University of Nevada, Reno
2010-11 Faculty Senate
June 9, 2011
JCSU – Rita Laden Senate Chambers
Process for Consideration of Consent Agenda Items:
All items on the Consent Agenda are action items. A single vote for the consent agenda passes all
items listed on the agenda. Any senator may request an agenda item be pulled for discussion and
held for a separate vote.
Prior to a vote on the consent agenda, the Chair will open the floor for comment from senators
including requests to pull items.
Once all items to be pulled have been identified, the Chair will call for a vote on the remaining
Consent Agenda items.
Discussion and action on items pulled will be managed individually.
1. a. Request to Approve the May 12, 2011 (2010-11) Meeting Minutes Action/Enclosure
b. Request to Approve the May 12, 2011 (2011-12) Meeting Minutes Action/Enclosure
2. Request to Approve the University Administrative Manual Revisions: Action/Enclosure
vetted by the UAM Committee & the Executive Board
Please note that additions are underlined
Deletions are strikethroughs
a. 2,540 – Payment and/or Reimbursement of Moving Expenses Action/Enclosure
3,046 – Class Schedule and Instructional Space
June 9, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet Page 1
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
June 9, 2011
Consent Agenda Item #1
May 12, 2011 (2010-11) Meeting Minutes
1. Roll Call and Introductions:
Present: Gerald Ackerman (SOM), Pat Arnott (COS), Rafik Beekun (COB), Mike Bennett (A & F), Patricia
Ellison (CABNR), Isabelle Favre (CLA), Catherine Goring (SOM), Eric Herzik (Chair), Julie Hogan (DHS),
Yanyao Jiang (EN), Amy McFarland (SOM), Amy McFarland for Kami Larsen (SOM), Donica Mensing (JO),
Glenn Miller (CABNR), Vannessa Nicholas (Prov), Louis Niebur (CLA), Elliott Parker (Past Chair), Crystal
Parrish (DEV), Chuck Price (SS), Maggie Ressel (LIB), Alice Running (DHS), David Ryfe (Chair Elect), Janet
Sanderson (Pres), Janet Sanderson for Keith Hackett (Pres), Madeleine Sigman-Grant (EXT), Valerie Smith
(VPR), Valerie Weinstein (CLA), Leah Wilds (CLA), David Zeh (COS).
Absent: Stephen Lafer (COE), Elissa Palmer (SOM), Rich Schultz (COS).
Guests: Sharon Brush (CLA), Maureen Cronin (SS), Sue Donaldson (UNCE), Sheree Hummel (ASUN),
Claudene Wharton (Pres).
2. Budget Discussion:
Link to the Senate Resolution:
Chair Eric Herzik would like to discuss changes to the Faculty Senate June 2008 resolution regarding budget
cut principles. While the principles might not have changed, the parameters have. When this resolution was
created, the university was looking at around 10% in cuts, but now those cuts are much closer to 40%. The
senate, colleges, departments and faculty were now in a better position to look at cuts. They were more likely
to know what money they could really be able to do without. At this point Herzik would like to pass a newly
There was support of the resolution and there was a request to be more specific. The Curricular Review
Committee was able to save a couple of programs for a small cost. The principle of trying to preserve the
university and the diversity of the programs where possible was important.
There was no guarantee that if the money comes back a program will come back.
Division I Athletics was brought up, and if the donors wanted it shouldn’t they support it rather than lose more
We needed to think about the students, if we kept losing programs, we would be doing our students a
What about horizontal cuts? Shouldn’t faculty be polled to see if they would be willing to take horizontal cuts
and if so how much they would be willing to take? A voluntary horizontal salary reduction would probably not
work; many faculty who felt they were in a safe position would not be willing to lose their income to save
another’s job according to the Nevada Faculty Alliance Survey that was conducted.
Herzik felt that there should not be an either/or situation, but to look at several different strategies.
NSHE should be urged to close the smaller institutions, especially those that were not accredited and were
granting Bachelor’s Degrees.
The university needed to be diverse.
Vertical cuts would damage the university’s ability to be diverse and to recruit students.
