REGULAR MEETING OF THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE

                                May 4, 1992 and
                                 May 11, 1992

                                    MINUTES

Senator not in attendance at the May 4 meeting:  Alfred Wedel

Senators excused from the May 4 meeting:  David Bellamy, Kenneth Biederman,
                                          Costel Denson, Alexander Doberenz,
                                          Robert Knecht, Frank Murray, Larry
                                          Peterson, John Pikulski, David P.
                                          Roselle, Carolyn Thoroughgood

     
I.    ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

      The Senate adopted the Agenda with slight changes in wording as
      presented by President Taggart.

II.   APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

      Senate Larry Peterson was excused from the last meeting rather than
      absent.  The Senate approved the Minutes of April 6, 1992 with this
      change.

III.  REMARKS BY PROVOST PIPES

      Provost Pipes shared statistics about admissions and the 1992 entering
      class, announcing a projected class of 3100 entering students with
      higher SAT scores and more African-American students.  He also announced
      a $300,000 scholarship pool offered to the top 10% of admitted students.

IV.   ANNOUNCEMENTS

      President Taggart reminded Senate Committee Chairpersons that Annual
      Reports are due, that there will be an open hearing May 24 on the
      request for approval of name and location change for the Existing Master
      of Instruction in Economic Education degree which is being changed to
      Master of Arts in Economics for Educators in the College of Business and
      Economics.  He also thanked committee chairpersons for their work this
      year.

V.    NEW BUSINESS

      Item A.  Election of Senate Officers, carried on during the beginning of
      the Faculty Senate meeting resulted in the election of the following
      Senate Officers:  

        President-Elect                         Bonnie K. Scott (English)
        Vice President                          David Sperry (Life & Health
                                                  Sciences)
        Secretary                               Judith Roof (English)
        
      The Senate also elected Frank Dilley to the Committee on Committees and
      Nominations, and Arthur Sloane, David Haslett, and Bilian Cicin-Sain to
      the Committee on Rules.

      Item B.   A slate of persons nominated for committee positions by the
      Committee on Committees and Nominations was approved by the full Faculty
      Senate. (Copy of the Committee appointments is attached.)

      Item C.   Recommendation from the Committee on Undergraduate Studies
      (M.Keefe, Chairperson), with the concurrence of the Coordinating
      Committee on Education (K. Lomax, Chairperson), for approval of a new
      Honors Baccalaureate Degree in Food Science.  After questions about the
      Honors status of 600-level courses and the grade-point requirement, the
      Faculty Senate approved the following resolution:

            RESOLVED,   that the Faculty Senate approves the establishment of
                        a new Honors Baccalaureate Degree in Food Science,
                        effective immediately.

      Item D.   Recommendation from the Committee on Graduate Studies (R.
      Dalrymple, Chairperson), with the concurrence of the Coordinating
      Committee on Education (K. Lomax, Chairperson), for provisional approval
      of the Coursework option in the Master of Mechanical Engineering Degree. 
      The Faculty Senate passed the following resolution:

            RESOLVED,   that the Faculty Senate approves provisionally, for
                        four years, the Coursework (non-thesis) option in the
                        Master of Mechanical Engineering, effective
                        immediately.

      Item E.   Recommendation from the Committee on Undergraduate Studies (M.
      Keefe, Chairperson), with the concurrence of the Coordinating Committee
      on Education (K. Lomax, Chairperson), to specify that Reading Day is
      intended as a day set aside for studying.  After establishing that the
      resolution would take effect in the Autumn, and after discussion about
      the potential loss of faculty and student flexibility, and pressures on
      students who would like exams when scheduled, the Faculty Senate
      approved the following resolution:
         
             WHEREAS,   the purpose of a University-wide Reading Day is to
                        give students a day free of exams and allow them to
                        review for upcoming finals and to complete projects,
                        therefore be it

            RESOLVED,   that no exams may be given on Reading Day and that
                        this statement be inserted in the Faculty Handbook,
                        Section II, as paragraph 4 under II.2. "Examinations
                        and Tests," page II-3.

      Item F.   Recommendations from the Committee on Academic Appeals (E. N.
      Simons, Chairperson), with the concurrence of the Committee on Graduate
      Studies (R. Dalrymple, Chairperson), and the Committee on Undergraduate
      Studies (M. Keefe, Chairperson), to revise Step 3 and Step 4 of the
      Student Grievance Procedure.  The first resolution proposed that one
      procedure be utilized by all Step 3 hearing committees.  After a minor
      change in the text and passage of a motion to strike the words
      "whichever comes first," from the proposed rule, the Faculty Senate
      approved the following resolution (with changes):

          RESOLUTION ONE

             WHEREAS,   there has not been a clearly defined, consistent
                        procedure for different departments and colleges to
                        use in conducting Step 3 hearings, and

             WHEREAS,   it has become clear that different students have
                        received different treatments in different departments
                        by not having any consistent procedure used for Step 3
                        hearings, therefore be it

            RESOLVED,   that one procedure be utilized by all Step 3 hearing
                        committees to better insure that all students receive
                        similar treatment.  (The following recommendations for
                        Step 3 Procedures would be added to Section II,
                        paragraph 4. "Student Grievance Procedure," page II-5,
                        of the Faculty Handbook:)  

