Skip Navigation

Our Twitter Feed

March 16, 2012

Meeting of the Faculty Council

Friday, March 16, 2012
3:00 p.m.
Hitchcock Multipurpose Room
Sonja Haynes Stone Center for Black Culture and History

Chancellor Holden Thorp and Professor Jan Boxill, Chair of the Faculty, presiding

Agenda

Seating arrangement

3:00  Chancellor’s Remarks and Question Period

  • Chancellor Holden Thorp

3:10 Provost’s Remarks and Update on the Academic Plan

3:25  Chair of the Faculty’s Remarks

  • Prof. Jan Boxill

3:35 Vote: Resolution 2012-4.  On Establishing a Consolidated Graduate and Professional Student Honor System

3:40  Administrative Board of the Library Committee Report

  • Prof. David Stotts, Chair

3:50   Buildings & Grounds Committee Report

  • Prof. David Owens, Chair

3:55   Committee on Copyright Report

  • Sarah Michalak, Associate Provost and University Librarian, Chair

4:00   Committee on the Status of Women Report

  • Prof. Patrick Curran, Chair

4:05  Committee on University Government Report and Resolutions

4:15 Panel Discussion:  “The Changing Landscape of Textbooks”

Panelists will briefly discuss complications posed by both changing patterns of purchasing, and by the advent of e-books, e-readers, and other non-print “textbook” and “course title” options. Council members will help to direct and shape the ongoing conversation about what the consequences have been (or might be) for them, and for the university, of these recent developments.

Faculty Council Members:  Please respond by midnight, Wednesday, March 14th, to this 5-minute survey about your own textbook concerns.

Panelists:

  • Jean DeSaix (Senior Lecturer, Biology)
  • Kelly Hanner (Course Materials Manager, Student Stores)
  • Zealan Hoover (Student Body Vice President)
  • Sandi Kirshner (EVP, Higher Education Policy, Pearson Publishing)
  • Luke Swindler (Coordinator of General Collections, University Libraries)
  • Moderator:  Bob Henshaw (Instructional Technology Consultant, Center for Faculty Excellence)

Advance Reading:

5:00  Adjourn

Storify, Featuring Live-Tweets from the Meeting

We’re experimenting this month with creating a quick record of the meeting by capturing the live tweets and media reports about it in a Storify.  Check it out here.

Minutes

JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE FACULTY COUNCIL
March 16, 2012

The Faculty Council of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill convened March 16, 2012, at 3:00 p.m. in the Hitchcock Multipurpose Room of the Sonja Haynes Stone Center for Black Culture and History. The following 52 members attended: Anderson, Bachenheimer, Balaban, Boxill, Brice, Bulik, Cavin, Chambers, Champagne, Chenault, Cohen, DeSaix, Eaker-Rich, Earp, Engel, Friga, Fuchs Lokensgar, Gerhardt, Gilliland, Greene, Grinias, Gulledge, Hill, Hodges, Howes, Irons, Ives, Janken, Jones, Koomen, Kramer, Lastra, Leonard, Linden, Maffly-Kipp, McMillan, Milano, Miller, New, Olcott, O’Shaughnessey, Persky, Reiter, Renner, Rodgers, Rusyn, Schoenbach, Spagnoli, Stewart, Szypszak, Tisdale, and Toews.

Call to Order

Chancellor Holden Thorp called the Council to order at 3:00 p.m.

Chancellor’s Remarks and Question Period

Chancellor Thorp began by addressing the recent controversy over the Tar Heel Sports Radio Network’s contract with WRDU 106.1, otherwise known as “Rush Radio,” stemming from remarks by commentator Rush Limbaugh castigating Sarah Fluke, a Georgetown University law student who had testified before Congress on the issue of insurance coverage for contraceptives. The chancellor said that Limbaugh’s comments about Ms. Fluke were  “rude, inappropriate and offensive.” He understands that many faculty are concerned that play-by-play coverage of Tar Heel sports are broadcast on a station that is closely tied to Limbaugh.  The chancellor explained that the Tar Heel Sports Radio Network is an independent contractor for the University. The Network chooses radio stations by the number of listeners reached.  WRDU’s format was country music when it was initially chosen. Now its format is conservative talk radio with Rush Limbaugh as its star attraction. Chancellor Thorp said that Carolina’s association with WRDU does not imply an endorsement of Limbaugh’s politics or those of any other radio personality or politician. He expressed appreciation for an agreement initiated by the Department of Athletics whereby WRDU has agreed to end the practice of referencing the Tar Heel Sports Network or the University’s name while promoting the Limbaugh program and vice versa.