How exactly would horizontal cuts damage the university? Would the damage actually be worse than vertical
It would become more difficult to guarantee students that if they followed the appropriate plan that they would
be able to graduate in 4 years.
June 9, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet Page 2
The first two years, most cuts were absorbed by the administrative units and there was no noticeable
difference to the public, however, when the cuts started hitting the academic side it was hoped that the
damage would be more noticeable to the public.
Position management swept about $5 million by closing open positions. It was felt that this would encourage
departments to tenure faculty who would not normally receive tenure.
Should there be faculty senate oversight during these budget times about departments doing new hires?
The School of Medicine took horizontal cuts all the time, based on patient load, and they have not lost faculty
because of this. The faculty were so committed to what they do, they were willing to stay and wait for things to
improve. Sometimes horizontal salary cuts were better in that respect. Faculty know that they have to do more
for less, this has been a given in SOM.
Horizontal cuts would need to be mandatory and was the senate ready to endorse such a statement?
Lobbyists for education have been working hard in Carson City.
Research and grant activity would begin to suffer and could potentially become a liability for faculty, which
would affect the research side of the university.
The university should be aggressive with the regents regarding unloading property to help save the university.
We should do more fundraising with our alumni and our donors to bring money in to support the programs at
We should be more specific with the different avenues that we want to look at regarding alternate ways to cut
There needed to be a conversation with the President to gather more information about horizontal cuts vs.
vertical cuts and how each one of them might make the university stronger. What is the evidence? We need to
see it. Having more information would engender more trust.
MOTION: Weinstein/ Wilds. To adopt the May 10, 2011 modification to the June 2008 Senate Resolution.
ACTION: Passed, 1 opposed.
3. Academic Standards Committee Final Report, Chair Maureen Cronin:
Link to the report: http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/committees/AS/ASC-final-report-10-11.pdf
Maureen Cronin thanked the committee members for their work. She summarized the report for the senate.
Academic Integrity was still being looked at; a website on transfer agreements has been completed.
MOTION: Wilds/ Zeh. To approve the report as published
ACTION: Passed unanimously
CATALOG LANGUAGE FOR APPEAL OF DISMISSAL
Students who are on Probation for three consecutive regular semesters and fail to raise their cumulative
University of Nevada GPA above the Academic Probation threshold will be dismissed from the University.
Students will receive an email notifying them to access updated information on their academic status at
MyNEVADA. Once dismissed, the student is not allowed UNR enrollment for a period of one calendar year.
Release from University Dismissal: An undergraduate student who has been dismissed may return to the
University only on the basis of evidence that underlying conditions have materially improved and that he or she
is now capable of academic success. Dismissed students seeking readmission must receive approval from the
dean of the college they wish to enter prior to readmission. Students returning from dismissal must raise their
cumulative GPA to at least 2.0 within two regular semesters, or they will again be dismissed.
Appeal of Dismissal: Ten business days after students are notified that they have been dismissed, their
registration for the next regular semester will be cancelled. Students will receive an email notifying them to
access updated information on their academic status at MyNEVADA. Students who could be in good standing
at the end of one additional semester may appeal to be reinstated by submitting the “Appeal Undergraduate
Dismissal” form available at the Office of Admissions and Records. Students must submit their appeal to the
Office of Admissions and Records within 10 business days of notification of dismissal to hold their registration
pending the outcome of their appeal. The appropriate college must return a decision on appeal by the last
business day prior to the beginning of the next regular term. Appeals will be processed only if it is
mathematically possible to reach good-standing at the end of one additional semester. Late registration fees
will be assessed according to the regular registration calendar.
June 9, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet Page 3
The policy used to be that when a student was on academic dismissal they could take courses at TMCC and
those classes would transfer in to raise the GPA, however, many students took classes that they did not need.
With the new policy when students were asked to leave the university for a year, they would need to make
arrangements with the dean of the college prior to returning to the university.
MOTION: Wilds/Niebur. To accept the dismissal process as published.
ACTION: Passed unanimously.
Recommendation 2: Leave of Absence Policy:
The University of Nevada, Reno strongly encourages degree seeking students to be continuously enrolled.
