Downtown/Tempe Academic Senate

Academic Senate Summary Monday, January 28, 2008 3:15 – 5:00 p.m.

EDC 117

Present: Allen, Allenby, Allison, Alpers, Anderson, Barclay, Blakemore, Blanchard, Blasko, Bodman, Brewis, Broman, Burg, Bush, Capaldi, Christiansen, Coffman, Colbourn, Comfort, Crow, deLusé, DiFelice, Doty, Elliot, Ellis, Facinelli, Fromme, Gitelson (at West), Gonzalez-Santin, Grace, Hajicek, Hamilton, Harp, Heys, Ingalls, Jackson, Karcher, Keim, Kingston, Kinnier, Konomos, Kopta, Koshinsky, Krejci (at Downtown), Liu, Magana, Maris, Mathur, McEwan, McPhee, Moorehead, Pardo, Pinholster, Restrepro, Rez, Roen, Rose, Shaeffer, Shangraw, Simonhoff, Stump, Thompson, Trotta, Tsakalis, VanderMeer, Vaughan (at Poly), Watson, Wheeler, Winter, Wutich

Not Present: Campbell (H), Carter (Excused), Choi, Cobas, Cook, Cruz-Torres, Drucker, Ellsworth, Fabricius, Gopalan, Guerin, Guleserian, Happel, Henn, Hoffmeister, Ovando, Komnenich, Lara-Valencia, Margolis, McNeill, Minteer, Morton, Mossman, Ossipov, Roedel, Romero, Rush, Saenz, Schneller, Schultz, Shah, Sloane, Sousa, Stewart, Strom, Sullivan, Teye, Thomas, Verdini (Excused), Vernon, Whitecotton, Wiezel, Williams, Ye

Guests: Dr. Allan Markus, Director, Student Health Center

1. CALL TO ORDER (Bill Verdini). The meeting came to order at 3:16 p.m.

2. UNIVERSITY PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS

A. Senate President's Report (Bill Verdini) At the AFC meeting we asked Regent Duvall to meet with the Arizona Faculties Council to do his presentation on how important education is to Arizona. He is interested in getting student interns to work with his group. He was very appreciative of the support that the University Foundation have given to this effort and is also interested in recruiting spokespersons to get the message out to the entire state about the importance of higher education to the progress of the state of Arizona.

With that I will invite President Crow to give his announcements.

B. University President’s Report (President Crow) Thank you. I thought I would try to put into perspective in a more focused way some of the things that are going on relative to the state’s investment in the institution, to put the Governor’s proposed budget into perspective and to put the university’s budget into perspective—we will have roughly $1.7 billion that we will spend this year. Roughly $500 million of that in the ‘08 year comes from the State of Arizona. That money is being sequestered from budget reductions by the Governor’s proposed ’08 and adjustment budget, but it is scheduled for a $50 million mid-year budget reduction by the JLBC recommendations (Joint Legislative Budget Committee) so we have an obvious difference between the Governor and the legislature relative to priorities. The Governor believes that higher education is a very high priority, and so she has exempted us from the budget adjustments. It is more complicated than this when you look at how the different groups look at how we are going to manage our way through the state’s financial shortfall, but the legislature has requested a $50 million reduction. A $50 million reduction in a $500 million appropriation–in the middle of a second semester of an academic year is virtually impossible to derive on an operational basis. So we are supporting the Governor’s budget, but also we nonetheless have to offer through direct questioning to the legislature—What if we ask you for this $50 million, how will we need to write it? I can tell you that for fiscal year ’08, which is the

1 fiscal year we are in, goes to June 30, 2008, the only way we can remedy that would be through the liquidation of real estate assets. We would not like to do that because we are reserving real estate assets as a revenue source, and we are reserving the liquidation of real estate assets from the university that we presently have in motion as a means of deriving funds for our financial reserves. Let’s just assume that ’08 works itself out one way or another. The likelihood of state budget reductions in the present fiscal year for the university is very low. If that was the only issue, we could worry about other things. The legislature has also made a substantially differentiated budget recommendation from the Governor for fiscal year ’09. Fiscal year ‘09 is the one beginning July 1, 2008. In the Governor’s budget recommendation she has provided for enrollment growth for ASU of $13 million; she has provided us some resources for a math/science teacher production program, and she has recommended in a yet to be expressed capital investment initiative for the university just under $500 million in capital investments for ASU that would be spent over a number of years. This a strategy that we had hoped the Governor would take and is still being worked on, but in this moment of fiscal stress for the state, our argument is and will continue to be that there are economic stimulus packages that go beyond tax returns, either at the federal level or the state level. One economic stimulus package which has worked successfully throughout the last 75 years of American history is large scale public works projects. Our large scale public works projects look something like this--$226 million in building renewals—most of these would go to the oldest of our campuses, the Tempe campus, and it would be principally located and focused on classroom repair, classroom upgrading, light and safety upgrading—the $226 million in building renewal. In addition to that is $103 million in new capital expenditures for new facilities. These new facilities would be related to academic growth. That is slightly above what we believe that we need on an annualized basis. We believe that for us to modernize the university and enhance the university we need about $80 million of capital investment per year beyond repairing our buildings for new facilities. We have a comprehensive development plan-- developed over the last five years, approved three years ago-- up for your review and is basically the plan that we follow as we determine the priorities for what we have to have to move forward. In addition to this capital plan is $470 million for the medical campus in Downtown Phoenix, of which we are a partner--$117 of the $470 million is ASU debt or ASU investment that would be used largely for the College of Nursing and the College of Engineering in addition to the College of Medicine. In FY ’09 our budget request to the Governor supports additional resources to the university to deal with growth, additional resources to deal with facilities, including building renewal and new facilities and investment in the medical school in which we are a partner. That is it. That is the investment. The legislative proposal calls for no investment in the universities --“0”. It calls for a reduction –- no new investment and a substantial reduction, a second reduction, and it is in and around the FY ’09 politics that the outcomes remain in play—they remain in play for lots of reasons—legal and political. Suffice to say that we also strongly support the Governor’s budget and are fighting for the Governor’s budget and are advancing on every front that we can related to that budget. It is the case that we are at an inflection point relative to the evolution of ASU where these capital resources are very timely, very important, and they have been on our planning horizon for some time. The Governor accelerated her planning to be able to propose these investments. If we were to secure these investments, this would be beneficial to us for a number of different reasons. It would allow us to accelerate the renewal of all of our buildings that we are planning on keeping; it would allow us move forward some new buildings; and, it would allow us to take down some of the buildings that are no longer viable. It is what we need to do, so you will see us devote a lot of energy to this. Our chances of winning I cannot predict yet. It is complicated, but I can tell you that there is one large uncertainly in all of this and that is that there is no consensus, no path, and no solution to a meaningful revenue shortfall in the State of Arizona. One of the things that happened at the Board of Regents meeting in Tucson last week was that the Regents passed a resolution agreeing with the Governor’s budget proposals to debt finance K-12 facilities, and this is a significant bone of contention between the Governor and elements of the legislative leadership, so it is an area that has to be resolved. That would generate some flexibility in the operating budget deficit for the State. So, when you put the FY ’08 deficit into perspective, payments were made and money has been committed in operating units levels like ASU that exceed the State’s projected revenues by $1 billion. The State has serious constraints on going into debt for operating; in fact, they cannot do it. A resolution

