Meeting of the Faculty Senate

January 11, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 12:10 p.m.

Guests:

Sallye McKee, new Associate Provost for Multicultural Affairs

Bob Coombe, Provost

John Coombe, Vice Chancellor for Intellectual Property and Events; Carole Taylor University Webmaster; Stephen Hall, University Copyright Officer

Minutes of the November 9, 2001 meeting were approved.

Susan Sadler introduced new Associate Provost Sallye McKee, Multicultural Affairs, who introduced herself to the Faculty Senate and gave a brief address.

Since coming to DU on November 1, 2001, McKee has found her position to be a challenging one, learning the culture, coming up with ways for the DU community to work together to ensure that multicultural affairs are central to DU's mission (both curricular and extracurricular). Working with students and graduates of color it is her role to chart a course and draft recommendation to the Provost. Who are students? What do they bring to university? DU shows good persistence, but not the bonding that needs to be in place. McKee shared a graph of performance indicators from last quarter that tracked aggregate groups of students of color. She sees a need to raise academic levels of achievement, but believes that the first task is to get to know students and bond them to the co-curricular activities of the Multicultural Center. The Center currently needs materials like adequate desks, chairs, etc. Her stated intent is to build a meaningful support system driven by academics so that students can develop the types of academic and leadership skills they need both in student life and as alumni. She also recognizes the need for assessment measures that can build in on the front and back end of programs to provide formative and summative means to measure effectiveness. Her question to the Senate was, "What do we want our enrollment profile to look like" in terms of achievement, retention, etc.? Her office has formulated short term plans to support graduate students of color that center helping them evolve as scholars and professionals. Skills workshops and networking opportunities are designed to encourage them to work with undergraduates in mentoring roles. McKee's goal is to create an academic mix that will provide a supportive environment and help domestic students of color become what they can be. McKee distributed several handouts detailing the activities of her office, its activities, goals and objectives. She also handed out a questionnaire for faculty and invited senators and faculty to visit her office and web site, and to communicate with her freely. "The Office of Multicultural and Academic Affairs strives to build an inclusive, cohesive, and dynamic campus community." She then invited questions from the floor:

William Anderson (Philosophy) asked if she intended to make appointments to come and address classes. McKee answered "yes," but not as a first priority. Her first charge is to build a working infrastructure that will support services for students who are first generation college attendees or are economically challenged. Issues related to financial aid and student support services must take priority. Margaret Westman (The Women's College) asked if the figures on McKee's handouts include undergraduate women in TWC, which is ~30% women of color. McKee indicated that they did not, that they characterized only the traditional undergraduate programs at DU. Tom Stephen (Physics) asked about overall persistence. McKee's figures represent only the time since she has been here; therefore reflect only her perspective, not an historical one. McKee was then asked if she were incorporating gender efforts into her mission, gender issues being very real. She indicated that one of her first pilot projects is African American male project designed to identify and support subjects.

Sadler referred the questions raised to Student Relations Committee.

Provost Coombe gave a brief explanation of enrollment and revenue figures for Winter Quarter. Enrollment for first three days looks good. The number of undergraduate students falls within 2 students of budget projections. Revenues also fall a little over budget. The return rate of first year students has been very good. This translates into financial stability for the present. With regard to merit increases: the decision had been delayed until this month. Coombe has met with the Chancellor. Conversations have been quite positive. The Board of Trustees will make a final decision regarding merit increases in its meeting on January 25. Coombe feels that indications look very good. The machinery is in place to move forward. Q&A

Cathryn Potter (GSSW) indicated that the" drop dead date" for entry into the Banner System was 1/12/02 and asked how the machinery could be activated. Coombe indicated that there were other systems running, and that a number of people were willing to work overtime to implement changes into February 1 paychecks. Tom Stephen asked if letters would be going out to faculty and staff regarding merit increases. Coombe responded that no letters can go out until deliberation by the BOT. Merit increases are a Board decision, and we have to respect that. Coombe's address should not be considered an announcement, but an indication that indications are positive.

Vice Chancellor John Coombe, Carole Taylor, and Stephen Hall introduced the newly drafted University Privacy Policy, and led a brief discussion of it. Coombe indicated that the purpose of session was to bring senators up to speed on the development of this and other such policies currently under development at the university. The Privacy Policy in particular has not yet been adopted but is in the final phases of consideration. He also indicated that he wished to discuss the Fair Use Policy, which has been published, on the DU Web at http://www.du.edu/intellectualproperty/.

