Faculty Senate Agendas by wUT6Qui

VIEWS: 1 PAGES: 11

									                                          CONSENT AGENDA
                                       University of Nevada, Reno
                                        2012-13 Faculty Senate
                                            August 30, 2012
                                                RSJ 304

Process for Consideration of Consent Agenda Items:
         All items on the Consent Agenda are action items. A single vote for the consent agenda passes all
          items listed on the agenda. Any senator may request an agenda item be pulled for discussion and
          held for a separate vote.
         Prior to a vote on the consent agenda, the Chair will open the floor for comment from senators
          including requests to pull items.
         Once all items to be pulled have been identified, the Chair will call for a vote on the remaining
          Consent Agenda items.
         Discussion and action on items pulled will be managed individually.

 1.       Request to Approve the June 7, 2012 Senate Meeting Minutes      Action/Enclosure

 2.       2011-12 Research and Grants Committee Recommendations           Action/Enclosure

 3.        2011-12 Academic Standards Committee Recommendation            Action/Enclosure

 4.            2012-13 Research and Grants Committee Charges              Action/Enclosure

 5.               2012-13 Campus Affairs Committee Charges                Action/Enclosure




August 30, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet                                                               Page 1
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
August 30, 2012
Consent Agenda Item #1

June 7, 2012 Senate Meeting Minutes

   1. Roll Call and Introductions:
Gerald Ackerman (SOM), Gerald Ackerman for Elissa Palmer (SOM), Jamie Anderson (SOM), Pat Arnott
(COS), Rafik Beekun (COBA),Todd Borman (IT), John Dell (DHS), Susan Donaldson (COOP), Patricia Ellison
(CABNR), Mariah Evans (CLA), Howard Goldbaum for Rosemary McCarthy (JO), Catherine Goring (SOM),
Keith Hackett (Pres), Kent Hawthorne for Todd Renwick (A & F), Glenn Miller (CABNR), Swatee Naik
(Chair-elect) , Vannessa Nicholas (Prov), Anna Panorska (COS), Crystal Parrish (DEV), Chuck Price (SS),
David Ryfe (Ex-officio), David Sanders (EN), Amy Shannon (Lib), Deborah Shindell (DHS), Shanon Taylor
(COE), George Thomas (CLA), Claudene Wharton (Pres), Leah Wilds (CLA), Stephanie Woolf (VPR), David
Zeh (Chair).

Absent: Robert Wang (SOM), Marjorie Vecchio (CLA).

Guests: Charlene Hart (OSPA), Huili Weinstock (ASUN), Beau Wooten (Nevada Dining).

    2. Visit with Nevada Dining – Marketing Director Beau Wooten:
The past semester was good for Nevada Dining; they won two 3rd place awards in sustainability in waste
management and in retail dining concepts at Pathways. The Overlook and Bytes were scheduled to be open all
summer, and limited hours in Pathways and the Downunder Café. Nevada Dining would be running specials
during the summer at the Overlook, they would have Mondo’s Frisbees on Mondays, Taco Tuesday, Discount
Wednesday, and live music on Friday.
Wooten said one of the ideas was to turn the private dining room in the Downunder into a faculty club one day
per week. The senate liked the idea, but thought that maybe a couple of times a month would be better to start.
Also that perhaps a faculty member could give a presentation about their work at some of the sessions. The
senate thanked Wooten for attending and for bringing samples to the meeting.

   3. Chair’s Report – David Zeh:
Chair David Zeh began the meeting with a quote by Benjamin Franklin: “Tell me and I forget, teach me and I
remember, involve me and I learn.”
Chair David Zeh summarized the highlights of the Board of Regents’ Meeting.
          The Regents re-elected Jason Geddes as Chair and Kevin Page as Vice Chair;
          Brooke Nielson was named Vice Chancellor for Legal Affairs and Bart Patterson became the President of
           Nevada State College;
          WNC faculty approved collective bargaining;
          There would be implementation of NSHE’s strategic directions;
          The P-16 council was being charged;
          Undergraduate tuition & fees increase became permanent; medical school resident tuition & fees increase
           was approved;
          Student withdrawal policy would be hammered out and would be an integral part of the funding formula;
          Southern campuses presented their plans to coordinate their general education revisions, northern
           campuses would present theirs in September, the regents wanted to make sure that there was
           communication between the institutions;