2 must be found, and I am giving you a sense of the stresses and strains that are going on within the legislature right now. On the tuition side, we now have completed a four-year transformation of the university’s tuition model, five years actually. Five years ago the Regents agreed to a top of the bottom third national tuition level. We went from a low tuition/low financial aid model to a moderate tuition/high financial aid model, and in doing that we took incremental steps along the way and then began to run out of political gas within the Regents. At the December meeting of the Regents we overcame that and were able to put in place a tuition model for the next five years that has the following characteristics that are worth noting. First, incoming freshman tuition goes to the top of the bottom third, to the 34th position among the 50 states--and then they have a guaranteed rate going forward from that point so students know what their tuition will be for five years. Each incoming freshmen class goes through the same experience. We also limited the tuition increase to five percent for the undergraduate students, and it is more for the graduate students, but we agreed to other things with the graduate students in terms of additional financial aid, etc. The tuition model is in place. It is likely to not be revisited and is therefore very likely to have been depoliticized and very likely from a positive perspective given us predictability relative to a revenue source that is very important to the university’s operating success. That is where we sit relative to those important sources of revenue that enable us to go about doing our business. Are there questions or comments on either of these topics or on any other topic that anyone would like to talk about?

Q - Given an ’08 shortfall if we decide turn to real estate to cope with that-what ’09 strategies can we talk about as options?

None of them are very good options. They would have to do with a series of issues to reduce our rates of expenditure from our existing rates of expenditure. They would have to deal with the elimination of some services, potential elimination of some programs, hiring freezes, spending freezes and other actions from a list of things. If you are thinking of leaving and going to any other state, you have to know that all 50 states right now are having financial stresses. You can look at the University of Florida-- we have heard they are looking at 10% budget reductions, other things. This is something that public universities are going through right now because of the gyration within the economy, and if we are see additional changes in the stock market, the private university will be looking at some of the same types of adjustments. That is a big important revenue source for them.

Q: A number of questions—you mentioned this $500 million in capital investment—is that bonded, and if so, is it an ASU bond or is it a state bond? If it is an ASU bond, presumably the bond holder’s payments are guaranteed by tuition revenues and any amounts coming in. What happens if the projections there are somewhat over optimistic?

All of the university’s projects are bonded by the university as debtor, unless we finance our projects through a third party which we have been doing in the case of real estate projects. It turns out that we have ratios of how much that debt counts against the university’s credit rating, if it is university sources—tuition and other sources—then it is a one to one dollar for dollar ration. If we receive a state appropriation, it is considered a three to one ratio that is one dollar of actual debt takes three dollars to count for a dollar against us. If we do a third party project it is a different ration, but these projects would be state financed, that is the revenue source for us to pay for this indebtedness would come from the state. It would not hit us as hard as if we were paying for it ourselves so we have a little bit of an extension. We obviously model to our financial operating position—we also model our debt ratio, our indebtedness trends—we have 10’s of millions of dollars of debt coming offline each year which then provides additional capacities so the Chief Financial Officer of the University--she is modeling this as we move forward. The projects that I have outlined should they be funded by the state, we have sufficient revenue, sufficient debt capacity and sufficient mechanisms to advance on that $500 million (rough numbers) that we feel confident in that realm. It is a complicated area for us, one where we believe we are moving in the right direction.

3 Q: In a related area if you look at the financial statement you will find that most of the debt is on various things like ACF, FFC and the Foundation. Are those debts guaranteed by tuition revenues?

I don’t know what you mean when you say guaranteed by tuition revenues. Some of our debt is financed by tuition revenue; much of our debt is not financed by tuition revenue. We tend to assign tuition revenues to those things that have instructional purposes, and then, for instance, on a residence hall, we use those revenues to retire that debt. We have different steams that go to pay for various debts.

We did say to the Board on Friday on matters related to the planned additional facilities for the Carey School of Business that there would be fund raising that would pay for some of the debt, some university resources would pay for some of the debt, and some Business School resources would pay for the debt, but no debt associated with that project would be derivative of any additional tuition increases for undergraduates that are not already in the model that I just described—we have a financial model for undergraduate in-state tuition so we know what that is and we are not assigning additional debt to that.

Q: I have a question concerning tuition for graduate students. We had a significant increase for the tuition for graduate students here over the last five years, which only hurts our programs now because a lot of colleagues say why would I hire a graduate student if they could only work part of the time because they have to take courses—so an increase in graduate tuition only makes that situation much worse. We will have X dollars paying for a graduate student that we do hire, and now we essentially we can only compare to ½ the market price because of this increase to graduate tuition. What options does your project have to help contradict this type of problem?

The graduate student policy on tuition—the structure for graduate student tuition from the Regents is that the university is permitted to take graduate student tuition to what we refer to as market—that is to look at what the cost for those programs are on a national basis. Within that context we keep the in-state graduate student tuition relatively low compared to other states; we are not even in the 50th percentile. We are lower than over half the other states for in-state tuition for graduate students.

Q: Essentially none of our graduates are from in state.

We have a lot of graduate students from in-state here, perhaps not in Chemistry and Biochemistry, but they are spread out over the campus—so, your point in the sciences is that you are attracting students mostly from out of state. When I took office, we did not pay for the TA and RA tuition, and we do now. That is tens of millions of dollars per year of new expenditures, and we are continuing to do that. The position that we are taking on graduate students is to maintain those programs to have the tuition move in variable levels, program by program, we have flat tuition, then we have some programs that have program fees in certain disciplines—those program fees are relative to cost of delivering the program as determined by the faculty or the department, and we are also trying to put more resources into financial aid and trying to expand the number of assistantships that we offer. The Provost and I are working on how to expand the number of graduate fellowships within the institution, and these are expensive undertakings. The means expanding multiple revenue sources to the institution. I would have to know more about the details in Chemistry to know the exact constraints that you are worried about. The Provost and I would be happy to listen to those. What we have started supporting over the last several years are the RAs and TAs. Maria Allison, the dean of the graduate programs, is here and she can tell you what else we are doing.

Dean Allison: We have added supplements to the university block grant program as well in the last year. The cost of fellowships are $40-45,000 apiece, and we have had this discussion about how very expensive they are, but we are working at all levels to enhance the graduate funding capabilities. It is something we all aware that we need to continue to work on.

President Crow: Did the enrollment shift in the graduate students this year because I want to parlay—I do

4 agree with you Professor Fromme about the notion of graduate student/undergraduate ratios, particularly on the Tempe campus and I want to comment further on that.

