Wednesday, 18 September 2002, 3:00 p.m.

NIAGARA ROOM BC, University Union

Presiding Officer: Illene Noppe, Speaker

Parliamentarian: Professor Jerrold C. Rodesch



Speaker (see letter and attachments)



1. Approval of minutes of UW-Green Bay Faculty Senate Meeting No. 10, May 15, 2001 (attached)






1. Election of the Faculty Deputy Speaker of the Senate for 2002-03

2. Faculty Status for Instructional Academic Staff (attached).  Presented by Professor John Lyon



1. Report of the General Education Council (Distributed to Senators via e-mail on 9/10.  Also found on the Faculty and Academic Staff Governance home page.)  Presented by Professor John Lyon

2. Report of the Provost.  Presented by Provost Sue K. Hammersmith

3. University Committee 2001-02 Annual Report (attached)

Presented by Professor David Littig, 2001-02 University Committee Chair

4. University Committee Report.  Presented by Professor John Lyon, Chair





September 18, 2002

Dear Colleagues,

Welcome to the 2002-03 Faculty Senate! A major goal of this yearís University Committee is to strengthen faculty governance on our campus. We thought we would begin with a letter that would introduce some of the policies and procedures of the Faculty Senate. Please feel free to direct further questions to any of the UC members, who are listed at the end of this letter.

For starters, we direct you to the Faculty Governance Handbook (you know, that binder that collects dust on your desk). I found that my hard copy was not the most up-to-date, and found the most recent information on Updates in hard copy form are usually sent at the beginning of the year. The section on the Faculty Senate (UWGB Chapter 52) is most important. The handbook begins with a description of faculty governance. Chapter 36.09 (4) of the State of Wisconsin Statutes grants faculty the primary responsibility for academic and educational activities and faculty personnel matters. The Faculty Senate represents the faculty on such matters. Therefore it is vital that you take the issues that come up during our meetings to your units and consult with your immediate colleagues. A faculty Senator can be in a powerful position to help determine the course of our institution; use that position wisely and with commitment.

The agenda for our meetings is set by the UC, the executive committee of the Faculty Senate. Faculty may also request that items be placed on the agenda by first submitting the item to the University Committee for consideration or by requesting at a Senate meeting that permission be granted to place the item on the agenda of the next Senate meeting (please refer to the Faculty Handbook for proper procedures). The current Chair of the UC is Professor Lyon. This fall semester, the UC will meet every Wednesday (excluding Senate days) from 2:00 Ė 4:00 in CL825. We have included handouts on parliamentary procedures, including Mike Thronís (former Secretary of the Faculty and Academic Staff) handout on "Useful Parliamentary Procedures" with Septemberís agenda. Any questions about procedure may be directed to Professor Rodesch, our Secretary of the Faculty and Academic Staff. Normally we will use a voice vote, unless Senate debate indicates a division in opinion. In that case, voting will be done by a show of hands. Issues typically follow this sequence over three Senate meetings: 1) information (issue is introduced and relevant information is presented), 2) discussion (Senators engage in debate and conversation about the issue after a motion is made), and 3) action (a month cycle.

As Speaker of the Senate, I will be the presiding Chair of the Faculty Senate meetings. It is my job to follow through on the agenda, facilitate the discussion, and call motions to vote. I will do my best to make sure that everyone who desires has a chance to speak. I would like to encourage active involvement by all; new Senators need not be intimidated! On the occasion where I feel impelled to voice my own opinion, I will ask the Deputy Speaker to step in for me. I am told that keeping oneís mouth shut is the most difficult aspect of being the Speaker! Our meetings usually end promptly at 5:00 pm, but they can be extended by motion.

We have an interesting year ahead. In addition to faculty governance, the UC will be considering issues on advising, academic staff, faculty development and general education. We look forward to working with you, and our new administration toward realizing the wonderful potential of UW-Green Bay. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact any one us.



Illene Noppe


UC Members:

John Lyon, Chair

Cliff Abbott

Mimi Kubsch

Dick Logan

Illene Noppe, Speaker

Joyce Salisbury



Preamble: The UW-Green Bay Faculty Senate has used the simpler procedures in Robertís Rules of Order to conduct its business. When motions have become tangled in procedures, common sense and good humor have prevailed to untie the knots. The following procedures are helpful ones to keep business running smoothly, and most importantly, fairly so all may have a say in the issues before the Senate.

