We have a long meeting, so I'm gonna get started. Welcome to our final Faculty Senate meeting for the academic year 22, 23. We have a packed agenda, so I'm going to try to keep things moving along as quickly as I possibly can. First, we need to adopt the agenda and we're gonna use polls everywhere for all of our voting right now. So can I motion to adopt the agenda? Got a motion. Do we have a second? Okay. Is there any discussion? No discussion. Then using polls everywhere. Please vote. Yes. If you're in favor and no, if you're against the agenda. All right. We have the 38 yay or nay. The the agenda is approved. Now, we need to approve the minutes from April 3, 2023. Can I have a motion to accept the minutes? Do I have a second? Second. Is there any discussion? No discussion. Then will now vote on the approval of the minutes using polls everywhere please vote yes, if you're in favor and no, if you're against. Alright, we have 40 yea and zero Ni, the minutes have been passed. So now we're going to move on to the election of the faculty senate officers. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Okay. So we'll Karen, can you help me with that one? Thank you. Okay. So we're moving on to the election of the officers. How many people are having a hard time with polls everywhere? Oh, there are a lot of people. Okay. Okay, we'll do what we can. So we're moving on to the election of the faculty senate officers for next year. A slave nominations has been prepared by cocaine and is presented here. Are there any additional floor for nominations for any of these positions? Okay, seeing none. We are going to use polls everywhere and we'll try to pick up any additional who, how are we going to do that? They're all in one nomination. Okay? So if you, if you agree with the entire slate. So we'll use polls everywhere to vote and treat for nomination the category as a no vote. So go ahead and cast your votes. We have President elect, we have Vicki fidelity for Secretary. We have Jackie for our toe, for cocaine chair. We have Adam Wallace and for Coke, can at-large member, we have Beatrice Gaynor. The poll should be open and you can cast your votes. If you are in favor of this entire slate and cannot use polls everywhere, go ahead and raise your card. We have 123, so we have an additional three votes. So we have 47 in favor and against. So we now have elected our officers. So congratulations everyone. Okay. Now is the exciting portion of the program we are honored to provide faculty senate excellence awards for teaching and advising for faculty and teaching for graduate students. These, many of these folks have been very patient in waiting for this moment. Because we didn't award these awards last year. There was a technical issue with a website. We have additional awards this year. So remember that we awarded the faculty excellence in scholarly community engagement and mid-career faculty scholars scholarship in the fall. So all the, in, in addition to all the award winners, will be recognized at a larger ceremony in the fall, sponsored by the provost's office. So I'm going to first announced a set of awards. And if those award winning award winners would come up on stage, I will give you your award. And if you'll stay for a moment for a picture with the provost, would be very much appreciated. For Excellence in Teaching Award for faculty. We have Stephanie Devito from biological sciences. We have Laura Genova in Chemistry and Biochemistry. We have Elizabeth, so slow in education. We have Jonathan Ross in history. We have Christine hokey in nursing, and Stephanie re bowl in business Business Administration. Next, we have our Excellence in Undergraduate Academic Advisor. We have three wards. One of the award winners could not be here. So we have Amy had strum from nursing, and we have Erica Silva from biological sciences. And Jennifer naturally from a women and gender studies, and she couldn't be here today. And last but not least, the Teaching, Excellence in Teaching for graduate students. We have well lead abou codon. We have Pascal Boyer, PKA. We have Amanda, CNC, chemistry and biochemistry. And David climber from physics and astronomy. And Christopher third from political science could not attend today. So congratulate them all. For our final award. And congratulations to all the faculty and student excellence in teaching and advising. We have one last award, the John Olson Faculty Senate exemplary service award. This is presented by the faculty senate, Senate for extraordinary leadership and service provided to the University of Delaware Faculty Senate. This year, the executive committee had a unanimous decision for this award, although one person might not realize it, and it's John jump. We're very thrilled for his service, particularly as parliamentarian of the Faculty Senate. When I went to become or to run for faculty senate. You shouldn't be surprised at all. Thank you, Thank you very much. You can see John's accomplishments here. And when I went to run for president, my predecessors told me, do not do it. If John Jeb is not parliamentarian, he does such a great job. And so he was you said yes. So I said yes. Alright. Thank you very much, John. And do all the rest of the award winners. Next, I'd like to it's my pleasure to turn the floor over to provost Carlson so she can talk a little bit in this final meeting. And then after she's done through speaking, we'll have time for one or two questions. Emphasis on a little bit. Alright, I just have two forward-looking announcements. The first one is about the unit L submissions. We are welcoming submissions. I'd spent we're so fortunate as an institution to have the unit L foundation support. And I spend a lot of time over the last couple of months talking to people who had been involved in that process, finding out what they liked about it, what they didn't like about it. And so we released a note to campus. I think it was last week talking a little bit about some changes and I'm pretty excited about. First one is trying to reduce the barrier for, for sort of talking about an idea that you have. So one-page, pretty easy, describe the idea and describe a possible approach to solving a problem. The second part of that is to come present the idea one slide 2 min to the whole community. And I'm really excited about that. But the point of that is to make things more transparent and more inclusive. And so we're calling it the unit L summit. It'll be Friday the 19th. Submissions are due Monday, May 15th, one-page one slide. And we hope to get really great set of ideas from this. And then the intent is to work with a group of faculty and staff and administrators to go through and just sort of pair them in interesting ways. Expand them, construct the scope of some partner across all of them to come up with some really a robust set of ideas. There will be a mechanism for folks as you're listening if you feel like you're, you have some relevant expertise for that topic, for you to write in and say, Hey, I'd like to be part of that group. I think that's really important. Oftentimes we rely just on our own No networks and forward things. And I would really like this to be something that brings everybody together. So the summit will end with a big network events for people to talk about projects and ideas. And then there'll be a way for you to indicate if you're interested in joining any groups. The intent would be that as we're going through and identifying their proposals will identify a set that we think are ready to go to unit L. And would that group will assign a facilitator to help work with them over the summer to craft the very best proposal. So this is important and because we've heard over and over again from unit L how important it is and it's line two. The University and the strategic goals. And so there'll be a way to make sure that the ideas that come from you can end up touching on what the goals that are articulated in the strategic plan. Then I imagine there'll be a setup us another set of ideas that maybe aren't quite ready but could use some seed funding to get them ready for future submission. I have put some money aside for an initiator fund for a set of proposals like that. And then there'll be a third set that the idea is great, but maybe need some more work. And again, I'm willing to commit some resources to help move those ideas forward. That way I want to move away from the idea of winners and losers to just which ideas are ready for funding now, which ones are in development? In which ones are a little bit more downstream? But the idea is to come together as a community and put these forward. I think that that's really in the spirit of what unit is about. So I hope you'll consider submitting an idea. I certainly hope you'll come and listen to all the ideas at the summit. It should be a really fun afternoon. The second thing I wanted to just share with you is that you do will be participating in an AI study in higher education. I'm really excited about this and I appreciate the leadership. See tall has provide the Academic Technology Services, has provided met cancer. Vicky has been leading this effort up. So you know, we've had a lot of forums for faculty talking about how do we think about AI in chat, GBT and our classrooms. There's an effort that's being funded out of the Ithaca SNR foundation, or it's a non-profit focused on helping academic and cultural communities serve the public good, navigate economic, technological, and demographic change. So we will be participants along with 12 other universities and a two-year study. This meant to examine current applications of generative AI in higher ed and to develop plans for future policies and services. Are petition our participation in the study. It really represents a great example of collaboration across units. It's gonna be coordinated by an AI and Teaching and Learning Steering Committee that's co-facilitator by Aaron Zou Carranza, who is the Director of Academic Technology Services. Josh Wilson and associate professor in the School of Education. And Mike Evans, who's a director and learner IT. And it's going to have representation from C tall, the library staff, faculty, senate students, and so on. If you're interested in being part of this group, send me a note. I'm really looking forward to what this project will be. Then I think the last thing I want to say is just thank you. It's been it's hard to believe that this is coming on a whole years, the last senate meeting of the semester. So feels like an appropriate time to say thank you to all of you for your kindness and support and engagement with me over the past year. Any of the initiatives that we undertake, our collective. And that requires us working together. And I've been incredibly impressed by the commitment that this group has to shared governance and the importance of shared governance. I absolutely believe in it and anything that we do is better because of it. So I just wanted to thank you. Thank you all. So Nancy, is your last meeting. It's been a really a joy to get to know you and work with you this year. