At 3:15 p.m. on May 6, 2002, Chair Weitz convened the Faculty Senate meeting in the University Conference Room (224 Greer Hall).  Weitz noted that Joan Woodworth is having surgery and asked senators to sign a card for her.

 III. STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS
         C. AD-HOC COMMITTEE ON DPCs
            Recommendations.  Weitz noted that the pink copy is the revised version of the DPC report which includes recommendations that the Senate made regarding DPCs.  The Senate now will look at the search committee aspect of the report.  Weitz reminded senators that currently specific search committee procedures are not in the Faculty Handbook.  Several years ago the administration allowed for search committees separate from the DPC if the department desired to use them.  There were several complaints by faculty and chairs regarding search committee procedures and policies.  The proposed policies and procedures could become the policies and procedures that Academic Affairs will require of departments.
     Barber suggested including “clinical instructors” in 4.8.5.B.  Millsaps suggested changing the wording of 4.8.5.C. Options I and II to read, “The DPC is the Department Search Committee...”
     A vote was taken on the document as amended.

IV. VISITORS
         Alan Hauser introduced Jay Sutton, academic advisor for athletes.  Every year, a report has to be given to the NCAA on graduation rates for student athletes who receive financial aid and to the UNC system on graduation rates of student athletes who have been recruited.  Sutton distributed a document showing reports from the last three years for both the NCAA report and the UNC system report.  One of the things Appalachian tries to do is to be sure that the student athletes are mainstreamed with other students and are in line with the graduation rates overall with the student body.  In looking at the report one can see that the two rates for the overall student body and the graduation rate for student athletes tend to hover close to one another.
Muir asked if there was a break down by sport of the graduation rates.  Hauser noted that there was, but not in this report.  When Muir asked where the report could be found, the reply was that Institutional Research has a copy of it.  Weitz asked that Hauser supply a copy of the report to the Senate.
Butts asked what the "adjusted rate" means on the UNC report.  Hauser responded that the UNC says that in figuring graduation rates for student athletes who are recruited, you can take out from the overall student athletes those who left while they were in good standing.

 III.  STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS, continued
         D.    AD-HOC COMMITTEE ON SPACE.
              Report/recommendations.  Weitz reported that this Ad-hoc Committee, which was comprised of chairs, a dean, and senators, recommended that each area (Advancement, Student Development, Academic Affairs, and Business Affairs) would handle its own space issues in-house with its own policies and procedures.  Then, since the University has overlapping space issues, all of those four areas would feed into a University committee which would look at university space issues.
     Weitz discussed policies and procedures for the Academic Affairs Space Committee first and then the University Space Committee.  Weitz noted that the Chancellor wants to hire a consultant right now to come up with policies and procedures.  Before money is spent on a consultant, Weitz is asking that the Ad-hoc Committee’s recommendations be tried first to see if they work.  The Academic Affairs Space Committee would maintain a webpage, which is critical for sharing information.
     The University Space Committee would make decisions in regards to the University Master Plan and the Strategic Plan.
     Moore noted concern that no one from Business Affairs serves on the Academic Affairs Space Committee.  How can the Space Committee prioritize space issues when it does not know how much money there is to be spent?  Weitz noted that the Academic Affairs Space Committee makes recommendations based on what faculty view as prioritized needs to be considered and that the Committee will need ask how much there is.
     McLaughlin noted that if these Space Committees are supposed to represent faculty views, why is there only one faculty member on the Academic Affairs Space Committee and no faculty member on the University Space Committee?  Weitz responded that there is input from faculty from the grassroots up.
     Moore noted that serving on the Academic Affairs Space Committee would be a lot of work for the chair of the Faculty Senate’s Campus Planning Committee and feels more faculty representation is needed.  Moore recommended and it was seconded that the chair of the Faculty Senate serve on both the Academic Affairs Space Committee and the University Space Committee.
     Koch asked how the Committee outlined in the recommendation differs from the Committee currently in practice.  Moore, who has served on the current University Space Committee, responded that the proposed committee would deal with more information and would be a more open committee.
 A vote was taken on Moore’s recommendation that the chair of the Faculty Senate serve on both the Academic Affairs Space Committee and the University Space Committee.

