ࡱ> a bobjbjjj 8?b?bfr r >>>RRR8T\R5z2::(bbb(((yyyyyyy$g{~y>("(((ybby (^8b>by (y v\ &,ab` 2^^<yz05z^Z~~x,a,aD~>pg0(( (((((yy(((5z((((~(((((((((r B : Faculty Senate Friday, March 15, 2019 @ 9:00 a.m. Battle Mountain #1; Elko GTA #130; Ely #111; Pahrump #124; Winnemucca #123 MEETING MINUTES  Voting Representatives: Evi Buell, Glen Tenney, Michael Whitehead, Veronica Nelson, Madison Arbillaga, David Ellis, Justine Stout, Eric Walsh, Daniel Murphree, Carrie Meisner, Laura Debenham, Kathi Griffis, Cassandra Stahlke, Sarah Carone, Ping Wang, Brian Zeiszler, Robert Hannu Absent Voting Members: Stacy Rust, Kevin Seipp, Junyi Wang Other Members Present: Nicholas Cooley, Dale Griffith, John Rice, George Kleeb, Brandy Nielsen, Stephen Theriault, Sidnie Grimes, Lisa Campbell, Jill Chambliss, Kathy Schwandt, Mary Doucette, Tamara Mette, Tami Potter, Brandis Senecal, Lynne Owens, Jonathan Foster, Laurie Walsh, Adriana Mendez, Jacob Park, John Green, Alex Porter, Melissa Risi, Tom Cunningham, Angie de Braga Visitors: Approval of minutes The meeting minutes from last month are pending approval from Executive Committee and it will come back for the next Senate meeting. There is a question asked about why the minutes were not approved by Executive Committee. Chair Jung responds that the Executive Committee requested the General Councils memo because there may be a potential legal issue with the minutes. Further clarification was given. At the Executive Committee meeting, it was requested that the documents that were presented to Senate at the last meeting be included in the minutes. There was some question as to whether or to legal council would approve of that because the legal counsel evidently recommended that those documents be removed from the Senate website. What the Executive Committee requested is that either the documents be included for the record or that a memo from the legal counsel explaining why they could not be included for the record be included in the minutes as an addendum. If we omit them from the minutes then officially those documents are not a part of the record and they were intended to be. Legal counsel is on vacation this week and there was no way to ask them. A question is asked: It was asked if Kevin Seipp would be attending the minutes. On page 3 of the minutes under Unfinished Business there was a description of what Kevin had spoken about regarding athletics. Clarity was asked for and also additional information. The sentence that says, They also want to make sure that all bases are covered for the budget deficit and that athletics is viewed in the correct light. The member states they dont understand what that means and that minutes go in the record and they are there for all eternity as long as there is storage space. Another item that the member would like included in this is that the idea that the faculty could look at the proposed budget could be looked at in his office, but there would be nothing placed in a document. Chair Jung responds that at some point there was an athletics budget document posted and it was taken down because it was tentative. He states that they will have to discuss if they can post the document. It is clarified that the member is not talking about the posted document, but the statement that a budget would have to be looked at in Kevins office. GUEST/PUBLIC COMMENT senate chair report Information/Possible Action Chair Report Accreditation Meeting Vice President Brown, Mary Doucette, Evi Buell, Bill Brown and Chair Jung attended the Accreditation meeting in Seattle last week. Chair Jung has uploaded a document outlining the timeline and specifications. There is a group of people formed into a committee and they are preparing for accreditation. Today at the Presidents forum they will discuss in detail the accreditation. Mary Doucette states that everything will be announced at the accreditation forum. There is a timeline set out that they hope to follow. She states that they are kind of behind the curve and they need to get the self-study started. She states that everyone can look at the previous self-studies. They hope to update the documentation on the web site. They will need all of GBC to pitch in and help. They will be contacting people to help as soon as they are further along. They hope to have a concept map soon. They need to have the self-study done