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Provost Carlson. And congratulations on a great first year. So before we move on to the agenda items, we have a few announcements in short presentations in the announcement section. Our first announcement is just a reminder. We'll be reminding you a lot to get your proposals moving on as quickly as possible for 2023, 24 never hurts to remind you at the end of the year because there are always some that are left over. And so it really helps with keeps the keeps things moving. The fall is sort of a slow period for us. So if we get more of those proposals in sooner, we can process them sooner. Not have a mega meeting like we have today. Remember last year and we're going to do the same thing next year or last date to initiate a proposal is somewhere around February 15th. We didn't notice that some of the originators snuck those in 15 min before curriculum closed. We're going to try to avoid that if possible next year, we're going to have a closing date for the proposals to get through the undergrad and grad studies around March 1. So this is to encourage everyone not to wait till the last minute, but to get your proposals through and through the committee as soon as possible in the new year. We have a couple of new committees. We one of them is the enrollment management task force looking at the SAT ACT optional. They're currently recruiting members. You can talk to Jackie for our TO after the meeting or email her if you're interested. There are a couple of positions open in that committee. We're also starting an ad hoc committee on faculty, senate, senate meeting modalities. John Morgan has agreed to chair that committee to look at the potential of having some hybrid meetings in the fall. Now I just want to update a few of the things that we've been doing in the past year. And actually before that, it was a senator. Rick PEDOT had a great question about the office of sustainability and he beat me to the punch. The Office of Sustainability, since it's open now the Faculty Senate is following up on multiple resolutions that have been passed over the last five years. So net, net carbon zero divestment from fossil fuels, plastic or elimination, a number of other ones. And we're following up with that office to make sure we get some movement on those on those resolutions. Were also working with the provost office on the revision of the APR APR process and the APP, a committee from the Faculty Senate, their role within that process. So we want to solidify and strengthen that. We want to make the process of APRs much more, much more easy for the different departments and much more meaningful experience. So the provost talked about that in our March meeting and look for some some changes coming up in the future. As I mentioned last time, our next year's meetings will be in the Trayvon auditorium. There's 180 seats in turbine. It's a very comfortable space. I think everyone will appreciate that after being crammed and gore Hall for several years. So we're looking forward to that. And then I have an announcement about pegs. I have a slide to show you. And then we're going to have a short presentation from the ad hoc committee on student evaluation. So for our pegs update, the we were, we're almost there but not quite. We got 75% of the undergraduate pegs in and through an on the Senate floor, you'll see a bunch of them today. We got about 65% of the graduate pegs through senate. You'll see again a bunch of those today. Now. If in the future for those that are missing pegs, if if a program submits a proposal to revise a program, the proposal will be returned if it doesn't already have or include in the proposal the program education goals. So keep that in mind for those departments and programs that haven't submitted pegs. It doesn't mean you get a path. It's going to stop you from changing any proposals in the future. For the missing pegs, they'll need to include. They'll need to include within them. They will need to be included in a program modification form. So thanks many thanks to those departments and programs that have completed their pegs. And they're more to come for those who haven't yet finished. And now I'd like to bring Eric fresco to the floor up to the podium for an update from the ad hoc committee on student evaluations. Alright, thank you for your time today and I'll keep this brief. I know you do have a long agenda for the day. So just as another update, we updated you back in December, not relative to where we were with this teaching quality framework and the development of our student rating of instruction instrument. So once again, just want to recognize a committee putting in a lot of time, a lot of work on this as we move forward. Okay. And just to give you a reminder of our charge from the faculty senate. So these four items, like said, developing that student rating of instruction, which we currently have in one form, but it's basically making it much more representative of excellence in teaching. Sorry, developing the teaching quality framework, as well as encouraging departments to review their PNT, as well as merit metric policies. And then lastly, looking for a possible third party vendor or a way to support this new initiative. So as far as what we've done this spring, looking at a couple of things. We've had meetings with different groups. So far we've had five with faculty and administration, thanks to Matt cancer, Vic were able to get in with the dean's workshop, sorry, not chairs workshop and the dean's workshop. So with the chairs workshop giving us quite a bit of time with them to get a lot of input from the administrative level. One the big things that came from them was, is this going to put more work on their plate? And we think about that for all committees looking at p and t. And the answer to that is no, it should not add any extra work. One thing is that we are looking at doing as we move forward is producing guidelines on basically how this works should be viewed, how, what kind of wait it should have. Because once again, the end goal being excellence within teaching. We've also met with for student groups this past semester, they seem to be the easiest ones to get in width. So with our graduate SGA, our undergraduate SGA, as well as the President's Student Advisory Council. And then even being invited to an SGA town hall to speak with an open group of students. One of the big takeaways I'd say that we got from the students is as far as when we start looking at completion rates on the current student ratings, why it's so low is students already believed that nothing gets done with them, that they fill it out and it just kinda falls off into the ether. Knowing that some departments don't utilize them, whereas others they just don't understand it. They don't see a benefit to it or don't see any change from one semester to the next. So that's good input that we've gotten from them. Obviously, we need to get input from other sources. The other things we have one more scheduled this summer within the Summer Institute of teaching. So once again, if you have the time please attend. We want all voices to be heard within these meetings. And I'll mention it on the next slide that we're looking forward to the fall. We'll have more scheduled. Beyond that, there had been cognitive interviews with students. Kevin good reviews. Part of the committee is co-chair of the committee. He worked in from Seattle, has met with 14 students, basically gain input relative to the way that the student rating of instruction has been worded, making sure that students have a good understanding. And within these cognitive interviews, really drilling down and getting them to provide input, allowing them to express how these could be better worded. So that way students are giving true input back, not just basically how did they decipher the question? That's been really beneficial in allowing for edits to be made to our current document on this student rating of instruction. Alright, so right now we are actually, we just met today to narrow the scope on that student reading instruction. Because we need to push this out to those faculty members that have volunteered for this semester's pilot. We're only doing the end of the year. Student rating of instruction when we move forward to the fall, we will then add in the mid semester that we want to be able to get feedback that can be directly applied to the course that's instructors teaching to basically make any changes that can be adapted. But for this one, like I said, very small group. Right now I think we're looking about 12 instructors that have been basically from that chairs workshop. We basically put it out to the chairs that chairs and talked with their departments and they had some volunteers. Alright, so we're keeping it small so that way we can get a good view of this and that we're not getting overloaded upfront. Alright, so that's gonna go out and basically it'll run in tandem with the current documents. So there's nothing that's going to be added to those instructors. We have this same consistent basis for what's being utilized right now, but we get to have that data coming back that we have some work to do this summer, viewing that information coming back. And we will share it back with those faculty that are volunteering for this. So that way they can basically see how does that input differ from the input that they are going to gain from the current student