Meeting, December 11, 2003
Gallagher Business Building, Room 123

Approved 2/12/04

Members Present:	E. Ametsbichler, H. Ausland, M. Bachmann, D. Beck, F. Brown, N. Browning-Bradley, C. Bruneau, K. Canty, R. Chacon, G. Cobbs, J. Crepeau, D. Dalenberg, L. Dent, S. Derry, P. Dietrich, D. Doyle, E. Edlund, P. Fandozzi, R. Field, D. Fillmore, C. Gajdosik, L. Gillison, S. Greymorning, L. Hayes, T. Herron, N. Hinman, W. Holben, C. Johnston, R. Judd, S. Kalm, K. Kane, C. Knight, B. Knowles, C. Krussel, R. Ledbetter, M. Mayer, J. McNulty, V. Micheletto, D. Schantz, M. Monsos, S. Mueller, N. Nickerson, D. Pletscher, B. Reider, J. Sears, D, A. Sondag, L. Tangedahl, H. Thompson, T. Tonev, D. Six, E. Uchimoto C. Winkler, S. Yoshimura
Members Excused:	T. Bedunah, G. Burns, J. Carter, T. Deluca, J. Gritzner, J. Laskin, D. Schuldberg, P. Silverman, S. Stiff
Members Absent:	C. Brewer, G. Smith
Ex-Officio Present:	President Dennison, Provost Muir, Vice President Duringer, Registrar Bain, Dean Fetz, Dean Forbes, Dean Strobel, Dean D’Andraia, Associate Provost Staub and Walker-Andrew
Guests:	Aaron Flint-ASUM President, Mike Kupilik-UFA President, Jim Jacobs- Enrollment Council, Richard Hutto, Heather Fanning, Jacole Douglas, Eben Reckord -Student Leadership Team

Chair Knowles called the meeting to order at 3:13p.m.

Registrar Bain called roll. A quorum was declared present.

The November 13, 2003 minutes were amended and approved (motion made by Senator Mike Mayer, seconded by Senator Joe Crepeau).

Communications:

President Dennison

The $2.7 million aid made available to the Montana University System by Governor Martz will be very helpful. According to the Governor’s recommendations community colleges will receive $450,000; $250,000 is set aside to promote distance learning in the K-12 sector, and $2 million is to be used to assist students during this time of rapid tuition increases. The analyses of the terms under which the money can be used indicate there is a great deal of latitude as long as the funds are not involved in the creation of a new program.

Discussions on each of the campuses confirm that it makes more sense to use the money differently on the various campuses. There was a lot of involvement from the Associated Students on the Missoula campus. The emerging plan for Missoula involves distributing the funds among three accounts. Seventy percent will go into the Perkins Loan Program, which is available to students who can demonstrate need and are achieving satisfactory progress. Fifteen percent will go into Montana Higher Education and Baker Grants to provide grants to students who can demonstrate need, and otherwise would not be able to continue their education. The remaining 15% will go into the emergency short term loan program administered by the Financial Aid Office. These loans are provided to students who are waiting for their financial aid to pay rent or other necessary expenses. The university can delay payment deadlines for tuition, but cannot do the same for other items. This loan program has proven successful over the years and for the most part has maintained its original balance.

The 70% going into Perkins Loans is similarly justified as a revolving account. The University not only uses the funds for fall and spring semesters, but continues to use the funds in the future as students repay the loans. Also, Perkins Loans are matched with federal dollars with interest. Secondly, in the event of a loan default, the University will get a percentage back from the federal government to maintain the health of the loan program. Thus, these programs will provide ongoing benefit to students. The funds are being allocated on the basis of fiscal year 2003 resident enrollments.

Most of the campuses are proposing a variation on this theme. However, some are advocating so many dollars refund per resident student. As it turns out $1.01 million will go to MSU and 967 thousand will go to UM. Seventy percent will be allocated to the Missoula campus, 14.5% to Butte, 8.3% to Dillon, and 7.2% to Helena.

The Regents will review all the proposals next Tuesday by teleconference. They most likely will approve the proposals as long as all the funds assist students. There is discussion on the part of some Regents to set aside money for merit as well as need. Most of the people who participated in the discussions agreed that satisfactory progress was sufficient and that the need to enhance retention and graduation is a more persuasive argument. An additional item on the table that could be discussed is to set aside a portion of the dollars for legislative intern stipends in January 2005.