Dean Allison: Over the last several years, we have had a 20 percent increase in graduate students overall at the university, and I know that the Provost has put a funding model into master’s students to help with the resource acquisitions as well, and we have had a 25% increase in doctoral students, but we are all aware that this means we need additional resources to help support them.

President Crow: Perhaps the larger issue is the environment on this campus. On this campus we believe that we are at the maximum size but not the appropriate ratio. 50 to 55,000 students (like Minnesota, Texas, and Florida), but we have too few graduate students in general on this campus. We will be looking at shrinking the number of undergraduate students through admission requirements in particular schools, and we are going to be looking to greatly expand the number of graduate students now. In doing that we have to find financial models that work for the different sciences and between the social sciences and the humanities, in business, etc. We are still working on that. That is the general direction that we are taking the institution from a ratio perspective of student populations. Q (from West): I was wondering President Crow, you mentioned examples of capital investment to the Tempe campus and to the Downtown campus. I was wondering if any of the capital investment for the ‘08-‘09 budget is targeted to the West campus?

The West campus is the newest of the campuses at least until the Polytechnic campus facilities open in August. The building renewal resources in the present plan—all of the building renewal projects on the Polytechnic campus or the West campus are on the list to be funded—all the building renewal projects that exist on those campuses are scheduled to be funded but not all on this campus. The lion’s share of the money comes to this campus, and so in terms of new buildings, we are not yet ready to invest in a new facility on the West campus, other than residence halls, until the growth demands those new facilities. On the Polytechnic campus and the Downtown Phoenix campus we have already added a whole series of new facilities, and so they are accommodated for now. At least the first two years of new facilities—this is all theoretical, as we have to win this funding—the first two years of new facilities would be concentrated on the Tempe campus.

Q: In the context of the New American University reaching out to the global village—in that context could you comment on your thoughts on supporting international students in all this?

Yes, we have international students of two types—we have international students that come with appropriate paperwork from their countries and we have seen a massive increase in these students—the number is north of 30% I believe in the last year in terms of international students. We have the third largest number of students in the United States from India, we have new students coming in from South America, from Europe, from Asia, from Vietnam, places that we have not had large numbers of students before. We have set goals for the Graduate School, and we set goals for the Vice President for Global Engagement. We also have a class of international students who are students from Arizona who do not have proper documentation. As you may know, we have raised private resources to cover the cost for these individuals, and we are continuing to do that. It is very challenging I have to tell you in continuing to work on other solutions, and that is how we are dealing with our international students.

Thank you everyone.

Let me just add that if we get into things that have more known outcomes relative to our interactions with the state, we will come back the Senate and be communicating with everyone about where we are, and we will also be seeking input as we think about which way to go, etc.

5 C. Director of Student Health (Allan Markus, M.D.)

Pandemic Flu Planning Efforts

Senate President Verdini: Lest you are all very depressed by the budget from the state, we invited Dr. Allan Markus to tell us about the possible flu pandemic.

Dr. Markus: Thank you all for allowing me to come and speak to you. I am here to tell you about pandemic flu, and it is hard after that to tell you to cheer up, and get ready for what I am going to talk to you about.

*What is Pandemic Fu? It is a novel strain of flu that we have never been exposed to before. Some of you have heard of the Avian flu, and it is a type of Pandemic flu. We are not convinced that Avian flu will be the pandemic flu, but a pandemic flu is coming. *The World Health Organization and the Centers of Disease Control have used the word “probable,” “likely,” and most scary they have said it is “inevitable.” *To get another perspective of the 1918 flu which is what a pandemic is like--since many of us have never lived through or experienced a true pandemic flu. It was also a brand new strain of flu. It had a 2% mortality rate, and I want you to remember that number because it is very important. Its total mortality worldwide was between 50 and 100 million people. That was back in 1918. If you look at mortality in today’s numbers, the number of people who died would not have died of the flu--the same 2% mortality would cause 1.75 million deaths alone in the U.S. alone. *The key about this flu is that it is unlike regular flu. It killed healthy young adults, which was very strange because usually when we think of flu it kills the old, it kills the invalid, and it kills the very young, but in this group it took healthy young adults, military recruits and others and killed them. *This disease kills within 48 hours. This is not the flu we are used to, body aches and other aches for a couple of weeks, secondary bacterial infections which we can treat. This is a disease once it comes on you are dead within 24 to 48 hours.

*The World Health Organization puts together an alert status, and we at ASU are going to be using this as one of our methods of deciding when we are going to implement our ASU Pandemic Plan. We are now at stage three—no or little human transmission. Once we go to level four, the US government and ASU will be going to the executive policy group and talking about how we need to implement that plan. The federal government uses a slightly different scale. *When they reach level 3, which is the federal governments level one—when we jump to levels four and five which are government level 2--ports of entry will be limited for foreign countries coming in and going will be limited or very hard to achieve. At level 2 domestic plants will set up quarantine stations and set up federal emergency centers. It will take about one month from the time we enter stage 4 from the time that we should be expecting that the flu would hit US shores. *Once it hits US shores it will be less than a week for it to be spread across the country because of the use of airplanes and our travel plans. By the time we get to level 4 on the federal plan all domestic travel will cease and anyone who is still here will be stuck here. The problem we have here at ASU is that in order to effectively protect our students, our faculty--we have to have medication procedures that calls for us to not send students home, once we can to get them out of public gatherings, and to protect them.

*I am here to tell you the good news—we have developed a high level pandemic plan in order to effectively deal with the pandemic and we are coordinating our efforts right now with county and state officials and in April we will be testing this in our very own decision theatre at ASU using a unique method for actually showing the spread of disease and showing how our plans can effectively mitigate against that. We have a kinetic planning group, I am a co-chair of that group and we have subcommittees to deal with each aspect of the plan, from medical, scientific subcommittee, to the human resource subcommittee for developing policies for HR Resources. There is a communications subcommittee, a safety, security and housing committee for those students who will have to remain here. There is a research subcommittee that is looking at how we

6 continue the critical research and how do we shut down the research that can be shut down for the period of the pandemic—how do we take care of any animals involved during a pandemic. There is an academic subcommittee and that is why I am here today to talk to you and bring you all up to speed.

*I would like you all to go to the ASU.EDU pandemic web site. It will give you all the information you will need to know to prepare yourself, your students, and anyone else. There is an executive summary there and there is information for preparation. There is also a port advice that international students will not be able to relocate during a pandemic, and this may also include our out of state students, if we do not get them out of here soon enough, domestic travel may be blocked, they will have to stay here as well. *We do have a plan for housing, for whether the pandemic turns out mild, severe, or moderate. We do have plans for housing and safety for students, and how we are going to operate during that time for food for them. Dismissing students for up to 12 weeks is very possible if there is a severe pandemic. County, state, and federal officials may mandate some of this but that decision will come from the executive operation center at the time. We recognize that even if it is mild, faculty members may be with kids at home. Other schools K- 12 may shut down during that time. Day care also. We must find ways to “keep the buses rolling” to provide continued instruction even if our students are home, even if we are at home, how we will continue our instruction and keep ASU still working during that time. One reason that support is not for just students to continue in their degree programs is because the healthy students will get home and they will also need support for continuing their learning, to keep them away from boredom, and thinking about their mental health while at home.

