Well, welcome to the last Faculty Senate meeting of the academic year. You've got a full house and a lot to do so. First things first, we need to approve the agenda that was mailed out to kind of emotion to approve the agenda moves. >> Second. Second. All those in favor of approving the agenda, just voice votes file, as well as against Second. >> We also need to approve the minutes from April eighth. >> Kind of motion to do that moved second. >> All those in favor of approval of the minutes from April eighth and against God. >> Thank you. Okay. >> So just as a little bit of a quick background, so we do Dennis jokingly he's talked, but this is the general fact. Maybe we officially have 99 items to go through today. >> It's going to be long. >> So, you know, my rule, I'm going to keep you here until we're done, but I will try to get us out by six if we feel like we're really going along and we need to spend more time engaging with a certain material. We can always add an extra meeting next Monday. Fair warning. Okay, alright, so first things first is we have two things that we need to take care of and bookkeeping perspective. First for the, for the Senate. And the first is election of Senate Officers. >> So all of you have a ballot, hopefully with your yellow card. >> So in that you are voting for the following, we have Charlie bumps let and procedures already running for president elect. You'll need to check one of those Secretary, we have three people running, Brian Hansen, Mike O'Neill, and Bill Rose. >> We have a member at large for CO can Brittany over street is running unopposed unless you'd like to add a nomination name. >> And then lastly, we're also voting on the chair of the committee. So it's Allison and Brittany or running for those. So I need all of you to go ahead and conduct you fill out your balance. >> Hopefully you may have already done that. >> I'll give it a minute and then let's see. >> Yeah. Let's When you're done, when we pass them this way down the aisle and Amy and Lynn that will collect all the cards. Right. So one thing, you have a second ballot in your packet there. We, if we do not reach a 50% mark for the Secretary categories and say we have three. Then we'll need to do a runoff electric ballot election for the for the top two vote counter. So hold that aside. Don't turn that in and if we need to, we'll we'll do that. Amy. Amy. >> And he's wrong. >> Oh, well, I have a couple anymore about going what he does or more than bombing. >> Alright? >> And while the counting ballots, I wanted to take a few moments and talk about awards. It's, it's with our great honor and the faculty senate that every year we can offer a series of awards to our faculty and our graduate students who have been outstanding members of the community in the way of teaching and research and service. And so we have invited many of them today, hence our very full room. And I'd like to go through these different awards for each of the categories. >> I'll call them all. >> And if you're here, please come down and we'll give you the award. So they get a nice check, they get a plaque, and of course they get a BRCA1 Mentor circle so we can remember them forever. So come, come down and then we'll take a photo also with the group. So for the first category, we have a Faculty Excellence Award in teaching. And we have four Award winners this year. We've william lewis from school education, Rob pocket bits from Human Development and Family Sciences, floor point. >> Dexter from languages, literatures, and culture. >> And Jack player from civil and environmental engineering here in the room, please come down, will do so. All we have to Award winners when it comes to excellence for advising. It has even been Susan grow from chemistry and biochemistry as allele Alaska from Biological Sciences we also, It's great honor every year to, to award some of our graduate students who have been outstanding teaching assistance on campus. >> This was their first step into a bigger future for their academic careers. And so with that, we'd like to honor for Students, Laura Cutler from education human development, dog Oreo from engineering, have IID, Mizrahi from arts and science, arts and sciences, and then Jin Jin Qu from engineering through here. >> Wow. >> And last couple years we've been adding a few awards to round out this whole idea about holistic teaching and research and service. And so last year we worked to start building in the idea about honoring mid-career research awards. And this year we're very honored to war David births from mechanical engineering and Elizabeth Farley ripple from School of Education. And this year we're also very honored to add a new award that recognizing cert, recognized service, specifically community engagement. In this year, we have to award winners. So there's Roberta go Lakoff and April Venice And while not a senate award and presence than as mentioned already, I did want to take a moment just to see why isn't going there it goes. So I understood had been there McLeod, who's our francis Allison award winner this year. >> It's by anonymous. >> Let's give him a round of applause and we have one last award that we'd like to get it out every last several years, we create a new word, the John also exemplary Senate service award. >> You all deserve a huge thank you for the amount of effort and time you put in service to help out this university. >> But every year we need to think about one person who is really stood out both within a flow role with their past involvement in the Senate, and perhaps also with an informal rule as well. >> And so this year we're very honored. Give the word to Danny. >> Got this picture now? Yeah. >> So there's still counting, I guess? Yes. >> Sorry. So we'll we'll let that float and as soon as they come in with election results will, will hit that. So robins gonna pass. So we'll keep moving in the USSR time yet anything? Because applause. >> Alright, and I'll do the same. >> I'll give you a election results and a little bit, okay, so we can start to chip away at this as best we can. So the first easy part that we can tackle is our consent agenda. So I'm going to scroll for a minute. And for those of you who wish to leave, it's okay. You may. >> Since we're going to dive into this for the next hour and a half. >> So for the consent agenda, we have a whole series of different items. It's always that time he ever gets busy. There's all of the College of Arts and Science revisions to academic curriculum programs. >> There's learner, there's earth, or in the environment and education, human development, there's engineering >> More. >> We also have a series of graduate proposals are minor changes. >> So there's cause ragged natural resources, arts and sciences, engineering, and that's my list. Alright, so would anyone like to remove any items from the Consent Agenda for further discussion? Very good. Alright. >> So seeing no request to pull any consent. Agenda items. >> Are you ready for the question? >> Alright. Very good. So we'll use our yellow cards for voting to see in the interest of time. So all those in favor of the consent. >> Agenda items, please raise your yellow cards in favor. All those against. Okay. So noted. >> So it's unanimous. Elm. >> Okay. >> We do have a series of regular agenda items that relate to programmatic changes that are a little bit more complicated. >> So we'll start to just chip away at those. >> So resolution 64 on our list is a request for a department name change from department a geography department geography and spatial sciences. >> Where's Brian? Brian, I'm going to call on you. >> So obviously with a few of these resolutions, this affects both graduate and undergraduate. >> But I'll let Brian take the lead on a converted like here. Okay. Now, Olivia Hague, There's no there's no suffering from cold and it's hard to hear, but I will do my best yet. The rationale for a name change was several full. But one of the first reasons was we've had for new data science hires in our department in park, mostly through some of the cluster hires. Also way of putting that through a program, a four plus one program. The first four years of it will be put through today if people vote for it. >> And that's a GI science environment. >> Did Analytics degree. >> And thirdly, So first off, it, it fits with our new direction, with some brand new hires. >> Secondly, it fits in with the future direction of field and the emphasis on data science, geo-spatial data science within geography. And lastly, spatial sciences really categorizes everything that everyone in our department does, UKIP geography, without doing something spatial. >> And so we figured it would give the department name recognition. >> And also is interesting side note, it's also the program sites name at the National Science Foundation to geography, spatial sciences. Whether helps get funding, we'll see. >> But that was some of the main reasons for the change. Any discussion, OK, saying I'm ready to call the question. >> Okay, so we usually do clickers, but again, the extra time, why don't we try yellow cards this time it's May. >> So all those in favor, please raise your cards. All those against I see a unanimous Allen, thank. >> Resolution number 65 is a request for a department name change from Department of geological sciences Department of Earth Sciences. >> And given that I am Zhang has Geological Sciences. >> Didn't know I thought I was going to address this, but I well, the idea is over the last several years, we've had three to four new hires. Really broaden >> The area of geology got working in sort of beyond the traditional fields in geology. So we felt that expanding our name to the science would be more inclusive of research and teaching program that we now have with them in department, a discussion seeing Android called The question, okay, all those in favor of this name change, please raise your yellow cards. All those against Amazon has I just was also much better. The motion passes as high resolution number 66. >> There's a series of four plus one programs that we need to talk about this, the bachelor of arts, master of public policy. >> Alright, thank you. >> Talking amass huge AES actually found that most of these were primarily changes involving the plus one part, the graduate part. So we pretty much just kinda signed off on them because the four-part wasn't change much. Dead is never went to them. >> They couldn't come today. Okay. Yeah. >> So yeah, I mean, the primary emphasis of all of these is in the plus one part is mirrored. >> Learn about food graduates. >> I know the four-plus Loan Program is a standardized program that we have with many of our departments across the university. And so they propose this four plus one after this program with the MPP was originally is a new program that has also been establish. So everything is in line with the others requirements of four plus ones. >> All right. Any discussion radical The question I forget to all those in favor of this four-plus when Israel a Cards Against. >> All right, so I have election results. >> I'll take a side trip here for a moment for the presidency. >> I'm happy to inform you that Charlie Von slope is going to be the new President elect for the coming year, for Secretary Brian Hansen and then for, for Coke and Allison carpet will be alright. >> Very good. We're all set. So we have a full agenda next year. So they're pretty busy. >> Alright, so resolution 67. So another four plus one. >> So it's the Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Engineering, Bachelor of Science and Master of Science for data science shirt or anything else you want to add either one of you graduate and undergraduate need discussion Okay. Ready to call the question? Alright. So all those in favor of resolution 67, please raise your yellow cards. Favorite? All those against him. Sound? >> Resolution 68 is establishment of a four plus one vassar. >> Make sure to put them in a way that was all the the different sorry, that was last mile is all the result, part 68, but its establishment of a four-plus one Bachelor of Computer Engineering and master of science and data science. And so here's an actual resolved and all the different components that are being affected by that. So it's very similar to last one need discussions right now. The question okay. All those in favor, please raise your cards. Those against That's unanimous. Zone resolution 69. Similar and establish the four plus one, a Bachelor of electrical engineering and Master of Science in data science. And there's a similar list of many different effective programs. >> Any discussion? >> I'm ready for the question. Okay. All those in favor, please raise your cards. >> All those against very good. >> Unanimous own resolution 70 and establishment of four plus one computer science or information systems and a master of science and data science. Again, is similar. List of effective programs, a discussion question. Okay, all those in favor, please raise your cards. Those against. >> So alright, resolution 71. This is a revision to the bachelors and entrepreneurship and a name change to the major. Brian, you want to, I think to this one, I think that the Whereas is pretty well give what they're trying to do that they felt like entrepreneurship and technology innovation was actually narrowing the focus