ASUM adopted a resolution supporting the plan, so we will see how it goes next Tuesday.

Chair Knowles stated that there will be a faculty representative attending the Regents’ teleconference on Tuesday.

Provost Muir

Graduation Lists
The Provost presented the graduation list for approval. There were four additional names from the Law School (Eric Brewer, Steve Darty, Jacob Steel, and Jeanne Walker).

Senator Mike Mayer inquired whether the writing proficiency was waived for any of the candidates. The Provost responded none that she knew of. She has not waived the requirement for anyone.

The list of was unanimously approved (moved by Senator Ralph Judd, seconded by Senator Linda Gillison).

The Provost provided a list of current tenure-track searches. A few did not make the list because paperwork is still being processed. One of these is from Forestry. The twelve academic quality searches are designated by AQI. There are a couple of new grant positions also identified.

Admissions Standards Plan

The Provost’s Office and Student Affairs Office are working on implementing phase two of the new initiative on admissions standards for next fall. In phase two all students are admitted to the University of Montana, but more are provisional admits. This does not shift anyone away from the Missoula campus, but rather indicates there are standards that must be met and directs the student to the appropriate services.

Data from first phase of enrollment enhancement plan

The performance of students in the provisional category (those not meeting the Board of Regents standards that were admitted by exception) were tracked and evaluated. The Enrollment Council looked at referrals to services, course choices, academic status, and etc. At the end of fall 2002, 37.5% of the provisional students were on academic probation. The plan is designed to get students where they need to be for preparedness. At the end of spring semester 2003, 89% of the students completed the first year, but only 43% completed the required 24 credits with a 2.0 or better GPA. The 67% who were not in good standing were automatically suspended according to the policy. Twenty-three applied for reinstatement, 15 were granted. Fifty-seven percent of the fall 2003 students are enrolled for spring 2003.

Data were compared for students who would have been in this category in fall 2001 and for fall 2002 students when the provisional status was implemented. It seems that students in fall 2002 took their provisional status more seriously because their performance was better.

The “what if?” analysis looks at students’ performance from previous years as if a provisional category had existed. The analysis placed students in the provisional category according to the criteria in phase two of the plan. The admissions standards would be different from the current Board of Regents standards and require both a GPA and an exam score. Reviewing the performance of these students it makes it clear that there is a higher percentage of lower performance in the provisional category. These earlier students could have benefited from referrals to appropriate services. The data supports the positive effect the enrollment enhancement plan will have on students.

Jim Jacobs, Enrollment Council

Every year about 1,500 traditional freshmen enter the university. In addition there are between 150 to 200 non-traditional students in the fall and between 90 to 120 in the spring. Non-traditional students are defined as a students who have been out of high school more than three years or for whom it has been more than three years from the time they would have graduated and subsequently earned GEDs. The original proposal did not address non-traditional students.

The Enrollment Council split non-traditional students into four categories, depending on the circumstances under which they are entering the university. The first category includes high school graduates or home school students that have a transcript and either an ACT or SAT score. This accounts for approximately 90% of the non-traditional students.

The current BOR policy is one-dimensional. It looks at either a high school GPA or test scores. So if applicants score the minimum requirement they are automatically accepted. The new policy uses a grid that puts the test score on one axis and the GPA on another axis. So a student who has a severe deficiency on either a GPA or test score would receive provisional admission to the university. Thus a non-traditional student’s documentation would be used on the same grid.

The second group of non-traditional students would have taken the GED and the SAT. On the GED there are 5 sections with 800 points possible for a total of 4000 points. The five sections cover writing skills, social science, science, literature, arts, and mathematics. A passing grade is an average score per section of 450 with a minimum of 410. The test score can reasonably be translated into a GPA.

The third category contains applicants with either a transcript or a test score but not both. All of these students would be admitted provisionally. The fourth category is of applicants with neither a test score nor a transcript, who would also be admitted provisionally. In future years some of these students may be directed to the College of Technology, but there would be so few that they could be handled case-by-case.

The new plan is an exciting plan for the future. Jacobs encourages senators to look over the admission plan. He hopes the Senate will endorse the addendum for non-traditional students at the February meeting.

ASUM President Aaron Flint

ASUM is thankful to the Governor’s Office for the allocation of the $2.7 million to assist students. Flint stated that it was the students and the student government’s efforts that secured the money. The success is a testament to the effectiveness of the students’ approach to work with the Legislature and Regents one-on-one. Although the students originally favored direct tuition relief they unanimously supported targeted assistance when the final dollar amount was known.

