Tuesday, 17 March 2009
2:00 p.m., Lumina Theater, Fisher Center
Meeting 2009-07

***Please note that the March 17, 2009 meeting will be held in Lumina Theater, Fisher Center, starting at 2 p.m.***

Meeting called to order at 2:00pm.

Roll sign-in

• Attendance sheets circulated.  Senators were instructed to initial next to their name or the person for whom they are subbing.
• Absent:
  • Departmental senators:  Black (Physics & Physical Oceanography), Blundo (Social Work), Bradley (Computer Science), DePaolo (Chancellor), Dumas (Economics & Finance), Hall (Social Work), Huber (Elementary, Middle, and Literacy Education), Kinard (Marketing), Lammers (Mathematics & Statistics), Moore (Dean, University College), Porter (Marketing), Reinicke (Information Systems & Operations Management), Townend (History), Wray (Information Systems and Operations Management).
  • Committee chairs: Caropreso (Evaluation), Chandler (Bookstore), Gill (University Curriculum), Hurdle (Public Service & Continuing Studies), Olsen (Faculty Welfare), Wilcox (Buildings and Grounds).

Approval of the February 2009 minutes

• February 2009 minutes were approved.

Individual reports

1. Chancellor DePaolo (no report expected as Chancellor cannot attend the meeting)
2. President of the Senate McKinney

• March 10 Retreat
  • 30 faculty members and administrators met at Caffe Phoenix.
• Regarding how people were invited, members of the Steering Committee were included, as well as people I have known during my time on this campus – I apologize if you wanted to come but weren't invited.  I wanted to keep the retreat small and effective.
• As a result of this retreat, an Ad Hoc sub-group was formed.  Members include:
  • Raymond Burt,
  • Kim Cook,
  • David Weber,
  • David Webster,
  • Dan Masters,
  • Bruce McKinney,
  • Carrie Clements.
• This sub-group's meeting was productive– we will be bringing a report and motions to Senate in April, as will the Committee on Multi-Year Lecturers and the Research Committee awards.
• Seahawk Respect Compact
• I received a few emails about what to do and what we are doing about the compact.
• Floor ceded to Tom Barth:
• Past chair of the Diversity Council.
• A committee is currently looking at the compact and how to incorporate it in the classrooms and on campus.
• We invite your comments and ideas.  You’ll be hearing more about it soon.
• It would be nice, eventually, if we all acknowledge it to our students when we see it on the walls of the classrooms during the first class meetings each semester.
• Questions?
• It seems like every semester or every year we come up with a new relationship or initiative.  Do we have a problem here?  Are we that debauched?
• President McKinney:  I think the compact helps with civility in the classroom.  Another committee is also working on an honor code which I think we should seriously consider based on recent reports of the prevalence of cheating and plagiarism.
• William Fleming:  The respect compact grew out of the Campus Climate Survey.  Then a subcommittee was formed to look into designing something that was an affirmation of trying to respond to some of the issues that came out of the climate survey.
• Barth:  Our climate survey indicated that there were some issues there to address.

Committee reports

1. Handbook Revision—Phased Retirement (More information in Word)

• Floor ceded to William Fleming and Joann McDowell, who summarized the changes in this policy.
• Joann McDowell:
  • Most of the changes are wordsmithing and formatting.  The one change that’s in here regards the workplan – giving the opportunity for the department and/or the faculty member to revisit the workplan.  For those not familiar with this, the faculty member on phased retirement is on a three-year contract and designs a workplan with their department chair.
  • One reason for reopening the workplan, if the faculty member wants to teach something else (or the department needs the faculty member to teach something else), change a schedule – basically, if departmental needs change they can revisit the workplan.
  • That was the only substantive change to the policy.
• Questions?
• How many faculty are on phased retirement?
  • McDowell:  This year 1, the year before 3.  The most we have ever had at one time is 6 or 7.
• President McKinney:  Let me say one thing about revisions to the Faculty Handbook – there are a lot of antiquated things in there.  One of my goals this summer is to take a look at the handbook to bring it up to date.  If you are around this summer and want to help, please send me an email.

2. Committee on Multi-Year Lecturers

• They have delayed their report to the April meeting.