 A vote was taken on the proposed Space Committee recommendations as amended.

         E.    FACULTY HANDBOOK COMMITTEE.
              Report.  Moore reported that the Handbook will go to the Board of Trustees for approval at their June meeting.  Once all changes have been approved by the BOT, the Handbook will then be online by hopefully July 1.  Moore noted that the only outstanding item for the Handbook is the grievance process, which has not been acted upon by the Provost.  Weitz noted that Durham has acted on it, but the action is not ready to be reported to the Senate.  Moore noted that the Faculty Handbook Committee was created last year and the Committee is trying to work out how it operates.  A weak spot is communication between Academic Affairs and the Committee.
         F.    COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES.
                 1.  University Committees’ recommendations.  A vote was taken on the Committee’s recommendations as a whole.

                 2. Deans’ Evaluation Process.  Weitz noted that Butts worked on this last year with an ad-hoc committee.  Now that the process has completed a trial run, the procedures need to be worked on.  Currently, there is way too much work for the Faculty Senate chair and the Council of Chairs chair.  The committees do not need to be so big.  The people who participated in this year’s process had recommendations for change, including revising the questionnaire; there are too many questions and they need to relate more pointedly to the tasks of deans as described in the Faculty Handbook.  (These tasks need to be updated in the Handbook.)  There need to be specific questions for the Graduate School dean since her roll is different from other deans.  A committee will need to be formed to revise the questionnaire.  Actual results/comments need to be provided to the deans (like student evaluations of faculty.)  It really did a disservice to many of the comments to be funneled like they were.  Weitz suggested taking next year to revise the questionnaire and resume the evaluations in the fall of 2003.  Each reading committee will only be comprised of one faculty senator, one department chair from outside the college/school, one faculty member and one chair from inside the college/school.  The faculty senator would be chair of the committee in order to keep the evaluation tied to the Senate.  Weitz asked that the Senate approve the suggested structure revision and then to appoint a group to work on the questionnaire next year.
     Butts noted that he had a concern regarding the reading committees which are currently set up so that the Faculty Senate chair, the past Faculty Senate chair, the Council of Chairs chair, and the secretary of the Council of Chairs are on the reading committees to provide some year-to-year continuity in the people who are reviewing the results of the questions.  If you go to the structure being proposed, you lose the continuity.  Weitz responded that it was impossible for the four individuals to ever attend all twelve meetings.  While in theory the intentions are good, it is hard to get everyone together at one time.  Butts suggested structuring one of the reading committees so that for an individual dean, there is a rotation of membership on the reading committee so that half of the reading committee serves another year on the reading committee for that dean.
     A vote was taken on the suggested recommendations regarding the reading committee structure as amended.

Deans’ Evaluations Process Recommendations
A. Recommendation: Change the process for evaluating the Deans to involve less people and to share the actual  data with the Dean and Provost.

The Faculty Senate will take responsibility for providing the faculty in the various college/schools an opportunity to evaluate the job performance of their college/school deans. The evaluations will be conducted in the Fall semester.

Every dean will be evaluated by his/her faculty every year during the academic years 2001/2002 ­ 2003/2004. Beginning with the 2004/2005 academic year, the deans will be evaluated by their respective college/school faculty on a biennial basis following a rotational pattern established by the Faculty Senate. No dean should be evaluated in his/her first year of service. (See Appendix E for the questionnaires for Faculty Evaluation of Deans.)