August 30, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet                                                                       Page 2
         Regent Knecht was spearheading course content accountability;
         GBC & TMCC reported difficulty recruiting new faculty because of low salaries and poor benefits;
         Possible future use of technology fees for iNtegrate project to follow student success from K-12 through
          college;
       The regents discussed the stadium at UNLV, the cost would be close to two billion dollars, it would be a
          covered stadium and would have sixty thousand seats;
       Coach Carter received a $100,000 raise per year; this was not paid under the general funds; Athletics fund
          raises 85% of their money;
              o A few faculty expressed that it was still hard to swallow that a coach could receive a raise while the
                   academic faculty were not able to receive raises or eliminate furlough or pay cuts;
       The dismissal policy revision was approved by administration on 5-9-12;
       The executive board retreat would be held on August 1st and would discuss work of the senate through
          December, including committee charges. Please send suggestions regarding the direction of the senate to
          either Zeh or Michelle Hritz;
       The Provost Search Committee was made up of a very solid group of individuals, and would meet twice in
          the summer and there would be on campus interviews in the fall. Chair Marsha Read sent out a survey
          asking for traits and characteristics important to the position, please respond to that survey;
       Regents discussed the restoration of funding for Cooperative Extension as the chancellor did not include
          that in his budget priorities. There was considerable discussion regarding this at the meeting and the
          Chancellor was tasked with bringing that information back to the regents;
              o Discussion centered on supporting the enhancement of funds to the College of Cooperative
                   Extension.
                        If the senate supported it how would they do that?
                                 In the form of a memo to the Chancellor
                        Where would the money come from? Would the money come from the University or be a
                            separate enhancement from the legislature?
                                 The official enhancement request was submitted to the President
                        What exactly would the senate be supporting?
                                 This would most probably mean a reduction in the other areas of the university.
      MOTION: Shannon/Wharton. To draft a memo in support of returning funding to the College of Cooperative
      Extension.
      ACTION: Passed, 2 opposed, no abstentions.

         The Curricular Review Revisions of the code that the council of chairs has been working on will likely be
          passed at the next regents meeting without changes. Zeh recommended to the regents that they do all that
          they can to avoid curricular review in the future.
         The funding formula that was being proposed to the Interim Committee for Funding Higher Education would
          redistribute the wealth to the southern colleges, particularly CSN and NCS creating a great hardship for the
          northern community colleges. Link to slides:
          http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/12-13/Agendas/6-7-12_fundform_DWZ.pptx

         A survey was done regarding the satisfaction/dissatisfaction with PEPB; this was done using a convenient
          sample. Link to slide:
          http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/12-13/Agendas/6-7-12_PEBP_DWZ.ppt
August 30, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet                                                                           Page 3
    4. Visit with Office of Sponsored Projects Administration (OSPA) – Director Charlene Hart:
Director Charlene Hart moved from CABNR to the OSPA and has been working to fill many of the vacant
positions to provide better service to faculty. Samir Mehtaji was now in the Post-award position, and Erika
Waday, would become the Information and Training Specialist. Many of the classified positions have been
converted to administrative faculty positions so that if they needed to work longer hours there would not be an
issue. A permanent part-time IT position was created to help with the rollout of SharePoint 2010 for electronic
processing of grants. The grant writers would be trained on it first and the provide training to faculty. The first
units to go online would be CLA and CABNR, then COS, EN, and SOM; this would allow staff to work out the
bugs. OSPA would also be sending out an RFP for grant management software on the pre-award side.
OSPA was hoping for more transparency so that PIs could access where their grants were in the approval
process.
OSPA was rewriting their guide and new policies would be working their way through the system. Memo
accounts and fixed price contract policies were also being rewritten. Memo accounts should not be longer than
ninety days and the expectation for fixed price contracts is that 75% is spent, not pulled off into a discretionary
account. The President has tasked Research to write a research strategic plan by April 2013. The VPR’s Office
would be putting in place a part-time position to assist with grant writing and coordination of multi-disciplinary,
intercollegiate and inter-institutional proposals in excess of $1 million.
There are many things that make up the research portfolio. The research portfolio is down approximately 40%
this year so the collection of indirect costs has dropped. This is due partly to the research awards being down, a
couple of large grants were one time only, and loss of some top researchers.

    5. Consent Agenda:
Minutes: May 9, 2012 (2011-12) & May 9 2012 (12-13)
UAM REVISIONS
A typo was corrected in the May 9, 2012 (11-12) minutes, changing thanks to thanked on page 6. Zeh
requested that more information regarding senator communication to constituents be put in the May 9, 2012
(12-13) minutes. He felt that it was not stressed enough in the transcription how important constituent
communication was from senators, he suggested that senators attend chair’s meetings and get the list serve for
their colleges. Anna Panorska asked that several typos be corrected in the UAM revisions; she would forward
those to Linda Kuchenbecker who would forward them to the UAM Review Committee.
MOTION: Wilds/ Shannon. To approve the consent agenda with the suggested amendments.
ACTION: Passed unanimously.

