REGULAR MEETING OF THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE

NOVEMBER 5, 2012 – 104 GORE HALL

OFFICIAL MINUTES

Senators Present: Tom Angell, Deputy Provost Ardis, Provost Brickhouse, Martha Buell, Vicki Cassman, John Courtright, Leslie Criston, Prasad Dhurjati, Robert Dyer, Danielle Ford, Megan Gaffney, Norma Gaines-Hanks, Nancy Getchell, Michael Gilbert, Robert Golinkoff, Linda Gottfredson, Michael Gutierrez, Steve Hastings, Tianjian Hsu, John Jebb, Amy Johnson, Akisha R. Jones, Paul Laux, Mark McLeod, Doris Miklitz, John D. Morgan, James Morrison, Jason Mycoff, Babatunde Ogunnaike, Lynn Okagaki, Phill Penix-Tadsen, Ali Poorani, Marcos Portnoi, Mark Rieger, Charles Riordan, Matthew Robinson, David Satran, Nicole Seymour, Seth Shabo, Chien-Chung Shen, Andrew Shermeyer, Greg Shriver, Ivan Sun, Herbert Tanner, Kathleen Turkel, Maggie Ussery, Tom Vermeer, Margaret Werth, Randall Wisser, Anu Sivaraman, Kate Rogers, Jeff Jordan, Sheldon Pollack, Joerg Busch, Deni Galileo

Senators Excused: Brian Ackerman, Joseph Daniel, Gabriella Hermon, Dean Matt, Michael O’Neal, Darcy Reisman, Dean Targett, Dean Watson, Dean Webber,

Senators Absent: Tom Rocek, Michelle Parent, Andrew Muenchow, Lance Winn, Jo Kallal, Phillip Duker, John Gillespie

October 29, 2012

TO: Senators and Executives

FROM: Katherin Rogers, Vice President

University Faculty Senate

SUBJECT: Regular Faculty Senate Meeting November 5, 2012

In accordance with Section IV, paragraph 6 of the Constitution, the regular meeting of the University Faculty Senate will be held on Monday, November 5, 2012 at 4:00 p.m. in 104 Gore Hall.

I certify that hard copies of the approval page for each undergraduate and graduate studies academic item on the agenda are filed in the Faculty Senate Office with the appropriate signatures of approval up through the Chair of the Faculty Senate Coordinating Committee on Education. The Agenda will be as follows:

AGENDA

I. Adoption of the Agenda

Motion to Amend the November Agenda – Items A under unfinished business and items D, E, and F under New Business were proposed to be pulled from the agenda. Motion passed.

II. Approval of the Minutes: October 1, 2012

II. Remarks: Provost Nancy Brickhouse (slide presentation)

Update on Capital Projects.

· ISE Lab – Paid for by a combination of operating funds and gifts. University does not allow bonds to be issues on building. Certificate of Occupation expected in April. Opening ceremonies to be scheduled for October. Classes can be scheduled for Fall 2013. High cost of the building is due to high-cost temperature controlled environment that is part of the design of the building. Facility designed for classrooms for majors and non-majors and facility conducive to PBL.

· East Campus Plant = Budget $37.5. Very nearly done.

· Life Sciences Research Facility = Budget $12.5 – paid for by stimulus money and our operational funds. Very nearly complete.

· Alison Hall - $17.5M Budget. Almost completely gutted and renovated completely. Largely funded by state money. Expected completion in May – should be ready for classes in the fall.

· Health Sciences Complex – STAR Campus. Budget $30.5 M. Physical Therapy, Nurse Managed Healthcare and a few other departments will be moving there. Land is ours but the development is being funded by private developers. Expected to be completed by 2013.

· Drake Organic Chemistry Lab – Budget = $5.5M. Combination of State funds and support from CAS.

· Materials Management Facility – Budget $3.7M – Expected to be done by the end of Spring.

· East Campus Residence Halls A and B - $84.5M Budget – funded by student fees and bonds. Expected to be done in the summer and ready for occupancy in the Fall.

· Academy Street Dining and Residence Hall - $62M – in the initial stages of design – paid for with student fees – July 2015 completion date.

· Harrington Residence Hall Renovation – Budget = $30.75M. Construction will start 2013 and end in Mid-2015

· Carpenter Sports Building – Under extensive renovation and additions are being made. Budget: $25M – Addition is likely to be completed by early Fall 2013 and Renovation by end Fall 2013.

· Bloom Energy Infrastructure – STAR Campus – will be a manufacturing site. Funded by the SOD Infrastructure Fund.

John Morgan, John Jebb and Joerg Busch, Martha Buell, Ali Poorani, and Jim Morrison – had questions regarding various projects.

III. Announcements: Senate President Sheldon Pollack

Hans Joerg made an announcement requesting senators to volunteer for the P & T committee and the Graduate Studies Committee.