The Chancellor reminded faculty that state and local primary elections are set for May 8. A reminder will be sent the university employees about University policies governing political activity by state employees. He noted that for many years the University has cooperated with the Orange County Board of Elections to have an on-campus early voting site on or near our campus. The site was initially at the Morehead Planetarium. Due to parking issues, it was moved to University Square but that site proved inconvenient for students. This year it has been agreed that early voting will take place in the Rams Head dining hall and the university will provide free parking for voters in the Rams Head deck.

Chancellor Thorp expressed relief about the conclusion of the NCAA investigation into our football program. During the 20-month-long investigation, the university’s goal was to be cooperative and thorough in the investigation. The chancellor said that he was especially pleased that this was noted in the report, and that the NCAA complimented UNC athletics on doing everything we could to cooperate. He said that he hoped to not have as many penalties as we got, but it was his decision that it would be better not to appeal the ruling and thus to end the investigation and allow us to move on.  He said that the football program was already prepared for possible scholarship reductions, so foresight has blunted the impact of that sanction. Chancellor Thorp thanked all those who helped with the investigation, and said that he is especially disappointed for the seniors who will not be able to go to bowl games next season.

Prof. Tom Linden (Journalism) asked if WRDU will continue to identify the station as “Rush Radio” when broadcasting Tar Heel games. Chancellor Thorp responded that he does not know for sure, but there will not be any endorsements of Limbaugh’s show during Tar Heel sports broadcasts. Prof. Linden followed up by pointing out that although the Tar Heel Sports Network is an independent nonprofit entity, it is licensed by UNC. He insisted it is not enough just to remove objectionable promotions from the sportscast. He asked when the contract can be terminated and what kind of leverage we can exert to come to an earlier dissolution of the relationship. Chancellor Thorp replied that he is not familiar with the technical aspects of the contract, but he noted that whether the dissolution of the contract helps or hurts UNC’s image depends on one’s political opinions. He said that he plans to see how the relationship evolves over the future.

Prof. Lloyd Kramer (History) asked for comment about the idea of paying stipends to athletes. He asked if we have a position on that. Chancellor Thorp said that the total value of scholarships for athletes is less than other students, including need-based aid, because the NCAA controls the value of scholarships that can be offered to student athletes.  He said it is hard for athletes to have a part-time job to make up the difference. He said that he was a member of a working group of university presidents that proposed a $2,000 stipend for athletes. It was voted down because not all Division 1 colleges can afford it. The NCAA has struggled to get it approved, but several issues came up regarding implementation, such as how much of the stipend  should be available to those on partial scholarships and whether a stipend should be offered to athletes in non-revenue sports. Some were concerned about the potential impact on compliance with Title IV. He said that he did not vote against the $2,000 stipend, but the NCAA still needs to address many of the details for implementing the proposal. For example, the NCAA must take into account the fact that some student athletes get Pell grants and others receive need-based aid. The working group asked the NCAA to come back with another proposal taking into account financial aid and Title IV. He expressed satisfaction that UNC is having these ongoing discussions and he wants to continue these types of intellectual exchanges.

Provost’s Remarks and Update on the Academic Plan

Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Bruce Carney delivered a presentation on the themes and priorities of the Academic Plan. He outlined the ways in which most of the themes have already begun to be implemented. [In the summary below, Provost Carney’s responses to the theme priorities are in bold italics.]

Theme 1:  Work as an integrated university to attract, challenge, and inspire students through transformative academic experiences.

Theme 1 Priorities

  • Guarantee every first-year student a seat in a first-year seminar. Budget hearings may lead to a first step.
  • Pilot innovative lecture courses.  Request for proposals was included in the Budget hearing memo to the deans.
  • Create Bachelor’s to Master’s degrees that can be earned in four or five years of study. School of Information & Library Science’s proposal a B.S./M.S.  in Information Science has been approved; M.S. in Global Studies is awaiting approval.
  • Support the expansion of the Honors Program and develop alternate opportunities to Honors. This is on the way to completion, thanks to private fund-raising by the College. As of Fall 2011, 291 first-year students admitted to Honors, and we expect 400 to be admitted in the fall of 2013.