Coombe explained that the Deans' Council would discuss all IP policy draft on January 17, 2002. A follow-up, all university meeting will be scheduled in early March, probably in the form of an open-house in which each element of the policies could be discussed university representatives. In this forum, can questions will be answered. The university Patent Counsel will also be present. Coombe went on to explain that privacy is a sensitive subject, and everyone has strong feelings about it, especially as it applies to our own environment. A body of Law currently exists that regulates policy and practice with regard to privacy. Currently, the US is in a state of war; and the USA Patriot Act has interesting implications for academic policy. The draft of the current university policy was developed by the university's IP Committee, a body made up of faculty, administration, and representatives of all quadrants of the university. A Subcommittee dealt with privacy in particular, working closely with the Privacy Institute and the Privacy Foundation. In summarizing the main points of the document, Coombe explained that the university couldn't be a guarantor of privacy in todays world, given the openness of the net, and the current technological environment. There is no way, from a legal point of view, to provide such a guarantee. In a sense, the current document is essentially a disclaimer. To endeavor to take reasonable precautions is all that DU can guarantee. Users must understand that risk involved in posting and allowing the posting of personal information on web sites. This is the "assumption of risk doctrine." DU cannot become a guarantor of privacy. No one in our society can.

Carole Taylor fielded specific questions about technical issues pertaining websites, email, etc. Such material cannot easily be subpoenaed, because DU doesnt keep it. The university doesn't currently have history of federal agencies demanding student records, but it does have a prominent international student population. We should assume that such situations would arise. If there is a true security or law enforcement issue, university makes decision of whether or not to release information. DU does not market its own information. Questions and answers:

Jack Donnelly (GSIS): Does the wording Does not intend mean, Will not? Coombe responded that within the wording of the document the intent is to deal with something legally improper. Donnelly: In Section 3. Where is "improper"defined? Do we have general guidelines, or do we simply have to trust whoever is in charge to interpret the standards. Coombe responded that the document is deliberately general. Drafting a document that spells out all possibilities is daunting, if not impossible. Donnelly indicated that he was more interested in what might be excluded. An academic community might hold a narrower vision of what constitutes impropriety than a more general community. Are academic rights protected? Broad terms have been used, without an effort to explain what this might cover. Coombe: Good Point. Should effort be undertaken?

Sam Kamin (Law) asked about an acceptable use policy. Taylor indicated that the policy came through UTS. There is a clear statement on the web that is. publicly accessible. Basically, the tenet is, If its illegal, dont do it on our system. UTS, however, does not police university computers. If students engage in improper actions, the case will be referred to the appropriate arm of student services, and US will act on its recommendation. UTS is not prescriptive except on specific technological issues. Wording is deliberately vague; we dont know whats around the corner. Potter reiterated Donnelly's concern that an acceptable use policy might be used to impede academic freedom. Aren't there situations where we might like to be able to act as community to agree on unacceptable uses that are not illegal? Almost anything is acceptable. Coombe: It is inappropriate for politics and religion to be involved. In the recent past, a situation arose where another was harassing one student. The content was academically oriented, but racially tempered. Is this appropriate? What should university do? We did nothing. Coombe agreed to look to ensure that wording is not overly broad.

Dennis Barrett (Biology) asked about releasing student directory information to outside parties without specific consent. Taylor indicated that this was FERPA [Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act] issue, and that the university is required to adhere to standards of FERPA, which define what we can and cannot do. The person on campus most familiar with FERPA is the Registrar, Dennis Becker. His office has a system in place where students can fill out a form to request privacy. Sadler indicated that Becker was traveling today with the Ammi Hyde Interviews, but that this part of the discussion will be continued.

Barrett asked that Coombe ensure that the composition of his committee meet the standard of 50% faculty representation outlined in the Senate Constitution. The makeup of the IP committee is currently to heavily administrative in origin and orientation. Coombe pointed out that many of the questions forwarded to him by
Sadler were indeed question for the Registrar. He suggested that we invite Dennis Becker to address the Senate.

Kamin indicated that all in all he felt that this was a good policy, although he had specific suggestions re: wording.

Mac Clouse, Chair of the Faculty Athletic Committee (FAC) presented three new polices pertaining to DU Scholar-Athletes. FAC has the power to recommend policies to the Provost, but the Senate is setting a precedent here by allowing Clouse to present [in an advisory capacity]. The policies cover three areas:

Class absence/class attendance policy, outlining the role of the student and faculty member in terms of excused absences. This has widespread applications for any student involved in university activities. It is the responsibility of the student to notify faculty of absences and of intent to make them up.

Competition scheduling: Games, matches, meets. Schedules must be presented and approved by FAC before they are approved. Concerns: minimize class absence, despite participation in a geographically diverse conference, and being on the quarter instead of the semester system.

Policy extended to practices as well.

FAC has struggled since 1999 with needing such policies. By bringing these policies to the Senate, it is asking for faculty endorsement before going to the Provost. The first item is of most concern to faculty. Barrett moved that the Senate endorse the policies as presented. Rick Leaman (Law) seconded the motion. Sadler called for discussion. Hearing none, she commended the FAC for its hard work and time. Motion passed unanimously.

Sadler called for continuing or new business.

Meeting adjourned at 1:35

Respectfully submitted

Deborah S. Grealy, Executive Secretary

2/8/02

Notice: The Faculty Senate Office has moved to Margery Reed, Room 122.