Senate President Pollack’s presentation provided updates on various issues in front of the Senate. (slide presentation)

V. Consent Agenda

1. Announcements for Challenge: None

VI. Regular Agenda

1. Unfinished Business:

a. Recommendation from the Faculty Senate Executive Committee (Sheldon Pollack, Chair) with the concurrence of the Faculty Senate Committee on Rules (Anu Sivaraman, Chair) for the approval of a resolution concerning the “Introduction of New Business” on the Faculty Senate Agenda

Whereas, Section IV, article 9 of the University of Delaware Faculty Constitution provides that: “No motion introduced under new business, except a motion to refer to committee, shall be acted upon until the next meeting of the Senate,” and

Whereas, the University of Delaware Faculty Senate previously adopted a rule implementing such provision in the Constitution; and

Whereas, such rule provides that if a motion (beyond a comment or observation) is made under the “Introduction of New Business” on the agenda of a regular meeting then the Senate must vote to either: (i) refer such motion to the Executive committee to determine the proper committee to consider such motion, or (ii) refer such motion to a particular committee, or (iii) vote to not refer such motion to any committee; and

Whereas, matters under “Introduction of New Business” are raised at the end of Senate meetings, when often there is insufficient time for adequate consideration of such matters; and

Whereas, more time is often needed for adequate consideration of such matters; be it therefore

Resolved, that the rules of the University of Delaware Faculty Senate be amended to provide that if the presiding officer determines that there is inadequate time to adequately consider a matter raised under the “Introduction of New Business,” then such matter will be held for discussion and consideration at the next regular meeting of the Faculty Senate under “Unfinished Business.”

Current Rule of the UD Faculty Senate re the Introduction of New Business:

Proposed Revision to Rule of the UD Faculty Senate re the Introduction of New Business:

If a motion (beyond a comment or observation) is made under “Introduction of New Business,” then the Senate must vote to either: (i) refer that motion to the Executive committee to determine the proper referral committee; (ii) refer the motion to a particular committee; or (iii) vote to not refer the motion to a committee. If the presiding officer determines that there is insufficient time for reasonable discussion, then the matter will be held for discussion and consideration at the next regular meeting of the Faculty Senate under “Unfinished Business.”

2. New Business:

Resolutions:

a. Recommendation from Senators Galileo, Buell, Hastings, Heinz, Jebb, Johnson, Morgan, and Morrison with the concurrence of the Faculty Senate Committee on Rules (Anu Sivaraman, Chairperson) and the Executive Committee (Sheldon Pollack, Chairperson) for the approval of a resolution defining eligibility for Faculty Senate Officers and Committee Chairs (attachment 1)

Whereas, the Faculty Senate functions as the standing executive committee of the Faculty of the University of Delaware and, as such, exercises the powers vested in the Faculty by the Board of Trustees, and

Whereas, Senate Officers (President, President Elect, Past President, Vice President, Secretary, Parliamentarian, and Chair of Committee on Committees and Nominations) comprise the Senate Executive Committee, which is charged with many important Senate duties including consideration of agenda items for Senate meetings, and

Whereas, Senate committee Chairs also perform leadership roles in conducting Senate business, and

Whereas, Senate Officers and committee Chairs now can be elected or appointed from all full-time voting Faculty of the University, and

Whereas, the University exists, in part, to foster the free exchange of ideas and, thus, this should be manifest in Senate discussions and committee meetings, and

Whereas, University administrators are represented adequately in the Senate as non-elected Senators and members of multiple Senate committees, and

Whereas, a Senate Officer or committee Chair would have potential conflicts of interest if he or she also held an administrative appointment at the University, be it therefore

Resolved, that the bylaws of the faculty be amended as in attachment 1 above to read as follows: that eligibility for nomination, appointment, or service as Senate Officers or committee Chairs shall be restricted to full-time voting Faculty who are not appointed to serve in an official capacity for the Offices of the President, the Provost, any Vice President, or the Dean of any College, including but not limited to administrative officers of the University (including deputy, associate, assistant and vice provosts), academic deans (including deputy, associate and assistant deans), and department chairs or academic program directors (as defined in the Policy Guide for Department Chairs and Academic Program Directors). Faculty who serve in a temporary capacity for an administrative office as a member of a search committee, standing committee, or ad hoc committee shall not be deemed ineligible because of this service.

