ATTENDEES:Andersen, Collins, Ganesh, Jesudason, Martins, McKinnon, Mishra, Petr, Vincent, and Walls

APOLOGIES: Dagdelen, Mooney, and Romberger

GUESTS: Arthur Sacks - Associate Vice President for Academic and Faculty Affairs, Lara Medley - Registrar, and Regina Hutchings - ASCSM Undergraduate Student Representative

Mishra, Senate President, called the meeting to order and welcomed the guests.

COMMENTS FROM GUESTS:

1. Arthur Sacks informed the Senate that the Reorganization Task Committee has formed a sub-committee of faculty members to look at academic reorganization. Feedback to this sub-committee will be through liaisons. Mishra is the Senate's liaison.

2. Regina Hutchings announced that a bill will be introduced by ASCSM to retain the revised reorganization of ASCSM.

   ASCSM was happy to hear that PRGs were not being changed.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The February 6, 2007 Faculty Senate Minutes were approved.

OLD BUSINESS:

1. Senate Retreat - Mishra announced the Senate retreat will be March 30, 2007 from 8:00 am to 1:00 pm in Hill Hall room 300. A continental breakfast and lunch will be served. The Senate Executive Committee established the following agenda for the retreat: (1) functioning of the faculty Senate itself to include bylaw "clean-up" to reflect current Senate operating procedure; (2) the distributive core curriculum; and (3) the Senate's position on reorganization models.

2. March Faculty Forum - The Senators requested Mishra to ask Governor Ritter to address the Faculty when he is on campus in March. The date of the March Faculty Forum will be adjusted to meet the Governor's schedule.

NEW BUSINESS:

1. Honesty Policy - The Senators requested Jesudason to have the Undergraduate Council consider moving the undergraduate honesty policy as stated in the Brunton to the Undergraduate Bulletin. If a student transfers into CSM, he/she does not take CSM 101 and therefore does not know about the Brunton and this policy. Also is the Brunton a binding legal document for undergraduate students?

2. Committee Vacancies - The Senate asked Andersen to check with the President's Office for vacancies on University Committees next fall.

COMMITTEE UPDATES:

1. Senate Committees
   
   1. Academic Standards and Policies - Mooney submitted the following written report:
      

      Committee Report: Academic Standards and Policies

      Submitted by: Mike Mooney

      Date: January 20, 2007

      Attendees: Sumit Agarwal, Fred Sarazin, Ray Zhang, Harold Cheuvront (ex officio), Mike Mooney

      We considered a request to develop and implement a final exam policy (attached). The request was largely rooted in problems with absences during Saturday final exams, and the consequential hardship of scheduling makeup final exams. Thus, the request was to treat Saturday the same as Monday through Thursday of finals week.

      There is no institutional policy specifically addressing final exam attendance on any day - Monday through Thursday or otherwise. Therefore, to develop an institutional policy regarding Saturday finals would require a policy for all final exams. Further, if such a policy were to be developed, a strong argument could be made to cover attendance for all exams.

      We do not feel it is necessary to develop an institutional policy with stipulations, including guidelines on exceptions, for final exam attendance. The current undergraduate bulletin's broad language on absenteeism covers all exams. The bulletin states "Class attendance is required for all undergraduates unless the student is representing the school in an authorized activity". The bulletin goes on to describe excused absences, the consequences of absences, and who has the authority to determine excessive absence (with each department).

      To curtail absenteeism on Saturday exams, we recommend that instructors explicitly discuss grading consequences in course syllabi and during class, and that the Registrar include final exam hours in the printed course schedules. Currently, the bulletin lists the days and dates only.

      The committee also discussed the root of the requested final exam policy, i.e., the need for Saturday final exams. The increase in Saturday exams is related to the recent effort to eliminate final exams on Thursdays in order to maintain the tradition of awarding graduating seniors and graduate students their metal diplomas during Friday's commencement. According to the Registrar, there was only one final exam on Thursday during the Fall 2006 and plans are in place to eliminate, if possible, Thursday exams for Spring 2007.

      We recommend that the Undergraduate Council revisit the final exam scheduling, giving particular attention to the need for Saturday final exams. Per current practice, it appears final exams can be accommodated over four days. Logistically, this could be accomplished from Monday through Thursday of finals week. It appears that common exams might need to be revisited for smaller blocks. The untenable time crunch on Thursday could be alleviated by offering only 100, 200 and some 300 level final exams on Thursday or by loosening the policy on providing metal certificates to all graduates during commencement (most universities send diplomas after commencement). We recommend that the Undergraduate Council weigh the benefit of providing students their metal diplomas during commencement to the costs required to do so, i.e., elimination of Thursday exams, introduction of Saturday exams, reduced dead period, required faculty/staff work on Saturdays, pressures on the Registrar and faculty grading for graduating seniors.

      The Senators requested Jesudason to have the Undergraduate Council look at the issues surrounding metal diplomas for undergraduates at commencements and report back to the Senate on the Undergraduate Council's decision.