Flint’s only reservation in terms of financial aid is that middle income/working students are left out of the system. Thus ASUM is working on a national financial aid strategy with two collations (the Collation for Higher Student Loans and the US Student Association). The Collation for Higher Student Loans will be on campus in September. They are working to increase the loan monies in consultation with Mick Hanson. Flint believes that there should be a change in tax categories to allow middle income students access to the loans before there is an increase in monies. Working students often do not receive scholarships because they are working all the time. The US Student Association pushing for more money in Pell grants. ASUM is also working directly with Senator Burns on the financial aid strategy as well as the drug provision in the Higher Education Act.

Last year’s ASUM resolution on plus/minus grading stands with the addition of the resolution that encourages all faculty to use the system and include their grading structure on the course syllabus. Flint said ASUM Senate will offer no further resolutions on plus/minus grading, therefore there is closure now on this issue.

The resolution on academic freedom, authored by Senator Will Holmes, was reconsidered on 12/3/03 and passed 12 to 6. The resolution essentially indicates that academic freedom and intellectual diversity are paramount to a successful and productive education at The University of Montana. The ASUM Senate believes that both faculty and students must be afforded these rights and privileges. An addendum was included that stated the resolution endorses neither Students for Academic Freedom nor its methods.

Montana Campus Compact Raise Your Voice Campaign, Heather Fanning, Jacole Douglas, Eben Reckord -Student Leadership Team

The campaign is designed to address an identify need on campus in small ways. This year the campaign is focused on a pledge system.

The idea developed from a pledge adopted by Humboldt University. Students would at the culmination of their four years sign the pledge to agree to observe ethics in their careers. The leadership team took this a step further to draw students, faculty and staff attention to ethics during their experience on campus.

· “Freshman student” pledge to uphold the ethical standards encouraged by the University of Montana, and to comply with my own sense of dignity and responsibility when participating in academic activities. Furthermore, I pledge to respect my surroundings by taking a sense of ownership to the University.

· “Graduating student” pledge to explore and take into account the social and environmental consequences of any job I consider and will try to improve these aspects of any organizations for which I work.

· “Faculty/staff” pledge to advise and educate students to the best of my knowledge by instilling appropriate ethical values through my guidance, by example, and as my personal ethics command.

The leadership team would like to be as effective as possible and gain support from everyone. Please contact them if you are willing to lend your support, input or criticism. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

Chair Knowles noted that the Campus Compact celebrated its tenth anniversary at the September Board of Regents meeting in Billings.

UFA President Mike Kupilik
There are three items to report from the last Board of Regents meeting. First there is a letter of understanding ready to be signed on the dependent tuition waiver. The waiver will be available to members in the collective bargaining unit who have been employed at least three-quarters time for five consecutive years. A faculty/staff waiver and dependent waiver cannot be utilized at the same time. A dependent is either a spouse or a child (unmarried and under age 24). The waiver is for a 50% registration discount and is good at any university within the system. The waiver does not count toward non-credit Continuing Education courses or other self-supporting courses, graduate programs, or the Law School. Dependent tuition waivers will be accepted starting in summer 2004.

Second, there is an ongoing Regents committee looking into quality benchmarks. The committee is currently soliciting volunteers to work on the benchmarks. The Faculty Senate should be very interested in how the Regents are defining quality.

Third, Regent Roehm called for a Montana University System salary study. He wants to look at salaries across the system for faculty, staff, and administrators. Regent Mercer took a great interest in this and most likely will look to this study to support his already arrived at conclusion.

Committee Reports
ECOS report, Chair Knowles

Chair Knowles received an email from Deputy Commissioner Roger Barber requesting names to serve on the quality benchmark group. He needs the names by next Wednesday. Please inform Chair Knowles of any volunteers or nominees to this committee. Thus far the list of nominees for the quality benchmark group does not include any faculty.

Chair Knowles requested nominations for the Faculty Service Award. Awardees for the past several years include, Stan Jenne, Bill McBroom, Michael Mayer, Bob Deaton, Jerry Esmay, David Bilderback, and Marlene Bachman. Please send names as soon as possible to bill.knowles@umontana.edu. The successful candidate will be recognized at Charter Day in February. ECOS must have a awardee’s name to alumni association before the end of exam week.

ASCRC report, Chair Louis Hayes

Hayes presented curriculum items for approval.