    6. Commission for the Future of the University – Co-Chair David Ryfe:
Ryfe summarized the charges and the startup of the commission and then discussed their goals; they would like
to have a report ready in December for conversation with the faculty.
The commission was formed in the aftermath of budget cuts and allowing the senate to play a more active role
in setting policy on campus. Discussion has taken place on how to grow the university and this commission
should be the catalyst for that discussion. To offset the reduction in funding the student body would need to
grow to approximately 22,000 students. The state was not generating enough students to allow for that much of
an increase, which would leave the university to market to out of state students. Many institutions would be
marketing the California student. The commission was discussing what we could say about ourselves to market
to those students. For example we currently say that our faculty are accessible to students, but we have a ratio of
27:1. The commission was developing a starting point for conversation on who we want to be.

   7. Visit with ASUN President Huili Weinstock:
Huili Weinstock said that the goals for ASUN were:
August 30, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet                                                                       Page 4
          To improve 1st and 2nd yr initiative, including a space where freshmen would feel more welcome,
           and to establish a mentoring program, similar to the Big Brother/Big Sister Program.
        Campus accessibility, making the campus more available for longer hours but not waste resources.
           They were looking at the extending the hours of the Knowledge Center, Lombardi Recreation Center
           and the Joe. They were going to add two vans to the Campus Escort Program, and update the online
           program to include booking a ride and tracking where the vehicle was and how long it would take
           for your ride to arrive.
        To evolve campus culture, by doing less events, but bigger and better events. For example: in
           September they would be bringing Bill Nye, the Science Guy to campus, and looking at expanding
           Homecoming,
        To work on having a student sit on the Board of Regents. They were in the process of drafting a Bill
           Draft Request for the legislative session.
        To create a student ran zero balance eatery. Perhaps the concept of a coffee house, where the
           students purchase, cook and serve the food. This would create more jobs and teach them about
           running a business.
A senator asked what the senate could do to support them. Weinstock said that more collaboration and
communication between the ASUN and the senate.

    8. New Business:
A senator asked Ryfe why the President would be willing to follow the plan from the Commission. Ryfe said
that they were not presenting a plan, it was not an ultimatum. The Commission has been in consultation with the
President for months. If there are more questions for the Commission please contact either Zeh or Ryfe.

A question was raised regarding a consent item regarding changes to the Grade Appeal Policy. The RFA
presented from work of the 2008-09 Academic Standards Committee, including a department and college
committee, was not approved. The ASC met with administration and it was decided to have only one Grade
Appeal Committee. The 2009-10 ASC made the adjustments which were then approved and now being
implemented.

Meeting adjourned: 3:40.




August 30, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet                                                                   Page 5
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
August 30, 2012
Consent Agenda Item #2



                         2011-12 Research and Grants Committee Recommendations
The Research and Grants Committee reported to the Faculty Senate on April 19, 2012. The committee report
can be found at the following link:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/11-12/Agenda/RGC_Year-end_11-12_Rev.doc
The committee recommendations were divided into three groups and voted on as indicated in the meeting
minutes that can be found at the link below:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/11-12/Minutes/4-19-12minfin.doc
The Senate failed to vote upon four of the recommendations and is now being asked to consider them at this
time. The recommendations below are numbered, as they appeared in the committee report:
Recommendation 9. Lobby the State Legislature to create and Fund a statewide Research Innovation Fund.
UNR has not made an effective case to the State Legislature that research investments will lead to economic
development and diversification within the state. The top priority for most high-tech or biotech companies is a
highly trained workforce. The university should be doing everything in its power to develop and diversify the
UNR research enterprise. Doing so could also provide leveraging opportunities for fundraising by the UNR
Foundation. All leadership administrators and faculty members within UNR are urged to make serious and
concerted efforts to have strategic discussions about research priorities, plans, and needs. This fund would be
distinct from the recently created, but unfunded “Knowledge Fund” set up by the State Legislature in 2011.
Recommendation 11. The RGC recommends that the Regents policy that currently limits postdoctoral scholar
appointments to 5 years be increased to 7 years to reflect national trends in time of service in this type of
appointment, the current realities of the academic job market, and to recognize the potential research
contributions of postdoctoral researchers.
Recommendation 12. Advertise the VPR’s research notes list-serve (researchnotes@lists.unr.edu) to all faculty
members each semester and provide instructions on how faculty members can subscribe.
Recommendation 14. Due to recent increases in airfares and fuel prices, the RGC recommends that the VPR
increase faculty travel grants program provide $500 for domestic travel and $1000 for international travel.