Old business

1. Learning Goals (More information in Word)

• Floor ceded to Ken Spackman: 
  • Nine learning goals were adopted by Faculty Senate in March 2006.  And these have been worked on closely by the Basic Studies Committee and the Assessment Committee.
• Questions?
• If we endorse this here, what will the impact be on any particular faculty member?
  • As Kim Sawrey’s committee points out in one of the sections, one of the common weaknesses of general education programs is a lack of coherence.  And this establishes what we want our students to get out of our general education.  It articulates what we expect it to do.  Another important feature is that without it, assessment is impossible.  The procedures for assessment, you will discover, are going to be designed so as to relieve the faculty as much as possible from day-to-day involvement.
• What is the practical purpose of the document?
  • President McKinney:  SACS.
  • Spackman:  We shouldn’t do it because of some external body.  It’s the right first step to take when designing general education revisions.
• But we’re kind of late now – it’s already designed.
  • Spackman:  This had its origins three years ago.  The wording is a little different but it is the basis of what the Basic Studies committee has used to design their proposal.
• I guess I don’t understand what the practical purpose is – does it have one?
  • Spackman:  It certainly does – it states what our expectations are for general education.  It’s extraordinarily important.
• Would it be used, for instance, by a curriculum committee?
  • Spackman:  Yes, in addition to the learning goals that the Basic Studies Committee proposed.  This connects the mission of the University explicitly with the learning goals of Basic Studies.  This is designed to be a self-contained stand-alone document to explain why we as a faculty think these are important.  Without it we would be in the position of having frequent instances of discussion of Basic Studies on opinions instead of agreements.
• Andy Jackson:  Could we expand a little on the role of these learning goals for the majors?
  • Spackman:  These categories are so broad that they should cover what we already expect our majors to do.  We discovered that more departments are accomplishing critical thinking than we initially thought, for instance.
• Mark Spaulding:  What would be the process of amending this?  We pass this and then need to change it.  What would be the process for doing it?
  • Spackman:  There will already need to be a change in the future – it reflects the current Basic Studies objectives.  When we change Basic Studies, we will need to change it.  It doesn’t necessarily have to come before Senate to change it.
• How does it reflect what we do if the Faculty Senate doesn’t need to approve the changes?
• Are expected to vote on this today?
• Is it going in the handbook, the catalogue?
  • Spackman:  We have never had a document like this before.
• Have other campuses done this and put it in their catalogue, for instance?
  • Spackman:  Other campuses have done this – I don’t know that it is in their catalogues.  I think it would be a document approved by the faculty through the Senate upon which we have based our general education program.
• If ultimately it is something that goes into the Undergraduate Catalogue, then there are steps that need to be followed to get it in there.  If it will be outside the catalogue, then we will have to consider what that will mean.
• What authority does this document have?
  • Spackman:  It gives guidance and serves as the support.  These are the broad categories – these aren’t the 37.
• Dan Noland:  This started up with an earlier Basic Studies Committee, who discovered that there was no published rationale for Basic Studies.  The other part of this is that it feeds into assessment, which might, for instance, justify merit raises.  There is that component of assessment.  It is hard to predict how this will manifest itself.
  • Spackman:  With respect to assessment, it will have absolutely nothing to do with merit raises or annual evaluation of faculty.  We have some evidence that our students are not doing as well in analytical writing, for instance – from 5 years of NSSE.  It doesn’t tell us in detail what students are not doing well at and how to fix it, though.  This is the foundation of assessment that will get at those questions.  The only goal is to discover strengths and weaknesses that students have broadly across classes in Basic Studies – irrespective of faculty and who is teaching these classes.  It’s just doing this for our students.
• President McKinney:  Let me try to summarize what I am hearing.  You are really supporting this and don’t have any problems with it – just where it will go and what authority it will have.
• From what Ken just said, it will have little impact on faculty workload.  But it will have impact on curricular matters.  So it would seem that it should live in the Undergraduate Catalogue.  So therefore it should go through the proper channels and curriculum review process to get in there and then be brought before Senate.
  • President McKinney:  Couldn’t we approve it here and then figure out where it will go?
• I think there should be a mixture of the two.  Endorse this as an abbreviated version but that this won’t necessarily be the final catalogue copy.
• Can we as a Senate endorse this and then change it?
  • President McKinney:  I think we can endorse this and the content of the document but then decide where it will live and what form it will take.
• [Motion 09-07-21] Motion to approve the learning goals as stated in this document with the realization that further discussion is warranted as to where this document will live with respect to the University’s curriculum.
• [Motion 09-07-21] seconded.
• Discussion:
• Who’s responsibility will it be to take this to the next level?
  • President McKinney:  I will take that responsibility.
• Shouldn’t it say "Characteristics of  a UNCW Student" and not "UNCW Graduate"?
  • Spackman:  It’s a minor point perhaps.  They are still our students upon graduation and will presumably exhibit these characteristics as seniors, etc.
• Ken, we have data that our students are not doing well in some of these areas on national tests?
  • Spackman:  I am hampered by not being able to show you the entire assessment report.  This will help us show more than what our national tests can ever tell us.
• [Motion 09-07-21] approved.