Theme 2 Faculty: Prominence, Composition, Recruitment, Development, Retention, and Scholarship

Theme 2 Priorities

  • Reinstate the spousal hiring program.  Completed.
  • Ensure that salaries and compensation are equitable through continuous monitoring of faculty and staff salaries.  Preliminary outline has been discussed; we are awaiting a detailed report.
  • Create a pilot Faculty-Student Mentoring Program. Proposal for the program has been received. Financial implications are under study.
  • Survey examining study leaves at peer universities. Completed.

Theme 3 Interdisciplinarity in teaching, research, and public engagement

Theme 3 Priorities

  • Coordinate and expedite collaborative teaching efforts across departments, schools, and disciplines via shared financial support. The College is investing $60K for the coming year to encourage and fund such developments. Proposals are due April 1.
  • Promote interdisciplinary teaching and research activities via an annual conference. The Global Research Institute has made a good start on this. We are expanding the idea to our first campus-wide theme: Water in Our World.

Theme 4 Equity and Inclusion at Carolina

Theme 4 Priorities

  • Broaden the mandate and resources of the Office of Diversity and Multicultural Affairs. Discussions with Vice Provost Taffye Clayton are underway, and an additional senior director position will soon be authorized and posted.
  • Create and maintain a central inclusion and equity website. Interim Chief Diversity Officer Terri Houston identified all the pipeline programs at Carolina. Vice Provost Clayton will be working on this.
  • Establish a task force to examine whether a student ombudsperson is needed. In November, 2011, the subcommittee met with the Ombuds Office staff. Discussions with Student Affairs and my office are underway.
  • All academic and enrichment programs should offer and advertise application fee waivers. Undergraduate Admissions does provide waivers; work is underway to alert needy students of the opportunity.
  • Maintain strategic partnerships with North Carolina high schools. This is the Carolina Advising Corps. Twenty-nine recent graduates advise students in 57 low-income high schools across the state. In the Fall 2011semester, they met with over 9,200 individuals and 2,000 groups.
  • Establish priority registration for students who have significant commitments outside the University. This is under discussion with the Registrar and the Enrollment Policy Committee.

Theme 5 Engaged scholars and scholarship

Theme 5 Priorities

  • Include engaged scholarship and related activities in promotion and tenure evaluations, and revise appointment, promotion, and tenure manuals for each school. In May, 2011, my office asked all of the deans to provide a comprehensive update to their written policies, with a December, 2011 deadline. Two schools’ policies are complete enough for legal review; others are being revised or developed.
  • Launch a UNC Engagement Council. A proposal has been received; we are nearly ready for launch.

Theme 6 Extend Carolina’s global presence, teaching, research, and public service

Theme 6 Priorities

  • Augment global learning opportunities for students.
  • Global student survey conducted by Student Government. Completed.
  • Housing preference process for all entering students. Completed.
  • International student handbook. Completed.
  • Living/learning community for global and other interested undergraduate students. A plan is in place.
  • Orientation for global undergraduate students. This has been revised.
  • Implement new opportunities for low-income students. This is ongoing.

Reach Carolina 2011…Looking Back and Looking Ahead

  • Development of resources. State funding and tuition.
  • Priority on instructional capacity and course sections for this year.
  • Priority on faculty salaries and retention for this year.
  • Continued emphasis on the Academic Plan for 2013-2014.

Provost Carney thanked the faculty for filling out the faculty retention survey sent out by Student Body Vice President Zealan Hoover.

Chair of the Faculty Remarks and Question Period

Chair of the Faculty Jan Boxill expressed satisfaction that the Academic Plan and Water Theme steering committees have been moving quickly. The campus water theme will launch on March 22, International Water Day. There will be a reading of the “Way of Water,” a play about BP Oil Spill at the Old Well.

Prof. Boxill said that the Honor System Task Force is active and considering many aspects and stakeholders. The group intends to take the process very slowly. One group will look at quick improvements and the other will look at underlying philosophy behind the Honor System. The Faculty Advisory Committee is educating faculty about their roles in the system through departmental presentations.  They are also working to enhance the University Hearings Board. The results of the turnitin.com pilot are expected at the end of the spring term.

