Faculty Senate Minutes October 4, 1971

Authors University of Arizona Faculty Senate

Publisher University of Arizona Faculty Senate (Tucson, AZ)

Download date 02/05/2018 14:54:44

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/137336

INTERIM PEPORT OF THE AD HOC STUDENT-FACU LT :- ADMIN I STRAT I CN COMMITTEE TO

STUDY CANPUS DISORDERS

The Faculty Senate on March 1, 1971, directed the appoint-

ment of this committee in response to a request from the ASUA

Student Senate and ASUA President. The student memorial

recommended that the committee

study the existing ru1e relating to visitors to see ifthe Code of Conduct need be amended in this regard.The question of the rights of campus citizens mightbe move clearly defined as a suggestion to the ConductBoard;

study the Student Personnel Committee "crisis pro-cedure" and perhaps expand upon it to include a moreclearly defined cooperating relationship between campussecurity officials and student personnel and/or suggestappropriate steps to have the procedure iristitutiona-lized;

study the possibility of suggesting to the ConductBoard a set of guidelines relating to appropriatestudent behavior in instances of civil disorder asoccurred in January. Such guidelines might be in-cluded in the Code of Conduct. Such guidelines shouldnot be intended as individual offen3es but as apositive set of suggestions to canipus citizens;

review recommendations of the University RelationsCommittee and the December 1970 recommendations ofthe faculty senate relating to communication andcrisis procedures which might be reaffirmed forsuggested presidential action.

Item L will be treated first, as we feel that this is the

most significant item, and that the others must be judged in

relation to it.

The appointment of this committee came as the result of

campus concern following the disorders of January 21-23, 1971.

-2-

The "Bear Down" incident of January 8, 1970 led to the appoint-

ment of a similar committee, the Ad Hoc Committee on Student-

Faculty-Administration Relations. The report of this committee,

dealing in large part with the same matters that the present

committee has been asked to study, was submittsd D;c. 7, 1970,

and has, to date, neither been accepted, approved, implemented,

or even acknowledged, by the Administration. We believe that

the appointment of the Ad Hoc Committee on Cairpus Disorders,

reflects -to a certain degree, the frustration of the campus

community at the complete lack of any officiai response to the

report of the previous committee.

We have reviewed this report and find ourselves in general

agLeenient 4t: is conclusions and recommendations. Our first,

and strongest, recommendation ±3 that this report be reviewed

by the President, and implemented. We particularly endorse

recommendations (1) and (2) of this report, dealing with the

appointment of a high-level Review Committee, and a University

Comm'in±cations Officer.

The action of the present committee with regard to the

other items listed above must depend to a considerable degree

on the response of the President to the above recommendation.

If a Review Committee is appointed, it is appropriate that it

should consider the matters contained in the charge to this

committee. indeed, it is to be hoped that the Review Committee

would make this committee superfluous. However, this committee

recognizes the need to address itself to its specific

-3-

instructions arid to emphasize certain areas where the need for

action appears most pressing.

We recommend that the March 1970 report of the University

Relations Committee and the March 1971 report of the ASUA Task

Force on Campus Security be reviewed by the Prssiderit or the

Review Committee.

Although no official action with regard to the recommenda-

tions of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Student-Administration-Faculty

Relations has occurred, various informal procedures for dealing

with actual or potential disorders have been set up since the

"Bear Doin" incident. These procedures are described in the

Memorandum on the Crisis Committee, and the General and Special

Procedures for Cmous Disorders, both of which are appended to

this report. The procedures set forth in these reports seem

to us quite reasonable and appropriate, but the fact that they

are informal and relatively unknown to the campus at large

is a serious drawback. We recommnd that these reports be

reviewed by the President or the Review Committee, with a view

tö making those parts of these procedures as may seem desirable

a urmal part of the University policy and procedures.

Luï'ing the last year, informal procedures have been set up

fr the use of Student Marshals to assist the Carípus Security

Department in maintaining order at various events. This

p;ocedure has been quite successful, and we recomiuind that it

be extc.n1ed and formalized.

We believe that extensive recommendations on points 3. and

possible time.

3 above would not be productive at this time. The University com

munity should have a more extended experience with the Code of

Conduct before recommending amendments in rules for visitors and

rights of campus citizens. This does not imply opposition to

studies of rules relating to these questions. In fact, it is

assumed that all procedures under the Code will be closely obser-

ved by all interested persons to see that rights are clearly de-

fined and protected. A review of the Code on these questions is

the ongoing responsibility of the Conduct Board. With reference

to point 3, the committee questions the desirability of attempt-

ing to devise a set of guidelines for student behavior in

instances of civil disorder beyond those already contained in the

Code inasmuch as students have the same rights and responsibili-

t-e and should enjoy the same full protection of civil rights

as any citizen.

There are obviously many other areas in which we could make

specific recommendations. However, we feel it is more appropriate

to wait until the new President has had a chance to indicate his

intentions with regard to the previous reports before proceeding

further. We recommend that this committee be continued in exis-

tence until it becomes clear whether further activities in respon

s to its original charge are required. In this connection, we

recommend that the Faculty Senate request the President to respon

officially to the recommendations of this committee and those of

the other committees discussed in this report, at the earliest

John Hutton-Associated StudentsMarvin D. Johnson-AdministrationMarlene Lerrier-Associated StudentsDouglas Paxton.-AninistrationGerald R. PetErson-FacuizyRaymond H. Thipson-FacultyClifton E. Wilson-Faculty (Chairman)

April 28, 1970

?ernorandum to: University Relatos Committee

From : Subcommittee on Crisis Reporting

Subject : Suggested Proc'dure for Hnd1ing Information During Crisis

Objective: To establish ar information handling system to serve University

interests during times of crisis.