August 30, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet                                                                   Page 6
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
August 30, 2012
Consent Agenda Item #3


                         2011-12 Academic Standards Committee Recommendation
The Academic Standards Committee reported to the Faculty Senate on April 19, 2012. The committee report
can be found at the following link:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/11-12/Agenda/ASC_Yrend_11-12.doc
The senate voted to pass one recommendation as found in the meeting minutes at the link below:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/meetings/11-12/Minutes/4-19-12minfin.doc
The Senate failed to vote upon one of the recommendations and is now being asked to consider it at this time.
The charge and recommendation below is written as it appeared in the committee report:
Charge Ib: We were charged with several tasks following the approval of the 120-credit degree limit by the
Board of Regents, including the following:
Review of other graduation requirements related to total credits (specifically 40 Upper Division and track RFA
for residency change from 32 to 30 upper division).

Response: With help from the UNR Registrar’s office, we’ve found a single instance in the general catalog
requiring updating, to reflect the new default that all baccalaureate degrees are earned in 120 credits. The
resident credit requirements for graduation appropriately stipulates completion of “30 upper-division credits in
residence.” See
http://www.cis.unr.edu/ecatalog/Default.aspx?article_list_id=25682
However, there is an authorized exception applicable to preprofessional students indicated on this page in need
of updating. It is given below
   1. Preprofessional students who complete at least 96 90 credits in residence at the university may transfer a
      maximum of 32 30 semester credits of satisfactory course work from an accredited professional school toward a
      bachelor's degree. In order to apply the transfer credits, such students must satisfy all department, college and
      university requirements for graduation.

The suggested changes are indicated. The changes are consistent with scaling the baccalaureate degree from 128
credits to 120 credits.




August 30, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet                                                                          Page 7
   UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
   August 30, 2012
   Consent Agenda Item #4



                               2012-13 Research and Grants Committee Charges

At the April 19, 2012 Faculty Senate meeting, the senate voted to approve the Research and Grants
Committee’s recommendations to charge the 2012-13 Campus Affairs Committee. The Executive Board
selected Peter Weisberg as the 2012-13 Research and Grants Committee Chair and in consultation with him,
proposes the following committee charges:


                                     Research and Grants Committee (RGC)
                                        Charges, 2012-13 Academic Year

Purpose: The Research and Grants Committee monitors university policies and offices that significantly affect the ability
of faculty to compete for external funding, conduct high-quality research, and publish research results. The committee
studies the best practices of our aspirant institutions, and makes recommendations to improve the university’s research
capacity.

Chair to meet with the Executive Board in March 2013. Report due for Presentation to Faculty Senate in April, 2013.

Standing Charges:

    1. Develop strategies to implement the recommendations adopted by the Faculty Senate over the past three years.
       Report on the implementation status of these recommendations, and assess whether any of the recommendations
       should be modified or dropped.
           1. Monitor the Request for Action from the 2011-12 RGC and report regarding administration’s responses.
                     i. Pertaining to UNR Office of Research:
                            1. Hire a dedicated Vice-President for Research (2013-2014 biennium)
                            2. Restore funding to Interdisciplinary Graduate Programs
                            3. Hire a dedicated Grants Coordinator or Facilitator (large grants)
                            4. Establish an Office of Research Development (liaison with UNR Foundation)
                            5. Explore and support new, collaborative research opportunities
                    ii. Pertaining to the UNR Foundation:
                            1. Establish a Research Innovation Fund (seed grants, endowed professorships)
                            2. Establish a Research Support Fund (start-up funds, stipends)
                            3. Establish a Graduate Student Alumni Association
                   iii. Pertaining to UNR Office of Integrated Marketing:
                            1. Increase the visibility of campus research activities in the media.
    2. Make recommendations on the future status, organization, structure, and charges of the RGC. Consider whether
       the committee is necessary and effective, and how it could be improved.
    3. Upon request by the Executive Board, review any proposals affecting RGC objectives, and report
       recommendations to the Executive Board within six weeks after receipt of any request for review.
    4. Upon request by the Executive Board, serve as a sounding board for the Executive Board for issues related to
       RGC charges and objectives.
    5. Appoint a liaison from the RGC to the Institutional Review Board Executive Committee and the Indirect Cost
       Recovery Committee (Ensure there is adequate faculty input regarding the procedures and formula for internal

August 30, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet                                                                            Page 8
      distribution of Facilities and Administration (F & A) and their use and allocation through the use of open forum,
      email, surveys, etc.) Report committee progress to the executive board and/or senate.
   6. Identify other campus committees with similar missions, and upon approval of the Executive Board, appoint
      liaisons as appropriate to facilitate communication between these committees and the Faculty Senate.
   7. Recommend strategies for improving communication between RGC, the Office of Human Research Protection
      (OHRP) and Institutional Review Board (IRB) panels, the Office of Sponsored Project Administration (OSPA),
      and other relevant campus committees.

