Motions Passed April 24,
2002
C) Faculty Appointments:
Proposed policy
Original motion:
Proposed policy for a vote:
FACULTY APPOINTMENTS - Submitted by Peter Hoff and Robert Kennedy
(distributed at the full Senate meeting on 2/27/02, and previously
discussed by Elected Members Committee on 3/6/02 and 4/10/02)
Effective immediately, all
regular, tenure-track faculty appointments must be made in an
existing academic department. In the case of the College of
Education and Human Development where there are no departments,
appointments are made in the College. Further, the standard
procedures for formulating a peer committee, as addressed in
departmental promotion and tenure criteria and, if appropriate,
criteria for joint appointment, need to be followed for all faculty
appointments.
The Executive Vice
President/Provost will begin discussions immediately with the
appropriate deans to secure regular departmental affiliations for
all tenure-track faculty currently holding interdisciplinary
appointments.
This was moved by Howard
Patterson and seconded by Christa Schwintzer.
Amendment:
An amendment was offered by
Bill Farthing to add "new" between "all" and "regular", and to add
a line saying that the department must approve appointment by a
majority vote of the tenured and tenure-track faculty. This was
seconded by Bryan Pearce.
Discussion of amendment:
[Farthing:] Have already
discussed the problem existing in the psych dept. Could avoid this
in future by voting when admin might decide to hire someone, then
place them in a dept.
Vote on amendment:
23 in favor, 8 opposed, 4
abstained. Amendment passed.
Amendment:
Irving Kornfeld offered
another amendment: substitute "department or school" for
"department". Second by Andy Thomas.
Discussion of amendment:
[Dianne Hoff:] Asked about
whether voting in departmentless college would be for whole
college. John answered that the College of Education and Human
Development operates like a department.
[Owen Smith:] Point of
discussion: Given amendment language of first paragraph, the
second paragraph is inappropriate.
[John Maddaus:] They are two
separate issues.
Vote on amendment:
33 in favor, no opposed, 5
abstained. Amendment passed.
The Parliamentarian advised
that we need to amend again for the second paragraph.
Bill Farthing so moved, Mike
Howard seconded.
27 in favor, 7 opposed, 5
abstained. Amendment passed.
Amended motion:
Effective immediately, all new,
regular, tenure-track faculty appointments must be made in an
existing academic department or school. In the case of the College
of Education and Human Development where there are no departments,
appointments are made in the College. Further, the standard
procedures for formulating a peer committee, as addressed in
departmental promotion and tenure criteria and, if appropriate,
criteria for joint appointment, need to be followed for all faculty
appointments. The department or school must approve the appointment
by a majority vote of the tenured and tenure-track faculty.
The Executive Vice
President/Provost will begin discussions immediately with the
appropriate deans to secure regular departmental affiliations for
all tenure-track faculty currently holding interdisciplinary
appointments. The department or school must approve the appointment
by a majority vote of the tenured and tenure-track faculty.
VOTE ON MOTION
33 in favor, none opposed, 5
abstained. Motion passed.
D) Peer Committees for Joint
Appointments: Proposed Policy
Proposed Policy for a vote:
PEER COMMITTEES FOR JOINT APPOINTMENTS - Submitted by Peter Hoff and
Robert Kennedy (distributed at the full Senate meeting on 2/27/02,
and previously discussed by Elected Members Committee on 3/6/02 and
4/10/02; new sentence added in bold in the handout)
All tenure-track faculty with
joint appointments must have a home with an academic department. For
tenure and promotion of research faculty, joint peer committees
consisting of peers from the research unit and the home academic
department need to be appointed by the academic department chair in
consultation with the center director. No less than 50% of the joint
committee shall be from the academic department. The peer committee
makes its report to the department chair and the director of the
research unit. The director forwards his/her recommendation to the
Vice President for research. The department chair forwards his/her
recommendation to the dean. In turn, the Dean and the Vice President
for Research send their recommendations to the Executive Price
President/Provost. After review and discussion by the Administrative
Promotion and Tenure Review Committee, the EVP/Provost forwards
his/her recommendation to the President for action.
Motion was made by Bill
Farthing; Kathleen March seconded.
Amendment:
[Farthing:] In view of the
changes in previous policy, first sentence should be eliminated.
He proposed this as an amendment. Ed Ferguson seconded.
Discussion of amendment:
[Dana Humphrey:] If we
eliminate the first sentence, it would start off with "For tenure
and promotion of research faculty", which would make the policy
apply to all research faculty, and that was not the intent.
[Provost Kennedy:] There are
a couple of operative words in first sentence – if we lose words
"joint appointments", that loses what it applies to.
