Meeting Minutes
ACADEMIC SENATE
August 28, 2017
Call to Order
The regular meeting of the Academic Senate, held on August 28, 2017, was called to order at
3:02 pm by Margaret Clayton, as the new Senate President. The meeting was held in the Moot
Courtroom of the College of Law.
Present: Sarah Hinners, Brenda Scheer, Robert Allen, Elena Asparouhova, Nitin
Bakshi, Shmuel Baruch, Brian Cadman, Jeff Nielsen, Todd Zenger, Annie
Fukushima, Alberta Comer, John Funk, Rajeev Balasubramonian, Chuck
Dorval, Ning Lu, Pinar Bayrak–Toydemir, Kalani Raphael, Sudeep
Kanungo, Hanseup Kim, Ken Monson, James Sutherland, Denny Berry,
Michael Chikinda, Melonie Murray, Bo Foreman, Stacy Manwaring,
Susan Naidu, Nelson Roy, Alex Terrill, James Anderson, Katharine Coles,
Patricia Hanna, Anne Lair, Eric Hinderaker, Gema Guevara, Maureen
Mathison, Lex Newman, Randy Dryer, Tom Lund, John Bramble,
Brandon Patterson, Luke Leither, Ann Engar, Julie Barkmeier–Kraemer,
Julio Facelli, Per Gesteland, Ken Johnson, Frank Sachse, Antoinette
Laskey, Nadia Cobb, Amnon Schlegel, Nicole L. Mihalopoulos, Debra
Simmons, Diego Fernandez, Jessica Wempen, Lauren Clark, Susanna
Cohen, Sara Simonsen, Donald Blumenthal, Richard Ernst, David
Goldenberg, Dragan Milicic, Yekaterina Epshteyn, Sarah Bush, Tommaso
de Fernex, Pearl Sandick, Jennifer Shumaker–Parry, Gunseli Berik, Sheila
Crowell, Korkut Erturk, Sharon Mastracci, Winston Kyan, Kim Korinek,
Kathleen Nicoll, Duncan Metcalfe, Zhou Yu, Jason Castillo, Mary Beth
Vogel–Ferguson, Joanne Yaffe, Carley Herrick, Nathan Ong, Ailien Luu,
Abigail Stover, Zach Berger, Chandler Dean, Trevor Annis, Michael
Stapley, India Kozlowski, Summer Mikkelsen, Kaitlin McLean, Micah
Smith, Emina Tatarevic,
Absent: Dianne Harris, Olga Baker, Mark Durham, Leticia Alvarez, John Regehr,
Laurel Caryn, Jim Martin, Sean Lawson, Terry Kogan, Mia Hashibe, Brad
Rockwell, Shaji Menon, Ravi Chandran, Andrea Bild, Linda Tyler, Joel
Brownstein, Dmytro Pesin, Adrienne Cachelin, Baodong Liu, Melanie
Barber, Oliver Anderson, Chase Peterson, Alyssa Lamb, Rebecca Walker
Ex Officio: Margaret Clayton, Robert Flores, Xan Johnson, Tom Richmond, David
Pershing, Ruth Watkins, Bill Johnson, David Hill, Amy Wildermuth, Bob
Fujinami
Excused with proxy: James Winkler, Jon Seger
Excused: Shundana Yusaf, Lauren Liang, Lorris Betz, Paul Mogren, Thomas
Winter, Ananya Roy
Others: Glen Hansen, David Carrier, Dean McGovern, Andi Witczak, Dave Kieda
Approval of Minutes:
The minutes dated May 1, 2017 were approved with a motion from Xan Johnson and a second
from Randy Dryer. One abstention.
Consent Calendar:
The current list of appointments and resignations dated August 14, 2017 was approved with a motion by
Katherine Coles and second by Xan Johnson. Motion passed unanimously.
Special Order:
The annual appointments of Paul Mogren as Senate Parliamentarian and Robert Flores as Senate Policy
Liaison for the 2017–2018 year were approved with a motion by Randy Dryer and second by Patricia
Hanna. Motion passed unanimously.
It was announced that Paul Mogren was unable to attend today, and without objection Bob Flores would
serve as substitute Parliamentarian for today’s meeting.
Executive Committee Report
Tom Richmond, as the new President–elect of the Senate and Secretary of the Executive
Committee, gave an update on the activities of the Executive Committee over the summer
months. The Executive Committee met three times over the summer. All items discussed by the
EC will come before the Senate at today’s meeting.
Request for New Business
It was announced that a request for consideration of three resolutions as new business had been
submitted by Sara Simonsen, Nursing, subsequent to the setting of the agenda by the Executive
Committee. These resolutions regarding the new Eccles Institute of Economics and Quantitative
Analysis would be taken up in conjunction with discussion of that item on the Information and
Recommendations Calendar.
Report from Administration:
David Pershing gave a report on the activities of the university’s administration. The U is
working on a new memorandum of understanding with the Huntsman family regarding the
Huntsman Cancer Institute (a subject of discussion at the May meeting of the Senate). They have
been collaborating with internal stakeholders as well of the Board of Trustees, and are grateful
for support of the Huntsman family in the past and moving forward. President Pershing is now
working on legislative requests for the coming legislative session. The top priority request is
compensation; additional priorities include growth funding, workforce needs (areas of campus,
such as nursing, that need additional faculty and support to continue meeting community need),
and performance funding. He noted that the preliminary fall enrollment numbers are in; this
year’s freshman class is approximately 500 students larger than last year’s. It is also one of the
most diverse and academically strong cohorts yet. The U also graduated its largest class ever last
spring. Finally, President Pershing gave an update on the presidential and senior vice president
search processes. The presidential search committee has kicked off and will hold open meetings
on September 11 and 12 on campus. They anticipate an appointment in early 2018. The senior
Approval of Minutes:
The minutes dated May 1, 2017 were approved with a motion from Xan Johnson and a second
from Randy Dryer. One abstention.
Consent Calendar:
The current list of appointments and resignations dated August 14, 2017 was approved with a motion by
Katherine Coles and second by Xan Johnson. Motion passed unanimously.
Special Order:
The annual appointments of Paul Mogren as Senate Parliamentarian and Robert Flores as Senate Policy
Liaison for the 2017–2018 year were approved with a motion by Randy Dryer and second by Patricia
Hanna. Motion passed unanimously.
It was announced that Paul Mogren was unable to attend today, and without objection Bob Flores would
serve as substitute Parliamentarian for today’s meeting.
Executive Committee Report
Tom Richmond, as the new President–elect of the Senate and Secretary of the Executive
Committee, gave an update on the activities of the Executive Committee over the summer
months. The Executive Committee met three times over the summer. All items discussed by the
EC will come before the Senate at today’s meeting.