Prof. Boxill commented that there have been lots of discussions about athletics among faculty. The discussions are open, lively, informative, and include faculty, staff, students and administrators. Discussions have provided insights into the complexities of athletic programs on campus. Many have learned that solutions are not as simple as providing a $2,000 stipend to student athletes.

Resolution 2012-4. On Establishing a Consolidated Graduate and Professional Student Honor System

Assistant Dean of Students Melinda Manning presented a resolution On Establishing a Consolidated Graduate and Professional Student Honor System.  She explained that the measure has already been passed by the Committee on Student Conduct and Student Government. If passed by Faculty Council, it will go to Chancellor next for approval.

The resolution will combine six separate honor systems into one Graduate and Professional Student Honor System.  This will help solve some of the problems created by insufficient staffing, high member turnover, and lack of experienced members.  Combining honor systems will help with the timely processing of cases. Honor court members are unavailable in summer in some schools, and often do not have experience because of few cases being processed. Undergraduates have been more proficient because of the higher caseload in the undergraduate honor system. There are also problems with identifying enough students for leadership roles in the separate systems.

The proposal creates one central system similar to what the undergraduate students already have. Professional schools wanted some degree of autonomy so there would be representation from all those schools. The schools would be charged with recruitment as well. This resolution would also create a new position of outreach coordinator. That person would go to various departments and answer questions about the system. The resolution was adopted without dissent. See Appendix A.

Administrative Board of the Library Committee Report

Prof. David Stotts (Computer Science) presented the committee’s report.  He explained that there are now 14 members as a result of Resolution 2010-1 which revised the Faculty Code to change the composition of the board. The Committee on University Government has now prepared an updated charge for the committee. Prof. Stotts said that the committee is impressed with librarians’ level of service after years of budget cuts and emphasized that services are maintained at a very high level.

One new item on the committee’s agenda is the financing of Articles Plus for the library webpage. This tool provides the integrated ability to search a wide variety of research databases.  It is popular among with both students and faculty.

Prof. Stotts also mentioned that renovations are ongoing in Wilson Library to remedy fire and safety code problems. There is also a study going on about public spaces in Wilson and how the library may best serve the public’s needs. Part of this may be achieved by moving into the digital age with more content being provided in digital format. Library staff are participating in a six month program to create better data management plans. A new science library is in formation at the moment.

The committee still has two meetings. It will hear updates from the Health Sciences and Law Libraries.  The committee is asking stakeholders to consider where they think the University Libraries should be going over the next decade if funds become available.

 Buildings and Grounds Committee Report

Prof. David Owens (Government) briefly reported that after a slow period, the committee’s work seems to be returning to a normal level of activity.

 Committee on Copyright Report

Associate Provost and University Librarian Sarah Michalak reported that the committee has met four times. Members recommended terms and FAQs that should be posted to committee’s webpage on the university library’s website. They also considered  whether the embargo on publication of dissertations should be extended for more than one year (the present policy). Dean Matteson will continue working on this issue. The committee is also examining faculty copyright issues, including educating faculty about the differences between copyright, open access, and fair use.

Committee on the Status of Women Report

Prof. Patrick Curran (Psychology) presented a brief overview of the committee’s charge to address the ongoing concerns of women faculty members. The committee reviewed prior annual reports dating back to 1998 and found that while good work was being done, few tangible outcomes or policy changes have occurred as a result.  A common thread among previous reports was repeated recommendations for ongoing data collection. The committee wanted to design and implement ongoing data collection on representation of women in leadership positions.

The committee developed a Women and Leadership Assessment and recommends that it all departments be required to complete and file it annually. The survey assesses standard leadership roles held by women from temporary assignments to endowed chairs. The goal is to incorporate the results into the committee’s annual report.

Prof. Curran explained that one challenge of the survey is how to make it mandatory. There is also a need for some amount of financial support to sustain the assessment. The purpose of it is two-fold: to gather information and track trends over time, and to keep gender issues at the forefront throughout the year.