Types of Motions and How to Use Them:

1. Principal Motion. This is a motion that gets business going and should be presented in writing if possible. Most come from the agenda and are carefully constructed by the University Committee. In our traditions, principal motions are up for discussion at one meeting and then for action (often with revisions, based upon the discussion) at the next. A majority of those voting (excluding abstentions) is required to pass the motion.

2. Amendments to the Principal Motion. Most of these come from the floor, and it is most appreciated if the amendment is written and given to the Secretary of the Faculty and Academic Staff. Amendments, like Principal Motions, need seconds. You can have "an amendment to the amendment" but not "an amendment to the amendment to the amendment." Sometimes the motion is complex with two or three different propositions in it leading a Senator to seek to divide the motion. This is often wise if many support one aspect of a motion but not another.

Debate on a Motion or Amendment: The person making the motion gets the first crack at debate. If the UC offers the motion, usually the chair gives the reasons for adoption. The Speaker of the Senate will try for as even a debate of the proís and conís as possible. The Speaker will call on those who have not spoken to the motion before returning to a Senator who has had a chance to make remarks. It is tough to follow that order sometimes, but a Senate debate is more formal than a discussion in a committee meeting so try to restrain the desire to talk to each other rather than gaining permission to speak from the Speaker.

The Open Meeting law and debate in the Senate: Only Senators, and those bringing reports before the Senate, are entitled to speak; those observing the meeting cannot speak unless the Speaker of the Senate gives permission. The Senate may overrule the Speaker and withdraw the permission to speak by a majority vote. There is often a desire to let all in the room have their say on a controversial issue, but it is wise to keep remarks from those outside the Senate to a minimum so that Senate debate may proceed.

3. Tabling a Motion. A Senator may seek to "postpone temporarily" or "table" a principal motion before the Senate. The motion to postpone must have a second. It is not debatable and requires a majority of those voting to be adopted. The effect is to remove the principal motion from the Senateís agenda. The principal motion can be brought back before the Senate at the same meeting or at the next scheduled meeting by a majority vote. If the Senate takes no positive action on the tabled item at either of these meetings it can only be reintroduced through the regular agenda-setting process. A Senator may also move to postpone indefinitely, in which case the main motion is removed from the agenda. This motion needs a second, is debatable, needs a majority vote, and can be reconsidered. There is also a motion to postpone to a specified time which needs a second, can be debated and amended, needs a majority, and can be reconsidered.

4. Closing Debate. When a Senator believes that discussion on an item should end and a vote be taken immediately, he or she may "call for the question." If the Speaker of the Senate believes that the debate is winding down, he or she may ask if there is any objection to proceeding to an immediate vote. If any single Senator objects or wishes to speak, the debate continues. Debate may be ended by a motion to "move the previous question" or simply to "close debate." That requires a second, is not debatable, and needs 2/3 of those voting to pass.

5. Suspension of the Rules. The Senate has established 5:00 p.m. as the time to adjourn; if the Senate wishes to meet beyond that time, a Senator moves to suspend the rules to continue meeting until a specific time. Any suspension of the rules requires a 2/3 majority of those voting. A call to adjourn can be made at any time and takes precedence over all other motions and is not debatable. If passed by a 2/3 majority, all business is over for the day. The use of a motion to suspend the rules to introduce action or discussion items not on the posted agenda is not permissible under Wisconsin Open Meeting rules. All matters to be considered by the Senate must be publicly posted at least 24 hours before the meeting (although "for good cause" a two-hour notice is allowed).

MINUTES 2001-2002


Wednesday, May 15, 2002

Phoenix Room C, University Union, 3:07 p.m.

Presiding Office: John Lyon, Speaker

Parliamentarian: Jerrold Rodesch, Secretary of the Faculty and Academic Staff


Clifford Abbott

Greg Aldrete

Derryl Block

Francis Carleton

William Conley

Kevin Fermanich

Scott Furlong

Anthony Galt

Curt Heuer

Robert Howe

John Katers

Andrew Kersten

Sylvia Kubsch

David Littig

Dennis Lorenz

John Lyon

John Mariano

Jennifer Mokren

Robert Nagy

Illene Noppe

Gilbert Null

Carol Pollis

Kevin Roeder

Joyce Salisbury

W. Bruce Shepard

NOT PRESENT: James Coates, Theodor Korithoski, Brian Merkel, William Shay

REPRESENTATIVE: Robert Skorczewski, Academic Staff Committee

GUEST: Associate Provost Timothy Sewall


1. Approval of Minutes of UW-Green Bay Faculty Senate Meeting No. 9, April 17, 2002

The minutes were approved without change.