rating of instruction that we utilize. Beyond that, moving forward, like I said, we have this work to do over the summer, not just looking at that, but also looking ahead to the fall, what needs to be done? Starting to hopefully get in touch with a lot of committees, especially at the faculty senate level, that in looking at to the document that just came out within that agenda, as far as the other committees, we know for now, just seeing the awards going out today, seeing that there were changes coming for how the Excellence in Teaching Awards go out. So working with them as well, getting input from them relative to what can we kind of put in on this teaching quality framework that's going to assist that committee. Likes it, a lot of other committees. So P&T committee is diversity committees. But the biggest thing is we still need to have a lot more meetings with faculty. We need a lot more faculty input right now. They said We've got a lot of student input, but we need that other side. We need faculty input. How are you going to utilize these documents? Is this going to basically give you a better system to work through to basically provide this demonstration of excellence in teaching. Beyond that, we also look forward to the fall of a second pilot getting much larger and basically honing down that student rating of instruction. And like I said, adding in that mid semester. Open-ended questions. So that way those instructors have feedback to make adaptations at that point in time. Kinda last thing is just showing you, we showed you this timeline back in December where we currently stand. So green arrows where we are at right now. But that red arrow at the bottom is basically like I said, this is right now Where are we meeting with these faculty and students. We need to continue that forward. That this work is not done, that we need to continue to have those meetings and gain more and more inputs. Looking into the fall semester, is that adding that mid semester, once again, being hopeful of 24, 25 rollout and basically looking at peer institutions, they rolled this out at the level of departments and colleges, not university-wide. So this is going to be a multiyear rollout. But once again, getting the faculty sentence blessing before anything happens at that level that we know that we're at a level that can give us more information and provide us a better measurement for this excellence in teaching. The last thing I will leave you all with is here is the website. Once again, we look for absolute transparency on this. If you haven't yet get on that website, look at the Teaching Quality Framework, look at the current, um, setup of the student rating of instruction. Please provide feedback. There are links on there for you to give us direct feedback that we do take that under consideration within our meetings, we want all this input. And even if you have input relative to that, you're on another committee that you'd like to meet with us giving us that initial contact, jump in there and provide us with that. But beyond that, that is all that I have for you today. Thank you. Now for our last announcement, I'm going to turn the floor over to Jackie for auto or the chair of cocaine. All right. Hello, everyone. Good afternoon. Jackie for hurdle firmly cocaine. And as chair of the cocaine on behalf of cocaine, we extend our gratitude for your contributions to our University's Faculty Senate during this past academic year. We also say thanks to you and your colleagues who have served on any one of our 20-plus university faculty, senate committees. Lot of volunteerism that you've all demonstrated. So as you can see here, there are many new terms commencing in the fall. And we're simply heartened by the level of volunteerism that, you know, people who've reached out to us who do want to serve. So thank you. So I'd just like to add on in addition to the service through our committees and three-year Senate work, we've probably many of you have heard from us seeking your help in any of our APR committees. So these academic program reviews and many of you a lead that service and you weren't, did indeed serve as our internal membrane. So thank you for sharing that our academic program reviews were carried out in a fair, effective, and informative manner. Cocaine also saw the formation of a number of ad hoc committee this year, including the disciplinary undergraduate program in the room change committees, among others. So for those who, including members of our grad student association, faculty and administration who stepped forward. You have our deepest gratitude for offering your time, your insights to deliberate the pressing multifaceted and complex issues at hand. So finally, on behalf of Coke and we'd like to expand our special thanks to President schedule for your impactful and brilliant leadership of our university faculty senate. To Ms. Karen Holden. Don't know if I see where you are, but you were instrumental in every aspect of Faculty Senate operations. I hope you know how much your critical work was recognized and appreciated beyond all measure. Thank you, everyone. I have to second that about Karen Holden, who with whom I could not exist because she keeps me in line. Alright. We're now moving on to the consent agenda. And as you recall, the consent agenda includes changes that are very minor, such as added classes to a program, and then we vote on as a whole. So we have a lot of items on the consent agenda. So what I'm gonna do, I'm hoping everyone did their homework before coming and looked over these. I'm going to scroll through them relatively quickly. And then at the end, we'll see if any need to be removed and put on the regular agenda. And if not, we'll go ahead and vote on the consent agenda as a whole. So you can see many of the program education goals around there. I know that was a lot. So would anyone does anybody want to remove any of the items from the consent agenda and put on the regular agenda. Seeing none, we can now vote on the adoption of the consent agenda. So we're going to use polls everywhere. For those who cannot use polls everywhere, please hold up your yellow card and please either vote for in favor of the consent agenda or against the consent agenda. So go ahead and place your votes. And we have an additional 123456. Those are 47. Okay. So it looks like we have 7.42. I can do my math. 49 in favor and non against the consent. Agenda 45 52. Okay. There we go. 52. I should look first. Okay. 50, 52 in favor or against and the consent agenda. So next we're going to move on to the regular agenda. We have a lot of items. I'm going to because there are so many items and getting to read the title of the proposal and then not read the result of the warehouses, then I'll read the resolved. And what we tried to do is set this up so that they're in groups or pairs. So that if there are similar, if we have something like the disestablishment of a master's and a BS and an honors BS. We put those in an order so you don t so you don't have to reread a bunch of stuff. Here we go. So here is 55, approve provisionally for five years, the BS in Applied Physics. I'll let you look through that and I'll read the resolved. Resolved that the Faculty Senate recommends provisionally for five years, the approval of the establishment of a new Bachelor's of Science in Applied Physics for fall 2023. Do we have any questions or comments? Okay. Seeing none. We ready for the question? Okay. Using polls everywhere. Please vote in favor or against and raise your card if you can't use polls everywhere. So we have the final count plus an additional five. Okay? We have 50 and favor non against 51 in favor and against. The resolution passes. So this is a very similar resolution except it's the honors section. So approve provisionally for five years, the honors BS in Applied Physics. Resolved, resolved that the Faculty Senate recommends provisionally for five years the approval of the establishment of a new honors Bachelor of Science in Applied Physics for fall 2023. Any questions or comments? Seeing none, we're ready for the question. Vote, using polls everywhere are raising your card very high. All in favor. Keep your cards up. We have 12345678, an additional eight, and we'll let this go through 54 in favor and against the resolution passes. Now we have the resolution to approve the disk disestablishment of the BA in Spanish Political Science. And the resolve statement, the Faculty Senate recommends the disestablishment of the Spanish political science BA effective Fall 2023. Do we have any questions or comments? Seeing none? Are we ready for the question? Let's go ahead and vote. Vote using polls everywhere or raising your yellow card very high. 24567. So we add seven to the total. We have one more. So we have 53, 53 in favor zero against the resolution passes. So here we have to approve the disestablishment of the honors BA in Spanish political science. And it's resolved that the Faculty Senate recommends the disestablishment of these Spanish Political Science Honors HPA effective Fall 2023. Excuse me. Do we have any questions or comments? Hey, we're ready for the question. Using polls everywhere or raising urine yellow card is high as you can. All in favor. We add eight to this total. Okay. So we have 55 in favor. None against the motion passes. Now we the next 59, approved the disestablishment of the BA in French and political science. The resolved resolve that the Faculty Senate recommends the disestablishment of the French political science BA effective Fall 2023. Any questions or comments? Okay, When call the question. Please vote using polls everywhere your card. All in favor. 45678 and against hey, 50 52 in favor or against. The motion passes. Next to approve the disestablishment of the honors BA in French political science and political science. Be it resolved that the Faculty Senate recommends the disestablishment of the French Political Science Honors HPA effective Fall 202032 questions. Okay, we're ready for the question. All in favor please use polls everywhere or raised your yellow card. 1234579, additional 54 and favor and zero against the motion passes. Next, we have the approval of the disestablishment of the BA in German and political science. Be it resolved that the Faculty Senate recommends the disestablishment of the German political science BA effective Fall 2023. Questions or comments? Okay, Seeing none, we're ready for the question. All in favor? Please raise your card or use polls everywhere. 