practices
Note: Policy reviewed by and endorsed by the Information Technology Policy Committee


The current practice for IT Services to perform a scan of computer hardware and software is to inform
University Senate of the purpose of the scan, with sufficient notice to allow objections to be raised
before the scan is performed. These scans do not identify individual users, instead just aggregating
information such as the total number of licenses installed.

IT Services would like to change the Altiris inventory practices to allow for a number of additional uses.

For all of the use cases, unless otherwise stated the results would be available to Altiris administrators.
For use cases 1-4 the results would also be available to the IT Acquisition & Licensing Officer. For use
cases 5-6 the results would also be available to the Information Security Officer. Records associated
with any scans will be classified as “Information Resources Management and Data Processing Services
Plans”. Any records which are stored for reporting purposes will be de-identified, aggregate counts.

Use case 1 – License counts across the University during Fall/Spring semesters
This is the current approved practice. IT Services would provide notice to University Senate and the
Information Technology Policy Committee at least a week in advance of performing a scan to count the
number of licenses of a given piece of software installed on Miami computers. This scan will not identify
individual users.

Use case 2 – License counts across the University during Summer semesters
This is similar to use case 1, but for license counts needed during the Summer semester there is no
defined method for ensuring that University Senate has been notified. IT Services will instead provide
notice to the University community, by posting an announcement on the myMiami portal, at least a
week in advance of performing a scan to count the number of licenses of a given piece of software
installed on Miami computers. This scan will not identify individual users.

Use case 3 – License counts within a division or department
This scan would need to be requested by the division or department head, and they would be
responsible for communicating to their division or department. No notice would be given to University
Senate or the Information Technology Policy Committee. The results of the scan will be provided to the
division or department head. This scan will identify individual users, so the division or department head
can have a discussion about licensing within the division or department.

Use case 4 – Scans to identify software requiring modification to maintain compliance with licensing
agreements
This scan would be scheduled to run on a monthly basis, looking for version information on identified
programs. The list of identified programs will be maintained on the IT Services website, and IT Services
will notify University Senate of any additions or deletions to the list of identified programs. IT Services
will provide notice to University Senate and the Information Technology Policy Committee at least a
                                                          University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                            Attachment D.
                                                                 Changes to the Altiris Inventory Practices
                                                                                             Page 33 of 37


week in advance of performing a scan. This scan will identify individual users. User names will be
provided to the IT Acquisition & Licensing Officer to ensure that the software can be patched, receive
updated license files, or receive any other maintenance required to maintain compliance with the
vendor’s license agreement. The IT Acquisition & Licensing Officer will then contact the users to discuss
available options.

Use case 5 – Scans to identify software with security vulnerabilities
This scan would be scheduled to run on a monthly basis, looking for version information on identified
programs. The list of identified programs will be maintained on the IT Services website, and IT Services
will notify University Senate of any additions or deletions to the list of identified programs. IT Services
will provide notice to University Senate and the Information Technology Policy Committee at least a
week in advance of performing a scan. This scan will identify individual users, so the Information
Security Officer can contact the users to discuss options for correcting the security vulnerability.

Use case 6 – Scans to identify possible unintentional information disclosure through peer-to-peer
software
This scan would be scheduled to run on a monthly basis, looking for identified peer-to-peer programs
which may be causing unintentional information disclosure of information protected under MUPIM 3.22
or violating copyright or other intellectual property rights protected under MUPIM 19.2.B.1. The list of
identified peer-to-peer programs will be maintained on the IT Services website, and IT Services will
notify University Senate of any additions or deletions to the list of identified peer-to-peer programs. IT
Services will provide notice to University Senate and the Information Technology Policy Committee at
least a week in advance of performing a scan. This scan will identify individual users, so the Information
Security Officer can contact the users to ensure that the peer-to-peer software is being used in
accordance with MUPIM.

RATIONALE:
Use cases 1 & 2 are needed to show software vendors that we are complying with the terms of the
licensing agreement for their software. These scans will only be run when a software vendor requests
proof of our compliance with their licensing agreement. When those requests are made over the
summer, we need to be able respond relatively quickly to the vendor.

Use case 3 is needed to allow departments and divisions to have necessary discussions about the
appropriate allocation of Miami resources, as well as to help identify when there are potential cost
savings by switching from one type of licensing (such as individuals purchasing copies as needed) to
another type of licensing (such as a site license).

