ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú

Call to Order and Announcements

The University Senate was called to order at 3:30 p.m., in Room 111 Harrison Hall, Oxford Campus, on Monday, April 8, 2019.  Members absent:  Stacey Lowery Bretz, Bradley Davis, Mandy Euen, Jannie Kamara, Richard Keifer, Lei Kerr, Vahagn Manukian, Terry Nixon, Molly O’Donnell, Michel Pactat, Chris Pirigyi, Thomas Poetter, Ashley Pool, Vaishali Raval, Joe Rode, Steven Tuck, Liz Wilson, Cheryl Young, and Madeline Zinkl.

1. Announcements and Remarks by the Secretary of University Senate, Phyllis Callahan

   1. On April 9, 2019, Provost Callahan and Sr. V.P. Creamer will be doing the annual budget presentation on the regional campuses.

   2. There was a reminder that curriculum in the next few weeks is not trivial. There will be two new majors to approve before the end of the semester and multiple new courses and course changes.

   3. The numbers for the incoming class are progressing.  Most divisions holding their enrollments and some are increasing.  The international student population is not yet set for the fall, which is typical. 

Approval of University Senate Minutes and Consent Calendar

2. The April 1, 2019, minutes and consent calendar had mistakenly not been sent to the majority of Senate and therefore could not be voted on. They will be sent out after the meeting and voted on at the April 15, 2019, meeting.

New Business

3. Academic Integrity Policy – Brenda Quaye, Coordinator Academic Integrity Initiatives 

   1. The initiative to change the policy began as a sub-committee of the Student Success Committee, which has been working on the changes for 3 ½ years. The committee examined the current process and found that the amount of administrative time spent was overwhelming, especially for departments with a large number of cases.  There was also an inconsistency in reporting, and one of the issues was the amount of time it takes to do the process.  There is an increase in the number of cases with over 500 reported last year.

   2. The new policy was outlined and compared to the existing policy. The biggest change is the introduction of a procedural review in which the student meets with the Academic Integrity Coordinator.  It was noted that approximately 50% of the cases end with the student accepting responsibility for the academic dishonesty.  There still remains limited student understanding in some cases as to what constitutes dishonesty.  Dean’s and designees will only be sending out letters to those who have appealed.

   3. The proposed updates have been shared at the academic administrator’s breakfast, with department chairs, at COAD, and with General Council. Department chairs are very supportive of the updates, and it is thought that administrative and record keeping functions will be streamlined.

   4. There were several questions and discussion points addressed:

      1. Will this really reduce the chairs burden? Are there data that show that students admit responsibility?  Yes, about 50% admit responsibility.  The question was then raised as to whether the students are actually admitting responsibility, or accepting responsibility.  The thought is that they did not intend to commit academic dishonesty, but understand that they did something wrong.  An educational component is being built into the process to help provide consistency. 

      2. Are chairs still issuing sanctions and is it best to have one person do the sanction? Chairs are issuing sanctions; however, typical sanctions are being examined and a rubric developed with assistance from the Associate Deans.

      3. Will the coordinator be present if a chair has a hearing?

      4. Who recommends the sanction? The chair would get a recommendation from the procedural review, but they can make their own decision. There was a concern that faculty still have input, so is there really consistency?  While it is true that there are a range of the type of sanctions that are appropriate, there now will be more guidelines.

      5. Is the notification done to the student done in writing? They will be still done by email. 

      6. There was concern about workload for the Academic Integrity Office. There will be another coordinator hired, and there will be additional administrative support.

      7. The Academic Integrity Officer visits the regional campuses one day a week.

   5. S.R. 19-05 was shown and passed by voice vote.

   SR 19-05

   April 8, 2019

   Revisions to the Academic Integrity Policy

   BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that University Senate adopts revisions as amended to the Academic Integrity Policy, Student Handbook – 1.5.

4. Ad-Hoc Committee Report Discussion – Jen Green and Kate de Medieros, Co-Chairs 

   1. Information regarding the number of focus groups and attendees was reviewed. The goal of the focus groups was to get context to develop questions for the survey that is going to be sent out on April 10, 2019.  Twenty-three individual interviews were conducted along with several focus groups. There was consistency regarding the issues that were brought forward.

   2. Slide 21 outlines several questions that were e-mailed to the co-chairs with corresponding responses/answers. There is dedication within the committee to get a sense of where we’re going with recommendations as there are many underlying issues.

   3. Keith Fennen, Chair, Faculty Welfare Committee, addressed the issue of longer contracts and job security for TCPL faculty. There is a proposal for a non-renewal policy for TCPL, similar to what is in place for Tenure/Tenure Track. It would allow more notice to be given should the TCPL faculty member not be reappointed. He indicated that policies for Visiting Assistant Professors (VAPs) are also being drafted.

   4. There were several questions and discussion points addressed:

      1. There was a comment that in order to really think about faculty composition, adjuncts need to be considered in the discussion.

      2. The issue of VAPs surfaced several times in the discussion with senators. Although it was not the original focus of the Ad-Hoc Committee, it will be examined as time permits.  At this time, there is not a cap on VAPs, who are supposed to be hired only on a temporary basis.  Although VAPs were not included in qualitative interviews and focus groups, they will be included in the quantitative survey.  Senators are urged to talk to their constituents about participating in the survey to help identify additional issues that the Committee may be able to address.  The 5-year rule for VAPs was raised by several senators as being an issue that still needed to be addressed.

      3. A suggestion was made that Deans should be interviewed regarding the issue of hiring VAPs and not TCPLs.

      4. Provost Callahan reminded senators that she and Sr. V.P. Creamer do a budget presentation each fall on the Oxford campus and show data regarding the number of T/TT, TCPL, and VAPs.

      5. A question was asked whether the results of the quantitative survey should be compared to the climate survey. There was agreement that it would be difficult to make comparisons because the two are structured very differently.

5. University Advancement Update – Tom Herbert, Sr. V.P. for University Advancement 
   1. P. Herbert explained the method in which a campaign is counted. A national standard developed by the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) is used.  Slides 4-10 give examples of the various types of gifts and how they are counted using CASE standards versus cash value.
   2. CASE count is used as a form of stewardship to celebrate our donors and for public relations, which may lead to greater support.
   3. The previous Advancement campaign, Love and Honor, spanned from January 2002 to December 2013. It raised approximately 535 million CASE value, which equated to approximately 390 million in cash.  The current campaign has a billion dollar working goal with 585 million in an endowment.  We have raised 318.7 million CASE value, which equates to approximately case received 76.8 million cash.
   4. A campaign is in a silent phase until reaching 650M CASE value in order to gain momentum when you go public. Te public phase is three to four years.
   5. A question was asked about how divisions are raising and meeting goals. Scholarship still remains the number one priority.  Each division has a member of Advancement in charge of development.

Report

6. Executive Committee Report – Terri Barr, Chair, Senate Executive Committee

   1. The only announcement was that there will be a Senate meeting on April 29^th.

Adjournment

7. A motion was received, seconded, and carried to adjourn the Regular Session of University Senate.