Academic Senate SummarySPECIAL SESSION #2

Monday, March 17, 20083:15 – 5:00 p.m.

EDC 117

Present: Allen, Allenby, Allison, Alpers, Blanchard, Blasko, Broman, Burg, Bush, Coffman, Comfort, Doty, Drucker, Elliott, Ellis, Fabricius, Facinelli, Gitelson (at West), Gonzalez-Santin, Harp, Karcher, Keim, Kingston, Kinnier, Komnenich, Konomos, Koshinsky, Kozleski, Lara-Valencia, Liu, Magana, Margolis, Maris, Mathur, McPhee, Moorhead, Mossman, Pardo, Pinholster, Rez, Roedel, Roen, Romero, Rose, Rush, Schultz, Searle, Shaeffer, Shah, Sousa, Strom, Stump, Thompson, Tompkins, Trotta, VanderMeer, Vaughan (at Poly),Verdini, Watson, Wheeler, Wutich

Substitutes: Kevin Ellsworth for deLusé

Absent: Anderson, Barclay, Bodman, Brewis, Campbell, Carter, Cobas, Colbourn, Cruz-Torres, DiFelice (with prior notice), Fromme (with prior notice), Gopalan, Grace (with prior notice), Guerin, Glaswegian, Hajicek (with prior notice), Happel, Henn, Hays, Hoffmeister, Ingalls, Jackson (with prior notice), Kopta (with prior notice), Kostunica, McNeill, Minteer, Morton, Ovando, Ossipov (with prior notice), Restrepo, Schneller, Sloane, Stewart, Sullivan, Teye, Thomas, Tsakalis, Vernon, Wiezel, Williams, Ye

1. CALL TO ORDER

A. Senate President's Report (Bill Verdini)

First, there was a note that I received today as a reminder from Human Resources that beginning on April 11, all benefits-eligible faculty members paid on an academic pay schedule, 9 months, will have some additional deductions in their pay checks during April and May. That is to make up for the payments on benefits over the summer. Be aware that this will come to you from your dean, chair, and then to you directly with details very soon if you have not already received this news. If you have questions you can talk with Matt McElrath directly and there will be administrative training done in all of the departments for this.

Second, this announcement pertains to Tempe/Downtown Senate in particular but it will be interesting to all faculty and academic personnel—at our May 3 special meeting we discussed motions, related to ASU 101. We passed the first motion to have ASU 101 as a course. We suspended business at that meeting due to a quorum call and did not get to talk about ASU 101 as a requirement. In the interim since then, the Provost has delegated requirements regarding ASU 101 to the deans of schools and colleges. So, it is not an issue for the Provost’s Office anymore to make ASU 101 a requirement. I brought this to CAPC, and they have not had a meeting since that but I will turn the floor over to Duane Roen and he can report on what CAPC would like to do.

Senator Roen: After this was announced to CAPC by Bill Verdini, the committee had a brief online discussion and a vote was taken. All but one person who voted wanted to

1

remove the request from the agenda. CAPC would like to at this point remove the request to make ASU 101 a requirement from the Senate agenda.

Senate President Verdini: Since that came from a committee it did not need a second, so, it is removed from our table. CAPC could decide to push that university requirement forward as a CAPC motion if they wanted to but they have decided not to.

Today you are all here because we want to devote this meeting to discuss the proposed revisions to the Constitution and Bylaws. I want to thank George Watson for the site and all the comments that people had about this site. It has gotten to where it is working for us, the web site and posting all the materials. I am also hopeful that this web site will be the prototype of what a university-wide Senate website will look like in the future, should all of this pass today, and I am hopeful that it will. I will now turn the floor over to George Watson who will lead us through the proposal, the amendments that we received and I will also ask Phil VanderMeer as our parliamentarian share the floor because you will need to hear from those two more than you will hear from me and I will join you all with microphones so you can give input as we discuss things.

There is one parliamentary issue that I want to remind you all of—it is the way that we are conducting our business. Our constitution and bylaws right now says we cannot pose an amendment to the bylaws and vote on that at the same meeting. That is why we required the seven amendments to be on the table so we can vote on those today. If you want to amend those amendments, that is fine because we are working on the amendment, but if you have a NEW amendment to the bylaws you wish to pose, we will take that amendment but it will go as a first reading today, and have to be voted on at another meeting.

George Watson (hereafter GW): Do I have the floor for Polytechnic and West as well? [Yes.]We have a proposal before all campuses today which was put forward by the University Academic Council. We have accepted amendments [of our prior notice to submit amendments by March 7.] We have an omnibus amendment that contains mainly perfecting amendments—there are six items in the omnibus amendment that we will consider as a single amendment, unless someone asks that an item be taken out from that for further discussion and then we have seven other separate amendments to consider. Those will be dealt with and discussed then we will finally consider the basic proposal as amended. We will vote on each item as we move along. We will vote on the omnibus amendment and then each amendment in turn followed by the entire document as amended..

2. OMNIBUS AMENDMENTThere are six elements to the omnibus amendment. We originally used the word “tenure track” and we were made aware that the new term is “tenure-

eligible” We inadvertently omitted the term “principal lecturers” in amendment 2 in this omnibus amendment as

members of the Academic Assembly. They are now inserted. We deleted the old title Dean of the ASU Libraries, but we forgot to insert the new name, University

Librarian in the language of one of the bylaws. We inserted the new title. Each bylaw is currently called “Bylaw of the Constitution,” but they are not bylaws of the constitution,

they are bylaws of the Senate. So we are changing that language to “Bylaws of the University Senate.”