that people thought it was strictly about entrepreneurship and technology innovation. >> So they just wanted brought technology innovation. And it's about all kinds of entrepreneurship guy color question, Are all those in favor? >> Please raise your cards. All those against. And it's also unanimous resolution 72. >> It says that the establishment of the sports health Honors Program, this is a follow-up to something that was done last year when they changed their BS, 23 plus two bs. >> Under the new form of the BS, it's virtually impossible to do the honors version to the deactivating Catherine question. >> All those in favor, Raichle birds. All those against Resolution suddenly three, this establishment of the S in GIS Science is very clever. Don't want away just science and environmental data and analytics and shared core with constraints. >> Do you want to talk about Miller to defect? >> And the reason we created this program was to better align with the Data Science Institute. >> And because if you look at the outlook of growth and jobs and geography by large, while there's job look good grossly climatology aspect of geography. >> There's a lot of growth in the data science aspect, again, the geospacial data science aspect. So what we wanted to do here was change our name, which had just approved, and then leveraging that force higher as we had just made. >> We may get another one's windows, but they'll put those people busy putting to work. They have developed this nice program for the students. It also added another brand of data science to this university in addition to bioinformatics in cybersecurity. At some of the others that are out there. >> Like some discussion. I already called the question. Okay. All those in favor, please raise your cards those against. And that is also unanimous. >> Okay. We get into a series of graduate resolution. So resolution 74, MSM establishment as webmasters and microbiology. And I'm going to jump ahead for soccer too. There's also a 75 as a PhD in microbiology. >> Marriage, You want to say anything? >> These programs had been in the planning stages for quite some time. The master's degree is a 30 credit mass into me that a thesis and the PhD program is a 42 credit program. And there is collaboration between Plant and Soil Sciences, Civil Environmental Engineering, Marine Studies, and health sciences. And in the PhD program, therefore, designated tracks of study. One in environmental microbiology, host microbe interactions, money and applied microbiology. And one hand, microbiology, physiology and genetics. But all of them I'm focused on the research that relates to the safeguarding of human, plant, animal, and environmental health globally and locally. >> Thanks me. Any discussion came pretty called question kept all those in favor. Please raise your cards for the Masters. Those against stretch your L's cards. >> Ok. That's unanimous. >> Thank you. And passes unanimously. Allen. >> And then we jump ahead to the PhD in the same program, a discussion about the PhD. >> I recall the question. Okay. All those in favor, please raise your cards. >> Those against. That is also unanimous. >> Resolution 76 is the establishment of a PhD in Engineering and Public Policy, their ethos? >> Yes, this is an interdisciplinary program that's between the Civil Engineering and the School of Public Policy and Administration. And this is a research-based oriented Dr. program to focus on the intersection of engineering and policy at all levels. And I might differ to some McNeil This year. F2 is the originator. Proposal if she liked to make any comments. >> Just that we think it's an exciting opportunity and it's a great partnership. And the idea is to ultimately expand it to other departments in engineering as well. >> And it also has a bit of a unique niche to it compared to the other universities that have this programs such as MIT, Stanford, Berkeley to Washington and others. >> Because this looking at policy at all levels and not just a singular level or a discussion question. >> Okay. All those in favor, please raise your cards. >> Those against. That is unanimous. Resolution 77 as a request to change the name of the foreign languages and pedagogy MS MA to an MA in languages, literature, cultures, and pedagogy. >> Marry. >> This brings this program and pedagogy in line with the name change that took place last year in the languages, literatures, and cultures destinations. So it just brings the whole department and foreign languages and literatures to this standardized names discussion. >> Cobra question. All those in favor of Israel cards, all those against forgive me. >> Autosome resolution 78 has a request to change the name of the PhD in psychology to Psychological and Brain Sciences. >> Married of those PhD program in psychology has four specific areas. Neuroscience, clinical science, cognitive psychology, and social psychology. And last year they changed the name of the department to Psychology and Brain Sciences. So this brings this name of the degree to better alignment with their training and their mission. >> We're going to call the question. Sorry. All those in favor, please raise your cards. All those against resolution 79 as a new graduate certificate in developmental processes. >> You will see that the next three resolutions are related to psychology and that they also, in addition to changing their name, develop three specific Graduate Certificates in order to enable the students in their program to focus their electives in very specific areas. So to add their strength in different cross disciplines that are across disciplinary areas. So this first one here is a relationship to be cross area of developmental processes. >> And any discussions took one each one at a time. Okay. Radical the question All right. So for the new graduate certificate in developmental processes or Israel cards if you're in favor against passwords. And the second certificate is the new graduates SART, unanimous, sorry, nu. Then the second is the new graduate certificate in quantitative analysis, right? >> This is the same as the others, except that it requires 18 credits because they have a lot of statistics in the program at all. Three of these certificates would be open to any student that's registered in a graduate program. They could add these certificates onto their records if they so desire. >> The discussion question. All those in favor of this graduate certificate, please raise your cards. Those against SVM is third. Anything else? When I'm area we're good. >> Right this fall that align with our social cognitive, especially concentration psychologists for 12 credits for this gadget city-making discussion. >> Okay, ready to call the question? All those in favor, please raise your cards. >> All those against resolution a2 is another graduate certificates, the new certificate and communing engagement. >> And we're actually calling overview to explain this to further distribute certificate programs designed for graduate students and all disciplines. >> And they will be able to gain skills and knowledge and applying the gaze fellowship to their academic area, as well as thinking about how to apply it in their professional and personal life. >> After leaving you d, we have undergraduate one. So this will take it now to the graduate level discussions. >> Very good question. Okay. All those in favor, please raise your cards. All those against unions. Thank you. Resolution 83, minerals materials are in society. Graduate certificate. >> Mary the heels. This came about from a grand to U d, from a unit Dell Foundation to establish a new graduate program that involved the research in the areas of minerals materials on society. It's a 15 credit certificate program. There's some connection with Queensland University that will offer some of the one credit modules. It offers the opportunity for students to do field study in Russia or Australia, as well as some professional training and research. So the idea of this particular certificate is to bring together a campus wide effort to use the resources and to be actually one of the first types of program of its kind in the United States that takes more or less an interdisciplinary approach to linking science and policy around extract as supply chains and addressing some of the timely issues that relate to consumer industries of minerals and things extracted from the earth. >> A discussion. I'm ready for the question. All those in favor of Israel cards, all those against resolution 84, request for permanent approval for the master education and teaching leader teacher leadership bathrooms. >> Yes. This MAB and teacher leadership program, we unanimously was approved for permanent status. It's graduated 61 students in two years, reflecting a very strong demand. It's an online program and has MK me solve the uncage standards. And it's aligned with the National Teacher Leadership standards. >> And the discussion question. Although some favorite, please raise your cards against their tombs. >> Resolution 85 is across permit status of speech language pathology. >> The new name will be Communication Science and Disorders. >> The Senate might recall that there was strong state interest into the development here at this university and the MA program. And so there was some money that came from the state to work on this which brought in an outstanding director for the program. This program actually has received 284 applications in as for first year. It received 299 applications in his second year. And it has as, it has now graduated as second class. So it is doing well. It has now working on a process for full accreditation by the Council on Academic Accreditation. >> Ideology as speech language pathology and ideology. That's been discussion here. >> I wrote called The question. Okay. All those in favor, please raise your cards close against zone resolution 86, requests for primitive status of a PhD in medical sciences. >> This program being a new program, typically admins four to six do this per year. >> There are currently 13 students in the program to have completed the Ph.D. degree. >> At this time. The students are 100% funded in this program. And it might be noteworthy to note that 82% of the students admitted have been women and 59% of those have been Asian, African American, or African and Hispanic. >> The discussions question all those in favor, please raise your cards. >> Those against. Also enums And last one, resolution 87, is request for permanent status of the PhD in medical sciences. >> Anything else we've add? >> Very, I thought that was the one I just talked about, the PhD or medical science as well as the previous one. >> Have it wrong. What is it? That's our PhD. >> Epidemiology. >> Epidemiologists. Okay. I think there's a mix up and then nobody picks up something. Okay, there's a new number here for the next one is a epidemiology is a new PhD program. Is that next stuff on your list? That's the one I just I'm missing it. So it's on I notice insensibly agenda. That was a problem with it being origin. Yeah, there is a proposal for a new program, PHD in epidemiology, museology. And, and there's a major shortage of individuals in teaching in this area due to the emergence of substance abuse, mental health, and so forth. So this is a new PhD program that's going to take brings him is in this form. >> So any discussions, questions, but you put all those in favor, please raise your cards against. >> Alright, very good things. >> We have a series of bookkeeping resolutions that we need to start with and then we'll get into some media resolutions here in a second versus that we resolution 88 is to approve the Senate meeting dates for the next academic year. So there, there are on the screen, Alan, anything you need to add about this other than being back when we so do conflict with a religious holiday. But the other moms, we weren't able to do that because it didn't leave enough time between meetings. So we compromised. >> We did the best we could and try to avoid conflict. >> Okay, ready to call the question? Very good. Caesarian cards. So all those in favor of these meeting dates, please raise your ELA cards. Those against. All right, that's your names. >> Alright, so I'm going to switch over to clickers from here on out. >> So go ahead and make sure your clickers are turned on. That's the red button on the right hand side. >> So we'll use that. Resolution 89 is a requester approved the 20192020 Residence Life Plan. >> This this has happens every year, the Sophists to life. >> He sits down with our committee for student life and reviews the residence life plans. That was done and pass anonymously by Student Life Committee and I will pull them up there. >> Your lengthy, hopefully you've had a chance to read them, but any questions about these? Already called the question them. Alright, so we're going to use or sorry. >> Yeah, well, so user clickers this time. So all those in favor of the residence life plans for next year, please raise your yellow cards and press a all those against raise your yellow cards. >> Press Pete, where's my holds it up. >> Thank you. >> So that's unanimous resolution 9091 or are somewhat similar and that we need to make some there's some recommend changes to the Constitution of the faculty handbook, section 1-1 subset. Well, handbooks Minoan section