Additional Charges:

   8. Monitor and report upon progress toward creation of a research foundation. If created or in consideration of its
      creation:
          1. Appoint a liaison to monitor the work of this entity.
          2. Present the estimated cost for a university research magazine, determining if the university should support
              this endeavor, and if so, how will the resources be found to sustain publication?

   9. Work with the Vice President of Research’s office (Gary Snowder) to:
         1. Develop a strategic plan for research on campus.
         2. Monitor progress toward/strategies for enhancing the research infrastructure of the university.




August 30, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet                                                                            Page 9
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
August 30, 2012
Consent Agenda Item #5

                                 2012-13 Campus Affairs Committee Charges

At the May 9, 2012 Faculty Senate meeting, the senate voted to approve the following charge for the 2012-13
Campus Affairs Committee:

Devise and implement a strategy for interviewing faculty who were either laid off, received NNR’s or were
relocated as a consequence of recent budget cuts and curricular review to determine the extent to which efforts
were made to locate alternative professional positions in the university.

The Executive Board is recommending and requesting Senate endorsement of their recommendation NOT to
charge the committee with this task for the following reasons:
   1. Lay-off and Notices of Non-Renewal are confidential personnel decisions. As a result, it would violate
       university policy to release names of affected faculty. Those interviewed would result from self
       reporting or being reported by someone who knew they were affected by budget cuts.
   2. The affected faculty from this process, with the exception of those in the College of Cooperative
       Extension, completed employment no later than June 30, 2012, making them inaccessible for interview
       in most cases.

The Executive Board selected Shanon Taylor as the 2012-13 Campus Affairs Committee Chair and in
consultation with her, proposes the following committee charges:

                                      Campus Affairs Committee (CAC)
                                       Charges, 2012-13 Academic Year


Purpose: The Campus Affairs Committee monitors, conducts studies, and makes recommendations on a wide
range of issues that affect the quality of campus life, such as work environment, campus safety, and food
service.

Report tentatively due to Executive Board in March 2013, for presentation to the Senate in April 2013.

Standing Charges:
 1. Review CAC charges over the prior three years, and recommendations adopted by the Faculty Senate.
    Report on the implementation status of these recommendations.
           a. Follow up on charge 5 from 2011-12 by reviewing:
                   i. Review the draft policies for online learning and liaison with the Vice President of
                      Extended Studies, determining whether the Online Portal Executive Committee was
                      formally charged by administration, the status of progress towards its goal of establishing
                      a comprehensive web portal for all online courses and programs offered at UNR and
                      planning for its ongoing operation.
                  ii.    Determine if the operational design committee was created as described and outlined in
                        administration’s         response        at         the         following         link:
                        http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/committees/CA/CA_RFA_1-25-

August 30, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet                                                                    Page 10
                      12(online_learning).pdf The committee would engage the essential long-range strategic
                      questions and issues concerning online education.
         b. Follow up on charge 6 from 2011-12 by working with student services to determine what data
            should be collected and who should collect this data regarding service learning and outside
            classroom activities.
         c. Provide a summary and assessment of the results of the analyses of survey data from the
            Curricular Review/Budget Cutting Campus Morale Survey in 2011-12. Recommend any actions
            that might be indicated by the findings. Report early Fall to the Faculty Senate.
 2. Make recommendations on the future status, organization, structure, and charges of the CAC. Consider
    whether the committee is necessary and effective, and how could it be improved.
 3. Upon request by the Executive Board:
         a. Review any proposals affecting CAC objectives, and report recommendations to the Executive
            Board within six weeks after receipt of any request for review.
         b. Serve as a sounding board for the Executive Board for issues related to CAC charges and
            objectives.
 4. Appoint a liaison from the CAC to each of the following committees: the Committee on the Status of
    Women; the Work and Family Task Force; the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Advocacy
    Committee; the Multiethnic Coalition; the Intercultural Collaborative; and the University Disabilities
    Resource Coalition. Facilitate communication, as appropriate, between these committees and the Faculty
    Senate, and inform the Senate as to whether these committees are duplicating efforts.

Additional Charges:

 5. Obtain administration’s policy for reassigning faculty who have been laid off or given a notice of non-
    renewal due to curricular review/budget cuts.




August 30, 2012 Consent Agenda Packet                                                              Page 11

								
To top