Senator Getchell sought clarification on how this policy would be administered. Senator Galileo and Senator Gottfredson mentioned that HR has classification codes that will help recognize administrators and they did not foresee any issues in administering this policy. Resolution passed unanimously.

b. Recommendation from the Faculty Senate Committee on Rules (Anu Siveraman, Chairperson) with the concurrence of the Executive Committee (Sheldon Pollack, Chairperson) for the approval of a resolution revising the title of the Vice Provost for Academic Programs and Planning to Deputy Provost in the Faculty Constitution (Attachment 1)

Whereas, the University of Delaware Faculty Constitution provides for twelve (12) non-elected, ex officio members of the Faculty Senate; and

Whereas, one such member of the Faculty Senate is the Vice Provost for Academic Programs and Planning; and

Whereas, such position was re-titled many years ago and the functions of such officer were delegated to a new position, the Deputy Provost; and

Whereas, the past practice of the Faculty Senate has been to recognize the Deputy Provost as a member of the Faculty Senate, replacing the former Vice Provost for Academic Programs and Planning;

Resolved, that the University of Delaware Faculty Constitution be amended to provide that the Deputy Provost is a member of the Faculty Senate in lieu of the position previously held by the former Vice Provost for Academic Programs and Planning as indicated in Attachment 1 above.

Senator Hastings sought clarification on the full title of the Deputy Provost. Resolution passed unanimously.

c. Recommendation /from the Executive Committee (Sheldon Pollack, Chair) with the concurrence of the Student Life Committee (Mark Parcells, Chair) to approve a resolution of the University of Delaware Faculty Senate regarding certain amendments to the Student Code of Conduct.

Whereas, certain faculty members of the University of Delaware have become aware that students in their class have entered into agreements with certain commercial websites; and

Whereas, pursuant to such agreements, said students post their notes and other material from such classes on such commercial websites in exchange for a fee; and

Whereas, such faculty members wish to end such practice in their classes; and

Whereas, the Faculty Senate wishes to provide such faculty members with a practical and effective method for prohibiting such practice; be it therefore

Resolved, that the Student Code of Conduct shall be amended to provide that in cases where a faculty member states on the course syllabus that no student may post notes or other material from the class on the Internet, whether or not for a fee, and any UD student, whether enrolled in the class or not, shall thereafter post such material on the Internet in contradiction of such prohibition, such act shall constitute a violation of the Student Code of Conduct.

Senator Shabo asked what the enforcement mechanism would be. Senator Pollack said that faculty would have to monitor these sites to see if there is any violation. Student Life will amend Student Code of Conduct immediately after this resolution is passed and also inform students. If the student posts the notes anonymously, there may be no way to identify the student. Senator Penix-Tadsen asked why this specific rule for the specific case of posting notes online? What happens if someone photocopies the notes and circulates it? Another question was about audio and video recordings. President Pollack indicated that audio video recordings would be a clear violation of intellectual property rights. 3 Opposed. Resolution passed

d. Recommendation from the Faculty Senate Executive Committee (Sheldon Pollack, Chair) with the concurrence of the Faculty Senate Committee on Rules (Anu Sivaraman, Chair) for a revision to the Bylaws of the Faculty Senate (attachment 1)

Whereas, Paragraph 9 of Section XIV of the Bylaws of the Faculty Senate states that the Bylaws of the Trustees of the University authorizes the Faculty Senate to “adopt regulations governing its own procedures with authority to enact, amend, and repeal its bylaws by a two-thirds vote of those present”; and

Whereas, Section 3.2.4.9. of the Bylaws of the Trustees of the University in fact authorizes the Faculty Senate to “adopt regulations governing its own procedures with authority to enact, amend, and repeal its bylaws,” imposing no requirement with respect to a two-thirds vote of those present for such an amendment; and

Whereas, such provision in Paragraph 9 of Section XIV of the Bylaws of the Faculty Senate is erroneous and misstates the authority granted to the Faculty Senate with respect to amending its bylaws, rules, and regulations; and

Whereas, the Faculty Senate wishes to correct such error;

Resolved, that Paragraph 9 of Section XIV of the Bylaws of the Faculty Senate shall be corrected to provide that Faculty shall: “adopt regulations governing its own procedures with authority to enact, amend, and repeal its bylaws.”

This resolution was pulled

e. Recommendation from the Faculty Senate Executive Committee (Sheldon Pollack, Chair) with the concurrence of the Faculty Senate Committee on Rules (Anu Sivaraman, Chair) for the approval of a resolution for amending the bylaws and rules and regulations of the University Faculty Senate (attachment 1)

Whereas, the Bylaws of the Faculty Senate (the “Bylaws”) presently include a provision (Section IV) that purportedly sets forth the voting requirements for amending such Bylaws as well as the rules and regulations of the Faculty Senate (the “Senate”); and

Whereas, such provision of the Bylaws in fact only sets forth the requirements for amending the rules and regulations of the Senate, but not the Bylaws; and

Whereas, such provision of the Bylaws requires an affirmative vote of two-thirds of those senators present and voting at a duly called meeting of the Senate in order to amend the rules and regulations of the Senate; and

Whereas, the requirement for amendments to the rules and regulations of the Senate is overly stringent; and

Whereas, there is no provision in the Bylaws that provides a procedure for amendments to such Bylaws;

Whereas, it is important to have an official procedure in the Bylaws providing for amendments to such Bylaws; and

Whereas, the prior practice of the Senate has been to adopt amendments to the Bylaws upon the affirmative vote of two-thirds of those senators present and voting at a duly called meeting of the Senate; be it therefore

Resolved, that the Bylaws shall be amended to include a rule in Section IV for amending such Bylaws by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of those senators present at a duly called meeting of the Senate, while the requirement for amending the rules and regulations of the Senate should be changed to require only a simple majority of those senators present at a duly called meeting of the Senate.