1. The evaluation will consist of a series of structured questions based upon the duties of deans as described in the Faculty Handbook (see section 6.5.1) as well as some open-ended questions allowing the faculty to provide additional comments.
2. Faculty members who are eligible to vote in department, college, and university elections will be eligible to complete the survey instrument.
3. The Faculty Senate will approve a Reading Committee for each Dean. Each Reading Committee will be composed of one senator and one department chair from outside the college/school, and one faculty member and one chair from within the college/school. The Senator will serve as chair of the committee.
4. The Faculty Senate Chair will work with Academic Computing for statistical analysis of the structured questions.  To provide year-to-year continuity, there will be a rotation of membership on the Reading Committee so that half of the Reading Committee serves another year on the Committee for that dean.
5. The responses to the survey will be given to the Faculty Senate Chair who will distribute the results to the specific Reading Committee.
6. Each Reading Committee will examine the responses and then meet with the Provost and the Dean to discuss the evaluation. The results of the survey (both structured and open-ended data) will be shared with the Provost and the Dean.
7. The chair of each Reading Committee will collect all materials and give them to the Faculty Senate Chair when the process is completed.

B. Recommendation: Devise a new questionnaire.

1. The structured questions should have two separate answers ­ "know" (with a five point range from strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, to strongly disagree) or "don’t know."
2. The questions should more closely address the duties of the Deans.
3. Similar questions should not be placed next to one another.
4. A separate set of questions should be devised for the Dean of Graduate Studies and Research, since those duties vary greatly from those of the other deans.
5. Responses from the same individual should be linked for continuity and clarity.
6. The "submit" button should come with directions to "hit only once or you will destroy your entry."
7. Faculty not in the College of Education working in teacher education programs should be allowed to evaluate the Dean of RCOE.
8. The survey should be more secure, enabling one entry only.
 

 IV.  NEW BUSINESS
         A.  PARKING FEES.  Koch noted that he has withdrawn his motion regarding parking fees.  He asked for clarification on the latest parking fee structure.  Durham noted that Jane Helm is waiting to hear what the court ruling on whether university fines will go to county school boards is going to be before the final parking fee structure is determined.  Currently, the fee structure is $500 for a parking deck slot and $110 for a regular parking sticker.
         B.  DIVERSITY.  Weitz reported that Tracey Wright, Barbara Daye, Margaret Yaukey, Kim Hall, and Weitz met and came up with the proposed recommendations regarding furthering faculty involvement toward diversifying Appalachian.
     Discussion followed regarding Motion 04-09b (“Add a question to all student course evaluations regarding diversity”).  Hall noted that diversity is something that not all of our students want to hear, but we are here to teach and not necessarily tell them what they want to hear all the time.  We are supposed to challenge them and that is part of the diversity mission at Appalachian—to encourage them to participate responsibly in diverse roles.
     Allen noted that it would be hard for students to respond to the evaluation question who are taking science classes.  Koch added that the evaluation question is a violation of academic freedom.  Koch noted that he had a serious problem with Motion 04-09a (“Add a question to all faculty annual reports regarding diversity.”)—it puts us in the role of recruiters.
     Butts stated his concern regarding 04-09b—the way that it is worded we are asking students to comment on something for which they have no factual background.  It would be like asking students if a faculty member is competent in their area.  He suggested a question that asks, "The instructor respected all students."
     Arnold moved and Rardin seconded to strike 04-09b.

     Rardin moved and Simon seconded to strike 04-09a.

     Moore asked why the Senate is discussing this issue when Appalachian has just hired Harry Williams as Vice Chancellor for Diversity and the Equity Office deals with diversity issues, too.  Should not the Senate wait and see what plans come from Williams?  Diversity is an important issue to the University and should have a little more coordinated leadership.
     Petschauer moved and Hall seconded that a new 04-09b be, "If not already in the student writing instrument add a question regarding efforts of the faculty member to be open to student opinions."  A vote was taken on the motion.

     A vote was taken on 04-09a and 04-09c.