2. Basic (University) Studies Revisions (More information in PDF)

• Floor ceded to Kim Sawrey:
  • I would like to thank the Basic Studies Task Force, and Dr. Tim Ballard, the chair of that committee, for their work.   They initiated the discussion of general education review and revision on campus and provided us with a framework for the future form of general education at UNCW.  Many thanks to that committee.
  • Many thanks also to the members of the current Basic Studies Committee.  Each member of the committee has done an enormous amount of work over the past two years.  Between weekly meetings that altered many summer vacation plans and countless hours of work done outside of those meetings, the energy invested was truly above and beyond. 
  • This group brought considerable experience and expertise to our deliberations.  But perhaps the most important characteristic of each committee member was that they left departmental affiliations at the door.  We all learned very quickly that to have any chance of success we would need to do our best job of viewing each proposed change from the standpoint of all majors, not just those represented on the committee.  My thanks to all of you.
  • [Members were acknowledged by Senate with applause and "Bravos!"]
  • There has been much discussion in recent years about the future of this university.  The form of any eventual revision of our general education program will go a long way toward shaping that future.  As expectations for scholarly output have increased, some have wondered if UNCW will be able to maintain our tradition of excellent undergraduate teaching.  Today, the ball is firmly in the faculty court and I hope that we take this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to excellence in teaching.    
  • The administration has been patient with this process.  And we can now reaffirm our commitment to excellence at this institution.
• [Motion 09-07-16] From Fred Scharf, Biology and Marine Biology:

On page 16, we move that the Capstone requirement (C. Capstone Courses) be listed as 1-3 credits rather than 3 credits.

Rationale The addition of the required “Freshman Seminar” and “Senior Capstone” categories to the Basic Studies requirements may impact our current curriculum. Our B.S. degrees are currently at or near the maximum allowable credit hour limit, and there is pressure to increase capstone offerings directed towards assessment (which would not have the same intent as the Basic Studies Senior Capstone).  Our current departmental senior capstone (BIO 495) serves to meet communications, assessment and applied learning requirements and cannot be easily converted to meet the intent of the Basic Studies Senior Capstone without losing these major-specific needs.  We are not alone in this need to utilize our senior level courses for multiple, worthwhile and necessary purposes.  As such, the department supports the overall proposed revision, provided that each department decides on an appropriate class structure (and credit hours) to meet capstone and freshman seminar category requirements.

• Martin Posey:  In the document, they mention that the capstone should be three credits.  We just want to clarify 1-3 credits.  We believe that it is in the spirit of the document but there were some concerns that it be mandated as 3 credits.
• Dan Noland:  Martin, could you speak to the inclusion of the “freshman seminar” in the rationale?
• That’s not part of the motion – these were just comments made from the department.
• [Motion 09-07-16] approved.
• [Motion 09-07-17] Heath White, Department of Philosophy and Religion, proposes the following changes to the Basic Studies document:

p. 33, on completion requirements for the Aesthetic, Interpretive, and Literary Perspectives component.  Amend the document to read:

Students are required to take six hours from this component, including at least two courses with two different course prefixes.

p. 35, on completion requirements for the Historical and Philosophical Approaches component.  Amend the document to read: 

Students are required to take six hours from this component, including at least two courses with two different course prefixes.

p. 39, on completion requirements for the Understanding Human Institutions and Behaviors component.  Amend the document to read: 

Students are required to take 3 six hours from this component, including at least two courses with two different course prefixes.

Rationale:  these amendments are consistent with the declared intentions of the Basic Studies committee in the February 2009 Faculty Senate meeting and with the requirements stated on p. 12 in the “Core Curriculum” section of the document.

