Minutes Meeting 374

Synopsis: The Senate

(1) approved the membership of the Task Force on the 14-Week Calendar.

(2) referred Proposal 2-03, Conflict of Interest Procedures, to the Research Policy Committee for review.

(3) elected Bruce Seely to a three-year term and Chris Williams to a one-year term on the Conflict of Interest Committee.

(4) heard a report from the Ad Hoc Committee on Threatening and Violent Behavior.

(5) approved Proposal 1-03, Revision of Senate Bylaws.

(6) approved membership of 2002-03 Senate Committees.

(7) discussed season days.

President Bob Keen called University Senate Meeting 374 to order at 5:32 p.m. on Wednesday, 11 September 2002, in Room B45 EERC.

1. ROLL CALL OF SENATORS
Secretary Craig Waddell called roll. Absent were At-large Senator Oberto and representatives from Chemical Engineering, Electrical and Computer Engineering, ME-EM, Mining and Materials Processing Engineering, Keweenaw Research Center, and Student Affairs and Educational Opportunity. Liaisons in attendance were Karl Haapala (GSC) and Jestin Hunnell (USG).

2. RECOGNITION OF VISITORS
Visitors included Kent Wray (Provost), Jim Moore (SFWP), Christa Walck (Conflict of Interest Coordinator), Brian Rygwelski (USG), Ellen Horsch (Human Resources), and Marcia Goodrich (Tech Topics).

3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Keen presented the agenda and suggested moving item 8. New Business, Proposal 2-03, Conflict of Interest before item 6.B so that the senate would deliberate conflict of interest procedures before conducting the Conflict of Interest Committee election.

Keen asked for other additions or modifications to the agenda. Senator Larry Sutter asked that a discussion of Michigan Tech's policy of granting season days be added to the agenda. Senator Kelly Strong, faculty representative to the Michigan Tech Enterprise Smart Zone, asked that an update on the Smart Zone be added to agenda item 6, Committee Reports. There were no objections to the agenda as amended. [Appendix A. NOTE: Only official senate and library archival copies of the minutes will contain a full complement of appendices.]

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM MEETINGS 371, 372, AND 373
Keen presented the minutes from meeting 371 and asked for corrections or additions. There were none. The minutes were declared approved as presented.

Keen presented the minutes from meeting 372 and asked for corrections or additions. There were none. The minutes were declared approved as presented.

Keen presented the minutes from meeting 373 and asked for corrections or additions. There were none. The minutes were declared approved as presented.

5. PRESIDENT'S REPORT
Keen said that proposals for a Computer Systems Administration Degree from the School of Technology and a Computer Systems Degree from the Department of Computer Science have been sent to the Senate Curricular Policy Committee and to the Senate Finance Committee for review. The senate will be sent copies of these proposals as soon as they have been reviewed by these two committees.

Keen reminded the senate to identify nominees for the Task Force on Career Opportunities for Professional Staff. The senate will elect two faculty members and three professional staff members to the task force. There are currently seven professional staff nominees and one faculty nominee.

Keen said that nominees are needed to fill one position each on the Athletic Council and the Faculty Review Committee.

Keen said that he had conferred with Dean of the Graduate School Bruce Rafert on a contradiction in Board of Control policy that assigns executive authority to the university president and has also given responsibility for those areas to the senate. Keen and Rafert will try to develop an appropriate policy to resolve this contradiction.

Keen said that Proposal 22-02, Policy on Consensual Relationships remains on the table but available for activation and consideration.

6. COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Task Force on 14-Week Calendar [Appendix B]
Keen said that his report on the 14-week calendar would not be a report of the committee since a reporter for the committee was not present. He said that he had earlier asked those senators who represent academic departments to determine whether their constituents prefer to begin a 14-week semester before Labor Day and have a full week's break during Thanksgiving or to begin a 14-week semester after Labor Day and have a shorter break during Thanksgiving. He said that he would collect that feedback at this meeting.

Keen presented the following list of volunteers for the Task Force on the 14-Week Academic Calendar: Bruce Barna, Debra Bruch, Pam Long, John Lukowski, Susan Martin, Terry Monson (reporter), Lee Oberto, Sharron Paris, Tony Rogers, Jake Young, and Bob Keen (chair).