Motions Regarding Diversity
04-09a:
Add a question to all faculty annual reports regarding diversity.  (Something to the effect: Describe any efforts you made in regard to diversity in your teaching, service, and/or scholarly research/creative activity.)
04-09c:
Have Department Chairs encourage their faculty to participate in Hubbard Center offerings that deal with diversity and multicultural issues and concerns. Have the Hubbard Center offer workshops to Department Chairs on how to deal with "chilly climate" issues.

Rationale:
A. Faculty need to play a major role in diversifying Appalachian. This includes diversifying faculty, students, staff, the curriculum, extra curricular activities, etc.
B. Excellence in the academy requires diversity.
C. Diversity is good for everybody.
D. Federal law prohibits discrimination in regard to class, race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, and religion.
E. Democratic principles respect and protect individualism (difference).
F. At its March 2002 meeting, Appalachian’s Board of Trustees endorsed the diversity report as a beginning to increasing diversity at Appalachian.
G. Students in the diversity video refer to a lack of inclusion and sensitivity to others by some faculty.
H. Since diversity is a component of the university’s annual report and part of the Department’s annual report, it is appropriate for faculty to address diversity on their annual reports and for students to address diversity on course evaluations.

Moore moved and Simon seconded to adjourn the April 15 portion of the meeting.  The meeting adjourned at 4:53 p.m.

CONVENE MAY 6 MEETING - 4:54 p.m.

    I. ANNOUNCEMENTS
         A. ELECTIONS - Gates reported that the results have been sent to faculty via the faculty listserve.  A couple of slots that still need to be filled will be filled at the September Faculty Senate meeting.
     Moore noted concern about the low rate of ballot returns.  Petschauer noted that there were no statements from faculty who were running so because he did not know them, could not vote for them.  Moore asked that elections return to paper balloting and not be done electronically.
     Rardin moved and Simon seconded that an ad-hoc committee be formed to look at why there is faculty apathy towards serving on the Faculty Senate and other university committees.  Rardin noted he would head the committee.  Whyte recommended this should be something that the Faculty Senate chair discuss at the General Faculty meeting in the fall.  A vote was taken on the motion.

  II. MINUTES
         Simon moved and Allen seconded to approve the March 18, March 25, April 11, and April 18 minutes as written.

 III. COMMITTEE FINAL REPORTS
         Weitz noted that since the Senate is pressed for time, that the final reports from the committees be read at  leisure.

Muir asked about the Information Technology Advisory Committee and the issue of web pages discussed at the April 8 meeting.  Weitz noted she could not attend the meeting but will go to the next meeting if possible.

Butts noted that he would like to add something to the Committee on Committees final report.  Butts addressed some questions to Dr. Durham regarding the Awards Committee.  A response was received from Durham the other day noting that essentially the charge and function of the Awards Committee have been assigned to other committees.  Butts added that he expects next year the Committee on Committees to recommend abolishing the Awards Committee.

 IV. OLD BUSINESS
         There was none.

  V. NEW BUSINESS
         A. SENATOR REPLACEMENT.  Weitz noted that there is a one-year Faculty Senate position which needs filling and she recommends Jeff Bortz.