for this first one relates specifically to a little bit of bookkeeping that has been affected by the passage of the graduate college. So let me bring that up. The recommendation is we and we had a resolution in October that related to this topic. And so we had this one section about adding there was one additional administrator that hold a full-time faculty appointment. There would be designated by the President or the provost. There's a set number of seats that the administration has because we have now added a, an eighth dean to the list and we make sure there's a seat for all deans. That ad hoc floating seat need to be given to the d. The second part of what you're seeing on this list was simply the fact that right now all faculty members are members of the graduate college. So we do, it's redundant to have them be voting members in the Senate. So we're simply adding this little bit qualify. >> It says that each unit with the exception the gradual call childlike centers. >> So these are the two bits of bookkeeping Robins or anything else you'd like to add? >> I explain what they did. Hey, discussions K radical the question. >> Alright, very good. >> So we're going to use our clickers. >> So all those in favor of this resolution, please raise your yellow cards and press a. Although it's against. >> Raise your yellow card and pressed b. >> Okay, alright, that is unions. Thank you. >> The second big bit of change to this exact same section is a potential change to increase at a seat to the president of the Faculty Center, the faculty union. I'll pass over to Alan to introduce this resolution, right? The discussion centered around the fact that senate president is a member of the AAUP UD steering committee. So there's some amount of quid pro quo there, but also the there are a number of issues that come up there that would really benefit from having that, that viewpoint present in the Senate. >> So that's why we are makings, right? >> And so this is how it would look. Red lined. I did. Just for your eyes, cross out what we just proved that doesn't actually exist now. >> But the red is the part that we're adding from this resolution. Hey, discussions, galileo biological sciences, just to clarify for people. So that that, that person on the senate will be me through January, up to January 2022, because the president of a POD is elected after every contract. And so the next contract would take effect, presumably in July first 2021. >> The elections for the president of a JPEG or held that following fall. And so it would be me until January 2022. >> At a minimum, We can take that skill of its members. We're in no case shall the number, Well, this the elected president, he would not even elected. >> It is actually is an elected member and its own dogs. >> So sort of like the student government, they're electing those represented this, correct? Yes, that's right. >> And that's the way making sure we don't ask any other expressions. >> Okay. Re called Bhushan. Okay. All those in favor, please raise your cards and press a. All those against Israel cards and press b. J. Because of motion passes resolution 9293 related to changes in the faculty senate committee structure. The first relates to international studies. >> And I'm going to have amy Johnson from cocoa Charcot can to explain this resolution from here. >> Sure. >> Okay. International Studies has not been seeded with faculty for four years. The last project that that committee worked on was worked on the world Scholars Program. >> Tried to get it so that it was something that showed up on the degree of the students that were admitted with World scholars. That program was set aside by an interim provost. >> Okay. Disappeared by an interim Provost, and the International Studies Committee quit. >> Okay. That that's pretty much sums up what happened. We looked at what the charges should be because we first thought, well, we should dissolve this committee, but this is supposed to be Diversity and Global and International. >> And to dissolve a committee that speaks to that to us didn't sound right, so we recharged it. And if you take a look at what we asked for, We asked for oversight on all international educational activities. And you need to read that carefully so that you see that it's not the, it's not limited, but includes a great deal. Providing oversight to programs for international students studying the University of Delaware campus, as well as our students going off of the campus on Semester progress. >> That being said, because I know that I want to have a speaking part after the vote. >> I'm looking for good people if it passes. >> So please send me your name. >> Discussion. >> Nursing. So the Office of Global Studies. But what do they do? So this has oversight, but the Office of Global Studies is that the name is difficult to today's level, say the Institute for Global Studies. >> How is this? All kinds of programs, but they don't have any faculty that represent that office. >> Suddenly one. >> So this would be faculty oversight of various global efforts that are going on on campus. Its MapReduce. So they'll work together. Maybe a, I'm kidding. Willing from second brain sciences. So I'm not familiar with the charter and the charges of the other committees didn't Most of them also the majority of tenure. And so that's just boiler plate. If not, I'd be, I'd be interested to know why that's specified. Euler played all of the committees specify colleges, college representations, 10-year-olds, non tenured. And I'm not sure I'm not sure why we went with tenured the majority. Does anybody remember? >> We could scratch thundered P1. >> It was taken from other charges. And the other reason that to community, Wow, you're not taking the tenure track off of their track to it. It's it has a lot of connotations, but it also excludes CTE faculty recommend. It doesn't exclude that. No, it doesn't exclude. It just says For if that's what you want. I don't have it came from all the other language. We didn't invent something new. But if you want to switch it, this is the time we have an hour. >> And I said, I don't really have scientists wondered why it's, why it's mentioned in any viewing things. I mean, there could be about really good reasons, but if you change it here, then my response to that change it, it gets you the best business suggests that says an idea for review for next year to look at all the committees if you'd like playing games either. Okay. >> Nicholas pockets undergrad student representative. I would just like to see the rationale behind the removal of the undergraduate student and graduate student committee explanation on that. They've had on the last committing what we see on the last committee therefore hadn't met in four years. >> So B now on together. >> Well, we had to see in the original charter. >> Now we know I'm just curious with the rationale behind that. >> Was that was the rationale that wasn't it wasn't in the original document. Document. Then we need to put it back in. Or that will fall under loops can be most sensitive to add that back on, sorry, c added where erase the undergraduate segueway. Yeah, well, we just need to move it down to another section right here. Here are the period after staggered manner habit that number? Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yes. So foreign that you want to do it as a separate sentence or we want to, yeah. >> For me, I think it's also a good habit Smith and impose undue sorry. Okay. >> So so we have now an amendment of a second to add this sentence at the end. Any discussion on this change? Okay. Call for the question for this amended change. >> Men for the amendment, right? >> We're going to add this to, all we're doing is voting on this end of this sentence, which at the end. >> Ok? >> So all those in favor will keep using put. All those in favor, please raise your cards. Press a update of the amendment only goes against Israel, occurs. >> And I'll be showing you might have now or do come up. >> So that's unanimous, or we have that change. Alright, so we're now back to now this amended resolution. >> They switch presenter view, further discussion on this amended version into that first paragraph. Can we just get rid of that parenthetical expression? I don't know what the committee will also provide every second patents were international students studying at university and telling me to get through yet they live provided housing. That's campus can thinker from the retreat is where a lot of the international students Yes. These places because why did we add more? Grant has just been happy magnitude. Sam launches EEG, my Trello board retreat. >> So I'm not sure what oversight would entail. >> And fifth would be problematic potentially, Tom. >> So I would second Robins idea just to delete the parenthetical shows that emotion to a motion to amend version. >> There's time. >> Exactly. So yeah. So the motion is to remove the parenthetical by Charlie? >> Yes. >> A discussion to delete, but I've highlighted discussions or can kind of be. >> This committee has done anything for years. >> Suddenly it's there and it's overseeing the English language. >> And I don't believe that our administration is aware of this part is seeing the PLA, it's overseeing academic program and that's the function of time. So there are studies, human development feel like census. There are students involved in the world scholars programs who as part of world scholars programs, apps and other academic program do have interactions with the students at the English Language Institute that actually built the world Scotland for them, there are Fellowships. Undergraduate students can get to the faculty fellow advisors. So it's not like it's the world fathers, a program that is a 0.2 students working with steel as a part of what scholars connected epidemic. And there's a lack of a MOOC between academic and other experiences that often. So that's where that comes back. Yeah. >> Yeah. Doug buttery from Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering. But just like some further clarification of the relationship between the Institute for Global Studies that has board members that are all faculty, I think, other than the director of the Institute. And This that the Board of IGS hasn't met for several years now? About two years. And this committee hasn't met for what? For years. >> So we seem to have two groups that are doing very much at the moment. >> And I'd like to know what the relationship is between those before we make a decision on what to do here. So directly related to the motion on the floor is to delete this parenthetical. So boastful, sorry. Yeah. So in the greater context, let's hold that thoughts, discussions about deleting this parenthetically. That's somebody who just so we're voting to delete, but I haven't blue. So all those in favor of deletion would please raise your yellow cards and press a and make sure things are on yet a third term I started. >> Okay. >> All those in favor of deleting the parenthetical, please raise your cards and press a. Hellos. Leaving it. Please raise your cards and press B. >> Ok. >> So 1D, right. >> This is now the amended resolution discussion on this. And he wasn't erase this, but it asks for oversight of Fulbright and salzberg awards. I'm not sure what that means. Does that mean that a faculty member who apply sworn wins a Fulbright is subject to the oversight of this Committee implied and I don't think that's the intention. >> I hope not. >> Further discussion. We already called The question then on this amended, right. So the first thing is you need to follow the Galileo made a change to the faculty handbook. So we need to buy a two-thirds majority vote on whether we actually want to vote on this today or pass it off to September, that's the first thing that you do. So seeing no further discussion on this resolution, first thing is we need to give a quick sit off to September. >> It will not that committee will be null and void. Friend over here, just so everybody's familiar with that, maybe they could always, they can always be staff it quite well with the new. >> Alright, so see no discussion because they're so just like we got to be consistent. I move removal of the Fulbright and salzberg parentheses or second factor k. So the new motion on the floor is to move this parenthetical? >> Yes. >> Hey, discussion about removal of this parenthetical. Recall the question on this rule, right. We're just talking about mending to remove that part. All those in favor of removing that line, please raise your cards and press hard press b. >> One gets removed. >> All right, now this is the new amended resolution. >> Any discussion on this version? >> Who's curious about the, sorry, about Greek philosophy? I'm curious about the evidence that any of these things need oversight. >> That one piece of evidence would be World scholars that came to fruition four years ago. And it's still the students will be graduating as worlds scholars without anything on their diplomas. That would be one strong reason to have this committee. >> Yeah, I think the the impetus behind this at 1, there was a man Robinson, President Elect. >> The conversation was about doing away with the committee and I think thought being that that was not an option, it should not be an option considering just President Assad has been a