Request for New Business
It was announced that a request for consideration of three resolutions as new business had been
submitted by Sara Simonsen, Nursing, subsequent to the setting of the agenda by the Executive
Committee. These resolutions regarding the new Eccles Institute of Economics and Quantitative
Analysis would be taken up in conjunction with discussion of that item on the Information and
Recommendations Calendar.
Report from Administration:
David Pershing gave a report on the activities of the university’s administration. The U is
working on a new memorandum of understanding with the Huntsman family regarding the
Huntsman Cancer Institute (a subject of discussion at the May meeting of the Senate). They have
been collaborating with internal stakeholders as well of the Board of Trustees, and are grateful
for support of the Huntsman family in the past and moving forward. President Pershing is now
working on legislative requests for the coming legislative session. The top priority request is
compensation; additional priorities include growth funding, workforce needs (areas of campus,
such as nursing, that need additional faculty and support to continue meeting community need),
and performance funding. He noted that the preliminary fall enrollment numbers are in; this
year’s freshman class is approximately 500 students larger than last year’s. It is also one of the
most diverse and academically strong cohorts yet. The U also graduated its largest class ever last
spring. Finally, President Pershing gave an update on the presidential and senior vice president
search processes. The presidential search committee has kicked off and will hold open meetings
on September 11 and 12 on campus. They anticipate an appointment in early 2018. The senior
vice president of health sciences search is similarly underway; and will be lagged just behind the
presidential search so that the new president makes the final decision on senior vice president
appointment.
Report from ASUU
Zach Berger as the new President of ASUU gave a report on the activities of ASUU. Redfest,
one of the U’s large annual concerts, will be moved from fall semester to spring semester. The
new ASUU administration is hard at work implementing the many legislative changes that were
passed at the end of last year, including the development of college student councils, the scope
and structure of which will be figured out this year. Finally, Zach asked that faculty be cognizant
of student concerns regarding safety on campus. He stressed that ASUU wants all students to
consider the U a safe place and home. He encouraged faculty to help ASUU by keeping them
aware of student concerns. Zach can be reached at zberger@asuu.utah.edu.
Notice of Intent
No items of intent
Debate Calendar
No items of debate
Information and Recommendations Calendar
The following items were presented for the information and recommendations of the Academic
Senate:
The appointments of the chairs of Senate standing committees have been approved by the
Executive Committee.
Margaret Clayton gave an update on the Senate ad hoc Committee on Campus Tobacco
Use, which the Senate authorized to be formed through the May 2017 approval of a
provision regarding the committee specially included in University Rule 3–300A. The
committee has been populated and has started meeting. It has a charge to implement the
rule passed in spring 2017 that will make the U a tobacco–free campus. The committee
will report both to the Senate and Board of Trustees, including a final report in spring
2018. She noted that there will be faculty forums across campus to gain input on
implementation, and that faculty should look out for new signage and communication
campaigns.
Margaret Clayton also discussed progress on the formation of the new Senate ad hoc
committee charged with discussing the functioning and oversight of centers, institutes,
and bureaus. This committee was called into existence by the Senate in May 2017. She
noted that key stakeholder groups, including faculty, administration, and donors, have
been identified and representatives of those groups will be included among those invited
to participate. The outcome of this committee will be the addition/revision of university
policy related to the formation, approval, and oversight of these units. A Senator
presidential search so that the new president makes the final decision on senior vice president
appointment.
Report from ASUU
Zach Berger as the new President of ASUU gave a report on the activities of ASUU. Redfest,
one of the U’s large annual concerts, will be moved from fall semester to spring semester. The
new ASUU administration is hard at work implementing the many legislative changes that were
passed at the end of last year, including the development of college student councils, the scope
and structure of which will be figured out this year. Finally, Zach asked that faculty be cognizant
of student concerns regarding safety on campus. He stressed that ASUU wants all students to
consider the U a safe place and home. He encouraged faculty to help ASUU by keeping them
aware of student concerns. Zach can be reached at zberger@asuu.utah.edu.
Notice of Intent
No items of intent
Debate Calendar
No items of debate
Information and Recommendations Calendar
The following items were presented for the information and recommendations of the Academic
Senate:
The appointments of the chairs of Senate standing committees have been approved by the
Executive Committee.
Margaret Clayton gave an update on the Senate ad hoc Committee on Campus Tobacco
Use, which the Senate authorized to be formed through the May 2017 approval of a
provision regarding the committee specially included in University Rule 3–300A. The
committee has been populated and has started meeting. It has a charge to implement the
rule passed in spring 2017 that will make the U a tobacco–free campus. The committee
will report both to the Senate and Board of Trustees, including a final report in spring
2018. She noted that there will be faculty forums across campus to gain input on
implementation, and that faculty should look out for new signage and communication
campaigns.
Margaret Clayton also discussed progress on the formation of the new Senate ad hoc
committee charged with discussing the functioning and oversight of centers, institutes,
and bureaus. This committee was called into existence by the Senate in May 2017. She
noted that key stakeholder groups, including faculty, administration, and donors, have
been identified and representatives of those groups will be included among those invited
to participate. The outcome of this committee will be the addition/revision of university
policy related to the formation, approval, and oversight of these units. A Senator
suggested that the committee look at peer institutions to see what common or best
practices are.
Amy Wildermuth and Pat Hanna discussed new Information Technology updates. All
faculty websites populated through the Faculty Activity Reporting (FAR) system will be
revamped. Administration is contacting deans to set up times during which faculty
members may have new headshot photos taken for these new pages. The pages should go
live by October 1. Additionally, they noted that the new the Campus Information
Services (CIS) webpages will go live on September 8.