         B. FS01-02/05-02 - MOTION REGARDING THE NY LOFT AND APP HOUSE.  Yaukey reported that one of the recommendations passed by the Senate in April 2001 regarding the NY Loft and the App House has been met (open forum of past directors and faculty at large).  Since none of the other recommendations have been acted upon, the Senate proposes an updated motion (FS01-02/05-02).  Discussion followed on who should handle the selection process for the directorship.  McLaughlin noted two concerns about the University Research Council handling the selection process.  The first is although the opportunity for research is wonderful, it is not the whole thing.  Having the URC make a recommendation would be a disaster--having them make a decision based on the quality of research.  The second concern is that the URC’s definition of research is narrow and this would disenfranchise a lot of people who might otherwise get the directorship.  Yaukey responded that she has served on the URC for the past four years and thought that they had a very broad based understanding of their criteria for granting money but that she was open to suggestions for the selection body.  Butts noted that there are two major issues.  One is that the method used in the past couple of years to select directors.  The other issue is returning to some sort of development scholarly creative proposal and purpose for selecting directors.  Arnold noted that the concern about the Off Campus Facility Advisory Board is not so much the Board itself, but that it does not meet.  Arnold suggested leaving the selection process with the Board, but to have the Board meet.  Moore asked why the Board does not meet.  Ward responded that it has only been within the past year that the Board reports to Ward instead of Parker.  He added that historically, the only time the Board met was when it was time to select directors.  Ward noted that he will see to it that the Board meets to discuss whatever needs to be discussed.
     Koch noted that one of the reasons why there have not been many applicants for directors is the lack of an intern.  The director needs help--the director is unable to pursue his research because they are unable to leave the facility.
     Weitz suggested adding “for faculty” at the end of #2 under Directorship.  Rardin moved and Barber seconded to remove the parentheses around “and staff” in #4 under Directorship.  A vote was taken.

 McLaughlin moved and it was seconded to change #3 under Directorship to state, “handled by the Off Campus Facilities Board.”

Simon noted that for consistency, the parentheses in #1 of the Directorship should be deleted.  A vote was taken on the whole motion as amended.

Motions Regarding the Loft and the App House:
A. DIRECTORSHIP: of The Loft and the App House
1. As soon as economically feasible, the directorship of The Loft and the App House return to Appalachian faculty and staff.
2. The directorship position be tied to scholarly research or creative activity for faculty.
3. The selection process would be handled by the Off Campus Facilities Board.
4. Openings for the directorships would be advertised to all faculty and staff.
5. Departments would support faculty interest in directing The Loft or the App House.

B. INTERNSHIP at The Loft and the App House
1. Establish a fulltime internship position to be filled by a graduate student engaged in scholarly research or creative activity.  (Compensation would be free rent.)
2. This intern would share with the Director, the responsibilities of managing the facility.
3. The selection process would be handled by The Graduate School.

C. OVERSIGHT of The Loft and the App House
1. Oversight of The Loft and the App House be moved from the Instructional Technology Center to a more appropriate area within Academic Affairs (such as Conferences and Institutes, or Cultural Affairs).
2. Prior to the application deadlines for the directorships and internships, the Off Campus Facility Advisory Board would hold a public meeting to promote The Loft and the App House, describe the director’s and intern’s duties, and address questions and concerns.
3. Check in and check out hours be established for each facility (with flexibility for extenuating circumstances).
 

         C. CAMPUS PLANNING REPORT.  The report is for information only.
         D. FS01-02/05-01 - RESOLUTION REGARDING BUDGET CUTS.  Weitz noted that this was sent as a generic resolution by the Chair of the Faculty Assembly.  In an email to senators, Millsaps noted that the Senate needed to substantiate how cuts beyond 4% cause permanent harm.  Moore noted that at the forum held last week by the Senate with Helm and Durham regarding the budget crisis, there was concern that resolutions from within the constituencies would be like rain water on a slicker as far as the legislature was concerned; that it would be better if constituencies outside of the university and not directly related to it voice concerns.  Moore added that at the forum, Durham noted that President Broad has already agreed to a 5% cut so it would be better not to put any specifics in the resolution.  Gates noted that the points made in the resolution are important.  Arnold suggested that “research” be added.  Koch proposed three separate resolutions: 1) amend resolution on table (remove last sentence); 2) new resolution dealing with solutions; 3) resolution to charge Faculty Senate chair to send an email to faculty to encourage students to become active and write their legislators.  Weitz proposed moving this issue to the new Senate so that while there still is a quorum, new officers for 2002-2003 can be elected by the new Senate.

At this time, Gates read a resolution regarding Weitz’s commitment and dedication to the Faculty Senate and the faculty for the past two years.