This plan pertains to events which tay adversely affect the University

community.

It zakes the offic Lei University position or evaluation available to

persons hwi- art interest in the University.

This informtjon hmdlng structure involves the following elements;

Rocing ent: Any source or information generating point would report

dates, tineS, r.ez, ar&d/or action. Most probable: Securit.y Office.

Other posbilitïes: University staff, students or non-University persons

or sources.

Information receiving channel: Through this systen specified persons at

the University would transmit crisis information to someone for evai.uion.

The transmitter would probably be a telephone operator who collects

iaforiation and relays incoming cl1.

The person who assembles and evaluates the information could b a

member of a group selected by the Office of the President. This function

might Wii operate ot a 24-hour per day basis, each ember of the group

serving on a rotation basis for one 24-hour period or weekend.

This Lnfor;atiori evaluating process, called Crisis RCSOOnSC,

shall also deter.ìitte validity of inLti1 reports.

Crisis Reporting -- 2

The VA News Bureau could wall serve s the information collection and

evaluation agency, Crisis flesoonse.

Telephone accessibility would be an important facLor in this system.

By dialing a predetermined number, such as a VA telephone operator, report-

ing agents could channel their call directly or have the information relayed

to Crisis Resnonse.

Investiatioa: Having received notice Crisis Response would initiate appro-

priate procedures to investigate and validate the information, to find the

scope of the problem, to determine the necessity of an immediate or delayed

reaction from the University administrators and to decide which VA officials

should be alerted. The investigation may involve a trip to the crisis scene,

contacting University officials, students, or other appropriate sources.

The VA News Bureau might serve as a press room for media covering the

crisis.

Using the collected information Çisis Res2sa would prepare a report

to the community and suggest the mode of transmission -- je., radi-tclevision,

Wildcat, news media or special flyer.

Information evaluation and response: Results of investigation and recommended

responses would be submitted on a timely basis to the Office of the President

or to persons empowered to act in behalf of that office for approval.

Infnrh'ati.on mediation, disserinttica an distribution: ILaving received a

reply from the Office of the President, Crisis Ronse would release the

information to appropriate sources for distribution.

An ASUA committee would serve as carriers to distribute duplicated

materials to students at their housing units. Ctìpus mail would serve as

the carrier to faculty. Other media such as. rado, television, newspapers

and wire services would b served directly.

V.

Crisis ReportinZ -- 3

6. AlI points rt this system muet be accurately identIfied prior to its

successful operation. It is necessary that each person know his

responsibilities and be capable of performn them.

CJG:js

ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE UNIVERSITY RELATIONS COMMITTEE, APRIL 28, 1970.

/

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONATUCSON, ARIZONA 85721

VICE PRESIDENTUNIVERSITY RELATIONS May 20, 1971

Memorandum to: Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee to StudyCampus Disorders

Enclosed is a basic outline concerning the Crises Committee as ithas operated during the past two years. I hope this will give youenough information so that we can carry on a meaningful discussionin this area.

MDJ:sb

Enclosure

/jlVvirt D. Johnson

J

During the event itself, an observer from the Dean of Men's office ispresent at all times. His purpose is to be able to make an instantevaluation of the situation and if the Student Personnel representativesare needed, he can initiate the network call system that will bring tothe campus in a matter of minutes approximately 40 people.

Exhibit A indicates the people who are to be called in the event ofimminent trouble. Not listed, but also on call, are the head residentsof the dormitories. Thus, approximately 40 people can be alerted,pressed into service, and be on the campus in the maximum time oftwenty minutes. This is exclusive of student niarshalls and the U of Asecurity force. In addition, from time to time, Dean Svob has contactedvarious faculty members who have expressed a concern on a given situationbecause of their interest, or because they are serving as advisers to aparticular student group involved.

During the school year 1969-70 a group of organized student marshalls wereused. However, during 1970-71, the officers of student governmentperformed this function, and were notified and in attendance at disruptivefunctions.

Upon arriving at the scene, Student Personnel members are briefed as towhat actually happened, so that they know as many facts as possible. Theythen are assigned to various locations in the disruptive area in order tocarry on a dialogue with all who are on the scene, and to report theevents as they have progressed to that time. Their duties also are to warnmembers of the University community about consequences of being a partof the disruptive action; i. e., Code of Conduct, the conditions of aninjunction if it is in effect, terms of the curfew or any other status thatmight be in effect at the particular time.

Vice President Johnson and Dean Svob provide the Student Personnel coordina-tion with the security forces of the University which are under the directionof Vice President Houston, and Security Supervisor Paxton. The normalagreement between these two units is that action on the campus will remainunder the direction of the Student Personnel forces until they have notifiedSecurity that they can no longer handle the situation.

Exhibit Bxplains in some detail the information that has been disseminatedto Student Personnel staff members.

Exhibit C is a copy of the instructions which is given to the Head Residentsand Assistant Head Residents in each dormitory.

All the Student Personnel staff are to remain on the scene until they aredismissed by either Vice President Johnson or Dean Svob.

Following each disruption, the Crises Committee reconvenes to evaluate thepreceding event and discuss ways on how to be more effective in the future.