presentation and thought that this significant importance of The International, and so I think that led the conversation of revising its charge for the purpose of giving it something to do. So I do believe it's important that the committee stays now what it does, it's oversights. >> It seems to be a conversation here and wondering if next September that Committee convenes and has that conversation about what the community could be and what it should be doing for the discussion. >> Definitely purpose. >> I just wondered if in that creation of the, of the, of the change, he had spoken with Rawia em again, who's the new Associate Deputy Provost for International Programs. I know that he is working on revising. He wants to revitalize the Faculty Advisory Board for IGS. And did you all talk with him about how the IDS advisory board works with or in conjunction with this International Studies MED? Have I spoke directly? Yes. This would be independent of what the advisory board would do for IGS. Igs does they have the faculty oversight for their programs and their scholarships and things at this committee would not be serving to that. This committee would be serving to the senate. And the charges a little bit different. And it gives them Views of international and global that's going on in every single college. Every every college has global represented. Going on and there their programs and their questions don't necessarily funneled through ITS further discussion that I'm willing to second brain sciences. I think I've changed my mind about the maturity of 10% in ten years. And the reason is that my colleague here represents the ELA and all the faculty to smile, acknowledge, and ELA or CTE faculty. It just seems a shame to have to limit that number of backward typically to CT. So there's a lot of cities are about study abroad, teaching foreign languages, teaching second-language learners, that kind of thing. So I think I would propose the amendment to strike the majority of whom shall be tenured. And if you really wanted to protect an tenured or tenure-track faculty, you could put the majority of whom suddenly had this as it professor rank higher than Adam. >> Megan? >> I always say no. >> He says professors kinda hoisting symbol is to strike the majority of whom shall be tenured. And that allows flexibility. So there's your amendment. That would be my son Isaac, bear with me. All right. So the motion on the floor is this section discussion on deleting this recall the question. Okay, so all those in favor mixture clippers, RON, All those in favor of deleting the majority of whom shall be tenured. >> Please raise your cards and press a guest cars and the it passes discussion on this new version of the amended resolution. >> Okay. We're going to call the question on that. Alright, so we still need to vote to vote. So again, we have, this is we're changing the faculty handbook. The first thing we're gonna do is vote on whether we want to vote on the statistics to enjoy. So all those in favor of voting on this amended resolution today, please raise your yellow cards and press a. All those wishing to pass it off to September. And please raise your cards and press B. I haven't heard you. I haven't sorry. It is 74 to 25. It does not meet the Galileo rule seven, sorry, 74%. So o is two-thirds, aren't you right near. My, my mistake. So 4042 votes for, 15 votes against. So it's 74% to move forward today. So it meets the the two-thirds majority rule. >> Okay. >> So you could vote on say so. All those in favor of this amended resolution, please raise your yellow cards and press a, all those against Israel cards and press B, close it, and it is 44 votes, 412 against the motion passes. The next resolution also is a change to the Faculty Senate committee. Kristen Wien's couldn't be here today. I am on the Committee saw at least all informed, but I cannot discuss it unless I pass the blank off to Matt. The Faculty Senate Committee for Student Life recognized it was important to re-look at their charge to clarify how to better make sure they were regarding their role of care control, governments, and discipline of students, which is one of the considerations from the Board of Trustees by-laws. As a result, this is the existing current committee charge. It's all stricken. And a lot of this language though, is now put into just a new reorganize list. And so this is, this is the new charge for Student Life. Step one, review proposals that relate to that care control, governance, and discipline. Before implementation committee shall decide whether changes in a substance of wording policy, you should have the approval of the full senate. More should only require approval. The company itself with the senate and form of the action to send ultimately may choose to act on items sent for information. It'll also review and evaluate student code of conduct. It'll review and evaluate the resident life and housing program plans and then as necessary, provide any advice to the Vice President as necessary. There is, and there's a whole series of categories under that. And then lastly, the, the list of who is on this committee. This is the bit of bookkeeping mainly to strike out a lot of categories that just don't exist anymore, have been renamed. So this was just a little bit of bookkeeping stuff. At least I can introduce this to you, but I cannot discussing any discussion. >> Jim Morrison, Whiting School of Public Policy. >> And the first paragraph, the bullet, just curious, what is it that the committee would be making that the senate would not want to be informed. So it's just like an administrative small width. >> What what's that until you give me an example from the committee here. Say that node whose name is says this committee should decide whether a change in the substance we're worried about, apologies, should be able to pool. >> The pool you only require of Google or the committee itself is informed of those about money. >> It's about whether or not this other discussion hearing pulling you and evaluate their answers might be housing. Housing can have with them. Sometimes does have to be done. Very quickly, for example, where we're taking the towers to come up with housing, having back, losing that, having a good 3D, and I can't really speak to that. First bullet point struck me is yeah. >> So in response to your comment, Robin, that Can you go back to that third bullet is specifically, there's a document called the Residence Life and housing program plan. And that is their educational document that they produced each year cycle with commitments. >> And this is just what we voted on. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Yeah. It doesn't pertain to the facilities aspect of what Residence Life and other discussion question. I just had a question about the scope of bullet points. >> So what what oh, Mac inspect vice provost, faculty affairs. >> The scope of bullet point number one just seems a little vague. >> And it seems that anything that the students did, we'd have to go through the approval of the full Senate before it could even be done. >> And I just wonder about the workability because it seems as here, I don't think I'm Cali dance students division of student life. >> I don't think that was the intent. A lot of the conversations that myself pose areas. Vice President, Student Life, Catherine Carr, Associate Vice President, was creating language that allowed for a better relationship between this committee and the Division of Student Life. >> Specifically, the two points that are pulled out in the bullet or things that we want to make sure are basically part of the process for our Office of Student Conduct and our office of Residential Life. >> And I think that top bullet was just speaking more to this idea of as things are being developed that specifically pertain to the mission of the faculty senate that they are incorporated into that committee. >> Galileo, biological sciences that are or do you mean the vagueness of deciding whether it comes to the Senate for a vote or whether it's informational to come to the senate because that part is always been there. And I remember in the past finding out about something that was passed by student life, that they didn't really inform the Senate. Because sometimes what officially the different committees only have to report what they do to the Senate at the very end of the year. So you might not know what that committee decided upon, would say in September, October, November, and then you find out about it. The senate finds out about it in May and then decides, well, okay, we want this to come before the Senate. >> That actually happened with >> Something along those lines happened with the, the amnesty policy. I believe it was several years ago and it came before the senate and passed by the Senate thought it should be something they can sit, needed to consider in the Senate. But I guess the student life committee decided that they were just kinda decide and not make it a recommendation to the Senate, which is according to this is there option. >> And it's something that's been that way for as long as I can remember from the discussion. >> Okay. Ready? >> Call the question. Okay. So all those in favor of this knee resident or this new student life committee charged, please raise your yellow cards and press a. All those against Press Raise Your ala cart and press B, and the final vote is 51 in favor. Three against Motion passes. Resolution 94 is one that also comes from the comedian student life. Given the conversations that we're having about increased mental health awareness on campus. There was concern that the current the current faculty handbook, 3113, that relates to excused absences makes no mention of mental illness as being the reason for an excused absence. Again, add-ins here. >> Would you like to comment on this change? >> Yeah, I'm killing because your student, Latina students, it came out of conversations that were had after presentations to various committees at the Board of Trustees meetings around mental health and then noticing some language that was not included in the excused absence policy. We also took this opportunity to really reinforce some things around our own services with student health services and the counseling center that we have a lot of faculty who specifically refer students there who have not seen treatment to get documentation which they can't provide because they have not treated those students for any type of illness, whether that be mental illness or physical illness. And then also the policy currently talks about one day a minor illnesses saying that that is that faculty discretion. Thats what the policy currently it's an encouraging faculty to use that as they see fit. >> Thanks. Discussion. Okay. Pretty color question. Okay. All those in favor of this resolution, raise your yellow cards and press a, although it's against Fisher of cards, and press B, and it is unanimous. And q. Resolution 95 is arisen to the faculty handbook 4.2.3 distribution to publish materials on campuses. We've seen this before. It comes from the community faculty senate committee on faculty welfare privileges. And we sent it back to committee for some small Changes. John, that's an AAR. Could you explain what has happened? >> So we were asked to inversion that you looked at in at the March meeting was to provide information about published materials charge I would include electronic media as well as simply written material. >> So you'll see in the revised version that we have defined, published materials are printed or electronic, whether privately or professionally produced on. >> So that's what we've added to that. >> Chris, I'll note that if you go down further to the bottom of P6, I'll go down to the bottom because I there we go. I think that was the second half of it. >> Okay. >> And that yes, one thing that the Senate approved that's not on here at the March meeting was for the last bullet after materials, it should say, except as noted above, that was emotion. >> That was approved by a voted 56 to one in March by the faculty Senate. >> And so we just need to make that committee. And I just should show an integrated so sounds in such materials as notable set, except as noted above. >> Thanks for catching that and we did modify some of the things like space on campus must be preserved through the event services office. >> That's changed with time were sorted dusting off this part of the faculty handbook. >> So we try to modify it so that specific call outs to particular places we would remove. And since we're dealing with electronic media as opposed to simply just printed media. We eliminated the university bookstore, library, except the commons or the dining halls and other areas because it's when applied to at one time for discussion. >> Nursing is music always Electronic? I'm just thinking that every possibility is that and that can be published. Just a question. They might not be for discussion February to call the question. >> Just so all those in favor of this new mended version that came from being infected, well, from professors, please raise your ELA cards and press a, those against Israel cards and press B. The final vote is 53 in favor and one against Motion passes. Resolution number 96 isn't approval of the university delaware grade forgiveness policy. I'll pass