Keen read the following charge to the Task Force on a 14-Week Academic Calendar: "Review Senate Proposal 11-99, 14-Week Academic Calendar, amend it if necessary, and report the result to the Senate. The Task Force is not to consider issues of alternatives to a 14-week calendar, but will confine itself to the structure of a 14-week calendar. The Task Force will consult with representatives from interested groups, including the office of the registrar, the dean of students, human resources, and the athletic department."

There were no objections to the composition or charge of the task force.

Senator Larry Sutter asked if the charge of the task force was up for discussion.

Keen said that according to the Senate Constitution, the charge to committees is the responsibility of the president of the senate. Keen asked if Sutter objected to the charge.

Sutter said that the charge assumed that a 15-week calendar was unsatisfactory, yet the senate has not yet discussed this point.

Keen said that the committee would propose the structure of a 14-week calendar, and the senate would then be free to vote down the proposed calendar. The discussion as to whether or not Michigan Tech should adopt a 14-week calendar will take place when this proposal is on the floor.

Keen asked Secretary Craig Waddell to poll the academic senators present and report the result to the Task Force on a 14-Week Academic Calendar.

Senators from the following academic units indicated that the majority of their constituents favored beginning a 14-week semester before Labor Day: ROTC (Rambo), Computer Science (Seidel).

Senators from the following academic units indicated that the majority of their constituents favored beginning a 14-week semester after Labor Day: Biological Sciences (Keen), Civil and Environmental Engineering (Hand), Education (Yarroch), Fine Arts (Bruch), the School of Forestry (Pickens), Humanities (Waddell), Mechanical Engineering-Engineering Mechanics (reported by Keen), Physical Education (Fynewever), Social Sciences (MacLennan), School of Technology (Sutter).

Senator Dennis Lewandowski said that the faculty in Mathematical Sciences were evenly divided on this question.

Senators from the School of Business, Chemistry, Chemical Engineering, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Geological and Mining Engineering and Sciences, and Materials Sciences Engineering had no reports. [Senator Dana Johnson subsequently reported that the School of Business was evenly divided on this question; Senator Bill Gregg subsequently reported that the Department of Geological and Mining Engineering and Sciences preferred beginning before Labor Day.]

B. Proposal 2-03 Conflict of Interest Procedures [Appendix C]
Strong MOVED and Pollins seconded the motion to approve Proposal 2-03, Conflict of Interest Procedures.

Keen introduced Conflict of Interest Officer Christa Walck. Walck said that she had received additional feedback on the revised Conflict of Interest Procedures and, hence, would further revise the proposal. She added that most of the changes were editorial rather than substantive. She asked if the senate would prefer to address the proposal now or to refer the proposal to the Senate Research Policy Committee and wait for the revised document.

Senator Cindy Selfe said that she was still concerned about the new statement in the preamble indicating that the Board of Control retains the right to amend procedures to address changed circumstances; the BOC does not need to refer proposed amendments to the senate, but they must abide by federal, state, and local laws. She said that this was inconsistent with the principle of shared governance. She asked if the university attorneys at other public universities in Michigan also require the inclusion of such language in university policies and procedures.

Walck said that University Attorney Andrea Dickson is amenable to changing this language.

Bruch MOVED and Rogers seconded the motion to amend Section 2, Category I: Exempt Activities to include performances and exhibitions.

Keen called for discussion. There was none.

The motion PASSED on a voice vote without dissent.

C. Selfe MOVED and Pickens seconded the motion to refer the proposal to the Senate Research Policy Committee for expeditious handling.

The motion PASSED on a voice vote without dissent.

C. Conflict of Interest Committee Election
Keen presented the following list of nominees for the Conflict of Interest Committee: Vernon Dorweiler, Ralph Hodek, Karol Pelc, Bruce Seely, Dennis Wiitanen.

Keen said that three members of the Conflict of Interest Committee are elected by the senate. Currently, only one member of the committee has been elected by the senate; hence, the senate needs to elect two additional members. Keen reminded the senate that this election had been started at the previous senate meeting but had been voided for procedural reasons. He opened the floor for additional nominations.

Senator Dickie Selfe MOVED and Senator Dana Johnson seconded the motion to nominate Senator Chris Williams. There were no objections to the nomination.