-2-

An informal Crises Committee has been in operation for approximatelytwo years. The first year, it was chaired by Vice President M. D.Johnson, and during the 1970-71 school year, it has been chaired byDean of Men Robert S. Svob. Membership during the current yearincludes the following:

Chairman Svob

Assistant Deans of Men

Dean of WomenAssistant Deans of Women

Director of AthleticsDirector of Student UnionSecurity SupervisorAssistant Security SupervisorAdviser to the Board of RegentsAssociate Adviser to the

Board of RegentsChairman of the FacultyDirector of Student AffairsVice President for

University RelationsVice President for

Physical ResourcesAssociate Director,

Physical ResourcesStudents

William FosterJerry MurphyCecil TaylorKaren CarlsonJean SmithKaren WedgeM. R. Clausen

J. VarneyDouglas Paxton

Vern SaundersThomas Hall

Robert O. LesherAlbert F. GegenheimerCharles Tribolet

Marvin D. Johnson

Robert L. Houston

John B. TrimbleBruce EggersTom RestainoRobert Gerlach

There are no regularly scheduled meetings, but this committee meets upon thecall of the chairman or any other member of the committee. Meetings are heldbefore events which might produce campus unrest or disruptions. Examples ofevents include the BYU-Arizona football game, and the Kunstier speech,Discussions during the meetings held before the events include type of event,planned activities and any adjustments that might be needed to preventavoidable confrontations. Legal ramifications of the planned event arediscussed including the possibilities of action such as injunctions. Procedureshave been developed whereby speedy processing of an injunction can be handled.Also, a plan of action is discussed should disruptions and violence occur.

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONAProceedings of the Faculty Senate

Meeting of Monday October 4, 1971

SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT: Anthony, Bannister, Bartlett, Bleibtreu, Boyer,Bretall, Brewer, Butler, Christopherson, Cole,Delaplane, Dewhirst, Dresher, Eisner, Evans, S. Fahey,Freeman, Gaines, Gegenheimer, Gould, Green, Herber,Hull, Krebs, Lane, Layton, Lytle, Mason, Massengale,Mathews, McConnell, Munsinger, Muramoto, Murphy,Myers, Paulsen, Putt, Reiblich, Rhodes, Richard,Schaefer, Siegel, Skinner, Steelink, Svob, Thompson,Tomizuka, Varney, Voris, Windsor, Wise, Younggren,and Zumberge. Student representatives attending wereBruce Tufts and Nanette Warner.

SENATE MEMBERS ABSENT: Ares, Barnes, Blitzer, Bok, Dixon, W. Fahey, Goodwin,Grant, Johnson, Joyner, Mautner, McMillan, Nigh,Perkins, Robson, Shields, Sorensen, and Yoshino.Student representative absent was Julie Lauber.

SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN, SUGGESTION RE: President Schaefer said he had receivedthe suggestion that a parliamentarian be appointed to be present at all Senatemeetings to assist whenever questions of parliamentary procedure arise. He saidhe would attempt to obtain the services of a qualified person as Senate parlia-mearian.

WAGE FREEZE, COMMENTS BY PRESIDENT SCHA.EFER RE: President Schaefer said thatabout a month earlier he had met with the heads of all University departmentsto discuss the wage-price freeze as it affected the salaries of faculty members.He said he had assumed that his comments at that time would be shared by theheads of departments with the faculty members of their respective groups.Obviously this had not been the case in some departments since he had receivedcommunications from some faculty members who had not been informed of thePresident's position in this situation. He referred also to a letter in thatmorníng's issue of the Arizona Daily Wildcat from a faculty member about thesame matter.

Dr. Schaefer assured the Senate members that he has not been idle sofar as the wage freeze is concerned as it affects the University of Arizonafaculty. He hired Mr. Robert Lesher as an Assistant to the President to workwith the Arizona Attorney General as well as with officials in Washingti, D.jC.Lon the issue. He received a communication from Dr. William Noyes, ChairmTthe University of Arizona Chapter of the American Association of UniversityProfessors, and carried that message to a special meeting of the Arizona Boardof Regents which had discussed the matter of faculty salaries. He had sharedwith the Board his personal point of view, namely that the wage freeze asimplemented for University faculty members was unfair and discriminatory. SomeRegents agreed with President Schaefer's point of view. However, the presidentsof the three Arizona universities were directed by the Regents not to issue

-2-

statements about the matter inasmuch as it was felt this would only addconfusion to an already badly muddled situation where different and contradic-tory statements were being made almost daily by various state and federalofficials.

The National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Collegeshas not been silent on the matter, the President pointed out, and is investi-gating the possibility of law suits on behalf of the faculties of memberinstitutions. Various educational associations are likewise considering legalaction. It would be fruitless for the University of Arizona to launch a lawsuit by itself, the President said.

Dr. Schaefer said that Vice President Murphy has been consideringindividual appeals that have been made. Of approximately fifteen submitted sofar, he said approximately three-fourths had been resolved in favor of thefaculty members concerned.

President Schaefer said he wished to assuxe the Senate that he wouldcontinue to press to find appropriate means after the freeze is lifted torelease any withheld differential in salary to faculty members who did notreceive their expected increases in salary during the period of the freeze. He

said that money not paid out in salary raises during the freeze would notreturn to the central coffers of the state until June 30, 1972, and he hopesthat an appropriate manner can be found for this money eventually to be paid tothe faculty members concerned. He certainly has no plans to use this money forspecial projects as has been reported. He said he would continue to workdiligently in behalf of the interest of the faculty in this matter as well asin others.

Dr. Schaefer then asked for comments from the floor. Dr. Skinnerasked if the granting of tenure could be considered as a promotion, thusqualifying an individual for a salary increase during the freeze. Dr. Schaefersaid that this question seemed to him to have merit and suggested that any suchinstances be referred either to him or Vice President Murphy for review.

Dean Rhodes said he assumed that the President's comments applied tothe situation of graduate assistants also. Dr. Schaefer answered in theaffirmative, saying that as a matter of fact it seemed to him greater flexi-'bility was possible in the case of the salaries of graduate assistants sincethese involve salaries for positions unrelated to specific individuals.