over to Brian to explains. >> Okay. >> Vgs is well, we've not just you just with various people have proposed COGS that the university could use a grade forgiveness policy. Our current policy is if a student retakes the same course for credit, both grades count in the GPA, even though only one course counts as credits toward graduation. >> There are >> Quite a number of universities on our compensator lists that allow repeating courses that do not basically, or basically the bad grade doesn't count in the GPA anymore if you've completed successfully get. And this is what we call a grade forgiveness policy. There is a bewildering array of potential complications on exactly how much you limit these choices. Who are you allowed to do any course, any grade, or a loud to only do it in your first semester and so on. And we have had over the years to public hearings and open hearings, and I would say more discussion in U gs on this than any other topic by far this year in terms of exactly how to implement one. But we're proposing a very limited grade forgiveness policy that allows students who have been here burn it up through the semester or our session in which they earn their 28th credit will be allowed to repeat. Courses that they've taken have a C minus or lower grade in a mini deficit point grades are and that they can do that for a maximum of two courses or eight credits. And that's what we're basically proposing a sort of a starting point minimalist grade replacement policy. I'm Chris, do you have that table the comparators weight? >> I put his opening. Let's see if the rationale page right. >> Yeah, my mouse back as I lost my screen and there it is, right? Let me see if I can get me try. >> Certainly, it's all in your agenda. >> You can click on the rationale age because they know that it's in everyone's agenda. >> There are a couple of tables in the rationale that showed how we compare it to other com, reader institutions. There are institutions we're not alone and not having one. Currently, there are some very good institutions that allow any grade to be replaced by any student at any time. >> And, and there aren't a lot that helps, kinda limited one. >> And so we're posing as a starting point, the very limited one. And the primary issue that drives it is it's, it's a retention problem for new students getting into Eyam GPA hole right away. >> Discussion. >> Thank you. >> I have two questions if I May. >> 1 is about the grade of z, whether the z is to be included. >> The second question refers to the line feel or go back. Thank you. >> It says that graze aside. Okay. Grazie side, or the result of an academic dishonesty fires the student conduct process. Now obviously, an x would not be included, but sometimes an f is assigned due to that process and that f is not logged on to transcript. It simply appears is in F. >> So that how would that be more how would that be handled? >> So those are my two questions. Thank you. Probably want to answer. >> A lot of this language was worked through with Homer and the registrar's office to be something that they can program. And so if the x eventually disappears from transcript, that doesn't mean the registers program does know it was there. I mean, the essentially the registrars software keeps track of everything forever. >> You might say that. Yeah. >> Thank you. John Jay, I'm again, among the options in the Office of Student Conduct is that the third option is an x, the second option is an F. >> Anything from an F in the assignment up to an F in the pores. >> A student can receive an F in the course through student conduct due to academic dishonesty. But that's its comes off as an F in the course. So my question is, if this policy forbids an F in the course, do a great given due to academic dishonesty to be changed. >> How would that matter be handled? >> Thank you. >> Again, this language was suggested by Jeff Palmer as as applying to any course that had been basically assigned by the student conduct process would be flagged as not being able to be replaced. And so either situation you're discussing getting x are giving if if the f was assigned by your committee, then it becomes flagged. If the f was earned because some assignment was given an F2, then I don't believe that it is flagged. And I don't think there's any reasonable way for software to flag if that's what you're getting. >> So good at handling Dina students. I oversee the Office of Student Conduct. And when this came out, it went to Hawley Harvey doublet because our director and we had a conversation with Jeff. The reality of this is, is that we talk to Jeff about how this process is part of however they program it out, that has to be something that's accounted for. So any student that is going through the process to have great forgiveness, they would vet those students through the Office of Student Conduct. And our interpretation of this when we had that discussion was that if a student FX or completely failing, Of course you're right, that's very easy to flag. But any student who had an academic penalty that resulted in a grade reduction of a specific assignment or a test that is also kept track of for an entire, a student's entire time at the University of Delaware. So they would check with us and we can provide that information as verification if that student can even enter into this process. >> Thank you for everyone. Just a Question of clarification. So if student gets a C And of course they would not be eligible for this. So so meaning if if a student gets a C, And of course they have to keep that C a. But if someone originally gets a C minus, is able to retake it and then it replaces the free. Free. In which case I would argue that I think we should remove that C minus clause. Or the reason being that if students, especially going towards professional for graduate programs, could be interested in getting a C and then being eligible to raise it. >> Does that is certainly something that was discussed. Where should the limit b or should there be none at all. And we were particularly we had representatives from the honors program point out that if we don't have a limit, there will be students retaking courses, they got an a minus n. >> And so we just decided to put the limit at deficit points furthest to my stance. >> Or mechanical engineering. >> Some discussions in and of themselves point outline what's flawed. >> I mean, it's, it's ramping rate inflation. >> Stupid student comes. >> I don't, I don't I don't see the point. >> I mean, it's, it's a, it's an out now Mulligan, I think students have lots of ways to get grades expunged from their record, as it is not all of which I think are necessarily to everyone's advantage. I think this just makes it too easy, too easy for students to just ignore course not go to the final, we get a second. Genes do not approve of this. >> Thanks guys. >> Yeah, I used to get an answer on the z. >> I know we gotta take it up, but now let's go back to see if he included right? >> We discussed the z and the problem. We this is a problem for you just to take up next year. The policies forgiving is z, are completely random. Some people in our discussions we had people who did not know that the z great existed, never given one. We have people who are giving a Z. If somebody mr. Final, I had my own personal policy somewhere in the middle of that. Because getting a z is a random act based on what your professor feels like. We didn't feel like we could singled without further discussion. >> If I were a little bit for programs like economics, for mathematics that I've structured majors, this will induce students into a kind of a moral hazard situation. So for semester you don't do well. An intro math or econ USE minus, you go on and the major, you're a senior, now you got enough credits, you're gonna go slumming it down. And freshmen, Intro, Econ or to a said, I mean that's really moral hazard. They should be doing something else. And I, we see students who do this are advise students to do this math where it's like, yeah, I'm graduating math major, I'm gonna go take college algebra. Now, just to pad my GPA And that's a moral hazard, is choice, they should be doing something else. This induces, at least for those kind of structured, unstructured makers, discretion. >> Nicholas Mockus, undergraduate representative to speak to that last 0.28 credits is what's gonna kinda keep that moral hazard from happening. So after your freshman year essentially would be unable to take advantage of this policy. >> So that's where you're going to take those seniors. >> Not going back and taking this freshman courses to speak a little to the C minus. The thought behind this was that the student would not receive credit for the course. The student has the opportunity to retake it. They're receiving credit. We're hoping that be happy with that. They'd be satisfied and they move on with their curriculum so they can still finish. And for somebody that the President scientists just mentioned about an hour and a half ago as an important precedent that the University of Delaware, when we're also speaking about the C minus, I would like to believe that my peers would not Kamikaze their grades just to be able to have the opportunity to retake it and instead work hard to improve themselves. And then my final point, the centers around the presentation of this grade forgiveness policy was coupled with that and the presentation of the GPA race for the Dean's List requirement, all student groups for reached out till they were they were told we're looking at a great forget this policy and increasing the GPA requirement for the dean's list. A lot of the feedback that we gave from the student government as well as our students with under the assumption that we would be having a great forgiveness policy as an opportunity to assist, but still remaining on the Dean's list because our climate is being increased. So I think from an optic standpoint, it would be in bad taste to the students to increase the GPA requirement without giving them the opportunity to replace their grades. >> Charlie bust of Electrical and Computer Engineering. >> I'm not sure that way It's just described is entirely accurate by my reading. If you can retake a course if it's done in the first 28 credits attempted at the university, but you can retake it later. So I don't see the restriction that you could not retake it as a senior. >> And again, go back and retake freshman calculus just to improve your overall GPA. >> It's kind of an undergraduate are presented with a point as to students just like the rest of their course, because they know they have the option to retake it. Actually find that that case down with the audit scenario, because after drop add, usually we have 1 tenth grade under about students have to make the decision. Do I try again and do better on the next two tests for do I completely feel this course and most times of students will ill on the side of caution and just out of the course and then end up not attending the rest. And I think if this policy was in place, students would try. Turn the grid around because they know they have the option to retake it if they do fail HDFS. So I wanted to ask for clarification. So from students getting a C minus would not get creditor doesn't start at d, c minus one, that's full. At that point, they start getting deficit points, which means that they are on probation imposes a of c minus a. Those can be, we have what's called an Academic transitions for a lot of Chinese students are scoring their English speaking helped her unique course. >> And because their English level is not quite up to university centers, but they're learning English through this content. >> This grade forgiveness is a central part of our academic vision for these students may in our API program or up to 27 credits. >> So I think that maybe one of the reasons why the 20th is there anyway, it's essential to our output expression when okay, gotcha, Deputy Provost. I just wanted to say that the assistant deans were really supportive of this policy. The idea that particularly with new students coming in who haven't, we have difficulty making that transition from high school to college and really have a very difficult first semester that instead of, instead of having students who, who would end up trying to Kirk that first semester and then wipe out the entire first semester. This gives the students an option if they've done it. They've gotten sees on a couple of courses, but then failed to got a D or an F on two other courses. 