2

The word “may” should be deleted because it sounds like may is asking for permission to participate in shared governance. Taking the word may out says that we do in fact participate.

Because we are now becoming a university senate when we deal with matters of policy that pertain to two or more colleges or schools, we should also entertain things that pertain to two or more campus locations as part of the University Senate business.

The floor is now open for discussion on any of these items.

West Senate: Richard Gitelson (hereafter RG) does this have to be in the form of a motion? GW: No because the question is are we going to vote on the omnibus amendment, and that question is open to discussion.

President Bill Verdini (hereafter BV): This is similar to a friendly amendment. Amendments were made and there were some language changes suggested that don’t materially alter the amendment.

GW: Are we ready for the question? Mr. and Madam Presidents, there is a motion on the floor—the motion is to adopt the omnibus amendment. The question has been called. I turn the floor back to you to take vote on this at your locations. Then we will come back and talk about the results.

BV: All in favor of the amendment language that was revised? Signify by saying aye, any opposed by the same sign. Abstentions? (None).

West: We approved.Polytechnic: We had all in favor, no nays, no abstentions.Tempe/Downtown: We had all in favor, none opposed, and one abstention.

The Omnibus Amendment was passed.

3. SEPARATE AMENDMENTS

AMENDMENT #1 GW: This amendment adds to the Constitution, Article II.D.7 and D.8 (changes them to D.8. and D.9 and inserts the following language as a new Article II.D.7). This relates to the authority dealing with the University Academic Council. It is in the meetings section. It says that unless otherwise directed by the University Senate, actions of the Senates shall be forwarded to the UAC for execution. For actions requiring approval by the University President or other administrative officer, the counsel shall create a transmittal form that specifies the action passed by the Senate along with the vote result, and a request to the university president or other administrative officer to report back to the council with his or her response to any action requested by the Senate. At its discretion or at the request of ¼ of the senators present and voting, or at the request of a majority of senators from any one campus present and voting, the Academic Council shall draft a letter to accompany the transmittal form that states the various arguments put forward by those in favor and those who spoke in opposition to the Senate action, so that the views and wisdom of the Senates can be fully explicated.

That is the amendment, is there discussion?

Tempe/Downtown Senate: I am wondering whether or not the minutes of the meeting will convey exactly that same information and this would put the University Academic Council in the position of summarizing the pros and cons—I thought that is why we were taking minutes of meetings and it seems to me that the meeting minutes would stand on their own without someone else summarizing them. We also have a number of representatives of the administration typically present at our meetings and they have the first hand opportunity to hear the vote and discussion. Why then should the UAC would be put in the position of doing what I think is already being done.

3

West President Richard Gitelson (hereafter RG) – We feel very strongly at the West Campus in favor of this. We realize that there will be minutes for the Assembly but we really would like to have the opportunity and our senators want to have an opportunity to have our views expressed, or any campus’s views expressed rather than just being in the minutes. We think it will help from our standpoint.

GW: I would speak on behalf of the committee that introduced this and I am the one who introduced this particular amendment as well. When I was president of the Tempe Senate, I routinely did this, I didn’t ask for ¼ of the senators present and voting, but if there was anything that I would consider significant opposition, then I would include in my transmittal letter to the president the pros and cons that were expressed. The minutes were inadequate for that. The discussion is here and there so, I felt it made more sense to put these into a coherent argument in both pro and con. This amendment reflects what I did as a matter of custom.

Are there other questions?BV: As a clarification this is not in the meeting section. It is in the section “authority and functions of the Senate.”

Polytechnic Senate: We are having some technical difficulty here with 3, could you summarize what the point of this amendment is?

GW: The intent is that there can be an equivalent of a minority report whenever ¼ of the Senate present and voting requests such a thing or whenever a majority of senators on any one campus ask for such a thing. And that is to write a transmittal letter to whomever what we have passed goes to, typically the president, and it would report on the points of view of the majority and what were points of view of the minority and make note of the particular vote that occurred.

BV: The procedure here is that at the end of each academic year, we prepare a report of all the motions that came forward and were passed and give that report to the president’s office. We have recently had a request to not delay that report to the end of the semester but as we pass motions to send them to the president as letters of transmittal for his consideration. I think that is a good idea and in light of the university senate, is the fact that if something did not pass unanimously or it had a few different points of view, transmitting that information as well as just the motion that carried is very valuable.

GW: Are there other comments?

Tempe/Downtown Senate: In general I support this amendment but I am wondering about the procedure to be followed in deciding whether there is a majority of senators from each campus, or ¼ of all the senators in favor of such a minority report. Will there be a lot of time spent on finding out exactly how many senators are present and voting from each campus, etc. Is there a streamlined way to do that?

GW: if we can afford it there is a streamlined way to do it which would be to buy the electronics necessary in order to have us do that and I hope that happens otherwise there is not doubt that if we do not do this there will be a little bit more time taken on votes than normal. Although I don’t anticipate this will happen frequently.

Are there other questions? Hearing none, Mr. and Madam Presidents, we have a question on the floor it is amendment #1 and we are ready for a vote.

BV: Again this is an amendment related to section D of Article II. Linda Vaughan read it aloud. All in favor of Amendment #1 please signify by say aye?. All opposed by the same sign. Abstentions (1). The amendment passed by a voice vote of those present.