Use case 4 is needed both to ensure that we are running versions of software that are covered by our
license agreements.

Use case 5 is needed to ensure that the risks associated with running unpatched software, including
data exposure, data corruption, and the remote installation of malicious software by a third party, are
minimized where possible and accepted where patching is not an option (such as with specialized
research equipment).
                                                        University Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                          Attachment D.
                                                               Changes to the Altiris Inventory Practices
                                                                                           Page 34 of 37



Use case 6 is needed to ensure that individuals who have installed peer-to-peer (P2P) software are not
sharing Miami information. Many P2P programs will, by default, share a user’s My Documents folder.
Because this is the default save location for most programs, this can lead to files containing Miami
information being shared. It will also provide an opportunity to confirm that files being shared via P2P
software can be shared in the fashion, such as open source software, and not copyrighted files that are
being shared without the permission of the copyright holder, such as song or movie files.
                                                      tUniversity Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                        Attachment E.
                                Proposed Resolution – Rescind SR 10-10, Review of Associate Professors
                                                                                         Page 35 of 37


Proposed Resolution:
             BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that University Senate rescind Senate Resolution 10-10,
          January 25, 2010, revisions to the Miami University Policy and Information Manual,
          Section 7.5.A. Review of Associate Professors.
                                                        SR 10-10
                BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that University Senate adopt a new section in the Miami
           University Policy and Information Manual, Section 7.5, Review of Associate Professors, as set
           forth below; and codify the numbering of sections thereafter.
       7.5. Review of Associate Professors
       7.5.A. Review for Promotion. An associate professor may apply for promotion in any year in
       accordance with the timelines established by each division. Colleagues should consult with their
       department chair(s) and/or program director(s), and dean(s) before making this request.
       7.5.B. Triennial Review. Starting in their third year in rank and every three years thereafter,
       associate professors must submit to their departments a report of professional activities that
       addresses the criteria for promotion to professor. The department chair(s) and/or program
       director(s), after consultation with the appropriate promotion committee, will provide a letter
       of review of the report. The dean(s) of the associate professor‘s division and the Provost will
       also provide letters of review. These letters should be detailed enough to provide associate
       professors with valuable guidance for achieving promotion.
       7.5.C. Opt out: Faculty who have been in the associate professor rank for at least fifteen years
       may opt out of the review letters. An opt-out will not affect prospects for promotion.
       7.6. Tenure and Time
       …

Rationale: (Provided by memo from John Skillings to Senate Executive Committee, September 9, 2010)
                As you may recall, last year Senate adopted guidelines for the review of associate
       professors. At the COAD meeting this week the deans discussed ways to implement this new
       requirement. Discussions have been completed at the divisional level and concerns have been
       raised. In the policy, review letters are required every three years for associate professors – with
       letters written by the department, dean and provost.
                Continuing discussion by the deans has raised more concerns about the significant time
       commitment needed for this project. To provide a perspective, we currently write about 100 pre-
       tenure faculty reviews each year in the Provost Office, and about 175 – 200 are completed in the
       various departments and deans’ offices. This is a very time consuming process, but one that the
       deans feel is necessary to help pre-tenured faculty proceed towards tenure.
                With the proposed associate professor review, we would expect an additional 100
       reviews to be completed each year. This adds significantly to the workload for departments,
       deans, the provost office – and associate professors as well.
                                                        tUniversity Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                          Attachment E.
                                  Proposed Resolution – Rescind SR 10-10, Review of Associate Professors
                                                                                           Page 36 of 37


                 The deans are recommending that we do not implement this policy in its current form and
        find another way to achieve the feedback that associate professors need. They would prefer that
        the current policy be rescinded and a new conversation be commenced on how the feedback
        could be accomplished in a more efficient manner.
                 We all complain at times that there are too many administrators, but policies like the
        associate professor review add significantly to the workload at the department, dean and provost
        levels. As recommended in the Strategic Priorities Task Force report, we need to be more
        efficient in our work at Miami. What this suggests to me is that we should think carefully before
        we make a significant commitment of people’s time, and that the processes that we use be as
        effective as possible. The deans (and I) would argue that the associate professor review process is
        too burdensome and we need to find a better way to proceed.



7.5 Review of Members of the Instructional Staff

7.5.A Review of Associate Professors

1. An associate professor may apply for promotion in any year. Candidates should consult with their
department chair(s) and/or program director(s), when appropriate, and dean(s) before making this request.