*First of all for the academic senate, go to the web site for pandemic preparedness and read what is there. Store cold and flu medicine for three to four weeks for yourself. Make sure your house or your family have that on hand. The supply chains during a pandemic are not going to be available, our economy is based on just in time economy, and with that just in time economy, with supply chains being cut off, we may not have supplies of food, medicines, other things we will need.

*Make sure you have those materials on hand. I would like you to sign up for direct deposit A—many of you are not, we want to make sure there is a method for you to get paid because there will not be a person here to send you a pay check. Get a flu shot although it is a different type flu than the pandemic, first of all we are in a small mini flu rise here now. If a pandemic flu happens and a regular flu virus comes, the two can mix and cause the ability for the pandemic flu to crossover which is not able to transmit yet.

*Learn the Sneeze Salute (sneeze into your elbow) teach it to your students *Learn about the risk of pandemic flu for traveling to areas where it has been reported, Indonesia, Vietnam, Pakistan, and Egypt, if you are going on tours abroad or taking students there make sure you get all the information you need on protecting yourself and your students.

*Please sign up to be a medical volunteer to assist students during a pandemic. When we do our analysis we look at how many people need care, even the people that will be left here, after some are sent home will not be enough medical personnel, and nursing people to take care of all the students who will be left here. We will need volunteers. Part of the managers are volunteers, the people who stay here will get personal protective equipment and any medicines we have available to protect them and their families.

*Think about how we can use our current resources at our university such as Black Board and other methods to keep our university running in a time of pandemic. Talk with your deans and the heads of your schools about how you would do that. Dean Patterson did of the Morrison School took it upon himself and the faculty actually came up with an academic plan, once a pandemic hits. Thank you for your attention. Are there questions? (See http://www.asu.edu/provost/asenate/ for full presentation)

7 D. Undergraduate Student Report (Liz Simonhoff)

The Mae Jemison event was one of the most impactful experiences, and we are fortunate we could arrange to bring her to campus. Faculty and other members of the academic community came for lunch, and that was really wonderful. She talked about her experiences in space and how she has made an impact on science and technology.

I have been receiving a lot of emails about the textbook legislation which is exciting. We are also going to be discussing this in the Student Faculty Policy Committee. The bill we are trying to get passed consists of —some of the main things are requiring publishers to display the retail price of textbooks and also giving the availability of spreading things out like not having bundled textbooks—so students can purchase them separately. Also, it would be an option for professors to know what hard book covers cost in comparison to paperback. In terms of “Coffee with the Times” our first one is February 13. In terms of Super Tuesday, February 5, we are planning to bus students to polls; we want to make sure there a big presence in Tempe, Arizona. There is an initiative across the nation being done by college students—it is to bring learning about sustainability, the environment, and global warming issues. We kicked off a luncheon today with a couple of students.

E. Graduate Student Report (Bree McEwan).

We are working on several award programs. I have been telling you about the Parents Association Professorship-- everything should be on line by the end of the week. We also are in our second round of nominations for the Teaching Excellence Award for Graduate Students.

Another thing we will be working on is what was brought up when Dr. Crow spoke that there are a variety of items (4) to be exact; if they raise tuition for graduate students that they will give graduate students certain things such as more financial aid, better TA training, scholarships, and travel money and obviously given the way that the budget is, we want to make sure that those things remain. We are working with the administration on how to implement those items. ASASU elections are coming up soon--and although it does not affect you directly it would be helpful if you encourage your students to get involved with GPSA and USG elections—it is a great way to learn about shared governance and how it works. Thank you.

3. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES (November 19, and December 3, 2007). Postponed

They are posted on the Senate Web page and so all corrections should be emailed to [email protected] and [email protected] before the February Senate meeting.

4. ADOPTION OF ALL CONSENT ACTION ITEMS, INFORMATION ITEMS, AND REPORTS. There were no consent items.

5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

A. Executive Committee (Bill Verdini)

Formation of the University Wide Senate (George Watson on behalf of the UAC proposal)

BV: We brought this up last time, we had discussion about it the Academic Assembly Breakfast to kick off the spring, and George Watson will introduce a few more things regarding this proposal. The idea here is this is not a business, nothing will be voted upon today, but at our next Senate meeting in February based on the sense I get from you, we (Rojann Alpers and the University Affairs Committee) will have a draft of a new

8 constitution and bylaws ready that we will introduce at the next Senate meeting for a first reading. That is why we are having this discussion ahead of time.

GW: You have already seen the Power Point presentation. You may recall that we had some consensus items on there and the consensus items are 1) to keep the Academic Assembly pretty much as we have written it up, that is we are not disenfranchising anyone from the Academic Assembly. If the size imports having shared governance at the department level and the school/college we were calling those consensus items. Then we discussed the items that would not be consensus and that had to do with the part of the proposal that recommended continuing to maintain campus representative bodies and campus elected officials--so we would still have a president-elect who would in turn become president and a past president, so three officials campus wide. Those officers from each of the four campuses would then form a University Academic Council, just as we have now. That council would become in effect a committee of the single university senate. It would be the steering committee and that steering committee of those 12 members would expand out to be the traditional executive committee, which would then bring in the chairs of the university level committees. Finally we got to the proposal of having a single academic senate. What we are looking for today is simply any additional feedback that you may have to give us, and I will tell you again later to take this back to your departments so we can get any feedback that we can as quickly as possible so that in the February meeting we can actually have a single proposal and that this proposal can go forward for approval. The idea being first reading in February, second reading in March, Academic Assembly vote later in the spring in April, because the changes in the constitution and bylaws requires approval of the Academic Assembly. So, what we have and what we had you may recall, we have two basic models one which says that the department level–and definitions become somewhat troublesome with the department level—each department is entitled to a representative. The 1, a, b, and c options have to do with how that representation would go. Option 1a suggests that you would have only one representative in the university senate per department. Option 1b, the model we go by at Tempe has a number attached to it. We would have one representative up to 25 as we do now, but we bumped that up to 40 because of the increasing size of some departments now. Model 1b says you would have one representative for any department/unit up to 40 and for over 40, you would have a second representative. Finally, model 1c basically says you will get a representative for every 40 Academic Assembly members and keep in mind that Academic Assembly means not only faculty but academic professionals. Those are the 1a, 1b, and 1c models. The model that we proposed is a model that has been less well received generally from the faculty but we want to present a couple of models anyway, and that model would be to have the college be the basic representative unit. In that model if we can look at that in the power point—in that model, the largest college we have is the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences on the Tempe campus. They would have 12 representatives from that college. We would have 7 schools or colleges with one representative, 8 with 2, etc. That was our second model. We have now had public forum discussions on all these models and options.