4

West: It passed unanimously.Polytechnic: It passed unanimously.Tempe/Downtown: We had one nay and one abstention.

Amendment #1 passed.

AMENDMENT #2 To strike the proposed changes in the original proposal—in Bylaw II B.10.A and replace it with the following amendment 2: It is lengthy to read out loud but it is displayed here at the Tempe/Downtown Senate—is it displayed at West and at Polytechnic? Copies were available at West. Poly said to go ahead.

This amendment was introduced by Phil VanderMeer and he spoke to the amendment.

Parliamentarian/President-elect Phil VanderMeer (hereafter PV): As background on this amendment: We had gone through the regular process of evaluating and trying to update the specific committees but there was a request of CAPC however asking us to meet with them to talk about some of the specifics because of certain changes. As a result of that meeting we drafted language that CAPC and I had agreed to. It is about specific matters concerning course proposals so we decided to add language for establishment and disestablishment of academic units, such as college and schools, and divisions, specifying academic programs including degree certificates, minors, and concentrations. We wanted to be more specific about the range of different curricular activities. We added under D Graduation requirements, the next question that some were concerned about had to do with the campus subcommittee itself of CAPC. The university is establishing a curriculum across the entire university and it involves at least in some cases that we take courses that may be offered by four different units and making evaluate them to assure they are actually the same course--whether they get general studies requirement approval, or other steps, whether or not they fit as part of a major, etc. Right now that process is part of CAPC, and our concern was to bring this part of the curricular change as part of CAPC’s evaluation process. As things are presently organized the campus subcommittee (TCCS) makes decisions about courses then CAPC makes decisions about programs. My assumption was that we could just go ahead with this campus subcommittee and continue that expanded. The problem with doing that is that some of these courses are university-wide and they have to go to CAPC. The committee has the power to then create subcommittees and to delegate its authority as it sees fit. I have intended to ask the UAC to create a task force in the fall that will work specifically with CAPC but also more generally to address the questions of curricular responsibility, lines of authority for teachers, etc. and make a statement about what we have been saying over the last six months. That was the purpose for the amendment.

GW: The floor is open for questions.

Tempe/Downtown Senate: I have concerns about amendment 2, some of the additions that were made. I have a concern about a couple of deletions that were made with respect to there would not be TCCS committee any longer. I am proposing an amendment that would be inserted as a new section 2.B of this amendment:

“CAPC is authorized to decide course curriculum matters presented to it by curriculum committees of colleges and other instructional units. Decisions by CAPC do not require ratification by the senate. Any requirement on students must be approved by the senate.”

I did this because in removing the language about TCCS it is fine that CAPC can make subcommittees and transmit the authority it has to them, but it does not have at this point [without further amendment] actually have the authority to make decisions on courses which would mean that any course proposal that comes to CAPC would have to come to the Senate for consideration. It could be done quickly but it would still have

5

to come through the Senate. The purpose of this is to give some authority to CAPC to delegate to its subcommittees and they could make course decisions without the Senate being involved.

The language that I propose is also the language that is currently associated with the role of CAPC and TCCS—it is just transferring it to the new CAPC as a University Senate committee. The part that says any requirements are supposed to be approved by the Senate is simply a caution that CAPC would not assume it could do all kinds of other things—CAPC cannot do all things and this is just a reminder of that.

GW: Is there a second to the amendment? This amendment was moved and seconded. The question that we are now dealing with is the amendment to the amendment. Phil VanderMeer made this amendment so he has the first opportunity to speak in rebuttal if he wishes.

PV: The question is not one of substance but rather one of form. Since purpose 2.A.1 says that CAPC reviews course proposals, and since 2.B.7 says that Graduate Studies reviews graduation requirements, I am also concerned with a decision by CAPC not requiring ratification by the Senate--some of them do, and some don’t. Is this where we want to work out that language? My sense was that the bylaws are not the best place to have a broad policy statement explaining what it is that we should do.

GW: Are there questions further questions?

Tempe/Downtown Senate: Who appoints the members of CAPC?

PV: Right now there are appointed by the deans and what this amendment proposes is that the colleges will elect their representatives.

Tempe/Downtown Senate: If proposals are coming from the colleges and the members are appointed by the colleges, then why is this needed at all?

PV: Here is one example, a proposal comes from the Philosophy Department, it goes to the curriculum committee of CLAS and then it goes to either the campus subcommittee or ultimately to CAPC. The reason for a university-wide curriculum committee is that if the Philosophy Department wants to talk about science or whatever, that connects to other departments, or colleges so this is in an appropriate place.

Tempe/Downtown Senate: Is there a mechanism for resolving conflicts between colleges or is it a quality control mechanism?

PV: I think it does both.

Tempe/Downtown Senate: I have problem if it is a quality control mechanism--because the best people to evaluate it are the students and they would be knowledgeable about courses related to their colleges. I would feel better if this committee or a part of it were appointed by the Senate.

GW: Ok. The question we are dealing with right now is Joe Comfort’s amendment, 2.D.

Tempe/Downtown Senate: In light of what PV just said and because that I am concerned that saying any requirement on students must be approved by the Senate—because as one example, departments can create requirements for their particular curriculum. I am wondering if Joe would accept a friendly amendment to insert the word “university-wide requirement” in the last sentence, and insert and replace the word “do not” require with the word “may” require ratification by the Senate?

BV: Is that a friendly amendment?