Resolution of thanks
The Faculty Senate expresses its sincere appreciation to Dr. Gayle M. Weitz for two years of selfless service as Chair of the Senate from 2000 to 2002.  As a result of her considerable personal and professional sacrifices, the Faculty Senate has become a more active and effective representative of faculty interests and more responsive to faculty concerns.

Gayle has also established on behalf of the Senate many strong relationships within the Appalachian community and has led numerous successful and innovative initiatives, which have improved faculty participation in the governance of the University.  The faculty and the Faculty Senate are in her debt and recognize her singular leadership.

Moore moved and Simon seconded to adjourn.  The meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

 VI. CONVENE THE 2002-2003 FACULTY SENATE
         Weitz read her closing remarks (MAKE LINK).  Weitz welcomed new senators and asked that the new Senate introduce themselves.

Pride, Gratitude, and Hope
It is with PRIDE that I say this has been another prosperous year for the Faculty Senate. Some of our major accomplishments include:
* Updating the F ACULTY HANDBOOK and getting it online by July 1st 2002.
* Devising a feasible plan to achieve a three-course/nine-credit-hour TEACHING LOAD across campus for fulltime faculty engaged in scholarly research/creative activity.
* Improving the FACULTY GRIEVANCE PROCESS.
* Suggesting changes to the EQUITY OFFICE to better serve faculty and staff
* Suggesting processes and procedures for making SPACE decisions at Appalachian.
* Updating DPC and SEARCH COMMITTEE policies and procedures.
* Instituting a process whereby faculty regularly evaluate the deans
* Clarifying to faculty the limits to their academic freedom and their freedom of speech.

It is with GRATITUDE to the faculty, staff, administration, and students that I conclude my second term as Faculty Senate Chair. It has been a challenging and educational experience. I certainly feel knowledgeable about the workings of our university, familiar with its policies and practices, and better acquainted with the folks who perform the various duties across campus.
* I am most appreciative of the efforts of my fellow Senators, especially the Committee Chairs and Officers, for it is largely due to their thoughtful work that faculty governance happens and progress is made.
* I am also grateful to the members of the Council of Chairs and the Deans Council for working with the Faculty Senate on issues of mutual concern.
* I am thankful for the openness and cooperation of the administration, for it is largely through their trust and willingness that shared governance exists at Appalachian.
* I am grateful for the staff, especially the Faculty Senate’s half-time secretary, for their dedication to our mission.
* I am appreciative of and impressed by our students (especially those in Student Government), who remain the reason for doing any of this.
* And lastly, I am grateful that my time as chair is up, because I am worn out and in need of nurturing the other aspects of my professional duties (teaching and scholarly research/creative activity), and of my life (I think I used to have one?!).

It is with HOPE that I leave this position --
* Hope that we quickly recover (and learn) from this budget crisis.
* Hope that we continue to critically address the necessary changes that come with moving from a teacher’s college to a major comprehensive university.
* Hope that these changes result in democratic faculty self governance.
* And hope that more faculty realize the importance of shared governance, and their obligation to participate.

Cheers,
Gayle Weitz
Faculty Senate Chair

VII. ELECTIONS OF OFFICERS
         Weitz asked for nominations of officers.  Simon nominated and Allen seconded Gates as Chair.  Truett nominated herself as Vice Chair.  Simon nominated and Truett seconded Rardin as Secretary.  Muir moved and McKinney seconded to vote by acclamation on the slate of officers.

 Weitz congratulated Gates, Truett, and Rardin and thanked the outgoing senators: Bill Barber, Debbie Crocker, Betty Long, Tom McLaughlin, Steve Millsaps, Peter Petschauer, Janice Pope and Tom Whyte.  Gates took charge of the meeting.

FS01-02/05-01 - RESOLUTION REGARDING BUDGET CUTS.