Prof. Steve Bachenheimer (Microbiology and Immunology asked how the committee defines “leadership.” He thought that the assessment form appears to capture only leadership at the departmental level. He noted that it would appear not to capture the fact that the current chair of the faculty is a woman.  Prof. Ferrell (Secretary of the Faculty) noted that the Office of Faculty Governance could complete such a survey for all elected and appointed positions in faculty governance. Prof. Victor Schoenbach (Public Health) asked whether the AAUP collects this type of data. Prof. Curran replied that he was not aware of any data collection like this at other institutions.

Committee on University Government Report and Resolutions

Secretary of the Faculty Joseph Ferrell presented two resolutions on behalf of the Committee on University Government in the absence of Prof. Vin Steponaitis, chair of the committee.

Prof. Ferrell laid before the General Faculty Resolution 2012-2. On Amending the Faculty Code of University Government to Update the Charge of the Administrative Board of the Library. He explained that the resolution streamlines and updates the charge of the Administrative Board of the Library and is not intended to effect substantive change. The resolution was adopted on first reading and will appear for second reading and vote at the April General Faculty  meeting.

Prof. Ferrell  laid before the General Faculty Resolution 2012-3.  On Amending the Faculty Code of University Government to Provide for the Removal of Committee Members Who Are Repeatedly Absent Without Cause. He explained that the resolution fills a gap in the Faculty Code. Currently, a member of the Faculty Council who fails to attend two successive meetings without stating good cause can be removed from office. There is no such provision for elected or appointed standing committees of the General Faculty. This Code amendment would permit removal of a member who fails to attend meetings without stating good cause. The resolution was adopted on first reading and will appear for a second reading and vote at the April meeting.

Panel Discussion:  “The Changing Landscape of Textbooks”

Prof. Boxill introduced the following panel participants: Jean DeSaix (Senior Lecturer, Biology), Kelly Hanner (Course Materials Manager, Student Stores), Zealan Hoover (Student Body Vice President), Sandi Kirshner (Executive Vice President, Higher Education Policy, Pearson Publishing), Luke Swindler (Coordinator of General Collections, University Libraries), and panel moderator Bob Henshaw (Instructional Technology Consultant, Center for Faculty Excellence).

Henshaw: Old e-texts were similar to .pdfs, but since the first e-texts, much has changed and many new developments have been made to make textbooks more interactive. New ones are much more engaging.

Henshaw demonstrated the features of a current version of a biology e-text book that offers personalized options for students. He then asked each of the panelists to consider the following question: In thinking about textbooks what is the most important issue for you?

DeSaix: My pressing issues are figuring out opportunities and challenges that come with these books. My students are required to have an e-book. I like the interactivity, access to animation, and real time-ability. The search function is great, too. I want students to know about those opportunities. The challenges are helping them to know what works for them. E-books do not work for everybody.

Hanner: Student Stores wants to be a part of the adoption of e-books and technology. They have been working with Course Store since the 2008. But they currently only offer faculty approved e-book options. It is up to faculty members to approve an e-book.  So far there has not been a lot of interest in e-books. In Fall 2012, the publishing division will allow digital publication packs as well as print packs. This will help faculty because customized e-books or bundled e-books not currently available.  Scholarships are problematic because some students must buy texts through store. Digital purchasing would financially impact Student Stores.

Hoover: Textbooks are a significant part of day to day student experience. He has seen a number of different texts and environments. For students, there is a big difference between a $50 online textbook and $100 print textbook that can be resold. Transferability (able to resell) and permanence (able to keep the books) seem to be the main factors driving student choices.  There are hidden costs to e-books.  Online texts are great, but if students are printing them off there is an additional cost. Not every textbook is as refined as the Biology demo. A .pdf that is scanned and put online is not the ideal. Students can be most conservative when it comes to change.

Kirshner: The e-book that is a digital version of a print product is not good because it is not an exciting experience for students. Cost savings when buying the digital book is not driving factor in student choice. Pearson is looking at technology to enhance student learning. They have 90 disciplines with complete learning platforms. What was formally known as “book content” is now organized to enable different kinds of learning. Adaptive learning is built in. Recommendation engines are built in to serve students information to make their experience relevant to them.  The tablet and mobile phone devices are going to drive development of e-books.