12341234. So we have nine. Okay. 54 in favor. Motion passes. Next week. The next resolution is approving the disestablishment of the honors BA in German and political science resolved that the Faculty Senate recommends the disestablishment of the German political science honors HPA effective Fall 20, 2023. Any questions or comments were ready for the question? If you are in favor, please use polls everywhere or raise your yellow card. So we have eight cards, nine. There we go. So we have 53 in favor zero against. Now we have the 163 disestablishment of the Coaching Science Minor. And the resolution is that the Faculty Senate recommends the approval of the disestablishment of the Coaching Science Minor for fall 2023. Any questions or comments? Okay. Seeing none, we're ready for the question. All in favor? Please use polls everywhere or lift your yellow card. 139. Okay. We have 54 in favor or against the motion passes. Next we have the 163 the approve of the name change for the Department of Behavioral Health and Nutrition. So it's resolved that the Faculty Senate recommends approval of a name change for the Department of behavioral health and nutrition to the Department of Health Behavior and Nutrition Sciences effective July 2023. Do we have questions or comments? We have question, Yes. Okay. Okay. This is 164. Let me make sure my numbering is right. They have a lot of 163, so this is 164. Any other questions or comments? Alright, Seeing none? Are we ready to call the question? All in favor? Please use polls everywhere or raise your yellow card. We see eight yellow cards in addition to 40. So we have 52 in favor or against the motion passes. Same issue here. This should be 165. This is approved the name change for the Department of Theater. The resolve statement resolved that the Faculty Senate recommends the name change of the Department of Theater to the Department of Theater and Dance effective July 1, 2023. Are there any are there any questions or comments? Okay. We ready for the question? Yeah. Is that a comment? Two different ways. Is that meant to be that way? I would defer to someone. Is there anyone here from the Department of Theater? Yes. I think their intention is to spell theater DACA TRE. I think the difference that we're talking about here is the change to the Department of Theater and Dance. Okay. So it should be, um, is probably what does it look like in the agenda? Happen to change that? It is. Okay. Yes, I'm here, Morgan. Yeah. I think one of them is the British spelling. The American spelling. Well, we've always THE a TRE 40 years. Planning on how to write. And Canada is American. Department submitted your submitted EUR? Okay. So there we are. I've nothing to add. The first thing I would just say that maybe you take it in its word but then confirm with the department. Yeah, I'm going to do they're not consequential. Okay. We'll take it we'll take them at their word and then and then confirm. So we'll have that little caveat. Okay. So are there any other comments or questions? We're ready to call? The question is oh, you're right here, you're just ahead of me, okay. All right. All in favor, please use polls everywhere or raise your yellow card. 1234. We have 52% in favor, zero against 53 in favor or against. The motion passes. Next, we have approved provisionally for the next 45 years, the AAA in early childhood education. So the result is that the Faculty Senate recommends provisionally for five years, the approval of the establishment of a new Associate of Arts in early childhood education starting in fall of 2023. Do we have any questions or comments? All right. Ready for the question? All in favor? Use polls everywhere. Raise your yellow card. Anyone else? We have 52 in favor or against. The motion passes. Next, we have the approval of the name change of the BS in exercise science to the BS in kinesiology. And the result is that the Faculty Senate recommends the approval of the name change of the undergraduate degree program exercises size science in the Department of Kinesiology and applied physiology to be here, henceforth called Kinesiology. Are there questions or comments? All right. Are we ready for the question? Those in favor, please raise your yellow card or vote. Yes. And we have 123457. Okay. Alright. We have 58 and favor and one against the motion passes. Next, we have the two, the approval of the name change of the honors BS and exercise science to the Honors BS in kinesiology. Resolve that the Faculty Senate recommends approval of the name change of the undergraduate degree program, exercise science in the Department of Kinesiology and applied physiology, be henceforth called kinesiology Honors. Do we have questions or comments? Seeing none? We ready to call the question. All in favor? Please vote. Yes. Or raise your yellow card. Okay. We have 54 in favor or against. The motion passes. Next, we have emotion or a resolution to approve the disestablishment of the BS in exercise science. So it's resolved that the Faculty Senate recommends the disestablishment of the undergraduate degree program, exercise science in the Department of Kinesiology and applied physiology. Any comments or questions? Seeing none ready to call the question. Please vote using polls everywhere or your yellow card in those in favor. Okay. So we have 95052 in favor. Zero against the motion passes. Next we have the approval of the disestablishment of the molecular diagnostics minor resolve that the Faculty Senate recommends this establishing the medical molecular diagnostics minor effective Fall of 2023. Do we have any discussion seeing none? We ready to call the question. All in favor, please raise your yellow card or plea or use polls everywhere. We have 49 in favor, 50 in favor or opposed. Motion passes. Next, we have the approval of the disestablishment of the BS and health sciences. The resolved is that faculty senate recommends establishing the Health Sciences Bachelor of Science degree of the College of Health Sciences effective Fall 2023. Do any comments or questions? Seeing none. We're ready to call the question. Those in favor use polls everywhere or raise your card. Hi. Can we have nine? Okay, we have 54. For zero against the motion passes. They realize your arms must be getting tired. Now, here we have a vote to approve the disestablishment of the BS in health sciences, occupational therapy, track concentration resolved that the Faculty Senate recommends approval of the disestablishment of the Health Sciences Bachelor of Science with a concentration in occupational therapy in the College of Health Sciences. Do we have any comments or questions? Okay, we're ready for the question. All in favor? Please use polls everywhere or raise your card. We have 50. 50, sorry, 49. In favor or against the motion passes. Yes. Motions are related to Matthew names of the programs, being honest and being on anymore. So when we change the that's the through the College of Health Sciences. Okay. Well, we'll make sure that everything aligns. Okay. Make sure I haven't gone ahead of myself. There we go. Approve provisionally for five years the BS in hospitality and adventure in event experienced management, event management concentration. Do we have any questions or comments? Seeing none, we ready to call the question. All in favor, use polls everywhere or raise your card. Hi. We have 53. 54 in favor or against the motion passes. Next with the next is to approve provisionally over five years the BS in hospitality in Advent experience management. Hospitality business management concentration resolved that the Faculty Senate recommends provisionally for five years the approval of the establishment of the new Bachelor of Science in hospitality inexperienced management, hospitality business management concentration. Are there any comments or questions? Okay, we're ready for the question. All in favor? Please raise use polls everywhere. Raise your card. Hi. 54. In favor or against the motion passes. Next, approved provisionally for five years the honors BS in hospitality. Hospitality. In event experienced management resolved that the Faculty Senate recommend this provisionally for five years, the approval of the establishment of a new honors Bachelor of Science in hospitality and Advent experienced management for fall 2023. Do we have any comments or questions? We're ready for the question. All in favor, please vote on polls everywhere or raise your card. We have 53 in favor or against the motion passes. Next we have the approved approved the disestablishment of the International Business Studies Minor. The resolved is that the Faculty Senate approves the disestablishment of the International Business Studies minor effective July 1, 2023. We have comments or questions. Okay. We're ready for the question. All in favor, raise your yellow cards or use polls everywhere to vote. We have 52 in favor or against the motion passes. Next we have the two approved the disestablishment of the international business with a language minor resolved that the faculty senate approves the disestablishment of the international business with link language minor effective July 1, 2023. Are there any comments or questions? Seeing none. We will call for the question. You vote. If you approve, raise your yellow card, or vote using polls everywhere. Okay, We have 51 in favor or opposed. The motion passes. Next, we have to approve the cybersecurity Scholars Program, resolved that the Faculty Senate of the University of Delaware approves the cybersecurity Scholars Program course of study for fall 2023. Do we have any comments or questions? Seeing none. I'll call for the question. If those who approve use polls everywhere or raise your card. Okay. We have 515,014.0 against the motion passes. Next, we have approved the Nutrition and Dietetics, human nutrition of four plus one BS. Ms. Resolve that the Faculty Senate recommends the approval of the establishment of a new four plus one BS in Nutrition and Dietetics and MS in human nutrition program. Any questions or comments? Call for the