Due to the lack of a quorum, the meeting ended at 6:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
  Mike Moore

voting symbols:   Y = yes        N - no          A = abstain

Name of Senator	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
ABBOTT, JOHN   excused
ALLEN, PATRICIA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y
ARNOLD, CHIP	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y
BARBER, BILL	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y
BUSH, ROBERT	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y
BUTTS, JEFF	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y
CROCKER, DEBORAH    excused
FOX, JERRY  unexcused
GATES, PAUL	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y
HALL, KIM	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y
KOCH, ANDY	A	A	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y
LONG, BETTY   excused
MARKING, MARTHA  excused
MCKINNEY, HAROLD	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y
MCLAUGHLIN, TOM	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y
MILLSAPS, STEVE	Y	N	N	Y	Y
MOORE, MIKE	Y	Y	A	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	N
MUIR, KEN	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	A	A	N	Y	Y
PETSCHAUER, PETER	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y
POPE, JANICE	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N
RARDIN, PATRICK	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N
SIMON, STEVE	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y
TRUETT, CAROL	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y
WEITZ, GAYLE	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y
WHYTE, TOM	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y
WOODWORTH, JOAN  excused
YAUKEY, MARGARET	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y

VISITORS:  Alan Hauser, Philosophy & Religion; Monica Lambert, LRE; Jay Sutton, LAP; Bill Ward, Academic Affairs

VOTE 1:  Motion to approve the Ad-hoc Committee on DPCs' recommendations as amended
VOTE 2:  Recommendation that the chair of the Faculty Senate serve on both the Academic Affairs Space Committee and the University Space Committee
VOTE 3:  Motion to approve the Ad-hoc Committee on Space Committee's recommendations as amended
VOTE 4:  Committee on Committees' university committees recommendaitons
VOTE 5:  Recommendation regarding the deans' evaluation reading committee structure as amended
VOTE 6:  Motion to strike FS01-02/04-09b
VOTE 7:  Motion to strike FS01-02/04-09a
VOTE 8:  Motion for a new 04-09b
VOTE 9:  Motions FS01-02/04-09a and b
VOTE 10: Adjourn

voting symbols:   Y = yes        N - no          A = abstain

Name of Senator	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
ABBOTT, JOHN   excused
ALLEN, PATRICIA	N	Y	Y	A	Y	Y	Y	Y
ARNOLD, CHIP	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y
BARBER, BILL	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
BUSH, ROBERT	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
BUTTS, JEFF	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
CROCKER, DEBORAH    excused
FOX, JERRY  unexcused
GATES, PAUL	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
HALL, KIM	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y
KOCH, ANDY	A	Y	Y	A	Y	Y	Y	Y
LONG, BETTY   excused
MARKING, MARTHA  excused
MCKINNEY, HAROLD	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
MCLAUGHLIN, TOM	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y
MILLSAPS, STEVE
MOORE, MIKE	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
MUIR, KEN	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
PETSCHAUER, PETER	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
POPE, JANICE
RARDIN, PATRICK	A	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
SIMON, STEVE	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y
TRUETT, CAROL	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
WEITZ, GAYLE	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y
WHYTE, TOM	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
WOODWORTH, JOAN  excused
YAUKEY, MARGARET	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y

VOTE 1:  Motion that an ad-hoc committee be formed to look at why there is faculty apathy towards serving on the Faculty Senate/other university committees
VOTE 2:  Motion to approve the March 18, March 25, April 11, and April 18 minutes as written
VOTE 3:  Recommendation that Jeff Bortz fill a one-year vacant Senate seat
VOTE 4:  Motion RE: #4 of FS01-02/05-02: to remove parentheses around "and staff"
VOTE 5:  Motion RE: #3 of FS01-02/05-02: to change it to read "handled by the Off Campus Facilities Advisory Board"
VOTE 6: Vote on FS01-02/05-02 as amended
VOTE 7:  Motion of thanks
VOTE 8:  Adjourn

VOTE 1:  Motion to vote by acclamation on the slate of officers