• Representative from Philosophy and Religion:  These are just three minor adjustments to the body of the document that make it consistent with the front part of the document and what the Basic Studies Committee intended.  I think the amendments speak for themselves. 
• Sawrey:  This provides clarification where it really needed clarification.
• [Motion 09-07-17] approved.
• Any other motions?
  • PED 101 is a still a Basic Studies component?
• Sawrey:  Yes – there are two amendments that the Basic Studies Committee is ready to endorse.  Where the language requirement reads “201 level” – Foreign Languages and Literatures would like to replace that with a less stringent requirement that I think is a good idea.  It will also reduce the hours from 9 to 6. 
  • Page 11 of the Basic Studies proposal should now read:  “iv. Foreign Language – Students will demonstrate proficiency by completing a course at the 201 level or higher in a language previously studied, or at the 102 level in a language not previously studied (3-6 hours).”
  • I think this is a really good change – so folks won’t be penalized for wanting to take a new language.  Would anyone from Foreign Languages and Literatures like to say anything?
• [Motion 09-07-22] That the language on page 11 section iv be changed as indicated.
  • [Motion 09-07-22] seconded.
  • Discussion:
    • Does this change fit in with the current learning goals of the University – does it achieve the goals for proficiency?
      • Jess Boersma:  There’s an increased meta-linguistic awareness.  In addition to that we thought it very important to not penalize someone for taking a less common language.  We want to encourage students to have a number of options.
    • Those are good goals.  I just want to make sure we aren’t approving something that will violate something elsewhere.
    • Ken Gurganus:  I suggest that the Senate approve this and then enable the Basic Studies Committee to change things on page 29 – essentially, to reflect these changes accordingly throughout the document.
• [Motion 09-07-22] approved.
• Sawrey:  On page 25, we propose an amendment to the Lifespan Wellness Component.
  • [Motion 09-07-23] To amend the Basic Studies proposal, regarding the Lifespan Wellness Component.  Page 25 of the Basic Studies proposal should now read:  “W4. Practice the basic components and principles of safe and effective physical activity and other health-related behaviors.”
    • [Motion 09-07-23] seconded.
    • Discussion:
      • Cara Sidman:  We need the physical activity component in here to combat problems like obesity, etc., on campus.
  • [Motion 09-07-23] approved.
• [Motion 09-07-24] To approve the Basic Studies proposal as it now stands [provided by Kim Cook].
  • [Motion 09-07-24] seconded [provided by Dan Masters].
• [Motion 09-07-24] approved to general acclaim.
• [Standing ovation given to the Basic Studies Committee.]

3. Russ Herman from Academic Standards Committee makes the following motions:

• [Motion 09-07-18] On page 116 of the Undergraduate Catalogue 2008-2009 under Waiver of Requirement, add the following sentence to the end of the subsection Students with Existing Degrees:

Students who are transferring to UNCW for a second baccalaureate after having earned a baccalaureate at any UNC institution with a general education requirement will be given a Basic Studies waiver. 

• Floor ceded to Russ Herman:  This first motion is on Basic Studies waivers and the idea is that we trust that other schools in the UNC System have Basic Studies programs and that we aren’t going to make these students take a lot of Basic Studies classes after they have already gotten a degree.  We looked at these programs in state and don’t have any issues with their Basic Studies programs.
• Questions?
• Steve Pullum:  What about the language requirement?  Are we comfortable giving a UNCW degree to a student who hasn’t fulfilled this at another institution?
• Herman:  We looked at other UNC programs.
• Pat Lerch:  Is this common practice within the UNC System?  Could a UNCW student go for another degree at another UNC school and not have to take Basic Studies there?
• Herman:  from my understanding, yes.
• [Motion 09-07-18] approved.

• [Motion 09-07-19] Under Faculty Responsibilities – Teaching – Grading in the Faculty Handbook
  [http://www.uncw.edu/fac_handbook/responsibilities/teaching/grading.htm] make the following insertions[deletions]:

Grade of Incomplete (I)