2n, instead of try to curb that course that the entire semester and lose and lose that whole semester when they've they've done okay. And a couple of courses this this policy would give them an option to just redo those two courses that they really, that they failed. And for this reason, I think that the assistant deans who trying to be able to work with students in these kinds of situations? Undergrad or when we had that. Mr. Hansen pumps, you are SGA Senate and present about this. I believe he said that when looking at comparison schools that have this policy, the actual percentage points and your GPA that changed overall was like what? Less than a 100th persona? >> That's slightly different. >> I'm Jeff. >> People did some research on how much people are, how much this would have affected people at UD who have retaken courses in terms of their overall GPA. This policy had been retroactively applied to several years ago. >> And it tends to be between 0.1.2 effect on final GPA, mostly closer to 0.1. >> So I think this policy would mostly helps students that are thought to pre-professional going on professional programs that need certain grades in certain courses that are known to be good. >> See more communications. >> Maybe I'm being naive about this, but I can't imagine people wanting to waste that much time and money just to like PAD their grade by bomb in a class and they go, I'm going to take this later. >> People are in a hurry to get out of here, parents or get tired assigning tuition checks pretty quickly. >> I don't if someone's going to use that to try and get ahead, that just seems like a colossal waste of their time. So I don't think a lot of students would engage in that. I could see it very much as a matter of being a professionally, trying to go onto a graduate program, trying to wonder professional study where you need to have that certain GPA to move forward. But just a bump your GPA to get on a dean's list to take an entire class? I don't think I would've done that. >> I don't want to work that hard. >> So that's since I'm calm. >> Their fines department just said language issue. >> There are two courses and credits and the Bora up too, because toward the end of the second paragraph, persons or just sticks cable. That was your conversational I'm standing still. Last name I'm not a fan of. >> Finally amendments, although this is not part of the faculty handbook. So it's as if his ad or a credits that door. >> Alright. You're saying it says credit matches the language above. >> In the second line of that, that's where the exact policy is made. And then down there we're just referring back to those limits. >> Alright, the two courses already grants, so it matches up with what's above. Self mentioned, Brian, do you accept that small change? >> If that's you pick wants my words, but from Education, Faculty Senate has been working on grade forgiveness for quite some time. >> And I think this is the first time emotion has actually come to the floor of the senate. There have been hearings, there have been committee is charged with looking at this. >> I think this is a good approach. I think the committee's done a good job in formulating this and I would like to see this pass. I think it's an achievement for the Senate to establish grade forgiveness policy. >> And I think this is a kind of a good first step toward it. >> For those of us that we can pull a question that's at the end debate and yes. >> Second two-thirds, right? >> Yes. >> So all those in favor upon question, any debate TCE ratio got every triggering an Australia. >> Think clickers again. >> Ok, so all those in favor upon questioning debate, please raise your cards and press a guess and wished continued discussion. Prevail cards impressed me. Vote tally is 46 to five. So we have called the question, we're ready to move forward on a vote on this resolution. All those in favor of this resolution, please raise your yellow cards and press a all those against cards and press B final. >> And we were close to the final vote is 43. >> And favorite nine against the motion passes. So we have three midi resolutions in front of us. The options that are in, are at play or is that we can someone can make a motion to adjourn since we are approaching six clock, but we will be meeting next Monday since we need to finish this agenda. That's your choice. Does anyone wish to make an agenda or make emotion to adjourn? We're going to keep motion. I'll keep asking. Alright. Our next resolution 97 is a revision to the faculty handbook. Section 4411, promotion dossier is concerning work at rank. Mark Moravcsik, who couldn't be here today, but Martha Buhl, this came out of the tenure track commission report. And as co-chair and Martha will trees. We also Jim Morrison who's on chairs on the committee for promotion and tenure. I may pull in you if you can always provide ideas from the committee's standpoint. But Martha, I'll let you started. >> So right now, the faculty Buggles pretty definitive guidance around what can be counted in Kenya and pays for work that was done and that is very inaccurate or that kind of permutation. So to say that the departments had to come up with language but adjust issues paper to major point this way. >> There's the flexibility to decide ahead of time because we found that during our discussion there's a lot of variety on campus in terms of which the expectations are. >> So we try to be flexible. >> And I think that's the main thrust. >> As Martha said, the departments would have that flexibility to determine just how they would treat such word measure. >> It's got upgrade philosophy or complete Leopold. >> This is totally confused me. >> But someone, once I'm trying to get tenure, There's some unstable, intimate. He's trying to advise people on it, but I still find them new language quite confusing. And so I think the underlying problem as far as I can tell is that business sort of mood mushing together, quite distinct tissue like with the work he's done in rank or as a post-doc or as a doctoral student, all cried to employment all prior to employment decisions for that myself. And I think the substance so that as at least as far as hiring decisions is concerned, is that you want to count work done if your initial higher for the higher norms, but done it at that point. But I'll tell you this, it should care about promotion. The problem is in the case like my picks up light cavity if post-op before coming here. But I'd have to say to them, hey, before I start spelling. So pull that. What was done after the employment decision? Hence my confusion initially, the emphasis here on initial and play with probation and so on. It seems to still talk about putting emphasis on what you did in your doctoral work or your post-doctoral work rather than on employment decision was the fastest. That's what did she say? I think I can McLaren guidance for there's still creates a presumption that that will be it felt totally ignored anymore. At least you'll have to the presumptuously made the case for that reason I think is still there. >> Probably disagree with what I just heard. >> Because when we have John D, this physics and astronomy, when we have a person who's been an assistant professor at another place, they come here. That's what do we make our employment decision. But their work and rank their accounts, that's not affected at all by this. But to me, it has nothing to do with the employment decision that we've made that work and rank counts, we expect it to count and we tell them accounts even though it's been before our decision. >> So I don't I don't I don't think that that tab offers any clarity. >> Close my piece. >> I'm probably grab economics like I kinda replotted this to. >> A lot of research has long live to it. >> That cross was ranks. >> We tended in economic used to, you know, when when something is finished in a publication date, that's when it counts for for Pete and rank. But boy, lots of projects run. I'm publishing stuff. I found out when I was in grade school. >> So I don't know how you're going to put that. >> That's been a real problem in the document and trying to talk to junior people about what counts and what doesn't. I think this helps. >> For the discussion. >> So it seems like this has been enriched, sorry, I realistic linguistics. >> So it seems like this is rewritten for, for junior faculty, people who come from post stuck to initial employment. >> But I think there's equal confusion about say, if you have, if there had been an Associate Professor elsewhere and then comes to interest and elsewhere We've had been a full professor elsewhere and then come to university LOS Associate Professor and then get asked for promotion to full. >> Does this speak to that situation at all? >> It's not fair to me that it does, but maybe you can work that we did is that we would like it to be that we just wanted that there's, there's just a lot of work that one does where everyone is that one rhythms disciplines. And so the principle of it, if it makes logical sense for discipline to allow this to work for a postdoc or a doctoral students carry of where it should also work for someone at Rake coming from someplace up. But again, same blanket like that is not the purpose of this. We're really trying to get Departments to specify this and be clear in their documents. And it could be that it makes sense in some places and not another. So I don't want to give you overall, but the logic is that we just tried to stick opinion something and say, Okay, everything that happened before this is completely separate from everything that happens from this point forward that's, that's somewhat artificially and doesn't work well. >> I watch and make sure to turn on all those in favor of this resolution. >> Please raise your cards and press Say again. And this 47 in favor and two against the motion passes. Only offer again, we have two resolutions ago when wish to turn the emotion emitter push report resolution 98 is our vision to the faculty handbook, section 435, evaluation of faculty is just a little quick before I turn this over, Martha will explain this. Remember last time for 3-5, we had to do a bit of bookkeeping to to clean up the language that was passed by previous Senate but had been altered by the provost. So we cleared that up last time and I said we also there'll be a new motion coming forward that works on revising the second half of 435 that deals with peer evaluations. And that's what this is. So I will turn over to Martha who will introduce this. So let me say also we formed an Ad Hoc Committee of two members of the deaf WEP, Faculty Welfare privileges committee, the promotion and tenure committee, the union and executive. They looked at this language, provide some suggestions. Then that proposed solution went forward to the Faculty Welfare and privileges committee, passed unanimously. They went to the promotion and tenure committee if passed unanimously, and then went back to this ad hoc committee for one last look through. And it also passed unanimously. That is the background of it. Or the pre-select introduced this. >> Sure. >> Thank you. So this is coming to us again because it is related to a lot of the work that we did as part of the tenure track Commission trying to make more robust support for people to be successful here at the University of Delaware in their scholarly and, and teaching and service careers. And so this part of the faculty handbook for 35 actually has two things in it that kind of, kind of completed a couple of different things. So this is, this is the section on really trying to, to discuss what happens in the peer reviews. And so one of the issues with this section was it didn't we have a reason for why we were doing peer reviews. It just said that they would be done on a periodic basis. So so one of the improvements that this makes is to try to give it a reason. And the reason is that we're trying to give supportive feedback and definitely provide support and guidance for people who are, we're kind to continue on their upward trajectory. And then it also tries to make clear that, you know, the focus really is on being supportive. And so we want to make sure that the people who need two-year, four-year evaluations are making sure that they get them in a timely way. Speaking to when one of the big changes here is that there's no longer, I mean, the timelines that existed in this section, we're very amorphous. It was, it was ranges in time from three to five years, in five to seven or you know, very often that these reviews are happening. And so trying to just really address this, this is the purpose, you know, are there it is needed at these intervals or for people for whom it's not a fighter, probably not trying to loosen that up so that they can be done on the timeline of the faculty that will make it helpful and supportive and give them feedback in a way that's constructive. Now one of the important things to note is that I'm in contact with Mark Smith and his his encouragement around trying to port this impasse. This is that a lot of these reviews that are required on these on these timelines are not that they seem to be, in his words, not really a good use of time. They're not very productive as tight. And that another downside to how these are constructed at this point with no real reason for why we're doing them, is in some cases they can kind of create some inner road, collegiality and, and you know, a feeling of esprit de corps because in some cases, I guess they've come negative for no reason since they haven't been given a purpose. But as far as the time, I just want to make the point that this is a really good opportunity to take advantage and, and maybe make these booster, especially for people who are already associate full professors. Because right now, up since 2013, there has been a fourt percent increase in the number of full professors. There has been an 8% increase in the number of associate professors, but there's even a 3% increase in the number of assistant professors, that those professors are done at the reviews. And a very Standardized high. >> If you figure out why people are spending, at least