Keen instructed senators to vote for two nominees; the nominee receiving the most votes will be elected to a three-year term; the nominee receiving the second-most votes will be elected to a one-year term.

Bruch asked Keen to distinguish the Senate Research Policy Committee from the Conflict of Interest Committee.

Keen said that under the old procedures, which are still in place, the university needs a Conflict of Interest Committee.

Gregg asked to whom the committee would report.

Keen said that the committee would report to the provost.

C. Selfe asked if the Conflict of Interest Committee was a senate committee.

Keen said that the committee reports to the provost, but the senate is charged with electing members to it.

Senator Kelly Strong asked who convenes the committee.

Keen said that the committee would be convened by the provost, who would have received an appeal from the ruling of the conflict of interest officer.

Gregg said that this was a classic example of shared governance because the Conflict of Interest Committee reports to the provost, but three of its members are elected by the senate.

Bruce Seely was elected to a three-year term, and Chris Williams was elected to a one-year term on the Conflict of Interest Committee.

D. Ad Hoc Committee on Threatening and Violent Behavior
Keen introduced Craig Waddell as chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on Threatening and Violent Behavior. Waddell read the following charge of the committee:

1. Consider whether it would be sound policy to expand the present violence and harassment policy to include psychological harassment and/or bullying.

2. Consider appropriate wording for such expansion if it is needed.

3. Consult with university officers who would be responsible for implementing any approved policy amendments.

Waddell said that the committee members were Bob Keen, Becky Christianson, Craig Waddell, Pam Long, Zabrina Robinson, Carol MacLennan, Craig Friedrich, Dana Johnson, and Don Beck.

In pursuing its work, the committee consulted with the following university administrators: Director of Human Resources Ellen Horsch, Affirmative Action Officer Sherry Kauppi, and Vice Provost for Student Affairs Marty Janners.

Waddell read the following six committee recommendations:

1. Michigan Tech should not over specify the kinds of abusive behaviors that should be covered by such a policy because this could result in the omission of some behaviors that should be covered by the policy.

2. The language of the policy should describe the effects of behavior, not the intentions of the person initiating the behavior.

3. The policy should address emotional as well as physical harm.

4. The language of this policy should be consistent in the Faculty Handbook, the Staff Handbook, the Student Handbook, and the Michigan Tech Operating Procedures Manual.

5. It should be clear that such policies apply to everyone in the Michigan Tech community, including students, whether in the role of perpetrator or in the role of victim of abusive behavior.

6. More should be done to educate the campus community about such policies.

The new language the committee proposes for section 21.10 of the Michigan Tech Operating Procedures Manual is as follows:

"Threatening Behavior: Behavior that, by its very nature, could be interpreted by a reasonable person as causing physical or emotional harm to another individual."

Waddell said that this amended definition also suggests the need for a change in paragraph 4 of the Policy subsection from

"At Michigan Technological University there is no place for threatening or violent behavior. Acts of violence include any physical action, whether intentional or reckless, that harms or threatens the safety of another individual in the work place. A threat of violence includes any behavior that, by its very nature, could be interpreted by a reasonable person as an intent to cause harm to another individual."

The committee also proposed changing the definition of "workplace" from

"Workplace includes all University facilities and off-campus locations where faculty, staff, or student employees are engaged in University business."

"Workplace includes all University facilities and off-campus locations where Michigan Tech employees are engaged in University business."

The rationale for this change is to ensure that no categories of Michigan Tech employees are excluded.

Keen said that a proposal consistent with the recommendations of the committee has been prepared for the senate and will be circulated within the next few days. Keen asked if there were any questions.

C. Selfe that she was worried about the proposal's broad definition of emotional harm, especially if the intent of the behavior is separated from the effect of the behavior.

Waddell said that the committee was working with the general principle of a reasonable person, of what a reasonable person would find emotionally harmful. This would allow someone to initiate a complaint, which would then go before the appropriate committee or official, who would then apply, to the best of their ability, a reasonable-person standard. He asked Director of Human Resources Ellen Horsch if she wanted to comment.

Horsch said that the reasonable-person approach worked well.

Rogers said that he too was concerned about the breadth of the language. He asked what would happen if a person felt emotional discomfort because someone expressed an opinion that was contrary to their own.