The Chancellor thanked Professors Littig and Lyon for their service as, respectively, Chair of the University Committee and Speaker of the Faculty Senate. The health of the governance system helped attract him to UW-Green Bay. He presented them with tokens of the universityís appreciation.

The Chancellor expressed gratitude for the outpouring of support shown his family when it faced a terrible tragedy. He spoke about his late son, Abe, his promise as an academic and his sense of humor. He spoke also about the importance of facing and overcoming the stigma of mental illness.

The universityís business goes on, except for the legislative budget process which has stalled. We have, unlike some other UW institutions, continued hiring. There is a risk in doing this, but it should work out. He is confident the budget will eventually look like the Governorís original proposal for the UW. The Provost search has been a great success. We beat out UW-Stevens Point and Whitewater in a competition to get Sue K. Hammersmith. This and other searches have shown our ability to attract a diverse pool of highly qualified candidates. We can also celebrate a number of faculty promotions: Professors Coury, Dresdow, Henze, Kersten, Nesslein, Poupart, Ragan, Scheberle and Stokes. They were applauded.


1. Election of the Speaker of the Faculty Senate

Senator Abbott nominated Senator Illene Noppe. There were no further nominations, and she was elected by acclamation.


1. Faculty Status for Instructional Academic Staff

Presented by Professor David Littig who reviewed the University Committeeís proposal to alter the code and referred to the Senateís previous discussion of the matter. Associate Lecturers would not hold faculty status. Lecturers and Senior Lecturers would. Faculty status would be assigned to the position at the time of posting and expectations for institutional roles would be spelled out at that time. The University Committee would retain final faculty review authority in the conferring of faculty status. The units need to decide the roles of Lecturers and include in performance reviews accountability for the responsibilities that accompany faculty status.

Bob Skorczewski asked when the University Committee would approve faculty status for individuals. Littig said that implementation details need to be worked out. Skorczewski thought that the approval should be included in the hiring decision to avoid the embarrassment of changing the terms of employment after the hire. Senator Kersten added that the procedures need to be consistent across the campus, not subject to departmental idiosyncrasies. Senator Heuer inquired if the three Lecturer titles represent a career progression. No, said Littig. Maybe, said Provost Pollis, if teaching performance over a period of time warranted a promotion. That is what the titles mean now. Senator Salisbury said that clarification is needed. Are demotions possible? asked Heuer. Pollis said no: poor performance leads to non-renewal and re-posting of the position. Senator Block was concerned that instructors hired for only one year might be involved in long-term decision-making. Senator Noppe said that the proposal, tying faculty status to the position, should eliminate such a problem. Would we confer faculty status on many one-year temporary positions?

Senator Abbott said that not only will the Senate need to act on this, Academic Staff governance will as well. They should be in agreement. No, said Skorczewski, this is not in the Academic Staff code; no action is needed. Abbott also said that provision needs to be made for Lecturers currently holding faculty status. They will need to be grandfathered. Skorczewski agreed about grandfathering, but the proposal otherwise was unobjectionable.

Littig said that there will be a Senate vote on this in the fall, with modifications and clarifications in response to this discussion and other feedback to the University Committee.


1. Report of the Provost

Provost Pollis appeared, she said, for her last report to the Senate. She announced that Dr. Carol Blackshire-Belay accepted our offer to be Dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences. She holds a doctorate in German and linguistics from Princeton University and currently heads the African and African-American Studies program at Indiana State University. She has previously taught at Temple and Ohio State Universities. The decision was very difficult, choosing among three

impressive finalists each with different strengths. It was particularly difficult because Interim Dean Cheryl Grosso has done such a fine job. The new Provost was involved in the decision. Next year the Dean of Professional Studies and Outreach will be filled.

Speaker Lyon rose to thank Provost Pollis for her most recent tour of service and the Senate joined him in a long round of applause, wishing her a happy re-retirement.

2. University Committee Report

Professor Littig summarized on-going Committee activities:

The General Education Council met with the Committee to discuss the outline of plan for a revised General Education program. The Committee will post the proposal on the Web. It is a three-tier model: 1) a three-credit freshman course (small class size) focusing on the foundations of inquiry, the use of multiple perspectives, and UW-Green Bayís special mission (the University Committee has some questions about the balance of content and process/socialization in this course); 2) four three-credit courses introducing students to the content of each domain; and 3) a three-credit small-enrollment course focusing on critical thinking and problem-solving on issues within one of the domains. This reduces the number of required General Education courses. There are unanswered questions, e.g., the place of the Other Culture and Ethnic Studies requirements.