what's your view for them? >> Every two years, we have a huge number of yield per person lose that are happening. In addition to that, we are trying to really support the provost and fans and the mentoring initiative to really support faculty mentoring. So Franklin, a really intentional and do this in a appropriate way. Mentor junior probably eat it. Somebody has to get and so it's full. So to do this, if it's not really that useful, and we look at their work that must be done and has to be done. >> And that discussion, I just have one small foolish to be forgotten. >> Ct people again, and it may be in conflict with the CT. >> Sexual assault suggests fixing that by just adding a breadth-first or is it 416? I think I'm tenure track faculty. >> I will pull shorts and actually make them not as emotionally told. >> Someone moment to tell me one when tangible. >> Teased about one little bit I will say is remind me who's on promotion, tenure, who CT faculty mechanically going. Yeah. >> And he was he was happy with this language, but I can only provide that will input. >> But so I understand post tenure reviews, there have been times where I supported him, times I didn't, but in recent years, so it was I came from a department that just didn't do them two decades ago, but I recently presented department, they did. And they did them in a very fair way. So that the q we've done two ways. Specifically by two was the last person to die. There was no picking and choosing. Let's do robin, because she needs it. Let's do something that's a very fair. And while I think faculty sometimes readied having that done in almost all cases, it was a very positive experience and allow their colleagues to see what they were doing. In one case, the review committee came to me and recommended that an individual will be given a sabbatical. I probably would not have approved the sabbatical were it not for those faculty who did the peer-review and believed this would really be helpful. So I am certainly willing to talk about here waves and how they're dying. But I'm very concerned about passing something like this at 610 on the last Faculty Senate meeting of the year when I don't think department chairs of Wadia and I had not seen it until just watch a couple of a few days ago. So I haven't had time to think about this well enough and think about what is in the best interest of the university. If we make reviews for full professors optional, we're going to have a lot of them could just be used to do it. And and basically we're then saying that you could look at that and say, We're just we're just taking them away from all accountability. I don't I don't know that people would volunteer for that. And so for me, I think this needs more. But what the point about CTE faculty has to points about our faculty. I, I I don't think we should just in the haste to to finish here at ten minutes after six. And the last backwards here be abandoning the peer-review process for tenured associate professors, fruitful professors. I know a lot of work went into it and I had, I haven't had time to look at I think it's a big deal for the kids if it is how we hold ourselves accountable. It's how we get back our faculty, Denny Galileo biological sciences. >> On the other hand, my comments here concern post-tenure abuse and not the pre-tenure periodic reviews are also mentioned in there. Although peer reviews a tenured faculty theoretically might be helpful or useful, I've never talked to any tenured faculty member. Post-tenure review was helpful or useful. On the other hand, I've talked to multiple faculty who thought they were unnecessary waste of time and are being used for punitive purposes by a chair or a dean. I would just as soon see them disappear altogether. But I think the revised policies a 100% better than the current one. Mandating that post-tenure views be done on a completely arbitrary schedule wastes a lot of faculty time, time that would be much better spent on more important things. And capping them once every five to seven years is plenty. I think not having them as even better and saying that the revenues would reinforce negative public attitudes against universities because we might be taking a step back from accountability, I think is a red herring. These are views can't really be used for anything concerning tenured faculty. Anyway, annual evaluations are much more important for keeping all faculty accountable for the responsibilities statement in the revision about the purpose of these reviews. Pre-tenure faculty being less clear is an understatement, is to chair's responsibility to address accountability during annual evaluations. Passing this off to a faculty committee is shirking their responsibility and hiding behind the faculty. And there's a big push, as Martha mentioned, for more consistent, more and consistent mentoring of junior faculty in line with the large numbers of new junior faculty. That's what tenured faculty should spend time doing, not in post-tenure reviews, even without the large numbers of new faculty. A likely reason that periodic reviews are not done as frequently as specified in the faculty handbook, which I think is widespread, is because it's too labor intensive for most departments and as a low priority because they really don't matter. And there are more important things for faculty to spend their time doing. Now that with the push for more mattering, something's got to give. And clearly I think it should be the post-tenure reviews. And I say that having gotten a very good post-tenure review in the department that the provost was talking about. Did the post-tenure reviews. I never heard from the Dean, my former dean. I think it's because if he had to say anything nice, he wasn't going to say anything at all. I didn't hear a word from from from him about about that. So there might be things to tweak, but I think this should be done after its revised and US per year to not before. And I think the idea of working on this furthers unnecessary. I think that propose revisions are good and I fully support this resolution as is Jim Barton School illustrations. >> I agree with what you just said, but also there's still is an option if the appointment really wants to review. A professor at departments still has that choice. I think this is the essence. We were trying to promotion and tenure committee to to have some flexibility and let deployments decide. >> All right. >> I think it came down to let what Martha and said no, we have to look at the practical aspect about time and commitment and where we want to put our resources. >> So we felt that the assistant professor rank was really the place to put our emphasis. >> So I guess I just want to make sure we understand that farmers can still Paul review sessions were tenured fred Hofstetter from education. >> So I think there are good arguments on both sides being made here. Could we turn to the section that talks about periods of care evaluation? Yeah. Thank you. >> So where so where that says instructors and assistant professor shall be reviewed every two years, our CTE faculty reviewed every two years, same as ten or attract background context that's across the whole campus for evaluation for every free associate across the whole universe. >> Okay? Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. >> So, so the one thing I'm going to tell you, the one thing that concerns me about this, because I've been involved in peer reviews. >> I don't know whether my statement will be popular or not, but we have associate professors who have fallen asleep and the peer reviews really have been useful in those cases. That's my concern about making this change is we no longer have that tool to help mentor our associate professors. >> And when you make this totally optional, which is what this does them up and then you say a department could could then require it. I'm not so sure it's going to be so easy for a department to require something that the faculty handbook as essentially made optional, quit. >> You know, this is what we do and so it's not working. I mean, what you're saying is true that people who have fallen asleep, this is what we do now. And they apply, says, oh, this isn't working. Then at this point it says you have professors that they'd like feet but wouldn't have to limit themselves to think that they could do it in their sincere and they wanted to. This is, is making that no tailored to support a person's professional development rather than descended on an arbitrary timescale that may or may not make sense. >> So I might come down beside that. >> These reviews are good. >> I agree with some of the, some of the positive things I've heard. >> I think my college, these weren't done for many, many years and now they are done. And I think they do work in a small way. >> I think they they're a nudge and I think if they become optional, they'll just be a stick. >> And for that reason I would like to keep them non optional. >> And then I wanted to add one thing to what I think, but I forgot Kathy shell nursing. >> I know in health care we are moving more to peer review, maintain quality, quality management. So I think we like our students to peer review. I find benefits to it. So maybe there should be changes in the process. But I support having peer reviews for post-tenure. >> What Berger disappointed. Clarification says full professors maybe, but are not required to be. Who decides that? >> The full professor departmental committee that share. >> I don't I'm not seeing where that's clear in the language with my eyes or going with all of this on the other stri, Egypt, since almost everybody, so that everybody can go to that page first order backward, they go there, danny, Galileo biological sciences. What was meant by that was that they did not have to be done automatically on a timescale. But if the faculty member, the chair or the faculty committee in the department, like in my department, there's a, there's a committee that does these reviews when it's triggered, can trigger the review of up to once every five years for an associate professor and up to once every seven years for a full professor. That's what that supposed to mean. But once it's triggered, it's not optional for the faculty members. So if a chair wants to do it once every five years, burn associate professor, they can trigger that in if they have to go through that process. That's what that supposed to mean. It's not supposed to mean that it's completely optional, that the person the chair can say, I want to do this because it's been seven years for an associate professor in the faculty member gets to say, no, this is optional, I don't wanna do it. >> That's not what this was meant to me for the discussion realistic linguistics There is actually research on the effectiveness on performance and relations that there was a recent article in the Annual Review of organizational psychology and organizational behavior published in January 2019. >> Where the, which was widely reported by BBC, for example, where they, where they came to the conclusion that performance evaluations actually don't have any effect on productivity in organizations. So by all available, by all available evidence, formal attempts to rate them, please don't seem to meaningfully improve employee performance or give competence. And a source of competitive advantage says landlocked hostility of the chamber and it being extremely costly and have no impact on productivity. >> I think as a university, we should take the research done by academic institutions and inform and they'd all goodness, thanks them. Then that seems to suggest that it doesn't have any impact on productivity. >> So I think that that speaks in favor of DNA analysts proposes, as Robert said when I was reading it, I I did not read it as a chair to me to go out and pick a full professor and say, You must be nearly every seven years or whenever I was reading it that far, faculty member could refuse to be peer-reviewed and only finished. I think that situation exist. I chair could go in and say, I'm going to review rotted Morgan and Robin Morey who'd say, No, you're not. And we're really putting that share in the position of that faculty member saying your retaliating against me, we're putting them in a very, very difficult situation that I think could cause some serious problems across the university. When you have either a P&T committee I chair who want to 3D Robin Morgan. But Robin wording, maybe he's been asleep at the wheel and hasn't been doing anything, it doesn't why be reviewed and says if you can't read me and I don't know where that leaves is for that reason and for others is a lie discussion. I am happy to have a conversation about peer review and how we can make it more effective and take away some of that pain. >> I mean, it's our process. >> It doesn't have to be at 800 page document, can be doing something that will make it fair. But what I'm concerned about is the level of discussion and us here at the 11th about passing something I seeing has problems. I think it needs more thought. >> And we'll discuss my pen alley providing hospitality business management at organizations. >> Research shows that as supportive with just terrorist organizations that are getting away from periodic evaluations because it's too late after five years or 70 years to come back to say that you haven't