question. We're ready to vote. So those in favor, use polls everywhere or raise your hand. High. We have 50 in favor, zero against the motion passes. Next, we have the approval of the permanent status of the PhD in nursing science. Resolve that the faculty senate supports the permanent establishment of the program leading to a Dr. philosophy, PhD in nursing science. Do we have any questions or comments? All right. See none. We're ready to call the question. Those in favor aye. Vote on polls everywhere, or use your yellow card. We have 49 in favor or against. The motion passes. Next, we have the approval of the discovery public policy and administration certificate resolved that the Faculty Senate recommends approval of the establishment of a new discovered pub public policy and administration graduate certificate program to begin in the fall of 2023. Other comments or questions? Seeing none. We ready to call the question? All in favor? Aye. Vote on polls everywhere or raise your card. We have 50 hz, sorry, not 504641 against the motion passes. Next we have the approval of the artificial artificial intelligence certificate resolved that the Faculty Senate recommends the approval of the establishment of the new graduate certificate in artificial, artificial intelligence. We have any comments or questions. Seeing none, we ready for the question. All in favor? Raise your card or use polls everywhere. We have 5,034.1 against, so the motion passes. Next, we have approved the applied physics, quantum science, and engineering, four plus one a BS. Ms. Resolve that the Faculty Senate recommends the approval of the establishment of a new four plus one BS in Applied Physics and MS in quantum science and engineering degree program beginning fall semester of 2023. Do we have any comments or questions? Seeing none, we're ready to call the question. All in favor, please use polls everywhere. Raise your card. Okay, we have 51 in favor. One against the motion passes. Next we have of emotion of proposal to resolution to approve the material science and engineering, quantum science and engineering four plus one, that's a BMS. Bms resolved that the Faculty Senate recommends the approval of the establishment of a new four plus one BS in Material Science and Engineering and an MS in quantum science and engineering degree program beginning Fall semester 2023. Do we have any discussion? So Seeing none, are we ready to call the question using polls everywhere or your Yellow Card, everyone in favor, please raise your card. Vote. Yes. We have 49 in favor or against the motion passes. Next, we have to approve the physics, quantum science, and engineering four plus one at BS, MS. Resolved that the Faculty Senate recommends approval of the establishment of a new four plus one BS in physics and MS in quantum science and engineering degree program beginning Fall semester 2023. Any questions or comments? Seeing none. We're ready for the question. All in favor. Please use polls everywhere to vote or raise your yellow card. You have 51 for one against, and the motion passes. Next, we have approved the computing and data science for soft material certificate resolved that the faculty senate approves the establishment of a new program leading to computing and data science for soft materials graduate certificate. Are there any questions or comments? Okay, I'm going to call for the question. All in favor? Please vote using polls everywhere or raise your card. We have 51 for zero against the motion passes. Next, we have approved the chemistry, material science, and engineering three-plus to MS. MS. Be it resolved that this agreement commits the partners who in full support of the articulation process of okay. Sorry, it's different ones different that the agreement commit the partners to have full support the articulation process between similar academic programs offered by the two institutions. So this one is slightly different than the others. Are there any comments or questions? Seeing none. Are we ready to call the question? All in favor? Raise your card or vote balls everywhere. We have 51 in favor or against. The motion passes. Next, we have the approved the leadership in social innovation innovation certificate resolved that the Faculty Senate of the University of Delaware recommends approval of the graduate certification, certificate program in leadership in social innovation to be housed in the Graduate College effective July 2023. Do we have any questions or comments? Seeing none. We ready for the question? All in favor? Raise your card your card, or vote on polls everywhere. We have 14, 49 in favor one opposed Motion passes. And next we have the disestablishment of the chemical engineering particle technology for plus one, B is a, B, C, H E M, E P T. It's resolved that the Faculty Senate recommends permanent disestablishment of the four plus one BC BCAC MEP T program for fall 2023. Do we have any comments or questions? Ready for the question those in favor, please raise your card or use polls everywhere to vote. We have 51 in favor or against the motion passes. So now we're moving on to our regular resolutions. We do have a few, we're going to 0. Yes. Yeah. Less than ever. I know. I know you're all sitting on the edge of your seat. Resolution of the spelling theatre. The intention of the theater department to bring the spelling into every run into with the US, wouldn't say American, us failing to theater and Dance will now be spelled ER. The ER, not RD. So that's the, that's the written Gaul. Happy about that. So those resolutions were correct. The spelling is changed from E to E are for there. So we'll just use white out for that one. Okay, Thanks for confirming that. Now we're moving on to the regular resolutions are first is to approve the senate meeting dates for 2023, 2024. I'll let you look through the meeting dates that are that are proposed. Are there any questions or comments on this resolution? We're ready for the question. Those in favor, please vote with polls everywhere or raising your yellow card. Seven. We have 52 in favor. Zero against the motion passes. Next, we have the approval of the 2023, 2024 Residents Life program plans. And you can see that the program plans in attachment one. So the resolve statement resolved that the Faculty Senate of the University of Delaware recommends approval of the attached office of Residence Life residential program for 2023, 2024. Are there any questions or comments? Seeing none. Are we ready for the question? All in favor? Raise your card or vote on polls everywhere. We have 51 in favor or opposed. The motion passes. All right. Next we have the revision of the university breadth requirements. And I'm going to let Senator Rusty Lee speak on behalf of this resolution. You want to go through the rest of you can go to the slides first if you want it. Okay, I'm gonna be incredibly brief considering the hour. This is actually new business that was introduced in November. The thing that came to undergraduate studies was to look at the cross-listing requirement. We are suggesting two revisions to breadth and I'll explain them both now. The revision we're proposing would remove these two senators from our current breadth requirements and the catalog. Currently our requirements, these four areas, 12 credits, C minus or better. And we also require that four subject areas be different and that cross-listing be taken into account when looking at those areas. So in the current audit, this is the problem. This is what happened in with a department that got brought the attention. The way these courses filled with degree audit is that as soon as it detects a cross-list, something gets kicked out. So this is problematic. It's not transparent necessarily. It's not obvious to the faculty. Some faculty think it's suddenly a degree audit glitch or something because tracking, cross-listing is not easily transparent for all. But then we looked at the other requirement of four subject areas TO by it, by cross-listing, everything should be identical. That's the purpose of it, is just taught in a different department. So now you wonder why we should have to teach in four subject areas. So if we remove both This would be a legitimate plan for an undergraduate student to satisfy the breadth requirement if we just eliminate it cross-listing. But all four of those courses, three of those four courses are also cross-listed in anthropology. So this student would have 12 credits, all in the anthropology department, which would be far more friendly from a point of view of working on minors and increasing the opportunities and far more transparent. So that is the purpose of recommendation and the resolution is to remove both the cross-listing requirement and the four subject areas from breadth. Okay. Do we have any questions on this resolution? All right. Okay. Put it twice. Okay. So are we ready to call the question? All those in favor? Raise your card or use polls everywhere. Just wait a sec. We have 4744 against the resolution passes. Alright. Next, we have the resolution to modify the faculty handbook guidelines for promotion and tenure. Sections 4.4 point 6.4, 0.4, 0.11 resolved, is that the faculty handbook guidelines for promotion and tenure sections 4.4 point 6.4, 0.40, 0.11 will be modified as described in attachment one. Just as a reminder, the last year there were three subcommittees through the Faculty Senate that were charged with updating the handbooks, promotion and tenure guidelines related to community engagement, innovation, and entrepreneurship. So that they aligned with the mission of the University of Delaware as well as the rest of the faculty handbook. So for this resolution, I thought it would have Vice Provost Matt conservative come up to speak or you're available for questions if there are questions. So I'm gonna go through this. So basically the committee had to put together three sets from three sets of information from these subcommittees and create a concise way to put this in the faculty handbook. All it is is just including entrepreneurship, innovation, and community engagement within the promotion and tenure guidelines. Here's the attachment one. Now, what I did because there were there's a big this is a big section. That doesn't work. We'll just do that. So the