Guests: Dennis Becker, Deborah Barton, Christine Austin

Minutes from the October 22 meeting were approved.

Arthur announced that the $1000 lost key charge for faculty teaching in Daniels College of Business has been rescinded. Dean Saitta announced that the Graduate Council has approved a masters degree for GSIS in International Human Rights.

Dennis Becker, Registrar, distributed copies of the Office of the Registrar's Departmental Self-Study, and a System Overview of Banner 2000 Student Software. Nancy Sampson is the Senate representative on the Banner advisory team. According to Becker, the new software will be implemented January 1 and will integrate the   payroll system, alumni records, human resources, advising, registration, recruitment and a web for faculty.

Larry Larson, Center for Spirituality, Department of Wellness, delayed.

Fisher Early Learning Center. Arthur discussed possible cost issues attending the opening of the Fisher Early Learning Center, urging that the Senate and the Staff Advisory Council (SAC) be vigilant to ensure that pricing and faculty/staff access not be eroded, as they were in the case of the Wellness Center. He encouraged all senators to send their reactions to the Personnel Committee, chaired by Deborah Howard (dhoward@du.edu).

Notice of Motion:  The Honor Code. Jack Donnelly presented the draft of a Senate resolution to endorse the establishment of a university-wide honor code. The Board of Trustees voted to approve the Honor Code last June. The resolution will be voted on at the next meeting of the Senate on January 14.  If the motion is passed in January, the Honor Code will return to the Trustees with the Senate's endorsement. The code will be then implemented in two phases. The Provost with implementing the Code has charged Deborah Barton and Christine Austin. The Honor Code would go into effect in fall 2000.

One concern that Jack sees are cases where faculty members are serving in administrative or staff capacities. Under which rubric should they be governed? He will ask for clarification. Three supporting documents outline policies and procedures for faculty, staff, and students. Beginning in fall 2000, the code will govern the activities of DU students. Reporting of infractions will be encouraged, but not mandatory. Faculty will generally handle the first violation reported. The second will go through the system as a reported offense. The faculty will determine punishments and grades, not by central administration.

Other areas of potential concern might include representation, coercion of faculty, and the composition of faculty pools. The current document is a general draft that sets parameters. If the Senate resolution is passed, Senate will be committed to working on the document, to clean it up and implement it.

Q. Antonia Banducci: Which of the supporting documents govern faculty involvement? Especially in the classroom? Is this a student/faculty process issue?

Both the Academic Planning and Student Relations Committees will have input and oversight.

Ved Nanda characterized faculty as "involved but not committed" to playing the role of enforcers. Jack pointed out that the document is dynamic, that significant changes have been made since morning.

Jennifer Pap expressed concern about the negative language/connotation in paragraph two:

She suggested that it be moved to a section on procedures. Deborah Barton explained that because the language specifically refers to consequences, it must remain in the document, for legal reasons. Antonia suggested reversing the order of the sentence with the one beginning, "Through an atmosphere of mutual respect . . ." so as to maintain a more positive tone. Kathryn Potter pointed out that the sentence in question is the only real statement in the entire document. All the rest consists of platitudes. Jack pointed out that intentional misrepresentation is the focus of the current document that further applications will be developed in future iterations.

Arthur urged all senators to respond to the members of the Honor Code Committee, and reminded the group that the Notice of Motion will be voted on on January 7.

Q. Robert Urquhart: Will discussion of the code resume at the next meeting? Arthur responded that the document should remain open to change until the Board of Trustees votes it on. Robert suggested that the best approach would be to make a positive statement of general principles and policies on cheating. The general assumption should be that we should all follow these principles. The rest (re: violations) should go in a section on procedures.

Jack asked that any senators with substantive objections to the document email members of the committee; and that the January discussion focuses on substantive issues.

Adjunct Faculty Award. Antonia Banducci (on behalf of Carol Nappholz) reviewed the proposal that the Faculty Senate endorse the Provost's suggestion that a special Adjunct Faculty Award be added to the existing array of faculty awards. Ved Nanda called the question. It was approved unanimously.

Board of Trustees Report. Susan Sadler and Leon Giles reported on the latest BOT meeting. Susan reported that the meeting had been optimistic and upbeat about furthering DU's building plan. Budgetary resolutions were passed to support the next phase of building. The BOT has initiated negotiations with architects to discuss the new residence hall and the Performing Arts Center. The building will eliminate existing parking lots, so a multilevel parking structure will also be built. The resolutions will increase existing bond debt by 25%. Susan also reported that the endowment is also growing, and that the tie between faculty salaries and undergraduate enrollment will be reflected in a 3.5% merit pool. In addition, minority student enrollment is now up to 15.5%, which is a significant increase. Leon expressed his concern, as Chair of the Financial Planning Committee, at the increase in university indebtedness.

Notice of Motion: The Core Curriculum. With regard to faculty ratification of the recommendations coming from the Core Curriculum Committee, interdisciplinary programs are outside the parameters of usual departmental structures and procedures. Should approvals come all faculty members? University-wide? Should decisions be made on a unit by unit basis? Should graduate faculty be excluded in the decision making process? Should decision-making reside only with those faculty involved in teaching CORE? Should this matter be addressed in a general faculty meeting? Susan pointed out that the question at hand is only a prelude to decision making which will take place during Winter Quarter. The goal is to speed up the process. George Potts stated that the Senate should decide on procedures at the January Meeting. Arthur asked that the Academic Planning Committee propose wording for the motion. Ved Nanda feels that graduate and professional faculty should not vote on the CORE curriculum, that this is a matter that should primarily be the concern of undergraduate faculty, specifically CORE faculty. In his opinion, if the matter is brought to a faculty vote, Faculty Senate should not have another separate vote. Further discussion ensued about who should vote and how to tally votes. George Potts summarized the discussion by asking, "Whose decision is this ultimately? The Board of Trustees? The faculty? The administration? . . " Arthur would prefer to assume that it is a faculty decision. It was ultimately decided that this is a matter for discussion in an upcoming general faculty meeting.

Center for Spirituality (Wellness Center) Larry Larson addressed the Senate briefly on the mission of the Center for Spirituality. The Center is an interdisciplinary faculty initiative, modeled on a project pioneered at Wellesley. It is intended to provide for balanced wellness and to counteract the general malaise and disconnect that is prevalent on campuses today. The Center is seen as a facilitator creating faculty connections with students and colleagues.

Leon Giles expressed his concern over DU's partnership with AT&T re the new Pioneer Cards. Is this appropriate and ethical? As chair of the Financial Planning Committee, he offered to look into the matter. Nancy Sampson stated her concern that social security numbers continue to be displayed on the ID cards. Robert Urquhart indicated that he thought the commercialism of the venture was outrageous.

The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m.

Next meeting is scheduled for 12:00 Noon on Friday, January 14, 2000, in the Driscoll Ballroom.

Respectfully submitted: Deborah Grealy, January 5, 2000