Swindler: University Libraries are challenged to figure out what people want, what is sustainable, how customized textbooks affect purchase of books, and permissions for students about what they can do with the text. E-texts are a small niche. Students and instructors are often disappointed with content. We need more information and guidance. So far, the experience has been a “jagged, but rapid evolution of textbooks.”

Questions  

Prof. Tom Linden (Journalism):  What plans are in place to ensure permanence of digital books that will last 20-30 years after tablets will be as old as a Morse code device?

Kirshner: This is a big question for the publishing industry. They are working with technology companies around that issue. Right now, they do not have an answer. There is a similar issue with microfiche too.

Swindler: No one has solved the issue of continuous migration to software and hardware platforms. Libraries have more than a million e-books and they are concerned about that.

DeSaix: Rather than students pulling old textbooks off their shelves, Google might be what students are using for reference.

Henshaw: In 2008, 70% of student sold their textbooks. The ability to sell hard copies back is important for students.

Hoover: For individual students, textbooks for some subjects are worth keeping, but some may not be used in the future.  Many students off-load more expensive textbooks and some keep the ones they think they need for the future.

Hanner: Time limitations on e-books are a problem.

Prof. Joy Renner (Allied Health): Can e-texts be downloaded and saved on a network?

DeSaix: I’ve only heard of that only one time. Most e-texts are internet based and require internet access.

Prof. Kristin Reiter (Public Health):  The availability of power and WIFI to run devices is not consistent across all classrooms on campus.  This can affect whether an e-textbook can be used during class.

DeSaix: There are no wireless nodes in 103 Stone Center, for example. Some students have the textbook with them and some do not bring it to class.

Hanner: I have not been able to use an e-book at home because there are no internet carriers in my area.

Kirshner: Pearson has been involved in lobbying for better broadband access. Some cell phone carriers provide network access to mobile devices that have internet. Students are using phones now to access e-books.

DeSaix: Another accessibility issue involves students with disabilities.

Prof. Paul Friga (School of Business):  Can we lead in this area to assist faculty in creating their own texts?  In the Business School, we are creating learning apps. Is there a system-wide initiative for making custom apps and offerings available for free to faculty and students?

Kirshner: Pearson is now developing apps that are open source.

Hoover: This is a good opportunity for UNC to lead, but it is the tablet is the device that is making the adoption of e-texts possible and we tablets are not emphasized by the CCI program. We have a tablet option but students are still buying laptops. Tablets are critical but once textbooks are downloaded features are lost.

Provost Carney: The Provost’s Office has asked the task force to look into CCI’s inclusion of tablets.

Prof. Shielda Rodgers (Nursing): I disliked the e-book available for my course because was not formatted very well, but she I liked that it incorporated different learning styles and gives students options.

Swindler: Graduate students like paper texts. Undergraduates said that tablets and computers are too distracting and they cannot concentrate.  Most prefer print to e-book option.

DeSaix: I think we need to make both options available when possible.

Hoover: A hybrid model seems to be the most popular. Online quizzes and flashcards are great. But paper is important, too.

Henshaw: What should we do to help prepare the university for a transition to e-books?

DeSaix: Make both options available.

Hanner: Apple has announced textbooks options for the iPad through iBooks. Younger students may grow up on e-texts. The transition might take a while, but it is going to happen.

Hoover: Students are generally open and excited about e-texts but they have to be good and engaging e-texts.

Kirshner: Check out new products and give students a choice.

Swindler: Give feedback to library.

Prof. Jeff Greene (Education): A number of faculty in education are studying learning and technology. They have found that the move toward digital books is not a substitute from the traditional textbook.

Adjournment

Its business having concluded, the Council adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted

Joseph S. Ferrell
Secretary of the Faculty

Appendix A

Resolution 2012-2. On Amending the Faculty Code of University Government to Update the Charge of the Administrative Board of the Library.

The General Faculty enacts that

§ 12-3 of the Faculty Code of University Government is amended as follows

(deletions are crossed out, additions are underlined):

§ 12-3. Administrative Board of the Library; duties.

Subject to the power of the General Faculty and the Faculty Council, the Administrative Board:

1. Advises the University librarian on the administration of the University library system;

2. Formulates, together with the University librarian, the basic general policies governing the acquisition of, access to, and use of library collections; of library materials and the use of such materials;

3.  Allocates, with the advice of the University librarian, the book funds which are not specifically designated;

4. Submits to the chancellor, through the University librarian, its advice on the establishment or discontinuance of library service units outside of the general library building;

 5 3. Reviews the University librarian’s budget request; and

6 4. Makes an annual report to the Faculty Council.