2. Starting in their third year in rank and every three (3) years thereafter, associate professors must submit
to their department(s) a report of professional activities that addresses the criteria for promotion to
professor. The department chair(s) and/or program director(s), when appropriate, after consultation with
the departmental promotion committee, will provide a letter of review of the report. The dean(s) of the
associate professor’s division and the Provost will also provide letters of review. These letters should be
detailed enough to provide associate professors with valuable guidance for achieving promotion.

3. Faculty who have been in the associate professor rank for at least fifteen (15) years may opt out of the
review. An opt-out will not affect prospects for promotion.

7.5.B Annual Review of Probationary Members of the Instructional Staff

1. Each department will establish a committee to initiate tenure recommendations. The membership of
   this committee is to be determined by the department. In each year of the probationary period, the
   instructional staff member submits to the department a report of professional activities that addresses
   the tenure criteria. Subsequently, the department chair or program director (when appropriate), after
   consultation with the department tenure committee, prepares an annual written evaluation of the
   member's accomplishments; an evaluation that will provide an assessment of the member's progress
   toward tenure, including strengths and weaknesses and specific recommendations for improvement.
   In the case of faculty assigned to a regional campus, the department chair will also consult with the
   Dean of the Regional Campuses. The evaluation prepared by the department chair or program director
   (when appropriate) must be reviewed and formally acknowledged by the department tenure
   committee, the Dean of the Regional Campuses (when appropriate), and the probationer before
   forwarding to the dean, so that errors of fact and omission might be eliminated.
                                                       tUniversity Senate, September 27, 2010, Minutes
                                                                                         Attachment E.
                                 Proposed Resolution – Rescind SR 10-10, Review of Associate Professors
                                                                                          Page 37 of 37


2. Concerns regarding professional collegiality should be shared as promptly as possible with the person
   whose behavior is questioned. Notice of uncollegiality must be given to that person in writing no later
   than his or her next annual evaluation after occurrence of the behavior considered uncollegial.
3. In the event the tenure committee’s evaluation differs from that of the chair or program
   director (when appropriate), the tenure committee shall forward its evaluation to the
   probationer, with a copy to the Dean of the Regional Campuses (when appropriate). Such
   evaluations are subsequently reviewed by the divisional dean, and then officially transmitted
   to the probationer. Whenever the dean's evaluation differs from that of the department chair,
   the program director (when appropriate) or the department tenure committee, the dean must
   so inform the staff member, the chair, the program director (when appropriate), the
   committee, and the Dean of the Regional Campuses (when appropriate), in writing, citing the
   basis for the judgment.
4. In the third year of qualifying service, the department tenure committee will also prepare a
   separate written evaluation of the instructional staff member's progress toward tenure,
   including strengths and weaknesses and specific recommendations for improvement, and
   share that evaluation with the probationer and the department chair or program director
   (when appropriate). The chair or program director (when appropriate) will also write an
   evaluation of the probationer’s progress toward tenure.
5. The Provost reviews the evaluations in the third, fourth, and fifth years of a candidate's
   probationary period. Whenever the Provost’s evaluation differs from what has already been
   recorded, this judgment, with reasons, will be reported in writing to the candidate, the
   department tenure committee, the department chair, the program director (when appropriate),
   and the dean. The complete documentation should also be distributed to the Dean of the
   Regional Campuses (when appropriate).
6. Early in the candidate’s final year of probationary service, the department tenure committee
   undertakes a review of his or her cumulative professional record and makes a positive or
   negative recommendation for tenure to the department chair or program director (when
   appropriate). After receiving the department tenure committee’s recommendation, the
   department chair or program director (when appropriate) makes a positive or negative
   recommendation. The candidate’s application is then advanced to the dean, who makes a
   positive or negative recommendation. The University Promotion and Tenure Committee then
   considers all candidates who have received a positive recommendation from the department
   committee, the department chair, the program director (when appropriate), or the dean.
   Candidates who receive a positive recommendation from the University Promotion and
   Tenure Committee are advanced to the Provost for consideration. Candidates who receive the
   Provost’s positive recommendation are advanced to the President. Candidates receiving the
   positive recommendation of the President are advanced to the Board of Trustees for final
   action.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:6
posted:11/22/2011
language:English
pages:37