This resolution was pulled for now – we will come back with a version that deals with amending the rules and regulations by a simple majority only.

f. Recommendation by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee (Sheldon Pollack, Chair) with the concurrence of the Faculty Senate Rules Committee (Anu Sivaraman, Chair) for the approval of a resolution concerning a policy for amending the Faculty Handbook

Alternative 1: simple majority resolution

Whereas, the policy for changing the Faculty Handbook found in the Handbook (“Preface: about the Handbook”) is vague; and,

Whereas, it is important to specify the appropriate authority for changes to the Faculty Handbook; and,

Whereas, the practice has been that changes to the Faculty Handbook require Faculty Senate approval, with the concurrence of the provost; be it therefore

Resolved, that the Handbook (“Preface: about the Handbook”) be revised to read “Policies contained in the Faculty Handbook are official policies of the University and remain in full effect until changed by the Faculty Senate, with the concurrence of the Provost.”

Attachment 1 for Alternative 1:

CURRENT VERSION of HANDBOOK

Preface: about the Handbook

Policies contained in the Faculty Handbook are official policies of the University and remain in full effect until changed by appropriate University actions. The Handbook is a revision of the official 1963 Handbook adopted by the Board of Trustees as University policy, and it has been approved for publication by the Board.

PROPOSED REVISION of HANDBOOK

Preface: about the Handbook

Policies contained in the Faculty Handbook are official policies of the University and remain in full effect until changed by ~~appropriate University actions~~ the Faculty Senate, with the concurrence of the Provost. The Handbook is a revision of the official 1963 Handbook adopted by the Board of Trustees as University policy, and it has been approved for publication by the Board.

*******************

Alternative 2: super-majority resolution

Whereas, the policy for changing the Faculty Handbook found in the Handbook (“Preface: about the Handbook”) is vague; and,

Whereas, it is important to specify the appropriate authority for changes to the Faculty Handbook; and,

Whereas, the practice has been that changes to the Faculty Handbook require Faculty Senate approval, with the concurrence of the provost; be it therefore

Resolved, that the Handbook (“Preface: about the Handbook”) be revised to read “Policies contained in the Faculty Handbook are official policies of the University and remain in full effect until changed by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of those members of the Faculty Senate present and voting, with the concurrence of the Provost.”

Attachment 1 for Alternative 2:

CURRENT VERSION of HANDBOOK

Preface: about the Handbook

PROPOSED REVISION of HANDBOOK

Preface: about the Handbook

Policies contained in the Faculty Handbook are official policies of the University and remain in full effect until changed by ~~appropriate University actions~~ an affirmative vote of two-thirds of those members of the Faculty Senate present and voting, with the concurrence of the Provost. The Handbook is a revision of the official 1963 Handbook adopted by the Board of Trustees as University policy, and it has been approved for publication by the Board.

This resolution was pulled for now. This will be back on the December agenda after being considered by the Rules Committee.

g. Recommendation from Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate (Sheldon Pollack, Chair) for the approval of a resolution recommending openness in administrative searches

Whereas, it is the privilege of the Faculty to consider matters of general interest to the University and to make recommendations concerning the formation of policies governing appointments, and

Whereas, the University currently is searching for a suitable candidate to be appointed as Provost, who will serve as chief academic officer responsible for the quality of the academic programs, the research and the scholarship of the University, and

Whereas, transparency and engagement of the University community are important and should be clearly evident in the shared governance of the University, and

Whereas, open searches have been commonplace at the University in the past and currently are being done at many other colleges and universities, be it therefore

Resolved, the Faculty Senate recommends that the Provost search and other high-level administrative searches (including Deans) be conducted in a reasonably open manner, such that the short-listed candidates are announced and brought to campus where our students, faculty and other concerned members of the University community may engage them and provide feedback before a finalist is selected.

Senator Morgan, Senator Gottredson, Senator Morrison, Senator Buell, Senator Galileo, Senator Courtright, Senator Shabo, Senator Wisser, Senator Rogers raised issues/commented on open vs. closed search process. Resolution passed: 43 yes, 9 no.

VIII. Introduction of New Business

Such items as may come before the Senate. (No motion introduced under new business, except a motion to refer to committee, shall be acted upon until the next meeting of the Senate.)

/khs