dot-dot-dot means there's just information before that in the faculty in the Faculty Senate handbook. In the faculty handbook. So that is Section 4.4, 0.6. This is 4.4, 0.11 promotion dossiers. Again, there's additional language. So this is just adding to the evidential materials. So information about those in teaching innovation. Um, the, the removal of the word Scholarship. This aligns the faculty handbook with Section 4.3, 0.6, where the faculty workloads are now called, they're all called scholarship. And the, so that wording went through in 2019. So this aligns this section. And then finally, service. So do we have discussion of this resolution? And I see Senator Morgan hold on, hold on for a sec. Would get your A microphone for you. Thank you. I'm not really bothered by the misspelling of whereas twice on this slide. But there is a misspelled word further on, on the research criteria where it says it says referred, where it should be refereed. Oh, I got you. I see that. Going into the faculty handbook, we want to make sure it's spelled correctly. And especially because it referred could mean something different from refereed. Of course you can. You can bump up your numbers a lot by having people refer your journal articles. Okay, so we'll make a friendly amendment. And because I'm in this mode, I can't change it, but I will change that from from refereed or referred to refereed. Do we have other comments or questions here in the front? Thank you. Know Swanson from philosophy. When I ran this by most of my colleagues, there was pretty uniform unhappiness with it. Most of the objections were to the paragraph in 4.4, 0.6. I think the objections fell into two categories. One was broad concern that the university mission statement, as well-intentioned as it is, should not be the sort of thing that appears in PNG guidelines. And then the second set of objections were specifically about the bits about, let's see, where is it? Societal, economic, cultural, environmental progress. The worry here was something like it's unclear if this is supposed to be supererogatory or required for promotion and tenure and a large chunk of research activities don't plausibly have immediate or even sort of long-term downstream direct social impact. So if I was wondering if there was clarification about whether this was intended to be sort of supererogatory or required for promotion and tenure. So I can at least answer that it superficially and then we can get into a broader discussion. But these are just these are just suggestions and not requirements. Do you have anything? Do we have more questions? Yes. Laura Eisenmann, education, following up, also received some concerns from colleagues about the wording here. I'm respect that many of the elements that are here are things that people want to talk about in promotion and tenure and their dossier. But concerns about some of the wording and wondering if others engaged in community engagement initiatives have been consulted about some of the wording. Also some concerns about the different types of wording used. Societal being in parentheses talking about significance, impact, benefit. Are these all the same with some of the questions that were raised? So would suggest perhaps some clarification on wording. So I can give you at least a little bit of feedback on that. There was a subcommittee from related to the Community Engagement and people from the community engagement initiatives were consulted in helped develop these. At least the community engagement portion. John's sec There's a question behind you. Yeah. Hold on. Hold on. And we'll get the microphone to you. Thank you so much. My question had to do with the must be aligned with the university's mission and values. Since this. I mean, there's no, there's no question that we don't want to. But what this means is that whoever is reviewing this externally would then have to be cognizant and really be aware of the university's mission and values at any given time. And that wouldn't be part of the packet that they see. But when we make it read must be perhaps that's stronger than you had implied. And so I just wanted to clarify that. So this might address both of these. If the wording was changed from mustache, should would that help? Or is that not enough? It could be something we consider consider centimorgan. So I just have a question which is that we usually wordsmithing or the floor of the Senate. The our approaches 06:00 is not the best idea. Is it urgent that this language we approve today rather than like in September after people have had a couple of months to think about it more carefully. I don t think I don t think it's urgent. Okay. I don t think it's urgent. So do we have Sara? Sure. Thank you. Thanks. I just the promotion and tenure committee and subcommittee so that ones who came up with this wording, the My understanding is that that first sentence which people have been troubled about the meaning behind it right there where they're trying to express there is that the work of community engaged scholarship and that's in service, teaching and research and creative activities. This is an assertion, it's a strong assertion that that is part of the mission of the university and what they're, what they're trying to do. And all of these recommendations is to open up the evidentiary basis to demonstrate achievement in teaching, research, and service to work that is entrepreneurial and engage with the community. And so that's why you've got a lot of examples and the, and the repetition of words like dissemination and impact. Because they are, the impact will be demonstrated in ways that aren't conventional. And so that's the general force of all of this. It is to open up more opportunity to demonstrate achievement. Thank you. Stuart Kauffman, political science. So I appreciate everything that Matt said and I'm sure that's the intent of the proposed language. But given the concerns that have been raised and insignificance of the issue with people's careers at stake. I I I I would like to make a motion that this this resolution be postponed until next semester. Okay. So there is a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? We have a second. How about let's let's discuss this for no more than five-minutes. This motion before voting on the motion postponed until fall semester. Is that yeah. Got you. Forget that. Five-minutes. So postponed until fall semester. So we now vote on the motion. Okay. Is there any discussion? There has been a second on the motion. Is there any discussion? Alright. Then seeing no discussion, we will vote on the motion to postpone this resolution until fall. Is that vote or discussion all in favor of postponing this till fall semester. Vote on polls everywhere. Raise your card. If you're a card racer. We have 45 in favor or against. The motion passes. This will be postponed till the fall semester. We'll get some more work done on it and have a revised amendment or proposal in September. Okay. So next, our final resolution is related to the revision of the faculty handbook, section 2.1. We will look at the resolution. You can look through that. And then senator Galileo can come up and discuss the changes from the original version. You can you can you don't have to come up. You can speak from there. I'm gonna go through the revision. Whereas the important well, excuse me, where it where it is important to ensure diversity of opinions and leadership within the department to promote excellence, growth in new ideas. Whereas there should be regular opportunities for faculty to apply for advancement opportunities within the departments. And where's the chairs or their equivalents, solely assigned faculty workload and perform annual faculty evaluations, which affect practically all aspects of faculty members academic life. And whereas it is important that the selection of all department chair or an equivalent positions be democratic, fair, and transparent regardless of whether it is a new appointment, renewal appointment, or interim appointments. Be it therefore resolved that the faculty handbook, section 2.1 be revised as shown in attachment one to one requires a positive vote from the units. Faculty before the department chair appointments are recommended by the dean and to, to ensure the requirement for department faculty votes on chair recommendations are appointments also applies to Interim Chair appointments that are that are longer than one year. So I'm going to leave this up here and let you have a look. And this is the second part of the attachment. And I'm going to leave this up here and then call on. Senator Galileo does speak on behalf of this resolution. Thank you. President schedule. So this resolution originally came to the Senate in December and we've gotten lots of feedback and it's been substantively revised according to that feedback. I don't know if you remember. Initially it proposed the term limit. Does not anymore. It does define what a chair equivalent is, which is someone who does the two most important things for a faculty member, which is assigning workload and evaluating faculty. And it makes sure that a copy of the or anyone being considered for reappointment needs to be reviewed and a copy of the review policy needs to be freely available. And then there needs to be a formal vote taken by secret ballot. And the majority of the faculty eligible to vote in a unit need to approve of that person, deem them eligible to be reappointed or appointed. And it's the majority of the faculty eligible to vote in a unit because let's say my department as 30 faculty, if we had a faculty meeting and a quorum of 16 showed up, and then nine people voted. Yes, that's nine out of 30. And that's hardly a, a strong endorsement of a person if nine out of 30 are able to deem them as appropriate. So it needs to be a true positive, a true majority of the people that are eligible to vote. Then as far as interim chairs go, we realize that interim chairs might need to be appointed quickly for some reason and you might not want to change that person in the middle of a year. So this gives a year for an interim appointee without a vote to be appointed by a dean, to be recommended by Dean for appointment by the President. And let's see. And then it goes on to specify