Dr. Schaefer said if anyone had further comments about this subjecthe hoped they would feel free to communicate directly with him.

INTRODUCTION OF NEW MENBERS: Mr. Windsor introduced the following new Senatemembers-at-large elected in the spring of 1971: Dr. Henry E. Butler, EducationalAdministration; Dr. Sigmund Eisner, English; Dr. Daniel D. Evans, AgriculturalChemistry and Soils; Dr. Shirley N. Fahey, Psychiatry; Dr. Martin Massengale,Agronomy and Plant Genetics; Dr. Conrad Joyner, Government; Dr. Charles T.Mason Jr., Biological Sciences; Dr. Christopher K. Mathews, Biochemistry-Medicine; Dr. Hiroshi Muramoto, Agronomy and Plant Genetics; Dr. Currin V.Shields, Government; Dr. Paul H. Skinner, Speech; and Dr. Raymond H. Thompson,Anthropology.

-3-

Re-elected immediately as senators-at-large upon completion of the1969-71 term had been: Dr. Bryant Bannister, Tree Ring Laboratory; Dr. LeonBlitzer, Physics (on leave 1st semester 1971-72); Dr. Robert Bretall,Philosophy; Dr. Victor A. Christopherson, Home Economics; Dr. Robert W.Mautner, Library (Science); Dr. Albert Siegel, Agricultural Biochemistry;Dr. I. Roger Yoshino, Sociology (on leave 1971-72 academic year); Dr. Newell A.Younggren, Biological Sciences.

Nr. Windsor also introduced as student representatives to the FacultySenate Randy .Tufts, President of the Associated Students, Julie Lauber, VicePresident of the Associated Students, and Nanette Warner, selected by and fromthe Student Senate.

new deans were introduced as ex-officio members of the Senate:Dean Hermann Bleibtreu of the College of Liberal Arts, Dean William Dresher ofthe College of Mines, Dean Robert McConnell of the College of Ar,hitecture, aE*âDean James Zumberge of the College of Earth Sciences --',

(ZL'Q-ci-w « tJ- C'LL .(J

President Schaefer welcomed all of the new senators to this body.

REPLACEMENTS TO FILL VACANCIES IN SENATE2 ELECTION OF: The secretary reportedthat two senators-at-large are at present on sabbatical leave. Dr. I. RogerYoshino will be on leave the entire year of 1971-72 and Dr. Leon Blitzer willbe on leave the first semester.

Following the practice of referring to the report of the ElectionsCommittee for the election in question, Dr. Gegenheimer moved that the runners-up in the election for at-large members conducted in the spring of 1971 beused as a guide by the Faculty Senate in selecting replacements for Dr. Yoshinoand Dr. Blitzer. He moved that Dr. Malcolm Zwolinski be elected to replaceDr. Yoshino for the full year of 1971-72 and that Professor Lou Myers be electedto replace Dr. Blitzer for the first semester of 1971-72.

Dr. Steelink nominated Dr. Clinton Traf ton as a replacement forDr. Yoshino for the full year. Voting proceeded with Dr. Younggren and Dr. Masonserving as tellers. Dr. Zwolinski was elected to replace Dr. Yoshino for the1971-72 full year and Professor Myers was elected to replace Dr. Blitzer duringthe fall semester.

At this point Dr. Gegenheimer said that the introduction of Dr. Zumbergeas Dean of the College of Earth Sciences made him realize that the faculty ofthe new College of Earth Sciences was entitled to additional representation inthe Faculty Senate through a college representative and he suggested thatDean Zumberge arrange for the faculty of the College of Earth Sciences to electits representative before the next meeting. Dr. Zumberge explained that as amatter of fact the faculty of the College of Earth Sciences was represented bya college representative in the person of Dr. Laurence Gould. In the spring of1970 Dr. Gould had been re-elected for a two-year term as the college repre-sentative of the College of Mines. When certain units of the College of Nineshad been made part of the College of Earth Sciences as a result of theorganization of that separate division, Dr. Gould had been one of those facultymembers moving from the faculty of the College of Mines to the faculty of theCollege of Earth Sciences. Therefore, continued Dr. Zumberge, it is the Collegeof Mines that now is without a college representative. Dean Dresher thenindicated he would arrange to have the College of Mines select a college

-4-

representative to assume the duties of college senator before the next meetingof this body.

CATALOG MATERIAL: The catalog material previously distributed to members ofthe Senate by means of the Curriculum bulletin was approved, with the followingcorrection: On page three of the Curriculum bulletin issued under date ofSeptember 8, 1971 (Volume 3, Number 1) in the course description of ReligiousStudies 100, Christian Literature and Thought, the reference in the coursedescription to majors and non-majors should be deleted, inasmuch as theUniversity does not offer a major in Religious Studies.

ELECTION OF MEMBER TO COMMITTEE ON CONCILIATION: Dr. Gegenheimer explainedthat the Committee on Conciliation is a two-man faculty committee, each memberserving two-year terms in a staggered arrangement. Professor Harry Stewart'sterm has just expired and he has left the committee. Dr. Mitchell Vavich isthe carry-over member. It is the Senate's responsibility each fall to elect anew member to the committee. Nominations are submitted by the Committee onCoimnittees. The nominees must come from different colleges and must be from acollege other than the one from which the continuing member of the committeecomes. In line with this procedure Dr. Gegenheimer presented two nominationsfor the post of member of the Committee on Conciliation, one to be elected:Dr. Leahmae McCoy of the College of Business and Public Administration, andDr. Paul Danielson of the College of Education. Voting by ballot proceededwith Dr. Younggren and Dr. Mason serving as tellers. Dr. Danielson was electedthe new member of the Committee on Conciliation.

ELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES TO ARIZONA COLLEGE ASSOCIATION: Dr. Gegenheimerexplained it was the time of year when the University of Arizona should selectits representatives to the Arizona College Association. One of the representa-tives serving in 1970-71 is on leave during the present year, Professor DorothyFuller. The other representative last year, Dr. Loyal Gryting of the Departmentof Romance Languages, has indicated his willingness to serve another year.Dr. Gegenheimer then placed in nomination the names of Dr. Gryting andDr. Oliver Sigworth of the Department of English. Dr. Sigworth has held thisresponsibility in the past. By unanimous vote the Senate then electedDr. Gryting and Dr. Sigworth as the University of Arizona's representatives tothe Arizona College Association for 1971-72.

FACULTY SENATE REPRESENTATIVE AND THE ALTERNATE TO STUDENT SENATE ANNOUNCEMENTRE: Mr. Windsor reminded the Senate that last year Dr. Edward Nigh had beenelected as the representative of the Faculty Senate to the Student Senate,with no set term of office defined. Mr. Felix Goodwin had been elected asalternate. Mr. Windsor reported that both individuals were willing to continueto hold this responsibility during 1971-72.

ACADEMIC CALENDAR FOR 1972-73, RATIFICATION OF: Senate members had beenfurnished the academic calendar for 1972-73 based on the opening and closingdates for each semester as recently established by the Arizona Board of Regents.Under that calendar classes in the fall of 1972 will begin on August 28 withfinal examinations ending on December 22. Classes for the spring semester willbegin on January 18 with final examinations ending on May 18. The completecalendar sent to Senate members in advance of the meeting specified certaindates in the course of the semester such as the closing date of the delinquentscholarship report, holidays, the spring recess, final examination days, etc.Mr. Windsor explained that the College of Medicine and the College of Law had

-5-

reserved the right to make certain variations in their calendars from the oneunder discussion because of special needs of their programs.

Dr. Bartlett asked what the effective beginning date would now befor teaching contracts which in the past have carried the starting date ofSeptember 1. Dr. Schaefer said this point had not yet been determined by theRegents.

Dr. Siegel pointed out that one of the objections to the present"traditional" calendar had been that the Christmas vacation came so close tothe final examination period of the fall semester that the interval followingthe recess was more or less a "lame duck" session so far as class work wasconcerned. Now that same situation will prevail under the new calendar in thespring semester of 1972-73 when there will be only a brief period of cláss timeremaining after the Easter recess. Dr. Schaefer pointed out that the Regentshad left to each institution the determination of its spring recess dates whichneed not relate to the date of Easter. Dr. Schaefer said he had had personalreservations about the new calendar but he had not presented these to theRegents inasmuch as both the U of A Faculty Senate and Student Senate, alongwith the faculty senates and student senates of the other two universities,had recommended to the Regents that this change be made. He said he hadreserved the right, however, to review the calendar after it had been inoperation for a time in the event changes later appear to be desirable.

Mr. Varney asked if it were known if the public schools were planningto change to a similar calendar now that the institutions of higher educationin the state were all making the change. It had previously been pointed outthat the Arizona junior colleges were making a similar adjustment in theircalendars. President Schaefer said it was his understanding that the publicschools probably would make such an adjustment.

It was then moved and seconded that the full calendar for 1972-73 asdistributed to the Senate be ratified. The motion carried with no dissenting

vote heard.

Attached to these proceedings is a copy of the 1972-73 AcademicCalendar as officially approved by the Senate.

FACULTY AND STAFF VIOLATORS OF UNIVERSITY PARKING REGULATIONS, DISCUSSION RE:President Schaefer reported that attention had been given in late summer to thefact that some faculty and staff members have persisted in failing to complywith University parking regulations. In a few instances faculty persons haveaccumulated as much as $300 in fines. Student parking violators are requiredto pay parking fines. Otherwise encumbrances are placed against their regis-tration and their being issued transcripts.

There has been no specific procedure developed whereby a faculty orstaff violator must pay his fine, however. This matter was discussed in theAdvisory Council and had been referred by that body to the Faculty Senate.

Dr. Schaefer said that admittedly the campus parking situation is adifficult one. He felt the need for definite guidelines. Some suggestions hadbeen made to him, he said, but he was not sure they would provide a propersolution. One suggestion was that at the end of an academic year any finesoutstanding be deducted from whatever merit increase the individual might be

-6-

scheduled to receive the ensuing year. This would be a very unpopular way tocope with the problem, the President said. He asked if the Senate wished todiscuss the matter on the floor or refer it to a committee for study.

Dr. Christopherson and several other Senate members described some ofthe parking problems that do exist on the campus. Dr. Gegenheimer said thatthe Committee of Eleven perennially gives attention to this matter.

Dr. Bannister asked what the result was of an effort conducted in latesuimner to force a good "pay-up" of old fines not paid by faculty and staffparking violators. Dr. Schaefer and Vice President Murphy said the responsehad been fairly good. Dr. Bannister said he felt that faculty members indeedshould be required to pay their fines the same as do students. However, hethought the system should provide assurance that a faculty member is made awarethat he owes a fine. The recent effort to obtain a pay-up of delinquent fineshad revealed that some faculty members owing money had never been aware thatthey in fact had been issued parking tickets. Mr. Murphy commented that hethought some revision in procedure could be developed whereby faculty memberswere assured of receiving notification of such fines.

Dr. Steelink stated that one reason for bitterness against theparking situation is that after a faculty member has paid a fee for the privilegeof parking in a particular area, that area then receives inadequate policingwith the result that many cars park in that area without authorization to do so.It has been his experience, he said, that adequate policing usually results inan adequate amount of parking space in a particular lot. He said the Committeeof Eleven has a great deal of information collected which should be of help toa committee appointed to study campus parking.