Athletics
o Karen Paisley, Faculty Athletics Representative, gave an overview of the
activities of the Athletics Advisory Council during the 2016–2017 year. The AAC
established three task forces, focusing on gender equity, academic issues, and
transparency. The AAC is working toward improved communication between
athletics and academics. To that end, the committee will be hosting faculty focus
groups across campus this fall, to solicit feedback regarding communication
methods and strategies.
o Harriet Hopf discussed the activities of the new sport working group during the
2016–2017 year. The Group was formed by the University President and charged
with analyzing the process and feasibility for adding a new NCAA Division I
sport in general, and specifically the possibility of adding men’s lacrosse as a
varsity sport at the U. The five conditions the group identified as necessary for
transitioning a club sport to an NCAA varsity sport are: 1) the new sport must
align with mission and vision of the U and Utah athletics; 2) there must be
sustainable and sufficient financial support; 3) there must be no adverse impact on
any other NCAA DI teams, and the new sport must be treated the same as other
sports; 4) there must be no adverse Title IX gender–balance compliance impacts;
and 5) there must be a clear donor agreement, including an explicit agreement that
the donor may not interfere in decisions such as coach hiring. The group met with
multiple stakeholders, including the PAC–12 commissioner, Fred Esplin (VP
institutional advancement), the chief financial officer of Athletics, Chris Hill
(Athletics Director), the potential donor, and the current lacrosse coach. There
was initially skepticism regarding the lacrosse idea; however, the working group
uncovered multiple benefits from adding the new sport: it would be only the third
DI lacrosse team west of the Mississippi (including University of Denver and Air
Force); it would be the first DI lacrosse team in the PAC–12; the PAC–12
commissioner was already interested in adding the sport to the conference; and it
will be an opportunity to recruit more diverse students from areas in which the U
has less recruitment success. The working group recommended adding the new
sport, and the donor is able to provide sufficient and sustainable funding. Thus,
the University President recommended and the Board of Trustees approved the
new sports team, and the first season of the new team will be spring 2019.
o Athletics Director Chris Hill discussed the fiscal year 2017 finances for Athletics.
He discussed the details of some revenue and expense categories that are often
practices are.
Amy Wildermuth and Pat Hanna discussed new Information Technology updates. All
faculty websites populated through the Faculty Activity Reporting (FAR) system will be
revamped. Administration is contacting deans to set up times during which faculty
members may have new headshot photos taken for these new pages. The pages should go
live by October 1. Additionally, they noted that the new the Campus Information
Services (CIS) webpages will go live on September 8.
Athletics
o Karen Paisley, Faculty Athletics Representative, gave an overview of the
activities of the Athletics Advisory Council during the 2016–2017 year. The AAC
established three task forces, focusing on gender equity, academic issues, and
transparency. The AAC is working toward improved communication between
athletics and academics. To that end, the committee will be hosting faculty focus
groups across campus this fall, to solicit feedback regarding communication
methods and strategies.
o Harriet Hopf discussed the activities of the new sport working group during the
2016–2017 year. The Group was formed by the University President and charged
with analyzing the process and feasibility for adding a new NCAA Division I
sport in general, and specifically the possibility of adding men’s lacrosse as a
varsity sport at the U. The five conditions the group identified as necessary for
transitioning a club sport to an NCAA varsity sport are: 1) the new sport must
align with mission and vision of the U and Utah athletics; 2) there must be
sustainable and sufficient financial support; 3) there must be no adverse impact on
any other NCAA DI teams, and the new sport must be treated the same as other
sports; 4) there must be no adverse Title IX gender–balance compliance impacts;
and 5) there must be a clear donor agreement, including an explicit agreement that
the donor may not interfere in decisions such as coach hiring. The group met with
multiple stakeholders, including the PAC–12 commissioner, Fred Esplin (VP
institutional advancement), the chief financial officer of Athletics, Chris Hill
(Athletics Director), the potential donor, and the current lacrosse coach. There
was initially skepticism regarding the lacrosse idea; however, the working group
uncovered multiple benefits from adding the new sport: it would be only the third
DI lacrosse team west of the Mississippi (including University of Denver and Air
Force); it would be the first DI lacrosse team in the PAC–12; the PAC–12
commissioner was already interested in adding the sport to the conference; and it
will be an opportunity to recruit more diverse students from areas in which the U
has less recruitment success. The working group recommended adding the new
sport, and the donor is able to provide sufficient and sustainable funding. Thus,
the University President recommended and the Board of Trustees approved the
new sports team, and the first season of the new team will be spring 2019.
o Athletics Director Chris Hill discussed the fiscal year 2017 finances for Athletics.
He discussed the details of some revenue and expense categories that are often
questioned. The “Miscellaneous” revenue category includes income from hosting
NCAA tournaments, tailgates, ticket fees, and tennis center revenues. The “PAC–
12 Distributions” revenue category includes NCAA basketball monies, bowl
money, and college football playoffs. The “PAC–12 Deductions” expense
category includes monies paid to the conference for our participation in it, money
going to reserves, and fees for officials. The “Consultants” expense category
includes the cafeteria, legal fees, HR fees, and IT fees. The “Miscellaneous”
expense category includes pay for ticket takers and monies for the Athletic
Training Education Program, which provides student athletic trainers for Utah
sports. Chris also discussed the upcoming renovations for Rice–Eccles Stadium.
The south end zone is in bad shape, and is a critical part of the stadium, as it
houses locker rooms and sports medicine facilities. A feasibility study is currently
underway, with a projected completion date of fall 2021. Finally, Chris discussed
the recent legislative audit. The U has made the changes requested by the audit,
and will hear in October if it is in full compliance. He noted that it was a good
opportunity to have a critical analysis of Athletics; considering Athletics is such a
visible part of the university, it is important to be compliant and transparent.
Lauren Clark explained her role as a campus ombud, and the role of the Ombudsmen
Office. There are three campus ombuds– two serve Health Sciences, and one serves main
campus. The Office of the Ombudsmen is a neutral, independent, confidential, and
informal resources for faculty and staff. Ombuds help faculty who are unsure where to
begin to address a problem. They can address policies and procedures that faculty/staff
may be unaware of, and help people who think policies or procedures have been applied
unfairly or inappropriately. Their main roles are to listen, provide information, develop
solutions, and point people to formal services. They can help with conflict resolution and
communication coaching, but do not investigate, initiate formal proceedings, or advocate.
Lauren asked her fellow Senators to help spread the word to their colleagues about this
office and the services it offers. She explained that she is also currently a sitting
Senator—and will be careful to distinguish her roles as a member of the Senate and as an
ombud.
Neil Vickers presented the new anatomy and physiology emphasis for the Biology
BA/BS. It is the fourth emphasis for the Biology degree, joining emphases in cell and
molecular biology, biochemistry, and environmental and organismal biology. 50% of
Biology’s roughly 1,200 undergraduates choose to pursue an emphasis. The pre–existing
emphases align with elements of the biology core curriculum; because there is also a core
requirement for anatomical form and physiological function, it made sense to add such an
emphasis. It is designed to provide guidance to students in achieving in–depth exposure to
elective courses in this area of biology. The department does not anticipate attracting
more students because of the new emphasis, but that the new emphasis is tailored to the
interests of existing students.