Step 3)   A student or faculty member who is not satisfied with the decision
          reached in Step 2 may appeal to the concerned college Dean.  This
          appeal to Step 3 must be made no more than three weeks (within a
          regular Fall or Spring semester) after Step 2 has been completed. 
          The College Dean will establish a hearing panel within two weeks of
          receipt of an appeal or if that is too close to the end of a regular
          Semester, by one month after the beginning of the next regular
          Semester (Fall or Spring). The college hearing panel will hear the
          appeal during a regular semester.  Typically the panel will include
          three faculty members with one (only) of them coming from the
          involved department and the other two drawn from other departments
          within that college, or, where necessary from other colleges when
          the concerned college has few or no departmental divisions.  There
          should be two undergraduate student members for an undergraduate
          appeal or two graduate student members for a graduate appeal and
          neither of the student members should come from the department
          involved.  (These students may be drawn from other colleges, also.)

          Where feasible, the student and professor concerned must both be
          present at any/all hearing/s when evidence is being presented.

          The procedures utilized by colleges relating to the student
          grievance procedure at Step 3 should conform to the general
          principles of due process.  To satisfy this standard, the hearing
          process should, at least:

          A.  Fully inform the student and faculty member in writing of the
              procedures to be used so that they are aware of them in advance
              of the hearing.

          B.    Make available to the student and faculty member, at least
                three working days prior to the hearing, all material which
                has been furnished to the college hearing panel that will be
                presented as evidence and the names of any witnesses who are
                scheduled to give testimony. 

          C.  Allow the student and faculty member to:

              1.    Hear all testimony and examine all evidence presented on
                    behalf of the other;  

              2.    question witnesses and/or each other about their testimony
                    or evidence presented;

              3.    be assisted by an advisor of his or her choice from among
                    the members of the University community.  The advisor may
                    help prepare the case, raise questions during the hearing,
                    and, if appropriate, help prepare an appeal to Step 4.  A
                    department Chairperson who has mediated or attempted
                    mediation at Step 2 would not be permitted to serve as
                    advisor to either party beyond Step 2.

              4.    Make a summary statement at the conclusion of the hearing.

          There must be a decision made at Step 3 before an appeal can be made
          to Step 4.
      
          It is recommended that all hearings be tape recorded and those tape
          recordings be secured for no less than one year by the concerned
          college Dean's office.

          It is recommended that a copy of the written report of the decision
          be filed with the appointing Dean's office at the time it is sent to
          the student and professor involved.

      The second resolution set time limits within which Step 4 Hearings must
      be held.  After discussion about the possibility of exceptions, what is
      necessary to make an appeal, and Senate approval of a motion to change
      the language of the rule, the Faculty Senate approved the following
      resolution (with changes): 

RESOLUTION TWO

             WHEREAS,   there has been no time limits set for appeals to the
                        final Step 4 level of academic appeals and some have
                        arrived more than two years after the grievable
                        incident, therefore be it

            RESOLVED,   that an appeal must be initiated within 30 days of the
                        Step 3 appeal being issued. (This change to Step 4
                        would be added to the "Student Grievance Procedure" in
                        the Faculty Handbook, Section II, middle of page II-
                        5.)

Step 4)   A student or faculty member who is not satisfied with the fairness
          or thoroughness of the procedures used in Step 3 may appeal to the
          Academic Appeals Committee of the University Faculty Senate.  This
          appeal must be made to Step 4 no more than one month (within a
          regular Fall or Spring semester) after a Step 3 decision is issued. 
          This Committee, on reviewing the case, may uphold the decision of
          the college committee without a hearing, or it may decide the appeal
          should be heard.

          For purposes of a hearing, the Chairperson of the Academic Appeals
          Committee may . . 
..  
      Item G. Recommendation from the Committee on Student Life (R. Bennett,
              Chairperson), for revisions to the Academic Dishonesty Policy. 
              The Faculty Senate discussed the wisdom of the proposed Policy's
              shift of responsibility for prosecution and penalty of cases of
              academic dishonesty to faculty members, argued whether the
              proposed Policy's apparently greater leniency was desirable,
              discussed the mechanics of the proposed procedures, debated the
              merits of the Proposed Policy's greater flexibility, considered
              whether the proposed Policy provides sufficient fairness and
              consistency, and after defeat of a motion to return the proposed
              Policy to the Committee, the Faculty Senate approved the
              following Resolution:

             WHEREAS,   the Dean of Student's Office has received complaints
                        from faculty and students about the current academic
                        dishonesty procedures and sanctions, and

             WHEREAS,   the complaints have centered on the laborious nature
                        of the due process system and the inflexibility of the
                        current system, and

             WHEREAS,   the number of academic dishonesty cases has diminished
                        sharply from 69 two years ago to 32 last year,
                        therefore be it

            RESOLVED,   that the current policies and procedures concerning
                        academic dishonesty in The Official Student Handbook
                        1991-1992 be amended as indicated in Attachment 6 of
                        the Agenda.

     The first meeting of the May session was adjourned at 5:35 p.m.

                              Respectfully submitted,



                              Judith Roof
                              Senate Secretary

rg
Attachment