6

Tempe/Downtown Senate: What requirements can departments make that would not go through CAPC in programs of study? That would come to the Senate from CAPC under the current procedures.

Tempe/Downtown Senate: To get a degree in place they go through CAPC, but once a degree is in place the departments can make changes within that degree without taking it to CAPC or the Senate.

Tempe/Downtown Senate: I believe then that this adjustment is a good one. I did not understand the item in the previous sentence.

Tempe/Downtown Senate: There are still some decisions made by CAPC that do require ratification by the Senate so, just the one sentence—saying decisions by CAPC do not require such ratification may be going too far. And if you make that looser that removes the concern I think.

Tempe/Downtown Senate: I understand your point. I thought the second sentence was ok.

GW: The first adjustment is “any university wide requirement.” But the other part of the friendly amendment was not acceptable. The first part is added now for consideration.

Are there further comments? Are we ready for the question at West on the amendment to the amendment 2? [No].

The question is the amendment to the amendment 2: “CAPC is authorized to decide course curriculum matters presented to it by curriculum committees of colleges and other instructional units. Decisions by CAPC do not require ratification by the senate. Any university-wide requirement on students must be approved by the senate.”

Mr. and Madam Presidents, that is the question and it is ready for a vote.

BV: Any further questions—all in favor of the amendment to amendment 2, listed here as 2.b signify by saying aye. Any opposed (some were opposed). We will take a count of hands.

West: We did not count votes. It was approved unanimously.Polytechnic: We did not pass the amendment. It failed with 1 in favor and 2 abstentions.Tempe/Downtown: We had 33 in favor, 15 against and 4 abstentions, so it carried.

GW: Shall we move to reconsider? One of the abstentions can call for a reconsideration at Poly or Tempe/DT. Let’s move forward even with two amendments on the floor. Our discussion can continue on both, or any aspect of that amendment. Amendment 2 now reads differently at Polytechnic than it does at the West campus and the Tempe/DT campus. Is there further discussion on amendment 2, including the insertion of the new amendment?

West Senate: One of the things is, that we are now in that position where we have an item passed by two of the campuses but not by the third. Could we hear some of the arguments from the Polytechnic campus as to why they voted against this? It may either sway us in our thinking or someone may be able to change their vote?

GW: Any such discussion is in order on amendment 2. Does Poly wish to discuss this?

Polytechnic Senate President Linda Vaughan (hereafter LV): Our sense was that it was unnecessary that it did not add to the original language.

7

GW: Is there other discussion? I will turn over the floor to Phil VanderMeer so that I can speak to amendment 2.

Amendment 2 as originally proposed has been totally rewritten by the amendment 2 we are looking at right now. I do see the changes in amendment 2 that are now making 2.d unnecessary. So, I agree with the people at Polytechnic. We added course proposals, we added graduation requirements, I do not like the sentence that says that the Senate does not have any authority here in matters of CAPC decisions. It reads that CAPC decisions do not require ratification by the Senate. I think that is a terrible mistake to make and I think you should leave that the way it was. If I had my way we would not have 2.d but would have the rest of 2. I yield my time now and am willing to take the floor back again.

RG: West is ready to vote. We are asking for a reconsideration of 2.d at this time. Does that reconsideration require approval of the majority. [Yes it does.]

GW: Mr. and Madam presidents, there is a motion on the West campus, you must each handle your own, is there one on the Tempe campus? It was moved and seconded to reconsider at Tempe/Downtown Senate. It has to come from someone who voted in favor—Senator Sousa had abstained and moved this reconsideration. Seconded by Senator Elliot. At West and Tempe/DT there are motions on the floor to reconsider the amendment 2.d.

I turn it over to you, Mr. and Madam presidents for that reconsideration vote.

BV: There is a motion to reconsider on the floor.

Tempe/Downtown Senate: If this amendment is thought to be unneeded, the question is does it do any harm that we are concerned about? In my opinion it adds something and makes it more productive. Regarding the second sentence, we have discussed this.

BV: Is this to change due to “may?”—[No, this is to delete the whole second sentence.] To delete the whole second sentence then.

GW: We should stick to the motion, the question was called.

PV: The question is on reconsidering.

BV: Yes. Has someone moved the previous question or just called the question? Seeing none, we are going to vote on item 2.D a second time.

GW: I am sorry but you are voting on reconsidering only.

BV: We are voting on reconsidering item 2.D. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed by the same sign. Abstentions. None. So, we will reconsider 2.D.

Senator Comfort has proposed an amendment to delete the second sentence in that item. Is there a second to that amendment?

Polytechnic Senate: I object to the consideration--the question on the floor is the amendment as written, it is not subject to further amendment. West Senate: We concur with that.

8

BV: So, we will call for a vote on 2.D as currently written. All in favor of keeping 2.D in here signify by saying aye. All opposed to keeping 2.D (leave it out) signify by saying aye. Abstentions (3). So, we now have removed item 2.D.

West: We have decided to delete 2.D with one abstention.Tempe/Downtown has deleted 2.D as well.

GW: We will move back to the way it was originally proposed. Are there other questions or comments on amendment 2? Seeing there are none, Mr. and Madam Presidents, the question on the floor is amendment 2, we are ready for a vote?

BV: All in favor of amendment 2 as written, signify by saying aye. All opposed signify by the same sign. Abstentions (3).

West: We approved it with one abstention. Polytechnic: The motion passed with no abstentions and no opposition.Tempe/Downtown: We approved it as well.