Katie Ullman, Associate Dean of the Graduate School, gave an overview of the seven–
year review process. The seven–year reviews of academic units are mandated by the
Board of Regents, and University Policy, and each review provides a snapshot in time of
NCAA tournaments, tailgates, ticket fees, and tennis center revenues. The “PAC–
12 Distributions” revenue category includes NCAA basketball monies, bowl
money, and college football playoffs. The “PAC–12 Deductions” expense
category includes monies paid to the conference for our participation in it, money
going to reserves, and fees for officials. The “Consultants” expense category
includes the cafeteria, legal fees, HR fees, and IT fees. The “Miscellaneous”
expense category includes pay for ticket takers and monies for the Athletic
Training Education Program, which provides student athletic trainers for Utah
sports. Chris also discussed the upcoming renovations for Rice–Eccles Stadium.
The south end zone is in bad shape, and is a critical part of the stadium, as it
houses locker rooms and sports medicine facilities. A feasibility study is currently
underway, with a projected completion date of fall 2021. Finally, Chris discussed
the recent legislative audit. The U has made the changes requested by the audit,
and will hear in October if it is in full compliance. He noted that it was a good
opportunity to have a critical analysis of Athletics; considering Athletics is such a
visible part of the university, it is important to be compliant and transparent.
Lauren Clark explained her role as a campus ombud, and the role of the Ombudsmen
Office. There are three campus ombuds– two serve Health Sciences, and one serves main
campus. The Office of the Ombudsmen is a neutral, independent, confidential, and
informal resources for faculty and staff. Ombuds help faculty who are unsure where to
begin to address a problem. They can address policies and procedures that faculty/staff
may be unaware of, and help people who think policies or procedures have been applied
unfairly or inappropriately. Their main roles are to listen, provide information, develop
solutions, and point people to formal services. They can help with conflict resolution and
communication coaching, but do not investigate, initiate formal proceedings, or advocate.
Lauren asked her fellow Senators to help spread the word to their colleagues about this
office and the services it offers. She explained that she is also currently a sitting
Senator—and will be careful to distinguish her roles as a member of the Senate and as an
ombud.
Neil Vickers presented the new anatomy and physiology emphasis for the Biology
BA/BS. It is the fourth emphasis for the Biology degree, joining emphases in cell and
molecular biology, biochemistry, and environmental and organismal biology. 50% of
Biology’s roughly 1,200 undergraduates choose to pursue an emphasis. The pre–existing
emphases align with elements of the biology core curriculum; because there is also a core
requirement for anatomical form and physiological function, it made sense to add such an
emphasis. It is designed to provide guidance to students in achieving in–depth exposure to
elective courses in this area of biology. The department does not anticipate attracting
more students because of the new emphasis, but that the new emphasis is tailored to the
interests of existing students.
Katie Ullman, Associate Dean of the Graduate School, gave an overview of the seven–
year review process. The seven–year reviews of academic units are mandated by the
Board of Regents, and University Policy, and each review provides a snapshot in time of
a specific program or department. There are many forms of input into the process,
including external experts, internal reviews, departmental self–study, and feedback from
chair and dean. This information then goes to the Graduate Council, which synthesizes
the information and writes a final report. The report contains commendations and
recommendations, and is used as a template for the development of a memorandum of
understanding between the cognizant senior vice president, department chair, college
dean, and dean and associate dean of the Graduate School. The final report then is
submitted to the Senate for its Information and Recommendations. Departments then use
the MOUs as a strategic planning tool. The seven–year reviews of Biology, Family &
Consumer Studies, Metallurgical Engineering, and Theatre were presented and accepted
today.
Bob Flores gave a brief overview of changes to Policy 3–300. The changes are not
academically significant and therefore the Executive Committee placed this item on the
Information and Recommendations Calendar rather than the Debate Calendar; they
primarily involve changing the name of the Radiological Health Department to Radiation
Safety.
The charter for the College Council of the College of Social and Behavioral Science has
received the required final approval of the Executive Committee..
Dean Taylor Randall, of the David Eccles School of Business, presented information
regarding the new Eccles Institute of Economics and Quantitative Analysis, which has
been provisionally approved by the Board of Trustees. The mission of the new institute is
to push the frontiers of economic thought through economic research, and enhance and
complement the existing economic education at the U. The institute will have a specific
emphasis on quantitative methods, including game theory and econometric analysis. The
goals of the institute include: 1) developing faculty focused on business economics within
the business school; 2) assisting in the development of the new QAMO major
(Quantitative Analysis of Markets and Organizations), approved by Senate last academic
year; and 3) creating a collaborative interdisciplinary research institute in which many
colleges will participate. Funding for the institute comes from the George S. and Dolores
Doré Eccles Foundation, Marriner Eccles Foundation, and the Charles Koch Foundation.
The David Eccles School of Business (DESB) followed university procedures for
establishing the institute, getting provisional approval, and accepting the financial gifts.
Dean Randall noted that DESB initially had concerns regarding the acceptance of a
donation from the Charles Koch Foundation. However, it was clear to the DESB that the
institute was an Eccles–led initiative, designed to honor the legacy of Marriner S. Eccles.
The U and the DESB have confidence in the Eccles foundations. Additionally, the DESB
examined past gifts from the Charles Koch Foundation, and ensured that the contract for
donation to this institute did not include language that would allow Koch Foundation
influence over faculty hiring. Dean Randall stated that hiring will follow standard
university procedures for faculty and fellows. More specifically, the Finance department
of the DESB will oversee all hiring; the institute itself will not be able to hire. Dean
Randall and the DESB also participated in significant collaborations with the Senate
Executive Committee, leading to the changing of the institute name (adding “Quantitative
including external experts, internal reviews, departmental self–study, and feedback from
chair and dean. This information then goes to the Graduate Council, which synthesizes
the information and writes a final report. The report contains commendations and
recommendations, and is used as a template for the development of a memorandum of
understanding between the cognizant senior vice president, department chair, college
dean, and dean and associate dean of the Graduate School. The final report then is
submitted to the Senate for its Information and Recommendations. Departments then use
the MOUs as a strategic planning tool. The seven–year reviews of Biology, Family &
Consumer Studies, Metallurgical Engineering, and Theatre were presented and accepted
today.
Bob Flores gave a brief overview of changes to Policy 3–300. The changes are not
academically significant and therefore the Executive Committee placed this item on the
Information and Recommendations Calendar rather than the Debate Calendar; they
primarily involve changing the name of the Radiological Health Department to Radiation
Safety.
The charter for the College Council of the College of Social and Behavioral Science has
received the required final approval of the Executive Committee..