Appendix B

Resolution 2012-3. On Amending the Faculty Code of University Government to Provide for the Removal of Committee Members Who Are Repeatedly Absent Without Cause.

The General Faculty enacts that § 4-1 of the Faculty Code of University Government is amended by adding a new subsection as follows:

(d) It is the duty of all members to attend committee meetings, save for good cause. If any elected or appointed member is absent for two successive meetings without cause, the secretary of the faculty, upon referral by the committee’s chair and acting with the advice and consent of the Faculty Executive Committee, may declare the seat vacant. In the case of elected committees, the vacancy is filled as provided in § 4-3. In the case of appointed committees, the secretary notifies the appointing officer.

Appendix C

Resolution 2012-2. On Establishing a Consolidated Graduate and Professional Student Honor System.

The Faculty Council hereby consents to the following amendments to the Instrument of Student Judicial Governance:

Section 1. Section V.A.1.C.ii. of the Instrument reads as rewritten:

ii. Duties. The Honor System Outreach Coordinator or Coordinators shall be responsible for coordination and promotion of outreach activities by the Office of the Undergraduate Student Attorney General and the Office of the Undergraduate Honor Court; working with the Faculty Honor System Advisory Committee to improve information and education relating to academic integrity issues; working with the student government and other student organizations to foster information and education regarding student conduct issues; and such other related coordination and outreach activities as may be appropriate after consultation with the Undergraduate Student Attorney General, Office of the Undergraduate Honor Court, graduate and professional school honor system officers,  the Graduate and Professional Attorney General, the Graduate and Professional Honor Court Chair, the Judicial Programs Officer, the Dean of Students, and the Committee on Student Conduct. The Honor System Outreach Coordinator shall also serve as an appointed or ex officio member of the Committee on Student Conduct.

Section 2. Section V.A.2.a of the Instrument reads as rewritten:

2. Graduate and Professional School  Honor Systems.System.

a. Graduate Student Honor System  and Professional Honor System. The graduate student governance agency shall appoint a Graduate School Attorney General and the Chair and members of the Graduate School Honor Court,  Graduate and Professional Attorney General and Graduate and Professional Honor Court Chair  in accordance with its governance and judicial structures. The Graduate School Honor System and Professional Honor System shall be responsible for charges against students enrolled in a degree program in the University’s Graduate  School or Professional Schools  or any course in post baccalaureate study except as provided in Section V.A.2.b. Except as provided in Appendix C, all other sections of this Instrument shall apply. Only Graduate or Professional students in good standing at the University who have at least one semester of experience on the Graduate and Professional Attorney General’s staff f  shall be eligible for appointment to the Graduate and Professional Attorney General position. Only Graduate or Professional students in good standing at the University who have at least one semester of experience on the Graduate and Professional Honor Court staff shall be eligible for appointment to the Graduate and Professional Honor Court Chair position. The Graduate and Professional Attorney General, in cooperation with the Graduate and Professional Honor Court Chair, shall appoint an experienced student candidate to serve as Graduate and Professional Honor System Outreach Coordinator. The Graduate and Professional Attorney General shall also serve as an appointed or ex officio member of the Committee on Student Conduct; foster cooperation between the Graduate and Professional Attorney General’s Office and the Office of the Graduate and Professional Honor Court; work closely with the Faculty Advisory Panel on the Honor System; and advise the Judicial Programs Officer, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, Chancellor, and Chair of the Faculty about matters relating to the Honor System and Honor Code.

Section 3. Section V.A.2.b.i of the Instrument is repealed.

Section 4. Section V.A.2.b.ii. of the Instrument is repealed.