Amendment #2 was approved.

GW: Let’s move to amendment 3 now.

AMENDMENT 3Amendment 3 involves grievance committees and Bylaws II.B.2.b.2 and I.B.2.d.2. The amendment replaces where “the committee shall elect a chair from its membership and shall establish written procedural guidelines.” It was replaced in the original proposal referring to grievance committee hearing process and procedures and this request was filed by the ASU Office of General Counsel—that was deemed as inadequate as well. It now reads “the committee shall follow the policies and procedures for grievances established in ABOR policy 6-201 and ASU policy ACD 509-02. The understanding is that as ACD numbers change this would change with it as we do updates to the manual. We are open to question on this amendment.

Hearing none, are we ready for the question? Mr. and Madam Presidents, there is a question on the floor regarding amendment 3 and it is ready for a vote.

BV: We are voting now on amendment 3 regarding the grievance committee structure. All in favor of approving this amendment signify by saying aye. Any opposed by the same sign. Abstentions? (2). It was approved by vote of those present at Tempe/DT.

West: We passed it with one abstention.Polytechnic: We approved it unanimously, after deep discussion…..Tempe/Downtown: We passed it with 2 abstentions

Amendment #3 was approved

GW: We have amendment 4, introduced by Senator Joe Comfort.

AMENDMENT 4Amendment 4 is about moving [in the original proposal] the vice president and dean at each campus now listed as non-voting ex-officio into being voting members of the ex-officio members.

9

Tempe/Downtown Senate: Currently many administrators have voting status—I think the Senate can represent shared governance between the faculty and the administration and we do in fact have to work together but the Senate will be on each campus and representing the administrative buy-in of that campus as well, and I think it is entirely appropriate that they be voting members of the University Senate.

GW: Are there any questions?

Tempe/Downtown Senate: Does this mean 4 vice presidents and deans of the university? [Yes, that does mean four, there is one at each campus. The nomenclature is getting a little difficult here because one title is used that are currently exist as separate titles and then “university” to that.]

West Senate: RG: I don’t believe that there is a whole lot of support for this at our campus.

Vice Provost Searle: My only observation is that if we are interested in having the academic administration represented as a vote I find it odd that the four people that report to the provost will have a vote but the provost would not. They do not have any authority over the other deans on their campuses other than a coordinating role. I do not object but I think it odd.Tempe/Downtown Senate: I would actually agree with you on that as a friendly amendment, but the reason I left them out is because the President and Provost, one or the other, usually has the final say on actions taken at the Senate. I have a lot of sympathy with what you are saying but this was my reasoning.

Tempe/Downtown Senate: I don’t support this. I was here two weeks ago when I saw the quorum dwindle away and now we are adding four more people that will not be here to vote. I don’t’ see it.

Tempe/Downtown Senate: Point of order: Has there been a second to this amendment? If not, it dies for lack of a second. [No it has been seconded yet.]

West Senate: RG: No further comments—We just don’t understand the rationale.

Tempe/Downtown Senate: I would stand against this amendment because I believe the senate voting members should be elected by the Academic Assembly and I believe that we already have sufficient and significant lines of collaboration and cooperation with the individuals that would be impacted by this. So, I stand against this amendment.

Tempe/Downtown Senate: I would also stand against the amendment, but I would be interested if there is any precedent for this and I am willing to hear other views. The reason why I ask is that it appears to me this blurs the line between management and labor. I don’t know of any situation in which the management can vote on the labor side. I think there needs to be further justification for establishing this precedent.

Tempe/Downtown Senate: Removing the president of the USG and the president of GPSA from the voting membership and putting them into nonvoting needs to be discussed.

GW: This is an important question but it is not on point, for amendment 4. If you would come back to that when we discuss that amendment in general--but we are talking specifically about amendment 4 which deals only with vice president and dean at each campus and adding them. The deletion is in the original language. When we discuss the original proposal try to remember to come back and raise that issue.

Tempe/Downtown Senate: My impression is that many administrators have tenure homes in departments and I wonder if that true of all of them. Is so, are they represented by these senators from their departments? If so, then could there be an alternate change proposed?

10

GW: I do not have a definitive answer, but Mark Searle might. It is my perception that they do have academic homes but maybe that can be clarified.

Vice Provost Searle: I think all of them do with two or three exceptions. The majority do on the academic affairs side of the administration.

GW: Are there any other questions or can we move to the question now. Hearing no objections, let us move to vote on amendment 4. The question has been called. There is no objection and we will vote to add the vice presidents and dean of each campus as an ex-officio voting member.

BV: Any questions of clarification before we vote? All in favor of amendment 4 signify by saying aye. All opposed by the same sign. Amendment 4 was defeated by a voice vote of those present with 2 abstentions.

West: We did not approve this amendmentPolytechnic: The amendment was defeated.Tempe/Downtown: We also defeated it.

Amendment #4 was defeated.

GW: We will now consider amendment 5.

AMENDMENT 5Amendment 5 comes from the UAC and adds the “vice presidents of the university” as ex-officio non-voting members of the University Senate.

The floor is now open for questions.

Tempe/Downtown Senate: That is not the same title as in the previous amendment but what is the number of them?

GW: You are correct it is not the same nomenclature as in the previous amendment. Guessing I would say we are adding 15. [Vice Provost Searle—12 maybe.]

Tempe/Downtown Senate: Would you explain “nonusers” of the Academic Senate in g.?