Dean Taylor Randall, of the David Eccles School of Business, presented information
regarding the new Eccles Institute of Economics and Quantitative Analysis, which has
been provisionally approved by the Board of Trustees. The mission of the new institute is
to push the frontiers of economic thought through economic research, and enhance and
complement the existing economic education at the U. The institute will have a specific
emphasis on quantitative methods, including game theory and econometric analysis. The
goals of the institute include: 1) developing faculty focused on business economics within
the business school; 2) assisting in the development of the new QAMO major
(Quantitative Analysis of Markets and Organizations), approved by Senate last academic
year; and 3) creating a collaborative interdisciplinary research institute in which many
colleges will participate. Funding for the institute comes from the George S. and Dolores
Doré Eccles Foundation, Marriner Eccles Foundation, and the Charles Koch Foundation.
The David Eccles School of Business (DESB) followed university procedures for
establishing the institute, getting provisional approval, and accepting the financial gifts.
Dean Randall noted that DESB initially had concerns regarding the acceptance of a
donation from the Charles Koch Foundation. However, it was clear to the DESB that the
institute was an Eccles–led initiative, designed to honor the legacy of Marriner S. Eccles.
The U and the DESB have confidence in the Eccles foundations. Additionally, the DESB
examined past gifts from the Charles Koch Foundation, and ensured that the contract for
donation to this institute did not include language that would allow Koch Foundation
influence over faculty hiring. Dean Randall stated that hiring will follow standard
university procedures for faculty and fellows. More specifically, the Finance department
of the DESB will oversee all hiring; the institute itself will not be able to hire. Dean
Randall and the DESB also participated in significant collaborations with the Senate
Executive Committee, leading to the changing of the institute name (adding “Quantitative
Analysis”) and creation of a faculty advisory board to oversee the institute. The advisory
board will be comprised of DESB faculty, as well as one faculty member from another
college. Dean Randall also addressed the concern that the yearly evaluation as part of the
eight–year funding agreement might exact leverage over the U. Dean Randall stated that,
as confirmed by Eccles representatives, the disbursement of funding or lack thereof from
the Koch Foundation will not affect the disbursement of funding from the Eccles
foundations in any way. Additionally, due to the DESB’s differential tuition, it will
shortly generate enough funding from the QAMO major to support all faculty hires
initiated by the Koch funding, such that, if either the U or the Koch Foundation decided
to back out of the funding agreement, the DESB would be able to support these faculty
moving forward. (Regarding the interim period before the QAMO major generates
sufficient funding, the DESB has reserves upon which it may fall back). Finally, Dean
Randall assured the Senate that the DESB would walk away from this agreement if they
were asked to compromise academic freedom. Adam Meirowitz, the director of the new
institute, spoke regarding the multiple conversations that the DESB had with colleagues
regarding Koch funding, and stated that the stories presented in the media about undue
influence over faculty hiring have not been the experience of colleagues at other
institutions. He also noted that Marriner Eccles and Charles Koch have disparate
ideological views, which means that, for the purposes of this institute, a broad variety of
research may be conducted and a broad variety of faculty may be hired, which is
beneficial for academic rigor.
Discussion of the Eccles Institute and related issues then continued, beginning with a
series of presenters previously scheduled by the Senate President, and then open to
speakers from the floor.
Dean Cindy Berg, of the College of Social and Behavioral Science raised three primary
concerns. First, the process for setting up this provisional institute seemed quite rushed,
allegedly accelerated due to the donors’ interest in starting this institute quickly, but she
stated that donor conversations had been ongoing for some time. She also raised concerns
that Dean David Kieda of the Graduate School did not have feedback from the Senate
Executive Committee prior to approving the proposal for provisional status, and that the
creation of the institute was announced in the media prior to final provisional approval by
the Board of Trustees. Second, she brought up the issue of potential duplication of
services and mission between the new institute and the existing department of Economics
which is within the College of Social and Behavioral Science. She said that she
appreciated changing the name of the institute in an effort to distinguish it from the
Economics department, but that confusion still exists and students have been questioning
the continued existence of programs within the department of Economics. She also noted
that the long–term vision for the institute is to develop a new department, which will raise
these concerns again; there are scarce resources that could be put to greater use instead of
duplicating services. Third, she said that there are reasons to be cautious about accepting
Koch Foundation involvement, and that it will be important to select faculty carefully to
board will be comprised of DESB faculty, as well as one faculty member from another
college. Dean Randall also addressed the concern that the yearly evaluation as part of the
eight–year funding agreement might exact leverage over the U. Dean Randall stated that,
as confirmed by Eccles representatives, the disbursement of funding or lack thereof from
the Koch Foundation will not affect the disbursement of funding from the Eccles
foundations in any way. Additionally, due to the DESB’s differential tuition, it will
shortly generate enough funding from the QAMO major to support all faculty hires
initiated by the Koch funding, such that, if either the U or the Koch Foundation decided
to back out of the funding agreement, the DESB would be able to support these faculty
moving forward. (Regarding the interim period before the QAMO major generates
sufficient funding, the DESB has reserves upon which it may fall back). Finally, Dean
Randall assured the Senate that the DESB would walk away from this agreement if they
were asked to compromise academic freedom. Adam Meirowitz, the director of the new
institute, spoke regarding the multiple conversations that the DESB had with colleagues
regarding Koch funding, and stated that the stories presented in the media about undue
influence over faculty hiring have not been the experience of colleagues at other
institutions. He also noted that Marriner Eccles and Charles Koch have disparate
ideological views, which means that, for the purposes of this institute, a broad variety of
research may be conducted and a broad variety of faculty may be hired, which is
beneficial for academic rigor.
Discussion of the Eccles Institute and related issues then continued, beginning with a
series of presenters previously scheduled by the Senate President, and then open to
speakers from the floor.
Dean Cindy Berg, of the College of Social and Behavioral Science raised three primary
concerns. First, the process for setting up this provisional institute seemed quite rushed,
allegedly accelerated due to the donors’ interest in starting this institute quickly, but she
stated that donor conversations had been ongoing for some time. She also raised concerns
that Dean David Kieda of the Graduate School did not have feedback from the Senate
Executive Committee prior to approving the proposal for provisional status, and that the
creation of the institute was announced in the media prior to final provisional approval by
the Board of Trustees. Second, she brought up the issue of potential duplication of
services and mission between the new institute and the existing department of Economics
which is within the College of Social and Behavioral Science. She said that she
appreciated changing the name of the institute in an effort to distinguish it from the
Economics department, but that confusion still exists and students have been questioning
the continued existence of programs within the department of Economics. She also noted
that the long–term vision for the institute is to develop a new department, which will raise
these concerns again; there are scarce resources that could be put to greater use instead of
duplicating services. Third, she said that there are reasons to be cautious about accepting
Koch Foundation involvement, and that it will be important to select faculty carefully to
sit on advisory boards and hiring committees. She concluded by stating that the new
Senate ad hoc committee on centers, institutes, and bureaus should have oversight over
these provisionally approved units.