Senator William Holben amended the program revision in Biological Sciences to clarify that the proposal referred only to biological majors.

Senator David Schantz asked whether the minor in non-profit administration could be taken with any major or if there was a list of appropriate majors. Hayes responded that the minor is a standalone minor.

Hayes stated that minor COT course changes are to keep the Associate of Applied Science (AAS) in nursing running in case the Regents do not approve the AS leading to a leading to licensure as a registered nurse. The motion was unanimously approved.

The proposed editing of the catalog language describing the upper-division writing requirement will bring the language into conformity with the procedure. Not all departments have an upper-division writing course specified to meet the requirement in the major, but they do require an upper-division writing course from the approved list.

Senator Linda Gillison asked whether all departments must have a stated requirement. Hayes responded that all departments must have a requirement described in the catalog. The motion was approved

Military Science Minor- ASCRC report

There has been a fair amount of public comment which has been uninformed, misguided, and unhelpful regarding the proposed minor. Consequently ASCRC put together a summary of issues and problems associated with the proposal for anyone who is interested to view. There are several alternative scenarios being considered for spring semester.

Aaron Flint asked when the final draft of the original report would be made available.

Hayes clarified that there is a second body of information that has to do with philosophical and emotional issues that is being put together in a cohesive form. After the break this document will be available in the Faculty Senate Office but will not be posted.

Chair Knowles indicated that Regent Hur is very interested in having a military science minor and is likely to inquire about this issue at the January Regents meeting.

Graduate Council Report

The curriculum motion was presented by Lou Hayes because the Graduate Council Chair is out of the country, the vice chair had a class conflict, and the member who was scheduled to present is sick.

Senator Hayden Ausland asked whether there were any significant issues raised with regards to the proposed PhD in Anthropology. Senator Kevin Canty, a member of the Graduate Council, indicated that the Council went over the proposal in depth and found that it was academically sound. It was well justified and had faculty interested in teaching the program. The only concern might be resource issues.

The motion was approved.

Old Business:
Faculty Library Committee, Vice Chair Winkler

The motion to establish a Faculty Library Committee was read to senators so that everyone could understand the issue. The applicable bylaws were also reviewed.

This committee had been a standing committee of the Faculty Senate. In 1961 the committee had a lengthy charge, which was amended in 1973. Then in 1982 the charge was shortened. Input from various members who have served on the committee indicated that the vague nature of the charge made it difficult to know just what the committee should be doing. The motion to reform the committee is the result of considering the various charges, consultation, and research.

Karen Hill, former Faculty Senate Chair and workgroup member, was introduced to provide a history of the establishment of the subcommittee to review the functions of the committee.

[Chair Knowles noticed a letter being circulated. He asked that a copy be brought to him and the secretary, and stated that it should be read into the record at the appropriate time.]

Hill reported that ECOS was made aware of issues about the way the committee was functioning. After discussion ECOS decided that because of the way things were going and the importance of the library to faculty, the issue should be investigated. As ECOS began to explore the issue, it became apparent that the committee didn’t have a home. Nobody quite knew who had oversight over the committee. ECOS thought that the committee would function better if expectations were made explicit, so proceeded to head in that direction. Throughout this process input was requested from a variety of people. The process definitely originated from ECOS and the Faculty Senate, similar to the Review of Centers, where ECOS instituted procedural guidelines to facilitate the process.

Hill responded that rough drafts were sent to Dean D’Andraia and Provost Muir for input, and the document was accordingly revised.

The current language is the result of a long meeting between Chair Knowles and Vice Chair Winkler and the two senators from the library, Sebastian Derry and Susan Mueller.

Having read the letter distributed by the library faculty, Senator Holly Thompson asked whether ECOS examined whether the committee was still needed. It seems that the Library faculty is opposed to the committee.

Senator Sebastian Derry was then invited to the floor to introduce the letter.

Senator Hayden Ausland asked for a point of order. It was clarified that the senate was still in the presentation phase and not yet in debate.

Winkler stated that this is a question of faculty governance. It is a question of a resource that affects all faculty quite intimately. The faculty are dependent on this resource and can speak to their needs. The Faculty Senate needs to have a committee where its expertise is important and which keeps the faculty informed on issues that impact them through the Senate. There are other areas that are essential to the University in which the Senate has an interest and input. The library department representatives are effective, and are not at issue. There needs to be a committee in an expert position that stays in touch with what is going on in the library and reports back to the Senate.