[Farthing:] Proposed that we
change the title, and modify the second line to read "tenure track
research faculty".
[Parliamentarian:] This has
to be a separate motion.
[Farthing:] Can the amendment
be withdrawn?
[Parliamentarian:] No, it has
already been seconded.
Vote on amendment:
2 in favor, 29 opposed, 7
abstained. Amendment fails.
Kim McKeage pointed out (in
the form of an amendment) that the third line should read "Vice
President" rather than "Price President". This does not require an
amendment, and John Maddaus assured the Senate that the typo will
be corrected.
[Ed Ferguson:] We still need
to address Dana’s point about research faculty – the first line
stands alone, so we still need an amendment to only apply to
tenure-track faculty.
Amendment:
[Mike Howard:] Can we include
a change to the title as an amendment? [Parliamentarian agreed.]
Howard so moved. There was a second by Don Hayes.
Discussion of amendment:
[Bill Farthing:] Is this
supposed to apply to everyone with joint appointments?
[Bob Rice:] When this was
drafted, it was the operational practice for research faculty, and
Dan Dwyer drafted it. It went through many drafts, but the word
"research" remained. He thinks it applies to all joint
appointments.
[Keith Hutchison:] So if
someone has a 25% appointment in one dept, 75% in another, they’d
have 50–50 representation in each department?
[Provost Kennedy:] It could
be.
[John Maddaus:] There are
references to "research" in the document, so there would have to
be some changes throughout.
It was pointed out that it
could be tabled.
Motion to table:
Bob Rice so moved, Kim
McKeage seconded.
Vote on tabling:
32 in favor, no opposed, one
abstained. Motion is tabled.
E) Motion: Solid Waste
Minimization Committee
Motion for a vote, TO
CREATE A SOLID WASTE MINIMIZATION COMMITTEE, submitted by the
Finance and Institutional Planning Committee
PREAMBLE
During recent years earlier
advances in waste minimization were lost. Currently the University
is recycling only 39% of mixed office paper and magazines (includes
newspaper), 54% of cardboard, and 2% of organic cafeteria waste.
Since July 1, 2001 the University has had a Sustainability Officer
whose responsibilities include waste minimization. However, this one
individual cannot do all the work required. At an earlier time the
University had an ad hoc committee on Waste Management. In May 1999,
the President Symanski sent a letter to President Hoff recommending
that the Waste Committee be made permanent although the Senate had
not passed a formal motion to that effect. In a letter dated 30
January 2000, President Hoff replied "Solid Waste Committee.
Although there was not a formal motion on this, we concur with the
sense of the Senate that the Solid Waste Committee should stand as
an official committee." At present this committee does not exist.
MOTION
A Committee of the
Administration known as the Solid Waste Minimization Committee
should be established as soon as possible, but no later than
September 2002, to work with the Sustainability Officer in finding
ways to minimize production of solid waste and to maximize recycling
of solid waste in a cost effective manner. Such solid waste includes
but is not limited to paper, glass, metals, organic cafeteria waste,
and other solid waste identified by the Sustainability Officer. The
committee membership should include faculty and staff with expertise
in relevant areas such as composting. The committee should have six
members, one of whom is a member of the Faculty Senate. It should be
appointed by the President in consultation with the Sustainability
Officer and the President of the Faculty Senate.
Motion was introduced by
Christa Schwintzer. Scott Wilkerson, the Campus Sustainability
Officer, was introduced. Christa noted that there was such a
committee on an ad hoc basis at one point, and Wilkerson would like
the advice of a more permanent committee. The intent is that solid
waste is only one responsibility of the Sustainability Officer, but
it makes sense for this area to have a committee, even though
President Hoff is suggesting broader committee in addition.
Motion was seconded by Roger
King.
Discussion:
[Gregory White:] He questioned
restricting this to solid waste management and asked if it is
feasible for this committee to look at energy, etc., as well? He
does not see a compelling reason to limit the scope.
[Schwintzer:] The logic is that
the President is planning to appoint a larger committee (announced
yesterday). The idea of this is that this committee would advise on
this particular subset of problems.
[White:] Given that this was
announced yesterday, is this the best idea?
[Schwintzer:] The Committee did
discuss this, and decided to proceed.
[Wilkerson:] He said he could
absolutely use the assistance and guidance. He does not know what
the makeup of the new committee [that the President announced] will
be like. He envisions it will look at energy, green building issues,
etc. He sees smaller groups feeding information to the larger group.
He does not see them as being competing or overlapping, but more as
feeding each other.
Vote:
26 in favor, one opposed,
two abstained. Motion passes.