that chairs or their equivalents can be explicitly either be tenure track or continuing track and need not be full professors. And then some of the things at the end or just moved up. And that's why things are crossed out at the end because they more or less out of place. And I'd like to yield some time to the chair of faculty rights and responsibilities Committee, Michael O'Neill. And I believe he's probably here. And then I would like to reserve the the privilege of speaking last before the vote. Hi, thank you FOR reviewed this policy multiple times as Danny was producing it. And just so everyone is aware, the part of it that came to FOR with concern is we receive many complaints and we have for many years about interim Cheers. I'm being appointed without faculties kind of input. As you all might express expect the primary concern with that as an interim chair is still doing your annual evaluation, doing teaching workload assignments, possibly putting you up for promotion and tenure. And those complaints from faculty are considered sincere concerns that maybe an interim chair is not prepared for those responsibilities and they feel their voice needs to be heard. As you are aware, we heard many rebuttal from administrators that emergency chairs situations occur. I have nothing better to do sometimes then go check those out. I could not find an emergency chair situation. Most of the time were quite aware of when our chairs are leaving their units and we're prepared for that, I am willing to concede that that might happen. And if IRR decided to go ahead and sponsor this bill with unanimous support, it is true though that we need to be very concerned in units about the appointment of interim positions and that they only lasts for one year for F IRRs role and responsibility in this. And I think that's just us being in good behavior. By the way, five units went ahead and voted for their interim chairs without anyone asking them to. And you will not be surprised to know that it was unanimous support for those interim positions. I don't think it does harm to either side to keep the process transparent. And SRR is completely in support of this the way that it's written at this stage, unless one year Interim Chair appointments keep getting us consistent complaints. Will be back. Center morning. Yeah. Thank you. Morgan, physics and astronomy. And I did express some concerns about the original version of the resolution which had a term limit, which was strongly opposed by most of the faculty in my department. I fully support this revised version of the resolution. I do understand the need to sometimes make an interim appointment on very short notice. There was such a case a couple of years ago. I don't want to talk about the details. And if Michael's not aware of it, it's probably a good thing. I thank you. Gary Henry from the College of Education and Human Development. A couple of points. I just to the point that Michael O'Neill is raised about these appointments, I received notice last year that one of my academic unit heads, I think it was the 27th of July, told me they had received an offer or planning to leave in August for the new position, but the but the letter hadn't been completely established in sign. I saw I was asked to remain keep that information confidential about two weeks later as the semester was about to begin, I had to do an interim report appointments. So I do think there are circumstances where this occurs. There's no bad will on the part of anybody involved in it. But it just it it is a very important to keep this open to allow for an interim chair that first year. I want to thank the sponsors here for the consideration of all the concerns that have been raised and the modification of the language and revisions. I'm the that I'm most concerned about here is where refer refers to that dean, that appointments or reappointment can be recommended by a dean only if the person under consideration has been deemed acceptable by a positive vote. By at least a majority of those faculty in the unit who are eligible to vote by the units bylaws. This effectively changes the process from the selection of a chair or academic unit head to an election process. This is the case then it's only a dean could only recommend someone for that position who's received that majority. I have found it exceedingly difficult to recruit people willing to stand for the position of chair. And I think it is exceedingly unlikely that a dean would recommend a person who, who has not received a majority vote to for the appointment. Right now, we have very strong and I think useful languages guaranteeing transparency, guaranteeing that a vote would be held. But I think the dynamics. In that delicate balance of shared governance with administration are likely to be changed. If we do approve this, and it is a requirement that a dean can only recommend under those circumstances. Thank you. We have a comment over here. I agree with this gentleman that this reads a lot better than the initial iteration of this. But I wonder if I can impose on one of the sponsors of this proposal to address what I think is a fundamental issue, which is, does the Senate have the power to do with distinct proposes? As I understand it, it is the board of trustees that has the power to do all of the governance with respect to the University of Delaware. And the Board of Trustees has delegated to the dean, the provost, the President, the authority to appoint chairs and directors. By, by suggesting that by removing this power from the dean and giving it to the faculty, we are in fact violating the charter of this university. That's an unquestionable. So even if a dean was sinister in her approach to the appointment of a chair, she is allowed to do that under the charter and the faculty can only advise that she not do that. There is a reason why the current the current provision is the faculty can advise the dean. The prior leadership of the Senate recognized that the charter of the university and the bylaws gave all the power to the board of trustees. And the Board of Trustees had delegated that power to the dean, the provost, and the president. And by doing what we're proposing to do here, we're not only removing the power from the dean, from the provost and the president, but we'll literally giving the finger to the Board of Trustees and seeing what you have proposed, what you have mandated in your bylaws. We don't respect. So we're picking a fight, not just with the deans and the provost and the president, but we're picking a fight with the board of trustees as well. This is an absurdity. We can vote on this. It makes no sense. It contravened the charter, the bylaws of this university. It takes from the dean to the provost and the president, powers delegated to them by the Board of Trustees and gives it to the faculty. Unilaterally, the Senate is proposing to do that. That can't be done. Thank you, Karen. I don t think this is an absurdity at all, and I don't think it's a violation of shared governance. I think it's the definition of shared governance. Because essentially what we're doing is we're asking to have a vote on who it is, who's basically going to control our careers in the near future. And the fact that right now, basically the faculty can be handed someone that they don't, even, a simple majority of them don't agree, should lead them. So it's not like we're saying we're going to go out and we're going to find people and we're just gonna go ahead and have a vote in hand. You, the candidate, the dean still plays a role here. Again, this is the quintessential definition of shared. There are a lot of things that happen at other institutions that give faculty and voice in the choosing of their chairs, whether it's okay. So if the dean disagrees, the dean has to meet with the faculty and give give information as to why they don't agree with the faculty. We don't have that. There are a lot of other institutions in which the deans are, the chairs are the chair equivalents are elected or rotated through the faculty ranks. We essentially as a faculty, are pretty disenfranchised when it comes to selecting the people that are going to be, again, controlling our careers, at least in the near future. And asking for a simple vote is not taking complete power away from administration. In the front. Hi there. Let's leave our ideal again from theaters spelled with an ER. Yeah, I think there's a difference between an election and an endorsement. I'd much prefer the word endorsement rather than election. I don't think the intention of this is that the faculty will elect the chair and then insist on who the administrator, the Dean of points. I think I think it is endorsement and I think it's well within the purview of the University Senate. And much like the function of advice and consent, I think that we're asking for is first of all, is we are seeking that whatever's done is consistent with the bylaws of each department. Now, whatever procedures that they have that there'll be an endorsement of before this this selection of IT administrator. And I don't think it needs to be contentious. I don't think it necessarily will affect someone putting himself, herself forward for the position. Because nobody wants are running apartment in which more than half the people don't want the person there. I mean, that seems to be rather absurd as things go. So I prefer the word endorsement rather than election that the faculty is not electing the person who's going to be chair. That's all I have to say. Yeah. Thank you. John Morgan again. And yes, I wanted to endorse what my colleague Leslie, right. L just said. We're both in the College of Arts and Sciences. And this policy is very consistent with what has been the past practice for the past does at least the past dozen years, possibly longer. And on the whole, it seems to work pretty well. Which is that the critical question, again, to emphasize, the faculty are not electing the chair. Rather, the faculty are being asked to vote on whether a specific individual or a group of individuals are acceptable. And former dean Watson made very clear when he came to my department in 2011 that he was not going to be stupid and appoint somebody has chair who was not considered acceptable by a majority of the