August 28, 2017

Aug 28 2017
View Agenda

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 BayrakToydemir, 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 BarkmeierKraemer, 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 ShumakerParry, Gunseli Berik, Sheila Crowell, Korkut Erturk, Sharon Mastracci, Winston Kyan, Kim Korinek, Kathleen Nicoll, Duncan Metcalfe, Zhou Yu, Jason Castillo, Mary Beth VogelFerguson, 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 20172018 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 Presidentelect 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 todays 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 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 3300A. 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 tobaccofree 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 20162017 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 20162017 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 genderbalance 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 PAC12 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 PAC12; the PAC12 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 “PAC12 Distributions” revenue category includes NCAA basketball monies, bowl money, and college football playoffs. The PAC12 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 “Miscellaneousexpense 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 RiceEccles 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 Senatorand 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 preexisting 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 indepth 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 sevenyear review process. The sevenyear 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 selfstudy, 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 sevenyear 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 3300. 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 Ecclesled 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 eightyear 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 longterm 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 PAC12 institution, a list of candidates for a Kochfunded position was vetted by Koch representatives, unbeknownst to the search committee. At another PAC12 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 Kochfunded 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 longterm viability of the Economics department, and noted that many other institutions offer economicsrelated 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 tenuretrack 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 ideologicallydriven 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 20172018 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 twothirds 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 certainthe 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