BV: You made it clear to me that the second model is not acceptable. It lingers on this presentation because it is a desired model from some of our locations. I can tell you that I will not on your behalf support model two.

GW: If that is taken care of, we are back to model 1 and 1a, 1b, or 1c. The purpose is not just to talk about the three different models but answer any of your questions that you might have about what are the implications of going to a single university senate? This is something we have worked on for actually three or four years although this particular proposal is due this year on the tasks before the University Academic Council and we hope that we get it accomplished with your help.

I just want to repeat what I said last time and what I said at the Downtown meeting, which is that I like 1b with the senator at large added in but that was not added into the proposal because there are some units that it would be burdensome to have 12 people on the senate, or for some even 2 where they do not have the organizational structure to support that. It is still allows units to elect or add a senator of they want to.

9 Even if they refuse to have a senator, they can do that too. When you say at large—coming from where? Right now we have at large coming from colleges.

BV: At large senators in the past had a little bit of an extra role in the Consultative Committee the Provost had and it was composed of at large senators and officers of the Senate. However, that role no longer exists.

Q(1): I don’t mean in necessarily that same role, but for instance the School of Letters and Sciences at Downtown Phoenix doesn’t have a critical mass that you would normally consider a unit. They have a couple of groups that are growing faster and a couple others that aren’t. There might be one that has a critical mass enough to assign a senator, and the rest of the faculty who are falling between the edges wouldn’t necessarily have any representation—the units had that representation before.

GW: So you are saying that Model 1b fits you, and then you would support that, but with the modification of trying to make sure we have representation from all units. I am sure we would continue to do what we have been doing with the Senate here and that is that anybody who feels they are not being represented [and at one time, the Bachelor of Interdisciplinary Sciences came to the Senate saying that they were not represented in the Senate so, it was proposed to be represented in the Senate and that was approved.] Our sense would be that any model we set up here is not going to be closed, it is going to be porous and allow people to ask for representation.

Q (2): From my perspective sitting here in the Mother ship would be basically 1b or 1c, but doesn’t this have to be approved by all campuses and how does the process work therein. Those of you who have spoken to other people at the campuses—what do they really think about this?

BV: I have been going to each of the campuses, and it seems to me that there more than acceptance of a single senate idea on all of the campuses. Downtown campus is still a part of this senate is unanimously agreed through it is a governing council, but the West campus is still discussing this. I am not sure which model they will support but I do think they are going to support this one.

Q (2 continued): I look around me at all these empty seats and they are the same empty seats I am seeing from last semester and as I sit here and listen to the discussion it really comes down to this—I wonder whether it is practical to have representation from all of the departments that don’t seem to care enough to have their representatives show up. Perhaps more of a representation would be more practical and I have a sense last time that one from every unit—they were sort of worried about getting voted out—I don’t think that would be the case. I think that the activists among us would be at the college level and desire to be voted in and have an even stronger voice perhaps.

GW: That is a good legitimate point to take, but I have a little bit different perception of that because although I see that sometimes there are vacancies where the department has a representative, I also take note that where there are several representatives they seem to be taking turns in attending. They are still represented but the second or third representative does not come. It never bothered me when I was Senate President that it didn’t seem like everybody was here, because I don’t really expect everybody to be here. But I do think there is representation from each of the units here and there is scarcely a unit that does not have a representative.

BV: The issue here is that we are trying to get a sense of what the body wants so that when we present constitution and bylaws revisions there is not going to be an immediate revolt; that it will be something that you would consider perhaps tweak it or make amendments to it because that is where we will be next month.

Do you find there is that much difference between 1b and 1c? So, how many here think off hand you would be in favor of 1a? [one representative, without size being a factor]? How many would prefer 1b which has

10 one representative for the first 40 and one representative for over 40? And how many might prefer 1c that has one for every 40? Thank you for the informal poll.

This will be very interesting, and I have just one more comment. I think it was great when you said how is this going to get approved? That is a challenge for us and ultimately the constitution and bylaws goes to the Assembly for a vote. It is not clear to us how the Assembly is defined at this point. Technically the Assembly is all academic personnel at Arizona State University, so, my interpretation of that is that there is one assembly so there will be one vote on these constitution and bylaws for a one university senate, but what we put forth to that assembly will be debated at the three senates and then brought to the University Academic Council, where we will try to reconcile it and get to one document that actually goes forward, so, that is the process. Thank you very much George, if you have any comments please send them to me, George Watson or Rojann Alpers.

Regarding specific items for discussion and drafts of the constitution and bylaws we will keep updating our postings on the Senate web page. I would like to invite Duane Roen up to do his CAPC report now.

6. CAPC report (Duane Roen). Taken out of order.

New Business – CAPC Agenda(s)

If you look at the Senate agenda, there are several information items there is no need to discuss them. There is a first reading on a request from the WPC School of Business, School of Accountancy for a name change and it specified in the agenda. If there any questions on these items someone from the school is present and they could answer them. Are there any questions? There is no debate on this item today. Then at the very bottom of the first page is the CAPC agenda item which a first reading on a Required Freshmen Seminar Course Proposal and if you look at the attachments handout you will find a couple things. First of all on page 2 is the agenda from the upcoming CAPC meeting for January 31 and anyone is welcome to attend that meeting. You will notice that under number 3 the first item is ASU 101. Also, if you look the following pages 3, 4, & 5 there is a proposal with some argumentation to go with it so the proposal is essentially for approval of a Freshmen Seminar Course, one student credit hour, offer it under a single prefix number required for all first time freshmen. Then if you go to the second paragraph it talks about some of the features of that course and then finally there is a brief argument for it. On pages 4 & 5 are more detailed arguments for it. There is a two prong process going on here. There is the CAPC process and the Tempe Campus Curriculum Subcommittee process. The TCCS process is the one that involves the actual submission of the course proposal for the ASU 101 and that course is in the process right now, those of you who are familiar with the ACRES process know that there are various levels of that. Right now in the ACRES process which will end up at the TCCS is in the one week review stage and that means deans, vice presidents, the TCCS and the Maricopa County Community College District are all reviewing it at this time and the process ends at the TCCS. That does not come to the Senate. Are there questions on this half of the process?

Q (1): The only thing that is important to me is that each college or unit that is expected to teach it has engaged the material in a thoughtful way and is putting forward some sort of syllabus that TCCS or CAPC will be getting showing several different syllabi to consider, as opposed to it being just out there.

DR: Art, do you want to respond to that?