GW: I am going to have to look at that—but that is not what this amendment is about. That question is not in order yet, but when we come back to the original proposal and we discuss these changes then that will be a good question to ask again.

West Senate: RG: We are ready for the vote.

GW: Could someone either speak in favor of or opposed to this amendment?

West Senate: RG: I believe the sense of the West campus is that it is not necessary—they can always be invited when it is necessary—this puts another meeting on their agenda.

Polytechnic Senate: LV: We would like clarification of exactly where the statement of the vice presidents is listed. We are not seeing that on our screen at Poly.

GW: It is in amendment number 5. Do you have that displayed? [No. We are looking at the bylaw itself.]You will only find it as amendment 5 in the amendments on the web site. The amendment is to add the vice presidents of the university in part III.d.

11

Tempe/Downtown Senate: Why is that number of vice presidents 12? Why not 4?

GW: There is a difference between the vice president and dean of a campus, which is the person who has been appointed as the administrative liaison at that campus and vice presidents who are appointed to various components of university operations, such as, Adrian Sannier at UTO, Rick Shangraw, Research and Economics, etc.

Tempe/Downtown Senate: Perhaps someone can clarify this for me. It appears to me that if we defeated amendment 4, amendment 5 is superfluous. I am not seeing the point unless I am reading it wrong.

GW: I don’t think it is superfluous at all. On the one hand, the question was whether to give the vice president and dean at each campus a voting position in the Senate. We said no on that. Now the question is should we give all vice presidents a non-voting place in the Senate as members. The question is would we benefit and the UAC thought we might benefit by making the vice presidents ex-officio members of the Senate because they all have information that we need. When we need to have talks from Adrian on UTO; or we need to get someone to talk on another issue. The assumption of course is that you can always invite them. But we thought that there might be some utility in having them as ex-officio members.

Tempe/Downtown Senate: I don’t know how this would affect quorum numbers?. [It would not. Nonvoting members do not affect quorum numbers.]

Tempe/Downtown Senate: I want to clarify that non-users is a type-o at this time.

GW: Yes. It was referring to the ombudsperson. But we will get to that. Seeing no further questions at the Tempe/Downtown campus, are we ready to vote?

West Senate: RG: We are ready to vote but there are some concerns someone asked me about today and I thought I would bring them up. They were concerned that the vice presidents who can possibly take part in P&T decisions will be added to the Senate.

GW: Hearing no further questions, Mr. and Madam Presidents, the question has been called, please tally the vote on amendment 5 at your campuses.

BV: Clarification questions on 5? None. All in favor of approving amendment 5 signify by saying aye. All opposed by the same sign. I will be doing a count this time. Again all in favor of amendment 5 please signify by raising your hands (12). Opposed by the same sign (30). Abstentions (4).

West: The amendment was defeated. Poly: The motion was defeated with one abstention.Tempe/Downtown: The motion was defeated, 12 yes, 30 no with 4 abstentions.

Amendment #5 was defeated.

GW: We will now consider amendment 6.

AMENDMENT 6The amendment was to reduce from 40 to 30 the size of an academic unit to receive a second senator as listed in Article II.A.1. The original proposal asked for 40. Joe Comfort’s amendment moves that to 30. The other thing is that for a third senator, the number of 100 remains at 100. What you see there is that whole section but the only thing we are debating is whether we move the number 40 to 30.

12

Tempe/Downtown Senate: I think it should be 30 because moving it from 25 to 40 is just too big a step and some departments that already have 2 people would drop to one. As other people have pointed out, having more people available for the Senate is good—so lowering the number from 40 to 30 accomplishes something in terms of a higher number yet it does not disrupt the vote too much.

GW: Are there Q’s?

Tempe/Downtown Senate: Just for information sake do we know what this would mean to the total numbers of representatives on the Senate?

GW: I am sorry I did not do take that count for us. My sense is that there may be 10 units that are between that 30 and 40.

Tempe/Downtown Senate: I am in favor of the motion but it smacks me of being somewhat arbitrary in terms of the numbers. Can anyone explain where we are getting 30 or 100 as thresholds?

GW: If it seems arbitrary, yes, it is arbitrary. So is 25 arbitrary in that we worked with that before. So, it is just a matter of developing numbers that seem like that they would work in this environment. This reduces the arbitrariness somewhat because in the original proposal that we floated around the campuses, we had different numbers and what we came up with is what we were hearing from people, and that is how we settled in on the 40 and 100. If it was arbitrary it was in the sense that our discussions at the campuses led us to this

Tempe/Downtown Senate: My question is about the wording.

GW: The proposal that we are considering is only the number 40 to 30 unless that somehow that relates to the number question.

BV: What is happening here is this--the entire set of bylaws is going to come before this body but we have been tweaking what will come before this body and what we are voting on now is whether to be 26 to 40 or 26 to 30 and nothing else because it will come back us.

West Senate: RG: No reply.

GW: Could you give us some indication of why you are not replying? Our concern is knowing where people are on in this change and it is particularly important because it deals with the campuses specifically. It is important to me as President of the Downtown campus to know how my sister campuses are feeling with respect to these amendments.]

West Senate: We understand and we are fine with that.

Polytechnic Senate: LV: No questions here, but the general sense is that this is not very supportive of representation of the smaller campuses. We feel that changing the number will be disadvantageous to our campus.