by January 1. Question is asked: Who is the team and who is the lead of the team? Evi Buell, Jinho Jung, Bill Brown, Daniel Bergey, Josh Webster Is Bill Brown the administrative lead? No, but Dr. Brown will also be on the committee, but she is not the lead. It will be a committee. There is a statement that it is wonderful that faculty will be as involved in this process as they are. It is also stated that it should be insisted that the faculty members be compensated for their involvement either through release or overload. The member anticipates that because the college is probably already a year behind in this process already that the faculty workload requirement will be tremendous especially if the Vice President of Academic Affairs isnt going to be the lead for this. We need to figure out a way to compensate and insist that our colleagues be compensated for their efforts. Mary Doucette mentions that once they have the concept map they will bring it back to Faculty Senate. If anyone has any questions, please contact anyone in the committee. A sense of the Senate is asked for, but it is suggested that the Senate waits until April when the concept map is presented. Mary states that they met with President Helens and that she supports their effort. They wanted to express their feeling of urgency about the matter. A question is asked: Why was the accreditation meeting canceled last Friday and re-scheduled during the Presidents forum? Mary responds that the President was gone last Friday due to a meeting in Carson City. The members response was that her belief is that there should be two separate meetings. There should be a specific accreditation meeting and then the forum, which is supposed to be an exchange of ideas, should be that rather than having the agenda be set for the forum. Mary states that the President changed the forum to accreditation because there was a need to move forward with accreditation The member responds that if the forum is to be successful there needs to one where they can ask questions and exchange ideas. A question is asked: It was mentioned that we are possibly a year behind, would the committee say that this is accurate. Why? Have we been doing the wrong thing? Have we not been doing anything? Mary Doucette answers that there have been so many changes and nothing has been managed. Evi Buell answers that the estimate of a year behind is fairly accurate. Some of the processes were not followed. Evi states that they need to have the processes in place and they need to follow them and follow through. They also need to make sure that the language is correct. They will also count on everyones expertise for feedback. A question is asked: So, faculty members should count on doing a considerable amount of work to support the committee? Evi answers that they are not sure if this is the case or not. They want to let everyone know that this is one of the difficulties and they cant assign the work to Senate Committees because the committee composition will change soon. They will come back in the fall when committees are restructured for comments and feedback. A comment is made: In the past it seems that the VPAA was the lead on accreditation and faculty were not extremely involved and some would be selected to help out. The reporting would have been done by the VPAA. This seems like a new model. Many members say that this is accurate. Northwest changed from a 10 year cycle to a 7 year cycle, so then we had 3 years to do the 7 years, so that site visit was in 13. Then in 2014 was the strategic plans and we had to work with that strategic plan. She states this assessment was correct and because they all went to this meeting they are pushing for faculty involvement and President Helens and she is pushing for this as well. The concern of the member was that this will add to faculty workload. A question is asked: Did they tell the committee if we are going to be on the new accreditation or the old accreditation? Mary responds that the nice thing is because our visit is in March or April we get to choose. When Mary talked to our liaison he suggested that we do the new ones, he cant tell us which one to choose, but he suggested the new ones. That tends to be where we are all kind of going. They are looking at the new ones because they think it will be better to address those. Mary has a