But if circumstances dictate a break in enrollment, the University’s leave of absence policy assists and
encourages students to return and graduate after an absence of up to two consecutive semesters from UNR.
(Summer sessions are excluded from the continuous enrollment requirement.) Students who participate in the
Leave of Absence program are not required to reapply for admission or pay a reapplication fee and will have
the opportunity to register/enroll with continuing students for the semester in which they intend to return to the
University. Degree-seeking students who leave the university without a degree or an approved leave of
absence must undergo formal readmission to UNR, to include submission of a new application, application fee
and any necessary transcripts.
Discussion: There was some discussion about scheduling the student to meet with the college prior to getting
the Leave of Absence; however, there was concern on administrative burden if the college was required to sign
off on the form. Admissions and Records would notify the colleges.
MOTION: Parker/ Ressel. To approve the recommendation published.
ACTION: Passed unanimously
The committee suggested that the residency requirement be reduced to 30 upper division credits instead of 32
upper division credits as many of the programs had reduced their credit requirements to 120. Parker said that
30 credits were close to the one-quarter mark, so it was probably not a big deal.
MOTION: Wilds/Niebur. To reduce the residency requirement for graduation from 32 upper division credits to
30 upper division credits.
ACTION: Passed, 4 abstentions.
The Executive Board recommends that the term “with distinction” no longer be used. Instead, each college
shall award the top 1% of its graduates the title of Summa Cum Laude, the top 5%-1% the title of Magna Cum
Laude, and the top 10%-5% the title of Cum Laude. The Executive Board agrees that these awards should be
decided at the college level, and not at the university level.
In addition to being eligible for the above distinction from their colleges, students in the honors program shall
have the additional distinction of, With Honors.
Consistent with the Board of Regents policy establishing a minimum of 120 credits for a Bachelor’s degree, we
also recommend changing the minimum number of graded credits to 90, and the number of grade credits in
residence to 60.
The executive board had endorsed the proposed policy brought forward by Elliott Parker. The new President
would like this new policy ready for the fall semester. The numbers could be lagged back one semester or
even one year, and then it would be recalculated for each class by doing it in advance. A reason for calculating
the percentage at the college level was that 25% of students graduating received distinction. The Honors
Department was against this as currently those students were the only ones to get Latin Distinctions.
MOTION: Parker/Wilds. To pass the executive board recommendation as written.
June 9, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet Page 4
ACTION: Passed, 1 opposed, 4 abstentions.
4. Division of Health Sciences, Sharon Brush:
Link to the Report: http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/committees/DHS/HS_Report_FINAL_rev(5-11).doc
Sharon Brush reported that Chair Ron Phaneuf was unable to attend the meeting and she would be presenting
in his stead. Brush summarized the report. The report had no formal recommendations. The report would be
shared with administration and they would be asked not to circumvent the process again.
MOTION: Wilds/Ressel. To accept the report as amended with the Dean of Health Sciences reporting to the
Provost, not the Dean of the School of Medicine.
ACTION: Passed unanimously.
5. Consent Agenda:
Link to the Consent Agenda:
Request to approve the May 4, 2011 meeting minutes
UAM Revision: 2,690 Faculty Providing Consulting Services
Amended Faculty Senate Curricular Review Report
MOTION: Sigman-Grant/Price. To approve the consent agenda as published.
ACTION: passed unanimously.
6. Election of the Executive Board Members:
If candidates for the chair-elect position and parliamentarian position were not elected, they could be moved
down to the at-large positions.
Chair-Elect: There were no nominations from the floor:
Parliamentarian: There were no nominations from the floor:
At large: nominated from the floor Glenn Miller and Rafik Beekun
Maggie Ressel and Chuck Price
7. Chair’s Report:
Congratulations to Valerie who has accepted a position at Tulane University in Louisiana.