department. So there were 22 votes when we had a couple of candidates. One was, is each candidate acceptable? And then there was a preferential ballot. Being Watson made it clear that he need not honor the winner of a preferential ballot because after all, if the vote was very close, if it was something like 18, 17, the preference wouldn't be very strong. What's important is that the person who is appointed is acceptable to at least a majority of the faculty in the department and preferably a large majority. That's the key issue and that's what the language in this resolution will accomplish. Thank you. Hi. Any shorts of the Dean of the Biden school? I'm still just caught on, on thinking about how this works in practice. What happens if, if a voting, if people don't show up for a vote. So it's happened before you don't have enough, But you have to make sure that you get enough. People who believe there's a rule yet the whole devote. But there's an awful lot of ways that this just delivers no decision. And it just seems untenable. We have another comment. I fail to introduce myself previously. I'm Virgil Alexander with the learner school. You're counting and MIS department. I think we're skirting the issue here. The issue is about the authority of the Senate to do what is proposing. I am willing to concede that there is a dean who's going to be sinister and our actions and go against the will of the faculty. I'm willing to concede that the bylaws of the university allows that to happen because the power to appoint a chair and the director. It has been fasted in the Dean, the provost, and the president. And the reason why this is an advisory vote up until this moment is again, because the prior leadership apparently recognize what it is so clear that the dean of provost and the president have this power and they can't usurp that power. So they can merely influenced, advise the dean. I don't want this person has cheer because she's no good for the department. And the dean says, Well, I want her and a dean under the bylaws gets that. Hopefully we've got a benevolent dictator with respect to this. And the dean says, okay, I'm gonna go with the faculty. But the bylaws of the university allows that Dean to appoint whomever she wants. And what we are proposing to do here is to go against the bylaws. There is a route to do that. You can propose as the Senate, that the bylaws of the trustees be changed by recommending to the President that the bylaws be changed and the President brings that before the board of trustees, which Senate cannot unilaterally say two to the president, the provost and the deans were not following the bylaws of the university, that cannot be done. That's an impossibility. And so we're about to vote on something where we've got wishful thinking as the backdrop of all of this. And that's not the way the Senate is supposed to operate. The handbook rarely document merely documents to policies of the university. The handbook does not create policies with respect to what we're doing proposing to do here. Let's propose the president that this bylaw be changed because the faculty doesn't like it. And let's see what the board of trustees says about it. But this unilateral action on behalf of the senate, that just makes no sense. Cannot hold. It will not. No one will respect this. No dean will respect it. The provost will respect that. The President will respect it. All we're doing is picking a fight with the administration over something we have no authority. Senator Kaufman. Hi. Thank you. So with all due respect to Professor Alexander, I think there's a disagreement over the interpretation of what the university bylaws say. I don t think anybody here thinks that if we vote in favor of this resolution, it automatically becomes part of the handbook and that's it. Alright, there's a process. The Senate is expressing its view about what the rules ought to be. And as John Morgan pointed out, those rules are in fact codifying the practice of the College of Arts and Sciences for the last decade or more. So, it's certainly a workable process because it's been working for years. And it's certainly within the purview of the Senate to express its views about how shared governance can be improved. If, if Professor Alexander is right. And, and, you know, this is against all of the bylaws of the university. It won't happen. But I will all respect I think you might be misinterpreting what the rule is. Actually say. We have another comment over here. With all due respect, I'm hearing the same things being stated over and over again. I'd like to call the question we have Denny, et cetera. Galileo gets the last word and then we can call the question. Yes. Thank you. I'd like to address a couple of things that were said first, senator alexander is completely wrong in his knowledge of the Board's bylaws. It gives the power to appoint chairs to the president Under the recommendation of a dean. So the only power a dean has in the board's bylaws. And by the way, I've written part of the Board's bylaws. So I'm pretty familiar with them. And that's why and I failed to mention this originally, was that the resolution originally said that a person could not be appointed without that and that would have usurp the power that the president has that was given to him for appointing chairs by the Board of Trustees, Bylaws, The universities by-laws, but the President does the appointment at the recommendation of a dean. And so that's why this resolution was changed to limit the ability of a dean to recommend, which is not guaranteed and the board's bylaws. It just says that a chair will be appointed by the president Under the recommendation of a dean. But it does not say that. Power of the dean to be able to recommend can't be limited in any way. It just doesn't say that, that's, that that notion is completely wrong. And then the other thing I'd like to address is Senator Henry said something about upsetting this delicate balance that we have between the administration and the faculty. It needs to be clear that now it's not, it's not a delicate balance. It's not any sort of a balance right now, faculty have zero ability to ensure that who they get his chair is who they want to have as chair. Because right now it's an advisory vote that a dean can completely ignore. And then they don't. The way, even though an interim chair is a chair and dean should be getting that advisory vote before they appointed an interim chair because an interim chair is a chair. I know multiple instances where deans have made appointments of interim chairs without getting the advice vote of the faculty. So just to be clear, the faculty now have zeros, say, zero say, and that's not a balance and that's not shared governance right now it's zero. And what this is doing is trying to give some ability for faculty in ensuring that who they get as chair that assigns them workload and makes P and T decisions and evaluates them annually, is someone that at least a majority of the faculty are okay with. Not, they're not, this is not an election. It's an affirmation or what was the word that you said? An endorsement. It's an endorsement. It's not an intellection willing. Really. So, so that's, that's all I'll say. I think that the faculty senators should vote for this. It's not some of the things that you've heard from some of the other senators who spoke against this. Thank you. Okay. We've had a call for the question, so we're going to vote and hopefully we still have a quorum. There have been a few people who've left, and we need a two-thirds majority for this. For calling no, nobody. Second question. Nicole, for the question. And discussion then activates the need for whether the discussion has ended. So there is no need to vote on whether to vote. Since it wasn't seconded any way that I did not hear set. Let's call it the question. So vote. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm trying to save time. Thank you. Okay. So we're going to go ahead with the vote. There is no need for two-thirds for this then because it's not the question, the question, we are going to vote on the resolution. And so use polls everywhere. And for those raising your cards, please raise your cards. We're voting on the on the resolution. Is the wrong question coming up? Okay. Joe? We need to vote on the resolution. Okay. Now we're voting on a resolution. Those in favor of the resolution, raise your card or vote on polls everywhere. Okay. Keep your hands up. Seven in the back. We have 37, yea or nay. And the motion passes. Alright. We're getting towards the end of our time. It's getting quite late. We have no presentations. We have one very quick introduction of new business. Can can you keep it under two? Yes. Center Morgan, you have new business. Hold on. We need the microphone or speak loudly. I said to you and Karen, one-page resolution. This is the resolution that I'm sorry. That's the resolution that you sent. Okay. Thank you. I have my glasses on now. Yeah. Thank you. So basically, this is cosponsored by myself and by Joey pitch yada, who's representing the Student Government Association. And it basically calls for the creation of a campus bus service Advisory Committee with students representation of students, staff members, and faculty members who have experienced using the campus bus service. Because in recent years there have been a lot of alterations, eliminations of roots, eliminations of bus stops. Like the pair of bus stops near the Morris library, which were very convenient. And we think in all of this is happening apparently without any real consultation with the community of users of the campus bus service. So we think there should be an advisory committee setup so that, so that at least there's some formal way of consulting some community of users before further reductions of service are made. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Morning. So now we've reached the end of our agenda and it's time to have a motion to adjourn in a second. All in favor? Aye. Ayes. Have it. We are adjourned. Have a great year, Have a great summer, and I hope the end of your semester goes Well. Thank you very much.
Faculty Senate Meeting On May 1st, 2023
From Joseph Dombroski May 16, 2023
27 plays
27
0 comments
0
You unliked the media.