copy of the new ones if anyone wants those. Kevin states that the new ones are in a public comment phase with Northwest and are expecting to be approved in the fall. They are relevantly simplified going from 5 standards to 2. Mary cannot guarantee that they are doing this, but this is what they are looking at. Student Success Strategies Co-Requisite Remediation data came out last night that the Chancellors intention to implement this has been pushed one year to fall of 2021. There are two sections will be on April 2 and April 9. Department of Student Success Data By July 1 of 2019 each teaching institution must have in place a written protocol providing student success data shared with the department to analyze this. Chair Jung feels the Department Chairs should be paying attention to this kind of item. A faculty member asks: What is being considered student success data? Completion of certificates, degrees, course completions? Chair Jung says he does not know. Faculty member asks if the information is available somewhere Chair Jung responds he will find out. Chancellor Reilly is visiting at the next Faculty Senate meeting on April 26. The plan is to have one hour with the Chancellor and one hour for Faculty Senate meeting. If you could please send Chair Jung any questions and he will compile them and send them to the Chancellor. A question is asked: Will the visit be open forum or pre-screened questions? It will be open forum. Update from Vice President Sibert. There has been no change to the status of GBCs budget or any NSHE budget at this time. COMMITTEE REPORTS Academic Standards Written and Verbal Report and Actions Michael Whitehead addresses the Senate and states they have two items they are trying to bring through the Senate. The first item they would like approval for is the Textbook Policy. He would like to talk about the textbook approval process. The first part of the document is the standard that they have adopted for current textbooks. The second half of this document is what they have spent time on. This is for adoption of any self-published textbooks. They have put the definition in the policy of what they consider self-published versus a standard textbook. They have also included the process of getting it approved. They did not want to step on the Academic Freedom policies that GBC has, but they wanted to give a standard to self-published documents. If you look on the first part of the Textbook Policy on the second page where it says Self-Published Adoption Approvals it talks about having quality control on what we are providing to our students. The second part goes into any type of changing or updating to that document. The third part talks about instructors responsibility of explaining what this is and how its been approved. The last part talks about cost and not actually benefiting from this document. Question: Concern would be prohibiting someone from profiting from a self-published book. Distinguishing from a manual being put together or a peer-reviewed text published by McGraw-Hill. The definition is shown to the faculty member. A motion for approval is requested. Laura Debenham motions to approve. Evi Buell seconds the motion. Motion passes with one abstention. Michael talks about the Grade Appeal Process. They have implemented a time frame and what the students responsibility should be. Pat Anderson asked to have a time frame for when this goes into effect. Some of these items are in the works. They would like to start this process in the fall 2019 semester. The process is self-explanatory and it keeps this within the faculty, rather than letting it fall back into some of the administration and its to the faculties benefit. There were concerns from departments about who was in charge of the final decision mentioned in Step 3 of the document. Why was it decided that no administrator should have a voice in the approval or denial process? It looks like it stops at the committee and goes nowhere else. Mike states that they wanted it to stay within the faculty and not step into outside administration who can override the faculty decision. Laurie Walsh adds that there is a caveat in the process that states that 5 members of the Academic Standards committee will be there for any hearing and 3 of those have to be teaching faculty because its a grade appeal. Glen Tenney pointed out