Mark Button, chair of the department of Political Science, spoke regarding the institute.
Dr. Button wrote a statement of concern that garnered the signatures of 194 members of
the academic community regarding the role of the Koch Foundation in this institute, and
it was circulated to the Senate members. A primary concern is in regards to independent
faculty governance and faculty freedom. He stated that, although it would be in violation
of those principles to oppose a grant agreement based on the political or philosophical
views of the donor, he has significant concerns regarding this particular foundation’s
pattern of interfering with the conduct of faculty governance and the meaningful exercise
of faculty freedom. Such concerns prompted faculty at multiple other universities to take
steps to prohibit Koch foundation funding on their campuses. Dr. Button said he has
spoken with colleagues at peer institutions that have received Koch Foundation money,
and although their grant agreements contained same language as the U’s regarding
academic freedom and adherence to standard university procedures for selecting faculty,
in practice, the donors played a key role in appointing and/or screening faculty in order to
promote a particular political agenda. For example, at one PAC–12 institution, a list of
candidates for a Koch–funded position was vetted by Koch representatives, unbeknownst
to the search committee. At another PAC–12 institution, an open search was not
conducted; instead, a preapproved list of candidates was given to the search committee
chair at the start of the process by the director of the Koch–funded institute. His primary
concern is that the donor will exert undue influence. Additionally, he is concerned that
the U will follow the pattern that has emerged at other institutions, where students have
begun sorting themselves into academic programs that align with their preexisting
political or philosophical beliefs. He urged the Senate to apply new mechanisms for
governance and review to all new centers, institutes, and bureaus, and asked whether
there would be a role for the Vice President for Research office and the Office of
Sponsored Projects.
Paul Cassell, distinguished professor of law, spoke regarding the institute. He believes
there are false assumptions in Dr. Button’s statement of concern. First, he noted that Dr.
Button’s assertion that the Koch Foundation has a “specific public policy agenda” does
not warrant concern, as the U accepts donations from numerous other foundations, such
as the Nature Conservancy, the MacArthur Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, that all have
policy agendas that are openly articulated. Second, he responded to the assertion that this
grant agreement does not provide for academic freedom. He noted that it is commonplace
for grant agreements to come with stipulations that funds will be paid out over several
years, that annual reports are required, or that each year’s gift is predicated upon the
receipt of that year’s report. Thus, the structure of this grant agreement is not unusual.
He asserted that a foundation may always choose to discontinue its funding; such is the
Senate ad hoc committee on centers, institutes, and bureaus should have oversight over
these provisionally approved units.
Mark Button, chair of the department of Political Science, spoke regarding the institute.
Dr. Button wrote a statement of concern that garnered the signatures of 194 members of
the academic community regarding the role of the Koch Foundation in this institute, and
it was circulated to the Senate members. A primary concern is in regards to independent
faculty governance and faculty freedom. He stated that, although it would be in violation
of those principles to oppose a grant agreement based on the political or philosophical
views of the donor, he has significant concerns regarding this particular foundation’s
pattern of interfering with the conduct of faculty governance and the meaningful exercise
of faculty freedom. Such concerns prompted faculty at multiple other universities to take
steps to prohibit Koch foundation funding on their campuses. Dr. Button said he has
spoken with colleagues at peer institutions that have received Koch Foundation money,
and although their grant agreements contained same language as the U’s regarding
academic freedom and adherence to standard university procedures for selecting faculty,
in practice, the donors played a key role in appointing and/or screening faculty in order to
promote a particular political agenda. For example, at one PAC–12 institution, a list of
candidates for a Koch–funded position was vetted by Koch representatives, unbeknownst
to the search committee. At another PAC–12 institution, an open search was not
conducted; instead, a preapproved list of candidates was given to the search committee
chair at the start of the process by the director of the Koch–funded institute. His primary
concern is that the donor will exert undue influence. Additionally, he is concerned that
the U will follow the pattern that has emerged at other institutions, where students have
begun sorting themselves into academic programs that align with their preexisting
political or philosophical beliefs. He urged the Senate to apply new mechanisms for
governance and review to all new centers, institutes, and bureaus, and asked whether
there would be a role for the Vice President for Research office and the Office of
Sponsored Projects.
Paul Cassell, distinguished professor of law, spoke regarding the institute. He believes
there are false assumptions in Dr. Button’s statement of concern. First, he noted that Dr.
Button’s assertion that the Koch Foundation has a “specific public policy agenda” does
not warrant concern, as the U accepts donations from numerous other foundations, such
as the Nature Conservancy, the MacArthur Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, that all have
policy agendas that are openly articulated. Second, he responded to the assertion that this
grant agreement does not provide for academic freedom. He noted that it is commonplace
for grant agreements to come with stipulations that funds will be paid out over several
years, that annual reports are required, or that each year’s gift is predicated upon the
receipt of that year’s report. Thus, the structure of this grant agreement is not unusual.
He asserted that a foundation may always choose to discontinue its funding; such is the
price we pay for academic freedom. He argued against the idea that the creation of this
institute is a threat to long–term viability of the Economics department, and noted that
many other institutions offer economics–related coursework in multiple units across
campus. He mentioned a concern that there is a bias against conservative views at the
University generally, and particularly that conservative students feel unable to share their
views in class, due to overwhelming liberal ideology on campus. He concluded with the
question, would there be equal concern if the foundation was liberal instead of
conservative? In his view, this lack of diversity would constitute a greater threat to
academic freedom.
Senate President Clayton opened for discussion from the floor. Without objection she
outlined a structure for the discussion, to facilitate inclusion of all points of view within
the remaining time of the meeting. Three discussion items regarding the institute, which
had been earlier submitted as New Business and referred to as “resolutions” were
included in this open discussion.
Multiple senators and guests spoke regarding the institute and the process by which it has
been provisionally established. Senator Julio Facelli stated that he felt this provisional
approval demonstrated a lack of transparency, and that the approval was rushed through.
Peter Philips, professor of Economics, noted that tenure–track faculty hires commit the
university to a long period of funding. Although the DESB has a fallback position to fund
positions from differential tuition from the QAMO major, he worries that the risk will be
shared more broadly by economics department, in that the DESB will have an incentive
to increase its QAMO major and draw students away from the Economics department. It
might also give the DESB an incentive to broaden the QAMO major to fund its faculty
hires. Senator Sarah Hinners suggested that the organizational structure for the institute
take into account a broader set of faculty than just DESB faculty, particularly in
collaboration with the Economics department. Gabriel, an Economics student, asked
whether other foundations similarly compromise academic freedom, and challenged Paul
Cassell’s assertion that conservative students feel unable to share their views in class, due
to overwhelming liberal ideology on campus. Senator Todd Zenger spoke in support of
the first resolution; he agrees with the suggestions to tighten oversight and vet proposals
better prior to approval. However, he disagrees with the second and third resolutions, and
did not think they made sense from a governance perspective.