At the discretion of the instructor, a student may be given a grade of Incomplete when the work in the course has not been completed for reasons beyond the control of the student. In addition to Instead of [N.B. Slight editorial change made to text on the recommendation of Russ Herman, following the meeting] reporting the grade on Seaweb for Faculty SeaNet, the instructor must also complete a "Form for Assigning an Incomplete," available in departmental offices. It is the responsibility of the faculty member 1) to send copies of the form, once approved by the departmental chairperson, to the student and the Registrar when the grades are due, and 2) to specify to the student the exact terms and conditions necessary to satisfy the incomplete including the date by which all work needs to be completed. All incomplete grades must be removed according to a deadline established by the instructor, not to exceed one calendar year from the end of the semester in which the incomplete was given , no later than the end of the next regular semester; otherwise the "I" becomes "F". A student must not register for a class when attempting to remove a grade of Incomplete for that class. When a student with an Incomplete grade has successfully completed all required work, the instructor submits a completed "Report of Conversion of Grade or Incomplete" form, available in the departmental office. (More information about [Motion 09-07-19] in Word)

• Herman:  At the last Senate meeting we talked about this.  An internal audit revealed we were not in compliance in certain areas.  What we approved last month we have to update in the handbook.  So when an incomplete is assigned, faculty are supposed to submit a form which has not always occurred in a timely manner.  This has to be taken care of before the grades are due.  These bullets state when it is appropriate to post an incomplete grade and when to post an F.  Generally speaking, this should take care of compliance issues.
• Any discussion?
• [Motion 09-07-19] approved.