Senator Galt, who had helped develop the proposal, said that it needs refinement but it is moving from a "tossed green salad" to more of a core program to provide students with a common experience. There are implementation issues. It will need to be piloted, perhaps in Fall 2003. Domain committees will need to be created, re-created actually. This is a work in progress. The final report will be available by fall. Senator Aldrete, who had also worked on this development, said that the planning group had focused both on the problems of the existing system and the characteristics of an ideal program that would match UW-Green Bayís mission.

The Provost sent to the Committee a proposal on advising. It has been discussed widely throughout the university. Littig reported on the tenor of the discussion: while faculty understand that student counseling is an essential part of their role, this proposal goes well beyond that in establishing a new workload for which faculty would be held accountable in the merit evaluation process. Moreover, the problems for which this is a solution are not well defined. The current system is not wholly broken. The major problems are at the freshman level and with undeclared students. The proposal does not appear to address these problems. The push to get the proposal adopted rapidly is a concern in itself.

The Provost said that information about advising problems will be summarized and distributed to everyone. There are many problems, at all levels. The proposal under discussion is designed to get feedback. It will be modified and adjusted in response. We can address the problems within present resources. We need to integrate faculty advising with professional staff advising. The Chancellor added that the available data show that our students, both those with and those without clear academic objectives,

based on standard surveys, are not well-served by our advising system compared to other UW System institutions.

Senator Kersten said that his experiences with students clearly support a need to do something better as soon as possible. Linkages to the General Education program might be helpful. Senator Noppe said that a discussion with students in a Human Development class had been an eye-opener, showing major reasons for change. Senator Null asked if Senate action was needed. In part yes, in part no, said the Provost. There is not necessarily a requirement for an increase in faculty workload. Senator Howe wondered if all faculty would serve as advisors. Some are not very good at it. No, he was assured. Senator Aldrete said that informal advising was perhaps the most important. How can we improve this? The key is small General Education classes.

The Committee met with Assistant Chancellor Rodeheaver to discuss the strategic budgeting process. This involves setting strategic directions, collection of relevant data, and the translation of planning priorities into budget items to build a budget. CPARC is dead. The new budgeting process will involve all parts of the university. Yes, said the Chancellor; CPARC was a rubber stamp. UW-Stout may be, in part, a model for us.

Senator Heuer had requested the University Committee to investigate inequities in Supplies and Expenses allocations. The Committee met with Budget and Planning Committee Chair Karl Zehms and obtained S&E data for 2000-01. Littig distributed the information to the Senate. There are differences among units, but there are acceptable reasons for the differences because of program differences. Senator Heuer was not persuaded. Senator Abbott thought that there were obvious inequities, for which there are historical explanations. Others had questions about the data provided, its meaning, its adequacy. All felt that professional development funding is a real problem. The budgets are simply inadequate. The Chancellor agreed with this last assessment. This is one of the items that needs to be addressed in priority setting in the budget process.


There being no new business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:37 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,


Jerrold Rodesch,

Secretary of the Faculty and Academic Staff

Faculty Senate Action Item #2, 9/18/2002



Following are the relevant sections of UW-Green Bay codification with strike-through passages proposed to be deleted and bold-faced passages to be added to current code. Following the sections from UW-Green Bay's code are relevant sections taken from UW-System's guidelines for unclassified personnel, which form a context for the proposed changes. If passed, these code changes will go into effect for the beginning of the 2003-2004 academic year. The changes are not retroactive.

50.01 University of Wisconsin-Green Bay Faculty Defined. The University of Wisconsin-Green Bay Faculty (hereafter in this chapter called Faculty) consists of professors, associate professors, assistant professors, instructors, and such other persons as may be designated as having University faculty status. Faculty status for academic staff members with training, experience and responsibilities comparable to those in the professorial ranks may be granted by the Provost/Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, on recommendation of the interdisciplinary unit executive committee, and with the approval of the University Committee, for a definite term and may be renewed.

50.02 Voting Members of the Faculty. All members of the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay Faculty holding the rank of professor, associate professor, assistant professor, or instructor and academic staff with faculty status are voting members of the Faculty.

51.01 Titles

    A. Faculty appointments carry the following titles: professor, associate professor, assistant professor and instructor.

    B. Temporary teaching appointments carry the following titles:

associate lecturer, lecturer, senior lecturer, laboratory teaching specialist, teaching specialist, athletic specialist, community lecturer, teaching assistant and any title with the prefix those that carry visiting, adjunct, or and clinical titles.