Horsch said that she, Affirmative Actin Officer Sherry Kauppi, or Vice Provost for Student Affairs Marty Janners would have to investigate such a claim.

Rogers said that this could constrain free debate.

Horsch said that if there was such a complaint, she would have to investigate, but that the result of the investigation might well be a finding of no threatening behavior based on the reasonable-person standard.

Waddell asked if there is any consequence to anyone who repeatedly files frivolous complaints.

Horsch said that she didn't know of any, and that she has yet to receive any complaint that she could classify as frivolous.

Waddell asked if there was any protection for a person against whom a frivolous complaint was filed, such as not including the complaint in the person's personnel file.

Horsch said that such a complaint would not be kept in the accused personnel file.

Referring to the definition of acts of violence, Senator Judy Fynewever asked whether the phrase "physical action" might be replaced with the word "action."

Waddell said that that was the current language of the proposal, not something that the committee had changed. He said that "physical" could be omitted.

Gregg said that the proposed definition of threatening behavior says that such behavior could be interpreted as "causing physical." He said that that was not threatening behavior, but violent behavior. He proposed replacing "causing" with "threatening."

Bruch said that the Sexual Harassment Policy provides examples of sexual harassment. She suggested that the committee likewise provide examples of emotional harm.

Selfe said that she was still worried about the breadth of the definition of emotional harm. She said that in a philosophy class, half of the people might think a line of argument was reasonable, while the other half might believe that the speaker was causing emotional harm, for example, on the question of abortion.

Gregg said that the definition of emotional harm should be couched in terms of fear of a threatened physical action.

Bruch said that she had experienced at Michigan Tech the kind of emotional harm that Selfe said was too broadly defined. She suggested that the definition be refined but not eliminated.

E. Michigan Tech Enterprise SmartZone (MTEPS)
MTEC Faculty Representative Senator Kelly Strong said that the MTEC board had met the previous day and would meet again the following day and that he needed to report to the board the sense of the senate.

Strong said that the Advanced Technology Development Center (ATDC) receives Ford money and Economic Development Authority (EDA) grant money and will be built at the corner of Sheldon Avenue and Garnet Street.

Strong said that it has been proposed that of the $1.6 million available from the State of Michigan for physical incubator space, $400,000 be used to expand the ATDC from the originally proposed 26,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet. Michigan Tech would own 26,000 square feet, and the Michigan Tech Enterprise SmartZone (MTEPS) would own the additional 4,000 square feet. This would be like a condominium; there would be a land lease, and the property line would run right through a block wall. MTEPS would pay their share of the operating funds to Michigan Tech in return for the right to lease out that 4,000 square feet to their incubator clients.

Strong said that this was complicated, but not necessarily risky. However, he said that problems could arise if there was excess money; for example, if the incubator cost $150,000 to operate per year but generated $300,000 in rental income, who would receive the additional income? Currently, in order to entice the Local Development Financing Authority (LDFA) to approve this proposal, most of the surplus money is being offered to the SmartZone. Strong said that the official language indicates that MTU and the MTEPS affiliates need to negotiate a revenue-sharing arrangement if this proposal is approved. Strong said that at that point in the MTEC Board's discussion, he had said that he would have to bring this proposal before the senate because this was a significant change in the proposed arrangements.

Strong said that the Republic Bank building had been the subject of negotiation as a possible incubator building. The building is currently not on the market. There is currently money to buy a building, but there aren't any buildings in Houghton and Hancock that can generate immediate income the way Republic would have. Strong said that the City of Houghton, the City of Hancock, and Michigan Tech are the three partners in this enterprise, and there are political sensitivities about who gets what.

Strong said that a possible problem with condominium ownership might be that if MTEPS space was only partially rented and MTEPS had an abundance of potential incubator clients, there could be pressure to renegotiate ownership of building space.

Senator Dana Johnson asked if there was any precedent for a building being built on Michigan Tech's campus but owned or leased by someone other than Michigan Tech.

Strong said that the Portage Medical Clinic is attached to the Student Development Complex (SDC) but owned by Portage Health System, with the land being leased from Michigan Tech for a long period at very low cost. He said that the proposed agreement with MTEPS would be modeled on the agreement with Portage Health System.

D. Selfe asked what was in the contract to cover the possibility of MTEPS withdrawing from the agreement. He asked if the LDFA would be responsible for paying operating costs.