Art Blakemore: We provided the material that was prepared generally for that course as it was taught this year. That material was produced partly for the required material that you just saw on academic integrity and student success, and then the rest of it was prepared for the convenience of the instructors who might not want to prepare all the material very near the end of the summer for their courses. As we come forward with this and as it has been discussed with the schools and colleges, the schools and colleges are invited and

11 encouraged to provide their own content for the other material specific to their retention needs, specific to their own orientation. That is completely out of the hands of the Provost Office and completely in the hands of the schools and colleges. That material isn’t in there because it is not ours to provide.

DR: If you look at the second paragraph on page three – in addition to modules that provide academic content are required that this could be content on some unique characteristics of ASU and some examples are provided there. Alternatively, students can learn about any of the academic features of their college. So, it does allow for that kind of flexibility.

Q (1 continued) : The part I find confusing in looking these previous minutes on how we get these courses approved and getting the relevant faculty involved—is there a requirement of faculty involvement at the college level, to the effect we say, yes, we have looked at this, we are interested in teaching this, with just a space to insert their materials then? I thought they were going to be involved in the process.

DR: My understanding is that once the course is approved just like many other courses get approved that the department then is free to adapt that certain ways. That is if you look at courses in your own unit, it isn’t taught identically across all sections. Courses change over time, courses change from instructor to instructor.

Q(3-new Q) : The Senate had adopted two resolutions this year S.R. 5 and S.R. 14—both were very specific in that they said this had to go through the curriculum committees of the colleges before it goes to the deans and before it goes to TCCS. I know that in CLAS that has not been done. You would have to go through the Senate of CLAS in order for the deans to do something with it. That has not been done. I submit that the curriculum committee has not looked at it. I think that is probably true for many of the other colleges—there was an explicit requirement that the colleges and curriculum committees be involved. It was clearly there and that was the expectation, and in the process the curriculum committees would consult with the departments that might wish to contribute input.

DR: When courses go through the ACRES process, they go through various levels of review and they don’t all get approved. That process varies greatly between department to department and college to college across the university and so for there to be a single review process for all colleges, I don’t know if that would be done.

Q(3 continued): The ACRES process is a softer process, it can do nothing more than implement the policies that already exist. In this particular case with ASU 101, there was a special set of policies that was adopted by the Senate that did require review by curriculum committees of every college, so you cannot invoke ACRES as an excuse around the process.

DR: Keep in mind that all that ACRES does is get the course on the books.

Q (3 continued): Even if you get it on the books it still has to go through the colleges. It originates in departments and academic units, goes through the colleges, and then goes to TCCS, but ACRES is just an organizational chart for making that happen. Another part of it says is that if you look at the bylaws of TCCS or CAPC that TCCS is required to contact everyone who might be affected by the course and that goes down to the department level.

DR: Actually the TCCS process requires is that three units be contacted for impact statements.

Q(3 continued): I don’t see the word three--anywhere. [That has been the procedure.]

Q(3 continued): ACRES has to implement the written policies not something that a computer program invents.

12 DR: There is the other half of this that the parallel process is the process for considering this as a requirement, and that is the part that will not go to TCCS but to CAPC. Then once it goes to CAPC, it comes to the Senate.

Q (3 continued): But the whole process is to understand what CAPC is going to look at? That is where it has to go through the colleges and how are they going to feel—are they going to want it or not want it, and how will they implement it in their particular area? That as far as I can see has not been done, so I think the ACRES process has been violated.

DR: My understanding is that the two processes are very distinct and that the process that people are complaining about is because people are confusing the two processes. My sense is that when the CAPC agenda item, not the TCCS agenda item, comes to the Senate, that is the process that will result in everybody in this room consulting with their constituents in their departments and their colleges.

Q (3 continued): I understand the two distinctions very well. First, you have to approve a course and then CAPC can look at it and decide to what degree it will be required beyond that—part of a degree program-- that is the role of CAPC. In getting it into the books, it still has to go to the curriculum committees at the various senates or councils of the colleges so TCCS cannot do that. If you read the policies and what the Senate resolutions #5 and #14, that is what has to happen in this case.

BV: What he is trying to say is that to get a course on the books doesn’t require that—any one department can put a course on the books.

Q (3 continued): No it can’t-- it has to go through TCCS.

BV: Of course, yes, that is what it is doing but to require every department to teach that course is a very different decision. We have courses on our books that nobody ever teaches.

Q (3 continued): I understand that, so I am talking about the process of getting the courses on the books, that it has to go through the colleges.

DR: Think of it this way--there may be a course for example in Physics that Physics put through the process that went through ACRES process and it ended up in TCCS, and let’s say that someone in the Senate said this Physics course is a course that everybody at this university should take. Therefore, let’s bring it to this body, let’s run it through the CAPC process and have the Senate to vote on it and make it a university requirement. Those are two very distinct processes. But there is no other course at the university that I am aware of that runs through the TCCS process that would be vetted by every department and go through all of those curriculum subcommittees.

It goes through one department to the college, and the college has to decide whether is within the domain count, within the legitimacy of the college, and there is a process on which people can look across different colleges or within different departments within the college to see whether if it has impact or is a duplication. That is where the college curriculum committees get involved. All of the department courses go through the curriculum committees of the colleges where they originate.

Q (3 continued): What I understand about that is that ASU 101 is different because the Senate passed explicit requirements that it take into account the results or decisions of various curriculum committees at the college and department levels before it would go on the books.

Q (4)So, the issue isn’t do courses typically have to do that, but this ASU 101 specifically has to do that as a result of resolutions 5 and 14. Saying that they typically do that is not what I think the point is.

13 Parliamentarian Vandermeer: I think Senator Comfort is right.

BV: This is an item for first reading; it is coming on the agenda for these committees, so it is a perfect time to have these conversations—we are not pushing something through today at all.

PV: I understood this was a unique situation and that is why we have a specific resolution to deal with it. Of course, if it comes through a specific college it has to be dealt with by their curriculum committee. This is a course that is going to be required university wide, and my understanding is that it has to go through the curriculum committees of each of the colleges.

BV: The reason we are where we are--is the way I interpreted that this was one course, and any single course doesn’t have to go through every curriculum committee. A course just becomes a course but for example in the School of Business, my location, we create courses all the time and do they have to go through a Liberal Arts and Sciences curriculum committee—no, but they get on the books. But if someone turned around and said to you--you have to each ECN 221, no way would you do that—it would have to go through your curriculum committee. That is way that I was looking at the course this way.

Q (3 continued): There is something fishy about the process—this rather unusual idea of getting a university wide course to the Senate, so that it can be referred out to committee and to the faculty. This is something that should have happened 18 months ago! I am glad that is has been recognized that we need to do something like that and I applaud the people behind this process, but my concern right now is that the Senate resolutions are not being implemented as they were written and that CAPC is mucking up the process along the way.