that the Academic Standards committee is tasked with fairly judging these things and having all the data at hand and really considering both sides of any argument and the suggestion was made that the appeal process should be finalized with 5 people having a hearing. The way that the process was written before was that any student could go anywhere for challenging these sorts of things. The other benefit of this is a faculty member who has an issue with a student with a grade appeal can go to a dean for some assistance, which before they couldnt really talk to the dean because they might have had to arbitrate it. This was all done thinking about fairness to the student and the Academic Standards committee. Glen Tenney adds that he was in favor of the way that it is written here. His department did not agree with the document. He would like to make sure that everyone is aware that the Academic Standards committee is the final decision. Steve Theriault voices that he has a major concern. First of all removing senior administration entirely, abdicates all their responsibility to solve what is a faculty-student problem. Having faculty make the final decision on a faculty-student problem, may make a potential for self-referencing bias. He does not feel that this is the right approach. If there are any modifications to be made, he would recommend that before the VPAA step it goes to the dean for a decision instead. As Glen mentioned, their department was not in favor of this. He doesnt see this as being a proper course for the college to take. Mike asks if he is looking for another step after academics on this. Steve replies that yes, he is. He is looking for Academic Standards to not be the final arbitrator because of the fact it is faculty deciding a faculty-student issue. Secondly, make the dean the next step in the decision making process. If there is no dean then the decision would go higher. Mike asks if Steve wants the final decision out of the facultys hands. Steve replies yes because it is a faculty-student issue. Another member states that you dont want the student to say that it is the faculty club and they all have each others backs. Mike states that basically the want is for the final decision to come down to a single person instead of a group of peers. A member states that it is worded that no administrator is allowed on the committee. If they could add the dean to the committee there would be oversite. A member asks for clarification on the process Steve spoke about. Would it be an automatic, would the committee make a decision and it would go to an administrative level or would the student appeal to an administrative level? Steve responds that they shouldnt change the part now that the committee makes a recommendation, not a decision. There is a big difference between the two. One way to address this would be to have a 5 person committee, not teaching faculty, but administrative faculty. If this was the case he would be more comfortable. Right now there is no appeal above the Academic Standards committee. What happens during summer sessions? Nothing will happen during summer or winter sessions. Steve would remove his contrary comment if it was administrative faculty making the final decision. Glen suggests that what Steve wants is that the Academic Standards committee to be a recommendation to the dean. This is what is consistent with other committees on campus, such as the Personnel committee. They are a recommendation committee. A motion to table was requested. Evi Buell motioned to table. Brian Zeiszler seconded the motion. Motion passed with one abstention. Part-time Instructors No Report Assessment No Report Budget & Facilities No Report Compensation & Benefits No Report Curriculum & Articulation No Report Department Chairs No Item Distance Education No Report Faculty & Administrative Evaluations No Report Faculty/Staff Safety Written Report Gen Ed Committee Written Report Library Written Report Personnel No Report Student Relations Written Report Non-senate Committees Child Care Center Advisory Committee No Report Diverse Population No Report Revitalization No Report Athletics No Report TEC Verbal Report At the February Teacher Education Committee, the following numbers of student teachers were approved to student teach in the upcoming fall semester. They have 5 elementary students and 4 secondary, which brings the total number of approved student teachers for this semester and last semester to 10 elementary and 7 secondary. They are excited in their department about reaching a semester record for duplicated enrollments in the education department at 807. Lynette is currently laying ground work for the online BA in Elementary Education and GBC will be the only institution to offer this degree. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There were questions submitted to Chair Jung from a group of faculty from the forum that the President had not addressed completely. It is asked if Chair Jung was able to get response back on these questions. Chair Jung says that he will let the President know. It is also asked if there was going to be any report from the meeting regarding low enrollment. Chair Jung responds that he heard from his Department Chair. The meeting was recorded and is available to anyone who wants to watch it. This actually refers to low yield for programs. Stephen Theriault gives an update on the Presidents Evaluation There will be open forums held. There will be a forum for classified staff, professionals, and students. An attempt is being made to have a forum for classified staff Two members of the committee will be present NEW BUSINESS A faculty member asks Brandy Nielsen a question pertaining to the Compensation and Benefits committee. Is there discussion this year about workload online classes in particular? She states that they used to get a split if they capped their class at 60, they would get a split at 31. Now apparently the split is happening at 40 or slash is negotiated if its under 40. Brandy Nielsen replies that she was not aware of that because the workload policy has not changed. The faculty member responds that the catch is that 60 cap and the 31 split is something that was agreed upon apparently through email with the former VPAA back around 2009/2010. Nothing was ever formalized in workload. She wonders if the Compensation and Benefits committee had been approached about formalizing the 40 thing or the 60 cap, 30 split thing. Brandy responds that they have not. Another faculty member states that it is in effect this semester. The published workload policy is not being followed and has not been for some time. Everyone was asked last week to approve their over load compensation which everyone probably did because they want to be paid, but when we approved that we are being compensated less than what the workload policy states we are. No aspect of the workload policy is being followed. Unfortunately the 60 cap, 31 cap is not in workload. This would be a great topic of conversation at a forum and the President has been made aware of this many times in the last year. The Presidents administrative assistant did research on this and went through Faculty Senate minutes from a decade or so ago and discovered that what the Faculty said was that the policy as written was aspirational. What is written in policy has been approved. The President is justifying the faculty being undercompensated using the minutes of that meeting as the justification rather than adhering to the policy. Brandy responds that they have worked on the out of date portions of the policy. They have not received guidelines. As far as the overload with the part time and as being paid as high as the full time, that is the real aspirational part of it. That was from 2009, when the whole country was in economic turmoil. That isnt verbiage that should have been put in a policy. Compensation and Benefits should look at the policy as it is written. They should look at two things: Is workload policy being applied as it is written? Formalize the 60 cap, 31 split for online. INFORMATION Melissa Risi addresses the Senate. UNR and Ĵý are really looking at creating efforts with the co-admissions program. Currently TMCC and WNC have a really good relationship with UNR for their transfer students. They are a traditional community college and they dont offer bachelors degrees, especially in the numbers that we have and she believes this is why the relationship and the transfer agreements they have are set out the way that they are. GBC and UNRs relationship as co-admission really hasnt flourished and she doesnt know the reason why. This coming year GBC is looking at having the co-admission