51.10 Temporary Teaching Appointments or Special Non-Tenure Track Appointments

    A. Lecturers and Laboratory Teaching Specialists. Associate lecturer, lecturer, senior lecturer, and laboratory teaching specialist are titles for persons who possess qualifications appropriate for carrying out independent instructional responsibilities in the academic program of UWGB but for whom a tenured or probationary appointment is inappropriate. The individual may hold a full or part-time appointment on an annual, academic, or shorter-term basis, or, in special circumstances, two or three years. These titles carry no tenure or probationary implications. Lecturers and laboratory teaching specialists are appointed by the appropriate Dean(s) on the affirmative recommendation of the appropriate interdisciplinary unit executive committee.

Note: The following paragraph from the Academic Staff Governance

Handbook 2.02(2)(b) applies to Lecturers:

Appointment as a lecturer on a one-half (50%) time or greater basis. Lecturers will receive a one-year appointment through the fourth year of employment. Beginning no later than the fifth year of consecutive appointment, they will receive a two-year appointment; beginning no later than the eleventh year of consecutive employment, they will receive a three-year appointment. All appointments will be fixed-term appointments and will be subject to all provisions (including notification periods) governing fixed-term appointments. This provision for multiple-year appointments will hold only for persons on 102 or predictable funding.

Note: the following notice periods apply to lecturers:

1 year appointment (1st & 2nd years) 3 months notice

1 year appointment (3rd & 4th years) 6 months notice

2 year appointment (5th through 10th years) 1 year notice

3 year appointment (begins 11th year) 1 year notice

All notice deadlines are prior to the ending date of the appointment. If an employee is notified earlier than the notice date, he or she still remains employed until the end of the appointment.

51.12 Faculty Status. Within the guidelines from UW-System, the hiring interdisciplinary unit executive committee sets the distinctions among the ranks of lecturers and specifies responsibilities at the time of (re)appointment. The distinctions will include that: associate lecturers do not have faculty status; the ranks of lecturer (no-prefix) and senior lecturer require teaching appointments of at least half time and do have faculty status. Faculty status for teaching academic staff is thus a condition of an appointment to the rank of lecturer (no-prefix) or senior lecturer. Faculty status is conferred for the duration of the lecturer's appointment. Lecturers of any rank are appointed by the appropriate Dean(s) on the affirmative recommendation of the appropriate interdisciplinary unit executive committee (see 51.10 A).

Members of the academic staff teaching fifty percent or more (14 or more credits per year or its equivalent) will normally be granted "Faculty Status" by the Provost/Vice Chancellor, usually during the first year of an appointment. The designation is initiated as a recommendation from the appropriate interdisciplinary unit executive committee to the appropriate Dean(s), who recommends to the Provost/Vice Chancellor, who then must seek the approval of the University Committee. Faculty status is conferred for the duration of the lecturer's appointment. Faculty Status will continue with any renewal of the initial appointment, so long as the conditions of appointment remain the same. However, both the reappointment recommendation to the appropriate Dean(s) and the Dean's reappointment letter will stipulate any continuation of Faculty Status. Any substantive change in the conditions of the lecturer's reappointment will require a full-process reconsideration of Faculty Status. Members of the academic staff who have been given faculty status have employment rights under the rules and policies concerning academic staff. In addition, they shall be counted in Faculty voting districts, and have the right to vote for and serve on faculty committees, including the Faculty Senate, when not excluded by the non-tenured nature of their appointments. 


UW-System Unclassified Personnel Guidelines

Title Definitions:


Provides formal classroom or laboratory instruction in an academic discipline, either independently or under the general supervision of a faculty member. Effective delivery of instructional material, testing and grading are the primary duties of a lecturer. However, the degree of involvement in course and curriculum development, course scheduling, advising and subject matter expertise differs significantly depending on the prefix.

Associate Lecturer: An Associate Lecturer is one who independently teaches a course(s) subject to broad guidelines describing the scope of the subject matter to be taught and the topics to be covered. Effective classroom delivery, testing and grading are the primary duties expected of lecturers at this level.

Lecturer (No prefix): A Lecturer at this level has the experience and academic qualifications needed to develop and teach a course(s) subject to broad guidelines describing the scope of the subject matter to be covered. However, the specific topics to be covered and the degree of topic emphasis is left to the independent judgment of the Lecturer. At this level, a lecturer may be involved in various instructional related activities. These may include undergraduate advising, assisting in developing lab safety protocols, course scheduling, curriculum development, participating in departmental outreach programs or their instructional activities.