Strong said that this was a key and unresolved question.

Senator Steve Seidel asked how much of the ATDC's 26,000 square feet was already claimed.

Strong said that he didn't know.

Seidel asked if it would be possible to build a 26,000-square-foot building now and add additional space as needed.

Strong said that this could be done, but that the $1.6 million from the state was available now. He said that there is a problem with the legislation, which says that Michigan will provide $400,000 to jumpstart a business incubation program, but that to qualify for this money, the program must buy $1.6 million worth of buildings. No one on the MTEC Board believes that the program needs to own a building.

Provost Kent Wray asked what would happen if Michigan Tech withdrew its name and support from the project.

Strong said that the project would get back to the business of incubators, in which Michigan Tech would provide knowledge, ideas, and research concepts, and the cities would provide infrastructure paid for with a state grant. That is how it should work.

Wray asked if MTEPS would retain ownership of the 4,000 square feet if Michigan Tech withdrew from the program.

Strong said that the option to purchase this space back could be written into the agreement, but that such an arrangement would be costly.

C. Selfe said that this discussion reminded her of Michigan Tech Ventures.

Strong said that his reaction to this proposal had been, "I don't like this because I don't understand it." The details have not been worked out. He said that if the plan were executed, Michigan Tech would have to negotiate a revenue-sharing deal in the future. However, once the building is completed, Tech's negotiating flexibility would be reduced.

Wray asked why the decision needed to be made the following day.

Strong said that the representative from the state would be here the following day. He added, however, that the MTEC Board might be able to tell this representative that they were considering various options. He said that the Michigan Tech Board of Control had not yet seen this proposal either.

Wray asked if there was a deadline on spending the $1.6 million.

Strong said that the deadline had been September 1, but the MTEC Board has asked for an extension after the Republic Bank building went off the market. He said that the political reality was that there almost had to be one incubator building in Hancock and another in Houghton.

C. Selfe asked what this was costing Michigan Tech.

Strong said that it wasn't costing Michigan Tech anything. The ATDC is a 26,000-square-foot building that will house the Enterprise Program and some of the sponsored research and soft money, like the Keweenaw Research Center, and Intellectual Properties. That building will be built whether or not Michigan Tech approves the additional 4,000 square feet for MTEPS.

Senator Dana Johnson said that most of the money for MTEPS seemed to be going into building space, but that many start-up companies lacked funds for equipment and other resources. She asked if funds for such resources would be provided by MTEPS.

Strong said that he agreed that this was a problem. He said that in Houghton County, expertise and money are needed more than buildings, but there is currently no seed money available. He said that he hopes that once the building issue is resolved, attention will turn to securing such resources. He said that incubators are for people who don't yet know if their business plans are marketable; such people are not inclined to pay exorbitant prices for leases until they know whether or not their planned enterprises can be successful.

C. Selfe asked if it would be better ensure that expertise and seed money are available before building incubator buildings.

Strong agreed that this would be preferable. This area doesn't need new buildings; there are empty buildings all over Houghton County. What this area needs is money and expertise.

Strong promised to share the senate's concerns with the MTEC Board.

Keen said that Strong had announced his resignation from Michigan Tech effective as of December. He said that it would be advisable for the senate to have a replacement for Strong as faculty representative on the MTEC Board well before Strong leaves so that Strong will have time to brief his replacement. Keen said that the senate will send a slate of three nominations to President Tompkins, and President Tompkins will select the faculty representative to MTEC from among those nominees. He asked the senators to identify nominees for this position; he said that the nominees must be tenured faculty members.

7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Proposal 1-03, Revision of Senate Bylaws [See minutes, page 9838, for a copy of this proposal.]
Keen said that revision of the senate bylaws is mandated by the senate constitution. The proposal is to approve the list of representational units in the senate.

Senator Debra Bruch MOVED and Senator Scott Pollins seconded the motion to approve Proposal 1-03.

Keen said that he had been asked to request clarifying amendment to Proposal 1-03. Keen said that there has been a change in reporting structure such that the Office of Student Records and Registration no longer reports to Enrollment Management; hence, the Office of Student Records and Registration should be listed separately in item C.4, the Non-academic Units list.