   2. Sports and Athletics - McKinnon informed the Senate that Tom Spicer, Athletic Director, is requesting that academic credit be given for athletic courses and not be changed to activity credits.

   3. Faculty Affairs Committee - The Senators asked Vincent to have CSM's legal department look at the proposed changes to the grade appeal process brought to the Senate on 11/21/06.
2. Senate Councils
   
   1. Graduate Council - The following written report from Tom Boyd was presented to the Senate by Martins.
      

      Colorado School of Mines
      Thomas Boyd email: tboyd@mines.edu Tel: 303-273-3020 Fax: 303-273-3244
      TO: Graduate Council DATE: 19 December, 2006
      SUBJ: Masters Degree Requirements

      Below is a table comparing CSM's current institutional requirements for receiving a graduate degree with those of our local competitors.

      	Credit Requirements	Transfer Limits	% Transfer	Notes
      Colorado School of Mines
      MS Thesis	36	9	25%	Transfer explicitly excludes all courses used to satisfy undergraduate degree requirements.
      MS Non-Thesis	36	15	42%	Transfer explicitly excludes all courses used to satisfy undergraduate degree requirements.
      PhD	72	36 (MS) or 24(crs)	50%	Transfer limits apply to degrees/courses completed at other institutions.
      University of Colorado, Boulder
      MS Thesis & Non-Thesis	30 (4-6 Res)	9	30%	Transfer explicitly excludes all courses used to satisfy other degree requirements.
      PhD	30 (Crs) + 30 (Res)	21	35%	Transfer explicitly excludes all courses used to satisfy other degree requirements.
      Colorado State University
      MS Thesis	30	6	20%	Transfer explicitly excludes all courses used to satisfy other degree requirements.
      PhD	72 beyond BS	30(MS) + 10 additional	56%	Additional credits exclude all courses used to satisfy other degree requirements.
      University of Denver
      MS Thesis	20 (Crs) + 10 (Res)	6	20%
      MS Non-Thesis	30 (Crs)	6	20%
      PhD	60	30(MS)	50%

      
      

      Based on this comparison of degree requirements at peer institutions, Graduate Council recommends that CSM reduce its minimum credit hour requirement for MS degrees to 30 credit hours. Specifically, Council recommends the following Institutional actions.

      1. Reduce Institutional minimum required credit hours for a Masters degree from 36 to 30 credits.
      2. Retain the departmental ability to allow CSM undergraduate students registered in Combined Degree programs to double count up to 6 credit hours toward Masters degree requirements for each departmental credit hour requirement over 30 credit hours.
      3. Retain number of credits hours at the 400 level that can be applied to a Masters degree at 9 credits. In the future, consider reducing this limit to 6 credit hours. The rationale for delaying this reduction is that the current size of the graduate student body and available faculty limit the number of graduate course offerings that can be provided.
      4. Retain transfer credit limit of 9 credit hours for thesis based MS degrees.
      5. Reduce transfer credit limit from 15 credit hours to 9 credit hours for non thesis MS degrees.
      6. Reduce minimum number of research credit hours required for a thesis based MS degree from 12 to 6 credits.
      7. Maintain current credit hour requirement for Reduced Registration (36 credit hours).

      A motion to accept the Graduate Council recommendation of 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 was made by Martins, seconded by Walls and passed unanimously by the Senate.

   2. Research Council - Collins informed the Senate that John Poate, Vice President for Research and Technology Transfer, will give a presentation on the center review process to the Research Council on February 21, 2007.

      The Research Council is discussing the restriction of publications on certain research projects. Reuben is looking at the policies of peer institutions.

   3. Undergraduate Council - Jesudason submitted the following written report:

      1. The proposal for the core curriculum did not pass. The key stumbling block was removing SYGN 101 from the exisiting core and making it an elective among 3 out of 6 DSR courses.

      1. The motion to revert back to making SYGN 101 a core course did not pass (5 votes for and 6 votes against)
      2. However the motion to accept the newly proposed core also did not pass (6 votes for and 6 against).

      We need to consider urgently whether we need to revisit the Core Curriculum. The biochem major, and other biology-related programs, might be under threat with this vote.

      The Senators requested Mishra to invite Barbara Olds and John Humphrey to the next Senate meeting to present both sides of this issue. Then, the Senate will take a position.

      2. The UGC would like specific suggestions from the Senate about GPA cut-off points in assigning the new Honors system.

      Please study the data from Lara below to help in our deliberations.

      FROM Lara Medley

      Total number of undergraduate seniors currently enrolled for Spring 2007: 1009

      The following are the number of undergraduate seniors in each associate category for overall gpa:

      67 students	3.0 to 3.09999
      63	3.1 to 3.19999
      56	3.2 to 3.29999
      53	3.3 to 3.39999
      70	3.4 to 3.49999
      53	3.5 to 3.59999
      57	3.6 to 3.69999
      54	3.7 to 3.79999
      38	3.8 to 3.89999
      38	3.9 to 3.99999
      19	4.000

      
      

      Jesudason will communicate to the Undergraduate Council the Senate's recommendation that 3.9, 3.7 and 3.5 be the cut-off points for the new honors systems.