Tempe/Downtown Senate: I am still concerned about the way the number of senators are apportioned to be representatives in different academic units. As currently structured, the senate membership is open ended. The university is growing and projections are that by 2015 or thereabouts there will be 90,000 students, there will be an increase in the number of faculty to provide instructional services, with an increase in the Senate membership, and I would just throw out the possibility, not for discussion now, but as a basis for structuring the Senate we should put a cap on the senate total number, and then apportion that accordingly not unlike the U.S. Congress. What this suggests is that departments go into the gerrymandering role at some point or

13

another, but that is for later discussion. I would suggest that this be considered now because the senate membership will grow very large and that could create problems in and of itself.

Polytechnic Senate: LV: Are you saying that you object to the lowering of 40 to 30 to get a second senator and even more object to the 30 to 25 then? West Senate: RG: We are trying to think how much that will affect us here and we are not sure so, this is a tough question to decide today. We were hoping we could defeat this and then have the Senate meet next year and try to remediate this issue.

GW: I think we were ready to vote on this. The UAC position was 40 not 30. I call the question. Mr. and Madam Presidents, we are ready for a vote on amendment 6. Please tally the votes at your campus.

BV: We are voting on amendment 6. Those of you that say aye this time will be changing the members from 40 to 30 for a second senator. All those in favor of amendment 6 please signify by saying aye. All opposed to that change by the same sign. I would like to count again, if there is no objection. Hearing none. All in favor of changing the number from 40 to 30 signify by raising their hand (12) All those opposed (32). Abstentions (1).

Polytechnic: We did not pass the motion.West: We did not pass the motion with one abstention.Tempe/Downtown: We did not pass the motion with 1 abstention.

Amendment #6 was defeated.

GW: We will consider amendment 7.

AMENDMENT 7GW: Amendment 7 adds new language not in the original proposal. The language that was lacking in the original proposal involved the bylaws and how to change bylaws. The original proposal separates the Constitution and Bylaws requiring the Academic Assembly to approve the constitution changes but allowing the Senate to approve bylaws changes, and not requiring that the academic assembly do it. At the same time it provides safeguards so that if the assembly is in disagreement with the senate changes to the bylaws then it can in fact go to a vote of the Academic Assembly. So whereas the changes look substantial, that is it in large part.

There are some changes in numbers, but basically the proposal in this amendment is that any 10 Academic Assembly members may petition the university academic council to amend the constitution and as we go down to bylaws in section 3, any 10 Academic Assembly members may petition the university academic council to amend the bylaws. The proposal as originally presented some time ago bumped that number up to 50. That number is now back to where it was originally. In effect there is no change now for the original constitution and bylaws in the number of academic assembly members who may propose amendments. This is the kind of amendment that I hope you have looked over in advance of this meeting as it is lengthy. I now open the floor for questions on amendment 7.

Hearing none, I am assuming the question is called seeing no objection. Mr. and Madam Presidents, on amendment 7 the question has been called and it is ready for a vote.

BV: You are now considering amendment 7 on altering the bylaws. All in favor of this amendment as written please signify by saying aye. Any opposed by the same sign. Abstentions (1)

West: We voted in favor of the amendment.Poly: We passed the amendment with (3) abstentions.

14

Tempe/Downtown: We approved the amendment with (1) abstention

Amendment #7 was approved.

GW: We are finished with the amendments now and our consideration resolves to the proposed Constitution and Bylaws changes as revised. This is the point that we are open for questions dealing with any aspect of these proposed changes to the bylaws and constitution.

Polytechnic: LV: We have not really had a first reading. Does this exercise constitute our first reading? GW: We did not anticipate that you have not had a first reading because everybody else is in second read on this, so we are debating and passing these today.

Polytechnic: LV: We did present them at our last meeting but we are having a hard time remembering what we did on February 18. They were informally processed as a first reading. There was some reason we deferred consideration.

GW: It is up to you what you want to do. You have been voting on these particular amendments today as we voted on the, so you seem to have given some consent that you are in a second read mode. I would suggest that you may wish to waive the rules on your campus that allow you to move directly to a second read. We leave it to you to waive your rules. We have also had discussion and open forums at your campus for the faculty. My hope is that you can move to a second read on this.

Polytechnic Senate: LV: As a related question on this, we also have a proposal that we decided on February 18, which unfortunately did not make it into the format here. At what point may we enter that, if at all.

GW: If you go to the constitution web site and download the version there that says “constitution proposal as amended,” then you will find a copy of the proposal with the amendments inserted into them with the exception of any that we defeated today. There were only two that were turned down today. But you ought to find out that way if yours got in.

Polytechnic Senate: LV: We are going to come forward with a minor modification proposal. Can we do that now? Or can we do that in some process elsewhere.

GW: That would depend on what your minor modification is. We had prior notice of March 7 put out on amendments--so no substantive amendments are permitted at this stage but perfecting amendments where we may have the language wrong are always in order.

BV: The issue here is according to our constitution and bylaws right now, to modify the bylaws, if anyone makes an amendment to these bylaws now after these 7 amendments have been considered, those amendments cannot be voted on at this meeting which then puts this off for another month, which means we will not get these constitution and bylaw revisions to the assembly this semester. This does not mean that the amendments you are considering at the Polytechnic campus cannot be made any time. We can always amend the bylaws, but we need to get a constitution and bylaws in place that at least reflects the way we are now. I would say to you Senator Mossman the same thing about your comment about limiting numbers and changing—if we saw that we grew right away we should change the bylaws to make that modification quickly.