program kick-off. Starting with a visit from UNR and their transfer coordinator in April. UNR will be on campus and they would like faculty, administrative faculty and students to participate in their transfer event. The coordinator is Kari Emm. Please stop by with any questions. The date is April 9 and the time has not been set. It could range from 12 pm 5pm. A member asks a question: Is the push to do co-admission for all students or just ones that their ideal career path isnt offered here? Melissa answers that she is not supportive of having students pursue a Bachelors of Education or English as a transfer to UNR, but it isnt our decision where the student wants to go. We are not promoting students to seek bachelors at UNR that we already promote. The member states that if we open the door to them they may be able to snag students easier than we will. Melissa states that it is possible. If we know their intention to transfer to UNR and go into a program that we dont offer here, we need to make sure that they are completing requirements that are needed at UNR. This co-admission program will also include them in UNR events. There are ideas floating around, but nothing is set in concrete right now. If they can get their associates degree here, we can possibly recruit here for that. Everything is fluid right now. Melissa speaks about the transfer articulation audit. The audit was completed in October. With those findings that Crystal Abba recorded in the Board of Regents meeting, we were not in compliance with policy based on several different factors. One was orientation, we could not build this is into degree requirements. She will be asking for faculty assistance with the transfer agreements. She will need help building the transfer agreements to UNR. Transfer agreements will also be built between TMCC, WNC, and eventually CSN as we are the 4-year institution. She would like faculty support on this as she is facing deadline issues. The audit for the 2019-2020 transfer agreement is due by June 30. They will go through the whole audit again with NSHE and make sure that progress has been made from the previous audit. A question is asked if there can be training. Melissa responds yes and that there is a program called Curriculog. There are 130 agreements. She will need help looking through these agreements and making changes. She has done these herself, but she feels that faculty need to be included on these agreements due to their knowledge on their courses. There are a lot of moving components. She has requested from Kristina Hart for the TMCC transfer agreements. There is a 6 week timeline and she doesnt want to cut into the facultys schedule in May and into commencement. Question: Are we supposed to making individual transfer agreements? Melissa responds that individualized transfer agreements cannot be made up. Faculty at both facilities have to agree to the courses and the degree requirements. If you just line up an Associate of Arts, it may not meet the specific requirements of a bachelors at UNR. There are very strict guidelines for these transfer agreements. No, transfer agreements cannot be individualized. Questions: Will departments be informed of where they stand on the agreements? Her goal is to send transfer agreements to each department so they can make notes. UNR requests that all faculty work with the transfer agreements. Question: What about no extra semesters? Melissa states that she has to write a 2 year agreement that falls within the guidelines of the policy of a transfer student to UNRs bachelors program. She doesnt have to take into consideration developmental courses. She builds it the way a traditional student would follow the degree requirements, she wouldnt start out with developmental courses. Question: Are similar conversations happening with UNLV? Currently the Vice Chancellor is only looking at northern schools to work with northern schools and southern schools with southern. At this point we dont have any established agreements with southern schools. PUBLIC COMMENT Please come to Mamma Mia - $15 Gear Up Grads have Volleyball Tournament on April 26 ADJOURNMENT Call for motion to adjourn. Eric Buell motions to adjourn. Robert Hannu seconds the motion. Motion passes unanimously. Meeting adjourns at 10:20 am.     