At the request of the Senate President, Dean David Kieda of the Graduate School
provided a description of the existing University approval process for centers, institutes,
and bureaus. He said that a committee was formed a few years ago to help establish
processes for approval and changes regarding centers, institutes, and bureaus; there was
no formal process prior to that, nor had a complete inventory of all such units been
completed. If there is a large unit that reports to an independent agency (i.e. NSF,
American Cancer Society), it is exempt from the review process. In the case of this
institute and its provisional approval, standard procedure was followed for this institute,
and all requirements were met/addressed prior to his signing off, including the Executive
institute is a threat to long–term viability of the Economics department, and noted that
many other institutions offer economics–related coursework in multiple units across
campus. He mentioned a concern that there is a bias against conservative views at the
University generally, and particularly that conservative students feel unable to share their
views in class, due to overwhelming liberal ideology on campus. He concluded with the
question, would there be equal concern if the foundation was liberal instead of
conservative? In his view, this lack of diversity would constitute a greater threat to
academic freedom.
Senate President Clayton opened for discussion from the floor. Without objection she
outlined a structure for the discussion, to facilitate inclusion of all points of view within
the remaining time of the meeting. Three discussion items regarding the institute, which
had been earlier submitted as New Business and referred to as “resolutions” were
included in this open discussion.
Multiple senators and guests spoke regarding the institute and the process by which it has
been provisionally established. Senator Julio Facelli stated that he felt this provisional
approval demonstrated a lack of transparency, and that the approval was rushed through.
Peter Philips, professor of Economics, noted that tenure–track faculty hires commit the
university to a long period of funding. Although the DESB has a fallback position to fund
positions from differential tuition from the QAMO major, he worries that the risk will be
shared more broadly by economics department, in that the DESB will have an incentive
to increase its QAMO major and draw students away from the Economics department. It
might also give the DESB an incentive to broaden the QAMO major to fund its faculty
hires. Senator Sarah Hinners suggested that the organizational structure for the institute
take into account a broader set of faculty than just DESB faculty, particularly in
collaboration with the Economics department. Gabriel, an Economics student, asked
whether other foundations similarly compromise academic freedom, and challenged Paul
Cassell’s assertion that conservative students feel unable to share their views in class, due
to overwhelming liberal ideology on campus. Senator Todd Zenger spoke in support of
the first resolution; he agrees with the suggestions to tighten oversight and vet proposals
better prior to approval. However, he disagrees with the second and third resolutions, and
did not think they made sense from a governance perspective.
At the request of the Senate President, Dean David Kieda of the Graduate School
provided a description of the existing University approval process for centers, institutes,
and bureaus. He said that a committee was formed a few years ago to help establish
processes for approval and changes regarding centers, institutes, and bureaus; there was
no formal process prior to that, nor had a complete inventory of all such units been
completed. If there is a large unit that reports to an independent agency (i.e. NSF,
American Cancer Society), it is exempt from the review process. In the case of this
institute and its provisional approval, standard procedure was followed for this institute,
and all requirements were met/addressed prior to his signing off, including the Executive
Committee being consulted twice. Criteria that he looks for prior to signing off include
evidence of faculty governance, faculty independence, a mission plan, an exit plan, and
that there is no academic content in the center (i.e. it cannot offer classes).
Senator Debra Simmons stated that, considering there was a Senate resolution on
divestment, which has an ideological basis, the Senate should not shy away from
ideologically–driven resolutions regarding funding. Senator Katharine Coles urged
caution regarding how donations may influence the academic freedom of a department.
She noted that the department of English took donations to establish a chair named for
LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley. She stated that their grant agreement assured
freedom to hire; however, the dean later indicated that decisions made by the faculty
hiring committee were not acceptable. She urged the DESB to ensure that people above
the department level are not influencing departmental decisions. She also noted that she
does not see a problem with multiple units teaching economics and using that title. Norm
Waitzman, chair of the department of Economics, stated his support of all three
resolutions. He warned that an institutional culture is sure to develop, and that we should
take safeguards and cautions regarding ideological influence. He also stated that this
provisional approval violates the tradition of provisional status at the U. Joe Andrade
former dean of the College of Engineering at the U, questioned why the process was so
rushed, and wondered whether the funding would be affected when Charles Koch dies.
He asked that the DESB consider the issue of Charles Koch’s legacy, as Koch is of
advanced age. Senator Sharon Mastracci asked about the difference between a grant
agreement and a gift agreement. Vice President for Institutional Advancement Fred
Esplin responded to that question and stated that a grant is more like a contract, with
deliverables returned, while a gift typically does not come with the same requirements.
He stated that the funding from the Koch Foundation is a gift, according to U policy.
Discussion turned to consideration of the three items described as “resolutions”
introduced by Senator Sara Simonsen, as New Business.
The first item involved the new Senate ad hoc committee on centers, institutes, and
bureaus, which was previously authorized at the May meeting with a charge to “examine
University policies and practices regarding the governance structure of such institutes and
centers, and to present to the Senate within the 2017–2018 academic year a report and
recommendations for possible clarification or modification of those policies and practices.” The
first item was a proposal to expand that charge “with the responsibility of reviewing and
recommending revisions to policy and guidelines regarding establishment” of such entities with
provisional status and, “until such revisions are in place, consultation be undertaken with this
Committee and approval be obtained by the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate for
CIBs.” Kathleen Nicoll, Joanne Yaffe, David Goldenberg, Shundana Yusaf, Jim Martin, and
Amnon Schlegel had indicated support for the proposal. Motion for approval was made by
Randy Dryer, seconded by Joanne Yaffe. Motion passed.
The second item would require provisional centers, institutes, and bureaus with agreements that
exceed $500,000 annually to be formally reviewed by an Academic Senate committee during
evidence of faculty governance, faculty independence, a mission plan, an exit plan, and
that there is no academic content in the center (i.e. it cannot offer classes).
Senator Debra Simmons stated that, considering there was a Senate resolution on
divestment, which has an ideological basis, the Senate should not shy away from
ideologically–driven resolutions regarding funding. Senator Katharine Coles urged
caution regarding how donations may influence the academic freedom of a department.