GW: Polytechnic do you wish to entertain a motion at your site to waive the rules and move into a second read. [Yes] Ok. Thank you.

At West and Tempe we will begin to consider the Articles.

15

Polytechnic Senate: LV: We have passed our motion to waive the rules unanimously. We are now in second read mode.

4. CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS REVISIONS PREAMBLE

ARTICLE I: THE ACADEMIC ASSEMBLY

GW: Are there questions on the Preamble or Article I? Hearing none we will move to Article II

ARTICLE II: THE ACADEMIC UNIVERSITY SENATE

GW: Are there any questions on Article II of the constitution which deals with the academic senate?

Tempe/Downtown Senate: On the first line of the elected members statement where it says “degree granting unit, is that correct? [Yes.] So, that will remove centers and institutes from having representation in the Senate?

GW: Yes, but centers and Institutes have not had representation in the Senate so we are not making a change, however, we have not in fact waived that opportunity because what you will notice then is that other units—reading from the document—“proposals for representational units other than the individual degree granting units shall be submitted to the university academic council which will insure the appropriateness of the proposal for representing the assembly members.” So, later in that same part because we were not certain if we were covering all the assembly members by saying “degree granting units,” we left it open and we asked are there any other units out there that we forgot? For example, University Libraries is not a degree granting unit, but they fall within that other category—so, any other centers and institutes that have assembly members can come to us and say we need representation in the Senate and make a proposal to us to that end.

Tempe/Downtown Senate: I understand that my unit will have to submit a proposal for senate representation (Center for Solid State Science).

GW: Yes. The Center for Solid State Science like the University Libraries did should say we have x number of assembly members in the assembly and therefore we would like to be represented in the senate. We found in our census that in most centers and institutes the faculty members that are associated with the centers and institutes had academic homes in degree granting units, but then they affiliated in some way with the center or institute. So, that was the way we made that distinction in case someone was being overlooked that they would be able to have representation.

Tempe/Downtown Senate: The Center for Solid State Science does not have faculty—but we do have academic professionals and our tenure home is the Center.

GW: The APs in that unit should say we are here so give us representation.

Tempe/Downtown Senate: May I ask the rationale for moving the USG and GPSA presidents from voting to non-voting members?

GW: The UAC felt two things that since they are not members of the academic assembly, they should not have a vote in the Senate. They are not representing a constituency in the Senate. We do not have a vote in the student senate either and we felt this was fair.

16

BV: They would still be members of the Student Faculty Policy Committee and they would have a vote on that committee.

GW: This does not affect committee voting or committee memberships and they are still non-voting members in the senate and will be here to give reports.

Tempe/Downtown Senate: The Honors College petitioned several years back to have membership in the Academic Assembly and that was approved. Do we have to reapply or are we still represented? [You are still there.]

Tempe/Downtown Senate: This is just a typo error – in Article II.A.3.c ….Chief Financial Office- should be officer.

Are there any further questions?

Tempe/Downtown Senate: Just to verify for the ASU libraries then, they will be not have to petition to elect senators?

GW: We have already asked the Library for a proposal on how they should be represented in the University Senate because there is a complicating factor with the libraries in having library staff on each campus and so, if we just went forward in the manner that we have employed here they would have only two senators in the University Senate. But what we have requested from you is a proposal that says what you think is fair for the Library.

Hearing no further questions we will consider Article III.

ARTICLE III: AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWSGW: We already approved amendment 7 which was a strike all of Article III.

Polytechnic Senate: LV: I had a question on article II about the election of the president of the U.A.C. How will that happen?

GW: It happens pretty much the way it always happens and that is that the Committee on Committees develops a ballot list and it is up to each campus to take care of that and to put forward names that they would suggest for president-elect of that particular campus. We will just continue doing it the way we have always done it previously.

Are there further questions on Article III or Bylaw I?

Vice Provost Searle: Can you show me where the language in Bylaw I that talks about the grievance bodies.

GW: Let’s look at what it says in Bylaw I.B.2.b.—“3. Functions of the committee, and item A, the committee shall investigate alleged infringements upon the academic freedom or tenure of the faculty and report to the senate and the university president.

Vice Provost Searle: They should report a “summary of their actions” only.

GW: That should actually say under B.3.A—the committee shall investigate alleged infringements upon the academic freedom or tenure of faculty members and report a summary of its actions to the senate and the university president. This was my omission and it is not an amendment.

17

Hearing no further questions, is there any objection to moving the question on the entire proposal for constitution and bylaws revisions?

Hearing no objections, Mr. and Madam Presidents, please tally the vote on the constitution and bylaws proposal at your campus.

BV: We have moved the question on approving the new constitution and bylaws as presented to you today. If you approve signify by saying aye. All opposed by the same sign. Abstentions (2).

West- We passed them unanimously.Polytechnic – We passed them unanimously.Tempe/Downtown – We passed them unanimously.

It is duly noted for the record that the Constitution and Bylaws Revisions were passed unanimously by all campus senates.

Senate President Verdini: In closing I want to say thank you all very much. There were a couple of points were raised that you need to write down and send them to the U.A.C. committee because they need to be considered as we move forward into the next year. Thank you very much. Promote this to your colleagues because it will be coming to the Academic Assembly for a vote soon.

5. ADJOURNMENTThe meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

Recorded and edited by: Darby Shaw, Executive AssistantFinal Editing by: Judy Grace, Secretary of the Senate

18