      Also to think about: Do you want the Latin assignment (summa, magna, etc.) or would we be happy with the English equivalent -- i.e. Highest Honors, High Honors, and Honors?

      The Senate will vote on the Latin versus English equivalent at their March 6, 2007 meeting.

      3. The UGC passed the proposed minor in Explosives Engineering.

3. University Committees
   1. Budget - Mooney submitted the following written report to the Senate:
      

      BUDGET COMMITTEE REPORT
      Date of Meeting: January 18, 2007

      Voting Members Present: Nigel Middleton, Harold Cheuvront, Peter Han, John Poate, Bob Siegrist, Terry Parker, Vaughan Griffiths, John Dorgan, Mike Mooney, Linn Havelick

      Guests: Kirsten Volpi, Arthur Sacks, Tom Boyd, Geoff Barsch, Julie Coakley

      The central issue of the meeting was the proposed changes to the budget process (introduced at December mtg), namely the creation of an Executive Budget Committee (EBC) as well as changes to the membership and charter of the Campus Budget Committee (CBC).

      Geoff Barsch distributed the proposed changes to the function and membership of the CBC (and creation of EBC) as well as proposed changes to the Faculty Handbook. Key components:
      

      • EBC voting membership includes President (chair) and VPs for Academic Affairs, Institutional Advancement, Research and Tech Transfer, Student Life, Finance and Operations.
      • CBC voting membership includes 4 academic DH/DDs (from 2), 3 academic faculty, 1 classified staff, Associate VPs for Academic/Faculty Affairs and Enrollment Management, Dean of Graduate School and Director Plant Facilities.
      • In the proposed structure, the CBC would be advisory to the EBC.

      Geoff Barsch distributed the "FY 2007-08 Budget Process Recommendations" and "FY 2007-08 Campus Budget Process Schedule" docs that summarize the proposed budget process and timetable. Key components include:
      

      • February: department-level budget development
      • March: five days of department budget request hearings (to VPs); CBC invited to attend.
      • April: budget development, review and recommendations by CBC; forwarded to EBC. Simultaneously, EBC develops budget. Final EBC budget presumably includes input from CBC.
      • May: Presentation of EBCs final budget request to BOT

      Nigel Middleton commented that the President wants this to move forward as soon as possible. A motion was made (by J. Poate) to accept the language as written and move this to the Handbook Committee. Discussion centered on what the function of the new CBC would be. There were a number of concerns expressed, namely:
      

      1. Impact of CBC seems diminished by the creation of EBC and lack of direct report to President.
      2. The proposed process and time frame (e.g., 5 days of budget hearings, short turn around to EBC) and lack of CBC resources make it difficult for the CBC to develop a budget.
      3. The role of CBC is unclear given the newly proposed and still-evolving budget process. The role of the CBC appears the same as the newly created EBC, so why continue to do the same thing.
      4. The CBC is being asked to vote on this without spending the time to fully understand how the proposed CBC can or should function in the new and evolving budget process.

      As a result of committee discussion, proposed language was changed so that (1) the CBC advises the President and (2) the EBC reviews the budget proposed by the CBC to the President. These two revisions were made. The final language read as follows:
      

      EBC Function: The Executive Budget Committee directs the School's budget initiatives to meet the goals of the School's Strategic Plan. This committee will meet monthly to review the budget as proposed by the Campus Budget Committee to the President.

      CBC Function:
      The Campus Budget Committee shall be responsible for gathering and analyzing appropriate data regarding the budgetary requirements of CSM, proposing annual budgets for CSM, proposing budget revisions from time to time, and advising the President on budgetary matters and long-range fiscal planning.

      Poate's motion to accept the language as modified and move to the Handbook Committee passed with 5 votes of approval, 1 against, and 3 abstentions.

4. Senate Ad-hoc Committees
   1. Sabbatical Leave for Library faculty - The following resolution was presented as an information item to the Senate by Andersen.
      

      We ask the Faculty Senate to support changes in the faculty handbook that would allow Library faculty to be eligible for sabbatical leave.

      The Senate's ad hoc committee charged with addressing this issue gathered feedback and information from the Library faculty, professional practice at other institutions, and a review of the literature. The committee's recommendation is that Library faculty be eligible for sabbatical leave, and that eligibility include:
      

      • Associate Librarian rank
      • At least 6 years of service
      • Other eligibility conditions as listed in the Faculty handbook Sabbatical leave Policy for Academic faculty

      Justification: Professional contribution and service, including research and instruction, are an existing part of the Library faculty promotion and evaluation process. Sabbaticals would play an important role in developing and enhancing Library faculty's expertise and promote excellence in professional contribution. These activities in turn ensure that the educational and research programs of CSM are supported to the fullest extent.

ANNOUNCEMENTS:

1. The next Senate meeting will be March 6, 2007 in Hill Hall room 300 at 2:00 pm.

2. Senate retreat will be March 30, 2007 from 8:00 am to 1:00 pm in Hill Hall room 300.

The meeting adjourned at 3:40 pm.