been performing as it should be an ongoing thing if there is anything we want to do. >> And otherwise it hasn't had any impact for our school of education. >> So I think the problem with this is That it doesn't say what Danny, what senator Galileo said. >> It's suppose to me, I mean, I've re-read it, these two paragraphs on periods of peer-review. >> And it's just not saying what, what centered to Galileo said it means. >> So I think we need to return this to committee. >> The committee consider what we've discussed here. >> Read what the transcript, which will say what senator Galileo said it means, but it doesn't say and maybe have a hearing about it as opposed to trying to act on it now. >> So I'm going to move that we return this to committee. >> Thank you so much on the floors to return this to committee discussion on that motion. Ok. >> I think we'd be in way better shape passing this And then having those open hearings in those discussions because I think the revisions that are done here are a 100% better than the way it is now. So I don't think that we should start our discussions from the way it is now, which there's some just completely ridiculous language in that section of the faculty handbook. Something like, if I'm remembering it right, that associate professors should, should be reviewed waste within every three to five years, but normally not more often than every two years. >> I mean, what does that mean? >> I mean, there's such completely ridiculous language in there as well as, you know, the person doesn't have to be given given a copy of the written report. In some really terrible things in here. I think we have discussions that's fine, but I think they should be from the standpoint of after this is past. And then that'll make people, if you don't like something about it, if you want to discuss it and say OK, but I think it'll be less fixing to do. If we do it from after we revise this, then there would be, if we leave it the way it is, really discussion. Bruce, whoever, Dean Lerner College, I found the language a little hard to interpret as well, even though I can see some of the changes up there do seem to make it better. I think it's better to call this a review than an evaluation, but I've also found these to be very constructive. And as a college, we're accredited by an organization that calls there their process for that continuous improvement review. And we point to this is one of the things we do to have continuous improvement to be able to satisfy the accredit. We are a school that takes our performance seriously and we look to improve it. And I would be disappointed if we wound up with a situation where something that could be done better gets turned into an optional. Such that when you start having differential treatment of differential faculty because they get reviewed and others don't. It just doesn't look right to me and I agree that we could do better. We do maybe everywhere as far as this process goes. But I don't think the answer to it is to turn it into an optional exercise that some people don't have to participate in and others do and could feel as if they were being singled out somehow. >> And I just remind us that the motion on the floor is to commission Back to convert, which I support page. >> Ok. >> So try to clickers on first off. >> All right. So the motion on the floor is to send back to committee. So you're going to be if you're voting in favor of sending back to community, you're gonna be using your card, pressing a if you want to continue the discussion and for this to go on, and it'll be B. So that's what you're voting on. So those in favor of sending back to community, please raise your ELA cards and press a. Goes in favor of continuous discussion, not sitting back committee and voting on static pressure managerial cards. And press B and the the vote tally is 31 and favors sitting back committee 12 against so does pass to go back to committee. All right. We have one resolution left. I offer still stands and it will make a motion to a journey, but we come back next week or so. Close. Right. >> There we go. >> There was one of the resolution that relates to faculty welfare and privileges that dealt dealt with academic freedom. >> We have seen this before as well, and we sent it back to committee for some revision. So I'm going to pass it back to John Madison to welfare and privileges. >> Thanks you for staying around to discuss this final. So I'm this came before us at the March meeting. On there is discussion around some wording involving service and creative as creative interests as well. >> That was done needs to be added to the amendment. >> Also, there was a discussion around the meaning of academic freedom. >> Senator Morse, and raise some points about the definition way which we defined academic freedom. >> So therefore, this was sent back to committee. We look this over again, made the suggested corrections in terms of adding creative activities, making sure that we have proper usage of their units. And then the committee as a whole looked at how we had defined academic freedom and decided that we were happy with our definitions. >> We had put forward to you in March until we in your discussion and this definition for academic freedom says three pages here. >> John, is there any particular thing I should pull up? >> I think that what you have right there, Chris, is important. And so what I would say is if you look at right about the midpoint of that paragraph, The says the methods, curricular choices, and grading procedures should be the prerogative of the faculty to the coarse common, limited only by appropriate professional norms. >> Those defined sections from the faculty handbook and the collective bargaining agreement. >> Not to speak for Jim senator Morrison, but I think that his he had an issue with the way that had been worthy. >> That in essence is, I think the point that which we were looking at in terms of defining academic freedom, discussion, realistic linguistics. >> So I have a question actually to Robin Morgan. >> We received an email from you on April 22nd where you said that we have to be careful about you basically said that the individual members of the community welcome to endorse and campaigned for candidates or express political use, but must smoke, do sell on university time, or using r0 universe, the resources. >> And I'm just wondering whether this new language, Harry, is consistent with what your admonishing us about. >> What that means is that everyone is free to support a political candidate, right? Yeah, but what you can't do is hang Robyn working for President sign outside the building ON property that makes it look like that as a university sanctioned say When's personal is inactive Find went on. And I think that's that's always been around. The reason that memo came out is that we have a situation where former along Joe Biden is running for president. It's fine for people where Biden t-shirt if they want to. But what we don't want people doing is hanging applied back outside the building something. And if they, if Joe is welcome on this campus. >> But so are all other. >> So we don't want to have a situation where people are only inviting. One side of the story is to preserve the academic. I don't have any problem. I think we do need to respect everyone's right to speak their mind and to have their opinion that no one has the right to make that opinion appear to be the view of the universe that's, that was a different race. >> Can I follow up on that here? So so I think it's actually it goes without saying that you're not speaking on behalf of the university. If I if I as an as an academic person, express an opinion to a student in a class, for example, that, that would be consistent with, say, Joe Buttons policy political view. It goes without saying that I'm not speaking on behalf of the universe has been, I'm speaking on behalf of my OK, whoever. It's impossible to say that I do that as a private citizen because I do represent the universe. >> It because I'm hired by University and I'm doing it during my work time. >> So I don't think it's possible to demand that people speak as private citizens because we're doing it in an academic culture. >> If you're doing it at the universe that it goes through a sand with the janitor doesn't have enough hands. >> I want to send a mass mailing. You're campaigning on behalf of a political candidate, you want to send a mass mailing. You need to do that on your time. Not only universities, because we, the university is not support, will not take a stand to support a particular. You can but don't do it on university time. >> Alan foss, philosophy. >> I think the issue is that they shouldn't be standing in front of the room making political statements. >> And I don't think it goes without saying that students know that you're seeing yourself enough in the university. >> I find that students generally what the faculty say to be more authoritative than that. >> And there is at least the possibility for them too soon. This is some type of institutional physician and whether, whether they're correct or not, we don't want to we want to avoid those. >> And I do think that, you know, on your own, time means not in the classroom, not to commit artisan statements. >> And that's where I email lists, HUD service right tip to send off politically the advocate for 11 candidate. Or one thing. Mr. say W is different if we were just inviting to a forum or a lot of candidates being prayer, all candidate crush. It doesn't have a forum where weren't buying it. That if it's, if it's, if it really is academic, you freely inviting everyone bets. And one of the things that did come up is university properties. So, you know, we talked a lot about this on, you know, it's okay to wherein eagles teach sugar class. That's expressing your you might do that but said, oh, if you want to wear a particular, you'd want a bumper sticker on your car you want. But what we don't want U3 is hanging those things on the outsides of building, putting in your office within a front-facing. Who said that? Something you see, don't stick it on the outside of the building. So it looks like with the building you have to respect universities profit. >> I just wanted to ask the provost for a regular employee gets paid by the hour. What's university time is pretty clear, but like for, for us faculty, what, what is, what is universe? Can you define university time? Because, I mean, you know, at home in the evenings and early in the mornings. I mean, I'm working on I mean, I hope that's not university time because then I need to make like a big tax deduction to chair. It will contribute charitable contribution of my time. But I mean, that is there any like consensus of what university time means for a faculty member? >> Let me get a quarter. I mean, all day, all night. But I think there is a difference when you're in a class teach in your own time. >> Non-scholarly sewer ion, expect faculty to take time clock. I don't do, I don't want to be looking at when you come in, but don't you look at when you leave? So it, it, it's a matter of using some judgement about what is the proper use on university facilities, university time, and being honest about when one is representing political views that are personal views, versus making it appear that something And it's being sanctioned by the university. University welcome spray speed. And they support everyone's right to support whatever candidates. They don't want to have the appearance that university supports one. >> So i support this. >> I think this is a very pro academic freedom statement and I don't understand why it's controversy, lipids, this is the direction we should be going. >> I think it's an interesting discussion document. >> So you need to turn your clickers on forming and all those in favor ending debate calling question, please raise your cards and press day. All those wishing to continue the debate, sorry. >> Just flows right or up and again. >> Ok. >> So our all those in favor upon the question, any debate, raise your yellow cards and press a, love against and we wish to continue discussion. Raise your cards and press B 39 to one. Alright, so we will call the question and vote on this resolution as it stands. All those in favor of this resolution, please raise your yellow cards and press a. All those against raise your cards. >> Impress people go viral. >> Load is 35 to one. We solve a problem, by the way. So we're good. Okay. >> Is there any new business for September? >> First off now, if you'll indulge me for 30 seconds, I want to thank you first off for having a fantastic year. >> You know, the song from visible red seasons, 525,600 minutes. >> I'm not going to start with just a document. >> Everything that you would accomplish this year. >> Over 300 curriculum changes, 15 improvements to faculty promotion, tenure review, and program departmental views. >> Seven, setting or university organizations, Faculty, Senate, welfare privilege, great credit policies, and worth one new grad three. >> So this is what you accomplish. >> You need to give yourself a round of applause for text. >> And with that, I will make a motion to adjourn. >> Second. >> No, no.
2018-2019/videos/Faculty Senate Meeting May 13th 2019.mp4
From Joseph Dombroski May 06, 2020
1 plays
1
0 comments
0
You unliked the media.