Q (5 new Q): I am seeking some clarification. My understanding of the spirit of those resolutions was that each individual college was going to have input into how this ASU 101 was ultimately going to be implemented in their college. I am still unclear as to how each of those colleges’ curriculum committees are going to interface with it. I was under the impression we were going to get some core elements and I am wondering if that is what this material is, some core elements, that need to be embedded in all those courses and then once we had those core elements they would go to our curriculum committees in our individual colleges, and we would develop a course around those core elements as well as put in other things that we thought essential and then send those through the CAPC review process. My sense of the spirit was that every college was going to have their input into the development around a set of core concepts, and I am unclear as to when that process is to take place. So if you can tell us where we are supposed to interface with that.

BV: That was the CAPC portion of the process in my view where anybody can create a course and have a course be brought forward, but before it gets included in the curriculum. To require you to teach it is quite a different matter. That my department would teach this without a curriculum committee looking at it is one thing—but this is a little different—Rojann’s comment that individual colleges should have input on the core elements, that is different.

Q(5 continued): If this is not the core elements, could that be provided to us and then we would decide how we would develop the material that Conhi wants to add.

DR: What you are describing can be done assuming that the TCCS does approve the course. Then if the course becomes a requirement for all students CAPC would become part of this process. The next question is how it gets implemented within individual departments and colleges is in the hands of those who implement it for those individual colleges and departments. That is my understanding.

14 Q(5 continued): I have to strongly disagree. First they said it had to be proposed by the unit level and then go to the college level and then go to the committees…. But we have done this now from the top down. We have approved it, and now it is on the books, and now each college should have input. This is too late, it has to go from the bottom to the top, not the other way around. I just wanted to note that.

DR: I agree with that--it has to be from the bottom up.

BV: Let me propose the following to you. I will meet with TCCS and CAPC at their next meeting, and I will take this back to the Executive Committee and re-look at the process. This is an agenda item, and it could be tabled by TCCS or CAPC. My view of this was that the course could go on, but until it got to actually having colleges and schools teaching it—then that unit’s curriculum committee would have to be involved.

Q(5 continued): For me I need to understand what I am voting for. When it comes to a vote, I voted for this, what would that mean I have agreed to? If I vote against it what would that mean?

DR: The proposal is that it will come to the Senate—on page 3 of the appendix in paragraph 1, in the memo from the Provost, “we request approval for a freshman seminar course of one student credit hour offering under a single prefix or number required of all first time freshmen.” If you go to the second paragraph it says “the course will contain additional material that provides tools for student success” and then further down it says in the middle of the paragraph it says “in addition modules that provide academic content are required.” Then it goes on to say that “this content could come from ASU material or it could come from college material.” The final part of it in the third paragraph, the first sentence “finally it is necessary that the course be required for all first time freshmen.” That is the gist of the proposal and the rest is all supportive of that.

Q(3 continued previous Q): My understanding is that this was to go to the departments curriculum and then if they approve it, it should go to college curriculum committees and then on further. We are not able to approve this or it would violate our own rules.

BV: I will ask each of you since each of you represents a department to take this to your curriculum committee? Thank you.

Q(6 new Q): I don’t know how comfortable I feel taking this to a curriculum committee because I don’t feel that the supporting documentation is real supporting. So, it is one thing to say…

DR: But that is outcome of taking it to the curriculum committee.

Q(6 continued): For example, it says we should—it will help with social integration of our freshmen, to help them be socially integrated. I really would like to really know how do we socially integrate somebody after they have been at ASU for four months and they are taking ASU 101 at the end of that time. It seems to me that yes, this looks really good but it really isn’t really good. When it is said that research shows—I would like to see the research that was done with our students so that so that we could take that and discuss that in a meaningful way.

BV: I know that data was collected on the first year stuff. I do not know if it is all tallied and summarized yet. I have to stop this debate here because we have one more item of business and again this is first reading. This is wonderful discussion we are having.

Q(7 new Q6): Point of order, what is the motion? There is no motion listed on the agenda. First reading of what, there is no motion.

DR: The motion is the proposal that appears on page three of the appendix.

15 Q(7 continued): That is not a motion that is a request of the Senate, it is just a letter.

DR: CAPC will be crafting a motion and bring it to this body.

BV: I would like to invite Tory Trotta to give her report next.

B. Committee on Committees (Tory Trotta)

Last week there was a preference survey distributed to the entire ASU Academic Assembly—we have about 200 responses out of 2,300 faculty and academic professionals--so thanks to the Provost for helping us to distribute that survey. I am trying to get it distributed again but to the extent you have the ability to ask your units to respond to the preference survey, please do so on behalf of the Committee on Committees, as I hope you will respond yourselves and that would be helpful. Thank you.

C. Personnel Committee (Bob McPhee)

I am going to ask right away that we have a vote to suspend rules to move a set of documents from the Personnel Committee to second reading, debate and perhaps passage. It is a set of provisions that are revisions of certain sections of the ACD Manual. It is important to do these today because in the middle of next month the National Science Foundation is sending auditors who will be looking at ASU procedures and also policies to see whether they conform with NSF, management and budget office of the US guidelines. In order to make sure that our policies do that, we need to, if possible, pass these items today.

The committee has put forward a motion to suspend the rules and move these documents to second reading.

President Verdini: Is there a motion to waive the rules so we can consider these three proposals. The motion to suspend was made and seconded (multiple seconds). Is there discussion on that?

Q (1): Why is this coming so late?

BMcP: They will have 45 days before t he NSF comes to campus, and it has been a part of our ACD changes —these were not ones we were not putting a high priority on at first in our discussion--we wanted to review 501 personnel things first, but then this came up so we acted on this.

We had low notice that these needed to be considered—at least one of these is a brand new policy that was not in the old ACD manual, so the Personnel Committee deserves a lot of credit for meeting three times since we had notice of this, a couple of times for two hours each in laborious sessions, and we have done the best we can do on our behalf.

BV: Any other discussion on waiving the rules? All in favor signify by saying aye. Any opposed (a few noes). Sign of hands for the noes. Any abstentions? (one). Thank you, the motion carries. We have waived the rules. Now there are three items to consider.

BMcP: ACD 002, the definitions section—contains a proposed definition of institutional based salary is a new definition in that section. Section 510-02 is on supplemental pay and section 510-04 is on intra- university consulting, in other words consulting from one part of the university in one department to another part of ASU. We have gone through this package of documents in quite a bit of detail: we have checked with the Office of the Vice President of Research, the General Counsel’s Office and research representatives including Steve Batalden of the Milligan Institute. We have tried as much as possible to conform to four goals that are listed on page 7 of the attachments, in particular, we have tried to set up policies that conform with the NSF and OMB regulations and criteria, while giving maximum freedom to researchers and grant seekers to organize their research as they will. We have set up exception clauses so that for instance the

16 requirements on page 14 regarding intra-university consulting—we created a list of requirements that guarantee that intra-university consulting is not abused. We set up exceptions in a number of cases so that if the grant giving agency, ASU procedures, etc allow for it certain forms of intra-university consulting that otherwise would be outlawed can be undertaken, and we have examples of where these have actually have been needed by research endeavors at ASU.