4. Steering Committee makes the following motion:

• [Motion 09-07-20] “In the spirit of intellectual and educational freedom, the Faculty Senate admonishes the UNCW administration for not consulting with the Women’s Resource Center, Faculty Senate Steering Committee, and other interested parties before asking photographer Frank Cordelle to remove pictures of minors from his exhibit at UNCW.”
  • This is coming from Steering Committee and the Women's Resource Center.
  • Is someone from the WRC here to speak on this?
  • Floor ceded to Janet Ellerby, Interim Director of the WRC.
    • Ellerby:  We worked out a timeline as to the events leading up to whether the exhibit would be censored -- I know that this is a contested word for some.  (Timeline in Word)
      • Noland:  Who raised the issue in the first place?  Did you get a communication from someone who said they didn’t want the images of the minors in the exhibit?
        • Ellerby:  On February 16th, Jose Hernandez came to my office with a letter from John Foubert.  I asked Hernandez to communicate to the administration that they were positive and strong depictions of women.
    • Was that meeting in the spirit on consultation?
      • Ellerby:  I was just simply being told that the communication had come from Foubert in Oklahoma.  I was being informed. 
    • But you had no sense that the photos would be pulled from the exhibit at that time?
      • Ellerby:  I was not involved in the discussions – the decision came midweek that week [of February 16th].
    • David Cordle   I wonder if to date any explanation has come as to why this decision was made?
      • Ellerby:  The only consultation that took place was between the Chancellor, the Provost, and the Vice Chancellors.
    • President McKinney:  I was contacted by Steve McFarland, who talked of disturbing photos of minors coming to campus.  I was told by him that if I were contacted by the media, not to say anything and to refer them to MAC.
      • Were you contacted by the media?  That is a horrible thing to say to faculty – we should all be free to speak our mind.
        • President McKinney:  I was not contacted by the media.
      • I am really sorry to have to point this out that graphic nudity of people of all ages is commonplace and has been so throughout history.  What am I supposed to tell my students, who have been asked to write poems for the forthcoming WRC event "Women's Bodies/Women's Lives" about women’s nudity, when they ask whether their poems will be censored or not?
    • Andy Jackson:  Bruce, will you report on the meeting Steering had with the Chancellor over spring break?
    • President McKinney:  The Chancellor said that Cordelle agreed to the administration's stance and removed the photos then capitalized on the situation by going to the media about the censorship.
    • Ellerby:  We did receive an ultimatum that if he didn’t pull the photos, the exhibit would be cancelled.  He had made all his travel plans, one of his subjects was coming to be photographed.  He said he would come if we hosted the Feminist Colloquium.  He knew that a lot was being asked of him.  I think the administration thinks it wasn’t asking a lot.  I know it was because of the enthusiasm of the WRC and the fact that his travel plans were already set that he came.
      • I want to raise the question about academic sovereignty.  We are taking one letter from someone at another institution and using it to determine what we do on our campus?
      • I’d like to hear what the administration has to say about this so we all have all sides.
        • Provost:  You are only the second person to ask the administration about our perspective and I do appreciate that.  Our problems with this happened before we got the letter from Foubert. I had been in contact with a provost in Texas and some of my old colleagues – they are just starting to feel the pinch of the recession and wanted to know how we were faring.  One of them mentioned that they had had the "The Century Project" on campus to much controversy with complaints about, I quote, the photos of "nekkid women."  And he was convinced that they took a budget cut at his campus because one of the officials was offended by it.  I looked at the book in the bookstore and online  -- I went deep into it and, contrary to what has been said, there has been controversy about this exhibit at other campuses.  We are the first campus where Cordelle actually came after being asked to remove the photos.  In the past, he would not exhibit, when asked to come without some photos.  The issue for us was not about pornography but about informed consent.  I want you to know that we asked him to remove the photos and he agreed.  When you ask someone to do something and he agrees to do it, it’s not censorship.  I don’t think we can use the word censorship.  Eileen advised us that this was probably something that we should not have on campus.  We have to think beyond academic sovereignty to how this will affect the community – we have a broader audience to consider than just the University.
      • Kathleen Berkeley:  I am grateful that the Provost has responded to Dean Cordle’s request for an explanation.  I want to redirect us back to the motion; a number of people would have liked to have been considered in this process.  There is a lack of consultation in the bodies that have investment in sustaining these issues on campus.  If this had been such a concern for you so early on, other members for the sake of shared governance and responsibility, should have been consulted.  I do want to redirect us at least to that piece.
      • Pam Evers:  I agree with Berkeley.  I spent the last year on sabbatical researching intellectual freedom.  You believe it belongs to the institution.  We happen to believe that it belongs to the faculty.  Consent to censorship is still censorship.  I consulted with my colleagues at the Texas Bar:  censorship is censorship, plain and simple.  We were just talking about our learning goals – critical thinking is one of those goals.  To avoid controversy because it might impact our budget or might be shocking – that is not what the University is for.
    • President McKinney:  I’d like to keep it to the motion.
      • Spaulding:  That is exactly right.  We are not going to solve all the issues here.  We cannot run a university if the intellectual and artistic content is decided upon by one or two people in Alderman Hall.
      • Michael Seidman:  I support the motion.  But I think it is insufficient and does not communicate the seriousness of what happened here.
      • Scott Nice:  I would like to formally applaud the Seahawk newspaper for their brave coverage of this situation.
      • Lou Buttino:  If there wasn’t a process in place, then how can the administration be admonished?  I was disturbed by the idea of nude photos of minors being shown on campus.
    • President McKinney:  I have some relatives who are victims of abuse and before I knew what the exhibit was about, I thought "Get those out."  But I think the motion addresses how it was done, not what was done.
    • Berkeley:  The first time Janet was notified was on February 16th.  There was a WRC Advisory Board meeting on February 18th, at which time posters promoting the exhibit were given to the board.  There was a golden opportunity for the Advisory Board to be told about this – but nothing was mentioned to us.  That speaks to the problem addressed in the motion.
      • Who exactly was consulted?
        • Provost:  It was a meeting that took place in the Chancellor's office.  Max Allen, the Chancellor, Eileen Goldgeier were there.  I was present, also Pat Leonard and Cindy Lawson. So four women and two men.
      • Vibeke Olson:  There are several things that I think I would like to address.  There was no consultation with the WRC, nor with the experts on campus in terms of art, what constitutes a work of art.  We have photographers that deal with issues of the nude body.  We also have a modernist on our faculty.  This brings up a discussion about guidelines and process.  Will there be instances of where there will be things we can discuss and not discuss in the classroom?
      • Jackson:  There are a couple of things that I recall from the meeting with the Chancellor.  The division of Student Affairs did consult with their experts on the impact of images on persons who had been abused sexually.  The Chancellor pointed out that there were differences about this idea of censorship from her perspective versus Cordelle’s.  She did not perceive herself to be a censor and she wanted to make that clear to us at the meeting.
      • Gabriel Lugo:  What I find remarkable about this motion is the lack of incentive for the administration to consult with the faculty.  And what we get from administration is a defensiveness that confirms the validity of the motion.
      • Anita McDaniel:  If we approve this motion, what is the next step?  Will there be guidelines or a process that will be developed that everyone will be aware of?
        • President McKinney:  If there are issues like this again, the administration might realize the value of consulting with faculty.
• [Motion 09-07-20] approved.

New business

• No new business.

Announcements

• No announcements.

Adjournment

Meeting adjourned at 3:49pm.