Faculty Senate Meeting Friday, February 15, 2019 Page  PAGE 10 of  NUMPAGES 12 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL  !%&)*234FGHOPX_`bcde֑փwrme]UP]Ur]KCh4sh,P\ h_\ h;*\h4sh\h4sh/\h4shOf\ h*`\ hC.\h4sh<CJ \aJ h4sh,P5CJ \aJ hVM5CJ \aJ h4sh5CJ \aJ hhb5CJ \aJ h_5CJ \aJ hD#5CJ \aJ h"s5CJ \aJ h4s5CJ \aJ h,P5;>*CJ(\aJ( h4sh,P5;>*CJ(\aJ(34 t u  gd ugd ,^gd;P 0d*$^gd;P 0d*$gd ,gd;P^gdagd,P$ 0d*$^a$gdC.$ 0d*$a$gdFefnpqrst ŶzrhaWPHDh;hq)5h ,5 h;h'h7hj5>* hD#5>*hhH5>*hh ,>* h;P>*;ʲ>*Ա&.󱹵6>*䴳$ϴ$&./6>*䴳$ϴ$<6CJOJQJ^JaJh4sh,P\h4sh\h4sh\ h_\h4sh\h4sh\h4sh/\ hC.\   c s t u } ~    ,?@~wrh^WOhT5hnr[; hrU5>*hT5h~o 5>*hT5hcn5>* hjk*>* hT5h hOhaOp h'5>* hx\j5>* h5>* h5>* hx5>* hx;>* h u;>*h8Vh;>* h2Xhp h2X5 h'95 h;hbm h3Ch!;h h +35hq)5h ,5hbmh{ hOZ5hD# w ,@  L & FgdSt & Fgdx & FgdG; & F8^8`gd&^gd@gdjk*gdrU & Fgd & Fgd' & Fgdx\j & Fgd & Fgd & Fgdos{%&&+../// 0000 0!030405060ÿ|tld_ h`5hQ,h ,5hQ,h"\5hQ,hnr[5 h8Vh\hXh\h0h`hV+hMh'hqhG;hx\jhI:qhSthhxhhfks h&5hX,jh\h5>* ht[5>*h\hbm5>*h\hnr[5>*hjk*hnr[>* hjk*;>*%Ls5]pU !A##$&''b(+3+ & FgdV+ & FgdV+ & FgdV+ & FgdM & FgdM & FgdM & Fgd' & FgdSt & FgdSt3++----../{//0!0\00*55666{8 & Fgd?/ & Fgd?/ & Fgd?/ & Fgd` & Fgd;_gd\ & Fgd` & FgdV+ & Fgd` & Fgd` & FgdV+60[0\00*57777::<>>BCCG]I^I_IvIwIyIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII|tpk hu5hlh h6hkhxaTh{ h 5haVh=d h h ,h~{h& h ,5h8Vh"\5 hp 5hKhdht[ h 5h.mhK5h h`hZ/hZ/h,hAhvMhh?/ h`h`h\h`({89:=>4AzABBCDDEF#GHG~GGUHH^I_I 7$8$H$^gdF & FgdZ/ & FgdZ/ & Fgd, & Fgd, & FgdA & Fgd?/ & Fgd?/_IIIIIIIIIJJ$J%JDJEJvJwJJJJJ^gd gd&gd$ & Fgd*Jgd}:gdqgd% & Fgd}:gd!a^gd$gdaVgdt[ & Fgd;_IIIIIIIIJJJJJ#J$J%J:J*h\h\>* h=5>* hy5>* hZ/5>* hxD5>*he$hM}5>*he$h).5>*he$hKZ>* hkh/|h/| h}:h}:hZ/ hbs5 h7mK5huhk h 5 h hGh}: h}:5h*JhqhxaTh0- hq5$#N$N;N OBOO,P]PPQEQrQsQQRWSTTV  & Fgdygde$ ^gd\  & Fgdy  & Fgdy  & FgdZ/  & FgdZ/gdbs8^8gd/|QQQQQ[VVV[ [+[,[-[.[/[[__cfflmmmmmmmmmmmn'n,nAnNnnnnnnnڳڳ͒훥~~~w~p hjk*5>* h}25>* h5>*h({Kh({K>* hl>* hm%>*hjk*hm@hm@5>* hm@5>* hi>5>* h05>* hB5>* h85>* h8>*h8VhKZ>* h*|5 h5>* hy5>* h\>* he$>* hjk*>*hM}hM}>*+VXZZ[ [/[__`abfEfRhhjdjj"k  & Fgdi>  & Fgdi>  & Fgd0  & Fgd0  & Fgd0  & FgdgdrXgd*|  & Fgdy"kllmmmmmmnnnnnnnngd}: ^gd%fgd%fgd%fgdk  & Fgdm@gdjk*gd@  & Fgdm@  & Fgdm@  & Fgdi>nnnnnnnnnnnnnnno ooooo#o$o*o+o-o.o2o3o=o>o@oAoBoCoDo^o`oaobo˻xth;Ph;Ph;P5hXah=CJaJmHnHujh\c6hXaCJUaJh\c6hXaCJaJhNZCJaJh,CJaJhG;CJaJh\c6CJaJh@1hXaCJaJhtjhtU hd{lhKZh\h%f5>* h%f5>* h%f5'nnnnnnnBoCoDo^o_o`oaobogd}:^^gd\c66&P1h:pC./ =!"#$% "s2 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@_HmH nH sH tH ``` AkaNormal,Body Text 1 ^CJ_HaJmH sH tH l@l  b Heading 1$$<@&^a$!56CJ KH OJQJ\^JaJ ^^ # Heading 2$<@&^5OJQJ\]^JaJVV 6 Heading 3$<@&5CJOJQJ\^JaJDA D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k (No List >B> ) Body Texth^>;@> J) List Number 3 ^2L2 P/Date$^a$2P"2 6 Body Text 2P/1P 6Body Text 2 CharCJ_HaJmH sH tH H1@BH sh List Number<^5>*<R< I Comment TextCJaJHjQRH I Comment Subject ^5\4r4 )Header  !4 @4 )Footer  !P`P q)5 No Spacing ^CJ_HaJmH sH tH 8@8 2U List Paragraph>O> } Agenda detail  & FHH EO{ Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJN/N EO{Balloon Text CharCJOJQJ^JaJjj k Table Grid7:V0B' B D2Comment ReferenceCJaJV/V !;Default 7$8$H$!B*CJ_HaJmH phsH tH .X . J Emphasis6]PK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$زULTB l,3;rØJB+$G]7O٭Vc:E3v@P~Ds |w< bgbg e 60IJsKQnbo8:;=@CDFHK L3+{8_IJ#NV"knbo9<>?ABEGIJL!L @H 0(  (  \  3 jJ"? B S  ?bgl:8tOSfffffffffCgDg`gcg88fffffffffCgDg`gcg3css{////22HHHIee(f,fAfNffffffffg#g.g2gAgDg^gcgcss{////22HHHIee(f,fAfNfffffffffffffffgCgcg~l}rX:]L-Pr-NgQėj(x`\*ռ- j' rhKBP %DJF}$IfР cInVtoOW\:\Q~MLv]DFgzP?<}mT~P88^8`. h^h`o(hH)^`5o(hH1. 8^8`o(hH) ^`o(hH() ^`o(hH() p^p`o(hH()  ^ `o(hH. @ ^@ `o(hH.  ^ `o(hH.h^`5o(hH.h  ^ `o(hH.h  L^ `Lo(hH.h x^x`o(hH.h H^H`o(hH.h L^`Lo(hH.h ^`o(hH.h ^`o(hH.h L^`Lo(hH.h ^`o(hH.h p^p`hH.h @ L^@ `LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h P^P`hH.h  L^ `LhH. h^h`o(hH) ^`o(hH) 8^8`o(hH) ^`o(hH() ^`o(hH() p^p`o(hH()  ^ `o(hH. @ ^@ `o(hH.  ^ `o(hH.h^h`5o(hH) ^`o(hH) 8^8`o(hH) ^`o(hH() ^`o(hH() p^p`o(hH()  ^ `o(hH. @ ^@ `o(hH.  ^ `o(hH.$0@ ^`05CJOJQJ^JaJo(hH. xx^x`5CJOJQJaJo(hH. HLH^H`Lo(hH. ^`o(hH. ^`o(hH. L^`Lo(hH. ^`o(hH. X X ^X `o(hH. (#L(#^(#`Lo(hH.^`o(.^`.pL^p`L.@ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PL^P`L. h^h`hH. P^`PhH.. ^`hH... x^`xhH.... ^`hH .....  X^ `XhH ......  ^ `hH.......  8^`8hH........  `^``hH......... h^h`hH) ^`hH) 8^8`hH) ^`hH() ^`hH() p^p`hH()  ^ `hH. @ ^@ `hH.  ^ `hH.h8^8`5o(.h b^b`5hH.h  L^ `LhH.h  ^ `hH.h x^x`hH.h HL^H`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h^`5o(hH.h  ^ `o(hH.h  L^ `Lo(hH.h x^x`o(hH.h H^H`o(hH.h L^`Lo(hH.h ^`o(hH.h ^`o(hH.h L^`Lo(hH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pL^p`LhH.h @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PL^P`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pL^p`LhH.h @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PL^P`LhH.8^8`o(. ^`hH.  L^ `LhH.  ^ `hH. x^x`hH. HL^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pL^p`LhH.h @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PL^P`LhH.h^`5o(hH.h  ^ `o(hH.h  L^ `Lo(hH.h x^x`o(hH.h H^H`o(hH.h L^`Lo(hH.h ^`o(hH.h ^`o(hH.h L^`Lo(hH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pL^p`LhH.h @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PL^P`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pL^p`LhH.h @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PL^P`LhH.h^`5o(hH.h ^`hH.h pL^p`LhH.h @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PL^P`LhH.8^8`o(. ^`hH.  L^ `LhH.  ^ `hH. x^x`hH. HL^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pL^p`LhH.h @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PL^P`LhH.^`5o(. ^`hH. L^`LhH.  ^ `hH. \ ^\ `hH. ,L^,`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.80^8`0o(. ^`hH. pL^p`LhH. @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PL^P`LhH.h^`5o(hH.h  ^ `o(hH.h  L^ `Lo(hH.h x^x`o(hH.h H^H`o(hH.h L^`Lo(hH.h ^`o(hH.h ^`o(hH.h L^`Lo(hH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h pL^p`LhH.h @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PL^P`LhH.h^`5o(hH.h  ^ `o(hH.h  L^ `Lo(hH.h x^x`o(hH.h H^H`o(hH.h L^`Lo(hH.h ^`o(hH.h ^`o(hH.h L^`Lo(hH.j`\@.:\nVr-g7~gQ}/Z<2]L-T~KBgz                                    J`                                   XRx        {                  V        ,Zt                         qaHes# 'L}7FHQ'L}'L}/H'L}l'L} :[H-HOH".'L}di'L}OswH53 'L}l H52 'L}U!'L}]!H/"7R#HWZ3%'L};&Hz~p(H.(H(H{)HS:_*H *HZ<+'L}Pq+'L}"E~+'L}f+'L}w,H'.'L}WW/d/'L}:0H%0'L} 1'L}V2HA43H55Hb6'L}H27'L}X:X8'L}T$9'L}Ui?9'L}o:H.;H&Y<H4K='L}*_=H%r>H_:?'L}CCHpEF'L}GHHes"I'L}_ KHWKHLH0.M'L}E[QH^RHtmRHR'L}U0S'L}9S'L}fT'L}?UHJUH6U'L}eWH3YH@}ZHh[HAC\H ;\/^Hb'L}N[dHQe'L}gf'L} f'L}/hHH.iH+e~i'L}iHej'L}l^*l'L}-H7l'L}gxmHKn#bEp'L} ap'L}Sr'L}%Br'L};#w'L}PLxH]WyH9y'L}KW0z'L}zH\{'L}f|?{Hj,|H.5t|'L}'L} ;\e}'L}<_'L}YsyP.Ww|7:+K~fwHaM >cMgnbd IYtM[v1Nw  3o z  6, 1G O R p H7 7 J Di } {  ! Q' ; ^ &e w y% [ o A| $/3>@PX^b,VM};l>W=4G;,ayH'7>Il\{a HxP$QVpu}K%*(KHM].gWZ`x $?/0S61<7?dK{X8=[m)89Fe_E'i.6FkZ ]NZd"ejf6 S! +8 ~o !!s6!S!"/="wU"#%#m.#>#D#lU# $^$e$+%X% &&& &(&5&M&yi&''hf'+i'o'x' (.(J(L(](c(J)iB)i)jk*x+ ,0,l,]-k-%.K.xX. k.k.Y/Z/v/e|/090n]0n0;N1v1222D2G2V2vr2Nx233 +3W464@45q)5/5R5T5n5o5z6n 6\c6Dn6w6 7l-7#K7S7*08{X8;[8K}89]09A9/:c;!;0;9;:;<;F;!u;<"<nh<d =FD=\==>sd>b~>A?wZ?f?@9@@I@,P@m@{@ AiAdAA(5AHA~`AnBv8B3C-C 9CDZD[D[DEY&Ep;E/I4I JQ J9JPJsK \KcK7mK-nK({K9LYLaiLJM(MWMvM~"NENg_N9sNOU>Oi?OXOmO.xOtzOpPPhPRQYQ_{QyRLR-MRWR`]R_RdRkRArR S]GSGSCyS TTT%TxaTeTD%U2UvBUfCUQNU[UVHVNTVaVBWq\WvWXFXF#X2Xi!5^`ZuQ,5'M4s}?'A&b+ T0}2K;b#ej }.0qENZs ;*NUWO|HEkG}LOz%Y1BuD !93@^el,o4aHTU=[$%~?P/6rHe`!s$ @BWk;}New%H!w$9hbX3=BEGm%%F\0 2)Vtv2X9ZUzmYw~{).mSdZq4]IZ~|P][nbvy,6?6`7`Xa3hg ,d4;kj+VU!&(,PSt%;|a / S"r{F7y$F[P#*#YyzAWKy"S5LNy 7$R.m R/6!K3MPQpQg B!nm;VMM Pl`\*^^fq|*"8O=d/^>Ra ;U\\j?l~s2^3Iqes *"&0- @_cr6BfMFddC1czE,]coa?LTv8\[ ]FAPe([8S\Zr{s_/Ofi=9Rq-ef(V+egld''9x[D78 :aq\tw(;Nfh) i>( 'Amdp|A |.< f# %4w7K?p&8Smth( \w\y$2xDDNk-pvQ%w?}4KM}?Lat;t)KZu`Zb_e5rU']-?~zJ0g/bnQyuI '/a/D8Vd1})9?: /&dg 6VZksm}sCM"*0wnuRvM2Lr{-0F~Yt`C..6v$Zt[` j8O Xs,/TOR 8MOXg!/HQi~I ,fep;dcU? IpNioff@IIIIbg@UnknownG.[x Times New Roman5Symbol3. .Cx Arial9. . Segoe UIA$BCambria Math"18htgItG$Bs QQW 4QQW 4!4nfnf 2qHP ?*+!xxZ 3C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\TCD9.tmp\Formal meeting minutes.dotFACULTY SENATEGBCGBCx                      Oh+'0   @ L X dpxFACULTY SENATEGBCFormal meeting minutesGBC9Microsoft Office Word@@>@zO@v1 QQW ՜.+,D՜.+,d  px  Microsoft Corporation4nf FACULTY SENATE TitleX 8@ _TemplateIDTC060910481033  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry Fл 2@1TableNMWordDocument 8SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8MsoDataStore 2` 2EOLQERE0HTPH==2 2` 2Item PropertiesUCompObj r   F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q