The Legislature and the Governor have different budgets, but at this point there was nothing definitive except
the Four Point Plan (link to plan: http://system.nevada.edu/KlaichRemarks_22APR11.pdf) presented by
Chancellor Klaich. The Governor agreed to put in an extra $20 million based on new information from the
Economic Forum numbers. It was thought by Jim Richardson that there might be two special sessions. If that
happened, then there would not be a budget by July 1, 2011, which could cause an issue as there was no
provision under Nevada Law to start a fiscal year without a budget and there was no continuing provision. The
Governor has no legal authority to spend money without a budget.
The Budget Advisory Committee did not make formal alternative suggestions, they consulted with the
president and there was no divergence from the Curricular Review Committee or Senate recommendations.
President Johnson was scheduled to speak at the 2011-12 senate meeting this afternoon and would discuss
what was happening.
Herzik thanked the senate for their hard work and complemented them on the work that was done in the
senate this past year.
Wrap up of last year:
The charges to the standing senate committees were scaled back this year. There had been a back
log of Requests for Action with the administration which were being finalized.
o The Academic Standards Committee made multiple recommendations including the final
exam schedule which would be implemented this fall. The other recommendations that went
June 9, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet Page 5
forward were: Residency requirements, grade appeal process and the late registration
o The Campus Affairs Committee recommendation regarding how UNR compares to its peer
in non-traditional course offerings went forward to administration. The President and Provost
wanted to wait on this recommendation. The recommendation on spousal hiring was
approved by the President.
The guidelines for the creation, review and performance standards for specialized centers
would be reviewed at the executive board summer retreat.
Bylaws and Code Committee:
o All UNR Bylaws sent last month for faculty vote have passed.
The senate approved many UAM revisions, mostly which were housekeeping items.
Some code revisions would not be sent to the Chancellor until the budget crisis was past.
Professional Development leaves have been eliminated due to budget cuts, but the senate needs to
keep that on their radar.
Eric thanked the senate and said that they were very engaged this year, and while they did not always agree
with administration it was the senate’s job to sometimes disagree. It was not the senate’s job to rubber stamp
items for administration. He thanked the senate for all their help and said that it was important to remember
that the senate represented both academic and administrative faculty. He was honored to be chair of the
senate and was enabled by a very collegial and able executive board. He also thanked the senate office staff
and said that no chair would be able to do the job without them.
8. Certificate Presentation:
Certificates were presented to the two outgoing senators: Madeleine Sigman-Grant and Janet Sanderson and
they were thanked for their hard work.
9. New Business: None
Meeting Adjourned 3:40 pm
June 9, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet Page 6
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
June 9, 2011
Consent Agenda Item #1b
May 12, 2011 (2011-12) Meeting Minutes
1. Roll Call and Introductions:
Present: Gerald Ackerman (SOM), Pat Arnott )COS), Rafik Beekun (COBA), Mike Bennett (A & F), Todd
Borman (IT), Susan Donaldson (Cooperative Extension), Patricia Ellison (CABNR), Isabelle Favre (CLA), Eric
Herzik (Past Chair), Julie Hogan (DHS), Yanyao Jiang (EN), Amy McFarland (SOM), Amy McFarland for Kami
Larsen (SOM), Donica Mensing (JO), Glenn Miller (CABNR), Louis Niebur (CLA), Elissa Palmer (SOM), Elissa
Palmer for Catherine Goring (SOM), Crystal Parrish (DEV), Chuck Price (SS), Maggie Ressel (Lib), David Ryfe
(Chair), Valerie Smith (VPR), Valerie Weinstein (CLA), Claudene Wharton (Pres), Leah Wilds (CLA), David
Absent: Keith Hackett (Pres), Stephen Lafer (COE), Vannessa Nicholas (Prov), Rich Schultz (COS).
Guests: Interim President Marc Johnson.
Chair David Ryfe introduced himself. He apologized in advance for any social faux pas that he might make in
the coming year. As an academic he said that sometimes it was difficult for him to wear matching socks. He
said that the stakes at the university were unprecedented during this time and the university would change
A document on authority and role of the senate was distributed to all senators in attendance.
Ryfe gave an overview of the senate:
The chair was the official spokesman for the senate and UNR faculty at large. His job was to support senate
actions, advocate for shared governance, pay close attention to the Code and the Bylaws, serve on the
President’s Council and represent the faculty before the regents and with the Chancellor’s Office and to
oversee the Grievance Process.