Chair Knowles opened the floor for debate. He said that the faculty senate administrative assistant had asked library faculty senators for a document to make available to other senators meeting room projection electronics, but none was forthcoming.

Derry read the statement from the library faculty.

Senator David Beck asked how many library faculty there are and what was the vote to adopt the statement. Senator Mueller responded there are 17 faculty; 11 supported the statement against the motion, 4 abstained, and 2 voted in support of the motion.

Senator Craig Johnston asked to hear the suggestions for alternatives mentioned in the statement.

Senator Susan Mueller commented that the Library faculty have two proposals. The first suggestion is to establish a regularly scheduled library report on the Senate agenda that could effectively replace the need for a library committee, while ensuring the timely dissemination of authoritative, university-relevant library information. This could achieve the stated objective of improved communication with the Faculty Senate. Alternatively a new investigatory committee should be formed that includes departmental library representatives, library faculty and previous library and archive committee members to draft a new charge for the library committee. The Library faculty felt that their participation came late and was not very thorough.

Winkler stated that she was taken by surprise by the uproar occasioned by this, and that the ECOS workgroup was just drafting a more specific committee charge by revisiting previous charges, but not re-inventing the need for the committee. Basically when the workgroup was set up, it asked for participation from the Senate. There were other reasons library faculty were not included at the time. When it became clear that library faculty needed to provide input, lines of communication were open. The workgroup had asked for input from the Dean of the Library early on in the discussions and thought he would have brought the faculty into the discussion. After input from the library faculty numerous changes were made to the motion. Incidentally, the proposal from the library faculty is to form a committee made up of departmental library representatives and library faculty which is precisely what the proposed committee is. If after a year it becomes apparent that the committee is not working, clearly the charge can be amended. The charge is a work in progress.

Senator Stephen Kalm, who was a member of the workgroup and a previous chair of the Library and Archive Committee, stated that the most important thing is that we went into this not as hostiles but advocates. The members of the workgroup devoted time over the summer and in the fall to the issue because they are advocates of the library and support its mission. This effort was a positive impulse. He pointed out that last year’s chair was not on the workgroup. It was not the workgroup’s intention for the motion to have a negative connotation to anyone. The workgroup engaged the dean and the library faculty, and for the most part the workgroup adjusted the language to address their comments.

Kalm responded to the library faculty statement that there are already department representatives that are library liaisons. The function of this committee is completely different. Departmental library representative is the correct contact if you need a resource for the department. This is a much more generalized sense of what is going on in the library. We are not talking about whether a particular area needs more reference materials. That would be information that is not particularly useful and would be in a sense micromanaging.

The old charge of the committee was very vague. It stated, “discuss the budget,” not “review as it relates to academic matters.” The faculty are not interested in counting inventory, but rather the general picture and giving the library a greater standing within this body.

This committee would be a Faculty Senate committee. It is important for the Senate to make the choice to say this is truly important to faculty vote for the committee. This committee should not be controlled from the outside. The library faculty’s response indicates that there is a lot that faculty don’t know about information delivery. The point of the committee is to let faculty know about what is going on in the library and how it has adapted to meet the changes in information delivery. He urges senators to vote for the committee, to advocate for the library, and to increase communication between the library and the faculty.

Senator Dick Field was also on the ECOS workgroup. He also is surprised at the forcefulness of the library faculty’s response. The workgroup was aware of the discord on last year’s committee and adopted a policy unbiased towards either side. The workgroup researched other universities and found that most institutions have similar advisory committees. The library is an academic unit; it has a Dean. Without this committee the library would be the only academic unit that does not have regular communication with the Faculty Senate.

Indeed the faculty library representative’s function effectively for scholarly materials. However, there needs to be a systematic way for the needs of the faculty to be communicated to the library. This committee is purely an advisory committee and not an attempt to govern the library in any way. When faculty say things that are unreasonable ignore them, but on occasion when faculty say something reasonable then this should be taken into account. The committee is purely a matter of communication. It is merely a way for the faculty to feel connected to the library. The workgroup tried to make a positive contribution to this need.

Schantz commented that it seems the committee is purely advisory in nature, with no resource allocation, or function over staff. In reading the letter he wonders what is the basis of the concern over the control of resources.

Derry responded that part of the concern stems for previous incarnations of the committee in which it seemed the chair was engaged in demanding specific information to fulfill the charge as interpreted. There is concern that the committee chair could lead the committee in an undesirable direction that might interfere with decision-making.