Senior Lecturer: A Senior Lecturer has extensive teaching experience and subject matter expertise in an academic discipline. A lecturer at this level has gained a reputation among his or her peers for demonstrably sustained superior contributions to teaching within a department or division. At this level, the independent selection, organization and development of course contents and instructional materials approaches used are expected. Involvement with committees engaged in supporting this development is typical. However, the direct delivery of instruction is the primary responsibility of this title.

Faculty Senate Information Item #3, 9/18/02

Annual Report of the University Committee

University of Wisconsin-Green Bay


David M. Littig, Chair


The themes, which capture the work of the University Committee in the past year, were disappointment, transition, and renewal.

The academic year began with the gloomy economic forecast that the state government budget was facing a major shortfall and that the UW-System would have to trim its budget request to the legislature. UW-Green Bay was in the budget to receive $500,000 for the Learning Experience proposal and would have to change its plans for implementing components of the Learning Experience. The Faculty Senate quickly took up the issue on how to best allocate these funds. This led to holding a Special Faculty Senate meeting in late September to deliberate on whether the body wished to adopt the recommendations of the Learning Experience Implementation Drafting Committee Report. A meeting of the UW-Green Bay Faculty, called by petition and attended by 122 faculty members, in November, followed the Senate meeting. At the faculty meeting a resolution was passed calling for all new monies be allocated to full-time faculty positions and that the new hires be assigned to General Education so as to improve the learning experience of students by reducing class size. The budgetary situation of the state continued to deteriorate and the $500,000 for the Learning Experience was cut from the budget.

It was a year of transition for the administration. Interim Chancellor William Kuepper concluded his services to the university and turned the reins over to incoming Chancellor Bruce Shepard in November. The University Committee was active in the Search and Screen processes for a Provost and a Dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences. The University Committee has established open and trusting relations with the new administrative team and feels very positive about working with them and their leadership capabilities.

Renewal came surprisingly fast. After so many hours of discussion and deliberations about the state of the General Education program, the University Committee felt it was time to act. Following a meeting with the Chancellor and the Chair of the General Education Council, the University Committee issued a charge to the GEC to prepare a new plan for General Education by September. The document has been completed and the UC congratulates the GEC for its excellent work, prepared under extreme time constraints.

In the past year the Faculty Senate took affirmative action on the following issues:

Changed the requirements for honors;

Policy on the designation of B.A. and B.S. degrees for majors in academic programs;

Admission standards for new freshmen;

Revision of Double Counting of Upper-Division Credits required for graduation;

Resolution on Tenure and Due Process; and

Support authorization of a joint UW-Green Bay/UW-Oshkosh Masters of Social Work program.

Issues that remain for action by the Faculty Senate are:

Faculty Status for Academic Staff, and

Changes in the UW-Green Bay code 6.01 Complaints and 6.02 Grievances

The University Committee deliberated and took positions on the following issues:

Work with the Chancellor on developing a strategic budgeting process involving all stakeholders;

University should develop a comprehensive faculty development fund to supplant separate funding for Faculty Development and Research Council;

Agrees that advising needs to be improved but is not satisfied with the current proposal;

Responded to a query by the Chancellor that the full 4.2% pay raise should be funded even if it means cutting the base budget elsewhere now that only 3.2% of the promised pay plan of 4.2% has been funded;

After reviewing sharp differences in budgetary support for S&E across units, recommends that S&E policy be reviewed and that current S&E funds that are used for labs and other essential instructional purposes be designated as instructional, not as S&E;

Recommended that a decision to permit on-campus students to take Extended Degree courses this fall semester be rescinded for failure to follow the code and consult with governance; and

Concurred with a memorandum from the AAC that it was "disappointed that the university administration decided to effect a significant change in a masters level program without consulting adequately with faculty governance" and was in violation of the code when it created the Masters of Management and dissolved the Masters of Administrative Science; and

Even though the issue of reforming faculty governance to make the Senate better informed and a more powerful voice for the faculty by having faculty committees accountable to the Faculty Senate was discussed, we were never able to get to it.

On behalf of the University Committee, we thank you for your support and the opportunity you provided for us to serve. Our prayers for full recovery for our colleague Professor Joe Mannino, who left us for an extended medical leave at mid-year of his third year of service on the UC, will never waiver. Professor Joyce Salisbury was elected to fill the position and was in full stride from the beginning. Keep up the good work and have a great year. The Faculty Senate and University Committee are in very capable hands.