The executive board’s job was to consult with and advise the chair and to set the agenda for the senate
The senate committees advise the senate on issues of concern, write yearly reports, and make
recommendations to the senate.
The senate’s responsibility was to attend senate meetings (or if not able to attend, to assign a proxy),
familiarize themselves with the Faculty Senate Bylaws, the UNR Bylaws and the NSHE Code, be prepared for
senate meetings, review the agenda and read reports and informational items, report on the business of the
senate to their constituents and ask for their input, send ideas for senate agenda topics to the executive board,
help fill vacancies if they retire or resign from the senate, and to speak up in senate meetings.
The agenda is set by the executive board and is usually sent to the senators at least five days in advance, it
may be modified in the meeting with unanimous consent and is not a precise timetable.
Once a quorum is established it remains regardless of the number of senators who leave the meeting. If
senators wish to speak during the meeting, they are requested to raise their hand until they are recognized; the
senate follows a relaxed version of Robert’s Rules of Order. Visitors may speak to the senate time permitting
and once all senators have had an opportunity to speak. A senator or executive board member makes a
motion, which is seconded, then discussed, then voted upon. Each senator has one vote and if a proxy for a
senator from the same unit, will have that vote as well. The chair votes only to break a tie, the Chair-elect, the
Past Chair, and the Senate Manager do not vote. The senate usually conducts voice votes unless it is a close
vote and then a show of hands will be done. Also there are some votes that are done by ballot, such as for the
executive board members. Most votes only required a simple majority to pass. The chair may invoke the two
minute rule to give everyone an opportunity to speak.
June 9, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet Page 7
The Parliamentarian: The chair may invoke the rules of debate when discussions are contentious. The visitor
sign in sheet was still being used, and visitors may speak, but it was not their right to speak.
Shared Governance was more and more in dispute across the nation. Shared governance dates back to the
1850s and seemed to be the issue that most senates have. What does shared governance mean? Faculty
often think this means decision making. The senate does not have the tools to make decisions. Governance is
a process, not an outcome. This suggests that we should share this with others on campus. Ryfe would like
the senate to worry more about conversation, deliberation and narratives. Shared governance was to hold
administrators accountable for their views, when we question the large narrative guiding their decisions and
when we offer alternative stories about the future of the university. The senate has not been able to question
administration about their narrative guiding the decision that administration was making. In what story of our
future does it make sense to cut Cooperative Extension, but not Engineering, Dance and Theatre but not
Journalism, the provost has given us strategies and criteria, but not a story that has given us a vision of where
we are going. We also need a story of why budget cutting is wrong. In short, focusing on decisions we risk
losing sight of the conversation. We need to know where we are heading as a university.
Hogan said that his remarks were inspiring, honest, and real. She has felt unprepared to make some of the
decision that the senate has had to make. She was also not sure of what to do with the information received at
the senate. She was also glad that Ryfe opened the door to envision the future.
Louis Niebur felt that the senate was a powerless body. Once a narrative was agreed upon, what power did the
senate have to act upon it?
Ryfe said that he felt that administration also needed help to clarify their vision. While they might not be open
to selling land, but more about are we going to make the university wholly vulnerable to the forces of the
market? Administration was under considerable conflicting pressure.
Rafik Beekun asked why the senate was involved in curricular review; it was felt that the senate had no impact
David Zeh said that he felt that the senate had a large impact on curricular review, especially with the
Curricular Review Committee.
Ryfe said that administration had been receptive to faculty. Administration had difficult decisions to make in a
Leah Wilds said that Shared Governance is sometime painful and that you want to have your best people
There was more discussion on priorities and visions for the university. There was ignorance of at least one-half
of the budget information.