Gillison commented that the Faculty Library Committee chair would be no more dangerous than a faculty chair of any other committee. It’s just a committee. There are lots of decisions that would go more quickly without going through the Senate, but the process assures that many faculty with diverse disciplinary specific concerns have access to the information. Curriculum changes, for example, must go through ASCRC first and then to the Senate, often this process delays department decisions. However, there is some sense that the Faculty Senate represents the full faculty.

Senator Mike Mayer stated that it seems the library representatives do a good job, but it is not the same as an advisory committee. He sees the committee as a good thing. The Senate is in charge of academic matters, and what is more central to the academic mission of the university than the library itself? We all depend on it and should have some say. A monthly report is not the same as a committee that studies the issues. The Senate needs to have more direct input. He took the survey that was cited in the library faculty’s response and was surprised at how little the questions had to do with what he does in his professional routine or how he or his students use the library. He would support the motion precisely because of the need for input.

Mueller stated that the library is an academic unit. How many of you would like to have a committee that has academic oversight over your department?

Several senators overwhelmingly responded that ASCRC has just such academic oversight.

Mueller responded that the library is also responsible to ASCRC. So this is an additional committee with which we are blasted.

Senator Ralph Judd stated that the library is an academic unit that wears more than one hat. If the library faculty were just teaching that would be one thing, but the library has a large service component as well. So perhaps there is the need for input in other areas. Academic units are constantly under scrutiny. This is a communication problem, not an oversight issue. The committee’s function is to get communication back and forth that would be helpful to everybody.

Chris Mullin, a library faculty member, addressed the issue of communication. He was one of the faculty who abstained. The committee doesn’t bother him that much. The process worries the library faculty. The faculty did not know the review was going on until the very end. He realizes the work was being done in good faith. The biggest problem is with how it occurred.

Winkler apologized for not including the library faculty earlier in the process. She reiterated that as soon as the oversight was realized they were included as much as possible. The initial inclination not to involve the library faculty was out of sensitivity.

Karen Hill continued that the intent was not to put the library faculty in the middle of a difficult issue and was meant to be honorable. The workgroup expected the dean to pass the information on to the library faculty and did not realize he hadn’t.

Mullin stated that the library faculty do not fault the intent but the process. The Library faculty would feel better if there was something more in the way of communication.

Senator Diana Six expressed concern that the charge did not sound advisory.

Winkler clarified that the language used was to participate in the selection and periodic review of the library dean.

Ausland asked whether it would be useful to view the previous committee charges.

The motion to table the issue until the next meeting was made by Senator Kevin Canty, seconded by Senator Stephen Greymorning.

Senator Ausland asked whether the motion was debatable. Chair Knowles allowed debate.

Canty stated that this is a lot of new information that he is reluctant to impose on the library faculty who are opposed.

Winkler stated that the library faculty had opportunity to provide the information to senators ahead of time via the senate web site. The motion has been available for a month and the workgroup has been working on this since July.

Ausland argued that the present motion is designed to reclaim for the faculty a key committee, and seeks to strengthen faculty oversight. The statement speaks to communication, but has to do with faculty oversight over matters of academic concern. The statement indicates the library balances needs, the need of faculty input also must be balanced.

Chair Knowles interrupted to indicate that according to Robert’s Rules a motion to table is undebatable. He apologized for the error and called for a vote on the motion to table.

Registrar Bain counted 20 in favor and 15 against tabling the motion.

Senator Ausland requested a roll call. Senator Bain called the roll. Although the count was thought to be the same at the meeting, a later review of the documentation indicated an error: the actual outcome was 18 in favor and 17 against.

Routine Bylaw Amendment, Chair Knowles

Senator Ausland moved to postpone the motion because it contained language that would affect all senate committees, including the proposed Faculty Library Committee. The motion was seconded by Senator Vicky Micheletto and the vote on the routine bylaw amendment was postponed.

Chair-elect Bylaw Amendment, Workgroup Chair Ametsbichler

The workgroup consisted of Rhea Ashmore, Linda Gillison, Bill McBroom, and Stan Jenne. Reasons to support establishing the Chair-elect are:

· Traditionally, the Vice Chair becomes Chair.

· Advance notice of the commitment will allow for accurate course schedule planning, timely committee appointments, and planning for the upcoming year.

· It is important that the Senate Chair have experience on ECOS