I am sorry there is not enough time to go through the different sections of the ACD manual in more detail and talk about these at greater length. These policies do concern matters that are not all related to grants and NSF regulations, but nonetheless it is important to pass them in this form so that when the NSF auditors come we do have a set of policies in place that are at least at the policy level in conformance with the NSF.

Perhaps if there is some comfort in it if people would approve it today for the NSF audit to go well and then could we come back in a month or two and say we don’t understand something—could it be discussed some more or revisited even while we are still in the ACD revision process, so that we have not cast anything in stone?

Yes, I have been assuming that the sections that are not directly and specifically relevant to the NSF effort and process will be able to be revisited. We did look at the whole section in each case.

President Verdini: I want to ask Dr. Shangraw a question. If we were to pass this and in two months at another senate meeting amend it, what would the reaction be?

Dr. Shangraw: You would just have to have something on the books.

Is it clear that we are talking about the institutional based salary part of the definitions section 002?

BMcP: Yes. Section 002 we have done some looking over it, but we have not passed a version of it, the particular definition of institutional based salary in it we have, which at least in my opinion does conform to common sense. It has to be there in order for the NSF to be able to judge whether or not our computation of consulting and other compensation that has to be a certain ratio to the institutional based salary is actually set as low as it should be. We have to have a definition of the base to be able to judge the propriety of compensation that goes above as substitute for the base.

BV: We are beginning nothing that is on the floor technically. We have not made a motion to do anything yet, so Bob, if your committee would make that motion?

BMcP: The Senate Personnel Committee moves approval of all three of these provisions, in the Section 002, the definition of institutional based salary, ACD 510-02 and ACD 510-04 as revised.

Seconded (multiple seconds).

Now we are opening debate on these three things.

Q(1): Yes, it is hard enough to get an NSF grant these days so, I would like to move that we pass this immediately, we don’t need anymore grief. The only comment I have is that I don’t like the idea of hard wiring specific sums like $1500 because all that means is that in the event of inflation we are just going to have to revisit this at periodic intervals but I don’t mind waiting on that.

BMcP: I am in agreement with making some provision that is more general. We did discuss this in committee and I think the feeling was for most departments $1500 is pretty generous and there is provision in that section for exceptions so that if someone is a really good speaker, they get a higher honorarium.

17 Q(2): On ACD 510-02, I have some heartache with the exception in the supplemental pay, as a matter of fact first hand I am suffering from that interpretation although the NSF documents here say exceptions are possible it is up to the university to provide that exception and they in fact can say no, and they have in my case what are we talking about. If you are lucky enough to get a grant and the grant requires you to work from around Christmas time you are not going to be reimbursed for that Christmas time unless you have an exception. If the grant asks you to work Saturday and drive back from Bullhead City or Laughlin, you are not reimbursed by the grant unless the exception is approved. This language is not in the best interests of the faculty because it probably should say that a grantee will be provided an exception rather than we may request—it is not small matter—and we do have the Vice President for Research here who I believe is aware of the situation as it relates to supplemental pay. If we can revisit the issue that is one thing but I can tell you if you get a grant and you go after supplemental pay you will be negotiating with the university. It just does not come de facto to you.

[BV:Do you have a specific amendment to propose? I am just bringing that to the attention of the members.]

Thanks to the committee for the time they have taken to taken to go over these policies. We want to make sure there are exceptions that we can put into this without writing as a part of the policy – it would be very hard for us to write a policy that basically violates OMB Circular 21. Your point is that we should grant those exceptions automatically as opposed to reviewing them. I think it is going to be hard given the way the auditors look at these things that we grant exceptions automatically.

BV: Time for one more comment. The other two senates are talking about these today. We are working on these simultaneously.

BMcP: To the extent we can keep the different versions consistent we will be better off. I apologize that the exception may not be granted--I do think it is hard to write that into a policy statement to make sure that such things are granted.

Are there any other questions?

Q(3): It would seem that we need a friendly amendment to this that we revisit this.

BV: One thing you could do is regardless of what happens with this right now, ask our research committee or ask that it be sent to committee for more careful study, and changing things on the issue of fixed dollar amounts; the comment on supplemental pay; and we actually do have a research committee that is chaired by Avi Wiezel and we could do that and that would be a separate thing.

Q(3 continued): Can there be conditional approval something that gives the higher ups what they need but gives people the chance to feel like they will be given more time if they need it.

BV: As I said, you can order the senate to send this to a committee.

Q (3 continued):I don’t’ think we want that to happen because they need this for the audit.

BMcP: I will try to assure you that at our next meeting, we will take this up again, and I will ask that any concerns or worries about language or the particulars in these sections are taken up and you can email me on this. I have a friendly amendment that I want to ask for myself—on page 14 it is in the latter part of ACD 510-04, there are two statements, in condition 2 it says the “intra-university” consultant is not an investigator on the sponsored project…” In other words, you cannot be an investigator listed and be a consultant that requires the consultant services subject to the provisions in paragraph one above, and OMB circular 21. In other words if paragraph one above in the OMB circular said it was ok to have a listed investigator doing consulting on another part of the grant, that would be at least allowed, not necessarily approved by ASU.

18 Then down in the last paragraph, the second sentence says similarly investigators listed on a sponsored project cannot serve as an intra-university consultant on that project. Those two provisions are contradictory. I am open about what which one we change, but I think to satisfy the NSF we need to change one or the other. I myself suggest changing that sentence toward the bottom part because we eliminate the grammatical problem, but also because we retain flexibility for intra-university consulting if we leave that possibility of exception in number 2. I can say that Steve Batalden when he attended our meeting gave a couple of examples of cases where intra-university by consulting by listed investigators was beneficial to grants that his center was involved with. That would be my suggestion to eliminate that sentence beginning “similarly…” in the last paragraph.

BV: Whatever you need to say, so moved to delete the sentence beginning with “similarly…” Seconded (multiple seconds). All in favor say aye. All opposed? Is there other discussion? Hearing none, we call the question. All in favor of the motion to approve the three sections as amended say aye. Opposed say nay (1 no). Abstentions? (none).

I have three names written down, Peter Rez, Jay Blanchard, M. Romero, to be contacted by the Personnel Committee regarding these ACD changes; is there anyone else that wants to be contacted for input.

Thank you all very much.

D. Student-Faculty Policy Committee (Jerry Kingston). (Report, attachments page 15) Spring meetings will be in Interdisciplinary B 365 beginning at 3:15 p.m.—February 11; February 25; March 24; March 31; April 7; and April 28.

E. University Affairs Committee (Rojann Alpers). The revision of the Constitution and Bylaws is ongoing. A draft proposal of bylaws will be presented at the February 18 Senate meeting.

7. Adjournment.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

Recorded and edited by: Darby Shaw, Executive Assistant

Final Editing by: Judy Grace, Secretary of the Senate