3. Visit with President Marc Johnson:
President Marc Johnson reported that the entire Curricular Review Process had been followed and that he was
accepting most of the recommendation of the Senate:
Link to the President’s Reponse: http://www.unr.edu/curricular-review/presidents-response
Recommendation on UNCE:
University of Nevada Cooperative Extension would be downsized beginning in Fiscal Year 2012, although it
would continue to maintain cooperative agreements with each Nevada county. State allocated funding through
Cooperative Extension would be $2.2 million plus enough funds to cover operating expenses. Fifteen county
extension educators and the statewide 4-H program would be maintained. Cooperative Extension would have
sufficient state funds to meet required matching of federal funds. A number of specialist positions would be
maintained as augmented by county funds. This scenario is in agreement with the Faculty Senate
Recommendation on NBMG:
Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology would be downsized beginning Fiscal Year 2012, although it would
continue to provide services to meet statutory requirements and serve industry needs. Funding provided
through the University for the Bureau would be $1 million. The faculty would become part of the Department of
Geological Sciences and Engineering and the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology would remain identifiable
June 9, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet Page 8
with the director of the Bureau/State Geologist reporting directly to the dean of the College of Science in similar
fashion as the Nevada Seismological Laboratory.
Recommendation on Theatre and Dance:
Department of Theater and Dance would continue. While the bachelor of fine arts in theater would go on
hiatus, the existing theater and dance majors and minors would continue with reduced staffing. Johnson said
that FTE should not be used for reduction. The Redfield Theatre would be kept.
Recommendation 4 French:
French would continue, offering a major and minor with reduced faculty staffing. The master of foreign
languages and literatures in French would cease in Fiscal Year 2012. French would keep the two tenured
faculty and two or three RCUF or lecturers and they would not look at cutting French again.
Recommendation on Special Collections:
Special Collections would continue, through utilization of grant funds. A plan to sustain Special Collections for
the future must be developed.
Everyone in the Humanities understands the value of Special Collections.
When units or departments merge together, the faculty in those departments need to work together to have
one common set of bylaws. This would need to be overseen by the deans. Johnson felt that the curricular
review process filled the required senate review of the reorganization process. It was pointed out that the
senate was not actually looking at the nuts and bolts of the reorganization during curricular review and
Johnson said that the senate was welcome to take a look at those reorganizations.
Johnson was thanked for taking the senate proposals seriously. There was some discussion of the issues of
grants funding salaries in UNCE.
Additional Recommendation 1: Laid-off tenured faculty should have priority over untenured faculty for other
positions for which they are equally qualified, with some accommodation for the need to retool when changing
Johnson accepted this recommendation with emphasis on “equally qualified.” The accommodation of retool
was part of AAUP guidelines. The equally qualified was not just by credentials from 20 years ago, but also in
terms of competitive productivity and that sort of thing.
Additional Recommendation 2: In general, non-tenured faculty positions should not replace tenured or tenure-
track faculty positions as a way of achieving cost savings, unless an academic program is being significantly
downsized or reduced to a service capacity only.
Johnson reported that the Budget Advisory Committee developed and they did not want to turn the university
into a teaching institution.
Additional Recommendation 3: The possibility of voluntary separation packages should be offered to all faculty
in programs affected by curricular review, and proposals by specific individuals should be accepted if they are
Johnson said that this recommendation sets it up as policy and this would make it an expectation of every
program under curricular review. The concern was that our accreditation standards require that if we downsize
a program or close a program we have a responsibility to get those students graduated and this could affect
Any CR proposal alternative that has a voluntary separation agreement component, we would consider it at
Johnson said that there were two parts of the faculty senate, one was communications that would come to the
senate and then go to deans and administrators. The other part was the establishment of policy changes. The
senate recommends policy. The role of the senate was very important and many very intelligent people were
June 9, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet Page 9
hired to share in governance. Universities did not need dictatorial presidents doing anything they wanted.
Some policies came from the senate and some policies came from administration and were reviewed by the
senate. This enriched discussion in the governance of the university and that was an important role.
Johnson asked the Executive Board about characteristics about an Interim Provost and the overriding theme
beyond the characteristics was that morale was tough and communication needed to be enhanced. There
would be some type of a Town Hall after the budget and written communication. If we do not have to do
another round of CR then we need to create an atmosphere of security and build communications of a positive
Johnson thanked the senate for their participation in this process.