She noted that the department of English took donations to establish a chair named for
LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley. She stated that their grant agreement assured
freedom to hire; however, the dean later indicated that decisions made by the faculty
hiring committee were not acceptable. She urged the DESB to ensure that people above
the department level are not influencing departmental decisions. She also noted that she
does not see a problem with multiple units teaching economics and using that title. Norm
Waitzman, chair of the department of Economics, stated his support of all three
resolutions. He warned that an institutional culture is sure to develop, and that we should
take safeguards and cautions regarding ideological influence. He also stated that this
provisional approval violates the tradition of provisional status at the U. Joe Andrade
former dean of the College of Engineering at the U, questioned why the process was so
rushed, and wondered whether the funding would be affected when Charles Koch dies.
He asked that the DESB consider the issue of Charles Koch’s legacy, as Koch is of
advanced age. Senator Sharon Mastracci asked about the difference between a grant
agreement and a gift agreement. Vice President for Institutional Advancement Fred
Esplin responded to that question and stated that a grant is more like a contract, with
deliverables returned, while a gift typically does not come with the same requirements.
He stated that the funding from the Koch Foundation is a gift, according to U policy.
Discussion turned to consideration of the three items described as “resolutions”
introduced by Senator Sara Simonsen, as New Business.
The first item involved the new Senate ad hoc committee on centers, institutes, and
bureaus, which was previously authorized at the May meeting with a charge to “examine
University policies and practices regarding the governance structure of such institutes and
centers, and to present to the Senate within the 2017–2018 academic year a report and
recommendations for possible clarification or modification of those policies and practices.” The
first item was a proposal to expand that charge “with the responsibility of reviewing and
recommending revisions to policy and guidelines regarding establishment” of such entities with
provisional status and, “until such revisions are in place, consultation be undertaken with this
Committee and approval be obtained by the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate for
CIBs.” Kathleen Nicoll, Joanne Yaffe, David Goldenberg, Shundana Yusaf, Jim Martin, and
Amnon Schlegel had indicated support for the proposal. Motion for approval was made by
Randy Dryer, seconded by Joanne Yaffe. Motion passed.
The second item would require provisional centers, institutes, and bureaus with agreements that
exceed $500,000 annually to be formally reviewed by an Academic Senate committee during
their provisional approval period, to determine whether “the principles of academic freedom are
being preserved.” Kathleen Nicoll, Joanne Yaffe, David Goldenberg, Shundana Yusaf, Jim
Martin, and Amnon Schlegel had indicated support for the proposal. It was noted that the usual
end time for the meeting had already passed, and some senators were already leaving the room
so that a quorum might be lost, and a reminder was given that any business not addressed today
might be appropriately taken up at the next monthly meeting.
Multiple motions not in clear form were made amidst substantial crowd noise, and the Senate
President and substitute Parliamentarian for the meeting conferred on how to categorize the
motions and manage the remainder of the meeting. It was determined that a motion (made by Jo
Yaffe and seconded by [unclear] would be treated as a formal “motion for the previous question”
(sometimes informally referred to as “calling the question”), which if approved by a two–thirds
majority would have the effect of ending debate and proceeding immediately to a vote on the
merits of the proposal. And it was determined that a motion (made by Randy Dryer and
seconded by Pat Hanna), which mentioned both “to table” and “to postpone” would be treated as
a formal motion to “Postpone to a Certain Time”—which if approved by a simple majority
would have the effect of postponing further discussion to the next regular meeting. Given the
lateness of the hour, number of senators leaving, and possible lack of quorum, it was announced
that a vote would be held on the motion to postpone to the next regular meeting. That motion
passed (and no vote was held on the other motion for the previous question).
Attention turned to the third item introduced by Sara Simonsen, which would encourage the
College of Social and Behavioral Science and the David Eccles School of Business to “engage
immediately in ongoing dialogue over programmatic articulation that minimizes duplication with
established programs and curriculum in Economics.” Kathleen Nicoll, Joanne Yaffe, David
Goldenberg, Shundana Yusaf, Jim Martin, and Amnon Schlegel had indicated support for this.
Bob Allen pointed out that he and other senators had not had sufficient opportunity to read and
carefully consider the item. Motion was made (by Bob Allen and seconded by Sarah Hinners),
which the Parliamentarian determined was to be treated as a formal motion to “postpone to a
time certain—the next regular meeting.” Motion passed.
Written statements from Dr. Cindy Berg, Dr. Mark Button, and Paul Cassell, as well as the
statement issued by the Eccles Foundations, were uploaded to the Senate Canvas site.
Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 5:25 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Maddy Oritt
being preserved.” Kathleen Nicoll, Joanne Yaffe, David Goldenberg, Shundana Yusaf, Jim
Martin, and Amnon Schlegel had indicated support for the proposal. It was noted that the usual
end time for the meeting had already passed, and some senators were already leaving the room
so that a quorum might be lost, and a reminder was given that any business not addressed today
might be appropriately taken up at the next monthly meeting.
Multiple motions not in clear form were made amidst substantial crowd noise, and the Senate
President and substitute Parliamentarian for the meeting conferred on how to categorize the
motions and manage the remainder of the meeting. It was determined that a motion (made by Jo
Yaffe and seconded by [unclear] would be treated as a formal “motion for the previous question”
(sometimes informally referred to as “calling the question”), which if approved by a two–thirds
majority would have the effect of ending debate and proceeding immediately to a vote on the
merits of the proposal. And it was determined that a motion (made by Randy Dryer and
seconded by Pat Hanna), which mentioned both “to table” and “to postpone” would be treated as
a formal motion to “Postpone to a Certain Time”—which if approved by a simple majority
would have the effect of postponing further discussion to the next regular meeting. Given the
lateness of the hour, number of senators leaving, and possible lack of quorum, it was announced
that a vote would be held on the motion to postpone to the next regular meeting. That motion
passed (and no vote was held on the other motion for the previous question).
Attention turned to the third item introduced by Sara Simonsen, which would encourage the
College of Social and Behavioral Science and the David Eccles School of Business to “engage
immediately in ongoing dialogue over programmatic articulation that minimizes duplication with
established programs and curriculum in Economics.” Kathleen Nicoll, Joanne Yaffe, David
Goldenberg, Shundana Yusaf, Jim Martin, and Amnon Schlegel had indicated support for this.
Bob Allen pointed out that he and other senators had not had sufficient opportunity to read and
carefully consider the item. Motion was made (by Bob Allen and seconded by Sarah Hinners),
which the Parliamentarian determined was to be treated as a formal motion to “postpone to a
time certain—the next regular meeting.” Motion passed.
Written statements from Dr. Cindy Berg, Dr. Mark Button, and Paul Cassell, as well as the
statement issued by the Eccles Foundations, were uploaded to the Senate Canvas site.
Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 5:25 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Maddy Oritt