Dr. Steelink then moved that the President be requested to appoint acommittee to study the entire question of parking on the campus but specificallythe procedure to be followed in the collecting of fines from faculty and staffparking violators. His motion was seconded by Dr. Cole and carried unanimously.Dr. Tomizuka said he hoped that the names of the members of the committee wouldbe widely publicized so that faculty members wishing to make suggestions tothe committee would know to whom they should direct their comments.

REPORT OF AD HOC STUDENT.FACULTY-ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE TO STUDY CAMPUSDISORDERS. APPROVAL OF: The Senate turned next to consideration of the interimreport of the Ad Hoc Student-Faculty-Administration Committee to study CampusDisorders which had been appointed in the spring of 1971 following action bythe Faculty Senate on March 1, asking for the creation of such a committee.Senate members had been furnished copies of the committee's report prior tothe meeting.

Dr. Bannister referred to page 3 of the report which stated in thesecond full paragraph, "These procedures are described in the Memorandum on theCrisis Committee, and the General and Special Procedures for Campus Disorders,both of which are appended to this report." The two items had not been appendedto the report as distributed, however. Dr. Schaefer recognized Dr. Clif Wilsonwho was serving as chairman of the ad hoc committee. Dr. Wilson said that theseattachments had not been distributed to the members of the Senate but had beenfurnished the President with his copy of the report. Mr. Windsor said thatthese items had been furnished members of the Senate last year, he believed.Dean Rhodes pointed out, however, that many persons now members of this bodywere not members of the Senate last year.

-7-

Several senators indicated they felt it would be appropriate to delayconsideration of the report until the two attachments referred to could befurnished members of the Senate and suggested that the matter be tabled untilthe next meeting. However, Dr. Lytle, who had been chairman of the Ad HocCommittee on Student-Faculty-Administration Relations which had prepared adetailed report and submitted it to the Senate following the Bear Downgymnasium incident of January, 1970 said he felt the Senate should considerthe report of the Wilson Committee at this time. He said the two attachmentsreferred to really had no important bearing on this report. He then movedacceptance of the interim report of the Ad Hoc Student-Faculty-AdministrationCommittee to Study Campus Disorders. Dr. Bannister seconded the motion, sayinghis question had referred only to the technicality that the report referred toitems that were not appended in the copy furnished him. He was in no wayopposed to the report.

The Senate then unanimously approved the interim report of thecommittee chaired by Dr. Wilson. Dr. Schaefer said he would give attention tothe recommendations of the report at the earliest possible date.

A copy of the Interim Report of the Ad Hoc Student-Faculty-Administration Committee to Study Campus Disorders is attached to theseproceedings.

COMMITTEE 0F ELEVEN ANNUAL REPORT: Dr. Gegenheimer announced that the annualreport of the Committee of Eleven which that body is asked to provide the FacultySenate each fall had been received from the secretary, Dr. Milo Blecha. Thereport had been reproduced and distributed to members of the Senate at thismeeting. A copy of the report is also being distributed with these proceedings.(See Attached.)

ADVANCED PLACENENT REPORT: Mr. Windsor reported that the fall 1971 report onthe Advanced Placement Examination program had been prepared by his office andwould be distributed with the minutes and the proceedings of this meeting.(See Attached.)

The meeting adjourned at 4:30 o'clock.

David L. Windsor, Secretary

Last day for dropping courses with anautomatic passing withdrawal grade

Records close for midsemester scholarshipreport

Veterans' Day -- no classes

Homecoming -- no classes

Last day for dropping courses

Thanksgiving recess

ACADEMIC CALENDAR1972-73

FIRST SENESTER JULY

Last day for receipt of applications foradmission and all supporting transcripts 24 M

AUGUST

University Faculty Meeting 19 Sa

Residence Halls Open 20 Su

New Student Orientation Program 21 M - 23 W

Registration 23 W - 26 Sa Noon

Classes Begin 28 M

SEPTEMBER

Degrees awarded as of this date for studentscompleting requirements at close ofsummer session 1F

Labor Day -- no classes 4 M

Last day of registration for credit 5 T

"A" Day -- classes are held 9 Sa

Applications for bachelor's degree candidacy must befiled for degrees to be awarded at close of thefollowing summer session

University of Arizona

OCTOBER

7 Sa

10 T

23 M

Sa

NOVEMBER

4 Sa

23 Th - 26 Su Incl.

DECEMBER

1F

Semester examinations end 22 F

SECOND SEMESTER JANUARY

Last day for receipt of applications foradmission and all supporting transcripts (Dec.) 15 F

Registration 15 M - 17 W

Classes Begin 18 Tb

Last day of registration for credit 25 Tb

FEBRUARY

Degrees awarded as of this date for studentscompleting requirements at close of fírstsemester 1 Tb

La Fiesta de Los Vaqueros -- no classes 22 Th

Last day for dropping courses with anautomatic passing withdrawal grade 28 W

MARCH

Records close for midsemester scholarship report . 2 F

Founders' Day -- classes are held 12 M

Last day for dropping courses 28 W

APRIL

Spring recess 15 Su - 23 M mcl.