4. New Business:
Colleagues that have been terminated needed to be thanked for their service.
Please correct the meeting dates to reflect August 25, as the meeting date, not August 24, 2011.
Meeting Adjourned at 5:15 pm.
June 9, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet Page 10
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
June 9, 2011
Consent Agenda Item #2a
2,540 – Payment and/or Reimbursement of Moving Expenses
RATIONALE FOR CHANGE: The allowable amount for payment/reimbursement of moving expenses
paid from state funds was updated for FY12. Updated web links were added to connect users to correct
Payment and/or Reimbursement of Moving Expenses 2,540
Revised:November 2010 June 2011
If an employee is hired into a continuing position and moved from a location which is at least 50 miles from the new
location, institutional funds may be used to pay for or reimburse the employee for certain specified allowable moving
expenses (pursuant to the State Administrative Manual, sections 0238.0-0252.0)
1. Relocation travel for the employee and immediate family members: Travel expenses may be claimed for a one-
way, economy class (or equivalent) airplane ticket; or reimbursement for use of a private automobile for one-way
direct travel by the employee and/or spouse using the per diem, subsistence, and mileage allowances detailed in state
2. Moving of household goods: Expenses may be claimed for moving up to 18,000 pounds of household goods in
accordance with state moving regulations. Where office Office and professional materials are deemed essential to the
successful performance of the employee, these are not counted against the household goods limit.
The expenditure of institutional funds (state and non-state) must not exceed the costs, permitted by state travel and
moving regulations, incurred by the employee. The amount of state funds expended for a given employee cannot exceed
1/12 of the average university academic faculty salary (“B” contract base) as reported to the AAUP in the previous
academic year (the amount is updated every July 1;$7,551 for 2009-2010; $7,601 for 2010-2011; $7,592 for 2011-12).
If a unit wishes to pay or reimburse a newly hired employee for those expenses, it must forward a request to the respective
vice president through the appropriate administrative channels (i.e., chair, dean and/or director). A “Request for Moving
Expenses Reimbursement” form is available athttp://www.unr.edu/vpaf/controller/documents/request_moving_exp.pdf
http://www.unr.edu/vpaf/controller/forms/request_moving_exp.pdf . The request must identify the position by number
and title/rank. It must indicate the amount requested and the source of the funds to be used.
If approved, the authorized moving expense may be paid directly to a moving company on behalf of the employee using
the requisition/purchase order process (over $2,000) through the Purchasing Department or through use of a university
purchasing card ($2,000 or less). A “Request for Payment”http://www.unr.edu/forms/#payment
http://www.unr.edu/vpaf/controller/forms/payment.html (with original itemized receipts attached) may also be used to
directly reimburse the employee for the authorized moving expense. A copy of the approved “Request for Moving
Expenses Reimbursement” must be attached to the requisition, purchasing card “statement of account,” or to the “Request
Note: As the payment or reimbursement of these expenses may create a tax liability, the advice and assistance of a tax
attorney or other tax professional should be obtained by the employee.
June 9, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet Page 11
UNR Faculty Senate Meeting
June 9, 2011
Consent Agenda Item #2b
3,046 – Class Schedule and Instructional Space Assignment
RATIONALE FOR CHANGE: In an attempt to organize and clean up the University Administrative Manual
the committee has approved relocation of the attached section to a more appropriate location in the
manual. Revisions made reflect current procedure related to assigning instructional space.
Class Schedule and Instructional Space Assignment 3,046 5,404
Revised: 3/24/99 June 2011
Scheduling worksheets are distributed to all necessary departments on August 15 and again on January 15 for the spring and
fall schedules respectively. Department class schedules are built by department personnel. Upon receipt of the class
schedule information from the various departments, instructional space is assigned based on department requests and
classroom availability. Copies of the tentative class schedule assignments are sent to the department chairs and deans for
final review. The final approved class schedule is then prepared for printing and distribution electronic publication prior to
the next semester. Students may obtain a copy of the class schedule free of charge from Admissions and Records.
June 9, 2011 Consent Agenda Packet Page 12