C. Selfe MOVED and Bruch seconded the motion to add the Office of Student Records and Registration to the Non-academic Units list. There was no discussion. The motion PASSED on a voice vote with no dissent.

Strong asked who represents Engineering Fundamentals on the senate.

Keen said that according to the senate constitution and the senate proposal that produced departmental charters, an approved department charter must be in place before a representative of that department is allowed to vote in the senate. Senate meetings are open to anyone to attend, anyone in attendance can report senate discussions to their units, and the senate floor is hardly ever closed to anyone who wishes to express an opinion. He said that the charter for Engineering Fundamentals had been delayed, but it is currently on the desk of the dean of engineering.

C. Selfe asked if Engineering Fundamentals was a department.

Keen said that Engineering Fundamentals was designated a department by the Board of Control in 1991 under the then-current procedures for creating new departments.

C. Selfe asked what the Department of Engineering Fundamental does.

Keen said that they teach classes.

C. Selfe asked how the Department of Engineering Fundamental differed from other engineering departments.

Several senators said that faculty in this department were not expected to conduct and publish research.

C. Selfe said that she had been at Michigan Tech for 20 years and had never seen this department. She asked where it was located.

Keen said that it exists under the dean of engineering and is chaired by Sheryl Sorby.

Senator Bruce Pletka said that the primary role of the department was teaching freshman engineers in ENG1101 Foundations of Engineering I and ENG1102 Foundations of Engineering II.

Selfe asked if this meant that a department could be formed around a single course, such as UN2001 Revisions.

Keen said that this was unlikely because the senate now must approve proposals for new departments before those proposals are forwarded to the Board of Control.

Keen said that the senate is also awaiting approval of the charter of the Department of Biomedical Engineering.

Keen called for further discussion. There was none. The motion to approve Proposal 1-03 PASSED on a voice vote without dissent.

B. Senate Committee Assignments [Appendix D]
Keen presented proposed senate committee assignments.

C. Selfe MOVED and Adolphs seconded the motion to approve the proposed senate committee assignments. Keen called for discussion. There was none The motion PASSED on a voice vote without dissent.

8. SEASON DAYS
Senator Larry Sutter said that a number of his colleagues are disturbed by season days [vacation days granted to staff by the university president]. One of the benefits that was claimed for the recent conversion to semesters was a longer break over the Christmas holidays, during which faculty could pursue their research and publication efforts. However, awarding season days to staff conflicts with such efforts. Snow isn't cleared, mail isn't delivered, offices aren't heated, etc. He said that he was also concerned about how season days would be perceived by the state government when Michigan Tech is seeking additional resources to carry out its mission.

Senator Jim Pickens asked if season days allowed the Office of Student Records and Registration enough time to process student grades and give appropriate notice to students who had been placed on academic suspension.

Provost Wray said that season days have also presented a challenge to him. He said that he hopes that the mailroom will be able to remain open during these days; otherwise, student bills, tuition payments, academic records, student records and registration, and other university business will not be processed in a timely fashion. He said faculty who want their laboratories to remain heated should submit request to Facilities Management Director Bill Blumhardt. He said that he had been told that snow would be removed on all days except Christmas and New Years.

C. Selfe asked if staff assignments could be staggered to cover the various responsibilities during season days.

Wray said that that was what he was hoping to arrange or encourage.

Sutter said that the university needed a policy on whether it would be open or closed during these days so that faculty can plan ahead and schedule their research proposals accordingly.

Keen recommended that the senate Research Policy Committee and possibly also the Institutional Planning Committee produce a recommendation on university closings during the semester break.

Wray said that the president would be pleased to hear from the senate on this. He said that he believed that because of the timing of Christmas and New Years days this year, President Tompkins believed that a large number of staff would take vacation days in order to have a continuous vacation over this period. Hence, the president was concerned that the university would be understaffed in many offices and completely closed in other offices even without season days. Wray said that the president has authority to grant up to four season days over the course of the fiscal year, he said that he believed that the Board of Control has authority to grant an additional four season days.

Pickens asked if the provost knew when fall-semester grades would be due.

Wray said that he did not yet know.

Keen said that he would ask the Senate Research Policy Committee to recommend a policy on granting season days during the semester break.

9. ADJOURNMENT
Malette MOVED and Pollins seconded the motion to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by Craig Waddell
Secretary of the University Senate