MAY

Applications for bachelor's degree candidacy mustbe filed for degrees to be aarded at close ofthe following fall or spring semester i T

Class and Laboratory sessions end 8 T

Semester examinations begin 10 Th

University Faculty Meeting 11 F

Semester examinations end 18 F

Couuiiencement 19 Sa

DECEMBER (continued)

Class and laboratory sessions end 12 T

Semester examinations begin 14 Tb

INTERIM REPORT OF THE AD HOC STUDENT-FACULTY-ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE TO

STUDY CAMPUS DISORDERS

The Faculty Senate on March 1, 1971, directed the appointment of thiscommittee in response to a request from the ASUA Student Senate and ASUAPresident. The student memorial recommended that the committee

L study the existing rules relating to visitors to see if the Code ofConduct need be amended in this regard. The question of the rightsof campus citizens might be more clearly defined as a suggestion tothe Conduct Board;

study the Student Personnel Committee "crisis procedure" and perhapsexpand upon it to include a more clearly defined cooperating relation-ship between campus security officials and student personnel and/orsuggest appropriate steps to have the procedure institutionalized;

study the possibility of suggesting to the Conduct Board a set ofguidelines relating to appropriate student behavior in instances ofcivil disorder as occurred in January. Such guidelines might beincluded in the Code of Conduct. Such guidelines should not beintended as individual offenses but as a positive set of suggestionsto campus citizens;

review recommendations of the University Relations Committee and theDecember 1970 recommendations of the faculty senate relating tocommunication and crisis procedures which might be reaffirmed forsuggested presidential action.

Item 4 will be treated first, as we feel that this is the most significantitem, and that the others must be judged in relation to it.

The appointment of this committee came as the result of campus concernfollowing the disorders of January 21-23, 1971. The "Bear Down" incident ofJanuary 8, 1970 led to the appointment of a similar couuiiittee, the Ad HocCommittee on Student-Faculty-Administration Relations. The report of thiscommittee, dealing in large part with the same matters that the present commit-tee has been asked to study, was submitted Dec. 7, 1970, and has, to date,neither been accepted, approved, implemented, or even acknowledged, by theAdministration. We believe that the appointment of the Ad Hoc Committee onCampus Disorders, reflects to a certain degree, the frustration of the campuscommunity at the complete lack of any official response to the report of theprevious committee.

We have reviewed this report and find ourselves in general agreement withits conclusions and recommendations. Our first, and strongest, recommendationis that this report be reviewed by the President, and implemented. We partic-ularly endorse recommendations (1) and (2) of this report, dealing with theappointment of a high-level Review Cotiunittee, and a University CoiiuiiunicationsOfficer.

The action of the present committee with regard to the other items listedabove must depend to a considerable degree on the response of the President tothe above recommendation. If a Review Committee is appointed, it is appropriate

that it should consider the matters contained in the charge to this committee.Indeed, it is to be hoped that the Review Committee would make this committeesuperfluous. However, this committee recognizes the need to address itselfto its specific instructions and to emphasize certain areas where the need foraction appears most pressing.

We recommend that the March 1970 report of the University RelationsCommittee and the March 1971 report of the ASUA. Task Force on Campus Securitybe reviewed by the President or the Review Committee.

Although no official action with regard to the recommendations of the AdHoc Committee on Student-Faculty-Administration Relations has occurred,various informal procedures for dealing with actual or potential disordershave been set up since the "Bear Down" incident. These procedures are describedin the Memorandum on the Crisis Committee, and the General and Special Proce-dures for Campus Disorders, both of which are appended to this report. Theprocedures set forth in these reports seem to us quite reasonable and appro-priate, but the fact that they are informal and relatively unknown tb thecampus at large is a serious drawback. We recommend that these reports bereviewed by the President or the Review Committee, with a view to making thoseparts of these procedures as may seem desirable a formal part of the Universitypolicy and procedures.

During the last year, informal procedures have been set up for the use ofStudent Marshals to assist the Campus Security Department in maintaining orderat various events. This procedure has been quite successful, and we recommendthat it be extended and formalized.

We believe that extensive recommendations on points 1 and 3 above wouldnot be productive at this time. The University community should have a moreextended experience with the Code of Conduct before recommending amendmentsin rules for visitors and rights of campus citizens. This does not implyopposition to studies of rules relating to these questions. In fact, it isassumed that all procedures under the Code will be closely observed by allinterested persons to see that rights are clearly defined and protected. Areview of the Code on these questions is the ongoing responsibility of theConduct Board. With reference to point 3, the committee questions thedesirability of attempting to devise a set of guidelines for student behaviorin instances of civil disorder beyond those already contained in the Code inas-much as students have the same rights and responsibilities and should enjoythe same full protection of civil rights as any citizen.

There are obviously many other areas in which we could make specificrecommendations. However, we feel it is more appropriate to wait until thenew President has had a chance to indicate his intentions with regard to theprevious reports before proceeding further. We recommend that this committeebe continued in existence until it becomes clear whether further activities inresponse to its original charge are required. In this connection, we recommendthat the Faculty Senate request the President to respond officially to therecommendations of this committee and those of the other committees discussedin this report, at the earliest possible time.

John Hutton - Associated Students Gerald R. Peterson - FacultyMarvin D. Johnson - Administration Raymond H. Thompson - FacultyMarlene Lerrier - Associated Students Clifton E. Wilson - FacultyDouglas Paxton - Administration (Chairman)

UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA FACULTY

Committee of Eleven

Summary Report, September 1970-June 1971

The Committee of Eleven met 14 times during the academic year 1971-1972.

Of the original elected Committee, Dr. Milo K. Blecha, Professor ofElementary Education, was on sabbatical leave for the first semester. He wasreplaced for the first semester by Committee election by Dr. Leonard W.Dewhirst, Professor of Animal Pathology. During the Committee's Septemberorganizational meeting, Dr. Raymond Thompson was elected Chairman andDr. Leonard W. Dewhirst was elected to replace Dr. Milo K. Blecha as secretary.

