EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

Present: Aguilar, Bender, Bryant, Humes, Latta, Mayo, Miller, Prochaska Cue, Scheideler, Siekman, Whitt

Absent: Zorn

Date: Wednesday, January 12, 2000

Location: 420 University Terrace, Ste. 203

______________________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to Order (Latta)

Latta called the meeting to order at 3:07 PM.

2.0 Announcements

2.1 Board of Regents Meeting

President Latta reported that the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Regents will be hearing a discussion on faculty position titles to familiarize themselves with the variety of different faculty positions at the January meeting. She noted that the Burns Commission will be presenting their final report to the Regents. She stated that the Board will also be asked to give approval to proceed with the planning for the proposed parking garage structure at 17^th & R streets. She noted that there is a genuine commitment on the part of the Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor of Business and Finance have expressed a commitment to find alternative sources of funding for parking structures. She stated that the time line is scheduled to have the planning stage for the garage to be completed by this summer.

Latta noted that the Regents will be looking at Bylaw 3.12.4 which deals with the retirement system. The changes are reportedly to bring the Bylaws into compliance with existing practice. She reported that she will be speaking to Agnes Adams, Chair of the Employee Benefits Committee, to determine whether that committee has had a chance to review these proposed changes.

3.0 Alan Christensen, Chair of Intercollegiate Athletics Committee

3.1 Proposed Missed Class Policy

Latta pointed out that students have gone to the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC) on a number of issues, in particular, with the difficulties they encounter with their off campus events and the scheduling of classes. Christensen distributed a copy of a proposed policy which was just approved by the IAC. He noted that the policy tries to respect faculty autonomy while also respecting the off campus commitments of the students. He pointed out that this policy has been written to cover all students who are representing the University at sanctioned University events. He noted that a particular difficulty with the policy is in determining what set of events would be defined as sanctioned. The policy lists the needed requirements which must be met in order to be excused from a class. He noted that the policy does not intend to excuse any student from the responsibilities of their course work. He pointed out that the policy also allows instructional staff to set limits on how many excused absences they will allow.

Scheideler asked if the policy will cover graduate students who are attending a conference in their discipline? Christensen responded that it will cover these students as well.

Christensen pointed out that as long as the University participates in Class I sports, students will be put in a bind between missing a class or participating in a sporting event. Mayo noted that the University does not have a policy for any excused absences. He suggested that the word excused be removed from the document. Christensen pointed out that the situation could be improved if faculty stated in their syllabus whether they will allow any excused absences in their class. Whitt noted that this may encourage other students in the class to be absent.

Bender asked if students will be required to approach their instructors first? Christensen stated that they should and that most students already do this. Bender pointed out that some classes are not taught on a traditional basis and that it is required that the student be in attendance in order to participate in these classes. Bryant suggested that students who are required to miss classes should need to get permission from the instructor in order to register for the class. Christensen pointed out that some students are on a team but do not know whether they will be traveling to some of these events until later in the semester.

Miller suggested that the document should be listed as a process, not a policy. Whitt pointed out that there should be some clear delineation of what activities would be covered. The committee recommended that the IAC review the suggested changes made by the Executive Committee, rewrite the document, and bring it back to them for review before it goes to the full Senate.

4.0 Sally Wise, Chair of Academic Rights and Responsibilities Committee

4.1 Proposed Procedural Changes Necessary for the Office of Civil Rights Compliance

Latta reported that the Academic Rights and Responsibilities Committee (ARRC) has been working on rewriting the language of the procedures of the committee so that it is in compliance with the recommendations made by the Office of Civil Rights (OCR). She pointed out that changes to these procedures will have to be approved at the Academic Senate and the Board of Regents. She noted that we must be in compliance with the OCR by this summer. Wise reported that the OCR wants the addition, in all campus policies, of a statement that delineates the duty of University officials to promptly investigate and take appropriate action on all reported violations. She stated that Linda Crump, Assistant to the Chancellor for Equity, Access & Diversity Programs, wrote the language that is being added to the ARRC procedures. She stated that the ARRC questioned the definition of "a known incident" that is included in Crump's statement. She reported that the ARRC wants to make the definition more explicit by including that university officials must investigate if there are "known incidents, including but not limited to, substantial rumors or credible allegations".

The second issue that the OCR wants to include is information regarding the range of possible penalties if a policy is violated. Wise noted that the procedures are already in compliance with this request.

The third issue is the time frame for the major stages of the complaint process. Wise reported that the ARRC has written language that calls for the ARRC to act on a complaint within 30 business days of receipt of it. She reported that a special committee must hear a complaint and complete its report within 150 business days of receiving it, unless good cause can be shown that there were extenuating circumstances that required a longer period of time. She noted that a special committee must report back to the ARRC if a case needs to be delayed past the 150 day time limit.

Latta asked if illegal discrimination is perceived, will this language require a university official to investigate any incident? Wise responded that this is correct. Latta pointed out that the language appears to give university officials the right to oversee all faculty committees, including the ARRC. Wise noted that the education of university officials will be crucial if the inclusion of the OCR statements in the policies are to be adhered to.

Miller stated that he has objections to the use of the term substantial rumors in the statement. Aguilar noted that the language of the proposed statement will be valuable to professors of color since a racial discrimination policy does not exist. Humes stated that the language will force university officials to take action. Latta noted that the language of the ARRC procedures should be the same as other university documents. The committee agreed to meet with Linda Crump to discuss the issue further.

5.0 Approval of 12/15/99 Minutes

Miller moved and Prochaska Cue seconded approval of the minutes as amended.

6.0 Unfinished Business

No unfinished business was discussed.

7.0 New Business

7.1 Senate Meeting Follow Up

Latta thanked Prochaska Cue for follow up on her own statement raising the larger issue at the January Senate meeting of whether service is valued within the University and the individual units. She stated that she has a proposal to bring to the Executive Committee about how the Senate can help address role strain faculty feel because of the new roles faculty are being asked to assume, and whether our reward system should be revised to better acknowledge excellence in all of these expected roles. This will be on a future agenda.

Scheideler stated that we should follow up on the use of Othmer funds to endow professorships for administrative positions. Bryant suggested that some guidelines should be established for the use of these endowed professorships.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:29 PM. The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, January 19^th at 3:00 PM, 201 Canfield Administration Building. Respectfully submitted, Miles Bryant, Secretary.