Section 5. Section V.B.1. of the Instrument reads as rewritten:

1. Appointment. The Chair of the Faculty shall appoint a five-member Faculty Honor System Advisory Committee, drawn from faculty members with interest and experience concerning the campus Honor System. In making the requisite appointments, the Chair of the Faculty shall take into account recommendations by the Undergraduate Student Attorney General, the Chair of the Undergraduate Honor Court, and the Graduate Student Attorney General Graduate and Professional Attorney General. In making appointments, the Chair of the Faculty should strive to maintain a committee that is broadly representative (in terms of academic units and faculty rank) and possesses relevant expertise (such as experience with legal systems, knowledge of undergraduate and graduate-level issues, experience with instructional development, and awareness concerning the operation of the Honor System). Members of the advisory committee shall serve for overlapping three-year terms or until their successors have been appointed.

Section 6. Section V.B.2. of the Instrument reads as rewritten:

2. Duties. The Faculty Honor System Advisory Committee shall have the following duties: providing advice when appropriate to the Undergraduate and Graduate School Attorneys General Undergraduate Attorney General and Graduate and Professional Attorney General  regarding difficult academic charge decisions; communicating to student judicial officers information regarding faculty concerns or suggestions for improvement of the Honor System; assisting the student judicial officers with outreach and educational activities to involve academic departments and the greater campus community in discussion of issues of honor and integrity; assisting in the development of training materials for use in the Honor System; serving as a source of expertise and advice on educational sanctions; and such other duties as may be appropriate to bolster the effectiveness and smooth operation of the Honor System.

Section 7. Section C.1. of Appendix C of the Instrument reads as rewritten:

1. Undergraduate Honor Court. The Undergraduate Honor Court shall have authority to hear all matters involving violations of the Honor Code except those within the authority of the Graduate or Professional School Courts,  Honor Court, those cases reserved to the University Hearings Board in Section C.5. of Appendix C, and those cases reserved for the Summer School Court under Section C.2. of Appendix C.

Section 8. Section C.3. of Appendix C of the Instrument reads as rewritten:

3. Graduate School  Graduate and Professional Honor Court. The Graduate School

Graduate and Professional Honor Court shall have authority to hear all matters

concerning alleged violations of the Honor Code by students who are enrolled in a degree program in the University’s Graduate School or any other course in post-baccalaureate study, except as specified in Section C.4. of Appendix C (relating to professional school courts) or  Section C.5. of Appendix C (relating to cases referred to the University Hearings Board).

Section 9. Section C.4. of Appendix C of the Instrument is repealed.

Section 10. Section E.1.a. of Appendix C of the Instrument reads as rewritten:

a. Student Court panels. Hearing panels of the Undergraduate Court shall be composed of a presiding officer selected by random, drawing from a pool composed of the chair and vice chairs of the pertinent court, and four additional members selected by random, drawing from a pool composed of the remaining members of the pertinent court. Hearing panels of the graduate school and professional school courts  Graduate and Professional Honor Court shall be determined according to procedures established pursuant to the governance systems established by these schools.  composed of a presiding officer selected from a pool composed of the Chair and vice chairs, and four additional members selected by random drawing from a pool composed of the remaining members of the Court. If the Graduate and Professional Honor Court is hearing an alleged offense committed by a student enrolled in a professional school, the Chair will endeavor to seat court members enrolled in the accused student’s designated professional school on the hearing panel first.

Section 11. Section F.2. of Appendix C of the Instrument reads as rewritten:

2. Expedited Hearing Panels in Graduate and Professional School Courts  Honor Court. Expedited hearing procedures for purposes of determining sanctions may be adopted by the graduate and professional school courts  Graduate and Professional Honor Court in accordance with the governance systems  system in effect.

Section 12. Section I.1.a. of Appendix C of the Instrument reads as rewritten:

a. Authority of University Hearings Board and Composition of Appellate Panel. The University Hearings Board shall have the authority to hear appeals in cases originally considered by the Undergraduate Court (including an expedited hearing panel), Summer School Honor Court, Graduate School Court, or Courts of the Professional Schools or the Graduate and Professional Honor Court. The University Hearings Board shall also have appellate jurisdiction over cases within its authority to hear original matters as specified in Section C.5. of Appendix C, provided that no individual who has served on the original hearing panel shall serve as part of the appellate panel. For purposes of exercising its appellate authority, an appellate panel shall be constituted, including two faculty members selected from among those serving on the Faculty Hearings Board Panel, one designee of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, and two students designated by the Chair of the appropriate student court having original authority who have not been involved in prior proceedings in the case. A faculty member or administrator designated by the Vice Chancellor shall serve as presiding officer.