During the year, the Committee directed its attention to severalproblems, most of which seemed to be perennial in nature. These problems,along with Committee deliberation, included the following:

The New Code of Conduct adopted by the Board of Regents receivedconsiderable, if not most of the Committee's attention prior to andfollowing its adoption. Interpretation, alternatives, implementation,and changes of the Code received most of the Committee's attention.Many interesting points were discussed, including the constitutionalityof the document. It was agreed that Chairman Thompson use all of hisefforts to try and get the Board of Regents to adopt a sensible andworkable Code.

The problem of Faculty and Student parking was explored as usual. ft

was acknowledged that it is a serious problem on campus, but no onehad any real solutions for the problem. A meeting for the purpose ofsolving the problem was held with Mr. Walter Clifford, ParkingAdministrator. Suggestions were made to close sections of the campusto automobile traffic in order to alleviate congestion. In thisregard, the Committee of Eleven supported a proposal submitted byMr. Bruce Eggers, A.S.U.A. President. In essence, the proposal calledfor a plan to block off motor traffic to the inner campus between thehours of 0800 and 1700 hours. This plan did not seem feasible at thetime. A modification was offered to start by closing certain areas totraffic. This seemed to be the most workable idea of those offered.

The off-campus disturbances during December on Park Avenue werediscussed at length. It was agreed that a study should be made ofMr. Bruce Egger's A.S.U.A. Proposal concerning four areas. Thesefour areas included:

A study of existing rules relating to non-campus visitors.A study to determine whether or not a set of guidelinesrelating to appropriate student behavior should be made.A study of student personnel crisis procedures.Conduct a review of the March 1970 recommendations of theUniversity Relations Committee and the December 1970

recommendation of the Faculty Senate relating tocommunication and crisis procedures.

e. A study be made that would reveal the causes for behaviorthat produced the type of disturbance that took place onPark Avenue.

The Committee suggested an ad-hoc committee of students and facultyto be appointed by President Harvill to study Nr. Egger's suggestions.

The problem of continued noise pollution from Davis-Monthan jetsflying over the University again came up for discussion. A luncheonmeeting to consider the problem with the Committee of Eleven, Davis-Monthan Officials, and Civic Leaders was held at Davis-Nonthan. The

food was good, the briefing excellent, but no satisfactory solutionwas reached.

Other items receiving briefer attention included:

A complaint by Professor Stoner concerning mail processing byUniversity of Arizona officials was investigated. This

investigation is still pending.Dr. Bok briefed the Committee on the feasibility of changingover to a new calendar, whereby the first semester would endbefore the Christmas holidays.Dr. Hiilman requested that the Committee study the existingsabbatical policy and leave procedure. He specificallyexpressed concern over the wording of such policies in thefaculty handbook. The Committee decided that since sabbaticalleave is a privilege and not a requirement, nothing should bedone to change it.

The Committee wishes to thank all those who met and cooperated with theCommittee.

Respectfully submitted:

Milo K. BlechaSecretary

Members:

Blecha, Bok, Gegenheimer, Gould, Joyner, Kassander, Keumierer, Shields,Thompson, Varney, Yoshino

A.S.U.A. Representative - Tuft

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA.

Office of the Registrarand

Director of Admissions September 20, 1971

REPORT ON ADVANCED PLA.CENENT EXANINA.TIONS 1971

120 students had their Advanced Placement scores and examination papers sentto the University of Arizona this fall. This involved 140 tests since somestudents took more than one examination. The 120 students compared with 141students in 1970, 143 students in 1969, 137 students in 1968, 127 students in1967, 96 students in 1966, 126 students in 1965, 85 in 1964, 61 in 1963, 53 in1962, and 22 in 1960.

7 of these students are graduates of Catalina High School; 1 of AmphitheaterHigh School; 13 of Palo Verde High; 17 of Rincon High School; 14 of SahuaroHigh School; 3 of Sunnyside High School; 1 of Pueblo High School; 1 of TucsonHigh School. 3 of these students are graduates of Cortez High School; 1 ofCoconino High School; 2 of Brophy College Preparatory; 2 of Camelback HighSchool; 3 of Central High School; 2 of North Phoenix High School; 1 ofScottsdale High School; 1 of Washington High School; 1 of Flagstaff High School;3 of Maryvale High School; 1 of Yuma High School; 2 of West Phoenix High School.41 students came from out-of-state high schools.

49 students took the Advanced Placement in Mathematics. 15 students received10 semester hours of degree credit, 30 students received 5 semester hours ofdegree credit, and 4 received no advanced placement or degree credit.

40 students took the Advanced Placement in English. 8 received placement inEnglish 2 with credit for English 4. 12 students received placement in English4 with credit for English 2. 8 students received placement in English 2.12 students received no advanced placement or degree credit.

1 student took the Advanced Placement in European History and received nocredit or placement.

10 students took the Advanced Placement in American History. 2 students received2 semester hours of degree credit and 8 students received no advanced placementor credit.

19 students took the Advanced Placement in Spanish. 9 students received 8semester hours of degree credit; 4 students received 11 semester hours ofdegree credit; 6 students received no advanced placement or credit.

il students took the Advanced Placement in Biology. 4 students received 8semester hours of degree credit; 3 students received 4 semester hours of degreecredit; 4 received no advanced placement or credit.

5 students took the Advanced Placement in Chemistry. 2 students received 8semester hours of degree credit; 2 students received 4 semester hours of degreecredit; 1 student received no advanced placement or credit.

1 student took the Advanced Placement in French and received no advancedplacement or credit.

4 students took the Advanced Placement in Physics. 1 student received 4 semesterhours of degree credit and 3 received no advanced placement or degree credit.